skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> When apk is pulling packages, it extracts them into / before checking that the hash matches what the signed manifest says it should be.

Pros: downloading and installing packages is faster.

Cons: vulnerabilities like this.

Reading the commit message in https://github.com/alpinelinux/apk-tools/commit/6484ed9849f0... I'm not convinced they fixed it.
How about soliton pulses in a plasma? Isn't interstellar space mostly plasma? Its still EM radiation. Such pulses can survive incredible distances undiminished, and they are point-to-point (not broadcast). So other civilizations might be using this, and we'd never notice unless we got between them and their target by accident

And of course it would be compressed or encrypted or both. So it would be indistinguishable from noise (as mentioned in other replies)
There is a rail line, but no passenger station. Realistically there would be 1 train per day max to the big city and you'd have to spend the night instead of making a day or half day trip. (I currently live in Durham and I can catch a morning train to Charlotte and back in the evening according to the schedule, as long as I can fit my business in between the arrival time of the morning train and the departure time of the evening train, and that is servicing two much larger populations.)

And that is just going to the nearest larger city... What if you want to go to a different city? Or a smaller town? Or a random place that doesn't have a bus station?

I predict very few people would participate.
To you argument:

When choosing in between huge, unaffordable house, and a luxury apartment. Are really sure you will chose the former?
Will this allow content providers to lock content so that ad blockers can't change the content ?
Phones evolve. The evolution to a near edge-to-edge OLED screen is a costly one, look at the competition. In your ideal world Apple would delay the X by three years and continue to pump out forehead + chin LCD phones with spec bumps? iPhone X is the future you can have today, at a premium. If you don't want to spend the extra money, wait. You can buy it in 2020, when all new phones look like it. It's not like Apple is forcing you to buy it. Each phone they make is overpowered so that older phones are still good-enough for every day tasks, they release new iOS patches to even five year old devices, and they specifically advertise the older phones with price drops at every keynote. What is it that you want them to do differently? You want them to treat people like you as their target demographic for new phones?
I'm still skeptical that this will happen anytime soon outside of selected small zones. I may be wrong, but I feel like the US or wherever these get deployed need a major infrastructure update to be better or more consistent. Even with the most advanced automated driving system imaginable you will still have poor and inconsistent infrastructure everywhere.
I suppose I'm advocating that we structure our society such that one person gaining wealth does not make it more difficult for another to live their life. I'm pointing out that, in a vacuum, this specific scenario:

> One family gets a large raise. Another gets a slightly harder time finding affordable housing.

is something to avoid, not strive for.
To be fair, nobody outside of the government and financial media is claiming we are having “good times”. And it’s in both of their best interests to pretend we are in an economic boom.
The mistake that I see most analysts make with regard to the iPhone launch events is that they make them right away, based on their initial gut reaction to the keynote. While their analysis may make sense and be completely reasonable, there is a very big difference between the thought process one has when viewing the new models side-by-side at the keynote and viewing them side-by-side on the Apple site or in an Apple store with an intent to purchase.

While it may seem completely irrational to pay more money for a smaller screen with the exact same processor (XS vs XR), the truth is that lots of people (the type of people who buy iPhones at launch) typically gain a lot of their identity from their phones. They want the best model and getting the cheaper model just won't do. There is a practical argument to be made here as well: most people use their phones more than any other device they own. What's an extra $150 over the course of 2-3 years to have a better screen, camera, and construction?

If I were to buy a new iPhone right now, I would probably go for the XS over the XR. My reasoning would be that the XS+ is too big for my day-to-day use, but I would rather have a better camera and display. But even if I went for the XR, that's still a win for Apple. They want to remain top of the market in smartphones, but they also want to capture as much of the TAM as possible while doing so. What they have achieved and why I like the strategy they are using here, is that they are capturing max TAM at the top of the market. They aren't interested in competing with commodity phones at the lower ends.

Normally one could make the case for this being the definition of the Innovator's Dilemma and they are ripe for disruption. However I don't believe this applies to Apple because they have tie-ins due to software and services that make switching to another device extremely painful. There are lots of phone manufacturers who have been able to compete with Apple on hardware for years. But without the software and ecosystem, Apple customers will not consider switching. So it's not really a question of whether customers will leave Apple for Samsung/Google/Other, it's a question of whether customers will switch from one iPhone to another. I believe that even if this ever happened, say a surprisingly large number of XR's sold compared to XS's and the ASP came down, Apple would have lots of levers to pull to correct this and they'd still be in pole position. They could cut features from future base models or axe a third base model all together in the next cycle, for example.
While I'm not implying that the iPhone "sucked" or some other meaningless fanboyism, when it came out, I was intrigued by the things it had that my Palm and WinMobile phones didn't. Those were always missing gpu drivers (poor responsiveness) or had resistive screens (no multitouch) or some other minor annoyance.

