skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Or the photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc (aka "Napalm girl").
That might very well be the case, but it was not quite portraited that way in the media for what I saw.
One of the greatest minds of our times, Thomas Sowell, words it this way:

"When Jonas Salk applied to selective Townsend Harris High School in New York, and later to the then-selective City College of New York (CCNY), there might well have been some other student, not quite as academically qualified, who could have been admitted instead, on the basis of having overcome greater handicaps than Jonas Salk had.

But the relevant question is: Would that other student have been equally likely to create a vaccine that would banish the scourge of polio?"
Rationalwiki isnt exactly an unbiased resource to put it lightly.
I guess those were the days...

Before you use this service, I recommend to verify that it is legal in your jurisdiction to use this. E-mail, by default, is meant to be private (though the "private" aspect can be organization A plus customer X or organization A plus organization B or sysadmin logging the conversation and backing it up). If its meant to be public, there are mailing lists for that. And if GPG is used to encrypt the content, it for sure isn't meant to be shared!
“I cut, you choose” is far from weird machinations. My 3 year old and 8 year old are able to grasp the implications in about 10 seconds.
Unless the target language is functional language. Actually, prior experience in imperative languages makes it harder for you to move into functional programming language, as you have to unlearn some things.
I wouldn't consider that plan bold or daring, rather very conventional and safe. Daring would be to "package" them, the second plan, or continue to dig a tunnel to the site. Or waiting 4 months with the media at their neck.
They can try this one, and if one dies, wait for the other plans
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Crypto Bullshit: How to Spot a Shitcoin?
What Is App Store Optimization (ASO)?
thank you! :)

> You should think about creating a Wordpress plugin for this.

yes that is definitely on the list!
Ah yes, same as Greek.
Thank you for flagging, I've edited my comment.
> The first hand account is the former Israeli NCO paratrooper

The worst paratrooper they ever had, per their own admission.

The US does not train the same way Israel does. Which does not train the same way China does, or Germany does, and so on.
If You Don’t Appreciate Bitcoin, It Might Be Your Privilege
Mozilla Firefox not sandboxing Javascript is not an OS/2 problem. It is a Mozilla Firefox problem.

The problems with WWW browsers are not solved on other operating systems, are a lot more to do with a user being vulnerable to processes running as xyrself which multi-user semantics will not address on any operating system until the world starts taking advantage of GNU Hurd or nonce SIDs, and in large part lie within the application.

* http://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1200:_Authorization

They lie in cryptography implementations, in the architecture of downloading programs across the WWW from arbitrary third parties and running them, in the access from one WWW site to another, in the architecture of "Web APIs" and non-document WWW sites, in document model implementations, and so forth. Presentation Manager and low-level sockets form almost none of this. You are positing that the major locus for flaws is libraries that literally provide the low-level read()/connect()/bind()/&c. library functions. Whereas the add-on libraries that the people porting these applications have to also build, from SSL libraries through HTML parsers to PNG and MPEG processors, form a lot of it; but are not part of OS/2 nor set in stone.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. Either OS/2 comes with this stuff and it is a problem that the stuff is old with known vulnerabilities, or the problem is (as indeed explained in the headlined article) that OS/2 does not come with this stuff and a large amount of effort is needed in porting all of these modern libraries, runtimes, and even whole language development toolsets to OS/2. The reality is the latter. They are, after all, asking for money for doing one part of exactly that.

But that reality means that vague handwaving about "written in a pre-Internet world" (which it of course was not, the Internet pre-dating any version of OS/2 by about a decade) is ill-thought. The irony is that the vast bulk of the so-called "surface area" in a WWW browser is in all of these application layers and libraries that are modern.

Or, put more glibly: I don't expect any Javascript security holes in IBM WebExplorer ever.
Their mid-tier plan offers "1 discs out-at-a-time". Something makes me think they don't have their best working on this side of the business.
Lots of systems are based on "defence in depth", i.e. multiple layers of security.
This approach acknowledges that any single layer of security will have holes somewhere just waiting to be found no matter how theoretically secure you think it is.
The implementation matters, not the theory and quite often this is where the holes exist.

"Obscurity" is just one of those layers.

Given no security, e.g. wide open front door, adding a door will reduce the number of successful attackers. Having a lock & key is a level up, hiding the key would reduce the chances of a successful burglary even more. Armed guards on the door would again reduce the chances of you getting burgled. Adding barbed-wire around your house improves the situation again... and it goes on.

None of those levels of defence are impenetrable, but they all help.

"Security by obscurity alone is discouraged and not recommended by standards bodies"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity)
Reliance Jio Announced Jio Giga Fiber Internet and Jio Giga TV
Perhaps the point is that racism isn’t just words, but also intent.

