skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It is pretty silly, because why would you go to greater lengths to dig up coal when you have all this biochar you've just created at the surface that you could more easily burn to release more energy?
Why can't it be that new organisms are bubbling up from the thermal vents or bubbling hot springs all the time?

Why do they say every thing came from a single origin cell?

Seems like I'd it happened once, it can happen again!
Thanks for the reply.

I am often not correct in recognizing even my own cognitive biases. So, of course, I do not know what you think.
To answer your question otherwise, would be pretentious.

But I am certain, that I feel the unfair bias and censorship against the conservative points of view.
In both: what stories are allowed to be posted, and how the comments are moderated.

I am also certain, that would feel much happier with the quality of discussion -- if divisive topics with just a passing relation to modern technology and without substantial evidence based analysis -- would be left to other forums.

Again, thank you for your reply (I did not expect it, I only expected to be flagged again).
And thank you for personal time and effort to moderate HN.
All those employees are liable as well. So are google engineers, facebook engineers, etc.

It may well be the reality that corporations are legal entities set up to externalize every cost, internalize every profit, and sink a healthy amount of them back into rewriting the laws that would constrain such behavior and we all have to live with the results.

But that doesn't mean it's ethical.

If you write code that you know is going to be used by an authoritarian state to kill human rights activists and you can currently shrug and say, well it's legal and it pays well, then well more power to you I suppose. But I'm not going to say that you aren't liable from /my/ perspective.
I think most people agree there is _some_ use for automobiles in cities, just like there's _some_ use for helicopters in cities. It's _extremely_ limited though.

I actually think it's silly to allow guns in cars and not on public transport (way more drive-bys than bus-bys, after all) but that's definitely an edge case.
I wrote a super simple global Javascript toggle plugin for Chrome because I was tired of manually toggling it in the preferences. Currently I believe I'm the only user, but I use it every day. It doesn't collect / send any data anywhere, it literally just toggles Javascript and reloads your open tabs. I wrote my own plugin to do this simple thing because I don't trust other people to make simple things and just leave them alone. Feel free to use it if you'd like.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/js-toggle/bnhjfamo...
If US government wanted us secure, they'd let us buy Type 1- and TEMPEST-certified gear that is strong enough to stop their pentests with minimal side channels, too. That's Defense-only. The stuff they recommend for rest of us are built on things like Linux which consistently has vulnerabilities, some of which they and foreign hackers use.

I'd consider blocking foreign products that might be insecure if they'd:

(a) Let me buy their secure products for same use cases. The WAN encryptors and Inline, Media Encryptors w/ trusted paths come to mind.

(b) Start recommending, sponsering, and evaluating more high-security systems like they did under TCSEC. Especially covering the costs of the platform with open, permissively-licensed code so others have fewer excuses not to build on it.
Thanks for chiming in! I am fairly impressed with your analysis, but I am somewhat perplexed as to figuring out "what do we do now?"

It seems that if we want to fix our satisfaction with our healthcare situation (in the U.S.), we have to fix a couple of issues:

- we have to mitigate the "endogenous factors" that contribute to poor health outcomes (i.e. people have to live healthier lifestyles).

- we have have to find a way to encourage people to self-ration their own medical spending in a way that doesn't adversely affect their own health outcomes.

Do you think a more free-market based approach to healthcare consumption would fix these issues? How do we address lack of information? How do we address the motivational issues that lead us to both live unhealthy lifestyles and to spend money on unhelpful medical care?

edit: fixed formatting
The best way I have learned and follow myself is find clients willing to pay THEN build the product. I have used powerpoint, PDF's, Balsamiq and lots of manual ways to demonstrate ideas to potential clients before code ever was typed into an IDE.
I felt that a similar thing happened with those thai kids stuck in that cave. An international effort was made to rescue them. What if this year one of them is dying because their parents can't afford healthcare? Would that create an international effort?

At the same time, I too felt compelled to help them when they were stuck...
>Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it.

The interesting thing is that this really doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things.

Consider weapons treaties, like the UN ones banning the use of land mines and cluster munitions. The only countries that have signed them either don't have any reason to use them, or are allied with a nation that hasn't signed that treaty.

This is much the same story. The US hasn't signed this, and never will (because it explicitly contravenes a cornerstone of its supreme law), and at that point what the other countries do is pointless unless they outright block US services from their networks- in which case there will be riots in the streets. Governments don't survive for long when they alienate the vast majority of their population, and the majority of the population uses US services.

Combine that with the simple fact that 100% effective moderation of an online service is unscalable to the point of being impossible without prohibiting any meaningful content/conversation means that countries that do sign this and implement it in their law will never be able to develop a competitive Facebook alternative, and all you've accomplished (as a signatory nation) is political posturing and shooting yourself in the foot.

