skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There's also value in storing and archiving encrypted data because at some point in the future technology may enable them to decrypt it. Certain communications could prove quite valuable, even if old.
A Practical Way to Overcome Imposter Syndrome
Is there a term for undeveloped countries that aren't actually developing in any way? Do such countries exist? Is "developing" just an euphemism?
Genuinely curious.
So you’re saying if I wrote a post on NextDoor saying you were a bad driver (no proof) and putting your license plate that should be illegal?

Would it be a civil thing where you could sue me for some amount, or would you make it a criminal infraction?
Could Google Lock Huawei Out of Play?
It doesn’t really provide anything useful for Cellebrite and it only works on older devices.
Communication with locked-in patients in question after misconduct finding
How to Develop an Appetite for Insects
Not wrong if you count by currency certainly.
Out of the rat race, with enough invested assets to be retired forever. A long shot :)
I just had a quick look, some observations if you don't mind,

- use a good linter and fix all warnings you get from it if possible

- use code formatting so all your code has the same formatting

- you put the isDead function in the Piece class and pass the board object, IMO it makes more sense to put it in the Board class or even better make a Game/Puzzle class , then you can reuse the Board and Piece unchanged when you implement different rules but the board and pieces are the same.
If people in a position of power can break those laws with impunity then new laws aren't going to change that. The problem is holding the lawbreakers accountable.
Don’t say “3 +/- 15”, say “between -12 and 18”. Avoid showing the number you don’t want them to see.
Or they want political cover to avoid revealing their capabilities, or to enable that data to be used more easily in court or for a wider range of offences.
This case law only applies as long as the algorithm is not classified. As soon as any Original Classification Authority classifies the algorithm, it falls under a new category on the U.S. Munitions List and the government could then restrict its distribution.

Obviously, classifying something that has already been open source just makes it more difficult to use and numerous local copies will be retained, but it does make further distribution illegal.

This is the only mechanism I can think of by which the US government could kill Signal in its existing open-source form. It's ugly, but not unthinkable.
How do you reconcile the fact that I've bought it with the fact that it's not "mine to do whatever I want with"?

Ownership is the state of exclusive rights and control over property, which I don't have when I buy an Apple device. Either they shouldn't say they're selling it (they can say they're leasing it to me) or they should give me all rights.
Okay, but are the variations between men and women greater than the typical variations between individuals of any sex, or even of one sex? If not, then it is sexist to harp on the differences because they don't tell us anything really useful. Personally, I think the subject is much more often used in bad faith than in the spirit of scientific inquiry.
The Nix project has been a spectacular help in this regard.
I agree that laws are not enough, independent verification must be possible. But your right to use secure software, and to audit it without risking to spend your life in prison or being killed, is ensured by laws.

This is why moving the goalposts and further normalizing surveillance is extremely dangerous. The rights that you enjoy today are not universal, and can obviously be eradicated in less than a generation.
Awesome. I look forward to having this idea formalized and I will give it another go.
I'm not sure I'd surmise the dependency of users to be an entire culture in and of itself. Plus, I feel like this splits hairs; going down the rabbit hole of "well who is checking the open source code" and "well who is checking the person checking the open source code" leads to endless complexity, especially when the move in question is more symbolic than substantive.
If WhatsApp did not use e2e encryption by default (and they didn't), then there was possibility of governments reading the communications anyway. Does this new announcement really lessen the security and privacy of the users? To me, it sounds like they are making the policy clearer to the public, since US / UK governments have not explicitly made press releases telling citizens which of their communications will be monitored. While I am very much a proponent to end-to-end encryption for ALL communications, I think this move isn't going to sacrifice privacy that users previously had.
If you lost your iPhone or it was stolen it was just a worthless brick for the finder/thief. Think about what a big peace of mind that is! This changed now for older hardware.
Absent is any mention of the Affero GPL.

And that's the problem. Who is trustworthy?

> "The priority of the board right now should be to restructure itself to ensure that it can legitimately claim to represent the community"

Who is this appeal to, and what is it for? Is it genuine or an attempt, in the current upheaval, to have the board restructured to make it less effective?

> "and play the leadership role it's been failing to in recent years"

Failed in what? In "Representing the community"? What community should be represented here? Is the timing accidental? What is being sold to whom, or who to what?

Meanwhile rms is looking for new accommodations[1]:

"There should not be ... a digital listening device such as Echo, Siri or "Hello Google", or a card lock that records who opens the door. I will ask about cameras."

If nothing else, rms is trustworthy when it comes to software freedom. I'm not so sure about any new pretenders.

[1]https://stallman.org/seeking-housing.html
Hm, mine says $9.50. Fiber vs DSL rental price?

