skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"What would a more advanced router add?" -> A centrally managed firewall integrated with the rest of the networking stack = having cotroll in one place. You also can use the software one on Linux directly. I like to have a central one, because I have multiple servers behind it and I don't want to think too much about hardening them. This how I can make experiments inside the network not risking anything and overthinking the security for partially ready services. Good security is always about the firewall stuff divided into 2 parts - 1) a firewall on an edge; + 2) a light set of firewall rules on a server. It's just much simpler that way. Even if for the sake of reporting only.

PS: You can also buy just a firewall leaving your current router intact. pfSense is great software and it's free! You can install it on almost anything. An old laptop will do the job. Probably you could even run it on your Pi in a Docker container, leaving your Pi to perform 2 functions with additional Ethernet cards: the www server, and a dedicated firewall. Many options are available and tinkering with that is fun!

The config you've mentioned looks fine. The rest comes down to details: is your network going to survive a lot of incoming DDOS like traffic (how beefy is your network edge device, is your system going to block DDOS attempts automatically (with fail2ban for instance)), etc. Good idea with rate limiting on UFW. Try to take a look on the mentioned fail2ban too. It can do wonders combined with UFW. I consider it a mandatory resource on every of my servers, even if for SSH protection only (controlling login attempts).

If that's not clear enough: at this point I'm pretty sure your server is going to survive a flood of incoming traffic, but I'm not so sure about your router. If it's a consumer grade device, the answer is obvious - it's going to freeze when a DDOS is going to start. Too much traffic to handle. Either make it beefy to handle EVERYTHING possible and/or put a firewall before it, so it can put thru only the valid traffic. Otherwise you have a weak spot. As you see DDOS is also possible when targeted to a network edge, not only www servers.

Ok, let's not be paranoid. If you're going to have real trouble with DDOS your ISP is going to intervene. But anything below massive floods is on you. I'm just saying that most home routers are VERY weak to host any services behind them, so they're naturally a weak spot I'd be targeting first knowing your IP. This is why for anyone serving web services from your home it's worth to buy a professional networking equipment. Ten years ago I was selling that kind of stuff for 5k-40k USD a piece (like Cisco stuff). Now I have a $250 beefy Mikrotik which handles 10Gbps and does things on the Cisco level easily. I like where the networking market went! One of those good and cheap companies is also Ubiquity, which might be better know in the US than Mikrotik.

Have fun!
You don't avoid them, you ignore them, and being able to ignore them is a political privilege. A child in an ICE internment camp does not have that privilege.
> The issue is that you feel you are correct, and to that end you're making broad unspecific claims that aren't factual

No, I made general claims about a larger pattern. If you don't agree that police have managed to weasel out of most accountability, then there's really no discussion to be had. Yet you jumped in anyway to push some police-justifying nonsense ("Contracts are negotiated like any other") that grossly contradicts the events under discussion.

>> why haven't Breonna Taylor's killers been charged and put in jail, or at the very least quickly fired?

>Because they are "innocent until proven guilty".

The first step is charging someone, which has not been done. Everyone in jail is innocent - guilty people go to prison. Once again, procedural details that sound sensible while adding up into a constructively corrupt system. The case has been turned over to the FBI precisely due to the local corruption.

As you are implying some alternative justice path for cops, I'll be explicit: To evaluate how well the rule of law is working, you only have to ask yourself what would happen to a non-cop who performed the exact same actions. Specifically, what would have happened to a group of non-cops that committed a home invasion resulting in murder?
By that same logic corporations should be forced to do business with parts of the government doing things completely in contrition to their mission right? A peace advocacy group would be expected to allow contracts with the military or a right wing think tank would have to sell its services to the Peace Corp?
This was announced in 2017. It's already removed from all browsers already.
Like they it did in 1968. Which gave us Nixon and Reagan.
I'd direct the question instead to all the white people who have no idea what the black experience is yet seem to have no problem editing the language on PoC's behalf so they can feel like they're "doing something" while PoC's freedoms and lives are being eviscerated by our justice system.
This is probably silly but I have often wondered why you don't get straightforward loans in Software. If I were to open a restaurant I would hardly go for a VC.

Do banks have something against software businesses ? Are there software companies that have bootstrapped themselves with loans (not friend/family loans) as opposed to VC ?
I actually agree with all of this, though it probably doesn't frustrate me as much. The courts are supposed to be a check on the legislature after all. Democracy can be two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. The courts are supposed to prevent this tyranny of the majority, and protect the rights of individuals. This decision, to me, is a perfect example of that process working exactly as the founders intended when they set up the three branches of government.

