skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No, it's not "very clear" as the "intelligence" is 100% Twitter-based and zero actual autopsy has taken place, as no one actually died that day. Or so say the hospital staff.
How I exploited a bug in Avios's reward programme to get 1000s of airmile's free
Authentication should always require something you know. Adding something you have/possess like a crypto device is a great way to enhance security, but it should always be a supplement to something you know - your password.
> I would trust wordpress to keep their signing keys safe.

What signing keys? Wordpress's automatic updates aren't signed, so your trust is horrendously misplaced.

Someone already did the work for them to implement it[0], and rather than commit it, a Wordpress developer wrote a blogpost saying signing isn't really that important[1].

[0] https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/39309

[1] https://medium.com/@photomatt/wordpress-and-update-signing-5...
Why couldn't we use a mechanism like certificate revocation?

When you want to revoke you timestamped biometric package you just push it to some online revocation list.
I don't have a dog in the fight, I'm just pointing out you are both trying to back up assertions with no direct data. Facebook earnings could easily be from increased from ads even over decreased users. And users increasing doesn't really tell me if that's up or down from previous.
I’m not disagreeing with you that bad lawyers tend to overwrite agreements in ways their clients rarely need, and in ways like this that could actually damage their business.

But the reason you only hear about those offensive to consumers is that there is little interest in publicizing agreement mistakes that are overly beneficial to consumers.
Is any of this actually new or unique? If you mail an old school check to the wrong address and never get your concert tickets, do you get your money back?
> an AWS p3.2xlarge @ $3.06/hr on-demand or $2/hr 1-year reserved.

Equivalent to DGX is p3.16xlarge - $16/hr 1-year reserved = 280k/yr for renting.
So the user defaults to trusting their email host/server for their privacy, data safety, security, etc? And the users who connect to that user (their data will be sent to the email host as well) will need to put their trust in them as well. Is that the only concern?

Have you thought through what the other positives or potential negatives are of using email?
Does the VS premium get me the OS?
I'm pretty sure that one day Apple will also use / sell your data.

Why? Because it makes them even more money...
> There are even official typed JSON options out there.

What are the "official" ones?

Everything I've seen involves validation and explicit formatting for a couple specific types (ex: ISO-8601 dates) but it requires the target to specify what it expects.

There's no way to tell staring at a JSON string if "2018-04-22" is meant to be a date rather than a text string.
There are many things in tech which have caused great grief in my life as a programmer. JSON is not one of them.
Show HN: Overwrite multi-user scratchpad
A minefield where the mines hunt you down, rather than waiting for you to step near.
Probably unrelated, but telus.net's SPF record appears to authorize RFC6598 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598) IP space:

"v=spf1 ip4:199.185.220.0/24 ip4:198.161.157.0/24 ip4:198.161.156.0/24 ip4:204.209.205.0/26 ip4:209.171.16.0/24 ip4:100.64.0.0/24 mx ?all"

100.64.0.0/24 is within 100.64.0.0/10

Either I'm missing something, or Telus appears quite confused about the purpose/nature of SPF.
An article about YouTube censorship/kids exposed to bad videos and 98% of the replies don’t talk about the content of the article at all.
Thanks for pointing that out. I fooled myself with my GoogleFU.
Continuity of players and teams you mean, or the pace of the game?

As a lifelong baseball fan, I'm curious what is too fast.
> But I wasn’t comfortable with the practice of removing calves from mothers and sending four-day-old calves to be slaughtered.

Calves are a by-product of milk. The world doesn't need calves, doesn't want (or like) veal. Calves exist because in order to get milk, we need to get the cows pregnant. Then we kill the calves.

There is no other way to get cow milk; there is no way to make "humane" milk. We can either, not use milk, or devise a way to produce synthetic milk.

But cow milk == killing calves.
Ask HN: Why can't I delete my HN account?
I would like to continue using the service, but I have no interest in maintaining my account. Why is account deletion not an option?
Here's my case. I have problems trusting any centralised cloud service out there that is significant for my privacy. I have problems with Pocket, because it knows what I read.

If data would be stored on the decentralized nodes and accessible over the smart contracts, my zen would be way closer.
Untrue, people are paying serious money for their Android phones. OEMs too pay Google. So customers are not 'demanding' anything for free.

But that doesn't stop Google's insatiable need for personal data and stalking people. Android is designed to leak like a sieve.

And this is yet another example for those who continue to make the false argument that if customers paid surveillance would go away. On the contrary companies will then make money from both sources.

This 'free' is not demanded by anybody but is the business model of some startups to gain market share. The fact that there are no regulations means they can operate without any ethical constraints.
From your last link:

> We have seen that several physical principles are involved in producing lift. Each of the following statements is correct as far as it goes:

> * The wing produces lift “because” it is flying at an angle of attack.

