skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is interesting:

> We will reduce the data you give an app when you sign in -- to only your name, profile photo, and email address.

What about localization info such as language?

Are all apps switching to 100% US English? Are they supposed to guess a users language from their name and email?

My guess (and this is just a guess) is that the users preferred language is already considered “public” on the graph so perhaps apps don’t need special permission to access it.

If that’s the case, this statement is doing a bit of misdirection by calling out name and profile photo, instead of saying “we will only give your email address plus other information we deem public”
I suspect plenty of people who say they cook with "fresh ingredients" still use off-the-shelf bread, condiments, etc. They may pick organic, more "artisan" brands, but plenty will have surprising amounts of lurking sugar.

Ketchup isn't really any less fresh than the butter/oil.
Trading Strategies for Beginners: Surviving the Bear Market
For the uninformed, how is this different to implementing Google Oauth?
Not sure why I left out Apple, but I agree.

etc covers too many to list though... because everyone is doing it (even yc companies)
Regarding total isolation and regulated socialising, I know, I probably wasn't clear. I should have clearly stated that I concede that point. I wanted to indicate that I accept that I do not seek total isolation at present when I said "if I had to choose between total isolation..." and so on.

The bulk of my previous post was mostly about how I don't really seek to be part of a group of people, I just like talking.

Still, I find it difficult to believe that I would lose my sanity with only myself to talk to. But then again, I've never truly tried it, so I cannot say that I wouldn't go mad.

Though I already talk to myself when I'm just around the house. Not to remember things, just because I enjoy it, maybe a debate about a decision or a topic that comes to mind.

I'll probably stop there before I am accused of being insane (insert awkward laugh here).
Oh please give it a rest with the “popular vote” crap. Everyone knew the rules, and the very good reasons behind them. And we all know perfectly well that all this CA outrage would be a complete non-story if the other side had used them.
Interesting. I've used at least half a dozen languages in my career of ~15 years. Apart from a few categories of language I avoid, I'm much more interested in the working domain, team dynamics, and quality of life.

It has often been to my advantage to be willing to learn a new language for a new project or a new job, giving me opportunities I wouldn't otherwise have had. I learned Oracle PL/SQL to integrate a 7-8 figure Rails app into an accounting system when nobody else volunteered. I learned Rails to get into ecommerce. I learned PHP to become a startup's only web developer so I could write cool audio processing tech in Ruby. I learned Ruby to speed web development in my own startup. I learned Scala to get into the San Francisco market. JS. Java. Kotlin. POSIX shell. C++. C. Etc.

Unless a developer/engineer just wants to be a cog forever, I highly recommend some flexibility on language. Solving real problems is way more interesting and more useful than being a framework stickler.
Morning oatmeal makes me intolerably sleepy. To think that that could be a feature, not a bug!
Yes we all know that. To even start thinking about how to quantify values — and if you follow macro like i do, you know a modern economist can probably quantify anything — first we must inject values into the conversation. Right now, the world doesn't have any values. Except profit, competition, winning, domination and control. It's not even efficient — it's a prisoner's dilemma stuck at backstab/backstab. How do you solve a prisoners dilemma? ... shared values! (“thou shalt not kill”)
Because none of my friends use them.
> A tablespoon of ketchup has more sugar than a chocolate chip cookie.

Ketchup has about 1/3 the calories of a chocolate chip cookie. What does it matter that it has the same amount of sugar?
Well what you described has absolutely nothing to do with GP's premise, and to which I was replying:

> But you let your friend you your wireless off his phone, and he had the FB app and location services on. Well, FB now knows exactly where your IP is, for a while at least.
I'm 35 and have been working in web development since 2007, but I feel like my career has went completely off the tracks since 2015. You see, I have been under-employed or unemployed for three years and I cannot convert any interviews into job offers anymore.

I also have a non-STEM degree and the prospect of going to grad school for CS or Math related courses seems tempting. I don't want to work for local small web shops forever, and prefer to see myself in the long run working at a big semiconductor firm or aerospace firm. However, time and financial issues are holding me back from trying out college again.

If OP's experience is more the norm, where tons of doors open for you simply for having the right degree and preparation, what should I do to make ends meet in the interim? How can I get a job to support myself while I'm attending college, when I can't interview worth a damn? I'm hoping I can get by with a campus job, waive part of my tuition (I've also worked on campus last time I was in college).
Many peoples converted to fall on the good graces of the eastern Roman empire and stop being trampled on so much. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Bulgaria
What tool did you use to make that schema?
> That's the only hole in his statement.

