skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Even with banks, what they really need to know is that you are not laundering money and you pass KYC checks. Verifiable claims would be a way to pass those checks and get a bank account without the bank needing to store any of your personal info.

> We're a long ways from that sort of thinking of course. And on that note, there are still an estimated 1.1 billion people in the world lack any recognized formal identity. There's a chance for many of them to leap frog us by going straight to digital identities rather than carrying around cards.

KYC literally means "know your customer". In what ways do you think that identify is superfluous to this notion? The purpose of KYC is not limited to hindering or prohibiting money laundering.
What you can see here is market maturity, this is a very common thing. There was just so much to do in the computer industry so far.

Look at the history of other industries, there have been hundreds of car companies before Ford took out most of them with the Model T.

Imagine you are one of those people working is the car industry before that. "Company X had a car that drove 50 miles per hour, a new record, insane! The last record got broken just a few months ago...".

What is happening in other mature markets with good dynamics is that gains come much more slowly and it becomes "boring" so you don't think about it too much. You get an incredibly efficient and secure car for a few thousand dollars, profits come from people who buy for status. If you look at the truck industry or aviation, the margins are really low, buyers mostly care about price there.

Most people don't need more than a smartphone, they already buy for status, others need a Mac or a cloud instance like truck drivers need a special kind of car to do their work.

There are just so many car companies, there will be just so many cloud hosters with will compete for ever shrinking margins to run your cloud-function-app magically infinitely scalable on their gigantic datacenters. If you want your own get a raspberry pi rack.

This is amazing, this frees so much energy and resources to focus on other stuff that matters.

Look at software, the next decades we can focus on creating ERP-Systems that are as perfect as Whatsapp.

Then SpaceX and Blue Origin will compete to bring your 3D-Printed robot spaceship into space you just simulated in your hyperrealistic Kerbal Space Program. The enabler here is price per kilogram to orbit.

That's where my imagination stops, because it's "the final frontier" and the problems there are really infinitely hard.
Ever considered building yourself a Hackintosh? It's a no-brainer these days.
If you have companies who are to big to fail they behave that way. We just had that with banks and the financial crisis. Leaving such institutions as is is incredibly dangerous and incentives risky and reckless behavior at the cost of society as a whole.

If saving those jobs is the goal, we should work towards that instead of saving the company in hopes that this will also save jobs.
Or even have a dedicated build server/farm with object caching. At some point building on your own machine is not a great solution.
this is not really an issue, as long as you ignore the julia plotting capabilities; which should have never been there anyway. You can easily dump your numbers (and functions) on a text file and gnuplot them.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN either.
That doesnt actually go to Firefox the browser. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10648693
First forensics to try and crack the pass code (takes about 2 days). Next turn on the phone just long enough to take down the phone number provided. Then wait another day or so and turn on the phone again. At the same time send the recovery number an SMS linked to a fake iCloud website and grab the credentials when they log-in. I have concrete examples of the processes, tools and servers used to pull this off. Apple Support is aware this is a common occurrence - they told me so over the phone.

If you'd like to know more specifics, please feel free to contact me.
Common Misunderstandings about Key Laws of TDD
Don’t Be Desmond: How an Experiment with Trunk Based Development Increased Trust
Possibly. But the point is, there's practically no way they can scape-goat at lower levels over this: management's role is exactly to connect those dots (or, at least, put in the safety culture which ensures the dots are connected, and manage it appropriately).

A systemic failing like this, combined with the more relaxed attitude the FAA took with them, is probably about as clearly a management failing as they could get. I'd put it as even worse than the VW scandal: at least in that instance there were specific cases of malpractice / collusion.
That is true, but at some point it's hard to distinguish between parts of the FAA and parts of Boeing, owed to the simple fact that Boeing have so much influence over the FAA. Statements about how Boeing more or less "certified itself" speak to this. Just go and look at the LinkedIn history of the folks that move between Boeing/FAA.

If you accept this, then the question might turn to how it was possible for the FAA to be weakened to such a degree that this corporate influence was possible. FAA are the regulator - at the end of the day, safety lies with them. Perhaps it's the responsibility of committee and congressional oversight to the aviation regulator? Perhaps the buck stops with the government representatives who have allowed this mess to be possible in the first place?
> A bank needs to be able to recheck every client's status any time the rules change (which happens on a weekly basis). If they don't hold adequate information about their clients, that would mean suspending their accounts until a new verifiable claim was provided.

