skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This looks like a completely unsubstantiated manufactured news article.

As an aside, any notion that OLED is the next generation, or natural successor, is questionable. I've gone though a long line of both OLED and LCD smartphones, and each has its advantages.

OLED is lower power if the screen is dark, but if the screen is bright it is a significantly higher power user. OLED burn-in is still a very serious problem, and many users don't realize that the "burn-in proof" screens (something claimed as a new innovation each year since the first introduction of OLED) do it by intentionally wearing out other parts of the screen to try to equalize the fade. After not a long time an OLED screen is much dimmer than it started, and they usually start fairly dim. And even then you'll still see grain and other wear on it.

OLED is an amazing technology, especially for occasional or passive use devices. I still want my heavy use screens to be LCD for now.

OLED is great for non-rectangular, low brightness uses. It's great for non-flat displays. Otherwise its merits are oversold.
Any tool that purposefully builds in unnecessary minefields like these deserves to be shamed.
The vagueness of the meaning of "processing" PII is one of my handful of problems with GDPR. Is the mere act of having a unique index on an email address column a form of processing? I'd argue it is. It's can be construed really far.
> Especially with commands being logged, one slip-up (paste, tabcomplete etc) could end up in public .tsv files for anyone to see.

That argument can be extended to anything and as such cannot be deemed valid.

I could accidentally post AWS secrets as my user-agent in my browser. Does that mean everyone on the internet should be held accountable to GDPR because I might visit them and my user-agent end up in their server-logs?

Ofcourse not.

Microsoft is clearly showing a reasonable effort w.r.t. limiting what gets logged and how. That should be more than enough to appease any GDPR-concerns. They can't be held accountable for all possible errors or error-modes in the known universe.

If anyone here is claiming they should, what they then also claim is that any software handling user-data must be 100% bug-free to be GDPR-compliant. And that's obviously a ludicrous position.

Stop the nonsense.
5 Strategies to Find the Best Software for Event Management
I had a Galaxy S2 with an AMOLED display. I used it for more than five years, no burn ins, no color issues. I've got a Sony with a LCD screen now. The AMOLED was better. Black is black (the difference is very visible at night) and it could be dimmed much more (useful before sleeping.) I don't understand why LCDs are still a thing. Cost?

Edit: another comment pointed out that phones dim the screen to hide burnin. The screen of my old phone did got dimmer over the years. So maybe it got burnin after all.
The Philosophy of Computational Complexity
This kind of thing is inevitable though. Within a month there will be online services that auto send an even more annoying version of this letter to every company on your contact list.
> not for everyone

I feel that acutely.

Emacs is shit because despite its age, it does not even meet some sane minimum requirements for text editors. No localisation. No tabs. Window cannot be maximised prior to setting some obscure option. Menu items and buttons do not have underlined letters (i.e. accelerators). The vast majority of the options cannot be accessed through the menu or dialogues, instead you get a non-editable document with embedded buttons. Configuration is stored as code. Keys cannot be rebound from the menu.

The list could go on and on. I am thoroughly disappointed with the software, I wouldn't recommend to anyone expending patience on it.
The author of the nightmare letter didn't even claim that his nightmare letter was aimed at data subjects (AKA users), but specifically to companies that are trying to be compliant. Like, "if you can answer this letter, you're compliant".

The author of this piece just twisted the meaning of the letter completely.
The same happens unfortunately with FOI requests. I've seen a case of someone explicitly stating they're sending FOI requests to a municipality just to spite them, which led to that municipality having to hire four (!) people to process them and find the documents. This in turn led to a restriction of that law, which is a real shame.
If you're allowed to use the smartest engineers and the cleverest algorithms to process as much data about me as possible to create perfect ads, and if that's not trolling... then neither is it trolling to ask what you've been up to.
The most friction so far that I've seen are some news organizations that seem to do what they can do mis-interpret the law. I have no idea what made them think that's the right response but it is almost as if they are doing it willfully.

For the rest of it hardly any interaction to date other than that the spam volume seems to have dropped 50% or even more overnight.
South Korea’s Electronic Times

The source is in the first sentence of the article.
For a basic probe, I'd just ask for general information, e.g. the documentation of what user data they process with what justification. Compliant orgs can likely just respond with a PDF they've prepared, you can review that and if something seems odd or interesting or not matching what you see ask detailed questions later, or request specific information about your account. (Also easier for you, since the initial response doesn't require verifying your identity)

If they can't give a convincing answer, then bigger guns are appropriate.
That request gets vague promises, with no proof that the entity is following through with them.

