skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> More unusual than cruel, I must admit. We just don't do that anywhere.

Again I disagree, perhaps it would be unusual to do it via some sort of mandate after the fact, but the long history of human innovation involves tons of inventors risking life and/or limb to test safety systems of their own design. I'm reminded of the person who invested that special brake for circular saws that when it detected human flesh in front of the blade, it clamped down so hard it would often destroy the tool. The thing is, it also prevented you from losing a finger.

> if we did, people would either not work on experimental systems or would gold-plate the safety features way beyond what was reasonable.

I mean, maybe? I just think there's something lost there when you have a software engineer working on the code in a large company that's then testing on the unwitting public. I'm not saying it has to be a standing threat of "we're testing this on you" but, I mean, look what happened. An ugly hack that has no business in a codebase like this went in and someone was seriously injured, and I'm not saying the engineer necessarily deserved to be injured in their stead, but the person surely didn't have any role in this, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

> It isn't like anyone can stop writing buggy code by trying harder.

One person, no, but an organization can. Talking of airplanes, when you look into the testing and QA setups for something like Boeing, where the software is literally keeping people in the air alive, its layer after layer of review, review, review, testing, analysis, on and on. Something like "if you think there's a pedestrian ahead, wait one second and check again" would NEVER have made it through a system like that.

You know I'm all for innovations but Silicon Valley's VC firms have a nasty tendency to treat everything like it's "just another codebase" forgetting that some of this stuff is doing real important shit. Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos come to mind.
The Louvre’s Mona Lisa is in shitty condition and poorly preserved. The Prado’s Mona Lisa is thought to be the earliest replica of the original, and has been masterfully restored. There’s no question the La Gioconda has eyebrows (that match the above description) there.

While the background of Prado’s copy was blacked out in the 1700s prior to its restoration this past decade, the foreground was largely untouched.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado%27s_version...
> but that whats the harm if it makes you feel better.

Compulsive shopping: works for some. It's not the final solution, but it may make you feel better. And some will profit from it.

The same applies to astrology.
No. I’m of the belief that when you choose a platform, go all in. Given a choice between the Serverless platform and AWS’s Serverless Application Model, I would choose SAM.

I also work for a company that pays for the business support plan, they will help you to an extent with any weirdness in their own platform - but not with third party utilities.

Another advantage with using SAM, is that you can create and configure your lambda/API Gateway from the web console and then export your SAM/CloudFormation template.

All that being said, for APIs, I don’t use either. I would recommend using standard frameworks like C#/WebAPI, JS/Node, Python/Flask/Django instead and using the proxy integration libraries that AWS provides. It lets you develop/debug locally like you are accustom to and it gives you the optionality to move your APIs to Fargate (Serverless Docker) or EC2 instances without any code changes:

C#/Web API

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/developer/deploy-an-existing-as...

Node:

https://github.com/awslabs/aws-serverless-express

Python/Flask

https://dev.to/apcelent/deploying-flask-on-aws-lambda-4k42

I’ve been told that there are similar frameworks for other languages but those are the three that I use.

If you have any other questions, feel free to email me. My address is in my profile. I’m not a consultant trying to sell anything....
Hmmm. London Underground carries about 1.5 billion people reach year. In the last year for data I can find, around 80 ended up on the tracks. Only a few stations have any pbarrier between track and platform.
The key here is intent. With religion people aren't intending to deceive -- it's what they believe. With astrology psychics know they don't have magical powers.

There's a boat load of generalisations here though so will be plenty of exceptions to what I've said.

edit: it's really weird that there's two comments posted around the same time and making the same point. One comment has several replies agreeing with it where as this one has been downvoted and a comment disagreeing with it. I'm not complaining though, it's just amusing me how erratic this site can sometimes be.
Yep looks like about 20-50% based on commit.
I probably will. Additionally it allows me to see value in life just for the sake of it.
Uber faces costly choices after expert finds it uses Waymo self-driving tech
> I don’t think it’s immoral or particularly hazardous to democracy for individuals to amass a large amount of wealth in their life time.

It is when the political system runs entirely on money and one rich elderly person can have a huge influence on public opinion.
I thought the same thing so I looked it up. Sander’s proposal to increase the estate tax to near Clinton era levels and recover some of the trust loophole would only recover about $300 billion over the next 10 years (about 1% of federal revenue).

Warren estimates her wealth tax will generate $2.75 trillion over the same time period. I’m skeptical she’ll hit that target but it’s still many times greater.

The Atlantic says Medicare for all would cost $34 trillion over 10 years.
I mean, it’s a total auth bypass in GitHub by simply sending a HEAD request, with a one line fix. The turnaround time shows that they have the ability to evaluate a serious report through HackerOne quickly, they have a dedicated engineer who could get in and make the one line fix, and they have the ability to deploy new code quickly. All good things!

