skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No, you see - with an actor in a commercial, the other party clearly knows the affiliation with the company and the statements made are advertisement. Of course if they lie, and not just exaggerate, the company can be sued for other reasons (e.g. unfair competition).

With Drew Cloud and The Student Loan Report, they pretended to be a single person who has personal experience with whatever, but definitely no affiliation with LendEDU. So if LendEDU paid them (or gave them any other benefits) to talk positively about them and steer business towards them, it is fraudulent.
I've seen maybe 3 bees this year. 2 of them just dropped in the water and would have died wouldn't I have saved them.

I remember thinking the same last year and the year before, but it gets visibly worse without question.

And yes it's not only bees
> While most people concentrate on memorizing as much as openings the possibly can, I do recommend to learn more end-game variants.

That cannot be emphasized enough.

I've even had players offer me a draw in a classical king vs king+rook situation.

When I learned chess in the GDR we practiced endgames ad nauseum but openings were left until very late.
Eset Smart Security 11 License Key Full Crack Thatssoft Com
N!
3 Reasons to Invest in Tron (TRX)
I believe he was saying that it used to be much worse, not that it is like that now.
The post linked in the post is a better read:

http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/04/the-collapse-of-complex...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/employee-retention-rate-top-tech-companies-2017-8
http://uk.businessinsider.com/comparably-50-best-paying-big-companies-salary-employees-2017-11

Talented people want to make an impact. Working for google building proto-to-proto services is opposite of making an impact. On average your work will have very little spotlight but you will make lots of money for the company.
I have the same recipe here. Stick it in the fridge
I like how you presented “problem” and “solution” in your read me.
So why not? As it seems to solve these issues? I can see the downsides but this seems pretty bad?
Looking at the provided example. Nothing like that has ever happened in any code I've ever written, or I've ever seen written by anybody else, and I have absolutely no fear that I will ever see anything like that happen in any code I write for the rest of my career/life.

So, not a great example, and not a very convincing argument to me to stop using integers.
I'm not aware of any moderators encouraging that and I specifically target such answers for deletion. I have complained that there are some new users who ask for such things and I will be the first to jump on them for doing so.
Naming and shaming very appropriate here. I see no reason to worry about blacklisting by other scum bags in this person’s network.
The first time I ever opened emacs it didn't have anti-aliased fonts. I shuddered and closed it immediately. At the time I was looking to learn a serious text editor so I turned to vim because gvim actually did have nice fonts. I struggled with that for a little while before discovering that emacs had just improved on the font front. Emacs made so much more sense and I kind of fell in love with it.

It does still have some quirks owing to its provenance but if you turn off the toolbars and choose a decent font it looks as good as anything else. Emacs is a lifelong journey. It's like playing a musical instrument. The possibilities are endless and you'll never reach the end but whatever stage you're at you'll still have fun using it.
Ngrok-backdoor – A python Backoor with Ngrok tunnel support
> For example maybe once a transaction is placed with a merchant. They can trigger a 2nd factor check where by the bank automatically send a code to their email/phone number on file. If the customer is able to provide a correct code merchant can proceed with the order.

That is not what 3dsecure provides ? with 3d secure, I receive a code from my through SMS, I then transmit this code to the payement processor.
Actual Study: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/ea...
When they banned all filament lightbulbs, everyone was saying how bad it would be for the economy, but the industry was just forced to innovate and just a couple years later everyone is 95% on LEDs.

And now we hear from a study in the EU that LEDs cause cancer. Yay.

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp1837/
What arithmetic operations do you realistically expect to do with user ids? You might not make that specific error, but it seems to me that any arithmetic operation is likely to a bug, and giving user ids their own type will catch all of them.
A little eye-candy for the terminal written in Go
Well done. I have the same issue. I have to weekly commute to another city. I have a really small apartment there with a super tiny oven. It's a challenge to bake, but that won't stop me. You can bake bread everywhere.
I've worked in a lot of different organizations and have seen this happen over and over again.

One point the author misses is that it becomes received knowledge that certain parts of the problem are insolvable. After a dozen or two meetings trying to solve something, the participants believe (and tell one another) that this part of the problem can't be solved.

There's a certain pivot point that happens when you join an organization. At first, you're asking "Why can't we do X?" and "If we do Y, won't that fix this part of the problem?"

Each time, you are told that yes, we tried that. Several times. Really smart people tried. It didn't work.

Now the trick here is that you don't know if that's true or not. You don't know how many times it was tried, who tried it, what strategy they used, or exactly how things played out. It's all just secondhand information.

Do that enough? Pretty soon you're the person telling the new guy that we've already been down this road. It just can't be done. You stop being part of the solution and start being part of the problem. (And then some new organization comes along and solves the problem quite nicely. Cue up a lot of "Well, we could do it to if we only had Z like they did!" sour grapes talk.)

