skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes. If you extract keys, you win the game.

I think their best answer is a sort of blacklist system where if Intel becomes aware one of their key has leaked, their servers could stop telling people it is genuine (this gets into the details of EPID and DCAP that I really don't want to clutter my memory with, so my retelling may be less accurate there)

To prevent the idea with fake certificates, I think you "simply" pin some Intel root certs in your enclave. Do TLS with those, verify the "TCB" cert chain with them too. Then the VM either lets you run on a real CPU and cannot poke your encrypted memory, or it emulates you and this is back to the previous scenario (it owns you locally, but remote attestation fails)

The whole thing that makes SGX interesting and not a boring traditional HSM is remote attestation for secret provisioning, sealing of secrets, etc. This means you in theory run workloads on someone else's computer without having to trust it.
If your secrets are already on the attacker-controlled VM and you only verify things locally, this is useless. Nothing can save you, the VM already owns your entire environment.
Maybe you've hit on what the real problem is - using algorithms to enhance the spread of things. Maybe have a damper algorithm to counter the escalatory ones that succeed too well.
I love i3wm and am continually surprised that they never integrated the gaps fork.

Does anyone know of a good tiling wm for Mac?
I think we have to tolerate a certain amount of irrationality from shareholders.

If you bought a $100k home which then dipped to $80k during Covid, would you accept an unsolicited bid of $90k?

It's reasonable for some people to take the bid, since you could arguably buy another comparable house for $80k and pocket the $10k difference, but I think a lot of other people would reasonably choose not to.

(I'm not totally sure if this logic scales to board rooms / billions of dollars, but curious to hear thoughts.)
As a conservative I’m not even a big believer in the perfectability of man. I just find it funny that people are copping to being the latest generation of John Ashcroft throwing curtains over naked statues.
It uses the mmap, sbrk or brk system calls. All perfectly callable from C.
Hello,

We've suspended your Twitter account for violating Twitter's rules against attempted hostile takeovers of Twitter.

Your account will remain suspended until you withdraw your bid to purchase a majority stake in Twitter. After you withdraw your bid, your account will remain suspended for a period of 1 week. Further attempts to interfere with the ownership or policies of Twitter will result in permanent suspension.
It's funny how many people think that means it'll go back up. Twitter's stock has been sideways or down most of the time. It was $69 back in 2014.
I had always imagined it as wire rims, where even if the lenses are unbroken you could get a bit of a gouge or a cut from the wire around the nosepiece.

Anyhow, it turns out that I may have heard an exaggerated version of it. This version merely has it as a bruise: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Traders_Tales/NyeVNsWvJ...
Maybe you’re seeing a benefit as a detriment.

If you wanted a job coding, and you can currently read code, i think you could do a passable job if you were working at it for 8 hours a day.

In this way, the interviewer is expanding their talent pool.
technically possible, yes. but what do you think people would use it for and what problem would it solve?

how could it be abused by trolls? both local and nation state funded?
Freenet was also slightly slower than molasses in Antarctica. You had to really want to post there. The product of a messageboard is roughly:

sum[user_i in users](opinion(user_i)•engagement(user_i))

It's the second factor that causes all of the problems. But much like fast-food companies get a large fraction of their revenue from a small fraction of their customers, social media companies have trouble disempowering highly engaged users when functioning as a profit-oriented business.

It's interesting to consider what would happen with a "less moderated" messageboard where an individual's daily engagement is capped (supposing you solve the multiple account problem). It doesn't seem likely that we'll see that any time soon, though.
Maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog_Design ?

Also being different ?
> Is it putting forth that local governments shouldn't be controlled by the people who are local

It's obviously the case that local voters do not get "unchecked authority" over their local government. They can't vote to say that black people aren't allowed to live there, they can't vote to build an unregulated chemical factory, etc. The proposition that local voters should be allowed total control over zoning is defensible, but it's not a given.
Convicted them of what? Or maybe you don't care?
I interpreted squid game as an analogy for real life. If you staying alive depends on money which depends on having a job, then algorithmic interviews are a mild squid game after all.
Quanta Magazine has been hitting it out of the park recently in maths, science, and compsci reporting.
ah interesting that this axiom is that old and it certainly rings true. boring stacks are still in heavy demand.
Absolutely, I'm not saying it's something everyone should go through - I'm just saying that because we can afford to do it we're trying to keep from adding more problems to the pandemic.
Well, less effective on some measure is not the same as less effective as preventing death, and I'm not sure how much less effective it is, actually.
mmap, brk, sbrk are standard POSIX system calls.
I’m assuming based on gp everyone merges into master, no one reviews each other commits. Very uh.. mature

Btw trunk based in general can still have short lived branches and prs. That’s what most public projects on github are doing
Yes, this is what I (thought) I was saying, but you seem to have expressed it more clearly. Thanks.

