skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The reason I haven't switched to Keepass is its very decentralized nature - not in terms of how it stores data, but in terms of it being a format not a unified set of tools.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but it feels to me like I can get Keepass (v2.x or v1.x) for Windows from a somewhat-official source. I can also run that v2.x on Linux or OSX via Mono (via the packages on the download page?), or I can use any of 4 unofficial OSX ports or 2 unofficial Linux ports, plus any of several unofficial browser ports, plus an unofficial webserver based port, plus 3 unofficial Android ports or a bunch of unofficial iOS ports. It's not clear to me how many (if any) of these are actual "ports" of the software not "reimplementations of the file format," nor is it clear to me whether any or all of them are audited (or who's doing that if they are).

Basically, massive fragmentation and independently developed clients in the software that I'd use to store all my passwords behind a strong master key creeps me the f out. I don't have the time, math or detailed language knowledge to personally audit a bunch of cryptography implementations in a bunch of different languages and I know it, and I'm not sure I'd pick up any obfuscated transmission or concealment of security/decryption information, but I also don't feel like I have a trustworthy source that I know is doing that auditing.
Everything is addictive, they should look into junk food / sugar for once.
It’s good that US has finally decided to punish China for these IP thefts

Trump administration announces list of tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/07/10/trump-china-tr...
Why does it matter what it’s built with, if it’s closed-source?
Open-plan offices have a surprising effect on workplace communication
The Dutch civil servants collecting census data probably thought it was reasonable to create per-person records that included the tuple {address, religion}, which the Nazis used to create this[1] map of Jews living in Amsterdam (3/4 of the black dots on that map were murdered in the camps).

The problem with storing data that requires "certain processes" to ensure safety is that it might not be your decision. Governments collecting data is one example; others include desperate behavior by companies in bad financial situations or Equifax-style theft.

Someone trying to lose weight is probably able to resist the box of cookies in their pantry most of the time. Unfortunately being human means having occasional bad days where the will isn't necessarily up to the challenge. The responsible person recognizes that weaknesses exist and doesn't keep the box of cookies in the house.

I'm sure data will be handled safely most of the time, when it's easy. The real question is what will happen in difficult, morally problematic situations when the cost of acting ethically might include losing your job (or worse. One of the responsible way to handle that kind of problem is to avoid it entirely by not collecting the data.

[1] https://www.verzetsmuseum.org/uploads/archive/museum/topstuk...
What doesn't add up? Why is the death of the diver strange?
> I could see a reasonable case being made for collecting these data, storing them for a few weeks, and then deleting them, to protect against thieves.

I disagree. Everyone shouldn't have to sacrifice everything associated with their license plate info, everywhere they go, because of a few thieves. It's not a reasonable balance; my privacy is worth a lot to me.
I think that most people would be surprised at the scale of LPR deployments by both private ( http://drnrecovery.com/2016-trends-lpr-affiliates/ ) and public sector ( https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/dea-recording-am... ) actors.
[video] Sounds of Saturn: Radio Emissions of the Planet and Its Moon Enceladus
These are important tools for saving for retirement, and have enabled many people to build wealth. I know people who never made a lot of money in any given year, but used these tools to save money over decades, and they now can enjoy a good retirement. Calling these things loopholes, tax avoidance, or what have you is misguided and counterproductive.

We already do not have pensions, taking away private pension options such as these would condemn many to not ever being able to be retired, or to poverty.
Anything that gives you positive feedback can be addictive.

People get addicted to exercising to the point it can harm them. Yet Nike shouldn't be liable if someone runs themselves into the ground.
Late to the party, but:

> Both the historical and the control bucket used version A of the website, and they are consistent in their 2.0% conversion rate. Version B is different, and it appears to have a different conversion rate of 2.5%. So why should it not have a future conversion rate close to 2.5%?

It's all a matter of degree. You'd model B's rate as closer to 2.5%, but probably not centered around 2.5%. As you observe more data, the prior becomes less important. E.g., with 10k samples as in the original example, if you used Beta(2+1,100-2+1) as your prior, your posterior would be Beta(252+1, 10100-2+1) as your posterior, which is centered at 2.495%. But if you only had 1000 samples (and 25 conversions), you'd get a distro centered at 2.45%. And if you only had 200 samples (and 5 conversions), you'd get a distro centered at 2.33%. Etc.

> Let's replace the website with a 6-sided die. Historically, the probability of throwing a 3 was 1/6. Now you replace your die with a different die and throw it 10,000 times; the 3 comes up 2560 times. If I had to guess how many times the 3 comes up the next 10,000 throws, I certainly would bet that it's closer to 2560 times than to 1667 times.

