skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> One challenge with phishing is that virtually all the "best practice" pieces written by the press still follow this Atlantic article's "blame the user" approach to phishing prevention. I.e., train your end users to not click on stuff in bad emails.

This is the same problem most pieces of advice for avoiding fraud and financial crimes have. Identity theft shouldn't be blamed on the victims' 'carelessness', because at the end of the day, it's the banks/credit card company/whoever that screwed up and let someone access their money that they shouldn't have.

The solution to most financial crimes and fraud isn't to 'train the customer to avoid the bad guys', since the bad guys are getting more sophisticated all the time and people can't be vigilante 24/7. The solution is to fix the underlying systems and procedures at the companies involved so criminals can't exploit their systems in the way they can right now.
I don't think GP is suggesting either, rather that non-rectangular screens are _a thing that happens_ and many are not prepared to deal with it because they didn't think of it. In the same vein of the "Falsehood programmers believe about x" articles.
Sure, but DARPA and their contracts don't move the technology like a bunch of enthusiasts hacking on DJI drones.

I presume that is why the Army has been doing things with the DJI drones (I'm sure they do stuff with Boeing drones or equivalents as well but I am also sure they aren't $1500 off the shelf at WalMart).

It just seems like having a vibrant domestic drone market would be a strategically useful thing.
> but the Vietnamese war in particular was a horror show.

It wasn't any more a horror show compared to any other war.

> Study the history as much as I'd like, I will never understand how "start killing people" becomes a valid solution.

You studied history and you don't understand war? That doesn't seem possible.
Ask HN: How do I transition into i3/ awesome from Gnome?
The flying platforms from MGS3 are real too, believe it or not, although they never saw combat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_X-Jet
Since the start of the project there has been a desire to point out that most things that work in Bash also work in Xonsh.

The motto started out as "BASHwards-compatible", but that was unsatisfactory because on one hand it sounds like nonsense, and on the other hand, it's not actually compatible with Bash. So that devolved over time into what we have now.

https://github.com/xonsh/xonsh/blame/ebd4e597a3cf063b124e5a5...
https://github.com/xonsh/xonsh/blame/82cac3fff08b5cc26e421f1...
https://github.com/xonsh/xonsh/blame/bd964ce552282334c881181...
I think there's mental mismatch between groups of people who talk about "turning off the borrow checker". The borrow checker is a tool to validate references. Sometimes people using references in Rust might feel like the borrow checker makes using references too cumbersome in a certain situation, so they switch to using a tool other than references (Rc, indexes into a Vec, etc). But this isn't bypassing the borrow checker; it's bypassing references themselves. The same phenomenon happens in C++; if references start to be a pain, you might switch to using something else (shared_ptr, indexes into a vector, etc.).

When this happens in C++, we don't call this "bypassing the borrow checker". You don't need a borrow checker to know that references aren't always the right tool for a given job. It's the same in Rust.
newLISP v.10.7.4 Development Release
And no amount of phishing training will solve it - I don't think. People will still click on links, they will click on buttons and do what they think it is expected for them to do.

On the bright side, Google Safe Browsing is pretty good at catching new untargetted phishing campaigns, so most people get a good level of protection from that. I am also a big proponent of using a DNS firewall* layer to help minimize the exposure to phishing domains.

*I blogged about it here, comparing a few free DNS resolvers, if anyone is interested:

https://medium.com/@nykolas.z/phishing-protection-comparing-...
> This means that we can combine it with Option<T>, and the option will use the null case for None:

