skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There were about 400k accidents, 20k serious injuries, 1,500 total traffic fatalities, and 250 pedestrian fatalities in my current state last year. Out of a population of 10.5 million.

Which puts the per capita likelihood at 3.8, 0.2, 0.015, 0.0024% respectively, per year.

Parents have a right to their own decisions, but retarding a child's growth because of a fear of something that's only 20x as likely as getting struck by lightning?

Personally, that seems literally insane.

If my child were to be killed by a driver, I would mourn for the rest of my life, but at least I'd know they lived in the time they had on this Earth.
I wouldn't consider a desktop environment that forces one to put up with useless transition animations even a good desktop enviroment.
I believe gp was suggesting emulating Ada Diamonds, the startup, not DeBeers.
But what company isn't these things to some degree? Even if there were somehow a theoretical Altruism Corp, then it wouldn't survive very long being a generous lossmonster, would it? It's about what shade of grey you want, not about choosing black or white.
Why the Military Can’t Quit Windows XP
They are usually upload in playlist so check the uploaders channel
How is this different from your friends putting your contact information into a cloud synced contact list? You shared your information with your friends, it's not Facebook who decided how your friends use that information.
Frankly, I'd be surprised if they didn't already have that access.
GitHub had the community’s trust because it was a neutral company simply providing a service. I don’t see how most projects and companies can ever see a microsoft owned code repository as a neutral space.

I truly hope they keep it independent, and I truly hope it succeeds, but at this point I question whether most projects and companies would trust microsoft over a neutral service like GitLab.
The comparison relies on an assumption that these corporate bad actors unwittingly "don't see the harm" that arises as a side effect of their laser focus on (non-maliciously) optimizing something else-- similar to how someone with a different behavioral orientation might unwittingly not register the effect of ignoring a common social convention.

I'd say this claim needs a lot of supporting evidence before we should take it seriously. At the moment it's just a rhetorical device, and would almost certainly be used to mitigate blame aimed at corporate bad actors. So I'd say without some type of serious evidence of this unwitting laser focus, evidence of people genuinely "not seeing the harm" despite huge op-eds in major newspapers, outrage from tech communities, harrowing stories of data privacy issues, etc. etc., we really should not put any weight on this "non-malicious focus" interpretation.

In other words, these are smart people. They knew full well what they were doing. Lobbying, PR, and attempting regulatory capture after the fact to launder their reputation and absolve blame are absolutely baked in as part of the strategy, until conclusively proven otherwise.
Mobile Devs Making the Same Security Mistakes Web Devs Made in the Early 2000s
But it doesn't because the courts made a limited ruling that doesn't set a strong standard either way. It also applies to the service provided, not to whom is served. A bakery that refuses to sell any cakes to a gay couple is going to have a much worse time in court than a bakery refusing to make a gay wedding cake, but even in the latter case, assuming a lower court doesn't repeat the same mistakes made in this case, the Supreme Court may still rule against the baker.
I love how many of those machines are still around and still in use today. Low End Mac, for example, has a thriving user base, and there are still other groups about maintaining vintage Macs.
Unfortunately, the price on a lot of the older machines has gone way up, as people try to capitalize on the vintage trend.
I have a G4/800 iMac (the lamp one) that I still use, with Mac OS 9.2 on it.
Ah, I interpreted your question to be about DeBeers.

I imagine diamonds need to maintain some minimum price point in order to sell, after all, they are a luxury good. And a 10x margin is high enough to not raise eyebrows, but low enough to undercut the competition.

If Lamborghini released a $40,000 Mustang competitor, then their brand would suffer. But if the same car retailed for $120,000, then people would accept it.
If Samsung secretly runs a keylogger on all their phones and then steals your data that way, that's a Samsung problem and you should be angry. That is not what happened here.

Facebook officially blessed other platforms, allowed them to say you were signing into Facebook, and then allowed those platforms to have access not only to your data, but your friends exhaustive data. Facebook was aware of this, explicitly allowed this, and their only safeguard was vaguely worded policies with their partners.

Even if the partners haven't stolen any data or broken their policies, Facebook intentionally and knowingly gave my data to a third party without my consent. Presumably now all 66 of these device partners have my full data, and I did not sign in on their device or otherwise authorize it.
Yeah, we'll definitely have something free in the future. :)

For the launch we wanted to make sure we could handle all the first orders quickly.
Your intention is correct, but your details are not (as are the OPs). Microsoft share's it's SSL certs with the entire planet. Microsoft protects it's private keys and does not share them with the NSA.

