skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A few years ago I read references to LEA Racks (Law Enforcement Agency Racks) being installed into every NBN POI. I think I saw it in the NBN design documents, but a few years later I could not find it again so who knows.

After getting over the initial shock of the implications, I put my engineering hat on and then it was "of course there are LEA racks, you idiot". I presume when the TIA was written (1979) getting a tap involved filing a request with Telecom who then raised a work order for some department, and it wormed it's way down the management layers until some worker was directed to install the thing. If I was in charge of optimising that process, I too would have created LEA Racks, filled it with gear and told the LEA's "here, you look after it, and try not to bother me again".

I'd be amazed if the process hasn't been automated to the extent ASIO doesn't now have a button in Canberra somewhere they can press to tap phone or internet connection. There is no doubt in my mind commercial forces will mean Apple, Google and Microsoft go down the same road. Someone who had a hand in drafting this bill has dreams of a future where the old telephone line taps will become part of ancient history - it's all done via bugs installed at the touch of a button onto the end users devices.

I doubt their idea of utopia will last for very long. The likes of Russia and China must be delighted with the idea of democracies building a surveillance of the likes they could only dream about, and then handing it to them on a platter by just leaving it in control of just few humans easily manipulated with social engineering hacks, and a few machines they can focus enormous resources at cracking.

That's if it lasts that long. It's trivially easy to bypass now by simply using Open Source. The timing is bad for them as Debian has just added the final nail making that all possible by creating the first ecosystem using repeatable builds.

If anyone is wondering why Open Source is the solution - it's because the root cause of the problem is they are putting control in a central choke point. Compromise that choke point in a way that no one notices you have own whatever it controls. The people in charge believe they can fix that by heavily fortifying the choke point. But as the saying goes, every man has his price, as oddly does every computer and every SIM. If you are centralising, you are making the worth of what the choke point controls higher and higher, then eventually you will hit that price. They have created something that can reveal every banking password, every confidential email discussing corporate takeovers worth billions, all trade secrets and government secrets.

Open source solves that (as indeed did world the TIA was born into with its work orders involving many people) by making the cost scale. Over time there are thousands of programmer looking at the source in Debian - that's why it's called Open. You have to compromise every one of those programmers.
SPDY was a good 4-letter acronym.
That's because the metrics keep changing.
I've seen a similar thing ("and they'll stop it at some point"). If you need DNS functionality beyond the Samba implementation then I would suggest having a separate BIND or PDNS server that all clients point at and that collates the DNS view that you wish them to have. A GPO will get them to update records on your Samba DNS and your PDNS or BIND or whatever can do the rest.
I guess when we decide to stop complaining about technically inept government, and start working for government and running for office ourselves.
> At what point does the technical community stop trying to technically interfere with the efforts of law enforcement, and start trying to change the laws that make law enforcement behave this way?

This sounds like a highly irresponsible tactic if your actual goal is to help people.

There is no reason to believe that the state will afford the kind of changes you're describing, and even if it does, no reason to believe that it will obey the new laws in question.

While you are busy keeping yourself safe by staying within the lines of a tyrannical coloring book, real people are suffering the consequences of surveillance.

Even if this were possible: why constrain the internet, whose constituency is international and impetus is mathematical, to the confines of some ridiculous tantrum-throwing government and its childish ideas of control? What's the benefit?
Show HN: Favioli – Replace blank tab icons with unique per-domain emoji
Slack literally stands for Searchable Log of All Content and Knowledge. It’s incredibly useful and transformative for what it is. It’s about the furthest thing possible from private.
I think they did, but I'll take GPL violations and (possibly leaked?) publicly available documentation over GPL-compliant source code dumps (which are next-to-useless for actually understanding the hardware anyway.)
It's necessary to sequence all these so presumably they can be recreated if/when they go extinct.
> Can't speak to spouse about work under NDA

> See coworkers more often than spouse

The results will shock you!
GDPR: Don't Want to Be in Photos? Put a Red Dot on Your Forehead
While there's many legitimate and peculiar use cases where closures make sense when writing properly engineered code, my favorite use is simply abusing them in one-off or ad-hoc code where performance or correctness isn't a concern.

Basically just using them as lazy shortcuts to avoid the hassle of argument passing. It's particularly great when you have a function scope that's three or four levels deep, and you're referencing a variable via closure that's in the top-level function scope. Much less work.
Not necessarily. It could also be done by allowing people to sue makers of insecure software or hardware.
"If you feel really strongly about healthcare, why not emigrate to the UK?"

I get paid better over here, and the weather in the UK is shit.
Ask HN: 11.99 if you delete YouTube iOS App. 15.99 if you dont?
Hey guys, what is your thoughts on that?

In the UK You Tube Premium is 11.99 everywhere, but, if you happen to be doing this on an IOS device that is 15.99.

