skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Environmental? China emit more CO2 than the EU and US combined https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20...

Human rights? They have started putting Uighurs, Buddhists and Falun Gong into re-education camps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

Two previous points also counter the rule of law point, which is admittedly a western concept.
Australia prepares for ‘Day Zero’ – the day the water runs out
Thanks for your work.

I noticed you include gstatic.com and a subdomain of cloudfront.com in the tracker domains list. Are these really known to be used for tracking or are they included because they're controlled by Google & Amazon?
Bull. You still get an apk, which is easy to decompile and investigate. People absolutely can (and have) audited the WhatsApp code.
> If the source code isn't available for audit by 3rd parties (or yourself), and you can't build it from source, then it was never really "secure" anyway. What lawmakers do or don't say is just noise.

It's still nice to see this spelled out since I've seen many people claim that WhatsApp being closed source is not that problematic. This is definitive confirmation that it cannot be trusted anymore and it's time to start working on the problem (both from a legislative point and by seeking out and moving to technological alternatives).
Why should the tax payers subsidize Zuck's income? Imagine facebook has a $100 million profit. If it pays that to Zuck, the company then makes NO profit and pays no tax. Zuck pays income tax on it, but it's not double taxed through the corporation.

Thus, the tax payers are subsidizing Zuck's income.
The whole Huawei CFO debacle involves them breaking Canadian laws, so I don’t see how it can be simply dismissed as “Canada is just doing the US bidding”.
The point of DoH is that you don't have to send your DNS queries to either of those entities.
The case law references records kept “in the ordinary course of business”. Such records are admissible, other records are not (being hearsay).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_records_exception
I'd wager that fewer than 1/100,000 humans on the planet could feasibly build Gentoo from source.
It's interesting how terms evolve. The original virtual private network (VPN) is the business kind which WARP is. The newer, now more popularly known (and thus traditional?) is the consumer kind. The difference between them is the axis of the 'P'rivate part. The business VPN isolates one network from another. The consumer one isolates the client-side from the server side. Private-proxy would be better name for the latter but for widespread usage.
Vulnerability is being strong and weak at the same time. It's having the strength to know what the end goal is and not get distracted by emotional hurdles while being weak in submitting to authority and peers.

The easiest example of vulnerability I can think of is leaders from other departments asking my opinion on work processes or product ideas. One could argue that's not weakness but I believe it is, in that leaders who believe themselves above everyone else at the company will make policy and standards that ignore important aspects of product development and delivery.

An example of weakness is confessing personal issues to your manager or a peer, so much so they think less of you but generally don't tell you directly. The "vulnerable" version of that is handling your issues as you see them, asking peers and mentors for comments on your work and how you can improve, and simply not talking about them outside that.

I'll admit part of my judgment is shaded by personal bias from my own weaknesses, but that's how I see it.
But it can facilitate parallel construction in cases mandating the death penalty. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
> "Handling your own problems" a lot of the time means "making other people responsible for my emotional well being."

This is new to me. Making other people responsible for my emotional well-being is being dependent on other people for our own happiness. Stoicism does not suggest that you do this, on the contrary.
Next he will work as a bibliothecarian in a university.
In every comment thread where quitting Facebook is discussed I find commenters saying they can't because Facebook is so indispensable for them. Maybe the same is assumed for criminals?
> That sounds like checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy.

You are correct. That is because the article is about checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy (specifically yervoy/ipilimumab and opdivo/nivolumab).
Umpyre is my messaging startup, if you have any interest in checking us out :)

We're a little different in that we're trying to solve more than just the privacy issues. We're also trying to solve the spam problem for anyone who receives a lot of random inbound email/messages (think open source developers, linkedin spam, anyone who's an influencer).
if I'd been put in the placebo arm of the trial, there's a 25% chance I wouldn't be here to write these words

I think you fared much much better than most. Maybe it's because you received a very high dose of ipilimumab. The people in the article's trial (which I assume wasn't your trial) were less fortunate. Specifically:

The results showed:

26% were still alive on ipilimumab alone

So 74% of the people in that trial are no longer here.
This article leans heavily on NAEP tests which the US has never placed at the top on. Yet we still have the highest number of the world's best institutions of higher education.

In education research, if the NAEP is the only metric you're using, your findings are probably skewed from the get-go.
The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo.... He refused to testify even though he provided a statement to the police at the time of his arrest stating who had performed the stabbing.