The NSA forges Microsoft's SSL keys, they do not need to ask for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_(malware)

Even with the mitigations provided by moving away from MD5, simple integration with a CA would be much more strategically beneficial.
I had a Windows phone that used these API's. When Windows Phone 7 came out, Facebook didn't create the Facebook App for that OS, Microsoft did. It looked like what you expected Facebook to have built and it worked like the Facebook App that other platforms had. The whole purpose of the API agreement with Microsoft was to guarantee that the Facebook App they wrote would still work years down the road. Microsoft did not have access to my data. They were allowed to write an app that allowed ME to access my data.

The NY Times article makes it sound like Microsoft was allowed access to my data. They were not. They were allowed to create an app that had access to an API so I could access my data from the Windows Phone device.
The report has value to find trends or insights that may apply to a particular world, specifically when trying to get a sense of disruption.
Github has always been an American company. What makes you think they didn't have access before today?
It's not clear-cut in the sense that Munich's IT landscape was and is fragmented which made and makes it very easy to blame IT problems on LiMux. But that doesn't make me believe even for one second that Microsoft didn't lobby their way back to Munich. Here's a little story from some years back about Microsoft's lobbying efforts to prevent usage of ODF as a standard in the UK:

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240234078/Government-op...
I am going to prove this article wrong for the next thirty minutes.
I think it's already well proven that parents' income is highly correlated with childrens' income, for a variety of reasons. It's pretty safe to use them interchangeably
Huh. I always interpreted "move fast and break things"
to be referring to the speed of development cycle, as in, SV startups prefer to we deploy new code without really testing everything as thoroughly as an enterprise company might, because time to market is most important and people are forgiving if we break their experience for a short time. I don't think anyone would really fault anyone for that interpretation.

However, if that becomes "do whatever we want to anyone without regards for laws or ethics or customs including directly lying to regulators" as it appears Facebook did then I agree it becomes a problem.
Subscription publishers wrestle with delivering exclusive podcasts
Writing a Book with Barry Mazur: “Prime Numbers and the Riemann Hypothesis” [pdf]
It would still be very brittle.
By this definition Microsoft Office is also open, since “any developer can plug into and extend” it.
Yes, I (submitter) do not work for GitLab, I just remembered this article while replying to a thread in one of the submissions about the acquisition, and thought it was interesting to read again in that light.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17225762
Probably them discovering maca.

(Take this with a grain of salt or two.)
Yep. The website updates posts are in the wrong chronological order for a good read!
Molecule of the Month
The growing level of amateurism in this field is astounding!
Yes definitely, however -> gets better response and cooperation than -> Well, actually

Just my two cents, not parent btw
I don't think taking the wind out of critic's sails is worth over 7 billion. In fact, if whatever MS does is not worth at least 7 billion, then the shareholders are not going to be happy with Microsoft's executives.
Sounds like nuclear weapons research in Tennessee during World War 2: only inform employees enough so that they can carry on the work without jeopardizing the mission (building nukes vs building a platform which owns people's information).
The app that was written by Apple, or by Blackberry, had to ask you for your password first (or possible use a different kind of authentication were you had to allow access). Without that, they could not send the "right bytes", and thus, the Facebook server would not send back any private information.

In other words, it worked exactly like the Facebook app written by Facebook itself.
Someone spent time and effort designing that font, and it's reasonable that they should be compensated for it. (Giving them the right to censor any use of the font so they can run a protection racket is a awful way of doing that, but that's not the point I was addressing.) Nature contributes nothing (today - they used to contibute printing presses) that couldn't be accomplished by publishing a first draft and soliciting reviews.
JavaScript engines: The Good Parts
It's already known what the expected pricing for CAR-T therapy will be, considering the first of these therapies was approved last year for pediatric leukemia (KYMRIAH/tisagenlecleucel). Expect around $475,000.
This is true. With the emphasis that Agile puts on "blockers" though it becomes apparent that the typical model of having a simple person own a component with maybe a backup person or two is problematic. "Only Amy knows that code, and she is working on X which is also critical" is one of the more frequent types of issues that comes up in standups.

To combat this, this individual decided to try to reduce the specialization as much as possible. Everyone would do everything was the thought process, so no one could ever hold anything up.

This was a non-technical founder of a now dead startup, but it died of the much more typical problem of market fit- they did launch, and the site worked. It may be interesting to mention he was also using entirely offshore development teams.
GitLab has that button - of course, it can't import a community, but it can import issues et al. - and it's been busy today..!

https://monitor.gitlab.net/dashboard/db/github-importer
While your perspective may be correct for you and others in similar financial/privileged/fortunate situations, the vast majority of America isn't.

