skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Those who paid for licenses would be rather put out, and there would be large and painful disruptions in service. But probably not as bad as can be imagined. A lot of stuff would probably still work just fine, and only suffer occasional outages.

My cellphone already doesn't work reliably now, but my wi-fi would still work, as I blast my neighbors' routers out of my living room by increasing my transmitter power, and we might even have a grand war of RF attrition, which could spill over into previously reserved bands, including air, military, and emergency services. Or maybe the next version of router firmware handles it.

Wi-fi is in unlicensed spectrum. It already has to contend with cordless landline phones, microwave ovens, baby monitors, garage door openers, and home security cameras. And that has prompted the creation of new technology to make it work. So now I can enjoy an encrypted Mbps link from the wall to my workstation without running a wire, even as neighbors on all sides do the same thing.

I'd guess that the market for SDRs, highly-directional custom-geometry antennas, laser-optical data links, and wired network building retrofits would explode. Mobile phone service would backslide in quality. GPS would be frequently jammed or spoofed. Eventually, someone would mess with air or ship traffic and get arrested for terrorism. TV would have to come up with some way to sign its signal, so that no one can interrupt kids' programming with shock imagery, or inject pirate ads over the normal ads. Or maybe they just give up, and stream their feed over the Internet, in competition with everyone who wasn't protected by an FCC license.

The FCC keeps everything working by the FCC's system. Without the FCC, it would have to work by a different system, or it might not work for everyone, for all existing use cases. It is not guaranteed that any such future theoretical system would protect any given usage of RF broadcast. Nor is it guaranteed that any usage would be threatened. If you don't run a service that is an uncontroversially unmitigated good--or at the least unremarkably banal--someone will probably try to interfere with you or usurp your station squat, and that will be your problem to solve. In order to get back what was lost with the disappearance of the FCC, some work would be required. In my view, developing the frequency to be more usable, more beneficial, or more accessible to the public is what gives you the right to use it. Other people may have different criteria.
yup, WAFs, IDS and IPS prevent protocol abuse. Everything else is the development teams problem
I'm hardly smart. The only thing I have going is I'm determined.

I have no CS degree, never went to university but have been doing freelance web dev work for ~20 years.

Been through a lot over the years but never took a shot with a functional language until I met Elixir recently.

It really didn't take that long to get to the point with Elixir where things somewhat started to click. I'm still very much a beginner and am learning multiple new things for every few hours I'm coding but I am able to make progress without feeling like I'm in way over my head. Of course I still have so much to learn about Elixir / Phoenix, Erlang and OTP but it'll come in due time. You don't need to take in all of the complexity at once.

I'm multiple thousands of lines of code into developing my first Elixir / Phoenix web app and there has been stumbling along the way but also great strides of progress.
Signal has perfect forward secrecy though. I am unsure how that could be achieved if phone 1 sends a message, the phone gets disconnected and then phone 2 connects to it.
> Those who bash SOLID: have you worked on gigantic projects that are in active development for decades?

Yes, and by far the worst part of them is the dependency hell problem of a sufficiently mature front-end. It gets sand in your cornflakes during development, testing, and debugging.

Imagine you're writing a front-end in this mature codebase. What injection bindings do you need to instantiate a FooUIWidget, which contains a BarUIWidget and BazUIWidget, and a few new data types, relevant to the business logic of FooFeature?

Who the fuck knows! You have a rabbit's nest of nested dependencies, you have no idea what part of the system owns which data change, or what cascading effects that data change has. Oh, and when you decide to move FooUIWidget out of ParentUIWidget into UncleUIWidget, good luck figuring out which dependencies it needs, which need to be removed from Parent, which need to be added to Uncle, which need to have alternative bindings added (Because Uncle already provides them, but they are not what Foo needs - your code compiles, and gets no run-time Dependency Injection errors, but your values are silently bound wrong behind the scenes.[1])

Unless, of course, you do something sensible, and instead of having each bit of your system depend on 20 things provided by dependency injection, just build the bloody thing right the first time, by using event listeners and MVVM.

