skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think everyone here is misinterpreting what I meant, and I take full responsibility for that.

I think we thought of computers and the internet as our allies in privacy. They are not. They are our enemies.

I think we should stop trusting computers, any computers, as much as we possibly can.

Especially if you're in a minority that your government may try to punish.
I've been down that road before, and trust me geopolitical theories are a dead end. Nobody can predict anything, and almost everything written is just an elaborate justification for why whatever is happening today was inevitable. It is disappointing to realize but armchair HN comments are the best you can hope for in this area, as they have the advantage of not being as long to read.

That’s a far more sweeping and far less supported statement than the one you’ve been demanding citations for, don’t you think? Besides, unless you’re a peofessional commenting on your field, then you’re matching armchair with armchair, without even the benefit of being able to point to existing theories supporting your view.
>Epidemiological studies of sugar consumption — which look at patterns of health and disease in the real world — were dismissed for having too many possible factors getting in the way. Experimental studies were dismissed for being too dissimilar to real life.

>One study that found a health benefit when people ate less sugar and more vegetables was dismissed because that dietary change was not feasible.

>Another study, in which rats were given a diet low in fat and high in sugar, was rejected because "such diets are rarely consumed by man."

The OP post makes no sense if you read the article.

The pro-sugar meta study rejected all studies which found sugar to be unhealthy. Biological studies were rejected because they were too restrictive and nutritional studies because they weren't scientific enough. Yet when the studies had a pro-sugar result they were accepted by and large regardless of their quality.

Which is more likely:

A). Someone is incompetent and randomly picked some dozens of studies which all fit the needs of their source of funding

B). Someone competent picked studies that fit the needs of their source of funding.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Windows, MacOS, Linux, iOS, Android, and Raspberry Pi are valid targets
Yeah, the curious thing is. China still borrows cheaply from the world bank and they use that ( partially) for the one road, one belt initiative.

This has very recently changed, if I'm not mistaken.

It's part of not being an developed countries. And the requirements were accepted by a loan to the world bank of 7,7 billion $ from America ( from memory)
> By exposing kernel memory Spectre diminishes the effectiveness of mitigations like kernel ASLR as well as makes it easier more generally to exploit kernel vulnerabilities. That's significant in the case of Linux as there's no shortage of Linux kernel bugs, not now nor for the foreseeable future. Even well written, bug free user space applications can't protect themselves from the kernel, AMD's and Intel's best efforts with SEV and SGX, respectively, notwithstanding.

I mean, yeah, that's what I'm saying. There's some benefit to to running stuff on the side of the kernel, but you gain nothing by running your Linux processes on L4Linux.

> By contrast seL4 is effectively bug free. (Literally bug free for the most the part, but AFAIU some gritty details like TLB management remain outside the scope of the formal verification.) That means you can build a reliable security model for your own application. The guarantees that model can make about confidentiality may be weaker because of Spectre, but you're still in an infinitely better position than on Linux, Windows, or most anywhere else.

The sel4 guys are super careful not to make such strong statements. And it's weird that you'd minimize the consequences of reading out arbitrary memory.

> seL4 is arguably even better than ARM's TrustZone. With TrustZone you're still stuck having to ensure you correctly manage transitions into and out of protected mode. Bugs in such code constitute a good chunk of kernel vulnerabilities more generally, so it's clearly not trivial. Doing this correctly is basically what seL4 is all about. Then consider the fact that people are trying to push so many tasks into the TrustZone (or secure enclaves in general) that it's common to run an OS in the TrustZone. People would do much better to run seL4 inside the enclaves than bug ridden TEE environments. And unless the enclave is a discrete processor rather than a protected mode as with TrustZone, you may as well just run seL4 as the only OS (or at least the host OS).

TrustZone and a microkernel sel4 are totally orthogonal concepts. Your contrasting the two concepts doesn't really make sense. And you can absolutely run sel4 in Secure EL1, you just wouldn't want to run it in EL3 because it's a little heavyweight in its current incarnation for that (hence the guy below talking about how it cut their perf in half).

> Interestingly, Apple's T1 and T2 chips also runs an L4-based microkernel. AFAIU it's something of a cousin to seL4 but predates it. If seL4 was as mature then as it is now perhaps Apple would have started with it.

It's an extremely modified L4:Pistachio that has AFAIK nothing to do with sel4.
Absolutely! I don't write the algorithm every day, but I interact graphs, trees, and other such structures on a daily basis in my job, and traversing them is something that I work on. Every time I run `rm -r` for example!

I'm not asked to implement BFS every day, but the concept of a tree traversal is incredibly common.

