skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The MIT derived Lisp Machines had all an Emacs called Zmacs.

But that was just one application among dozens others. Applications usually were not based on Zmacs, with only a few exceptions: on a Symbolics: Zmail and the Concordia documentation editor application frame. Other tools were not Zmacs based: Listener/REPL, the debugger, the directory editor, the font editor, the PEEK tool to view system details, the document examiner, the tape tool, ...
Peak Oil (Demand-Side) Analysis from BP, Driven by EV
> addiction as a strategy

I neglected this vector whilst recalling my previous comment, and I acknowledge addiction as a viability towards ruling over others. Putting ethics, morals, and similar aside for sake of power -- addiction I feel is a "better" method of ruling than fear, given that fear is "better" than love. Why go after all the trouble of scaring people about "the enemy from the East/West/Whatever" back and forth forever when you can just jack them up happy on Jizzum 3.4? You don't, so develop Jizzuj3.4 as you scare people from East and West.
I think you are right, but: how about tools like Excel, which is very non-linear, and yet it seems to be easier to pick up, and less intimidating, for complete newcomers compared to traditional programming?
At first glance, this seems awesome. I have to applaud Dropbox for their forward stance here.
Ask HN: Do you know communities working on “the future of programming”?
I'm looking for communities that work on ideas similar to what Bret Victor [1], Chris Granger (Lighttable, Eve [2]) and so many others [3] have worked on over the last decades. While I already found a lot of individual projects, I didn't find a place where I could have general discussions about related topics, discover and collect knowledge from previous work and (possibly) collaborate on creating new projects.

If no such thing exists already, would anyone be interested in participating in a community like this?

[1] http://worrydream.com/#!/LearnableProgramming

[2] http://eve-lang.com/

[3] Gallery of Programmer Interfaces: [pdf] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RPX_9u01MEU-QDWU4h-90QF9XqZo7PvH/view
Same here. Depending on the team I'm leading, I can actually consider not having the current stack a plus, as an outsider's perspective on architecture can help grow a team and codebase that's been stuck doing things the same way for a long time.

There's some penalty in ramp-up time, but I find it more than pays for itself down the road.
This might be a stupid question and a tangent, but what does he mean by: "don’t use raw strings as constants"
> (just like it doesn't cover fires caused by storing gas or propane in your garage)

What about the gas in your car or lawnmower?

Where do you store your camping stove?

The insurance texts posted downthread don't actually seem that "damning" to me. They talk about chemicals etc in a blanket sense. If insurance companies were worried about the gas can for your lawn mower, they would come right out and say it.

It's not uncommon for cities and homes associations to prohibit sheds anyway. A gas can in the garage seems a lot less volatile than one sitting in the sun that looks like it's ready to burst.
Remember selection bias. A lot of people didn't post here because they did the same thing but failed.
Secure Scuttlebutt is this, but suffers from the same problem every non-Facebook social network does: critical mass.
There's a startup incubator West of Lansing, Michigan in the little town of Grand Ledge called The Fledge http://grandledgefledge.com/ It's really a cross between a makerspace and an incubator.

I toured there and among the projects I saw was someone who had made a Tesla Powerwall from laptop batteries. Another was a solar array on a trailer which they explained could be shuttled between your house as well as a cottage up North.

Course building a project is less than half the journey to successfully commercializing it however it was inspiring to see what people were creating.
That's only for the front end though. Lots of people use Compojure which is essentially Sinatra if you're coming from Ruby. Luminus is a far more complete solution that feels like Rails. After I cut my teeth enough times starting from nothing, Luminus unfortunately feels a little clunky because you have to figure out how it's all glued together.
> Any comment pointing out hypocrisy is valuable and interesting in my opinion. I prefer to disregard the opinions of hypocrites.

That's actually a pretty closed minded position. I don't think there's a single person who isn't a hypocrite in some small way, even ascetics living alone in the desert. You'll disregard all of them?

Hypocrisy doesn't logically invalidate anyone's arguments or positions, those need to be evaluated on their own. If they make good points but fail to live up to them, it only demonstrates their own personal moral failings.

But I think it's also a mistake to count "publishing something about deleting Facebook on a website with a Facebook integration" as hypocrisy. Authors usually aren't the ones making implementation decisions of the platforms the publish on, and are probably not even aware of most of them.

> Honest question, do you think the same content with same title with a different domain rather than 'medium.com' could not reach similar popularity on HN?

HN isn't the world.

I think it's a waste of time for an author to make the avoidance of publishing platforms with Facebook integrations a priority. It would be an act of foolish, unpragmatic purism, akin to a lot of the stuff Richard Stallman does. It's more important that they argue persuasively and widely to convince the implementors to avoid such integrations.
> When you lose your password, we send you your password recovery key and you can decrypt your password with it.

