skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you haven't been following closely, then do a modicum of your own research first before you ask for citations.

The MCAS is exactly the cause of the issues and was the software that caused the crashes because it behaved unexpectedly to the pilots. The whole reason why Boeing leaned on software was because their sales pitch was that this new plane was essentially the same as a 737 so it didn't need any extra training. But this was false. They needed this MCAS because the mechanics of flying the plane were vastly different, I think because of the location of the engines, etc. That's the whole issue, where Boeing lied to the FAA and sold the 737MAX as a drop-in replacement for the 737 when it really wasn't. So if you don't even know this then you need to start from scratch and do your own research.
Any good recommendations for RSS feeds to follow?
Best practice would be to switch to AWS
> Without this, the 737-MAX will have to be operated as any other entirely new aircraft.

Whatever they do - scrap it an build a new model (be it derived from 737 pre-MAX or something else) or "fixing" 737-MAX there will be lots of eyes on it and request for training. I don't think the argument is relevant. They are too deep in the sh*t.
So, I'm no expert but I'll offer my $.02. The difference between 5xy and 4wz type errors, it seems to me, lies in who has the problem (server vs. client, respectively) and whether or not the client should retry the request.

So, in the case of an unauthorized, unimplemented request you can only pick one response code: A 5xy unimplemented tells the client that the server is in a state where repeated requests will never be satisfied unless the server code changes. A 4wz type error tells the client that they may be able to run the request later, without changes to server code, and the request could succeed (depending on the changes made). Now, in this case, if the client gains all the permissions (so, authorized to execute any action supported by the server) the request still won't be implemented. So, the bigger issue is the (non-)implementation of the action that the client is requesting the server to perform, not the client's authorization level.

Also, a friendly reminder to everyone: authentication is not authorization.

Oh, and I haven't checked the RFCs, but this rationale makes sense to me...
Just basic politeness? Or is that not sufficiently important to the bottom line. Of course. How silly of me.
"master key" doesn't mean symmetric. Just that it is the same key for all CPUs.
"My impression is that you're suggesting the HSMs Apple uses are better than SGX in some way, but it's not clear that anyone could know one way or the other. "

I predicted SGX would have more attacks simply due to it being widely available with more incentives. They started showing up. The HSM's get an obfuscation benefit on top of whatever actual security they have.

The main benefit of a good HSM, though, is its tamper-resistance. It takes a meeting of mutually-suspicious parties to know it was received, set up properly, the right code on it, and inability to do secret updates outside those meetings. From there, there's probably a greater chance that you didn't extract any secrets from it than an Intel box with who knows whatever SGX attacks, side channels, etc are going around.

My recommendation was combining several of them (i.e. security via diversity) if one could afford it. The systems in front of them should also have strong, endpoint security carefully sanitizing and monitoring the traffic. Think a security-focused design such as OpenBSD or INTEGRITY-178B instead of Linux. Safe, systems language for any new code. Good you're using some Rust.
That's not being a wimp, quitting isn't an easy option either. Sounds like you assessed the situation and made the choice that was best for you.

In my case, I have no complaints with the way my boss handled things, so I'm still here chugging away.
Only thing I don't like about GitHub Actions so far is the YAML structure. e.g.

name: master-pull-request
on:
pull_request:
branches:
- master
jobs:
test:
name: run tests
runs-on: ubuntu-18.04
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v1
- name: Run gradle test
run: |
./gradlew test

I much prefer Drone CI's YAML:

kind: pipeline
name: default
steps:
- name: run tests
image: openjdk:8-jdk-slim # Docker images!
commands:
- ./gradlew test
The company I work at pays a lowish rate for our 10 hour take home project, which is also the last step of the interview process. I think this is a great practice, as this shows that we're taking this seriously and are willing to compensate for your time.
Bouncing boulders: Exquisitely preserved fallen-boulder fields in Atacama Desert
I have had similar experiences with Github Actions docs, alas. Lots of pages linking to lots of other pages, none with much useful content. Keep thinking the content that will actually explain what the heck is going on is around the corner... then I realize I've wound up linked back to a page that was already in my history! Wasn't sure if the docs were assuming some kind of domain knowledge I didn't have (like maybe if I knew docker better, or had experience with circleci or something?) -- kind of reassured to hear it's not just me!

I haven't really tried to do anything with Github Actions, I start looking at the docs and think, nah, not ready yet.

It does seem like a powerful tool.

It turns out that good docs is hard and "expensive", can't be handled as an afterthought without actually investing time/resources. A powerful complex tool that took a while to develop is gonna need a similar significant investment in docs.
Stoller writes:

> The problem is that accounting for these costs have been pushed into the future based on anticipated sales, which is risky but manageable IF you can build safe aircraft airliners want to buy.

