skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This actually feels more like what I would expect police work to be like given the situation.

They most certainly do not have cause to demand access to swaths of comms no matter whose comms they're after and most assuredly when that access actually entails enabling access to all of the comms.

I posit there is no authority that should be able to demand this as a matter of the right to human existence. Law, order, society and government should not have ultimate authority on private communications no matter what the tech is capable of. We, as humans in a modern world, can speak and if desired do so in private. This is our right as individuals and if encryption helps us accomplish and enforce that right then so be it.

If they have probable cause then they need to beat feet or beat heads but either way they need to get to work. And by work I do not mean trying to impose a different reality than the one that we currently have - where math is fact, compute is cheap and source is open.

What's it going to be? 100 go free or six lines from everyone?
I practiced lucid dreaming intensely when I was 18 for over a year and it has been automatic since (it is over 25 years later); I would not miss it for the world. It's like a strong hallucinogenic drug but without the side effects (aka recovery is instant when I wake up). I like doing the things you would think that are great; flying around, getting shot without being hurt (I did it 1000s of times and still find it interesting when the bullet goes in but it doesn't hurt; very strange feelings as my brain signals imminent and possibly lethal damage), fighting with robots, having sex and so on. And everything (well, for as far as I know that is; many things I dream I have never experienced, but it my brain at least thinks they would feel like that) feels like the real thing. Also in real life I have fear of heights; in my dreams I like to fly as high as I can and then swoop down over the lands (which are often rain forests with maya temples for some reason).

I do solve programming problems in those dreams, at least I think so; I wake up with a clear path to attacking those problems I went to sleep with and I do have lucid dreams where I am discussing those issues with someone. Always someone who I 'feel' I know, but who looks very different than they do in real life. I definitely would find going to sleep a lot more boring without these dreams. Advantage I find as well (I am not sure if everyone has this, but the book I learned lucid dreaming from says it's one of the side effects) is that I remember all my dreams.

I have long been curious about the following; since I have been wearing wristbands like the Fitto, which measures sleep, I notice something which could be related (or Fitto etc sleep measurement is just bullshit; I had it with multiple brands though); compared to everyone I know, I spend far more time in REM and deep sleep; far more than my comparable age group. I spend, comparatively, very little time in light or awake state every night. Wonder how this is for other lucid dreamers.
The bigger hurdle is that security actually works against usability, because you have to build something that works on arbitrary networks with who-knows-what configured and no guarantee that the consumer has access let alone knowledge of how to fix random networking issues. Granted there is plenty of low-hanging fruit with minimal usability impact, but if we want to talk about actual decent security that is a very difficult proposition for a plug-and-play consumer product regardless of customer demand.
As for 007? She married a man and had kids, and has not told anyone, not even her husband, about her sexually fluid past.

Kind of chilling.
And who would use that system, if it were so closely associated with status as a federal criminal?

You're forgetting that the average user doesn't care enough to sacrifice ease of use for greater political benefit.
How is this not extortion? Every time I read /r/legaladvice and someone says "Hey I have proof someone stole X should I tell them pay me back or return it or I go to the police" and are shouted down that no, threatening to bring in the police is extortion.

Weird how when a large company wants compensation it's not...
Replicated Data Consistency Explained Through Baseball
I wonder how ARM is achieving more performance per watt than Intel(assuming the claim is true). Is the architecture just better, or what?
Don't blame short sellers if you are helping them with every interview and public feud.

Just the fact that there is nobody strong enough in the company to talk sense to Musk and put PR people between him and twitter says a lot. That pedophile spectacle should have been the last time we hear unfiltered Musk.
The article is about the question if the government can force companies to backdoor their end-to-end encrypted apps, so that's not a solution.
detaching from expo and pulling out all the expo bits is pretty tough. you dont know what is needed and what isnt, and you have to find replacements for all your expo handy apis, OTA updates, ios/android standalone builds, and push notifications
just out of curiosity...

if it's an eval board, then do they provide schematics which are typical of other eval board producers?

Having the schematic might aid in getting things working assuming the MAC <-> PHY circuitry supports what you want to do.
>In some states, companies have been able to collect more than the value of the allegedly stolen items, up to $1,000 in some instances.

Seems to set up a perverse set of incentives - might be more profitable to pursue people who steal low ticket items than it is to actually sell them...
Because you get strange stack overflows.
But less reliable. Wasn't one of the seed banks in the arctic destroyed by flooding recently?

Digital versions can be replicated and distributed at 0 cost.
Clustering & unsupervised machine learning are still considered to be branches of AI. Not everything is neural nets and DL.
In many of the papers on sexual arousal and orientation, the sensation assessed is genital arousal. In men this is erection. I wonder if this punch in the gut feeling is linked to it somehow, or independent?

