skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A lot of them are newer versions or slightly modified versions of JS.
We had a developer interview here who was an Elixir zealot - and I use that word entirely purposefully. He was very adamant that we needed to rewrite our entire platform in Elixir because it was obviously better.

We ended up not hiring; he refused to touch certain technologies that make up a core part of our stack (Node being the biggest issue), and he was honestly something of a massive tool -- on our take-home thing (takes most developers maybe a few hours) he limited himself to one hour, didn't get it done, wasn't even solving the right problem, and, when he sent in his solution... "It's ok, I know you won't get it, but that's OK."
I realize this is a corner case, but I wonder how dyslexics will perform using a font that looks even less like a letterform — when it is already a struggle to combine several into a word.
> The solution, which will be available next month, is actually the product of a partnership between BlackBerry and Isara Corporation, a company whose mission is to build quantum-safe security solutions. BlackBerry is using Isara’s cryptographic libraries to help sign and protect code as security evolves.

That is extremely unhelpful, Tech Crunch.

Let's take a look at what Isara is researching.

https://www.isara.com/research-publications/

https://www.isara.com/qtesla/

https://www.isara.com/qc-mdpc-kem/

Okay, so the article is specifically talking about digital signatures, so they're almost certainly implementing qTESLA (or a Blackberry-specific variant thereof), which is a lattice-based signature algorithm.

https://qtesla.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/qTESLA_v2.2_08...

https://github.com/qtesla/qTesla

If this does turn out that they're implementing qTESLA (which is committed to the public domain), the headline "races ahead of security surve" will prove to be needlessly sensationalist.
So you mean it first authenticates the pin, and initiates CNP after? Never thought of that as possible.
I think the problem there is that "you know it when you see it" scales poorly. Humans are (usually) reasonably good at handling "you know it when you see it" heuristics, even if there is disagreement on edge cases. But "you know it when you see it" is difficult to implement algorithmically, and handling content at the scale of Facebook requires that you have algorithmic processes in place to automatically handle most of the firehose.
Yes, obviously- but one of our closest allies shorting us on steel supplies in a time of crisis has never happened, while espionage from China-produced tech is happening right now. Which should be our priority?
This picture is a bit rosey, no? Literally the only deadlock I've come across in years has been in go.
My guess as to what's going on here is that what the founder actually wants is for you to be the expert on the deployment environment & related tools to help ship things faster (in the short-run) and fix things when they break. On the other hand, what you actually want is to spend a bunch of time up-front building tools and processes to keep things stable. Somehow what each of you expects and wants from the other was miscommunicated.
Headlines like this are tedious. The obvious question without even reading the article is "for what". Obviously IQ does only matter in some contexts. If you don't see that you might lack some of it.
Yeah, irritatingly. Erlang had this nailed years before. It's a bit too weird syntactically, and doesn't have the full force of Google pushing it, so it gets ignored :(
Seems to me that the more evidence the more likely we will have the definitive statement "planet X exist" which is currently not the case
>They also tied every search request with a government ID according to some reports

Which ones? I wasn't aware it was even live. Are you talking about Bing, which is already operating in China?
GRU close access cyber operation against OPCW [pdf]
I rarely re-read things, at least immediately. If it's something interesting (e.g. a link from HN), I'll bookmark it and hopefully come back to it later, but I frequently never get back to it. Something that forces me to stop skimming & forgetting would be helpful.
.. and of course, the old standard, if its mainstream .. you are replaceable.
There is no single, easy to post about online, number.

Intelligence is not single faceted. Posting and interpreting an entire psych tests worth of numbers is possible, but it is harder to have silly Internet arguments over subtly and nuance around a topic that requires research and education.

The level of discourse talking about "IQ" reaches is the same as discussing a new vehicle by saying it has 300 horse power, and not mentioning if it is front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, or how many wheels the vehicle even has.

Sure if the delta is large enough then it doesn't matter, but there is a serious trees/forest problem that happens with these topics of discussion.
That letter seemed almost content-free, and I'm surprised that they didn't try to make a stronger argument.

I would be interested in knowing what his specific lie under oath was. (Apparently his accusers have been caught in several.)
breadth, quality and equal application of civil rights.

the value of civic participation and honesty

trust
Let’s invert the thesis: closed source crypto is no better than open source crypto. So why on earth would you ever choose closed source components?
two hours of chip decaping and circuit reversing and firmware dumping! :P
Western manufacturers have a tendency to buy from the cheapest supplier, even if it isn't physically possible to manufacture at that price point without cutting massive corners or making profit off of some externality. However, when Chinese manufacturers build their own brand, you'd be surprised how the business culture suddenly creates a different set of incentives.