I know I can return the router, but what I wish I could really "return" is the phone service that adds a ton of taxes.
Why You Lose Money With Robinhood
Having a large base of encrypted messages to work from is essentially a prerequisite for pattern analysis related attacks and finding weaknesses.
Would you trust you can find any innocent 'bug' that could lead to a privilege escalation? Decades of vulnerabilities in software, open source or closed, would contradict that believe?
FYI - site is not mobile friendly
> You alpha geeks can but the other consumers can't.

Isn't it literally enabled by 1 simple setting in developer options on an Android device?
NTSB says Boeing 737 needs to be better designed for pilots
How to 80/20 Your Life
Freedom Decrypted
I'm guessing you're trying to sketch a dystopian scenario but that sounds pretty appealing to me!
At what point did the world adopt the standard that all private communication is government business ?
Look into B Corporations and read the last third of the book Lab Rats. You can make your company serve society and it's employees right without adopting shitty cultures that breeds suicides, pissing in bottles and burn outs and still make huge profits.
> Are you joking?

Can you please edit swipey bits out of your posts to HN? Your comment would be fine without that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Yes, it explicitly does. Even in version 1 this was addressed. See section 3a and 3b:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.html
No ordinary person is capable of building anything from source.
You can't make someone half-pregnant. You can't preserve privacy in "some products". You've got to do it across the board. For example, Google is in the business of tracking your location to sub-meter accuracy. Then corroborate that information with everybody else to create a shadow social graph. They don't need to ask users for their friend list, a la Facebook 2005, and that is a reason why they gave up on building an explicit social network after Google Plus faltered: they've got the data through a different channel. Whenever Google pays lip service to privacy, it is because they have alternate, possibly higher accuracy, privacy violating channels in place. In the specific case of Chrome, it's likely they are concerned about the legal fallout from Microsoft / Internet Explorer antitrust hearings.
Jim Bell Project
It isn't either-or. You can have reasonable laws that protect people's rights and privacy, and compile and check the source if you wish to do so.
Why is it horrifying that a 5th grader solves math problems by drawing on an iPad instead of drawing on paper? Why is paper always better than tech? Would you be horrified to have her write an essay or report on a laptop instead of handwriting it? If not, what is the difference?
Does it matter? US has a different protectionist toolbox, one that is applied more broadly and affects more countries across the world. Chinese JV affects IP heavy western companies disproportionately, companies with the loudest lobbying voices which gives the perception of magnitude. But we don't know the relative severity only broadness of impact, where US protectionism and number of victims is multiples more. Unless you want to believe USTRs 250-600 billion a year estimate, which again that's propaganda at work.
Then consider my examples. If the role of the state is to reduce harm, why is alcohol legal? Why are people allowed to be mean online? Why can cars go over 15mph? Why aren't there facial recognition cameras on every corner? Why isn't everyone on mood stabilizers?
Yes, and we should strive to use all tools for a defense in depth of our rights. Laws are the first line of defense, then politics/media, then technology from software to hardware, and finally trust in our fellow humans and ourselves. That way if one (temporarily) fails, we can fall back to the others while repairing the breach.
I'm not sure what you are arguing. Clojure is a cool language, with a small community, and declining interest. Why do you think searches trend down if interest isn't trending down.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...

You can still be adding a few new libraries, and some new users while interest declines. Clojure had the potential to be the default Lisp, the default functional language, and perhaps the default alternative to the c family of languages. Unfortunately, it is heading towards being just another niche language. Tooling is a big problem, not because the once you learn emacs and cider it is insufficient, but because it is a pain to setup and learn emacs and cider. Not because Atom and proto-repl are bad tools, but because to get it set up you need 10 plugins and 20 config setting and it ends up being fragile - complected in a major way. Another part of the problem is that Clojure advocates vastly overvalue the what unique benefits Clojure adds things like hot reloading and the REPL. Clojure and ClojureScript might have better or more pure implementations, but everyone has some form of these features now. It isn't a compelling argument to say switch to Clojure, change programming paradigms, learn Lisp, learn emacs, learn java, so you can get a hot reload that is 15% better than what you have now.

BTW, when I started getting interested in Clojure, one of the videos I learned from was your Philly ETE presentation. So I have a lot of respect for where you are coming from, but I wish the Clojure community was less defensive, and more unified around a strategy to promote and grow the language.
But with his credit score he can't get a car...
I think mine is pretty good www.aladinbs.com
A good quick start tutorial for Coleslaw. [0]

[0]: https://jany.st/post/2015-12-07-blogging-with-coleslaw.html
CTRL-Labs: Controlling a Machine with Your Intentions (2018)
Wrong analogy.

Athletes don't own, shepherd the capital. For sports, that'd be the owners, GMs, etc.

