skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would add: The most cohesive and supportive large-scale community I have ever seen for a programming language. The Rust team goes to great lengths to maintain a culture of constructive debate and good behavior. As a professional community builder I am in awe of the culture Rust has achieved in its inner circle as well as its extended ecosystem.
Some commenters here appear to be asking why one should favour LN over raising the block size.

The answer to that is that it's not a dichotomy.

There's not a decision to be made _between_ 'LN' and 'Raise block size'. They're two independent things. The LN is an opt-in system on top of bitcoin.

If we're lucky, LN works out well.

If it doesn't - I'd be in favour of keeping the blocksize low anyway and I think a lot of technical folk would too. The reason why I don't think is difficult to understand, rather it's difficult to accept.

Raising the block size beyond some value is problematic. A small increase is likely safe, but we really don't know what. This is both in order for full nodes to be usable on reasonable hardware, and also to ensure fee pressure (in a low/zero fee environment, inflation will likely have to be introduced to ensure enough mining happens for security).

A good analogy might be with cars and cities. Imagine we lived in a world where public transport simply couldn't exist - for whatever reason it's just impossible. Would it be prudent then to bulldoze the streets of London, Paris, wherever else, to build more roads for capacity? I would argue not - you simply have a situation in which there's a limit on capacity and that's that.

In addition, in the world where pub transport _does_ exist, investing in trains does not necessarily mean completely stopping work on roads entirely. They're different things.
Google Economic Impact
Science has failed us. If it can't figure out how curling works, there's no way it actually put a man in the moon.
A bit picky but I think it's useful:

You improved this:

> q.c:2:1: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘int’

with this:

> q.c:1:6: error: expected ‘;’ before ‘int’

(etc.)

If I were asked to explain why I did not like the old error, I would say it was showing me implementation details about the parser instead of an error aimed at my human brain.

Following that logic, the most human readable error I can think of here would be that we expect a ';' after `int i`. As humans we don't actually care about the next token in the sequence, even if we know the parser had to process it to arrive at the error. That would also eliminate the entire line "int j;".

Otherwise the output is visually confusing-- you have an arrow pointing one's eye to the missing semicolon, but the underlined referent token is two line breaks away from it. Underlining the preceding "i" would put the emphasized token and missing semi right next to each other.
Taxation has been done by governments because all governments need money to function. Even in the monarch era localities needed money to run as well. It’s not the case that under monarchs taxes only went to the monarch to further his/her position.

The proper view is that government regardless of political system needs taxation to function. Calling taxation theft is unreasonable because the evidence is that it is a necessary aspect of having a society. It is not theft by any reasonable interpretation of the word.
I think it was very quickly obvious to everyone what the deal here was. Why are we still giving them the limelight?
Getting Over the Code Delusion (2010)
A source emailed me his life’s work. Then, he ended his life
Fully agreed. I tend to find non-native English speakers' accents more understandable than many native British or American accents, ironic as it is. Salvatore's accent is quite easy on the ears.

Same goes for a tendency of many native speakers to indulge in idioms, archaic vocabulary and convoluted syntax just for the heck of it. Non-natives just cut to the chase, which is exactly what you want in a technical discussion.
Sure, but Turkey is a little different. It's going from, for some people "no issues, I'm influential and popular, if perhaps a little controversial", to suddenly "I'm in jail now, for probably months".
Beware the Big Five
I repair watches. I use a Bulova Watchmaster to clean the movements. It's an older all metal ultrasonic cleaning unit.

When I heared the sound on the website's first video, I immediately recognized the sound. A sound I have only hear on my cleaning machine.

On my unit, I put cleaning fluid in metal cups. I then put my movements into the baskets. I turn on the machine, and that buzzing sound comes out.

I'll experiment more night. Right now, I'm pretty sure that buzzing sound is only present when I put the movements in the baskets. I assume the buzzing/rattling sound is my watch parts banging against the metal cleaning cups.