You can't outcompete a free nation. That's kind of its main advantage.
What leads you to believe that I presuppose the undesirability of people supposedly inevitably having access to Martin Luther King? Perhaps you aren't from the US, so you don't understand the cultural context of my example of extremism? Or did you mean that I am claiming that the formation of a censorship cartel is supposedly inevitable? I wasn't claiming that; I was claiming that in the absence of a censorship cartel, people will tend to move to platforms whose recommendations aren't censored, and so they will have access to Martin Luther King and other extremist content.
Correct and now they have the moral authority and excuse to continue doing it. That sort of support, especially when you can say from a podium "The world is behind us in this effort" is a powerful tool for governments to use. Imagine being gay or lesbian and hearing you might as well give up because the whole world is against you.
Upcoming TapIntoTwitter developer event in NYC
https://tapintotwitterny.splashthat.com
> In coding terms, it’s a trivially simple error which should take a few seconds to fix.

This is both a large assumption and a huge oversimplification. What about time to regression test, QA, deploy through the various inner rings/dogfooding groups, check accessibility, etc.?

It smacks of a writer who possibly has coded before as a hobbyist but never professionally.
Solar and Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels
If you look at it a certain way, this is what email was before ISPs and bigcorps gave away email addresses; everyone who had an email address was paying their sysadmin for the privilege of having one (through their tuition at a university that has email services, or through the cost-center of the company they work for.) In either of those cases, people were more careful with email, because postmasters were easily angered (and this was, in turn, because causing trouble could actually get your system kicked off the network!)

In modern times, people pay to use Slack. It'd be interesting to study the sociology of paid Slack groups (as compared to free Slack groups, or as compared to any other free-for-everyone group chat platform.)

I've always thought it'd be a cool idea to have a group chat platform where, rather than some admin owning the group and maybe paying, the group has a tip-jar and anyone/everyone in the group can contribute. (Twitch sort of works like this, but you're really donating to the channel owner, not to the group itself. In my hypothetical model, there is no channel owner; the group persists because at least some of the user-base want it to, and so pay for it to.)
Free speech is not an absolutist position and it does not exist. There is no single country on this earth, past or present, which has held an absolutist free speech position. Yes, that includes America.

It may be enshrined in our constitution, but that has never stopped us from selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people. The real problem is pretending that an absolutist position exists and acting like we're becoming more free when the reality is that violent bigotry is rising while we complain about the imaginary slippery slope into fascism whenever someone decides to take action against them.
Unfortunately depression is almost an occupational hazard of graduate programs.

And if you actually manage to finish your Ph.D., your chances of making it to the top of the academic pyramid scheme are essentially nil.
Stealing trade secrets is precisely what people are mad about, so your whole point is moot.
Universities really need to do a better job and not cut students off from mental health services.
I disagree, I believe TOTP belongs firmly in the "something you have" category. You cannot memorize TOTP password, nor you can store in your password manager. You also cannot pass that knowledge to another person. So this is more like a public key than a password.

Ultimately, everything is "permanent, unchangeable secret", including private key and biometric data. Where the data is stored and how is it accessed makes all the difference.

I could not find the original definition of "something you have", but modern standards like PCI actually give OTP auth as an example of "something you have" (p. 4 of [1])

(I am not looking at the degenerate case of running TOTP app on the same device / same security domain -- it does not describe most cases, and there are some fairly straightforward technical measures to defeat this)

[1] https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/pdfs/Multi-Factor-Authe...
> The value of life is not infinite.

Technically it is[0], but they're going to die in a century or so (if that) anyway, so anything that reduces quality of life enough is morally equivalent to killing them earlier.

0: at least to within measurement error
isn't all this stuff actually manufactured in China?
The reference compiler is as free-standing as OCaml's because it too has its own back-end. Its front-end is shared with the other 2 back-ends: feeds the ubiquitous LLVM in LDC, and is included as a supported front-end in GCC since version 9.1.

Anyway, there is no way you'd give up ML-tradition pattern-matching; D doesn't have it.
These are very good suggestions, thank you! The editor was the first chunk of Konstellate that we built, and we definitely want to keep adding to it. We have the nested feature on our roadmap, but I hadn't thought about the inline field addition. I will let you know when we have some updates. Thank again for your feedback it's incredibly helpful!
> I meant lazy operations for avoiding unnecessarily making things like memory deallocation temporal.

Yes, I wasn't talking about real-time/performance consideration. The root post was along the lines of "Rust is nice, but I like productivity of a GC". I'm saying deterministic destruction is more productive for the developer and Rust makes a great high-level language.

