skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
cpansearch.org is actually nothing to do with cpan.org - the search.cpan.org hostname is just a CNAME for convenience (my point here being that calling it "queries on CPAN" implies some officialness that doesn't exist) - and it seems the .eu mirror of cpansearch is currently toast.

The GeoDNS is giving out a dead IP to europe but live ones to the US, specifically 199.15.176.188 and 207.171.7.49 - so you can monkey patch your hosts file temporarily until the .eu mirror gets brought back up (it's been reported, but volunteer maintained things ...)

Oh, and we're planning to try using rel=canonical to convince google to actually frigging index metacpan.org instead, since apparently their algorithm isn't able to figure out which site is actually being developed on their own (last time I chatted to him about it, the creator of cpansearch.org is genuinely looking forwards to being able to retire from dealing with it, just obviously there's a lot of work involved in a full cutover)
Did Lineage OS not ship a fix?
Could you please link your blog?
Why Zappos Pays New Employees to Quit–And You Should Too (2008)
Node.js can HTTP Push
How to attract investors for my SaaS project?
> in practice it creates a barrier to adoption and makes the social network kinda useless

The main thing is that you're trying to bootstrap new cultural norms. If there weren't so much inertia around free services, people would probably be fine paying a few bucks per month for certain classes of services.

I've always thought it would be a great idea to fund message boards, communities, etc., by keeping track of users' individual resource usage and making that info visible to them.

GitHub is free for most, for example, and others pay for some extra perks. But even then, the price structure comes off as pretty arbitrary.

Since Patreon became a thing, I've seen some people set up funding goals that take the form of explaining that it takes, say, ~$85 per month to cover the costs of running servers, but that doesn't really accomplish what I'm talking about, since it's still too easy to treat it as a shared commons.

A running sum is able to make the point unambiguously; it says something along the lines of, "because of the requests we had to handle to serve your use of the site, we are now on the hook for paying $2.74 so far this month". If you're a magnanimous admin, you can continue operating free services, but just "soft bill" people with a pay-what-you-want scheme (by which I mean guilt them). If you're actually trying to cover costs you do hard billing, but offer the first year free or something, which also removes one of the barriers of getting started—so long as we're operating on the assumption that we've already managed to establish it as a new cultural norm.

Resource-proportionate billing also has the nice side benefit of getting people to be more conscious of wasting time on the site—breaking the cycle of idly refreshing the home page to procrastinate.
Solutions for a Stalled NAFTA: Stop Pushing So Hard on IP, and Release the Text
What are the pros and cons vs Websockets with socket.io, and do all modern browsers support it?
Of course it wouldn't be unfair for one person earning 100% of all income to pay 100% of all taxes!

So let's see if that's happening...

Top 1% pay 40% of all taxes. How much of total income do they earn? Interesting, only 21%. Looks like they already take on a much higher burden than their income alone would suggest.
Featured in Interaction Gallery on Behance: iCab UI/UX
and meat, and unrefined grains and legumes (or partially so). There's processing, and there's processing. I don't even have to tell you I'm suggesting the avoidance of refined grains and added sugar.
Two Brides take their final exam in wedding gown – Goldsmeet Story
If you're in the US you receive about 3 spoofed "spam" calls a day telling you the IRS is sending the cops after you, that you need to pay for Mandarin classes (in Mandarin), and "Vacation Opportunities"... so the idea that spoofing a telephone number is difficult or rare is obviously untrue.

The idea that an automated read out of an address (especially any number) makes capture difficult is a little strange. If nothing else, hire Mechanical Turk for 5 cents.

What the value of the information is (and whether it's below cost) I don't know, but the fact that you have Comcast shows that you have a fair bit of disposable income ... so whether it's another spam call to a known good number in a targeted location or just to check if you're home before you're robbed... I'd say it might be worth at least pennies.
> They weren't compensating them to fill scripts for the generic.

They're not out there to make sales for old drugs (drugs that have gone generic). They're out there to make sales for new drugs, which don't have generic equivalents at all.

No pharmaceutical company is going to waste money on sales for drugs that have gone generic, and certainly no pharmaceutical company is going to try and incentivize providers to DAW prescriptions. Aside from being already illegal, even an unscrupulous company wouldn't bother because it'd be a tremendous waste of money.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. I'm not a good fit for most labels so I've got quite a varied social network, and I've been pushing the idea of UBI out to them to gauge what folks think. It's approximately what you've mentioned here. Average people seem skeptical but open to the idea, interested but certain there's a catch. Republicans look at it like a way to cut welfare funding and Democrats look at it like a way to increase public assistance. I've got friends on both sides looking across at one another, wondering how something could be both things at once. I personally think most Americans would support UBI if it were spelled out clearly what it is and also what it is not.
For the impatient, skip towards the end (zinger at 5:20):

https://youtu.be/M9xMuPWAZW8?t=295
> This clueless banning/taxing/penalizing folks for living as they please is inconsistent with American values. More typical of nanny states and other less savory government styles.