I can speak for myself personally, since I have no generalized data, but I have several _close_ friends earning within the top 5% of the nation. Even _they_ would have trouble parting with 50k on a risky investment. They'd _want_ to invest, but that's not an insignificant amount of money to part with for them.
I think it would be easy enough for the go compiler to support macros, while keeping them disabled by default. There could be a cli flag for go build that enables macros. It would be easy to have a company-wide rule to keep macros disabled. It would be trivial to prevent code with macros from passing CI if that was one of your organizational requirements.
There was a great post about this as a hypothetical attack vector and how CSP can help mitigate a large percentage of that surface, can’t find it now.
Yes, and likely faster.

http://www.akitaonrails.com/2015/10/27/how-fast-is-elixir-ph...
I personally am not worried. If I was running some nuclear centrifuge in Iran/N.Korea/etc. then I'd be worried.
We Central Banks to offset/dilute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
So, hypothetically of course, if Microsoft subtly let the new Mayor Dieter Reiter know that they will only build their new headquarter in Munich if Windows was to replace LiMux, then what about this could not be considered as Microsoft killing LiMux? Sure, they didn't directly pull the plug, but that's semantics.
With the money from Microsoft's deal, they bought Siemens part from NSN, merging it back into Nokia.

They got back many of the former mobile division employees via the partnership with HMD, currently having one of the best deals in Android devices.

Ah and Bell Labs now belongs to Nokia.
>So, what if one’s religion doesn’t let you sell cakes to Infidels, or Jews, or blacks?

They court will rule against you. In this case, the bakery didn't refuse to serve them, but refused a particular service it didn't offer to anyone, gay wedding cakes. The question was, given that they offered a straight version of that service, should they be forced to offer the gay version. But even then the ruling is narrow enough it likely won't be applicable to a similar case in the future.
What's interesting about this approach (TIL expansion) relative to other leading cellular immunotherapy approaches (CAR-T/NK and TCR) is that it doesn't rely on gene editing. Long term, I think genetically "programmable" cellular immunotherapies are more likely to win (e.g. because they can be programmed to overcome tumor immune suppression), but it's impressive that a durable response is achieved here with clonally expanded TILs.

There is a great review on progress in cell based immunotherapies here: https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(17)30064-8
GitHub is to git as Outlook is to e-mail and as Internet Explorer is to the web.

As for how EEE applies to this situation: The situation is consistent with an EEE strategy currently being in the "embrace" phase. It's also consistent with a "embrace, be nice, create win-win outcomes" strategy, but that is not usually Microsoft's modus operandi.
The NYT article says that Facebook told them that some partners stored that data on their servers. Do you have a good citation that this does not refer to these device integrations, given you so strongly claim it doesn't? (It's very well possible that it's a misleading quote by the NYT, or a misunderstanding, but I don't see a clear answer in any of what we know) That's from my perspective the critical point here.
Note: Start reading this one from the bottom.
In theory, discourages certain behavior with the threat of legal action. In practice, this doesn't work sometimes for various reasons. What if you're 95% certain you have the resources to crush your opponent in a legal battle, still profiting handsomely net of the legal fees you incur?
I think the point is, data goes into those companies and in some cases gets stored on their servers and from there, who knows what happens.

Facebook makes it sounds like the user is in control.
The author does not provide a link to the NYT article to which this is a response. Maybe it was just an oversight.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/fa...
Punishment after-the-fact to statistically disincentivize behaviours we want to disincentivize. It doesn’t prevent the thing from happening ever, it just makes it so that when it does, inevitably, happen, the system pushes back against the offender. This makes rational actors less likely to do things they could be sued for. But 1. not all actors in a market are rational; and 2. sometimes it’s rational to be “evil” if the upside is large and the chance of getting caught is very small.

Consider also: traffic laws. The punishments make most people obey them. There are still drunks, malicious drivers, just plain bad drivers, and people doing U-turns on the highway when they think no cops are around.

If you want an assurance that you won’t be hit by one of these, you have to just avoid traffic altogether.

If you give someone else an assurance that e.g. their child will never be hit by a car, then you have to never take said child on the road.

Facebook gave an assurance that our data would never cross paths with a bad actor. The only way to do that is to never take the data to where the bad actors might be.
For the remote third party case, the option to unlock should be isolated from the OS so that it needs physical access (boot to bios/recovery mode). AIUI that's how it's typically implemented in Androids and in Secure Boot.

The point about attackers with physical access is fair, though significantly mitigated on Androids (and Chromebooks I think) by a warning (of varying severity) that the OS has been modified. On my Nexus 5, it's a subtle "unlocked" icon, on my Moto G it's an unmissable red triangle on white background with "warranty void" and other scary words.

It's still vulnerable to the user getting a prebooted device and only seeing the warning on next boot, so not perfect, but also not the only imaginable defense. One could e.g. move initial authentication to the locked down "bios" phase so either (a) the warning is visible there and/or (b) the OS isn't replaceable in the first place without authentication.