> * The wing produces lift “because” of circulation.

> * The wing produces lift “because” of Bernoulli’s principle.

> * The wing produces lift “because” of Newton’s law of action and reaction.

> We now examine the relationship between these physical principles. Do we get a little bit of lift because of Bernoulli, and a little bit more because of Newton? No, the laws of physics are not cumulative in this way.

> There is only one lift-producing process. Each of the explanations itemized above concentrates on a different aspect of this one process. The wing produces circulation in proportion to its angle of attack (and its airspeed). This circulation means the air above the wing is moving faster. This in turn produces low pressure in accordance with Bernoulli’s principle. The low pressure pulls up on the wing and pulls down on the air in accordance with all of Newton’s laws.

In other words, it is the Bernoulli effect. It is also circulation, and the rest. That does not mean it is partially Bernoulli and partially other things. Each separate explanation individually explains 100% of lift, they're just different ways of explaining it. It's like calculating the speed of an object dropped from a height by integrating gravitational acceleration over time versus calculating changes in potential and kinetic energy. Does acceleration account for some part of the final speed, and energy accounts for another part? No, each one is individually responsible for 100% of the result. They're just different ways of looking at it.
Same results on gentoo compiled as I stated. I stand corrected.
DDG uses Google.

If they grow too big Google will just switch them off..
No, this is not true of many reasonable formats. You don't have to make an obtusely nontrivial format to encode the data JSON does.
> Do you think this is true of all "tech" or just software?

We should always be improving humanity and ending suffering through tech, software, law, and everything else.

> Do you think it similarly wasteful when a car manufacturer spends resources building yet-another-car?

YES.

> Who do you think _should_ get to decide what brilliant minds should spend their time doing?

Nobody. Everyone is entitled to doing what makes them happy.
That notable exception exists at least in Object Pascal, Oberon, Oberon-2, Active Oberon, Component Pascal, Modula-2, Modula-3, Ada, Eiffel, Sather, D, Swift.
Lighter-weight? Tex is Turing-complete. You can’t even know whether interpreting it will ever finish, and writing a parser that produces good error messages on invalid input is difficult.
An adorable dancing spider plant robot
it is better in regard that:

- there exists single reference implementation, which rules out points like scalars not being valid JSON in some parsers despite being part of the spec

- it is extensible in a manner that never invalidates the syntax for parsers that do not use corresponding extensions (this is huge actually)

- comments are part of the spec, so it essentially replaces both json and yaml

- richer set of primitive types

- commas are whitespace (best feature ever)

the rest should definitely be handled in BNF spec, but the above makes EDN immediately much better than JSON
What does work?
I wonder how many never heard of Quantum Link’s Habitat from 1986.
By "reporting their results" he means "publish a report which contains their estimate of the number of DGUs in the US". And preferably do so in a timely manner, like in the 1990s or 2000s. That never happened. They did eventually make this older raw survey data available - that was the source of this paper - but that's not nearly the same thing as saying "here is the official CDC estimate for how many DGUs there are annually in the US...which just happens to closely match Kleck's estimates" back when people were arguing about it.
Not sure which of the 70+ documented attacks you are referring to. And the White Helmets would disagree, and are less subject to Syrian governmental “persuasion” than doctors.

There is a reason Assad’s government blocked inspectors from examining the latest claimed attack.
+1 for DDG. I’ve been experimenting with it as default in Safari and it’s so similar I often find myself wondering “when did google change their layout?”
This seems like more of a problem with parsers not following the spec. It's a simple spec, but so strict and restrictive that it's a bit of a pain to give to humans, and small extensions (like comments) are immensely useful for its (ab)uses as configuration "DSL"s. And some edges like that the string format isn't specified - that's (basically) fine, it's not a connection-negotiation protocol.

So JSON parsers tend to implement some weird, unspecified, inconsistent superset of JSON. I haven't encountered one yet that fails to parse valid JSON though. That doesn't seem to imply that parsing JSON is a minefield. Only that parsing human input, nicely, is a minefield. No spec avoids the human ergonomic problem simply.
It seems to me, to be a really bad idea to generate "almost code" in order to be able to generate diagrams for "actual code" that you have to write.
It can if it wants to.
Why can't there be a subset of JSON or XML called like strict mode and it's a much more sane version of the ddl?
> Deliberate slowness.

As OP article alludes, bitcoin difficulty is tuned for a very long interval between blocks, to reduce the risk of nearly-simultaneous "uncle" blocks.

