skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yeah, that's my point actually. If your service is failing because of a DDOS, don't blame those trying to use your infra. Before pointing to issues of bad clients, Signal should be ready for this influx of users - especially if your leader believes that centralized services are the only ones able to create a viable alternative for the masses.
This was the first thing that came to my mind as well, but on the other hand this seems to solve some real issues. Is there some space for solving this issue by evolving/improving SMTP?
Peter Thiel’s 7 Questions for Starting a Billion Dollar Business Are Ruthless
I read that to mean: Do not allow doh to tunnel all your dns traffic out to cloudflare regardless of the promise of encryption. Send it only to the designated enterprise DNS resolver, ie the one under control by the enterprise.

All other DNS resolvers should be disabled and blocked, ie all those public dns resolvers.
What's wrong with Getty? They spend a lot of money to take pictures, and other people pay money to use them. How would you change their business model?

EDIT: I hadn't realized that Getty is the reason for the removal of the view image button! I stand by my comment in general, however I do think removing that button is crappy.
Maybe something like @harvard-school-of-journalism.com, although that's too wordy. The article mentions "Harvard Extension School", so, it could be some variation of that.

Edit: I tried harvard-extension.school in the browser, it redirected me to http:harvard-education.edu (not https!), which seems to be a clone of extension.harvard.edu . The WHOIS records of harvard-extension.school/.education are pretty new (registered last year), and they're registered on GoDaddy and 1API GmbH respectively. A Germany-based registrar? Would Harvard use them?
I'm pretty sure that the big corps are changing the design based on some toxic metrics where they don't really care if we, a small demographic of power users, get annoyed all the time
Mars being farther away makes it a better candidate for a self sustaining settlement. Why try to make a self contained settlement on Antarctica when what you want the scientists there to spend their time on is research? I mean it would be cool but I can understand why it isn’t necessary there.
When you say 'defining languages', do you mean as DSLs or choosing appropriate existing languages? If DSLs, which language would you recommend for creating DSLs. Could you give a successful example?
https://developers.virustotal.com/v3.0/reference#files-scan

Seems I might have just hit the limit? ... Nope, 8.1MB zip file also wasn't sent anywhere.
You can use the QR codes to enroll new devices. (But then so can anyone who finds your QRs, so if you do this, keep them safe)
Can someone explain to me why Gradle is popular? It seems like hot garbage even though most teams can make it work.

Maven was painful as well but it felt more consistent to me.

You know whats really sad? MsBuild proj and solution files are easier to understand!

I'm sure there's a lot of great work that's going into Gradle but I just don't understand why this is the DSL and syntax we decided to put effort into.
I'm working on a website to help new home buyers prepare to buy a home. You enter a few details about your financial situation and location and I present your "home preparedness" summary. I then present a list of homes in the area for you to browse, each with a score to show how affordable it is for you. Finally, you can save homes to your account to track changes over time as we help you to prepare for your first (or subsequent) home purchase.

Right now it's a Django application that I've been working on for a few weeks now. I hope to have a MVP ready that I could present here soon.
Completely agree that HOW matters so much!

To me and probably many others (albeit often subconsciously), point 3 comes across as blaming, overly-generalized, and lacking in personal (and group) accountability for your experiences.

What about something like,

"Hey John, the last time you did X, Y happened, which had Z consequences.

I felt { disappointed / let down / concerned / irritated / worried / angry / $whatever_emotions_came_up_for_YOU }.

Other team members reported feeling $emotions.

What was going on there for you?

How can I / we help you to avoid X in the future?

Do you have any ideas about what you could focus or work on in order for Y not to happen again?

Here are some specific requests I have for you in order to avoid this kind of thing in the future: $requests
"

The edgy part about this for many people is taking ownership for their experience, we live in a society with a lot of deconditioning around this . Nobody else but you is responsible for how you feel. John didn't let you down, you had expectations about what he was going to do, and to your assessment, he didn't meet those expectations (that's also a reasonable thing to say, I think -- I would give more detail and context about specifically how those expectations weren't met). That you felt one way or another about this has nothing to do with John, and there's a lot of subtle and overt problems that can arise in a relationship when we attribute our experience to another person with our language.

I also mention that it sounds overly-generalized because saying "when you do X" has an implicit assumption that he will continue doing X in the future, and isn't really all that specific about why X has certain consequences - I think it's better to use specific situations in the past when X happened and to talk about what came up when that occurred. This is basically what I'm hearing you say in Point 2 :)

edit: fixed variables, wording
I believe https://scite.ai/ has a similar service (might have to pay USD 15/month for it though)

Discussed on HN here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23146091
Great work. It's usable again, finally.
Your comment reminds me of the first 30 seconds of this scene from The Third Man https://youtu.be/vSc-91F5Wiw
I have a question: Let's say you compile FreeBSD yourself (or another kernel with 64-bit RISC-V support), and you decide that you don't want the C-extension (compressed instructions). Will you be able to switch this extension off without encountering any issues, for example with assembly? I have a feeling that you can't even write compressed instructions with assembly unless you hand-write the instruction opcodes yourself, so maybe it's not an issue?
> Which has, of course, long since been spent.

