skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>overly vague and expansive laws that essentially result in every citizen breaking a few laws a day.

I've had the idea that the current system we have, which is basically you're not breaking the law unless someone is watching, isn't going to play nice with constant surveillance.

Currently, if a law isn't enforced, it's de-facto not the law.

Just imagine if computers in people's cars were phoning home to police. How many speeding fines would be issued daily? Failure to (completely) stop at a stop sign? Reckless driving? Look at how China is currently testing the waters with shaming j-walkers[0]. Just wait until this is fully institutionalized.

[0] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/china-deploys-ai-camer...
> I could infer that you are male from the way you type, and I guess you're somewhere between 25 and 35. I haven't looked up your username or anything else, it's just a "feeling".

I think you only really need one or two obvious tells for something like that. The guy you replied to used ", etc.". I think that alone puts him into the bracket you've given, so I'm fairly sure you're correct here. Looking forward to hearing if you are.
I would say that smugness has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with attitude.

I have seen people being smug that they know nothing about a given subject.

That is smugness is almost exclusively about “thinking you're better…”.

If someone thinks they have more knowledge, or thinks they have achieved more; it is easier for them to become smug in that belief. People can also become smug even if they know that neither is true.
How can I politely say "no way" while still getting the job?
Depends. There could be a reference in the main contract listing execution of the non-compete as a condition of the validity of the contract.
Indeed much scientific computing these days is "high-throughput" rather than "high-performance" computing [1], and is done on commodity hardware, including commercial clouds. However there are certain classes of problems that still need highly-connected leadership systems [2,3], but that distinction is definitely blurring.

[1] https://www.opensciencegrid.org/
[2] http://www.nersc.gov/
[3] https://www.alcf.anl.gov/
In Clojure.spec, you spec out namespaced keywords once.

(def email-regex #"^[a-zA-Z0-9._%+-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-zA-Z]{2,63}$")
(s/def ::email-type (s/and string? #(re-matches email-regex %)))

(s/def ::acctid int?)
(s/def ::first-name string?)
(s/def ::last-name string?)
(s/def ::email ::email-type)

Using those keywords you can define maps which specify shapes of data:

(s/def ::person (s/keys :req [::first-name ::last-name ::email]
:opt [::phone]))

Functions have their own separate specifications. Here's one that accepts a person and an acctid:

(s/fdef add-to-account
:args (s/cat :person ::person :acctid ::acctid)

And must be called like this:

(add-to-account {::first-name "John" ::last-name "Smith" ::email "john@smith.com"} 12345)

If you tried calling it with an illegal argument and it's instrumented you will see an error:

(add-to-account {::first-name "John" ::last-name "Smith" ::email "abc123"} 12345)

ExceptionInfo Call to #'scratch.core/add-to-account did not conform to spec:
In: [0 :scratch.core/email] val: "abc123" fails spec: :scratch.core/email-type at:
[:args :person :scratch.core/email] predicate: (re-matches email-regex %)

Here's the difference. What if I have another function that just accepts an email:

(s/fdef lookup-user
:args (s/cat :email ::email)

And another which looks up by last name:

(s/fdef lookup-user-by-name
:args (s/cat :last-name ::last-name)

And now imagine if you wanted to accept either an email or last-name (notice it does not match our person spec). Attempting to use interfaces would quickly get out of control. You'd have to create an interface for every single property and extend interfaces to form arbitrary groups of properties.
I've done this with a client in the past. They badly needed my help but tried to get me to sign some ridiculous paperwork (basically a noncompete / NDA plus more simply for being on the premises). They handed me the paperwork to fill out, I smiled and nodded, end of story. They asked about it again a few weeks later and I just said I didn't get around to it. Never came up again.
Bots and trolls are gearing up to sway Ireland's abortion vote
Apparently it's based off the DEC Alpha. A lot of the important documentation is written in Mandarin, do bear in mind.

I've also heard rumors that utilization on real world workloads is very bad. (Not necessarily agreeing, just relaying hearsay).
Interesting, GitHub recently released a similar tool in Ruby [0], and GitLab uses license_finder [1].

[0] https://github.com/github/licensed
[1] https://github.com/pivotal/LicenseFinder
Coming from functional languages, I really really tried to make optional work in our code base. However, it's inability to interact with checked exceptions or even slightly unusual control flow make it a real pain. It feels like fighting the language. My current suggestion is to pick a nullability annotation, and then wire it through your compiler and IDE, so it tells you if you forgot null checks, or made a superfluous null check on something annotated non-null.
SCL military influence campaigns show how to apply PSYOPS to war zones
> can call anybody in the world

Is this accurate? The House of Commons briefing paper on Select committees: evidence and witnesses[1] describes the power as:

> In general a select committee with the power to send for persons, papers and records may summon any person within the United Kingdom jurisdiction as a witness.