I am mostly impressed that they paid out $25k in under a week. That’s a sign of not just a good engineering setup, but some good bureaucracy as well.
Exactly what I thought too. Just for once, a bug bounty program worked as intended. Bug was fixed in a timely fashion instead of being denied or ignored, bounty was awarded, disclosure was made, life gets better for everyone. Nice to see.
Given that we already have private jets flying routes that are directly served by airlines non-stop, I doubt how much you can impact business travel.

You can stop kids from seeing their grandparents quite easily by raising ticket prices or taxing jet fuel. I’m not so sure that’s going to keep airlines from serving JFK-SFO direct for business travelers.
I think it was Planet Money that had an episode about wealth tax where someone had an interesting solution to the problem of the manpower involved in enforcing it: simply let the owners claim the value of their assets, but let the government reserve the right to purchase the item at whatever value is claimed. Theoretically this would lead to owners being as accurate as possible.

I know there are probably a lot of gotchas with that approach, but I really appreciate the elegance.
Even for aeroplanes with just two people, the most usable, all-electric endurance I've seen is about 1 hour[1]. Just about usable for training (mostly circuits around the airfield), but not much else.

[1] https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/...
Lady with an Ermine is in my opinion much more interesting that the Mona Lisa.

It is also in better condition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_with_an_Ermine

It's frustrating that this painting dominates the salle des états.

Last time I was there in 2004 (the pre-selfie days) I sat in front of the stunning Ghirlandaio they have there for a long time. (He taught Michelangelo how to paint.)

Now if I went today, I don't think I could even get in front of it.
Debugging often takes more time than necessary because of flawed assumptions. When you assume something can’t be related and you don’t test the theory, you may end up in a path that will lead you nowhere.
I learned over the years to behave in a naive way and always check the assumptions first. That led me to more successes in solving hard bugs than coworkers who I consider smarter than me.
There is an approach of modern astrology that is not predictive and mystical, and that appeals to many because it is non-judgemental and makes no scientific claim for itself. It's not a scam or a swindle, it's only claim is being a guide or tool for creativity.

It works in the same way the I Ching does, simply by presenting connections and ideas to people and allowing them to draw conclusions, resolve issues and work on their healing.

Without the I Ching we would not have the best of Philip K Dick, so dismissing all forms of astrology disempowers those for whom it is genuinely useful and inspirational.

This is an unfashionable and unscientific view, but that does not decrease the value for humans who - it turns out - are never 100% rational beings, and that's a wonderful thing.
Emil Du Bois-Reymond: The Greatest Unknown Intellectual of the 19th Century
As a prior BWB employee (with no equity or outcome from this sale) I'm happy to respond to some of these concerns.

"Very much enriched the owners" is quite a stretch. Especially considering pretty much every equity holder was wiped out ~5 years ago when they had to raise money to stay in business.

The CEO lives in a house in central Indiana that costs less than the average 1BR condo in San Francisco. Before that he lived in a townhome in suburban Atlanta. This business is not and never has thrown off cash. At best they've made as much money in profit as they've donated, in cash, to literacy causes over the life of the business.

A "very small percentage" donated to charity is up for debate based on everyone's belief of what that means, but all charity payments were made as a percentage of net sales revenue, which was essentially the money that came in from any sale. The only cost that was subtracted out was marketplace fees when selling on Amazon, ebay, etc. Sales percentage back to the book sources (academic and public libraries) and non-profit partners (on all sales from all sources) were paid out before shipping costs were even accounted for.

"Their entire business is based on receiving donated books from people who think they are donating to charity" is not true. Drop box books accounted for < 10% of all books sourced and even less than that of revenue since those books are typically the lowest quality stream (slightly better title mix than thrift purchases, but much higher logistics cost and risk of spoilage). The business is almost entirely dependent on public and academic library partnerships.

There were many, MANY monthly all hands meetings we sat in where the business lost money but wrote 6 or 7 figure checks to literacy partners. Donations were not a function of making money.

BWB was a great company full of people who truly cared about the mission. Some people did well, but nobody got rich off this business. If they didn't move most of the corporate activity out of Atlanta and up to Indiana I would still have been happy to keep working there.
Oh, I've experienced such things, it's a matter of scale. If you have 1000 machines running, the probability of one eating importing project data due to cosmic bitflips starts to matter.
What is it about OAuth’s design that provides such an incredibly diverse number of failure modes?

