skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I stand by my top comment, avoiding pushes Friday and waiting until Monday often leads to both code commit times on Monday and merge commit times on Monday. (Edit: and BTW I know this for a fact, because we monitored average commit times to make sure the policy was being adhered to.)

If you look at the code from the article, you’ll see that the author did not filter out merge commits. The word merge doesn’t even appear in the article. The OPs data includes merge commits.

You’re trying to draw a hard and idealized line that doesn’t exist in real companies. Squashes often happen right before push. Stashing for the weekend rather than committing is common. People unsafely leaving uncommitted changes in their workspace over the weekend is common. Most devs in my experience are not git experts, and they don’t always use git in best practices kinds of ways. That is made evident every time there’s a git thread on HN.

I am talking about commit time, my push policy affects my commit times. You can’t count on commit times to demonstrate anything.
Also, that comparison is made specifically because companies have no morality and so if we want them to behave in any sort of way approximating our morals, they must be regulated to do so. Those comments are advocating a change in the way companies are treated in order to get them to behave in a more expected manner.
That guy is still a flat earther. He kept trying the experiment again and again until he was able to get the opposite result (by messing around with the set-up enough to make results meaningless).

It even says this after the documentary...
> If you stole something, you had to pay back at least twice as much.

"you" refers to the actor, not the victim. In that context, it also does not specify that it must be restituted to the victim.
No, it is absolutely necessary to control the spread of racial slander and similar forms of hate, because those have got people killed. From the Holocaust to Rwanda to Myanmar, once the lies about the evil of X racial group reach a critical level the violence starts and can be inflamed into a self-sustaining cycle of violence.
> what code could the app show you that a malicious app running a MITM attack couldn't?

I trust the app itself, since you can indeed verify that code, but the idea is that you don't have to trust the (Keybase-managed) server.

So what you'd verify is the encryption key. If we do a Diffie-Hellman key exchange and our shared key is abcxyz, then both phones should show that key. If an attack is going on, the key would have to be one known to the attacker rather than your conversational partner.

Simplified, DH is quite easy: you pick a base number and a modulus (public knowledge), both parties generate a random number (let's call it Rand), they do base^Rand or Rand^base (I forgot which way around), apply the modulus, send the number to the other person, and apply the same exponentiation with the number you received (and apply the modulus). The resulting number is only known to both parties, even though anyone could have observed the public parameters and the numbers that were sent to the other side. If a person wants to intercept this, they need to pick a Rand themselves and do the operations with that, replacing the number that gets sent over with their own. Because they can't know the Rand of either legitimate party, they will necessarily have a different result, and so the resulting encryption key is different. Both parties would (upon verifying their key out of band, for example by holding their phones next to each other in real life) see different encryption keys.

It's not about verifying the source code, but verifying that the server which I'm talking to is not malicious (for example if someone compromised it). That's the one property which makes end to end encryption "end to end" :)

Similar schemes can be made with different types of encryption (Diffie-Hellman is one of a few good methods), but with end to end encryption, the end devices are always the ones that verify each other.
Mastercard R&D boss says Facebook digital currency has ‘good intentions’
On-Call Nightmares Podcast – Episode 31 – Jason Yee – Datadog
That's how I clean - pull everything out, assess, and put it all away. It's very efficient if you have enough space, but it drives people nuts because they see it as causing more of a mess.
"[A] large distribution of software engineers" is a group that has already been, to some degree, filtered by aptitude and interest. "[A] person you'd randomly find at your community pool" is essentially the same as randomly drawing a person from the population at large.

Also, "more talented" is a much milder statement than "much more productive", which in turn is a much milder statement than "10x". (The first two, as well, are not saying the same thing. Talent != productivity.) Nobody disputes that there is a distribution of talent or productivity among software engineers. People dispute the magnitude of the standard deviation of that distribution.

Going to your Olympic swimmer example, the number of people who qualify for the Olympics in swimming is a small portion of those who try out, which in turn is a small portion of those who are involved in competitive swimming at all levels. Thus, the number of Olympic-level swimmers relative to the overall swimming talent pool is tiny. I don't think anyone disputes that there are a few dozen, maybe even several dozen, people who are several standard deviations better than the average software engineer. What they dispute is that there are companies full of them, or that trying to hire them is a viable strategy.
The general public didn't know that the application was saying "give us your name and face and we can do whatever we want with it..." They had no idea that this was even a thing.

