skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Flashing is another story.

https://tehnoetic.com/tet-lis
> They frivolously spend on side-projects nobody needs.

I’m curious, what unneeded side-projects do they have?
Enough said: "nobody profits" fork is the solution. /s
It is difficult to have a discussing about funding Firefox without knowing what kind of company or organization that Mozilla want to be. Do they want to be an advocacy non-profit like EFF and ACLU, getting their main revenue from donations (and then maybe pay their CEO similar to those organizations)? Do they want to be more like IBM, using the free open source products to promote and support the paid services and proprietary products (in which the CEO get paid according to market rates)? Or are they more like the Linux foundation, focusing around maintaining and developing a core open source project, funded and paid by corporate sponsors and donations.
To me it seems disrespectful to publish someone's book under a different name from the one they chose to publish it under.

Also, the name "George Eliot" having been chosen by the writer herself rather than by her parents doesn't make that name any less "real".

Obviously it's a bit sad that contemporary circumstances encouraged her to choose a masculine pen name, but it seems very likely from her biography that she would in any case have used some kind of a pen name for her novels in order to separate the novels from her other work. So perhaps someone should republish her novels under the name Georgette Eliot. That would make about as much sense as what they've done here.

It's also a bit sad that most English names are gendered. But we can't easily fix that with a pull request, can we?
How to tokenize Japanese in Python
Send like a missed opportunity to pivot into a spam viagra hosting site
In both cases, these are excess deaths that would not have otherwise occurred. That is not true of cancer. Your choice to downplay the comparison is as consciously political as GP's choice to point out the comparison.
This is such a joke. I remember when it was first described, I predicted that it would do nothing but derail legitimate rail projects, and that's exactly what's happened in California city councils. People have been sold the idea of taking their car on the train like a ferry, for $5 instead of proper public transit, and it will never happen.

Vacuum equipment is notoriously difficult to maintain, especially sealing of moving parts. It was proposed to be cheap in part because you "just" make let the tube thermally expand and contract at the stations, rather than at regular intervals like rail. Based on the distances proposed, at California temperatures, you'd need roughly +/-20m of expansion capability, at each station. And you need this at the point where you are sealing things, and starting/stopping cars, having people move in and out (well, not many people because the capacity is a joke), and cleaning up vomit. To the safety standards for transportation. Plus all the same problems a normal train has, like getting right-of-way. Good luck with that.

One of the points in the proposal was "assuming 2.5G is an acceptable acceleration..." 2.5-3G is typical of a roller coaster, although the more intense one go to 5G or so.

Should have never made if off the napkin.
I also do this. We have DB and another service running via docker-compose. But our actual Webpack typescript app is done locally. We run on OSX, and due to the Docker file system slowness, the dev-test-run deploy cycle is far too slow. Much better running it outside of Docker.
The tricky bit here is that for most users the browser is "free" so there is no market to destroy.

You need to offer some value added services (like privacy, less ads) to be able to charge for the browser.
It boggles my mind that Mozilla didn't build an endownment with all the money they've received in the past 10-15 years (mid-billions!). They could've been a bit slimmer and slowly build an alternative revenue stream that would make them much more resilient to shocks like these and, long-term, independent of Google or other competitors' cooperation.

Looks like they spent like the money will be flowing forever.
If a crisis create supply problems, for instance, disrupting supply chains, inflation could increase.

Inflation is too much spending (not "printing") for too little capacity in the economy. You could get inflation for spending more than the economy can accept (but in normal times modern economies are rarely at full utilization), or, assuming full utilization, by keeping the same spending when what the economy can produce decrease for some reason.

In fact, despise what many people says, the second way is far more common that the first, including Zimbabwe (1).

(1) - http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3773
Are you a Rust programmer threatened by Mozilla layoffs and critical Rust comments on a message board?

A Rust proponent telling people not to tie their self worth to a language. The irony is hilarious.
> You start building something with Rust and you should be operational quite quickly

Rust is anything but easy and simple like Go language.

Please try building something like Kubernetes in Rust instead of Go and you will realize “Rust” is a a complicated language (worse than complex). Rust has a steep learning curve and the standard library is quite limited. So you will need to search and choose from different crates to do eve basic work. Eventually one can be productive in it after 2-3 years of development. Compared to it Swift, Go are much easier to pick up as systems programming language and C++ 20 is advanced enough to write safety critical code. There is a reason why large body of systems programming and software for database,network servers is written in Go language not Rust.
I largely agree with you, best tool for the job and whatnot. At the same time, I feel that due to the time I've spent investigating and experimenting with containers, I'm almost better at getting containers to work the way I want than to run it plain.

