skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Tesla has repeatedly made misleading statements about the ability of their systems, and has intentionally caused these crashes.

It is a very well known fact among people working in these fields that a half automated system is a disaster waiting to strike. Human-only controls require the driver to stay focused. Invisible enhancements (power steering) and enhancements used in emergency situations (collision avoidance braking) are just that - enhancements. Fully automated systems also work well. Half-automated systems like Tesla's, where the computer works 99% of the time, cause operators to get distracted - nobody concentrate on watching paint dry for hours on end - and then when the system fails everyone dies in a giant flaming fireball.

One can make excuses about how the exaggerated claims about the system's abilities were made by the marketing department (not engineering) or that it says in the manual to stay focused on driving the vehicle. But ultimately it's all BS. Because this:

> it’s always the driver’s responsibility to operate the vehicle.

Should have been this:

> it's always the manufacturer's responsibility to make a vehicle that can be safely operate.

And Teslas cannot be safely operated by any human when autopilot is on. There are plenty of people at Tesla that know this. And no, just because marketing went on a giant campaign to show everyone how Teslas drive themselves, does not mean that the organization as a whole is not responsible for those actions and for reining it in.

This is no different than Boeing repeatedly misleading the public and regulators about the safety of their planes over the span of many decades in order to shave a few dollars here and there on R&D/manufacturing costs. Boeing is as responsible for those deaths as Tesla is for the ones caused by Autopilot.
It's also a little surprising when you think about it. Look how far science has come despite a very shaky foundation in the system of measurements.

I'm sure most people know, but the mass of the official kilo actually drifted by tens of micrograms since it was made. When you're talking about very large weights, that can be an enormous difference!
Altitude Networks- on Site Senior/Lead Developers SF,CA – Will Relo and Sponsor
Altitude Networks provides companies with the data security they need to safely use collaboration SaaS (GSuite, Box, Dropbox, Office365 etc) without the threat of data loss, theft or inadvertent sharing with unauthorized individuals.
Altitude Networks is founded by Michael Coates, former CISO of Twitter and 15 year veteran in the information security space, and Amir Kavousian, Stanford PhD and former data scientist from CapitalOne ML fraud team. We are a BusinessInsider Top 30 CyberSecurity Startup in 2019, backed by prominent Silicon Valley Venture Capital.
At Altitude Networks, we use a modern architecture that is designed to optimize development efficiency and velocity. We use a serverless architecture and advanced CI/CD tools that enable all team members to quickly develop, deploy, and maintain code in production in AWS cloud.
Yeah in my experience that 199$ price doesn’t happen in real life, as they tell you they need to replace the whole top case. Never understood why they publicly list the 199$ battery change price. Am I missing something?
Yep. Not just API level documentation (not just), but narrative overviews explaining the concepts and models and how everything went together. With just the right amount of example code.

I learned what good developer documentation could be from it!
I think step one would have been to offshore everything.

That said, if Elon Musk had taken over apple from within (like steve jobs did via next) apple might have gotten more interesting.
I spent many years with Visual Basic before learning Python. Some of the earlier versions of VB were object based, meaning that you could use pre-written objects (standard and third party), but you had to buy a special kit to create your own objects.

This was quite useful for those of us who were bewildered by OOP.

When I learned Python, I was comfortable enough with using objects, that I had no problem creating classes.

So I think it's fair to say that creating classes is something that beginning Python programmers can put off.

Since I introduced Python to my workplace, I get to watch some fairly neophyte programmers develop their skills. These are typically engineers doing scientific programming, not commercial software developers. There's a point where I get to say: "You could put that stuff in a class." And later on, "You're creating too many classes." ;-)
I'm slightly surprised Facebook is still so into PGP, for users on Messenger & WhatsApp you'd think they'd start pushing notifications over those channels as they are e2e encrypted and will likely be read more often than PGPed email.
My uneducated guess is that therapy's effective mechanism is related to the placebo effect. There is a line of thought that the placebo mechanism may be related to reduction in stress, because something else will take care of the problem.

If I go to a therapist, and they put time in to help me get better, my stress response decreases, and I feel better.

Completely made up, in case that wasn't obvious. But that's my guess.
Doesn't really explain that the "scrambling" is deterministic which is an important feature. In colloquial use "scramble" means to randomize, for example "scramble the code to your gym locker."

When you scramble your locker combo, is really is random. When you scramble your password with a hash function, it may look random, but it's really not.

Also just for fun, here's a creative stab at my own explanation.

As every dog knows, each dog has a unique smell. If you have smelled the dog before, then you can use its smell to recognize who it is, but without that past experience, nothing in the smell itself tells you who it might be.

