skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is a nice explanation and a cool solution. I amused myself a bit ago by trying to come up with a solution for these two constraints without reading about the crypto work, and ended up with something different. In my scheme, a voter casts a vote for a candidate and gets a receipt with the UUID of the vote, which is simply mapped to the candidate so that they can verify it online later. However, the voter can also cast any number of additional ballots, which are constrained by the system to be pairs of votes and anti-votes, each for the same candidate, and get receipts for each. For example, I support Harker, but I've been paid to vote for Dracula. I go into the voting booth and cast my vote for Harker, getting Receipt 1. Then I press an extra button to cast a fake vote for Dracula, and get Receipts 2 and 3, with 3 being a special negative ballot. I can show Receipt 2 to my briber, who can verify that it corresponds to a vote for Dracula. But secretly, I can use Receipt 1 to check that my vote for Harker was counted correctly, and Receipt 3 to see that a negative vote was also cast for Dracula, cancelling out my bribed vote.

You need to allow each voter to cast multiple fake votes, otherwise the briber/coercer could simply demand receipts for a fake vote in addition to the real ones. Could get a bit unwieldy. But the big advantage is that there's no extra complexity for the average voter, since they don't need to cast any fake votes.
Did I ever argue against improving the system or imply these bankruptcies should happen? I just said I’d take this system over alternatives not that it couldn’t be improved.
An activist shareholder owns part of the company and has additional ability to effect change through voting shares. An activist without any shares cannot attend the shareholder meetings, etc. for example.
Location: Anywhere, but I'm in Malta
Remote: As above
:..
Technologies: Pure JS, node from 0.x, PHP4+, React, Vue
CV: Yes
Email: billymcintosh@+gmail.com

Scottish, live in Malta. Worked in iGaming all my 9 years here. Getting too old for the party lifestyle this entertainment business enthuses.

Releasing my own gaming product soon.
This feels like a "famous last words" situation.
On Apple (as opposed to Magic Leap), I believe a lot of it is figuring out a customer need and audience that can be satisfied by a set of technologies that are just at the edge of mature, and then not shipping the product until it actually satisfies those needs. This means not shipping a technology as a product just because it may be useful in the future, and it means resetting a products at the prototype stage often.

Both are hard for startups to take on. The former because many of the founders are heavily focused on a technology they came up with and attempt to shoehorn it into products that don't quite make sense. The latter because it requires either very patient investors or a big bank account.

Both are also hard for established, mature companies to take on. The former because they seem to believe that innovation for innovations sake is a useful thing to do, and for whatever reason the tech press seems to encourage them. The latter because they are focused on delivering quarterly results over building long term platform and ecosystem value, and because politically a cancelled project can be career ending.
This is exactly what i think of. Internet can become do much more than it is now
This article while interesting is so oversimplifying things..

How about social security? Public hospitals? Public schools?
History has shown that these 'socialist' institutions can work and IMHO can be better than raw capitalism but it's not easy.
I'm French and our public hospitals are 'under attack', it's quite possible that they will be replaced by private hospitals.

Some say because public hospitals are too costly other because private hospitals make money and buys politicians..
It's more credible on paper, but the common internet user is more likely to know and trust .org domains then any of the new TLDs.
This question is really not specific.

In scientific and high performance computing, people are regularly inventing new file formats. Many of these decisions also follow paradigms such as "We don't like XML nor complexity, so let's do as if it was 1980 and serialise these data as ASCII one datum per line".

Don't forget that your viewpoint comes from your community. If you are a CAD person, you probably never use JSON. If you do data research, you probably never use XML. If you do hardware development, you probably open any file with a hex editor anyway just because data is usually some bitstream for you.
This might be a better description of what happened, without the paywall and a bit less histrionics.

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/white-house-press-passes...
> People often say "It works on my machine (and not in cloud)...", to avoid this we have simple solution - always run in docker container. And when I say always I really mean it - build in container, run in container, test in container. Actually I didn't mention it in previous section, but the make test really is "just" docker run.

I've had nothing but bad luck with Docker for Mac. It's been super slow. If any container is running at all, the com.docker.hyperkit process eats 160% CPU even if `docker stats` shows the process hovering near 0% CPU. This has been the case for our entire team, and we're in the process of moving away from it.
One example of a feature that I (a user) would love to see get a little love is Lists.

I use them frequently, but Lists are not well-designed at the moment. I can't see if I've already added a user to a list, the "update" is weirdly different from that of the main timeline, there are no aggregations/stats/summaries and AFAIK, there is no interaction with push notifications. They do nothing on the platform to draw anyone's attention to the feature.