So if I was now starting a new project solo, I would probably go straight for containers and never deal with conflicting versions or difficult, hacked-together rollbacks, and I don't think it would take me, personally, more time to set up.

In other words, I think it's a good investment of time to spend, say, a full work-week on understanding containers and experimenting on how to make it work for your use-case.
Which is why they aren’t. The amount of money was one of the big reasons they founded the Mozilla corporation, which is owned by the non-profit Mozilla foundation.
They let the Servo team go?! Does that mean Gecko isn't going to see any significant new development?
Anecdotally, most of the people from my high school who went on to be entrepreneurial definitely had a naughty streak in them.

I think there is an overlap in the two personalities for sure
Money is the ultimate fungible asset, any restricted funds going to development frees up money that would have gone to development otherwise to go to something else instead. The only way this works is if the restricted fund donations exceed what the dev investment would have been otherwise, then it starts making a difference.
One needs to work to survive. The benefit of work for me is to exercise my mind. Other forms are available but do not aid survival. So assuming everything else is equal, I should use work to exercise my mind.

The issue with work is that it is constrained to one thing (web dev in my case). I can use my free time to do whatever (relax or other exercises such as meditation).
It depends how you designed your app. My app uses a RDS instance and a S3 bucket for data and file storage. I fel it is a best practice that your containers should be stateless (except perhaps in development). Docker is not very good at storage and I wouldn't recommend using it in that way.
Try to eat salmon every other day during the winter months. There are other foods, but not that many. Personally, I love salmon, but if you hate fish then milk and eggs is really the only other option unless you want to supplement daily.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=110
Not really many relevant comments in this thread. Everyone seems to have read the first sentence (if even), interpreted it as 'why did no one think the NSA was hacking?', and responded. It's a shame, this is a great piece, I think.

The question is, with all of these companies performing IR, why didn't they see mass exfiltration and C2?

I think the article lays out largely correct claims.

I personally would imagine (2) and (5) to be the most significant.

Regarding (2), it is so hard during an incident to know exactly what is attacker behavior and what isn't, to know that it's all the same attacker, etc. It isn't so uncommon to go digging into an incident only to find some unrelated malware - and in fact many companies find out they're owned from their pentesters.

With regards to (5), defenders have frankly been to slow to evolve. The people investigating these attacks likely only have a rudimentary understanding of TCP/IP, have virtually no ability to read or write code, and mostly are trained to build and enforce policy. The idea that they can catch even basic attackers in realtime is a joke, that they are to also be tasked with catching the NSA is just a depressing, hard to swallow reality.

Attackers are out here building up toolchains from scratch - anyone who isn't doing that is called a script kiddy. And yet defenders who can't build a single thing, who can only throw tools at a problem, are the standard. Attackers are flat out better than defenders - they work smarter, they have better capabilities, and defenders don't even seen to care en masse.

As Alex Stamos said (paraphrasing), most companies aren't even "playing the game", and it's a select few that even know what game to play - not even that they're playing well, but at least they showed up to the right ballpark (I'm butchering his statement). The vast majority of companies employee outdated models of security and incident response is probably the least mature, with devops pushing more and more infrastructure and product security engineers over IT admins.

No doubt that NSA's scale allowing novel forms of exfil like passive collection also played a major part.

What a sad state.

Having taken VC money to try to improve the situation I do always laugh when thinkst talks about that :) but much respect!
Hmm, not sure I understand why you put code in one image and then use it as a volume for other containers. Why not run directly from the volume with the code?
Problem is there is no realistic way to fund Firefox development that I know of - there's only ways to fund Mozilla - and that was not my intention originally and less and less now.
Or more accurately - developers create software for free and license it as Open Source because of social pressure within the development community. Large corporations say thank you very much and use it to make vast quantities of money without contributing back financially to the people who actually do the work. Anyone who points out that this is grossly counter productive if you want to build a sustainable ecosystem that doesn't depend on the unpaid labour of volunteers gets shouted down by free software cheerleaders who condescendingly stress that they mean "free as in speech rather than free as in beer," despite all Open Source licenses literally demanding that Open Source software can be distributed for free (as in beer).
We currently use habitat in production on VMs and have been happy with it.

It helped us solve a few pain points with deploying to VMs:

- dependencies are packaged and shipped with you app (no apt get install) so dev and prod environments are the same
- local development happens against a docker container that contain all our prod services running inside of it (redis, postgres, Kafka, etc.)
- built in CD and rollbacks via deployment channels
I've used language servers in large, old codebases that took a while to parse, and they never blocked the GUI for me.