Boeing's accounting methods are perfectly fine (arguably even preferable) if they are able to sell the planes whose costs they are spreading into the future. The question (and the risk to shareholders) is whether they cut so many corners to juice financial results that that will prove not to be the case.
This is a societal problem and not just employer/jobseeker. "Friends" and aquaintances do it now. Vendors/contractors/trades people do it. Only a matter of time before our pets ghost us too.
>Secondly, its not a software problem, the plane is structurally deficient.

Aerospace engineer here. This is incorrect. The MAX exhibits different pitch behavior at high angles of attack than the 737NG, which would normally require a different type certificate. MCAS was their attempt to change the handling characteristics of the MAX aircraft so that it was sufficiently similar to previous iterations of the 737.

This is not the same as being "structurally deficient". The fatalities arose from a combination of ethic failures at Boeing, financial pressures from large customers, bad safety design of the MCAS system, and inadequate pilot training.

Plenty of aircraft flying today exhibit nose-up pitch tendencies at high angles of attack. This is not an intractable problem; it's just not a problem that Boeing could solve while keeping to the 737NG type.
More Than “Soft Skills”: Why a Masters in History Prepared Me for Programming
edit: https://www.ruma.io/status/ is a better overview
> These planes cannot fly without a computer adjusting them to keep the balance, something that is not true of any other major aircraft. The problem can be solved with software, but its more like a bandaid.

Why is it wrong to rely on software?

I'm not sure I understand the issues you're talking about but many military aicraft are deliberately built to be dynamically unstable and need constant software control to fly.
Thanks for sharing, hard to tell what to make of that - I think it warrants some investigation though. I wonder if there's anyone who'd want to make an anecdotal report on something like this.
For double-linked list, a better choice is to use intrusive data structures. Cleaner and more flexible than both macros and void pointers. However, only double-linked list and binary search trees, to a lesser extend, can be implemented with intrusive data structures.
Where are we standing with open XR? Especially equipment, including controllers?

I love XR (=VR/AR/MR), but I still didn't manage a good easy open source way to do that.
As I understand it, if a law does not otherwise specify where the proceeds of fines go, then they go into the US' general fund.
That bit made no sense to me.

I think the opposite is true; when given no concrete feedback, one begins to hypothesize why they were rejected, and their mind will often point them to discrimination as the reason.

If one is given clear, concrete feedback ("We rejected you because you didn't come up with a simpler algorithm, and you lack experience with framework x"), there is little room for them to think they were discriminated against in any way but their skills/experience.
There's a difference between ignoring a resume and ignoring somebody who took the time to interview with you. I can see why you wouldn't want to reply to a bunch of resumes you just trashed, but if you bring somebody in for an interview, be a human and tell them they didn't get the job so they can move on.
If a rebuttal allows you to identify a good candidate you would otherwise have missed, that's actually a positive thing though? (I appreciate many rebuttals won't be in this category).
Thanks for explaining! I suppose I've been using "unstable" a bit too liberally in this thread.
I want to love Shopify but Shopify doesn't want to love developers. For example when their multi-location offering [0] _in beta_ they also announced that the Inventory API is going to breakingly change in 2 months and _none_ of their own SDKs supported locations at that point. This has happened with Shopify time and time again. Shopify doesn't manage API versioning or breaking changes: it just forces developers to update or endure with their broken applications and interfaces.

Sure, it's Shopify's choice. But considering how long their own changes take (for example multi-language is still in some sort of beta and it's been up and coming for like 5 years?) the API cycles are just brutal. And the saddest thing is that Shopify is still the best managed e-commerce platform for most usecases.

[0]: https://help.shopify.com/en/api/reference/inventory
The countries with the economic and military power to do so. Today, likely the US, Russia, China, and the UK on the periphery.
While I could point out several questionable aspects of their methodology, I'm even more troubled by the complete absence of the word 'ethics' from this paper.

Do the people working on these projects never reflect on the ridiculously broad scope of the capabilities they're claiming, the multitude of possibilities for false or inappropriate positives (eg people who are trying to conceal their emotional states, but for wholly valid reasons), the abuses that will be committed by over reliance on such technology and rationalized with spurious claims of objectivity, and the overall rush to make public spaces and the world at large into a giant prison camp where techno-utilitarians pass judgement on the rest of the human race?

Almost every paragraph I look at in this paper makes me roll my eyes. A small sample:

We recruited 88 participants (51 female, 30 male, 7 preferred not to say, age = 20.35) from a university campus.

Wow, fantastically diverse sample.