But the list of things I'd have to give up for a first gen iPhone (not even counting the mandatory AT&T bill in the US) made it a no-go:

No copy/paste. No third party apps (I regularly used mine to stream Shoutcast stations in the car on my cheap unlimited 3G data before it became a cash cow to be milked by the carriers). No 3G radio at all actually. No GPS. No multitasking/backgrounding apps. No MMS (which was doubly important if you didn't have 3rd party IM apps).

I was in a geek dilemma. Apple fixed the UI but lacked most of what made my smartphone "smart" at the time. Likewise, all of the ones with more capabilities lacked the smooth UI and usability improvements of the iPhone.

I'm just glad that in subsequent years Apple slowly added in functionality while their competitors got the message that usability was important as well.
In that case the court would be arguing that she could not have drunken on February 28th, and the lawyer would be arguing that she could have.
What's the cost of self-education of a person that doesn't much anyway? Sitting on a bench all day is not labor, it's a waste of time.
That's not capitalism, it's our culture around capitalism. There is nothing inherent to capitalism that stresses short term growth vs. long term growth. For example much of the push for short term growth comes from the stock market, but the stock market (or public ownership at all) is in no way required for capitalism to work (and IMO it would probably be better without it).
> I see no reason machines shouldn't be able to perform at least as well one day.

Assuming that day is infinitely far away, then you're right.
There is no upside to this approach. LIDAR is only getting cheaper, there is no reason not to use it.
If they're super smart, and actually care about communicating with less-advanced civilizations, then they would probably broadcast through mediums that are considered "old tech" for them, but possibly current tech for those civilizations.
Spotify's 3,333-song download limit jumps to 10,000
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/06/...
> What else would a flight of fancy be other than imagining something that we currently have absolutely zero evidence for?

It would be a flight of fancy to argue for or imagine a specific one, but it's not a flight of fancy to say, "hey, there's probably forces and particles out there we don't know about or understand yet". Hell, it would be obscenely arrogant not to acknowledge that.
The important thing is that you've figured out a way to think you're smarter than the people who think they're smarter than they are...
Part of it for me is I believe the mountains along the south of China protect one of the Earth’s most sacred cultural geographies, and I think China’s erasure of that is immoral.

If the U.S. were to try to block discussion of mezo-American people and cultures, I would feel the same.

I think the U.S./Mexico border is an equivalent global cultural crime and would not want any company I work for to support its construction.
No, this is about increasing performance by taking elements out of the slow DOM update cycle
> "Once you understand how to travel the city, it's hard to live anywhere else because quality of life is so ridiculously high"

Agreed. The tech scene here has also been exploding (especially along Santa Monica, Venice etc) to the point where colleagues of mine from SV have been relocating here. As a former New Yorker I honestly feel lucky to be living here - LA is a remarkable city and is continuing to evolve rapidly.
Eh everyone tells Californians to not move places. I thought it was funny. Maybe that wasn't the intention.
This question has an easy answer: exactly what they have been doing for 20-50 years. Inertia is a real thing.

Other relevant answers might include "true fault tolerance". More than half of your mainframe can be burned to a crisp, or being chewed on by a dinosaur - doesn't matter, it will keep working. The closest bad analogy I can think of...is a mainframe is like the NASA space missions of yesteryear. Every component has three or four duplicates, just waiting for a primary component to fail so they can take over. They aren't cost effective, but they are operationally effective.
> Now I also don't know if I buy that MAX_INT + 1 and pass-by-reference is a pressing enough use case to break compatibility. I'd be open to hearing why, but I'd be starting from a position of skepticism.

This is an example of a change that will be made, not a rationale for the decision.
"very low interaction rates which ordinary matter which would mean much longer propagation ranges."

EM already propagates across the known universe.

"And their difficultly is a bonus in itself - if you want to hide your communications as much as possible"

It is unlikely that such hiding is going to be more effective than existing spread-spectrum techniques, which can already put your communication arbitrarily close to the noise floor, and already exist.

Of course, if you're going to leave science behind you're then going to hypothesize what aliens may have done to somehow break through the noise floor so that's not an option, and, well, this is what I mean by pick one; either use science, or imagine whatever you like, but don't mix the two. There's no reason to believe that the noise floor is penetrable and lots of mathematical reasons to believe it very much isn't.
Google Search is already censored worldwide: torrents, EU's "right to be forgotten", DMCA, copyright filters, etc. It's matter of degree, not of substance.

