skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Rich guy gets to hang around in Manhattan condo without a full time job. Sounds fun, where can I sign up?

I would suggest that this blog entry was posted out of idolatry rather than being posted for its insightful content. I don’t know what anyone’s supposed to get out of this.
So he is the father of word salad.
Because wireless spectrum is a finite resource. We literally can't use more of it than is available.
Although IIRC they can be thought of as the end of a long tradition of mob justice being the system, or at least a large part of the system for keeping order. And directed against (supposed) criminals of all colors.
Thank you for pulling these up. I am tearing up in an otherwise indifferent office.
https://www.vermontel.com/
This only works with low cost items, and/or in nice areas. In low income areas, even many fully manned stores bail due to shrinkage.
I'd like to see a middle ground, personally. I like the idea of grabbing and going, using some combination of rf tags and my phone to just charge me automatically. This sounds like the best of both worlds. In an honor system, I'd feel like I'm paying more to cover those who are stealing - which is already a big problem in some areas, like baby products.
That is extremely ineffective.

What you might want to do is to cool the brain through cooling the outside of the head as well as through the nasal cavity.

Even if you chug a giant slurpee the largest effect on the brain temperature will be the cooling of the nasal cavity on it's way down.
I'm obviously not the author, but I can think of a good reason not to use rust.

The project works exactly as the original and recreates the memory state byte for byte, so like the original it has different tasks running at once that are reading and writing to shared memory. Rust's borrow check exists to prevent this sort of thing, because it is so hard to do it correctly or prove it is correct once you have done it. So to use rust, the author would have needed to either totally re-architect Space Invaders, or write the whole thing in ugly, non-idiomatic rust.

Rust simply doesn't let you do the things assembly and C programmers did all the time in 1978 (and with the complexity of our software now and the extra computing power, that's usually for the better). C, on the other hand, has at times been described as "portable assembly," which makes it a good choice for someone wanting to stay true to the original program flow.
Computer scientists set new record for cracking encryption keys
You don't need internet to live, you don't need internet to earn a living, the internet does not cure cancer, the internet does not treat any disease. Yes the internet will grant you access to knowledge you wouldn't otherwise have, yes it will allow you to telecommute, yes it will allow you to type to strangers in 17 countries at once.

The internet however also:

- allows for persistent, extended bullying

- can lead to all sorts of negative mental health events by exposing you to all sorts of highly-curated content giving the perception that someone always has it better than you or by exposing you to incredibly graphic imagery and news

- encourages sedentary beahvior such as wathcing 12 hours of tv on a Saturday, sitting on HN/reddit for 3-5 hours a day, playing MMORPGs for 5, 10, 24 hours in a day.

It's no more a human right than diet coke or owning a vehicle is. It's a tool.

One could easily argue the internet, and recreational computation in general, is a detriment to society. A few years ago I did a little research and some maths and was quite surprised with how much time we collectively waste on just video games

>I got to thinking, 'how much time do we waste annually on video games' and I quickly found answers. The average U.S. gamer age 13 or older spent 6.3 hours a week playing video games during 2013. Wow, but what about globally? Could I find an estimate? Well, I did, on TED no less. We spend 3 billion hours a week as a planet playing videogames.

[1] Additional sources referenced on the page https://www.ryanmercer.com/ryansthoughts/2016/8/2/humanitys-...
You're overcomplicating the problem.

void accept_string(const char *a, size_t a_length);

is good enough. It has the additional advantage that you can give it a substring out of a larger string without copying it.
This doesn't sound terrible but it will have effects on the ecosystem similar to hydro at least - blocking fish migration paths, reducing river flow rate and potentially causing algae blooms, fish die-offs or water toxicity increases as sediments are disturbed in fun new ways.