Bollocks. Read your law books. Weed is only recently legal in some states. Ciggies are taxed heavily, so is petrol. Try walking butt naked in the streets.

My point: your values are arbitrary. And calling them American(TM) does not give them any credibility in my eyes. In fact what you are doing is similar to what you despise in others: setting some standard and calling it "universal" (ok US-niversal)

> To make it clear: what people eat and how they exercise is a very personal matter.

Except:

When there is a public healthcare system that takes care of you fuck up.

When advertising is everywhere shoving "eat unhealthy crap" messages into our collective sub-conscience.

When some sentient being needs to suffer/die/have-children-taken-away-at-birth/is-forcefully-impregnated-(also-called-rape)...

What I'm saying is that I see cases around me of diet not being a strictly personal choice. I think if you try hard you can see it too. It's not so black-white as you make yourself believe.
The timeline for the first one is just sad.
Why penalize hyper-productivity?
Initially I think due to disruption to banking and government monopolies. Outrageous fees, pitiful interest rates, and financial services only accessible Monday through Friday 9-5 and sometimes on Saturday seem pretty archaic today. People who never had access to a bank can send money to anyone peer-to-peer like cash. Millenials largely prefer to invest their money into cryptocurrencies over traditional assets, which I believe has largely been monopolized by a firmly established few.
Being able to share a private thing and have it remain private is the whole point of encryption.
I am still trying to figure out why Orkut was more popular in India.
Nuitka: A Python Compiler
> You need to build density to reduce the share of land cost per dwelling

Or (meaningfully) make proximity less important.
Is there any real evidence of "shadow profiles" or are people just speculating due to confirmation bias? If you give millions of mutual friend recommendations there's bound to be a few that hit.
What does it mean to "connect everyone"? It seems like a meaningless statement. Not only is it not feasible in the literal sense, but wholly undesirable.
Would you make an investment if there was a risk you lost it all, but the best you could expect would be all your money back, not a dime more?

Probably not.
Facebook has to infer intent, unlike, say Google Search, which can get it directly from your keywords. FB has built a data halo around its users to try and infer that intent. Hard to imagine them ever giving you control over that additional data they collect around you, since it's their competitive advantage. But also proving to be a double edged sword because it's creeping out their users and other actors are starting to exploit it for political ends.
Imagine they interview everyone who conceivably could've talked to CA during those years. And everyone says, no, we never worked with them directly. So then Zuckerberg testifies that, no, no Facebook employees ever worked with CA. But then a few weeks from now, some old emails are discovered that prove otherwise, which one of those interviewees forgot about somehow. Now Zuckerberg is on the hook for having lied to Congress! And literally no one would be satisfied that he "thought his answer was true at the time."

Lawyers see this sort of thing happen all the time. Coaching Zuckerberg not to give answers like that, would be one of the first things they'd do to prepare.
Equality, comrade.
How about mp3 (or other) compression? Would not the information be lost?
The Giant List of Shit Mark Zuckerberg Swears He'll Get Back to Congress On
The ultimate problem I have with this idea is that it only makes creating structures slow, not actually taking action. (We lost the kind of friction that would slow down the latter around the time TV and radio appeared.) So even without social media we can have hasty, knee-jerk extreme reactions to pretty much anything, they just have to go through the established structure.
I'm not following. A shadow profile is for a non-FB user. How does that benefit their advertising clients who are buying access to FB users?
Why not build the endpoint into one HomePod (the master) and run a wire to the other (the slave)? As a user, I would be perfectly happy running a cable between two stereo speakers.
Every job has a physical and mental component, so it is difficult to determine exactly where you are drawing the line. But if we say that a mental job is one that is done primarily sitting at a desk, I would suggest that the majority of jobs still fall under the physical labor classification. In fact, the agriculture sector alone, which the industrial revolution changed more than any other, is still about the same size as the entire information sector.

To dig deeper: If we look at the fastest growing jobs, according to the BLS, there are very few on the list that are not primarily physical jobs. Of the top 10, there are only three that I would consider as being more mental than physical.

If this is what a post-industrial revolution that replaced physical laborers looks like, I'm not sure why we're worried about some future information revolution. And that's without even accounting for the fact that the information industry itself is tiny.
Monumental benefits, which also extend to obesity prevention by virtue of the elimination of problem-stuffs in the face of obesity (canned soda, fried foods and snacking chips). They're at once high-calorie, facilitate eating a near endless amount (anyone can go through an entire bag of chips), and addictive.