This sounds interesting, can anyone elaborate on this?
So, I saw something similar in semiconductor manufacturing in the runup to Y2K. Lots of equipment that needed replacing, could not normally get replaced because upper management didn't want to pay for replacing old equipment, then wanted to spend only on shiny new fabs. However, Y2K was something that shareholders cared about. So equipment vendors realized that if they said, "no that old equipment cannot be Y2K fixed, however we can sell you an upgrade to it that is Y2K compliant", then the engineers at old fabs could get some new equipment finally. The engineers were happy to get newer equipment occasionally, the vendors were happy to sell new equipment (or at least more substantial upgrades) to old fabs as well as the new ones, and even management was ok with it because no one got fired for doing Y2K upgrades. It all worked well until Y2K actually came and went and then you couldn't use that trick to get old equipment upgraded anymore.
فني ستلايت الكويت
How does a TLS method translate to firmware signatures?
Ph.D. Thesis by Alan C. Kay: The Reactive Engine (1969)
http://www.techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog...
Can you provide more detail on this? I have never heard such a thing.
the opposite is quite true as well... a degree doesn't mean you've learned anything or are great at the things i need.

of the 100+ engineers i've hired in the last decade, few had degrees and all of the top performers, aside from one, did not.

dual edged sword in my opinion.
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/crisis.pdf
If you are in it just for having a job and an income - then having a degree is not necessary. If you want more then it is also not necessary but helps a lot.
Make a pros and cons list and decide for yourself. But make a decision. I picked engineering instead of CS and do not regret. But I was looking into application of CS. Be mindful that engineering is not particularly easy but definitely doable.
> I don't know why they stress over the need for a skilled pilot, this could easily be a drone

The article was published in 2008. It’s actually neat to consider a technological solution to hurricanes that became viable in the last ten years.
Focal - Computer Vision Platform
Secrecy and patents are mutually exclusive. The deal you get with the patent is you disclose you invention so	secrecy doesn't hinder progress too much and in exchange you get exclusivity.
And that is probably one of the reasons why projects like Paludis were started years ago.

The funny thing about Portage is though that Python doesn't cause any performance issues as Portage/Emerge is slow by design. So while Paludis is written in C++, it isn't much faster, as it still has to interpret all those thousands of bash-style ebuilds/exheres.

This might sound as if I wouldn't like Gentoo/Exherbo et al. but in fact, my desktop PC is running Gentoo or Exherbo for the last 10 years at least. But it was exactly that experience which made me conclude that system tools like package managers, shells, etc. should be written in statically linked languages.
Spirits can basically be described as Lemmings with fluid mechanics. https://store.steampowered.com/app/210170/Spirits/
With all due respect, there is a discete element to fallout. The radiation on aggregate might be at a particular (and assuming you're correct, I don't know) low/background level, but that won't help you in in inhale a small Pu particle.
Show HN: A CDI Portable Extension for Simple RolesAllowed Security
And you'd be pumping warm water lower, thereby making the next storm worse.
Wouldn't "the Sect of Reason" be a much better English translation then?

"Culte" in French and "sect" in English are neutral.

"Secte" in French and "cult" in English have negative connotations.
do not get me wrong, I'm very happy to read about open source design and code, it's a must for me, something we should demand by law to guarantee common freedom.

I simply criticize the resulting product since it does not fit IMVHO any IT professional use case, it may fit well writer's use case, from journalist to bloggers etc, but not people who really want a keyboard-driven comfort UI and so a good keyboard to interact.

Also for me offer things like AppImage, Docker, Snaps, Flatpack is a MINUS, not a plus. As said before a (small) flash memory, easily accessible as USB storage, easily usable with a simple hardware switch/key combination that trigger "apply actual config" or "use previous and reset" is FAR simpler, far less error prone, far comfortable, far easier, far effective and even safe due to a very reduced attack surface. Today we have the REALLY bad habit to follow big-corporation made trend, but those trend are instrumental and useful for them, not for us.

A stupid, on-the-fly example: a simple flesh memory exported ad USB storage, Fat32. A directory named fw_update with a README inside "put new fw in my pwd, hit this key combination and new fw is applied. If id does not work previous one will be restored and here you'll find logs to debug". Another dir named docs with plain text or pdf documentation, a subdir ex_configs and a top level dir. configs in which we simply type with a small DSL our config.
Eventually on their website a webui to do the very same things with a GUI, eventually a local app to do the same, but as wrapper to this barebone, simple interface. Cross platform by it's nature and friendly to any "professional" user and also didactic for dummies. The local apps can be a simple static binary for most common OS (GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Windows, OSX at least), a VERY simple one, with a super-simple web-ui served by a super-simple http server, can be easily done with few SLoC in python or go for instance.

