skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The reason we use open source is for the freedom of it, we can use a library of a permissive license, redistribute and reuse the code elsewhere in the organization without worry. Without contacting the vendor.

We’re not shooting future us in the foot.

It’s far more about function and redistribution than ROI. It’s about peace of mind. It’s about not having to worry about a vendor revoking a license down the road.

I think you are entirely missing the point and values of “Free Software” vs open source.
Open ended questions is how you understand their underlying needs.

"What are your pain points" and "so why is that an issue" can give you incredible insight just by listening. They should be doing 90 percent of the talking. honestly playing dumb is powerful.

Engineers tend to want to be right and give answers which make them terrible sales people.
Yes, this is the sense of "truly free" that leads to people in the U.S. being able to marry children, not having healthcare taken care of etc. That's a true 'freedom' to go bankrupt, but am not sure that's a 'freedom' many actually want.
Oh, that one looks neat. I've got another Ali module with integrated Bluetooth for use in my study room. Theoretically the parts have decent specs, but the module has a high noise level and the speaker makes a loud popping sound with a lot of movement on power on :(

Maybe I'll replace it with the amp you linked :)
That people are pushing the RPi as a good alternative to a desktop is scary. The thing is a closed source mess with a single arm core hanging off a gpu.

A beagle bone black with the XINU book is an amazing introduction to computers because you start from nothing and have a working system by the end of it.
China is exporting the Great Firewall
All of the above is positive, in my opinion. As long as the Starlink sats somehow, eventually, fall out of corporate hands. I mean, such infinite power...
Well, that's a way of being remembered forever while also having other employees quit in solidarity.

(Edit into this dying thread: reports of the walkout in Google Dublin: https://twitter.com/evelyn_orourke/status/105795687016449228... )
Time magazine, which doesn't exactly seem to be a bastion of conservatism, had an article about this http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/ , which had more hard-facts than anyone else I've seen, but the conclusion was that most of the claims made by the wage gap supporters are cherrypicked and false. Although, if Google specifically has a problem with it, I'd definitely be willing to listen. If they are protecting people like Rubin, it does seem plausible that other things could be going on.
Those look intriguing. I would like to hear them. One of the things I’ve lamented as time and technology march on is how high fi seems to have lost it’s mainstream appeal. It seems like when I was growing up there was a wide continuum of commodity grade to mid grade to prosumer to high end gear available. There was always ridiculous high end stuff but even companies like Sony pioneer and technics had a higher end line. Then there were the smaller companies like adcom, carver, McIntosh, etc that had a reasonably large product line.
Now it seems that it’s just commodity or niche boutique gear. Most of those companies still exist, but with a far smaller product assortment or they were absorbed into an audio conglomerate like harmann and badge engineer from some other product line.
I'm pretty sure firing employees because they are involved in a "concerted activity" to improve their working conditions violates US law.

It would be legal to "replace" them with new employees, but that's not practical (or warranted) for a one-day walkout.
I don't get what "Browser Publishers" have to do with Brave taking the web by storm. To me it seems obvious, that as soon as a new medium arises and gets at least some popularity, everyone who is interested in online advertising will spend some money on having a spot there as well. It's not related to the sheer awesomeness of the scheme/solution but rather having a chance of getting another pair of eyeballs somewhere.
Do the eyewitness accounts of your female peers and friends not count as evidence?
Yeah, my brother worked in a fairly antiquated recording studio about 10 years ago, and they had 24-bit 96kHz ADCs right next to the microphones, with digital lines carrying the sound data to be recorded onto a computer. All sound processing was performed in this format, with the final mix then being down-sampled to CD format.

This is like when people complain that FM always sounds so much better than the newfangled digital radio, without realising that the station signal was transferred to the transmission stations in digital form, often at lower bit-rate than the newfangled digital radio.

People like the nice familiar sound of low quality audio. Lots of audio equipment deliberately adulterates the sound to "make it sound better".
5 Must Have Office Gadgets for Entrepreneurs in 2019 (and Beyond)
Any tips on how to find an AWS contractor who can do this?
Age minus 12 years, perhaps? To my mind, someone who spent the first 16 years of their life in Ruritania, say, will remain a Ruritanian forever, though obviously there are contexts in which "Elbonian" would be taken to mean a "person travelling with an Elbonian passport" rather than someone who was brought up in Elbonia.
I feel if anyone has enough employees with similar roles, at similar levels to pull together this kind of data, it's a big company like Google
I would buy account on such service, and I bet I know a few more guys that would pay for such information with details and human reviews.
The first point is often totally wrong. I worked in a place where the sales team sold the product hard before much of it was built and before it was reliable.

