skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes but ...

Big pharma currently doesn't want to cure medical conditions, it wants to sell drugs continuously. (See also: lack of development of new antibiotics, huge over-investment in anti-depressants, etc.)

New medicines are very expensive to develop because of the extreme regulatory environment and relatively short patent duration (two decades from registering a patent on a drug to it going into a free-for-all of cheap generics: development takes 8-16 years and the remaining 4-12 years are all the time the developer has got to amortize their costs and turn a profit).

But the regulations and requirements for extensive testing exist for very good reason, to prevent this sort of thing from happening:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_Sulfanilamide (1938: at least 100 dead)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#History (1950s: use for morning sickness caused >2000 deaths, 10,000 born with severe deformities)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vioxx (2004: 88-140,000 cases of serious heart disease)

There's no solution to the problem of complex, emergent, lethal drug side-effects on the horizon. So we have to have expensive clinical trials and statistical tests to rule out a high risk of harm before a new drug can be released. So the pharmaceutical industry has a baked-in incentive to maximize revenue by ignoring certain conditions (brief/acute illnesses, especially those afflicting the poor or the developing world) and prioritize chronic diseases of affluence. There's no fix within the established framework, because the established framework is defective by emergent design.

We could tinker with the international intellectual property regime governing pharmaceutical patent duration, but that kicks the ball up to WTO treaty level. Or we could consider non-profit bases for pharmaceutical R&D, but that goes against the current dominant free market ideology.
Yep. Years ago when I was pushing us remote one of the owners asked “how will we know when people are working?”, to which I responded, “how do we know now?”
I tried to create one post, but that was marked as dead (don't know how that works)
then I tried to change a title and resend different bodies.

I already found repeated live post and hided them
DeepMind papers at ICLR 2018
... While your history comments can be interesting, not every comment about a feature of Rust needs a "rebuttal" about how it wasn't the first language with that feature. Especially not a comment that wasn't even mildly suggesting that Rust was the first language to not have null pointers/references!

The comparison here was to "easier statically typed languages" (likely with an implicit "that one is likely to consider for a project these days"), with Go and Java explicitly raised for comparison. It's perfectly reasonable to respond to that with "There's no null", without explicitly acknowledging that there's also other languages (even ones before Rust) that don't have null.
People should be allowed to comment on down votes. Wait, let me guess, its 'well established'.
CAs seem to be able to keep their private keys safe.

You mean, except for the 23 000 that were leaked just this year?

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/03/23000...
There is this simple trick called a redirect that solve the problem.
You’re not wrong. Banks have enough money to do what they want and hide it or pay off.

Average joe has to adhere to the letter of law and what ever corporations throw at them.
Since you mentioned it, situation in Bridge is quite different. Memorising can't give you such a considerable advantage against people who have studied less. This is also one of the many reasons that the game will not be dominated by computers in the near future at least. I have met many chess friends, even a grand master that are playing bridge fanatically because the game remains more "enjoyable".
Badmouthing the Bavarian police because you had negative experiences, perhaps?

Bavaria has the lowest crime rate of all German states and proportion of crimes solved in the state is the highest in Germany.
It was once civil, but corporations successfully externalised their enforcement costs on the tax payer by lobbying and rewriting the law to make it criminal.
>> Nobody is advocating that every other problem should be ignored, simply that we could stand to adjust the balance.

Nick Bostrom's article is advocating exactly that:

Instead of a massive publicly-funded research program to halt aging, we spend almost our entire health budget on health-care and on researching individual diseases.

He seems to be saying that if we halt ageing, we'll stop dying from other disease, or in any case that ageing is more important than any other disease.
Its common for political parties in the UK to delete old content / speeches.
I graduated from business school last spring.

It’s not that they need to be bulldozed, but rather, treated as a trade school.

Our highest rated classes were taught by practitioners - those in the Arena, leading men and women, making the difficult ethical choices, then posing them to us to wrestle through. These were the classes we all wanted to take, but were deeply oversubscribed and only a fraction of us got to take.

The practitioners were sidelined by the academics. The theorists and mere paper-writers - many of whom either utterly failed at business or never spent a day outside the university environment.

Not one of my MBA classmates planned to teach - yet we
spent most of our required class time being taught by those in power with the least relevance to the real world.

The real revolution in business education will
occur when the academics relinquish control, and let those who’ve learned through hard fought experience take the reins.

My experience was incredible - my classmates were the most impressive folks I’ve ever met. And the value there was incalculable. But the education was easily replicable, aside from the phenomenal courses taught by practitioners.
> we should give them some slack

I appreciate the spirit of the parent, but I think even that message starts with the wrong premise. It assumes that the group with high proficiency in English ("we") decides whether or not to welcome others with low proficiency ("them").