For an outsider trying to help people, when you hear yourself doing this, it's time to go. You are no longer a positive agent of change.
> Amazon doesn't appear to be doing much about its problem with fakes.

Sometimes it seems like they are actively helping them. I wrote a review pointing out that an author[1] is a fake person[2] and they didn't respond to me and deleted the review. Meanwhile, the obviously fake reviews on "her" work still stay up.

It used to be that I could go on Amazon and judge by reviews and know I'd get something good, but these days searching Amazon means wading through a lot of crap and fakes and I don't get the impression that the company sees it as a problem.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Tina-B.Baker/e/B0716Q2Y4Z/ref=sr_tc_2...

[2] https://www.canstockphoto.co.uk/portrait-of-senior-woman-in-...
The internet's bathroom wall
>That dynamic is undemocratic. Whatever you may think about the US government, it is still far more legitimate to make these decisions than some guy in a basement and the CXOs of Google and Facebook.

For one, it's not the CXOs of Google and Facebook that cause the disruption in what's decided politically. If anything those are totally in bed with the government, and the US government at that (e.g. not the government of the rest 96% of the planet, who are still their customers).

It's the average Joes and Janes that adopt said technology as a means to circumvent the govermental dictums. And that perhaps not for Bitcoin and Tor (which, in the end, are both fringe activities, the 99% of the population doesn't participate in), but e.g. for things like DRM (tons of people use cracked DRMed content and stuff).

Second, there's nothing much "democratic" in the overeach of government in all areas of social life just because they can.

If anything, your argument can be inverted completely:

It's the government that loves the idea of increasing its reach beyond any previously accepted limits and loves using technology to achieve that.

Whatever privacy breaks or surveillance the government does for example wasn't possible, and wasn't even considered to be mentioned in the law, pro or against, 10 or 40 years ago, before technology gave them the opportinity.

So it's the government who loves to "re-interpret" the law to extend its powers through technology (and does that at a massive scale) and not the "tech community who loves the idea of subverting the law with technology" (they do, but they have done very little in that regard).

P.S Plus, CAs as an example of "safety"? LOL. Because they're so secure, and everyone loves their competence and the CA system, right?
This is actually the "right" way to do this, or at least the way sourdough bread has been made traditionally almost everywhere I've looked into.
The same kind of process applies to yogurt. You make the starting batch of bacteria in a similar way but then you just use a portion of the previous batch.
> In Germany we have a system called 'giropay', which is basically instant wire transfer via your online banking

I never saw a shop accept these. Most of the times it is a regular wire transfer, sometimes PayPal with fees or via invoice. Nowadays many shops also do credit card.
Yes, but it is really to to have one machine to rule them all. It also depends on each flour you are using. The machine would work better in some countries than others.
A world without natural death would have a very different attitude towards children. There simply wouldn't be room for very many new people on a planet populated by immortal 300-year-olds.

Most people wouldn't be able to start a family. The few who get the opportunity would probably be carefully vetted by governments.

The dragon fable is emotional, but it doesn't address any of the questions of what a "post-dragon" world of inevitable gerontocracy would look like. If bodies don't fail, that doesn't automatically mean brains wouldn't decay. Will the old people in power remain open to new ideas and challenges? Do we really want immortal Bezos and Zuckerberg expanding their empires in perpetuity?
That's interesting. Every project I've worked on has had at least one bug of this form, and typically more than one, where the integer-type indexes into a table of integer-type IDs have got mixed up with the integer-type IDs.

You might be surprised how much of a pain in the arse it is to even realise these bugs exist, because during development and initial tests these tables have a nasty habit in many situations of containing IDs that are the same as the index. And when everything is an int, or similar, fixing them can be quite painful too. It just takes one bug in one function for a set of subtly broken workarounds and/or misunderstandings to spread throughout the code. Lots of places where functions take an "id" and then pass it into a function that takes an "index", or vice versa... just what was the intention here? :(

This shit is the worst kind of bug.

My usual solution:

struct ThingID {uint64_t id;};
typedef struct ThingID ThingID;

struct OtherThingID {uint64_t id;};
typedef struct OtherThingID OtherThingID;

And that's it. When at all syntactically inconvenient, it's a sign you're possibly doing the wrong thing.
> it's a well established bit of law that copyright infringement as a business is a criminal offence, and not just a civil tort

Can we have this kind of law for privacy infringement too, please?
Doesn't pretty much every language nowadays have foreach loops that don't require keeping an integer index around when iterating over elements?
That seems like a way better idea.
I know, these people are cartoonish. I thought they only existed in American movies.
Because every organization strives for more power, whether its members admit it or not.