Asking for the maximum shows you exactly how compliant an entity is.
Depending on criticity, use (frequency and effective use), consider:

* HSM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_security_module

* Handwritten base64 sheets of paper in different vaults

* a USB token (Yubikey, or whatnot)
I'm in the UK and had no problems accessing it (Sky)
SAMSUNG MUST PAY $539M TO APPLE FOR COPYING SMARTPHONE FEATURES, COURT SAYS
> A tree that faces no hardship (bad weather, etc.) looks pretty but has little depth and can't sustain during high winds and such.

It doesn't need to because it doesn't face hardship.
True, currently we always need some sort of signalling server to be able to connect to browser<>browser peers but once you done that, you can connect directly to other browsers (truly P2P in the browser).

Now, if we can have js-ipfs and go-ipfs nodes on desktop automatically act as signalling servers (if you start with a `--server` flag or something), we'll be able to decentralize the need for signalling servers as well, and remove another point of centralization. Getting us closer to the goal as well.

Maybe in the future we'll be able to have TCP/UDP sockets in the browser, but we'll see when/if that happens.

Disclaimer: I work fulltime on IPFS
Geoblocking EU users makes it fairly clear you don't intend to serve[0] them, at least in my opinion. If the only reason you could be in scope is offering your service in the Union, and you do your best to avoid that, you should probably be out of scope.

We'll see what the regulators think.

[0] From Recital 23: "[When deciding whether processing is in scope under Article 3(2)], it should be ascertained whether it is apparent that the controller or processor envisages offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union."
I'd say the complexity is quite similar, but that technology is more well defined then biology. Each area can still be segmented into to layers of understanding. For instance I have very little experience with machine level programming, but I have a general idea abiut how the disk, ram, cpu and cache are connected. Enough information to design fast programs, but not enough to re engineer that layer myself. Above that layer I am well experienced all the way to configuring high level software packages. Below that layer, circuit design maybe, I am basically in the dark.

Biology is not much different, though there schooling seems to do a better job at exposing the student to all the layers we know about.
Any company I didn't give my data to directly and have never heard of is a concern. Many companies sending out GDPR emails need to learn that processing data is a liability they should avoid if possible.
The alternative is to not collect personal information from your customers.
Why not just make the logging opt-in then? Opt-out for non-primary features like sneaky telemetry is not reasonable.

There's a difference between not being bug-free, and purposefully implementing a user-hostile feature like this.

Please, try to avoid crediting me for absurd arguments that I haven't made.
Edit: Turns out that BeyondJava article is just poorly written, and tries so hard to emphasise its subtle distinctions that it ends up being actively harmful to the reader's understanding. I'll leave my comment anyway.

From that article:

> Java doesn't store any object in the stack. It does store local variables on the stack: primitive types like int or boolean. It also store the pointers to objects on the stack. But it doesn't store the objects themselves on the stack. Anything you create with new is always created on the heap.

Is that true? For years now there have been articles from serious sources discussing JVM escape-analysis-based optimisations.

Is there something mistaken in the analysis in this DZone article?

https://dzone.com/articles/do-not-let-your-java-objects-esca...

How about this StackOverflow answer, which even goes into the detail of distinguishing escape-analysis, stack allocation of objects, and object deconstruction+scalar replacement:

https://stackoverflow.com/a/43002529/
BuyLikesServices.com
Buy Likes services LLC is the best place to get all type social media services. We offer high-quality Instagram followers and likes. These followers help your promotional campaigns on social media platforms. Get followers and likes for your Instagram business account at the affordable price. we help your business or brand reach a quality targeted audience. If you have a lot of followers than it always beneficial for your business and popularity for your brand. we are not offering your social media services, we provide you a professional branding strategy. If you have any queries, contact our website Buylikesservices.com.
That depends on what your motivations are. If you are just interested then that's all fine and good, if you have a legitimate issue with a company then too you are in the clear.

But if all you want to do is cause work 'just because you can' then you're on a fishing expedition without an actual cause. The claimant in the letter is clearly aware of that and how it would make them look in the eyes of the regulators if they were to forward a complaint hence the 'set up' at the beginning of the letter indicating some kind of faux concern in spite of being a 'customer'.

The dissonance there is pretty strong, if I'm a customer of a company in good standing this is not how I would address them.
But the article states "Anything you create with new is always created on the heap."
To summarize the relevant links and Github repos, they are:

https://tallylab.com/

https://github.com/orbitdb/orbit-db

https://github.com/orbitdb/ipfs-log

https://github.com/ipfs/js-ipfs

https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs

https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs
Big O is about doing the big picture high level analysis without wasting time on every little detail like the complexity of addition and multiplication. High performance implementation on the other hand is all about twiddling the constant factors in your algorithm(s) for your specific hardware architecture/topology.