Having the password recovery keys, can you decrypt user passwords? Does that matter in this scenario?
I was surprised by the responses about Optionals. Will have to look into it. As an alternative I have been looking to use the following to guarantee that certain methods cannot/will not return null (below). Maybe that is the better way to go?

return Optional.ofNullable(applications).orElseThrow(NullPointerException::new);

return Optional.ofNullable(applications).orElse(new Application());
> How many of those daily active users are bots, spammers, cloned accounts, webscrapers, or people logging on for two seconds because they sent or received one message, or want to do one thing?

How many have to be for 2.2 billion to not still be a pretty damn big number?

> How many are generating content or participating in a way that drives the platform?

Facebook has no shortage of content.

> How much of the daily traffic from a small percentage of people drives a large portion of the rest of the platform? How much of that 1.5% can Facebook afford to lose before it creates a trend they can’t escape?

All of them, as long as the losses are made up in other areas.
I think this was what prompted the finer-grained federation controls. Most instances at least block its images now and/or mute it.
I've read both, Haaretz's it's more in depth, It give us an insight of what happened at Olmert's cabinet and his conversations with Nethanyu.
Yeah, it kinda sucks that they changed the privacy policy, but if you had actually read it, you'd have seen the part that says that they can change it any time for any reason.

And also, all they've done is give the corporation the technical ability to do something they've always been able to do -- read your private chats. It's just that before they had to do more work to do it, but they've always had the right to do it, regardless of what Slack's privacy policy said.
It could be a combination of both theories. Increased oxygen allowed animals take deeper vertical dives, and these deeper dives created yet more usable oxygen, making even more deeper dives possible. It could be that animals first had to reach a threshold of complexity to trigger the feedback cycle.

For example, there's less need to hide in the depths from predators if the predators are wimpy, and predators without enough oxygen will stay wimpy. The diving energy expenditure is not worth it under wimpy predation. Capability to dive deep enough and the predator/pray competition both had to reach a level to trigger the feedback cycle. Earlier generations couldn't get either the depth nor be potent enough predators because they were too primitive.
Show HN: My dashboard to monitor multiple AWS accounts
I think if you want to get started in the space. pick a niche and find a couple of influencers in the space. setup a non-exclusive agent contract with them. setup a landing page to work with advertisers in that space. Then get a contract with them. Now setup a deal and make a commission. Then stream line the process with a website.
> Well, the Powerwall, along with batteries, also has a ton of safety features that make it safe to install inside a home without worry.

The logical conclusion of this is someone mentioning ICE vehicles and gas tanks, so allow me to be that person. If you park your gar in the garage and it's an ICE vehicle, you're parking quite a lot of latent energy in a fairly volatile form in your house.

If you wouldn't feel comfortable rigging a bunch of old gas cans in tandem to a little engine your scrounged as a DIY generator and putting it in your garage, maybe you shouldn't rig a bunch of batteries up in a similar arrangement.

For that matter, with that perspective, how far away for your cinderblock outhouse is far enough?
There should be an ecosystem like YouTube, but for long form text, where individual authors can have subscription relationships with subscribers.
Bringing in someone's personal details or history as ammunition in a thread is a form of personal attack and not allowed here. You also broke the site guidelines with partisan flamebait. Please don't do that here!

That's not a disagreement with your underlying point, by the way; but if you're handling flammable material it's your job not to blow things up with it—which is what simply tossing it in predictably does.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16639169 and marked it off-topic.
These Women Could Be the Tech Industry's Next Great CEOs–or Not
My comment is a bit of a passive-aggressive pushback against that :)
do you have any advice besides “don’t work at Facebook”?

Sure: start by reading Spinoza's TIE.
> would quit a job that treated me as a child which must be supervised in such a manner.

Then you should be prepared to be permanently out of work.

You are NOT entitled to private communications on company-sanctioned channels. Full Stop. End of story. This isn't an issue of "trust" or having faith in your employees, but this is how business is done.
The issue isn’t the ads that bother you. Its the ones that don’t. Everyone thinks of themselves as sceptical people, but we’re only sceptical of things we already don’t believe. The ads that don’t bother you, and the ones you don’t recognize as advertising are working on you just as much as the ones you don’t like.
> with some help from my experience with addiction

Is there a spectrum to addiction? A dopamine response is a dopamine response, at what point would an activity be classified as an addiction outside the hyperbole of "affects your job/relationship/eating/etc"
Yes. Putting a book like the bible which contains horrible, unethical stories (Lot and his daughters?) and paints the terrible tyrant that is the god of the old testament as a loving being above modern science is a mental state only achieved after thorough indoctrination. There is 0 evidence for the presence of a God, there is also 0 evidence which makes a Christian god more likely than a Muslim god. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. These are things you learn when reading and being honest with yourself. I was raised Christian but being a molecular biologist now, there is absolutely no use in the God theory it raises more questions than it answers, it has 0 predictive power, no evidence for it and is just plainly wrong when it comes to many details (all animals that existed 5000 years ago on 1 ark?). I see religious people mostly as victims of memes (memes in the Richard Dawkins sense), viruses of the mind. They still can be nice and honest people though.
But the other person probably changed emails, didnt keep his phone number and moved to a new City. What now?

