skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In this thread or in the world?
If thread, yes.
If world...have you heard of Karl Marx?
It’s more verbose when defining functions, calling anonymous functions, and referencing atoms.

Calling functions with and without parens makes for a less clean syntax. Less consistency (plus mandates the dot notation for calling anonymous functions).
So if every one of my bots was named Brock Samson, even though that's not my name, that would be okay?

If I had live people answering, but their names were randomized, would that not be okay?

I honestly don't see any real difference between naming the bots like that. Yes, some people will be less likely to think they're bots if they're all named differently. But the vast majority of people will not notice if they get contacted by several different employees/bots all named Brock Samson. Most people won't even talk to more than 1 employee in a short timeframe to even have a chance to know there was a difference.
Dead sailors stopped a 'planetary catastrophe' aboard a secret submarine
C might be diminished a lot, but the beachhead is being made with Rust, not a GC'd language.
Perfectionism is great when you know exactly what the customer wants (like a custom made shoe). It wastes too much time when you're experimenting to find out what the market wants.
Potentially Earthquake-Unsafe Residential Buildings – A (Rough) List
This is a good guide for which one to choose:

https://safecurves.cr.yp.to
Show HN: SafeNotes – Securely annotate and store your PDF documents – Encrypted
There's a reason we're telling you to use libsodium box instead: even if pyrsa sets a reasonable exponent, for example, it's still a separate pure Python implementation (with fewer eyeballs and almost certainly more side channel vulnerabilities), and still uses PKCSv15, exposing you to Bb98-style padding oracle attacks.
I think deep down, most people agree with you. But it's not very practical to have a level-headed approach to political discourse, since most political topics of the day are not rooted in morality, but instead are economic agendas shrouded in morality. For example, no one really knows the systems effect of forgiving student loan debt, but politicians advocating for it are quite confident that that policy helps them win. So, being uncertain or open to discussion along the lines of whether or not that policy is good for the US isn't really the point. It's already known to be good for other, more palpable reasons, and any effort to shift the discussion into uncertainty about the effects of the US is only bad for the politician who already knows about the policy's effect on them personally.
I said it was remarkable though upon reflection I guess that was mostly sarcasm. I guess I mostly wanted to call attention to the fact that that's how things were done back then and that things <gasp> actually got done.
https://youtu.be/6WTdTwcmxyo
It's still slow and the keys are large. RSA isn't supported by TLS 1.3, so I think a blanket statement that it works with TLS is missing a major caveat.
> I don't think most religious people think dogs have souls, so I don't see how souls are an issue.

Really? I was taught growing up that all life has a soul/spirit. It's what sets life apart from machines or other non-living matter. Sure, a dog's spirit might be a lesser one than a human spirit, but it still has one...
Disney denies dad’s request to put Spider-Man on 4-year-old son’s grave
From the article:

> The 1,325 apps that violated permissions on Android used workarounds hidden in its code that would take personal data from sources like Wi-Fi connections and metadata stored in photos.

> Researchers found that Shutterfly, a photo-editing app, had been gathering GPS coordinates from photos and sending that data to its own servers, even when users declined to give the app permission to access location data.

> Some apps were relying on other apps that were granted permission to look at personal data, piggybacking off their access to gather phone identifiers like your IMEI number. These apps would read through unprotected files on a device's SD card and harvest data they didn't have permission to access. So if you let other apps access personal data, and they stored it in a folder on the SD card, these spying apps would be able to take that information.

So basically, they can't read your location, but they can read other things that contain your (previous) location and other information about you.

Edit: The article links to the original research[0], which seems to describe/link to different methods that the apps use. I haven't had time to read it yet, but it seems interesting.

[0] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/141...
Yes! https://e.foundation/e-pre-installed-smartphones/
I think the same people who are protesting in the article would object to that. Because bar the FCC releasing more spectrum to Amateur radio (which probably won't happen) it would mean removing spectrum from "open" amateur bands.
you mean using an actual phone or something like genymotion?
I think you might have to ask for that sort of feedback since people differ in how much criticism they can take. (Sometimes based on how busy they are.)

But the tips in this article work for subjective comments too. Rephrasing comments as questions is nearly always applicable.
As I'm reading this article, I found myself agreeing, and thinking, so that's why a certain kind of people likes bitcoin - they're marks - too clever by half, doing well while doing good. "Especially if there’s also a pot of gold associated with being on the right side of that Big Idea."

Then comes the kicker: the author is a bitcoin believer who believes it's Libra that is the con.

Delightfully ironic.
It sounds like you're describing a much different biking culture than is the one in the Netherlands. For a minor stop here it will take less than 10 seconds to park a bike.
Usually there's bike parking or a stand on the street right in front of the shop, no need to look for anything, nobody wears helmets when biking in the Netherlands, and if you're not parking for a long time you just lock the back wheel by pulling out the key- no chain involved at all.
So what this looks like in practice is hopping off your bike right in front of the shop/cafe/bar/restaurant and pulling out the key- that's it.
> The auto lobby hoped a transcontinental convoy would grease the wheels for increases in highway appropriations and drive profits for the sign-making industry.