I would bet hard earned money that the average person installed this application because a friend told them and they were curious. This bit about what happens to their image and what data does the app save locally verses pushing out to the network, etc. is something that never even crossed their mind. If there was a window with legalese they ignored it as they have been trained to do (by Microsoft, Apple and every other commercial software product they ever purchased). Certainly they didn't go clicking around and looking for it.
I think that's too generous to the author given the other mistakes in the article, but sure, if you expand the meaning beyond regular memory safety, then it becomes a mixed picture: Rust protects from some race conditions, but other types of parallel code must use 'unsafe'. And as mentioned before some data structures can be done safely in C# but not in Rust.

It is definitely false for the author to say Rust is "superior to C# in regards to better memory protections", in any definition of "memory protections".
What is the difference between “people don’t care about privacy” and “people value Facebook highly, wouldn’t pay much of anything for an ad-free, privacy conscious version of Facebook, and are making a conscious assessment that their privacy is less valuable than the service,” other than the additional detail?

It seems to me that you’re complaining about infantilizing people’s choices while simultaneously telling us that, yes, people indeed don’t care about privacy very much.
No, he's implying that they are underrepresented.
> The well-argued truth is going to be more convincing than a silly hypothesis.

Flat Earthers are regularly presented with well argued truth and are not convinced, so this point is incorrect.
Teasing apart motivations is hard.

There's definitely the "egoboo"factor, a term from the early days of user-generated content that has sadly passed out of use

For many, they're definitely a way to increase professional recognition, promote a consulting business, improve customer engagement/awareness, etc. i.e. brand building/content marketing

For some, it's a hope that they are going to hit it big though this probably applies more to YouTube and Instagram. (And, if there is a bubble, this is probably the main reason.)

The fact that even just a few thousand dollars is worth putting a fair bit of effort into for many.

Or a complicated mix of all of the above.
Second-author here, I have a few rebuttals to these points.

First, there is also a wider pattern in the US when it comes to privacy/computer legislation. We tend to have sectoral-focused laws which are often a response to media events, real and fictional. For example, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was a response to the movie War Games. Video Privacy Protection Act was in response to a supreme court nominee's video rental history being leaked to the press. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act was partially spurned by concerted reporting (sometimes sensational) on risks to children online. So the pattern you are seeing is part of a larger system which often does produce real change, it is just a slow process. The press is called the "fourth estate" because they play an important part in the democratic process, which is what you are observing here.

Second, it is the very ubiquity of the systems these companies deploy which makes it possible to choose a given context (health, sex, etc) and find a privacy-violating technology. I'd love it if when I did these scans I turned up nothing, but the same set of bad actors are always to be found. Likewise, the definition of "well-known" on hacker news is far, far, far different from what a normal Internet user has any clue of. We have 20+ years of research showing people fundamentally don't understand this stuff, and just because you don't have a CS degree doesn't mean you don't have privacy rights.

Last, there is very good reason for outrage for many people. There are many places in the world you can be killed for being LGBTQ. Likewise, there are many state intelligence agencies that piggy-back on online tracking (see NSA/Doubleclick cookie), and some governments actively go after LGBTQ people. Even without state intel there is a long history of sexual data being leaked online. People killed themselves as a direct result of the Ashely Madison leak, and if any of these tracking companies porn sites - many of which do not have the security team of a FAANG - get hacked, people who are already marginalized by their societies may be at extreme risk.
If you watch the linked video, it seems the guy found them because youtube's algorithm suggested other conspiracy videos instead of more 9/11 videos like he was watching. Other people probably have more relevant 9/11 videos but they were "censored" because they probably weren't dramatic conspiracy videos as youtube's current algorithm "censors", as some see it, rational and less emotional content over clickbait drama.
Can you show me an example of where and how Google or Facebook "sells your information?" i.e. allows others to view that information?
Elon Musk is making implants to link the brain with a smartphone
> In one meeting attended by NASA Associate Administrator Robert Seamans, von Braun and Faget, Houbolt pitched LOR. After the presentation, Faget rose from his seat to denounce Houbolt's plan.

> "His figures lie!" Faget proclaimed. Amid a stunned silence in the room, Faget added, "He doesn't know what he's talking about!"

...

> Frustrated with his inability to get anyone to listen, in November 1961, Houbolt wrote a letter to Seamans, essentially going straight to the top of the NASA hierarchy.

Letter from Houbolt to Seamans:

https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/0/0d/John_Houbolt_LO...

This is an interesting paragraph:

> Since we have had only occasional and limited contact, and because you therefore probably do not know me very well, it is conceivable that after reading this you may feel that you are dealing with a crank. Do not be afraid of this. The thoughts expressed here may not be stated in as diplomatic a fashion as they might be, or as I would normally try to do, but this is by choice and at the moment is not important. The important point is that you hear the ideas directly, not after they have filtered through a score or more of other people, with the attendant risk that they may not even reach you.