I'm reminded a bit of the gay marriage debacle in the late aughts. At the time, people were arguing that we should just strike the word "marriage" from all our laws, and replace it with "domestic partnership". Let "marriage" be a purely religious term, a process that happens in whatever church someone happens to attend, then everyone would be happy (theoretically). In actuality, the legislators arguing against gay marriage weren't really arguing in good faith, and they very much wanted "marriage" defined, in law, as a relationship between a man and a woman. This stubbornness forced gay marriage advocates to go through the courts, which worked for a bit, until it didn't (Prop 8), until it did (Obergefell v. Hodges).

It's not ideal, but as long as the courts are on the side of protecting people from having their rights legislated away, I'm not tremendously bothered by these examples of legislating from the bench.
The colloquial definition of the term is different from the technical definition, but they don't even meet the technical definition.

According to your definition, a concentration camp is an "internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.."

People of certain minority groups aren't being rounded up. Illegal immigrants are being rounded up, regardless of race or nationality.

I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, I'm just saying that calling them concentration camps is hyperbolic and uproductive.
Typing in JavaScript – Flow vs. TypeScript
I generally don't like to talk about other projects negatively, because I don't think that Nix and Guix should compete. They are different takes on the same concept. But as I'm very familiar with Guix and have occasionally looked at how they deal with some of the packaging problems I worked on in Guix I can say that the
Nix colleagues are often punting on problems instead of solving them. Let me give you a few examples.

In Nixpkgs there are quite a few generated packages, some of which cannot be built. I'm maintaining R packages (from CRAN and Bioconductor) in Guix and I see that the equivalent packages in Nixpkgs do not accommodate some of their quirks, so they cannot actually be built.

Another example where Nixpkgs does not build packages from source is TeX Live. The SVN repository of TeX Live contains countless generated files, and all of the TeX Live packages in Nixpkgs merely copy the generated files from SVN instead of building them from source.

Java packages in Nixpkgs often seem to include pre-built jars whereas in Guix we're going to great lengths to build everything from source. This comes at a cost, of course: Guix has fever Java packages because of that, but those that it has are actually built from source.

Of course, I'm biased towards Guix, but I must say that I'm very fond of the level of integration that Guix achieves. When I look at Nix I see a bunch of seemingly separately developed tools that are written in a mix of languages (with Shell code being rather common). In Guix all tools are written in Scheme, use the same API, behave similarly, etc. It just feels much more polished to me.

That said, there is no animosity between these communities, and I think we would all be better off avoiding the mental pitfall of competition; we work on the same problems with different values and thus our approach differs. This leads to diversity rather than duplication of work.

Here are some more things I wrote comparing Nix and Guix in the past:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19807042
I'm gonna say not at all.

First, you have to modulate the source in such a way as to encode a message. I think we can rule out things that involve blocking the beam, so you'll have to adjust the generation power. You're gonna need a massively powerful nuclear reactor or particle accelerator or something to be at all possible to notice the message, so it will probably be pretty tough to modulate that much power at a frequency high enough to get any kind of decent data rate.

Then we need a detector. Since the article is about a massive and massively expensive detector being able to create sort of an image of the Sun after multiple years of observation, I'm not optimistic about that side. We can build a detector that can tell if a manmade beam is on or off, eventually. I'm not very optimistic about building a detector sensitive enough to detect subtle variations in the power of the beam. We're gonna have a real tough time getting a decent data rate.

Doesn't make much difference if 1 bit can be transmitted through the earth faster than an electric signal can make it around if the electronic one can send billions of bits in the time the neutrino detector takes to send two.
Legend has it that Gérard Huet, who named Coq, enjoys double entendre and chose the name deliberately, just like he did with the Zipper data structure. So this might not be a great example of something that accidentally has a double meaning.
You're kidding right? It's probably the one thing they got completely right.
Only the Commission gets to initiate legislation. But after that, a majority in parliament is needed and parliament is allowed to and regularly does amend the text. “Amend” shouldn’t be interpreted to mean “lightly edit”. Any given paragraph is more likely to be changed than not in this process, and on at least one occasion parliament just replaced the entirety of a bill.

The commissioners vary widely in competence both generally as well as in relation to their portfolio. There are legitimate superstars such as competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager. People disagree about some of the targets of her investigations. But even her worst critics are apt to lament her ability to get thinks done rather than doubt her skills.