Neat, just like how gov projects still get done today.
I'd say every modern CPU is going to have it's fair share of flaws exposed over time but even given Intel's prominence they have likely done worse than average. I say this because the flaws are rarely around a specific special feature of one CPU, they are common things all modern CPUs implement and for some reason Intel seems to have implemented them worse than almost anyone else from a security perspective.

I think it's a triply unlucky time for Intel who has:

- An aging CPU architecture

- An aging node due to their in house 10nm being many years behind schedule. Squeezing blood from a rock with refinements at this point.

- A bunch of security vulnerabilities that don't affect other CPUs

Not to say AMD hasn't been doing a good job with improvement, design, and innovation it's just that Intel's failures have been driving the shrinking difference as well. It only takes one of these 3 to change for Intel to have a huge jump itself.
Use the temporary account containers plug-in. Also very useful for software testing.
As a cyclist I would love to be buried along my favorite places to ride. If they could put up a tool stand in my honor for passing cyclists that would be even better! Dang it, now I need to update my will.
We check once a day to see if the upstream repo has been updated and build our base images. I have used versions of this with clients. https://github.com/boxboat/auto-dockerfile
I’m reminded of a similar online NY Times piece I read, years ago, I think by a woman named Gladys, which was entirely about the harrowing process of procrastinating on, and eventually writing, the piece. All I could think was, poor Gladys. Not, here’s an authority on procrastination. Heck, I’m more of an authority on procrastination, based on my high school and college years alone, not even counting that I’ve overcome it in my 30s.

There is so much better advice than “just get it done” (isn’t that like telling a commitment-phobe, nobody’s perfect, so just pick someone and commit? I’m sure someone, somewhere, has given themselves that advice and taken it, with positive results, but it’s kind of questionable advice in general).

For example, “meditate” is good advice. Let the anxiety come up; allow it to flow, and leave; see it without judging it or trying to figure it out. Even realizing your problem with starting is an anxiety problem, and feeling the feeling in your body, is a huge step. Maybe noting some beliefs that contribute to it. “Journal” is good advice. Practice writing in your voice, and the act of writing. Journal about your anxiety. Learn to enjoy your writing. Practice will improve the quality. Discounting quality will not help.

Stories about how I procrastinated on something for a month and then late one night managed to forget my usual thought patterns for an hour and do it? I have hundreds of those from my past. There is some information in the thoughts I had when finally doing it (“I get it! You just do it!”), but not relative to the information you will get from going inwards and asking how to change your own patterns of feelings, thoughts, and behaviors.
Don't you also need a passport or some other ID? When I set up my business bank account I needed my passport and proof of address.

A passport might be just about forgeable if you have the skills but they can also look up the passport number, and there are identity verification companies that are able to do just this. That's a lot harder to get around.
FWIW the NSA has been behind many coordinated 0day disclosure efforts. It’s a balancing act.
Firstly, NSA recommended specific NIST-brand ECC that didn't have many of the practical security advantages of what's being recommended here.

Secondly, if you were really that worried about quantum computing, you'd use a quantum-hard kex, like Google did with CECPQ1.

(I can't speak to why the NSA doesn't tell you to do that. I'm sure it has people in it that think so.)
The Moon Is a Hazardous Place to Live
What blows my mind about Mattermost is the server requirements... for what essentially is a message broker, you have need a multi-gig box for a deployment that can support 8 people. Part of the problem is their tech stack.
The Three Gorges Dam certainly qualifies. I'd also count Chinese cities, even if not a single entity: China has used as much concrete in a few years as the US used in the whole 20th century. What has been happening on the Arabian peninsula is also pretty ridiculous as far as urban development goes.

There are the various megaskyscrapers; the top ten tallest buildings in the world are all built in the 2010s, six of them are in China and only one in the West. Of the top 20 tallest buildings, all but one are built in this millennium.

Another project that probably deserves a mention is the ongoing effort to reclaim land from the sea in Singapore.

One Western example is a planned railway tunnel under the Gulf of Finland connecting Helsinki and Tallinn, the capitals of Finland and Estonia respectively. It would be the longest undersea tunnel in the world if ever built.

We're probably going to see quite a few megaprojects related to climate change in the future. Assuming we actually want to stop it and not just talk about it.
The part I’ve always had trouble with is you need a certain amount of polish before the idea is acceptable. The quality of delivery heavily influences people’s perceptions. So this is a very fine balance.
> When a medical doctor prescribes you a treatment plan and drugs, do you claim it's all due to marketing wanketeering ...