[1] researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06208/SN06208.pdf
Do you still have the photo? I'd be curious to see it!
As a ham radio nerd, packet bulletin board systems should really make a comeback. They fell apart as the internet came about, but in an effort to re-invigorate the now-unused spectrum and hardware TNCs[1] all over the place, APRS[2] was created, which has this nifty feature[3]. We also have a type of email system called Winlink[4] (which runs using the ARDOP protocol[5] or VARA[6] replacing Winmor[7] and Pactor[8]).

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_node_controller

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Packet_Reporting_Sys...

[3]https://aprs.fi/

[4]https://www.winlink.org/

[5]https://www.winlink.org/content/ardop_overview

[6]https://rosmodem.wordpress.com/

[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winmor

[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACTOR
The legal system and lawyers aren't just some kind of conspiracy that only exists to funnel money into their system, they solve a very real purpose.

"Do what the fuck you want" isn't even a good sentence, let alone a statement on what you can do, how your liability is limited, rules on naming and attribution, etc...

Questions like "Can I use this without attribution?", "Can I hold you liable for the code you wrote?", "Will you charge me for using this code?", "What does the license cover? (documentation? just the program? just source code?)", and "Who owns the copyright for this work?" are not answered by the license, leaving them all up in the air.

I'm not going to use code that someone can attempt to charge me for using later, and I'm not going to contribute to code that can cause me to be sued for my contributions not working.

I get the want for simple licenses, but I feel that licenses like MIT or Apache2 are simple enough to be understood by most people, and they fulfil all the checkboxes of a real license.

It's especially telling that the WTFPL contains a clause which calls out a lot of this information for the license text only (must be distributed verbatim or have the name changed, all are permitted to distribute it, and a copyright for the license text).
It's a bit surprising to me to read about the '50s through the '70s as if they were some kind of golden age in Britain. My U.S. impression of industrial Britain during that era is that it was quite bleak and squalid. Perhaps I've gotten the wrong idea?
Just note that very few jobs qualify you for PSLF. Also, I believe if you ever opted for another type of repayment plan (IBR) you wont qualify.
> With permissive licences like the MIT licence, Evil Corp could take your code and improve it, but make their improvements proprietary.

Sure, they could, and as it turns out, that seems in practice to make them more likely, not less, to not only use but also contribute back to the permissively licensed project.

> With the AGPL, if Evil Corp modifies your code and allows their customer to run it, their customer is entitled to receive the source under the AGPL, which allows them to contribute it back upstream to you.

Yeah, but the Evil Corps won't touch it; the first Evil Corp that wants to do something similar to what you are doing as a proprietary project but also have the benefits of open source community will spend the money to reimplement your system with a permissive license as well as building proprietary extensions, and Evil Corps 2...n will also use (and often contribute back to!) the permissive core while differentiating with their own proprietary extensions.
> You cannot, for example, package it, call it something else and distribute it without the source. I don't see how that can be called freedom.

It's intended to maximize freedom to modify and inspect as a whole not at every individual while ensuring that the freedom to do so it preserved for future users. It's a pretty simple and consistent goal and it focuses on the freedoms of the user instead of the freedom of developers. Where those come into conflict like a developer using the code then it defers to the freedoms of 'end' users because in every case the developer of any given application that's used will be outnumbered by the users of that application.

That's my take on it's goals at least.
Kind of an interesting approach to it, I guess. I wonder how far you could take such a thing.

* Could you initial every page but remove any pages you didn't like from a single contract?
* Could you insert your own subtly edited version of their non-compete that you signed?

I'm wondering where the legal line is between the employer's need to do due diligence and the expectation that the employee isn't doing something to trick the employer into thinking that everyone agrees to the employment arrangement.
> The pitch at the time was "you can put your photos on lytro.com, and people who view your gallery can click anywhere to refocus!" But who wants to do that?

JFK assassination researchers.
That information may not be accurate, but either way there's confusion between two related things: Stellar and lumens.

Stellar is the technology which anyone can use to create tokens which may or not be exchangeable for other types of tokens created with Stellar. You can control 100% of the supply of the currency type of your choice within Stellar.

The lumen is the native asset of the Stellar network intended to stabilize the decentralized network. This is mostly pre-mined. Its intended use is as a bridge to facilitate exchanges between different currency types. An inconsequential amount of lumens are used as transaction fees (less than one hundred-thousandth of $0.01) to fight spam.
Which Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Test to Choose?
>What does "grip at the bottom" mean?

As close to the skin as possible. The way I've always removed ticks is to grab a pair of tweezers, use them to grab the tick at the skin, lift gently.

>I think this device can be used to remove the tick without rotating.