Exactly. Anyone who has had to deal with the OFAC list (which in reality is every single business in the US) knows that the more information you collect up front, the less disruptive of a user experience you can guarantee (for most users).
In all brutal honestly I think you just need to realize this is just you being upset at having shot yourself in the foot at some point (don't worry, we've all done it) and then trying to blame it on closures somehow, in this case by saying this makes them a "less useful abstraction". In all honesty, no, it just doesn't. It makes them more useful. If I can make an analogy, it's a bit like saying bicycles should only have fixed gears as a "safety net" because you've broken or slipped your variable gears in the past and now you've just learned to take a car or train if you want to go faster than first gear. I mean, that's definitely one way to live your life, but most people don't do it that way... they just realize their mistakes are a natural artifact of being in the learning process and instead of abolishing gears, they keep practicing more so that they eventually get the muscle memory to use their vehicle properly and don't have to think about this problem every time. That's the way to solve the problem for good -- so you can avoid the downsides while reaping the benefits at the same time.
Why would an unhackable phone require update capability? A smartphone almost certainly would, but I don’t see why a simple dumbphone would require such.
There's PackageCompiler[0] which allows to precompile the packages you need for work into a system image. This means avoiding precompilation in the REPL every time you start up Julia. That's if you start with the custom system image.

However, it's a community effort and is somewhat non-trivial to get up and running with. Once Julia gets better precompilation/binary packaging support, common workflows like plotting will improve dramatically.

[0]: https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl
your list just confirmed the points you replied to.
Gotta love posts with more comments than votes.

Steve Jobbs was a visionary tyrant who miraculously knew all this shit. They better be listening.
> I could ask them to go look up papers in Oakland, CCS and NDSS over the last couple of years and see if anything catches their fancy.

Isn't this exactly the major thing that is wrong with research today? Limiting work/creativity to a few well known conferences done by elites for elites? I read blog posts, posted daily here on HN, that are way more informative, honest, and replicable than many papers published in the three conferences you named.

> "elite" status. Some of this is deserved, because these people have done good work. But some of this is also just a publication cartel where everybody cites their friends' work and make it impossible for others to break into a field.

Elite status happens exactly because there are conferences like the ones you mentioned. If you work with an advisor that publishes in Oakland, your chances of getting a paper in Oakland gets increased multiplicatively. And hint, that's not because your ideas (or papers) are better than anybody else's.

> The larger point is that in a scenario where there are so many papers that nobody could possibly look at all of them will lead to a few groups accumulating all the citations and all the awards.

This is already happening. Look at all the "prestigious" conferences.

> where researchers don't have the PR muscle power to highlight unpublished stuff.

Who cares? If the work is worth anything, people will cite it. If not, it will remain as is. Why does it matter? Why do you care if 10 people cited your work or 100 people if you are happy with the work?

Unfortunately, nobody in this forsaken field (computer science) cares about the scientific aspect of the field anymore; everybody wants their name to be known and that's all there is to it. The measure of success is how many papers you publish in elite conferences ...

I do actually think that by breaking down all the barriers people care less about having their name in conference X or Y and more about the scientific aspect or citation cartels. First one is good, second one can be fixed (at least more easily than giving a few elites lots of power with no checks and balances).
There is this Karabiner software:

https://pqrs.org/osx/karabiner/

It allows remapping keys, so you could e.g. remap the whole top row from ~, 1 to 0 to act as ESC, F1 to F10 when needed. Not ideal but better than touch bar.
Flagship Mac Pro 2019 is likely to cost more than $50k. That's much more than $9k at 1990.
Absolutely agree. A big part of this problem, which is still being perpetuated today, is this idea that if you go to college and study ANYTHING then it will get you that coveted 50k/year salary job upon graduation. This idea was mainly perpetuated by elementary, middle and high school teachers, as well as parents who honestly should not have even been giving career advice to begin with.

Also you are by far not the only one in this situation. I have friends on my facebook that I look back at and see them still working the same job they worked while in college (making roughly 23k/year in Southern California!). They have degrees in sociology, psychology, philosophy, communications etc. Their degree has made them worse off because now they have student loans to repay on a degree which simply cannot support the repayment of such loans. Likewise, the degree did not increase their income at all. It is hard to believe but in reality, they would have been better off not going to college at all.
I've been using FF forever (never bought into the idea of using a browser from an ad company, or from the party running the web; checks and balances and all), and have recommended it many times here and elsewhere. But what's disturbing with only Chrome and FF left and Google financing both, is that this self-referential, self-sustaining situation can't develop the web into directions not benefitting the powers that be at this point. Imagine a political situation where you have only two parties to choose, with this binary choice having a qualitative rather than merely quantitative effect on democracy ;) It's most disturbing that those responsible for developing web standards are financially dependent on Google as well, and are thus incapable to drive material change, or even see a problem with the ever-expanding complexity of browsers.
TL;DR: Offline messaging is incompatible with non-intrusive synchronous communication.

