skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I think Facebook's goal is to make it so that you have one persona you show to everyone.

How is that Facebook's goal? Considering the available per-post privacy settings and all, I feel like it facilitates having a different persona to different people.

> To me, that seems like a cultural thing unique to Silicon Valley that the rest of the world does not necessarily want.

I feel like "one persona to everyone" is almost the cultural opposite of Silicon Valley. Like at every birthday party you go to, every person asks "How's your startup going?", it seems that the cultural norm is you're supposed to say "It's going fantastic, how's your startup?" except if they are a close friend, when you say the truth.
Maybe they run a password report and someone had <script>alert("lol");</script> as a password. Managment freaked out and demanded someone fix the hack.
From the README.md:

> Some people may decide the attack scenario above is worth the usability tradeoff of hardware key storage. But, for many, the security of software-based U2F is sufficient and helps to mitigate against many common attacks such as password dumps, brute force attacks, and phishing related exploits.
We need another repo for stupid 2FA rules. Looking at you United Airlines.
I think that's partly what MTP was supposed to be, without the os detection - a way to present the files to a host OS without needing to expose the underlying FS
Gmail can now tell your co-workers you’re on vacation BEFORE they email you
I don't think it's contentless, because for a long time there was an idea that Social Media would free the general public from manipulation by a small group of wealthy/powerful individuals/corporations. This article is effectively implying that Social Media is no different to the influences you cite.
Thanks for the reply, I would prefer doing both, but definitely have a stronger interest in creating a niche business again.
bug in the app on iPhone Xs: unable to leave "preview profile" step.
> This is probably what apps will do in response to the rule changes. It isn't ideal, though. Incoming notifications can trigger application code to run, but only for notifications that include a visible display to the user. This means that a server has to differentiate between different types of data on their network, like knowing the difference between a new user message and a read receipt. It is not ideal for privacy to expose that information to the server.

I guess I still don't get it.

A notification comes into the iPhone. iOS wakes the app. The user clicks the notification, the app opens, the user reads the message and the app sends a read receipt to it's own servers.

A new message would just be a new message. The user would type it and hit send. The app would send it to it's servers which would then use the push api to send a message to the recipient.

Edit: Ok, I get it. The point is one doesn't want a server knowing the difference between the two types of messages. That's a leak of metadata.
Perfect I will look into Industrial design, thank you.
How to Sit in Front of a Computer and Not Get Back or Neck Pain
The problem is that old species members generally rely on the same resources as young species members. So if you're in a resource-constrained environment, you need to clear the old out.
That only works if you're not behind carrier grade NAT.
Energy efficiency (performance/watt) is the key metric because servers are limited by cooling/power dissipation and mobile is limited by battery capacity.

His chart shows TPU with ~80x the performance/watt of a CPU, indicating the potential advantages of domain-specific architectures over general purpose for specific applications.

None of this should be surprising to anyone who uses a GPU.
Definitely better, I 100% agree.
When I was a beginner the two problems I had with recursion were:

1. Not handling the base case and accidentally causing an infinite loop.

2. Never reaching the base case so ending up in an infiniite loop.

3. Creating too much incorrect state, and not having a sane way of debugging or visualising this due to the speed and quantity in which it is created.

Nowadays, I carefully focus on the first two problems, before moving on to working out a way of visualising the next N function calls, etc.
Why is Africa so poor?
I had begun to initially post a rebuttal to OP. My rebuttal was going to be. This is different since today one could

1. Figure out people’s political leanings via their data

2. Figure out target networks to influence

3. Plant influencers

Have watched the videos. I had not realised the media in the USA was that localised and co-ordinated. Initially thought it was some kind of prank/joke between the stations. With this level of co-ordination and functioning a specific (untrue) narrative could be spun. One could even a/b test and see what has the most desired effects.

Chilling. The question then becomes:
What narrative is being spun?
Who does it benefit?
Who does it disadvantage?
Most of the time I end up in a spare room, or in a property specially bought to rent out as an AirBnB. Neither of these help with housing shortages.
Same thing in Poland. It's just cheaper to give money to everyone.
There's a lot to be said for the ketogenic diet, particularly in the short term for weight loss and sugar addiction. However, there are not many studies on its long term effects, so this has been an interesting read
And, you know, religion..
Bullshit. You can be as conservative as you want as long as you remain silent and not protest anything at all that the diversity and inclusivity mob proposes. One word against that crowd in a SV tech company and you are dead in every sense of the word except physically.

That is the power dynamic of our times and hence why the need for dual personas.
Bold-faced. https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/07/lie-detection.htm...

Of the two, “bold-faced lie” is by far the more popular, with nearly 1.6 million hits on Google compared with only 39,000 for “bald-faced lie.”