Even more explicitly, a lot of my recent work has been involving automated refactoring tooling, so there's lots of work with abstract syntax trees and control flow graphs, which are trees or graphs, and therefore need be traversed.
This is way bigger than sugar or even one segment of research. This type of corrupting influence (direct or indirect) provides enough uncertainty to allow people to ignore all research that doesn't confirm their personal bias. It also fuels the anti-science groups that claim conspiracies to hide the 'truth'.
If you're practicing continuous deployment with a repo used by a lot of developers, it's important to have merge restrictions in place to prevent accidents. Github lets you require every PR have at least one approval before merging, but it only works at the level of branches, not directories or paths. This tool supports path matching, so it's a nice workaround for Github's lack of granularity.
"Monopoly" in this sense is wrong, because Costco has more than 5 suppliers that they can choose from to buy what they want, and they are getting chicken for really low prices. No one is getting extorted here, except for the farmers, and Costco is just looking to take advantage of them the same way the big chicken companies do. Chicken is half the price than grapes in a lot of places, by weight. It's insanely cheap.

The real travesty is that these companies hold regional monopsonies so the farmers can only sell to one company, putting them in a bad spot where the chicken companies can dictate terms. Costco wants to be able to do that directly to farmers too, without the middle man.
Designing something on an architectural level really isn't always a data structures and algorithms problem. Take the web, for example. REST isn't complicated, but it does the job and it opened up more possibilities than any other invention since timesharing.

As other commenters have noted, choosing an architecture for a system may have more to do with vision, common sense, and even imagination. And the web is such a great example of this, maybe the classic example. As you probably know, it's possible to write a webserver without having a clue about fancy data structures or algorithms. It's the imaginative composition of pre-existing features that creates the architecture.

Another example would be the extensibility of Emacs through elisp. Consider the notion of hooks which essentially allow utility functions to be customized by the user. It's a purely architectural concept.

Or the Unix philosophy: small utilities that read and write text, linked by pipes. Really no algorithmic complexity to it at all.

It feels problematic to me that you are saying to someone that they "need to stay far, far away" from some aspect of computing. It's a kind of gatekeeping. Sure, an outfit like NASA needs to make sure that they don't have amateurs writing their systems software. But in the industry more broadly, people have to be given permission to pursue whatever interests them. It's important, for diversity and the invention of new applications, that "differently able" coders aren't told, by intimidating stereotypical computer science types, that they don't have the aptitude to architect a useful system, or that it's "a rule" that people with their skills will just create problems.

Vision and a perspective that differs from the norm are a lot rarer and potentially more valuable than the ability to apply software engineering principles. Architecture, in the broadest sense, is precisely the area where these "outside the box" contributions are likely to be valuable. Consider the invention of the Wiki. It came out of the pattern language world, it was a hugely beneficial innovation, and it has almost zero data structures/algorithms complexity behind it.

I'd even argue that the examples of pitfalls that you list are more clerical matters of systems programming than cases where architectural design principles are lacking.

(And even the professionals who can reliably grind out working code for large systems can get the architecture spectacularly wrong, as the case of the X window system: http://web.archive.org/web/20170920104011/https://minnie.tuh... )
As a total outsider, I wonder what are the efficiencies that these huge operations get, which let them crush the little guy?

Is it that they can arrange huge contracts with distributors/chains/whatever so there is less overhead in the selling part? Is it less scrupulous environmental or animal welfare practices that just mean they are more exploitative and creating more externalities? Is it something else?

I wonder if there'd be some way for the little guys to band together. I'm sure there's already a lot of this with co-ops and such. What's stopping these co-ops from reaching the next level and crushing the big guys?
I think everyone here is misinterpreting what I meant, and I take full responsibility for that.

I think we thought of computers and the internet as our allies in privacy. They are not. They are our enemies.

I think we should stop trusting computers, any computers, as much as we possibly can.

Especially if you're in a minority that your government may try to punish.

We ARE in an oppressive surveillance state. Our government is tracking us. Every business is tracking us.

I highly recommend the novel "Daemon" and sequel "Freedom" by Daniel Suarez. He's a former Security consultant, who wanted to wake people up to how fragile our digital infrastructure is.
Except you don't need to have them _memorized_. You shouldn't. That's not the point.
I’ve been robbed six times, including once where one third of my money disappeared. I agree with you that security is only as strong as its weakest link. I just take emotional comfort in doing everything I can to make myself more prickly and less vulnerable.
You're not talking about the same thing at all.
It is because the externalities of such operations aren't priced in. They are allowed to privatize profit and socialize poison.

If you want to fix such problems, fix the incentives that cause them.
I think everyone here is misinterpreting what I meant, and I take full responsibility for that.

I think we thought of computers and the internet as our allies in privacy. They are not. They are our enemies.