[1] Oh, and of course, neither your compiler, nor your DI framework is mathematically capable of telling you that half of the dependencies you're providing for Parent are no longer used for anything. Go get your coal miner's hard-hat, finish up your will, sign the waiver about black lung, and go delving through your dependencies.
In practical startup terms, if your idea is to deliver either a better car or a better skateboard, you've already failed. Both these industries have a century of optimization behind them; even if you did manage to catch up, any useful innovations would be copied by incumbents. Successful startups usually come out of new markets: areas where the environment has changed such that existing product categories or delivery channels no longer match what consumers want to do. You can't really define these as "better" except in the sense of users adopting them rather than existing alternatives: if you could, the existing companies would've done it.

Rather than designing a great skateboard or a better car, your goal might be to design the Schweeb, or OneWheel, or Segway, or HyperLoop, or rideshare or scooter rental company. There're still plenty of ways to fail with these, but at least you have a chance of success.
A lot of Dutch companies get their sand from the bottom of the sea, though. Plenty of sand there.
I consider it a feature. It might be better if right-clicking used the distance from the end instead of from the beginning as the amount to move (so that the clicked position would then be on the bottom of the screen, like left-clicking scrolls the clicked position to the top of the screen) (but also, maybe it isn't better that way), but it is still better than Microsoft scrollbars I think. I use all three clicks on it, and I think it isn't inconvenient; it is good.
I use Mac for work (MacBook Pro 2017) and windows for personal projects (HP Envy 2018) and posts like these makes me wonder: are we both using the same Windows? Because the windows that I am exposed to finds the most inconvenient time to install updates, slows down for no apparent reason and, as of late, turns on two keyboard cursors at the same time causing me to type in two different locations of a document at once. Why Windows?! WHY?!?!?
Could he post responses on the internet to people wondering more about this weird piece of history and how he came across with that thing. If you can surf the web then it is useful!
I believe the whole point is that adding unnecessary software to a container also increases the attack surface unnecessarily.
Google has been collaborating with Japanese farmers in this field as early as 2016[1], and put up a case study to demonstrate their GCP AI offering.

[1] https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/how-a-japanese-cu...
> Maybe it's time for a different SCM that's built around our current use cases.

Radicle [1] [2] seems like it's intended to solve the problems described by this rant.

[1] http://www.radicle.xyz/

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19367916
Disclosing secrets per session requires a lot more work on the endpoints. Especially because it is an active service. That also leaves a lot more attack-surface on the end-points. It also creates quite a bit of sensitive network traffic.
Things get more hectic if you want 'live' TLS-inspection.

As such, I can definitely see why TLS inspectors don't like the myriad of opportunities for mistakes created by disclosing secrets at the end-points.

The counter-argument would be that, if you really need TLS-inspection your security should be tight enough that disclosing the secrets should not be the hardest thing you are implementing. Moreover, neither should the world compromise its own encryption to make your targeted (and rarely required) ability to break encryption safer.
> additional warming

Some perspective needed. According to [1], Earth absorbs 3.85e24 J/year from the sun. One kg of mass falling to Earth from infinity (i.e. at escape velocity, 11.2 km/s) has kinetic energy (mv^2)/2 ~ 6.27e7 J.

So you would need to drop 6.14e16 kg/year on Earth to match the solar contribution. Something minor like 1000 metric tons (1e6 kg) per year would only contribute 1.63e-11 of what we get from the sun, or roughly 0.0005 seconds worth of sunlight.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Potential
Microsoft admitted to private Linux developer security list
This actually happens in the US...
Project Wren
Faster web navigation with predictive prefetching
Goldcoin: Creating the Greatest Form of Money (Reverse Bitcoin Hardfork and Pop)
But why, if signals are enough, we "see" an image, we feel the temperature? I mean, there's something else apart from the binary signals. How do the signals become the experienced perceptions?