I think the main problem with modern IM software resides in letting the user send messages to offline recipients (offline as in "not actively using the application"). For modern IM to be "instant" or "synchronous", every user has to be able of being interrupted at any time by a message sent to them, by means of intrusive notifications; this means that "being offline" is no longer an option in modern synchronous communication, so major IM software designers did away with it altogether--e. g. WhatsApp.

This didn't happen with MSN Messenger pre-2005, for instance. Sending a message was only possible if both parties were connected at the same time; the moment the recipient disconnected, the text box got greyed out and the chat effectively ended. This meant that every user had to deliberately decide to be available for other people to message them; it also meant that IM was truly "instant" at all times--except when people left for a few minutes, which prompted an "away" status on their part; nonetheless, the decision to be connected had to be consciously taken at some point.

A solution could be designing IM software that respects your time and attention. This could be achieved by forcing users to actively use the app in order to receive messages. P2P IM apps like Briar[0] are like that by definition--it's a "technical-limitation-turned-feature" for me.

[0]: https://briarproject.org.
Pieces of advice for starting your own business
Would you please not post personally abrasive comments or do flamewar on HN? Not cool.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
malloc fails with a negative argument
Do you mean "one of the few computer science authors"?

We did this as whilst studying difference equations in first year undergraduate mathematics. I imagine most books dealing with the subject will include the Fibonacci equation as an example.
You mean tech as in internet based, I assume. Technology (in the actual sense of the word) based companies make Germany an economical powerhouse.

The large european companies with a big "stake" in the internet are non-technology based companies like publishers. These publishers hate the internet and they hate Google and Facebook because they see them as competition.

The result is shenanigans like Article 13. Also, the GDPR, with its anti Google and Facebook overtones, has received nearly nothing but applause from these stakeholders. So friction was light when it was pushed through by people who actually cared for the privacy aspects of it.
We've asked you repeatedly to stop posting like this to HN. If you keep posting flamey comments we're going to have to ban you. I don't want to do that, so would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules strictly from now on?
> >Truly there are almost zero situations in which an entity needs to know your real identity.

> 1000 percent this!

> What entities really need to know to do their function is shockingly small compared to what they ask for. Here are some examples:

> - Bank: proof you are authorized to make decisions for a given bank account. (Possibly jurisdiction info if the government forces banks to screen on citizenship.)

> - Voting: proof that you didn't vote twice. (Possibly jurisdiction info if you are only allowed to vote in a specific area.)

> - Job: a nickname, contact info, where to send compensation, a way to grant (and revoke when terminated) your access to non-public information. (Possibly jurisdiction info if the government forces companies to screen on citizenship or calculate taxes in a specific way.)

> - Social media network: way for others to connect with you (eg email).

> - Bars: (possibly proof of age, if the government forces establishments to limit sales on that basis.)

> - Online or in-person payments: proof that the funds transferred to the business's account.

But for all of these use cases, who would be the provider of these attributes to the third parties? Haven't we already seen issues with centralization of identifying information? (Like the case with the OPM breach?)
SEEKING WORK

I am data analyst with expertise in Advance Excel, Python, SQL,R,SAS,HTML5, CSS,Bootstrap,Java. Machine Learning is my current love and we are deeply in love. Pro at creating dashboards, visualisation and websites.Currently in Melbourne,Australia

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes(Canada & US only)

Website: https://cheesepotato.github.io/

Email: m.ravi2963@gmail.com.com
The promise of better type systems os that more of your code will be secured by types, not that everything will be covered. That is why there are still people working on newer type systems (e.g. dependent types, linear types, etc).

For the specific example you give, you can either use liquid haskell, which is an annotation system bringing richer types to haskell, or use another lang that has dependent types off the shelf.
"So, why are we doing this?"
I think there are a lot of reasons. Market share, control of technology, not invented here syndrome, ego issues, fads, shifting focus on specific set of problems. I personally think that OO proliferation (C++) and Java and enterprise mindset was the point of no return. The mental point where the majority left simplicity and maintainability out of its scope. There was (and still is) an era where complexity (and the ability to comprehend it) is a synonym of mental machismo. Simple was left as something that lesser minds/developers had to worry about whilst the 10x devs (another great proliferated myth) which everyone worth his salt should strive to be (so the myth went on), must not only conquer it but also thrive on it and create more of it. Thus you got a multitude of tooling, languages, stacks that do the same things differently, you got Godzilla OO hierarchies and architecture diagrams that look like a dozen overlapped London metro maps. Now we got microservices and k8s which in itself is a testament to irony - started as an attempt to simplify uservices/cluster mgmt and has evolved to perhaps the most complicated ecosystem ever (one has serious trouble even comprehending what most of the tooling in k8s land are supposed to be doing, much less use them and don't get me started about really understanding code in there).