But Lists are great! I can pare down my feed to a curated set of users who are all talking about the same thing -- I have an NLP list, and ML list, a "politics" list, etc. I can follow other people's curated lists too. Twitter is huge, it's awesome to have some path to a smaller cohesive community.

It's really weird to me that they would have a feature "above the fold" on the main menu of the platform that seems so dusty and under-utilized. What's the deal? Do they not have enough engineers over there or something?
I’ve yet to see a technological solution that doesn’t fall victim to this.

I’m a reasonably intelligent software engineer and I would not trust myself to audit the described solution to know it does what it claims.

I can, however,

* review the receipt produced by the voting machine and ensure it matches
* observe the random audits of submitted receipts to tabulated votes to be sure they match

I can also trust that a wide section of the public can do those things as well.
Like DuckDuckGo is any better? I understand where you are coming from using the "z" for lulz/kool factor. At least they left a vowel in the name.
This is relevant to social media: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/07/fireho...

A local legislator backed some vaccination legislation here in Oregon, and she cannot post anything to social media without a horde of people from that crazy death cult popping up to rant and screech.
stable !== static

Its like a car, you don't keep pressing the accelerator further and further to travel down the road. You find the optimum location to maintain a safe speed. If something changes, like the road turns, you adjust the accelerator until you are once again safe. If you stayed static, you'd probably fly into a ditch. If you are unnecessarily pumping the pedal, your speed would oscillate unpredictably, and any number of consequences would occur.
Fascinating, thanks for the history lesson - I guess that's part of Boston's charm. They say that cows and horses designed the street layout more than people did, although I'm sure that's not true anymore :)
Growth occurs organically in a market system. It does not in a socialized system. I was not associating growth with inefficiency - I was associating high pay with it.
Notable reason (for those unfamiliar) is that tee will overwrite the file unless given the -a argument which will append the input to the end of the file.
I don't think the languages are the real problem. It's the tooling that sucks. The fact that simulation generally comes from a different vendor to the synthesis means that the simulation environment will implement the behaviour of the language, not the behaviour of the target device. This means you can never verify your design without a full hardware test - at which point you can't probe signals. That could be fixed if someone simulated devices accurately rather than simulating the specification of the language. This is exacerbated by synthesis warnings that range from "I one hot encoded your state machine as has been common since 1984" to "Yo dawg you forgot to reset this signal, so the set and reset priority are unclear, I'm gunna just fuck the whole of your design for ya". We all enjoy those post-synthesis log parsing scripts! By the way - they can't fix the logging because Cisco/Nokia/DoD have spent decades parsing those logs and if you change them you'll break their workaround.

Secondly, because the people who understand FPGAs are hardware engineers the tool vendors hire hardware engineers (and software engineers who are willing to tolerate hardware engineers) to write their software, the result is tools written using the development practices of the dark ages.

End of rant.
I see a lot of arguments for specific technical mitigations for the specific implementation of this attack. All these technical approaches are doomed to fail.

The attack uses network-level injection to add malware to HTTP requests for resources served from inside China. This malware then runs on hosts anywhere in the world and effectively DDoSes the targets. It is true that if these specific requests were made over HTTPS rather than HTTP, this particular attack would be mitigated.

Unfortunately the point that is being missed here is that if these resources had been served over HTTPS, this attack simply would have been implemented in a slightly different way. The suggested mitigations would work post-facto. However, if had they been in place prior to this attack, which is the alternative we have to consider, other means would have rendered them useless.

The fact is that any website hosted in China is directly accessible to the CCP for hosting these attack payloads. There is an ICP registration system and a chain of access to hosting environments that grants full network control and full access to any server to the authorities at any time they choose. Servers that are not part of this system are simply not allowed to host websites on the Chinese internet. Further, there is direct political control over every major internet company.

This is such a fundamentally different situation that it can be hard for American observers to understand what range of potential responses are meaningful.

The reality is that any network request that is served from China is fully within the political power of the CCP to alter. Whether this involves HTTP or HTTPS or whether implemented via the GFW or by direct changes to endpoints within internet companies is immaterial. Beyond the logistical costs of these actions within China, nothing of any consequence is changed by such minor technical mitigations.

What these attacks show is not just the capability but the willingness to use that capability in an offensive capacity against political targets.

The difference between the internet of independent sites in the US and the situation of near-total political control over resources on the network in China can hardly be overstated. This is why technical solutions that seem completely reasonable from an American perspective are pointless in reality. The threat model of the world's largest online population with all network resources under direct political control is simply too unfamiliar. If the political will exists to use those resources offensively, technical countermeasures will always be ineffective, unless they are so seemingly disproportionate that they become essentially political acts, like depeering.