My beef with articles like this one is not that I think a 17 year old should get life in prison for a stabbing. I think nobody should. Our murder laws produce sentences vastly longer than Europe, where 15-20 years is a typical maximum sentence for murder, and longer sentences are reserved for people who are active threats.

Rather, my problem is the attempt to draw lines between more or less egregious conduct that don’t make any sense. Someone who along with three other young men tries to rob and ends up killing a man is among the most dangerous and culpable of criminals. Such premeditated group violence is the greatest threat to social order. Being 17 or acting as part of a group don’t make you less culpable.
Yup, governments always follow their own laws. Including, I don't know, Hong Kong for example.
</mega_sarcasm>
Yep, and I remember Stallman saying that these exceptions are not desirable in a talk.

Matthew Garrett certainly knows it and certainly wants that something is done on the matter. Which could be good. However, the title implies a possible evolution of the definition of free software, but I just can't see that as conceivable.

That would be akin to change the definition of the prime numbers to exclude 1, breaking many demonstrations in the process ⸮
The main reason people turn blueish is because of excessive colloidal silver usage. I expect it is the case for the family in this phony story.
The way this would usually pan out is the chemist publishes a paper on "this one chemical seems to have high energy density after undergoing a particular reaction." Then car companies rush to put it in front of the public. You're really going to include the chemist in the blame there?

Tetraethyl is an easy case, because it was car companies who realized its use in fuel in the first place, so we don't even need to figure out who to blame, unless you want to blame its original inventor who did it almost a century earlier, before the gas engine was even invented.
The context is that you clearly believe religion is nonsense, and a destructive force. Therefore if you were to advocate for a religion, you would be either lying or encouraging what you believe to be evil, and therefore evil yourself. Since poverty and ignorance bother you, I think lying would be the more likely explanation.

Liking deities from various fictions is not the same as seeking to open oneself to God.
When you read rising inequality, you should read it as 'failure in our meritocracy is producing a rise in unjust inequality' if that will make you feel better. Pretty much no one is suggesting an abandonment of meritocracy.
You can and should block your keyboard app's access to the network using a firewall. However, this will require root access and I've seen people jump at this point to say you absolutely should not have root access to your own phone, which I find pretty ridiculous and unacceptable.
Then why not respond appropriately, and stay aware of cancers but don't treat them until they reach some critical stage? I don't see how intentionally remaining ignorant is helpful.
> DevOps is Ops with new tools... I did not meet or hear from any developers.

This is awful! It's not DevOps, it's an old infra gathering! Very disappointing.

I expected devops conference to have devs ONLY. Devs that that are curious and passionate about whole product life cycle, hardware, scalability, deployments and networks, devs who also pulled and transformed/transitioned their ops friends into devs.

Is it a general trend with DevOps or just devopsdays Portland conference thing? Is it cargo-culting?
Same with me. We had submitted good quality graphs according to the requirements. When it got published the graphs got compressed and look worse now. Funny thing is: one of the graph was not high quality(done in Word), that one looks much better.
I've heard it called "Sousveillance"
1. Humans aren't some exception to reality.

2. Beauty can exist in harsh realities.
"But until these tools offer clearer and more widespread benefits for students, they should be evaluated with serious skepticism."

This is the biggest takeaway I saw from this article. Specifically because measuring improvement in education is difficult. The most used metric for this is through the use of something known as a "learning gain". Typically, this is measured using a pre-test/post-test on a topic, with the intervention method in between. However, because an experiment needs to be strongly maintained, these experiments are often done on smaller scales, like for two to four weeks. Thus, the learning gains are only measured for a single topic. Semester-long or longitudinal studies are more difficult simply because it is harder to measure and control improvement over time while ensuring each student is given a chance to learn the material.
Why does it have to be shit talking?

Surely there are value neutral things you didnt love about your old company.

We couldn't install our own tools which hampered creative problem solving.

We weren't given enough direct access to our customers to make better design decisions in the product.

We didn't have a strong culture of documentation so we relied too much on tribal knowledge.
It does matter - in my experience, the future job prospects of "System Administrator" are much worse than "SRE"/"DevOps".

Switching my title from "System Administrator" to "SRE" within my last company resulted in a job family change and a 10% raise (I had to show I could code as well as a software engineer in order to make the switch).

When I left that role, having "SRE" on my resume instead of "sysadmin" was (probably, I don't have any strong evidence for this) instrumental in getting responses when I applied to "Software Engineer" roles at selective companies.

