skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think you took a lot of flack in the original comment[0]

The alarms in netdata resolved a long-standing network issue on one of my boxes, and have variously alerted me to problems I could resolve with storage which greatly improved performance on my largest volume. On my other box, one look at the graphs alerted me to the fact that the entire SSD for my bcache volume was going unused[1]. I then used them while altering configuration and working with the drive to ensure the cache was being filled in a manner consistent with what the volume stored/how it was used.

The more I think about it, I might not have been as enthusiastic in my original comment as I should have been. It's been very helpful to me. I don't usually keep things like this running for very long (it wastes cycles on aging hardware...that isn't heavily used, but hey, it's the principal!) but I've kept this around because every time I've thought about removing it, I've visited the dashboard one last time and found something there that made me keep it.

[0] Though, as I mentioned, I'm not a sysadmin; I have a lab that might indicate otherwise, but I don't get paid for it.

[1] I had reloaded the machine/redone a previous configuration that included bcache and it screamed; I knew my new setup was much slower but I had forgotten about it until netdata made it obvious, again. I can't remember what I had to do to fix it, but it had something to do with the policy used to determine if a file should be put into the cache, and I think it was related to the fact that the cache was added to a volume with data present that rarely changed.
The term of art for an intentional bug that deliberately introduces a security flaw is a "trojan" (from "Trojan Horse", of course). UMN trojaned the kernel. This is indeed just wildly irresponsible.
It's experimenting with how specific people manage bugs.
The IRB of University of Minnesota reviewed the procedures of the experiment and determined that this is not human research.

How is this not human research? They experimented on the reactions of people in a non-controlled environment.
ARM has it's own SIMD instruction sets (NEON and SVE) but the intrinsics have yet to be stabilized in Rust, so the Rust SIMD ecosystem is x86-centric for now.

The plan is for Rust to eventually have a portable SIMD abstraction built into the standard library to reduce the need for CPU-specific code.
Thank you for your comment. The created site is "http://url-wiki.com". It's not a note. I posted an article on how to use it in note, and I thought it would be easier to understand, but I'm sorry that it confused Hack News.
Do you think they think that bad publicity is good for their reputation?
There are several light (compared to pandas) xlsx/xls libraries for Python, but none that I know of have a simple read-to-dict API.
It's following a gompertz curve like every other country.
There was a Core Solo mini as well at the bottom end of the line.
> So I don't think the group wants to sell the information to accessory manufacturers or Apple news sites.

That wouldn't be a viable business model for the ransom group; Any accessory manufacturer or news site would likely get in a legal entanglement for buying trade secrets.
Yes? Offer someone a USB cable and you've given them a GPS tracker that will show their home location

But of course as I linked in another comment, trackers have been fit into anything and everything now. Hairbrushes, random trinkets like clocks, even a phone charging brick itself
Brazilian programmer autistic genius (use Google to translate)
It's not simply unethical, it's a national security risk. Is there a proof that the Chinese government was not sponsoring this ,,research '' for example?
For something that I hopefully won't really need on a regular basis, I'd hesitate to buy something that was essentially a $25 annual subscription.
It is unethical. You cannot experiment on people without their consent. Their own university has explicit rules against this.
How so?

It seems to qualify per §46.102(e)(1)(i) ("Human subject means a living individual about whom an investigator [..] conducting research: (i) Obtains information [...] through [...] interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the information [...]")

I don't think it'd qualify for any of the exemptions in 46.104(d): 1 requires an educational setting, 2 requires standard tests, 3 requires pre-consent and interactions must be "benign", 4 is only about the use of PII with no interactions, 5 is only about public programs, 6 is only about food, 7 is about storing PII and not applicable and 8 requires "broad" pre-consent and documentation of a waiver.
Are you telling me I should have my appletv positioned so that I can shine into my TV’s ir receiver?

Mine is behind the tv.
The place to look for more than two levels of subclause is Henry James.

Procedures without recursion was a FORTRAN innovation. Recursion started in Algol. It would not be surprising if the first Algol effort lacked it.

What Chomsky did not understand, and still might not, is that his grammatical structures are fundamental to computation, and necessarily arise anywhere that symbolic processes of any complexity occur. So, their rise is not a product of culture, or of unique human biology, or of nerve biology, but of the architecture of the universe all operate in.

Chomsky's grammatical analysis was anticipated, in fully elaborated detail, in Sanskrit, millennia ago. The structures' importance in fundamentals of computation was understood (by a few -- Schonfinkel, Curry, Church) almost a century ago.[0]

It would not be at all surprising to find the principles to be important to DNA manipulation—particularly as part of immune response, and convergent in multiple independently-developed lineages.

