skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"Space X also launched without permission..."

This is an extremely serious charge - but also goes to show how much false information folks on the internet put out.

Based on my own review, at all times that SpaceX launched they have had a license to do so. Period.

The license is LRLO 20-119.

Could they have violated a condition of the license? Very possibly. But this claim that they launched without a license seems like a total lie.

The other issue, looking at the condition they may have violated.

1) They had repeatedly complained about the software model being used as being inaccurate. The FAA has not as far as I known really defended their model.

2) This model reflected a view that the weather would "amplify" an explosion. The physics of this seem at first glance a bit out there. Some effect seems possible, but a major effect seems somewhat less likely. Anyone want to chime in.

3) SpaceX had offered to work with FAA on better modeling / more data collection, but that had not been accepted by FAA.

SpaceX was shut down for something like 2 months as a result of this. My guess is there relationship between SpaceX and FAA also harmed here.

Hopefully someone on FAA side can go through model so that there is increased confidence SpaceX side that it is kicking out real risks. My impression as there was a lot of engineering frustration about the FAA model.
A transistorized shift register box, built in 1965 for Apollo testing
This is normal. I personally don’t know where the pressure comes from either. If I have to guess, it’s one of those jobs where there is constant deadlines. Imagine your career was just deadline after deadline.

The second thing is we get validation via getting something done and saying so in standup.

If you mix deadlines and validation exhibitionism, you probably get a high pressure career. It’s not the same as a doctor or lawyer where they have to on-the-spot win the case or save the patient. That feels like a different type of pressure creation. Our version is weird and truly feels unnerving.

My only suggestion is to start forgiving yourself within reason. If you need a little more time, take it, and try to feel less shame when you have to say it in standup.

If it helps any, I’ve been working a modest amount of time and only recently began respecting myself when it comes to this.
I see lots of people offering elaborate solutions to take down a swarm of drones. I may be wildly off the mark here but would it not be feasible to fly over them with a jet fighter and let the supersonic shockwave take out a lot of them?

I am thinking of some other more low tech solutions to whittle them down as well: firing a weighted net; sticky silly string type stuff to tangle and gum up the rotors.
Soooo all my data is stored on magnetized rust?
If it doesn't take correlations into account, then the total # of identifying bits (aka entropy) will simply be the sum of # of identifying bits in each category, which does not seem to be the case. Therefore, I will guess it does take correlations into account (presumably by calculating the total # from uniqueness of the fingerprint only).
Why the heck don’t consumers have a seat at the table while all the 5G technology is being developed? I want open protocols and publicly documented cryptosystems based on published protocols. Instead we are just enabling the surveillance state.
Arch is primarily a systemd distro.

I think it sounds like you should seriously sit down and think about why don't you want systemd, but answer some other questions first. You're running windows with all of its telemetry and longstanding security and performance issues but a different init system on Linux is holding you back? That doesn't seem right, I would sit down and honestly think about what you're trying to accomplish with your machines and why. And why does linux vs windows help vs hinder that goal? Then why does glibc or systemd hinder that goal?

I think most people's objections to systemd sound similar to google's objection to systemd. Their objection amounted to "complexity in PID 1" and security. Around the same time they pushed android binder into the kernel, which is just yet another reimplentation of IPC. That spawned some very serious security issues. If they really didn't like the current IPC systems, they probably could have (and should have) implemented one of them on top of AF_UNIX sockets in userspace. So at the end of the day, they apparently don't take "security" as seriously as their objections to systemd would have you believe. What it really boils down to is that they don't like the piece of software for some vague hard to define reason. Ok sure, but that isn't going to help you accomplish your designs since it doesn't inform you on what direction your design should go. I would try to articulate why I don't like it very precisely, and then back it up with data. I can make that argument for windows for example. If I can't do that then my objection was probably emotional and irrational.
There is no exact science, physics isn't an exact science either.

You need softer definitions like "Hard" and "Soft" precisely because there are no exact results in any science we have. And it is fine to use soft definitions for these things since categorising scientific fields doesn't need to be a science.

A hard science is where replication is expected to never fail, if replication fails once then the theory is thrown out. Applying that to social science studies would seem ridiculous, no social scientist would want that, so they want their field to be soft.
I don't know since I do not work in the area, but if I had to guess -- brevity.
The SEC is the HR department of hedge funds. (i.e. it exists to protect hedge fund managers)

There's systemic corruption at the highest levels, but the SEC decides to go after a handful of little guys. The next French Revolution is a ticking time-bomb.
Hatching Twitter - Nick Bilton

Bad Blood - John Carreyrou

How to Turn Down a Billion Dollars: The Snapchat Story - Billy Gallagher

Billion Dollar Loser: The Epic Rise and Spectacular Fall of Adam Neumann and WeWork - Reeves Wiedeman

Whistleblower: My Unlikely Journey to Silicon Valley and Speaking Out Against Injustice - Susan Fowler

Uncanny Valley - Anna Wiener

What Tech Calls Thinking: An Inquiry Into the Intellectual Bedrock of Silicon Valley - Adrian Daub

The Scapegoat - René Girard
> Besides, a person who genuinely believes me to be a murderer cannot possibly want my name on their book cover, unless of course that person is a rank opportunist.