All of which to say, you'll be making the task of losing weight easier just by switching to healthy foods, which you should be doing anyway. It's not "complicated", it doesn't need to be politicized.
When I read your comment, I immediately thought of someone using a web proxy to find security flaws.
Yep this is the the best real solution I think. A recording is a snapshot in time and it makes sense to print track/s to stems after plugins so can be remixed later if so desired.
The legal services industry in the US is around a $250 Billion industry, example of a automation of 0.004% of that doesn’t mean anything. Again the Toyota story doesn’t seem to contain any long term, industry wide statistical analysis. Without that it’s just an anecdote.
Project Zanzibar, a human-computer interaction project from Microsoft Research
Quit killing me, you jerks.
This feels very derivative of an article (https://www.gkogan.co/blog/how-i-learned-to-get-consulting-l...) that I’ve seen reposted a couple times.
Neat, it's always really cool to see folks get their feet wet in the DSP field! (Props to the author for trying to get through the dense Wikipedia pages.)

Minor correction for the author: this isn't amplitude-shift keying, and the way to tell is to look at how demodulation works. The detection code asks if a sample is negative or positive, but "how large is this sample?" is never asked. An ASK demodulator effectively thresholds the signal on amplitude and in the simplest case this boils down to "is there a signal or not?"

The implemented code has some flavor of phase-shift keying (the inversion of a sine wave flips the phase 180 degrees), but since there isn't guaranteed to be a steady carrier, it seems like it'd be hard to decode as a pure PSK. The all-sample offset (constant above or below zero) can also be treated in a way as a PSK process, with the carrier being DC (0Hz).
It's a real mix. Higher end malls in growing urban areas, in particular, are doing pretty well. Low end malls with bankrupt anchor stores in more stagnant areas, not so much. Within probably a 30-45 minute radius of where I live, there are malls and shopping centers that are always packed and ones that look about ready to close down.
Honestly, there are much better tricks for steganography if that's what you want. The very fact that this renders as human-readable text with a standard web browser pokes a huge hole in the problem of keeping it secret.
> Such things are to be kept to a minimum.

So you agree it is there? Are you against them taxes now then?

Don't act like the US is some an-cap utopia or something, it full of tariffs, permits, taxes, privileges, etc., pretty much like any western country. Slapping a heavy tax on unhealthy foods is not making a huge diff in that picture.
Or Zune, even now.
I bought the app. A few ideas:

- When importing, it would be great to see that "importing" is not a copy of the exact same data, but rather a reference or link (like a symlink). I have 40 gb of music on my iPhone. I don't want to double that by using your app.

- Needs a nicer looking app logo.

- Needs a cooler app name that is more original than "Doppler".
Facebook is in a completely different privacy universe from Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter and Snap.

Facebook actively employs dark patterns to get people to over-share. Google does not.

Facebook has a social graph of 2.2 billion people. Google does not.

Facebook has been caught repeatedly, systematically and recklessly leaking personal information to third parties over the last decade and a half. Google has not.

The 84 million profiles Facebook leaked to Cambridge Analytica is the headline, but it's far, far worse than this. Facebook quietly acknowledged that they've also leaked profiles of "most people on Facebook" to "malicious actors" [0]. There's nothing even close to this in the Google universe.

Facebook is the primary vector for subversion of democratic elections around the world (not only in the US, see for example the Philippines [1]). Google is not.

There are many alternatives to Google services that are a click away. There is no real alternative to Facebook.

So yes, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter, Snap, etc. have a lot of data, so they're on the list. But they're not in the same league as Facebook.

[0] https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/restricting-data-access...

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-07/how-rodri...
But there’s a huge difference between making a moral case for taxing the wealthy, and making it possible to tax the wealthy, isn’t there?
Rails Service Objects: A Comprehensive Guide
Yeah, I guess. Except that std::variant is basically a glorified C union with all the drawbacks that entails.
It was really popular in Brazil, too. It would be cool if they just open sourced it, or launched Orkut the 2005 edition with security patches today. I would use it if it was web only.
That might be tough for the Shapiro's argument. The EROS site is no longer available, the mailining lists are no longer available either, and citeseer's google results aren't working at the moment. Shapiro mentions a few issues in this paper which mirror the L34 arguments below [1].

For L4, there's brief mention here of the VFiasco project which attempted a verified L4 using C++, which failed despite considerable effort [2].

[3] is perhaps a better review of what worked and what didn't work in L4 research, and they explicitly discuss the issues, such as the fact that C++ conveyed no real advantages over C, the extra complexity of C++ made verification intractable (even for a subset), and practically, the availability of good C++ compilers for embedded systems was limited.

[1] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PQMCrw4...

[2] http://web5.cs.columbia.edu/~junfeng/09fa-e6998/papers/sel4....