Also I see they offer additional keycaps, very good. But they are the same of the built-in one. You sell a keyboard of this kind without a vast selection of all-the-icons style keycaps and optional custom printed for extra fee? Of course, nearly all vendor do the very same. And it's really a shame IMO, it's clearly depict they do not know their customers or they are not really "keyboards OEMs".

No optional backlit version? If there are cheaper Chinese keyboards for around 10 euros with it and no on a high end devices? Even as paid extra option?

For a high end device an optional secondary USB cable to the computer and a couple of USB (perhaps USB3) port on the keyboard?

For a high end device aiming at IT pro, not gamers, an optional extension with a card reader pcsc compatible?

The world is complex, trying to satisfy anyone it's hard, one size does not fit all, so from a keyboard OEM, not a cheap one, I expect a sort of "modular platform" that can be tuned both for IT pro, gamers and even hard-core typist outside IT world. There are plenty of "high end" keyboard that are substantially the same, trying to being different for the sole reason of business competition not technical reasons.
Are you saying Apple is responsible for the time that takes to copy their design? That is certainly an interesting take.

Also maybe there's an argument to be made about this being time invested in a feature (notch support that the OEMs were already implementing) rather than wasted.
Depends on what you use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass#Critical_mass_of...

Apparently a sphere of Californium-252 that's 6.9cm in diameter will do the trick.
In practice, FIDO U2F (Universal 2nd Factor) provides the same benefits and side-steps the major pains associated with mutually authenticated TLS (convoluted user experience, complex trust relationship management).

Google reportedly managed to all but eliminate phishing targeted at employees [1].

They also kind of solve your point 2: since the credentials live on the token, it's easy to move them from one device to the next. For devices with USB/NFC, that is.

[1] https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/07/google-security-keys-neu...
Cedille v1.0 – theorem-prover and dependently typed programming language
I'm curious about HIIT - do you have any links on hand that you could share?
Really cool and fun game. I really wish there were more levels!

Also, like some people suggested, it'd be nice to have an option for running the game at a higher speed.
Nuclear power plants were literally the factories for weapons.
Amazon delivery drivers reveal claims of disturbing work conditions
I'd be curious to see some study around that.

It would certainly explain a lot. The dreaded ad-driven 'engagement' obsession rearing its ugly head again.
I’m deeply frustrated on reading this, but not shocked really. It seems like people are being numbed into helplessness and powerlessness while they’re still ignorant and unaware. By the time many people realize how bad the privacy situation is and the impact it could have, resignation to the status quo may be the only choice — corporations and governments collecting and using data in ways people consider grossly inappropriate, creepy and a violation of their dignity and freedom — would be “too big and too rigid to change”.

I fear the worst is yet to come, and people’s neglect of these issues (for whatever reason) is going to be an irreversible crime against future generations (like climate change). How dare we consent to these or accept these or let these be?
Ask HN: Why Does the European Tech Industry Have Such a B2B Focus?
Compared to say, offering a product or service directly to customers/users? Because from what I've seen over here, the vast majority of tech companies seem to be obssessed with delivering work for corporate clients or attempting to be the next Moz rather than offering a service for average Joes. You don't see many Uber/Airbnb/Facebook/Twitter/Apple/whatever type deals aimed at normal people.

So why is this? I did hear at one startup event (from a VC) that UK investors were hesitant to back user facing companies like their US counterparts, but that can't be all the reason, right?

Why are European tech companies so much more interested in being B2B businesses?
The Wikipedia article says

> The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a yield equivalent to somewhere between 10 and 20 tons of TNT—close to the minimum practical size for a fission warhead [footnote:] the theoretical minimum critical mass for 233U is close to 16 kg.

