skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm the furthest thing from a lawyer, but wouldn't it be nice to say my software is open source, and you can use it in your software, but if the software product you're selling with my software in it is making over $X, you have to pay $X?

Or, even more generally, is there a legal way to protect your code from being taken advantage of by the top 1% of companies? Could that become popular?

If I help a million developers and companies make money, fine, but it is immensely frustrating how the Amazons and Googles of the world reap so much of the benefit.
Go figure, I stand corrected.
For the business solution we setup the servers, and give you the root password (for you to change). We use DO or AWS.

TOS is here https://ba.net/adblockvpn/privacy1.html
> Because it's a literal hardware limitation.

Unless there is a separate out of band board with a relay I can hear or see (meaning, code alone can't enable something), then it really isn't a hardware limitation. The security controls and operations are in the code. The code can change or may already have silent monitoring capabilities. Nobody on HN could really answer whether or not this is the case. All we can do is speculate. If someone were required to put lawful monitoring code in place, they would not be allowed to discuss it here. The best anyone could do is decompile the code or get the source code for the firmware. Even then, there could be non-volital space that allows for updates.

Case in point, there have been malware packages that could enable your microphone and camera on the laptop without turning on the LED. This varied with camera model. Some power the LED when the camera has power. Microphones don't always activate an LED. There are a myriad of articles you can find providing examples of malware that can listen to cell phone microphones, laptop microphones without activating the LED.
Australia passes bill to force tech firms to hand over encrypted data
Literate elisp: init.org
They also have a OAUTH login with google, which is the one I use.

But on the merits: not storing the password is safer than storing it so it's a valid claim.

And it is a 2fa mechanism to a tee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-factor_authentication)
> "While much of Wall Street missed out on fees from that deal—a typical IPO has far more underwriters than a direct listing has advisers—the three were paid about $36 million in total for their work on Spotify."

Why does it cost so much to IPO?? $36 million for a cheap IPO seems excessive.
I'm currently enrolled in an online Computer Graphics course on edX that has been an excellent introduction to the subject: https://www.edx.org/course/computer-graphics
Tbh, we all have qualms about psychological studies in general, especially coming from a physical scientist (physics) like myself. Every time I see data points where the error bars overlap and the authors declare an difference between the points, my gut says, "that's BS." But then again, they can't just "run more experiments" like I can, so we're left with what they have.

I'm not sure what the solution is.
Who said anything about free? I pay for all kinds of software that I install locally.
I guess that depends on what you mean by success. If nobody ever remembers my successes, if I never make "disrupt" any industry, if I never get to retire, if my works are never immortalized, even if all my software becomes obsolete one day when the SDKs that I'm using no longer exist (which has already happened a few times), as long as I can pay for my family's food by solving problems for other people, I will be satisfied.
Part of why you feel so strongly about climate change is that you (us, I guess? I'm only four years older) haven't lived long enough to recognize that, while its a massive challenge to the species, two things:

1. We only ever confront challenge either on the individual or among our peer group. No matter how much you try to collectively call everyone a citizen of the Earth and part of one family your biology prevents you from being empathic to those a few orders of magnitude outside your local self. This means you both cannot wax poetic for the woes of everyone else and you need to recognize 99.99999% of humanity will, optimistically, not give a shit about you.

2. Climate change is the kind of problem with stupidly simple solutions that are just hard to implement and take sacrifice and work to accomplish. In the same way curing many plagues in the era of vaccination was a simple solution - reach herd immunity in a population - with a logistical nightmare to accomplish. People died by the millions in the struggle to make it happens, and millions will die victims of climate change until the broader interests of humanity wake up and force the change necessary to fix the problem, but its not any one persons burden to bear.

We could all be killed tomorrow. by a gamma ray burst from a star in our local cluster going supernova. Or an accidential nuke launch at a dilapidated silo could cause total annihilation of the surface world. Or some alien species an infinite amount of distance from us could execute an experiment that fundamentally alters the constant rules of the universe that redefines what matter is.

We don't know whats coming, we do what we can for ourselves and those around us in our time, and we can't be distracted from what we can do with what we can't do, like alter the minds of billions to suddenly decide to take climate change seriously, or stop violent crime, or end tyranny, or feed everyone. That later is a great example - plenty have wished and prayed for global food security, but it took the efforts of millions of individuals over decades to propagate wells and agricultural practices throughout the third world that have led to recent years being consistent record lows for global thirst, hunger, and extreme poverty. They might have cried about it in their early 20s in the 70s-90s, but they got up and did what they could, and collectively had a major impact on it.

