skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Can you blame them? I mean come on, it is called a Warthog, it looks like one and has the unexpectedly unpleasant personality of one. Adorable :)
Then perhaps they should recognize Taiwan and pledge to protect them. This current strategy of appeasement will only work for so long, airpower or not.
Leaked password hashes
I don't agree. The combined rate for 25-55 year shows every year from 1988 to 2008 was above the rate from 2008-2016.

Now, if the current trend continues for 5-10 years then we might recover. But, based on historical trends 2018 is likely a peak right before a recession vs the new normal.
The problem is not bad engineering- its bad project management. As in, project management that was unable to stand up to feature creep and additional demands - saying no.

We in germany have an airport that is in a similar state of affairs, due to late additional wishes. Huge projects need waterfall, else..
What an incredible detailed read covering many aspects of what potentialy will be mankinds greatest endeavour. And if, it can potentialy be happening in the mid-near future! Reading this really gets your sci-fi mind going. Thanks for sharing!
It's the norm for new instances of categories which are nearing the end of their viability because costs of protecting them against the current threat environment dwarfs utility; the F-35 also fell victim to a flawed strategy to mitigate the costs inherent to that situation by a common project for many different roles.
But that's not what happens.

I recommend reading "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" by Ruby Payne. It's a really insightful book on the cycle of poverty and the incentives at work... anti-social punishment really isn't part of it.
> has $.x; # a ro accessor

> has $.y is rw; # a rw mutator

Opinion: I don't like the asymmetry of that, although I do understand that having to write "is ro" too, would make the language slightly more verbose.

Python has something similar with the syntax for properties; don't like that syntax too, for the same reason (asymmetry).

E.g.: The 2nd code example in the question here -

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17330160/how-does-the-pr...

- the one that uses

@x.setter

I'm not a language designer or close to it, though, just saying.
Supercharged crime-scene DNA analysis sparks privacy concerns
After the 2016 election, during which I spent an inordinate time online, constantly searching for some 'new' piece of information like a smoker lighting up a cigarette before the last one had finished burning, I realized that I was having a harder time than usual getting through the books I was reading. The effect was two-fold: not only was I spending more time online, I was fragmenting my attention; when I sat down to read a book, I found my brain was pausing for interruptions. I was training myself to self-interrupt. The book, "The Distracted Mind" goes deep into the science behind this phenomena, and is really worth checking out.
My grandma is 82, so somewhere between 38 and 82 years.
Scientifically speaking ;-)
So what's the alternative? Even if we roll our own software we still utilize ISP lines.
> but this kind of subgroup analysis also runs into the multiple comparisons problem. If you test all kinds of subgroups (or just do a lot of any kind of tests), chances are good that you will run into false positives.

As I said, the issue is statistics based "knowledge". What you just said just continues down that path, so of course it does not solve the problem, actually makes it worse because now we throw more randomness at randomness and get random matches - but still not one bit more understanding.
> the promotion process and the employee dynamic at Google

I'm (apparently) not Google-quality but I can tell you for sure that "out here" everybody else is adopting the same tactics, and it's shifting from "not getting promoted" to "not keeping your job". And then they complain that there's a shortage of "talent".
wow that's pretty alarming to think I'm not seeing all the customer reviews.
Nope, and although that suggests that $150 would be an overestimate (if we disregard the huge portion of taxes that are earmarked for social security, individual income tax contributes 80% of government revenue), this is countered by 1. the fact that the $1 trillion price tag is a low-ball estimate, 2. the fact that the tax base was 50 million fewer 30 years ago, and 3. the unlikelihood that the price tag is adjusting for inflation, which would increase the real value of contributions over the past 30 years (according to CPI, prices in 2017 were 87% higher than prices in 1990).
There would be pain and suffering in the space belt. There would also be colonies on Mars and a thriving space industry. I'll take that future please.
Yes it is, for American weapons systems at least. And it has been so for many decades now. It's extremely common for the first version of a new weapons system to have major (or even disastrous) flaws that only get ironed out in later revisions at great expense.

Here's one example. Today's median American soldier's primary weapon is the M4 carbine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine), which by all accounts is a solid piece of kit that has acquitted itself well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the M4 is the end of a long line of revisions made to an older weapon, the M16 rifle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle), which first rolled out during the Vietnam War. And the first version of the M16 was so bad it got a lot of soldiers killed.

See, rifles have a lot of moving parts, which typically means they have to be well-maintained -- periodically stripped down into parts, and then all the parts individually cleaned and lubed -- or else they start to malfunction. Maintaining their weapon was a standard part of a soldier's job; not something anyone enjoyed doing, but something they did because they didn't want their rifle to fail on them in combat.