I personally think more people should read and embrace the Unix philosophy of simple and reusable but on the other hand I'm afraid that the ship is unstoppable now.
All I've ever had to do after an upgrade is re-run my MultiBeast config. What's so difficult? My quad-core i7 hackintosh is still going strong after 9 years of daily use.
If you're building Apple projects, it might be hard or impossible to offload that to other operating system.
I don't know the difference between startup and precompilation, and I do not really care, but if I launch a julia script from the command line it is unbearably slow for no apparent reason. Octave, on the other hand, launches instantly and starts making computations.

This is understandable, because julia is not intended to be used that way. You are supposed to "live" inside the repl. However, I prefer tools that are flexible enough that can be used comfortably in non-intended ways.
App to Read Faster (iOS Only)
...and saccharine fakeness, mixed in with paid promotion of utter nonsense.

That said, Instagram with just friends and no influencers is pretty good.
Strange, when I was a kid adults had the opposite attitude towards us.

Boys were considered inherently mischievous, prone to cheating or making shortcuts, and always up to no good, while girls were considered rule-abiding, smart and hard-working.
We've asked you repeatedly not to post unsubstantive and/or uncivil comments to HN. We ban accounts that do this, so would you please not do this?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Yeah, NUC8i5/8i7 with 64GB + TB3 eGPU and you are set for a few years...
> The best solution in this case is to stop means testing them, and also convert every plausible benefit from stuff to cash-to-buy-stuff-with (i.e. UBI). Because at that point it's the same as voting, all you have to prove is citizenship and that you haven't already received the benefit, there is no separate eligibility information required.

How do you prove you did not receive something?
your experience gets at what i think may be essentially confounding in giving advice to our younger selves.

you are not the same person, through time. you will live many lives and become many different people.
You're right, I was aiming the spammers by fake/bot accounts. Not the ones that are useful or fun.
Yes, you write a new test for each new feature. But if you do the same thing in a statically typed language, once you've allowed arrays, and what not, how do you know if the function still works, besides carefully studying it.
The author claims that the number of tests required are only those tests that are necessary to describe the correct behavior of the system and that this is true whatever the programming language is dynamic or statically typed. But with these assertions you highlighted What about invalid arguments? What if someone calls: (random-elements -23 nil)?, the author shows that he don't give any value to static typing at all. He simply believes that what is tested with types don't matter: So I’m not going to worry about that. It’s on you..

I think he misses the fact that types are a cheap syntactic way to bring confidence on very diverse aspects of a system: compatibility of values or binary representations but also correctness of dynamic behaviors (see how Rust controls memory with scope type variables) or even algorithmic complexity (see A typed, algebraic approach to parsing https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~nk480/parsing.pdf).
Malloc allocates virtual memory. The original article had to issue a correction at the end: "I was wrong about why malloc finally failed! @GodmarBack observes, in the comments, that x64 systems only have an address space of 48 bits, which comes out to about 131000 GB. So, on my machine at least, the malloc finally failed because of address space exhaustion."
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or uncivil comments to Hacker News? We're hoping for better than internet default here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
That's possible but unlikely.

I'd be willing to bet there are engineers who are experiencing a lot of guilt about this right now. Not many.. but maybe even a handful. These are people who might not have been able to do anything about the problem had they realised the true scale of the risk. But I'd guarantee they exist, even if only in a number one can count on one hand.

It's a failing of the company culture where these engineers were not made safe to speak up; a missing facility for those who knew, to get the message to those who would do something about it had they known. It was likely a function of unhealthy (toxic?) company culture which precluded this psychological safety.

I bet these folks feel pretty bad.. maybe even responsible. They won't speak up tho, lest being labelled or even targeted with the full blame. They will suffer in silence, in some ways like the many soldiers ordered to do things they didn't think were right, but did anyway.
Thousands More Americans to Die in Heat Waves Unless We Meet Paris Climate Goals
Because its relative. You cant get car traffic as safe as airplanes. Its not reasonable to hold Boeing to the same standards as automotive traffic. Automotive traffic is simply far more dangerous then flying. You also wouldnt be ok with people dying from bread as long as its fewer then the amount of people dying to e.coli or fish poisoning. The question is always how easy it is to prevent deaths not how many are acceptable for a given branch.
Caps Lock works as a Control key for me. Can't really reach built-in Control comfortably.