skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>Inviting the government to arbitrate what qualifies as “harmful” speech is a legal and ethical minefield, while establishing a third-party system to do the same would amount to offloading corporate responsibility. There’s no reason to expect every platform to adhere to the same content policies, but every reason to want them to exercise judgment and accept accountability.

Is there a term for when journalists forgo making an argument about why something is bad in favor of just making a bunch of assertions + some negative sentiment words? Why is deciding what speech / UGC should be allowed in social media a 'corporate responsibility' such that letting the government or some 'impartial' NGO arbitrate this a bad thing? Why would you want every platform to have it's own content policy? Why do you want corporations to 'exercise judgement' and to be accountable (to the state? to journalists?) if you also don't want there to be some formal guidelines about what is or isn't allowed on social media?
Or else? They get some slap of the wrist?

I don't think that will discourage them to call any whim "reasonable suspicion".
Genuine question: Is it just me or does this reddit-style mugging for karma not really belong on HN?
How did I know, without even looking, that this was about a fucking cell phone.

Which can only mean one thing: whatever you might try to imagine about mass surveillance and cell phone identifiers, take your well-reasoned, rational expectations, throw them out the window, and multiply your worst fears by a thousand.

Killing people based on metadata is likely only the tip of the iceberg.
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that requires articulable facts, not a whim. Courts regularly hold that officers didn't obtain it.

For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
"AdNauseam" is a Firefox add-on that blocks ads but also virtually clicks each blocked ad in the background, polluting trackers' profile of your browsing habits. I haven't used this add-on but some reviews say that its ad blocking doesn't work as expected.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/
Moving past the silly headline, there is actually a pretty substantial achievement here. Using formal verification tools, the team proved the following properties for the library:

* Memory safety (no buffer overruns etc)

* Type safety (all compiler-visible interfaces/abstractions used as per spec)

* Functional correctness (all the crypto implementations are faithful to their algorithms)

* Side-channel resistance (all crypto is constant time)

This has been confirmed by fallible tools and is checked against human-made models which are also fallible, but this code is still likely to be about as close to bug-free as currently possible.

I think Barghavan's work in this area are the future of cryptographic coding in the medium term and likely all security-sensitive code long term.
Introduction to UniversalQCompiler
That's honestly insane. I mean, you know that people like that are a dime a dozen, and that they're obviously out there in companies all throughout departments as rank and file and in management and executive positions. I guess it's just a little bit extra terrifying to wake up one day and realize it's your boss, and from what you're saying it's his boss, too.

> unfortunately being stubborn about staying in central New Jersey isn't doing me any favors. Just trying to maintain my sanity in the meantime while I look around :/

I know that all too well. I'm not dealing with managers who are as outwardly assholish as you are but there's more problems than solutions where I work. My current flavor of employment handcuffs are a full-time remote position. The job itself isn't that bad, but I'm underpaid and overworked. The full-time remote plus the little bit of autonomy that I have in my work keeps me from looking too hard. Complacency, by any other name.
My best guess is the company just doesn't see much value in doing the work. It's a niche community and by definition 20+ year old information. It's important historically maybe but not to Google's business. No one's going to buy or see ads on 1990s rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 content.

archive.org has several significant Usenet collections. Henry Spencer's UTZOO collection, stuff from Giganews, and some sort of dump for Google Groups / Deja itself. I don't think anyone's built a useful interface for them yet.

(Ben Swartz made the donation from Google: https://www.bensw.com/blog/Aaron-5-Years-Later/ )
> most of your definitions are still dependent on competitively pricing securities

No, the MM doesn't care if TSLA is overpriced. He just sees where everyone is and makes a market roughly there.

> You can't provide quotes if you don't have something to quote around.

But you don't have to quote around the actual value of the item. That's the point.
The best page in the universe is still up! http://maddox.xmission.com/ Like it or not it is a historical monument.
It's sad, because Facebook wasn't like that when it started out.

It was clean and light and fast, unlike MySpace which was often described as a messy, bloated pig.
Both Amazon and Netflix make the most money and are best known for their excellent original shows. Why did they bother to setup DRM for them? If they opposed it, they could have made it a selling point that you could watch them in 4K on any device without hassle.
YouTube promotes extremists videos, because AD revenue
Probably more like if Spotify became a record label, controlled the entire process of an artist and only allowed access to artist's songs on their platform. It's not just the media that is changing. The entire process is disrupted. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, just a more apt comparison than Cd and Cassettes.
I just want to know if anyone is surprised by this.
This isn't evidence, but I used to be religious and there was a certain religious mindset in which the internal monologue became more like an internal dialogue. Given this, and that IIRC there is a part of the brain that has been associated with religious experience, the bicameral mind seems at least plausible, though maybe not exactly as originally posited.
I used to say that until I started doing sports competitions and had to travel there repeatedly. I was admittedly worried because of my ethnicity but it went fine (a Canadian passport and NEXUS membership might've helped...you also wouldn't find much on my phone other than sports memes, as much as I care about my privacy).

