skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You misunderstood. I was relaying that I, too, have a decent grasp of sampling theory, and that if I understand the article's main premise, then saying they have disproven Nyquist's Theorem with this example is akin to saying that being able to draw both 30 degree and 90 degree angles with a compass disproves the idea that angle trisection is generally impossible.

They have simply shifted in time the sampling of the noise. Even if they argue they synthesize the noise in realtime, they had to have sampled it at some point to know what to synthesize in the first place. It was at this point that they were required to sample at at least 2MHz to accurately quantify their noise at 1MHz.

The mechanism used in pilot's noise cancelling headphones is much the same. they don't sample the engine noise as its being made, they synthesize it from known frequencies.
If I remember correctly, back in the day when the API still existed it would only give access to your friends public information
The mysterious “laff box” invention of American sound engineer Charley Douglass
LDAP/AD and SSO are two different beasts. Everyone uses SAML in my experience and it's a bit clunky but it works and the edge cases are fairly well known.

Is this actually a competitor to AD?
Given that your are advocating for lying to your employees to invade their privacy, I'm not surprised you had issues with interns given what you think is a good work culture.

A workplace that has respect for employees would have turned on 'Compliance Exports' on Slack to begin with. Employees would have understood DM were full searchable.

To advocate for (what seems to be, Slack is currently a bit vague) a retrospective retraction of privacy that was told to employees is pretty awful.

You are also advocating for the ability to browse employees DM's. You could at anytime reset their Slack passwords and read a individuals DM's (but it would also have made you accountiable)
How is auditor going to help in this case? If that company like hide it somewhere secrete and have it encrypted?
Zuckerberg responds to Cambridge scandal, will block data access of unused apps
It's one thing to charge to move the waste to a landfill, it's another to price in the long term (difficult to quantify) environmental costs (manufacturing pollution, land & water contamination, depletion of resources, etc). I'd be curious to see how much the disposal costs reflect total costs and whether some areas are subsidized.
I think this is a great use case for blockchain and in-browser wallets. I imagine a not too distant future where Newspapers can add a bit of open source code that controls access to their content. If I want to read an article, I pay like 50c to unlock it.
3 is a little young but I was definitely playing outside and crossing streets by myself by the time I was 5.
How we should pay for the telegraph and the pony express?
:P

In normal AOSP land, there is no encryption support in recovery. I know we had the same restriction in cm recovery (you couldn't mount/backup individual files from /data, for example). I sadly have no more information on a lineage recovery right now.
> This feels strange to those of us from technical spheres, but much of the world works without formal verification of facts.

Including many technical spheres, and particularly including the vast majority of the software world; formal verification exists in software, of course, but is most notable in not being used for most of it. Yet, even without that, there's usually a release process that includes the moral equivalent of a certification—without formal verification or certain knowledge—that the software does what it is supposed to.
Yes, sorry, I should have been more specific. But what 'exactly' do they know. Does CA know that each person liked EXAMPLE POST ID #12379 on DATE XX/XX/XXXX and that you also like BRAND1, BRAND2, and that you also posted STATUS UPDATE1 on DATE .... What exactly do they have?
World Blockchain Summit 2018
> You can't have a private conversation at work.

I was talking about discretion, not privacy. Those are two different things. Discretion is controlled sharing of thoughts, ideas, and information. Marking documents "trade secret" is an example of discretion. Trade secrets are not private information.

I'm not arguing that information should be unavailable when a warrant or subpoena requires disclosure. I'm arguing that doing the digital equivalent of bugging every conference room in the building is a toxic thing to do, culturally. If the law compels the bugged rooms, we have bad laws on the books.

Two employees need to be able to have a healthy, discrete conversation about working with the boss without having to worry about a transcript of the conversation pop up in a performance evaluation later in the year.
Angular (Angular 2+) and Node.js – The MEAN Stack Guide
How I went from programming with a simple phone to working for an MIT Startup
stats.lineageos.org exists. Bit basic ('big data' problems, storing ~1.7 million anonymized checkins per day in mongo...isn't the best idea).

Personally I try to stick to something with an unlocked bootloader. That was the Nexus line, now Pixels (except a/b updates are still a bit rough under lineage)
The New York Times is reporting that they were also able to collect likes, because this was back when likes could be harvested through the API. Through likes alone, they could supposedly determine race, gender, sexual orientation, and other physical and mental traits/preferences with surprising accuracy.

Here is today's episode of The Daily where they discuss this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/podcasts/the-daily/cambri...
I think the biggest problem is that most of those developers don't want to actually host things in a proper way, like a regular open source project. Everything is on XDA, there's no proper bug tracking, no hosting, etc.
that slice feature remind me of how http://www.webhook.com do the admin area. it is nice that someone else is doing that as webhook is "dead" for some time.
PR's welcome :P
Wall Street Firms Express Concerns Over Facebook Management
The problem is when you lose all technical details and are just left with who you think is good and who is evil.