Athletes are more akin to superstar sales persons. Many sales persons are pretty good. Some are amazing.
I don't think parent is talking about risk to the executive, but rather risk to the company.

Or to put it another way, executive compensation must be order of magnitude comparable with potential personal gratification should the executive act in their own (and not the company's) best interests.

Paying an executive less than that is asking someone to make a suboptimal personal choice.

And while you may find people willing to do that (because ethics), you won't reliably always find good people who make that sacrifice.
There are more-or-less secure platforms (which are secure up until the point where you literally try to blow up a whole country up or something). It's just that (oh shocker!) a closed-source platform held by a US corporate entity, with a privacy history of Facebook no less - no that's not a good platform to assume it will be secure. There is plenty of other much more secure options.
I find it interesting you namecheck Optimistic Nihilism because that's largely where I'm at. And I'm sorry but you just aren't presenting much here that's intrinsic, naturally occurring harshness but instead the manifestations of cruel people, which is exactly what I posted about in the first place.

I don't think the world is that cruel. I think people, both individually and as a group, are tremendously cruel and capable of terrible things that in turn make the world cruel.

In short, to borrow the words of Rorschach from Watchmen, “...God didn't kill that little girl. Fate didn't butcher her and destiny didn't feed her to those dogs. If God saw what any of us did that night he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew... God doesn't make the world this way. We do.”
There’s an argument for open borders. Immigration grows markets directly. Especially when population growth is negative as it is. The push against immigration isn’t rooted in economic reasonings.

Where I see a lack is in jobs and job growth. But jobs will definitely be created in response to the demand created by new people. Immigrants are even better than population growth through having babies because immigrants come from a distribution of ages. So demand growth isn’t concentrated at things babies want but closer to what all people want.

Edit-this is particularly helpful to grow the social security revenue.
They also noted this, without saying how they confirmed them:

> By his count, Holland and his team have confirmed 57 of Little’s 93 confessions, not including 21 in Southern California

That's a definitive statement. I agree that it would have been nice if the article had included a bit more regarding how they were confirmed (assuming it's reasonable to release such information - even if vague - at this point, as it may not be).
Citing Need for More CS Grads, Amazon Future Engineer Expands to UK
Which, I gather, was common at the time among warriors.

The Greek concept of sexuality was quite different than ours, and their class system played a very predominant role in what we would call gender. Also, age.
The Intelligence of Plants
PHP/Laravel have something similar to this now called Livewire https://laravel-livewire.com/

The author, Caleb Porzio (https://calebporzio.com/), was inspired by Phoenix LiveView to build something something like this for his preferred language/framework.
An issue that I was having is that LV did not have any releases on hex. So you had to pull from github and pray you got a working version. This was recently fixed though, so you should always try pulling for hex if you are able.

My last "problem" is less of a problem with LV and more of a contraint of my system. I cannot guarantee that everyone using this application will have network access 100% of the time. So for a certain subset of my users, LV would not be ideal.
Are they taking her with her consent? Did she decided to go to Florida?

Deluding the meaning of what a person is or what is not doesn’t look like a good idea in the long run.
https://www.spacex.com/
I think it's clear that I have an issue with seatbelt laws, and most labor laws. Speed limits are different because it imposes stark negative third party externalities. You put everyone else on the road in serious danger, none of whom consented to the imposition.
Facebook has a culture of snitching. It's advocated by the company to snitch on your teammates to higher-ups if you suspect something.
Ok, so next years WhatsApp will have backdoor and ads.
It's entirely possible to analyze the compiled program. And it's actively done…
“Intelligence is really the central question in all of this. What, precisely, is it? Must the ability to remember, learn, and decide come from neurons and a “brain,” as we tend to think of it, or should we broaden the definition to include a ‘mindless mastery,’ as Anthony Trewavas, an emeritus professor of biological sciences at the University of Edinburgh, calls it? The crux of the question rests on whether we think we are the center of the universe and that our mechanisms for remembering and learning, are superior. Or, might we be willing to see that there are other, nonneurological modes of thought? Might we be willing to de-center ourselves and view the environment through a nonhuman lens?“
2019 Edition: I created the same app in React and Vue. Here's the differences
As Gboard used to demonstrate:

> Share snippets: Automatically share snippets of what and how you type in Google apps to improve Gboard [enabled by default]
Yes, we need more government transparency and openess. They can see us, we should also be able to see them.

In a way technology can help us. Technology can help democratize survaliance.
I am weirdly.. giddy about this development. The more goverments try so hard to publicly force companies to, effectively, mandate backdoors, the more public will be aware of it. Added benefit is that FB will lose some market share.

The sucky part is.. my mom loves Whatsapp. She was able to use it wo any issues. There are few alternatives that she was able to use so easily.

