skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
All American companies operating in China, including all telecom companies, Apple, etc. are handing over all Chinese user info to the Chinese government.

As much as I think that's horrible, there are no laws in the US objecting to any of that.
I don't think so. You could probably try and correlate the originating IP/subnet HTTPS policy request and subsequent SMTP connection.
They valued a Canadian weed stock with $20M in revenue at $20B.
Interesting. I would have expected FP16 with tensor cores to give at least a 100% speedup, not just 60%.
Churchill was a notorious scoundrel, constantly in debt and bailed out by unsavoury characters
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/no-more-champ...

'...On his first day at school, Winston Churchill asked his mother for more cash. She groused: “You do get through it in the most rapid manner… and the more you have the more you want to spend.” He was 13, and already he was spending more than a family “of six or seven have to live upon”.....
Counterpoint:

I filled out the forms to renew my passport and took them to my local post office. The only person staffing the passport desk refused to take my forms because I hadn't filled in the name of my employer. I pointed out that the website explicitly states that that field is optional, and that the website will not even allow you to print a form that doesn't pass its validation. She hallucinated that the field is optional only in the case that you have no employer.

So, I had to travel to a passport office. The desk there really wanted me to fill in the name of my employer, but at least they didn't refuse to take my perfectly valid form based on their own personal delusions.
GitLab is mostly rails and they have been iterating their UI pretty heavily. I think programming languages are just tools and the team(s) wielding them matter a lot more than the language.
IIRC, the maker has said HM was his inspiration. The expansions left him less than happy and he decided to do what he wanted himself.
No, she is not the "real hero", supporting is nice but it is just supporting. To be honest many men support their wives, I know countless families where the men is the provider and the women go to study for years or just shopping and sitting in cafes. There is nothing special about it and I don't understand why when a woman does it suddenly she is the "real hero".
Because Fox is the one speaking in their favor? Or you didn't understand GP's argument?
The primary motivation of MTA-STS is to provide a mechanism for domains to ensure transport security even when deploying DNSSEC is undesirable or impractical.
> Maybe, but at least Facebook doesn't actively try to manipulate you into believing that they're the "good guys"

They don't? News to me.
The developer makes doesn't attempt to hide that he started out making a clone of Harvest Moon to sharpen his programming skill and because he was frustrated he couldn't play HM on his PC. It grew from there. As it happens, the developer of HM has great respect for the developer of SV: https://www.pcgamer.com/the-creators-of-stardew-valley-and-h...
Apple wins reversal in University of Wisconsin patent lawsuit
>perfectly good programs

The Holy Grail of software engineering
There is no historical evidence for this, its pretty clearly apocryphal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle
I'm kind of addicted to Nongshim spicy ramen, it's pretty good.

It may not count as top shelf, but Nongshim's products aren't bottom shelf (that honor goes to Maruchan.)
The point is that (to a first approximation) nobody uses DNSSEC, which is badly flawed, and MTA-STS doesn't rely on it.
What if I am totally fine working on that stuff if it means more money? Hell, I would be totally content working on weapons for the military if it means more money and interesting problems. I am aur enany others would too.
Tick tock the crash is coming.
I never understood the fuss about material design. While it's decent on mobiles, it looks _terrible_ on desktops with low resolutions at least.
Since you're just getting downvoted, I may as well say that as a member of the press it isn't uncommon to see embargoes on stuff like this. They don't say a week out "hey we've got a huge security announcement" but they do say "we have something coming out this afternoon and we're doing a briefing half an hour before if you agree not to publish before we go public."

It's often in the interest of the reporter to agree to stuff like this since publishing security issues ahead of time can have serious negative consequences.
I also work in an enterprise situation and very many bugs that I deal with from legacy code and others’ code comes directly from in-lining anonymous functions.

Many bugs have to do with utilizing closures to access variables needed in the function body, which then make refactoring harder and make modifying unit tests harder.

This can be even worse in languages like Python where there is a distinction between early binding and late binding and you have to be aware if by closure you’re using a reference name that may be associated with different data during its lifetime, or a name whose value won’t change, because a change to the underlying value could make a difference in what is bound inside the anonymous function at different times when it’s called. The classic example is trying to define functions in a loop where functions use the loop variables by closure. Then being surprised when every one of the functions has a reference to only the final value of the loop variable.

Even in statically typed languages, this makes things much harder to reason about than they should be. On the other hand, making an anonymous function that accepts many arguments for all the data it would try to access by closure is stupid: those arguments need to be documented, and it’s just so much cleaner and maintainable to do that with a regular function definition, which also makes it much clearer what all the conditions are for calling the function.