But Colt, the makers of the M16, advertised it as a revolution in small arms -- a "self-cleaning" rifle that used Space Age materials to remove the need for all that fussy work. And so, when the Defense Department rolled out the M16 to the troops in Vietnam, it didn't bother to issue any of the usual cleaning tools along with them.

Which meant that a lot of soldiers found themselves in an awkward spot when it turned out that Colt's testing processes for the "self-cleaning" M16 hadn't really accounted for the rough jungle conditions of Vietnam. M16s started jamming all over, frequently so seriously that the entire weapon was rendered useless; and even if the soldiers carrying them had wanted to start cleaning them to try and prevent those jams, they lacked the tools they'd need to do so. So soldiers started getting killed, shot down in battle while frantically struggling to un-jam their bricked rifles.

The situation got so bad that it prompted a Congressional investigation, which found a host of reliability problems with the M16. Colt went back to work and created a revised version, the M16A1, which mostly resolved those issues. The M16A1, notably, was not advertised as self-cleaning. And when it finally rolled out, it came not only with a set of cleaning tools, but with a comic book-style manual by the famous comic artist Will Eisner explaining exactly how to use them (which you can read here: http://www.astrotx.com/M-16A1%20Rifle.pdf).

And then there were even more revisions developed; the M16 remained the Army's standard rifle through the early 2000s. And then it was replaced by the M4, which was just a shorter, lighter, even more further developed M16. So eventually the government was able to throw enough money at a terrible weapon to turn it into a decent one.

It's a shame so many grunts had to die along the way, of course. But hey, Colt got paid twice! You know?
>Someone who is publicly altruistic, is likely to gain compliments and plaudits from others.

I suspect this is also the basis of the behavior of criticizing "virtue-signaling". In both cases, the punisher wants to be sure that the goodie-two-shoes doesn't get to benefit from others recognizing them.
yeah, that's the kissinger line of thought. "realism". except it doesn't hold up to reality, at least not in the modern or even the premodern era.

iceland has no military, and no real political or economic significance in the world. it has no genuine allies to whom it is worthwhile. why doesn't anyone/everyone invade them? nobody would risk a major war over them. they're what could amount to a strategically useful port. they might have some minerals or something. it wouldn't even be hard.

the answer is that nobody cares to. just as you don't bother taking a free cupcake at a catered event because you're not hungry, the world's governments do not necessarily increase their own power on the international stage with perfect game-theory play.

so, "air superiority is important for power projection", sure. if you were playing perfect game-theory and optimizing your country's power to the very limit of what is theoretically possible, you'd always buy the best air superiority solution. except we don't really see anyone else doing that. russia doesn't, and china doesn't. why? the answer is that they are sated with their current solution, even if it isn't the maximum possible solution. they're not interested in exerting the effort that it would take to build something like the f-35 because they recognize that it wouldn't improve their state's power enough that it would enable them to do anything new, nor is doing anything new such a big concern given that their main security issues are internal rather than external.

true geopolitical "realism" is realizing that the idea of 100% pervasive and cynical power maximization is an artifact of the american mind. countries are far more benign than kissinger ever expected.
I disagree; I found the Iliad to be quite boring, either with Achilles not fighting due to the slave girl, or Achilles defiling the body of Patroclus for far to long.

I didn't know the material when I read these, and I was looking for the sack of Troy. I found it in Virgil, and it was well paced.
"there's obviously immense value in books and long-form reads"

Is there? Or are you just saying that because it's expected and you'd feel embarrassed if you said otherwise?

Humans are pattern matchers, what if we see patterns more easily from many examples, rather than one? What if we extract patterns more easily seeing them from many points of view instead of just one author?

Is a neural network better trained on one high detail photo, or a dataset of many photos?
Their goals were not to create the most academically sound type system. They were focused on engineering challenges. Read the comments here ti understand the authors' priorities and obstacles.
Is there any timeline example? Like http://visjs.org/timeline_examples.html
In some ways, the point of war is to burn resources for no reason. Solving the crisis of overproduction. So if we can do it with less war, maybe that's a step in the right direction.
9 Small Cap Cryptocurrencies to Watch in 2019
New Mars rover gets high-tech paint job for harsh conditions on Mars
I wonder how much of the popularity is based on availability. Like the fact that grey cars are the most popular, and twice when buying a car, they only had the grey available - but I would prefer blue. Salesmen said they only carry grey because they are more popular.
Space Shuttle design was very good, overall. Do you mean SLS?
Does any of that R&D get shared publicly or is it one of those things where the talent that designed it eventually goes on to different companies and the research spreads that way?
There are literally hundreds of developers in FAANG companies putting down payments a lot more than 200k in the Bay Area. The median compensation including RSUs is over 400k. If you're in a critical org your RSUs can be an order of magnitude more than that.
If you don't like it, vote for lower taxes.

