skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Libreboot is a "de-blobbed" fork of Coreboot

One of its omissions is that it excludes microcode ROM updates that can be inserted at power on by the BIOS

As I understand it. The CPU's of that era are old enough that they can run without updated microcode being inserted either at system bootup or operating system boot time
If someone manages to determine the secret ID then it fails. What about signing a combination of part of the message (likely some hash) and the user ID. This would create a secret ID, but one which if stolen can be shown to be false since trying to recreate the signature with their ID and the message would fail. Hash collisions between different messages are still a concern, but aren't their known solutions to that problem that can be implemented in combination?
I've found that having to support users has made me a better user myself, making sure that I provide sufficient context and information to aid in debugging, and always being polite and understanding that regardless of how frustrating a problem is, venting on the poor person trying to help you will never help (not that I was an asshole before).

I suppose that falls into the general "walk a mile in their shoes" wisdom.
probably shows how concerned people are getting about the monopoly power a tiny number of companies.
I hope you are right and good luck!
What’s with all of the conspiracy theory type comments on HN lately?
“They demonetized a ton of legitimate YouTube channels in a rush to appease their advertisers.”

It’s almost as if the money those channels felt entitled to came from advertisers. /s
I can confirm! Had the exact same issue and this was very helpful.
Like PETA [1].

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/5b41o2/what_i...
Clearly, Ervine is quite able to defend himself. I'm betting that if I never have any direct communication with him, he won't be able to get me sent to federal PMITAP. Fingers crossed!
I don't think there's enough man hours in the world to accomplish this believe it or not, do you know how many hours of videos per day get uploaded to youtube?

edit: Just looked it up because I was curious, 300 hours of video get uploaded per minute to Youtube. That's 18,000 hours of content per hour meaning you'd have to hire that many people to work 24/7 365 days a year non stop just to view every piece of content uploaded to Youtube.
I will cite this as "Hliyan's Law" from now on.
If monopolies are allowed, the bigger a company is, the increased responsibility it should have. Many of large IT companies deliver free products and services, yet they still make the rules because they are in a monopoly nobody can compete with, because they give it for free.

Since it's not their data, they should have tougher restrictions the more data they handle.

It's weird because those online platform are thriving thanks to the ideal of free speech, but they are not public entities so free speech doesn't apply to them. It is very frustrating to see private interests seize the tools people use to express themselves.

As long as online data rests on private servers which are tied to lucrative interests, the internet will not be a platform where you can freely express yourself.

I have always thought that the whole online advertisement model is unhealthy and not a good system to make the internet cheaper for consumers. Ad blockers are a proof of this. If tomorrow firefox or any browser decide to not display ads and consumers go along with it, it would create a big mess.
Doesn't scrypt suffer from much of the same parameter selection issues? I know I've had to choose some fairly obtuse values when using scrypt for login in a webapp.

In fact, taking a quick look again I find Argon2's "memorySizeKB" and "iterations" make much more sense to me than scrypt's "CostFactor" and "BlockSizeFactor" parameters as it's a lot clearer what's being impacted. I agree with the i-vs-d confusion, but in most cases I think using argon2id as you mentioned should resolve the contention as is already the suggested default in the IETF draft.
>The threat to freedom isn't non-public spaces exercising their rights, it's the nearly complete lack of actual public space online for anyone that isn't wealthy or a hacker.

The issue is that, unless we have some sort of political movement toward a US-Government funded equivalent of YouTube, there will never be a public space online for the average person. More and more of daily social interaction is moving onto a platform on which everything is inherently private, where there is no public square anymore. I'm concerned about a future where technically you can scream on a physical public streetcorner but have it mean nothing at all in terms of impact on public discourse. "What good is speech if you are unable to make a phone call?" to twist the Matrix quote.

>If you want to publish your content with your own hardware on the Internet, you can. The tools aren't very good to do it, but you can. When the problem becomes network providers censoring your views, then come back to me.

The problem is that there's nothing fundamentally different about the arguments when it comes to the network providers. They're also private companies, why should they be forced at gunpoint to deliver content they disagree with? And yet we acknowledge that having the phone company shut you down for political speech on their phone lines would be an overstep even though the phone company is private.

At a certain point, the sheer dominance and size of some of these social media networks means we should be treating them differently. The fact that, as you say, "People treat Facebook, Google, etc. etc. etc. as if they themselves are The Internet" means that there is a distinction of kind that the citizenry are perceiving. I don't think the solution is just to say they're wrong, but rather to find a way to formalize this implicit categorization into something workable.

