skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I am still having trouble understanding the specific problem you want solved, and what an additional open drug database would add that DrugBank lacks but that is required to accomplish your solution.

It seems like your frustration is mostly with the Surescripts monopoly on electronic prescribing. You say that they dictate an approved commercial vendor. This is a very different problem, and would have very different solutions, than the problem We don't have any open source drug interaction database, which is where this thread started.
Prior to CGNAT, ISPs did not generally restrict peer communications in NATed IPv4 networks. The subscriber's router had a public IPv4 address and could accept or forward incoming connections at will. In most cases this could be automated (by default) with UPnP, which is effectively the same as not having a firewall for incoming connections. (If the port is closed anyway then blocking the traffic at the router has no effect, and any application that can open a port can use UPnP to allow incoming connections through the firewall.) The only real restriction compared to IPv6 was that you couldn't run multiple services on the same well-known port, which offers no security advantage to offset the inconvenience.

CGNAT breaks all this, of course, since the public IP address is on the ISP's side and they're unlikely to implement port forwarding on demand. For that matter, there probably aren't enough ports available to support all the subscribers sharing a given public address, and there could be security/trust issues as well with incoming connections to the same IP being dynamically routed to different subscribers according to the port number. (All the problems associated with dynamic IP address reuse, but with much quicker turnover.)

With IPv6 you can either let the destination deal with incoming connections directly—which has about the same security as a NATed IPv4 network with UPnP—or manually configure the firewall to only allow specific connections through according to the destination IPv6 address and/or port. Either way you won't have any issues with multiple hosts wanting to accept traffic on the same port numbers. There is no technical reason why there couldn't be a protocol like UPnP(v6) just for opening ports in the router on demand, but in a NAT-free network it wouldn't really serve any purpose.
It's entirely possible that the training was de-facto complete, i.e. they covered all of the material issues in a shorter timeframe, and the remaining bits might just be bureaucratic padding anyhow.

i.e. the nature of these problems may stem from other forms of inefficiencies.

In the work camps on the Alberta Oil Fields, there are literally signs up in front of the all of the pissoires instructing men on 'what angle to hold your penis at' so as to avoid splatter. I'm. Not. Kidding.

Can you imagine the site Engineer signing off on the bathrooms, possibly knowing the 'how to hold your penis' safety posters have not been issued yet?
WeChat Part Duex: Inside China's Surveillance Operation
I was just clarifying.
I agree with you that for anyone who recently took math in college, it's obvious that Z is the set of integers. But for someone just learning it? Not so much.
When someone technically violated the law, but the jury doesn't convict is.
Huawei is reportedly testing a Russian operating system to replace Android
>And ultimately, that’s the problem: A Congress that has failed to keep pace with the times, not prosecutors aggressively using new technological tools.

The title is a bit confusing as the article really hits the problem area, congress.

At least in my curious amateur tech legal guy reading the news role I do feel like we're seeing judges recognizing that "If we allow X, Y constitutional right really doesn't matter anymore....".

Things like the third party doctrine in the US is not aging well and has been passed by with technology raising questions about if there is any expectation of privacy, anywhere.

You can be entirely off the gird and be a mountain man, but the moment someone decides to note something about you on you're phone, it's out there.
I'm surprised, but glad, that a federal magistrate judge would take the time to write out an article like this. It feels odd to me that a judge - someone who is supposed to be neutral - would openly take a stance that prosecutors are overstepping their boundaries within matters of policy. (Of course, one of the functions of a judge is to say when a prosecutor has crossed the line as a matter of law.)

I saw a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXAkXyysfFU) discussing one of this judge's recent opinions regarding a series of copyright infringement lawsuits. Orenstein dismissed 13 suits from one single copyright holder against numerous "John Doe" defendants, in which the rights holder conflated people who subscribed to internet service as being the same people who actually committed copyright infringement. Since the plaintiff had no evidence to show that the subscriber and infringer were the same person, Orenstein dismissed the suit without the defendant even knowing he or she was being sued - but Orenstein's basic knowledge, allowing him to make such a ruling unprompted, is the exception, not the rule.

We can't depend on having judges like Orenstein or William Alsup or even the Supreme Court to enact good privacy policy. Policymaking is the job of Congress, and while I am happy to see recent Congressional oversight hearings regarding facial recognition, TSA, and the like, I wish that Congress would take bolder stances against police and prosecutorial overreach.
> Also, everyone in China still accepts cash but you generally need correct change.

They do. But fake currency is very common in China. I was advised not to use cash. But since I'm not from China, I wasn't able to setup wechat pay account which is very common .