In those studies -- many by Meredith Chivers -- there is a clear differentiation in men (though not in women) in arousal that distinguishes heterosexual and homosexual patterns of attraction.
California Is Deteriorating into a Feudal Society of Inherited Land Wealth
I just started using Favioli and really like it. Thanks so much.
The force of law comes from the threat of violence against those found not in compliance.

If someone is not violating another party's rights, there's no moral justification for subjecting them to violence.
A few years ago, I was working in a company that was trying to build an innovative NLP system, or in more honest words, to do a chatbot that doesn’t suck. Spoiler alert: we failed.

There were a lot things wrong in how this company was run and the product we were doing, but I won’t go into details except to say that there were a lot of intelligent people forced to do silly things by a clueless micromanaging boss.

Anyway, one of the problems with chatbots is the one of prior knowledge. Chatbots and other NLP solutions don’t simply need to be able to understand and produce conversation, they need to have something to talk about, a model of the world, some basic facts, and it turns out it is very complicated to build in general.

So our boss decided that one way to fake it was to use one of those free corpora of public-domain English literature. Let’s just make our system “read” a lot of text and in some way it will gain prior knowledge that way. So if it reads “the Sun was high in the sky”, it would understand that the Sun is something that has a position and that one of the possible position is “high in the sky”. So if someone ever asks the chatbot “where can the Sun be?” it could answer “The Sun can be high in the sky”. It was all pattern matching, nothing very smart about it, just something to fake some parts of the conversation and avoid having too many “I don’t know”.

Of course, it was literature, including fiction. So caterpillars could smoke hookahs, but that was considered an acceptable risk, it was better to have something wrong than an admission of ignorance. In some way don’t humans also repeat stuff without understanding them?

It kinda worked. If you asked “What do people eat?” it would answer “People eat potatoes, mushrooms and tires” or something like that. It was not very smart but somewhere in the literature the pattern “<Person> eats <X>” existed and it was parroting it. If you asked “What do children eat?” it would answer “Children eat carrots, rocks and cupcakes”. It was a bit silly but nice.
But then we asked “Who eat children?” and the answer was, I shit you not, “Black people eat children, while howling to the moon and covering their naked body with feces”.

Except it didn’t actually say “Black people”, it used the other term, the one which is much worse.

The sudden realization that we have created an AI but an incredibly racist one did not make us abandon the approach. We just found the guilty piece of text in the corpus and expunged it. Then it just said “Companies eat children”. Depending on your politics you can consider that better.

To be fair, it was not really Machine Learning but the story shows what can happen if you don’t control your input, either because it comes from the evil internet or because it is a large dataset that it is too big to reasonably sanitize and was not built for this purpose.
Colorado School District Switches to 4-Day Week to Save Money
Threatening to file a civil suit is not extortion. If it were, it would be pretty much impossible to ever send a cease-and-desist letter.
Hey that was a very thoughtful response! You make some very good points. I always appreciate learning something new, thank you.

And you're right it's MBS, I couldn't quite remember
Assuming you're referring to the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, the Wikipedia page answers your question:

> In October 2016, the seed vault experienced an unusually large degree of water intrusion due to higher than average temperatures and heavy rainfall .... The vault was designed for water intrusion and as such the seeds were not at risk.

The article's source: https://www.popsci.com/seed-vault-flooding
Had a similar experience - started as a teenager and now it's automatic. Also dreams are becoming more abstract, more visceral, and more epic as I age.

Sometimes wish I could turn it off, though - it can be exhausting. I'd like sleep to be more restful by default but have a way to choose to have a lucid dream if desired.
I'm always ready to say I don't know. But just to advocate for the opposite -- it is perfectly OK to have an clear opinion, weakly held.

So, say what you think but at the same time ask (demand?) an argument or discussion.

A friend has a T-shirt with the words: Always sure, often wrong.

Also see: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/work-matters/201002/...
The DO-178B and now DO-178C regulations appear to be doing well. A whole ecosystem of quality-supporting tools, certified components, and QA experts have formed. Likewise, most or all of the early, secure products were designed for the TCSEC regulations. Although it had issues, the parts that increased assurance worked fine.

So, given TCSEC half worked and DO-178C currently works, I'd say regulation is the answer on this stuff. It just can't be too prescriptive. The situation would vastly improve if just a few things like checking inputs, avoiding unsafe code where possible, fuzzing, and so on were required.