As is this:

> Ground rules. - The greatest objection that has been raised about our lunar rendezvous plan is that it does not conform to the "ground rules". This to me is nonsense; the important question is, "Do we want to get to the moon or not?", and, if so why do have to restrict our thinking along a certain narrow channel. I feel very fortunate that I do not have to confine my thinking to arbitrarily set up ground rules which only serve to constrain and preclude possible equally good or perhaps better approaches. Too often thinking goes along the following vein: gound rules are set up, and then the question is tacitly asked, "Now, with these ground rules what does it take, or what is necessary to do the job?". A design begins and shortly it is realized that a booster system way beyond present plans is necessary. Then a scare factor is thrown in; the proponents of the plan suddenly become afraid of the growth problem or that perhaps they haven't computed so well, and so they make the system even larger as an "insurance" that no matter what happens the booster will be large enough to meet the contingency. Somehow, the fact is completely ignored that they are now dealing with a ponderous development that goes far beyond the state-of-the-art.

> Why is there not more thinking along the following lines: Thus, with this given booster; or this one, is there anything we can do to do the job? In other words, why can't we also think along the lines of deriving a plan to fit a booster, rather than derive a booster to fit a plan?
True! It would be interesting to contrast the number of flat earth movies vs. round earth movies. There is no easy way to do that. If I type in "flat earth" on YouTube, the first 50 results contain only one defence of flat earth, the rest is debunking.

This might be because 1 in every 50 people believes in flat earth. It might be because for every crackpot clip there are about 50 clips debunking it. It also may be the case that debunking flat earth is popular nowadays. It may even be because YouTube already tweaked their ranking algorithm.

However, when I search for "hollow earth", I get almost no debunking clips in the first 50 results. That makes me think that the first two hypotheses I came up with probably don't hold water.
> I think FaceApp in particular strikes a chord in the United States because it's owned by a Russian Company.

So, it's purely Xenophobia then.
They were describing many different WIP commits, and then later squashing them to a "proper" commit.
Ask HN: Do other “DevOps engineers” feel little skill/career progression?
I've been working as a "DevOps engineer" for about 5 years now. While that title is often ambiguous, for me, it has mostly involved infrastructure work, mostly in AWS, automating deployments, managing CICD infrastructure, on-call rotations, etc.

I came to the realization recently that I haven't really felt like I'm working towards mastery of any skills and it's making me depressed. I know how to use a lot of tools, I've gained quite a bit of familiarity with systems end-to-end, but I generally feel like I learn just as much as I need to help solve problem at hand and then switch to something else. I feel like I'm always settled into this role of implementing minor improvements, creating proof-of-concepts, and helping people with infrastructure issues (aka being distracted).

I rarely get the feeling that I'm in any sort of good work "flow", or that I'm doing anything really useful, rather that I'm just cleaning up and making incremental dents in backlogs of tech debt.

I'm not sure if I'm not being assertive enough with my needs and ideas, or I find roles that are destined to continue this trend, or if I need to get out of "DevOps" engineering all together.

Does anyone else feel stagnated like this in their careers?
It seems to me, that most flat earthers already believed in some conspiracy theories so, they just add another one. What puzzles me the most about flat earther is, how much the shape of the earth is part of their identity. I mean for my daily life the shape of the earth doesn't matter. So for me personally it doesn't matter if the earth is round, flat, or shaped like a banana. it just happened that the earth is round.
I wonder if this map includes fracking related earthquakes and risks from them in the risk map?
The question was about expressing I/O as a mathematical concept (on paper), not about talking to compilers.
Math has more aspects than just logical deduction via mechanical rules. Math also has an aesthetic aspect that guides people to find elegant, powerful solutions within the space defined by the mechanical rules. There may be many paths of deduction from point A to point B, which are all mechanically equally valid. But from the human point of view, they have different value. Some will be simple and easy to understand; others will rely on ideas from one or another realm of math, making them friendly to people who understand those ideas. Some will suggest, to the human brain, analogies to other problems. The mathematical validity of the argument is judged according to whether it correctly follows the mechanical rules, but all other aspects are judged by aesthetics and intuition and ultimately by how the solution is received and utilized by other mathematicians.

If the only aspect of mathematics that you bring into programming is logical deduction by mechanical rules, then I doubt it will help, except for rare cases where you prove or disprove the correctness of code. If, on the other hand, you bring over the aesthetic concern, the drive to make painfully difficult ideas more beautiful (ergonomic) for human brains, then it will help you make your code simpler, clearer, and easier for others to work with.

Is this really a common thing? How can you try to implement something without first having had thought of the solution?

