skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
An an auto forming GroupMe for people who have an association but might not know each other. No codes or invites, it just happens. iOS/Android mobile first.

Solves problems of current options and unlocks value. Maintains some privacy, keeps out random people.

Already have working version. Currently team of 2. Seeking person with strong programing skills that can create and enhance features. Starts out easy gets harder (but interesting) as it scales. Focus is turning logic in to code not making pretty screens.
Looking for someone who buys in 100%, can commit to full time or with job, but zero other commitments, will dedicate every free moment to it. The goal is to create and updated version ready to delight thousands of concurrent users, in 1 month.

Why should you, highly skilled person join? Current founder is obsessed. large consumer market, the product creates and experience that delights, requires little user effort, few barriers to rapid adoption, but creates moat. It’s awesome. I am in bay, cool if you are, don’t have to be. msg with why interest, language/s experience making mobile products, email in profile. thanks for reading!
That's an irresponsible use of the word "theoretically". What actual theory would have them do that? You're describing a coordination problem of absurd proportions and you haven't even proposed a shared motive.

It like saying, "This specific aspect of society could change if a potency-majority were fully committed to the idea that it should be changed in that way."
The goal is to remain competitive with Go. Java is still going to excel in cases when the benefits of JIT and superior GC have the opportunity to show themselves.

Graal native gives up the benefits of JIT for fast startup. It might be a useful tradeoff for some but it is not a universal solution.
> If it were 35 years ago, this was probably some logistics or finance systems? These were the first things adopting computers

Early adopters of computers were doing so in the '60s and '70s. By 1985 mainframes were widespread and PCs were becoming common. Check out [0]

1981: MS-DOS

1983: C++, ARPANET

1984: Common Lisp

1985: Excel

1987: Photoshop

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_software
um, no. If using bcrypt, the salt is per user. If the user is using the same password between the two, that's not a weakness of bcrypt for the more secure site. In fact, even if you use bcrypt and 15 peppers on the more secure site, if the password is the same, the password is the same.
Haskell and OCaml (reason too of course) are the only ones that come to mind as a 100% match

I would argue that Rust and Swift also qualify though, since their lifetime management and reference counting respectively are valid forms of garbage collection.

Crystal fits except for the promoting OO part.

If we ignore the bonus then Scala and elixir might also qualify.
Mr. Cisco’s Advanced Phishing Attempt
The first paragraph seems to answer most of your questions:

> The cinematic behemoth was meant to unfold in a living, breathing three-acre recreation of postwar Moscow, built in the Ukrainian town of Kharkov. Cameras would follow hundreds of non-professional actors and thousands of extras day and night, as they lived life as if under the watchful eye of the KGB
Interesting, but I'm not seeing what this has to do with Fourier or Laplace. Mathematically, the statement is: if x is L^{\infty} and h is L^1, then y=x*h is L^{\infty}. The proof of this is very routine... just write down the definition of the convolution and stare at it.

Now it's true that the Fourier transform is not well-behaved on L^{\infty}. Any book on harmonic analysis will discuss this point in great lengths. But the context in which these questions are discussed (singular integral operators on spaces like BMO, which contains L^{\infty}) doesn't tend to include the Laplace transform in a useful manner.

Someday I'll have to properly learn harmonic analysis to sort out these questions for myself.
Yeah but FAANG pays twice what everyone else does
Then you don’t know poor people who don’t have any investment in the stock market. Who absolutely do benefit from the immediate cash. Who drive your Uber, driver your door dash, serve your meal at your restaurant, probably cleaner your house, do you yard work, sell you shoes at the store, check you out at groceries, stock your groceries, serve you drinks at the bar.

Stimulating the stock market was not the right move. You want to talk about putting the money and letting the market do it’s thing, give it to people and let them decide where to put.

Putting the money in the stock market has only benefited those already in the stock market and those with the money to enter it.
> I'm a programmer. I learned it from the internet. Where do they learn?

Crack Overflow?
There's a lot to do, then: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=we%20must%20immediately&type=c...
A kind of feudalism with high speed Internet.
Comedians Relax On-Stage
You're completely correct. I think the deeper issue is that the people responsible for directing US policy right now (and for the last few decades by varying amounts) generally do not care about the welfare of the country or the rights of an average person relative to how much they care about preserving and increasing their own power and advancing an ideological agenda to the same end.

The game is different than it once was; They aren't out murdering like Genghis Khan, but they are no less indifferent towards the people they harm in their conquest. The extent of their love for their country and it's people is the extent to which they can control it all. I've gotten to know this kind of sociopathic power-obsessed personality up close, and have no doubt certain mega-rich assholes out there influencing the political sphere have the same "defect".
"Kapot maken" (breaking something) is what the Dutch police calls this.