Although many people seem to believe that “barefaced lie” is the source of both the “bald” and “bold” versions, it appears that “bold-faced lie” is by far the oldest, dating back to at least the early 1600s.

unfortunate dislikes from those who are ignorant.
You're suggesting that Facebook is 100% accurate in determining whether a name is real, or a pseudonym.

Imagine this: someone is on Facebook and wants to hide their identity for some reason. Best examples I can think of right now is teachers who don't want their profiles accessible to their students (because high schoolers can be little shits). Or someone trying to create a new life after domestic abuse. It makes full sense that they wouldn't want to give their full name so that they can't be found. Facebook isn't good enough in real name detection to get it right 100%. How could they?

With this sort of dump, a domestic abuser can much, much more easily find the person they abused, when that person was previously under a pseudonym.

This is just a small example. It gets much more complicated when considering how many millions of phone number:Facebook IDs were released.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGNTzjxsLSk

P4 is a domain-specific programming language for accelerated packet header processing in switches and NICs.
No, they'd have a dozen individual stocks that they would own, and when you combine fifty million people, each owning a dozen individual stocks, you'd get a pretty accurate proxy for the S&P 500.

They'd still follow the same herd mentality that they would, had they owned ETFs.
Not if the society goes cashless for the most part, which is what we are discussing here.
Cool demo, is the source live? I'd like to see how it works with ipv4-over-twitter.

Edit: nevermind, found it. For those looking, it's at https://github.com/harvardnlp/NeuralSteganography
Reasonable upper limits don't bother me all that much. If you're going to store a hashed password, you want to choose an expensive hash algorithm (It's been a while since I looked at this, but I don't think bcrypt is standard anymore?) and that complexity is meant to be computationally ridiculous, and probably scales with length.

Good security dictates a minimum length, and practical avoidance of your login form being a denial of service... well, that dictates a maximum length too. It can be quite long, but you generally should not allow bot makers to instruct your login handler to actually hash the entire declaration of independence, repeatedly.

(Edit: I should clarify, by "reasonable" I'm talking like, 200 character or more reasonable. These sites with 20 character maximums make me cringe. Also the computational complexity can be mitigated in other ways, like sensible rate limiting.)
Why would I do FB dating?

I just pick up damn near everyones number.

How do you like dem apples?
British PM Boris Johnson Suffers Commons Defeat
Normally parts of the application are patented
I would say my worry would be pursuing a product where investors or customers would expect a highly educated engineer vs say DIY type maker.
Thanks for the advise and link, I did not know Dyson's story.
I only have a single, global persona. It's why my username for various sites is either 'dana' (my first name) or 'diederich' (my last name), with very few exceptions.

I've been using the Internet almost daily since 1988, and for the first 8 or 9 years, I embraced being pseudo-anonymous. I really can't say why, it was just what everybody was doing. If all of the online activity of all of my different personas was mixed in public, it would have been no big deal.

Having said that, I understand and respect that, I presume, most people need to be able to maintain different personas.

> You're going to have to act differently in different situations.

While I certainly don't say exactly the same kinds of things to everyone, everywhere, I do generally act the same in every situation.

And I think that's kind of unusual.

Feel free to ask any clarifying questions if you like.
There are so many compliance reviewers who get stuck on our "high entropy" approach to passwords when doing security reviews for a sale. "But what about special characters? Mix of upper & lower? etc." I'm very grateful to NIST for https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63b.html and Sophos for their summary here https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/08/18/nists-new-passwo... (both of which make fine references when requested). As a side point, I'm now entirely unsurprised by the near-weekly big-corp breaches that get announced given the caliber of the compliance people we encounter.
"if I do other people will replicate it"

There's no evidence that this occurs with even uncommon occurrence.

It's magnitudes more likely that they won't and you will instead are more likely to get good feedback.
Norton Commander (Wikipedia)
Maybe this[1] can give you more insight

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20886872
A Flowering Plant in Augmented Reality- Educational Startup
What? People dont want a million invisible notifications sent without their awareness?? Madness.
Yep. Those are still prone to phishing for a clever attacker and sleepy employee. For most users - that should be fine, but for the ones with the admin access to the nuclear reactor, U2F/FIDO2/WebAuthn probably worth the extra effort.
This is cool that it uses U2F, but unfortunately it does not bind to the hardware, undermining the point a little bit.

In a similar vein, here's a TOTP client (unfortunately no U2F/WebAuthn) that can bind the secrets to the hardware (on TouchID Macs): https://github.com/sqreen/twofa (disclaimer: I'm the author)
Gmail is the overwhelming reason that businesses pay for Google Apps.
You can discourage something(which is a natural right of free speech), but still think people have the right to practice it - you might just think it is a bad idea for individual or social health(e.g. You can discourage people from becoming hermits, because a society of hermits isn't much of a society at all)
Dorian Reaches South Carolina
Except if he was using PushKit in a compliant way.
I used Cytoscape on a recent project[1] after trying d3 initially. It still works beautifully! Although its performance is not so great if you have more than a thousand nodes/few thousand edges or so.

