skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Chrome should really come up with some better approach to its extensions. I consider myself a relatively cautious user (definitely well above average), and more than once I've enabled an extension that, in a later moment of clarity, I turned off because of what the permissions allowed it to do.

Part of the solution might be informational: make it more clear how dangerous it is to give an extension 'control' of a domain or, as it often the case, all the pages you ever visit.

Or perhaps there are ways to make this more granular: considering that web apps are more and more powerful, limit not just on what domains an extension can operate, but limit what it can do. While I imagine this one is more challenging, if installing an extension says "this extension can READ and MODIFY stuff on <domain>, but will never send this data anywhere" could be a huge win (assuming this is possible to detect automatically).

Finally, depending on how much power an extension has, Google could be more diligent about gatekeeping (assuming they aren't already).

To give an example: I use cVim. It's permissions are:
- Read and change all your data on the websites that you visit
- Read and change your browsing history on all your signed-in - devices
- Read and change your bookmarks
- Read and modify data that you copy and paste
- Manage your downloads

I understand and accept that it needs to do these things, but it strikes me as rather important whether the plugin is allowed to GET/POST stuff too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at my other plugins, this does not appear to be a specific permission.

I'd basically be happy to allow a plugin access to everything the browser has on me, provided that it can't send this data anywhere.

(and, assuming I'm wrong and this is actually a permission, clearly most of my phoning-home plugins seem to get around it using a somewhat opaque other permission to do this. probably "Read and change all your data on the websites that you visit", which sort of is correct, but shouldn't be)
Does it matter? If it’s accepted science then courts are loathe to just start throwing it out even when there is very good evidence it’s junk.
If anyone wants to understand how Bonsai works, I have been really enjoying Nigel’s Saunders “Bonsai Zone” videos for almost a year now: https://youtu.be/T_ifeQSazPo

He does a great showing basic maintenance and explaining what he’s thinking before he does it.

It’s actually quite simpler than I expected. Just letting the trees grow and pruning them regularly, so forks only extend one unit or so before branching again. And removing “meaningless” growth. And using very well drained soil to maximize how much air and water the trees get.

I have just started my first Bonsai after many months of watching Nigel. I’m enjoying it a lot! I look forward to having a few more trees so I am busier. With one tree it’s mostly just watering and waiting.
This looks really interesting. Saving for later as I've been wanting to dive into python much more.
Well yes but that’s not what we are talking about here. And “eventual consistency” is not “consistency”. And I would argue that “eventual consistency” is not consistent since it can result in fake states since it’s not consistent.
Unencrypted database servers from NCIX sold online
CAP consistency is linearizability, so if what you mean is there are other models of consistency available to "AP systems" (kind of hate the framing that these are binary features of a distributed system rather than a huge space of design choices, but anyways), then yes that's true. But AP systems don't always guarantee things like read-your-own-write consistency models, and not all conflicts that occur during a partition can be resolved in many of these databases.
> We need to put the brakes on the empiricism train. It's useful, but only to a certain point.

We need to foster a deeper understanding of how empiricism actually works, what its limitations are, and the difficult and often lengthy process through which varying degrees of certainty are obtained and adjusted over time.

I also think it is important to spread the value of grounded skepticism (including of one's own knowledge) and the power of freely admitting mistakes.

Obviously, none of this is easy. But it is worthwhile and I think small improvements will have a large impact through ripple effects over time.

We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, in regards to empiricism.
If your fragments are really small like 16kb then you could see a significant performance improvement, due to better predictive loading and packet overhead. This is clear from SSD benchmarks.

But I don’t see how this would ever realistically happen.
These posts being flagged is a bit of a relief.
> the same happens to me

In about:settings, does it say at the top "Syncing to codefined", or is there a button you can press to "Sync as codefined". Maybe the confusion is the UI.
No, it's more to do with the ambiguity of the Arabic original ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām. The "Sham" bit here can be refer either to the present day state of Syria, hence ISIS; or the historical greater Syria aka Levant, hence ISIL. However, the group internally dropped the qualified some time ago, now it's just Islamic State, with the obvious implication that it's the global state for true believers.

Wikipedia goes into all this in detail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Islamic_State_of_...
Hi! I'm Martijn maker of History Search.

So its simple; you control what History Search does and where it's active. Any data you capture using History Search can easily be deleted and is available for export to csv for you to do with as you please . Besides that History Search can also easily be paused, or webpages can be blacklisted . We also have a very clear policy about privacy and security: it is yours. If you're interest you can read more about these on historysearch.com/security or historysearch.com/privacy

My goal is to turn History Search into a filesystem for the web. What History Search does for you is make it super easy to retrieve any webpage you've been using any words you remember on it. This help you find back articles or gmails (is that even a thing?), open documents or quickly navigate web services.

