skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's typical Microsoft engineering, and I say that as a frequent defender of powershell here.

It's encrypted, except when it isn't, except on Tuesdays when it is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PowerShell/comments/97oxox/comment/...

"Just an FYI not all psremoting traffic is encrypted when using http. Message encryption is done using the authenticated context which varies based on what auth was actually used.

For example Basic auth has no authenticated context in SSPI so has no encryption.

NTLM (fallback if kerb is not available) is next to useless as it is based on RC4 which is considered broken today.

Kerberos should be using AES if configured correctly but older environment may have older insecure algorithms set up if the config is mismanaged on the domain level.

CredSSP uses the TLS context that is set up in the auth so is similar to using HTTPS.

When using https you not only get a more consistent and secure encryption mechanism on all auth methods. You also get encryption on the whole TCP packet that is sent to the client, whereas http message only encryption encrypts the message body."

And

"My understanding of the issue is that WinRM can do more than just Powershell Remoting (for example there are also Python libraries that run on Linux machines to interface with WinRM which I'm assuming do something different to PS remoting since PS is not native/required on those platforms). So if you are doing ONLY Powershell Remoting you're probably fine with HTTP, but if you're doing anything else then it could be exposed via HTTP WinRM. So HTTPS is still recommended.

tl;dr - All Powershell Remoting is WinRM, not all WinRM traffic is PS Remoting."

https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/5vph9l/winrm_encr...

And

I think lots of people couldn't get a straight answer on this and it came up on the recent MCP Insider AMA.

First 3 minutes of video 2 "it's secure, use it [...] tell 'em Jeffrey Snover told you, go do it".

"Also, for more information on security when remoting read the powershell.org free e-book, Secrets of PowerShell Remoting.*"

https://www.reddit.com/r/PowerShell/comments/34yzgt/comment/...
Back in those days, tax rates were raised to pay ofr projects. I am opposed to increased tax rates that are not specifically earmarked for a purpose. Yes we went to the moon, but that was driven by cold war politics. Yes we had other good things too - the GI bill, infrastructure investment, etc. I'm all for that. Perhaps my vitriol got us off topic. I just feel that taxation is not the optimal way to redistribute financial profits. It's not sufficiently granular. And when we try and codify the granularity - we get a complicated, byzantine tax code that tries to accomodate all the 'nooks and crannies' that no one can really grasp. Rather, I would like to see a 'wall' in Trump lingo against the recycling of financial profits into more financial instruments which is just speculation. And an incentive for the reinvestment of financial profits into the REAL economy. Sure the ROI is greater in financial markets, but that is in large part because greater profits create greater demand for financial instruments which just raises their price.
The thing is, it doesn't matter if it is that much better than Squarespace or WordPress, that's just way too much money for a personal blog, even before the conversion to AUD I'd have to face.
So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists?

Do you really believe this idea? Do you think it is worth intellectual respect?

Edit: for perspective: there was a time the Catholic church rejected reason. It ended badly to Galileo and Copernicus and had very bad repercussions on the church credibility, from Spinoza to Voltaire. American Pentecostals and fundamentalist Jews and Muslims should learn that lesson: on the long run reason wins.
DoWhy – A library for causal inference
This is a shame to apache's good name. Apache should never be mentioned in the name of a software version that isn't true opensource...

If you want to leverage apache and charge for it go ahead. Be a redhat or confluent, go nuts. Don't do this kind of bs.
Roblox
Ok wait to see you there. I 75 I am a brothers and sisters in the future 5 I have to be the best of the most part. The first thing that is not a big fan of this tag has been the case
.
Not really. No one needs a label for things that are false.

Conspiracy theories are things that could actually be true but are designated as ridiculous by someone who perceives discussion as a threat. But lo and behold, "conspiracy theories" sometimes are true despite our efforts to write them off as quackery.

My favorite example is Mark Klein

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

who was derided and written off as a conspiracy nutjob until his allegations surrounding the diversion of telecommunications traffic ended up being true.

We see it and participate in this every day. If you suggest there is life somewhere across the galaxy, they call you an astronomer. If you say you say a flying saucer in a photo of our own solar system, you are a nutjob. What is the fundamental difference?
> God created the world to look like it's really old even though it isn’t old. I've not encountered this rationale before.

Not a new idea – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis
So any society below those 22 on the "Satisfaction with life index" is "deeply broken"? I think you're missing the point; I'm not saying that the US is the most super awesome society in existence, I'm saying that we're much better off than most, and we're _obviously_ much better off than most historical civilizations.