We should be asking, how do other companies share their data? How much info does someone publishing to each app store get? What do third-party vendors on Amazon get? What do advertisers get?

Also, how much did direct marketers already know before the Internet came along?
Yes, like I said most companies pick onelogin/okta for that layer on top, which have even more features and customization. It's also further complicated by the fact that GSuite and Office 365 have multiple tiers with more identity features and the Cloud Identity Premium edition seems to be 90% about mobile device management.
when you said “move fast and break things” i thought you meant “the unit tests” not “western civilization”
Please don't; that just leads to the same discussion over and over, which makes it off topic for HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16616988).

There's tons of substance to be discussed here without reaching for the global hash table (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9722096). Fortunately the community has mostly been doing that, but let's not spoil it.
Windows 10 vs. Ubuntu Linux with Radeon / GeForce GPUs on the Latest Drivers
If I didn't believe in right and wrong, I would definitely try to get away with much more. Death and punishment are not a problem. As long as death is quick, there is nothing to fear.

There are plenty of instances in our society where godlessness turns into immoral anarchy, such as the inner cities or the upper echelons of Wall Street.
Lol data audit.
This guy is full of it and always has been. If you upload data to Facebook, you deserve Russian malware.
I'm not sure why this contradicts what I said. Atheism, as much as the atheists would have you believe, is in fact a rather extreme position the scale of religious thought.
Piss poor.
Seems incredibly naive for a company who's core business is data, to grant apps full access to all of friend's data. Did nobody realize that was a bad idea?
DAEMON Tools Lite 10.8.0 Crack and Activation Key Free Download
In 2015 Facebook knew CA had the data and yet didn't audit the company till two days. I'd hate to be attorney representing FB in the FTC hearings.
> A channel that is mandated to be kept open loses some discretion for its users, and the loss of power has to be compensated in some way.

Yeah, I was hinting at that a bit. I think tools like SnapChat and encrypted chat clients are reaching for discrete and healthy digital relationships. A lot of the conversation about these tools is about privacy, which is really something else. How someone looks naked is often private. How that biopsy turned out should be shared with people, just discretely.
The main problem is that users can't control their data. FB should:

- Allow its users to delete their accounts as if they never existed

- Show users which person and or service has accessed their data (also FB internally)

- Use backend permission management instead of frontend permission management
Teach at coding/UX summer bootcamp in Palestine: all-expenses paid trip
I Can’t Fix This Android Location Issue
1000 word statement.

Number of times the word "advertising" was mentioned: 0

Facebook continues to pretend it's business model is unicorns and kittens, not selling user data for money.
EFF Helps SEACC Stand Up to Mining Company, Protects Fair Use Rights
My reaction to this claim was that, since Clojure is on the JVM, any advantages Java has, Clojure also has.

Of course, idiomatic Clojure might require less mindshare to make highly performant, concurrent code...
Postgres bulk update:

http://sqlfiddle.com/#!17/b3d19/1

You can do something similar in MySQL with temp tables.

Bulk update through upsert (slightly different than a bulk update, since it can create rows too)

MySQL:
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/a6f050/1

Postgres:
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!17/a8367/1
That was one problem. The other problem was that some app permissions were too broad and not clearly communicated. When you gave an app permission to view your data it saw all your friends' data too, even though they never approved anything. Zuck claims they tightened it up a bit but they apparently want to go further.
Yeah it’s like “oh gosh, they violated our terms of service by pulling 50 million users info! We must send them a sternly worded email with a checkbox to confirm they they won’t do it again!”. It’s inconceivable that there aren’t larger exfiltrations of user data that have taken place - how would they even know?
Hack together a home. Found this shipping container for sale in Springfield, MA
https://github.com/mihaifm/HIBPOfflineCheck - KeePass plugin doing the same thing
Is it just me or does the pricing for form submissions seem, very very (like outrageously) expensive?
> our community x 3

Can 1 billion diverse people be a community? What ties them together? Not place, not creed, not nation, not language, nothing except their humanity (I don't think I'm going out on a limb on that one except for the bots) and the fact that they use FB. I guess it sounds better than "our users", community has that ‘we're all in this together’ vibe. Google would never call its users our community, nor Apple neither, nor Amazon, yet FB can? Is it because it's a social media platform? I think it's a gross sleight of hand to be honest.
Most sites are either high enough value that they should do the hard things, or they should outsource identification in some way. It is ridiculous that low-value sites use passwords, especially where cookies by themselves would suffice.
Companies choosetoencrypt.com sends information to by embedding them in this page:

- Facebook

- LinkedIn

- Twitter

- Google
I think there's a valid case to be made that Spring and the rails auto-loader are pretty annoying/stupid in larger projects (or anytime you're going against the grain).