That means per year, apple is taking 48 pounds. It means that, despite buying their devices, the provider, my internet data, or wifi, I have to pay 48 a year for no apparent reason? Ethereal?

You get told to "download the app" but it doesn't say "download the app and you can pay 30% more over what you are doing now :)".

I am so embarrassed by this personally, that I can't handle it. I am selling it on Gumtree to rid myself of that image.

How do YOU feel about this?

PS LPT: If it is £15.99 delete the app. Now it is £11.99
There is also the pledge by Google to not build AI weapons.

A censored search engine is a gray PSYOP weapon.

> Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.
The VLDB reviewers of their paper [1] must not have thought much of it because it's accepted as a short paper, which is not a great signal. No comment on the quality of the work though, as I only just started reading it.

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2018/0...
I also love the argument :)
Based on the link you provided, I can confidently say you have a lot of skill at writing engaging prose and turning ordinary into story.

You should write a book or short stories or something!
I dunno, despite the supposed popularity of repealing the Affordable Care Act, the GOP, having control of all parts of the legislative process, couldn't get it done.
and I don't know what they did, but it is really fast. CPU performance seems to be about double that of the Odroid XU4 for each core in my workloads.

That's what x86 was always winning at. Power consumption is higher, however.
Having been a part of a few large Yubikey rollouts I can say while the individual/SMB perspective is that they are "indestructible", large fleets see hardware failure rates above what you would expect from similar types of devices.

I don't setup hardware 2FA on personal accounts with less than 3 enrolled devices (and from 2 different vendors).
Seems awfully one-sided. Perhaps there should be automatic reparation in the case of mistaken prosecution, at a level that is at least somewhat punitive. The retailer should feel some incentive to get it right.
Here's something I was wondering about:

Suppose I've got some nasty DSP algos that depend on undefined behavior of type-punning in C. To address this I use the union member access trick which is supported by a gcc extension.

If my only target is web assembly, then what are the reason that I should care that my binary is actually a gcc dialect of c and not standard c?
It supports multiple windows.

Telemetry is opt-out. I personally don't care but I understand the concern.

Why would 50mb or even 500mb be a problem? So many people are concerned about memory and I don't understand. I never have memory issues and I seriously abuse my conputers, but RAM is cheap anyway. I'd much rather see development efforts be focused on great features than memory optimization. Features that will save much more time than a RAM upgrade costs.

I can't even begin to imagine why number of processes would matter to anyone.
I agree, but in this system we indoctrinate our children to operate on profit motives. It took me many decades to understand that money is, ironically, worthless.
The Kochs/Saudi’s actually receive very little criticism in tech circles. In any case, if your point is that they are actually bad, and Musk is good but a hypocrite at times, then are we not agreeing that the level of criticism he receives is unjustified?
Congrats to Google management for taking a play right out of Erdogan's playbook.
Sure, but that doesn't apply to China. And neither does it apply to the EU, regarding "the right to be forgotten".

Personally, I'd rather see something like Google that operated outside all jurisdictions, and was entirely uncensored. And not advertising driven. But so it goes.
Lets evaluate what makes more sense, OEMs and programmers that have an understanding of the software and hardware and the programming they undertake being responsible for for their own work.

Or blaming the users for not understanding what is essentially an black box that is basically an entirely unknown quantity before (and after) you buy it, often even with when the user has very high technical skill.

I know a lot of programmers are allergic to taking responsibility for their products, maybe its time that changed.
Sadly, it's latex.

Yikes
Not for Windows.

"Modal editor · Faster as in less keystrokes · Multiple selections · Orthogonal design"

I love it when software developers assume everybody else knows what their software runs on. SMH.
I think consumers are a little more savvy than people in this thread are giving them credit for. Sure, nobody want exploding gonads, but most folks couldn't give a whit if some overseas teenager manages to sneak a look at the contents of their driveway. People just want a cheap camera to catch their neighbors letting the dog poop in their lawn, and if it means becoming part of a botnot, who cares.

The market has spoken, cheap wins over secure time after time. The consumers know, and they don't care, because to them the stakes are just not that high. Their genitals will be fine, and who wouldn't mind an extra set of eyes on the front yard.
You keep it maintained the same way you keep any other backup system maintained; with regular tests.

And if it ever reaches the point where the AI system is so reliable that they're comfortable ditching the backups, I'd call that a win.
Or at least something like iMessage, end-to-end encrypted.
This document is very informative for sure, but I don't really think it's dispositive for many of today's use cases for randomness. In fact, I think this document is pretty dangerous.