In fact, the commenter several levels up is as much a member of HN as you and I. The guidelines for contributions are not about English proficiency, but about intellectual value. We want more members making more valuable contributions. If they misspell every word and break every grammar rule, it doesn't matter as long as I can understand them and the comment contributes something.

What is outside the guidelines is one commeter criticizing another's language, especially using words like "atrocious". That comment contributes nothing of intellectual value to HN.
Maybe it's me, but this is really, really bad. Probably because I come from an IRC background.

I had assumed these request were proxified, but I didn't realise that would go against E2E. Now I'd like to see an option to disable these previews.
Why Learn English? – Swiss Language Success Articles
I just read at least half that page and this idiotic design confirms exactly why I feel PHP should be considered harmful
I don't really understand the difference between reading three pages of documentation on a language website or two pages on a language website and one page on a library website.
> To accept to have your own child taken from you and cut open to offer its heart to some angry God supposes an amount of "faith" difficult to imagine.

abraham was willing.
Nah dude that's not the way of things today. In today's world people make stupid choices, realize they made a stupid choice, blame everybody else, then throw a temper tantrum until somebody makes it better.
This company's policies apparently allow comparison of genetic information without vetting who is making the query. I can think of a lot of uses for such a database. Adopted and want to find your birth parents? Wondering if your husband fathered any children with another woman? The possibilities are endless.
I bet they had a backup, it was just never tested... pretty common mistake
Households Need to Earn $300,000 a Year to Live a Middle Class Lifestyle
> Seriously picking a car industry which is and always had been different in the US than in Eu is a shitty example to prove a point. (etc)

I'm not trying to "prove a point". You asked for an example ("Where and how are the german companies beating the US ?") and I gave you one: German car companies are beating american car companies in the us.

So before you change the subject into china, south korea, the IT industry, weaker markets, mass production, and so on and on, can you first acknowledge that you asked for an example of German companies beating american ones, and I gave you exactly one such example?
Maybe there is risk in putting in a big order (requires contact details? Requires actual contact? There is cost to setting up an account).

This way, you don't risk / burn an account without getting your payoff.
Good luck getting that expunged from a background check then - even worse that even tuppenny ha'penny Jobs in the USA require background checks.
What kind of issues? It could be some sort of communication problems, rather than rejections by your bank. Or, maybe, a local bank rejecting your card for their own reasons (I don't really know how this works).

I was visiting Philippines recently, and wasn't able to withdraw cash - the ATMs (I've tried different banks' ones) were rejecting me with a generic error message. So I've contacted my bank to check what's wrong and if they're blocking me for any reason. Turned out that they haven't seen any transaction attempts at all - like something along the path wasn't working (no clue, really). The suggested method of trying an ATM in a different part of the city worked.

I've also had issues with some payments via PoS terminals. Normally, when payment fails I get a push notification about the failure - but none happened at those times. So, I guess, this could be similar.
This reads better than any action book out there
they stop using the drug at a certain threshold? first result from a google search. https://www.cell.com/trends/microbiology/abstract/S0966-842X...
But they're all users, where one user can be set as a manager for another. Why would you have a separate type for each?!
To reduce redundancy:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16947508
I was under the impression that everyone outsources payment processing because PCI compliance is hard.
Hey guys. Founder of HodlBot here.

A few months ago I saw a Hacker News post about the new Coinbase Index Fund. A lot of comments were complaining about shitty Coinbase’s index fund of 4 coins was. So I commented on the post about HodlBot and got 500 sign-ups (thank you guys). That gave me the courage to quit my job and start working on this full-time.

HodlBot is live now. I'm back and happy to answer any questions.
How to Build a Serverless App with S3 and Lambda
It’s what pretty much everyone in the F# or DDD community is advocating for.
Avoiding to use the first 10000 integers as she suggested is not a solution.
And using contiguous integers as user ids is the silliest thing that you can do given that it leaves you also open to enumeration attacks.
I don't see anything new in the alleged proposal, this is the same old crypto war.
This is "just" key escrow.

One might as well propose to have the manufacturers build in the governments public key (and autobrick phone usage) such that the phone can detect if it is really the government reading the phone.

Another note:

"Ozzie’s proposal relies fundamentally on the ability of manufacturers to secure massive amounts of extremely valuable key material against the strongest and most resourceful attackers on the planet. "

This is not true: the phone encrypts the users passcode against the manufacturers public key. If the government tries to read the phone, it will get the encrypted passcode (useless) and send it to the manufacturer who decrypts the passcode. A single private key is not massive amounts of information. Not that it changes anything about protection needs: wheither its a piece of paper containing the say 4096 bits (512 bytes), or in Matthew Greens misinterpretation billions of 512 bytes (half a terrabyte) on a single HDD, they both have the same value. The whole code base needs similar protection anyway: their bootloaders already are signed by the manufacturer.