However, the fallacy I’m referring to is related to how they report on these things, usually saying something like “the price of the materials went up, therefore the price to the consumer will also go up (by some corresponding amount)”. In reality, the price will only go up if the seller thinks the consumer will pay it. It makes one wonder if this type of article is a move by the company to preemptively plant the justification for the price increase in the public consciousness.
> Bing/DDG whatever, that's an odd thing to nitpick

Actually, it serves as an easy way to display how little your claim resembles reality, because it underlines how zero of what you wrote is correct.

> I'm not sure who is accusing whom of what

Have you considered reading the thread you’re commenting in and not wasting the time of others?

> I'm not really sure what your goal is here.

If you want to claim that it’s cultural appropriation then the definition matters. If the definition doesn’t matter then neither does the claim, and it would serve only as one more meaningless pejorative in the service of ad hominem that does nothing to advance the conversation. Which, as far as I can tell, is the whole purpose of “cultural appropriation” as a concept.
You deleted your very recent submission, which I thought was more engagable. You said something along the lines of society being driven by fear, easily goaded into excitement & exacerbated. I wish to talk to that post, which you deleted.

I agree there's a lot of excitement & exacerbation that bringing the world online comes with.

But all in all, I see it mostly as a harmless outgassing. Actual effect is accumulated to things that matter. I think the fear uncertainty & doubt that posts like this try to shade the new connected world with- I think they gin up & overstate the dangers. There will be tons of outgassing, a lot of disdain, as we move towards a world where more is revealed, where we are connected to a lot of outrages & concerns, but I think the real concerns shine through, that the fear of this storm is vastly vastly vastly vastly overrated, is nothing.

Focusing too much on the momentary & the transient responses, & not attending to the higher level responses, the things that endure- it's a huge sad ongoing mistake we make. We cover what feels like it has a big impact based on the current moment of pop-culture, but in fact, if we took a slightly bigger view of what was happening, we could much more gracefully admit the blips & temporary rough patches & see & understand that in fact we were becoming radically better at Democracy on a medium scale, that we were calibrating to what we care about very well.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/pentagon-report-warns-...
I think cost is the main difference.
That's one reason why most TrustZone implementations are broken: usually the OS has control over all this clocking stuff. It's also one way the Tegra X1 (Switch SoC)'s last remaining secrets were recently extracted.

It's also how I pulled the keys out of the Wii U main CPU (reset glitch performed from the ARM core). Heh, that was almost a decade ago now.

That's why Apple uses a dedicated SEP instead of trying to play games with trust boundaries in the main CPU. That way, they can engineer it with healthy operating margins and include environmental monitors so that if you try to mess with the power rails or clock, it locks itself out. I believe Microsoft is doing similar stuff with Xbox silicon.

Of course, all that breaks down once you're trying to secure the main CPU a la SGX. At that point the best you can do is move all this power stuff into the trust domain of the CPU manufacturer. Apple have largely done this with the M1s too; I've yet to find a way to put the main cores out of their operating envelope, though I don't think it's quite up to security standards there yet (but Apple aren't really selling something like SGX either).
Remember how mad everyone got when George W. Bush said, "You are either with us, or with the terrorists"?
What would you say you do here?
Sure the specific titles might be slightly unique to any given company. "Software Engineer for iCloud" or whatever. But these really are generalist software engineering roles.

There are hundreds of thousands of US workers that can fill these generalist roles. It's not as if Apple is trying to hire US workers, failing, and then resorting to the H-1B program as they're supposed to. They use the H-1B to increase their labor pool and lower costs. That's the scam.
Agree completely.

