skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Right, that's the theory, and certainly they do need users on Tor to create noise for their own agents. But considering their nonstop drive to weaken other forms of encryption and insert backdoors, I'd be a little bit cautious about taking that at face value if I wanted to start the next Silk Road.
I'm just now finding out that google is planning AMP for email. :(

It seems almost comical. On the one hand, we are constantly told that email is losing out to modern instant messaging avenues for communication. On this hand, the plan for competing is to try and make it more heavy weight? Reminds me of when Wave supposedly was going to remake email.

I suspect someday I'll just be a luddite, as mentioned in another thread. I really hope this is not that day.
From the article, it sounds like the shock is triggered wirelessly from a projectile that is conventionally fired at the target person. The person who fired the projectile has the ability to trigger the shock or to wait and see if the targeted person complies first.

The actual charge is not sent wirelessly. I was hoping this was some kind of "phasers on stun" breakthrough.
I take it that theoretical physics tends to get similarly butchered.
AMP is an excellent idea... for Google. (And only Google.) The point being that the benefit to Google is clearly larger than the PR hit they take for continuing to push a thing that's costing them a lot of goodwill with the Internet community.
A bot user is still a user. Maybe.
I further predict it will work in GMail and Inbox differently from each other. Which is just mind boggling. Why!?
The interesting bit is in the final few paragraphs. I too was hoping for more on the medical research.
I wonder if suddenly uber raised its prices around the world to a level it would break even, would enough people still use it?
personally, i always side with greed/effort on this one.

"wait -- we don't have to pay to keep/store/rotate/maintain logfiles? and that's a value proposition? yes! pipe them badboys to dev null!"
I can recommend MIPS assembly. It has been the only assembly I've used that actually felt like it was intended for human consumption.
I think this world exists in Ruby and as far as I can tell it fails worse in comparison. You end up in situations where 2 layers of gems don't care what they're passing through and operating on, then you get the result and can't tell anything useful about the contents. Was the encoding preserved? Is it even encoded?

People end up using hacks like https://github.com/whitequark/rack-utf8_sanitizer which shouldn't be necessary in the first place, because you should know whether you're receiving raw bytes or text. But what you thought was text that's utf8-compatible actually includes characters from another encoding.

`String.valid_encoding?` is probably the worst programming idea. If you have to ask that, it's too late. There should've been an exception raised when the input was initially processed, or the type should not pretend that it's a real text.
Considering how often my Bluetooth speakers get confused between my computer and the two iPhones in the house, a wireless device that can emit lethal amounts of electricity scares the shit out of me.

I know comments are gonna come out of the woodwork about the difference between Bluetooth and wireless tech they use. Whatever. Like you’ve never written bugs.
> It's an over complicated term for a really trivial pattern in development.

Yes, but...

The objective of most business-oriented programs is to create the One True Function(tm), usually known to developers as a the "application." For everyone's sanity, this should be composed of smaller functions, which are sometimes called "objects." An object is just a function that was created using a specific creation template, usually called a "constructor."

For a pretty moderately sized application, the One True Function might be a tree of sub-functions which has hundreds or thousands of branches. Sometimes you might want to write the straightforward boilerplate code to attach items to this tree, but that could get tedious to maintain.

Other times, you might find a library that will automatically assemble your tree for you, as long as you specify up front in configuration that all of your fruits are apples and all of your leaves are green. This program is usually called a "DI framework."

Hopefully, this saves you a lot of typing, which you can then use to type up HN comments.
Specifically: in a company of five, don't hire a customer service person if you haven't done customer support yourself at least a bit. Don't hire a database person if you yourself (or somebody internal) hasn't already tried [and presumably failed].

Experience and Failure are important guide-posts to help you look for the right person to fill that role. Where are they better than you? Then you have to mentor them so they get to be better than themselves so they can make your next hire(s).
Checking Firewall Equivalence with Z3
That is a pretty theory.

But I'm a pragmatist and have the annoying habit of looking at the facts on the ground before accepting the theory. When I read the Twitter stream that was linked by seany, I do not see women celebrating that they no longer have to "deal with men trying to use that power to get sex". I see real women being brushed aside, and I see modern day harridans simply assuming and telling them what to feel and de facto what morality they should subscribe to, and whether they should be offended, and if the real women doesn't want to play ball with that, I see real women being essentially disenfranchised from the conversation.