Most of the restaurants I had been to had currency checker machines.
Or at the very least distinguish themselves from the immigrants everyone else hates.
StarDock maybe?
Hey, thanks for the suggestion! Can you create a feature request on GitHub regarding this, it'll help me track the issues better. Thanks!
> I think the chaps at Google probably think they're the good guys. That they're doing the web a favour. That users love them.

This. Apple is in this self-reflecting bubble too. Companies that start off user-focused and get big often become thoroughly narcissistic.
> Tip: If you don’t have an actual mobile application, you can just get an intern to package your website in a webview with security disabled and ship that!

Wtf? What the fucking fuck? How on earth is this a tip?

If you don’t have an app which offers anything besides the website itself, why bother with the app at all?

This type of app is the one I hate most of all and immediately lowers my impression of any company.

What a pointless waste of everyone’s time.
This is where strong welfare systems have value in that it gives one the freedom to pursue this kind of thing without having to worry about health insurance and so forth.
"I fear that open source is actually just the tech industry's group of underfunded-but-vital-infrastructures that are constantly either forced to work for poverty pay or go corporate/private(and externalize the costs to society"

The whole idea of open source is to share your code with the world without expecting payment. These developers can just as easily release a commercial app with appropriate licensing.

"Specifically that I fear once these entities try demand to be paid what they're worth, there will be criticism and controversy."

Once someone gets used to free, they will be shocked when you decode to give them a bill one day. In some sense, the open source community has devalued their own worth by giving software away for free for decades.

It's a bit like the copyright infringement discussions I see so often on HN: Most of these companies would have never paid for open source in the first place, so we shouldn't really consider it a loss of money/revenue.
Provably Robust Deep Learning
Maybe vigilante, maybe not... https://news.artnet.com/art-world/chinese-art-being-stolen-a...
> Another view is that he published evidence of alleged American war crimes. Then he published a bunch of other stuff of zero public interest, but damaging to innocent people (e.g. medical records of gay Saudis, rape victims, et cetera [1]).

That's not what he's extradited for.
The difference is physics 101 allows you to make pretty accurate predictions and statements about the real world. Econ 101 does not do the same if you ignore personal ideology
But if you want real gun control laws, bring back the Black Panthers.
Two-Wheeled, Self-Balancing Gyro-X Vehicle from 1967 in Action
where can I learn more?
That would only explain part of the effect. It wouldn't explain why the number of abortions went up by 50%.
Ask someone from China for an Invitation to WeChat, it shouldn't be the case (Not sure if they have made it mandatory in last few months)
Google's Login Chief Would Rather You Use Apple's Sign-In Than Using Passwords
Similar horror story. When I went to get therapy for depression, they gave me a contract to read and sign for therapy agreement. I got to page 11 which said that I will not consume alcoholic beverages while under treatment at all.

It seemed to be a rather overbroad ask for what I was coming for, so I objected (over their secure PM system). They tried to object that "well, you need to follow your doctor's directions because there can be interactions between the medicine and alcohol."

I said "The clause doesn't say 'I will follow the psychiatrist's direction about drug interactions.' It says I will unconditionally refrain from all alcohol."

Then the main doctor entered the thread and really blew my mind. He said, basically, a) no one in 5 years has objected to that clause, and b) it's common to have a clinic policy like and it's like an EULA.

b) was weird because EULA's are known for being notoriously abusive. a) was weird because he seems to genuinely think it's no big deal that either 1) no one is reading that clause, or 2) all of his patients are apparently teetotalers.

(I also felt it was particularly disturbing that he was exploiting the bandwagon effect to intimidate me into signing.)

So I said, if you're comfortable with the clause meaning the interpretation earlier in chat, that it just means to follow directions about alcohol interactions with meds, then I'll sign, and he agreed.
I deal with people in local, city, county, and state governments all the time.

Haven't met many recent college graduates, as they don't usually have the experience to land a government job. Have met a few old-timers. But otherwise almost all of them were efficient, helpful, and good at their jobs. In the specialized departments, they definitely had the intellectual capacity to understand complex subjects and could have earned significantly more money in private practice if they wanted to waste their lives in a rat race.
You don't need to take his statements at face value. It was objective reality in 2012 that he was not facing "rape charges" in Sweden at the time.
In our household the word "badingo" means "I recognize that you are doing a joke premised on being annoying or repetitive,* I acknowledge your joke, it is funny, now please stop."

I've never used a "safe word" for anything else but it's an interesting idea.