Also, to claim this program has produced nothing of value is an outright bold-faced lie. The US has received over 300 planes from this project.
The F-35 is at over 100,000 flight hours[1], and the Osprey is at around 400,000. The Osprey hit 100k hours in 2001[2], by which point it had 6 crashes and 34 deaths, most of which were in the United States [3]. The V-22 deaths have been mostly passengers, so technically it's not a fair comparison since the F-35 only seats one. However, this was the first F-35 crash and it has had zero deaths, making the number of people on the plane a moot point.

[1]: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lockheed-martin-f-35s-surpas...

[2]: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/123...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involv...
It is really needed to ensure that NASA still exists as a funded agency.
Look, I don't want to be a Europe apologist because the continent does have it's problems, but having moved just to Stockholm, the startup scene here seems to be very much hitting its stride.

There have been relatively big exits in the past five years, there's more money than ever in the ecosystem and people seem to be willing to do more risky ventures than before.

I've got a friend in Berlin in the startup industry who's very bullish in their local ecosystem as well. Neither of these places is Silicon Valley nor will they ever be, but they're both doing pretty ok and you can easily start a company here and have it be pretty successful, even globally.
> In your experience do they drive differently than any other car on the road?

For sure. They drive like the most conservative driver you'll meet, to the point of being a bit dangerous. They come to a full stop at every stop sign, which here in California is unexpected, and unexpected means dangerous. They also slam on their brakes a lot, without regard to how far away the person behind them is (as opposed to when I have to slam on the brakes, I check the rear view and if possible cut it a little closer to the car in front if the car behind is really close).

They putter out of stop lights, which is mostly just annoying, and they generally follow the speed limits, even on roads where all the rest of the traffic is typically 10mph over.

To be fair, they are doing what in theory is much safer, but since they don't act like a human, it makes them unpredictable.

> If a vehicle around you was powered by Waymo with no markings stating as much would you know (ignoring the fact of an empty driver's seat)?

Well the massive LIDAR unit on top is a big giveaway. :) Actually that's the biggest giveaway. The cars are unmarked otherwise, and there is always a driver in the seat. They just may not have their hands on the wheel, but that's hard to tell from outside. And of course all of the aforementioned strange driving habits.
I see someone else has already brought the quote from Dwight D Eisenhower, but I would like to hoist a quote of my own from a previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18179654

Since WW2, the question "if this doesn't work, am I or someone I know going to get killed?" has been false for the people designing, organising, funding and procuring these systems.
Which why the parent qualified "for a functioning society".
1. If these structures take 100 bytes, they will span 2-3 cache lines. You access an item, CPU caches these 2-3 lines. If shortly after that you access the neighbor one because your algorithm walked the tree/graph pointers and come to a neighbor item, you save some RAM latency. If these items are 1MB/each the win will be very small, but for small structures the performance difference can be huge.

2. MMUs in modern CPUs have prefetcher silicon in it. If the CPU detects you’re doing something resembling sequential access, it will prefetch more cache lines after that.

3. Modern CPUs also have TLBs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_lookaside_buffer Accessing data within the same page (platform-specific, on Windows often 4kb) is faster that accessing random locations because the virtual address->physical address mapping for that page will be in the cache.

4. Last but not least, with small arenas per tree/graph memory allocations and deallocations will be faster than even jemalloc, from the point of view of C runtime you’ll only call malloc/free once per graph, not once per item.

Look at the data in my repository: https://github.com/Const-me/CollectionMicrobench As you see, adding my custom allocator to these standard C++ collections improved performance substantially.

Update: also, with 1 arena per tree, it becomes orders of magnitude faster to copy the tree. You just memcpy and then sequentially walk through the arena adjusting the pointers. Or combine both in a single step.
That's an interesting theory, that there's a foreign disinformation campaign smearing the program, because they don't want it fielded against them.

I'd argue against that theory though, on the grounds that a corrupt/greedy congress, military and defense contractor network will do more against the country than our opponents ever will. Remember that time we bankrupted the USSR in an arms race? This time we're doing it to ourselves.

So if anything, I think the flag waving F35 program supporters are both the defense contractors (obviously) but also all the foreign states that would like us bankrupt and saddled with decreased air power in three armed services. It's genius.
They recently added terminal to RStudio. I'm so happy not switching between two app Iterm2 and RStudio.
>premature with the unexpected turn into asymmetric warfare

This boggles the mind. The US military have had trouble facing asymmetrical opponents close to continually since the Vietnam war. It's not like they haven't had time to see it coming.