Every framework has its downsides. Personally I think rails is nice (I am very productive with it).
The issue here is not some developer gaining a temporary snapshot of a few million records, it is that Facebook _itself_ is doing and productizing real-time psychological profiling on billions of people.
My guess is anything your friends can see.

If your friends can see your posts, the app can see your posts. If your friends can see your birthdate, the app can see your birthdate. And so on, so forth.
This is sort of like saying all political parties are the same. We can and should make distinctions.
It's only moving fast when they're breaking someone else's business model, not their own one.
This predisposition to believe our fellow humans is actually hard-coded into our genes. This is one of the reasons it's so easy to spread fake news. The ability to lie to someone without direct consequences to yourself (because, for example, you are thousands of miles away) was not part of our ancestral environment, but it is part of our contemporary one, and some of us are exploiting this newly created ecological niche.
The case is that the culture needs to change. Where it is now isn't healthy.
It would be nice to think some government would take up the issue and do it well. I think it's more likely that someone will build a craigslist version (lowest tech possible, limited financial upside, widely useable) of Facebook that people will flock to.
I don't agree with people who think these scandals will be the end of Facebook. Instead, Facebook will become more entrenched as it develops advanced features to handle national security issues, allow users more sophisticated control over their data, etc. I like that Zuckerburg explicitly takes personal responsibility for everything that happens on his platform in this post.
The conclusion of the paper is well worth a read if you don't have time for the whole thing.

On the inadequacy of the current political class to create meaningful policies:

> "Google and other actors learned to obscure their operations, choosing to invade undefended individual
and social territory until opposition is encountered, at which point they can use their substantial resources to defend at low cost wht had already been taken. In this way, surveillance assets are accumulated and attract significant surveillance capital while producing their own surprising new politics and social relations".

> "These new institutional facts have been allowed to stand for a variety of reasons: they were constructed at high velocity and designed to be undetectable. Outside a narrow realm of experts, few people understood their meaning. Structural asymmetries of knowledge and rights made it impossible for people to learn about these practices."

The general thrust:

> "Google’s Chief Economist Hal Varian celebrates such possibilities as new forms of contract, when in fact they represent the end of contracts. Google’s rendering of information civilization replaces the rule of law and the necessity of social trust as the basis for human
communities with a new life-world of rewards and punishments, stimulus and response. Surveillance capitalism offers a new regime of comprehensive facts and compliance with facts. It is, I have suggested, a coup from above – the installation of a new kind of sovereign power."
How many shares did Zuckerberg sell just a few days before all this became known? (Yes, I know that such sales are announced publicly and planned in advance).
What kind of safeguards would you introduce?

At the very start of Facebook platform the API would anonymize the user's email address, the app would get an app-specific hash, e.g. abcdefg-app123456@facebook.net It was a working email address with Facebook handling the forwarding.

This proved futile as the very first thing that apps then did was to ask users for their real email address.
I feel like they really doubled down on that by naming Kogan.... "see, it was just one bad developer"
Speaking of being honest with ourselves, there is also zero evidence for the absence of God. So far, there's no signs of this being a debate rooted in physical evidence, it's a philosophical question.
Yup. Exactly. The tax system in many parts of the world works on an honor system. We all, as a society, rely on the idea that most of us are honest, good people. There is no way to audit everyone.
Stock Price Prediction with LSTMs
Excited to see what he has to say on CNN. I really hope someone knowledgeable in the actual technical aspects will be present to ask questions.
The parent I was replying to said they ought to keep the Slack logs themselves. If they're logging into Slack to get them, then it is Slack doing the keeping and we're back to Slack doing the storage.
This was how FB has always designed to work from the beginning

Not exactly. In all fairness, as Zuck points out, this is a key part of the story, and in theory, why this is different:

In 2015, we learned from journalists at The Guardian that Kogan had shared data from his app with Cambridge Analytica. It is against our policies for developers to share data without people's consent.

This raises the question of what Facebook was doing (if anything) to prevent this sort of action, but the fact that they just took CA at their word that they deleted this ill-gotten data (of course they didn't), it makes me think they did very little. I think this is just as concerning as any other part of this story. Even if people are knowingly willing to hand over data to Facebook (or the devs of some app) in exchange to use a service, they wouldn't think that it's a free for all and anyone can mine the data for whatever they want.
Of course not - Democrats can do no wrong in Silicon Valley. But seriously, there has been a pretty big lack of mentions of the Obama campaign in the coverage of this story.
Maybe the story wouldn't have been a story if it weren't tied to Trump 2016.
Do you remember if it provided any data that wasn't on your public profile?
Oh boy, would I love that to be the case as an unfunded PhD student, working a separate job as visiting faculty.
Wait, so FB Login won't even give us public profile data anymore? Then that reduces FB Login to nearly just a competitor surveillance tool for Facebook.
As valid and thought-provoking as this article is (was?) I find myself struck by two things:
1) Written in 1968? That was fifty years ago! How greatly our world has changed in that time in terms of culture, yet the Beatles music feels as fresh and immediate today as then. How innocent some songs are "I want to hold your hand" - to a degree it would be inconceivable on today's vulgar radio.

