skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well, technically the Desktop and its icons belong to Explorer, which has to be running. So not too silly. That being said, I'm not sure how many people actually know that the task bar, desktop and improved Alt+Tab experience with previews is part of Explorer; not just the very visible windows that show a folder.
Respectfully, OWASP ASVS (See >4.0.1)and the Web Testing Guide are pretty current.

Most people haven’t read either front to back and for the most part make assumptions as to their purposes. Devs are the first to nitpick it and security practitioners for the most part are always a negative bunch :D

BUT....

If you are in a regulated industry like finance, insurance or healthcare, it doesn’t matter whether you’re at a startup or a stodgy Fortune 500 company.

At the point at which your organization starts caring about security which is usually “client contract language” or “audits,” the flagship OWASP programs are killer tools with which you’ll use to craft a secure software development lifecycle that touches everything from sprint planning to feature reviews and penetration testing.
How This Ends
Exactly. Nobody talks about the million start ups that failed before their first big funding round.
The key issue probably is that determinism and lack of free will complicate the question of "what's the point of doing anything?", but complications like that are not really an argument for or against free will; we can't assume that life has to have a specific point and use that to justify statements about the nature of reality, it's the opposite way around.

Free will and an illusion of free will are distinct concepts, IMHO there's a consensus that we do have an illusion of free will and that there are some practical benefits for having such an illusion - but again, that's not necessarily an argument relevant to a discussion of whether free will actually exists.

Furthermore, lack of free will does not imply a lack of an ability to change one’s mind in response to evidence, quite the contrary, it implies that you changing your mind is not just an arbitrary choice but is going to happen (or not) depending on the evidence you receive and how (and from whom) you receive it; it only means that, given your previous state and all your observations, the outcome (changing the mind) is predictable and isn't arbitrary. Perhaps it's influenced by some small seemingly random factors that are hard or impossible to observe and analyse (creating the illusion of choice or requiring to model the whole system as hard-to-predictable "black box") - for example, we obviously can't access all the exact details of our own brain state - but it's not determined by some "out of system" choice that's somehow distinct from what the brain does as a physical, deterministic "machine".
I think it's really amazing to see old computers work. The Computer History Museum has managed to do that with some 50's and 60's era computers-- you can actually see them in action, teletype and everything.

But it's really just a curiosity to have the physical machine literally running. It's merely a nostaghic artifact. We have photos, stories, documentation, and historians writing books and articles. That's what matters-- not the blinky lights even if they're running 70 year old "code" on an emulator or miraculously preserved vintage electronics.

I think programming up an raspberry pi (or whatever) to run a mainframe emulator and hooking it up to old iron panels is something akin to building animatronic dinosaurs. It's great to do for some representative artifacts, but it can be overdone.

Keeping the IBM 1401 running at the computer history museum is fine too. The room even smells great, it's a spectacle for geeks. It's feasible for as long as some old-timers can keep replacing the components that age-out. But at some point it's going to be a better idea to unplug the thing, remove the leaky caps, and keep the dust off it.

It will be interesting what happens to VM's and Containers in the future. Are these things going to be preserved and displayed like a "brain-in-a-jar"? Will people in the future marvel at our convoluted code from 2020, our turgid (but quaint) frameworks. Will our API's be comparable to crazy victorian contraptions?
I suspect anti-abuse at scale is impossible. The mistake (albeit a hugely profitable one) was to turn themselves into a marketplace and platform rather than a curated seller. The implication is clear: any marketplace is untrustworthy and caveat emptor.
For most users, most of the time, Windows performance is just fine. This is especially true on modern 64-bit hardware with SSDs when using the latest Windows 10 builds.

In the past? It was a bit of a mixed bag. TCP performance and network latency in general was always worse on Windows than Linux, largely for silly reasons. Similarly, the 32-bit versions had a lot of fixed sized memory regions for things like file caching that were set in stone in the NT4 era and not changed until Windows Vista. Towards the end when all 32-bit machines had 4GB of memory, this made disk access unnecessarily slow.

There are also design space differences between Linux and Windows. On Linux a process is very lightweight, basically a fat function call. On Windows the equivalent need is typically met by RPC calls to an already running process. Threads are cheap on Windows and threading was very well supported since the 1990s. On Linux, not as well, even now. For example, even NT4 and async scatter/gather IO that SQL Server used back in v7. I believe that Linux is still struggling with this.

Conversely, Windows beats the pants off Linux in some areas, even now. Try using a Linux desktop with a flaky DNS server. Hooo-boy. Timeout city! On Windows this is almost unnoticeable, because it fails over to the secondary DNS server in milliseconds and caches all results as expected. Linux failover and caching seems to require a significant effort to set up by the users, for some mysterious reason.