Similarly in the game development community, lots of people complain about customs but then go to GDC every year.

I guess my point is that as long as America continues being a pillar of the world, people (like myself!) will continue putting their principles aside and comply, and the system will have no reason to change.

I hope you'll last longer than I did. :)

Edit for clarifications.
> If only 0.01% of toxic content ... is receiving disproportionate attention and focus, not only permissible but actively encouraged by complex opaque algorithms, then it is certainly a much bigger problem

To me, this needs to be split into two use cases. The fact that .01% of content gets viewed a lot more than average is not a bad thing. Much of user content is junk with a heavy dose of ads for a seasoning. It is perfectly reasonable that original or thoughtful posts, even if unpleasant or provocative, get much higher traffic. The problem is the algorithmic reinforcement that encourages those making short-term sensationalist statements.

Let's still allow folks to voice their opinions, whichever they are, and advertise them by the digital age equivalents to "word of mouth". Just keep it human, not algorithm driven. My 2c.
It doesn't belong anywhere.
- someone just outright botches the implementation. Heartbleed wound up in OpenSSL for years before anyone noticed.
Moreover, its interesting that he believes that he was targeted because he said anti-Trump statements. Yet, it doesn't seem to occur to him that: This is what you get when you advocate for "big government".

The downside of having big government is that it winds up being staffed with mad-with-power bureaucrats, who will mess your life up just because.

I miss the time when most techies believed in civil liberties and were wary of government. Chickens coming home to roost and all that...
To use the parlance of our time, a lot of people are becoming “woke” to just how morally bankrupt our society has become. And while these sorts of companies have always existed, what’s new is this layer of “saving the world” morality that allows people to feel good about it.

It’s like being a henchman, only you’ve managed to convince yourself it’s honest work. And maybe now it actually is.
Key Differences Between Mobile Commerce and ECommerce
Although it may not be morally ok, one could just buy a laptop for a conference etc, and then return it after a week if the store has a return policy. I've seen stores take back laptops no questions asked for up to 60 days.

If you are in a pinch.

If not you can just sell it (there or at home) and take the loss as a rental fee.
As usual, big business doesn't support free markets -- it supports regulations that it can deal with more easily than its competitors.
You pay $149 a month for access to human translators with our tool. Human translations have a per-word-per-language cost, and we're proud to have partnered with Gengo (which did the translations for Facebook), who has pretty much the cheapest translations on the market.

We've updated the pricing page to be more upfront about this :)
+1 for the mailing list
Mine too. I've owned, 3 of them... There's no finer way to lose data.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-event-horizon-telescope-is-about-to-make-a-hyuuuuge-announcement

That url is foolish.
In the way we use cars there seems no time for graceful handover. You're about the same time interval away from the next car as the time to gain situational awareness, probably less. A plane is usually quite some minutes away from the ground and other planes, or f.e. when landing on autopilot the pilots are not distracted. If you'd apply this standard, the bar for autopilot in cars would be very high indeed. (That might be warranted, although in a risk / reward perspective humans are terrible drivers too.)
A lot of people who work in sensitive situations understand the need and welcome automated documentation, especially in a world where reputation is everything. Not everyone has to work in the same circumstance, and I think that's okay. I would argue that some work is inherently benefited by transparency, such as when people have power over you and nobody can really see.

I feel that in many ways the police handle a range of responsibilities more serious to citizen health than handling some level of classified government information.
Even as a US citizen, at this point, it is my policy to never leave the country with a device & set of data that I wouldn't mind losing at customs.

Even though I have an essentially absolute right to re-enter the country, my hardware apparently does not, at least without potentially being detained for an extended period.

So, burner phone and pre-wiped laptop if I need it, all powered down. If I need any files while away, store them in a secure Box or other account before crossing borders.

At this point, it seems like just a necessary evil extra expense in time and money, and a good idea for other countries, although it sadly seems that the US is now the fast follower of Russia, China, etc, in terms of repressive practices.
This is very similar to Amazon pushing for higher minimum wage. Big lawyers of Facebook can deal with any regulation and no regulation would pass without Facebook's approval. This essentially is rent seeking behaviour and that is why I have stopped using Facebook. I only need to move away from Whatsapp now.
How would you describe a "reddit-style mugging for karma"?

I didn't find the post you're referring to as having added anything additional to the conversation and I also didn't find it entertaining, which I believe was the poster's goal.