If they get a hunch of a crime in preparation ( killing/liquiditation or robberies ), they might contact future victim and suspect to tell them they are aware.

This usually is enough to stop the crime.

edit: my explanation does not seem to fit the context, will look into it.
Wonder how long it takes for the company to move the entire/majority engineering team to India or Eastern Europe to avoid the time difference issues.
I think his work with Amazon though has done well more than 400,000 times for society what the average person has done.
>Police killings in the US are around 40 times higher per capita than in the rest of the developed world. Murder Rate is also around 5 times higher than in the rest of the developed world.

Police killed in the line of duty is higher than anywhere else as well. The per capita murder rate may only be 5 times higher, but the variance is high too. If you sort this table[1] by murder rate (crime rates per 100,000 of top 100 urban center in US), the number are quite stark. The top 4 cities in that list, are in the global top 50 of cities with highest murder rates (St.Louis is actually in the top 10).

>My opinion is, that the first step to solve this issue are good safety nets for everyone.

Social spending is through the roof already. Federal budget alone allocates the vast majority to healthcare, welfare and social security (and defense). Then you have state and municipal budget putting in billions more. It's not enough to say, 'spend more'. I don't subscribe to the notion that crime is a result of lack of social spending. Hong Kong has immense income inequality, and lots of poverty, but is a very safe city. There are obviously other factors as well.

>Sentence lengths need to be reduced and victimless crimes should not be punished.

There is a common trope that prisons are filled with either innocent people or non-violent drug offenders. That's not true, at all. There is no meaningful prison reform (if your goal is to reduce incarceration rates) without also reducing sentences for or releasing of violent offenders (who comprise the vast majority of prisoners).

People tend to say they want shorter prison sentences, and then you hear about some horrific rape or murder and there are calls for jailing the individual for life. Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison for third-degree rape. In most countries, he would get probation, at most. In most developed countries, life sentences are limited to 25 years with parole typical after 15 years (and no stacking of sentences). Are you sure the American public would be OK with that?

>Police training needs to be improved as well.

Agreed. It's going to be expensive, but it's worth the cost.

>It can't be that two sober cops end up shooting a drunk that is sobering up in his car in the back because they are unable to handle such a ordinary situation.

That was a not a clear-cut circumstance. I'm not 100% sure police in any other country would have acted differently in that situation. I fully agree about not shooting an unarmed individual running away. But this situation had an individual who assaulted police officers and stole their weapon and fired it at them. That complicates things for you immensely. This is also where police officer should get the benefit of the doubt because they need to make a risk-analysis to the public and to themselves in the span on 1 or 2 seconds. With no weapon involved, we should expect them to err on preserving a life. With a weapon involved, it's different.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate
> To what degree Jeff Bezos is benevolent doesn't factor into this for me

I agree it's grotesque, but given the utterly inconceivable amount of money he has, maybe making a name for himself via donation wouldn't hurt his public image. The richest man in the world twice over could probably afford the same sort of PR that's softened how people feel about Bill and Melinda Gates.
The US created a fake bank to catch drug runners and cartel bosses. What's to say this isn't an state intelligence backed company created not to sell a product but to be sold to criminals then listened to until warrants were signed?

I haven't looked into the service at all so could be totally off.
A Demoscene Conversion
Bernie/Warren wealth tax was a good idea in my opinion. It would increase Bezos's effective tax rate from 0.1% to 3%.
Bezos's net worth still would increase every year, as the normal capital gain is 8% per year and it is much higher in Amazon.
Searching for software reverse engineering opportunities in all categories. I like to reverse things and provide solutions with software development. I'm advancing in reversing and am very experienced in writing software.

Location: Germany

Remote: Yes or On-Site

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: C/C++, ASM, Windows internals/kernel, IDA, Cheat Engine, C#, Win32

Résumé/CV: on request

Email: reverse2020 att cb92 dott de
I agree, I would find it extremely unintuitive. I'm only scanning the issue at a high level like most others, so it really depends on how systemd presents this information. If it sort of happens in the background with the systemd resolver and shows no DNS servers but queries magically work I would be extremely confused, especially since no upstream resolution is a scenario we see in particular networks with our products.

On the other hand, if it does present the servers and it's still configurable, might be a bit of a different story.
Not everyone works in a corporate environment where this is offered. Go ask your local restaurant if they offer their employees A 401k.
Excluding children and retired people, 74% have retirement savings.

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-economic-we...
Did you take any inspiration from this Washington Post article? [1]

1 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/health/coronavi...
Careful on that site, seems to be making calls to PayPal and Stripe.
There is a difference between theories and evidence.

There is no evidence that he was an agent for any agency.

