skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Maybe it implicates them- if they knew the info was from Russia, and knew that Russia was trying to damage Clinton, and coordinated with the GRU to maximally damage her. Both things could be true.

Going by my earlier comment - I would coordinate with the Satan to release true information, the source of the information does not necessarily contaminate its truthiness. Publishing true information, as a hypothetical whistleblower organization, is my hypothetical raison d'etre.

This only ever becomes suspect if I am selectively publishing, or if I am aware that I am selectively publishing.

In this case there needs to be evidence of either. Conversations with biased parties are not evidence unless they clearly state that the selective publishing is known.

It's also extremely important to realize what exactly the voters learned from the emails. CAP President Neera Tanden, and a prominent figure in HRC's campaign, expressed sharp criticisms for her favored candidate's judgment. DNC Chair Donna Brazille emailed privately about how the statistical job growth under President Obama was essentially a "technical" win, but had very little impact on people's lives. She also went on to leak debate questions to her favored candidate, exposing one of hundreds of different instances of a party-wide effort to sabotage the primary process.

Contrast this with the RNC primary. Virtually the entire party leadership loathed then-candidate Trump. As opposed to rallying around him, they actively rallied against him. In October there were discussions of replacing him on the ticket. Even at the convention, Ted Cruz reportedly went off-script and asked attendees to vote their conscience, as opposed to voting for candidate Trump. The divisions in the GOP were laid bare for the world to see. The divisions in the DNC stayed hidden from voters. Voters only learned much after the election that Donna Brazille contemplated replacing Hillary Clinton with another candidate after she fainted on 9/11, an event that ironically followed weeks of mainstream media outrage against "right wing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton's Health", which also included a pickle-jar opening gag on a late night talk show.

What truths would Wikileaks have exposed about the RNC that weren't already publicly known? Is this an empty box containing any convenient allegation?

One of the USA's major political parties sabotaged the primary process, engaged in debate cheating, media manipulation and bird-dogging, all for a candidate whom many of the party's own leadership found wanting in terms of judgment. After all this - the outrage seems fixated on the messenger, Wikileaks, as if their alleged selective leaking somehow absolves the Democrats of these monumentally disgusting actions.

If you look at the election from the perspective of damage done to candidates - the sheer volume of substantiated negative press received by candidate Trump makes it really difficult to argue that voters could have somehow heard something else from the RNC's emails that would changed their minds about him.
In C++, references aren't objects (eg. they have no size and no address), they can't be stored in a vector, there's no way to operate on the reference itself, everything is transparently forwarded to its referent, there is always a referent.

In Java, a reference is a value, it can be stored in an ArrayList like a normal value, you can operate on the reference itself (reseating it, comparing two of them, comparing to null), there is not always a referent.
Getting my fingerprints hacked sounds worse than getting my password hacked, I can’t change my fingerprint!
Keep in mind that it may be possible for a mutation to occur among the eggs, of a kind that results in a viable octopus with lower-than-standard-oxygen needs.

Then it's a case of evolution in action. A species adjusting to less than ideal circumstances.
I really enjoy Kurzgesagt's videos. I believe this one is particularly well done, and look forward to learning more about the concept of "ringularities."
The CDC study being discussed in this paper didn't followup but according to OP Kleck's other studies did - in Kleck's studies when people said they had a DGU they were asked to elaborate on the circumstances so this could be evaluated. By his analysis about 9% of reported DGUs didn't qualify as defensive, so he applied that as a modifier when comparing the new results to his.

On the flip side there also exist reasons to think the CDC undercounts DGUs, most notably that they only asked people who had a gun in the home if they had used a gun in self-defense. If respondents only had a gun at work or used someone else's gun or used to have a gun at home but no longer did, they weren't asked the DGU question. Also, most DGUs are arguably illegal so reporting one is reporting having engaged in illegal activity.

If you want to make the data more accurate you don't get to just apply reasons to think it's an overcount, you also need to apply reasons to think it's an undercount. (On the whole, Kleck's estimates seem pretty conservative.)
It's also counter to how our industry's gone, everything's cloud these days, not just because of their insatiable need to feast on our privacy, but also because it's easier to maintain, upgrade, etc. and effectively cuts piracy to nothing.
Zelle is a piece of dogshit. Venmo is PayPal based so it is dogshit wrapped in catshit.
You probably think the same about fixing your desktop computing problems, however, lots of people are happy for someone to dial in and fix the machine for them. This is effectively what Nissan will be doing, having tech support that can dial in and do things in superuser mode - remember we won't have steering wheels soon.

The thing is that here may be a small team that send the same fixes to cars all day whilst some complicated roadworks or an event happens.
Hopefully you're not shoehorning blockchain bullshit into this.