Regarding stuff like non-blocking deallocation etc.
You can still do it in Rust if so you desire. In the a destructor, enforced by the type, you can use nice abstractions, etc. and eg. defer deallocations, or draw memory from an arean. I think eventually Rust will just have more or less standardized type for GCs and graphs with explicit roots etc.

But sure, it is all still very new here, so if one is writing a real-time trading or OS, maybe they should stick to C/C++.

> But I honestly wonder about the size & longevity of your C/C++ semi-production code - semi, because it is C/C++

In C I worked on code powering embedded chips (mostly radio communication, kernel modeules) and eg. real-time hypervisor powering some high-end cars. In C++ eg. some high-perf data management stuff (data dedupilcation, encryption, etc.) in a SV unicorn. I actually would describe myself as C (as opposed to C++ person), but I know my around modern C++ quite well - i just really don't like working with it.

> I somehow can't see another complex language solving more problems net-net.

I don't think Rust is actually that complex. It is definitely bigger than C, but I think it's much smaller than C++. And it is sane. Thinks play well together in it, I think I could get a new dev productive with Rust in a week or up to a monthy, and as long as you avoid `unsafe` in Rust they will produce a decent code with ease. In C++ you're either an "expert" or you're debugging segfaults. ;)
Late reply but here is what I did:

- Bought a new domain name and moved my mails in fastmail. I have been super happy with it so far.

- My Gmail address is now only for spam or very low importance emails.

- All my Pixel pictures are still uploaded to Google Photos, but I backup everything once a month or so.

- I don't use Google Drive for anything anymore. I have an Evernote account and a Dropbox account.

- Completely switchecd to DDG and Firefox.

- I'm still using my Pixel2 as of now but my next upgrade will be an IPhone, or a rooted Google-Independent Android phone.
Gradual typing (that you can opt-out from) makes for a smooth prototype-to-production experience. Wish more languages supported it.
The rest of the world can also stop 'outsourcing' their IT to the US and STOP using Apple, Microsoft, Google, Intel...
I find the CFC situation to be rather interesting because it not only made it illegal to intentionally release them into the atmosphere (which would, if anything, just cause people to release them from things like old fridges and ACs even more frequently so as not to be caught with the "prohibited substance"), but by stopping production and keeping it legal to continue to use, created a market for recovering/reselling/reusing that helps to keep them out of the atmosphere.

It's the difference between saying "it's bad for the environment so don't release it", and "it's rare and valuable so don't let it escape, but recover, resell, and reuse" --- not everyone believes in global warming or cares as much about the former, but the latter is a powerful motivation.
That's exactly the point. It's not that playgrounds should be more dangerous for the heck of it, or just because kids think it's more fun that way. It's because learning to deal with danger is an essential life skill and we are now depriving our kids of it.
There should be no street parking when it removes a lane from traffic. seems an awful waste of space for one car that could be used to move vehicles.
I have filed a few rdars. It's not a good investment of time in my experience.
I can picture a perfect Improv Everywhere scene: a bunch of people get together and practice/research statements that make them sound like they hold awful opinion Y. Then, they sneak into a political debate, or a protest that has a counter-protest... on both sides. And then they all simultaneously try to call the other group out [with the other people they came with as their specific examples] for having opinion Y.
I think the two are pretty closely coupled, if you have a giant insurance provider then they can dictate prices -- if the pharmaceutical companies haven't purchased the agency that does it, of course. It seems to work well enough elsewhere anyway.
Randomly enough, the writer of this previously achieved HN fame when he was unstoppably fired by a machine:

https://idiallo.com/blog/when-a-machine-fired-me
I wonder how much we're misjudging cause and effect:

If I'm suffering from mental illness, I'd be more inclined to seek the anonymousness of a city, rather than the exposure of a small town/village

(In my experience the same is one of the reasons why homeless tend to move to bigger cities and/or why most of a city's homeless population is made up from people who weren't born there).
And yet it still hasn't been done. Why do you think that is?
For sure, implementing Linux is no easy task, and there is no magic bullet. For compatibility testing, we have extensive system call unit tests [1] and also run many open source test suites. Language runtime tests (e.g., Python, Go, etc) are particularly useful. We also perform continuous fuzzing with Syzkaller [2].

> how do you implement features that ostensibly require calls to the OS anyways?

gVisor's kernel is a user-space program, so it can and does make system calls to the host OS. Some examples:

* An application blocks trying to read(2) from a pipe. gVisor ultimately implements blocking by waiting on a Go channel. The Go runtime will ultimately implement this with a futex(2) call to the host OS.
* An application reads from a file that is ultimately backed by a file on the host (provided by the Gofer [3]). This will result in a pread(2) system call to the host.