I think there is a bias against roles that don't code, and especially roles that sound outdated.

A lot of larger companies and managers in those companies don't understand what DevOps is, what SRE means or anything like that. They just know Ops and Dev, and your previous job title is probably the strongest hint they have to work off when they categorize you. Getting lumped in with Ops is (probably) a big hit to your earnings potential and limits your future options if/when you decide to move.
Thank you for your supportive answers!
This is basically the plot of Die Hard 2 (1990), where bad guys take over the instrument landing system and make a plane crash on landing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Hard_2
Multiplexing doesn't have to flicker if you do it fast enough.
World isn’t so black and white. There are restrictions on many things you “own”. Land, certain chemicals, technologies, etc.

I like to think of “owning” in the developed world simply as a right to collect rent from someone else.
> If "free software" is the wrong term for the license then the discussions might not be relevant at all to the Free Software Foundation or the free software community.

Arguing that free software as conventionally defined is better than what is being proposed is 100% within the mission of the Free Software Foundation. The FSF tells you how bad Windows is, even though Windows isn't free software. The FSF has a list of popular non-free licenses and tells you why they aren't free.

Arguing that members of the free software community who are interested in other licenses should continue to write free software - and why - is also firmly within the mission of the FSF. If they have concerns over free software, responding to those concerns in good faith is the job of the FSF. I'm no less of a member of the free software community simply because I write proprietary code from 9 to 5 on weekdays. (If I were, there would be very little free software community, and it would be mostly driven by well-funded corporations and not by individuals.)

Also, I'm of the opinion that you can accomplish the same goals by means other than licenses (e.g., better rules on who can participate in development), and I'm sympathetic to the goals. Shouldn't the Free Software Foundation be saying, if you want to achieve these goals, here is concretely how you can accomplish them using free software? If people are saying "free software cannot do X, we must abandon free software to do X," shouldn't it be an FSF priority to demonstrate that you can do X with free software?

> In the worst case, there may be actors involved in these discussions hoping to use outrage mobs to destabilize the free software movement, in particular application code still licensed under GPLv2.

I think if we're going to spin conspiracy theories, let's talk more about whether the NSA supported Richard Stallman as the spokesperson of the free software movement to ensure that it never gained mainstream acceptance by making sure the popular image of free software was some weirdo with bad personal hygiene, and how the community failure to get rid of him played right into government interests for decades. Sounds equally plausible.
It is an interesting perspective for me and so I feel obligated to respond. I do not think you are wrong about the compromised part. I do think you are wrong about thinking that is a desired state. The argument that innocents have nothing to hide is tired. God will sort them out follows closely.
Auditing a large codebase is also probabilistic. Oversights happen, and there are ways to write code that looks like it does the intended behavior while also doing a second, nefarious thing. See https://www.ioccc.org
I don't think humans are the only species that would do this give sentience.
How to Become Cybersecurity Expert
The tradeoff where the designer introduces an edge case where a plane crashes unless a pilot has specific additional information?

From my understanding of the issue, Boeing just needs to stop the cost saving measures that led to needing software to stabilize an otherwise unstable plane.
If this doesn't read as clear, absolute, 100%, not-at-all-up-for-debate clickbait as explained by AdmiralAsshat then the media has done a great job of manipulating your expectations.

The title intentionally replaces the primary subject of the article (baby found in freezer) with withholding and vague language ("her secret") in order to force readers to click through to learn what the primary subject is. They are baiting you into clicking.

This is clickbait.
No that's exactly the point. There are a ton of kinds of economists who each study specific things. It's as limited as any other science. Of course you get people like Neil deGrasse Tyson in any field, who feel its their job to talk overconfidently about all things, but that's another issue.
I would guess this was already known to some intelligence communities. However, as an unknown zero day this would probably have been worth a great deal on the open market.

It may have already been sold a few times. And if so, perhaps the author was turned down by the usual suspects.
You can install a modified OS which can capture the Pin. 100%.

You cannot install a modified OS and brute force the PIN or access the encrypted user data though. You have to get the user to type it in.

So you need access to the device and the user. It’s always been possible to do this with torture.

https://xkcd.com/538/
thats the way technology has always been - you have to reskill every few years or get left behind
It's funny because it's true! The amount of insanity is frustrating...
International Comity in American Law
>> Many were curious about service-meshes (basically a smart network proxy?) such as Istio or Linkerd, but almost none were using one.