I only got intelligence on as much of the project as it had finished parsing at a given point in time, obviously, but I wasn't stuck waiting for it to finish before I could work. This was using php-language-server and lsp-mode for Emacs.
This sounded like a lot to me, so I looked through the last 4096 chromium commits and counted committer names. That is back until the beginning of August. In that time, remarkably, Chromium has indeed had 856 committers, most of which only made a few commits in that timespan. That is very much not what I would have expected.

For comparison, I repeated the experiment with Mozilla's gecko-dev repo, and got 480 people committing - still a lot more than I'd thought. I guess I'll see how this holds up with the downsizing in a month.

[edit] Though - only 199 with a Mozilla email address. Though I don't have a Chromium comparison here.
Logging in to fix something RIGHT NOW also really falls off as soon as you hit moderate scale and have to do the editing on 20-30 boxes.
Yes, locally we use OSX apart from one developer who uses Linux.
Sounds about as stupid as the first version?

Theoretically the courses are probably designed to allow most people to succeed.
Daily reminder that leveraged investment strategies can and will blow up in your face...
> If I need quick hot fix RIGHT NOW

Enable rollbacks?
Perhaps the problem is the reverse: The more things that aren't free, the more money people need. By expanding the amount of free things, that reduces the amount of money required to produce new free things. Put another way, if 'software is eating the world', then if it's free software the cost of goods and services should drop dramatically.
I have a few nitpicks...

Making train tunnels cheaper by making them smaller is not a new idea. it is a very old idea. Have a look at the deep level tube lines of the London underground. In some ways, we regret having trains that small since it reduces capacity and makes it nigh impossible to air condition.

It's possible to make normal trains go over existing roads, elevated rail is also a very old thing, a lot of it did get taken down though.
> That's essentially my problem with the open source.

And that's my problem with the moniker 'open source' - it gives people the wrong idea. Free software is all about freedom, and surprisingly that often turns out to be easier to explain than the nebulous appellation 'open'.

Amusingly, each of your five dot points applies entirely to non-free software (behind non-free software there's a commercial entity, their products often end up getting designed by committee and are the worse for it, projects die as soon as they (product or company) cease being commercially viable, competition is discouraging and leads to similar but worse in slightly different ways products, and people contributing via bug reports or plugins or code contributions or blogs on how to use the product are doing it 'for free').

You said behind every popular open source project there's a big company -- what would that be for the Linux kernel, Apache, KDE, Python, VLC, gimp?

Btw, don't tell Hashicorp that it's pointless trying to write a better orchestrator than K8s. : )
Oh really? Where's the price for advertising on the Google.com homepage?

Surely Google wouldn't allocate ad-space preferentially to their own products, right?

And surely they wouldn't bug me for five plus years about how the internet is faster with Chrome?

Nah, that would never happen ;)
The tube would need egress points, interfaces to stations. I think the difficulty of building one tube between stations is like building a 100km long airplane fuselage. But any proposal is little more than "'just' build a tube!"
Then why in the name of space balls did they fire like 25% of their dev team?
For those who hasn't seen this already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH1rB-Ya2UQ

What she says about dosage is especially interesting.
Oh wow. So from a financial standpoint they're not in a radically different position to earlier years (assuming between 10-20% more in other revenues), in fact seems as if they have approx 100M$ more coming in as revenue in comparison to the previous year of comparison (2018) [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Google
Yes, all three in combination. GaAs PA, low cost GaAs LNA, and Turbo coding are what made it possible in the 90’s.

You’ll notice that many dishes are wedged shaped than circular. This is to keep the beam width under the 2 degree spacing of geostationary satellites.
then you're in conversation with someone and have to continually remind them "hey buddy, my eyes are up here"
MS switched to a Chromium base because they couldn't keep pace with Google's ever shifting web tech. Apple goes at its own pace, sometimes not implementing Google's standards at all.

Mozilla wants to have a say in how Google makes web standards. To do that effectively they need to keep up with Chrome. Admittedly even then Chrome's massive market share makes arguing against Google difficult. Apple sometimes joins the conversation but only when it directly affects something they're currently interested in.
Fund the business. Yes, everyone hates on them but there's a reason why every game and every software is switching to "pay for the extra feature or resource or pay monthly" model. I also find it far less fun-killing than the ad-supported ones. The ad-supported games and software(I will count the websites also in this) has terrible user experience as it is geared to interrupt you and make you do something else.

Free(as in beer) software has become a bait to direct you to something else. You want to drive a virtual car? Here is your virtual car but why don't you check the bubble popping game first? Here are your bubbles to pop but why don't you try jumping over hops instead? Here are the hops you may want to jump but wouldn't you not like to get angry for this political issue first?

This endless ad-supported stream of offers, I believe, is taking the oxygen of truly high quality works. Why would you buy the 0.99$ app or game when you can use the free version, right?
>And who's to object to that!