2) The references to contemporary composers of the 30s and 40s were almost totally lost on me. The big bands, the jazz & blues men, and such were familiar. Shows just how few compositions (and more rarely, composers) stand the test of time.

For a delicious counterpoint, I suggest this:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/entertainment/music/sgt-pepper...
A reviewer who called Sgt Pepper (Rolling Stones #1 rated of 500 albums) “Busy, hip and cluttered”, “a surprising shoddiness in composition” and “fraudulent.”

There's no accounting for taste, it seems.
There were probably tens of thousands of apps like that. Maybe more. Most made by small teams that definitely don't care about the privacy implications at all. A lot of that data is still out there somewhere being sold.
P.S. (2015)
> It's not as though Kaspersky could, or arguably should, know the source was the US military.

Indeed. Often a primary goal of operations such as that is to conceal and make attribution as difficult as possible.
Guide To: Heathrow Taxi
Meta: Zuckerberg's statement is, unsurprisingly, hosted at "facebook.com" and uses JavaScript to render. My browser is configured to not execute JavaScript from facebook.com because that site has a reputation for undermining privacy. Therefore, I cannot read the statement that I assume at least has some tangential relationship to the way facebook.com handles privacy. Alas.
2010: Zuckerberg says privacy is no longer a "social norm"
2018: Oops

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/6966628/Face...
> your maps should show where your friends live

Strange to see that bullet point, specifically, as an advertised facebook feature in 2018. I absolutely would not want my facebook friends to know my address, and that's without any specific threat to me such as a domestic abuse situation.
Every search engine of Yahoo's era supported ANDing terms. It didn't help. The result you wanted was still swimming beneath 7 pages of trash. Commonly it wasn't even in the results because the AND was too restrictive.

Backrub is what made Google so much better. Google also really focused on search and made numerous improvements, but the linchpin was backrub.
> but refuses to appear before the US Congress and sends the company counsel instead.

This strikes me as especially interesting. I mean, I'd personally theoretically have my reservations about this congress over and above the average congress, but FaceMark refusing strikes me as a deeply telling datum about how he's thinking about this.
Slavery died out in Christian Europe, it remained in Islamic countries, where it again eventually spread to Europe.

Christians were not in charge for 1700 years, and it took awhile to work through the logical implications of Christian doctrine in a largely pagan society. But, the freedoms all have their root in Christian doctrine. Name another society, secular or pagan, that brought about the same freedoms without Christian influence.

Perhaps the state took awhile to recognize homosexual marriage because the state only has an interest in heterosexual marriage that produces new citizens of the state.
This was the graph api that enabled companies like Zynga to grow virally.

You used to be able to do searches on Facebook like "photos taken by friends of _____" and you could easily stalk them without being friends with them. Today that search will yield photos only if you are friends with them, or they enabled their privacy settings to public.
Reddit Selectively Bans Subs Used for Trading or Selling Without Notice
> But it was also a breach of trust between Facebook and the people who share their data with us and expect us to protect it. We need to fix that.

This is so disingenuous. When almost the entire world has a FB account, ‘fixing it’ now is essentially closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The data has been harvested, it can’t be unharvested. There is no fix.

Personally, I’m disgusted that my data has probably been compromised just because I have some less technically astute friends who sign up for these idiotic apps.

I could deal with FB having my data, and I could deal with being targeted for ads through tools provided by FB. But to have my raw profile data being handed around and potentially misused isn’t acceptable.

I hope the fallout from this is severe for them. It is absolutely a massive breach of trust.
People Were Asked to Name Women Tech Leaders. They Said 'Alexa' and 'Siri'
Exactly, that's the problem with humanism. It is just a dogma without rational argument.
Just saying “A.I” in marketing language increases willingness to pay (data)
Makes sense. But how can a user validate a mastodon instance is not malicious?
www.example.com
> They knew it was illegal but put all the incentives for companies not to follow the rules.

Offtopic but i cant help it. You get what you measure. Which is why economies that only measure profit optimize for nothing but profit. When a nationstate says "It's illegal to do X" but has mandatory accounting practices that do not measure X but only measure profit, we should not be surprised that companies like Facebook do awful things. the GAAP has all but ensured that this happens. You want companies to have values? Then measure values! (alongside profit, not inspite of) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_Accepted_Accounting_...