However, I wasn't struck with some kind of "this is a bad thing from other platform" vibe.
Zuckerberg ruined the web, made sure that Facebook becomes synonymous with the internet for billions of people to make profit for himself using all means and created a generation of mentally unstable teenagers. This alone makes him among the worst criminals of the 21st century.
Yesterday, this same rationale came up with why Google keeps launching new products and then abandoning them over and over and over.

I guess this is what happens when a startup gets big. They keep all the toxic baggage of startup culture (edit: "move fast and break things") while gaining the impact on people's lives that big companies have.

I think Apple is the only one of the FAANG that's jettisoned startup culture, and I think that's why they're doing so incredibly well.
Transfering via network is only secure, if you believe that forward security exists for network traffic, which is very likely untrue.

The point being: if your encrypted network traffic is captured and retained, maybe it can still be brute forced at liesure, and deduplicated for deltas only. Thus, volume is only a temporary issue, and everyone still gets to see everything eventually, and full retrospective records are still enriched, so maybe that's fine for some things, and not for others.
The solution to this problem is a simple one: Don't buy DRM content. It's just entertainment, you can live without it.
Disrupting the Single-Use Plastic Economy
In the past several years, I’ve entered 6 countries as a US citizen. Only Canada has demanded access to my phone.
Introducing Our New Influx Community Slack Workspace
Good advice!

Things like mobile boarding passes and the "Mobile Passport" app encourage and train people to hand their devices over to TSA and CBP personnel. In that later case, unlocked and with an app CBP/DHS controls already installed (with a lengthy ToS no one ever reads).
Look, most government regulations ultimately favors the incumbent while making it much harder for new entrants to challenge the large organizations. Thus creating less competition which ultimately solidifies the status quo.
There is not.

Customs and Border Patrol operate under a special set of circumstances within ports of entry. You do not have the right to have an attorney present during the interrogation, you can have your personal belongings confiscated, you can be held without charge for up to four hours for any "reasonable" suspicion.

These same rules apply within one hundred miles of the United States border. So if you live near the any ocean, Great Lakes, the Mexican border or Canadian border, you live under a different set of rights than the rest of America.
Dynamic pigmentary and structural coloration in cephalopod chromatophore organs
I work in a MM group so take this as you will, but the days of profitably making markets by just fitting everything to the screens are long gone.
Here's a nice, uplifting film about a philosophy-quoting homeless man from Manchester who flees to London. One of my favourites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_(1993_film)
I had no idea, thank you.
Dating sites
Seems to be promoting a new book that was released yesterday:

https://www.amazon.com/Infinite-Powers-Calculus-Reveals-Univ...
Why I migrated from bash to fish, and what did I learn
If "data portability" were interpreted widely enough, it would mean that people using other social networks could have a "proxy" Facebook account which is automatically synched with their main (non-Facebook) account.

Ideally, any posts that your Facebook account could see would be fetchable by your non-FB account, and anything you post on your non-FB account would be re-posted on FB for you.

This way, as far as your friends are concerned, you are a normal Facebook user, but you would never actually browse the site (or use the app). That would allow competition in how the UI works, but also less ad revenue for Facebook (and more engineering work, which they would presumably claim is unfair).
"Reasonable suspicion" is a legal term. In this context, a CBP officer would need to have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe the item to be searched is illegal to bring into the country, or contains something that is illegal to bring into the country. A hunch is not sufficient; it requires objective evidence.

Reasonable suspicion is not required for every search at a border crossing, and the Federal circuit courts are split on whether it is required for a forensic examination of a mobile phone at a border crossing. The 9th circuit has jurisdiction in this case, and has ruled that it is required.
Winning wars is also about strategy not just technology.

Also, Russia was an ally in WW2, it demanded reparations.

These two are unrelated and historical facts.
Let's start banning books with bad content I guess?
> You get 1000x better treatment in Iran as a visitor for example.

Sure, as long as you aren't LGBTQ or a woman.
I don't disagree with you. I just don't think they have detailed information on your profession to the extend that they distinguish a software engineer from a software engineer doing security work.

I think it is obvious that they profile on overall looks, race, citizen status, place of birth, travel patterns.
I would hope that admitting to deleting data is not admitting to a crime.
I delete data all the time (old emails, texts, pictures, etc...)
Blendle (https://blendle.com) | Utrecht, the Netherlands | Full-time | On site

Our goal is simple: build a better way for everyone to enjoy and explore journalism, while creating a sustainable businessmodel for journalists at the same time.

We’re backed by NYT, Axel Springer and NIKKEI, live in the Netherlands and Germany and in beta in the US, and have over 1,5 million users worldwide.