Jefferson was racist, trying to mask that with language may be hard.

The closest thing I can come to is just admitting one is racist or awareness of your own projections.

“The native Americans are a strong mirror for our own disowned savageness. For the way in which our disconnection from Self and has lead to a quest for power and resources which have blinded us to the common humanity we share with all peoples. Our inability to resolve the savageness we harbor towards our own humanity within us leaves us no choice but the futile attempt to destroy its reflection in those we project it upon.”
This may depend on your jurisdiction but I'm 99% sure this isn't how things work in Germany.

First of all, the author retains ownership of the copyright. They can freely redistribute copies of what they have written unless they're subject to an active contract limiting their use of those rights (e.g. a time-limited exclusive license -- IANAL but AIUI there is no such thing as a permanent exclusive license unless you also get perpetually reimbursed).

So if you're sent a copyrighted work by its author, you may legitimately infer that you have the right to access it but you don't have the right to republish it or make copies accessible in any commercial way (like an ad-sponsored online platform).

Additionally communications are subject to privacy laws. So you may be in violation of the author's personal rights even if you publish their e-mails non-commercially because you violate their "reasonable expectation of privacy".

This is not entirely dissimilar to the case of "revenge porn" by the way: if you send your loved one an intimate picture for private use, you can not only ask that they destroy the picture at any point but they are also prohibited from publishing it without your approval. Of course in this case the violation of personal rights also stems from the fact the photo is a depiction of the author.

But if you really need a clear example, imagine you are sent the draft of the next Game of Thrones season (or what have you) by its author. Unless you have explicit permission, you have no reason to assume you would then be allowed to go on and publish that document. Even without an NDA there's likely a "reasonable expectation" you will treat it as confidential and you'd be in violation of that by passing it on.

Note that I'm talking about my understanding of German (and likely by extension EU) laws, not necessarily American laws. I'm well aware the US has different laws and I suspect those might vary on state level too.
"Merciless Indian savages" isn't something we should just accept because we must reject political correctness. The Europeans who came to Anglo-America were usually impoverished societal rejects, with difficult economic or religious situations yet airs of superiority over the American natives. The oppression they experienced at the hands of richer Europeans back in the old world was redirected at the other group they could punch down towards: the natives who had been recently genocided by foreign diseases and gunpowder.

This is a very common human trait. When you have a group of people experiencing hardship, they will look for someone at a greater disadvantage than them to redirect their retribution to. The economic hardships that Germany felt after WW1 were blamed on the marginalised Jews. Most people in the antebellum South were poor, not wealthy plantation owners, but of course the entire white population could punch down towards what they viewed as childish or animalistic slaves. Today economic downturn and lack of jobs can be blamed on illegal immigrants, instead of the galloping wealth disparity.

This has got nothing to do with being very careful with speech so as to not offend anyone. It's got nothing to do with political correctness or incorrectness. These words, "merciless Indian savages" are about one of the greatest atrocities committed in the name of freedom.
I should have researched a better example. But anyways, what about a case like this one?

int *p = get_the_pointer();
if (p == NULL) {
remove_me();
}
printf("Hello %d\n", *p);

At least for some things that remove_me() could do, wouldn't it be possible for a compiler to remove the branch entirely?

I mean I'm pretty sure that compilers can move the conditional below the printf under certain circumstances (as long as there isn't an observable difference for C's definition of "observable"). Add to that the UB and the compiler might as well remove the conditional branch. (And this would be a case that can really take programmers by surprise when debugging).
Yup! Now view that across multiple languages, viewers, and tab sizes.
It's an experts travel warning.

Other experts travel warnings to Bavaria are for pregnant women, because they will have a hard time to find someone to deliver the baby. There's critical shortage.
> The high-level, slightly handwavey description of this theorem is that, for any sufficiently expressive mathematical proof system, there are more true facts within the system than there are proofs for facts, which in turn means that not every fact can be proved

No, no, no. The proof is not by cardinality. The proof is constructive. That is the point of the book, or at least a major theme of it. For example, that is the point of the record player analogy.
Err no, certainly not. German salaries are at least on par with London, and ~twice as high than the rest of the UK.
Best i can tell, copyright is a topic that allows up and comping politicians to virtue signal and/or for the economic powers that be to test the allegiance of rising political stars.