[0] <https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/12/where-did-combin...>
UoM generally refers to University of Michigan. You probably meant UMN.
Mintlayer – Building a Future-Proof Blockchain with Bitcoin Infrastructure
Related to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26887670
> there are many other ethical and legal requirements to academic research besides Title 45.

Right. It's not just human subjects research. IRBs vet all kinds of research: polling, surveys, animal subjects research, genetics/embryo research (potentially even if not human/mammal), anything which could be remotely interpreted as ethically marginal.
How exactly do you "authorize" these tests? Giving advance notice would defeat the purpose, obviously.
Any JS that runs in the browser runs in Deno, too - so that's quite a few libraries...

If there is a Node-specific library, i.e. a lib that uses the require global, the fs module, etc., then you can, in many cases, use the Node compat module from the Deno std lib and just drop it into your project.

That being said, there's of course a Deno-specific ecosystem of libs, too, i.e. libs that use the Deno global. So you might find a suitable replacement if your favorite Node lib is not compatible for some reason.
This seems like a pretty scummy way to do "research". I mean I understand that people in academia are becoming increasingly disconnected from the real world, but wow this is low. It's not that they're doing this, I'm sure they're not the first to think of this (for research or malicious reasons), but having the gall to brag about it is a new low.
I can't help but think of the Sokal affair. But I'll leave the comparison to someone more knowledgeable about them both.
I think this should expose something like `_hyperscript.on(domElementHere, 'your hyperscript string')` and that could resolve the co-locality concern.
I feel sudden urge to write some assembly for fun. Have not done it for at least a couple of years I think.
Political CAN be sensitive, but again even then not in necessarily in positive ways. We have developed the agricultural techniques and technology to significantly mitigate food insecurity and climate change, yet we don’t. So how sensitive and in what ways. At some point government and economic systems have to change.
I was pleasantly surprised at how enjoyable the video was and the message is very clearly and directly applicable to how we carry ourselves in day-to-day life.

If you perform your actions single-mindedly and with purpose, you will find that they become easier and more efficient. It is not a question of exerting more effort, but exerting it in such a way that none goes to waste.
As with many things the underlying problem is the 'public' sector which presumably is funded (partly or other wise) by the government. A government generally has no consequences of incompetence.
No, LENR/CANR/Lattice fusion are all the same line of research as the og cold fusion - looking for fusion reactions in metal hydrides with deuterium.

Muon-catalyzed fusion is a totally unrelated phenomenon which has merely been referred to as cold fusion by some pop science articles.
What these researchers did was clearly and obviously wrong, but is it actually illegal?
Governments can't control a virus. East Asia seems to have existing immunity or a genetic factor that means they aren't getting hit anywhere near as badly as other parts of the world.
According to duncaen, the researchers had gotten the green light from the ethics board before conducting the experiment.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26888978
The state (phase) of the received photon will depend on the position of the receiver. Even if you have a perfect quantum hard drive, you still need to maintain the position of your receivers to within a wavelength. That will be hard to do if they are separated by a long distance.
Taleb's point was systems become fragile when participants (especially if powerful) have little to no skin in the game. It is a form of cowardice to immune oneself from accountability but also worse, it introduces large (and usually growing) systemic risks that cannot be avoided.
I'm not sure which form of ethical violation this is, but it's malicious and should be reported.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Universi...

I'm shocked that it had to come to this, but if the kernel developers deem it necessary to remove every commit from the university and ban them from commiting something has gone horribly wrong.

> Academic research should NOT waste the time of a community.

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/3B9A54F7-6A61-4A34-9EAC-95...

Agree 100%
Lmao. This happened to me too no joke
>Well, for example it can be countered by offering all young men from these regions jobs outside. For example, in the military, creating a large mobile military force recruited from these regions for operations in say, Afghanistan, offering them good pay and discouraging them from returning - and encouraging people from other regions or countries moving in their place

So, striping the place from its inhabitans, sending them to imperialist wars to be killed and kill, and bringing people from other countries to take their place?

Keeping the mafia sounds better than this scheme. Why not buldoze their houses and kill every first born while at it?

>This mafia thing is definitely cultural - "it is the way things are done there" - so it can be fixed by replacing/diluting people.

Yeah, like any cultural problem can be fixed by nuking a region.
Axon: Deep Learning in Elixir
how can i see these prs?
Interesting, if they provided to NSF human subject research section, to me this is potential research ethics issue.

Imagine, saying we would like to test how fire department responds to fire, by setting buildings on fire in NYC.
Economic Growth Is Set to Surge. Hiring Might Not Keep Up
> I will not be sending any more patches due to the attitude that is not only unwelcome but also intimidating to newbies and non experts.