The very idea of "checks and balances" is that different organizations would strive for power on opposite directions, thus preventing each other from gaining much.
Which is based on a cobol system from Accenture from what I hear.
I worked for Lloyds TSB around 2003/2004. In banking the domain knowledge (banking & finance) is more valuable then the technology knowledge. There was a guy at Lloyds who couldn’t write a line of code, but he know every field and every column and what that field meant and why it was there.

This guy was as close to unfireable (is that a word) as it gets.
UUID are the way, GUID for those in Microsoft's lands.

Not only will you never run out but you don't need a round trip to the keymaster, horizontal scaling, clustering and vertical sharding even are all way easier due to that. This removes a single point of failure entirely when the keymaster is no longer needed.

Using ints for keys for profiles/users and many other things were needed way back when processing/db/disk/memory and performance from that were a problem, no longer.

Do your part, join the UUID revolution. Also, if you were a piece of data, would you not want to be unique across all the databases, storage and services? You've heard of Roko's Basilisk right? Do not disappoint.
> The fact that developed nations spend 10% of GDP on healthcare belies this.

In the parable, this would be mostly equivalent to people who find themselves on the list of next dragon transport spending money on getting themselves pushed to a list in the future. Everyone expects to be eaten by the dragon, but if there's money, you can be eaten later and not just now. Most of that money is then burned somehow, and very little of it finds its way to anti-dragon research.

This seems to reflect the views of a lot of people on on aging and death itself. "Death is good and natural, and I'll eventually die too, but I'd prefer to die later".

> Let's put it another way: do you think pharmaceutical companies and academics aren't trying hard enough to attack this multidimensional problem? Who seems to be lacking urgency?

Do you think this is how urgency looks? It isn't. Urgency looks like Apollo Program. Or every single Olympics. Lost of people working directly on a particular goal, with lots of money flowing in. As it is, there seems to be only few people working on aging/life extension directly.

Urgency would be when, besides that 10% GDP spent on healthcare, you'd spend a few percent more directly on life extension.
Other advantages of UUIDs:

- client can generate the UUID, allowing eventual consistency and retrying using distributed DBs (other DB is on phone for example)

- merging of DBs is easy

- allows capability based access control (you can’t guess the UUID, you don’t have access)

- can use a bit or teo to encode production vs development IDs, so cross contamination of systems is less likely
For one, DNA means you need to trust the police (and related labs).

If one doesn't trust them, there's no reason to trust a DNA-based "evidence" either.

Not only can DNA be planted (like all kinds of physical evidence have been planted by police in western countries in documented cases), but of course, in a dictatorship or some shady government in a banana republic, "we found a DNA match" can be just a BS empty statement made because of political reasons -- and no one will be the wiser.
In all likelihood I make more than you and pay a lower tax rate.

So we're both happy with the situation.
I think user IDs should be passed around as ints. It's efficient and simple. If you've got critical code that might lock someone out (or worse), you're much better off spending time testing it to ensure it works, rather than building in inefficient paradigms into your data model. For argument's sake, imagine if your data model also stores the sender's current manager per message. You could by mistake do this as well (a little slip of the finger when using code completion):

ban_senders_of_messages(messages) {
for (i = 0; i < messages.size(); ++i) {

ban_account(message[i].sendersManager);
}
}

The only way to catch that is to test, and because the manager and sender will have similar data types, it will compile/execute just fine. The point is, this is probably a more likely error than the one mentioned in the article, and needs manual inspection and testing to correct. If you're carrying out that process anyway, the added inefficiency of a more elaborate data type just for user IDs seems redundant.
I can think of a couple reasons.

1. Github got First Mover momentum

2. Git preference over mercurial back when Bitbucket burst on the scene.

3. Github has many users which means its easier if you want to reach a large audience with your FOSS project.

4. Due to #3 large companies hosting all their big projects on GH, leads to a self perpetuating cycle.
You say all you have to do is lie, but that’s not true at all. I mean, laundering money $20 a day isn’t going to really matter, and a $25,000 pizza order is going to set off alerts.

It’s not about preventing 100%, it’s about making it difficult to the point that it’s not a way to efficiently move that much money.

I mean, technically Apple could be used to launder money.

And frankly, any service that looks to offer some marketplace should be aware of money laundering potential, and how you are going to limit it. And don’t get me started on other issues like fraud.
"Every project I've worked on has had at least one bug of this form, and typically more than one"

Then we have had completely different experiences in software development and are unlikely to agree on the importance of the content in this post.
I somewhat agree about the diminishing marginal utility.

However, the real criticism is actually in the fundamental goal. The ultimate point of everything is to create sustainable civilizational progress that eradicates suffering and provides the good life to as many people as possible.

Simply living longer doesn't help achieve that. Indeed, it would cement unequal power relationships. Rulers, especially those who rule for life, would be in power for much longer. There would be compound interest over longer timescales, without the asset division that happens upon death.