In the case of a die where you believe any weighting of the faces is equally likely, this would be true. So this may be an appropriate model in this case. But in the case of the website, I don't think the conversion rates are equally likely, even for a new, un-tested site. If the historical conversion rate is 2.0%, and I'm forced to bet on the most likely conversion for a new (never before seen) variant B, I'd much rather bet on a number near 2.0% than a number like 99%.

> Case B: The historical version A of the online shop did not have any influence on the conversion rate during the testing of version B (compare the dice example above). Then both ranges are equally plausible.

This is exactly what I'm claiming is not true. It's not that A influences B, it's that A tells you something about the likely range of A and B (in this specific case of an e-commerce site). (The reason I chose the ranges [2.0%, 2.5%] vs [2.5%, 3.0%] is that if you model B independently, you'd be indifferent between these ranges; but if you use A to inform a prior, you'd prefer [2.0%, 2.5%].)
I’m very open to being wrong here, but for the specific example of CAR-T, Wikipedia mentions that it was initially developed by researchers at a university in Israel. So not the pharmaceutical industry.
If jib doesn't work against ECR, please file a bug. There isn't anything specific to Google here -- it's all based on standard container tooling.

The only thing you should need to do is configure the ECR credential helper:
https://github.com/awslabs/amazon-ecr-credential-helper
People who can, do, and people who can't, cheat. It's the way of the world, and not isolated to any particular ethic group, social class, or otherwise.
Interesting bit right at the end of the article:

Cambridge Analytica closed its offices in the US and UK in May
But the ICO said it was still taking legal steps to bring a criminal prosecution against the business.

Bearing in mind SCL Elections is now out of business, the ICO said it might consider taking action against the company's directors.

"A successful prosecution may result in a conviction and an unlimited fine," added a spokeswoman.
Cisco Chief Executive’s New Mantra: Simplify Computer Networks
After college, international students face challenges to stay in the U.S
Why not use GoAccess and a cron job? That works for me even when the client has ad/script blockers.
I think I did not present this correctly, I apologize for that.

What I mean this this. Any IDL interfaces live at their functional boundaries. e.g all proto definitions shared internally by java services live under jumanji/proto/, all proto definitions shared internally bu Go service live under goat/proto/ and so on so forth.

But anything which is shared in a public manner e.g any proto definitions between Java and C live outside either of these repos in top level common_proto/ repo. The build system is configured to take care of pulling the correct proto version from common_proto repo.

We use maven for this, but nothing much we can do about that. Build systems are ugly and we have to live with maven in near future.

EDIT: Oh that said, stop using required field in protobufs if you are stuck using proto2 like us, whoever decided to add required field to proto2 grammar made a mess. Things change and deprecate repeatedly, gazillions of required fields are annoying and recipe for disaster.
> Apple could choose to die on this hill, and all it would accomplish would be to deprive Chinese consumers of the strongest privacy-protecting mobile phone choice

You are clearly drugged out of your mind by Apple's marketing machine. Who exactly uses iMessage in China? Everybody uses Wechat. Are you telling me iOS can protect Chinese users' privacy when the traffic go through their servers?

Also, Apple wouldn't die, no alone anyway. Foxconn and Apple would likely both die together. There's nothing scarier than 1000s of 1000s of laid off workers for the CCP.

> But for flag emoji? Who cares? That's an easy trade.

This is an extremely dangerous line of thought. Today you give them an inch, tomorrow they'll ask for a foot. It is exactly this kind of kautouing the West has given China in the past 20 years that led to its progressive erosion of universal values and leverage to safeguard those values across the world. When it comes to principles, espcially core values of a company, you don't compromise.
Not really. People don't get tossed out of school for plagiarism because they're violating someone's copyright. In fact, you don't need the notion of intellectual property at all to have the independent notion of academic integrity - one is significantly older than the other.
> cheating on the compiler project ... transform a piece of source code so that it would not appear to be a copy

Sounds like the cheat itself would make a decent project for the compiler class.
> Cat's out of the bag.

I don't see a reason to believe this. It would be easy to restrict this behavior.
Perhaps I'm not the deepest programmer in the world, but I really can't relate to much of this at all. To me, there's no contradiction in being a technical person and acting in a pleasant manner to the people around me.

(Maybe it's a matter of perspective. I enjoy programming, but I mostly view it as a tool for improving people-things: making art, solving problems, expanding human potential. The human elements must always be at the forefront, and the machine is just not something I care very much about, except as a means to an end.)
Partnering with industry has always been a part of the plan though - that's why it's the Commonwealth Science _and Industrial_ Research Organisation.

If CSIRO doesn't partner with industry you end up with debacles like the wifi lawsuit.
Unfortunately, I have a similar issue with things like Keepass - perhaps the core project has enough eyes on it, but how about all those "Contributed/Unofficial KeePass Ports"?
Your first link says 3%. That's not "common". The study's sample size was 203, a pretty low number for statistical confidence.