I find much more concerning whether the Chinese Government will use Google Search for surveillance.
The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene. I know they are a bit dated by now, but when I read them they broadened my horizons and encouraged to review my religious standpoint from a scientific perspective.
I know the X is pronounced as "ten" but I can't help reading the XS model as "excess" instead of "ten s" in my head. I have a hard time imagining no one in Apple marketing noticed this.
Wallace's writing never resonated with me, which is strange based on my longtime interest in Hunter S. Thompson. In many ways there are parallels in their respective fame / accolades / audiences and yet, to me, Wallace seemed inexcusably contrived compared to Thompson's seeming dismissal of convention was out of necessity (at least initially - it did become an act of sorts later).

I did find one part of this article worth considering beyond just a discussion of Wallace:

>For twenty years, his entire career, Wallace wrestled with a question: How much of myself am I willing to give away to get what I want?

...followed by...

>He got what he wanted and didn’t want.

If there's any one dynamic that is willfully ignored by almost everybody in modern society - especially in the rise of Social Media Stardom (aka Soundcloud Rappers & Influencers) - this hits the nail on the head.

Wallace, to me, is more interesting as a case study of failure in success than as a literary powerhouse. Not everybody can be like Jerry Lewis and keep up an act for a lifetime.
Machines will be (and already are) held to a much higher standard than human drivers— there are a lot of reasons for this, ranging from the emotional to the pragmatic.

Just because thousands of people roll the dice every day driving in unsafe conditions does not mean that we should tolerate machines doing so.
You don't sound like you do a lot of distributed/network programming. The speed of light is achingly, infuriatingly slow.
Honestly, the summary chart is all most people should bother to look at here. But I don't know if the article is really claiming "it needs all these or it's not free college" so much as saying "what's offered varies a lot".

I think people have pushed for free college at a national level, and the article is pointing out that the states offerings aren't consistent.

Also, bear in mind that covering older students or half-time students is a big deal: Most lower income families may not be able to full-time school, and may not have gotten the chance to go as soon as they graduated high school, particularly if these programs weren't available at that time. Considering living cost coverage being the other least common component, not being able to work and go to class at the same time is a big deal.
I’ll take the “over” on that bet any day of the week. It might not be 20 years, but it’ll be a friggin’ while.

There are scenarios it’s possible to encounter on the road that humans don’t even necessarily know how to handle immediately. In proper, brutal, real-world testing, one very quickly enters the realm of problems that you’d need full-fledged general AI to reason through.
If it was compressible, that would mean there was a repeating pattern. The whole point is that the data is extremely noisy, so finding a pattern is difficult.
Yea, I guess I was being a bit harsh. They delivered a nice looking result and at the end of day that's what counts. And honestly thinking back at the first several times I did something similar I can't really say I did a more efficient job.
Silly question, but what do you mean when you type "ZF"?
How many different ways are there to form a solar system? I am sure the requirements for experiment and possible combinations of factors are just as daunting.

So, I don't think thats the real problem. I think the main real problem is that in the failing fields they look for differences between groups while in the successful fields they look for "universal" rules.
relatively quickly

I don't know what Los Angeles you live in.
Good answer, except for the last part. I think there is not much reason to expect we will detect aliens using anything other than EM, because that is all we know. But for all we know they could be sending messages to other galxies by communicating with the outside makers of the AI Elon Musk thinks created the universe.
> aren't we sending out radio signals in a spiral as the planet rotates that would be massively spread out over a distance of 3 billion light years?

We started sending radio signals in an appreciable amount somewhere around the 1920-1930s, and have since made our radios so efficient (also with the help of satellites) that by now they are basically too weak to be realistically noticable by distant civilizations.

Given that we started about 100 years ago, those radio signals only traveled 100 light years (enough to reach quite a few solar systems, but only about 0.1% of the radius of the milky way).

We don't know quite how good alien civilizations are at signal processing, but beyond 1000 light years or so it will be seriously hard to seperate our broadcasts from random noise. So not quite 3 billion light years.
You can get very very redundant mainframes IBM Parallel Sysplex and so is Tandem
Academia is certainly not holding computer science hostage like this. Nowhere near as many people have graduate degrees in CS as people practicing their Psychology degrees.
You're really trying to drive your point with Hollywood taking its profits in China. Do you know what kind of hoops they have to jump through to access that market?

Take Gravity for instance. The reckless nation that shoots down the satellite causing all the damage is Russia when it was China in real life.

China then saved our heroine when its the Russians we've worked and continued to work with. Why? It's because they're chasing the Yuan while giving away soft power to China.
> What if elements of the same collection need to have different structure?

They don't. If you ever end up in a situation where you feel they do, the correct solution is typically instead to split the component into multiple, different components, only some of which will be used for any given entity. This is basically the same as defining a schema for an SQL table. A component is just a set of state, there is no requirement for it to map 1-to-1 to a specific functionality.

> What benefits justify this extremely tight coupling?