Also, good commenting skills take years to master.
For sure. Traders are (or at least were) a special breed. It was mostly young white men, a lot of them with quick reaction times and poor impulse control. The job required outsized self-confidence, and then rewarded it with a lot of money, which often turned into fast living. I worked with some who were pretty decent people, but the median trader on the floor then was an arrogant, braying jackass.
In my jobs I am reading other peoples code most of the time. Maybe a consequence of small company/team “jack of all trades” culture and also there are more “not mes” than “mes” contributing to the code base. Hell someone doesn’t even need to be currently employed there for them to have the pleasure of me reading their code (or maybe my pleasure!)
I don't code to in C++ anymore. Did a long time ago. I'm looking for careful programmers around security and API design. This is nothing to do with performance tuning. It's to do with security.
To be fair, I think the counterargument is that ostensible experts can overstate their ability/skill/knowledge to detrimental effect just as easily, and by virtue of the label ignore the reality of the argument/scenario at hand. That is, experts can overlook mistakes they're making, or conflicts of interest, etc because of their status, and because they overestimate their own ability. There's been studies of this in group decision making in crisis situations, where hierarchies can cause failures because the "leader" becomes overconfident and fails to heed warnings by others in the group.

This all gets really murky quickly in practice because of what "low" and "high" competence means, and what constitutes the actual scope of expertise with reference to a particular scenario.
They have a privacy policy, and if they don't follow it then they could be liable for it.

Their use of cookies is fairly easy to inspect, although that doesn't prove they aren't doing fingerprinting or ip tracking.
I finally have a really good therapist, yeah. On some other thread recently someone described therapy as a 100x profession which feels true. I worry I'm a challenging, stubborn client but I'll "get there" eventually I think

Talking about it with intimate partners or close friends is hardest, total strangers I'll never see again is easier. I don't want to be coddled in a relationship and I get icked out when people seem fascinated by it or admire me knowing I went through this stuff. There's also no way to ease into it, it's too abruptly concerning if I'm honest about it, it's like someone says "oh I had this challenge growing up" and wants me to mirror them emotionally and I don't have any true stories that are mild enough for that early level of intimacy? And given how normal I seem, if I do get honest, I worry it seems like I'm lying

In my case my sibling was spared the bad experiences, wasn't present for the worst part, and has some issues that would prevent them offering emotional support. I think I also still resent them for having been spared these bad experiences, even though I know they're not to blame for that. I was sorta scapegoated

I'm definitely "is what it is" about it in some ways, yeah, no desire to confront anyone or get any kind of resolution, it just left me with a lot problems not relating to other people or trusting them easily, and disliking myself

Thanks for your comment. I really do need to find a way to feel less alone about it
Today's java killer is tomorrow's bad practice
The way to evaluate a fact checker isn't via an ideology measurement, it's via an examination of their work.

This bias thing feels like a dangerous precedent. I get not wanting kooks to exert strong cultural pressure, but if we start locking people out of various parts of society because of their beliefs, that sounds like the definition of illiberalism to me.
No, they are addressing two different things. The second half addresses the parent assertion that he did it simply out of spite over whose cave rescue solution worked out first.
There are plenty of unmoderated corners of the internet; always have been, always will be. They were fun when the internet started out and when the financial incentive to spam the everloving shit out of them was low, but that's not really the case anymore.

You can't go back home.
I used to recommend heads instead of tails but now I can't do that anymore seeing as the latest update to their git repos was way back in march 2019.

It needs an update desperately, but I think it's abandonware at this point.
It was true for my working class family.
That's how it works at most tech companies that run this scam, which is most tech companies. The point is that FAANG companies should have a tiny number of H-1Bs if they were following the law. Instead, they have the most H-1Bs.

And instead of getting in legal trouble for fraud like this company, they're protected by their size, legal teams, lobbyists, and money. It's only H-1B fraud if you're doing it at a relatively small scale.
Large companies actually do keep individual master keys per user. Think of it this way, what's an extra 256 bits (32 bytes) stored for every user in a system when their name and email address probably exceeds 32 bytes already?

Master keys encrypt the records of a user-key database where user keys are stored. User keys protect unique wrapped keys that are randomly generated at time of encryption (perhaps this is where your logistical argument arose) for individual pieces of data.

This is commonly implemented as an encryption service that will encrypt/decrypt blobs of data for services on behalf of a particular user via RPC; the cryptographic keys are never present in normal service code or standard servers and only within the encryption service (which may be an HSA) so there's a much smaller domain to secure. Common ACLs protect calls to the encryption service per user, like they protect access to storage and other resources. Obviously for bulk data encryption this is less tenable so services handling bulk data (many GB) get extra protection and direct access to unwrapped user keys, but must be responsible for respecting privacy/security ACLs internally.
The rest are bots.
There seems to be some misfiring because rate of likes isn't high (~1 like in 100 impressions), but based on the people that like the promoted post it is 100% without exception accurate. So, at the least, it is reaching the right people. I know because there are currently 500+ likes and I've visited every single profile and tried to engage with them. Audience is just developers.

