skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Because Julia is fast and expressive and extensible, in Julia everything can be Julia and not a mashup of other languages. I've been doing some work in Python recently, and it's painful to have Python lists, numpy arrays, Pandas series, and so forth.

This is exactly what I like about Julia. Even though getting started in Julia was tough (esp the older versions), once you get off the ground Python starts to seem like a very hard language, in that Python requires you to use these special libraries to run fast code. In Julia, the most obvious way to do something (e.g., for loops) is perfectly fine.

The main thing Julia lacks, for me, is an equivalent to Pandas. The DataFrames library lacks many very useful features of Pandas. But I am sure someone will tackle that.
I agree with you, and frankly, hacking something together on your own or in a small group is not necessarily going to produce a product that you can then sell, especially considering the potential ramifications due to faults or misconfigurations, specially if you start using the data to automatically adjust your dosages. I suppose what could be nice is if the manufacturers could open up roads to hacking your own gear, but I think that this is highly unlikely as creating an 'official' route to 'mod' is going to open you up to all kinds of liability.

I get frustrated by the lack of visible innovation in diabetes treatment technology, because in most other areas of our lives we are surrounded by tech which is constantly innovating. Unfortunately it's a reality that if you are designing systems and technology that manage critical functions then they are going to take a long time to develop, let alone test, distribute, and support.
Wow, I hadn’t seen this before. The history of this feud goes back before C. Thank you for a fascinating read!
Or just use a double. It has 53 bits of mantissa.
I think the underlying issue is real, but the headline seems inflated. Has this ever actually happened to anyone?

I recently bought life insurance and I'm pretty sure they didn't even bother to ask my primary care doctor for her records (though they had the right to), and they certainly didn't ask me about any tests I may have done on my own. (I think they did obtain at least some of my Rx history though. I assume from CVS Caremark.)

Right now I think there's kinda the opposite problem with Long Term Care insurance where people who take a genetic test that shows high risk for e.g. Alzheimer's run out and buy LTC insurance which messes up the risk pool.
> Off the bat, let me explain that I expect a tool which claims to be secure to actually be secure. I don’t view “but that makes it harder for the average person” as an acceptable excuse. If Edward Snowden and Bruce Schneier are going to spout the virtues of the app, I expect it to actually be secure when it matters - when vulnerable people using it to encrypt sensitive communications are targeted by smart and powerful adversaries.

I'm not so sure about this. I don't think Snowden and Schneier are praising it because it is the most secure application available that works for every threat model; I think they're doing it because it's the best attempt to up the security of the masses. In other words: there's a limit to its threat model. Signal makes it harder to do mass-scale surveillance, and allows e.g. whistle-blowers to contact journalists without standing out because they're using an encrypted messaging app.

Yes, it's important to highlight those trade-offs, and one can always do better, but as far as I can see Moxie has always justified the trade-off with arguments that were not based on being self-serving. You might not agree with his conclusions, but I think it's unfair to accuse him of being self-serving. (Unless you mean "thinking about the consequences for the success of Signal" by "self-serving". It's not really clear how it serves Moxie otherwise, and the author doesn't go into detail about that.)

In the end, I think it comes down to the author expecting different goals from Signal than the project itself has - as implied by his disdain for GIF search. Obviously Signal isn't only implementing features just to get more secure - it also wants to be widely adopted. It's just that the author apparently doesn't consider that as important.
Technically, Signal also uses homegrown crypto.

The difference here was it was endorsed by Moxie's acquaintances from the crypto circles, followed by a very loud and aggressive disparaging campaign against Telegram led by some of these people. I've been on metzdowd list for a very long time and while cryptographers aren't the chummiest people in the slightest, there's always an underlying mutual respect. The Telegram bashing was the first time I've ever seen geniuenly vicious behavior and hate displayed towards a project that not even remotely deserve it. Almost as if the goal was just to bury the competition.
How to Install a Single Component from Any UI Library Using NPM+Bit
Exactly. A lot of discoveries can be viewed as useless for quite a while before someone figures out a practical application.
OWS's staunch refusal to permit anything other than phone numbers as identifiers should tell you everything you need to know about Signal.

It is an authenticated, nonrepudiable communications platform using identifiers that are very difficult (possible, yes, but most people will get it wrong) to comprehensively anonymize.

The ability to present nonrepudiable communications to a judge is precisely the wet dream of law enforcement officers, ambitious prosecutors, and despotic regimes everywhere. All they need to do is flip the people you're communicating with, and you're done.
Well, there's always the other side as well: if the value is in the billions, it'll degenerate back to the original bug.

On single CPU socket systems, Windows seems to usually compute QueryPerformanceCounter by simply shifting CPU RDTSC count right by 10 bits, effectively dividing the value by 1024. So exactly 3.0 GHz system would have 2929687 in QueryPerformanceFrequency return value.