The most commonly stated one is speed. ECS was adopted first in game design because it is just so much faster. On modern OoO cpus it's typically something like 5-10x faster than traversing an object graph. On the previous generation consoles (PS3, XB360) with their in-order CPUs and crappy load/store subsystems, it could easily be 20x-50x faster. I don't know how relevant this is to your typical GUI, though; the speedup in an ECS comes from linear memory access, which means that the prefetchers make sure every memory access is an L1 access, which is great when you have a game that has thousands of entities, which don't fit into any cache. But just how many GUIs have enough state to overflow the L1 anyway?

However, speed is not the only benefit. This is somewhat subjective, but having implemented similar logic for ECS and OO based games, I feel that the logic is almost always much clearer, more understandable and less buggy in the ECS versions. Basically, in OO doing things that have cross-cutting concerns tends to get split into many small parts done in multiple places, and it's hard to understand the whole system at once. In an ECS, the logic for one system is implemented in one place, it is always just a transformation that reads in some data, does some computation on it, and writes out some data, without complex control flow. It's so much easier to understand and test.

> It makes it impossible to write generic container types.

An example of a Generic container type is AnyMap, which holds one value of each type (and each value will typically be either a straight Vec for small/common components, or some kind of more complex set for components that hold a lot of data.)

(edit: looked up old numbers and found that 100x was pushing it, even on Xenon. 50x ought to be realistic.)
If I were Bezos, I'd do a lot more for charity.

That said, you're making the fallacy of thinking like money is a natural resource we dig up from the ground or something, that Bezos is hoarding.

No. Money is just an abstraction of barters and favors owed. Suppose Bezos pays a surgeon $100k to treat a patient. Well, the surgeon could have done it for free. So if Bezos didn't pay the surgeon, who is responsible for the lack of treatment? Bezos, or the surgeon? (An over-simplification, but the point doesn't change if you shift the money from one surgeon to a whole hospital etc.)

My vote: allow Bezos and others to operate within the law. If they're exploiting a loophole (like tax-free Amazon competing with taxed local shops), fix the law.
The UK changed their rules in 2004 to make the vast majority of student loans not dischargeable via bankruptcy.
this is starting to sound like minecraft
What are the requirements to attend a public, "free" university in Poland? Or, what percent of applicants are accepted?
Human drivers kill people every day. Something like 90% of all auto accidents are due to human error, last I checked.

The stats are still on the side of automated drivers.

As urban population density increases, and people are closer to services, we'll need fewer vehicles on the road at any given time.

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said just last week that e-scooters and such will be more popular than car trips in the next few years.

The number of people holding a license has dropped off a cliff from a generation ago. The only age cohort in which licensing is up is 60-70ish year olds, and is down in 75+ aged folks and younger than 60s. Half the number of 16 year olds today hold a license relative to 1983 when we started tracking it reliably.

Common reasons cited: car ownership and maintenance is too expensive, urban dwellers have Uber, pub trans, or friends and family. Gas and insurance are too expensive.

We're not about to get away from needing traditional automobiles entirely; too much utilitarian value. The frequency of use, and likely private ownership, is going to drop off a cliff in the next generation.
Personal flight for transportation seems to have all of the downsides of personal cars, the decreased energy efficiency of having to keep you airborne, and the additional risk of death when it stops working. Just because it looked cool in The Jetsons doesn't mean it's a future we should be pursuing.
Looks mostly avoidable if O_NOFOLLOW had been used? But the fix doesn't seem to add that, instead relying on other checks?
Just to preempt some replies to this I can already picture: if you find more bugs, please report them to the maintainers I mentioned in the post and not via an HN comment!
Wow, slow down on the insults, cowboy. All I’m saying is if you’re considering group A a more urgent priority for providing help to than group B, then you’re incintivizing group B to be more like group A.

Officials need to address the whole problem, not just the visible problem.
I commented to complain about his swipe; you commented to complain about mine. I'm not sure where we're going here.
Well, you know, up until recently (don't know if still is) IE was a core part of the operating system, not just the browser itself. That meant that using IE alone will have for example less battery usage than using Firefox, or any other browser, "alone", as you would be running IE too.
You have _entirely_ missed the context.

To spell it out, the GP was positing that by working with the CCP, Google was somehow adding western pro-human rights influence to the mix.

This is false because the CCP will allow no such influence.

Google's only possible influence is to enhance the effectiveness of the CCP's initiatives by adding Google's greater competence and development speed to the CCP's goal of mass surveillance and distorting or filtering the facts available to the Chinese people.

So, yes, since Google is enhancing the CCP's totalitarian goals of controlling the populace, outrage is quite appropriate (unless of course, you oppose the general principles of democracy and people being able to govern themselves).