Meaningful responses are those that affect the political willingness of the CCP to weaponize the internet. Weaponization will destroy the internet as we know it, and raising awareness before this kind of thing becomes routine may be the last chance we have to avoid it.

This is a political problem, and does not have a technical solution.
They are not. They are claiming that "a good chunk of them" is/are.
> i think a cross with it and an ML language (like F# or OCaml) would be a wonderful fit for programming FPGAs

Sounds like Clash! It's pseudo-Haskell that compiles to Verilog or VHDL.
No it's not the first or only attempt at this. Time (or other metric) based funding of content has been tried several times. We spent 6-figures on experimenting ourselves with a autopayments browser extension.

The hard problem is getting people to actually pay in the first place, not how to divide up the money after. Since Brave is basically a higher-level ad network with a free browser, it's paying the users first and then taking it from them in a secondary loop. It's a combination of nice marketing and forceful control over typical ad experience.
Yeah... um... good luck with that.

We actually need systems that work with the humans we have, not with the humans that someone thinks we should have.
Flattr was probably the most famous. It's still running, last I checked anyway. Readability.com tried something like that as well - remove ads from a site and pay the site owner directly instead. Site owners got very angry about this and it stopped that pretty quickly.
There are also Baidu and Yandex, which dominate China and Russia, respectively.

https://www.baidu.com

https://yandex.com

Qwant is a France-based search engine that has a similar privacy focus to DuckDuckGo.

https://www.qwant.com

Million Short tries to find sites that other search engines miss.

https://millionshort.com

Wikipedia has a more comprehensive list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines
Yeah, Cliqz seems well within the range of trendy website names, unlike DuckDuckGo.
Pretty sure they had an original product that was definitely not vaporware, the issue is it turned out to be not scaleable at all.

A product that is obscenely expensive and therefore can't be sold as a consumer device is not vaporware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism, yes it's clear that a lot has already been written about this kind of idea.

A difficulty is that it may interact with questions about the nature of existence and the nature of time. Would consciousness work properly in a deterministic block universe? What would be the relationship between my consciousness now and my consciousness of 10 seconds ago, do they both exist independently? Could you have consciousness that worked in a spacial dimension instead of time, by writing out the relevant calculations on a sheet of paper?
It’s expensive, and it’s incredibly difficult to convey in video what it’s like to wear one.

If you get a chance to try one, I HIGHLY recommend it. It’s an incredible experience. Even just the demos.
On Firefox you can have multiple containers on a single window. On brave each profile has its own window.
Yes, and how often is that takeover bid entirely in the hands of one person spending his own money?

More often than not, it is done by an organization--like a hedge fund, mutual fund, or pension system--that pools the money of several investors together (the owners) to make the bid. Yet the fund managers are the ones who make the call.

In some cases, like the hedge fund, the compensation structure forces management to have the same priorities as the owners. In other compensation structures--like mutual funds, where they get a positive percentage whether the investments go up or down--not so much.
Brave blocks 3rd party ads, i.e. ads served off-site. Reddit is one of the few sites to make the effort to host all their ad tech themselves.
You do realize Google is a misspelling of googol right?
Did you set up an Uphold account and link your Brave wallet to it? That should pretty much be the end of it; should be straightforward from there to send/exchange the BAT elsewhere.

As your browser receives BAT on the 5th of every month, I think that's also when your Creator account receive tips, but I haven't confirmed that. The UI really is bare-bones and my site doesn't receive enough traffic to speculate further.
But, indeed, some do. They will provide as much power and as much cooling as they need to get that performance.
Why aren't you using Linux then?
Sure, but Brave and BAT are as painless as it gets:

• you get a grant of BAT to pay content creators on the web, YouTube, Twitter, etc. when you sign up

• Brave can (optionally) automatically allocates BAT to the content creators you visit the most based on the amount of time you spend on their sites

• you can opt-in if you wish to see ads related to things you're interested in and get paid in BAT

• for BAT you earn, you have the option to pay content creators or cashout to fiat (dollars, euros, yen, etc.)

Right now, Uphold is the gateway between earnings in BAT and fiat, but they're also working on integrating with Coinbase as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/cqjv7a/native_c...
Sorry, but that's just not true.

If you look up how elections get rigged, there are all sorts of opportunities for corrupting the election, which actually happen all over the world -- ballot boxes getting swapped out, literally stuffed with extra votes, being hidden and forgotten completely, getting "lost" or "accidentally destroyed" to prevent a recount along with forged results, the list goes on and on.