So if you really do care about climate change - and being from HN - there is a huge tech scene around solutions and tools to fight it. Get involved and do something. Don't just complain about it, because that doesn't help anyone.
They imply that the login is 2FA-protected because your email or Google account can be 2FA-protected, and they're piggybacking off that...

Having passwords means storing them correctly and still implementing some form of reset -- and if email is a weak point, they would have to 2FA prompt you to reset your password, or not use magic links, or handle such issues out-of-band. They're probably trying to avoid auth/password support by outsourcing this function to Google for the time being.

I agree though, the user experience that is hardest-hit by this is mobile, where iOS now supports much better integration with password managers than was allowed previously...
One of the core authors of the IAT paper administered here to measure implicit bias released a paper last year showing how the test doesn't actually measure bias, and how it is not clear what this kind of test actually measures.

Many of us wish that there was a simple link between an unconscious bias, as measured by the popular IAT test administered by Hardvard or similar tests, and biased behavior. This would give a clear path to fix any bias problem. However, Brian Nosek who is one of the co-authors of the IAT test just released a paper [1] that show that changes in implicit bias don’t lead to changes in behavior. You can find a summary of the article and its findings here [2].

The paper examining 499 studies over 20 years involving 80,859 participants that used the IAT and other, similar measures. They discovered two things: One is that the correlation between implicit bias and discriminatory behavior appears weaker than previously thought. They also conclude that there is very little evidence that changes in implicit bias have anything to do with changes in a person’s behavior. These findings, they write, "produce a challenge for this area of research." The finding that changes in implicit bias don’t lead to changes in behavior, Forscher says, "should be stunning."

"I see implicit bias as a potential means to an end, something that tells us what to do and some possible remedies for what we see in the world," Forscher says. "So if there’s little evidence to show that changing implicit bias is a useful way of changing those behaviors, my next question is ‘What should we do?’"

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308926636_A_Meta-An...

[2] https://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-Impl...
> lifestyle choices

Where have we heard that before...

I'm not saying that obesity isn't bad for you, that shit will kill you, nor is it not understood how you can lose weight. But I feel like morbid obesity isn't as simple a solution as that, just like homosexuality can't be "cured" by simply stopping having sex with your own gender.
Android's "these are the apps killing your battery life" interface is perfectly usable by Joe Everyuser. This is a specious argument.
In my experience, Sony Android devices are pretty well architected. I had a tablet for a long time with a built-in IR transceiver for acting as a TV remote. Seems like a silly add-on, but I used that thing until it broke.
It's conceivable that metastability issues could be used as a part of copy protection. Well, protection against emulation more like.

Of course it's not the smartest choice for that purpose, because there might be chip-to-chip differences. And environmental factors like temperature could affect it as well.

But who knows what people wrote after Bleem PS1 emulator was public?

So have metastability issues (or other HW bugs) ever been used for copy/emulation protection?
If the man pages had useful examples the “cheat sheets” would not be needed. So “duh use man pages” is a wrong and annoying answer in this context.
Apple owns the patents for it's phones. Right? They are just manufactured by foxconn (Taiwanese).

Samsung is a Korean company.
That was just fearmongering, we have countless studies today that state obesity is linked to a higher overall mortality rate.
I'm a little confused as to why this question from 2015 is on the front page of Hacker News. The answer (which may not have been available at the time) is "get a family account, which allows multiple simultaneous streams".
Storj has spent the last year rebuilding the entire network after hiring JT Olio (Director of Engineering) Ben Golub (Interim CEO, previously CEO of Docker).

The V3 Network is leaps and bounds more performant and economical than the V2 Network. It is compatible with the S3 bucket-object store and is an easy shift for applications already using S3 as an object store layer. You can speed test it vs S3 using the ./cmd/s3-benchmark tool in our distro.

Try it out for yourself: https://storj.io/blog/2019/01/getting-started-with-the-storj...
On a multi-user system, you could have one non-root user gain privileges granted to another non-root user, which I think would still be considered a privilege escalation; e.g. before the escalation, I only have access to my own home directory, but afterwards, I have access to both my own and yours.
Same here. These services charge $5 more for a family plan, which lets you use five or six accounts. So you can make an extra account for your home devices, and then you have extra memberships you can give away for free to your family/friends. It’s not a great user experience but works well as a solution.
What about sex trafficker, producer of child pornography, hit person, burglar (as an employee - not self-employed)?
I think that's an over fatalistic interpretation. You're implying that giving more power to users inevitably results in them harming themselves and therefore should not be done, instead the OS vendor should make explicit APIs for everything and only whitelist "allowable" things.