When dealing with voracious liars that gaslight and try to muddy the water through verbosity and the cloak of victimhood it's really useful to have these kinds of small but immutable points. Same thing with people stuck in cults, a small discongruous fact that draws a line in the sand makes all the difference for cutting out people acting in bad faith.

I had a co-founder develop a cocaine and eventually meth addiction (and eventually spent time in jail) and the massive amount of content he spewed was undone by a few simple and undeniable facts like these.

People, _who shockingly to me_ were able to ignore the linear facts and timelines of events that showed causation.. were moved by a small inconsistency that lodged in their minds.

I don't know what the implications of this are but I personally find it both powerful and disheartening.
He may sing in German as the musical guest they sometimes have at the end of the keynotes, but that’s as much flexibility as I’m willing to allow.
I don't know who hurt you, but I'm sorry you don't feel accepted in the groups you're in. Best of luck, friend
It really shouldn't.

At a societal level, the point of having a stock market at all is to increase the amount of investment capital available. An unregulated market where people are at significant risk of big losses due to crime, fraud, etc is one that will not attract nearly as much capital. Less investment capital means less growth and a poorer society.

As proof that regulation is valuable, look at all of the foreign companies that list on the US's highly regulated markets. They are willing to meet US transparency and accountability standards because that's how they get lots of cheap capital. In other words, the marketplace of marketplaces proves the value of highly regulated public markets.
If guilty, it's a joke that they only have to pay a penalty instead of going to jail. It means it's rational for everyone to try insider trading at least once, knowing that if you fail the worst that can hapepn is you lose your profits.
I bet Coca Cola and Pepsi deeply fear tobacco style lawsuits.

If you think tobacco-caused disease is expensive to treat, wait until you see diabetes and obesity.

They’ve reduced the sugar of the Canadian version of coke (used to have more than US formulation). Bottles are all getting smaller (591 to 500) and smaller options than 355mL.

And the obvious push toward low/no-sugar options.
Geometry of abstract learned knowledge in the hippocampus
DNSCloak still works with Private Cloud.
This discussion is starting to make me think that the industry needs benchmarks that take into account modern hardware behavior better, somehow. The only benchmarking I've done is on deployed software for comparative performance tuning, determining if a given change runs faster or slower as deployed. I've long been a skeptic of benchmarks that try to test across heterogenous systems. My dad, who was a systems programmer, helped teach me how benchmarks could be deceptive.
So what was their mistake? Not including any US senators?
Covered in Matt Levine today and highlights some details:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-16/don-t-...

Such as:

Shortly after seeing the screenshot of Wylam’s account on July 28, Brown called Wylam on the telephone. During the call, Wylam explained how he made such large profits purchasing Infinera put options before the July 27 announcement. Brown “flipped out” because, in his view, the massive size of Wylam’s trades and profits raised an “obvious red flag.”
> Brown ... repeatedly tipped ... to his best friend Wylam ... Wylam ... traded on this information and also tipped Sood .. Sood traded on this information and tipped his three friends also illegally traded on the information.

(edited for brevity)

So it sounds like Brown texted his bestie something he shouldn't have. Bestie then passed it on to people who made lot of money on it. The SEC, through some combination of SQL select statements and creative greps managed to nab the bigger idiots and follow them back to the source. Everyone who obviously violated the law by trading on info they shouldn't have has settled and the SEC is still trying to nail Brown.

Since Brown didn't trade I fail to see where he violated the law. Contractual obligations with his employer maybe. Regulatory requirements maybe. But you generally need to trade or have reason to suspect that someone will trade in order to insider trade.

Edit: by "the law" I mean the subsection of 10b that the SEC release implies the whole crew violated. Not some unrelated regulatory law.
A while back I did some looking at FreeBSD jails to try to figure out why they don't have more mindshare (especially when paired with the nigh-superpower-granting ZFS).

I came away baffled that they weren't more widely-promoted, compared with Docker and friends. After thinking about it for a while, all I can figure is they're so straightforward to use and well-documented that there's no room to make one's name, or to make a buck, re-packaging them or wrapping them in complex tools, so there's little money or glory (= personal marketing via open-source project leadership/contributions) in promoting them.