[3] https://ts.data61.csiro.au/publications/nicta_full_text/8988...
“For example, some studies have shown that evening people are less likely to eat a healthy diet and more likely to use substances such as alcohol and illegal drugs, compared with morning people.”

Where can I acquire research funding? I have groundbreaking hypotheses I would like to test such as “people who smile more are happier” or “people who have high net worth are more likely to purchase expensive watches”. I am highly qualified to pursue this research - I have a solid foundation in high school statistics and took a freshman sociology course.
Spiking neurons in the browser
>We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science and technology. And this combustible mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, is going to blow up in our faces. Who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don’t know anything about it?

Carl Sagan
Okay, I guess I'm the contrarian here, but I'm not sure why any of this is surprising, or even a problem.

Facebook users signed up for a free service that allows them to communicate with other people in an enjoyable manner. Facebook even went so far as to make it so enjoyable it's addictive. Free online crack. Facebook users, you're having your fun.

What would you expect Facebook to do to finance all this? They're selling the shit out of you. They sell you sideways to Sunday, then sell your Mom, too.

Why would you be upset, or even surprised? Facebook should be able to do whatever they want with your data if you're gullible enough to use their free service.
I cannot imagine charity ponying up $11 billion on anything at all, much less the development of a single drug. Of course, a lot of this cost is due to excessive FDA requirements, but the charities are not funding drug development right now, and I imagine there is better use of charity money, for things that aren’t worth for companies to get into.
For very similar reasons, socialism worked well in Czechoslovakia:

- The general secretary of the ruling party changed every couple years.

- Unemployment and hunger was comparatively lower than during the pre-WWII period.

- Most people lived better lives in the late 80s than in the early 50s.

Do you get my point? Whether you like it or not, comparative wealth (AKA fairness) does matter to people. (Also it's funny that when talking about economic results of communist regimes, suddenly, comparative, not absolute metrics are used as an argument.)
That, I suppose, would have been a useful question for the Senator to ask. It wasn't the question asked.
The problem with privacy is that there's no general consensus on what "privacy" entails. People bloviate about it being a "human right", or even a "fundamental" human right, but in reality, what we probably want is "not to be judged unfairly" and privacy is one possible means to that end.

You can't have a "right" to have other people not think about you.

For instance, no one would care about medical privacy if employers and insurance companies didn't take actions on medical conditions.

You can see this nicely illustrated in medical talk radio shows. People will call into these things and go on about all the puss and lesions and other disgusting things they have, because that's considered acceptable in that context. But normally people would be mortified if that information got out.
A mechanical solution would be using other languages like C
> "we didn't share your relationship status with them. We matched you to them because of the relationship status"

Which I'm sure is acurate, that's how advertising targeting normally works.

Some years ago I read an essay about how the words we have limit the kind of phenomena we think about. I think the example at the time was about piracy and "stealing". Before computers existed it was impossible to make exact copies of something at zero cost. Therefore, stealing was morally wrong because if you take one of something, the person you took it from will have one less of that something. With computers the situation is less obvious. If you make a copy of something (say a movie) A) you're not really taking one copy of a movie from them; instead you created a copy of a movie for yourself, B) it's not clear that you're damaging their revenues either, as not all people who make copies of movies would've bought the movies in the absense of the possibility of making copies. Probably a more acurate picture is something in the middle, but the point here was that anti-piracy lobbies knowingly conflated "making copies" with "stealing". We entered the computer era without a morally charged word to describe an activity that used to be impossible, and instead they used one that misrepresents the new situation of things.

I think when it comes to privacy we're in a similar situation. Pre-computers, "privacy" meant that (phrase A) "people won't know attributes of you", and that is absolutely equivalent to (phrase B) "people (in this case advertisers) aren't able to take actions that depend on attributes of you". Post-computers the two phrases are not equivalent: Facebook didn't tell advertisers attributes of you, but it gave them the possibility to make decisions which depend on attributes of you. Conveniently, Facebook understands privacy to mean the former. I suspect the reason for why Facebook got away with it for so long is that we don't have two words that differenciate between the two phrases. We need to once and for all decide if we want the word "privacy" to mean phrase A, phrase B, or phrase A AND phrase B.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying "advertisers can only target you, they aren't being given your data, and therefore all is good". The only thing I'm saying is that the word "privacy" is lacking in a post-computers world.
I think aaronchall meant that if you tell someone else about it, it's not private anymore.

Kinda like the old saying about the only way three people can keep a secret is if two of 'em are dead.
"Intelligence" is poorly defined in most conversations. The nature of the word and concepts around it lead to problems, even for people who can score high on IQ tests.

It will take me a long time to write out my thoughts completely, but I plan to do it at some point.