My problem with that is that it kills all innovation and creativity - only the OS vendor can come up with a "new" whitelisted activity. Anybody else is out of luck. Inevitably that means you simply can't get niche applications because what Google or Apple sized company is going to invest in something only 10,000 people might use? I might be idealistic, but I firmly believe that it's possible to both grant power to end users (as in, enable app developers to have a very large amount of control) AND deliver a good end user experience. It requires a lot of good design and discipline and it's definitely hard, but that's not an excuse to give up and hand over all control to the OS vendor.
So pay for it? Seems like you probably have gotten your worth out of it
"Monthly security updates to be supported for at least 3 years after initial phone release."

https://www.android.com/one/
Motivation is a highly personal thing, but perhaps I can help you with that hurdle.

Have you explored https://www.pubilling.io/ or the open-source http://killbill.io/?
So you feel it's fair and reasonable to be biased against someone with a disease?
I agree. We should begin by banning (voluntarily—at first—since all reasonable people will volunteer to comply) all words that have ever been used in a maliciously or mistakenly sexist, racist, bigoted, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise discriminatory manner or context. Then we should ban all words descended from the same root word as the initial set of problematic words, even if the root word was not particularly problematic. Then the world will be free of hate and discrimination, and we (censored) (censored) (censored) (censored) (censored) (censored).
I inherited a Canon PowerShot 350 from a dead relative back in the late 90s. I was still blown away that I could take pictures that went straight to the computer with reasonable quality.

By today's standards it's garbage of course, but it was a cool camera at the time. The thing I find most disappointing is how useless they are -- there's no real value in them; they're not like old film cameras where you can still take good, interesting photos.

It's fun to see the evolution of technology, as now my iPhone XS is vastly superior to most things on this list, and of course my big Nikon DSLR blows them all away.
I think people should consider analyzing all of Jay Z's streams and record sales and see what turns up
> it's to the point where I'm questioning if I even want to be in this industry (although to be fair, I've been questioning that since before I got into software). What do you do to keep yourself motivated? Especially when you hit something you hate to work on but is necessary.

I sympathize with you greatly actually. I used to seriously hate work. Then one day I was fired (or more precisely I didn't get past the trial period) and unemployed. After that point I realized as much as I might dislike my job, I dislike it a lot less than the stress of being unemployed, going further and further into debt, and wondering how I can get a job.
I think those smaller ships are the types they're talking about. The Maersk Triple-E are way more expensive than the 25-50 million quoted as the per ship cost in the article. Maybe they fall a a lot on the used market because new Triple-Es are $190m.

> In heavily trafficked areas, a missile merchant without sensor masts would be hard to discern from other merchant ships at range. Electronic emissions that could be correlated to U.S. Navy assets pose risks that must be mitigated as much as possible. Automated ship reporting systems should be used judiciously.

This seems dangerous to me, it seems like it will inevitably get a regular cargo ship sunk. Especially considering this second line where they also suppose that these missile merchants could draw fire from more traditional ships because of their threat.

> Drawing enemy fire could become an important function, perhaps protecting higher value, more-densely manned combatants.
The game theory parts of the book made me pretty annoyed personally. He's oversimplifying a problem, ignoring obvious compounding factors, and then proclaiming that it's the only possible solution and everybody else must have made the same flawed assumptions and be operating under the same principles.

And then of course everybody does operate under those principles and feel compelled to act irrationally as a result.

Because resources are limited the only solution is to blow up almost all of the resources to make sure nobody else gets them. The idea that there might be natural limits (even basic thermodynamic ones) to growth apparently never occurs to the author. It's kind of shocking how casual some unnamed alien species is about literally destroying the universe.
This looks useful! I glanced over the code to make sure it's not gonna exfiltrate my repos. Surprisingly simple and clean code!
You are are correct, direct memory access on those machines were really cheap compared with today and even earlier. Modern day memory bus speeds haven't kept of with processor speeds (this is what sank RISC machines). Old core memory is slow. Drum memory is hella slow.

The other thing is there is a trade off between number of registers and instruction size. With 8 bit machines you see that for instance where only certain addressing modes can be used with certain registers. You don't have enough instruction space to encode for every addressing mode for all the registers you have.
It's been a while, but, IIRC, the issue there is that computation expressions in F# are more a way of binding functionality to the syntax in an explicit way, than a direct expression of monads (or applicative functors, or whatever). F# doesn't even have a monad type to abstract over in its standard library in the first place. So what you might want to do instead is define your own library for working with abstractions, and then supply a computation expression or two for binding the syntax to the types defined in that library.

But yeah, you'd still be stuck writing wrappers to mate any pre-existing types to the library. I'm not sure that's really even computation expressions' fault, so much as an inevitable implication of F#'s lack of any facility for ad-hoc polymorphism.
Any tips for the rest of us stuck in the same "account suspended without explanation" purgatory? The article describes my own experience since November (and still stuck despite many emails and calls).
"Advances in high-performance computing, software virtualization [...] enable [...] cruise missiles to fit into [...] shipping containers."