I don't care what pretty theory you wrap around that. It's wrong, and a pendulum that has swung too far. People getting offended on behalf of other people, for events that may very well have happened before the offended people were even born, and disenfranchising them if they disagree is not progress. It's not respectful of women. It is one very loud group using other people, in the worst sense of the term "using", and not caring about what facts get in the way. That is not sustainable, and it will not last, and the longer people try to maintain it by paying too much attention to the pretty theories while ignoring the ugly facts on the ground, the worse the backlash is going to be.
Neither can set artificially higher surge prices
"An Underactuated Propeller for Attitude Control in Micro Air Vehicles"

Paper is not free but video conveys the idea well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZe7l5_LfoA

Likely with clever two-material molding you could do away with the hinge and it would look similar to the prototype shown in the article.
Data point: I know several people who have foregone buying their own cars just because they feel uber is enough. One of those people is me.
Perhaps a positive feedback loop can be created: as firms consciously hire for diversity, they create economic incentives (for parents and institutions) and role models (for young women) that can begin to change systematic biases.
" “modernize” email, allowing “engaging, interactive, and actionable email experiences.” "

Whenever a service or company purports to make something "engaging" and "interactive" you just know that useability and actual, tangible usefulness are going to go out the window in favour of marketer-driven choices.

We don't 'engage more' with your software/service because you changed everything to optimise for engagement and time spent, we engaged more because it took more time/steps to get the same thing done.

Arguably what we should be doing is optimising for less time spent on an app/service for the purposes of enabling a better/more efficient/more enjoyable experience by letting users get what they want to do done quickly and easily.
One thing I've heard - and it seems plausible - is that one skill that's desired for these positions is the ability to consume and make use of academic research. If you have a PhD you've done that, and in a sense you are a practitioner of reading research.
just a hypothetical, but if you were to assume that Google had no ill will here and was actually trying to make stuff better for users - what do you think the best way would be for people working at Google to do this?

I.e. say you worked on the gmail team, you really cared about users, you thought amp for email would be good for users, how would you go about making this happen in the world?

genuinely curious if its even possible for Google try and improve things without having some of the downsides you mentioned.
An Uber user for 3 years. Uber's service is way better than Ola. Days of Uber in India are short lived. Softbank will definitely push for merger with Ola like Didi in China
It's probably better to specialize in business verticals than tech choices, and better to choose something that doesn't have so many kids learning it to build games. YMMV
uber eats is more efficient and therefore cheaper than their competition. 5 dollar delivery fee through uber eats, seems to be 9 dollars through caviar or 7 dollars through grubhub. Also, IIRC uber drivers can do rides and eats, so they generally have more liquidity in their driver market.
Not necessarily. For example I am happy in my current job (it is, without a doubt, the best job I have ever had) but don't get paid anywhere near what I would like to so am actively looking for new work. If rdlecler1's anecdote is true a woman would be more likely to stay and only start looking to leave once the job starts making her unhappy.
*Disclaimer: I managed GoCatch operations from Nov 2013 to Mar 2014.

GoCatch has ride-sharing options since February 2016 (that's two years). While I can't state accurately to today's figures, there was akin to 350,000+ unique passengers last time I poked around.

In ASEAN/AP region, Grab is huge. It's founder is from the region (Malaysia) and arguably bigger than Uber in most countries including Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and yes, Vietnam: https://www.grab.com/vn/en/
> AMP ~~for email~~ is a terrible idea

FTFY. I cannot wait for this cancer to die off. For now, I avoid anything by Google as much I can.
This article is talking explicitly about tech jobs, and for tech workers, $0/year savings is not realistic unless they are in particularly dire situation (for example, below average job, lots of debt, and medical problems in family at the same time).
If you muddy the definition of rape to be so broad, it uses its utility as a concept and a term. That would do more to hurt victims of sexual assault and sexism in general than it helps.
Give some names. That will tip out what stocks to buy long term and what not.

I personally found that calling oneself a tech company is not a good predictor for good practices. Everything call themselves a tech company nowadays.

You should certainly assess what kind of clients you're facing to adjust your recommendations. However, I don't think that the work environment matters as a short term consultant, whoever pays on time and has the biggest pocket is a good client.
That argument is not compelling, given the number of people and organizations that self-host email.
I don't know if it's still the case, but is the UWP a crash-prone nightmare that doesn't have feature parity with the older client family?
Ugh. Hopefully unlike the serp results, nobody feels like they have to cave in here due to the carrot/stick Google wields in search.

If they do wield a similar influence because of the market share of Gmail, hopefully somebody challenges that under antitrust or some other consumer protection basis. Email doesn't need walled gardens. That's back to the AOL days. "You've got AMP mail!"
Also over-corrects for people who spend a significant amount outside of the country/city they live.
> a company that sees quality and efficiency as opposing forces, or one that sees them as inseparable.

I just wanted to say that this was beautifully stated. I've been looking for better words to explain this concept to the people around me.
Nope, not photoshopped. It's a single exposure; the apparatus is illuminated using flashes.

