skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Why would Uber agree to such regulations?

They were unwilling to legally obtain a self-driving license in California because they did not want to report "disengagements" (situations in which a human driver has to intervene).

Uber would just set their self-driving cars free and eat whatever fine/punishment comes with it.
Cellular Network Traces Towards 5G: Usage, Analysis and Generation
I imagine that the whistleblowers get paid from the proceeds of fines levied due to the whistleblowing.
You failed the test. Back to Security 101 with you!

The point being made is that all passwords should be hashed and a hash is going to be fixed-length. Therefore there should be no limit on password length beyond, say the limit of the total HTTP POST size -- but you're not using a megabyte-long password, are you?
I know when Uber was stopped by CA DMV to operate its self driving cars without a permit, the Arizona governor went all out to promote the state as a beacon of business friendliness and deregulation etc. etc. Perhaps, when something is as critical as self-driving cars going around along with pedestrians and bikes and other vehicles, a more cautious and deliberate approach is warranted ?
How to flag a client as malicious: a Cloudflare Workers example
Ask HN: You, me, and the AMT
I'd like to understand how the tax bill of late 2017 affects the taxation of incentive stock options (ISOs) for employees of a private company.

Among other things, the bill incorporated many of the provisions of H.R.3084/S.1444 ("Empowering Employees through Stock Ownership Act") with some differences in e.g. the number of years involved.

The language introduced seems to provide greater flexibility to "qualified" employees* with respect to the year in which the "income" from the exercise of ISOs is considered taxable, in particular when the resulting shares are illiquid.

1. Is it the case that qualified employee can now exercise an ISO and defer being taxed for it for a new, longer amount of time? (Up to 5 years in some cases.)

2. Does that apply for the purposes of the AMT as well?

3. If it does, why aren’t more people talking about this?

* "Excluded" employees include the CEO, CFO, the year's four highest compensated officers, and a few other cases.
NIST: Fog Computing Conceptual Model
unfortunately.

I forgot where I read it, but there was a story/quote/interview about how politicians can never run on maintenance because maintenance isn't sexy, they need to run on big projects.
Note that bcrypt has a maximum length well below some of the lengths mentioned in this thread:

https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/39849/does-bcry...

Given this, it seems reasonable to restrict input below a length where the password will become (effectively) truncated by blowfish.

That length is also well above 10 characters however.
You still have to cross at intersections and driveways. I've been hit multiple times (at low speed) by motor vehicles crossing the sidewalk at a driveway. I don't ride on sidewalks anymore.
Yet this tragic accident will now set a precedent and finally start to scratch the delicate unspoken question:
Who is responsible now?
Using Reenactment to Retroactively Capture Provenance for Transactions
Unfortunately, this is a design that is pretty common in many of Tempe's major intersections. I pass through a similiar intersection biking home from ASU and have had multiple close calls with human drivers.

Anecdata: The times I have interacted with one of Uber's autonomous vehicles at this intersection, they tend to hit the brakes pretty hard as they are about to enter the turn lane and I am around 10ft behind them. All of my interactions with them, however, have been during the day, and it was unclear if it was the human driver in control.
The short story of this is:

Cryptocurrencies are run on, by, and for crime. It's immoral to participate in cryptocurrencies. You wouldn't be a member of a club that had people like this owning the club house and everyone on the board, but due to pure greed and wilful ignorance people keep "investing" in this organized crime.

Shame on you all.
I believe that many on-line services are not allowed to delete user data for a significant period of time (because terrorism & child exploitation).
In the early 20th century the automobile industry mobilized to downplay the deadly threat automobiles posed to pedestrians, and lobbied to create new laws to frame pedestrians as being at fault instead of car drivers (eg. jaywalking).

I expect we'll soon see tech companies do the same in order to favour their autonomous automobile businesses at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists.
You mentioned bad luck and that could very well be it. Unless Uber starts having more incidents, it isn't fair to say that Uber's technology is inferior.
A Graphical Model of Smoking-Induced Global Instability in Lung Cancer
It would be required by law. Violating the law would hold corporate officers criminally responsible.
It is valuable if your goal is to learn to make games and invest in yourself. But it is not valuable if you want to make money and be successful in your indie venture.

It is possible the knowledge he gained from writing his own engine, will allow him to get a better paid job down the road for example. But most likely those $85 000 would be better spent on education.
Heard a similar myth about a Danish king. We was tired of cannons blowing up so he ordered the manufacturer to sit on top of the cannon when it was fired the first time.
Again... 'Uber has temporarily suspended the testing of its self-driving cars following the crash of one of them in Tempe, Ariz. The ride-hailing company had also been conducting experiments in Pittsburgh and San Francisco.'

I was resumed shortly after.