Actually, the critical mass depends on how much you compress it (so surrounding the fissile core with more chemical explosives lets you use less plutonium), and how effective neutron reflectors you surround it with. A modern hydrogen bomb might use 3kg of plutonium in the fission primary core, but the weight of the whole assembly (including chemical explosives and so on) would be several hundred kgs.
How do other countries avoid this?

I understand that modern governments generally do have this same problem, but how do they do slightly better than the US?
The Next Financial Calamity Is Coming. Here’s What to Watch
If you have uBlock Origin, you can just "zap" those elements without opting in.
One of the primary reasons I switched to the iPhone years ago was exactly what you’re describing.

I don’t want to have to configure settings on a micro level per-app. I want sane defaults that respect my privacy at the app level, all the way down to the OS layer. Paired with the Play Store with a much lower barrier to app acceptance, this has proven to be a danger to peoples’ privacy if they aren’t vigilant to vet and check settings of each new app they install.

That being just privacy, I was also tired of micromanaging every setting on my phone. I don’t care to have custom UI widgets, root-level modifications, or especially installing a completely new OS. I know as a software developer these things should be more acceptable, or fun even, but my phone is such a critical piece of my day-to-day, I’d rather pay a premium (to a degree.. looking at you XS Max) for the peace of mind that everything will Just Work every time. I’ve yet to have any real problems with any iPhone I’ve owned.. Android was a different story.
[Study] Quantifying Wikipedia value extraction by Reddit, StackOverflow
The TCK's have always been the center of much discussion / cause of friction in the Java community. Although most discussions were about the Java SE TCK, not the EE TCK. All this friction goes back to the Sun days. Apache Harmony was probably the pinnacle of TCK friction. This is the open letter the Apache foundation send to Sun: https://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html

I realise that Oracle only open sources the TCK because they no longer want to carry the burden of EE (can't say I blame them) but its still ironic that Sun never wanted to release most TCK's and now Oracle releases the EE TCK.
Fwiw, in my code, I got to write "-0" explicitly and the method for checking is std::signbit(x)
Glad he did. Honestly nothing against him but had the most arrogant interview for business dev ever with him. reminded me of my 3rd grade teacher. They got a lot of learning to do at least there is some traction on his self-development.
"...the realization hit me, that if Good Guys like Google and RSA were collecting all this information, it was a given that Bad Guys were too, and we have no idea just who is."

Google is neither the 'good guy' or the 'bad guy'. They aren't there to look out for your best interests and we'd all be much better if we stop ascribing human qualities to gigantic corporations.

No other company tracks your online behaviour at such industrial scale as Google - and gets so little scrutiny for it.

For most of the tech community, Google's level of tracking is perfectly fine because Google has never had a data breach (that we know of). That somehow makes everything fine.

When it comes to matters of privacy, there's a lot of hypocrisy from the tech community.
This is a U233 warhead, using another fission material (like Pu237, which has a half-life of two months or so) would allow an order of magnitude lower critical mass.
Predation shapes the evolutionary traits of cervid weapons
No. Most modern C++ ECS take the same approach as the Rust ECS that is being discussed.

Also, since I started using generational indexes, I have never had a bug caused by using stale data, so at least for me it hasn't been a real issue.
It seems profoundly weird to me, though this might just be due to not understanding the sociology of the time and place, to actively attempt to force a belief in reason through coercion. It seems self-defeating. I can understand a longing for reason to spread and gain acceptance... but to conclude that this desire justifies overriding the individual thinkers freedom to decide for themselves would be an unsupportable argument. The furthest I could see going would be to forbid indoctrination of the youth in unreasoned ideologies since children have limited ability to challenge what they are being taught (at least they did at the time). But if you are 'persuading' people to believe in ideas which claim objective, reasoned basis through abandoning reasoning with them and resorting to force, it would be right for all to reject you as a hypocrite.
1. I think it makes a difference if Face ID can only be tricked with a professionally created mask vs a photo my neighbor took to unlock a phone. It might not make that much difference in the real world, but I like to use a product that was well-thought through instead of a copycat gimmick.