I have no doubt it is "reasonably well accepted" that it is "common" for business leaders to be psychopaths, because it's what people want to believe, but the cited evidence for it doesn't show that at all.
They're in a hurry. Culturally today they believe in a sort of global manifest destiny for the near future of their nation. They believe they're destined to be the dominant power.

It's dramatically faster and cheaper to steal than to invest decades and countless billions of dollars doing it the hard way.

The only way China can fully stand toe to toe with the US in the next two decades or so, is to aggressively plunder beneficial IP wherever they can. There has been no serious consequence for them doing so the past 30 years of their rise. It's not below their dignity, because the mission overrules all. They'll continue doing it until the cost is too high; their calculation is probably that by that point they will already be fully self-sustaining as a superpower. At that point they'll show you the door if you have a problem with it (or worse).

China very carefully plays by the hide your power and bide your time strategy. Xi recently admonished state media about bragging too heavily; that's all about playing down their strength. China's ideal is to play it down until they're strong enough so as to be beyond a reasonable challenge by other powers (at least in their sphere of influence, Asia broadly).
Random Points on a Sphere
The paid Gravwell licenses are targeted at businesses; we don't expect any home users to buy one. But we wanted to make the functionality available for the hobbyist community, so we called this version Community Edition. Apologies if the convention confuses, I'm not familiar with the usage you mentioned.
I disagree. But say the option wasn't to disable imessage, but rather break the encryption or stop selling in China? Or stop using your own encrypted icloud storage and use one run by China or stop selling in China?

To buttress your belief, is there any circumstance where they didn't cave to requests from the Chinese government? Or anywhere where they publicly disagreed at least? Honest question as I'm unsure if it has ever happened.
In fairness, there isn’t a great record in the US for respecting self driving IP.
Can you be the Jack Doneghy to my Liz Lemon?

Please?
Yes, which is why Google is still operating in Hong Kong, which is part of China, which is my point. Your's?
Indeed, I was being flip. It's actually been successful at eradicating populations of insects, rather rapidly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sterile_insect_techniq...
I fully agree and while you probably word it much better than me, I made a somewhat similar argument at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16961233 if you are interested...
TensorFlow 1.9.0 released
Man, I had a lecture series on this (Cambridge undergrad geography). It seemed like complete bunk. The lecturer seemed to be arguing that inanimate objects were alive. The other students seemed convinced, though.
1. HN users often seem to like knowing how something was made

2. Our open-source components (github.com/gravwell) are written in Go
It's not about everyone being prepared to find malware anywhere, though, but only in the cases where they each do. For random users of AUR packages, if they (for whatever reason) trust a project's author, then they only need to check the package author's work. If they could have access to historical examples of real life malware specifically on PKGBUILD files, that would make it much easier to have an idea of what kind of details they should be on the alert for.

For kernel devs, specifically the kind that reviews patches submitted by others, I would think it would also be useful to have data on previous successful and failed attempts at introducing backdoors into the kernel.

Right now, I think that for anyone that wants to see this kind of data for any particular kind of software, they'd have to search for it through various mediums like mailing lists or the blog you linked to (through google).

That's an interesting link, by the way. Thanks for sharing.

EDIT: Removed redundant part. Misread what parent post meant.
And fucking cane toads.

Edit: as in the Australian, introduced pest.
I'm going to need a source on that. Fewer than 30 out of 3000 species of mosquito feed on humans. There is little reason for us to bother with the rest.
No more addictive than not being able to put down a good book.
Innovation is expensive. The costs you don’t see are all of the failed designs and revisions that don’t go out the door, which you need large investment or another side of your business to subsidize until you can productize. It’s also risky, as there is a chance that you won’t ever find something that is a hit.

Why do all that when you can skip to printing money by knocking off something that already sells?
That's right, I was thinking of Cower. My mistake.
From an ethical perspective, the fact that all Arby's locations pay the same doesn't sound that outrageous, but I don't work in fast food so maybe it's really a tragedy.
I can speak to both my own personal experience and anecdotal info, in that I've personally only worked with Chinese engineers who are of the utmost scruples and integrity (even when I don't always agree with their choices from an engineering perspective), but it does seem to be that there is some cultural traction against the kind of mindset we appreciate in the West.

But I tend to view it in the context of Feynman's remarks about Brazilians (who I've also had the pleasure of working with and being enlightened by) [0].

Even if there is some cultural resistance, there will always be exceptions, depending how you choose to select from that data.
Personally, I value those traits that choose certain value over others. Being right (with the qualification of being right, rather than appearing right) is essential for a good engineer.

I don't think any country has a monopoly on good engineers or on bad. The best we can do is engage these like minds and cultivate a shared appreciation of the Good.

I think politics (from the education level up) makes it hard to question the cultural norm, I find there are plenty of folks who hold "correctness" a higher value than compliance.