And we also sue their ass in court for not doing this easy, provably-useful stuff. That's to get stuff done when regulators aren't along with using legal damages to force them to take action.
Possession of encryption software could be treated the same as possession of drugs. On the next stop and search you would only had to handover your phone. If police password will not work it will be confiscated. If encryption software is found you go in the dock. It is the future. Society accepted ridiculous laws to jail people for having a plant, they'll accept jailing for programs. Only terrorists, thieves and adulterers encrypt their messages ;-)
This sort of programming seems popular with languages that are already verbose (Java), and it just adds pointless extra verbosity.
That's how it always happens. Something becomes perceived as high quality and desirable. Due to its high quality, it is expensive. But many people want it, so there's an opening for a product that is similar enough for the "layperson", but doesn't cost what the "connoisseur" is willing to pay. Nine times out of ten, that means lower quality.
She basically played handmaiden to the birth of modern France and her full frontal assault military tactics are still in use by France today, from what I gather.

I think it could be argued that trumps being a captain of industry.

She did all that before about the age of 21, then was executed at around the age of 21.
I certainly am concerned about media giants censoring material under the guise of eliminating "hate speech", "fake news", "russian propaganda", or anything they imagine I am too tender to be trusted to view. That sort of thing has gone on throughout history (such as people who translated the Bible into English got burned at the stake), never with good results.
You might be interested in what the Georgists and geo-libertarians have to say about the more common "royal libertarians" (the term they actually use).

http://geolib.com/
http://cgocouncil.org/cwho.html

Similar sentiments are to be found among mutualists, agorists, etc. Ownership of land specifically is ownership of property stolen from the commons during the era in which enclosure occurred. Those who pit absolutist interpretations of property rights against the need for democratic and responsive government are the intellectual and often financial descendants of kings and feudal lords. To the extent that other wealth is often derived from land wealth at some stage, it's often tainted as well. This is closely related to Proudhon's "property is theft" (specifically excluding labor-made wealth) and similar ideas going back to Saint Ambrose and Basil of Caesarea in the fourth century.

This is the real "trickle down" economics, but it only extends as far as the modern equivalent of courtiers and lesser gentry - not to the vast majority. Those on the system's fringes are often most wary of threats to it, often seeking to secure their position by loudly denouncing the unblessed rabble who would displace them in a truly free system.
People used to do that with different groups of people every week.

Now, we can't afford the time/money to socialize, and if you get to a particular position in life (usually after University), you're stuck in a rut.
It applies everywhere if you believe what the Declaration of Independence says about certain rights being "inalienable".
Google makes it work. But then there are C# and F#, which are Googleable but fail on probably 99.9% of other sites and software with search functionality, including some of Microsoft's own products (e.g. NuGet).
Ironically the Amazon store in Santana Row is across the street from a former Border's location that closed years ago.
My source is family experience with it. Sorry it's anecdotal. I imagine much was lost in the war and its chaotic aftermath.
Geekbench is a bit of a bogus benchmark. I really doubt that the Rockchip board would have even quarter the actual performance on "real" programs (e.g. x264, imagemagick, povray etc.)
Netflix Is Testing Ad Between Episodes
I remember way back when Apple had to fire people for leaking stuff to the news. Osborne had a problem like that had a new model being invented and someone leaked it so nobody bought the current model to fuel money to build the new model.

Leaks can break a company.
Nice article! From the outside, it seems so obvious that the fix for C is to reduce the scope of undefined behavior, either by simply defining it or making it "implementation defined". But it seems equally obvious that this is not going to happen.

The standards committee invented the concept of “undefined behavior” to capture this range of behavior. Essentially, it’s a license for the implementation to do anything it wants. And that’s reasonable; it’s hard to imagine nailing down the behavior any further without compromising performance or the fundamental nature of the problem. But given this hammer, the committee applied it far more broadly.

However, compiler authors got bolder over time, feeling that everything allowed in the standard was fair game, at the same time getting more sophisticated in what optimizations could be done with stronger assumptions.

Are "compiler authors" and the "standards committee" really two distinct groups? I've presumed that the expansion of "undefined behavior" in C is an example of "regulatory capture". That is, the specifications of the language are being decided by those who see "undefined" as yet another opportunity for optimization, as opposed to the users of compilers who tend to be more worried about broken programs.
> A free trade is where not only equal value is exchanged (according to the values assigned by the traders), but both parties benefit from the trade. Otherwise they wouldn't trade.

This is only true under the perfect information about future utilities assumption, which is false generally and strikingly false when it comes to financial markets.

Financial trades often reflect imperfect information and either different risk tolerance or simple information asymmetry what one party has a more accurate estimate of future performance than the other. Neither of these situations involves actual realized mutual benefit.
All accepted religions are floating on the sea of blood. If nobody gets crucified over pasta then it is just bollocks.
Thanks for the reference.

We should indeed continue with seed vaults. But I'd feel better with a backup for that in the form of digital data.
thanks for writing this!
There's a difference between running a Tor exit node and encrypting a personal conversation.