Other blockchains such as Ethereum have seemingly successful alternative approaches. IMO the article has a very limited perspective on blockchain technology. It's understandable, since the space is exploding and very hard to keep a handle on, but I think it should be less sweeping in its claims.
The Hardest Job in the World
There's already a bunch of vigorous FB alternatives. I'm personally familiar with the Fediverse and Secure Scuttlebutt and they both have a growing and active userbase. Be your own entrepreneur, take some social risk, and join these networks. If you want to spend money finding them, then put up feature bounties, or marketing bounties to make marketing campaigns for these networks.
Prestige is just a variant of respect, but motivated by appearance rather than substance. It's basically envy. Like fame, it's shallow and derivative, and it works only when no one gets to look behind the curtain.
How do I pay?
Might be a good question for hn@ycombinator.com
My experience with json and similar formats is that most of the complexity arrises from using delimited strings instead of length prefixed strings, and the exciting escaping that results. If the strings are character strings instead of byte strings, you get to add an extra layer of character encoding excitement.

PHP serialization is better here, everything is type:value or type:length:value, although strings do have quotes around them, because their byte length is known, internal quotes need not be escaped. You can still have issues with genrating and parsing the human readible numbers properly (floating point is always fun, and integers may have some bit size limit I don't recall), but you don't need to worry about quoting Unicode values properly.

Protocol buffers have clear length indications, so that's easier, but it's not a 'self documenting' format, you need to have the description file to parse an encoded value. The end result is usually many fewer bits though.
Why can't there be?
Fixing problems might not be easy, but as you mention, Early Warning is owned by a consortium of large US banks. Compared to PayPal, Stripe, and other non bank chartered institutions, their resources are effectively unlimited. Those problems are going to get fixed eventually.

Wells Fargo was fined a billion dollars [1] and will continue to operate as an ongoing business. This is a road bump.

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/20/604279604...
TFA is overly pedantic, but your swap() method is not generic and falls apart if the class has more than one instance variable. In Lisp, for example, it's trivial to write a swap macro -- not very fair, I suppose. In Tcl you can have a proper swap that is not a macro (which is good, since Tcl does not have macros!) by using Tcl's pass-by-name semantics. In C++ you can just declare the arguments as references and then you won't notice at the call site that the arguments are being passed by reference -- super convenient, but then somewhat scary as well. And so on.
> Just look at the clusterfuck that HTML5 has become.

Ouch. I feel like this is kind of unfair. XML, HTML1-4, and HTML5 all differ in how they treat Postel's law. XML rejects it at the spec level; if you send garbage to a parser it bails immediately, which is nice. HTML5 embraces Postel's law at the spec level. If you send garbage to an HTML5 parser, there's an agreed-on way to deal with it gracefully. Also nice. The problem was rather with HTML1-4, which embraced Postel's law promiscuously, at the implementation level. There were specs, but mainstream implementations largely ignored them and all handled garbage input slightly differently. This is what created the afore-mentioned clusterfuck.
my 2c on T470p
I had a change to compare T470P and P50 with same config. Benchmarks are very similar, so no diff. there. I own a P50 and colleague has the T470p and the biggest diff is the size of notebook of course,but what I hate on P50 is the keyboard offset b/c of the numpad keys. It's hard to type with arms straight and screen at center, so there is always a slight angle to that .. 8h+ daily work on that and you start to feel the strain on that. So wouldn't go with p50 if i could choose now. On other hand 470p is 14" and keyboard is symmetric (no numpad) so much better ergonomics, but the fan noise and heat that this notebook creates is more than usual. I guessing because of the smaller form factor they were not able to cram a better colling system. So on idle this thing just blast hot air like crazy. When we do team work and sit next to each other, it blows so much hot air that i need to move further away,b/c it burn my hand from the fan duct. So can't imagine what will it do in full load and in summer...
I was thinking something similar - that maybe this just started happening because of a mutation that's proving not to be beneficial.
Pointer arithmetic was already a thing in Algol derived system languages, 10 years before C was invented.

Lots of languages have it as feature, C isn't a special snowflake.
What Tennis Can Teach Us About Technology
Because experience has shown us that today's parsers don't detect tomorrow's 0-day parsing bugs; but serializing a clean version of what was parsed is more likely to be safe (see lots of jpeg, mpeg, etc exploits)
I'm not saying it can't be mapped; I'm saying it loses semantics in the translation. For example, how do you represent a boolean in a s-exp, such as that anyone with "the s-exp spec" can unambiguously know that's a boolean?
5 LED USB MTB Road Bike Tail Light Rechargeable Safety
Isopropanol is hardly the limiting reagent in this route, nor is it hard to produce by myriad ways.

Hell, even thionyl chloride (still tons of legit uses) is more of a red flag than IPrOH.

Something is definitely a bit goofy about this blog. Not saying attacks didn't happen, it's just that, from a chemical production point of view, iPrOH is a really odd choice to look at.
Could you not just use 'no'?
The PoW blockchain is slow to propagate updates but design. If you don't know how proof of work blockchains work, I advice you to Google around for a nice technical breakdown. Suffice to say, it is fundamental and a property people specifically code in to make blocks take a specific amount of time to complete.