Similarly, Windows SMB v3 over RDMA is crazy fast. If you have the right NIC, you can flatline a 40 Gbps pipe with a single file copy. In the Windows Explorer GUI! No special tools needed. Copy, paste, and next thing you know you're doing 5 gigabytes per second. That takes real effort to match in Linux.

Etc...

Basically, everyone is used to the warts on their preferred system, and has learned to work around them. But when exposed to something unfamiliar, all the little issues seem to be always in the way.
The NIC with hardware timestamps part should be pretty easy if you're already implementing it using an FPGA like this project did - in fact, in a sense that seems to be exactly what they're doing with NTP. Finding switches that support it might be a little harder.
Plenty of people on this website would disagree with your definition of hacking. Hacking doesn’t need to be ethically ambiguous, it can be about having fun while practicing one’s skills[1].

This website is about[2] “anything that gratifies one’s intellectual curiosity”, not about praising entities who use technology to elevate themselves through the detriment of others. What some call “hustler” others call “asshole”.

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

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
With Python at least an application server with long-running processes is the most common way to deploy, for example with gunicorn. Though typical config will have green threads and/or multiple worker processes, so I am not quite sure how one the single-writer is enforced.
> "sysadmin" as that term was used in the 80s/90s job roles was usually not a hard-core C++ programme

I am now a "SRE" as a very large "webscale" company.

I was, am, and will continue to be a sysadmin. All of the principles that I've been using for the last 15 years have not really changed. only the tools.

The concept that sysadmins were only ever point-and-click, or physical lift and shift, is a stereotype that needs to die. We were _always_ programming our way out of things. The whole point of a sysadmin is that you are lazy, to be lazy you need to:

1) find out what changes are coming down the track

2) automate those changes.

You could only every be a good sysadmin if you knew what the business needed. Sure tech is fun and all that, but if we have the most stars on our repo, but no income stream then we are sunk.

That means:

o providing a rock solid platform for devs to work on.

o Removing the thorns and friction from the entire system.

o making reliable, logged, secure and metric'd code the easiest type of code to deploy

o clearly documenting how to do things

o keeping costs down

o bugging people when their shit breaks and they refuse to fix
What's that supposed to mean. How do you think I look?
You know what, I actually agree, and I should note that I myself would never use such words outside of theoretical discussions.

However, by using the phrase "lacks intelligence", you have shown that you also have issues with ableism. Are you aware of how offensive that phrase could be to someone who has struggled with a learning disability, or to someone whose child is mentally disabled?

I know you mean well, but by saying that a person or group of people are unintelligent or that they "lack intelligence" (as you did in your previous comment), you are using hurt language that is perhaps only marginally less offensive and hurtful than "stupid" or the r-word. For example, take the bipolar CEO from your comment above... imagine how hurt they might be if you described their actions as "lacking intelligence".

I suggest you take some time to understand and address your latent ableism. Ask yourself this question: "how can I use only positive language in every situation, so as to completely eliminate the possibility of ever offending anyone?"
Nice. My mind is circling around audio use cases these days (thanks Clubhouse ;-)). There is definitely a lot of untapped potential and tools like these make it easy to prototype ideas.
There is no point, it was a causal chain that made it inevitable for me to write the above comment
Right, it disproves the very precisely defined concept of "will" (/s , sorry, my brain forced me to say it)
> I am not sure having everything in a single HTML file is any feat though.

This bears repeating. By this logic all projects, including convoluted React SPAs, are just a bundled away from claiming they are a single-HTML file project.
Ask HN: Point Cloud data manual annotation companies in Europe
Hi everyone, do you know a business process outsourcing company in Europe which offers manual labelling service for point cloud data? Thank you!
> Have you ever done a hard leetcode problem?

Yes. I used to compete on CodeForces regularly.

> Clearly the icon code was delegated to some intern or perhaps a child of one of the developers, because the bar is stupid high there just to have a conversation with a hiring manager.

You're implying that the developers of Microsoft can't be computer science illiterate, because a computer science illiterate couldn't possibly pass through the recruitment funnel that you experienced. But we know this code exists. Somebody wrote it. Somebody reviewed it. Somebody tested it. Everybody involved in this process thought "yeah, this is good enough", when it's clearly not good enough. Anyone with as little as CS101 experience would not write crap like this in the first place, so it's really hard to argue that the developers at Microsoft are computer science literate.
Pfft. What a silly statement to make. Clearly it is the cat that should be using JQuery...
It is still IPC (inter-process communication) even though it wont go over any network. Probably still order of magnitude more overhead than a function call, but quite possibly it will be acceptable.
The event itself was whimsical, fun and shone a large spotlight on the hypocrisy of your former employer. The license agreement was clear: if you did not agree to the terms of the Windows license, you could return the software for a full refund. This was at a time where Microsoft reigned supreme in the business world and enforced the terms of its license strictly. In my country, it caused the local office a lot of embarrassment when they were forced to admit that they had no way of coping with the entirely reasonable request of someone who didn't want to pay the Windows tax.
I wouldn't be surprised that OEMs are actually net positive on Windows and all the trials of antiviruses and games they're bundling with PCs.
CO2 dip may have helped dinosaurs walk from South America to Greenland
>would they both think of themselves as you?