I can offer this, I have only heard that sound on my machine, and today on this website.
It’s not a meme. It’s a proper question to those who decry taxation as theft. Without taxation who would pay for government services? Your complaint about the road system indicates that taxes ought to be higher or are currently misallocated. The ire is not at the concept of taxation it’s at the allocation and level of taxation.
>> "no compiler currently will do the wrong thing with it."

> Well then, that's nice no? I don't like to play language lawyer. If there are machines were it can lead to errors, it might be bad machine design. The compiler or the user should work together to catch the error / specify more precisely what is the intent. If we can assume that (ubyte << n) == 0 for any n >= 8, I'm very fine with that, too.

> I don't think compilers should exploit every undefined behaviour in the C standard. Some of those might be there only to support rare, quirky architectures.

In this case, it would be legal for a compiler to assume that ubyte is less than 128. It's not unreasonable to assume that at some point in the future a compiler writer will discover a way to get a 0.1% improvement on whatever the current artificial benchmark of the day is and implement an optimization for it. The landscape of C libraries is littered with undefined code that used to work everywhere and now doesn't for just such a reason.

>> For whatever reason, it took a MemoryAddress which was essentially a pre-c99 uintptr_t defined by the system headers

> That's inconvenient that the API forces such a strange type to the user. But I think the logical usage is to declare "start" and "end" as uintptr_t then. In this case there should be no problem, or do I miss something?

Yes, the correct way is to declare them as uintptr_t and then assign them to a pointer of whatever type you need. It's not uncommon for systems software to treat addresses as integers in places, because they actually do represent specific addresses. I'd have to re-read the specification, but I think that having it take a void instead of a uintptr_t * would have the exact same issue, so I don't think it's the odd API choice that causes this.
When The Daily WTF was still maintained it reserved an entire section of the site for Oracle Database. It may rarely have catastrophic failures (although it's the second one I've seen most catastrophic failures, just after MySQL), but it is composed of one unreasonable choice after the other.
Why use protonmail instead of actual PGP that would never be blocked?
Your profile says you are an LSAT tutor. How do you keep track of everyone you tutor, whether they've paid, etc?
I feel naked without my G-Shock.
Well, there's nothing like a good old-fashioned war to pull the country together.

In all seriousness, I wonder if the absence of a clear foreign boogey man has resulted in Americans turning their angst and anger inward upon themselves. North Korea and Iran are too small to pose existential threats, terrorism is too ambiguous, and China hasn't crossed over into full enemy territory yet. The last real enemy we could all rally against was the USSR.
This is only a problem if you are using threads or shared memory and making up your own misguided locking mechanisms or in embed code on a processor with interrupts but no locks. Normally, if you use the tools correctly you will never have to worry about compiler reordering messing anything up.

The article you linked discusses what happens when you do things you should not, like fail to initialize a variable before using it. Modern compilers, when used correctly will let you know when you do this. With the right compiler options, it won't allow you to make such mistakes.
Ever so once in a while, I see stuff like this, remember my C++ days, and feel excited about trying to write more C++… and then I snap out of it, like remembering why you broke up with an ex-lover in the first place.

No, but seriously, this is great stuff, and I am always happy to see gcc get better. The next time I write C++, which I’ll try to do for GNU Octave, I’ll be very grateful for better diagnostics. I already am, since gcc keeps getting better and better.
Well, I made it to #6 before my screen froze for 10 seconds :(

Fun game though!
The whole software/startup approach is currently based on user growth which relies on retention, trigger, actions, and rewards. Long-term investments don’t fit that model so there is no incentive for them to encourage that form of user behaviour.
The Hoover Dam is a similar amount of material to the Great Pyramid. Took 5 years to build.

Three Gorges Dam is about 10 times the material.
I trying use rust, but I don't know why sometimes cargo is like hanging to retrieve from github.
CAESAR submissions
[author of the blog post here]

Sadly, gcc 8 isn't smart enough to do that yet; I only implemented it for simple "return name_of_field;" accessors.