Yes, of course it is. Doctors know a lot, but they're not competent to assess the pharmaceutical literature.

So here's how it works. In med school, drug manufacturers provide free equipment, food, liquor, etc. And push their drugs. Because once you have someone in the habit of prescribing some drug, they tend to keep prescribing that drug.

Also, you pay influential doctors to deliver talks at conferences, praising your drug(s). You also pay ghostwriters to draft papers, which said influential doctors can submit for publication.

And last, you pay sexy, charismatic young things (of both sexes) to visit doctors' offices, pushing your drugs, and giving away food and stuff.
Seems like a pretty bad example - it only caused a boot loop. That's inconvenient, but fairly minor compared to the myriad of problems that could have arisen from buggy recovery code.
I've gotten some helpful answers, but it's apparent that I've failed make clear my actual question, which is about the relative safety of a system with an isolated ground, such as the "razors only" plugs discussed in the article. The article seems to claim that such systems are safe for any single point of contact.

Maybe I can make it clearer with a parallel more specific question. Assume I'm running an gasoline powered generator which produces 120VAC for a single outlet. As far as I can tell, this is an ungrounded isolated system analogous to the isolated transformer. If I'm barefoot and standing on wet concrete, and stick my wet finger into only one side of the plug, will I receive a dangerous shock?

The article seems to claim that as long as I touch only one of the wires of an isolated system, I am "safe". My counter intuition is that that the capacitance of the earth is such that an AC current will flow through my body and cause me harm. Am I wrong? Is the article wrong? Or is there some essential difference between my proposal and the example in the article? If I'm wrong, I'd love to have a more technical explanation of why this seemingly unsafe behavior of sticking my finger in a live socket is actually safe.
That's not entirely it. Money is a generic and nigh-universally honored claim on future production.

It is the "pay it forward" method of splitting full barter trades into two time-separated half-trades. Instead of giving you a chicken for a bag of milled chicken feed, I can buy the feed for money now, and you can spend that money on a chicken later. Or on something else. It presumes that there will be a chicken to buy later, and that other people won't end up wanting the chicken more than you.

In order to accumulate value from individual work, that value has to be rolled into something durable, or it decays and is lost.

When labor produces a consumable good or service, the value exists only until the good or service is consumed. Why would anyone work on consumables? Because we live on consumables. We eat; we drink; we drive; we set thermostats; we end-user-license IP.

When labor produces a capital improvement, future labor output is multiplied. That's a permanent increase in value, provided that there is some useful purpose for that multiplied labor to work toward. The fisherman can trade fish for a net, or trolling motor, or ice-chest, and thus have more future fish to trade per unit of labor.

The stream of consumables is created by labor, multiplied by capital, and then annihilated by consumption shortly thereafter. That value can be stored for some amount of time in stockpiles and warehouses, but then entropy eats some of it, rather than making it to the consumers.

Money allows the holder to bid for some fraction of the stream of consumables. Divert a tiny stream toward your personal cup for a fraction of a second, and then drink it.

When you hold money, its value is the flow rate of the consumption stream, divided across the quantity of all money.

It's not a battery. It's a voucher for a quantity of grid power. As long as the grid operates reliably, it works the same in practice. But if you really want to store the value of your work, you need to buy goods that multiply the consumable output of your work, or stockpile consumables whose values decay more slowly over time than most.

So it's not quite that simple, especially when some people start issuing themselves claims on future production when they are not actually producing anything now, or planning on producing anything in the future.
His "The Art of Unix Programming" book is also pretty good; it's free on the internet[1]

But yes, you assessment seems about accurate. You don't even need to compare him to RMS or Linux; there are many many people who are doing the kind of things ESR is doing, but are just bragging about it less. ESR seems to have a bit of a misplaced arrogance problem.

His "how to become a hacker" essay from 2007[2] is probably a good example of it; it's pompous beyond belief and if it had a different author I would have believed it to be satire.

His Patreon page[3] is another good example.

[1] http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ or https://arp242.net/the-art-of-unix-programming/

[2]: http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html

[3]: https://www.patreon.com/esr
Isn't that basically the Patriot act they have in the US?
In my opinion this person seems like one of those 10x people. Amazing job.
I think your concerns are addressed a bit toward the end of the article

> Other approaches to improving the efficiency of solar cells tend to involve adding another kind of cell, such as a perovskite layer, over the silicon. Baldo says “they’re building one cell on top of another. Fundamentally, we’re making one cell — we’re kind of turbocharging the silicon cell. We’re adding more current into the silicon, as opposed to making two cells.”

The opening sentence is accurate -- "conventional" silicon solar cells are exactly what this work is improving.
Maybe not "the" real reason, but it is a real reason.

> Quit using the minority to represent the majority!