If they both continue to think, yes.

>Then, if you keep carefully cutting small bits off of those hemispheres, when would they stop being you?

When they lose consciousness?
> Using popular apps like Chrome, Firefox, Windows, Fedora, Debian, etc., I don't have a snowball's chance in a hot place at even getting my issue looked at..

Is this based on experience? In building a browser game engine, over the past few years I've filed ~3 chrome bugs and they all got fixed. Also the experience was frankly nicer than what I'm used to with github repositories - nobody on the chrome team closed my issue for departing from the bug report template! In fact they didn't even ask for repro files; basically as long as I described the issue clearly, they took it from there.

Granted the process took a looong time (months IIRC). But overall I found it very painless.
> The point is that the jar<->jvm interface is a lot more stable than the jvm<->host system one.

This is complicated. The Java SE spec is very stable. But, unfortunately, many libraries and applications don't just program to the spec, and, rather, hack into the runtime (which is much more than just the JVM) and in that case their compatibility becomes much less stable than the VM<->OS one. This is changing soon with encapsulation (finally!) being switched on in 16, although applications will still have the option to selectively disable it, essentially saying, yes, we're giving up on portability but we know what we're doing.

> XML or CORBA I can easily imagine most of its attackable service being JVM code that the application really does use.

They're not in the JDK either, anymore. I don't think that the statement that most vulnerabilities will likely be in the runtime is true.

> Wasn't that the point of Java Web Start links? I usually favour leaving things up to libraries, but at the same time things need to be secure by default.

Yes, but it wasn't as good as we wanted. The problem is that Web Start still centralises the runtime and forces the user to interact with a third party. It's better for the application to choose how to manage its updates. This could, indeed, be done in a library, and I don't see why it would be any less secure than the JRE.

> So encouraging every application to ship a static copy of the same chunk of well-known low-level code has a significant downsides - any vulnerability will become the equivalent of that zlib double free where essentially every MacOS program had to ship a new version.

But it's not the same chunk. jlink customises the runtime to only contain the modules the application actually needs. This means that the JDK modules are like any other dependency, and there's no good reason to have a different update mechanism for them, which would also be controlled by a third party, especially since you'd need the application and dependency update anyway.
That interview process doesn’t just select for people who truly understand algorithms at a fundamental level. It also admits people who are good at memorizing the solutions to hundreds of leetcode-style problems. It is likely better at selecting more of the latter than the former.

When I ask algo questions during interviews they’re always based on real problems that have arisen in our code. Making the question actually relevant to the job is both a better interview process overall and has the added benefit of instantly filtering out the memorizers.
> If you want a bug-free os, you'll pay an extreme price in features or in dollars.

It isn't like Windows division doesn't make billions of dollars every year. Lack of resources is hardly an excuse.
Not sure if it is an urban legend, but some people say "journalists" at Bloomberg get a bonus depending on how much their articles move the stock price of their target^^
There's plenty of JS code written out of the real needs and by teams running huge projects, take just Facebook as an example. Problem is that there are thousands of solutions for everything, and that saturation and bad signal to noise ratio makes it hard sometimes to pick the right lib (or even hear about it in the first place). Rails have a huge benefit of having a single team behind it, so you always have a recommended way of doing things, and the whole community is smaller, less libs to test, less rubbish to avoid, making the experience much more linear...
Is skepticism really fair without understanding even the basics of said science? It’s not like statements like “global warming” and “COVID is not a hoax” exist in a vacuum, they sit on top of multi-century efforts on understanding a world vs a long-forgotten 8-years of primary school on geology/biology (with a bit of a hyperbole).
Would you trust the opinion of someone without any programming knowledge about architectural decisions? Just because the end premise is easy to understand in the case of eg. global warming, the decision behind it is similarly (or even more) convoluted.
for every 'can we afford it?' question you can also ask 'can we afford not to do it?' and in this case the answer is at the very least not simply 'no.'
It is of course good that MS has a interview process that favors really smart people. But it doesn't mean that automatically all the work at MS will be flawless. There is much more then that.

And people are even joking recently about this:
https://i.redd.it/jhr5tv5ls2e61.jpg
I recommend reading the papers here https://forgottenphysics.com/

They're all short reads. There's one of them that goes into the history of E=hf and how Planck actually originally had E=htf but Boltzmann criticized him for it
I think in this case the problem wasn't because of some inherent characteristics of the software.