But it's an interesting idea, which I've filed as:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84895 - thanks.

Are there other cases where idiomatic C++ might lead to such an indirect suggestion being appropriate for accessing the field?
(std::tuple, I suppose, but I'm not sure how often that would arise in practice...)
Oh, David, it's you! Hah! I didn't realise when I first read the article, didn't see the username.

I just want to thank you again for all of your gcc work. I am so glad when you reached out to us for GNU Octave. How is libgccjit coming along, has it grown?

Edit: Aw, man, you're probably silenced by HN right now. You posted too quickly in succession. Ah well, tell me later about libgccjit.
Have you seen the vanguard ETFs in Robinhood? Would those be just as good as using the funds directly with vanguard?
Nobody is forcing you to use such services no matter how large their market share is. This is not the same as public utility where there is only one choice.
It’s not that black and white. There could be hostile factions within institutions that want America and Russia to go to war...
Not to mention government procurement processes do everything in their power to make it difficult to write a good RFP and the major players are highly skilled at responding to RFPs for the purpose of winning the bid, not necessarily to deliver on the RFP's requirements.
Fate/Extra – Tamamo No Mae ( Lancer Maid )
Looks like that's too complicated. This is what godbolt.org shows the output at (if you add the missing #include <utility> and pick "trunk" for gcc):

<source>: In function 'void test(foo*)':
<source>:16:16: error: 'int foo::m_x' is private within this context
if (ptr->m_x >= 3)
^~~
<source>:9:11: note: declared private here
int m_x;
^~~
Compiler returned: 1
You are wrong, not everyone accepts USD. If you are outside of the US it can be hard to spend those.

Rearding usenano.org, you have to keep in mind that adaption barely started like 4 months ago after the distribution ended.

You get access to Nano like with every other currency, work to receive a bit of it or exchange it with another currency.
These bits of the article stand out to me:

"Hickerson, who was sentenced to 100 years in prison, has accused prosecutors of suppressing analytic evidence obtained through the use of Palantir, arguing he had a right to view the evidence if his name surfaced as being affiliated with a gang, or if his name was absent from any analytic data related to 3-N-G."

and

'Ken Daley, a spokesman for the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, said in a statement Wednesday, however, that Palantir "played no role whatsoever in Mr. Hickerson's indictment and prosecution."'

The defence is claiming the investigators used "analytic evidence" obtained from Palantir but are refusing to allow him to view it. The prosecution are claiming Palantir played no role - which is exactly what you'd expect if parallel construction were being used.

Related - cynical me considers 'no role whatsoever in Mr. Hickerson's indictment and prosecution' to be exactly the sort of weasel-worded denial you'd use if you had used Palantir information to construct a story explaining how you'd indicted and prosecuted someone based on _other_ evidence that you wouldn't have known about without the unacknowledged Palantir-sourced evidence you'd want to hide from judicial scrutiny...
Pgcheck – check data file of PostgreSQL database
What has changed in the intelligence “community” since they lied about WMDs in Iraq? How have they earned back the trust of the American people?
A lot of the charging will happen at homes at night, so until energy storage doesn’t add 200% to the cost to take a solar install to solar + storage, the utilities are still going to be the power providers.

There are also going to be (hopefully) some low cost utility scale storage options that, along with the 50% cost advantage of utility solar over rooftop, could be combined with the existing distribution infrastructure to provide low-cost and low-carbon energy for transportation.
This is a little like saying that a police department's use of Postgres might be a sign that there's parallel construction happening.
> Most people should arguably be putting their money into index funds and holding for the long term

I think Robinhood is great for that! Zero commission means you can afford to buy small amounts without worrying about fees eating into your principal too much.

You can put in $250 every pay period and buy a share of $SPY without losing ~3% to fees.