How it works is, History Search uses browser extensions to index the text on webpages when you visit them. This way you any word you remember will be enough retrieve it for you. So its both technically and literally an index (you know that page in the back of those dusty encyclopaedias).

History Search is a product I'm very passionate about, and have spent the past 3,5 years working on.

I launched it this week on if you want to see some more info: https://www.producthunt.com/posts/history-search
Galileo was friends with the pope, but then called him an idiot in one of his books (named a character "the idiot" that used the Pope's arguments). That is why he got imprisoned.
Yes. The war on nuclear power started when Greenpeace won the war against atmospheric testing of nuclear explosives and needed a new enemy to ensure its continued existence. The talking points against nuclear power are made up or blown out of proportion by the treehuggers, every single one of them.
Android performance, scrolling etc. still isn't up to par. Firefox has ublock origin, cookie auto-delete, containers etc. I don't know if any other open android browser offers these. And that's huge. If they get it up to par, and make some deals with OEMs to bundle firefox, that should help adoption.
That's why people like Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson exist. Science communicators. They are the better alternative.
> not the Koch's part, but that so many young people apparently were happy to participate in killing transit proposals

Let’s assume these young people aren’t dumb or brain washed. What rational reasons might they have to oppose rail transit? (In your answer account for the fact that Vancouver is several times denser than Seattle or most US cities).
Twitter: Don't panic, but we may have leaked your DMs to rando devs
My experience is that scaling up can lead to owning pets instead of cattle. It's never fun having a 1TB ATS instance that's acting funky but you're terrified of bouncing it. That's more a devil's advocate anecdote than an argument against scaling up.
A lot of people whom are not tech savvy are also not so privacy aware perhaps.

I'm going out on a limb here and say the average hackernews user is not the average twitter user :)
They sell N95 rated masks in almost every convenient store in China...
We almost always cut younger trees because there is basically almost no more old growth left.

Here's a video showing logging on Vancouver Island over the last 100 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9hTF2oxLjo
AsmBB v2.4 has been released
The very example you cite at the end is an example of them genuinely innovating and advancing the field. Have you read the Fuchsia docs (https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/docs/+/HEAD/README.md)? It's spearheading several innovative OS concepts and I'm excited to see it develop (to name three: microkernel architecture, top to bottom least-privilege access sandboxing, and Flutter for the UI which advances UI development in other ways).
> What I have found static typing to be really useful for is in remembering what I have coded. It's quite hard to remember a dynamic type while you are writing code, given the number of variables you are dealing with. Seeing that type definition next to your variable name is a handy reference.

If you consider this a benefit, then (for example with Python), don't you get the same benefit just by using docstrings? Stated another way, if all you want is a visual cue about what you're passing to a function and getting returned, why bother with all the scaffolding of type safety? You can get that just by using documentation facilities outlined in various languages' style guides. Those language facilities (such as docstrings) tend to be very useful and a good engineering practice in general.

The point of type safety is actually to obviate what you're talking about. Smart developers can and do make the mistakes you're saying only a moron would make, regardless of available visual cues. Offloading that decision making process to a language that complains when you make that mistake instead of being forgiving about it is entirely the point.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm struggling to understand why you think type safety is BS. If I read you correctly, it sounds like you'd also say that developers committing memory corruption vulnerabilities are morons, and that the scaffolding of memory management and garbage collection is BS. Why not just have explicit references a developer can read while coding to make sure they're not overflowing a container, right?
I was suggesting that cloudflare should consider doing this a couple days ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18022586

It seems to me that so many rules from different places make totally centralized possibly censored to all by whatever lowest possible denominator.

Wasn't there a ruling for (maybe Canada?) right to be forgotten needs to be worldwide search results (not just censored in country where order was made for google to removed something from it's listings)?

There are now so many groups that want things removed from the net for so many reasons. It also seems to me that the needle for what gets removed and what does not and who can direct someone to remove something - it's just gotten outta hand.
I think people might not be recording their sleeping times accurately in the time use survey they used because there is a cultural desire to be seen as an early riser.
Well for one it makes it a lot easier to have a duplicate local environment (i.e., not on AWS) to test on before pushing changes into your production environment (on AWS). It also helps prevent vendor lock-in. I'll stick to managing my own database instances.
There were certainly wars during that time, but is it true the Church engaged in the mass genocides like the atheist regimes of the past couple centuries? I'd like to see proof of this.
DLA is super awesome, but if you're starting from a point, it takes a lot of computation. Or, rather, what we thought of as a lot of computation around 1990. Hoff's version of "Hyphae" is orders of magnitude less computationally demanding.