The latter made lighting the shot in a controlled fashion a bit easier than if I had used continuous sources – you'd be looking at using a torch with a bunch of filters or a computer monitor on the lowest brightness otherwise.
I'm guessing that a part of the $200k's justification is that Texas has no state income tax, which results in an immediate 12(?)% raise when moving from CA
Be careful that coverage is a proxy metric to good tests. Striving for high coverage can mislead you on the quality of your tests.
I don't know the technical details of what Google is planning, but if they build something that eases the pain of building cross platform HTML emails, that's a welcome innovation in my opinion. Building emails that "work" even just okay is a ridiculously hard task. Every company I've been at has made some attempt with mediocre results at best (oh, you're using _Outlook_?).

I'm not holding my breath for something good to come out of this, though. This could just as easily be a terribly executed product. But I'll try to be an optimist, because what we have now is outright trash.
> "huh ... I didn't know you could do that."

To be fair, that is not an entirely uncommon thing to say when watching a user work with something you made.
As heresey as it might be to HN I can't wait until everyone in the world onboards onto one unified communication platform. Once (and if) lte and unlimited data becomes ubiquitous I look forward to be able to make phone calls, email, messages, video messaging, blogging etc all from one username and account. I want to hand someone my username and be done with it. Facebook is trying, but it's execution leaves much to be desired
Not sure what you mean. It's the default for a long time now. https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#bytes.decode

`open` also defaults to your system encoding, which is likely utf8 judging from the message.
Related reading: Against an increasingly user-hostile Web, https://www.neustadt.fr/essays/against-a-user-hostile-web/

>It all comes down a simple but very dangerous shift: the major websites of today's web are not built for the visitor, but as means of using her. Our visitor has become a data point, a customer profile, a potential lead -- a proverbial fly in the spider's web. In the guise of user-centered design, we're building an increasingly user-hostile web.
signel or signal
At least in the US, fonts can not by copyrighted [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti...
So extend the script to build you a recovery ISO or USB image too, and then insist that you reboot and test the recovery image.
Having read the paper, this effort, while interesting, does raise some red flags as to how viable the approach actually is.

The first big one is that their approach relies on matching the compiler and flags. While they claim that this is relatively easy to find (though the cited paper doesn't attempt to match flags), there is no indication of what the impact of not having, or having incorrect, information will do to the results. I'm left to guesstimate from their main experiment.

Let's talk about that. It seems that a substantial fraction of the good results comes from having a substantially correct seed. Without having any decompiler helpers, they were able to byte-equivalently decompile exactly 4 programs, one of which was hello world. With the decompiler's output as a seed, they got 10 programs--with the decompiler's output providing byte-equivalent output for 6 of those. Without an oracle for program correctness, it's hard to get an idea of what, say, a 60% equivalent program really means, especially. Having their example say "the answer was argv[i], but we did argv instead" is concerning--it's not implying that close is accurate.

One thing that's completely understated: they had to seed values. Having to seed strings is understandable, but then they give the example of the compiler-generated (x + x + x) << 2 for 12 x. The Project Euler example they couldn't decompile is "largest prime factor", and given that they did it worse on optimized than the unoptimized binary, I'm guessing that there's some small constant division and/or modulo operations that they can't seed.

The examples they evaluate on are tiny--the largest one is 88 lines (I'm guessing that's including whitespace and #include <stdio.h> judging from the size of hello world). They also look guaranteed not to trigger many advanced compiler optimizations (e.g., vectorization). It would be more interesting and useful to see the results on code from programming computations or things like the benchmark game which are somewhat designed to exercise more advanced features.

Scaling is, as others noted, not evidenced at all. They claim that it should be solved by doing functions individually, but it is worth noting that even trying to find the functions is a very challenging problem in decompilation. Moreover, interprocedural optimizations are an important part of optimizing compilers, and some of those kinds of optimizations are not going to be easily derived from a function-by-function approach (devirtualization comes to mind).

At the end of the day, while intriguing, this approach doesn't seem fruitful. The quality is still quite poor, despite running on very tiny programs. There's no evidence for being able to handle advanced compiler techniques (such as vectorization), and some a priori reasons to doubt its ability to handle it. It doesn't free the decompiler writer from having to put a fair amount of effort into solving hard problems (identifying functions), nor does it free them from having to do brittle pattern matching (the extent to which it is necessary is not made clear).
Please consider what you're suggesting. Do you mean to say that Google cannot possibly do anything that isn't good? Really?

AMP is good for Google, and secondarily maybe also good for some subset of people who care more about short-term benefits on slow connections than the long-term damage to the open web.