It is also a dry subject that most people don't care about until they get a sour letter from some lawyer because Timmy discovered bittorrent.
Google could add to their ToS of the Play Store that apps that try to enforce control over the use of Android APIs get penalized or removed.
In theory most AppDirs could be run on a normal linux distro with a wrapper script and a package of the base system libraries if certain choices were made (like using wayland instead of a new display server). I'm not opposed to practical compromises, but part of my design goal was to get rid of legacy stuff that doesn't make sense anymore (like the way UNIX handles the file tree) and build a better (and simpler) mousetrap where it was reasonable.

I disagree that it needs to have its applications be runnable on Linux Desktop to work. I think that if you build a system people actually want to use then the applications will come. After all, Linux is a tiny percent of the desktop using population and it still gets targeted just because people are getting kind of sick of the behavior of the companies behind the proprietary OSs. Imagine if people actually wanted to use the Linux Desktop instead of just put up with it.

I think compatibility in the opposite direction is much more important. Like how MS included an XP VM in 7, or Apple included a MacOS Classic VM in OSX, the new system could offer ways of running "legacy" Linux applications to make the switch easier (also Windows via WINE, though with a much lower success rate, and possibly Android via something like Anbox).
3 steps to join Xchange.me affiliate program and make profit
I think that permadeath is not as bad as it seems if the game is properly balanced. For example, I remember playing Super Mario Land on the Game Boy before ~ 25 years (I was 10). When I first played it, I couldn't pass the first level, but after a couple of times I was able to move to the second, third etc. Each time I played it I felt that I was better at passing the levels (knowing when to jump, when each enemy will approach etc) and I almost universally felt that I acomplished something (i.e "oh wow I reached the Boss of the first three levels"). I never felt frustrated because I lost because I knew that next time I play I'll probably do better; even if I didn't make it further away I'd improve my playthrough of the previous stages.

Now, this "play/learn, lose, repeat" lasted (IIRC) for about 1-2 months until I finished the game. I then continued playing it for a little more time to discover more secrets and/or improve my score. The thing is that I never was angry that I needed to repeat these stages because I had learn that the game was fair (balanced).

That was also the case for some (not all) arcade games I remember like Shinobi, Double Dragon, Snow Brows, Bubble Bubble etc; you needed to play them some times to discover their secrets and become better and then you'd be able to reach further and further with a single credit (and even finish them).

This experience was contrary to what I felt when I played games that were not properly balanced (which felt non-fair to me then). For example, I remember that while I played Castlevania on the game boy I was always frustrated, I had reach the final stage but I couldn't pass some obstacles; and if I could was by pure luck. It was like dropping a coin 10 times and needing to get heads in all 10 times. One time after many hours of trying I had reached the final boss but I was killed before actually seeing anything on how he attacks etc. I was so frustrated that I thrown the Gameboy at the floor and broken it! The game was so unfair!

TL;DR: If the game has good gameplay and is properly balanced then repeating stages is not bad; not many games are properly balanced though :/
Not this bullshit research again... Woodley is a dishonest crank. Anyone conducting research in bad faith should be exiled to deep space, it’s incredibly damaging. Andrew Wakefield is another one (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield).
I read American gods and played Sam and max (in scummvm) over the same summer. They’re inextricably linked in my head, now...and I think a good deal of why the tv adaptation doesn’t work for me is because the vibe isn’t lucasarts enough.
Some people have pointed out some similarities between the Declaration of Independence and the much earlier Declaration of Arbroath:

"As long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

;-)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jul/05/declaration-indep...
> it hints at grand unifying patterns, but the pattern it finds is just the abstract notion of self-reference, and then it keeps bringing it up, making a few unnecessary references, showing some pictures, and asking, “Isn’t that cool? Isn’t that weird?”

That is pretty much what I thought of the book the first time I tried to read it but didn't get all the way through. The book, especially in the beginning, was super fun to read but it lost its charm for me after the first third.

One huge benefit to me from the book is a nice introduction to Bach's music. To this day I enjoy finding patterns in music.
I am all for giving more power to the local governments. The more local it gets the better. That being said at least on a country level there are people who speak the same language and are brought in somewhat similar culture. There is much bigger chance the laws are going to be acceptable for me if they are made by people who live here, know our history and are brought in our culture.

For example after 45 years of in-fact occupation by the Soviets people here won't easily accept censorship and wrong-think laws. Those things are too fresh in memory. It might be easier for our politician to vote for that in EU parliament when they are safely away from home (they didn't from what I understand) but they would think twice voting for it here.

Another thing is that people follow country level politics much closer than they follow EU politics which seems to be very detached. What usually happen is "GDPR got voted in EU, we need to adjust our laws" without any kind of public discussion about if we even want that law to begin with.