The term "deeply broken" implies that the whole thing needs to be upended and reformed. A more reasonable and informed observer would note that there remain issues to be addressed, but we have seen incremental improvements for quite some time now and there's no good reason for e.g. revolution.
I think most people realize that your home loan is secured by your home. Despite what the lawyers say, bankruptcy won’t usually protect a secured asset.

I remember one of the most explicitly explain parts of the home was the title.

“Injury liability”? You are required to have homeowners insurance and if it’s not good enough to satisfy the loan, they will make sure you know it. While pre-2008, I had loans without an escrow that paid the insurance. They are a lot stricter about it now.
It seems to me, in the long run, it'd be cheaper to pay Redis for whatever they offer instead of attempting to craft your own solution, maintain it, and find others who also will maintain it. Developer happiness and exposure doesn't pay the rent.
What I'm saying is, IMO there isn't any reason for a non-consumer plan to have such terms, with variable speed and limited by the transmitted total instead. Like, even if the client doesn't use the bandwidth today, they may need it tomorrow, so the provider still has to reserve the channel.

Or, even if the provider decides to offer variable-speed plans, which means the speed isn't guaranteed, why would you, as a company, buy such a plan? Tomorrow you need the bandwidth, and you discover you have 1 mbps instead of 50 mbps, because the total bandwidth is shared with some other folks. What, you sit back twiddling thumbs and wait for everyone else to go to lunch?

Even if such a plan is intended for one business person, to check email and look at stock charts, it makes more sense for it to always have minimum guaranteed bandwidth, e.g. 500 kbps, instead of random speed with a limitation on the transmitted total. The entire reason for the 'transmitted total' metric in the first place is to prevent people from downloading movies 24/7, while allowing for the bandwidth to swing wildly—which is a use case of a home consumer.

So IMO, by offering this plan the provider laid both themselves and the client a mine, through which they would have to poker-face sooner or later, with no benefit that I see. And now this all blew in their face on top of that.
As someone who did a long string of failing small companies and finally settled in among the FAANGs, I respect your experience but disagree with everything you said.

Wide breadth of skills? If you’re hired as a code monkey you’re going to monkey code. Nobody ever asked me what I thought about the latest business partnership or synergy strategy. Just code.

Career progression? Another nope. With only a few people in the company, you can’t go up and you can’t build a team under you. Who are you going to manage? There’s nobody under you! My startup coworkers used to jokingly give each other fake “Senior Director” titles which were meaningless of course because there were two managers in the whole company, one was the CEO. Even if you did somehow get a fancy title or a team under you, and got bought by a big company, you’re back to “3rd engineer from the left” in their hierarchy.

Hard problems? I don’t know, not in my experience. Just problems unappealing to the bigger players.

And for all that you risk the company not being able to make payroll or canceling your benefits. Sorry, I can say definitively that working at small companies probably set my career back 10 years.

EDIT: I suppose it’s highly dependent on the company.
How to Change the Culture of a Subreddit: Looking Back at the Cringe Subs (2016)
>"As regards FB, is it a utility or a medium?"

I'm assuming this is the question of are they a publisher or a platform? They seem to want to be both depending on the context and who is asking:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-...
"if you haven't made it big at 40+, that means you worked on a lot of failed projects"

Say what? No! The project gets done, the customer is happy, and you move on to the next project. After a couple decades of this, I have a hard time recalling failures... maybe at 40+ the failures can't be remembered? This is fine.
Excerpt for people who use the comments as a preview since it's kind of long:

"My view of the main problem was this: fighting against the userbase to stamp out bullying was a waste of time. The problem was the userbase itself. We would wait for a person to make a really offensive comment before taking action, but another would quickly take their place. Over and over and over again, it was like playing whack a mole with bullies. And there was no end in sight - the sub was still growing extremely quickly (for a time, /r/cringepics was in the top 20 fastest growing subs, beating out several defaults).

My solution: in order to change the culture of the sub, you have to take away what attracts them there in the first place. Nothing else will work. In the case of the cringe subs, we figured out the most common link between all of the posts we thought were bad - they almost always involved something being done by a single person. No social situation or interaction, just one person "being weird." Oftentimes the person "being weird" is even enjoying themselves. So our solution was simple: mandate that every single post had to directly involve at least 2 people in some kind of interaction. This would instantly kill off most of the content that was popular at the time, and undoubtedly cause a shit-storm of controversy."
and please grab your complementary juicero and blood test robot on your way out. Point being... if VCs can't filter these out then why have a filter at all?
This doesn't count state systems, including those and it's ~20% drug offenses.
Recently had a place give me a "homework assignment," but with a 2 hour deadline and a "feature request," but with no really concrete completion criteria, just to see how far you get in that much time. I preferred this to most other types of interviews that I've done.
How to get out of pointless debates at work
>if people died because of it, I would expect criminal charges to be filed

I have a contract to rent you X fire trucks. I have other contracts with other people to rent Y fire trucks to them. There's a fire and X fire trucks are being used to save people in X+1 fires. That last person dies because you didn't rent X+1 fire trucks. I could have given you an additional fire truck in the allotment of Y. Morally you can make the case that I ought to give you one more fire truck but how have you made the case that legally I should give you a non contracted fire truck?