What about the punishment to Christopher Wylie, by closing/suspending his accounts in facebook, whatsapp, etc ?
> IMO, it's an insurance policy against the eventuality that Trump decides to fire Mueller or stall/block the FBI investigation.

We really do need to make sure that doesn't happen and make sure they don't grab any more power while they have the upper hand.

As far as getting people to see realize this stuff... You can't convince a Trump supporter of the sheer level of corruption as long as they think there's a witch hunt trying to make this stuff up.

First the evidence has to be established and legitimized without being attached to Trump at all or the premise of the evidence is compromised in their mind. Does that make sense?

Suppose a report came out that shows how drinking soda is actually good for you. But it was published by the sugar industry. Even if they had some good points you'd probably be skeptical. That's how these people will feel as long as the narrative of this being a witch hunt is perpetuated.

> This is not normal. This is not business as usual. This is a tale of a corrupt political campaign using every dirty trick in the book

I agree.

> Obviously Facebook deserves some blame, especially if they were somehow complicit in this

I think we need to look into them for their data practices in general. Way beyond this case.
Global backlash against tech companies is coming rob burst data/platform bubble
Per-capita butter consumption in the US peaked in 1911, so we've all gotten slimmer since then /s.

More seriously: correlation is not the same as causation, but one of the obvious correlated changes is the increase in consumption of sugary beverages: soft-drinks, fruit juices &c.
I guess you could let the mobile app access third-party servers but require all traffic to go through a proxy where Facebook can examine it. (Either by letting Facebook handle all the encryption or giving Facebook a copy of the key.)

All of this tends to trade one problem for another, though: the user no longer has to worry that the third-party app has access to their Facebook data. But now the user has to worry that Facebook has access to their third-party app data.
> First, we will investigate all apps that had access to large amounts of information before we changed our platform to dramatically reduce data access in 2014, and we will conduct a full audit of any app with suspicious activity.

I am skeptical of Facebook's ability "guarantee" that a third party developer has not cached any data. I would equate this to finding all N needles in a haystack of size M where M >> N; it's just not a feasible task to complete. Even if you find N-1 needles, the last needle can be used as a sort of "mold" to reproduce all N-1 needles. My "golden rule" for the internet is: Once you give up information, assume it's everywhere and impossible to rescind.

I believe this statement will be eaten up by the press, and Facebook will continue to carry on its operations as if nothing happened. The stock will probably recover, and we'll go back to square one. Give it a few weeks.

The true demise of Facebook requires several things to happen simultaneously; a resonance of perfect conditions, so to speak. You've probably heard that Einstein and Newton discovered their theories because "they were decently smart men in the right place at the right time". A similar effect is also true here. If we want to see Facebook's demise, the world must have a suitable alternative in place, one which already has a critical mass. Until then, Facebook has a monopoly on attention and they will keep it as long as they are producing enough positive externality.
Robert Scoble is a sexual predator. I would not be surprised if he also allows companies to pay for him to have a positive opinion, he is an immoral creep.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/20/robert-scoble-has-allegedl...
Mycroft Considering Blockchain Based Voice Assistant
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641550
I'm actually not a fan of CS50. I never took the course, but I went through the online material did the first few weeks of assignments. It is very broad and very shallow. It is also very hard and discouraging without some guided assistance. The students who take it for credit get a lot of help.

For a first CompSci course, the edX Python course is better, IMO.

https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-computer-science-mit...
Oh come on. What if you'd wipe our collective memories but retain our scientific equipment and skills? You'd look at our DNA and see how it matches and differs from other species, you'll start to see that you can build a sort of tree of life from the data gathered. You will find evidence of common ancestry in all species. You will find that DNA can change for better or worse and that if it changes for the better, survival chances are increased. Over the ages this slow process affects entire populations. And when you look to the sky afterwards, you will see that everything is moving away from us and you must honestly conclude that some 14 billion years ago everything was pretty close together. If, at that point someone would show up with a book as his only proof, saying that the world was made in 7 days by an all knowing being and that there are angels, a heaven and a hell and that dinosaurs might have lived within the last 6000 years... how do you think such a story would be received? And what if there were three individuals who have roughly the same book until the story mentions an individual name Abraham. After that the story splits and focuses on different individuals. None of them agree with each other on how to deal with women, live your life or even on what god expects of you.

The only reason these stories have survived into this day and age is because we corrupt the logic of little children to such an extent that when someone mentions the earth is 4 billions years old it just feels very wrong to them and then these kids transfer their thoughts and feelings to their children, etc. The entire idea of christian children is as sick as saying there are garbage collector children or lawyer children. Yet we have no qualms about labeling children in this way. Because that is how it has always been.