Yes the UN can send unbiased people to observe elections, but there just aren't enough to be present at every polling station and verify every step of the way. And the police tend to be happy to deny "unauthorized" people from observing... in the name of "security" to promote election integrity.

So considering that even official UN observers historically have been unable to verify the trustworthiness of many elections, I don't understand how you think "anyone who can count" could possibly do so.

You are right that ultimately it's based on trust, currently. But with technology we can have far greater certainty, and follow the phrase Reagan popularized: "trust, but verify". Elections deserve nothing less.
I'm glad you were safe from my type of disaster. Dropbox or Nextcloud are amazing for their instant backup ability.
My loss happened about a year before Dropbox launched.
Thanks for sharing. :)
Don't worry, automated swat teams will eliminate the need to mow down, merely resulting in arrests
I wonder why that name was chosen.
I wish it was easier to get a constant sync between devices for bookmarks, but other than that, happy user here.
I think you missed my point just a little.

It's true that if you designed a EV battery pack to be one solid anode and cathode, you might have to worry considerably about the chemistry that makes up the pack.

That, however, isn't how anyone is building packs (that I know of). EV manufacturers are all pushing for packs made of modules made of cells. The cells that they are making are quite literally a typical form factor (Typically 18650s)

Yes, you have to figure out how to put together your pack of 18650s and how to cool/heat them. However, what you don't have to worry about is what chemistry goes into them. That's an upstream supply concern. A 10% bump in storage can be gained with better chemistry, it doesn't require that you completely redesign your pack with each new chemistry. As a bonus, that also means you can source your cells from multiple manufactures, because they are all pushing out the same form factor.
If you are unsuccessful, I have a better legal defense than your offense, that doesn't change who is responsible. The burden of proof would be on you.
> That's easy to disprove. A calculator isn't sophisticated enough to simulate itself, but a modern computer can perfectly simulate itself.

What you say is pretty obviously false: a computer with finite memory cannot simulate itself in a general case because that would require more memory than it actually has or a compression algorithm that's effective on random data, because its memory would need to contain the emulation program plus a full memory image. Computers with infinite memory do not exist and random data is not compressible, therefore modern computers cannot perfectly simulate themselves. QED.
On the other hand, in the US freedom of speech would likely protect this person. And there are strong arguments in favor of absolutist versions of freedom of speech.
By 2050 we might well be more concerned with which rocks can be slung farther.

Assuming civilization will survive until then, given current political trends, is rash.
That may be true, but Google started when I didn’t have similar preconceptions based on name yet. The trend of calling something Trackr, Suprnova etc. didn’t exist.

Now any service with a name like that seems shit compared to more readable/writeable names: Stackoverflow, Quora, datadog.

Case in point is srht.co, which rebranded to Sourcehut for similar reasons.
I'm not experienced in DDOS mitigation techniques, but is it possible to redirect malicious traffic to the malicious JS-serving website?

Is this feasible/computationally worth it?
>If the Chinese government wants to man in the middle traffic to foreign sites they can just force PC vendors to install a CCP controlled CA root on systems and make it illegal and/or very difficult to remove it.

Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21721843

>Shit, they can require vendors include a hardware backdoor, especially since so much of that hardware is produced domestically.

If they're only doing it for local computers, the consequences/response is the same as the previous paragraph.

If they're doing it for foreign computers on a mass scale required for a DDoS attack, if discovered will torpedo their entire electronics sector. All the "ban huawei" politicians will have a field day with that.
This is precisely what happens with Mobile Networks. The faster the mobile network gets, the more people uses it which causes things to slow down to zero return of performance.

Ultimately though both Economy of Scale and Jevons Paradox reaches Law of Diminishing returns. Adding more capacity to network or faster DB queries will no longer yield any meaningful output.
One of the serious criticisms against Brave was that they were collecting payments for sites and creators that had not signed up and who did not want to sign up. That is they were charging for other people’s content, that they don’t own, under the guise that the money went to those creators when it didn’t and wouldn’t. Seemed a pretty serious criticism to me. Has this changed?
I exported all of my chrome settings and loaded them into brave. Easy to do and all my things are working as expected.
I agree that such bad behavior should be punished, but why just couple of days? This would be similar to UN trade sanctions that are imposed on bad state actors.

I think we generally overestimate the hurt on the outside and underestimate the hurt on the inside considering the massive trade imbalance that China enjoys with the rest of the world.

Personally I have already pi-holed entire .cn and other domains.
No, but that's mainly because I still have to manage the server running Dokku I believe?

edit: For context what I was already using was manual docker on a DO box. While I recognized that Dokku would make it more seamless and easier, my issue was managing and securing the DO VM itself. I didn't see how Dokku would help that scenario