That is the million dollar question. I have never been a camera attached to a computer running some object recognition software, but I am willing to at least consider the possibility that having an array of pixels and a list of regions with labels for the objects in memory is the same thing as me »seeing« a scene.

I mean, what does it really mean that I »see« a tree? I am aware that light with some specific frequencies - mostly shades of green and maybe brownish bark - is coming from some direction in some specific pattern of a trunk and branches and leaves and I associate labels with the whole thing and parts of it. Maybe let's add that I reconstruct a kind of 3D model of the tree. What more does it mean to »see« a tree?
I'd also suggest checking out CuriousMarc's channel who is involved in restoring what I believe is the same AGC and has a bunch of very interesting videos about it (among other antique computing gear like teletypes and a Xerox Alto): https://www.youtube.com/user/mverdiell/videos.

Speaking of AGCs, he just recently uploaded a video where they used a restored AGC to dump prototype core rope memory modules from the Computer History Museum's (non-functional) AGC.
In the past, these things happened on a scale larger than the union itself, but in which the union took part. Things like the eight-hour day were achieved by movements led by coalitions of multiple unions. Having a powerful tech union that supports such movements would make it significantly more likely that we could get legislation for more progressive reforms passed.
GEOS is very feature-reach but slow. Mostly because it is a to-the-book port of a Java library and thus allocates and pointer-chases like crazy. By rolling your own implementations of key algorithms you can reap substantial performance benefits.
Any language is fine. The callsign has to be understandable and that’s it. If people want to talk in Esperanto they totally can. People talk in Spanish on the ham bands all the time!
Depending on the intended distribution, I might use DVDs or printouts or other kind of physical media like that. But, for some uses that won't do, so then you would encrypt them and store them on a server.
By getting the highest quality people into the union, setting minimum rates for union talent, and throwing people out of the union who work for people who pay lower rates (to them or anyone else.) Offer auxiliary services like health insurance, pensions, and anything else that can be gotten at a group rate at cost to your members. Organize training in the profession to your members, and facilitate networking between members. Form mutual relationships with other unions to support each other in times of conflict with bosses.

Unions are best when practitioners in a field vary a lot in quality and desirability. When anybody can be quickly trained to do work, unions have to rely on physical means to help their members. That's why Taylorism/Fordism destroyed the unions.

Tech is an ideal place for unions skillwise, the problem is how easily offshorable the work is. A tech union would have to be a world union.
You know, maybe they should. Same for LinkedIn (assuming they're still doing dirty tricks). Maybe it's time for major app devs that exploit security holes in released applications to get the ban hammer, and show smaller devs it won't be acceptable and have less excuse if/when it happens to them.
That's a contrived problem.

It requires the flat conductive sheet to somehow re-orientate itself in the air from horizontal to completely vertical in the two feet between your desk and the top of the plug (unlikely).

If this is a problem you regularly encounter, this hack isn't the safe solution, the safe solution is an Recessed outlet/Outlet Cover. That way the metal sheets that assault your outlets cannot hit any of the pins, and you aren't relying on luck for how it will fall/rest after it contacts the ground pin.

Most people aren't suffering this issue, so a solution isn't needed.
>>The article is really arguing about making it possible to prove guilt

That's not how free societies work. The state must find evidence of a crime and then use that evidence to prove the crime occurred. It cannot require everyone to document their activity, and pass it off to authorities, under pain of imprisonment, so that authorities are given evidence of crimes as they occur.