In a lot of cases, if you're willing to throw a massive amount of computation at a morphogenetic problem, you can get a higher coolness-to-algorithmic-complexity ratio.
Facebook Broadens Its Bug Bounty to Include Third-Party Apps
Am I correct in assuming Elixir/Erlang does a much better job at this compared to Node/Python/etc., putting aside (what I understand to be) the rather big problem of their relative weakness for computation?
Incorrect. A mask rated N95 filters out more than 95% of particles (PM) larger than 0.3 microns — that’s much smaller even than PM2.5 microns. Certified 3M N95 rated masks are sold all over China.
From what I recall, the Hadza (hunter gatherers of Tanzania) work ~6 hours a day. Sure, 8 hours a day is more, but same ballpark.
I don't think universal credit availability is analogous to universal health insurance, for specific reasons.

People who are against universal health insurance often, I think, imagine spending vast or unlimited amounts should they have a terminal illness. And therefore, they are afraid that society cannot afford to provide that to everyone.

I think that is not a real concern, because the possibilities for treatment are limited in practice sufficiently that universal health insurance is workable. Billionaires do not typically spend all their billions on trying to stave off death.

By contrast, universal availability of credit has no such inherent limit on demand. One person who would otherwise have poor credit could impoverish a nation, in principle, because borrowed money can be utilized for any desire. If we do put limits on the credit provided to people, then we have not changed the nature of it to make it universal and equal and something will be needed to discriminate, even if we don't call it a credit score.
Our case: AWS is not the only environment we support. We deploy the same PG version, same config files and scripts across all major clouds, openstack and even baremetal.
Ask HN: Do all modems connect via Coax?
Here in NY the cable companys' and Verizon's modems both connect to the outside world using coax. Is it like that everywhere? mostly everywhere?
It’s worth doing, but it’s not an “alternative” in any meaningful way. As the other commenter said it’s a wish list. It can’t be meaningfully compared to capitalism. You have no indication ther even exists a mechanism within which those values are compatible.
That world of difference is a very small world given the kind of collusion that goes on these days. In China, it's probably about the size of a desktop globe.
I wish every language would do this.
I just tried to freeze my credit on Equifax. At the end of the process I received a “one time pdf” with a pin to unfreeze. The pdf was garbled and illegible but there was a number to call if you couldn’t view it. I called the number and was told their system is down and to call back later. This feels more painful than getting my identity stolen.
Environmentalists are not the driving force to mine this coal, but many campaign heavily against nuclear, and the effect of decommissioning nuclear in Germany has been increased coal activity.

I'm not placing the blame at the feet of environmentalists, so much as ruing unintended consequences.
If self driving vehicles end up being safe in the future when they are eventually able to get all human drivers off the road, then that’ll probably happen
Sure. But it's kind of is a huge space of design choices (https://jepsen.io/consistency), so it's not ok to claim you give up consistency with any of them.
TechEngage – Engage yourself with Technology
Most people would find it easier to just go along or look the other way.

These guys were true war heroes and had courage under fire. They should be held up as examples what soldiers should be.
What do you mean by replicate because my old teammate was able to set up a slave from a RDS master to a non-RDS database.
It doesn't really matter what he thinks he did, because NLRB deemed it a legal reason for firing him. It's not unique to Google, and considering he's suing for discrimination against white conservative men I don't think his lawyer would let him say something like that anyways.
It should be made clear that most DNA evidence is quite reliable, provided basic standard procedures are employed. I.e. as long as you don't switch samples or otherwise mess up, the results are very robust.

The particular issue here is the mixed samples. The basic approach of DNA fingerprinting is to look at a suite of variable markers which, taken together, form a unique set of alleles that can positively identify an individual. It's easy to see how a mixed sample can pose a problem: if you have two contributors and 20 loci analyzed, that's over a million permutations to consider, assuming all loci are different for those samples. Making an affirmative match in this situation is much more difficult! Not only must your statistics be much stronger (to offset the permutation complexity), but you must make far more assumptions about the sample than before. Namely, you must estimate the number of contributors to - and the relative proportions of - a sample via various heuristics to arrive at a statistical metric of match reliability.

It's kinda amazing that it can be done at all, but for smaller numbers of contributors, it's not that bad. The classic example is a sample that contains DNA from both the perpetrator and the victim; such 2-contributor situations seem to be well understood at this point.