In the deceptive condition, the participant is supposed to conceal their activities from these “onlookers.” The experimenter stresses that [an experimental prop] is a secret, and because of the amount of money involved, it is really important that the participant keeps anyone from noticing as he/she does these things [with the prop]. In the natural condition, the confederate is wearing a hoodie with the hood pulled down. However, in the deceptive condition, the confederate is wearing the same hoodie with the hood pulled up while wearing sunglasses. Because of this setting, the participant makes a deliberate attempt to conceal his/her activities, resulting in deceptive behavior

We use these findings and consider the following set of gestures:{Hands In Pockets, Looking Around, Touching Face, Touching Shirt/Jackets, Touching Hair, Hands Folded, Looking at Phone}. We chose this set because it includes all the hand gestures observed in the walking videos of participants, and these gestures have been reported to be related to deception

Figure 7. Gesture Features: We present the percentage of videos in which the gestures were observed for both deceptive and natural walks. We observe that deceivers put their hands in their pockets and look around more than participants in the natural condition.

So you got a recruited a bunch of college students and then told some of them to be super-covert while dealing with someone dressed up to look like a stereotype of a shady person, but somehow you imagine this will give an 'honestly deceptive' result that accurately reflects the behavior of deceptive people, rather than the awkward-embarrassed parody of deceptive behavior from someone who feels they're playing a silly game.

Besides all the ethical pitfalls, their research is bad. It's like trying to predict crime based on the observed behavior of people in a school drama class putting on a play about cops and robbers. This is why we have so much of a problem with junk forensic science.
That flavoring is for nicotine e-juice though, I'm sure some people do cut weed carts with it but generally the legitimate carts are made of cannabis extracts called "distillate" or "live resin" and possibly PG (propylene glycol, aka unflavored e-juice) as a cut.

It always struck me as insanely dumb that people would assume food flavoring was also ok to inhale but I don't know what else I expect
The reason other animals on Earth didn't do it is not because these animals made a choice to not pollute/destroy habitat/etc. There are very real very significant mental deficiencies in all other animals relative to humans.

Whether smarter beings might act differently is entirely a hypothetical; it is unreasonable for us to think we can imagine the thought process of a super-intelligent being. Maybe resource consumption + migration is optimal for some objectives, maybe conservation and reuse is optimal for some other objectives, etc.
> Why did they add it?

If they were going to sell the information, and the credentials really allowed to remotely access the cameras, then accessing 'camera=BEDROOM' at 11PM Friday local time may provide more entertainment value than 'camera=GARAGE'? :)
You can opt out of credit card offers here:

https://www.optoutprescreen.com/?rf=t
Operation Wocao: Shining a light on one of China's hidden hacking groups
Airbus planes don't fall out of the sky when air speed sensor fails.
The syntax of Rust with all the different kind of references looks far too complex, just to get a performance improvement.

Garbage collectors provide memory safety without any special syntax.

Or in Delphi all strings are reference counted. They are mutable, if the ref count is 1, and immutable when it is larger than one. It is memory safe with safe aliasing and needs no special syntax.

A sufficient smart compiler could just optimize the reference counting away, and treat everything as immutable, unless it can prove there is no aliasing. Ideally, a language would only have two kinds of reference, mutable and constant, and everything is figured out by the compiler
I have an X-carve, which is basic X-Y-Z stages hooked up to a hand router, for about $2K. I have one carving behind me right now (currently playing with generating sine wave and reaction-diffusion patterns in numpy, converting those to heightmaps in OpenSCAD, generating g-code with MeshCAM, and then rendering in wood).

There are also 6040 mills, which are similar but built differently, and shopbots, which are big but capable, plus a bunch of others. To me, the X-carve was the right combination of price, features, and support. I previously had the ShapeOko but it really wasn't capable enough.
Tobi came out on twitter agreeing with the write up

https://twitter.com/tobi/status/1207704457796083713
This same sort of introspection and auto-discovery was an original tenant of REST that's mostly ignored these days and I'm happy for that - I've never seen this sort of thing work well because it assuming you're able to translate data points into unambiguous identifiers. So the company object has a name object, I might assume that's the name of the company, but what if it's the registration number of the company - does it include legal suffixes? Maybe it's the name of the majority owner and this company object is related to the stock market. Let's take a more fun example, some sort of grocery service that lists "price" does price include tax? Is it in USD? Is the price in dollars or cents? Are all prices in the same currency? Is the price the cost to the end user or the cost to fulfill inventory on a unit basis? Does the price include discounts - if there is a "price" and "sale_percentage" column then has the sale percentage already been applied - how does that sale_percentage work, is .2 for sale_percentage mean there is a 20% or 80% discount - considering it was built by programmers it'd probably mean an 80% discount but that's not what a layman would assume.