And even if you want to play the "there is no evidence against god"-card I'd point the atrocities of the old testament, the lack of reponse to the prayers of children with cancer, the complete neglect of all the misery in the world. This alone would make the Christian god not one I'd want to meet and I sincerely hope he or she doesn't exist.
Discovery was ruined on purpose. I will always rant about this. Youtube wants to control what you see, that has always been the case since Google took over. Right now it's nearly impossible to research something specific on youtube. You searches are automatically "corrected": I search terms in one language and get results in another, google tries to semanticaly interpret what I search (and typically wrongly, ie "temperature differential" --> car differntial videos because they're more popular and profitable). Results aren't complete (they probably create a short search table/cache every few hours based on a finite, semantically-defined number of categories), you can't properly filter by dates, views or any other criterion.
Also the "related" videos are often non-related extremely effective clickbait, based on what they know you'll to binge on, even if you don't want to.

I hate youtube wholeheartedly and Google by extension. I don't know if I'm lucky or unlucky to be aware of the vast amounts of data they hide from public view.

Every day hundreds of people create new channels making interesting, thought-provoking and informative videos, and youtube decides to hide them in favour of clickbait garbage and shitty ads, and take away all means you have to discover them.
I just don't get it. I don't get the enormous backlash over this. Users give away their data to a company, the company sells that data to advertisers (or sells ads and targets the ads according to data), and the users can continue using the service they enjoy for free. This was the contract you agreed to when you clicked the sign up button. I don't get why people are mad at Zuckerberg and not themselves! People act like a company is supposed offer their services for free. The free services is the business model of the internet. You want to use Google Docs for free, fine they'll collect data on what you make. You want to play games for free, fine they'll display ads to you. You want to catch up with old friends, fine they'll collect data on your interests. No one is forcing Facebook users to use Facebook. You know they're collecting data on you. If you don't want them to, then don't use their "platform."
> If they are so honest or like to be honest going forward why can't they make it easy to see all my pics and posts that are public? Why can't they make it easy to see who can see what I posted? Which app or user is using my data. They have billions of dollars and can't implement simple features?

You can do all of that... trivially. As you say, those are simple features. Ones they implemented years ago. Perhaps you should be more specific about what you're asking for?
Try the home tab in incognito. Talk show clips, movie promos & tabloid-esqu stuff.

I get that these things get a lot of view, but... have a little taste. It's like youtube doesn't have an opinion about what's good about youtube. Very Google-ey, but this hit a very obvious plateau.

IMO, Youtube just needs some opinions. Don't be so afraid to call something "good."
Google's business is tracking me despite me not wanting to be tracked. It doesn't matter what they do with that data, I don't want them to have it.

There are differences, but they aren't worth worrying about. You are still vulnerable to being abused by Google's data about you as well as Facebook's data.
Facebook Beacon (2009)
> Care to explain?

Sure!

Caveat: please ignore taxes, emotional value and a few other country-specific details.

When you're buying a home, you're doing 3 independent things:

1) Borrowing money (optional)

2) Making a capital investment into an illiquid, immovable asset

3) Renting an asset that you own to yourself for you own usage

Give how much little money you have (compared to a company) and how your earnings and spending might oscillate, having so much of your assets locked up in an illiquid, immovable, single piece is a bad idea. It prevents you from moving around and taking a new job, for example.

Also, given your individual risk, you have to pay interest rates much higher than what you'd expect from an institutional investor. Also, you don't have any economies of scale for renting out, selling, doing maintenance, etc.

Now if an institutional investor bought a large stock of housing and rented it out, it is:

1) Borrowing money at lower rates than you

2) Making capital investment in thousands of individual, immovable assets

3) Renting an asset to you

With a much larger scale, the institutional investor has massive gains in economies of scale on selling, buying, renting, fixing, etc. Also, it is able to spread the risk of a single house or resident across its entire base, essentially transforming the individual risk into a financial cost to the renters, reducing the exposure to extreme events.

Finally, renting increases an individual's mobility, allowing for better allocation of jobs to different places in a country, improving economic growth and enabling the economy to adapt faster to changing situations.

PS: NIMBYism fucks this up. This only works if new housing is allowed to be built freely based on supply and demand, which is not the case in the most "progressive" parts of the US (Bay Area, for example).
How about with JavaScript off?
I have seen similar comments here before that suggest all email addresses are "public information". I am not sure I understand or agree with this perspective.