1. https://github.com/mixer/webpack-bundle-compare
Grant GitHub Apps push access to protected branches
> How does moderate inflation counter money clustering at the top?

Because inflation creates a use-it-or-lose-it scenario. With inflation you have to invest your money, otherwise your net wealth will decrease.

Returns from investments are also delayed for investors. Inflation can be difficult for everybody, but no matter what the situation is wealthy investors will have an easier time accumulating and holding wealth than others. This is no surprise, so saying that inflation can hurt the poor is not saying anything. What matters is that deflation is even worse for labor, as is the instability from naive attempts to keep things at 0%.

The point is that if you want to maximize the redistribution of wealth, you need to coax the investor class to actually invest in things. Moderate inflation is one tool in that toolbox. It's not the only tool, and maybe not even the best tool, but moderate inflation has that function. The problem is that there are many other dynamics at play, too.

Showing that wealth inequality has exploded since the 1970s-1980s, overlaying graphs that show a contemporaneous correlation with inflation targets or whatever your boogeyman, and then suggestively wiggling your eyebrows, doesn't prove anything causative. It may suggest that your inflation targets are ineffective, but doesn't tell you why. (Don't forget that the Bretton Woods systems ended because of the pressure increasing global trade was putting on the dollar and the American economy.)

A multitude of things have been ongoing since the 1970s and 1980s--explosions in global trade and the global economy, massive tax decreases for the wealthy, dismantling of pension systems, etc. All of these things are known and were expected to put downward pressure on wages. They're more than sufficient to explain the trend, and there's no reason to believe that the trend contradicts what we know about the basics of economics. What we are learning is that there are other systemic forces that were previously unknown or poorly understood and which are more powerful than believed.

People keep banging on QE, QE, QE. But global asset wealth is about $300 trillion. QE in both the U.S. and Europe at best injected a few trillion. Why is so much cash just sitting around? Maybe because there's $300 trillion of it! Where is most of it coming from? The industrialization of the so-called third-world. Why is so much of it sitting in the U.S. and European countries? Because of dollar-denominated trade, corruption, risk averseness, and a host of other complex factors.

The labor class is intrinsically vulnerable. It doesn't take much of a change in investor behavior to really screw them over, and you don't need wild conspiracy theories or new physics to explain it. The explanations are out in the open.
Printing out people's unhashed passwords? Not cool.
2FA by phone should be dead. SMS is insecure and I've deprecated it for all forms of communication with me. I use virtual numbers for all websites and banks that have stupid forced phone 2FA, including Facebook.
All things are zero-sum if you try hard enough.
How do you know they are already not on experimental anti-aging therapy? A scary thought.
But that strategy has the same drawbacks of swiping right on every friend you recognize on Tinder "because of course I'd swipe right, we're friends!" It always leaves the other friend wondering if maybe there was any meaning in your right-swipe.
Does it reduce the entropy of passwords in practice or just in theory? It could be that in practice if you let users repeat characters they will do so more often than random chance would allow for, thus making their passwords predictable to some degree. Thus, prohibiting that practice would increase the randomness of passwords actually getting used.
Know how you get a human to believe something? Make them work for the information. The more someone works for information the more likely they are to believe it is valid. I think this is why you see modern educated people with such deference to the "experts". They know the hard work and the costs involved in becoming a academic and as such they value that experience with an almost religious fervor.
Could you provide some details about how you achieved this?
Data Scientist vs. Data Analyst?
Want to DDOS somebody? Try their password incorrectly three times.

Stupidest password rule ever. Rate limiting after 3 mis-attempts is understandable. That rate limit doesn't need to exceed 1m with passwords over 14 characters.
The maximum possible entropy is in a sense sampled by users various passwords. The sampling can be biased, so rules can technically eliminate such biases and lead to higher effective entropy. Furthermore, there is a benefit in forcing the user to not share the same password across multiple websites which can be achieved by imposing extra (or ideally mutually exclusive) password rules. Of course I am just playing devils advocate here.
Ask HN: Why do software engineers talk a lot more than required?
I am a software engineer myself have seen a recurring pattern. A lot of software engineers talk a lot more than required about a technical subject/work project with technical and non technical people. Also, over complicate things and are not to the point. I also think, this is my personal opinion that the smarter the engineer thinks he is, the more he will talk and will use a lot more words and ideas to explain a simple concept and is not really as bright as he thinks he is
All the world is a stage, FB wants to be that stage.
Thanks for sharing; I particularly like the looks of FancyZones - it'll really save me time arranging my Terminal windows etc, and also assist setting up standard layouts of working.
> "I decided to make a counter-offer using insurance proceeds in the amount of $400,000, which I determined to be consistent with ransoms recently paid by other municipalities,"