Of course. But not on anything related to nuclear waste. In plain language, it has been stolen by the government.

If you don't like the taxpayer having to pick up the tab left by incompetent politicians, you should have voted differently.
The problem with labeling a source with a "reliability score" is the ad hominem fallacy.
A foreign key constraint in postgres requires that the entire column value in the foreign key match a corresponding column value of a key in the referenced domain table. Unless there have been quite recent extensions to the DDL in postgres, there is no foreign key constraint syntax to express a REFERENCES constraint over parts of a structured column. This is not supported for even the simple case of constraining one field in a UDT/composite type, much less the harder problem of constraining a variable cardinality set of elements in an array, or keys/values within a json/jsonb document.

You can try to emulate it with triggers, and start to appreciate the subtle complexities of the problem. For example, would we want a new class of element-wise actions to act analogous to ON DELETE/UPDATE CASCADE/SET NULL? Rather than pruning referenced row or referencing column value, you'd want to mutate just an element within the structured type, right? How would you expose these many choices if trying to design a new constraint syntax with reusable machinery?
I appreciate that the author was specific about “if you count addition as 1 operation.” Without saying this, it’s not obvious that the notation is such a simplified abstraction over operations and their costs, with all the limitations that come with that simplification.
How is talking about mechanisms for taking parler.com offline "entirely inventing the slope"? It was taken offline by its cloud provider and its apps were removed. Google was even involved in the takedown. Nothing outlandish is being discussed here.

As for "bad motives and awful consequences", what are you talking about? Is wanting to take parler.com offline an objectively "bad motive"? Is succeeding in that endeavor an "awful consequence"? This is the heart of the problem: Weighing consequences is hard when faced with real threats. So when the two consequences are "parler.com becomes inaccessible" and "the integrity of the Google Safe Browsing URL list is slightly compromised", I think it's at least possible that executives would decide to compromise the list.
I want your job! Looks like you’re having way too much fun.
Lasso locomotion expands climbing repertoire of snakes to larger smooth poles
Idk about others but Elon’s stated goal for settling Mars is to keep a second seed for humanity if Earth is somehow destroyed. Elon isn’t going to Mars for its appeal as a habitat directly, but because it can serve as a backup for humanity. It also makes other exploration of the solar system more likely as the ships needed to support Mars can also bring humans to the Jovian system etc.
If customers using google incurs a tax upon business regardless of whether the business does business voluntarily with google why not work on changing that.

Start with a snazzy our service works better in firefox. Eventually offer trivial new features in firefox but not chrome terminating with a small discount for using firefox. Over time small price increases can render the discounted price the same as the current price and effectively you are charging your users for using a vendor which costs you to do business with.

Google views chrome as a moat around their business keeping other vendors from cutting them off from the revenue stream that powers their entire business. Attack the moat and you might see movement to make your life easier.
It's probably in the way you presented it. I'm sure there were positive things you could say about what they're doing. Then offer more help with topics you're an "expert" on without being patronizing. Nobody likes to be shit on. Start from neutral ground and call it improvements, not say "I don't like your shitty methods, here mine are better". No one will respond to that.
I'm unsure whether it would be ruled libel, but I lean towards yes it would. There are two ways of seeing it:

1) It is a false statement by google themselves (so no §230 protection) that caused material damage and is thus libelous
2) It is an opinion protected under free speech, and the free behavior of a private company, and the words like "may have" show it is not a statement of fact, and "deceptive" is just an opinion.

Yet it feels very wrong and definately Google's fault, and Google should be responsible for the damages, morally speaking.

It's more than just a false statement, the pop-up is keeping users from visiting the website. However, Google doesn't intend to harm these companies in order to gain competitive advantage, it just harms them accidently, so the monopoly argument also has problems.

It seems to me that we need a new law, or that current jurisprudence has let this one slip through and perhaps there will (in America) never be a proper crime for this situation due to divergent jurisprudence in this space that left open this gap.

I would like to know whether it has been tested in court, or if anyone is in process of doing so.
Cabal. Design Bible. All grounded in the Single Source of Truth philosophy. With feedback from 200+ playtest sessions directly incorporated into the stream. And the result is the cohesive narrative vision in Half-Life.