At least in the US, if a US citizen is part of a potentially incriminating conversation, the government's going to have a hard time forcing a court to force the citizen to decrypt the conversation.

Lawyers, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a conversation wouldn't be subject to the vagaries of "combination to a safe"-production loopholes.
So 160 million packets per second?
They sure hid figure 10! Unexpected section, bad header choice, etc.
It is probably all the spying /s
Hey, that's my lib! ^_^
Netflix will now interrupt series binges with video ads for its other series
The article doesn't explain how they came to dominate it, actually. Did fewer men sign up than women? Did more women than men pass the coursework or exams? Did men in the middle of the pipeline end up making a different choice and going somewhere else?
There's been security evaluations of products where evaluators do both checklist stuff and try to hack the product. Consumers could buy the stuff that gets cleared through those processes. For instance, there's products on the market like INTEGRITY-178B and LynxSecure designed specifically for securely partitioning systems. They have networking stacks available, too. On occasion, a company would make things like routers with them. Virtually nobody bought them because they cost more than insecure devices or lacked unnecessary Thing X, Y, or Z. Intel tried with i432 APX, BiiN with i960 CPU (a nice one), and Itanium w/ security enhancements Secure64 SourceT uses. Lost a billion dollars or something over the three. So, those companies usually folded, withdrew the products, or switched to selling for outrageous amounts to defense sector.

So far, almost no money is going into stuff with higher assurance of correctness. Those companies are losing money when they try though. So, the market naturally responded to the demand. I strongly discourage anyone from even trying again given the cost and fact that users won't buy it. Instead, I recommend making a product that's decently secure that can be secured later. Make it good enough to sell on its own with great marketing and so on. As money comes in, move a percentage of it toward improving its overall assurance. Basically takes a nonprofit and/or ideological group that wants strong security to happen at a loss or at least opportunity cost to get it done. CompSci people also make strong designs with FOSS code that often needs polish. Companies can pick up their ideas or prototypes to convert into something that can sell. Alternatively, team up with them to split the work into what each can financially sustain and are good at. That's happening with CompCert whose innovations come from CompSci but sold by AbsInt. K Framework people and Runtime Verification Inc. are another good example with one coming from the other.
Anecdotally I tried for a few weeks to lucid dream and had success a few times, but both mornings after the lucid dreams I felt absolutely exhausted.
> This is only true under the perfect information about future utilities assumption, which is false generally and strikingly false when it comes to financial markets.

There is no such thing as perfect information, and you're not going to get it via government regulation or values fixed by government fiat, either.

Free markets do not rely on perfect information at all. They rely on the participants making their own decisions on what the value is to themselves. Even if you are sure they are wrong.

> actual realized mutual benefit

You also cannot decide for others what is of benefit to them. They may (and surely do) value different factors entirely differently than you do.
If things go far enough downhill that the Svalbard vault is lost and its contents just allowed to rot, I’d be surprised if we retained the technological capacity to do things like synthesizing a complex genome from data. (I’m not sure we could do that with present technology either, for that matter.)
I believe it's substantially more difficult, legally. CALEA for data-in-transit and judicial interpetations for data-at-rest mean it isn't as strictly protected as personally-controlled data.

So it's definitely covered by a different legal regime, to set aside the technical bits.
> So far as I know, P/Invoke already tries to be as low overhead as possible

As low as possible maybe, but there's lots of limiting factors with P/Invoke, such as:

- They are not inlined

- Registers need to be saved pessimistically

- The state at the point of the call is visible to observers outside of code the compiler controls so options for scheduling are constrained

- Objects need to be materialised

- All parameter values need to be available even if they aren't actually used

- Objects passed have to be pinned or given an indirect handle

- The caller has to be in a safepoint so GC can keep running

- The compiler has to juggle things into place for the C ABI, where it may normally lay things out differently

- etc

Going through a P/Invoke call is a whole inconvenient circus compared to an intrinsic.
How to your bodybuilding fits and unique body?
“Monster Hunter World” game spends 25% of CPU time switching between threads
First thought was to search for Billy G, but it seems you haven't included him yet.
I've been seeing "Genome of X has been fully sequenced" articles over the course of some years. Can someone who understands it explain to a layman like myself how exactly this benefits us?
Make it only apply to paid software or that used commercially. Then, you get what you pay for more often. ;)

Also, the liability of companies pushing open-source software for commercial use might be a way to get contributions to it improving quality. The companies can get sued. They're financially benefiting from it. So, they might invest some money into companies developing the code to make sure it meets whatever the standard is. It's not the best, incentive structure but it's a incentive structure. Right now, most can freeload off code which also might be shoddy enough to affect their users.