Maybe not being nice is part of the immune system of open source.
It's a 3-click flow. 1) Read Privacy Policy 2) Login Screen: Authenticate with username/password 3) Permissions Screen: review items and hit allow.

You can see an example of this flow on our homepage: https://smartcar.com/product/connect/

P.S. There's no other way for developers/apps/businesses to obtain access to a APIs for a car. The owner of the car has to explicitly go through this flow.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/eu-official-a...
Arbitrary anonymous submissions don't go into the kernel in general. The point[1] behind the Signed-off-by line is to associate a physical human being with real contact information with the change.

One of the reason this worked is likely that submissions from large US research universities get a "presumptive good faith" pass. A small company in the PRC, for an example, might see more intensive review. But given the history of open source, we trust graduate students maybe more than we should.

[1] Originally legal/copyright driven and not a security feature, though it has value in both domains.
I just launched a React Component library from start => finish last week using TSDX and typescript 4.2.3. I was similarly concerned about the update cycle but have been trying to get over the mental hurdle that few updates = bad project. Few updates could simply mean that the baseline functionality is good enough and that was exactly the case for me and my team last week.

Obviously, YMMV but just wanted to give a +1 to a tool that made my life a little bit easier recently!
I agree. They are attempting to put security vulnerabilities into a security-critical piece of software that is used by billions of people. This is clearly unethical and unacceptable.
You should apply to auditing firms (Trail of Bits, Open Zeppelin, Quantstamp, ...). They are all booked 3 months in advance at the very least and would love to onboard new blood.
How many Man City players are actually from Manchester? I fail to see the connection to the local community.
"We're writing research on the security systems involved around the Linux kernel, would it be acceptable to submit a set of patches to be reviewed for security concerns just as if it was a regular patch to the Linux kernel?"

This is what you do as a grownup and the other side is expected to honor your request and perform the same thing they do for other commits... the problem is that people think of pen testing as an adversarial relationship where one person needs to win over the other one.
I like it as well, whenever there's some breaking story of some scandal and I want to see 'pics', DailyMail always seem to have the pics first. Like a kid, I look at the images more than I read the articles.
Introduction to the Firefly Semantics Slice Reactive Entity Store
Thank you very much for your comment. We apologize for the inconvenience. I think that it does not support SSL and a warning is issued depending on the browser. When the funds to purchase https are accumulated, we will solve it with the highest priority.
Already cited in another comment:

> We send the emails to the Linux communityand seek their feedback. The experiment is not to blame any maintainers but to reveal issues in the process. The IRB of University of Minnesota reviewed the procedures of the experiment and determined that this is not human research. We obtained a formal IRB-exempt letter. The experiment will not collect any personal data, individual behaviors, or personal opinions. It is limited to studying the patching process OSS communities follow, instead of individuals.

So they did think of that. Either they misconstrued their research or the IRB messed up. Either way, they can now see for themselves exactly how human a pissed off maintainer is.
That's not equivalent at all. The dreadlocks story is a legitimately outrageous and racist attack. It's not journalistic ethics to write stories like a robot. The context is important. The NY Times headline includes relevant details to inform the reader. "Kids Cut Another Kid's Hair" just sounds like juvenile hijinks and isn't doing justice to the story.

The Daily Mail will actively gin up uninteresting or patently false stories with the hottest headlines they can possibly get away with. They'll skip coverage of important news if they can find a story about a prominent person misspeaking about something inconsequential. Look at the lawsuit. They were upset that publishing multiple stories a day about Piers Morgan weren't all getting top search ranking. The world doesn't need multiple stories per day about Piers Morgan any more than it needs multiple stories about celebrity bikini bodies like what's on their front page right now. DM is fluff, it's pandering, it has no redeeming value.
> On the other hand, intentional vulnerability submission is an unique threat vector that OSS has, and which proprietary software doesn't.

Very fair point. Inside threat also exists in corporations, but it's probably harder.
Might not be an option for the phone as it takes a while for alternative OSes to add support for particular hardware, so generally only older models are compatible.
Linux kernel vulnerabilities affect the entire world. The world does not revolve around the U.S., and I find it extremely unlikely a university professor in the U.S. doing research for a paper did this on behalf of the Chinese government.

It's far more likely that professor is so out of touch that they honestly think their behavior is acceptable.
You can test the process without pushing exploits to the real kernel.
I'd consider going straight into Dapper. It's where you'll end up anyways if you start worrying about performance. Direct SQL queries and matching projection models allow for much more flexibility in all areas. If you are bad at SQL, EF Core won't save you for very long. Might as well learn it the hard way.
Bacteria could evolve "antibodies" to these molecules, or enzymes to get rid of them. See CRISPR, plasmid transfer and colony signaling ... bacteria got quite sophisticated defenses.
Unlikely. The article linked to, and I read, the web archive copy of the NYT article and not the NYT directly.
"What is nym in this context?"

