skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I read a book a long time ago (Poetry of the Universe: A Mathematical Exploration of the Cosmos, by Robert Osserman) about the shape of the universe. In it he talks about quasars. If you observe 2 of them in opposite directions, each 13 billions light years from earth, then they must be 26 billion light years from each other. But the universe is only a little less than 14 billion years old so how can this be? He argues that the universe must be a hypersphere.

I read this more than 20 years ago, and I'm no cosmologist, so forgive me if I butchered that summary.
Adyen | (Java) Software Engineer | Amsterdam, The Netherlands | ONSITE | Relocation & Visa Sponsored

Adyen is a leading payments company. Speed is the foundation of our company. We think fast. We work fast. We launch fast.
We're looking for software engineers that like to have ownership from inception to implementation, have a critical mindset, and care about quality and security.

Interested? Contact jan.bernhart@adyen.com or check https://www.adyen.com/careers/vacancies/development/position...
I'm no fan of FB or Libra, but I don't get it, how is that any worse than existing system? Banks charge huge interest rents and pass only a tiny (or zero) on to customers, credit cards charge even bigger interest rates in addition to fees that make all our products more expensive, ...
I am not sure you would consider me directly in that space, even though the vast and distributed nature of that "space" seems unlikely to produce someone that can be considered equal part high level broadly knowledgeable enough, technical enough to make a statement about the work, in addition to muck around here to provide an answer. I think your answer is lost in the crevices of the nebula of dissimilar characteristics.

That being said though, take or leave by following boiled down opinion on the matter that it is essentially just a form of greed that drives this ethos you highlight. It's both negative greed of people not wanting to discuss their secret sauce that does or could make them rich and wealthy, especially if and when it comes as the expense of others (regardless of whether it is only their sub-conscience that acknowledges it), not wanting to expose things like the spaghetti code that makes up the core of a multi-trillion dollar enterprise of maybe even the literal fraud being perpetrated to achieve riches, some self-delusion that obfuscation quals security that hopefully will prevent nefarious actors gaining insights.

The very nature of the financial industry, a store of value, worth, and a huge closet of misdeeds and fraud that is chocked full and bursting at the seams to reveal the putrid innards; makes it a massively sensitive matter and domain. The behaviors and actions or ethos of the financial industry is not at all dissimilar to when you interact with other dishonest and nefarious and secretive types who have dirty secrets to hide and ill gotten gains to obscure and squirrel away. But there is also a layer of honesty that must be maintained. The notion of "disrupting" the financial sector with the trademark wonton recklessness of the Silicon Valley mentality gives me shivers, because when, e.g., the WeWork fraud

One may as well have asked why African government officials don't publicly speak about how their government work or ask the CCP how China really works. But one could also even ask that question closer to home like how massively lossy Silicone Valley unicorns can exist or one may also ask for an audit of the DoD (which, interestingly, the recent attempt to audit the Marines led to the Auditor refusing to sign the audit) or the Federal Reserve (a set of private bankers that control the money supply without any accountability, oversight, let alone limits or balance of powers). Those are ALL equally sketchy and nefarious deceptive and manipulative smoke and mirrors slight of hand operations that one could ask the same question of why does not one speak publicly about their work.

You may be one of those that realizes that there is a thread that runs between all of the above.
> Some of the software in the firmware is licensed under the GNU General Public License and other Open Source and Free Software licenses. You can find the complete and corresponding source in the GPL archive. [0]

They seem to have plenty of GPL sources available for download when you grab the firmware (and without having a device to test, it may actually include the source code with itself), so it seems they do offer up this source code. (The firmware download does come with a EULA, but the EULA specifically spells out it only applies to the proprietary bits, and not GPL and other Open Source software.)

So it seems that the claim "Specifically, in our analysis of the facts, we have found that both Cambium and Ubiquiti fail to provide any source code for their respective routers and access points..." needs more information before we can be certain that it is correct.

[0] https://www.ui.com/download/edgemax/default/default/edgeswit...
Things That Turbo Pascal is Smaller Than https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html
When you can't compete, sue.
Not a single word about greenhouse gas emissions.
>The rest of Europe use other layouts within the ISO QWERTY.

This is also not exactly true.
e.g. in Poland ANSI QWERTY is typically used, with diacritics typed with right Alt. (there are other layouts with diacritics directly available, like Windows "Polish (214)", but nobody uses them)
Even before the lobbying step, regulations are barriers to entry. Established companies can afford them whereas small companies can not.
Gene-editing puts more gene-based cures within reach
Uh, yeah that’s what I’m arguing. They aren’t buying everything. It’s a tricky concept and you just demonstrated why it is so.

A thriving smart manager in a top company will only recommend the “obvious” and “great” companies to acquire. They aren’t going to suggest to buy a risky or “clearly dumb” company in X vertical. But it is those dumb and risky sounding companies that become the next big thing.