Where did I do that, exactly? In my interaction with you, I didn't even say whether or not I agree with TFA, I only asked if its a non-issue because 1) you're not affected and 2) people have argued about it for a long time. Yes, yes, my questions were loaded and probably assumed too much, but given the tone of your comment (calling it the stupidest reason, even though its clearly a very valid concern for the people affected), I feel I was justified in doing so.

So, let me ask you two different questions then:

1. Do you agree that one should use tabs over spaces if there are visually impaired people on your team, who have difficulty with spaces?

2. Given that you can't know who may have to touch your code in the future, why do you think that its not worth doing so preemptively?

Obviously, a valid answer to 2. is "no, because the likelihood that it will matter is low", which is true, but given that the cost of using tabs over spaces is super low, but the cost of using spaces for those it affects is high (sure, you can convert, but see elsewhere in these comments, its not perfect), I feel like its an easy choice. Obviously you disagree, which is fine and not the reason I'm arguing with you.
When you say things like “you come across as condescending”, the author can feel hurt, because the story in their mind is that a friction in this one interaction is seen as an inherent flaw of the author or of their writing. Hurting your interlocutor’s feelings can actually further sabotage constructive communication, if that is your goal.

I’ve found more success by communicating my own feelings as directly as possible, without theorizing. For example, “When you asked me a question about my area of expertise, and then dismissed my advice, I felt disrespected, because it makes me think that you never sincerely wanted my help in the first place. Do you?”
Yes, you shouldn't use the NSA-infested P-256 & family curves. They're right about that.
Thanks, that is a great counterpoint. I'll reconsider my position.
Scientists Engineer a Smooth, Beanless Coffee
This is why code review should be done in person if possible. There's too much confusion about what tone people intend to convey via text alone. Instead let's just have a conversation about it.
Fortunately many of the problems associated with RSA are less worrisome when they're used in a PKI context, where realistically the BRs (or at least CA praxis), together with the limited set of highly audited clients (browsers, mostly) prevents the worst from happening.
> [...] at the CCC congress

Your "congress" is redundant because CCC=Chaos Communication Congress.
> No, downvotes from the complexity-brigade are not going to make me change my mind either.

What would?
I thought Diffie-Hellman key exchange covers the snooping part, at least over the channel.

I guess it doesn't protect against something attacking and snooping on your machine though.
My experience upgrading Ruby on Rails from 3.2 to 4.2
It's very hard to eat Intel's lunch when everyone tunes to Intel's notes. It'll take a while.
We did a blog post! You might like it. https://latacora.micro.blog/2018/04/03/cryptographic-right-a...
Isn't Blazor in ASP.NET basically what LiveView is in Phoenix?

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/blazor/?view=as...
All I've seen says otherwise. The X1 is more expensive and has a more premium construction. The T4x0s approximates it in some specs and form-factor but is still behind on both. The T4x0s seems positioned so that enterprises can distribute it broadly and get the size/weight advantage without the cost of the X1. At least the enterprise I work for does that, using the X1 only for the executives.
I agree with you. Putting expletives in titles is immature. Reminds me of teenage years, when people overused swear words and thought they were so cool and edgy. "fuck this" and "fuck that" just sounds childish when speaking about something technical or academic.
I was referring more to the "transferred ownership voluntary" part, not to the complicit, so no, I'm not implying that.

But it is really interesting to see the atmosphere around this systemic problem. Maintainers don't realize that transferring ownership can be putting users in danger, they'd rather transfer the ownership to a random stranger than mark the package abandoned, then they deny it was ever so serious and ask for more money, and their friends and followers rise up to protect them, without ever addressing the central issue, yeah, that's a systemic problem.
That's factually incorrect. Perl 6 also known as Raku is an unrelated language. The latest version of Perl is 5.30.0 as shown on http://www.perl.org/.
The title is clearly directed at the cryptosystem, not its authors.
The Cryptocurrency Tax Problem – Why Exchanges Can't Provide Users with Tax Info
Cmd + q
> He certainly believes he's the most famous programmer in the world.

This raises an interesting question: who actually is the most famous programmer?

(Obviously it's a fuzzy standard, but I'd broadly want to say "famous largely for coding work". I don't think Brin or Page were household names until they were in executive roles. Whether Zuckerberg counts, or rather when his fame stopped counting, is tricky. Snowden, Assange, Swartz, etc. I'd discount for the same reason.)

Offhand, the same-generation names that I think beat esr are Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, and maybe Knuth. The overall winner might be Sir Berners-Lee, who regularly gets mainstream press coverage - unless we're including Turing.
Indeed, Wasabi is not cheap for long-term archiving of large amounts of data. It's also potentially more expensive for short-term storage because of their 90 day minimum retention period, which they explain well in their FAQ.

But they're a great fit for my personal use case of well below 1TB of rarely accessed data, while also providing peace of mind that recovery is not an issue, so I'm OK with paying more for that. Plus, it feels good betting on an underdog. :)