*for example an impression of a person who gives far too detailed explanations, or singing a repetitive song with no end
Arranged Marriage Is Not for Me
Might be related to some government regulations about money laundering. There is some problem with that in China.
People can use quotes from any book in any context they wish.
Stadia's E3 Doom Eternal demo made me a cloud gaming believer
What violations of the Constitution did Snowden reveal?
Same - it became pretty obvious that he was using Wikileaks to manipulate headlines leading up to the 2016 election, rather than just trying to deliver valuable information: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wikileaks-hillary-clint...
Incredibly, incredibly accurate to my experiences with using Android without Google for a while. Particularly the bit about third party apps requiring Play Services. If you can find enough apps you need via F-Droid or sideloading, you may do "okay" using the stock ROM but disabling every Google package known to man for a while. But sooner or later you'll hit a must have that works fine on Windows and iOS but not on your deGoogled Android.
Perhaps instead of blocking threads about paywalled articles there could be link to generate the outline.com version of the url?
Very cool resource! If I was making a game, I would use this a ton for background music, etc
Shit! Did you get the bonus in the end?
One engineer shared the idea yesterday [1] of introducing a new element in Chrome behind an experiment flag to play with and you are mortified that Mozilla, Microsoft and Apple haven't responded with an official position within 24h?

[1] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!msg/blink...
Facebook, Google, and Apple would all do the same thing WeChat/AliPay did if regulations in the West moved faster and were more accommodating.

Nobody mandated the author to order delivery, follow social media, buy movie tickets, do online shopping, pay rent, use bikeshare, call cabs, etc, etc, etc. through WeChat. They are, for the most part, services owned by companies other than Tencent. WeChat just compiles a giant menu for users to link their accounts from these services into WeChat. These gateways exist because consumers find it more convenient than quitting WeChat and opening another app/website.

It's perfectly healthy to be concerned about the impact of centralized tech giants on our daily lives but so far all I'm seeing is fearmongering about this ever-more-elusive "dystopia" which coincidentally seems to only exist in a place that's easy for the English-speaking world to hate on.
Nah, not tough, totally normal. Newly-multi-childed parents deserve some Real Talk every now and then so they can get over trying to do (and feeling bad about failing miserably at) all the crap they now don't have time/energy/attention for from Internet parenting advice, and get on to counting any day that ends with no more than one bleeding injury per kid and $50 property damage as a huge win, even if it took yelling a couple times and some punishment not accompanied by a bunch of hugging and a long talk about Right and Wrong here and there to achieve such great success. That stuff's fine but at some point you can't be two places at once, and there are more than two places you urgently need to be right this second, so something's gonna get neglected.

It's OK. Internet parenting advice (or any that comes from the latest trendy book) rarely survives contact with an enemy that outnumbers you. That's normal. Be nice and attentive when you can but don't beat yourself up for not taking 15min to calm your 4-year-old down then walk them through Plato's notion of Justice when they're hitting their brother for the 5th time in as many minutes. You have not failed when you have to choose between that stuff and getting the kids out the door to wherever you have to be, or dinner on the table, or clothes washed, or whatever. And when someone else tells you how some system or other they read about on some parenting blog works so great and is so gentle and nice and it's just crazy that anyone would ever yell at their kids for any reason, smile and nod and silently wish them smart, energetic, willful twins next time around.

[EDIT] and it's not the living hell that that read like, now that I look back over that, it's just that discipline problems tend to shoot up the more kids are around and they tend to cluster, and they tend to crop up when you're otherwise busy, for obvious reasons, so when you need to bust out your strategy for dealing with bad behavior it's gotta be fast and take very little of your time or it ain't gonna last long. When things are bad, they're bad. Usually they're fine.
> This will be a poor hill for you to die on, but I invite you to provide literature supporting your alternative definition.

Lol, you are being melodramatic, this is just some algorithms. Thomas Pornin says:

> more precisely, that variations in execution time are not correlated with secret elements: execution time may still vary, but not in a way that can be traced back to any kind of value that you wish to keep secret,

What I said:

> what the operation actually takes constant non-varying time, so that an attacker can't exploit this as a side channel to figure out the input values.

We basically said the same thing, but you are choosing to nit-pick my precise wording. Sure the execution can vary according to public inputs. The subject of this thread (the paper) doesn't talk about whether inputs are secret or public, but the "constant time" part of it is only interesting if the inputs are secret, and under this context it means "non-varying".

The people that downvoted my previous post are idiots.
It's nice to see you are thinking about it. Yes the assassinations are not as simple as its made out to be and were used primarily for character assassination in Ross' trial and sentencing.

The Maryland case was dismissed because it was a super shaky case, and would have revealed so much incompetence that it would mess this railroading up. It was later dismissed in a way that let the government retain some integrity "with prejudice [because he was already convicted]".

With regard to 1 or 2 of those 6 murders for hire, corrupt DEA and Secret Service agents were stealing and extorting from Ross, including staging a fake assassination. They were tried and convicted.