I feel like it’s the most common critical vulnerability that crops up on every major site in one form or another.
Nice, so the solution in Hungary is segregation. I thought it was a developed country. Love to expose the true side of east europeans who claim "our countries are just as good, i don't know why people label us this and that". Enjoy your day, point proven.
Deploying a Kubernetes App with Gitlab-Ci
So perhaps rather than a New Deal digging up of millions of miles of piping, we could raise awareness and compliance with standards proven to work? That’s seems wildly less wasteful.
Microsoft Aims Quantum-Computing Effort at Developers
> Suppose your client wants to get all of a user's friends whose hometown is NYC. Even with http/2, it has to use the first API, wait for the response containing a list of userIDs, then use the second API to get all of their hometowns.

Not only that, but the resulting set will have inconsistencies if the database changes between the two requests. It's very unusual for HTTP applications to maintain transactional consistency over multiple requests.

This can be a security issue among other things, and even when it isn't, it can result in the display of glitchy data, whose inconsistency persists in the client which fetched them.

For example, you get all of the user's friends' userIDs. Then the DB is changed to remove one of the friends (by that friend). Then that friend changes their hometown to a new place, that they don't want the original user to know, and expects the original user can't see.

Then you do the second API call to get the hometowns of the userIDs. The result contains the new place that you should not have been able to access, and maybe it's shown on a screen for an unbounded time after that, or printed in a report.

Similar issues occur when fetching data to sum into totals and finding it doesn't match an expected total, or expecting some logical constraint to hold for every item in the result because it's implied by the original query.

(Live-streamed query updates turn these into momentary glitches, which is still wrong but at least those disappear from view soon after.)
Azure Quantum
I think you may need to separate religion from churches/pastors/missionaries/etc here.
I'm not sure why you think your hypothetical changes the fact that facebook actually did share the data with Kogan (and thereby Cambridge Analytica) in the real case, and blaming the "friends" avoids responsibility by the actors in this case who provided the medium and those who knowingly exploited it.

"We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can’t then we don’t deserve to serve you. I’ve been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn’t happen again. ...

Given the way our platform worked at the time this meant Kogan was able to access tens of millions of their friends’ data....

This was a breach of trust between Kogan, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. But it was also a breach of trust between Facebook and the people who share their data with us and expect us to protect it. We need to fix that." - Mark Zuckerberg as reported https://qz.com/1234956/read-mark-zuckerbergs-full-facebook-s... and elsewhere)

You could as usefully blame yourself for sharing anything with your friends - after all if you had not done so, they couldn't have shared it with someone you didn't like. "He who would keep a secret must keep secret that he has a secret to keep" as Goethe wrote.

It's certainly conceptually possible to design a system without facebook such that your friends share data they shouldn't. The real world also works in this way - people are indiscreet and share things which were told them in confidence.

In the real facebook/CA case, the friends did not knowingly share their network's data with CA, they did a personality test quiz set by a social science researcher. That quiz used the facebook API to grab data on the social network of everyone who participated which was then sold to Cambridge Analytica by the developer. Given that facebook's privacy settings have been the subject of studies in UX "dark pattern" design (eg https://fil.forbrukerradet.no/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/201... and elsewhere) it seems unreasonable to consider this 3rd party sharing to be consensual.
20% "only"? USA is 7% of all countries superficies, 4% of all countries population

Also, other countries with higher pollution level should never be a reference or excuse
Three of them, in fact. The original in Galleria della Accademia; the (marble? plaster?) copy in front of Palazzo Vecchio in Piazza della Signoria; and the (bronze?) copy in Piazzale Michelangelo.

I learned this the hard way when I was going to meet a friend there. Neither of us were locals, so we wanted to choose an unambiguous place to meet. What could be more iconic than "let's meet by the David"? Hilarity ensued.
What a crazy opinion. People like to see it. Show it to them. If there are crowds, charge an extra fee to see it to keep them under control.

This is an elitist attitude. "I don't think these people are appreciating art properly, therefore let's take it away from them."
Specifically, literally half of the page was covered up by the subscription and cookie warning banners, and half of the other half was the site header. On Safari, on a MBP. I could only read the headline and, like, 2 lines of text. I might as well have been on a terrible mobile site. But what do I know? Clearly very little. Maybe everyone here is already a subscriber and has already dismissed the cookie crap.

All of this on top of the fact that it was a click-baity "article" that should have been a blog post, but, hey, I clicked!
"should". Real apps are much more complicated than what they are in theory. In theory all CSRF protections must be based on an auth token, in practice they routinely rely on the method or referrer.

For this reason browser upgrades must be extremely careful to not break older protections.

That's why you cannot set your own referer (which is supposed to mean nothing), you cannot supply Content-type: application/json unless instructed by CORS preflight, etc etc.