Decentalization could solve stuff in this space by having the actual event-holder selling the tickets and such.

Adding blockchain to it won't solve any problems that can't be solved traditionally better and easier.
And if you all of a sudden ordered "96 tons" of it out of the blue? I think the issue being brought to light is contrast to normal export/import of it to this region?
The Harmful Consequences of Postel's Maxim - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong-0... (HN from 2015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9824638 )

Wrestling with Postel’s Law https://techblog.workiva.com/tech-blog/wrestling-postel’s-la...
That is not evidence that they knowingly selectively leaked anything.
If post description is accurate and the old version has been remote-wiped from devices, does that mean the data migration issue is no longer relevant?
I explained poorly. I ran into issues with updating jemalloc as part of a software update. While debugging the issue I disabled jemalloc (unsetting the ld_preload) and noticied a sharp difference in how much memory ruby had allocated. I guess _pre_allocating is incorrect and a better explanation is _not releasing it_. Thanks for rebutting my argument and giving me the opportunity to elaborate.
> […] it's dead simple to parse […]

I've heard it's a minefield.[0]

[0]: http://seriot.ch/parsing_json.php
I've written JSON parsers to replace platform specific JSON parsers with bug-for-bug (or at the very least misfeature-for-misfeature) parity to port code without breaking it, without too much going terribly wrong. I wouldn't even try to attempt the same for XML.

Generating a useful conservative subset of JSON that most/all JSON serializers will accept hasn't been that hard in practice IME (no trailing commas, escape all unicode, don't assume >double precision/range scalars, etc.), but I still haven't figured out how to do the same for some XML serializers (failing to serialize because it lacks 'extra' annotation tags in some cases, failing to serialize because it doesn't ignore 'extra' annotation tags in other cases...)
so like, I can arm my front lawn with a nuke silo? Good to know. It's already forbidden to carry concealed, or even openly.

Maybe literal bear arms, were meant? With lawyers and legalese you never know. Please define to bear if you care to.
> Yup. Humans are allowed to make mistakes and fail fatally.

It's because in almoost all cases, one fatal mistake results in one fatal accident. And in most cases, the failing party is part of the accident - giving us reason enough to believe people to what they can to avoid it.

With AI, one sloppy mistake can be the root cause of 100 fatalities, with no risk to the one who made the mistake. That's part of the reason we don't accept it.
Generally the way we address it is not to make the formats themselves human-readable; that's a fool's errand. Instead we create tools to transform them into human-readable formats on demand. See also the protobuf toolchain.
They're working on it: https://github.com/netlify/netlify-cms/pull/517
> Pounding your fist on the table and insisting that Java is pass-by-value because you can't write a swap(x,y) function obscures this crucial difference.

Swap is just a convenient example. Ultimately, if rebinding the function argument has no externally visible effect, it's not pass-by-reference, but rather pass-pointer-by-value — In C++ terms, a Java method with signature `foo(T arg)` is akin to C++'s `foo (T * const arg)` rather than `foo(T &arg)`.
You forgot BER ;)
Substitute Facebook for Google in your argument, and see if it still makes sense.
Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise
I have devoted my professional live to manufacturing automation.

From my point of view, what Musk tries to do is very hard, but if someone could do it it is him.

There are differences between the 1880 and the 2018, in particular AI(artificial intelligence) today is "out of this world" tech compared to 1880s. Today you could solve things just by brute force AI that was simply impossible in the past. And Musk will probably do just that. If I had hundreds of millions of dollars I will do too.

The great thing about automation is that once you solve something, it works forever. It takes way more work, of course getting it to work in the first place.

Musk has as his best gift his total lack of doubt like young people that believe that nothing is impossible. It is very typical for this young people to crash over walls as they repeat the mistakes others have done. At the same time, it is young people who change the world when conditions change(and making the same mistakes do not yield the same output).

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
I guess some people around here are ... trigger happy.
That's a meaningless distinction when talking about the brain. The brain is very much doing calculations that we are not aware of, but they still occur.
Also, try to visit google.com by Edge/Safari/Firefox. It keeps nagging why you're not using Chrome and shows the banner constantly.
Unfamiliarity also goes a long way. I recently switched to DuckDuckGo. In the beginning I would compare my search queries with results from Google.. found there wasn't all that much difference.
There are a lot of arguments in here, but I think the main one goes something like this:

* Government control over and monitoring of financial transactions, currencies, and financial services is a good thing. It exists for many reasons and serves many important purposes. Many regulations respond to historical experiences of problems which critics might not be familiar with.