What’s worse is that these things can be deeply welded into some coding context, like using a flatMap over some TypedPipe in Scala / Scalding, and can result in needing to make in-line functions that are hundreds of lines long with arbitrarily complex function bodies, which then become tied into assumptions about the runtime context you’re embedded in, and then nobody can figure out how to refactor it into a standalone function, so it just grows by attrition to an inline lambda over years and is extremely fragile. Change something seemingly unrelated about the outer context it’s defined in, and suddenly you get unexpected, cryptic compiler errors complaining something’s wrong with the TypedPipe, and you have to dig deeper to understand why it’s related to the anonymous function.

I would say many of the most serious closure-related bugs and bugs related to unrefactorable yet undocumented dependence on an enclosing context that I’ve seen have been largely a direct result of the programming style of in-lining anonymous functions inside functional programming constructs.

I sympathize with your claim of “not reading an essay” especially because people can be prone to try to use functional programming or overloading the Python data model and operator syntax with cutesy bullshit that they try to pass off as expressiveness.

But I think there’s a middle ground where you think about it not like an essay, but just basic modularity and separation of concerns, and write functions separately except when they are very short and really trivial.
It's only a post-fact world on a handful of media outlets.
Stalin was a leader in the Russian (Soviet) Government late in World War I:

"Stalin became part of an informal foursome leading the government, alongside Lenin, Trotsky, and Sverdlov;[183] of these, Sverdlov was regularly absent, and died in March 1919.[184] Stalin's office was based near to Lenin's in the Smolny Institute,[185] and he and Trotsky were the only individuals allowed access to Lenin's study without an appointment." ... Stalin was appointed the People's Commissar for Nationalities. [ date? ]

[ from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Consolidating_po... ]

Franklin Roosevelt also held a relatively high office: Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
What I don't understand is why this is considered spam. Are lots of people not allowed to talk about the same thing?
Like many people mentioned, nothing can beat Planet Money. I tried to find something similar to it, and 99% Invisible is also good, albeit not as perfect.
For my team, this article comes at some interesting timing, since we're bumping into some of the same issues with Rails.

Rails is now a mature framework and part of the problem is its lack of consideration for large existing codebases running in production. While there are nice tools to help migrate (e.g. rails:update) that hit surface issues, the deep problem is that there are a lot of decisions made going from version to version that are obviously unfriendly to established projects. e.g.: https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/27231

Additionally, there are a lot of gems that are losing momentum, which are near-core to Rails. e.g.: https://github.com/thiagopradi/octopus/issues/490. This is a side effect of the above issue, where the alternatives to Rails are taking a lot of the community away to focus on newer/shiner things. Fortunately, we have companies like GitHub and Shopify that are still very much invested in the success of the ecosystem.

All that said, it's still a great framework to go from 0 to production with a new idea or project.

Other ecosystems we're entrenched in (Node for example) have their share of issues as well, but we won't go into those.
My understanding is that it's more hyperbolic than that. There are gates around Jerusalem called "Eye of the Needle" (St Alexander Nevskys Church for instance, its supposedly the location of a 1st century city wall) and a man can barely fit through these himself.

I could be totally wrong, of course. Maybe they started naming holes in dilapidated walls that to bring tourists/pilgrims.

Did a quick google for pic examples; https://patmcinerney.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/the-church-of-...
It's only 2 large companies, Google and Facebook who are now out of control in building invasive surveillance systems so its completely disingenuous to try to pass this off as some sort of generic corporate issue.

People who work for known unethical organizations are hardly celebrated so these are poor attempts at muddying the waters and distraction.

The bottom line is if you can't behave ethically you can't expect ethics from others in society. If 6 figure earning engineers can't exercise ethical choice then who can? Its incredible given the level of discourse how anyone can expect any ethical behavior from the poor and starving and yet we do. The double standards and greed from educated classes is stunning.
Where is this precise criteria? Can anyone explain it for a layperson? While we all know it is the aggregation of many different algorithms at work, the results of those algorithms have consequences. Claiming that it's fine because the algorithm exists is begging the question.
> People expect saints when saints are imaginary. The baseline to measure cannot be "perfection".

You're putting up a strawman. The baseline is other big tech companies (MS/GOOG/AMZN/AAPL) - companies that are definitely not saints.

Amazon/Google's ethical tradeoffs are debatable, but they do deliver benefits that are unmatched in the market. Facebook? Not really.
This was actually the topic of Herb Sutter's talk[1].