There's no shortage of theories though.
Like the climate crisis.
Not sure what you mean by "it's something that's everybody's".
Azure Functions Extension for Dapr
It's really a sort of long story and depends ultimately on the risk that you potentially face and their possible objectives.

Roughly the way to think about your options are:

-Covert - Use your detection of one or more to detect more of the team but do nothing. This preserves your ability to detect them in future especially if they reuse tactics and locations, especially any trigger locations that they pick you up on.

-Overt - Use your detection of the team to openly "burn" them by confronting them ("Who the fuck are you and what do you want?"). But that means in some contexts like a human rights defender they may move in to arrest you, kidnap or whatever depending on their objectives. Or they will just step off you and come back next time in a better way that means you won't be able to detect.

-Semi-overt - increase their heat state by approaching them for something innocuous ("Hey do you know where the local church is?"). This means you test their local knowledge and that individual will most definitely lift off you for awhile though may not entirely suspect what you did was deliberate as they would above. They could of course use that time to threaten you, especially if you are talking criminal or narco threat etc.

-Overt break - You use a very obvious method of breaking away from them like jumping a light, speeding up your normal walking pace, swapping public transport, going into a location that doesn't fit your pattern of life purely as it would be hard to cover and then ditching out fast through an exit etc etc. Again that will alert them and as above they may move to snatch you or come back another time. Remember, they may already know where you live/work etc so they may have that information.

-Covert break - You run an SDR then find a location you can use that fits your pattern of life and use that to lose them. They can still of course come back but they may chalk it down to an accidental loss if you do it right. Plus you are sometimes playing on their cultural biases that means they may be reluctant to report a loss to their bosses etc.

There's obviously a hell of a lot more to think about. Such as if you use the above to create a break, what is it you are going to do then? This is often what people struggle to think about in advance, especially as its intimidating as hell to find yourself in that sort of scenario with a real threat. For example people we've worked with have made decisions to essentially go on the run with just what they have in their pockets (from people looking to kill them) once they broke away. That's when the training about the physical and digital stuff (alert help but may need to ditch the phone, get grab bag, change clothes, switch to routes off CCTV etc etc etc) kicks in.

What is useful though is that you as the person being followed usually have control over who, what, where etc happens in your day (unless it's an intimidation scenario like in some countries where surveillance literally waves at the people every morning as they follow them around).

Some better structured answers in Umbrella App or you can try the beta web version:
https://umbrella.secfirst.org/lessons/en/work.being-followed
As someone who's spent much of the last 20 years writing J2EE, Java EE and Jakarta EE projects, the answer is definitely that with containers and container orchestration, no one believes it anymore. Our new services are written in Go and have significantly shorter start-up times and smaller memory usage and it does matter (to us at least)!
It looks like an interesting and useful project but the API is strange and the documentation confusing at best (compared to other JSON stores I've used).

* Why "packs" and "items" when there are so many more common terms? "Containers" and "Objects" or "Tables" and "Records" or "Collections" and "Documents". At the very least you could've explained the correspondence to familiar terms.

* Your documentation makes no distinction between "system" fields/attributes and "application" fields/attributes. Users of the API want to see and use THEIR data, not your APIs data. It would be clearer if system attributes had a prefix, maybe just an underscore or "dj_".

* The above is made worse because your objects contain so many system attributes and unnecessary nested structures.

* Your documentation for "clear" and "delete" is the same? What's the difference?

* You never describe "relationships", whether they are created for or by the user, or what they are good for. Likewise, what's the "type" attribute for if everything is the same type?

* Why, oh why, do you need a data collection inside an attribute collection? If you include metadata (like timestamps) why not just include them as attributes, maybe distinguished by names like _created_at or dj_created_at?

* You mention query/ordering syntax but then don't show clear examples of it
There's a documentary on the traveling show logistics I remember seeing one time. It included a traveling school container so that the children of the employees could maintain an education.
It's enough evidence to make anyone laugh at how blatant the operation was and how it went undetected for so long. Like an APT malware campaign...
Many people (particularly in the lower income brackets) prefer to be paid in cash as opposed to equity[1]. Given the chance, most people prefer not to shoulder the risk of an equity stake at the expense of a reduced or non-existent salary.

Is it any surprise then that a lucky few who forgo cash in favor of worthless pieces of paper become super rich after the stock rises?

1. https://www.geekwire.com/2018/amazon-criticized-ending-wareh...
> Asking someone if they are a shill is never "a perfectly valid question".

It was more of a question whether there is a conflict of interest; "shill" is a more loaded term than what was used. And the answer was actually a qualified yes, so there was at least a sliver of validity to the question.
Watch “Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters” ... great biopic of his life and includes some scenes from some of his noh productions
Show HN: Halfmoon – Bootstrap alternative with a built-in dark mode
>(I balance this with a deep hatred for cartels. If you trace these questions far enough, it seems to often lead to "the cartels are at the center of it all." And they're responsible for unspeakable miseries.)