It turned out to be way harder to build what customers actually wanted than anyone knew ahead of time. Nobody could foresee it. The only way we could have known we were egregiously over-promising in the sales pitches was to just actually start building it first, see how hard it would be and what the unexpected sources of engineering difficulty would be, and then scope our sales vision or pitches accordingly.

That particular product team failed badly and the product line was closed down. We started selling before building, and only later realized that when you do that, you’re talking out of your ass and you are doing a huge disservice to prospective clients who buy into your sales pitch just to be let down later when you cannot execute on the implementation for reasons that could have been known if only you had invested in building things first.

The same issue can also play out with costs: maybe you technically can build what you sold, but because you over-promised in the sales pitches, you end up in a situation where to be able to offer what was actually sold, the engineering costs force it to be intrinsically unprofitable, while had you known the cost projections from building first, you might have been able to scope the sales pitch to only a profitable set of features.

It’s way easier to throw away / rebuild something later when sales feedback indicates you should pivot than it is to build nothing at all, over-promise, and try to keep clients who end up unhappy that you misled them.

The cost of building first so you have adequate information about what it would require to profitably support selling a certain product or feature set is known as _investment_.
Make yourself more efficient and productive
Uhm, why is this bad?

There are two big problems. If someone has lived without X for long enough they've probably found workarounds for living without X so that just adding X might not be that valuable to them or at least it might be hard to convince them how valuable it is to have X. The second is you often greatly underestimate how much work it is to get to the point where you have a good enough clone to even have something to add X to. And while you're busy working on your clone the original company might get around to adding X and thus undermining your whole business.

Haven't we all seen examples of companies that do the same stuff as other companies but better and succeed?

Sure, but they're often better in a whole category of ways (price or speed or ease of use etc.) and not just a clone of an existing product with X added.
The salient difference is that outages are measurable.

In contrast, "harassment" is an extremely controversial subject that nobody agrees upon, for example, in some legislations,
calling a person with XY chromosomes "him" rather than "her" is considered a hate crime, a dramatic change from labelling conventions of just a few years ago. Indeed what constitutes harassment is a major point of contention between different parts of the political spectrum, and a core part of the culture wars.

In addition, harassment is easily lied about. Indeed, what downsides are there for false harassment claims?

If I was a Google competitor, and Machiavellian in moral outlook, I'd feed those flames to weaken Google, and hope that nobody did it to my organisation.

Divide et Impera!
reCAPTCHA can go frick off into a hole. I've stopped using all websites that use reCaptcha because it takes me sometimes 10 minutes to login to them. I also don't feel right providing free data so Google can help a military drone bomb children on busses one day.

I miss old captchas.
Eyewitness evidence is the least reliable kind of evidence there is.
Chinese Hoax
Wouldn't it be easier to create an algorithm for compensation which clearly didn't involve gender (i.e. no deep learning stuff). Something which boils down to base salary + experience factor + google service factor.

Honestly, I can imagine that being less troublesome even outside of attempting to be fair an equitable regardless of race / gender / sexual orientation.
https://twitter.com/GoogleWalkout/status/1057804203895283712

^ Might be a better source article.
They can't kill CentOS. It was an independent project for a long time, and it can go back to being independent. Worst thing they can do is delay the next release and force them to change their name.
The GPL has more than run its course and it’s time to move on. Many people recognise that, and that’s what we’re seeing.
Neural Network 3D Simulation (2016)
These people should be fired, not because they want equal pay but because they refuse to do the job they were hired to do.

Different genders deserve equal pay, people of different races deserve equal pay, people with various disabilities deserve equal pay.

HOWEVER, you want to walk out of work? You should be terminated. If I walked out of work, I would be fired. If I organized several people to walk out of work with me, we would be fired. This is the case at my current job and at every single job I've ever had.

You don't change things by striking, in my book this is effectively corporate terrorism "hey we have demands, if you don't meet them we aren't working!" If someone strikes, you can never trust that employee again. Ever. You can not count on that employee in any situation because they've demonstrated that they will happily stop working when it serves their desires.

What you do is you make the issue publicly known, you do it in a positive way, you do it in a polite way. You ask for change and if change won't be given, you find an employer that will even if that means moving or starting your own business.

I'm all for equal rights, I'm all for equal pay, I'm not for people holding businesses hostage by refusing to do the job they were paid to do.
Sonos, d&m heos and Yamaha's multiroom iirc do half of that and yes, latency must be tightly controlled. I imagine with sources also being 802.11 it'd be much harder to keep it in reins.
> there's no real process in place for situations of misconduct in the office.

There shouldn't be a "process" set by Google when it comes to sexual harassment, employees should be able to sue, that's the process,sexual harassment is a crime, they can't sue because Google force them into arbitration, which should be illegal for an employer to do that to an employee IMHO. this is a denial of justice.
Why would you want to see actual user password if you can not see it?