All that said, it's certainly miles above either coal or natural gas.
It may be clever, but short-sighted. It creates complexity for distro builds. sdl2-config has to be compiled for the host machine, and get installed in a build-time toolchain sysroot, and when invoked produce parameters for compiling for the target machine/sysroot. The correct sdl2-config built by the distro build has to be invoked; it must not be one that is locally installed in the build machine's /usr/bin.

Imagine if every package with headers and libs had its' own "<package>-config" program! That would be a huge problem, which is why there is one program called package-config, to which packages or build systems just contribute blurbs of info in .pc files.
Does it make it anymore acceptable when a cashier is robbed or shot and killed on duty that the store is located in a high crime area? Jobs will be filled by someone. That never excuses abuses towards them.
I have friends without electric up here in Alaska, so it's not everywhere. Might be lower 48 privilege
Can you do a fresh Windows 10 install using a Windows 7 license? Installing Windows 7 on modern hardware can be a real PITA.
Depends on if you think people have any free will or ability to think for themselves
Not with (perfect) forward security:

> In cryptography, forward secrecy (FS), also known as perfect forward secrecy (PFS), is a feature of specific key agreement protocols that gives assurances that session keys will not be compromised even if the private key of the server is compromised.[1] Forward secrecy protects past sessions against future compromises of secret keys.[2][3][3]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_secrecy

There's still the risk of MITM identity spoofing of course.
> I think, given this statement, we likely agree? But then you criticized the article for being too "Feel good", which I think is a mistake. Yes it is "feel good", but maybe it's hard to understand why you need to frame things that way when you're putting yourself out there like this.

Honestly my comment is largely a response to seeing "feel good" blog posts as a whole, and quite frankly I was overly harsh relative to the author's post. In that sense, you could say my criticism is too mean and unjustified, but I think my point still stands and it seems very popular (although it's hard to say how many people upvoted a cynical comment without reading the article first).

If the author is reading this, I apologize - my comment is about the genre of your blog posts more than your blog post itself. Luckily now it does not appear to be the top comment.
Police investigated a man for sharing an offensive limerick on Twitter - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/24/man-investigated...
There seems to be contradictions on the Wiki article about Gigafactory 1...

"Its projected capacity for 2018 is 50 (GWh)/yr of battery packs, and its final capacity upon completion was, as of May 2016, planned to be 150 GWh/yr of battery packs.[39] This would enable Tesla to produce 1,500,000 cars per year."

But after this quote, they failed to verify the initial numbers, so maybe there is some whitewashing of those facts?
Given that both Safari and Chrome will continue to allow extensions to inject arbitrary JavaScript into any web page, I don't buy the privacy angle.
There are several programs called rename with different argument conventions.
> Reduced travel in light of this year’s events has caused a serious drop in sales of luxury products, for example.

If the CCP had let HK be autonomous as they agreed this wouldn't have happened.
If you're following RFC 4122, v4 and v5 UUIDs can be differentiated by looking at the version number field. (See section 4.1.3 of RFC4122.) So if you're worried about collisions between the two versions, as long as you're marking your UUIDs with the appropriate version, this shouldn't be an issue.

For name-based or "truly random" UUIDs, you don't actually use a clock. That's only for Version 1 UUIDs. (more info in section 4.3 of RFC4122.) They unfortunately kept the names "timestamp" and "clock sequence" for both v4 & v5 UUIDs, even though there is no time-based information in them. Section 4.3 of RFC4122 describes how bytes (octets) from the name-based hash function are placed in the timestamp and clock sequence fields (for v3 & v5 UUIDs) and Section 4.4 describes how random bits are placed in the various UUID fields.

In short, you don't need to know the time to generate a v4 or v5 UUID. Having your servers synchronize their clocks is a good idea generally though; it helps make sense of log files and some protocols freak out if there's too much clock skew.