This is why all drugs should be legalized (not just decriminalized, decriminalization still leaves a black market). Cartels are meeting a demand, but cartels make up their own rules and will do anything they want to stay ahead.

Just legalize them, it solves so many problems.

1. Quality and proper labeling (no more mystery drugs/dosages). Buyers know exactly what they are getting, which would decrees the amount of OD's.

2. Vast reduction in violent crimes (legitimate, licensed distributors are very unlikely to have violent turf wars as this would jeopardize their license). Black market would suddenly have no market (provided the taxes on legal drugs aren't stupid), which means no money, which means there is nothing to kill/fight over.

3. Increased tax revenue

It is a win/win/win for everyone, I just don't get it....and please just don't with the tear jerking "What about the children!" The kids will be fine. No legalizing doesn't send a message that "drugs are OK". No it won't make them more accessible to kids, please stop fearmongering you don't know what you are talking about.
The singular party who is entitled to complain about this default configuration is Google.
Show HN: Private messaging, moderated communities, and P2P e-commerce over Zcash
Do u guys mean adtech or real time trading?
This sentiment comes up a lot as a protest against power laws; but they are perfectly normal, in that they're natural. In any situation where there are differences among individuals and a single axis store of value (currency) there is going to be power law.

Imagine a world where everyone started with an equal amount of money, and people only paid each other to see them do X. X could be singing, playing basketball, make youtube videos, standup comedy, croquet, whatever. With the passage of time, money will concentrate in a fractal representation of the 80-20 power law. 80% of the money will go to the top 20% of the people best at X, and even in that 20%, 80% of that money will belong to the top 20% of the top 20% and so on.

If X was basketball, Michael Jordan would be a thousand times richer than me (he is) and a million or billion times richer than the poorest people (he is). Same for the best artists, most widely read authors, everything.

If the currency is power / reproductive rights, the top 20% would pass their genes on to 80% of the children, again fractally. This is also borne out in nature, we're all children of Genghis Khan or King David or Abraham or whoever your geography's alpha was.

What we can say, is that the situation is not rational, just, or merciful. All beneficiaries of the power law ride on the value provided by everyone else that cannot be quantified properly into the single-axis measure of value. Bezos could only build Amazon because there were already a country that was fought and paid for, roads, courts, electricity, planes and trains that society as a whole built for before he was born. That attribution is not being captured in any way, and we try to re-balance that value owed with taxes, which are again imperfect because we have only a single-axis value store.

So normal and natural, yes, but the value is not distributed correctly. That's a rational and ethical problem, both of which are very artificial human constructs.
But then that swings back around to "but if you do, we're all free to judge you about it".
There are vast amounts of theories and circumstantial "coincidences".

Zero direct evidence unfortunately.
>Anyone can forge messages after a conversation is complete to make them look like they came from you.

"I didn't send those messages your honour. Someone forged them. I am a victim of a conspiracy!"

"Do you have any evidence that this actually happened?"

"No."

"...moving right along..."

It will be fun if someone from this actually tries a cryptogeek argument in real life...
Maybe people would have fewer controversy with quad 9?

Would be 9.9.9.9 instead of 8.8.8.8. If this would be better is probably a matter of preference. Google owns many, many servers, so maybe using the underdog eases the mind of some people.
Also doesn't take into account the sort of "compounding interest" effect having a FAANG (or similar elite tech company) name on your resume, possibly for the rest of your career.
Inequality is not an issue.
Poverty is an issue.

What's the problem with there beeing people with 100000 times my NW? specially if it's a guy that created one of the biggest business on the planet?

The problem is there being persons that can't afford to eat, but blaming bezos would only be fair if the way he got his money actually contributed to the lack of basic needs meet by the needed.
Exactly like The Wire plot with burner phones. As soon as compromised phones made it into rotation, they were sunk.
Did you read the link you posted? There's no shift of burden of proof, as all the maintainer would have to do is answer "No". I agree that there are people who do this in bad faith, but the question seemed totally reasonable to me.
I rarely make blanket statements: Anybody who sees this and thinks the downsides of this society are lesser than the downsides of undoing it (both the direct result of wealth redistribution, as though by a magic wand, and the indirect results of using the kind of heavy-handed federal regulatory changes that would be required), is immoral. You are somewhat less unreasonable to say, "yes, we must change it, but first we must find a way that doesn't involve gross socialism stuff", and I may reasonably disagree with the practicality of your position, but to cross the line into, "no, the state of things is natural and amoral", is monstrous, and such people must be defeated at any cost.