All this centralization is bad, leave the crypto genie out of the bottle please...
If anyone is looking for frugal yet meaningful gifts for Christmas, etc, I found great success by making gifts of my sourdough starter to some close friends and family. Some time beforehand, I started to split up and increase the amount of starter I was growing, then printed little laminated labels with instructions for feeding the starter (and an example recommended bread recipe that was easy to make), and attached it to the mason jars in which I was storing the starter.
But your example implies you shouldn't be allowed to get them mixed up?

If manager IDs and user IDs truly are the same type of thing, then there's a limited amount the type system can do for you in this respect. Maybe you'll have to stop at this point and just accept that you'll have to exercise a certain degree of care.

But there's a big gap between stopping there, in my view, and what you appear to be advocating: deciding that since manager IDs and user IDs are the same thing then you might as well give up entirely and just decide that they may as well be the same thing as ints while you're at it.
We need a new way of thinking about caches of secrets. It comes from this unpleasant truth: all secrets eventually leak. The evidence of the past few years teaches us that even state actors with unlimited resources cannot prevent their secrets from leaking.

A "leak" here happens when a trusted entity loses control of the secret to one or more untrusted and malicious entities. That's just a definition, not a claim that any particular government, company, or person is a trusted entity.

To counter this, we need multiple layers of defense.

One is the business of bricking the phones when the leaked secrets are exploited. That makes it plain that the secret has leaked. It's a valuable layer of defense.

Another is to make the secrets have limited useful lifetimes. Expiration and revocation for TLS certificates is a way to do that. Credit/debit card numbers can be deactivated and replaced rapidly. That's another way to limit the lifetime of a secret. Ozzie's proposal does not include a way to limit secrets' lifetimes. (Social Security numbers are problematic secrets: they too have unlimited lifetimes.)

A third layer is making the secrets have limited utility. If debit cards had daily spending limits, their secret numbers would be less useful than they are today, for example. Day-one exploits are secrets with vast utility, for another example. Ozzie proposes a secret to unlock an entire phone. How about limiting that to, say, the phone's call log or SMS log?

A fourth layer is to keep the caches of secrets as small as possible, so a breach affects as few people as possible. Ozzie proposes the opposite of this.

A fifth layer: holders of caches of secrets must know they are strictly liable for breaches proportional to the damage they do. It must not matter whether the breach was due to negligence, carelessness, espionage, or salt water rusting out the safe after a storm. Large scale key escrow cache systems will never be able to meet this standard: nation states won't honor that liability, nor will they pay private companies enough to cover the insurance for it.

(Strict liability is not unprecedented: workers' compensation and the vaccine injury victims' compensation fund are two reasonably successful examples.)

People, companies, and governments holding secrets necessarily must consider what happens when (not if) they leak, and provide at least some defenses in depth like these.

Ozzie's proposal has weak and incomplete in-depth defenses. That's why it's dangerous.
That's great, please post a link here when it starts :)
ServerlessDays – A global conference for the serverless community
Right? Like Lockheed Martin, Booz Allen, Comcast, Raytheon, just deliver soooooooo much value to the American taxpayer!

Those executive bonuses are hard-earned!
You have to assume that a bug is the normality, not an exception.
The more safeguards you put to make illegal state unrepresentable and illegal code uncompilable the better is it.
How many programmers have been surprised (pleasantly or not) by unintended/unexpected uses of their code?
Take a look at this http://aprilzero.com/
> It involves using rw-everything and looking at SLIC table version.

There's a much easier method that automates all of that for you: the Multi-OEM/Retail Project (MRP) [1]. This queries the SLIC or MSDM tables for you during the installation of Windows and enables you to create a single DVD or USB drive that works with OEM PCs from 131 different manufacturers.

All you have to do is copy the included '$oem$' folder to the 'sources' folder of your Windows 10, 8.x, 7 or Windows Vista ISO/USB and it takes care of the rest.

The MRP is designed to determine what motherboard manufacturer is fitted and find the DMI, (board information), to then check against a database to pick the right theme, logo's etc. Along side this, if the computer has either a MSDM key or SLIC within the bios, to check that against the database and attempt to allow LEGAL activation as the Computer's OEM suppliers would do. For those with a Windows 10 Digital Licence (HWID), or MSDM key your computer should auto-activate when you go online, providing you have installed the correct Edition for the HWID/MSDM key.

[1] https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/multi-oem-retail-pr...
World's oldest spider dies at 43
In my experience, Eclipse used to be good and it suddenly became horrible, and it was pretty clear when this happened: around the "Juno" major redesign (which, like I mentioned elsewhere, was both a huge redesign and lacked any kind of serious testing because of budget problems).

It wasn't a gradual, this-is-slightly-becoming-worse affair. It was abrupt. Eclipse really did jump the shark, and you could see the shark flying in mid-air :)
My identity as a seller is a business asset. If you don't trust my reputation, you are free to search for an item/service elsewhere from a seller you trust more.