It seems like the options are to regulate, nationalize, or build government-funded public alternatives to mega-social-media systems. Other options are to add some better system of decentralization that nonetheless allows users to access the common public pool of an audience and not just ghetto-ize themselves into irrelevance and destitution.
I think the only thing that could have been done differently is to ask the police to search her for potential firearms but then you have to wonder if they're legal or not and if they'd have the right to confiscate them.
People ahould not put too much trust in youtube-like companies. If you have a youtube career you don't really have a real career/job. You just found a way to make easy bucks. Youtube is not the "internet" of videos. You can have your own website
Sounds like you're doing a little monday morning quarterbacking here. Neither of us heard the dad's tone or saw his body language, so neither of us knows just how strongly he was communicating "she's going to Youtube because she hates them."

But, if we are to judge on the words alone, nothing in that phrasing says "mass shooting in the offing." Most people who go to the offices of a company they have a grievance with are going there to complain or raise a ruckus, not start shooting folks. As evidenced by, you know, the extremely anomalous nature of this shooting.

("extremely anomalous" as in "mass shooting of a corporation you're unhappy with", not just "mass shooting," because those are a popular pastime in the US.)
0% tax on retained earnings.
Bingo! Think Antifa or the students protesting someone at school and not letting them speak.
This doesn't do a good job of supporting its thesis. The new syntax does in fact allow most devs who understand "traditional" class based inheritance to use JS the way they expect. The fact that it's implemented in JS is both good and also OK to ignore for most devs.
You can't justify murder.

Edit: I didn't mean you personally.
Can you imagine if most new artists start signing with this supposed new label. If it happens Spotify will be a monopoly soon enough and artists will be in a way worse state than they are now.

Making a TV series or a movie is not the same as making Music. Artists sign with a label and they are more or less stuck with them.
To be fair, it is bullshit that they demonetized peoples accounts without paying them out.

Most small YouTubers that monetized their accounts have no other revenue streams with adSense. So when YouTube cancelled their YouTube Partner Program these people wound up with stagnant adSense accounts that were probably below the payout threshold. I tried in vain to get YT to pay out my adSense account because there would be no way for me to ever hit the payout threshold. I tried to explain that there is no difference between holding my money in escrow forever and stealing my money, but the YT reps (who were very unhelpful when I asked for resources to cancel YT Red) largely blew me off and insisted that the money was mine without recognizing that they would never let it out of their possession.

It really was a sly trick and not at all in keeping with the "Don't be evil" mantra.
Yes, it has by far the largest user community.

If you do a google image search for 'grasshopper geometry' or 'grasshopper architecture', you'll see a lot of buildings designed with grasshopper, including many which have been constructed.

There are other interesting things going on, like automated construction with robots or laser cutters. For example, theverymany builds massive organic structures out of laser-cut metal pieces, and the living (new york) did some interesting things with robotic placement of bricks.

New design tools specialized for automated manufacturing methods.
> It was only a matter of time until one of those furious victims took up a gun to get revenge.

A victim of a free service? The degree of entitlement on display here is ridiculous. You have no right to the service to begin with, no right to the audience and no right to the income. All you have is the potential, and if you don't like the terms of service you can instead of bringing a weapon to the company you disagree with fuck off and host your own content.

If all business disputes were sorted out by people taking up arms then it would be a pretty wild world.
That is possible! But not likely, as most of the other car manufacturers have slow-rolled EVs until now, preferring press releases to progress, compliance cars to real engineered EVs.

In the US, at least, automobile manufacturers have been lobbying against fuel efficiency standards that basically require them to make EVs. And they've succeeded. Car makers talk out of both sides of their mouth on EVs, and their slow-rolled EV deployment shows they really don't believe in it.

Tesla still has a strong edge (cemented with the Supercharger network that is still unrivaled by any other network) and is beefing up manufacturing as well, to the point that long-term they may be able to beat the status quo for car manufacturing automation as well. It depends. Are traditional car makers going to continue to lobby against fuel standards instead of actually deploying EVs at scale? If so, Tesla will be fine.
Would it be illegal to do some kind of auction?
I'm not an American. The fact that a targeted online advertisement shown before the video is associated with the video and not with the platform, and requires damage control is perplexing and unexplainable to me... "There is no direct relationship between the video and the ad - It's matched by the machinery to the viewer, not to the video." should be the official answer and the end of the story.

Is an ad exposure before a "controversial" video any different in its effect compared to "acceptable" video exposure? It shouldn't be. I presume ad-to-video strong association is some kind of established US norm, where you pressure companies to "pull ads" when something offends you. Not being able to pull ads in a targeted manner is unacceptable I suppose, and that great American institution of pulling ads is "ought to be preserved".