So why would GM worry about Toyota when those shitty Japanese cars are terrible and we can focus on the large vehicles where all the money is at?

Why would MSFT worry about this whole phone business when clearly it’s making hand over fist with the desktop/pc market?

Why would a bank want to get involved with the illegal activity and fraudulent market of crypto.... oh wait.
Light-based ‘tractor beam’ assembles materials at the nanoscale
No one has any innovative ideas on how to do both? Disappointing

Why not do a global block chain where each state hosts a node? Someone’s got to have some ideas on how to use cryptography to prevent abuse
> Because airplane engines are so darn loud

It always appeared strange to me when countries have strict noise limits on aviation, but most countries do not seem to mandate noise limits for cars
The Swiss National Bank is hiring blockchain people. They may be planning a stable coin.
How? Sorry to snap but I am sick of seeing "they are monopolies break them up" from a tortured definition of monopoly mindlessly chanted towards Google and Amazon while massive black hole olf media conglomerates like Comcast, Disney, and Sinclair Media and their ilk walk by whistling.

There is no explanation of the harm, no plan for division, how subentities could be viable in competition, just gaped mouthed sloganeering. All of the virtual and real ink spilled and not even a bad plan. It is like Brexit all over again but with even less of a plan all over again - "just do it and trust us to come up with a plan latter and ignore our transparently terrible motivations!".
Not sure if ironic. 172 is definitely on the low numbers for a country of 350M -- especially with 50 states that could have their own local news non-profits (tv, radios, newspapers, online version of the latter two, etc).
Young Alfred | VP Engineering/Senior Backend Engineer | Junior Backend Engineer | Full-Time | ONSITE | New York City, NY | www.youngalfred.com

Young Alfred is a marketplace that helps homeowners compare and buy home insurance online. We are building the stripe/plaid like infrastructure into insurance carriers and opening up the YA API for others to leverage our core technology to access 35 insurance carriers across all 50 US states.

We're seeking a VPE/Senior Backend Engineer. These are ground floor roles with significant responsibility & upside opportunity. Lighter salary & heavier equity.

Please email: apply@youngalfred.com
Yes, that’s the failing. Ideally, justice should be cheaper in both time and monetary costs.

I don’t know of any state that has ever tried to optimize for a low-overhead justice system “in the small” (e.g. many, more efficient, more convenient small-claims courts; or the introduction of another triage layer of “medium-claims” courts, where most all civil contractual disputes would land) which is an interesting fact all by itself. Speedy+cheap justice goes somewhat hand-in-hand with things like red-tape reduction, in that both are attempts to “oil the wheels” of the state apparatus—yet you’d never hear the same people (e.g. libertarians) espouse both.
Big respect to the Cloudfare folks.
I invite you to go work full time at your local big box store. Especially in Building Materials. Or Flooring perhaps.
Yes, alot of retail is "hurry up and wait" on the front end, but in other departments there's literally tons of work that happens throughout the day and you'll never notice it if you're not there 40 hours a week.
Sources of Startup Funding: The Pros and Cons
It is my opinion that in order to retain freedom of the press protections an organization should be required to be non-profit, not specifically 501c3 of course.
A developer oriented mindfulness magazine is an interesting idea. Some of the articles are more general instead, like snacking and Part 3. Developer focus of the articles differentiates.
I don't think that's as useful an analogy when there's a million branches and it's easy to find another. Sure, in other industries people don't have the same luxury of speaking up.
The real problem for privacy are behavioral profiles, credit scores, consumer scores, social scores etc. because they all lose context and picture you as someone you are not.

Paid services won't scale as ad based services. And context ads won't scale as personalised ads. So the money will flow first to behavioral profiling tech companies and privacy by default tech will never be able to compete with personalised ad tech.

So there will never be privacy for the masses.
Essentially this is a plug for a startup that wants to take more of the human out of what should be the human to human interaction of interviewing.

Most tech companies problem with interviewing is they treat it like a fit test to see if you fit in a box the same way all the others do. It is a human interaction that you need to get good at to discern the good from the bad hires. Removing more and more of the human aspect doesn't get you good people, it gets you robots that work the same way you do which is horrible way to grow and expand your company.

I really wish tech companies would learn from the past, stop making mistakes we did 20 years ago during the dot com boom/bust and go back to interviewing people properly as many of us in the last 90's early 00's. You do NOT want to hire the same type of people over and over, you want diversity in thought, diversity in background and people who can solve problems. Testing for language syntax and all these other stupid tests I see anymore are just insane and are getting companies controllable robots who think like everyone else on the team or who have studied to pass a test but may be horrible engineers.