Introspection is not valid in place of documentation.
Maybe. But the decision heuristic here, which is "we pay 4x more for things because the CEO doesn't trust his people and like to micromanage things" can easily be fatal.
At this point it's better just to convert the code into the proper modern programming language without all C drawbacks - Rust. Amazing c2rust[1] tool offers automated conversion[2] and refactoring[3] capabilities. It even allows you to script[4] the refactoring with Lua. All while preserving ability to run and (probably) pass the tests.

[1] https://github.com/immunant/c2rust

[2] https://c2rust.com/manual/quickstart.html

[3] https://c2rust.com/manual/c2rust-refactor/index.html

[4] https://c2rust.com/manual/c2rust-refactor/doc/scripting_api....
The OP mentions property graphs as a way around this problem. They can be seen as natural extensions of "RDF quads" which in turn are based on common RDF triples (Subject / Property / Object)
Do you really think the failed candidate wouldn't also have lashed out at your company had you just ghosted him after the interview and not told him he was rejected? There's a good chance he/she would have been even angrier by the time they decided they were out of the running.
You're thinking like a lawyer. I'm thinking like a problem solver. The legal requirement (which by the way is not an absolute requirement) to deliver my mail is useless if my mail isn't actually delivered. And I mean literally useless. Let that sink in. I don't care (at all, not even a little bit) what their obligation is on paper if they can't actually do the thing we need them to do.

>When some people don't get their UPS/FedEx/etc, if you call up to complain, the answer is "Oh yeah, we don't service your address. Have a nice day."

And if you call USPS, they're just going to jump straight to "it's lost. have a nice day." I don't see how that is better.

Anyway, USPS absolutely does not deliver to every address. This is a myth that won't die for some reason.

>Functioning governments really really need a way to physically deliver items to a person in a way that cannot be replaced by private carriers or email systems.

Can you source this claim? What does my government need to mail me that can't be done by email?

>This isn't about you getting your Amazon packages or your power bill.

I don't use Amazon or get my power bill by snail mail. Not sure why you're bringing these up. They're irrelevant.

>This is about the operational stability of basic government services.

We might need a reliable parcel deliverer (ie, something other that USPS).

>There are places in the US where UPS and FedEx do not deliver, and people live there

And there are places where USPS doesn't deliver. At my house, on a regular basis for example, they don't deliver important parcels.

Also many communities around the country and outside of the country. Email fixes basically all of this.

>-- people who the US government is legally required to correspond with.

Who they should be able to correspond with by email in most cases. In other cases they could contract with a more reliable carrier or have a pared down service for those remote area.

In still more cases, the USPS doesn't service certain areas at all.

>They cannot fulfill those obligations without the USPS.

Nor can they fulfill them solely with USPS. We need to acknowledge that email is a faster, safer and more reliable source of communicating with most people. Its almost 2020.
Real Synopsis:

Boeing 737 Max aircraft have aerodynamic and engineering design flaws

The sensors that can detect potential problems were not reliable. There are two sensors but the Boeing design only used one of them.

Boeing cut corners to save money

To save even more money, Boeing allowed customers to order the planes without warning lights. The planes that crashed didn't have those warning lights.

There were pilot training and maintenance log issues.

Finally, according to the Seattle Times, the regulators got into bed with companies they were supposed to regulate

Conclusion:

This company should go out of business and the MBAs that cut costs on this plane thrown in jail for murder
EDFA's: erbium doped fiber amplifier. They're optical signal amplifiers. Due to the attenuation of the fiber, they need to be installed every so often on the fiber, under the sea. Since the equipment is cheap in comparison to the cost of repair, modern undersea amplifier boxes often contain multiple amplifiers and switchgear to MUX to a new one after it fails.
Well yes obviously that situation shouldn't exist, though I feel like the correct way to avoid it is to provide aid to those in need to stop her being that desperate in the first place.

Because if she is so desperate as to do do it solely to avoid starvation she would do it regardless of whether or not it was legal
The planes you are noticing are all below the 10,000 ft level (i.e., on approach or takeoff) and are required to fly no faster than 250 knots. No supersonic aircraft will be flying supersonic on approach or at low altitude. If their engines are noisy they will be louder for the same amount of time as others.
I always preferred to refer to unit comp/tech/countering as "Unit Control", leaving micro to actual microing of units.

Expansions, etc are clearly under macro, tho it depends on the overall strategy one is taking
Blocking tracking without blocking trackers
Ah. So you want a minimal instruction set, balanced with the ability to do branch-free programming.
Previously-Held or Context-Specific Assertions