On NUMA machines instead of RDTSC QueryPerformanceCounter uses HPET or APIC or whatever is available, because RDTSC is not HW synchronized between CPU sockets. I bet those HPET divisors will be in different divisor range.

No matter what clock source Windows might use, simply using doubles would have fixed the issue. No point to use floats in the first place.
> This is beyond the legal authority of an NSL.

If the legal authority can't be challenged in public, how are you so sure this legal authority hasn't been skirted plenty? In an opaque system, what they can and can't do is only theoretical. Only sometimes are things disclosed well after the fact and often only in aggregate (such as numbers about how many NSLs are greenlit). This is what the author means by no trust required. They can't be asked to subvert it, even via extralegal means.
While neat technically speaking, I unfortunately can't say the result is acceptable for any kind of professional work, in my opinion.

For example, take a close look at the iPhone X in the "Device Library" list, the device and "notch" borders are butchered beyond recognition. A key component of the iPhone X's brand are the particular rounded corners used for the notch, and if the point of this project is to closely emulate particular devices instead of generic ones, it woefully missed the mark.

To be fair, I can't speak for the accuracy for the other devices included, but if their implementations are at all similar to the iPhone X's, I'd expect they are also poor representations.

Comparison between the CSS "iPhone X" and an accurate representation: https://notebook.barrowclift.me/dropbox/comparison.png, and a Light read for more information on the iPhone X corners: https://medium.com/tall-west/no-cutting-corners-on-the-iphon...
In perhaps pithier words, accepting abnry's figures

> It may be true that 80% of the mathematical research that is valuable to society is done by 20% of mathematicians. In this case, not much can be lost by reducing research funding.

, you can probably get 80% of the return by cutting the right 80% of research; but, if you cut the wrong 80%, then you might be left with just the 20% return on the remaining 20% of work, or 4%.

(Also, there're lots of ways to cut the wrong 80%, and only one way to cut the right 80%.)
> “If you apply for life insurance they do have a right to get all your medical records. And if you’ve had a genetic test taken, they do have a right to request it”

This data isn't something an individual has full control over. What if one of your relatives took a genetic test? If that relative was denied for a policy on genetic test grounds, can you be denied for the same reasons?
Wozniak Talking Blcokchain Tech at LA Event
True. The optimistic side of me wants to believe that most people do not litter.

But it’s surprising (and sad) to me how many people do do this when they think they aren’t being watched. Often people who you would take to be perfectly fine, ordinary, upstanding types at first glance.

On the other hand, I watched a couple of members of a bunch of “youths” hanging out at a bus stop in London the other day who went out of their way to put their crisp wrappers in a nearby bin. Despite it being a pretty grimy littered street. So perhaps there is hope...
Mazda, Suzuki, Yamaha Motor apologize for improper vehicle tests
Just a subtle reminder that China isn't a monolithic entity, but is instead made out of people, like all countries.
> I initially defended the choice, but I now agree that 1-based indexing now seems like a poor choice since Julia has become something more than the original mission of a better MATLAB or Octave. It’s a, admittedly, minor tragedy of Julia’s success

Especially since it would have been very easy to 'do it like Ada' and allow any start index by default (I have use Lua and it's really annoying to use an extension language with 1-index when the base language is 0-indexed)
I don't actually endorse any of the alternatives, just listing them. I haven't had time to research them in depth. I have worked with Tox before and I know some of the guys behind it, though, but I think it's dead in the water.
Urban Nation: The Rise of the American City
Show HN: A Chrome extension that extracts used CSS and combines it into one file
just wanted to share this useful tool with you. I have been looking at something like this for a very long time.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/css-used/cdopjfddj...

what it does:
it analyses your html dom and looks for css classes. Then it extracts it all and combines it into 1 single css file.

I used 5 css framworks which was on 340kb kb. This tool made it 36kb!
> Nonetheless, most people have never actually seen a bicycle.

This is culture specific. In The Netherlands, kids see bicycles as they grow up. They see children going to elementary school on them, they see them after school, they're an important part of our culture and in large cities they're practically everywhere. Heck, I got brought to kindergarten on... a bicycle. You can be sure as hell any kid of age 4 or higher has seen a bicycle (4 is the age they enter elementary school). In the Catholic area of NL, its very much a tradition that after communion the child gets their own bicycle. IIRC that's around 7 or 8 years. Whether kids (from NL, of whatever age) can draw a bicycle is a different matter, I cannot judge on that one.
Cycle Zombies: The brotherhood bringing motorbikes back from the dead
Clojure Spec is one of the newer developments in Clojure that is being worked on: https://clojure.org/about/spec

On the ClojureScript side there is also a lot of movement. I follow https://twitter.com/mfikes on Twitter to get a heartbeat.
Interesting discussion on the topic.