Destroying the truck renter's property rights by the state forcing me to give you my property (that +1 fire truck) but in the long run it results in under allocation of goods and theft-premium being added as a cost.
How to make sure that you can fire your first engineer without too much damage? maybe state-by-state instructions...
I've been consistently dropping weight since highschool (c. 2005, ~250lbs - now, ~160lbs) by simply cutting my caloric intake little-by-little. Started by switching out regular soda to diet soda. I think we generally underestimate our caloric consumption.
See my other comment, but a) it encrypts more of the packets, b) helps with validating correct server, c) encrypts even if you end up authenticating without Kerberos somehow.
Try anyone who works at a big company saving money by replacing vendor tools with custom open source solutions. There are a million ways to monetize open source, even as an individual.
Look at the bright side, at least Verizon doesn't run the water utility. The water companies weren't throttling down water asking for price gouging.

ISPs like Verizon just run the network utility, that only the ISPs don't think is a utility.

The reason ISPs fought so hard to end net neutrality, remove privacy protections and remove them from FCC oversight was to remove ISPs and the network utility from Title II / common carrier protections which make them a utility.

ISPs know they are a utility but only want the benefits [1] not the service and legal requirements of being a privileged utility and local monopoly.

> Broadband providers have spent years lobbying against utility-style regulations that protect consumers from high prices and bad service.

> But now, broadband lobby groups are arguing that Internet service is similar to utilities such as electricity, gas distribution, roads, and water and sewer networks. In the providers' view, the essential nature of broadband doesn't require more regulation to protect consumers. Instead, they argue that broadband's utility-like status is reason for the government to give ISPs more money.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/isps-want-to-be-...
Not to split hairs, but that only applies to "young Earth creationism", which is in itself a subset of a literalist view of "creation."
I would wager that it's easier to hover a helicopter than a fixed wing aircraft.
What you keep overlooking is that FAANG are fully paying the ISPs whose bandwidth they use.

When I choose to watch, say, an Amazon Prime video that uses 3 GB of bandwidth Amazon uses 3 GB of Amazon's ISP's bandwidth to deliver that stream to the internet backbone.

The various internet backbone providers pass that data through the backbone, according to peering agreements they have made among themselves, on financial terms they have agreed to among themselves.

The backbone delivers the data to my ISP. From there my ISP uses 3 GB of bandwidth to deliver the data to me. That 3 GB of bandwidth is bandwidth I paid for. I pay my ISP something like $100/month in exchange for 1000 GB of bandwidth to be used that month.

Amazon is not using any of my ISPs bandwidth. I am using my bandwidth, which I bought from my ISP, to receive data from Amazon.

The only bandwidth that Amazon is using when I watch a Prime video is the bandwidth of Amazon's ISP, which Amazon's ISP charges them for.

> On top of it all, FAANG are direct competitors eroding those ISPs' cable tv business in most cases.

One can run a content provision business without running an ISP, and one can run and ISP without running a content business. That some ISPs are also content providers is not really relevant to the question of how internet should be regulated.

> So it's not just a matter of the government telling the ISPs how to run their network, it's the government picking a winner.

You've got that backwards. Net neutrality stops ISPs that are also content providers from using a tying arrangement to prevent normal market forces from choosing the most efficient way to provide content.

Question: how come I've never seen the people against net neutrality trying to repeal "telephone neutrality"?

For example, suppose you pick up your phone and try to call a local pizza joint to order delivery. Do you think you phone company should be allowed to make a deal with Domino's where Domino's pays the local phone company and the local phone company won't put through calls to non-Domino's pizza joints?

Or suppose the phone company also owns a restaurant. Should they be allowed to refuse to let you call restaurants other than theirs unless those restaurants pay your phone company. Assume the restaurants' are on a different phone system than the one you use.

Both of those things are illegal on the phone system, and have been so far a long time.
Does this suggest that leasing software or SaaS is the way to go?
> So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists?

There's a large number of people who believe this.

Its a bit weird, because it implies that God is above lying to his followers. So as a Christian myself, who believes in Omnipotence (all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing), and Benevolence (all-loving), the viewpoint that God would explicitly lie to us is almost certainly against the 3rd peg: its anti-benevolence.