Contrast this with "What Went Wrong with Cyberpunk 2077" exegesis from Bloomberg this morning and I'm still not sure anyone can point to a single reason beyond "we were too ambitious". I wish this breakdown were more technical in nature. Like a good GamaSutra postmortem. I suspect tooling plays an enormous role. UE4 Blueprints are phenomenal for visual development. But does it scale to teams of hundreds of designers?

Inside Cyberpunk 2077's Disastrous Rollout

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/cyberpunk...
They are, and some of the greatest journalists alive, such as Sy Hersh have built their very respectable careers on anonymous tips and having privileged information from those they can never cite.

That being said, it's important to be exceedingly leery of them, and use them sparingly, preferably as supporting evidence for a larger story. Lacking the same degree of accountability, they just as easily can be used to launder political narratives to sympathetic journalists who will breathlessly parrot them as they can be used to inform the public of goings-on behind the curtains of corporation and state.

Used too lightly as the primary crux of nearly inconsequential stories which hammer in too small a number of talking points, 'anonymous x familiar with y' can quickly become shorthand for 'this journalist/publication is in bed with a subfaction, and this is the new talking point'.
Exactly, the link above starts well, but fails in some regards. If you use big O, you should give the mathematical definition and at least shortly explain it. The idea of an upper boundary isn't very hard, and it is actually important to understand that an algorithm running in O(n) is also running in O(n log(n)) is also running in O(n^2). It is at least necessary to understand the other greek letters, which really does come in handy in a deeper understanding of algorithms.

The list of "common" O's is also kinda bad. Particularly, and I see this all the time, I think it is a mistake to go from O(n^2) to O(c^n), as this is the step that leaves polynomial time complexity, and glosses over the fact, that each level of exponent constitutes a different time complexity. Here the mathematical notation of O(n^2), O(n^3), ..., O(n^l) is indispensible. Nesting loops is probably one of the most commonly relevant applications of O-notations, so this actually has an influence on real-world implementations.
Life ranges from heavenly peaks to hellish pits.

The ecstasy of the highest highs and the burdens of the lowest lows and how we relate those experiences to the world around us may be what shapes our reality and perception of the world.
It me! :)

It's worth noting that Meadow runs full .NET; so you get generics, and all the other modern goodies. Currently we support .NET Framework 4.7.2/.NET Standard 1.6, though we're working on Core3.x support.

Also, we support F# and VB.NET. We even ship templates for both. However, F# 5 broke our F# support. :'( :'(

Hoping to fix the F# support soon.
Rust: Structuring and handling errors in 2020 (2020)
Yeah, who would spend the 90 minutes doing a fake interview for a random phishing victim. Even one with questions that are convincing enough to her.

Assuming the scammers are Indian, and the victim would be expecting some Americans interviewing her, I wonder how they scammers got some Americans to join in the scam. Hire some American actors and tell them it's for a prank TV show maybe?
unless i am reading this wrong, they are not saying don't send your requests to Cloudfare, Apple, etc. i am not entirely privy to all this, but aren't they entreprise grade DNS resolvers?
> only because I have to say something in reply despite not having any answers

I completely understand and my reply comes out of very hard experiences from decades of helping people.

Humans are emotional beings. We want to help. We hurt when we can’t. We feel guilty. The natural response is to say or do anything to make that guilt go away. This is a deep, hardwired response. It is a natural response and a good one. I consider this to be one of humanity’s best traits.

But it is not a good response in this situation. My goal is to help people. If I am to do that, nothing I say should said out of my own feelings of guilt or helplessness.

I’ve learned to embrace guilt and acknowledge it’s there but also tell it it is not helpful in that moment. I need to do what I know is right, not what I feel is right.

Hand and hand with this is letting go of the belief we have control. We can not save people who don’t want to be saved. There is only so much we can do. And we will fail. I’ve lost friends I’ve wished I could have saved but I know there were no words. Therefore, I have no responsibility for their actions.

As a very wise person once said,

It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.
Then just substitute whatever other operation that makes you happy? Or an imaginary one if you mean to say there is no such thing in real hardware.
FWIW, Meadow takes a different approach; we're working on AoT support right now, so it won't be interpreted.
Have you heard of Tiddlywiki [0] (also mentioned above [1])? Although not command line, it is a single file and supports exporting/importing your notes as json, and offers a lot of flexibility

[0] https://tiddlywiki.com

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25804473
Remember this is a centralized service, and all centralized services are doomed to fail for short periods or forever.

If you believe control of the world's communications should be open and distributed, I suggest supporting Matrix instead.
Yes, companies are profit-driven always. Not customer-satisfaction driven, unless that's what will bring them the most profit (especially true for newer, smaller companies).

This makes me wonder if there is some structure similar to a corporation which would maximise something besides profit, without either being out-competed by a corporation or turning into one.
Right but that's just it. I've always toyed with the idea of honeypots in my mind. But I'm not sure what type to incorporate into existing security measures.