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2142568/us-ch...
> This is starting to be crazy. There is almost nothing you can do without having to worry about what some other party may do with your data. Walk in the street and have a video taken that's then processed and analyzed. Buy something and probably hundreds of companies will know about it.

I'm with you on this paragraph …

> In this particular case the insurance company should not be able to request data from the past. If they want any data they should order tests themselves and only use that data.

… but you lose me here. By this logic, it seems like car-insurance companies shouldn't be able to look at my driving history, but should have to administer me a driving test themselves. This would clearly make premiums skyrocket, and I don't think is the right solution.
I think it's fair.

He accuses Moxie of being deceptive and insincere:

"It can be hard to distinguish these from genuine positions held by the person you’re talking to, but when it conveniently allows them to make self-serving plays, it’s a big red flag."

He then admits it's "a strong accusation". Later he dismisses Moxie's reasonable stance re: federation with "Moxie can write as many blog posts which appeal to wispy ideals and “moving ecosystems” as he wants".

That's not a reasonable critique, that's pure vitriol.

I would love to see federation in Signal, but I can understand why OWS decided otherwise. The author is not able to distinguish between "someone has weighed the issue differently than I would have" and "he's doing that for his own personal gain".
Not seeing the harm and there being no harm are two very different things.

The latest episode of Citations Needed Podcast (http://citationpod.com/) does a good short review of some particularly agregious situations in which the US military bombs countries then the same or related parties praise themselves for their humanitarian response to the aftermath.

Worse, when you bomb a country, for example, it should be obvious that this sets back all of humanity to some degree. Apparently, it’s not obvious. But Earth and humanity are systems, and this analogy is such that we can look at any other system and find the same outcome. Damage one part, and effects will be felt in the others; often not at simultaneously. Some parts will be stimulated only to be depleted later (like the immune systems in our bodies) and require attention. The US is experiencing this sort of reversal right now, though some are in denial or haven’t caught on to that yet.
Lol. One thing I noticed among "hackers" here is that they don't want things to be easier for them. They hate convenience. They love hustling :D
The wall Street Journal lost my support after they came out with a shitty hit piece [0] against PewDiePie. I read some of their arguments, but found em to be pretty damn shallow.

Although they came out against him, if you actually watch the source videos I don't think they had a strong case. This was one of the key posts that made me lose trust in WSJ as an organization.

[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-severs-ties-with-youtube...
> Meanwhile, my mate is rolling around, flaying his hands and chewing sand.

Did you in fact mean 'flaying' or did you instead mean to write 'flailing'? If you did mean 'flaying' then... yikes.
They may nail you later because you didn't disclose something. I know people who have been dropped from their health insurance after years of paying because they forgot to disclose a previous injury. I should add they got dropped when they had a claim. That means the insurance happily took their money until it was time to pay up.
"Being able to work under pressure" is not a binary skill that you either have or don't have. Pressure comes in various forms and your ability to cope depends on many environmental factors. I have some experience with working to tight deadlines, and it never felt particularly similar to taking an exam. So I would challenge the idea that they're equivalent.

A being a better sprinter than B neither means B can't work under pressure nor that B is the worse mid-distance runner. The same is true for mental tasks.
> I think the underlying issue is real, but the headline seems inflated. Has this ever actually happened to anyone?

The time to guard against infringement of your rights is before it happens. Once it's happened … well, we've always done it that way; you should have spoken up before.
yeah. there are other videos that are actually more related, such as Atlas running whilst being pushed by someone with a stick. Clearly it's capable to adjust movement to unexpected external events, which seems like a stepping-stone towards dribbling (probably wont be able to predict perfectly how the ball will bounce). Still, based only on public videos, they have a long way to go.

I haven't seen a video from them in a while though, so who knows, maybe Atlas is already working his ballgame in secret somewhere.
Clojure has been the most stable ecosystem I've ever dealt with. Once you get into it it's not uncommon to see libraries that are years old that function perfectly. I'm not even scared to update clojure to the latest alpha builds because things just always work.

There's also this to look at on the subject:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/3/621

Reddit discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/95b1hf/linus_torvald...
At least here in Sweden there are also PhD programs where you do your research at a company and split your time 50-50 between that company and the University.
Thank you as well for the discussion! I think it helped me understand better the reason for my own reluctance to ignore even a pretty benign form of tracking by a FOSS project.

First, I have no fear that LO will be used for nefarious purposes. And even in the worst, unlikely case of all collected data leaking or getting sold to FB, NSA or your-favorite-villain, the harm done will be several orders of magnitude less than the provided benefit of building a FOSS office suite. Viva LO, cheers to its developers.