They didn't say no. It's odd there is so little recourse against things like this.
If you're targeting a specific site's database for a dictionary attack, finding out and entering the specific constraints would be minimal effort. And if you're not targeting a specific site, you probably want your dictionary to be as permissive as possible so can potentially match users on all sorts of sites.
Regardless of the particular response or the company, it's good to see transparency and lack of bullshit exec speak from C-levels. It might be more common among tech startups, but plenty of non-tech startup founders do it too.

I wonder if the correlation might be age, since it seems to me that younger people try to avoid bullshit and seek out authenticity (giving or receiving) moreso than older generations, which were embedded in more traditional business models across all industries. (I could be completely wrong about this being related to age or generation, though; totally guessing. Authenticity does seem to be a universally growing trend.)
I haven't checked lately, but I understood that Facebook passwords are case-insensitive.
Did later versions of COBOL ever get parameters and local variables?

Obviously that implies having stack allocation and not just setting the data division size at startup...
Travis Greene Lives His Life as a Testimony of Faith, Perseverance and Love
Please don't put anything in here that might harm us, because we're inserting these characters directly into our totally secure password database, which also happens to contain all of your biometrics. We use firewalls and lots of red tape, so it's all very safe.
Would help if they mention what a "CL" is somewhere before using it ubiquitously
No, because attackers can easily determine the constraints (assuming they are kept "secret") by signing up for an account on their own.
Agrivoltaics provide mutual benefits across the food–energy–water nexus
This is exactly correct: because average users are dumb, it is our duty as software developers to make decisions for them, and to use whatever practical encryption or legal copyright means available to us to ensure that users do not have the ability--by any means that could plausibly be under the control of the user--to access and modify (or even see!) the behavior of the software running on the hardware they think they "own"... anything less would be devastating for security and is too scary to contemplate.
I wouldn't be surprised if "bold-faced" was a common mistake that superseded the original, in the same way that "literal" now has a dictionary entry for its meaning as "figurative". As a theoretical example, we may see "pour over" come to be an acceptable alternative to "pore over", as the mistake is common and the meaning can be justified (I am "pouring" my attention over something). It follows in these cases that more educated people may be more likely to use the original term while the new version is more more likely to become more numerous in Google hits. It also follows that users of the original term may reasonably be unhappy with the evolution.

What I don't think follows is justifiably calling the original meaning "wrong", and what I think is simply petty is calling people who use it "ignorant".

Edit: When I say "bold-faced" may be a mistake, I mean that it may have mistakenly been used in place of "bald-faced" more and more - not that it never had its own separate, valid meaning.
Seems weird it shows you mutual friends. Part of the appeal of online dating is stepping outside of your friend circles and looking elsewhere. I definitely wouldn't want to broadcast my dating profile to mutual friends either.
The engineers I know and work with tend to keep talking to a minimum. The smartest of them often forget to explain concepts to us mere mortals in their quest for short, simple information transfer.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can't generalize your very limited experience to all software engineers.
Maybe it's for people annoyed at Explorer taking upwards of 30 seconds to display folders with lots of files in them.
> but would a computer be able to reliably distinguish between encrypted-then-stenographically-concealed text and "real" plaintext?

Computers can detect stenographically with statistics.

That's part of what this project/paper is about, they created a model that not only produces text that passes as human, but it's significantly less detectable than previous encoding methods.
I'm not even sure Zuck likes it. It just makes things easier for him and his team of data miners to monetize your information.
Here's the video of that "System Extensions and DriverKit" session from WWDC 2019:

https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2019/702/
Totally unrelated to this topic but what an interesting username choice.
Coverage of this on ArsTechnica: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-pa...
> A cross-platform filesystem that you could read/write from Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android etc. Imagine having a single disk that could boot any computer operating system without having to manage partitions and boot records!

Furthermore, I highly doubt this would be the reality. I imagine SeagateFS, Western Digital HyperFS, paying more for a better FS.

I wouldn't be surprised if we get Filesystem DRM, maybe Filesystem subscriptions, you can only backup Seagate drives to genuine Seagate backup systems, and that costs extra.

But maybe I'm just cynical....
Bcrypt is still widely used. It’s just advised to increase your work factor to something at least 12 if not 14+. And every year or two bump it up another level.
SoundScape: An Interactive Music Visualizer and Beat Builder for the Web
HN most likely represents a core demographic for the product.