Anyway, different Christians obviously have different beliefs on the matter. I am in agreement with the poster you responded to: it is an... unfortunately... mainstream belief in some Christian communities.

I'm sure there are holes people can poke at my specific denomination of course. So it'd be hypocritical for me to push too much against the belief that "God is tricking us to see the true believers vs the evolutionists". But... yeah, its just not a belief I can get behind.

> Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists?

Generally speaking, the argument goes to look at the Old Testament, specifically the Book of Job. In the Old Testament, God tested some of his prophets with incredible tests (ie: letting the Devil kill his kids, take all of his wealth away, etc. etc). So the idea of "God is just testing us" is generally the argument that comes forth.

I guess the general idea is that God can cause issues that seem big to us, but are small in the great scheme of His plans. If you want the religious background on this particular school of thought. The Book of Job has the prophet lose everything, but eventually gains greater prosperity in the end. In particular, Job deserves prosperity because even when all hope was lost, he kept his faith.

Still, that fundamentally doesn't quite explain why God would particularly lie to us humans about the "evolution" issue. So I've never personally liked this particular religious argument. I find it far more likely that God would prefer us Humans to discover science and properly make discoveries and advance our culture for the good of all mankind.

------------

It comes down to Biblical Literalism. Some people believe that the Bible is literally true. That there were exactly 7 days of creation, that Methusala lived over 900 years old... that a dude named "Samson" had magical hair, etc. etc. And since Biblical Literalism is a foundational peg to those denominations, they go through great pains to prove it.

Alternatively, if you're in my camp, you are open to interpreting the Bible. My denomination believes that the Bible is a collection of stories that God wants us to know about. Not necessarily that the word is literally true.
The pie grows as a result of economic surplus.
Netflix specifically targets EU users (e.g. by advertising in the EU and billing in Euros). HN does not.
Ask HN: Should an individual looking to invest wait for a new financial crisis?
Proving length of mapped and filtered lists in Idris
> Also, I find HN to be very readable (which uses absolute black text)

On a background that is not absolute white. It's a matter of contrast, not black vs gray text specifically.
I have not actually flown a helicopter, but every time I tried one in MS Flight Simulator, I promptly lost my balance, flipped over and crashed directly after taking off.

However, it may be that using some other form of control than a mouse works better.
> To figure out how much airtime is divided between men and women, we pulled the show's transcripts and categorized the gender of every person who speaks.

It sounds difficult to figure out the gender of the speakers from their voice. They probably made some assumptions.
Guess what? Most software developers don’t live in Silicon Valley and never work for a FANG company, we seem to be doing okay....
Does it, though? I can tell you that the contrast in, say, The Netherlands is a lot smaller.

Take a look at Bilthoven [0], one of the the most extreme examples I know of. The (roughly) north side is obviously richer, but the contrast is an awful lot smaller than the examples from the BBC.

Now let's look at a somewhat average city, Utrecht. [1] Can you tell me which parts the ultra-rich live? How about now? [2] Amsterdam is pretty much the same story, just like Rotterdam, Den Haag, etc. Sure, there are of course rich and poor people, but there are no slums, let alone slums right next to mansions!

About the message: poor people are living in small, filthy, dilapidated houses right next to the immaculate mansions of the rich. Perhaps the rich could contribute a little towards the living conditions of the poor who helped them to gain their wealth?

[0]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.1278844,5.1932405,3071m/data=...
[1]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0981346,5.1310086,3074m/data=...
[2]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0999022,5.1106661,2583m/data=...
They mention later on that redis core will always remain BSD. I share your sentiment, though it seems like this is an effort to not totally isolate the project. Their goal appears to be clamping down on straight up resale of integration components & modules.
I don't disagree with this comment, but unfortunately the label is also used against the people described in your 2nd paragraph.
indeed, lawyers would find some offshore or foreign loophole where this restriction does not exist. Financial money would find financial instruments in other nations - Germany, France etc. Why do Apple and Google keep so much money offshore? The same can be said for any tool whose purpose is to redistribute income. But the reinvestment of financial gains in the REAL economy is ALREADY happening. We call that phenomenon a 'startup' and those who are doing it are angel investors and VCs. I just want to formalize it out of silicon valley to the rest of the US, to the rest of the industries, to the rest of the nation. Heck, why not get creative and have a kickstarter for building 'smart roads' - you know roads with built in telemetry that would make self driving cars a cinch. Sounds outlandish? Well building interstate highways back in the way was equally outlandish. If there was a restriction against financial reinvestment of financial profits, and maybe a tax credit for investing in the REAL economy, we would see these things happen. The tool of taxation and the bureaucracy of redistribution would be sidestepped and the money would go more directly to the REAL economy.