Its instructions show using the device to grip the tick as close to skin as possible and spinning a few times with the expected result being that the tick detaches on it's own so
I don't think you'd want to do that. It appears that the device is designed to hold the body and the mouth in place so pulling up will have the effect of squeezing the body, the one thing you _do not_ want to do. Here, I found this from a different website which is pretty helpful.

When using tweezers / forceps, the tick is grabbed close to the skin, gripping the tick at the base of its mouth parts. Twisting the tick then exerts pressure to its mouth parts, which can cause them to break off. You should NEVER twist with tweezers.

The O’Tom Tick Twister cradles the body of the tick and doesn’t exert pressure to either its mouth parts or its abdomen. It can therefore be safely twisted in one direction (either clockwise or counter-clockwise – the tick is not screw-threaded), which allows the barbs on the tick’s proboscis to be freed from the surrounding tissue. The twisting action also helps to crack the special saliva cement that most hard-tick species secrete to fix themselves in. Because the tool doesn’t cause any compression to the body of the tick, it minimises the risk of back-flow of the tick’s saliva and gut contents, and therefore helps to avoid disease transmission.

If you use this tool to lever (like a crow bar) the mouth parts are likely to break off. If you twist the tick one way and then the other, the mouth parts are likely to break off. Twist in one direction only.

http://www.ticktwister.co.uk/why-is-it-safe-to-twist-with-th...

>Which of you is right?

It probably depends on whether this statement is correct:

It can therefore be safely twisted in one direction (either clockwise or counter-clockwise – the tick is not screw-threaded), which allows the barbs on the tick’s proboscis to be freed from the surrounding tissue.

and in my bit of searching I wasn't able to find proof one way or another, just general advice not to twist.
Pagination will also be complicated if not spaghetti code.
MachineLabs is now open source
I think by politley saying "no way" :). When I did contracting I saw excessive non competes and usually when I told them calmly that I wouldn't sign this they would back off without problems. Only some companies made a fuzz.
Ask HN: Is it worth sending a small wire transaction first before sending large?
Hey HN! Is it worth sending a small amount first to before sending a large amount through an international wire transfer? Or it's a stupid thing to do?
“They don’t discriminate against your being because you’re Jewish or gay, but because you’re you. And the worst thing is that it will be true. It sounds funny, but it’s terrible.”

reminds me of the movie gattaca.
If you go to https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=applications you can see a list of everything you've signed up for using Facebook OAuth, then determine from there what sites you still use and adjust logins as necessary
That was my first thought. Disallow inserting into the middle of the list and solution 1 becomes much simpler.
Jimmy Iovine’s Planned Exit from Apple Music Raises Leadership Questions
+1 for Fabric8. It makes running Java in containers much more pleasant, and provides a complete opinionated ecosystem, if that's desired. I work at an enterprise shop that is a Red Hat customer (so we get commercial support on this stuff), and it has made our lives much easier in many respects.
When Obama banned Intel from selling chips to China, it was assumed it would take years for them to catch up. They invested heavily in research and built their own to occupy spots #1 and #2 on TOP500. They also plan on building only ARM-based supercomputers in the future.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2908692/us-blocks-intel-from...

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performan...
I assume that this method was invented for storing some large ordered list - not for a literal Todo list app. Any realistically sized Todo list can be stored anywhere. Hell, you could probably use pingfs for it.
Good article, except for the strange conflation of non-compete with debt. Debt implies an asset of value was received by the debtor at some point. No such thing takes place with a non-compete. Employment itself is a contract, not an asset. That's the reasoning behind CA's ban of these clauses.
At least it's memorable!
Phaedra and Diana, thanks for diving into this. It's exciting to see effort in this area. I'll look forward to seeing progress updates over time.
The 40 hour week was not a gift of tech. It was a hard fought labor struggle. And, if you haven't noticed, we haven't moved that needle again after introducing computers.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
I remember reading about these clauses in contracts as the "fear and loathing" clause
https://books.google.com/books?id=nWWAGnBDzJEC&lpg=PA164&ots...
They may summon you, but would have no means/authority by which to compel attendance or impose punishment. Further, it's seen as more of a soft power:

> [I]t remains unclear what sanctions it would have at its disposal. Historically, those found guilty of contempts could be fined or imprisoned, but those sanctions have not been used by the Commons since 1666 and 1880 respectively. For all sorts of practical, legal and constitutional reasons, it is highly doubtful that the modern House would seriously consider this.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/contempt-witn...
Hi, I wrote the post and am happy to answer a few questions.
Holy shit. That is way, WAY crazier than a non-compete. That is saying you can't work at all for a year after your employment terminates, because anything you produce during that time is presumed to have actually been created during your previous employment, and so belongs to your ex-employer. Even if you go and work for a non-competing company in a completely different field, and invent something totally unrelated to your ex-employer's business, then it supposedly belongs to your ex-employer. Since no new employer could accept that situation, it essentially prevents you from working.