If you see a password you can leak it by screwing up in numbers of ways. If you never see a password you just can't leak it.

E.g. Twitter recently discovered that they were storing passwords in plaintext in logs, GitHub had similar issue.

Take a look here: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/05/twitt...

Of course, a hash that you will recive from client should be treated as a normal password including all good practices.
I agree with tinyvm and I agree with your replies, it all should be part of the wisdom.

I have the honor of making all three mistakes you mention and my project didn't end up well :).
> This License Means More Open Source Code

You're going to get flak for this because you're factually incorrect. The SSPL is not an open source license. It might as well contain a clause that says "Thou shall not compete with MongoDB." As far as I can tell it was submitted to the OSI in bad faith.
No. If you are still a crybaby, you should not pursue the profession. Weak and entitled people have no position at the top. Your competitor will otherwise eliminate you.

If you cannot solve the issue a bit of harassment without creating a drama, you cannot rise to the top where the world is even more cruel. Emotionally weak people have no place. If you cannot give favors or something when other are, no one will pick you.

If someone is the CEO of a multi billion crop, and have 10 people on who could become the manager or VP, 5 are men 5 are women with everything being equal, who do they give the seat? The one who gives them a favor.
Those two lines of logic don't go together. If in your opinion it's a big mistake to believe they're rational, you are saying they're not being rational. There's no neutrality there.

You can assume that there is unknown information being acted upon. Unless there's proof otherwise that the protest is lying you infact can and should assume it's authenticity. Or at the least not be involved without clear knowledge.
> Can't you use Javascript to implement challenge-response authentication

> 1. Preventing interception of passwords on the wire

It can, but challenge-response that isn't PKI based requires the remote side to have the secret stored or the local side to know how to generate the value that is stored instead, which goes against other recommended practise (with PKI the remote side can store the public key and ask for something to be signed with the private key).

Protecting passwords on the wire is better done with good encryption and key exchange protocols - in the case of web-based systems that is provided by HTTPS assuming it is well configured.

> 2. Allowing a tunable "difficulty" parameter which makes brute-force attacks cost ineffective

Could you give an example of that? If you are tuning difficulty based on the computation power of the other side, surely the other side could lie about being low powered and get an easier challenge?

> 3. Requiring that brute-force attackers either run a Javascript interpreter (dangerous, because...)

A knowledgable attacker doing this would be safe: they'd make sure the interpreter was properly sandboxed (to avoid reverse hacking) and given execution resource limits (to avoid resource waste). Then if the site/app is important enough that they really want in, they modify their approach if the resource limits are hit.

> or rewrite their brute-forcer each time the JS-driven network communication channel is altered

If your method is only used by you (and you aren't a Google or similar so you are big enough to be a juicy target on your own) and you enter into this arms race you might find it takes so much resource that it gets in the way of your other work. You are only you, the attackers are legion: put one off and another will come along later. Also there is the danger in rolling your own scheme that you make a naive mistake rendering it far less useful (potentially negatively useful: helpful to the attacker!) than your intention.

If the method is more globally used then it is worth the attackers being more persistent.

> It seems to me that having a client-and-server protocol beyond just "POST this data here" can be more secure than sending a password to the server for verification.

It can, though often only against simple fully automated attacks. Cleverer automated attacks may still succeed, as may more manual ones, and targetted manual attacks will win by inspection & replication.

Or they get in through an XSS, injection, or session hijacking bug elsewhere (bypassing the authentication mechanisms completely) that you missed because you spent so much time writing an evolving custom authentication mechanism.
Geekbench: You have to pay Apple $2799 for a laptop that can match an iPad Pro
The linked page seems to not contain the words 'compute' or 'latency'

Is there a better link for the title or a better title for the link?
I don't see such a claim on the changelog. Am I missing it?