And we should bear in mind that a malicious repair tech can probably convince a fair portion of the population to give away their password :/
Facebook made an AI that convincingly turns one style of music into another
Dr. Rosenberg has been investigating CAR-T and other immunotherapies for decades (originally at the national cancer institute, more recently at the university of pennsylvania). I believe he (and his collaborators) will be on the short list for the Nobel Prize in Medicine eventually.
This is such bull. They are backed by Google Ventures and Khosla Ventures who would vote with their preferential shares to sell GitLab for $7.5 Billion dollars without question. They're in the exact same bucket as GitHub except no where near as successful.
Hi. Last year I launched Space Rocks, a WebXR demo that re-imagines Atari’s Asteroids as an immersive, Web-based, virtual reality experience. Alongside the site’s launch I also released my source code used to create it. This technical deep dive explains how I built this WebXR game—and how you can make one too:
https://medium.com/@stew_rtsmith/space-rocks-technical-deep-...

Space Rocks demo (Requires a WebXR-capable browser and a 6DoF VR device):
https://spacerocks.moar.io

Space Rocks source code repo:
https://github.com/moar-tech/spacerocks
AWS/Google missed an opportunity here. If nothing else then to deprive MS a key piece of their puzzle.

Microsoft have a long play to build the developer pipeline from code editing to cloud deployment. MS has Azure as well as Visual Studio. Both were reasonably popular. Now they just needed the SCM piece.

In the end software houses are looking for turn-key (god, did I just use that word?) cloud deployments, and this gets MS a long way there.
Tinode: open source replacement for Telegram/WhatsApp
> Facebook’s competitive advantage is its disregard for ethics. Somehow, Zuckerberg has been able to convince a lot of smart people to do unethical things and build unethical technology, while the competitors have a harder time doing the same.

While I absolutely agree that it's a serious problem, Facebook does not stand out in the business world in this regard. Many in the business world celebrate, rationalize, and embrace this point of view: Making money is all that matters. On HN, until recently I often read the argument that businesses' only responsibility is to make as much money as possible for shareholders and that they have no responsibilities to employees or community. The current U.S. administration openly embraces this view as policy; Rex Tillerson (former oil company CEO) openly stated that US policy was that human rights took a back seat to making money.

For generations, corporations have made money on the labor and the suffering of others, to the point of undermining governments and supporting oppression and murder. Off the top of my head: There was the East India Company in the 19th century, the banana companies in the early 20th century, the businesses that helped the Nazis, the ones who helped and cashed in on right-wing dictators throughout the Cold War, the financial companies who committed massive fraud causing a global recession in 2008, and all the IT companies helping oppressive states like China with their surveillance technology and means of oppression, not to mention Hollywood and other businesses who censor criticism of China.

The question is, why do we normalize and accept this behavior? What is wrong with the morality of business leaders?

(And to be clear, I'm not demonizing all business. Business provides the resources that make advanced nations prosperous, safe, healthy, and connected.)
> Even if intellectual property laws apply, the concepts of exhaustion and first sale doctrine should apply.

I agree that exhaustion and first sale doctrines should apply for Monsanto seeds, but I don't think that either of those doctrines are applicable to the Bowman v. Monsanto case.

Exhaustion or first sale would apply only to the first copy; i.e., if Bowman had purchased a seed from Monsanto and then resold that same seed to someone else.

But neither would apply to the next generation of seeds, just like exhaustion and first sale don't give you the right to sell N>1 copies of a single purchased mp3.
Sure. I still think that is fair enough, in particular since there are actual contracts involved here.

However, as you say, it is not clear at all. If that is the problem, the New York Times should write an article about that, not 5000 words of all kinds of insinuations, with the goal, it would seem, to generate the maximum amount of confusion, least amount of education, and thus the most amount of outrage.
Why do you assume the people coding are making more than zero-wage Uber drivers?
I just graduated college and pretty much all of my friends and everyone I knew there used Messenger as default for text communication. There's plenty of other alternatives, but that's what people seem to prefer. It's a pretty decent app and in my opinion way better than the old built in FB messaging.

I'd prefer to use Signal and my family uses it to communicate but it's definitely not as nice as Messenger.
Yeah, until you have to use Visual Studio with it & it becomes harder and harder to use any non-Microsoft tools or services with it.

When I hear "Microsoft is acquiring" I hear "We intend to stuff bloat, decrease UI/UX, limit compatibility & ultimately destroy". Hope I'm wrong.
Why isn't it? What if there's only one in-network surgeon that performs the surgery with your insurance? Or what if you live in a small- or medium-sized town and can't travel to another city where there might be more people able to perform the surgery? I can think of numerous cases where there might only be one surgeon who can perform it -- so you either take your chances or you go without.
If the container leaks, radionuclides might seep out which could be bad news (flowing with currents or ingested by fish).

Solving the political issues at Yucca would be a great permanent solution to waste.
I don't believe Microsoft.