Using Version 4 UUIDs will require you to have a "truly random" number generator (or something close to it.) I wrote a node.js package for generating UUIDs and made sure it gave the user the option of using /dev/random or /dev/urandom or some other option (pretty sure I defaulted to /dev/random.) At the very least you should know the difference between /dev/random, /dev/urandom and /dev/arandom. I have used /dev/urandom as a random number source, but they were only consumed by local processes (i.e. - i didn't give them out to external clients.) So if we learned later there was a flaw in /dev/urandom, the effects would not be exploitable by external actors.

If you're dealing with financial or PII data, there may be regulatory requirements on random number generation. Heaven help you if you're recording credit card numbers in there somewhere.

It's probably hard to get detailed advice without knowing the content of the data being stored and the context of it's use. But you can plan for the worst by:

a. using UUID generation software that allows you to securely specify a specific source for your (pseudo) random numbers.

b. understand that a UUID generator might block for an indeterminate amount of time if you're forced to use a PRNG that waits to collect sufficient entropy.

c. here's my old UUID generating code. i don't recommend using it; it's just too old. but it does give an example of using an interface that lets you select the source of random numbers. it also probably doesn't work on windows: https://github.com/OhMeadhbh/node-mug
I agree with your analysis that TLDs are mostly useless. But I doubt that's enough reason to believe they'll go away - if history is any indication, IP will seldom go away, whether useful or not, since whole industries tend to spring up around it.
This is a really great (and relatively short) program.

Here’s a link to the first episode:
https://youtu.be/0pDE4VX_9Kk

The rest of them are there as well. Go ahead and give it a watch!
I suspect my company is MITM-ing SSL, so China is here Jack.
I'm pretty sure that proof of extrasensory experience would yield you a nobel prize, but so far all studies of the subject that I'm aware of were either negative or had their methods heavily critized.
I’m on iPhone for a daily driver for similar reasons but considering switching to a Galaxy S9 running Lineage (to better boycott China), FWIW.
My father died of cancer when I was 17. In our culture, I was now "man of the house" and was involved in the funeral decisions. That means I had to go along with my uncles to make some decisions. And the sales guys were still peddling and upselling products to a 17 year old kid in their time of grief.
Man all of those points are spot on.

Working remotely is fantastic from a cost perspective but it is very isolating and lonely. It's hard to communicate with the rest of the team, and requires specific strategies to make things work.

It's easy to maintain discipline and inertia when you're in the office, and can't fuck off to your bedroom to nap or play with the Nintendo Switch.

Still a better choice, IMO, but absolutely has downsides, and I'd consider going back to in-person office work for the right role.
> It’s all compiling to HTML, CSS and JS in the end.

I don't generally have a problem with this. I use JSX at work too. My take is it's just another templating system, I don't think it's special. I don't have anything against templating. To a certain extent, my point is that template systems are good -- put your two-way data bindings and special components in them.

When I write JSX though, I make sure it renders out as semantic HTML. If your approach to JSX is, "I'm going to write my render code in JS and output HTML", I don't have a problem with you, you're doing great. If your approach to JSX is, "my interface is just Javascript, so it's fine to spit out poorly organized divs that are absolute-positioned everywhere", then I think you've missed the point of HTML.

React isn't an antipattern. But React doesn't remove your need to think about the final HTML that your app is going to spit out. Apps like Youtube and Twitter are particularly bad at this -- Youtube's DOM is a horrifying mess, it's completely unreadable and way too difficult to work with or style. It's not because they're using a component system to build it, it's because they're fine treating the HTML as a non-readable render target. They don't care about HTML as a user interface.

The broad mistake people make on the web is to look at HTML and say, "because I can't build a scalable app on JQuery and hand-coded HTML, therefore HTML is bad." Google's hot-take with HTML custom components is not that you could put your template logic inside your other component logic -- it's that the HTML layer shouldn't matter at all and you should stop thinking about it.

Separation of concerns is for users, not for you. It's not about where you organize your logic, or even if you mix up your languages into the same file. It's about what gets spit out onto the final page.

> We’re killing CSS classes and building styled-components.