Edit: The original title spoke about huge latency and performance improvements. It had been changed since I wrote this, hence this comment is now obsolete.
__If__ it's really a problem, the only way to actually fix this would be to remove any kind of negotation, because two people with identical CVs might settle on vastly different salaries and it's highly unlikely that the employer is going to overcompensate them.
However, I've heard people argue that a right to ask for a lower pay is also an advantage in labour market because it's yet another axis of competitiveness.
The Fermi Paradox – Wait but Why – Pocket
Americans won't be outraged because they aren't being told to outraged by the US media. It wasn't even because it was a US resident. It's because he was a fellow "journalist". I say "journalist" in quotes because increasingly more people working as journalists are activists and activists for a cause and intentionally distort and omit biases and don't even attempt to maintain journalistic integrity and ethics. My understanding is that this "journalist" that was killed was practicing more activism than journalism.
I think most of the commenters on my post misunderstood me very much. I think people should be free to license under GPL, AGPL, SSPL, VXMPL, or whatever the heck they want. I like BSD personally, and it meets my requirements, but someone who has a different need can do what they want. I think GPL has worked well for Linux, and I'm glad they did it the way they did; I think it is less free than BSD, but in a good way for their project and purposes. I think having both a GPL licensed OS and a BSD licensed OS is great. We have diversity of licenses for different purposes and different ideologies, and it enriches the market in a lot of ways. I think forcing everyone to use the same copyleft licenses for everything based on a radical ideology is a dangerous and useless endeavour; and that sort of ideology is completely _not_ free in every sense of the word. Do what you want, set your rules for your project as you wish, we are all better for it.
Taking 10 minutes to solve one reCaptcha is also a good way to lose users. There are plenty of websites I refuse to use now because they have outrageous reCaptchas.
Not true - if you compare various cases of GPL vs BSD, the theory of GPL helping the project just doesn’t hold. See MySQL vs Postgres, or GCC vs LLVM, or various MTAs.
> Shouldn't employees have the right to collectively strike to get better conditions at work? There's a lot more at stake here than "drama for the company".

Doesn't the employer have the right to fire them for any reason in any "at will job"?
Great idea! Project reporting is always a pain.
> 1. MongoDB has the right to do whatever they like

Well, no, obviously not. They have to stay within legal bounds. But of course they can have any obscure license that is legal if they want.

The thing they get flak for is trying to deceive the public.

> 2. This License Means More Open Source Code

This license is only open source in a very obscure interpretation of the word. It's basically doing a lot of legal gymnastics to say "we don't want Google+Amazon to sell services based on our database, but we still want to call it Open Source". These two goals are fundamentally incompatible.
18 months is not what I call LTS. not even 30 months is LTS.
I agree that we need to consider those factors. But saying we need to switch to a plant-based diet is ridiculous. Any "solution" that involves everyone just changing their behavior (behavior that in some ways defines us as human) is just flat-out not going to happen.

A real solution is cognizant of human behavior and the tragedy of the commons. A real solution isn't dependent on every human being lowering his standard of living. The solution to whale extinction from whaling didn't depend on everyone using less whale oil, it depended on finding new, better, sources of energy.
How about all the mistakes companies make due to “sales” people? How many times have sales-oriented execs driven companies into the ground in the past 40+ years in tech? They nearly killed Apple. I am not harping on the article. It’s a good read for indy developers.
Render Web Components to Native
Obscurity is just another layer you add onto your security. As with all security methods, no one is perfect and its always a balance with usability.

But with security at this level nowadays every added layer helps. Even if it is not even used in the initial authentication step. Think of classifying certain patterns in the attacks and retroactive de-authorizing after login, increasing the time-cost for the attacker.
More violent but also more out in the open, where stuxnet was a silent killer. (meaning it was deliberately less violent)
Even if you believe that, why shouldn’t there be a process to investigate the claims? You think all harassment claims should be automatically dismissed as false instead?
The profession of audio production is extremely competitive because there is a perpetual oversupply of labor. The total amount of money in the music industry is also deceptively small compared to its high public profile.

I left the field (back in about 2003) because although I felt that I was good enough to compete and survive, I didn't love it enough to grind out a life as a workaholic and just get by.

Most of my writings from that time were forum posts with the perspective of the well-meaning but undereducated skeptic and wouldn't be that interesting to read today. Also, what was probably my best writing happened in forums which don't have public archives which have survived 15-20 years later. (Which amuses me as a former mastering engineer because one of our primary objectives is long-term archival.)

PS: not "enharmonic", "non-harmonic" dammit. The point is that while analog distortion is mostly harmonically related, digital distortion is not and therefore is much more poisonous in small quantities. Mixing especially (though mastering is similar) is all about making changes near or below the threshold of perception which sum to a cumulative perceptible effect.
You risk setting up a little cold war that you probably don't have time for though...

"Think you are clever, eh, try this for size..." -- some attackers in response to being affected by your counter measures.
It seems to me that the opposite assessment requires more justification. Ever since Neolithic, mankind has been domesticating most if not all species it consumed. And we've been deforesting like crazy. We're not hunter gatherers anymore, so our progress has consisted relying less and less on wilderness and more on controlled, artificial environments.

I'm not saying that we don't need wilderness for deeper reasons (say psychological, or in terms on keeping biodiversity for future-proofing our biological pool of domesticated species...). But such hypothetical reliance on wilderness surely seems less obvious than our independence from it.
Soyuz is Roscosmos, not Arianespace. Maybe you meant Vega? But that’s a much smaller launcher.