I personally dont use Facebook, but youre not actually painting a realistic picture
Hopefully my edit makes it more clear for you.
I like Andrew Ng's short article (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140320175655-176238488-lear...) about this topic. Recommends taking short videos of elements of your speech and then watching them, tweaking, and repeating.
In this particular case I recorded it :-) (with the permission of all involved) so that in the event there was some discrepancy about who said what I could refer to the recording.
THat's still not what I would call vast. Vast would be far more mundane stuff, like providing clean water and medicine. Not to say that access to research publications is not important, but there are great differences in magnitude.

Demonstrably? I would say that being a communist, in this century, when you can't even pretend that "you did not know" like fellow travelers in 1950's did is a pretty good indication. Her stated goal of "standing up to the West" (which is far from perfect, but really much better than any alternative) and supporting strongmen like Putin (apparently she's also quite fond of characters like Saddam or Qaddafi, too) who do so, to the point of directly and intentionally hurting the very scientists that her project allegedly supports points in that direction, too.

I just really don't get all the hero worship on someone who, at no risk to herself (she's no Edward Snowden or even Aaron Swartz), wants to stick it to the very people who support her. That effort would be far better spent on setting a real alternative publication system.
"A pledge to not initiate legal action for security research conducted pursuant to the policy, including good faith, accidental violations."

This is the major takeaway point. More and more shady companies in the past few years have been starting to file lawsuits and take legal action against researchers who they declare went out of scope, or just outright broke the law by doing research and disclosure against their software/device/product. These companies are trying to stifle legitimate security research because they are too lazy or ignorant to fix their problems. It's nice to see such a large entity taking a public stance on how they feel bug bounties and general security research should operate.
I agree it would have been cooler if he did an autodetection sweep (or the impulse response thing mentioned upthreads), but not disappointingly so. However I would have been disappointed if he used ML for the detection. Some basic DSP would suffice and be much more accurate without needing a days worth of training on a powerful video card.
> 3. A clear statement that we consider actions consistent with the policy as constituting “authorized” conduct under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

That's hugely important if you want bug bounty programs to appeal to people who are distrusting of federal prosecutors and the FBI.

Without it, there's a lot of anxiety and uncertainty with testing live systems.
Should be noted that speedometers display a higher number than actual speed. So if cop flags driver at 38.5 mph, there's a good chance their speedometer showed 40+ mph.
I'm probably older than you, and I've never used Yahoo search or any of their other inferior products.
Doesn't java have like a 90 day release cycle now [0]?

Java 9 is EOL in March 2018, and Java 10 is EOL in Sept 2018 [0]

0: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
As someone who has been a foster parent and worked with a sort of advocacy group as well, I can tell you it isn't any better on this side.
Oh, contrair- if you have a decade sitting unemployed in a room- and you get a chance, by taking all the responsibilities and liabilitys, to live your golden years in the sun- what would you have to loose?
Totally agree with this.

A couple of other things I’ve found help me in case they help you:

- public speaking is a skill, not a talent. You can learn to be good at it with practice.

- if you are the type of person that gets nervous, you may never completely cure that, but you will learn to get through it. Many good public speakers still feel a little anxiety before speaking.

- if you have a bad presentation, don’t stress too much. The key is to not let too much time go by after a bad performance, get back out there.

I personally dread public speaking, but I have to do it regularly enough that I continuously have to work at it. I like to memorize the first few lines of any talk. Once I get a few sentences in everything falls into place. I just need to get through the first 90 seconds before my nerves pass. And it only improved through live action.
Any tips on finding a good mentor?
I don't think child abuse necessarily needs to be a separate law from general harm.
Google seems to be falling into a similar pattern with it's many different attempts at chat apps
The entire android rom development ecosystem feels that way to me. Lineage is a bit of an exception with fairly solid and well documented build system, but for by and large, XDA feels a lot like the 90s warez/cracking scene. Lots of really smart people shipping hand crafted blobs on forums.
> As with Lisps in general, it has almost no syntax

That's not true. Lisp has lots of syntax - actually more than most programming language, because the syntax is arbitrarily extensible via macros.

The idea of (operator param param ...) is only valid for function calls, but even then the syntax is slightly more complex, since several Lisps have keyword arguments.

But besides (operator param param ...) Lisp also has:

((lambda (arg ...) . body) param ...)

(special-operator ...)

and

(macro-operator ...)