Also I don't understand why Youtube went with advertisers' demands -- they have near-monopoly, big coffers and can impose their own rules. Like "You can't dictate at the start of which particular video your ads are shown, only the demographics and some keywords". The current set of rules is giving advertizers the power they shouldn't really have. It's as if the ogranization is willing to implement what equals to advertizers moralistic/political policing of content.
I think he's talking about the luxury yachts... interceptors can't covops cloak. (And t3's can't instant warp _and_ have bubble immunity)
Are you just extrapolating assumptions here? Because you're saying a lot that hasn't been said.

E.g.

> An example of how some people are so triggered by advocacy groups (in this case PETA) that it just takes a slight economic misfortune to bring out the guns?

They said she was a vegan activist [1], not part of PETA.

> An example of how when the shooter is a woman she is not really demonized the way guys are (even when being an immigrant)?

Where did it say she's an immigrant? Her parents maybe.

[1] I really hope the media doesn't spin the vegan part.
Reverse AI Alphabet – How to become an AI guru in 2 mn
Animal violence is controversial. I added the vegan bit to clarify that she wasn't, I dunno, a dog fighting afficionado. Her content (which, again, I haven't seen!) was "controversial", it wasn't a straightforward ToS violation.
Getting to Venus is somewhat easier with good mission design, utilizing aero effects. Getting back is notably harder.
YouTube, Facebook, etc. should be public spaces. The problem is they're right now one single public space and people can't disengage with speech they don't like, which is as much their right as I should have the right to publish it. You want centralised systems in order to reap benefits from economies of scale and so you can use the ad revenue from more acceptable publications to support publications on more controversial topics, which are, or might be, nonetheless important to society as a whole, even if certain citizen groups don't like them. And you want it centralised because no single person can bear the costs of publishing videos online.

Ultimately service providers have to take a stand for free speech and allow both the publishing of controversial media, as well as let people easily filter out what they don't want to see. I would really like to see a youtube in the model of reddit or 4/7/8chan where you can manually segregate by "board" and just not engage with speech you don't like. This entire problem is because each new user content publishing site has to re-learn the lessons from UseNet, except the ones that are popular today want to take away the voice of people they don't like and put them in some underclass that doesn't have access to what everyone else has. Let people pick their spaces, move or delete content that doesn't fit the space it's posted in and warn&ban repeat offenders.
:( glad you got help bud
There is https://d.tube/ which pays content creators with crypto coins based on watch time. What's interesting too is that instead of having ratings on videos, it shows you how much money a video has made.
Why does this sort of thing not require an amendment to the constitution?
Ladies fighting because of a man dont miss this
It’s not the media’s fault. If you’re going to blame anyone - blame the advertisers. They are the ones with the money everyone (YouTube and YouTubers alike) is trying to get their hands on. Unfortunately they are the ones who hold the cards at the end of the day when it comes to their money.
I don't think this kind of reaction is about philosophical "right" to an income from a particular company, more about sudden changes. It's similar to being fired: you previously got an income from this company, then they decided not to give you an income. Some people get angry at that, and sometimes feel desperate, worried about ending up homeless etc. depending on how much they relied on this income and what kinds of safety nets they have access to. Which is all true even if the company was within its rights to fire you. Of course most people who get angry about being laid off don't shoot anyone, but it's unfortunately not really a new story in the US (Google for something like, [laid off employee shooting], and there's dozens of hits).
I get the same impression when I have to use Windows. What in Debian amounts to "change a configuration file" is usually "install this (proprietary) program" in Windows.

I guess it's a matter of habit and expectations then?
It wasn't the media that pulled the trigger.
Concrete Mathematics is solidly an undergraduate text. Much of the material in it would already be taught well before graduate school. The preface actually states the book takes comes course material taught to graduates and junior/senior undergraduates and presents it for a “wider audience (including sophomores).”

Otherwise I basically agree with your comment. I just take issue with calling Concrete Mathematics a graduate textbook, because I hear people say that as though it’s not an appropriate recommendation for learning. That gives me the impression they’ve not actually opened up a graduate textbook in math or computer science. Concrete Mathematics might not be year one material, but you can do it after a calculus course and maybe an algorithms course. Contrast this with an actual graduate course, like convex analysis and optimization. Textbooks at that level would definitely not be accessible for most undergrads.
There isn't, unfortunately.
Even in the UK, a supposedly rich Western democracy, people are regularly going hungry. I think you're overstretching by a long way.

The capacity for ending hunger is here.

Probably UK companies throw out enough food to feed all those who're hungry in their locality [1]. But hunger is still a big problem. It's going to get worse here too. The recession brought food prices up significantly, Brexit will do so to.