Then, there are commissioners decidedly lacking in competence, at least in regard to their portfolio. Günther Oettinger is a prime example here, and he was bound to head the digitization portfolio but was thankfully booted from the commission by von der Leyen taking up the German spot. These are usually long-time politicians who for some reason or other make an awkward fit for any national position, but are still too powerful within their national parties to be ignored altogether.

Then, there are actually corrupt lowlights. There are far fewer of these than people assume. Look for a Maltese flag to improve your chances if you’re looking for them.

Of course all of them have staff, which does the actual heavy lifting of writing bills (among other things). I hesitate to judge their skills on any absolute scale. But, purely subjectively, I’d say these teams are at least as good as any delegation from Germany, which are generally regarded as top-notch, but in my experience often carry along some bad apples they can’t get rid off because of tenure or whatnot.

I don’t know the people who worked on GDPR. You can expect them to have the internet skills of any 30- or 40-year old high performer, with a degree in law or the humanities more often than STEM. So they are unlikely to have programming experience, but do probably know what cookies are.

I’m somewhat struggling to come up with examples of technical knowledge that may have been missing here. In fact, I could probably summarize everything I know about cookies in less than five minutes. And while I probably lack some details, I doubt it would include anything of relevance to this legislation.
Yes, Obama is evil and xenophobic, and a war criminal by every standard. That anyone still listens to him is a testament to how broken our politics are in the US.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of qualified immunity. A government worker should not be held responsible if they make an honest mistake. Qualified immunity already doesn't protect you if you knowingly break the law, and it doesn't protect you if you are clearly incompetent. Qualified immunity only protects you from civil lawsuits. It doesn't protect you from criminal charges. Police officers can be charged with homicide or assault in cases of police brutality without qualified immunity applying. The bigger question of why more cops aren't going to jail has nothing to do with qualified immunity. And holding cops accountable is something any state can do without the Supreme Court.

Qualified immunity can prevent the fallback option of suing a cop that isn't charged with a crime. But we're underreaching if we focus on the fallback instead of the primary issue of holding people accountable for crimes.
There's a whole subculture of the internet obsessed with "gang stalking" and they're usually dismissed as just being paranoid. I wonder if at least a small number of cases are actually occurring, and we should be taking the whole thing more seriously...

I mean, the facts in this case are more or less the same as what people describe as "gang stalking".
Not entirely true. The essence of the libertarian platform is a political platform that tries its best to ignore you as an individual and let you be free.

If libertarians were running things, you'd be left not entirely but largely alone.
A cause or symptom (I'm not sure about causality here) is that the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) directly funds most private Canadian VCs. VCs now have public money as part of their LP base, with some strings attached. Most of these strings (eg. don't waste taxpayer money doing anything unethical or overly negligent) will nudge VCs to be more conservative. Plus, the VCs are guaranteed 20%+ of their 2% carry from BDC taking up that much of every fund and don't need to swing for the fences to make a good income.
That idea is hasn't been true for decades. You should see how many corps make political donations - what you see is a consequence of 2 things: "Corporations are people (my friend)" and "Citizens United (2010)/Money is free speech". Now that it exists, the question now is who gets control of the corporate megaphone
I don't think you speak for the entire community. In the anime communities I frequent, it is perfectly acceptable to call ATLA an anime and nobody will bat an eye.
Haven't corporations always been a huge part of the political landscape? Lobbying is not a new practice.
Oh yeah, absolutely. The whole world order is broken, and I'm not at all happy with Canada's milquetoast responses to myriad issues (Omar Khadr, yes, but also not more strongly responding to the Uighur's treatment, or dealing with our own racism, or our own policing issues, etc etc etc). Re public discourse specifically it's a matter of degree though, and my real experience is that I've been able to have more reasonable conversations with those I disagree with here (and in Europe) than would've been conceivable there, even though all mentioned societies harbour evils. I certainly don't mean to discount the numerous problems that Canada and other countries have, and I have no pleasure in bashing America (rather, I'm deeply, deeply sad to feel this way about a country that I was taught as a child represented ideals of justice and opportunity). I more meant that I'm not at all hopeful for nonviolent progress in America, given the impossibility of discourse and cultural disdain for self-reflection or external perspective, whereas I still hold hope for other societies that (maybe too optimistically) are broken but not irreparably

Sorry if that's too depressed, but it's my genuine impression :( for context, I left the States to do my grad studies elsewhere, having been seriously depressed by my inability to effect any meaningful change (volunteering to teach low-income children only does so much good in a system that keeps them low income; peaceful protest is ignored; organizing philanthropy has benefits but ignores root issues; I ran into institutional barriers at every step). I'm in Canada now, and while I'm still fighting against the same injustices and remain supremely disappointed in the national and world state of affairs, I feel much less hopeless here, and that I have been able to do more (although not nearly enough) good without being stymied in a system that quashes discourse by default
I'm part Native American, and while I support BLM, Native Americans are facing the exact same tragic societal problems and discrimination as black people. If GitHub supports BLM they should also support Native American Lives Matter.
Ask HN: How do I prepare for a job as an Implementation Consultant?
I have received an outstanding job offer from a startup based on Data privacy products for the role of Implementation consultant.