Wut
Containerized weapon systems are pretty interesting because they leverage the intermodal infrastructure of the global shipping industry, and potentially provide the flexibility of "mission modules", that typically haven't provided. Being somewhat self contained, they also provide a cross functionality across sea and land based assets.

Patria's 120 mm NEMO gun http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/6440/this-120mm-gun-bui...

Northrup Grumman's containerized AGM-88E system http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24111/northrop-grumman-...

IAI's LORA ballistic missile system http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11723/israel-just-launc...
> motivated reasoning

You have things backwards. I agree with the hoaxers' motivation, and I assume that what they were trying to prove is presumably true. But their experiment didn't actually support those conclusions.

> What method of experimentation are you proposing ..

Lots of methodologies are valid, but if the whole thing is presented as science then the conclusions need to be consistent with the methodology used!

In the hoaxers' writeup, they said they submitted a bunch of absurd papers, but they all got rejected, so they gradually toned things down bit by bit until some of them got accepted. That's fine, insofar as it goes, but you cannot then turn around and claim to have proved that the journals will will publish absurd papers, which is what the authors did. You can't call a result significant if your methodology is to gradually lower the bar for "significant" until you get the result you wanted!

What the hoax actually proved was that the authors could publish a paper that they considered absurd, but which the journal considered fine. Which is neat - but isn't that already true of the regular papers these journals normally publish? Then what in the world did the hoax accomplish?

> The hoax proved that you do not need more than a couple weeks of training to become a published author in these journals

I don't think the authors claimed anything like that, where are you getting that? Their thesis was just that the content of the papers was absurd, not the times or credentials involved.
Sure. But scheduling someone for 168 hours in a week means life will get in the way. The way its being phrased though makes it sound like its a privilege rather than a basic fact of life.

Put another way: recognizing this gets you about as many brownie points as recognizing that eating and shitting gets in the way of your average work day. So zero. It's basic logic and human function.
Including a detailed plan for the invasion and annexation of Canada:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
Debt Consolidation – How to Get Rid of Credit Card Debt Fast
How to recognize fake developers, and why most of them get away with it
You maybe right. It took about a 100 years of thousands of weavers playing with punch cards, trying to increase loom efficiency, before Joseph Marie Jacquard perfected it. Until that happened, inspiring Charles Babbage, mathematicians had not produced any worthwhile computational machines. We have probably the same problem in biology. We need thousands of people playing and producing work like this before we see major mastery at the cellular level.
ShareRing launches blockchain-powered car sharing on top of existing services
Ask HN: What is your best passive income 2019?
Time to ask again :)

Any side projects, Games, OSS.
I worry about the code I write, but for some reason some people comment about the piece of cloths I have on my skin while the choice is most often utilitarian.
"It's a DeepLens that can follow you into the bathroom."
My take on hard sci-fi is that it must either use science and technology that we already understand, in ways conforming to that understanding, or - if it presents new technology that is posited as something beyond our understanding - it must be consistent, including other "magic" as well as interactions with things we do know. Some examples of what I would consider hard sci-fi: "Tau Zero", "Tales of Pirx the Pilot", "2001", "Seveneves", the Mars trilogy.

All of these components are lacking in the book, and it's not just the particles. It reads very much like someone subscribed to some popular science journal for a few years, and then just dumped every idea that sounded interesting into a book without much understanding of what it is about.

To give another example, the author references string theory - great! - but then he has a one-dimensional string - that makes up an elementary particle - break apart into "pieces" from gravity.

Or take alien propulsion. It supposedly works by collecting antimatter from space - but where in space is there enough antimatter to collect like that, and why hasn't it annihilated from interaction with the much more prevalent hydrogen? The interesting thing about this example is that it's not insurmountable - hard sci-fi could explain it away in some convincingly sounding way - but the book doesn't even bother to, it's just presented as fact, without even pointing out the contradictions.
Dev Degree
The problem is that what you consider "good money" is probably not even close to making such a product a viable business.

Their personal plan is $4/month.

Maybe one in a few hundred people (let's say 500 for easy math) would want self-hosted version.

Are you willing to pay $2000/month for a note-taking application? I doubt it.

Not to mention the support burden of trying to figure out why something doesn't work on your self-hosted installation.

That economic reality is why on-prem, self-hosted software is almost exclusively a very expensive, enterprise software.

Companies can justify paying a few thousand a year for installation and a salary of an in-house employee to manage and maintain it.

Individuals can't.