I think the embarrassment that was the Millennium Challenge war game[0] showed just how out of touch the top brass is.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
It was worse than that. The sidewinder worked fairly well, but the other missiles took 4 seconds to arm, so got many US pilots killed. Top Gun was created because the US was in a draw with the Soviet-advised N. Vietnamese air force.
I guess my argument wasn’t clear, if that’s your response. Nobody’s saying that “if a shoe costs more, it must be higher quality”. Give me a little credit, I’m not quite that stupid.
There's a lot of orders of magnitude between a light-polluted night and even an overcast day. Your really-quite-good eyes make the difference look much smaller than it really is.
Using the Navy as an example since their aircraft fleet is somewhat more simplistic than the AF, historically there were a lot of different airframes on carriers. The iconic 80s cold war fleet was a mix of the following:

* F-4 - older multirole fighter, SEAD/STRIKE/CAS

* F/A-18 (A/B/C/D aka legacy hornet) - replacement multirole

* F-14 - interceptor

* A-4 - strike, SEAD etc

* A-7 - strike, SEAD etc

* A-6 - strike, CAS

* EA-6 (significantly different from the A-6) - ELINT/EWAR

* E-2 - AWACS

* C-2 - COD

* S-3 - Anti submarine, Tanker

These were pretty much all replaced in the mid 90s leaving the following:

* F/A-18 (E/F, basically a different airframe) - multirole fighter, SEAD/STRIKE/CAS and Tanker

* EA-18G (basically the same airframe as the E/F) - EWAR/SEAD while retaining marginal A2A capability

* E-2 - AWACS

* C-2 - COD

That's a pretty drastic reduction in airframes to manage so it's understandable why those managing them want to try to maintain consolidation to an extent. Now whether this is the best way of going about it is an open question. The F-18 platform has shown that it's possible but it's also much more mature, having had many decades to work out the bugs. There's also the question of how they managed to talk the navy into a single engine platform but that's a rant for another day...

Note: the first list was never all deployed at the same time on the same carrier AFAIK. They travel as squadrons between carriers depending on the carriers mission. The second gets deployed together regularly as they comprise the bare minimum for an operational air wing.
I mean Soyuz-FG did just fail and not kill its occupants, so good on that team!
> Actual bacteria in actual bottles grow exponentially only for a brief period

Exactly. Because the resources are limited. Then look at graph of the total amount of energy that humanity uses:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/node/1347

Is that sustainable? The gedanken experiment is exactly to demonstrate unsustainbility of “permanent growth” on which our politicians and economists depend on, nothing more.

The question was: when will the single “bacteria” stop thinking “there’s so much more space to grow”? At 11:59? At 11:58 when there’s 3/4ths of the bottle still empty? Etc.
Thank you for sharing this beautiful quote.
200 years ago, 95% or more of the population was employed as farmers. Today, it's less than 3%. Somehow, we survived.
It is boring to you, today.

It may not be boring for your future employer or future DEA investigator or future parallel-constructed investigation case agent in case you have a funny name or non judeochristian religion or your cousin is an environmental activist.

All easily searchable, in a convenient hyperlinked online dossier, forever.

> If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. Cardinal Richelieu
Chances DNA can be used to find your family? Sixty percent and rising
But I believe there are 6 people on the station. Is there enough capacity for all of them?
I'm kind of baffled by the number of people here defending this. I can only imagine that Americans have an emotional investment in their military that inclines them to overlook waste that they would never tolerate in any other area.
>if said tools and research are bunk

They aren't though. Also, it's a bit rich to blame economists when all they do is advise politicians who very often throw all the advice out the window.
To the HN mods: the actual title of this article is “How to level up your organization's security expertise”, but it has been editorialized in this submission.
> There are benefits to that R&D.

For Lockheed Martin. Are they obligated to publish their R&D findings for the Pentagon or anyone else?
We have millions of unemployed people, and much work that needs to be done (Teaching, childcare, elderly care, infrastructure maintenance, construction, etc.)

Why aren't they doing it? Could it be because we don't optimize for 'overall value created'?
The alternative, which I find really attractive is apparently the model that WhatsApp used. It was free for at least a year, after which time, one was asked to pay a small fee. If you use it for a year, you are a finding value, and will most likely convert. Either charge a lifetime or yearly fee.
From Martin Sustrik a-la ZeroMQ.
I don't know the answer, but the question works equally well flipped around. If they have it, why not release it? Hiding the information to ward of malicious actors and AWS competitors is security by obscurity, and not reliable. It's nearly impossible to hide a giant data center, so a dedicated person can track most of them down anyway.

I'd be more sympathetic if Amazon weren't holding a competition to see which city would give them the biggest tax breaks. It's only fair that everybody sees what other deals they're getting.
The title is useful and the bump in pay makes vacation payouts worth more. Also, if you want to go back, you get to go back at the higher title at a minimum.
Agreed. All ‘commons’-style games are inherently iterative to infinity from the point of view of most actors, and that has game-theoretic implications that aren’t really present in a lab, to say nothing of the fact that communication is a constant backdrop for all of them in the real world.
If his total comp was $300k, which is normal for a senior google dev, it's entirely possible to save $100k per year, even if the rent is $3.5k/mo.