The main issue for reliability is when there are a large number of contributors, and particularly when very sensitive assays are used. Increasing sensitivity means you have to rely more upon amplification, and the exponential nature of PCR makes it very easy for minor contributions to be out-competed.

Basically, not all DNA evidence is equal, and it's important to distinguish between more and less reliable methods. Unfortunately the vagaries of legal precedent are often have an outsize influence on what is accepted in court. The apparent reluctance by the NIST to report their findings is really what is most concerning here, not the tests per se.
That's included in what Jaguar are doing here. In this Fully Charged video you can see the hosts' continued amusement and enjoyment of the in-car acceleration noises: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jj_w1PfSqk
Regexes get a bad rap mostly for two reasons:

1) they are abused by people who have never written a parser but need to write a parser, often to parse languages that are highly nonregular, and

2) they get thrown at problems where the underlying grammar is actually unknown and iterated on until they're uneditable black boxes.

The first problem already has a really good solution: hire people who know the standard undergraduate CS material and you'll never end up with a regex-from-hell when a simple and easy recursive descent parser would've done the trick with ease.

The second problem is, of course, more difficult. I've only seen regexes used successfully for a problem like that once. And that's only because the structure was very easy to think about as an NFA. By itself, the regex was a freaking nightmare to look at. But the documentation included a picture of the automata and a great description of what was going on. From there, the monstrous regex was easy to reason about and modify.
The old mantra: physical access is root access.
That means I should assume 100% of my emails are not confidential, which is an impossible situation for most people with jobs and non-technical relatives.
Everyone makes mistakes. That's part of being human. The answer doesn't have to be total control and aversion to personality and honesty in media. Which is what people seem to be pushing as the end goal, where no one ever says anything dumb or bad ever.
You do realise that the Black Forest spans an area of 6,000km^2 that varies from 70-90% forest? [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest#Work_of_the_Insti...
Dragonfly is about as far removed from Shi Tao as your Chinese import purchases. And since when has Congress having a vocal opinion on anything ever been anything but pandering to their voters?
I really like the idea. IMO, Qt makes C++ suitable for wide variety of applications.

I learned Qt by reading the source code of default QtCreator applications (like Rich Text Viewer). After you know about SIGNAL/SLOT architecture and pImpl idea you can pretty easily derive it from well-written code. It will also teach you good practices! It was the most efficient method for me and many of my friends.

This way your posts will really look like the "course" and not like "documentation + my comments".

Keep it up!
I've worked on a project that migrated from MySQL on EC2 to MySQL on RDS and then back to EC2 because the performance was massively worse — a process that took a few hours before now took days. We contacted Amazon support to try and resolve whatever was going wrong with the RDS instance, and their response was basically "Yeah, we don't guarantee performance on RDS. If you want to maximize performance, you should run your own DB on EC2."
This is the same for many languages that treat operators with type class patterns. It’s still usually bad design choice. I find a lot of language designers & programmers like it, but they are super disconnected from the realities.

For an example consider breeze and spire in Scala. There’s so much effort to create these bloated numeric type hierarchies that abstract out things like monoids, rings, fields, iterability, sortability, etc.

It’s not good. Just having really boring repetitive implementations for each distinct data structure would be better! No joke! Being able to write type generic functions over sortable matrix subclasses turns out to not be valuable unless you’re also writing a highly abstracted library, which is never, certainly not when you’re using it for experiments.

Nobody needs to be able to make a DenseMatrix[Quaternion] and get it to automatically pick up implementations of fancy indexing. No. You can just write your own helper methods, and this is better, more convenient, applies less pressure for DenseMatrix to have some indecipherably complicated abstract implementation so it can be more free to just specialize on linear algebra functionality that works for DenseMatrix[Double] which is what is needed 99.999999999% of the time.
I have no problems with cutting second growth, especially timber that was planted by man. It's specifically timber companies interested in harvesting old growth that irks me, because there's hardly any left, especially in Europe.

Going a little further, given that second growth harvesting is widely performed & commercially viable these days, seeking to log old growth comes across as simply looking for "easy money"- old growth hardwood fetches high prices, and you skip the work of planting.
The safety argument makes no sense. Especially once all cars are quieter.
Some articles are so important that they don't belong behind paywalls. I believe this is one of them. The NYT's ombudsman should help develop a policy to determine when that should occur.
We seem to agree more than I initially thought. I certainly agree with this comment.

I'll admit to a lazy use of "heirloom" as a replacement for "not-ruined-for-the-sake-of-looking-good-on-a-shelf".