Going to blame Ubuntu's psychological priming via ads in their MOTD for this one
I recently transferred as a developer to a development operations role at a medium-sized company. This article exactly describes my experience - the main focus of the ops team seems to be on build, deployment and monitoring technologies focused on a migration towards containerization running on AWS.

Code and tooling is built on a "what works" basis and no particular attention seems to be paid to the overall design of the software or testing (likely due to a real or perceived lack of time). On-call rotations (and how to eliminate work for them) is the hot button discussion topic.

The #1 question I get asked by the developers is "Did you really want to transfer from development to ops?" which me think that a lot of developers look down on operations roles and see it as a demotion. I find that quite odd given that 1) ops keeps the product up and the money coming in with relatively little headcount and 2) most of the people working on our ops teams have a formal education in software engineering.
Do you think?

As soon as you’re building something written in, say, Javascript, then any semblance of assurance goes out of the window.

JS is an easy target. What about C or C++? You could audit the code but have you also audited your compiler? What if you used Visual Studio?

Code is an easy target. Can you trust the auditors themselves and in the absence of that, your own ability to detect a vulnerability?

The only bulletproof solution is to not use software.

That said, most of us are not as important or recognisable as we believe we are. The layperson won’t have a good reason to isolate their computer and install an airlock between their aluminium-lined office and the rest of their house.

This is just an updated version of the story about the US government scanning your emails for keywords after 9/11. They don’t even need to actually do it, they just need to say they do and most people will monitor their communications.
How a Tuxedoed Sommelier Wound Up Homeless in California
My understanding is most people get cancer cells regularly. Possibly every day. The immune system clears them out naturally. The question is how old is a cancer before it becomes a threat worthy of analysis. Obviously one cell is probably not interesting. I think there's evidence even cancers that are large enough to be visible to the naked eye are not typically dangerous. If 99% are harmless, what is the point in early detection? It's an expensive test and expensive doctors visits to mitigate a 1% risk. It's interesting from a research perspective to be sure, but not as a standard of care.
I think it's supposed to be Awk.
The idea that moves like this will "keep us safe" is utterly preposterous; there are a multitude of other ways in which terrorists (or the boogeyman de jour) could communicate - are the UK and US governments going to insist on backdooring IRC, Slack and face-to-face conversations? Are they going to outlaw encryption libraries?

I truely fear for the future that western governments, in particular the 5 eyes members, are hell-bent on creating. They denounce China and Russia for their human rights records in one breath, and seek to strip us of privacy and personal rights in the next - the hypocrisy is simply staggering.

What's perhaps even more frightening is that so many people believe that moves like this are to keep us safe, will keep us safe.

This can not end well...
> No one is trying to bait you into anything

OK, I retract "baiting". Still not going to publish anything more.

> you need to provide some supporting evidence

I don't.

> Obviously you care whether or not people believe what you wrote to some extent

I do, but...

> Who do you think you're going to harm?

My son.

> I guarantee the course requirements are publicly available.

Likely true. However the dynamics that lead to having no option but to take such a class without any balancing context --within the class or through a second class-- can only be had by experiencing the journey.

I realize what I going to say is a personal perspective and as such it is deeply biased:

To me, as a classically trained entrepreneur, neutral student of history and descendant of genocide survivors, teaching a distorted benevolent version of Marxism to kids while not teaching any of the massive downfalls, pain, suffering and death the utterly failed ideology produced is equivalent to, as an atheist, forcing religious dogma to atheists. There is nothing wrong with learning about both Marxism and religion. We should absolutely teach them, but they should be taught without distortion and in the context of other relevant knowledge.

If the goal is to indoctrinate, you exclude everything outside of the preferred ideology. If, on the other hand, the objective is to educate, you present as much of the human experience as possible, without favor for one or the other, teach students to reason critically and let them be.

As I suggested in my other response, if you are interested in a perspective on what has been going on in academia and how it happened, please watch this interview with an Oxford/Stanford/Harvard professor who chose to expose some of these issues and paid the price for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKkNIOkGtnQ
> an inland river draining into itself

Like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_River
Yeah timely message delivery is a big problem for Signal. It doesn't happen often but when it does the delay can range from minutes to hours. A few years ago my wife and I failed to meet up as arranged and had a big yelling match until we looked at our phones half way through. The delay of some messages and not others led to almost exactly opposite beliefs about the electronic conversation we thought we had been having.
I think Cleveland plays NYC a big for the Marvel movies.