It is shorthand for pseudonym.
It's very likely the IRB was mislead. Don't feel too bad. I saw in one of the comments that the IRB was told that the researchers would be "sending emails," which seems to be an intentionally obtuse phrasing for them submitting malformed kernel patches.
> There are processes to do such sorts of penetration testing.

What's the process then? I doubt there is such a process for the Linux kernel, otherwise the response would've been "you did not follow the process" instead of "we don't like what you did there".
Maybe it was those very authorities who wanted them there. Lot's of things have gotten patched and the backdoors don't work as well as they used to... gotta get clever.
The previous discussion seems to have suddenly disappeared from the front page:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26887670
@gregkh

These patches look like bombs under bridges to me.

Do you believe that some open source projects should have legal protection against such actors? The Linux Kernel is pretty much a piece of infrastructure that keeps the internet going.
Exploiting prototype pollution – RCE in Kibana (2019)
I am not knowledgeable enough to know if this intent is provable, but if someone can frame the issue appropriately, it feels like it could be good to report this to the FBI tip line so it is at least on their radar.
Yea it’s called being concerned for their kid.
That's what it seemed like to me as well. Based on their research paper, they did not mention the individuals they interacted with at all.

They also lied in the paper about their methodology - claiming that once their code was accepted, they told the maintainers it should not be included. In reality, several of their bad commits made it into the stable branch.
> For effective censorship, one would need to first determine that the article indeed is anti-Google

You might call that "sentiment analysis". Google has published papers on it. They've refined it so much that they even turned it into a well-documented feature of their Natural Language API [0].

> Google could probably pull it off but for what? Google hate drives views, and ironically, these are commonly monetized by Google itself.

If you could assign a monetary value to showing someone an advertisement (or several), would you? Google has.

If you could assign a monetary value to someone's knowledge about government/justice actions against yourself, would you?

If you could categorize sentiment into something that can generate revenue... or perhaps something that could hurt revenue... would you?

There's money in censorship.

> Anyways, searching "artificial 2 second wait to non-AMP ads" is inconclusive

Let me make it much less inconclusive . The two searches [1] [2] both reveal the lawsuit by the Texas AG which has explicit allegations [3].

[0]: https://cloud.google.com/natural-language/docs/sentiment-tut...

[1]: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Google+AMP+second+delay+lawsuit

[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=Google+AMP+second+delay+laws...

[3]: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...
I agree, I think they should be looking at criminal charges. This is the equivalent of getting a job at Ford on the assembly line and then damaging vehicles to see if anyone notices. I've been in software security for 13 years and the "Is Open Source Really Secure" question is so over done. We KNOW there is risk associated with open source.
I second this, Hasura is a solid choice.
I always find the dichotomy we have regarding human subject experimentation interesting in the US. We essentially have two ecosystems of human subjects as to what is allowed and isn't: public and privately funded. The contrast is a bit stark.

We have public funded rules (typically derived or pressured by availability of federal or state monies/resources) which are quite strict, have ethics and IRB boards, cover even behavioral studies like this where no direct physical harm is induced but still manipulates peoples' behaviors. This is the type of experiment you're referring to where you can't experiment on people without their consent (and by the way, I agree with this opinion).

Meanwhile, we have private funded research which has a far looser set of constraints and falls into everyday regulations. You can't really physically harm someone or inject syphilis in them (Tuskegee experiments) which makes sense, but when we start talking about human subjects in terms of data, privacy of data, or behavioral manipulation most regulation goes out the window.

These people likely could be reprimanded, even fired, and scarlet lettered making their career going forward more difficult (maybe not so much in this specific case because it's really not that harmful) but enough to screw them over financially and potentially in terms of career growth.

Meanwhile, some massive business could do this with their own funding and not bat an eye. Facebook could do this (I don't know why they would) but they could. Facebook is a prime example of largely unregulated human subject experimentation though. Social networks are a hotbed for data, interactions, and setting up experimentation. It's not just Facebook though (they're an obvious easy target), it's slews of businesses collecting data and manipulating it around consumers: marketing/advertising, product design/UX focusing on 'engagement', and all sorts of stuff. Every industry does this and that sort of human subject experimentation is accepted because $money$. Meanwhile, researchers from public funding sources are crucified for similar behaviors.

I'm not defending this sort of human subject experimentation, it's ethically questionable, wrong, and should involve punishment. I am however continually disgusted by the double standard we have. If we as a society really think this sort of experimentation on human subjects or human subject data is so awful, why do we allow it to occur under private capital and leave it largely unregulated?
The Culture and Customs of Mexico – National Days and Festivals