Trust alignment of incentives, as opposed to hey-they-promised-an-actually-impossible-pricepoint-on-paper.
it begs the "Boltzmann brain" hypothesis - it's astronomically more likely that the neurons of my brain will spontaneous configure to make me see a tree rather than a tree spontaneously forming from a collections of atom.
Not sure where my post went, but I want to think through this some more:

First, we have allegations of Google building an email communications system in North Korea which was assumed to be outside of the each of the spying apparatus of Five Eyes. This system was allegedly designed for the corrupt elements within the US and within the global elite to be able to communicate beyond the reach of the NSA. The "wild conspiracy theory" is that this faction planned to start a nuclear war and would skip off to NK and other designated safe zones (Kazakhstan?) to ride out the war and its aftermath while we all burned. This is also why we got all those media stories about the elite building private bunkers and hidey-holes in New Zealand and other far off places. They all knew or had ideas about what was planned for "regular people."

Next, we have this story about Chinese bugging all these computers. This was how they were going to seize control of key systems at key times in order to take control. They had already done it--the missile warning in Hawaii? Military aircraft losses? Other compromised systems?

We know the Clintons sold nuclear secrets to China. We also know they in general aided and abetted Chinese intelligence operations. We just don't know what they sold out, other than an email server that they allowed spies to log in to in order to read classified information. But that was just the tip of a very large iceberg.

My suspicion is that corrupt elements in our own intelligence agencies did the bugging of all these computers and when they got caught red-handed, it is all "compartmentalize, burn bags, deny, blame shift to China." Truth is, China could not have pulled this off without inside help.

Now we know what all those payments to the Clinton Foundation were for.
Many people in the US don't even get that. Having two weeks vacation is usually waved in peoples faces as an incentive not to leave after a few years of full time employement.
I think maybe a better way to think of "smarts" leading to success is to not look only at IQ, but also attention

An oversimplified example from electrical engineering:

Watts are units of power. Amperage * Voltage = wattage.

Amperage refers to how much current (width of the pipe) and voltage refers to the speed of the current (how fast the water flows).

I think that we focus so much on intelligence testing, but neglect to focus on attention. I think that making use of your smarts, intelligence, or whatever term you want to give it needs a combination of intelligence and attention.

If you are very smart (180 IQ) but can't focus for long, you will be outdone by the woman or man who "only" has 130 IQ but has persistence.

IIRC studies of Nobel winners (a good measure of "smarts" and achievement) confirm my theory - finding that after a certain cutoff, there are diminishing returns for IQ alone in terms of obtaining a nobel.
>No matter how far back you go in any creation theory, something has to come from nothing. Multiverse and simulation theories kick the can down the road but don't answer the question "why is there something instead of nothing?".

The expectation that it's impossible for something to come out of nothing is just a superstition.
What?

1) Quora is a garbage site

2) All those examples minus one (which I'll get to) people started before the age of 22. That's not "late in life."

4) The example of the person who started running marathons at 84 has broken records "for his age group." Big deal, there's like, what, less than ~5 people in their 80s running marathons in the world?

5) Just because a few people can do it (and that hasn't even been demonstrated) doesn't mean everyone can with a little work.
Go doesn’t need a VM. That’s key. You get good concurrency with an easy to deploy binary that can target the major chips.
Don't get married.
How about litteræ pinguis serpentis?
Yes and no. I don't really have a justification for saying this because I was never working in that environment, but I don't think the industry spent enough time thinking about how their games would be played in the future and I suspect that a lot of the "well, the platforms required us to do this" is an excuse.

Yes, there are platform-specific quirks and bugs and stuff to work around, but say you're taking advantage of a console specific hack -- well, is that hack encapsulated? Is that hack mentioned anywhere in your internal documentation? Do you have internal documentation? I think you're mostly right that the thought was, "why would we care about building a game that runs on PS2, we'll just make a new game for that console."

You can do a lot with even really bad source code if the other stuff is good -- if you still have uncompressed assets, or your build process isn't completely reliant on some weird third-party proprietary dev kit. Bear in mind that with this project, they didn't even have access to the source code, and they had to manually decode 3D mesh data. So platform-specific logic was the least of their problems.

I suspect that part of that is that the games industry is just really young. And maybe some people were yelling about archival back then, but there weren't any real tangible consequences. Now that remasters are a big thing, you've got situations like this, where companies want to leverage old IPs and are suddenly realizing that doing that is twice as complicated as it should be.
There's a video on the page where they talk about a test they run on it and that it performed "better."

No idea how much better, or if the test was terrible. At least they're on the right track.
>The whole thing feels like encroachment of some kind of bizarre secular theology into physics. Grandiose and mostly non-falsifiable claims that can't be used to make any specific predictions.

Did you miss the part where they are doing just the opposite of that? The post's title is about scientists "looking for ways to put the hypothesis to the test...
Kasra from CaptainDuckDuck is here.