* Cryptocurrencies have been created and adopted by people who actively dislike such regulation, disagree with particular policy aspects of it, want to experiment with alternatives to it, or benefit from avoiding it. I (Weaver) don't sympathize with these people, don't appreciate their creation of parallel monetary and financial mechanisms partly or wholly outside of regulatory frameworks, and would be happy if they got in trouble or had these capabilities taken away.

* Cryptocurrencies are an unreasonably expensive, impractical, and risky alternative to existing financial institutions, instruments, and technologies for the overwhelming majority of purposes except for the antiregulatory ones. If people are willing to bear these costs and risks, they probably don't understand them, or else they willingly accept them for antiregulatory purposes. I (Weaver) wish they would understand these costs and risks better and decide that they aren't worth it, or be prevented from pursuing antiregulatory goals.

My attitude is quite different from Weaver's, but I think it's good to be aware of this argument.
In what regard EDN is "better" than JSON? the point of the post was the RFC specification is not tight and there are corner cases. I don't see any rigor in the given link either..
That is what you get the technicians to do
I've mostly switched to DDG. Google gives much better results in some cases but for the vast majority of my searches DDG works fine.
Both of these appear to be aimed at developers.
Yeah, this is a bad article leading to a really bad discussion. FIDO2 is basically proposing to replace passwords with U2F. How the keys are generated, exchanged, and challenged has nothing to do with biometrics[1].

That part of this appears to be MS and Google demonstrations of using biometrics to unlock what is essentially just an OS password manager for U2F keys, which wouldn't even raise an eyebrow if found in today's Android or iOS.

[1] The relevant part of the spec: "In order to provide evidence of user interaction, an external authenticator implementing this protocol is expected to have a mechanism to obtain a user gesture. Possible examples of user gestures include: as a consent button, password, a PIN, a biometric or a combination of these."

https://fidoalliance.org/specs/fido-v2.0-rd-20170927/fido-cl...
@jancsika you could implement a whitelist using this feature, by having jobs only run for specific usernames.

Keep in mind though that these variables can be overridden, so it probably shouldn't be used for security reasons: https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/ci/variables/README.html#priority...

To give a more detailed example on the nightly build, you would create a pipeline schedule that ran once per day and specified a variable: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/pipelines/schedules....

Then you'd only trigger the nightly build job when this variable was present, using the `only` flag with the variable you defined for the job: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/pipelines/schedules....
The bars and coffee shops that won't let you pay with cash any more
It doesn't need to be Tex-compatible. My point was just that the syntax is lighter weight and might be preferable for some applications.
How come this does not make regular glass strong?
I am wondering what have you done previously that got you into neuromorphic computing. I am currently an undergraduate in computer engineering but the idea of neuromorphic computing is really interesting and I am curious what the academic path looks like.
This was a topic in the Belgian news a couple of days ago. The issue is not as much whether the isopropanol will be used for chemical warfare, nor if it should be regarded dangerous or if it is on a list with restricted substances, but more that these companies would/should have known that exporting it to Syria is a big risk given the current context. It was more of a moral question rather than a 'scientific' one.

Tons of isopropanol were destroyed in Syria by UN workers when trying to destroy all chemical weapons and precursors.*

*https://www.armscontrol.org/files/Panel2.1_Anelli_TuckerConf...
Also who needs a gazillion liters of isopropanol when a kilogram of sarin (which takes at most ~10L of isopropanol to make) is all you need to kill... well, everybody you would want to kill?
That's E2E test. What's interesting with unit tests is that you can run them locally, offline. They are fast enough so that you can run them and see if you broke anything. If your tests take too much time to start or relies on a live env (which may be down or broken), you'll spend more time for maybe nothing.
> our software has been used to save tens of thousands of lifes, prevent hundreds of terrorist attacks...
This is exactly what I mean by advantages vs disadvantages these look like stapled platitudes from the marketing team. It looks like you are conflating war zones scenarios with civil society a bit like promoting an M1 Abram for New York police, due to the effectiveness in Iraq. If you aren't then I'm baffled by how many terrorist attacks we've thwarted, and incredulous. There haven't been thousands of terrorist attacks in civil society before the software was created.

> Or stripped of their investigative or enforcing power?
So it's either all the power or none of the power? This is a logical fallacy you are creating a duality for something that does not exist. The police is not the same as your software like you implied. I'm against the government spying on their citizens even with good intentions. See the black mirror episode since it demonstrates where problem lies, it's not in good intentions, it's in the control.

Does this software help the government to spy on their citizens? Yes.
Should the citizens have a say in if they want this software to be used for their data? Yes, why don't they have say?
Can we live without this software? Yes, like we've done so far.
Is this software helpful in a police state? I would say it's the most valuable software for a police state.
So first, this is not my idea, but something that people much smarter than me came up with.