I referenced this document here in this stackexchange question, which I think has a good and lively discussion about the real stakes of /dev/urandom today:

https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/186086/is-alway...
As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, small/tiny hospitals rarely keep anything complicated and ship everything vaguely complex to tertiary/quaternary center.
[dman@epyc ~]$ sysbench --test=cpu run --max-requests=20000
WARNING: the --test option is deprecated. You can pass a script name or path on the command line without any options.
WARNING: --max-requests is deprecated, use --events instead
sysbench 1.0.14 (using bundled LuaJIT 2.1.0-beta2)

Running the test with following options:
Number of threads: 1
Initializing random number generator from current time

Prime numbers limit: 10000

Initializing worker threads...

Threads started!

CPU speed:
events per second: 1461.82

General statistics:
total time: 10.0004s
total number of events: 14621

Latency (ms):
min: 0.67
avg: 0.68
max: 1.76
95th percentile: 0.69
sum: 9997.72

Threads fairness:
events (avg/stddev): 14621.0000/0.00
execution time (avg/stddev): 9.9977/0.00

[dman@epyc ~]$ sysbench --test=cpu run --max-requests=20000 --num-threads=128
WARNING: the --test option is deprecated. You can pass a script name or path on the command line without any options.
WARNING: --num-threads is deprecated, use --threads instead
WARNING: --max-requests is deprecated, use --events instead
sysbench 1.0.14 (using bundled LuaJIT 2.1.0-beta2)

Running the test with following options:
Number of threads: 128
Initializing random number generator from current time

Prime numbers limit: 10000

Initializing worker threads...

Threads started!

CPU speed:
events per second: 47980.46

General statistics:
total time: 0.4152s
total number of events: 20000

Latency (ms):
min: 0.68
avg: 2.06
max: 111.24
95th percentile: 3.36
sum: 41275.73

Threads fairness:
events (avg/stddev): 156.2500/118.37
execution time (avg/stddev): 0.3225/0.06

Let me know if you want me to run any other benchmarks.
That code works when i tried on database query but on php, on use

IN ( SELECT id_book_genre FROM Book b1, Genres_book g1 WHERE b1.id_book = g1.id_genre_book AND b1.id_book LIKE ?)
AND NOT (b.id_book Like ?) GROUP BY b.name ORDER BY duplicated DESC");

$result->bind_param('ii', $book,$book);

I tried without "AND NOT (b.id_book Like ?)" and only bind 1 parameter but both returns 0 results.
That link has comments between anna and faster authors. The best part being:

> There are two high-level design goals that separate Anna and FASTER.

> First of all, for Anna, we set out to explore an execution model that’s truly coordination-free; each thread accepts requests, performs computation and sends out response without communicating or waiting for other threads. We believe having a coordination-free execution model is the key to fully exploiting multi-core parallelism within a single machine, and scale out smoothly to a distributed setting. We acknowledge that the fundamental caveat of having a coordination-free execution model is that strong consistencies (linearizability, serializability) are not achievable. Anna instead offers a wide-spectrum of coordination-free consistencies taxonomized in Bailis’s HAT paper (http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol7/p181-bailis.pdf).

> In addition, in Anna we focus on exploring a unified architecture that works at any scale, from a single multi-core machine to NUMA to a geo-distributed setting. Under this goal, architectures that rely on shared memory within a machine (including FASTER) need to be redesigned as we move to a distributed setting. This complicates the software, and can introduce challenges in maintaining consistency as the execution model within nodes and across nodes are now different.

> Anna currently focuses on workloads that fit in memory. For larger-than-memory data, we believe Anna can benefit from the hybrid-logging technique in FASTER for efficiently persisting data to stable storage.
This is really a better question for StackOverflow or other development forum or mailing list.
Maybe we should parse this slightly differently -- what do these people think of corporation-operated censorship that is designed to exactly please a generally oppressive government?

In 1964 America, some types of rights-violating discrimination that (as generally understood due to the victory of the Union in the Civil War) the government ought not to engage in, were suddenly also banned from the sphere of corporate activity. [1] I wasn't born at the time, but I understand that there were many US locales where the discrimination forbidden to government had been retained, and remained widespread, via delegation to businesses.

Are we headed to a similar battle around online free speech? I personally don't want Western businesses to help implement censorship in any country, whether express or local, whether administrative or corporate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
I should probably make a video of me opening an i7 2017 Macbook Pro with 16 GB RAM and waiting 3-5 seconds until the system allows me to type the password (also, I sometimes switch to Czech keyboard, and High Sierra has a bug where it randomly shows one input language as active in a top right but actually uses a different input language in a password field - this happens in about half of login attempts).

This isn’t how it used to be. Sigh.
Primitive Technology: Iron prills
The freelance writer of Sing Sing
No this is how the world works.
ACM Code of Ethics: Do no harm

> A computing professional has an additional obligation to report any signs of system risks that might result in harm. If leaders do not act to curtail or mitigate such risks, it may be necessary to "blow the whistle" to reduce potential harm. However, capricious or misguided reporting of risks can itself be harmful. Before reporting risks, a computing professional should carefully assess relevant aspects of the situation.