I would caution a bit against doing styles in JS -- not because adding a template layer or JS layer that generates CSS is bad, but because many codebases that I've worked with use CSS-in-JS as an excuse to rewrite basic CSS controls like hover effects in Javascript and inline the remaining styles. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do CSS in JS, it just means you should take the time to use a library that spits out actual CSS and that allows you to take advantage of native selectors and pseudo-elements. React does itself a disservice by using tutorials that teach people to apply styles directly to elements instead of pointing people towards any of the more decent companion libraries that will let you do styling correctly.

Unless your engineering team is the size of Facebook's and you can't communicate about your components at all, you probably should still be using classes. Of course that doesn't mean you can't use JS to restrict class scope or template that CSS. I personally tend to be more of a proponent of BEM than I am of JS styles, but I'm not going to fight someone over that.
Please, can you quote a source so that those who’re interested may contrast between the claims in the article and your observation? Thank you.
[Disclaimer I work for Cliqz]

Copying, learning would be a bit more precise, and I'm not kidding. We do not answer queries 1 to 1, query-logs are used to build a more concise model of the page. It's not just a cache, we started like this, but we quickly learn to answer unseen queries.

A sufficient strict IP might find text snipped a copyright violation too. It's a trick area. Personally, I'm at peace as we get the content of web pages, as everyone else.

As for the dependency, it would be if we were not able to generate our own synthetic queries, which we are. So even if all other search engines of the world were to disappear, we would still be able to operate. That was not always the case, as you pointed out.
Also, (I can see it being possible that)* when it is communicated that the only thing stopping you from stealing is your own conscience, a burden is placed on your conscience every time you shop. I think people will be surprised to see how worn down the conscience can get when you keep invoking it for insignificant situations (in other words, when your conscience belies rationality). People may find themselves stealing when they never would've before.

*added as an edit
I'm not an art historian, and when I watched either of the two shows I found them interesting and insightful so I really don't have a dog in this fight, but I'd like to understand the criticism of each.

I don't understand what you mean by "It's violence couched in aesthetics and academic language."
One could argue they needed to continue making some trucks and SUVs until they have a positive margin on their EVs...They can't just shutter all their profit-makers immediately, how would they fund their EV future? What I DO agree about, though, is that they should have kept the Volt and they should have made the Bolt look less ugly.
This analysis is highly suspect. It's a great sales pitch sure - but it's false.

So first of all: the overhead for running the registry is unreasonably high. You'd expect there to be considerable room for reducing costs, so the 75M$ per year is artificially low; revenue is around 100M.

Secondly, that revenue is artificially (but reasonably!) low because the price is capped. But guess what? That price cap was just removed; so the actual price may rise considerably; certainly it is not reasonable to assume that under the terms specifically changed for the deal the revenue will stay at just 100M a year.

Thirdly, the risk of .org evaporating is pretty absurd. The cost of a domain is (and should be) pretty trivial compared to the value most people can extract from it; the fact that this is a for-profit business at all is highly questionable - it's as if your street address were owned by a third party, and you can't have anything shipped their at your cost without the acquiescence of a third party. I'm not sure anybody is seriously buying this story of .org becoming irrelevant to the point that people won't pay 10$ (+margin above wholesale) for a domain. But even if you're unsure - the very fact that a private party snapped this up is evidence to the contrary.

Fourthly, it's entirely unreasonable for ISOC to earn even a penny off of this deal. What exactly did they do to earn the right to profit of other people's valuable contributions? Right, nothing - they were just there are the right time. There's no reason they should even be an exclusive party at all, let alone one that operates with a profit motive.

Fifthly, the people involved, and the timing, stinks. If this were all above-board, it should have been public and not have been bought out by insiders almost immediately after those same people are involved in enabling the deal. It's not at all transparent what those insiders were doing, but if it's not plain old highway robbery again, perhaps some transparency would have helped.