But we have an overall erosion of trust. We do not trust remote systems or software any more. In the age of shareware (mid-late 90s) software downloaded from unknown sources was in general assumed benign. Possibly stupid, but rarely actively harmful. Today, even with apps from Play/App-store, the default assumption is that they are trying to do something against the user. To install or not install question depends on whether the benefit they provide is greater than that harm.

"Something against the user" is now monitoring and tracking (access to contacts, photos, camera, mic, WiFi info) and it is always explained as improving user experience. Sure. Seeing such logic instantly raises a red flag for me and, sadly, catches your use case as well. While I have no doubt that LO is doing none of this my thought (based on learned priors) is "Et tu, Brute".

Just a guess, but in today's environment you may get better ROI (funding, advocacy, whatever) by not tracking users at all and prominently boasting of this. As I mentioned in the thread above, you probably can get most of the information you need to tune the site from web server logs anyway. Again, just a single user opinion / data point.
Signal is not for state-proof encrypted communication. Not large states like the USA or Russia. If you think it is, you've been misinformed. For state actor proof communications you need to evaluate every action you take and think:

"What are the assumptions that I'm making here?"

One assumption is that you're not currently on anyone's radar. Are you willing to bet the entire enterprise on this assumption? How certain are you? Are you 99.999% certain?

Another assumption is that the operating system you are running the app in is not compromised on either end of the communication. 99.99%?

Another assumption is that the screen isn't viewable by other devices. Another assumption is that the frequency of your key taps aren't picked up by a mic and then turned into intelligible letters.

Another assumption is that the encryption algorithms you're utilizing haven't been subtly chosen to be intelligible to a single actor or that they'll stay secure once we have quantum computers.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Signal is good because it raises the bar. Stock traders buying black information probably won't get your communications. They won't be scooped up in a email server leak. They wont be visible to your wife when she enters your phone's unlock code because they auto delete, and they don't get pushed to your iPad, like FB messenger[0].

But if you want to go up against James Bond, and you're already on his radar, you need to give up the illusion that anything computer related is fully trustable. Just pre-arrange some code words or OTPs and meet in person in an area without electronics or go even more old school and use dead drops with hand written communication.

[0] I personally know 3 people that were caught cheating this way.
Completely agree, I have had several people move from various chat apps and texting to Signal largely because of the iMessage like features. Ultimately, I am now able to have more secure discussions with largely non-technical users which is good for everyone.
> The current benefits that renewables receive are aligned with the true costs.

So energy storage / building heavily underutilized plants is free in this theory?
e2e, by nature, is client specific. So Matrix, as a connectivity glue protocol, has nothing to do with it.

Synapse, the reference server, can handle rooms, and force encryption on the rooms.

p2p is client side. Riot, as reference client, is the one that takes care of this, and, if I get everything right, it is on by default.
It seems reasonable that before we work on AI, we rigorously define what the "I" actually means. But maybe that's just us?
Number theory is an excellent example since it was an academic curiosity until it suddenly became very very useful. While cryptography is built on number theory, that earlier research was not done with the explicit goal of developing cryptography. Instead, people took existing math and built new applications around it.

Obviously, it would be nice to fund only things that are eventually useful, but this is virtually impossible to predict in advance so....we fund a bunch of things and see what works. (Also, math is shockingly cheap compared to lab sciences so it makes even more sense to spread the bets widely.)
That's what the diploma was for once ... (at least in Germany).
According to friends in the cryptography space and from a cursory reading of wikipedia, Telegram is a shitshow compared to Signal.

It's one thing not to trust Signal. It's another to recommend alternatives that are far worse.
Is this you? https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/07/the-i...
I'd imagine that if you spent any significant amount of time tracking what Mormon apostles have actually said about a lot of controversial ideas, that you'd no longer be an active Mormon. The exmormon subreddit is littered with people who did exactly that.
> A hobby that has some relatively low chance of impacting society.

As opposed to more important pursuits, such as advertising.
I'd say Wire is a good substitute.
Is it even possible for the Signal servers to keep track of who you talk to, when, and how often? I was under the impression that those two data points they stored were the only thing they _could_ store, because the rest is sent to the servers encrypted.

Edit: Yes, apparently they have a method of doing private contact discovery and, IIUC, even a method for the client to verify that the server is running the source code they expect: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/#trust-but...
That's really hard to cope with and a big burden on you, particularly, especially since you see it leaking over to your child.

When you mention the hostility, what kind of things were said? How does your spouse justify their behaviour?

It sounds like there are attributes both of OCD and OCPD, and that makes for a very tough combination.
This is good advice.

I would to those following it that this advice is likely most useful if your family members are on Android devices.

iOS does not allow you to change the default SMS application and if your family member is on iOS, the iMessage platform lock in is nearly impossible to break out of.