It may work somewhat better in USA where at least there is one language and some common element in education system (history, civics etc.). Here it just seems that People's Party Committeein in Brussels is making up laws and we are supposed to just accept it.
MEPs reject controversial copyright law
> > Google, youtube, eBay, etc., etc. have been doing this for years without "killing the internet".

> Google has the infrastructure and resources to do so with YouTube, going out of its way to detect copyright infringement and to react automatically to take down notices. Smaller players don't have Google's resources.

Worse, even Google sucks at it. There are so many original creators whose youtube video get slapped ads on because someone else used their music in a Youtube video before the original author did. Google wrote a fully automated, non-appealable copyright judge and jury. This is scary shit! I don't understand how anyone can look at stuff like that and think "wow, awesome, we need more of that!"
Of course they do, but US startups are facing far fewer restrictions on mining data published in their home market.

Large internet companies like Google and Facebook will face even fewer restrictions because they have the clout to force economically viable terms on publishers.
Oh what I meant to say is, it's a real kubernetes cluster, it's a good thing.
We said the same about software patents.

The realist in me can't imagine the outrage will be any smaller the next time they try to pass it.
I really like this and have been looking for something like Snibox for quite some time. Thanks for sharing!
How to know if your project can benefit from BDD testing strategy
Now replace abortion with anti-abortion and I could equally say:

Two classes of human beings, slaves and women, each deprived of human rights, for valid reasons in the eyes of the supporters of the respective practice.

Unless you wish to argue that bodily integrity [1] is not a human right.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity
I find the case of Monty Python extremely important because some of their sketches are even more poignant (and funny!) today. Many would have no chance of being created and aired. However, the painful issues behind them, such as following some dogmas with blind faith and the consequences of such actions, are still there and watching Monty Python today gives young viewers a refreshing perspective.
When GP says "Everyone was confident", they probably mean that everyone in the government was confident.
“A fun illustration of something,” is pretty much as far as the book goes: it hints at grand unifying patterns, but the pattern it finds is just the abstract notion of self-reference, and then it keeps bringing it up, making a few unnecessary references, showing some pictures, and asking, “Isn’t that cool? Isn’t that weird?”

The book is a puzzle. That's it. It's not the answer to life, the universe, and everything. It's a nice puzzle that illustrates how self-referential things relate to one another. Superficially. I'm okay with that.

Because it's a fun little puzzle, it engages people's minds in new ways. This is what has caused all of the praise over the years, not because it's some post-grad-level deep-dive into epistemology or something. I think the reviewer misses the point. The criticisms they make are actually features.

I could criticize the book as well. I struggled with it. But I wouldn't criticize it along these lines. They don't look very insightful.
I know US HN sometimes has a problem understanding consent and fair use, but those are essential if you want to intuit whether forwarding an e-mail is legal or not.

If you're not sure whether the author of an e-mail is okay with it being forwarded, maybe try asking them? If you don't think they'd allow you to (and there's no legal reason to ignore their wishes, e.g. to submit the e-mail as evidence of harassment), maybe you shouldn't?
It’s essentially a drug delivery device. I don’t understand how it’s not regulated by FDA.
Socialists usually also argue from a utilitarian point of view.

The utility a person experiences as a result of increasing access to resources is sublinear, i.e. there are diminishing utility returns to an individual as they acquire resources. Therefore an unequal resource allocation is less efficient at creating utility than an equal one.

It is argued that the inequality creates incentives that result in more being produced, but many socialists are highly sceptical of this claim, and especially sceptical that the level of inequality that exists is worth the loss of utility it causes.

Personally, I think after a certain level of comfort is reached, people seem to be far more motivated by self-actualisation than ever increasing material wealth.
Also true of Bears. Cubs can climb trees while adults can't.
Euthanasia for dependent adults is legal now?
No, old programmers would do much worse. And the threat model for those systems didn't take in the web as an attack surface. The bugs described would only help with local privilege escalation before. Now they can be used to get access to the networked application.

E.g. the browser uses a vulnerable library call with input from a web page, and that library call alters the return stack according to the input. The browser is now compromised.
Interestingly, Reed Hastings (Netflix CEO) disagrees with you. At Recode 2017 he said looking forward they are "never going to be as good at what [Amazon] are trying to be [regarding the media sector]" (spectrum, library size), but instead "can be the emotional connection brand like HBO [that is] super focused on one thing that people are very passionate about"

What a refreshingly sober perspective (probably why I kept it in mind).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCn4hdTI2jc&feature=youtu.be...
s/minorities/majority/
100 Reasons to Be Hopeful About the Future of Healthcare
Serverless Contact Form for Static Websites
Google’s artificial intelligence ethics won't curb war by algorithm UK