See:

http://kaldewey.com/pubs/FAST__SIGMOD10.pdf
Name checks out. Assuming you didn't drop a power or two, it illustrates the huge gap between useful quantities for their physical or chemical properties, and the astoundingly small amounts of radioactive nucleotides which cause contamination.
No, that request should get you some fairly precise answers. If the answers are unsatisfactory then you always have the option to escalate, and it will actually help you if you do in the end decide to lodge a complaint with the regulators.

As it stands it's clearly an attempt at causing the wheels to grind to a halt, the title of the request and the context in which it has been presented are evidence of that as is the faux concern laced through the letter. This is not a request made in good faith.
Brainy isn't open source or publicly available, you can click on the project names in the list to see its scan results.
Netflix's Data-Driven Strategy Strengthens Lead for 'Best Original Content'
Long comment thread on a previous posting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12166585

TLDR: Uber is using MySQL as part of their "Schemalass" key-value store (https://eng.uber.com/schemaless-part-one/), a somewhat unusual use case in which it may be a better choice than PostgreSQL. It's not really an evaluation of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL as relational databases.
In some cases, like having received email communication from a business I’ve never used, never provided my email to, and never consented to receive promotional emails from, the situation starts out unfriendly from the very beginning.

It that case, I want to know about all the data that company has regarding me, and how they got it. Most likely I also want them to delete it too.

Given that their first communication with me is totally unsolicited email marketing, it seems reasonable that if I can reach for a legalese template for a GDPR request, and that raises the chances they’ll take me seriously, then it would be a good thing, almost the precise opposite of trolling (which is more or less what the company was doing by attempting to get data about me in the first place). And I truly don’t have sympathy for companies like this if they find that answering GDPR requests takes up a lot of their time and they lose money as a result. That is literally the only way they will care about data privacy.

I agree that this template could be used for trolling, but there are so many valid, positive outcomes that could be made easier by such a template that I think it’s unimportant to focus on possible trolling until it becomes a material problem.

In fact, this just gives companies a way to disingenuously whine about GDPR to legislators. “Look how many troll requests are clogging our system!” When really, many templated requests aren’t troll requests.
According to this PR they do collect command line arguments.

https://github.com/dotnet/cli/pull/2145

"My understanding is that this was recently discussed with our privacy team and we concluded that collecting the arguments themselves (hashed or not) is not acceptable per our privacy policies. Not sure whether the code already reflects that, but it's being worked on."

Somebody in the thread for the issue said it's "not acceptable per our privacy policies" and "being worked on" two years ago, but did they ever actually stop collecting command line arguments?
The only thing that could be called a "threat" that I saw (and I may have missed some instances) was:

> I would like you to be aware at the outset, that I anticipate reply to my request
within one month as required under Article 12, failing which I will be forwarding
my inquiry with a letter of complaint to the <appropriate data protection authority>.

and I don't really see that as a threat, more of a "directing of the proceedings". I mean, it's fact. If some company doesn't respond in the way I think they should to then that's exactly what I will be doing. This isn't a love letter, I don't see any harm in stating fact about this. I can totally see how it could be taken either way though.

I also agree the letter is going after everything, and everything is going to be painful for companies, but for me personally the pain is going to be a byproduct of wanting to know everything.

To be clear, companies that have made efforts to comply with GDPR that I've directly engaged with I'm not interested in and am going to leave alone, but the next unsolicited email from a recruiter I get will start a cascade of access then deletion requests up to the point where my information entered the system, painful or not.
I can't speak for news outlets outside of the UK but the ones here are largely anti-EU anyway.
Then automate the process or hire an administrator to deal with stuff like this. It's not the requester's fault that you can't handle compliance with a law efficiently.
> Then later Monday morning, Bank of Montreal revealed that it, too, had received a tip that "fraudsters" had stolen data on up to 50,000 of the bank's customers, "and a threat was made to make it public," BMO spokesperson Paul Gammal said.

> In BMO's case, at least, the tipsters were the hackers themselves.

> "We took steps immediately when the incident occurred and we are confident that exposures identified related to customer data have been closed off," BMO said.

Which "incident"? The theft or the data or being informed they were selling their own ass back to them?

The only fraudsters here are the banks, claiming they are secure.