I have mentored a number of startups, many on how to hire and when you break down the hiring process you find they tried to turn it into an algorithm to find the right people. People are not algorithms, stop it. There is nothing wrong with identifying traits that are desirable but stop trying to design algorithms to find them and instead talk to people, see if you can work with them. I find it funny that people think that by pre-defining 100 questions and splitting them up across 3-5 interviewers gives them hiring repeatability, analytics or good hires. It doesn't. If you want a good candidate, get 3 people to have a conversation with the person and dive deep, ask questions, learn about their decision making skills which are FAR more important than if they can correctly write a specific algorithm in XX minutes. A smart person can look up the best implementation for a specific algorithm, but if they have bad decision making skills they'll have no clue when to do that and will hurt the team not help.
Ideally there is an even larger group of employees who _do_ support their labor being used in this fashion.
My personal experience has been that a generic phrase in common use cannot be used as a trademark. There has to be something added to it to make it unique. I wonder how they obtained the trademark in the first place?
Women in Science and Engineering
I've never understood why they don't just go work somewhere else. A publicly traded corporation has a legal obligation to maximize value for their shareholders, even if that means doing business with ICE, big oil, the military, etc. A CEO who continually turns away legitimate and legal business on moral grounds can be removed, and in some cases sued by the board of directors.

If you have qualms with working for a large corporation whose primarily purpose is to maximize value and profit within the boundaries of the law, then you need to find a non-profit or privately held firm that's more aligned with your values and flourish there.
Money is a conflated metric in the arts; it's largely an investment, and you're really investing in the "cool" factor (the cooler the artist gets, the better the resale value of his work). By following the money, you're mainly watching a popularity contest (and Warhol was nothing if not cool).

Art itself is of course nebulous, and has multiple branches of thought, but at it's most basic is just something that's "thought-provoking and interesting", which is best defined by contrast to those things we can all generally agree is mindless (eg marvel, porn).. somehow we'd also like to include technical skill, but it's neither sufficient nor necessary.

And then you just have to navigate the history, niches and social groups that exist around it; some work isn't interesting, but an army of pretentious fucknuggets will swing by and tell you it is (but without explaining shit). Some work is interesting, but your own pretentions will stop you from seeing it (often humorous work go right over people's heads, because they're too busy looking for a "deeper" meaning, or assuming it exists and don't bother processing any further). And some work is only interesting given a certain context/history (eg duchamp's famous urinal, which broke down art circles for decades).
Maybe so, maybe so. The important thing is they're able to voice & instrument this desire in a material way rather than just rolling over.
“O Saki Saki” – Batla House
Aren't small-claims courts precisely an attempt to optimize for a low-overhead justice system in the small? Doubtless you feel they don't succeed or don't go far enough, but it seems odd to claim that nobody's tried.
Alexandra Elbakyan
you probably would have a better argument with don't really care.
I haven’t seen this kind of activism since the 20th Century Motor Corporation.
Anyone saying blanket "we don't need consumer protection mechanisms" because it's a "failing" of something or the other must be taking the piss.

As a parent of children, consumer protections are overall a "good thing" to help prevent bad actors from doing harm. It goes for any space that can do harm to you or your family in any way.

It's why you have exchanges like Gemini in place that seek to be the "most regulated" crypto exchange - to instill trust in the service and market... and your investment.

That being said there is still a ways to go... it will be interesting to see if the market can solve some of these issues through natural growth and competition.
That sounds like an unnecessary accounting headache that leads to a nominal company for every new iPhone would fail to lead to true competition's virtures.

Remember these aren't some game company AIs or subservient robots - they engineer loopholes to protect their interests. Expect Hollywood accounting but even worse.
LOL forever @ "opened 19 years ago"
Similar issue that happened with Specialized and the name Roubaix in 2013.

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/retail-news/2013/12/09/socia...
Contrasting perspective: Founders like you describe are likely mythical. Don't exist. Not a single one in the world... at least if you mean founders of possibly competing firms.

To be able to compete with the likes of google, you're going to need considerable scale - there's going to be a lot of up-front investment necessary to get there. And that means they need to "sell out" to outside investors to get anywhere. The kind of people that are really fundamentally opposed to any kind of takeover by any large tech firm probably won't pass this hurdle. The people that do pass that hurdle probably are more successful precisely because they're more pragmatic. And in any case they'll be giving away some amount of control in the process, and may need several rounds of funding... it's pretty far-fetched to assume any business that survives that kiln will really have the (self-harming!) principles to oppose a lucrative takeover and retain the control to too.