I take it you didn't see the outrage around here when Twitter "fact-checked" Trump's statements - even that was denounced as propaganda and censorship.
As a donor I don’t like this method because unless all donations were like this, since funds are fungible, budgets would still shift around.

For example, consider two features:
AwesomeFeature - budget has $100
DumdumFeature - budget has $200

They currently receive $300 in donations, $50 of which have no strings attached. So there’s donation stream A with strings and $250, and donation stream B with no strings and $50.

Allocation looks like this:
AwesomeFeature - budget has $100, funded with A$75, B$25
DumdumFeature - budget has $200, funded with A$175, B$25.

If I donate $25 and say “this can only go to awesome feature” the budgets after my donation end up as.

AwesomeFeature - budget has $100, funded with A$100
DumdumFeature - budget has $225, funded with A$175, B$50.
The problem with diagnostic labels such as ADHD is the science behind them is rather weak. For example, [1] concludes that the distinction between ASD, ADHD and OCD is not biologically valid–in other words, it is not an accurate distinction in terms of what is actually going on in the brain. (And that's just one paper, I can share plenty more that reach similar conclusions.)

No denying that many people have found diagnostic labels to be very helpful in practice. Gatekeepers make services/support/treatment dependent on receiving a diagnosis (or even a particular diagnosis – some labels get you more help than others – in particular, ASD generally gets much more resources than ADHD, creating pressures for people with ADHD to be diagnosed as having ASD as well in order to get better services [2]) However, they shouldn't do that – people should get services based on their actual need (severity of symptoms, level of dysfunction, etc) not on whether and which diagnostic labels they've been assigned. Limiting services based on diagnostic labels is actually discrimination by diagnosis [3], and surely we can all agree that discrimination is wrong?

Anyway, the fact that people get these kinds of benefits from diagnosis is a social/cultural/political fact, not a scientific one. It is a set of facts about the configuration of mental health systems, insurance systems, education systems, government disability funding, etc – and all those facts are ultimately rooted in policy decisions, and policy is determined by politics, and politics is part of culture. Some critics argue that the entire DSM-5 diagnostic system as a whole is more a product of society/culture/politics than of actual science [4].

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0631-2

[2] https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/the-phr...

[3] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1440-1754....

[4] https://cepuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Diagnostic-syst...
Mozilla Lays Off 250 People as Part of ‘Restructuring’
Ok, smartass, where and how do you locate the fonts installed in a system? How do you know if the system is on battery? How do you make sure that the temporary directory your service needs is actually mounted and writable? Let me guess, it works on your system, right?

If you only ever develop desktop client software for Apple and Windows Systems where there is a whole fucking company to tell you these things via an API you are really not even in the same league as a developer that tries to ship software to different Unix like systems and at least somewhat adhere to standards and technical best practices that have been developed by a community.
Even better, you can just leave websites that do this. I have no interest in helping anyone beef up their numbers by hanging around longer if they're going to be outright hostile to their readers/users like this.
Because they they already re-upped it, why spend more money when you already got the rewards? That is what happens when a company doesn't care about the product.
Right which is why you can read about physically unexplainable chronic pain conditions at large. It doesn't mean that people don't have RSIs, TMJ or whatever. There's simply no evidence that these are reliably linked to some specific physical aliment. There is no reason to worry about developing these things. That you feel discomfort in your fingers doens't mean you're developing an RSI. Just like a little disordered thinking doesn't mean you're developing schizophrenia.

Just the sheer understanding that fingers/wrists of an RSI sufferer are no different from these of non-sufferers helps many people resolve or greatly reduce their pain.

> Another one, skinny, does sports, sits on a pilates ball at work, uses standing table, stretching, and still has back problems.

And if they are a chronic pain sufferer from a similarly weird (or untreatable) condition I would greatly recommend looking beyond the physical explanation of their pain.
I hate to break it to you developers and tech people out there, but Firefox isn't used by consumers. It has become a niche web browser for you guys. I've been a developer for 20 years and briefly used it in 2009-2010. Then Chrome took over and I switched to what my customers use. I have zero reasons to use Firefox. I do feel bad about since it is dear to the community of developers I am part of. In the end though, and logically, I don't have any incentive to use Firefox.

Mozilla in my mind is a lab company with one product to monetize it: Firefox. At the end of the day though if you're product can't bring in enough money, you need to cut. Seems to be what's happening.
I agree but I find it the most practical place. If I can’t exercise my mind, then there’s nothing for me at work other than obtaining an income (no SF salary here so no financial independence possible).
Composability whilst maintaining a monolith codebase. The code in its single imageis used in 3 different environments, without including any runtimes that those environments might not need, keeping the image small. At the same time all code can be kept in a single git repository.