The hash function creates the smell from your password, which is the dog. A website does't save a photo of your dog, just the smell. So if a hacker breaks in, they might smell your password but they can't see it. And when you login to the website, it makes sure your password smells right before it lets you in.
There absolutely is and you're part of it. Most of your recent HN comments are about how "liberals" are supposedly ruining fairness in tech when all they're doing is some milquetoast affirmative action to correct the obvious power imbalance facing women. You're even complaining about false rape accusations, it's like a reactionary bingo card.
Fair point, though I thought that "creator who objectively exists" should be sufficiently shocking to atheists who believe we're in a simulator.

But then, if this creator of the simulator is there, can he (or whatever pronoun you wish) use something like a debugger to change things within the simulation? Behold, miracles now fit into the atheist view. Could this creator of the simulator send messages into the simulation? Now you've got at least the possibility of moral law given by the creator.

It's really mind-boggling to me that atheists are going down this path.
since you seem to have the data handy, could you check what's the average number of people filing for bankruptcy for medical reasons in Canada vs. the US per year?
I maintain a blog about tech leadership at 5whys.com (turned it into a book later on called "notes to a software team leader")
It's more subtle than that.

True, given any reasonable well-behaved notion of "set", there is a category Set of all sets. (Its properties will depend on the specific notion of "set" chosen.)

But this observation isn't really relevant to issues of formalization. Mathematics can be formalized in lots of systems, set theory being one, type theory being another, and category theory (more specifically ETCS) providing yet another alternative.

All of these foundations are interesting, enjoy unique features, and are interrelated. In particular, ETCS and set theory are very similar from the point of view of foundations: Basically, ordinary set theory and ETCS are two different flavors of set theory: ordinary set theory rests upon a global membership predicate ∈, while ETCS rests upon the notion of a morphism.

Closest to mathematical practice is probably type theory. (But keep in mind that the points above still stand, and that most mathematicians work informally, not knowing any details about set theory, type theory or ETCS.)
Pre-cursor: 1. Don't assume anything 2. Don't take anything personally.

Can you help understand what's wrong in that statement, "In the 1st quarter, we registered one accident for every 2.87 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot, we registered one accident for every 1.76 million miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 436,000 miles."

Answering your questions:
1. Either Tesla drivers are 4x safer than the average driver or their stats aren't comparable with the industry standard measures (1.76m vs 0.43m) and they have no problem with misleadingly comparing the two.

-> Well, Tesla has one of the best NHTSA safety ratings.. so their driver might be actually be 4x safer... or at-least based on 1.76m vs 0.43m number...

-> one can argue that oldest Tesla on road is 8-9 years and the total # teslas on road are less thus they have lower denominator for total miles driven by all teslas / total # tesla vehicles on the road, which help them get to 1.76M but that doesn't change the fact 1) it is 4x safer based on that number and 2) it has one of the best NHTSA safety ratings.

2. Tesla is not interested in supplying a real metric for how likely you are to crash in a Tesla, but instead provide PR numbers (accident per million miles when Autopilot is overwhelmingly used only on the safest roads?)

-> first, Tesla used NHTSA metric here, which is "NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 436,000 miles."

-> Based on that metric, they provided 2 data points, 1) "we registered one accident for every 2.87 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged." and 2) "For those driving without Autopilot, we registered one accident for every 1.76 million miles driven."

-> that is the real metric on how likely a Tesla car (either autopilot or not) could run into accident... now for "supplying a real metric for how likely you are to crash in a Tesla" (emphasis on "you") would be difficult for any car provider...

I'm strictly commenting for the statement you quoted and the 2 questions you posed. I'm not discussing anything like, how they have over-sold (an idea) of auto-pilot, if its truly safe, if its ready and so on.
It looks as if people have different definitions of technical debt.
Have you tried one of the numerous solutions out there?

Unlike MagSafe, the higher-end ones aren't limited to just power.

https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/11/thundermag-magsafe-thund...

There are a lot of things to complain about with the newer MacBook Pros (like not offering a hardware function row without hobbling the machine). I think the MagSafe removal is one of the least strong of them.
You're presumably used to operating in an enterprise environment with O(1000) customers and O(10) developers, not a consumer environment with O(100M) customers and O(1000) developers.

Reliability issues at large consumer tech companies will usually be caught by the QA/canary/SRE process. If they're not, you'll hear about them soon enough with 100M users banging on the product, and then just do a rollback and fix it on a more leisurely pace. Consumer expectations in non-tech industries have gotten so low that you can burn down whole towns, poison people, and leak millions of records of personal data with few consequences to the company; not being able to access your favorite video for 15 minutes is comparatively minor.