It's always possible somebody will find some really overlooked niche, grow big there, and then expand from there... but it's a really, really long shot, and certainly unlikely enough that this is never going to add up to significantly increased competition in the sector. Even if by some surprising happenstance one or two new competitors emerge like that... that's still a very, very inefficient basis for a market. We need hundreds of competitors (or at the very least no barriers to entry for hundreds of potential competitors) - not just a handful - for a market economy to do its optimization magic. A few plucky founders just don't matter.
Interestingly, now that I've looked into it, both of Hewlett Packard Enterprise and HP Inc's current CEOs have computing and engineering degrees. At around a combined $80 billion in revenue in 2019, they must be one of the most lucrative ruined companies I've ever heard of.

Remember, many people who are candidates for an MBA already have a non-business degree, and they're looking to get a fundamental business education.

So a wonderful example of that might be Tim Cook, who has a bachelor's in Industrial Engineering as well as an MBA, and runs the most valuable tech company in the world.

Many people say he's not as good as Steve Jobs (due to the lack of personality cult), but then again, Apple is now making more than double the revenue that it did under Steve Jobs with a revenue mix that is much less dependent on the iPhone. The fastest growing segment is services, which is far more profitable and less risky than hardware (ask Pebble, BlackBerry, or Fitbit about that).
>Regulations lead to lobbying. And lobbying leads to corruption.

Capitalism is a prerequisite for lobbying. Regulations are not.

>For instance the financial crisis. One big reason for this was regulations forcing banks to make awful loans in Bush’s “ownership economy”.

This is bank propaganda. It's been debunked countless times:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/05/06/the-lie-...

>This led to a situation where free market products (mortgage backed securities and derivatives) were corrupted with so many bad loans.

The bad loans were made by people who knew exactly what they were doing. It was a form of control fraud (sometimes called "bankruptcy for profit").
Should all these guys be sued?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/19/nearly...
> People who are deep into this scene are posting on other websites that aren't as negative on the subject

What other technical analyses of the Libra software are there? So far I've seen this and Elaine Ou - who I'm sure you would concede knows a thing or two about the space, even as she's a bitcoin maximalist - being shocked at how incomplete the code dump was: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-20/facebo...
I use a 27" 4k at work and a 38" ultrawide (3840x1600) at home. The 38" is too big frankly; maybe some of the mentioned 34" are better. I do like having Rider and Unity open in full size windows with room for terminal windows and other stuff on the ultrawide but for longer use I prefer the higher DPI of the 4k.
As someone concerned about climate change and very bullish on alternative energy, I still think this is a slippery slope. Google shouldn't choose who can use its services based on politics. GCP/Search/Maps should serve all legal businesses. This is both a moral (not legal) position and risk-averse one (who knows what employees will want to censor in 10 years).
You do realize the massive amount of abuse that opens up, right? So because you have ever given your "papers" to anyone in your whole life, therefore you have not expectation of privacy?

Seriously, I would love to know why you find that to be a perfectly fine thing, especially today when current abuses are built on presumptions based on a totally different world where "giving your papers" literally meant giving your unique paper to someone and it then would not simply be reproduced billions of times and spread all throughout the world for anyone and everyone's use against you.

I really hope that since you are here, it is not a challenge for you to realize the massive issues here at stake.

Think about what that means in practice … it's literally a mass surveillance state that violates every single tenet and even essentially every clause of the Constitution when, e.g., courts of uninformed and uneducated judges rule that "no, the real time constant surveillance and tracking of you through your devices is actually NOT a violation of the letter and, more importantly, the spirit of the 4th Amendment." How are you secure when you are literally under constant surveillance by a surveillance state, my friend.

I don't know why you types tend to have this kind of submissive and supplicant attitude towards the massive surveillance state, if it's not some sick self-hatred and self-punishment complex, but it is not a healthy mentality to have to make excuses for the mass surveillance and control by a minority of tyrants that lord over you as unaccountable demigods. How does that make any sense. I would love if you could try to explain that to me.
The whole point of Laplace is to make problems easier to solve by mapping linear differential equations to algebraic equations. To quote my dynamical systems professor, "you learned how to solve this in high school."

There is a bit of hand holding in engineering courses with it however. A lot of looking at transform tables, and maybe a few problems where you need to exploit the properties of the transform or remember its definition to solve a problem. That can trip people up, and it happens in the real world more often than you'd like.
Would injecting my key material in FIDO authenticator undermine its attestation?
We're discussing proposals to backup FIDO2 authenticator, and Emil from Yubico mentioned that allowing the user to inject their own key material "undermines device attestation, which would likely disqualify those authenticators from high-security applications like financial institutions."

I'm wondering, is that actually the case?

To me, not allowing me to inject my own key material couldn't be an advantage, because I have no guarantee that the vendor didn't keep the copy of it for whatever reason. And if I'm able to set key material, then there is no need to trust the vendor, at least not to the same extent by far.

But I'm wondering whether I'm overlooking something.

The proposal is being discussed here https://gist.github.com/emlun/4c3efd99a727c7037fdb86ffd43c020d#gistcomment-3073739