The irony is that the previous leak (which detailed a harmful IT system) was the cause of this very meeting (Googlers wanted to know more about the project they read about on HackerNews/The Intercept). Without that earlier leak, upper management wouldn't be forced to organize this open meeting. Though, I can fully understand getting angry and wanting to signal support.

What this new leak made clear is that the supposed culture of openness at Google is a farce: "Brin reportedly denied having knowledge of the program until after news leaked and what Brin described as "this kerfuffle" erupted." So even one of the CEO's was left in the dark.
Really? It works for someone like this? Damn you Apple, not for me :(.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17786400
I bought the first volume of TAoCP when it came out. The number of people that I know that are "deeply familiar with The Art of Computer Programming" approaches zero. I have read some sections in great detail, but won't claim deep familiarity. I don't know of anyone who has read the whole thing. I am a bit skeptical of this claim.
That puts you pretty firmly in what I call the "semi-portable" category (I would say "unportable" but wasm is very likely going to have flavors, such as a 64 bit pointer variant).

But if you're being careful, you can do type-punning. The "modern" way is generally with memcpy, but union can be valid if done carefully. The clearest statement I was able to find of this is [1]. I find it frustrating that it's so hard to get a clear read on this. For example, if as Regehr says union-based punning is reliable, then what was the concern that the linked Linux kernel patch trying to address? I haven't dug into it in super detail.

[1] https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1307#comment-18418
> The Kochs/Saudi’s actually receive very little criticism in tech circles

They get very little tech-circle-specific criticism, because that's not where they operate (and because they have little in the way of tech-specific cult of personality, to provoke domain specific response expressing the general criticism.)

But they get a lot of criticism from non-tech-specific groups that themselves substantially overlap tech circles.
> A high-frequency trader does not. He makes a dollar only when someone on the other end of a trade loses a dollar.

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.

Whether a trade is flipped a short time or a long time later makes no difference.

For example, if I buy MSFT for $100 and later sold it for $110, who "lost" $10?
Europe Is Undergoing a Conservative Christian Revival
If you’re trying to explain the behaviour of unusually, upstanding moral people sure. If you’re trying to deal with anything larger than a small and highly committed group no.

> there are three classes of humans
1) those who will throw the rock at you with the mob
2) those who will not throw the rock and avert their eyes
3) those who will speak out against throwing the rocks

> the ratio is probably 90:9:1
Turns out partially enslaving high school children for $5000 for eight years generates some backlash.

And to think, that from a guy who is already set for life; what does it say about a person if they're already rich and entertain themselves by preying on young people for money they don't remotely need? Other opportunities abound (with a higher capex and effort barrier), but why work when you can be a vulture and buy half some kid's life for $5000?

It's good the terms have been revised, but the initial terms were so inconceivably shitty that I not only wouldn't do business with Gross, but wouldn't even do business with anyone who does business with him -- I don't want to contribute to the prosperity of people _THAT_ predatory.

But hey, at least you get an introduction to the network of other vultures.

edit:
the original terms were $5K and they get 3% of any company, even if unrelated to your funded project, that you start for the next 8 years, with the option to buy another few percent as well. So it was basically a slavery contract for n% of your life for essentially no money, passed off as a "fund your dreams" thing.
It happens because Facebook's design is fundamentally flawed for the security.
I am still not sure about the $5k. Why not $15k, which is what someone working minimum wage should expect to earn in a year?

The target population seems to be people who come from poorer backgrounds. $5k can be a lot of money for someone making only 3x that per year, but it doesn't seem anywhere near enough to get said person to focus on a project and especially not enough to get them to work on it and found a company. If the goal is to get "lost Einsteins" to spend time creating things and building companies, then you must give them the time luxury to do so and $5k just seems on the very low end of possibilities.

What am I missing?
There's a drastically cheaper option for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_bank

e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_bank
Earn money by typing now
Of course they do. What's the alternative, turn into a rubber stamp for whatever the civil service has already decided? put everything to a popular vote?
This is awesome, but scary. Lucid dreaming is s game where you try to figure out what is real and what is imagined, and your brain tries to trick you. Eventually, your brain wins.
Assuming all actors are rational, which they often are not.
> The reason he and most other startup founders are richer than they would have been in the mid 20th century is not because of some right turn the country took during the Reagan administration, but because progress in technology has made it much easier to start a new company that grows fast.

I would add that what enables such growth is the internet and the easy, instant access it gives to world markets, rather than just your local area.
ROBLOX ACTION FIGURES
Hardware accelerated database lectures – Fall 2018