[EDIT] that is: what would be a blog post in LXC/Docker land... doesn't exist, because it's covered perfectly well in the docs. What would be a simple open-source tool... becomes a blog post, because it's short, simple, and clear enough not to merit special software, but just a quick guide to existing tools. What would be a business, becomes a simple open-source tool without enough of a difficulty/convenience "moat" to support a business.
Hypotheses are falsifiable.
I don't think the parent was saying that firing lines were ineffective - indeed, like you say, if they were actually ineffective, people back then would've stopped using them. Rather, the parent was comparing the changing nature of warfare, such that we see field armies today as being eternal in warfare, but just like firing lines, they too will be replaced by new tactics. It doesn't mean that field armies don't work currently, just that they won't work in the future.
When a Twitter war gets respectful?
Agreed that it sucks when a few bad actors create the need for general restrictions. But that's certainly the case for why we have airport security. Or, in fact any security - anywhere. I look forward to living in your world where either everyone acts well, or we all just tolerate the minor inconvenience of the "bad actors" running wild.
Better for whom?

Psychologically healthy people aren't going to work factory jobs for 30 years to pay off a single house. You'd have to be demented and most people today are.
There could be a confounding variable that led to massive demand for sugar water, of which Buffett was only capitalizing on, not necessarily contributing to.

> In part, the shift from using sucrose to HFCS was encouraged by extensive government subsidies of corn farmers, with a majority of U.S. farm policies focused on promoting increased production of inexpensive corn. One study showed that as a result of such subsidies, the consumer price of corn (and its byproducts) remained approximately 25%–30% below cost (of production) between 1997 and 2005 (19). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746720/

> As nutrition debates raged in the 1960s, prominent Harvard nutritionists published two reviews in a top medical journal downplaying the role of sugar in coronary heart disease. Newly unearthed documents reveal what they didn’t say: A sugar industry trade group initiated and paid for the studies, examined drafts, and laid out a clear objective to protect sugar’s reputation in the public eye.
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/12/sugar-industry-harvard-r...
Tor has reputation problems. Lots of services block tor exit nodes because of all the abuse that comes from them.

By making it a feature for paying subscribers only, Apple probably hopes that their solution won't be interesting for criminals. (Apple will likely cooperate with law enforcement)
Got it. We need properly-placed editors to govern the flow of information, to ensure the well-being of the Rich and Powerful.
I'm doing the opposite. Saying that the fed is actively engaging in illegal search and seizure is not ignoring the whistleblowers that brought the scope of the issue to light, it's acknowledging the issue.
> At the most basic level, some entity is making statements about their financials (like “we have X in reserves”) and nobody can check this

This is not a problem unique to stablecoin providers. Every company with a large number of stakeholders (e.g. public companies, bond issuers, companies that manage assets on behalf of their clients, etc.) faces the same problem.

The traditional solution to this is to have a widely-trusted third party, like a big four CPA firm, examine the company's books and operations and provide an audit. It's still possible to defraud auditors (there used to be a "big five CPA firms" before Enron blew up and brought down Arthur Andersen, and more recently Wirecard made EY look pretty bad), but it's a lot harder than defrauding people who don't get a detailed look at your operations. The reason to go with a big four accounting firm is that the firm's reputation with the public is substantially more valuable than any particular client relationship.
That may be true but things are very very unpredictable right now (and will be for a while).

People are not willing (apparently) to give up a sure-thing like high-paying fulfillment work or enhanced unemployment benefits in exchange for an unstable position like making $2/hr and hoping patrons throw money at them.

Restaurants have to pay $15-$20 an hour to have a consistent and reliable workforce in the current market.
Since the ship is believed to be near the mouth of a river, that would imply that some sailors survived the trip and navigated to a source of fresh water.
If tether breaks, it will not just create negative sentiment, but cause a liquidity crunch since the major providers of liquidity are presumably the one that also hold a lot of tether. This combo could easily crater prices as more and more sellers compete for buyers by dropping prices.
Is there somewhere that I could read more about the analytics used to catch insider trading?
'Smart Speaker' is such a misnomer, which is why I don't have one.
What burnout means, and what bosses and employees can do about it
The full context in the press release is:

> The SEC’s complaint alleges that Wylam, a high school teacher and bookmaker, traded on this information and also tipped Naveen Sood, who owed Wylam a six-figure gambling debt. Sood allegedly traded on this information and tipped his three friends Marcus Bannon, Matthew Rauch, and Naresh Ramaiya, each of whom also illegally traded on the information.

In order to make an insider trading case against people who are several degrees out, they have to show how non-public information flowed to them. Establishing that Wylam is a bookmaker and Sood is a client of his is an important part of this. Maybe the "high school teacher" part isn't particularly relevant, but if you cut it, it would sound like he was a full-time bookmaker, which isn't the case.
When I saw the OAuth 1a, I cringed and audibly said "Oh no!"

I have to deal with OAuth 1a to make API calls to Jira and other Atlassian products. Hooray for whoever came up with OAuth 2 and did away with the requirement for the client to do cryptographic operations.