I think we should stop trusting computers, any computers, as much as we possibly can.

Especially if you're in a minority that your government may try to punish or control.
Take it from experience: the odds are 100:1 against you.
200 Years ago, Psuedo-People industry quietly paid Science to blame meat. (2205)
Have you considered that there are enough people who can both whiteboard a BFS tree and get stuff done that Google doesn’t need to hire people who can do the latter but not the former?
...hats off?
The argument for a language like Octave/Matlab is analogous to why GUI software coexist with CLI alternatives. The Octave/Matlab audience may not be as technical and require a tool that has built in modules/libraries for advanced plots (without a lot of technical pain) etc.
At least one outbreak was attributed to wild pigs.

Also, the outbreak investigators for these things are well aware of the alternate hypotheses, and water and machine-driven contamination is often investigated.

And no, geese aren't precise. But they do shit a lot.
I recall seeing the "giant chicken vacuum" in a documentary once..that was a new low for me.. it is 10 or 12 feet high, but somewhat like a vacuum with a big bag for the birds, and a pole sweeps across a measured, enclosed area such that none of the birds escape.. what comes next is also in that movie.. mercifully I do not recall the name..
I like to think of sugar, fructose in particular, as a meta food. It directly affects how the body eats other foods. In particular quantities of other foods. Quite simply, it makes people eat more than they otherwise would. Coupled with its high reward factor, its addictiveness and a food industry that has pumped it, in large quantities, in practically every food you eat, it’s no wonder that it is a plague.

Its mean-spirited and somewhat ignorant to blame your fat friends who, along with you, have been deliberately lied to about the ill effects of the massive amounts of sugar you consume on a daily basis for the last half century.

First, they can’t fight what they don’t know is killing them because they’ve been lied to that it’s lack of exercise, it’s the steak and fat. That it’s a problem with them. How can they win when the ‘health food’ shoved in their faces is packed with more sugar?

Second, once they realize how to get out of the mess, they find out how nearly impossible it is to eat anything of what they are used to eating. Sugar is so prevalent in everything in the supermarket, from the obvious ice cream, ketchup, sriracha sauce to mayo, crackers, smoked fish, practically all frozen or canned items, pizza, bread and on and on.

The system is rigged against them.
We Don’t Raise People to Live with Purpose, We Raise Them to Sleepwalk
L4 is a family of microkernels with a namesake kernel interface. μ-kernel (minix3, L4/Fiasco et al) are extremely lean by design and unlike monolithic (Linux, Solaris, Darwin et al), leave device drivers, filesystem, and a lot of non-hardware related stuff to the userspace. This project is basically a port of linux to an L4 Hypervisor that can Para-Virtualize Linux.

In short, with this project you can run a User Space Linux along with your other user space programs in L4 kernels.
oneof was NEW in proto3 as far as I know, not a relic of proto2. I've ONLY used proto2 and I've never used oneof.
I was curious about this claim, so I searched for oneof in the googleapis repo[0][1]. There's a bunch of results, all in proto3, and many were committed for the first time (at least publicly) in the last 4-6 months. So I don't believe this is true.

From a safety perspective, tagged union types, which oneofs are, are incredibly useful and really should be used more often.

[0]: https://github.com/googleapis/googleapis/search?q=oneof&unsc...

[1]: I have no idea what this repo actually does, to be honest, but it appears authoritative about something, and appears to be public grpc apis Google exposes.
As someone recently interviewing I targeted roles where I didn't have to jump through these hoops and it worked out fine. Contacting people I had worked with before who could vouch for me made it much easier to land a job.

The top companies with these leetcode tests probably don't care that good people being rejected or avoiding them because of the amount of preparation required. Middle sized companies and startups doing leetcode tests are missing good people and probably can't afford the same number of false negatives as someone like Google with an endless supply of candidates.

I would much rather spend a weekend doing a take home test and showing how I actually work than being asked to write irrelevant code on a whiteboard. I think leetcode style interviewing is driven by time constraints of the interviewer and some more effort and thought needs to be put in on how to choose people based on the specifics of the actual role they are hiring for.
First typography, and now maps. Then what ? Postage stamps ?
My comment actually allows for scenario B: conflict of interest.

We all routinely do things because of financial pressure that we wouldn't do without it. When I had a corporate job, co-workers routinely said "I need my job" as an explanation for doing or not doing a particular thing at work when other people were suggesting "You should do X!" whether in jest or in earnest.
C.) B occurred, but in the context of the entire body of research being somewhere between reading tea leaves, and phlogiston theory.