Frankly, the whole cartel (DNS, not merely .org) should simply be dumped; there's just no reason this is private to start with, and most certainly not run with a profit motive; that's just asking to reasons to distort the far more important markets with rent-seeking behavior here. If chrome+safari were to sponsor an alternative to DNS, I'm sure the rest of the browsers would follow; e.g. by using a different protocol (not http(s)) to disambiguate, and by forking the existing (as of some fixed date) DNS domains. Good riddance to those leaches.
> What America, and other nations who value freedom, have is a protection against government interference.

This argument is super common, but also not correct.

Yes, the first amendment is about protecting speech from government censorship.

But freedom of speech is much broader, and predates the US Constitution by two millennia. If you look at the full history of the concept, it's not just about protection from government, but also protection from undue reprisal.

For example, in the larger view of the ideal of freedom of speech, it is indeed a violation to be fired from your job for holding an unrelated, unpopular political view.
Honestly, this just makes the agency sound like the least dysfunctional agency in the states. They said recent tech breakthroughs allowed them to collect information faster and that companies are communicating with them more
Unless you're lucky, even major cities have expensive and bad options. In Helsinki I paid $40 for a 500/500 line. In Seattle I pay $70 for 70/5 I believe and no better options available (I could pay a lot more for a bit more downstream). In whats supposed to be one of the top 2 tech cities in the country.
And traffic exponentially worse
Say you have a few nodes behind a few different ISPs sharded to clients. Once one node becomes unavailable it gets replaced by another node and back when it becomes available again. This means either all nodes at once can get attacked, but with lower volume or one by one, but affecting only one shard of users for a short period of time it takes to failover.

But in practice datacenters, uplinks and internet exchanges often are able to do flowspec, firewall rules, block all UDP for a subnet in all networks they have relationships with, etc. So plenty of those nodes can be behind ISPs that mitigate volumetric attacks automatically, so even simple DNS failover might be good enough to protect from such attacks. It's not that hard. Layer 7 is where the hard part is.
This is a well written article on the topic.

It argues that human pressures may be selecting out only the hardiest most adaptable species such as rats, mice, pigeons, sparrows, etc...

If this goes on unabated, we'll be left with an ecosystem with much lower diversity.

http://www.davidquammen.com/sampler/18-planetofweeds
Like this for example https://hackaday.com/2019/07/16/neural-network-in-glass-requ... though I'm not sure that you can really count this as calculation. But I guess that's the point of this discussion.
Why is it not ideal? Literally every single other language solves it this way.
My impression was the criticisms of flash stemmed from its security issues, it’s closed nature, it’s relative unfamiliarity (compared to popular languages of the time), and the nuisance that was making sure you had the right version running on your machine at any given time. Modern JavaScript addressed these issues, hence its popularity over Flash. This doesn’t endorse the gratuitous application of JS for fundamentally static content, but it sets the context for your perceived “shift in dev culture”.
Don't user namespaces have significant security issues themselves?
I imagine this works well in semi-secured contexts - meaning within a gated apartment complex or in a church. The items are low value (a nice box meal is maybe $20?) and the value of stealing is minimal since you can't resell the goods or hold onto them for any period of time.

The mirrors are an interesting idea. I was recently reading Schneier's book on trust and he makes reference to an experiment where theft rates were reduced when there were portraits of eyes facing shoppers.

I'm sure they still need some token security, and the article mentions some kind of basic camera. I imagine scanning your credit card to enter would also be highly effective (though possibly have other downsides).
Over 63K Brits registered to vote in next week's general election via SNAPCHAT
Top Christmas Gifts for a Traveller
I'm not sure if it is still true but up until the past month or two Tesla was the most shorted stock in the market and you couldn't watch CNBC for 30 minutes w/o a talking head positing that it would go bankrupt before the year was out. Fast forward to today and every automaker is falling all over themselves to copy the Tesla model and Tesla has positive cash flow and $5.3 billion cash on hand.