Getting Started section is aimed for beginners. You surely don't have to disable firewalls entirely. There's a section in the docs outlining the ports that are being used by Captain.
I am concerned by the absence of a dose-response until above a threshold concentration for all substances tested. Perhaps osmotic effects, displacement, and chemical competition for receptors, all of which may be in-vitro effects, may explain the curves. Is the threshold relevant to in-vivo concentrations? No idea.

The reason toxicity is expressed as an LD50 is to account for the dose-response of toxins. If toxins behaved as purported in this experiment, we could use a simple concentration number instead: no effect, no effect, no effect, dead.

Also, it looks like all the substances that showed toxic induction did so around the same concentration. Very suspicious for chemically disparate substances with, presumably, different mechanisms of action.

“How can we all have died at the same time? ...(thinks)...The salmon mousse!”
It's the only thing really holding me back from going more into Rust.

At the same time, there is a sweet spot in popularity, when there is a very good quality/noise ratio in the library ecosystem, I'm not sure though, if rust's there at the moment.
That exists, so we can look at at least one concrete attempt to evaluate the question. [https://github.com/go-gl/mathgl].

And right off the bat, the first thing a person notices is that there are two identical sub-libraries, mgl32 and mgl64, to work around the language's constraint that the core numeric type in the library cannot be parameterized at the language level without performance-losing reflection.
I'd like to see a Chinese version of this...
It was never about hacking. It was about startup things, and I'm very glad that this isn't very prominent anymore.

HN has never been better!
Why is your comment is gray?
This was insanely interesting. Thanks for the link.
their own media hosting is none of the reasons I keep using it :)
After sleeping on it, I realized that my comment was a bit too critical and also missing some context. I didn't mean to be as negative at CORS as I came across, I was more disappointed that something like SRI hasn't been part of the web from the start. Some background:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-addressable_memory

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

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

If we had something like SRI from the start, we could have linked to resources by their hash instead of their URL (more like how IPFS works). There's a name for this concept that eludes me, and also a great video explaining its potential but also difficulties when it comes to security and HTTPS. The short of it is that if we had routers that accepted hashes as well as URLs, then we could ask for a list of all data matching a given hash and download that file (or its pieces) from the closest cache(s). So instead of linking to jQuery at https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.mi... we could just ask the router for the file with SHA2 hash 160a426ff2894252cd7cebbdd6d6b7da8fcd319c65b70468f10b6690c45d02ef and it would return its contents regardless of where it came from, including the browser's own cache if it already had that file (I just used https://hash.online-convert.com/sha256-generator but there would be a better standard for this).

Anyway, hope this helps and sorry for any confusion.
Interesting, in that case, it likely makes a wasabi a good choice for Arq (https://wasabi-support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/1150015...)
Exceedingly unlikely events can nonetheless very important if the outcomes are very negative. Just brushing them off with a "that will never happen" is not a rational response.
Unicode has a lot of characters that look like latin characters upside down:

ƃop ʎzɐʃ ǝɥʇ ɹǝʌo sdɯnɾ xoɟ uʍoɹq ʞɔınb ǝɥʇ

I used the converter I found here:
https://www.fileformat.info/convert/text/upside-down.htm
The comment you are replying to was not saying that.
Totally agree, with the added observation that as a software engineer, I want to be replaceable. If my software can't be divorced from its creator, it can't outlive me. I don't want to be glued to my work inextricably; if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.
What a lovely fusion of the blub paradox and a middlebrow dismissal.
By assuming that it's a normal distribution.
To throw a match onto the powder keg:

Does the reputation of the university have any bearing on the quality of the research? Sounds like the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy to me.
>Since we even ask ourselves "Are we a limited simulation artifact, or a real thinking person?" the answer is right there in the question.

That's a false dichotomy. Why couldn't a simulation include "thinking" and such "self-doubt"?
I wrote a PostScript font like that once. You just have to use the "setcharwidth" operator instead of the "setcachedevice" operator in your font's BuildChar or BuildGlyph procedure, so your glyphs don't end up getting cached.

Here's an even more dynamic (albeit less efficient) PostScript font I made for NeWS that forks off a light weight process to draw each character in the background.

It actually creates a separate canvas (window) for every character with a lightweight input event manager process listening for mouse events that lets you slide each character around the screen by dragging with the middle mouse button.

Some of the characters are "CycleItem" widgets you can click on with the left button to cycle between different glyphs, and even "SliderItem" sliders and "TextItem" input fields!

Because why should't you be able to create fully interactive editable user interfaces just by drawing text?

https://donhopkins.com/home/code/ifont.ps.txt
I also have a KEYone, got it a few months ago. When I was looking to upgrade and saw it on my provider's site I was like, "holy crap, Android with a hardware keyboard finally exists?"