If this was completely analog, mechanical tool, the problem could still have existed. For example, you could have made a mistake using various knobs and switches.

And in this case the solution was to physically design the device so that it is not possible to put it in an incorrect state. Thus it did not matter much if there was a software error as whatever software did would not make it possible to put the beam and the metal shield in an incorrect state.

Using physical safeties is a common strategy. For example, my Instant Pot has multiple physical safeties built in.

For example:

* even if the controlling software or sensor fails, there is overpressure valve that will not let the pressure rise over certain value.

* there is a single piece of metal that both blocks gasses escaping from the pot AND blocks ability to open the pot. If the piece of metal is not in place, there is a hole in the pot and pressure cannot rise. If the piece of metal is in place so the hole is closed, it blocks possibility of opening the pot and creating an explosion.

* there is a specially designed guide that makes it impossible to close the device only partly

* the device is designed so that the weakest element keeping pressure is the seal. If the pressure rises, instead of the pot blowing up the seal will deform, be blown off and let the steam escape in more or less controlled manner.

* there is a bimetal safety device that will turn off the heater if temperature rises too much,

and so on.

You see, none of these features relies on software. There are software safeties but they are redundant in that device does not rely solely on them.

If the company producing Instant Pot can show this kind of safety-conscious design I am sure it can also be applied to dangerous medical devices.
There's a very simple web UI (bare HTML elements), and some things still have be done via command-line.
i am located in Germany and my phone indicates the WiFi calling feature in the status bar. I never signed up for this and thus never provided any address. I would guess my phone is still connected to the cell network in parallel and thus locateable anyhow. i can see IPsec traffic from my phone in traffic captures...
Question for ppl using DuckDB: are the use cases similar to what you'd use Apache Arrow, but with the benefit of working in SQL, or are they meaningfully different?

I'm not currently using any of those, mind you, still on a pandas/dask* dataframe basis, but I'm trying to wrap my head around where the ecosystem is moving

*I know Dask is already using Arrow behind the scenes
Where does "sto mu gromova!" come from? Google Translate is not helping me, is it something like "thousand devils!" ( per mille diavoli! ), which I think was a typical Zagor or Tex exclamation?
I’ve done this so many times I can’t count it. Most domestic flights I’m on that go longer than 2 hours I’ll have a Big Mac with me.

Can someone explain why this is so bothersome to other people? Is it cuz you’re hungry and want to have one too but can’t?
I recently read John Vince's Geometric Algebra for Computer Graphics, which seemed excellent – written, the author explains, because he realized you had to virtually be a mathematician to understand the books in the field, and he wanted to write something much more accessible. It sounded great until Chapter 11, Conformal Geometry..

Various arguments have been proposed for adopting this model such as, conformal space:
• is homogeneous and consequently removes the origin as being a special point
• supports points and lines at infinity
• provides a single geometric mechanism for representing lines, circles, planes and spheres, which introduces a rare quality of elegance to problem solving
• enjoys all the normal features of Euclidean space.
A model of space that possesses such a range of positive features sounds too good to be true! But remember, in mathematics there is no such thing as a free lunch. So what price must we pay for this model?

Then Vince explains that the conformal model, "an alternative space to Euclidean space for solving 3D geometric problems", is covered by a patent..of Hestenes, US Patent 6,853,964 System for encoding and manipulating models of objects. Vince says "Licences to employ this system for commercial purposes are available through the patent holders, although there are no restrictions for academic research and educational use. All of the above may be a small price to pay for the benefits associated with the conformal model, and I will do my best to explain the model in this chapter."

Uh what?! So it actually costs money to use... That rather put me off Hestenes' noble mission. It seems...bizarre that what seems a whole subfield of mathematics is patented, rather different to patenting a particular algorithm or technique. Very strange, after reading so much of Hestenes' wondering why the superior GA isn't used everywhere. (Is it to make the world a better place..or to make Hestenes rich?..) I stopped reading at that point.

As far as using Geometric Algebra in a Euclidean setting goes, most of my programming is in 2D, but when I do 3D next I will consider using it, it seems very cool. Most of the features/differences/advantages over the usual vector/matrix geometry only appear in 3 or more dimensions. Vince's book is great at explaining it, highly recommended.
> Can someone actually provide a definition of free will?

Can someone provide a definition of a "individual"? Aren't we all just a big soup of atoms, where the boundary between two individuals is made arbitrarily based on convenience? Perhaps we should solve this problem first before we start talking about free will. Because when viewed like this, a bunch of atoms could have more than one free will.
Is Spacetime Real?
I love how that site has a PWA manifest. Just in case you want to install it, for looking something up later.
I loved this game. Has anyone seen to download and work on moderen systems (win10/macos etc)?