Also, the type of changes in market conditions consumer companies face are usually not those you can architect around. They include things like "We are no longer shipping DVDs to customers; we are streaming content online", "We no longer write web software, we're a mobile-first company", and "our business model is no longer selling personal data, it's payments". There is no architectural fix for "your product is canceled".
That's an unfortunate development. When I signed up a few years ago, there was no processing fee. Wonder if they added it as a form of identity verification rather than just a way to cover costs.
This Is What Fish Oil Supplements Actually Do
The 'trade war' has been going on for 30 years, we just didn't care that China was doing certain things until it hit home.

It was arguably beneficial to not worry about China's IP issues, foreign ownership, capital controls etc. in the 1990's because a growing China was good for everyone.

Now it's not, so there's a realignment.

There's cynicism here, but both issues are perfectly credible: trade/technology and security.

There are a ton of externalizations that enable China to provide, especially 'services' so cheaply. Those externalizations matter in trade, and probably should be capture in some form of tariff.

i.e. it's not actually 'cheaper' for Sweden to buy stuff from China, if all things otherwise equal the only difference is the manufacturer in China doesn't have to pay for carbon taxes or something like that. It's just moving deck chairs around.
The company not having any access to the plaintext password would already be a huge benefit. (many people are giving random companies access credentials to their e-mail, as it stands) Although that would be hard to enforce.

They would only be able to screw users by allowing access to their own service if they were forced to provide a salt and only be able to get the hash.

<input type=password salt=687161>

would only return the salted and hashed value.

But at html level, everything is possible and this would be hardly possible to enforce, aside from informing the user that they are typing a password into unsecure password field (hard to do, not to be fakeable, too).

It would still be hackable, by bad actors by using a salt of a service they want to get pw for, but that would at least be detectable client side.
You keep it plugged in all the time? Do you feel a noticeable drop in battery life? When mine reached those 80% health I felt like it had lost half its battery life or more...
> That's actually great that industry standards are being codified with actual deterrents for failing to strongly store secure passwords.

What would be better is for us folks to do this to ourselves first. If self regulation works well, the government will never need to step in. The GDPR seems to be pretty good, but it's not unimaginable that some assholes in office who are looking to get reelected respond to a high-profile data breach by making a shitty set of regulations to govern all software developers in the country for all time.

W.R.T. enforcing compliance, having a licensing board that oversees this would provide incentive to developers to not cut corners, and would also provide a way to resist management that is intent on releasing a shitty product quickly in the hope of making a quick buck before it all crashes down / padding their resume.
Actually Canada has a stronger claim to speeding the fall of Communism given that Gorbachev had a similar revelation when he visited Canadian supermarkets in 1983: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15129713
My MacBook Air keyboard is a PITA with repeating and spurious keys. The software is buggier ever week. Apps crash, OS X freezes. And I have similar problems with my other Apple devices.

Problem is, it’s still far superior for anyone who needs to do technical and general office work. Tried Linux, doesn’t cut it for the latter. And the industrial design etc is still much better.

So Apple is on this downward trend in quality, and it worries me because there’s no alternative. Are we just going to see productivity drop across the board as Apple gradually regresses back to the mean?

We need more Apple-like companies designing great products.
It's humorous exaggeration/misstatement with a wink. The same way people often refer to hard disks as "spinning rust".
I identified with this post immediately -- both because of the Cixin Liu reference and my own behavior recently.

Before: good opsec, ad blockers, minimal social media under my own name, anonymous and pseudonymous accounts, etc.

Now:

Between 5 and 10 spam, scam or phishing voice calls every day to mobile phone, home phone and office phone.

So now I never answer any phone unless I'm expecting your call and all ringers are always off.

Political operatives of every persuasion are knocking on my door at home several times a week, and there's not even an election on right now. They all have mobile apps, logging every interaction in a central database.

So now I don't answer my own door at home.

Used to enjoy discussing current events, economics, geopolitics, tech policy with family and work friends. We usually disagreed, but it was fun to talk and often I learned a new perspective.

But now these discussions are amped up to 11, emotionally charged in every direction, so these conversations only happen with intimate friends now.

I'm either living in a dark forest or I'm a turtle withdrawing into its shell.

Meanwhile, others in my neighborhood are emerging from their shells, flying confederate flags and more obscure but hateful symbols, and advocating neighborhood militias on Nextdoor.
As a side note, I noticed Fowler linked the CannotMeasureProductivity page using camel case, and that took me right back!

I remembered using PhpWiki and being able to auto-link pages just by using camel case. I don’t believe MediaWiki has that capability. And it’s such a standard I had forgotten it even existed.