You can find open positions here: https://blendle.homerun.co/

Currently, we’re looking for a Data Engineer (https://blendle.homerun.co/data-engineer/en) and Data Analyst (https://blendle.homerun.co/data-analyst/en) to join our team (among others, looking for Ruby and frontend developers as well). You can read more about it here: https://blendle.homerun.co/?lang=en

Looking forward to hear from you. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at rick@blendle.com.
And by a similar token, it's totally reasonable to have a "must be viewable in a theatre" requirement, for the same reason. If you view going to a theatre essential to the experience of seeing a movie—even if it's an ephemeral opportunity—you should be able to set criteria based on that.
This is more Deskthority https://deskthority.net/ country I'd think. Thomas Ran has YouTube videos on the Space Cadet keyboard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDozftThFMw and several other Hall-effect specimens.
Sounds like Airbus airplanes are much, much safer to fly on than Boeings. Why would anyone trust a company which thinks it's OK to have a flight control system that only uses input from a single sensor that's known to fail?
A passcode offers you even more protection - you can't be compelled to divulge the passcode even with a warrant, because it would violate your 5A rights

This is different from fingerprints, which can be compelled with a warrant

So if you have sufficiently sensitive data, protect it with something you know, not something you have
That's awesome! A similar landing page would take me 2 days, I'be agonizing over every detail, and the result wouldn't be half as good. Well done!
I agree -- and apologies, I might not have made my point very well.

A different way to phrase it might be: The officers and the suspects disagree about what a reasonable suspicion might entail. Given the incentives, I don't think this is surprising.

I'll admit, my point in no way addresses yours -- how often are officers adhering the the specific legal standard?
Looks like he was down on his luck, tired of being a mobster he never wanted to be and wanted out. The FBI agent gave him that out he wanted. That’s what it looks like. There could be more as you suggest, but given his life on the periphery, it doesn’t look like there was money involved.
This is an honest question, and forgive me if it's a bit naive, but if they release trading software to the masses under the assumption that the vast majority of users will make few changes, can they rely on the herd to buy enough stock in their software's predictions at a slower rate to get an uptick?
While I'm sympathetic to Netflix, I'm not sure I understand why the government is involved in deciding who should be eligible for the Academy awards.
> "A properly trained pilot should be able to solve an MCAS anomaly or any uncommanded flight-control input through procedures that are taught to all 737 pilots"

It blows my mind that anyone still talks like this.

My first job was writing (non-life-critical) scientific software for detail-obsessed university researchers working in a lab with notebooks and procedures. If "just solve it with training" could work for anyone in the world, it would have been these people. Yet it was immediately and abundantly clear that designing usability into the system would have far more impact on their success rate at any task than documentation or training or even the reliability of the software itself.

The movie "Apollo 13" showed astronauts working in a simulator, and engineers giving them faulty sensor inputs to try to trick them. They had to train to be able to identify this possibility, and react correctly to it. This isn't the sort of thing you can figure out on the fly (so to speak). If the solution to flying an aircraft with a faulty MCAS sensor was "the pilot should have read it in a book last month", it's no wonder they were in trouble.

The software industry does make some programs with random inputs and hidden internal state, and require users to figure out what's going on and solve it anyway. We call them "games". Perhaps the defining characteristic of a game is that, even if you've read the manual, you won't succeed on the first try.

> "But, he said, if he were designing the system from scratch, he would emphasize the training while also building the plane with three sensors."

Is even three enough? From an earlier version of the "2001" Wikipedia page [1]:

> "In the story HAL features a design with triple redundancy, so that if one of the three modules fails the other two can outvote it. However, there is a [[theorem]] in [[computer science]] that proves that for such [[distributed systems]] a vote-based [[sanity check]] only works if ''less than'' one third of the modules fail. Thus the failure of a single one of HAL's redundant modules would be sufficient to compromise the system, as apparently happened in the movie."

I don't know what theorem this is referring to. Help?

See also: Segal's Law.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2001:_A_Space_Ody...
The Incorruptibles – bodies who haven’t corrupted after death
Clearbanc plans to disrupt venture capital with ‘The 20-Min Term Sheet’
"Hash rockets are just ugly and verbose"

Ugh, you make it sound like playing code golf and counting every character automatically leads to the most readable code.

Replacing a two character operator with a one character operator, or whatever, is not a significant win for developer productivity. More powerful abstraction tools are what allow non linear productivity gains. Slightly different literal syntax is more a bike shedding topic than anything that's going to help programmers produce better software faster.
My favorite memories of the earlier internet was hijacking Yahoo chat rooms (guns and ammo was a favorite) and singing 80's karaoke while the normal denizens became increasingly irate. Because once you took control of the microphone you got to keep it as long as you held the button down ;)

Now the internet does not seem as fun and wholesome as it did back in the 90's; I feel bad that my kids don't get to enjoy that. On the plus side, maybe they can make some side income as influencers?