I primarily deal with big financials and fintechs. The problems they have are very difficult to solve. They are slow, have big legacy processes and tech and combine that with large targets on their backs. The signal to noise ration is very bad, given the amount of users and old weird tech in the network. They need something better than 1000s of "Suspicious file on machine" warnings EDR generates for them. Or "beaconing detected" every time a youtube endpoint changes or something.

They can only tackle one single security measure at a time, because any change is a Big Project given the existing infrastructure, red tape and ways of working.

I always come to the the conclusion that honeypots would not work. The security is good enough to ensure that the threats that do slip past will not make the mistake of scanning the network once inside. They'd probably not even notice there were any honeypots in the network.

To catch them when they're moving in the network you'd need to give them credentials that appear to give them the keys to the kingdom. Perhaps a user present on each machine that appears to be admin on a domain controller that does not exist? That'd be a honeypot server + credential...
I read this twice and still couldn't make heads or tails of it.

Maybe because I learned programming in BASIC, and some variants of BASIC support 'Option Base (0|1)'?

Or had to port 1-based Algol code to 0-based Python?

Algol, of course, is usually compiled to machine code while CPython, like Lua, compiles to bytecode. And Algol allowed you to specify your own base, with "LWB" and "UPB" as a way to get the lower and upper bounds without needing to know the index.

Similarly, perl back when I used it let you set '$[' to change the array base index.

And there's Dijkstra's famous essay on the topic, at https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E...

I don't know how to characterize all of those languages and people along the simple axis of "borders" and "no-borders", and the author didn't explain how that axis works. I also read https://github.com/a327ex/blog/issues/66 and still am unenlightened.
The number of crew (8) raises my eyebrow a bit, since it seems to replicate what biosphere 2 did. I remember reading - or watching - some source that stated an even number of people is suboptimal for group dynamics, since it allows for a split into equal-numbered factions.
Scala is on the curveball trajectory and might be at the start of a backslide. Many Scala projects reportedly are moving away from Scala, choosing new projects to be built in Kotlin and sometimes Java (since newly added features).

https://snyk.io/blog/kotlin-overtakes-scala-and-clojure-to-b...

Realistically, it doesn't matter, Clojure will never become the most popular JVM language after Java. Still, Scala's adoption is slowing down.
I wonder if there's a threshold here.. When I researched this issue (while we were figuring out how to mitigate it), I did encounter some people who had their entire domains blocked because 1 subdomain had bad content. In fact, this thread itself has mention of that happening to neocities
IETF / RFCs

I don’t understand why you need to completely (and naively) need to recreate something like SMTP.

This project tries to do too many things, even forms and charts. There’s no separation between layers.
These days, both GCC and Clang have a compiler warning about it:

https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/02/26/gcc-6-wmislead...

However, for some reason, while GCC puts it under -Wall, Clang (which Apple uses) doesn't enable it even with -Wall -Wextra; you have to manually add -Wmisleading-indentation. It's also not enabled by the default Xcode template.
Because it fixes some of the problems of Maven, which was the defacto standard in the Java world, and is quite horrible. Gradle is to Maven what svn was to cvs.
Most Russians I've know on a one on one basis were pretty jovial and fun to hang out with. They did thing people were "fake" and "smiled too much" in America though. I told them the American take on reality was as legitimate as their more cynical attitude. It's all in learning about culture and why people are the way they are. Russians tended to be very straight forward and say what's on their mind, and Americans will hold it back. There are pluses for both positions.
https://github.com/networkimprov/mnm/issues/5 create TMTP architecture doc
doesn't seem to show for me, only internal space. I have no idea why.

edit: this is not released yet, I think
That's true, but on the other hand, it's much, much, much simpler to have a self-sustaining colony in Antarctica than on Mars. And there's also nothing to be gained from Mars in any reasonable time frame other than research.

I am extremely skeptical that we will even have a space station on Mars in the next 60 years. A self sustaining colony is laughably far off.
There are quite a few permanent arctic settlements. Alert comes to mind, as does Resolute Bay. There have also been innumerable sea ice settlements, but obviously none were permanent. Are you thinking of the Antarctic instead?
It's just a rework of the .NET MicroFramework, so it does not have Generics or any of the other new goodies post .NET v1.0 that are not compiler sugar.

Check out [Meadow](https://www.wildernesslabs.co/), though. Has both Generics and F# support. :)
China's ID cards also have chips, and they have to scan them to enter train stations or airports (or the center of the old town in Tibet)...
Is this not libelous? If the site is neither deceptive nor malware-hosting, and Google are telling people that it is?
I wonder if people in 10 years from now will come back here to see the beginning of the project that replaced email.