What if the address was only used to receive mail, not to send it?
i noticed that too.
People outside of the tech world, in general, do not really know what the "targeted" in targeted ads means though. They think advertising, they think ads in the NYT or on TV. People do "know", but unless you really think about it, or understand how it works, its invasiveness can be easily overlooked.
What is the problem? 50 millions people voluntarily published information about them on the Internet and now they have complaints about someone using it? Don't use Facebook them.

And Facebook is not that bad. You can use Facebook with a fake name and without a phone number. But for example in Russia social network sites require a phone number to register. They have much more to leak.
> What happens if they find that 50 different organizations had access to and may have saved as much data as CA?

Isn't this more than guaranteed? Literally any crappy quiz app or game had access to all of this data when they launch Facebook Platform. And I'm betting Kogan's app was far from the most popular on Facebook at the time -- the potential for hundreds of thousands of data harvesters to have exploited this is way too high. I disagree that it's "the end of Facebook", though... in general, users just don't seem to care that much about this sort of thing. I can say for certain that my parents don't understand what this means or why this is bad (they had trouble understanding what was so bad about the Equifax leak as well), so your lowest common denominator user is never going to budge, even after something like this. I'm just hoping that my more technically-inclined friends start to lean away from Facebook's collection of data aggregators.
Aren't intangibles exactly that, though perhaps a little broader than specifying particular moral behaviours?

Goodwill, Brand (which contains value statements), IP, etc, they're given financial value. Perhaps these don't influence shareholder/public actions as much as they could, but the measures are there at least.
MIT's new robot fish is eerily realistic
The big problem with peer review is almost no reviewing takes place and it is at best is either a way for your enemies to get revenge or a cheap proofreading service.

The solution is to offer a largish reward to the most constructive peer review for each manuscript chosen by the editor, or better by other reviewers. If I (or more likely one of my starving grad students) knew that I would get $1000 for providing the most constructive peer review then I would put in the required effort to make peer review a worthwhile exercise.

One thing that would help the peer review process is a data dump of the raw data. Many times I have seen some figure or table in a manuscript and felt I could not provide a constructive critic without seeing the underlying data. Going back through the editor to get this data is just too much of a hassle most of the time.
The company you work for might try, but the fact that the law states that you are allowed to do your own thing sure helps support a culture of side projects and startups.
> when Obama committed even worse Facebook privacy violations back in 2008/2012

Obama's campaign said they were scraping for academic purposes, downloaded a bunch of data and then lied about deleting it? There are multiple levels of B.S. when it comes to Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. Only one finds comparison in the 2008 or 2012 races (on either side).
I realize you're not the poster I was responding to, but one has to pick one. Either this is a nullop statement, or it is an encouraging, commendable thing to say.

I agree with you, BTW.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy that as anything more than an excuse because Facebook is so good inducing an addictive response. People have been staying in touch without the likes of Facebook for far longer than Facebook has existed. My wife's grandmother, for example, has reconnected with people she hasn't seen in 70 years. All without Facebook. Sometimes they call. Sometimes they write. If one is going to be in town where the other lives, they plan ahead to meet up.

It is clearly possible to do without Facebook and the fact that people use the "but how will I stay connected to my friends/how will I know about events" lines so much proves just how good Facebook has gotten at keeping people addicted.

I would encourage you to disable your account and stay off of it for six weeks. I think you'll be surprised at the results.
You'll see things like the global recession recovery and other major outliers skewing your data.
Thanks, I found the article really difficult to skim for the main points.
Facebook, Google and Amazon could pay 'fair' tax under EU plans
MJIT works by taking MRI Ruby bytecode, replacing the instructions with the original C code, and compiling an entire method using GCC/LLVM.

Because MRI Ruby is a threaded VM, it's easy to replace jumping to an instruction which dispatches to the next instruction, with jumping to some native code which dispatches to the next instruction.

Right now, AFAIK, only very basic optimizations are enabled but just removing the overhead of VM dispatch between each instruction is a huge performance improvement.
Google is adopting blockchain-like technology
I don’t know about the US law on confidential employee data, but in some countries selling data like that would be an open and shut lawsuit (against both Google and the employer).
Have you considered increasing your pricing, and adding more premium features? As a supporter of client-side encryption in cloud apps, I really want to make sure you have a sustainable business. https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/saas_pric...
Eric Sachs no longer runs identity at Google. You have your explanation why right here.
He honestly isn't wrong. People use Google and Facebook everyday for free in exchange for their privacy and they are ok with that. You can ask most people and they'll say they didn't really care about Snowden's leaks. They are happy to use free software and to be under government supervision (I don't care about the inefficacy of it). Privacy really is a social norm of the past.