The idea that anything not vetted by the state should be suspected of being "dirty", and shunned, is a dangerous ideological framework that favors tyranny and extreme centralization of power.
Are you maybe thinking about it being a bad idea to decrypt without validating message integrity (i.e. decrypt without having or checking the message authentication code)? You absolutely can authenticate without encryption, it's one of the few ways you'll be able to get away with restricting access to functions and features legally on the ham bands. One time passwords and challenge/response authentication procedures are some alternatives.
Vulnerability in the Mac Zoom client allows malicious websites to enable camera
I think what I mainly worry about is that whilst I’d be happy keeping it pretty small - friends of friends, and family - I know that some of my family believe (and share socially) some abhorrent views, as too do some friends of friends, and so I’d necessarily be anointing myself censor-in-chief.

I left Facebook because it was a Sisyphean task to simply point out the glaring omissions and outright fabrications that my “friends” shared. Here? I’d have to actually deal with it, and probably also be somehow responsible for it.
I am very disappointed by Slack decision to remove screen sharing. We won't be paying customers from now on.

Screenhero was an awesome product. I don't get why they are killing it.
Thanks, did not think about that!
It doesn't work for AAA games, but it can work really well for indie games. Think of something like Factorio, where version 0.1 looked like this:

https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-184

Then they just kept releasing every week for 7 years, and now you have people building CPUs and explaining Apache Kafka with it.

Ostriv is another recent game that comes to mind as having a similar development cycle. Also many F2P MMOs - most of the non-Blizzard online games I know do regular releases that frequently change the game mechanics (often, to a big player uproar) but still keep their userbase. Fortnight and Pokemon Go are two big ones here.
Given the recent California wildfires and the critical role that ham radio operators had in the rescue efforts, I would say that allowing ham radio operators to continue doing their thing is more of a utility and public service then say what Verizon does(which is to say that firefighters reached their "data limit" and had their cell phones data throttled during a critical emergency moment)

http://www.arrl.org/news/amateur-radio-volunteers-at-the-rea...

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttle...
There has been absolutely wonderful music in every single decade, and I dare say every year since recoded music has existed.

I can't help but roll my eyes when people say that 80s music was bad. Sure, popular music was an abomination (when hasn't it?); but even if you searched a bit you would have found great music lurking in the shadows.
I agree about "please" coming across as condescending.

One way I write around it is to frame discussion in terms of "we" and not "you." I think "we" reinforces the collective ownership of the code and de-emphasizes the idea of the review being me vs. you.

I wrote more about this technique a couple years ago:

https://mtlynch.io/human-code-reviews-1/#never-say-you
It depends on the adoption curve. Right now farmers are having a hard time finding summer hands to harvest some types of produce. Fewer teenagers and adults want to work as farmhands, so this is a net benefit in this industry.
Japan also has two completely different power grids, one at 50Hz, one at 60Hz, because reasons.

https://www7.tepco.co.jp/about/facilities/substations-e.html

There's a lot of "seemed like a good idea at the time" decisions baked into Japan's electrical system.
FWIW Moviepass never had a sustainable business model. They were loosing a lot of money from the get-go.
It's more a function of a state or municipality's negotiation with a particular union, and can be a rational decision for a municipality to make. The choice is between hiring only union people, or not being able to hire any union people.
If it gets the job done, and creates some value for the user, the user will go over hoops in order to use it (even pay money) ... I find it funny that we are still emulating old terminals. And still building new apps for them. Plain text however gets the job done. It's very powerful to search for a solution on the web, and find instructions on how to do just about anything by copy/pasting a bunch of commands into the terminal.
Personally however I prefer GUI's because I can't seem to remember all the commands or keyboard-keybindings unless I use them daily. And if done correctly, a graphics interface can be more intuitive and have better feature discovery compared to a text interface.
Does this monitor filesystems for changes or does it get a file tree to compare against a previous file tree?

Or something else?
Being quoted several times in this thread; what about the experience of finding something feels "clever" but then after a while of using it, finding it no longer feels clever but instead feels normal?

> Every weightlifter is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own muscles; therefore he approaches the weight lifting task in full humility and among other things he avoids heavy weights like the plague.
> the value of bitcoin is defined by the cost of the energy dissipated to mine it

Other way around.