2. While Android indeed now gives you okayish controls over privacy settings, this wasn’t the case for many years. In addition, if you set up your device, just count how often you have to tap no/disable/deny vs on iOS. After the third pop up, most people don’t care anymore. Even the damn keyboard calls home.

In case of Samsung, you sometimes can’t use specific features if you don’t agree to everything. Huawei is similar.

3. I don’t trust free apps that have no reasonable pricing model. Because they still have to make money (same is true for iOS apps).

Look, I don’t want to convince anyone. I say: Android gives me an odd feeling whereas iOS doesn’t so much (although I don’t use iCloud files or photos).
Broadly speaking, C is the king of running wrong without crashing, so no.

The borrow checker isn't really making anything worse, it's just failing to save you from this particular problem. In C you could still write the exact same bug, or you could even write it with actual pointers. I gather a lot of browser exploits start that way these days.
It's exactly the same.
"A madman is not someone who has lost his reason but someone who has lost everything but his reason."
- GK Chesterton
Not sure about that, I read more than one article analysing Soviet Cold War plans and coming to the conclusion that, as mich as NATO, the majority focused on defense against any offensive operations. They seemes, for the most part, pretty content to hold on to the Warsaw Pact countries. Not to say that thay most likely would have jumped at the chance of swaling West Germany, pretty much like NATO whith any opportunity to get a Warsaw Pact countrey without nuclear war.
So?

Not to be rude, but I was expecting something more from this story than "I filled up a spreadsheet and talked to someone" :/ maybe I'm missing the point of this story?
Why is everyone assuming C is "crash early" as opposed to "undefined behaviour will crash if you're lucky and cause RCE in the worst case, or any weird thing in between". The selling point of the borrow checker (at least one of them) is that it doesn't allow undefined behaviour unless you explicitly enable unsafe operations. If there was a way to detect UB and predictably crash in a performant way, you could probably implement that in Rust as well. In fact, that's often what is done with generational indexes and similar.
Training helps a lot,but they typically treat users like toddlers and punish or reward them for getting it right. Training is also either too targeted or too untargeted compared to IRL phish
I believe the example here is where you bypass the borrow checker by keeping your own pool of memory and then allocating objects on that pool, using a custom heap implementation with manual memory management (or with a custom garbage collector). You can do that in either C or Rust (or any other language for that matter).
I think you are confusing Rc/Arc with RefCell, since they are often used together. In order to provide interior mutability, the borrow_mut method of RefCell takes &self rather than &mut self. So, it is possible to obtain two mutable references. The following compiles:

let c = RefCell::new(42usize);

let mut mut_ref1 = c.borrow_mut();
let mut mut_ref2 = c.borrow_mut();

*mut_ref1 += 1;
*mut_ref2 += 2;

RefCell uses UnsafeCell to subvert the borrows checker. However, instead RefCell implements run-time borrow checks. So, the code above will panic while attempting to do the second mutable borrow. It is a trade-off. You lose catching errors during compilation, but you can have interior mutability.

This is one of the goals of unsafe, which UnsafeCell requires. Sometimes, you need to do something that safe Rust does not permit, but that you can prove to be safe (such as RefCell).

That said (and it depends a bit on your domain), I have used Rust for probably 1.5 years without using Arc, Rc, and RefCell. The first time I needed these types when was writing a Gtk+ application and later in some multi-threading programs.

These three types are very easy to overuse when you are coming from other languages. IMO it is better to avoid them and try to work with the borrows checker until you have sufficient experience with Rust to identify when interior mutability and reference counting are really necessary.
Cor, Tron 2.0 just got patched to work for Windows 10
I briefly considered it, however "Sect" does suggest (from its root) that it's an offshoot of some larger religion, which isn't the case here.
You can just swipe up from anywhere on the bottom of the screen, there's no on-screen target you need to hit, so it's just as easy to do it while walking/running/without looking. I do it while running all the time.