I'm sure that can't be enforceable at all, but it's still completely sickening that a company would put something like that in its terms.
I've had an HR person tell me I needed to sign an NDA on the day I quit because it was missing (they forgot to hand me mine the day everyone got theirs). It included minimum damages of one year's salary for ANY breach. I had a lawyer friend write a much nicer and more reasonable version and told them that was the most I would sign. The only reason I even signed anything was to preserve the connections I had made there.
I've had two agreements that were separate pages, but all the recent ones were part of the actual job offer or employment contract. I feel like that's becoming more the standard/boilerplate.
AMD Ryzen, EPYC chip vulnerabilities to get fixes soon
What about storing all the item ids in a text array (on another table, one related to these items somehow)?

int[]

If the items are being ordered manually by the user, then they cannot be of a very large length.
The fact many of the employees seem to have been given severance would imply that to me.
Also, massive credit for being a pioneer of SaaS per se. IMHO that's the most profound and impressive aspect to their success and legacy.
Sounds like this [1] case where a man received a credit card offer in the mail, re-wrote some terms and sent it back, and the bank accepted it without reading it. He did win the initial lawsuit from the bank.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowin...
In theory you can (but unfortunately nobody does).

Send a letter via snail mail that clearly states that you disagree with their EULA but were unfortunately only made aware of the EULA after your purchase. Include a printed, revised EULA with your proposals for changes. Be reasonable in the changes you propose.

If they reply to you that they disagree with the changes, they can prohibit you from using the software or service, but then you're also entitled to a full refund, of course.

If they forget to reply, their EULA will not be enforceable.
AMD vows to fix newly-disclosed processor vulnerabilities
Selling GF, 500 gold.
Huh, that'd certainly explain why Google wanted to pay $40MM for it. Thanks!
> I'm not sure I'm a fan of that, as that's the opposite of what I see freedom being.

Your freedom ends where other people's freedom begins. That's just basic ethics. No freedom is absolute.

And by releasing important software under Free/Libre licenses, one enables a lot of other people's freedoms that way.

Whereas the distinction of freedom you're looking for is egoistic and self-serving. Which is okay, I guess, for code that you wrote all by yourself, but not for projects where other people participate as well.
I think this is an interesting perspective and worth looking into. For example, targeting democrats in 2016 by assuring them that the election is in the bag so they're less likely to show up to vote.

Though I still think it's necessary to fight the temptation to believe such a campaign is as easy or effective as our conspiratorial nature might want us to believe.
"I've worked with managers like this, and although it might work for some, it was hell for me. "

In that context argumentation is merely an unskilled testosterone filled show of force. I would hate that as well.

That's a bit limited view of argument. Argument is not necessary a fight, or a show of force, but merely two sides defending their view and trying to persuade others.

True teams use argument as a daily tool to reach - not consensus - but an agreed path forward that all respect. Everyone agrees to a "disagree and commit" policy where they whole heartedly proceed on the agreed course and see where it will take them.

The argumentation part is critical to reach this commitment level. Unless everyone has a chance to defend their view, commitment to disagreeable strategies is lower.

If this disassembly of group psychology is unfamiliar I can whole heartedly recommend Patrick Lencioni's "Five dysfunctions of a team".

That said, I have no idea of the quality and nature of late Mr. Jobs version of argumentation.
Then you should spend some time educating yourself about such OSes, like Windows.

A thread based OS is an OS where threads are the core unit of execution, and processes are just a kind of execution capsule with one thread executing by default.

The kernel scheduler only understands threads.

This by opposition to process based OSes like UNIX, where there is a clear distinction between a process and thread execution.

The kernel scheduler handles processes and threads separately.

In many UNIX platforms, a process that doesn't perform any thread related API call, won't have any thread running on its context.

This was quite clear during the days when UNIX systems where still researching how to adapt threads into the process execution model.

And in many cases the impedance mismatch is still visible in modern UNIX systems, like for example what happens to any given thread when a signal is triggered, or to the whole process when a thread decides to fork.

You can start by getting yourself a copy of "Windows Internals" book.

Here is an old version of "Processes, Threads, and Jobs in the Windows" chapter in the 5th edition.

https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/articles/printerfriendly...
Or: make your own company. Campo Santo did!
I am still trying to wrap my head around why is Mule needed. There is a large push at several companies because of: Enterprise Service Bus to help integrate applications, REST API design specing and testing (Mule AnyPoint platform), and API gateways for throttling and applying security policies on API consumption.

1. But there are other message middleware in place, brokers like Kafka, Tibco etc. Is an ESB really needed ? What is the actual benefit ?

2. Do web developers really benefit from using Mule's API design software ? Are there other powerful and free alternatives (technically Mule Community is free but lacks funcationality) or better tools ?

3. What do you lose out if you towards the Mule-way (ESB, API first strategy) ?