Bitcoin is valued according to the market.

Mining is rewarded two ways: The inflationary (and reducing) coinbase reward for coin issuance, and transaction (txn) fees. The value of mining a block depends on these two factors, which both depend on the price of Bitcoin.

So long as the marginal cost of increasing hash rate is lower than the marginal gain of Bitcoins mined, hash rate will increase. When hash rates increase, mining difficulty is adjusted by the network to keep average block times near a 10 minute target.

With these costs and rewards, Bitcoin mining costs will reach an equilibrium near the value of mined Bitcoins, with two caveats:

* Risk from price variability and capital investment. Mining infrastructure takes time to deploy, so there is considerable lag between price and mining costs. And capital expenditures have opportunity costs, so deployed resources will reliably reflect predicted returns less these opportunity costs.

* Profit. The mining market will not mine Bitcoins for no profit (excepting brief periods, potentially) as there is no point to do so.

> it's a thousand times more expensive than conventional money

This is a comparison based on transactions, but why is that a suitable comparison? Money is both a medium of exchange and a store of value.

It's also absurd to consider that the costs of the US dollar are in printing alone; the value of US currency is underpinned by the entire US government. If they US did not have a powerful military, trade agreements reflecting that military, taxes that must be paid in dollars, etc., then dollars would not have the value they do.

The global monetary system - banks, sovereign nations, etc. - is extraordinarily expensive. But Bitcoin is a global currency, so this is the suitable comparison, even if it is very young and tremendously inflationary at the moment.
I'm making https://epiphany.pub , a mixture of medium.com and jupyter notebook. The idea is adding programmability to blog.

It's at an early stage, but I will appreciate some feedback.

=============

syntax highlighting, (yes, highlight.js based)

normal text (I don't understand what this means, epiphany is markdown based)

showing graphs (yes, you can write js or python, matplotlib is supported)

matrices (half , there is no official api, but since you can write programs on it, this should be doable),

images .

support LaTeX too, (it supports equations in latex.)
PDP-10/X in FPGA
When reading the title (which for some reason is cut off thus saying: "Microsoft admitted to private Linux developer security li") I thought Microsoft was up to it's old antics again.

Somehow I am dissatisfied that it isn't. I guess Microsoft is now one of the "good guys" since they don't focus on consumer market anymore.
Oh, of course - but individual goals are not organisational imperatives.
Since 2013, not 2005.
Capacitive coupling within small portable generators is a bit of a rabbit hole. Send me an email and I can discuss.

Edit: kragen has good overview of this below from the generator in a puddle.

Now in practice, most small generators that you buy as a consumer are "floating neutral," which means that the generator chassis, EGC, and generator GSC (i.e. neutral) are NOT bonded together. Floating neutral generators are another, very long post.

---

Source: 6 years ago, when the NEC changed substantially for small portable generators, I wrote a multi-part series on all of this for a trade magazine in the pro audio industry, who make prolific use of portable power distribution systems, and generators, in the 3kW to 500kW size range.

In the course of writing that series, I dealt directly with the EE who works for PGMA, the portable generator manufacturer's trade organization.
But then the gesture doesn't correspond to the interface at all. You could get the compactness plus a visual that corresponds by having something like a vertical slider that appears when you mousedown on the spot.
I'm sure there are complexities here that I'm not seeing, but...neat rows, uniform textures, little noise, no external interference, physical feedback, low risk.

Relatively to say a self driving car that needs to deal with dogs running into the road in questionable weather at decent speed this seems comparatively easy.

That's not meant to be condescending - I know for a fact I can't program a lettuce harvester at all let alone a better one. Just seems like there is a weird difficulty differential at play here.
Why kill the Golden Goose?

Money laundering was DB most important Division.
Done by David G. Conroy, who is the author of MicroEMACS, which has been reincarnated as 'mg'.