I’m arguing for C, which is sort of like arguing that Monsanto influences research around GMO crops and online discussion of same, but also that GMO crops are not the devil. The fact that the sugar industry twisted the “science” doesn’t mean the science was good, it just means they disliked the conclusions. I’m not suggesting that excess consumption of sugar is wise, or that the current average consumption in the West isn’t excessive. That doesn’t imply that sugar is poison, and that eliminating it completely is healthier than keeping consumption at a reasonable level.

Personally it seems clear that few people can spare so many calories in a day that the average sugar intake is healthy. That is an argument against excess that’s been known since antiquity.

μηδέν άγαν
OK, just keep doing different miracles each time. Keep it fresh.
While I agree with you on the non-algorithmic coding skill being more important in most of the scenarios that an coder deals with at work, I feel having basic understanding of algorithmic skill is important as well for coder success. Interview should test basic algo skills along with other important skills, but when I put myself in interviewers shoe I realize how difficult its is to test on real coding challenges as every company has its own sets of tools and techniques that they use and prefer. Testing it would require first detailing coder on companies present tech culture which is a difficult for a code to get in short duration.
> A few years into swing trading, and I can say I learned a lot. I’ve made more than I’ve lost. I’m up about 16% ROI year to date.

The article was published December 15th 2017, so he made 16% since January 1st.

If he had bought the S&P500 on January 1st 2017 (2276.98) and sold on December 15th (2675.81) he'd be up > 17.5% (and who knows how much he paid in commissions).
M.U.L.E. for MSX2
Bash has a -x mode that does this.
Money and prestige my friend.
I paid for 1password last year and still use it. Very convenient.

Paid for sublime text around 3-4 years ago, used it for 1-2 solid years, now a days am on VIM + TMUX but don't regret having paid.

Paid for PyCharm, used less than 1 month, regretted paying for.

And that's about it.
What I get is that, at some point, Yahweh (perhaps aka El, consort of Asherah) got tired of believer support, and declared "trust me or burn".

Maybe three thousand years ago, priests invoked aspects of Yahweh in the usual way. Burning incense and lamb's blood in charcoal braziers, chanting, wards for protection, and so on. If you were pure, he'd smite your enemies. If not, your people would suffer.
I pay for software pretty often. Most of of it is $10-15 max unless it's professional tools. That's not a lot of money for me.

Most recently, I paid for the Mac version of Soulver (https://www.acqualia.com/soulver/) because I got the iOS version for free and I really liked it. I regularly purchase apps on my phone if they solve my problems and are high quality.
Can you give a concrete example of when you actually use BFS to solve this?

For me, it always goes like this:

* Am I iterating over a list multiple times?

* Am I iterating over a list and comparing it to some elements in another list?

Turn one of them into a map and continue. It's pretty simple.
Not true. For example, in low-beta investing, low P/E values for some sectors are super common, and seen as a sign of a deal on an undervalued stock.
You speak of democracy as if it exists in this world. Aristotle would disagree with the general assessment. There cannot be democracy without sortition.
I don't think I agree. If a model is known to be largely false but in certain situations it provides good enough results and is easy to work with, that model will continue to get used until a better one replaces it. It's the classic problem undergrads have with Physics I vs. Physics II where the second declares all of Physics I false. Really, it's that Physics II is more accurate under more conditions, but that doesn't make what's learned in Physics I useless.
Sad that this is getting down voted. Science is wonderful, and it's behind many incredible breakthroughs in modern technology, obviously.

But in my book, logic beats science every time. You can point to all the studies in the world, but if they conflict with my own literal experience, I am going to be at the very least skeptical of the science.
Double down? Didn’t the intelligence community also blame Russia for the hack in 2016?
I mean, nobody goes to an interview and asks "hey how late do you work in your current job?", so I don't understand how it is possible to discriminate by proxy metrics at that point in the process.

Maybe you're arguing that people leave their jobs after the fact due to thinly disguised rationalizations of these proxy metrics affecting raises, but that's a huge stretch. I've seen plenty of cases of bosses and coworkers being understanding of personal circumstances (and I'd go as far as saying that is more so here in SF than at previous jobs in Canada) and I've yet to see these alleged backstabbing evil brogrammers. Saying that a company likes this or that is also anthropomorphizing something that isn't sentient and strikes me as a strawman.
What leads you to believe Wiki is in anyway a reliable source of information?
Cakes have existed for centuries and I'm sure most people on HN have made cakes at least once in their life.

But put them in a room and say "Make us a 2 layer red velvet cake" with no access to a recipe, and you're not going to get a red velvet cake. It's an easy recipe that most people easily recognize with just a glance, and anyone could make it if they have a recipe on-hand or make red velvet cakes with abnormally high regularity. But most people, even if they're great chefs otherwise, will fail.

Recognizing that a concept exists and implementing a relatively complex concept are different things.