27 Mar 2017 (1 year ago)

https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/sel...
I'm not sure why that isn't an argument to be considered. The fact is these statements (referring to Mexicans as rapists and murders, "shithole countries") keep being made by the president, who historically has some sway over the legislative debate, especially when their party controls both chambers of congress.

I'd like to know, do you think these are reasonable, good-faith openers for debate? I don't, especially when so few on the right seem to be able to rebuke them and move on to a real discussion.
FYI, that is actually the Burrard St bridge in Vancouver, Canada: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2761098,-123.1351267,3a,75y,...
The video says bicyclist and shows a bicycle, while the written article says pedestrian and said the car hit "a woman walking"... I'm confused as to why there is a contradiction, but considering the video shot of the bicycle I assume you're correct
Awesome! Yes, we take care of the paper trail as well.
The whistleblower awards are typically a fixed percentage of the fines that the SEC levies (10% - 30% depending on circumstances). So if you blow the whistle on your company and the SEC fines them $100M, the SEC will get ~$80M and the whistleblower will get ~$20M.

So in that sense, no, they can never run out of funds to pay them off.

https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower
Webflow – Ecommerce
I guess my hopeful answer would be they start getting treated like Enron and someone high up goes to prison until they start to comply.
Doing more than one thing – a product strategy lesson from Intercom
Where I am in California, some bike lanes are required to also be used as right turn lanes by motor vehicles.
Could a human have reacted fast enough to stop for someone jumping out in front of them? If the person jumped out so fast that nobody could have possibly reacted in time, then it's not a stain on the technology- even with an instantaneous application of brakes, a car still takes a while to come to a stop. If the human jumped out ten seconds earlier and was waving her hands for help, then it's an issue.

"the whole point of self-driving cars is that they can react to unexpected circumstances much more quickly than a human"

This statement isn't really true. Do you think Uber is investing in this because it makes their passengers safer? No, they are pretty much immune to any car crashes with a human driver, the risk and insurance hit is assumed by the driver. They are doing this to save money. They don't have to pay a driver for each trip. The safety aspect is just a perk, but Uber will be pushing this full force as long as the self-driving cars are good enough.

I'm more concerned that Uber will "lose" the video evidence showing what kind of situation it was, and we'll never be able to know if a human would have had ample time to react.
Note that the statistics we have to work with are relatively terrible. For example: Waymo's favorite statistic is "x miles driven", which is a terrible/useless statistic, because it treats all miles equally, and fails to note that the most complex driving is often short distances (intersections, merges, etc.) and doesn't account for the fact that most of those miles were repeatedly driving on a very small number of roads. But it looks good on marketing copy because it's a big number.

Additionally, our self-driving car statistics we tend to see today also tries to ignore the presence of test drivers and how frequently they intervene. As long as they can intervene, the safety record of self-driving cars is being inflated by the fact that there's a second decisionmaker in the vehicle.

EDIT: Oh, and human driving statistics are also bad because a lot of accidents don't even get reported, and then when they do get reported, a lot of it is through different insurance companies, that's before we get into nobody centrally tracking "miles driven", and that's why most statistics for human driving safety are more or less just an educated guess.
It'll likely never get passed, but we truly need an "acceptable death" metric to be passed to protect the companies (and apparently people too, since some in these comments what the developers held responsible) from deaths. In my opinion, a law should be passed that per mile driven, 5-10% of the current deaths per mile is allowed, and it should begin decreasing after 10 or so years to something low (maybe 1%, maybe .01%, we'd have to wait and see).

People will always make mistakes, the benefit with self driving cars however is that mistake should only be made once. Whatever bug caused it to be considered at fault can be patched and will never occur in that exact circumstance again. Meanwhile with humans you could have that same case occur over and over again.

With how much money people can win in lawsuits nowadays, all it would take is a handful of cases to totally destroy a manufacturer of self driving cars.
What keeps you up at night when developing smart contracts?
Only the hash should be stored so limit of the original password is mute
Great question. So far we've seen users receive a partial payment upfront with the remaining balance paid out automatically at code delivery.
I'm sure plenty of people would but that isn't the point. If you're writing code that potentially costs people their lives, you need to be able to be held accountable otherwise it will lead to negligence. This isn't a new problem... maybe for the software space, but not for industry as a whole.
Does it work internationally (clients and/or freelancers)?
The product doesn't exist. The only image of the device on that Creator page is a 3D render:

https://www.magicleap.com/_next/images/e14acd33a1d6136786b0b...