The purpose here isn't to avoid the host completely (that's not possible), but to limit exposure to the host. gVisor can implement all the parts of Linux it does on a much smaller subset of host system calls. Anything we don't use is blocked by a second-level seccomp sandbox around the kernel. e.g., the kernel cannot make obscure system calls, or even open files or create sockets on the host (those operations are controlled by an external agent).

[1] https://github.com/google/gvisor/tree/master/test/syscalls/l...

[2] https://github.com/google/syzkaller

[3] https://gvisor.dev/docs/architecture_guide/overview/
Well, why not. It's a lot of fun to be playing with, climbing over and exploring garbage like what is shown on the photos.

I'd just not kid myself. It will come with more injuries, hopefully not debilitating.

I got several unpleasant injuries by playing freely with anything available. I threw a metal rod through my feet. Jumped on a 4" nail while running, securing my shoe to my feet, quite well, cut half my thumb off with my favorite knife. :) All these things and more I can see kids be able to achieve in such an environment.

I suspect that had my parents have to do more than just drive me to the emergency, they'd be more involved in ensuring I don't do these things again.

I wonder if free public healthcare like in many EU countries vs whatever is in the US has an effect on what parents let their children do.
It could get worse if you consider many companies have R&D centers in countries that like IP spying. That includes Russia and China. For China, true more often if hardware development is involved.

So, Trump gonna require all potentially-subversive, foreign, R&D centers to be shut down with it all imported to America? Then require them to be US citizens born here with low risk of foreign influence? And then paid well with stable lifestyle with lower odds of bribery or blackmail?

I think he has no idea what it takes to reduce foreign risk. Besides, the so-called APT's are doing a number on our Fortune 500 companies with techniques like spear fishing with PDF-looking executables. I mean, how much will blocking Chinese equipment even help such companies? ;)
Only if the fuel cooling ponds double as a "small world" boat ride.
YouTube permits a lot of demonetized videos they don't dare to sell advertising on, or (previously) that YouTubers wouldn't give permission to sell advertising on, because the alternative of erasing the videos would send the YouTubers and their viewers to DailyMotion or Vimeo. As long as the demonetized viewers occasionally watch a non-demonetized video, or the sometimes-demonetized YouTubers occasionally make non-demonetized videos, YouTube makes more money that way.
Verizon, ATT, TMobile, and Sprint compete pretty heavily to get people to switch. If they didn't you wouldn't see as many advertisements or commercials.

Attacking each other on hidden fees to prevent robot spam would be a major selling point, especially since it's so front of mind for so many people.
> I certainly can, because it would be hypocritical to be against Microsoft using IP rights as a bludgeon on Linux, Qualcomm on Apple, Oracle on Google, and then be upset with Huawei on anything but stealing trade secrets.

There is a difference between developing technology and getting into a patent war vs wholesale copying of a product so completely that you actually duplicate the BUGS.

Yeah, Huawei did that and Cisco, rightfully, went after them and won. Of course, it didn't do a lot of good after the fact.
Note that several plants don't have any capacity listed at all, and therefore get sorted to the bottom of the list.

In terms of total capacity, China has about ⅛ of the world semiconductor capacity, the fifth largest country... behind Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and the US.
I really want to like Telegram (it's certainly a handy gateway to my attempts at getting people off Facebook Messenger) but this article seems pretty misleading & reads like a marketing grab

_Disclaimer: This thread is mostly based off of a sporadic interest in this space, not necessarily up-to-date research of counterpoints_

A few observations in no particular order:

- Telegram use their own proprietary encryption algorithm which has had some questions raised in the crypto community

- Telegram appear to do a fair bit of hand-waving re. distinguishing their end-to-end "secure" messaging vs. the default (and more convenient) group and non-secret messages - which are encrypted differently, and cloud-archived similarly to what the article describes WhatsApp doing.

- Not that there's necessarily a satisfactory alternative, but a privacy-first solution would ideally be more overt

- Article never mentions Signal (either the protocol, or the competing application) which have undergone significant peer review, but does refer to Telegram as distinguishing itself through open source and open process.

- One can't help but question the motive of a crypto-first app which doesn't follow crypto best practice, or at least speak candidly about their attempts to iteratively improve this.

- Telegram seem to be making moves towards an increasingly "social media messenger" space - does this run at odds with privacy-first? (my guess would be it does)

---

Some links:

- [Is Telegram Secure? (security stack exchange)](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/49782/is-telegr...)

- [white paper analysis of Telegram's crypto](https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf)

- [Signal's Moxie Marlinspike on Telegram's founder](https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/18/signal-moxie-marlinspike-t...)

EDIT: formatting
The discussion is about quadriplegia, not scrapes and bruises.
Analyst firms take money from their clients and the vendors they analyze.

They can't be trusted at all.