I have been told, I'll need to handle the following tasks:
- Presenting the products to the client
- Helping with implementation / integration
- Helping the clients with after-sales etc.
- Maybe to conduct workshops every now and then.

I'm currently working as a software dev on an R&D team for building ML prototypes. I understand the job role mentioned mostly is similar to sales engineer.. but this is the first time I will be taking on such a role.

Is there something I need to prepare in terms of tools/methodologies etc before starting the new job?

PS: The startup is not based in my country, I will be mostly working with just a single other coworker, so mostly on my own
This level of incompetence is exactly what I expect from the college board.

They have no incentive to improve. They are a government funded "non profit" monopoly.
Has anybody thought about how "trunk" might make elephant coders feel?
>Guess what? Politics are interwoven in every aspect of our lives.

Yes, but also companies exist literally only to make money. Companies can't exist without workers. Once a company finds itself in a position of conflict of interest between political views of workers and point of existence of the company - where contracts bring money... we're going to see interesting things.

I wonder, who will break first?

The company will decide it's better to bend to political opinions of employees and end the contract == pay a lot of $money$ for breaking the contract early without delivery and set another precedent where employees decide how and with whom company makes money = uncertain company. Who will make future contracts with such company? Would you outsource your project delivery to a company where employees decide whether your project/office/political stand is good or bad?

Or maybe employees will decide they don't want to work for a company and risk unemployment? Who will risk employing a person who rebels against board members of a company and causes financial damages over broken contract?

I would like to see 100s of GitHub employees leaving GitHub and MS to prove their point, rather than working on the contract, being paid 10x salary of their immigrant desk cleaners and shouting how bad it is the contract exists.
to play devil's advocate here, that argument breaks down for bisexual people. But I'm aware that the court's opinion actually handles this because of prior precedent holding it illegal to discriminate against gender norms.
I've always been interested in running my own mailserver, but whenever I've tried, it's been surprisingly difficult (getting my IP accidentally blacklisted and stuff like that). What was your experience setting up your own server like?
>If your government isn't willing to compromise with you

I'm not sure I see a reason that the government must compromise with a give company.

If Boeing decided that ICE should behave even worse, would we cheer on ICE for compromising?

I think we'd argue that the right place for that sort of thing is at the ballot box.
>I have such a hard time to understand how the risk vs. reward ratio for pulling this stunt made any sense.

Classical economics likes to think of firms as rational entities working to maximize profit over the long term. In my experience that makes much of what companies do inexplicable. Instead I view firms as large groups of individuals all acting in their own self interest, this seems more complex but really all you have to know is what the incentive structure is to understand the choices a company makes. Similarly I've found you can also do this in reverse. It is a virtual certainty that from a compensation perspective moving to SMR was better for the individuals who made that choice.
I don't think that is true, plenty of police forces around the world call themselves police without feeling the innate urge to shoot at innocent protesters with lethal force.
I think his argument is more of the form 'people are trying to pass legislation to [explicitly] add these protections, therefore the existing legislation does not afford these protections' than trying to derive any
principle from the current legislature's [un]willingness to pass it.

That argument has its limitations as legislation is often drafted intended to further clarify stuff which already exists (e.g. the Seventh Amendment affirmed a right to trial by jury already mentioned in the original constitution) but it's using the fact some legislators think the Bill is necessary to pass rather than the assumption some object to it to justify his interpretation of the existing law. Ultimately constitutional law is always the status quo, plus things the legislature or sometimes the judiciary are willing and able to follow the procedures to change, and not just in the United States)
Behavioural economics dominates the messy real world. Especially when we are talking about startups, new technology that is poorly understood, etc. These are the leading edges of the markets, they are the least efficient of all.

Cue theranos on one hand and probably many companies with potentially profitable innovations that never got funded and we never heard of.

This is one thing that the left social justice crowd does get right - Never forget that at the end of the day, the system runs on wetware - people with faulty ideas, preconceptions, biases and limited knowledge.
City of Solitude: four residents of Wuhan share their stories