All that said, I wonder. What is the breaking point for people surveillance-wise? I was so wrong a lot about the tolerance already..
> Remember that all models are wrong, but some are useful.

I can't count the number of times I've heard that trotted out as a tired defense of bad modelling. All models are wrong: some are useful, some are dangerous. Are you sure you can distinguish between those categories?

> Possibly the main missing point is that the book appears to be uninformed that there are many economic scholars researching inequality, race[1], feminism[2], environmentalism[3], and other progressive areas[4].

I don't think either the reviewer or the book itself are claiming that there are no economists that study those causes. It sounds like the book claims that postwar economists have enjoyed unaccountable policy influence, and their methodology has blinded them to certain consequences of their advice.
But it is. I installed F-Droid by visiting a website, so it's definitely possible.

Maybe you're talking about Apple specifically? Afaik, there's no way to do that on iOS (though I read a related article about it recently, I think it was here), so if you want that, petition Apple. There's no law preventing it given that Android devices can do it, so it's just an Apple policy, and you can always install apps through XCode if you want to.
That was the conventional wisdom for years and it seems obviously true - catch cancer early before it spreads.

Yet when we actually study these things we find out early detection might not be desirable (but also sometimes is). It's complicated and there's a whole lot we don't know.

Also "most cancers" is almost certainly false, more like "some cancers." And at what cost?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-case-against-early-...

>It’s hard to believe in overdiagnosis and overtreatment if you imagine that cancer behaves in a progressive manner: that is, that it arises from one haywire cell that replicates abnormally before inevitably spreading to other parts of the body, eventually killing the person. Let’s call this way of thinking the relentless progression model. In this model, every cancer cell is destined to spread and become lethal, and that’s how doctors have traditionally been taught to think of cancer’s progression.

>Today, thanks to sophisticated cancer genetics and advances in tumor biology, we know that’s not always how it works. Cancer is not a single disease; it’s many. On one end of the spectrum lie cancers that become aggressive and invasive from the start, and on the other end are cancers that remain non-invasive and therefore harmless. Whether a single rogue cell replicates slowly and stays put or goes wild and spreads is determined by a variety of factors that scientists are still working to understand.

>What’s clear is that cancers fall into a few general behavior patterns, which Welch and others have compared to animals that must be kept in the barnyard to prevent a deadly rampage. Papillary tumors are like turtles — they move very slowly and never pose an escape risk. They don’t need screening, because they will never cause trouble. Then there are rabbits, which are eager to hop away to other parts of the body, but can be confined if they’re found and fenced. These are the cancers that can be helped by early detection and treatment. Birds, on the other hand, are so flighty and quick that they can’t be confined. Screening makes no difference for bird cancers, because they’re so aggressive that they can’t be detected before they’ve begun their deadly course.

>No cancer screening has ever eliminated the majority of cancer deaths. Instead, the best screening can do is reign in the rabbits. Birds remain unstoppable, and they’re the ones responsible for most cancer deaths. This is why, Welch says, three decades of mammography have failed to put a dent in the rate of women presenting with metastatic breast cancer upon their initial diagnosis.

See also:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at-screeni...

https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2017/06/08/cancer-diagnosi...
I think the term "intellectual property" is like when someone pisses on you and calls it "rain".

It makes no sense. The idea if I was on an island and can't share freely share some ideas of yours that you hold the "copyright" has zero correlation with any notion of property, and is much better described as slavery -- a form of control over my behavior.

> especially while there are people suffering actual physical slavery in the world today.

People in America in the red states are getting royally f*cked by Intellectual Slavery laws, while IS royalties are pouring into the blue states. I think there's a very real harm in not calling a spade a spade. Look at China. If they had been playing by the Intellectual Slavery regime of the West for the past 2 decades, they would not have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Instead they'd be sending what little they had to Bill Gates' pocket.
Presumably, for most of us here, even if we compiled it ourselves, most of the people we'll communicate with won't.
> They're comparing their algorithm's accuracy (solution correctness vs. incorrectness), with Mathematica's ability to find the correct solution in less than 30 seconds. This is a very important distinction!

I had the same initial reaction as you, but then I realized that this is still extremely useful. In a ton of examples, only one direction of differentiation/integration is hard while the other direction is easy. You could build a system that attempted to solve it directly, and failing that attempted to guess-and-verify using this approach. My intuition is that such an overall system would be strictly superior to Mathematica's approach as it exists today.
You might be forced to identify yourself:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facial-recogniti...
I am just adding a second thanks for all the work you've done for the mapping community.
I've made a decent amount of spatial apps over the years, and they wouldn't be possible without your work with Mapbox GL JS, Leaflet and the algorithms you've shared.