With commissions involved you'd want to wait until you could afford a larger trade, at which point you've lost time in the market.
Lyft is testing monthly subscriptions for riders
LG backtracks on bootloop settlement, slashes cash reimbursement
What people don’t realize is that these 0$ trading commissions just make it up in their routing of the transactions. You’re not going to get the best price.

Use interactive brokers if you want a good price. Flat fee is higher but the trade routes are great.
Thanks - a few other people pointed this out, and I agree.

I've filed this one as:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84887
and hope to fix it in gcc 9.
This was the first thought I had, also, but from a optimistic point of view:

If you are interested in modelling the behaviour of a modern fabric loom, which can be a four storey high proposition with thousands of spindles feeding air guided bobbins, where the weight of the threads in your weave design affects the entire process, the way your thread hangs requires a different tension, how it stretches affects the feed and speed with which the bobbin can fly through the weft (vertical line frame into which the pattern is woven) and the elasticity and friction tension the weft sometimes intentionally... I am willing to bet it would suit me if the visual rendering is put on ASICS or FPGAs, while the physical modelling for cloth behaviour might be a more general purpose solution.
Just a brief question from a non-engineer: Is this the same kind of phenomenon that produces the illusion of a fifth voice in a barber shop quartet? Thanks!
These are all reasonable concerns about palantir, but none of them are parallel construction. And I know how palantir functions because there's plenty of information available on it. Heck call their sales team and chat them up about a use case if you want to learn more (it's what i did, about 10 years ago) my point is their gotham product isn't top secret, at one point they even had some sort of demo client.

I'm sure their tech, like any other, can be misused. But parallel construction isnt even hinted at here, its the potential Brady violation that is the issue.
Can’t forget the potential load from those kitty hawk autonomous electric helicopter/planes.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/business/dealbook/flyi...
> IBM instead sold the Canadian government someone else's software (Oracle's Peoplesoft) on a sweetheart contract which did not require delivery of a working solution.

Okay, so Canada signed a bad contract and didn't make IBM promise to delivery the goods.

> In cases like this in the past, the Canadian Government would just be able to tell IBM to deliver the goods as promised or IBM would be banned from doing business in Canada - effectively frozen.

But you just got done telling us that IBM didn't promise to deliver the goods.

> Under NAFTA and similar trade pacts, governments have lost all leverage and these sweetheart deals continue to be pushed through.

NAFTA and similar trade agreements neither require governments to sign contracts that don't require delivery of working solutions, not require governments to not sue to enforce contract terms once signed. If IBM broke the contract terms, Canada can sue. But if Canada signed a really dumb contract, there's a number of remedies here, but violating the contract terms and just demanding other parties do things they have no obligation to do to make up for your mistake doesn't seem like a good choice. You know, "rule of law" and all that?

> Why should the Canadian taxpayer foot the bills for corrupt contracts with devious suppliers? The

They shouldn't. But, well, was it corrupt? Prove it in court, and the contract can be voided. NAFTA won't stop that either. If you can't prove it in court, they maybe it was just dumb (and not bribery), in which case yes, the taxpayers should foot the bill. If they don't like it, they can vote in a better government. That's democracy.
Gamers Nexus did a good video. Long story short, looks like an investment propaganda attempt to try and get a profit out of shorting AMD stock. Whether this is a cover for anything else is getting deep into conspiracy.

Edit: Not truly fake news
Yes, better because the minimum is $0 not $10,000.

It's not as good as Betterment/Wealthfront/Hedgeable because you can't rebalance, reinvest dividends, or get fractional shares.
Did you read the article? The details and how it was confirmed is in there.
Regular Expressions – Mastering Lookahead and Lookbehind
Except that we know it isn't fake, as Trail of Bits validated the findings and confirmed serious vulnerabilities.
That's a good point, thanks.
The problem is I see it is not just whether the Palantir evidence was inappropriately obtained - it's also about the refusal to disclose to the defence all the evidence used against them.