It's common, and as you can imagine, it doesn't lead to good outcomes. When people start by coding first, it's so much work they tend to stop at their first solution, no matter how ugly it is. When people start by solving the abstract problem first (at a whiteboard, say) they look at their first solution and think, "I bet I can make this simpler so it's easier to code." The difficulty of coding motivates a bad solution if you start with code and a good solution if you write the code last.
> Personalization is nothing new.

It is for ads, and newspapers adjust their content for different regions. But I wonder if they intend to do what they do for ads for news stories. They may choose to hide some, bring some to the top or even reword them. So if I go to WaPo's front page, I'll see different "news" than what my co-worker next to me sees.
People got very upset about Equifax, it’s just that there’s approximately nothing we can do about them. Our choice is for Equifax to have all our info, or refrain from partitipating in the modern financial system.
Do you filter out garbage lines in emails prior to setting up for training or you include the entire email?
> Why wouldn't Instagram just allow a fixed number of tries (some low limit, like 25) from any IP before invalidating the code?

This could makes it very easy to perform a DOS attack against a user. You could constantly send failed attempts and make it impossible for the user to type in the real code before you invalidate it.
I had basically the same thing happen to me several years ago, but on hamburger; $1.49/lb for 5 lb? Nope - $1.49 each!

After a cartload at one store; went to another - same. It was system-wide. So I went to a couple more over the next couple of days (I had a large chest freezer at the time).

Finally, about the third day in the discrepancy was noticed and the signs/system changed.

Best "mistake deal" I've gotten so far - but nothing like this camera deal at Amazon.
There's lots of things that could impair his reasoning (drink, gambling, other emotional stress, illness), or it could be motivated by revenge, or ...
> Are there worlds where there are 2 or 3 radically different civilized species sharing the land?

Extremely unlikely. We can barely manage to peacefully share the land with members of our own species. Can you really imagine homo sapiens making significant economic sacrifices in favor of a different species?

> If we stopped killing everything and taking all the resources for ourselves, would we be able to witness the emergence of one in the next 5000 years?

Almost certainly no. Other species are intelligent, but none of them have our innate ability to communicate using complex language. That is a biological trait that would almost certainly take a lot longer than 5000 years to reproduce.
Retirees and the unemployed report high levels of loneliness.
I want a language where the garbage collector not only frees inaccessible dynamically allocated blocks, but also frees all resources when they're inaccessible. Is it possible to design such a generalized GC?
I didn't say that's what you said, I said that's the logical conclusion.
Then go write your own blog post. Stop crying.
That’s a fair point on the subtitling. I do know that translations for Japanese dialog can differ in difficulty - there are some more esoteric writing/speaking dialects which can take a significant amount of effort to turn into English dialog (for example, “The Irregular in Magic High School” novels have very poor official translations, largely due to how it was written in Japanese).

As for dubbing, there are instances where animes are “simultaneous dubbed” for international release. A recent example is Shield Hero.
It also isn't particularly good for personal freedom, or social mobility.

Recently society has been pushing for these two things, at the expense of personal connections. That means many successful people are working jobs that are out of the experience of their parents. They also do not necessarily share a lot of experiences of their formative years with the people they work with. All of this comes from personal freedom, but at the expense of being close to the people you spend your time with. I suppose you could also put it that its at the expense of spending time with the people you are close to.
It doesn't really change the paradigm compared to FP even, it just enforces a clear separation at all times between sequential state mutation on the one hand and references to shared (and generally immutable, except as provided for by explicit mutability mechanisms) state on the other. Which is essentially what FP languages end up doing, though they go about it somewhat differently.
Authentication is certainly a scenario I think you'd want to monitor for brute force attacks?

Sure IG gets 1000's+ requests a second, but they shouldn't be getting 1000's+ requests per second per user - especially on a login route.

I monitor 400 requests on our website - A massive spike in those would warrant investigation.
At least for the ghosts thing, belief in ghosts, demons and spirits has been deep-rooted in Japanese folklore throughout history[0]. Also there is different kinds of "believe", for example if some Japanese lady said a ghost got her pregnant I think nobody would believe her, my guess is that they believe to a point but not to the point to spark risky behavior from it (e.g. antivaxxers)

[0] http://www.asianart.com/articles/rubin/
AT&T to Face EFF Class Action for Selling Customers’ Location to Bounty Hunters
People keep telling me that more whitespace is better, and I keep no longer using websites that manage to eclipse some breaking point of too much whitespace. Clearly folks like you & myself are in the minority, but I don't get it.
There is no making the programming easier, or possible. It's not a problem you can solve with a program. I blame sci-fi for this disconnect.

Human sensory augmentation will save lives, but that has nothing to do with the marketing ploy that cars can have self.