Surprisingly enough, OAuth 1a was the easy part for article author. May God have mercy on his soul.
I'm having this issue a bit with my wife. I want my 9-yr old daughter to go to the playground a couple blocks away on her own; my wife is reluctant.

My argument is that it's statistically very safe, especially in our neighborhood, and that we and her older brothers all did similar things. Her argument is that a girl needs to be more cautious than a boy, and that although she knows it's unlikely anything bad would happen, it would destroy us if it did.

We're planning to compromise by letting her do it, but only after we get her her first phone.
>White collar crimes are barely punished - what a joke.

and not punished at all if you're a politician
This is the same reasoning behind TOR's security.

TOR is a well known, publicly available communications platform funded by the US government and a large portion of its security comes from the volume of data it generates as any given time.
The 3 “U”s of DeFi Ubiquity – Mapping the Road to Mainstream Adoption of DeFi
> In parallel proceedings, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California today announced related criminal charges against Brown, Wylam, and Sood.

Press F to pay respects
Latency, Throughput, and Walking on Escalators
> I have spoken to young people who tell me they are terrified to tweet anything

This is the proper response. I'm not sure why anyone is on Twitter. And if you are, you definitely shouldn't be using your real name.

The upside is de minimis, and the downside of a misconstrued opinion or a bad joke is "your life is basically ruined." Maybe not today or tomorrow -- maybe it'll happen 10 years from now when the Overton window shifts again.

People should be afraid of these platforms.
> So now we have drones, and all those incredibly expensive fighter planes are useless.

Not useless. The idea seem to be that fighter planes will become something like a command center for the drone swarm. There is value in having a human on site, to take quick decisions for instance, and links to drones can be jammed.

And if you look at the F-35 program, you'll see hints that it is the way we are going. It is a stealth fighter with a heavy emphasis on communication systems. Perfect for managing a fleet of drones. Ok, the execution is far from perfect, but that's another debate.

In the end, it is not entirely unlike the current situation. The difference is that these drones blow themselves up on arrival and are called missiles.

Oh, and swarms of drones won't be cheap, that's the army we are talking about. "Predator" style drones are multi-million dollar machines. A small missile like the Hellfire costs around $100k apiece. Forget your idea of a swarm of hobby quadcopters.
I avoid writing automated tests that hit an external API - especially one out of my control - because I don't want my CI runs to ever fail because someone else's service wasn't responding. I want CI to be a completely closed box, such that any failures mean there's a bug in my code.

If I want to test external APIs I'll do that in a separate set of integration tests which are run as part of a separate system, not as part of my CI for every code commit to my repo.

I mostly use Python, and the APIs I talk to are mostly accessed via the requests or httpx libraries - both of which have excellent libraries for productive mocking:

- https://requests-mock.readthedocs.io/en/latest/pytest.html

- https://github.com/Colin-b/pytest_httpx
I am not disputing the CIA did ethically wrong operations. I dispute the motivations were entirely "business interests". I also allege the OP is extremely one sided and has an agenda to smear the whole American nation, including its people, and including its current government. And muddying the distinctions towards much more authoritarian governments.

I also gave the example of the Taliban. Cuba is another good example of a situation entirely without legitimate governments to overthrow.

Juan Bosch was not overthrown by the CIA, btw, whereas the murder of Trujillo, an actual dictator of the Dominican Dictator, probably had been done with CIA help.

I also don't see "nationalization" as such an ethically blameless thing. It's essentially stealing, from some point of view. To not see it that way - without sounding like a marxist idiot - requires careful analysis how the property situation came to be and how it is to be changed. Just taking back the oil rigs you sold a few years ago to an US company can't really be the answer.
It's kind of a pet peeve of mine around technical debt. Some programmers and places I've worked get it wrong, so I refer people to Ward Cunningham's explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqeJFYwnkjE
How to Design a Web Crawler
Blog post on a high level system design.
Families Fight Schools for the Special Education Covid Shut Down
This is so absurd. Does anyone seriously think that these companies would get away with advertising to you in your sleep without your consent? Even if it's opt-in, what possible reason would they use justify it that would get people to give their consent? If they have a good enough reason to get people to sing on, who cares?

This just seems like academic mania fueled by media-driven mistrust of BigTech and has no basis in the reality of business-customer relationships
120 thousand node_modules (3.4 gigabytes worth), including 34 versions of lodash mostly.
Same, I thought it was a GitHub project. There are often links to GitHub pages on HN and I don't think they generally have the "GitHub" prefix. It's not relevant anyway where the code is hosted.
Similarly to cigarettes, they need to show diabetics with amputated legs and blind ones. People always think diabetes is a benign condition, which is easy to manage. But tell them that many scientists call it "accelerated aging" today or that it can lead to cancer, and they will take it more seriously.