Of course, a good counterargument is simply that such medical progress is inevitable. But if so, the point would not be to simply fund efforts to push it forward. The point would be to fund efforts to distribute the benefits broadly, and find ways to constrain the downsides.
Common cancer myths (2018)
I moved country twice in my life and I never had much trouble with the things you mention. I acknowledge they exist, I just don't agree they're a big thing (in the sense that knowledge can be re-build relatively quickly).
How to Diagnose SEO Traffic Drops
Euro backtracks on plan to kill off Brits' 300,000 .eu domains
There are many reasons why you might use a systems programming language [1].

> System programming requires a great degree of hardware awareness. Its goal is to achieve efficient use of available resources, either because the software itself is performance critical (AAA video games) or because even small efficiency improvements directly transform into significant monetary savings for the service provider (cloud based word processors).

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_programming
Native Clojure with GraalVM
I’m not sure the benefit to Apple or other phone manufacturers. This looks like a substantial cost with zero benefit to those others than law enforcement. And substantial new risk for misuse or abuse.

What’s Ozzie’s true motivation? Is he looking to start a company running Clear and raking in patent revenue? I get why the governments want this, but not why a citizen would propose this.

If it weren’t Ray Ozzie, I would think this was just part of some propaganda push.
>This is one of the reasons I'm a big fan of cryptocurrency. Your service would not have been shut down by the payment processor if you were able to handle the money yourself without relying on a third party.

If your cryptocurrency-based store wouldn't comply by the same regulations that third party was required to comply with, though, then you, as a merchant, would be breaking the law. Which takes you back to square one, cryptocurrency or not.

It's just that with cryptocurrency you get to decide to break the law and continue accepting payments, instead of being based to Stripe.
> Most people wouldn't be able to start a family. The few who get the opportunity would probably be carefully vetted by governments.

Maybe. Or maybe there would be a push to engineer deserts to be habitable. To create undersea habitats. To colonize Mars and expand further. This might not happen, but it is a solution.

Also, with more and more interesting things to do and without the societal pressure to have children (as we have today), less people would even want to start a family. I believe the problem is manageable, and I don't buy the "we have to die, so that new people can live (and die)" line of reasoning.

> If bodies don't fail, that doesn't automatically mean brains wouldn't decay.

It would probably happen. But that would be a nice problem to have.

> Do we really want immortal Bezos and Zuckerberg expanding their empires in perpetuity?

We seem to be managing this problem with wealthy families, so we could probably manage it with individuals as well.
Hello pharma industry
>Your service would not have been shut down by the payment processor if you were able to handle the money yourself without relying on a third party.

But without payment processor you need to handle a lot of that yourself (security, refunds, fraud, recurring payments, taxes, EU VATs, etc.). All the complicated stuff that caused us to outsource payment services in the first place.
From what I understand, they found a correlation between disturbed circadian cycles and hormone-caused cancers, the mean of lighting doesn't seem to play a role.
Possibly. For small value transactions there's also a lot of people doing tests to see if a card is still live before using it for real purchases. When I was at Yahoo more than a decade ago, we ran into a lot of attempts to purchase extra storage for e-mail (pre-Gmail days...) with stolen cards for that purpose.
Naming won't help, sooner or later someone will make similar mistake that will slip through code review.

Real problem is that it is possible to accidentally do this type of mistakes. If you can avoid doing it by leveraging type system, you should. Relying on humans to never make mistake is futile.
I have not yet seen a remote friendly company that does not adjust for NOT living in SF. I’ve been remote for 10 years now.

The only scenario I can think of is to start in-office in SF, prove your value and then go remote after some time and maintain salary. I have not tried that yet.
TSB Bank posts job ad for Head of Infrastructure
The week of freezeover, when observant yeast abstain from wheat.
I want to upvote this so many more times than I'm able to.

The principle is even more harmful, because it sounds so logical. If many JSON parser accept your JSON object which is not valid JSON, any new parser that doesn't accept it will be booed as a faulty parser.

If your input is not according to spec, throw an error. The sender is wrong. They deserve to know it and need to fix their output.
Sounds like this could have probably been avoided, if they had done random testing on the swabs themselves to give confidence that they were not compromised by contamination.
Why not define a new data type for each type of ID? Simple and effective. And there's no inefficiency; these things aren't created and destroyed all the time! They're just retrieved from other objects and then passed around.

In languages that support value types, you'll typically make them integer size, so the cost is likely to be the same as passing an integer. In languages that support reference types only, you're just passing around a pointer anyway.
Slay this dragon (I doubt you can) and you will soon find he is greatly missed.
If trying more or less random URLs of your service is an issue for you, you have an issue.
Microsoft's Windows 10 “April 2018 Update” Being Released on Monday