However, I am not able to trust you as a buyer on Ebay or Amazon. No matter what I do to cover my bases, there is a risk that Amazon and Ebay will reverse the transaction, and I will lose my money, time, and even my item.

Conversely, when you send me cash or a cash equivalent by mail, I am now 100% fulfilled, and any failure to deliver on my end should become public knowledge quite quickly. However, caveat emptor.
I use a UUID for the primary key, it protects against this as well as other issues. Does have some drawbacks though.
Since I largely program in C#, I typically define the unique ids on my classes as enums. Enums in C# are open, not closed, so you can define something like a UserId like so:

public enum UserId { Unset = 0; }

public class User
{
public UserId Id {get;set;}
}

This works with various ORM and other mapping tools since enums are ints underneath, but you get static checking.

Then there's the issue of protection when passing around ids in web apps as parameters, in cookies, etc. I devised Clavis [1] as an experiment for protecting URL parameters via an HMAC. The idea works pretty well in practice, but it's current incarnation is a little too cumbersome to use.

[1] A url http://foo.com?userId=1234 becomes http://foo.com?-userId=1234&clavis=asdbwef67t34rfbs, where the 'clavis' parameter is an HMAC of the URL's protected parameters, and changing any of them causes the request to fail. Unprotected parameters are also supported, so GET form submissions are still possible. See: http://higherlogics.blogspot.ca/2014/01/clavis-rebooted-secu...
C# is ill suited for this sadly.
On the other hand in F# you have single case discriminated unions or unit of measures if you care about performance.
> Most people agree that money by itself has something bad attached to it, at some level it encourages people to do evil stuff.

What?! This is not true. Money is not inherently evil. Money is a tool, just like a hammer. I can build things with it or do harm with it.
Oz's declarative concurrency is worth taking a look at. In Oz, a thread implicitly goes into sleep or wake up on data dependency. for example,

declare
FOO BAR % FOO and BAR are not bound to any value yet.
in
thread
{print FOO} % the thread blocks here until FOO is bound to a value.

BAR = 456 % Binds BAR which wake up any thread waiting for it.
end

thread
FOO = 132 % Binds FOO which wake up any thread waiting for it.

{print BAR} % the thread blocks here until BAR is bound to a value.
end

Because of this, ordering of operations is easy.
1. spread lies that being rightly forgotten by google costs over $100k and get branded as an expert

2. start a company that offers a $50 form submission for $50k. a killer deal based on lies from #1
Promotion for "The Surrounding Game", which looks like a gorgeous documentary. As Lee Sedol claims in the trailer: "It's the most difficult game ever devised by humans"

Watching highlights of Fortnite 100-player battle royale matches where Ninja is racking up multiple kills per second really makes you wonder if a bot with visual recognition, building strategy skills is achievable in this generation. It's a lot of information. Resulting in a massive decision tree. Bot AI used to be pretty decent back in the UT days. I wonder if Epic is thinking about employing them now to pad the games and increase engagement?

Does EPIC add bots to fill in the 100 for BR?

https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/forums/battle-royale/roya...
Just to make sure we're clear on this, since I'm relatively new to breadmaking and have so far only followed exact recipes... 80% hydration refers to mass ratios, correct? 80% hydration = 100g flour to 80g water?
>> After cancer no longer kills you, something else will.

Well, currently, unless something else kills you, cancer certainly will. Cancer is a biological inevitability, that can only be kept at bay for so long by the efforts of the human immune system. And as we all know, the longer we all live, the more of us will get cancer, because the transcription errors that eventually cause it become all the more likely as time goes by.

Bostrom seems to think -it's not expressed in so many words- that if we halt ageing, we'd also defeat cancer, somehow, perhaps by having an immune system that is forever as powerful as a young person's. The problem with this idea is that young people do get cancer, despite their healthy immune systems.

It looks like everyone alive has a probability to get cancer at some point in their life. For younger people this probability is relatively low, but currently, we only spend a few years of our lives (let's say 20) being young. If our "young" period is suddendly extended to 50 or 60 years, or more, the probabilty to get cancer while "young" in this sense, will increase. Imagine rolling a 100-sided die every year for 20 years, hoping not to roll a 01. Now imagine doing the same for 100 years. It's obvious that you're much more likely to roll at least one 01 in 100 years, than in 20.

So maybe Bostrom's magical health-extension pills won't work exactly like he thinks. Maybe we can all extend our life spans (well, those of us who can afford that mythical panacea) but not for as long as we'd like, and maybe we will find that if we extend our life for long enough, we will increase our likelihood to die of the most dreaded of diseases to an absolute certainty.

And wouldn't that really suck?
Try "conversion"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)