Really, I didn't even care that it was Blackberry, I've been getting so tired of the software keyboards that I couldn't even consider the others once I saw it. And for me, it was definitely worth it. Now I can actually touch-type again without having to pause between words to check I didn't mis-type anything - I can feel it, just like missing a key on a regular keyboard.
>An actual universe contains vastly more computational power than all simulated universes with that universe. Which means a thinking being is vastly more likely to be in the real universe.

Who said thinking requires that much power?
QNX will let them transition into a car company

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2018/10/01/bl...
Uh I don't think vms or containers are cluster management in itself. They are just technologies. What you use to orchestrate them is entirely different, and yes that has changed over the years many times.
> even with that amount of work this recreation ended up having problems with collision detection that changed the entire feel of the game.

You know, I did 100% minus (non-required) relics on all three games, and I didn't really feel like it was any different. Sure I didn't compare them side-by-side, and sure I did explicitly ignore the speedrunning part of the games where minor differences would be easier to notice.

But it felt like the same games to me...
These new SAFEs and convertible notes avoid equity dilution from note-stacking
And it's the same with beginnings and endings. It seems to us humans that everything begins and ends. But there's not a single reason why that is true on universal scales.
Great, this means humans are going to Mars now.
I think this thread is a nice reminder that it's really helpful to use /s when you're using sarcasm in written form.
It's not Apple's job to enforce the GDPR on apps in it's app store
Bird Zero: Scooter Designed by Bird
This reminds a lot of the hype around traffic signs and the font "Clearview" being better for driving. The data collected was the legibility of old signs vs new signs but never accounted for the control of replacing the worn/faded signs with new signs using the old font, or other types of signs.

Turns out it was simply replacement of old signs, and that Clearview actually had reduced legibility in negative-contrast (black on white, instead of white on green).

I'd bet that research would show something that the benefits of this come with cons.
A Nobel Prize-winning physicist sold his medal for $765,000 to pay medical bills
Crash Bandicoot was written mainly in GOOL, a custom to Naughty Dog lisp variant.

The game would have had to be rewritten anyway almost certainly.
Tesla Q3 Vehicle Safety Report
Planets Found to Be Larger Than the Disks They Come From
Why are all the "m" gray?
Google Assistant now helps you compare ride-hailing prices and summon a car
>But it does not go the other way simulations of a life form will always be less efficient than the least complex lifeforms in a parent universe.

That doesn't follow logically.

It's perfectly fine to be able to simulate life forms MORE efficient than the one's in your universe.
No connection with the band.
So $60K USD isn't an expensive car, because an average-priced $37K USD car is nearly $60K in AUD? ...what?

Also, even the average new car price being $37K USD seems high to me, given the preponderance of sub-$20K cars I actually see on the road (Civics and Corollas). I could certainly be out of touch in the opposite direction, but I wonder if that's a mean or median average, and whether it includes vehicles that are typically more expensive like SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks.
It seems plausible, studies have shown that students who handwrite notes retain more information than students that type notes. The reason for this is because handwriting is slower than typing, so your mind spends more time thinking about what you're writing, vs just being a stenographer that writes everything the professor says, giving no thought to whether it's important or not. I can't speak to the validity of Sans Forgetica, but on the surface it at least makes sense.

https://www.npr.org/2016/04/17/474525392/attention-students-...
[2017]

I didn't know about this. Unbelievable. I don't want any of this shit. How about we let browsers browse?
Iterative Optimization on Hot Paths in Go Apps
I thought that TypeScript transpiles to JavaScript rather than compiles.
That isn't what I said - I said if it does benefit more people. If it doesn't, then my statement doesn't follow.

People always act like the sky is falling. Minimum wages were higher in terms of actual value many years ago and the world didn't end then and it won't end now.
> Programming with threads is hard - it's hard to synchronize access to data structures without causing deadlocks; it's hard to reason about multiple threads accessing the same data, it's hard to choose the right locking granularity, etc.

That's a list of problems that are specific to mutable state that is shared among threads.

As the old saying goes, "If it hurts, don't do it."

We've had ways of doing multithreaded code that are easier to reason about for decades. They really do work quite well. Why people doggedly insist on pretending they don't exist is a perennial mystery to me. Even if your programming language wasn't kind enough to include a better concurrency model in its standard library, there are always third-party libraries.

I realize my experience isn't universal, but, personally, I've discovered that there's precisely one scenario where I ever need to resort to code that involves mutexes: When the business requirements and the performance profiler have conspired to kidnap my children and hold them for ransom.
Relating to somebody has two parts: understanding them and empathizing with them. The empathizing part is largely built on feeling similar to them, which could be hard with a big IQ difference.