AMP for email is good for Google alone.
uses -> loses

At least, I presume that's what you mean...
Millionaire dating app Luxy now accepts Bitcoin as payment
Ok, TP was literally the counterexample that made me hover over the back button and almost not post.

Some generics have multi-ply and quilting features and they do ok, but most generics are John Wayne toilet paper: they're rough as hell and don't take shit off nobody.

There are generics and then there are generics...
Thanks for making this point.
‘The Wire’: An Oral History of the ‘Fuck’ Scene
So, just to be clear, the hand-wavy idea I got at some point that there were multiple major implementations is actually wrong?

As an aside, are there any independent implementations?
I was with you until the part about C++. I spent very little part of my career writing C(mostly embedded hobbies) but still managed to pick up all the important bits(memory layout, CPU caches, allocation costs, processor pipelines and the like) from C++.

Really it wasn't too long ago that the STL just wasn't good enough for high performance code and we rolled our own containers/pooling/everything. Modern C++ is a very much a different beast these days.
> How is that the "bad idea" passed over so many people at a company that praises itself of hiring some of the most smartest people in the field?

Maybe they don't actually hire the smartest people in the field, or maybe the smart people they hire do not have their users' best interests in mind.
You should use a system wide ad blocker. Adhell2 is a good one. I've stopped seeing any kind of ads in my phone, even inside apps.
> UberEats works very well. It's a simple UI and has many restaurants. The food comes quickly and you can see the location of the drive. When I've had issues, the customer support has been good.

100% yes to all of these and I've ordered uber eats just shy of 100 times now. The customer support has been especially surprising as a few of orders have mixed with other people's a few times (so i got a completely different order) and I got too keep the food and got my money back.

Granted, when they first started where I live, ALL delivery fees were waived so I could order a 5 dollar meal with no delivery fee, then they changed it to $30+ orders were free delivery, and now all orders have fees based on distance + surcharge so I don't order as much as I used too.

I still use uber eats every once in a while as it is generally cheaper than other delivery services since tips are not expected and the cheapest delivery fees are currently 2.50$
I don't think this will ever happen. There are just far too many people, with far too many requirements.

For example, I would never use a centralized, proprietary platform for these services. Some folks don't care, but they may want it to work on <insert latest device fad here>. Even if it works on that device, it will likely need to comply with local regulations around the world, each with their own requirements.

If we (humans) can't even get a single, agree on unified service for something 'simple' like web search, what makes you think we'll ever converge on dozens of mediums/services/protocols?
Yep, perhaps just coanda effect with control surfaces on the bottom. Sort of like what the AESIR guys did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXVtUCABiv8
just a hypothetical, but if you were to assume that Google had no ill will here and was actually trying to make stuff better for users

Hypothetically, you’d be making an assumption at odds with years of anti-consumer behavior.
If I cared about users primarily, I would hope I wouldn't jump ahead to "amp for email is good." Your requisites for this thought exercise are too broad.

If Google wants to improve email, I would start by emphatically recognizing why their previous attempt to supplant it with Wave failed, and stop trying to break email's openness,
gotta use that pool express now,
I've been getting express pools to work for 2.50 pretty consistently
AMP is, to begin with, Google exerting its market power to extend its control over others’ content. Facebook is doing it, so Google has to.

As a consumer, I actually love AMP. Everytime I click a news link on mobile and am taken to AMP, I'm relieved to be free from the extremely distracting original websites.

Google has done a lot of exciting work on open standards like JSON-LD [0] and Microdata [1] to bring a better experience to both Google search results and Gmail. I love clicking the inline "Confirm subscription" button [2] instead of opening emails from Mailchimp and searching for a link. I'm not that scared of the future becoming locked into Google. I believe they'll improve upon and create better standards for emails. Most things aren't entirely altruistic, and that's OK. Gmail being an early adopter to these standards is a good enough reason for them.

[0]: https://developers.google.com/gmail/markup/reference/formats...

[1]: https://developers.google.com/gmail/markup/reference/formats...

[2]: https://developers.google.com/gmail/markup/reference/one-cli...
Because they're both burritos
How would regulation and self-policing make things worse? And really zero reason? That sounds like an ideological rather than a rational position to me.
> using emoji as "media" was forbidden, but "content" was okay. Whatever that means

From what I read other places, it meant that if it was non-variable and shipped with the app (UI, app data, etc) then it was "media" and not ok. If it was user supplied (like a text message), externally loaded (web page), etc... then it was "content" and ok.
Brave is not usable yet in mobile, from my experience. I'll give them a few more cycles before using it full time on phone. Desktop version is much better though.
The problem is not that it's difficult to run an SMTP server - botnets run millions of them. The problem is that telling a legitimate one from one that sends spam is an arms race.