All this said as a white guy looking in and lucky enough to have found aligned mentalities among the folks I've worked with.

[0] http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education
Speaking of naivety, if selling to Chinese customers is the most important thing Apple has to worry about, banning Apple products would incense Chinese users. It's the lost of their manufacturing capabilities that's of concern.

And no, I think Apple should sell to as many countries as possible, but not at a cost of compromising integrity and universal value. Apple should sell their products INTACT across the world.
It gets worse. As I posted elsewhere in the comments, an article in Nature[1] suggests that up to half of humans ever to live have died as a result of mosquito-borne disease.

In light of those numbers I feel we are ethically clear to take drastic action. We don't have to kill all mosquitoes as fewer than 1% of mosquito species feed on humans. We have several tools which will target the specific species which impact us (such as the approach used in this article). It's time we do something about it, or accept the fact that millions more humans are going to die while we wring our hands.

[1] https://www.nature.com/news/2002/021003/full/news021001-6.ht...
I do not wish to question the veracity of this story, however it plays into a narrative where the West is advanced and China is merely stealing I.P. from hard working folks in the West.

I fear that one day we will wake up and realise that we are behind, to discover that our friends in China have been innovating.

We have had this already with internet infrastructure. Whilst half of the USA and rural UK struggle along with internet served over fifty year old copper cables, in Eastern Europe, after the fall of the wall, countries such as Estonia were able to leapfrog typical Western infrastructure and lay fibre to the door for everyone. They might not have done so with Estonian made Cisco routers, however having this leapfrogged infrastructure in place fostered an environment of innovation - Skype being from Estonia.

In automotive there is a real risk for Western auto companies that they will not be able to compete with the electric cars that will be coming out of China. Chinese electric cars could be cosy and a really nice space to be in during one's commute, like an extension of one's living room and a good place to get work done. Meanwhile Western alternatives might still be trying to be yesteryear's status symbols, e.g. 'sporty' cars where the fake exhaust note, theoretical time around the Nurburgring and whatever else excites geriatric Top Gear presenters 'matters'.

A new generation of Western consumer might not want these 'dad cars' and just might prefer whatever comes out of China. There may be cheap plastics in these cars, they may not even have self-driving, but the sum of the parts, price and reliability might trump Western alternatives. We have had this before with VW and Japanese compact cars gouging out the U.S. Big Three. There was no rocket science in the VW Beetle but it was a better buy than what Detroit was offering at the time. Putting up tariffs and complaining about the Japanese merely copying didn't really help.
I'd say that median IQ in ASD is very similar to non-ASD, but the mean is much lower in ASD. That is because a sub-population within the ASD spectrum have very low IQs (e.g., 40-60 being very common). One difficulty with all of this is saple bias. Most studies only deal with higher functioning ASD because low-functioning ASD can be challenging to study. Early on, ASD tended to be only diagnosed in more affluent families, so that could bend IQs upward too in samples.

Its a spectrum, and sometimes there is intellectual disability, and sometimes the impact on quality of life minimal or just different. In others no sign of it at all. If you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism. Its all very challenging,a nd why there is so much effort being applied to trying to define phenotypes.
You could get to that just via chokepoints.

Examples: The RFK/Triboro bridge in NYC gets 60M crossings annually. I95 at the North/Carolina border gets 14M cars a year. State DOTs publish this information for all interstate and many other highways, so it’s easy to piece see where the flows are.

Additionally, DMVs sell all sorts of information, and auto repair and dealerships sell whatever DMV does not. It’s definitely pretty easy to gather and correlate data like this.

I’d assume that many players, from billboard companies to the feds to fast food operators are collecting this data. It is too cheap to collect and too valuable to many parties for that to not be happening.
>Can China not innovate at all? Why are they so keen on stealing IP?

They can, but why should they when the world will innovate for them? They have nuclear weapons and most of the world's manufacturing base already, they do it because can get away with it.
Not to mention ESD issues from rubbing all your components across acrylic.
Many malls are high crime areas. Car theft is often much higher at malls, for example. The owners of these malls
have a responsibility to provide a safe environment.

There have been a few malls in our area that closed after gang related activity and violence in their vicinity became known. If you are a mall owner and have this happen, would you not be remiss to take measures to try to know who is visiting your property and using it as a place to conduct illegal activities?

If a car shows up that is registered to someone on a warrant for a violent crime, should the mall owner do nothing? Not their business?

What about a car registered to someone who lost their license due to DUI? What if that person frequents the mall and kills someone with their car?
I meant that because iMessage fallback to SMS and you don't know if sending an iMessage to someone will go through iMessage or SMS which might cost you money, that's why nobody uses iMessage.

iMessage isn't iCloud, but iMessages are stored in iCloud, Apple also stores iCloud encryption keys in China.
See https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/25/apple-moves-icloud-encrypt...