Each special operator comes with syntax. Example is LET.

LET is not

(LET param param)

but

(let (arg ...) declarations . body)

where arg is arg | (arg value)

declaration the is something complex like

(declare (type (integer 0 3) arg))

for a type declaration for the variable arg, which is an integer in the range of 0 to 3.
I disagree with you. To be clear, "sampling each up and down deflection" is exactly the right idea in the case that you have no other information besides the samples (and besides knowing the hypothesis of the sampling theorem is satisfied). To use the more general version of the sampling theorem, you in addition need to know the center frequency (100 MHz in your example), otherwise you cannot reconstruct the signal. So already the setting is slightly different. You need an additional assumption.

Take a look at Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_samp... it suggests that Shannon himself considered your case an additional point on top of the sampling theorem.
This is a wonderful thing to see and I hope that more vendors will follow suit. Amit Elazari [1] has been doing some amazing work in this field advocating for legal safe harbours for security researchers. She posts regular reviews of security policies encouraging vendors to help protect security researchers using #legalbugbounty on Twitter. [2] In fact, it appears that Amit was responsible for some of the changes to Dropbox' security policy: https://twitter.com/d0nutptr/status/973322158351921152. Well done, Dropbox and Amit!

[1]: https://twitter.com/AmitElazari

[2]: https://twitter.com/hashtag/legalbugbounty
People’s Republic of Desire film review: Yes, Black Mirror is already here
Well, as you said, you aren't an expert on this and apparently haven't ever been briefed by your company's legal team, and presumably have never been in charge of compliance. So your arguments about how the law works are in this situation pretty useless.

Jumping away from that angle though, there's still a lot of issues with what you are presenting. For one thing you keep referring to "authorities" without defining who those authorities are. If you're referring to the company IT, HR, and Compliance officers then it seems like you agree with us that the information should be available to those people. However, since that would be a bit odd with the rest of the context you're speaking about I'm going to assume you mean authorities in some sort of government or law enforcement sense.

The thing is that authorities rarely get involved in most of the cases where this information is needed. Sexual Harassment is not a criminal offense, it's a civil one- people don't go to jail for it, they lose money from it. Outside of taking reports these types of things are rarely investigated by authorities in that sense, and there are remarkably different burdens of proof for each of those. Most companies (and individuals I would imagine) also don't want to make a legal issue out of work ones if they can help it, which means it is often in everyone's best interest to handle certain types of problems in house.

Now, as for the philosophy aspect of things, as long as companies are responsible for managing their own trade secrets, sexual harassment complaints, and security in general then all company property (which includes conversations on company servers and services) are open to that company. This is why I do not sign up for company phone plans (except when I want a separate company phone and phone number), and why my work computer does not have my personal accounts on it.
> That feels more terrifying than some trained and experience arbitrator with respectable work history, to me.

Except when the arbitrator has a grudge against you (maybe personally, maybe more generically - racially, ethnically, etc., maybe he just read a hit piece in the newsletter and is prejudiced against cases like yours). You can have a chance to sway the mob, but you have no chance against the professional who is out to get you.

To understand American system one has to understand that a lot of things there are designed not to produce best outcome in optimal cases, but to reduce harm in sub-optimal cases. It is meant not to solve cases with maximum ease, but to reduce the incidence of abuse. Of course, since people with power - aka the police, prosecutors judiciary, etc. - are not very interested in reducing their own powers they are actively working to undermine this design. Thus plea bargains, testilying, qualified immunity, blue wall of silence, etc.
There are guys making a ton of money with Excel skills. Here is a (smaller) example : https://www.indiehackers.com/interview/ce0aadf068

So it is not a bad skill, and Excel will likely be around for a few more years.
In the context that netflix wants to use these fonts, how is this a problem?
Hollywood first point? ;)
The linked page is not clear on what this actually is. Which AWS service is it the same as?
> The insurance texts posted downthread don't actually seem that "damning" to me. They talk about chemicals etc in a blanket sense. If insurance companies were worried about the gas can for your lawn mower, they would come right out and say it.

Why do you think that? I believe the purpose of the exclusions isn't to warn you about what bad things not to do, but rather to allow them to get out of covering certain losses. So broader is better (for them).
Wondering if we (as a group of people who will face many non-competes) could generate a standard response to these kinds of clauses in employment contracts, which could be more effective then everyone rolling their own.

I made a (pretty bare for now) repo for it if anyone is interested - https://github.com/DBCerigo/non-compete-standard-response/bl...
Does your sister take the bus herself?

I've met people who don't take public transportation and think city buses are basically the Mos Eisley cantina on wheels.
This concerns the bug bounty itself: Is there a Dropbox internal bug bounty program as well? As data is unencrypted, I assume the biggest thread to customer data are Dropbox employees.