Will CIBC and BMO be paying higher interest rates for the elevated risk of banking with them?
Afaik the main barriers are cost and yield. At the current manufacturing capacity most smartphones just cannot use OLED screens.
Yes, that would be a concern. But this is not that situation, the letter writer states clearly they are a customer of the company and they use examples from other companies to create a situation of faux concern about the addressee. That's not a request made in good faith and that street runs both ways.
AWS's 'Transcribe', 'Translate' Using Machine Learning in a Revolutionary Manner
Ask HN: I built a referral program for developers, would love feedback
Hi everyone,

Over the weekend I launched a referral program for my app Pull Reminders (https://pullreminders.com). Here's a quick summary with two screenshots showing what it looks like: https://twitter.com/abi/status/1001432164569960451

For some background, Pull Reminders is used by over a thousand developers and has 100+ new developers signing up each week. I've been looking at strategies to reach more potential customers without having to spend money or a ton of time so a referral program seemed like it had potential.

There are well-known success stories out there of referral programs designed by consumer products like DropBox, but far fewer for B2B, and almost none that I found which were targeted at developers (DigitalOcean is one).

I considered a cash incentive (ie. $25 per converted referral), but developers are well-paid so offering cash seemed like it could actually be a turn off. I considered offering credits, but Pull Reminders is expensed by teams so for an individual on the team this feels like a poor incentive. This eventually led me to the idea of offering free coffee (and tea)–not just regular coffee, but high-end coffee from specialty roasters. It's a generalization but I feel that most developers like coffee, and getting a bag of specialty coffee seems like it could be a fun and novel reward.

I have no idea if my approach or design is good so I would love your thoughts and feedback. How can I improve the structure, presentation, or description of my referral program? Is the coffee idea good? Is my copy written well (this was tough – I spent several hours repeatedly tweaking and rewriting)?

P.S. Sorry for the long post – I plan on eventually turning my learnings and results into a blog post.
Yes, the link posted on hacker news goes there. The poster went through the work to find the page again as text only version.

The "text version" link in the article goes to the front page (text version).
Even if he's not charging for the service, I am pretty sure he's getting more consultancy work from these "PR" (notice the quotes) posts. Even the timing on which he releases them makes sense in a way to prevent people from getting too tired of this service.

Not saying is a bad thing but don't assume something is for pure altruism because not many things are.
No, this model has lower bounds on all nutrients humans need and upper bounds on some based on their toxicity.
That's what he's doing. And it costs a lot of money to do this.
I think the big reason that Magic never ramped up so much is because of the fact that it's a physical pack. You can only buy however much is in stock (at most) and even when you order a booster box or fat pack online, it still has a delay before it arrives. With the online model it's really easy to just keep pulling the lever over and over again and getting an instant response.
You can journal those things and use sentiment analysis to detect if you're moving in the right direction.
Personally I've bought a total of 0 products from adverts ever (pretty much since ~1999).

Adding an ad blocker a few years ago this trend is likely to continue, though now my web pages work better and my privacy is enhanced :)
If you have a relationship with a company that is otherwise in good standing this is a fishing expedition based on false concern, and clearly a trolling attempt. If you have an actual reason based on some evidence that something is not ok then yes, by all means go for it. But if that's not the case all this letter does is to try to get the company to waste time and resources on it, effectively devaluating the GDPR.
You are conflating "said" with "wrote and got published", which is, as pointed out, a fundamental aspect of the situation.
There are plenty of well intentioned laws which actually suck (such as the Cookie law). Surely you agree that it's important to point these out?
Does Kant say this explicitly?
> btw: saying there is absolute and objective truth is highly unscientific - science is based on the premise that you can replace theories with another theory if the evidence suggests it

Where is the evidence coming from if there is no underlying absolute and objective truth (a.k.a. 'the real world') to generate that evidence ?

> There is a consensus that there is no "absolute security" in the security sector. If you accept that there is no absolute security in IT systems and only "reasonable security" (I do not assume that you do assume this)

To use your analogy, of course there is such a thing as absolute security. As in, it is theoretically possible for a system to be 100% secure. The difficulty lies in designing one and proving it. It's not fundamentally impossible.

Just because it's very hard or even impossible to discover the objective truth, that doesn't in any way mean there isn't one.
What's the upside compared to coq?
Maybe a competitor can do their business according to the GDPR then?
I have an iPhone X, and compared to the 6S I had before, I really enjoy that I can dim the display a lot more. It’s also surprisingly readable in sunlight.

But the colors are terrible. If you slightly tilt the device, you immediately get a blueish tint. It was jarring when I first started using it. But I got used to it.

I still use my 6s for playing games with my kids occasionally, and I don’t really see a big difference between the displays in typical usage.

So my conclusion is that the difference between high quality LCD and OLED is small, and both have advantages and disadvantages.