If you're OK with "using ubiquitous surveillance as evidence gathering then cherry picking other evidence discovered based on the original evidence set and never needing to disclose in court that you used the original evidence as a starting point" - how can there be checks and balances in place to ensure that original evidence was obtained legally? What's to stop every ambitious/crooked cop from starting every investigation with ‘the fruit of the poisonous tree’?
Relevant: trail of bits posted a summary of this situation on their blog:

https://blog.trailofbits.com/2018/03/15/amd-flaws-technical-...
and mr palantir got up from his desk, steaming envelopes, and walked down the street, into the future. "ill be a postman" he thought. "wont have to spy on anybody".
Bank of America basically has this with Merill Edge and you also get free trades if you have over $50k
there's a massive disinformation campaign ongoing

I'm sure most people are unaware that the Smith Mundt Act was repealed, which allows the US Government to promote propoganda to US ctizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act
1) I agree that free markets are not where most people earn there money, but to me it seems like that is something we should strive for by reducing and stopping interference in the market by government regulation.

2) Martin Shkreli is an interesting statement (assuming you are referring to his raising of drug prices, not what he was prosecuted for). I strongly believe that the only reason he was able to raise prices so exorbitantly is because of interference in the market place both on the grounds of copyright laws and the stringent drug testing that is required. If something like google were to suddenly start charging five thousand dollars to use the site, people would quickly move to a competitor (or, if there was no competitor, someone would create one). This is not possible in the drug industry due to government regulation, so although what he did was wrong, it is not something I think can be solved with more laws.

3) Sure, most people have inherited there money, but in a free market someone up the line most certainly earned it. Assuming you don't believe that there is something that makes one person more special than another, who is holding money is irrelevant to whether or not it is fairly earned.
I mean, average portfolio size for Robinhood users is probably in the $1k-10k range. How much does your 22 year old cousin care whether she pays $325.60 or $325.62 for a share of TSLA? For individuals it’s negligible, but for the HFT firms whose kickbacks make up most of Robinhood’s revenue, this adds up.
But stuxnet has not been attributed to Saudis, but Israel + US, so I’m not following this chain.
Tangentially related: has anyone been exploring ReasonML? I am enjoying it so far, but still hesitant because I'm not sure if its momentum (in the community with packages, etc) will sustain, and the interop into JS feels still somewhat clunky (though that is partly BuckleScript)
This is crazymaking. I posted the Trail of Bits technical summary earlier today:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16595184

Trail of Bits --- which has a reputation in the field approaching "unimpeachable" --- confirmed a series of serious vulnerabilities. Whether there are real findings involved in this report isn't in question, and hasn't been since the day of the announcement, when Dan Guido from Trail of Bits confirmed that they'd reviewed and confirmed the finding.

It's ironic, or maybe it isn't, that after CTS-Labs published their findings in a manner basically optimized for innuendo than Anandtech has run a story that is basically composed of innuendo. Given how charged people's feelings about AMD seem to be, this is probably manna from heaven for them, and since CTS-Labs isn't publishing the full technical details, it'll be raining bread for them for many days to come.

I wouldn't care, except that after the original monster thread about the CTS-Lab announcement, it's become apparent that HN commenters have a very poor understanding of how vulnerability research actually works, and Anandtech is perpetuating some of those myths, like the idea that researchers invariably (or even routinely) arrange for CVE allocation when publishing new flaws.
Always a good idea! Another thing is to CONSTANTLY question what the article is having you do. Try to disprove rationale given and think of alternative paths. Almost in a playful devil's advocate way.

As the project progresses you'll get more context on why things are what they are than is explicitly written. Eventually you'll hit on something that actually is better and now you're a what-the-article-teaches developer!
> out of touch

Or maybe just not perfect? Google trends show that "the Ukraine" is about 1/3 as popular as "Ukraine" in common usage. It's more like calling the FSB the KGB - wrong, for sure, but was correct for decades, so not at all surprising that people still say it. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-ukraine-isnt-the-ukraine-...
I am curious how much money you pay on margin a year using this scheme.