This is the pattern that AppEngine enforces. Apps that regularly take more than 1s to respond are penalized, and there's a 60s hard deadline on all requests. Things like a task queue or push channels are built-in to the platform, with a high-level API exposed, so you just focus on writing the application / business logic.

Celery tries to basically do the same for you, w/o the proprietary Google SDK's.

> What's it like to debug when everything goes to hell?

From my experience so far... You will find bugs in your application code way more often than in a battle-tested task queuing system, much like you're quite unlikely to find a bug in nginx or Python.

Fixing things is MUCH easier than in a request / response model. I know it's not a "web scale" example, but imagine an installation involving camera rigs, some networked hardware, a transcoding server, etc. Dude walks into a photo booth, types in his email/phone number on a tablet, etc. When I see a failure in a component of the pipeline, I can hack together and deploy a patch in seconds / minutes (from alert to running the fix in production) and just tell the system to retry a failed job. Dude gets his silly photo via email/sms within two minutes instead of one.

Picture a similar situation in a web application that processes user-uploaded media. You write your batch processing logic to bail early on any sign of error, and when you get the chance to fix some bug that e.g. affected 3% of your users, again - you resubmit the failed jobs and users just see the result with a delay, instead of having to re-upload.
California cities, school districts pushed to the brink of insolvency
Thanks for the report @theptip.

Did you happen to open an issue? It would be great to ensure this one is being tracked appropriately.
If you're trying to diagnose and fix problems, aren't critics exactly the kinds of people you want to to hire? Having a bunch of uncritical yes-men won't help you improve. When I watched the Munroe video, there's only one or two of their criticisms that I think a reasonable person would disagree with. Janky weatherstripping and doors that rub against the body of the car are bad regardless of any personal baggage.
But they do sell your data.

For example, let's say a bad actor creates a Google ad for pizzas, directed at gay people. Now if you see and click that pizza ad, the bad actor will know your sexual orientation.
Yes, I think this was particularly against the grain because mothers are commonly told to look for a doctor/practice who does not resort to a C-section right away, and judge this by the number of C-sections a doctor/practice performs.
I got a number of people to switch to DuckDuckGo by sending DDG query url's to them: "Hey, there is a ton of info on this subject!" (sends DDG query)
Based on what we know about the phase change memory in optane products it does not seem like it can be used for in-memory computing.
If you want to stream "from all kinds of devices", why getba ChromeCast instead of an Android based Nvidia Shield? It gives you more flexibility.
There's a Wired article (April 1994, their fifth issue) with more background and some timelines: https://www.wired.com/1994/04/general-magic/
Honestly, going for carton seems like it would have made his whole thing a lot easier and it's not that bad. Also easier to brand I think since the whole thing can be printed on.
Organic synthesis is like hacking, someone skilled and determined to get somewhere will get there and there really isn't anything you can do to stop it.

Regulating "precursors" to chemicals is probably a bad idea in general.
I really think as eSports audiences begin to grow comparable to and threaten to overtake traditional sports (I predict 2022), conventional competitive rules are going to start adjusting with the goal of "keeping the game interesting to play and watch", rather than legacy. The younger eyeballs are rapidly being siphoned into eSports and mainstream events will have to start doing something to get their attention.
Alienware sells a 1440p 13" display which is fantastic. (They sell 4K in the 15".) Runs fine on Linux too without making the sacrifices that Purism saddles you with--notably the touchpad and keyboard.

It's a bit heavy, especially for a 13", but it's probably ny next non-Mac.
Man United’s Player Leaves the Pitch Injured
Miracast is just another one of Google's abandoned technologies/frameworks/apps....

Ughhh
Massive Attack celebrate Mezzanine's 20th anniversary by preserving it in DNA
I'm trying to articulate how pointless this sounds. First, you create some AI system that's supposed to help take the human out of the loop in order to improve safety (allegedly). You realise there are still situations your AI can't handle. You decide to give control to a human outside the car, in a call centre. So now the human brain is back in control, except it's not the human in the car (presumably, there is a human in the car?), but someone completely different.

So you have to spend the resources to develop self-driving technology and to maintain a stable of remote drivers. And all that- for what? Human brains are still in control of cars and car AI is still dumb as bricks often enough to make them less safe than humans. If you had problems with humans forced to jump in and take control at a moment's notice where the car failed, before, now you're making these problems even worse by having someone take control remotely so that they're even less aware of the unfolding situation than the human in the car.

It's just ...pointless. It makes even less sense than a car that drives itself safely only when you're paying attention (hey, I can kill myself when I'm not paying attention just fine on my own, I don't need an AI car to do that).