As for the 1/3 citation, I guess that's slightly less known: "Selfish Mining". Citation:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.0243

Of course "1/3" is a joke. It's actually closer to 1/4.
I feel important replying: all the stories you heard are about ground-level employees that are packing stuff in Amazon Warehouses.

I have four friends working on different levels of profession in Amazon and I can assure you not even junior programmers need to pee in the bottle without bathroom breaks.

I am in no way defending Amazon they deserve all criticism, but I think it is unfair to put everyone in the same basked within one organization. You really believe people that built then and manage AWS cloud now are treated so badly that they can't even go pee?
amazing. thank you.
Or you just have smarter load balancers, that realize when all of their servers are acting funky and stop taking servers out of rotation.
Arguments like this are naive and pointless. Bezos could dump half his Amazon shares and give that as bonuses to all Amazon warehouse workers. How long would that last until you share the same complaint again? It's a serious question. And if Bezos did that, what would it do to Amazon's share value with shares flooding the market? Would Amazon have to layoff these workers? They go back to food stamps and no jobs, no?

I am not saying the current situation is ideal. I am saying the system is working exactly as intended. Welcome to capitalism. You can't be complicit with all the aspects and security you get personally but then complain when others are reaping the same benefit, just at a 1000x scale.
Yet, she can use 50$ kits to lift and scan a fingerprint from your belongings.
im using this overwrite http://inter-view.co.uk/foobar/
It's inevitable, nothing is perfect ... there is only popular things that everyone complains about and things that nobody cares about :D

We're not machines we're more comfortable with messy and forgiving systems.

Do you want to build successful products? be liberal on input and conservative on output. You need to reduce entropy and give people a feeling of magic. It's when you're old and have enough scars on your skin when you learn to hate magic and become control freak :D
First LED cinema screen in the U.S.A. officially opened
On a website I'd written we had pseudo-randomly generated URLs to show dynamic content (it was a game, the URL contained parameters). On each page we had this little widget that included five random configurations people might like to try.

A few times our website went down due to the load going >30, eventually I discovered Google was doing something funky, adding the dynamic domains to the "robot.txt" file fixed the issue. Then some other search engines / scrapers seemed to run into the same issue and started requesting hundreds of thousands of URLs per day (these pages were dynamically generated and took a moderate amount of compute power).

We eventually did have to implement basic anti-scraper rules because it was degrading the user experience.
First, I can't stand these people who qualify their logic based on "My crypto friends say ...", "All my start friends are saying ... ", "All my friends who are building distributed systems say ...", instead of 100% being responsible for their own words. I see them as lazy cowards who takes other people's words and transforms them into attention (a.k.a. retweets, viral posts, media mentions, ad revenue, etc.)

Second, some thoughts on this specific argument. This whole thread is based on an assumption that "skilled distributed systems engineer" is an authority when it comes to Bitcoin or blockchain.

Except they aren't.

I would even go further to say that the very developers who are working on Bitcoin protocol itself cannot be trusted as an "authority". They may be very good at cryptography and coding, but it is very difficult for one individual who has made a career out of a single expertise suddenly become an "expert" in all things combined (economics, coding, cryptography, game theory). Especially the economics part, if you're coming from a programmer background. A lot of programmers seem to THINK they understand how Bitcoin works after reading an economics 101 book, but the thing is, even the economists are never 100% certain about their theories. There's a good reason why there are multiple parties of thoughts in economics.

I once read a blog post from a guy who's very well respected in the Bitcoin community who wrote a post about "crypto keynesians" and "crypto austrians", and it was so obvious that he had no idea what he's talking about because he got it completely opposite. The post only made sense if you interpret what an "austrian economist" and "keynesian economist" is on an extremely superficial and shallow level, perhaps reading a couple of blog posts or investopedia articles on that topic.

I think people really need to be humble when they talk about this topic because I'm pretty sure it's really hard for one person with narrow expertise--unless she/he is very motivated to learn everything--to understand Bitcoin/blockchain as a whole. This is especially true for those who just have one expertise and never really delved into the rest because they think it's a bullshit technology even before learning about what actually powers it.

And I have yet to see a single person who's dived really far into learning everything Bitcoin is made up of and come away thinking this whole trustless ledger thing is a fad and a bullshit. Some may get disillusioned that the current existing solutions don't satisfy what they were promised, but even these people still they understand that this doesn't mean the whole idea of a trustless ledger is a sham. They would only think there's got to be a better solution.
There is definitely an English translation. I've started reading it, but (sadly) haven't gotten very far into it yet.
There is an unofficial FAQ by Jacques Mattheij, with an answer to this very question:

https://jacquesmattheij.com/the-unofficial-hn-faq#deleteacco...

There is also indeed the official FAQ:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html