> No mention of Carl Mark Force IV made it into Ulbricht's trial. Neither did any mention of Shaun Bridges, the former Secret Service agent charged alongside him. The spree of crimes they committed as Silk Road investigators was under the seal of grand jury secrecy at the time.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8q845p/dea-agent-who-fake...

It doesn't help Ross' character, as this fake one had images and a person that played along for a lighter sentence/immunity and then Ross had additional fake assassinations carried out.

It still hurts the government having a unilateral perception of him, because nobody was EVER trying to get people murdered in this operation until the corrupt investigators created fictional drama so that they could pocket some bitcoins. So far it hasn't mattered for the government, as Ross' appeals have all failed.

Really illuminates the key areas the government can nab you: not indict you for a worse action but tell everyone about the allegations, withhold key evidence, use those allegations to deny bail, shift jury perception, and rationalize higher sentencing.
Question: do you see your income being suitable to live a decent lifestyle in the USA when supporting a family(1-2 kids) - paying for their healthcare insurance, other misc bills?

Rationale: if a career line can't sustain supporting a family, I usually think it's a gigantic waste of time (as a a full-time career) for the average person (who will want to have a family and pay for their medical care).
My understanding is that it's a heterogeneous system that does different things for different people at different times.

Looks like Wikipedia has some technical details-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall#Blocking_method...
> Free software is doing fine (and this gets better as mankind gets wealthier), thank you. Please don't contemplate force-feeding it.

Respectfully, if you read the linked article here, or the stories of people who maintain key infrastructure going broke[1], those pieces conclude exactly the opposite. They conclude that "free software" is not doing fine at all. Rather free software not benefiting at all from the wealth of the corporations exploiting it to their bottom line.

[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/the-worlds-email-encrypti...
Radical idea: to get him out of the Ecuadorian embassy and eventually on with his life

The alternative was him being locked in self-imposed exile forever. By getting him out, extraditing him, and finally sentencing him to a min term sentence, they can say they did something and still let him go in a reasonable amount of time.
He didn't actually say they are working on one. He said:

>"It’s funny you should mention that," Musk said when asked about making an aquatic car according to electrek.co. "We do actually have a design for a submarine car, like the one from The Spy Who Loved Me – the Lotus that sort of turns into a sub."

implying someone had done a design at some point in the past (from https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a27939112/elon-musks-...)
Light-based computer may parallelize 10-megabit computations
Maternity leave refers to a specific employment benefit. We’re you genuinely confused or trying to make some other point? In the latter case, is it relevant to this thread?
A similar thing happened to me. The paperwork for our most recent home purchase listed both my wife and I as female, even though I'm male! I emailed the lender and CC:ed my wife saying, "Please correct this as I currently identify as male," which gave my wife a chuckle.
Conductor Social Networks
I don't think it matters how it's achieved.
A Path to Sub-Second, Encrypted Skin Cancer Detection
Is there an open source version of Comic Sans?
A very good example on this is Vue.js. While it is very popular, a quick look at the donation amounts on Evan's patreon page gives a good reality check for those who are dreaming of living off donations.
Spy Used AI to Create Fake LinkedIn Photo to Fool Targets, Report Finds
I think the F-35 is the first stealth VTOL fighter-bomber. F-22 was just a fighter and wasn't VTOL (and was similarly expensive). Harrier did VTOL but isn't stealthy and only carried IR missiles until recently. B-2 and F-117 are stealthy but are neither fighters nor VTOL.
He published evidence of political corruption. It's a good thing he did it too so that US voters could make a fully informed decision about the candidates.
I just don't get this discussion. And part of it worries me.

Open source isn't what you do to get vc funding, it's not what you do to build a unicorn (it shouldn't be). It's in the name, open source, it's a charitable act.

I worry this attempt to commercialise open source is corrupting it. For sure a lot of companies derive a lot of value from open source software but the user is irrelevant to the act of open sourcing something.

The problem, if you believe there is one, is that work that genuinely delivers benefit for society, is not rewarded economically. While the rich have more money than they can feasibly spend. The problem then is actually how we structure the economy and society, instead of applying a sticking plaster of commercialisation around open source and getting upset when big companies use the software under the licence available to all users, or relying on generous patronage, why not envision a society in which delivering valuable software for free is treated as more valuable than building Uber for dogwalking.

I haven't fully structured my thoughts around this so they're still half baked but it seems we're discussing the problem from the wrong angle?
Yes, you should. Everyone at the top is usually far isolated from what generates the revenues, and they have their own causes and ideals for wealth just like anyone else.

Vilifying money itself along side actual sanctions on it is a relatively new legal concept for the Federal government. So yes this has pervaded the culture of the Federal government's subjects, but is only a happy coincidence for the government to maintain support.
I'm not going to give any assistance at all to Google, and I'd caution others to think carefully before doing so.