Things like meta-classes will drastically simplify end-user code.
Outlook.com seem to have been making UI changes that haven't irked people.
Back button is broken until page is fully loaded. Once it is loaded, clicking back returns back to inbox (while reading a mail). However if the page is not fully loaded (loading circle is spinning) it goes back to previous browser page.
note the now gone post this was in response to, asked
(and I am paraphrasing) ...

~~~ Is this not just a subset your phenotype ~~~
They've been showing me that banner for a while. In fact, they stopped showing it to me about a week ago. Are your sure it's related?
Actually, it's never been "a thing". Domain Authority is just a concept that was created by Moz--a metric. This is an interesting read: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/domain-authority/246515/

"No SEO will ever point to a Google patent or research paper to justify the idea that a Site/Domain Authority exists. Wikipedia has published a page about Domain Authority and the footnote links do not cite a single research paper or patent by Google. Not one. According to the footnotes, Wikipedia’s information is largely based on blog posts by SEOs. There are no links to anything official from Google."
It was just a bad joke..
It's not 50 million users. It's all of them. The numbers will go up and up and up in small increments until they basically just admit that it's everyone. They break the news in the middle of a national political event, minimize the numbers, and that's the worst of it. The coming ripples that up the numbers will be mostly ignored.
Because screw families that don't live together
Good read. But kind of underwhelmed how the author glosses over how the steps of how developer finally connected with the real world and got his creation out there.

I think many of us can relate to the obsession with detail, but hearing how the publisher discovered him and their impressions of his work would have been a nice pay-off.
he who is without sin ...
It sounds like users might be more susceptible if they recently had a birthday or know someone that did. Of course, birthdays aren't the only reason the uploader is active.

"But for certain types of posts on users' timelines, such as prompts to post happy birthday greetings, the video uploader function was shown as active."
Auctus – Follow your favorite coins and see what analysts are saying about them
> start dealing with those who continue to take a paycheck from Facebook even in the face of constant and horrific evidence of wholesale ethical violations and negligence

Do you also suggest that someone should no longer be friends with anyone who uses that Facebook platform and is 'the product'? What about that? That is support as well. Right?
First they came for Alex Jones and I didn't say anything... It is what it is, if you don't object to them banning people because they don't like their politics why are you surprised when they ban an article which attack them directly? The only solution is to declare those companies as monopolies and critical infrastructure and force them to service everybody with no discrimination, exactly like water or electricity. If someone is doing something against the law by publishing something that is not allowed by law, let the law enforcement deal with it.
Please, don't excuse their behaviors by giving examples of companies doing worse. While FB or G, or Amazon, might not be killing people directly, you could very easily compare their methods to those of big oil or tobacco, because they ignore the influence/effect they have in certain countries with questionable governments.

In my mind, FBs inaction in countries like Burma has caused more direct conflict/hate then most tobacco companies. However, if you look at the oil industry, its harder to draw a line... For example: Is the oil industry responsible for the bombing of Irak? The Government gave different reasons, but looking at current evidence for example, it just looks like pipeline protection.

So what i wanted to get at is that when a company gets to a certain size, it gets harder to separate government/ company involvement. At that point we need to look at how the company acts, and in this case, especially FBs, they are doing a horrible job (IMO) at actually standing up for their users, instead choosing to protect their business interests.

(While this is their supposed purpose as a company, there exists people like myself, who believe the current model of stock sponsored companies are the wrong way to do business).

Just a FYI: This is more a rant then anything, Im tired of the BS that these huge companies are producing and selling as the solution to humanities issues. Personally i hope that this current system fails for something better, however, personally i have not thought up anything much better atm.
As we're talking in hypotheticals why not pivot the question.

How 'stupid' can a company, with an arguable international monopoly on a major form of communication and dissemination, be before we acknowledge the serious danger it is putting society in?
It's clear you put time and thought into this post, so it deserves an equivalent amount in response. I think you’ve understood some things correctly, but not others, but that’s why we're on HN - to help clarify.

(1) The modeling you’ve done for the premoney safes is correct, but it’s incorrect for the postmoney scenario. That’s because Angelcalc hasn’t been updated yet for postmoney safes that track the one we released. Angelcalc includes the Series A option pool increase in both flavors of safes, because what people were doing when flipping standard premoney cap safes to postmoney cap safes is they were just changing the pre to post, and nothing else. We deliberately took out the Series A pool increase for reasons that are all detailed in our post. That means both we and the safe holders share the Series A pool increase with the founders, which is not how it’s working on Angelcalc (but we will update it soon).

Also, in your postmoney scenario, the valuation cap for the $2M safe needs to be adjusted to be a $12M postmoney cap safe.

So if you update the postmoney scenario using all of your variables based on the postmoney safe we released, the results are different. I did it by hand on excel - here’s a screenshot:

https://imgur.com/m4V51SH

Happy to send you a copy of the excel file. Also, to be perfectly transparent, these examples are somewhat artificial because they assume a 0% option pool issuance in both cases, which is unlikely to be the case. Safe investors will do better than in the screenshot I sent the more options that are issued before the Series A round. They also have the option now to ask for a template side letter to participate pro rata in the Series A round itself.

(2) The YC deal should be viewed together with the money founders will raise at demo day, i.e. as one continuous round, and thus the combined % of the company you end up selling. That combined % for YC and demo day safes was often too high in the old deal because founders had a hard time understanding how dilution was unfolding. Safe rounds may not have been priced correctly because of that lack of clarity. With these new changes, the days of raising on safes and not knowing how much you owned are over. The days of planning a Series A fundraise not knowing how much you’ve already been diluted are over. We strongly believe that founders will end up less diluted by the combined % of YC and demo day safes. It’s interesting that you would characterize an uptick in YC ownership as “downside” for the founders. I don’t think founders look at our ownership - they look at theirs.

(3) An underlying assumption of your post is that the safes and YC deal are changing, but everything else — valuations, option pools, amounts people raise and dilution transparency (or lack thereof) — will remain the same. The point of us doing this though is that we expect it to change all of those other things. Everything is tied together. As Michael already pointed out, once you can see what’s happening, both investors and founders can take better actions on both fronts. High-res fundraising should also become easier, as Carolynn points out on http://ycombinator.com/documents.
Society post Industrial Revolution was a mistake.
I second that.

An example: a few weeks ago I shared on my FB profile the Mozilla Foundation petition link for the EU copyright reform[1] and it was removed with this motivation:

"We removed this post because it looks like spam and doesn't follow our Community Standards."

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2018/09/07/eu-copyright-r...
Facebook is blocking users from posting stories about its security breach
Drugmakers Play The Patent Game To Lock In Prices, Block Competitors
Excerpts from the press call transcript [1] by Guy Rosen explaining what lead to this breach being possible:

> The first bug was that, when using the View As function to look at your
profile as another person would, the video uploader shouldn’t have actually
shown up at all. But in a very specific case, on certain types of posts that are
encouraging people to post happy birthday greetings, it did show up.

> The second bug was that this video uploader incorrectly used the single signon
functionally, and it generated an access token that had the permissions of
the Facebook mobile app. And that’s not the way the single sign-on
functionality is intended to be used.

> The third bug was that, when the video uploader showed up as part of View
As -- which it wouldn’t do were it not for that first bug -- and it generated an
access token which is -- again, wouldn’t do, except for that second bug -- it
generated the access token, not for you as the viewer, but for the user that you
are looking up.

> It’s the combination of those three bugs that became a vulnerability. Now,
this was discovered by attackers. Those attackers then, in order to run this
attack, needed not just to find this vulnerability, but they needed to get an
access token and then to pivot on that access token to other accounts and then
look up other users in order to get further access tokens.
This is the vulnerability that, yesterday, on Thursday, we fixed that, and we’re
resetting all of those access tokens to protect security of people’s accounts so
that those access tokens that may have been taken are not usable anymore.
This is what is also causing people to be logged out of Facebook to protect
their accounts.

[1] https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/9-28-press-...
Calm down, people.
Kidding aside, I agree. There's a lot of value in knowing where your food comes from. Not just in terms of health, but also in (for lack of a better word) a spiritual way. You understand your place in the world better.

Congrats on being able to live your life like that.
Marketing pro chiming in here - this is done so the marketing departments of all these companies can claim credit for driving a ton of sales.

The people who are working at these big legacy retailers in 2018 tend to not be very sophisticated about online marketing. I'm being polite with that understatement.

So nobody calls out the marketing departments on this because there is so much political BS going on anyway as everybody is scratching and clawing for their piece of an ever shrinking pie.

I worked in a similar situation and I wanted to stop working with these coupon sites for the obvious reasons you pointed out. I got overruled by higher ups and I later came to learn that my complaints about this practice were a career limiting move.

They just want to be able to take credit for driving a ton of sales even though everybody with half a brain realizes they are not generating new sales. They are simply cannibalizing the business because the vast majority of the time these people would buy at full price anyway if their Google search never turned up a coupon.
It pushes currency holders to hold currency in their pockets to gain interest (sell it later for more), and not put it to economy's circulation.
Nothing wrong with Rails, especially if the team knows it well. Time to develop is the real cost in software most of the time.

If Github wanted to integrate a lot of real-time features, then Elixir + Phoenix can't be beat. Depending on what they replace, a 10x in performance and a fraction of the servers needed is a nice win.
So Facebook is trying to censor a story that they themselves made public just a few hours ago? Guardian thinks a bit too much of itself.