[1] high-street companies used to sell off perishable goods cheaply at the end of the day. Now they lock them in bins. Because poor people would buy them to save money, poorer people would "steal" then from the bins.
I am off the opinion that it is precisely because of the backwards copyright policies, namely the DMCA, that YouTube ever became a monopolistic force on the internet.
One problem with bootstrapping a network of users of an encrypted messaging app/service is that info about the network of users itself arguably needs to be secured too.

But you're still probably right overall. Marketing to businesses or teams within businesses is probably the best bet.
Lessons from “The Profit”
Happens on TV relatively often. Bill O'Reilly got the boot because advertisers pulled their ads after he got caught up in sexual harassment claims.

TV just has also built up years of trust with advertisers and have legal departments reviewing all their content while YouTube was throwing up ads in front of ISIS recruitment videos.
I want to get an idea of the average compensation (salary + bonus) that SREs are making in the Bay Area. Do you have junior/mid/senior level experience? Are you working for a startup or a large established company?
I'm going with unrealistic expectations.

Instagram celebs are either hot girls, or guys with lots of money to pay for promoted content.

They dont take their own photos, they use professional photographers. Anyone without the professional style or not willing to play facebook's algorithm game loses out.

The internet is getting very specialized and content quality is skyrocketing.
If they start a label, the smaller labels will be the first one to feel the heat. Spotify would need to swallow them all to garner power so it can fight the bigger fish.

If Spotify start a label and is successful with it, the Music industry will most likely end up worse state than it is now.
Do you mean devs spending at least half their time on the phone? Or just on call?
There was a rather large amount of hatred for Steam when it first came out. I was one of the haters, so I remember it pretty clearly. We had a lot of reason to doubt, but we were won over as Valve kept improving the platform and didn't end up using it for the evil we expected they would.

Having once been a Linux Desktop evangelist, and knowing what I do about modern Linux Desktops, I feel I can safely say that very few people are going to be won over by it.
That's kinda what I thought, but I figured I'd give twenty spot the opportunity to say what the signs are. I've not spent a lot of time around schizophrenics, so I wouldn't know what to look for. I have, however, spent a lot of time around Aspies and would have a gut feeling for that after watching for an hour, so it doesn't seem implausible to me that he sees something I don't.
AIPY: Learn AI on Mobile
how did you turn it into a career?
Free learning path: foundations of blockchain
> Media outlets are (in many cases) just trying to report on things.

I would be more guarded and say in some cases. The previous comment's accusation that "mainstream" media, televisual, radio, & written, is stoking the anti-youtube sentiment has legs to stand on. Self publishing and social media are their competition and as they are getting desperate they are playing dirty. This is true of both the big players and some collectives of small players (which like those in the Sinclair Broadcast Group are effectively one big player as the individual outles have to tow the corporate line). The hope that moving bits of advertising budgets away from online outlets will mean that some of it comes back their way.

Of course this doesn't in any way make them culpable for the events at youtube's offices this week.

Similarly while youtube's terrible user support (which I'm told is very much in keeping with Google's apparent policy of "like we give a fuck about individuals"), while it may have increased her ire, can't be considered even partly responsible either.

The woman obviously had issues, and they were going to blow up in someone's face sooner or later if not treated. I can't pretend I have an answer, as it is a very complex issue, but a key part of the problem is the lack of support available for those with mental problems, and the lack of ways to protect the rest of society from the fallout when something pushes people over the edge.

Lack of gun control is also part of the problem too IMO (sure she could have attacked with a knife instead, but knife attacks are generally less deadly).
Well, it also removes the need to tediously write prototype definitions...
Actually, we have some very advanced materials which I know from personal experience can hold concentrated sulphuric acid for years! Here is an example of a container made from this amazing material: https://www.restauro-online.com/Sulphuric-acid-95-97-pa-Reag...
Yeah you're right, and those people who got shot probably deserved it because they were probably racists or something.
Don't companies like Google and Facebook paint an altruistic picture of themselves which creates the expectation of "rights" from its users? You can't gob up all that juicy PR and political correctness then whack people with a reality hammer and expect them not to be surprised.

This was a terrible tragedy and as with all tragedies I fear it will cause parties to double down rather then be introspective of themselves and find a way to grow from it, be it monetization policies, gun rights, office security, etc.
Or they have absurd amounts of cash and manpower to throw at the situation.
No sane person would argue that what she did was okay.

With that disclaimer, I can't help but feel sorry for her. In the unregulated gig/"creator" economy, someone's entire career - not just their livelihood but their life's work - can be wiped out in an instant. In her case it doesn't even sound like it was intentional. An algorithmic blip. That kind of hopeless, pointless loss would make anybody's mental health take a nosedive.

It's time the government stops treating the tech giants as neutral, private platforms, and acknowledges how big the pieces of society are which they underpin.
Moderate alcohol drinking does not lead to better health outcomes [video]