Ask yourself why a company would only release a 3D render when it's meant to be finished before the end of the year ("Shipping in 2018").
Whitey Bulger, the famous South Boston mom boss, did exactly this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/08/07/h....
If the only options you’re presenting are “move fast and break things” where those things are human lives, or introducing burdensome bureaucracy, I’ll take the bureaucracy. Time and again society chose that latter option, and it will again. Unaccountablility is worse than regulation, and history has shown that repeatedly.
Meanwhile...

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/03/0...
This could become a reality forced upon us by technological means with applications like FindFace (A Russian face recognition app which matches strangers' faces to their VK profiles). Unfortunately, I can imagine this just becoming the new normal.
I use The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Unabridged as my password to several sites. How could you get more secure?
It's likely this was actually a bicyclist, not a pedestrian.

The police are saying pedestrian walking outside the crosswalk but here's a picture of the crumpled bicycle: https://twitter.com/daiwaka/status/975767445859287042

You can see it's next to a sign. That sign lets us determine exactly where it happened on Google street view: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4370667,-111.9430321,3a,75y,...

It's exactly where the vehicle lane crosses the bike line approaching the intersection. Mostly likely the Uber and bike collided when the Uber was crossing into the right turn lane.
A country in an economic disaster attempting to adopt a cryptocurrency to salvage it's destroyed fiat currency is very Mr Robot-esque.

There's probably some other analogies here as well, with Venezula's famous small group of elites pulling the strings in the background, with self-preservation valued over the publics interests.
you already can? our lives depend on all kinds of software every day. In Canada at least you'd need a P.Eng to work on stuff that directly endanger lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
The statistics may prove meaningless. It's the emotional reaction of our legislators. Take the recent legislation regarding a single killed dog by United Airlines (my condolences to the family members/owners of that dog) vs. deaths via [insert any other thing that has multiple deaths and is currently under regulated].
Maybe it should be a little more clear what is considered 'valuable', before people spend years of their life's efforts and a great deal of money on education.
From a the perspective of policies such as designing an intersection, placing blame (even if that blame is justified) is utterly pointless. Systems should be designed for the users you have, not for the users you want, especially since in this case it's literally a matter of life and death.

Sure, drivers should check before crossing a lane, but some percentage don't, so it makes sense to minimize lane crosses.
Users to the right have the right of way over users further towards the center of the street. Thus, pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk have priority over bicycles and cars turning right, and bicycles going straight have priority over cars turning right.
Honestly, complying with the law has never been one of Uber’s strong suits.
That's exactly what I found "odd", the sentence says:

"Nobody wants to wake up to an autonomous vehicle crashing through their roof, but it's possible to prevent that ..."
Put a URL in a firmware image that is never called by your device/app.

Monitor the URL for access. You then receive an alert that someone accessed the URL.

This gives you a real-time notification that a reverse engineer has looked at your firmware. It also gives you an IP address. So you now “know” that someone might try to hack your device. And you also have an IP address.

This is a billion dollar security play!

Jokes aside. It is a good concept for IoT firms who have a security advocate, but no budget. Would help persuade people that there are hackers targeting their devices/apps with quantifiable data of degrading value.
There's a similar issue going on with the square DIN plug used for power connectors on the Commodore 128 and TED series (C16, Plus/4) computers. Someone found a place in China with old stock and has been buying them. One person is building new power supplies and machining their own connectors.
Self driving cars are still subject to the laws of physics... unless you're going to dictate that self-driving cars never go above 15mph, I wouldn't advocate jumping in front of even a "perfect" self-driving car.

Braking distance (without including any decision time) for a 15mph car is 11 ft, for a 30mph is 45 ft. Self driving cars won't change these limits. (well, they may be a little better than humans at maximizing braking power through threshold braking on all 4 wheels, but it won't be dramatically different)

So even with perfect reaction times, it will still be possible for a self-driving car to hit a human who enters its path unexpectedly.
Require black boxes then for auto cars
Obviously Uber in this case, but as mentioned in response to a separate article, AI's must be like pets or children and have a liable guardian.
Just finished the new Unabomber series on Netflix. This is similar to his manifesto which I ended up sympathising with towards the end.
>but for those of us outside the tech world, Facebook survives because it's useful for facilitating social interaction.

It's useful for facilitating connections with other facebook users. You're in a bubble.
Unfortunately "invaluable information" doesn't translate to sales. At all.
Judge - you don't understand - the office that's responsible for this remote deletio^w securing of data is in another jurisdiction (Canada!). So Uber USA is absolved[1].

1. Uber really had a tool that did this IRL: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/11/16878284/uber-secret-tool...
The problem is that something is somewhere and/or does something unexpected. The bicyclist doesn't expect the car to drive in the bike lane. The car driver turning across the sidewalk doesn't expect the bicyclist to be riding across the driveway on a bicycle. If you're not expecting it you're not going to look for it.

Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk isn't illegal most places because it's dangerous for the pedestrians, it's illegal because it's dangerous for the bicyclist.
Obligatory Mitchell and Webb skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EGAtLGDU7M
Also their cousin; those that allow programmatic entry/pasting, but then detect whether the user has provided a value based on keystroke listeners rather than current field value. So you still need to hit space+backspace in the field to let the client JS know you've entered something.
How do we recognize whether an object in front of a car is just a plastic bag in the wind or a baby?

o At speed we're pretty ok with cars hitting things people drop on the road, examples of cars hitting wagons and babies are already plentiful

o Visual recognition & rapidly updated multi-mode sensor data, backed by hard-core neural networks and multi-'brained' ML solutions, have every reason to be way better at this job than we are given sufficient time... those models will be working with aggregate crash data of every accident real and simulated experienced by their systems and highly accurate mathematical models custom made to chose the least-poor solution to dilemmas human drivers fail routinely

o AIs have multiple vectors of possible improvement over human drivers in stressed situations. Assuming they will bluntly stop ignores how vital relative motion is to safe traffic, not to mention the car-to-car communication options available given a significant number of automated cars on the road -- arguably human drivers can never be as smooth as a fleet of automated cars, and "slamming the brakes" is how people handle uncertainty already

Presently the tech is immature, but the potential for automated transport systems lies well beyond the realms of human capabilities.
Do you have a statistically large enough sample to conclude that they're worse at driving that you are? Most cases of driver inattention don't escalate to a collision, so trying to infer inattention rates from collision rates is pretty noisy.

And even assuming this was simply a case of a bad driver, what policy approach would you suggest to protect the general public against such drivers? Accepting that drivers are fallible and designing our road systems to be robust against that seems a more effective approach than berating those drivers who are particularly unlucky in the consequences of their failures of attentiveness.
Plenty of published attacks are not all that practical. There are plenty of security researchers that would like to have some nice attacks on their CVs.

If you like the security of HSTS, then I guess STS is for you. Personally I'd like something better then just blindly trusting the network the first time you try to connect to something.
So far: more, by a factor of 20-25.
entrepreneurs publish long insightful/motivational pieces which give them leads and publicity

Serious question: does this actually work? I'm considering a "content strategy" to build brand trust, and one option is to publish on LinkedIn. I'm pretty new to using the ecosystem for anything meaningful though. I'm in the middle of my "free trial" of the +1 level (Pro? I forgot- whatever they try to get you to sign up for...).

But if published content actually gets read, or if at least people search there when trying to learn more about somebody, then I'll consider it.
Generally speaking, solution to a terminology problem isn't to create terminology n+1.
It's interesting to see how many people make excuses for still using Facebook because it makes event organizing and the like easier. I'm 26 and never used Facebook. My friends organize group events all the time, I'm always kept in the loop because I text my friends and ask what they are doing this weekend and/or meet with my friends regularly enough that they let me know what's going on. It's become well known that I don't get updates through FB so my friends will text me invites if I haven't asked for an update.

People act as if Facebook is the only way to keep up with friends but it's just not the case. Every phone can still receive SMS and you can gasp meet your friends personally to catch up.

Now for friends who live in distant locations you need to ask yourself: Does Facebook status updates really make me feel more connected to this person? My answer would be no, and I accept the fact that I just wont see my friends who live in other locations as much as I'd like, and I simply try to make it a habit of catching up when I'm in town.

There was life before Facebook and there can be life without Facebook, stop making excuses.
Healthcare costs are not unreasonable in much of the developed and developing world. Most countries have better outcomes and lower costs than here in the US. As another commentor says, healthcare seems to be doing fine; you seem to be assuming the US is the norm when it isn’t.
Similar idea than https://uriteller.io. This is nice way to check whether your end to end encrypted chat is really secure or not.
That's actually more dangerous as bikes tend to get cars turning into them when they turn right.

(It's hard to see a bike at speed going straight when a car is turning right.)

Here's an image that illustrates the danger: http://www.sfbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Right-Turn....
Then we should at least learn their capabilities by throwing jumping dummies at them. Call it the new dummy testing. It's the least we can do. Did Travis bro do this when he set the plan in motion?
Heheh, his last FB post was ~4hrs ago. I guess the cancer has progressed further than he first thought.
> Civil engineering and medical device manufacturing seems to be doing fine, despite having similar principles of engineers' liability.

The idea that software engineers should be held responsible for something that (as far as we can tell so far) was an accident and not the result of negligence or malice is several orders of magnitude beyond the level of liability that civil engineers and medical device manufacturers have.
I may be totally wrong, but isn't there some pressure in the other direction because of the prototype turnaround times with overseas manufacturing? I've read articles about people claiming they were able to iterate much faster using domestic prototyping.