Something very soothing about the idea that links could be handled so gracefully.
I remember having a printout of the tasm tables for x80 so I could type hex machine-code into my TI-83 (it could load hex programs as binaries). I don't recommend that approach, but I certainly learned a lot.
More like governments are at "war" and all the big corporations caught in the middle of trade are the "weapons".
Perhaps you'd be interested in reading about Secure Remote Password (SRP): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Remote_Password_protoco...

Copying the "layman's terms" from that page for your convenience...

In layman's terms, during SRP (or any other PAKE protocol) authentication, one party (the "client" or "user") demonstrates to another party (the "server") that they know the password, without sending the password itself nor any other information from which the password can be derived. The password never leaves the client and is unknown to the server.
Because 'women' is only a noun, and it is used as an adjective in the title.

You can gramatically say 'Two women played a pivotal role in the..." or you can say 'Two programmers played a pivotal role in the...", but you can't, at least to my ears, cleanly say 'Two women programmers played a pivotal role in the...'.

What sounds more correct to you?

"I saw two men teachers at the ceremony", or "I saw two male teachers at the ceremony"

I'm sure we can just use the former language to the point where people recognize both as equally correct, but as it stands currently, most English speakers would far prefer the latter over the former.
Ruin? I think its gorgeous. And it appears to be right next to Christian Portzamparc's "pixelated" tower, the prettiest building in NYC.
I use a Yubikey + my phone for storing copies of TOTP codes

Means I don't have to worry about phone upgrades and such, and if the Yubikey were to stop working I still have it on my phone
Simple solution, have a secondary db for totp.

I have this in case my yubikey ever dies and takes my totp codes with it.
How many companies are profiting from a poorly written codebase that just works well enough to be a parketable product and isn't being maintained and there is no plan to maintain it? I can think of many utilities not being actively developed that are still part of or a product in their own right. Surely that isn't debt in any sense?
kit = gear
A Mercedes SL55 AMG sans limiter will hit 200mph at roughly 500HP, and it's pretty easy to pick one of the 2007s with the fixed top for around $20k. If you go down to the 2003s you have plenty of options going down into the $15k range and they're almost as fast. They're also, to my eyes, pretty good looking and very comfortable-- although I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to go around any sharp corners at those speeds.

You can also get a similar era V10 M5 or M6 for about the same cash and those will go like crazy. Again, to my eyes, good looking cars.

If you're patient and haggle well you can probably pick up a viper SRT-10, although you might be waiting a while; I see some around $24k but no lower without salvage titles.

I could go on, but you get my point. There are a ton of cars out there that really are pretty incredible for not a lot of money.
Terrible headline. I suggest, "Serial Con Artist Makes Yet Another Attempt to Claim Bitcoin Throne."
It's nearly impossible to unscramble the hash if it is random.

It's trivial to unscramble hashed dictionary words with 123! or 2019! appended to the end.

Google should somehow note that distinction as it is important.
I get why they'd like like to sell a pro device to more people. That's fine. It marketing world pro/professional seems to often equate to "better". If someone wants to spend an extra thousand to load the news a bit faster, sure. Apple will and should happily take their money, and they can repurpose product names in service of this all day.

I would like to imagine there's space in the market for a "pro" model that would feel markedly worse for the average consumer, and shouldn't be mistakable in its name for something that would serve them better.
What makes it better? (Or either of them anything other than neutral, mundane words?)
If no one ever criticized restrictions, we wouldn't have the freedom we have today.

Most people here are complaining about the license, not the software. They think the software is good but the license is holding it down. To me this looks like valuable feedback.
I had a super weird one. I worked for a startup with a British CTO who was very Republican and would constantly rail against poor people and talk about how the NHS killed people and made them wait months.

I was like, wait, you lived there, experienced the opposite of what you're saying and STILL manage to make up lies to make it sound bad? WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!?!?!
Holding on to my 2015 MBPro for dear life as well.
There is an INC A instruction on the 65C02 and 65816, so this is better if you have anything newer than the NMOS 6502:

EOR #255 ; Invert
INC A ; Add 1

It looks like the Lynx has a 65SC02 which is a 65C02 without the bit manipulation instructions, so it should have the INC A instruction.
Isn't this the normal definition for, say, type systems? A sound type system will never accept an invalid program (no false negatives) but may reject correct programs.
You could just hash the hash that the client sends, no? Then you never know their password and it's still stored securely.
> In a lot of U.S Government Forms, "LastName, FirstName" format is prevalent, and there should be no ambiguity without messing with the cases.

Same thing in Germany.