Here, the backwards compatibility was clearly broken. It was never possible to send HEAD few years ago with regular XHR or <img>s. Web standards owe $25k back to github. Yes, github's routing was flawed but it wasn't exploitable until browsers allowed HEAD in fetch() no-cors mode.
I can try something without an expectation to purchase it. Have you ever tried a sample at a grocery store knowing you won't buy the item, but perhaps down the line you will? That's possible for Apple users too. They were promised a one year trial, not conditional on a purchase.
Faking it: could I go from being an introvert to an extrovert in one week?
That's not true. People's friends had no relationship with CA. They ran an app by a third-party (Aleksandr Kogan) which harvested the data and then he sold it to CA.
"Parties?" What are those? /s
What's the X of Y here? Facebook of the church confessional booth :D
The first two of your three points only mean GP needs to replace "authors" with "marketers". Also worth noting that it's not the authors (or musicians) that get rich, but primarily the people facilitating the marketing and distribution.

I feel marketing itself could be enough to recreate power law - ceteris paribus, even a little edge in marketing lets you get more money quicker, which you can then reinvest in marketing; rinse, repeat.

And marketing is not the only way you can reinvest money to make more money. All those ways turn making money into a form of: dmoney/dt ~ money, to which solution is an exponent.
Uh, that's not how any of that works. Rather, that's how it worked for the article writer.
> only recently

Internet is probably part of it. You couldn't spread so much BS so far/fast/cheap even 30 years ago.
Drones Used in Crime Fly Under the Law’s Radar
Licensed therapists have to conform to a recognized standard in ethics and methods around psychotherapy. There are then different types of specialties/theories that build atop that base framework.

Psychology (like medicine and computer-science) is an ever evolving science. Just 50 years ago, we would try to shock the depression out of you - and it worked for a short period of time.

We haven't reached the final say in how the mind works, or who we are, and we probably never will, but every year we get closer.
The relevant word isn’t “force” it’s “consent”.

All forms of government to some extent or another have to maintain a monopoly on legal violence and use force.

The distinction with democracy is that the government secures and maintains the consent of those being governed.
Ok, but consider the following: do you feel that current scientific knowledge includes things that we know not to make sense, but we just accept them because we have no better alternatives?

If the answer is no, this should give you pause. A thought experiment. Consider the alternatives:

(a) that we finally removed all irrationality from our understanding of reality, and you happen to be living in this golden age, while the centuries and millennia extending before you were dominated by irrationality;

(b) that it is very hard to spot irrational beliefs when you are immersed in the culture that produces them.

Which one do you figure is more probable?
A sysadmins guide to configuring an email server
It brings to mind one larger trend I noticed with many smaller "fringe" groups but by no means limited to them - a fallacy that just because they personally cannot understand something it must be an unsustainable house of cards.
It is understandable why their heuristics could make them think that even in the absence of any egocentric self justification.

It need not be the Gold Standard people, or those who believe in a pending vague apocalypse or collapse. Some insist that fuel injection systems with computer control are "less reliable" in spite of needing less maintenance and fewer replacements than older fuel dispersal systems.
It resembles a "monkeysphere" sort of concept like a stereotypical communist refusing to see that the disappearance of every banker would cause real and major damage or an ideological counterpart objectivist not seeing that a complete disappearance of bueracrats would also cause real and major damage.

This isn't to say that current systems don't have deadweight, dysfunctions, and things which could be redone way better without the weight of inertia, legacy, and vested interests. The current cure may in fact be worse than the disease but that the cognitive "here be dragons" interferes with understanding a whole system and its alternatives.
responsibility is the word I should have used.
>For this reason browser upgrades must be extremely careful to not break older protections.

It's too late for that though. We've already had e.g. Referrer-Policy come and break existing CSRF protection which treated an empty/missing Referer header as 'safe'. You're right that bad assumptions are going to made all over the place in the real world, but browser vendors shouldn't shoulder all of that responsibility.

You have to draw the line somewhere, right?
Are you suggesting that no psychic believes what they say, or that no priest questions what they say?

I would strongly push back on both of those assertions, myself.
For comparison, this is during recent Chile protests: https://santiagotimes.cl/2019/10/26/a-million-chileans-march...
How do you feel about Tesla releasing their fully self driving software soon? They seem to have a very low accident rate so far.
> Wouldn’t taxing wealth reduce the real value of properties?

Implementation dependent.

You may use "net worth": so if you have a $1,000,000 property but a $600,000 mortgage, your net worth $400K. Many of the proposals for the US start "higher" ($32M for Sanders, $50M for Warren) which probably would not hit a good portion of the population.
Web Crawler in Golang. [Rejected]
Only step 1 is important, that's where the bug is. The rest is routine to get a code for your already authorized app.