I must say, it has been a very positive ad experience – receive compliments, 10% retweets, and had several long form conversations with strangers on Twitter messages. Really fun.
What is an uncensored search engine then?

If I search for something, and the search engine does not tell me about things which ARE there, then that is a defective search engine.

It's fine to keep kids from getting ahold of any sharp objects but if I need a knife I need a knife and it's ridiculous for anyone else to decide to lie to me about the existence of knives.

We are doing the Chinese firewall to ourselves just a bit slower.
I’ve got more:

I think one way to iterate on this to weed out guys like me would be to ask process based questions that reveal the candidates experience and preferences:

“Brainstorm with us on how you would you make this messyFunction more performant given $these conditions”

“We are thinking of developing a feature that would call this function more often. Would you turn this into a micro service?”

“Looking at this db call, how do you see this scaling if we increase the number of x and y?”

“Is the following PR safe or sane?”
I can't do quite a few git commands off my memory either, in spite of working for years.
You have to work very poorly to get these types of errors.
Yeah, I think Elon is going to demand this (and as a 9% shareholder himself, is likely to get it)
China's response actually looks terrible on the world stage. I didn't see any other countries welding people into their apartments as a drastic overreaction.
I'm an avid hater of systemd, but I've come around to kind of just accept that it'll never go away. It is a shame, but I think it's "won".
> it might a bit because your building might increase the value of properties nearby, but that's generally a pretty weak effect so it would have a small impact on your taxes

That sounds like a fantastic way for a developer to force out all of "the poors" around them by developing an area and making the value of their land skyrocket. Since they cant hold it they have to sell which kicks them out of their home for less than what their property would be worth.

Might work fine for NYC where no one actually owns anything. Sounds like a hard deal for a majority of the country where people can conceivably own land.
I didn't critique the idea of Rust in linux, I am critiquing the attitude of the rust fellow asking for support of importing generic crates into kernel code and thus adding dependencies (that is, the point of the article).
I want to spew curse words, because, from what I have been able to comprehend, all the web crypto systems contravene what you & I seem to agree is a moral, logical goal. All are design to give the host site access to security keys, & to insure the user-agent/browser has the fewest rights possible. We have secure cryptography, but only as long as it's out of the user-agent/client's control.

We've literally built a new web crypto platform where we favor 100% the vile fucking cloud fuckers for all computation rather than the client, which seems as fucked up horseshit backwards trash city dystopia as could be possible. Everything is backwards & terrible.

That said, we 100% cannot trust most user-agent sessions, which are infected with vast vast spyware systems. The web is so toxic about data sharing that we have to assume the client is the most toxic agent, & make just the host/server responsible. This is just epically fucking fucked up wrong, & pushes us completely backwards from what a respectable security paradigm should be.
Large companies can and often do afford sizeable percentage of workforce making zero to negative contributions. This would be devastating for a small team with a finite runway
Love 'em. Jannah is under your mother's feet
I experience this so often that I try to intentionally write software the first time with as little architecture as possible, so that there's less to strip out when the "correct" architecture becomes clear. Just leave everything as a big bag of functions and mostly-unstructured values passed on the stack, until it's working. Then figure out what abstractions might help make the code more expressive.
Skipping pr’s is not equal to skipping code review.

If you pair, there’s two sets of eyes, to commit both pairs have to sign a commit. You can also organise a demo/quick mob session before commit. Then there’s a level of trust in your teammates.

PR’s are great for open source projects as act as gatekeeper so not everyone can commit freely. If you need to gate keep your team members then I’d question the strength of your team.

The best teams I worked on who delivered working code fast, efficiently even when they are some of the most complex projects I worked on committed straight to trunk, had a very good build pipeline (super import) and worked closely together for review. The standards where extremely high yet the general feeling was it was less dogmatic, micromanaged or kept behind a gatekeeper.

The projects I’ve worked on with dogmatic pr’s generally failed to deliver anything in any amount of reasonable time. The prs where dogmatic as more junior teams get caught up in superficial things such as names, package structure, syntax preferences rather than what the pr actually does.
And this course of events is certain why? Because you've stated so?
For people looking for the HN discussion on the above-linked blog post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30916192
Tax payers didn't have a choice!
No, they have to do those things indirectly via HOAs and property values.

The main real problem is FYIGM, which means that in a local area with all land used there's no incentive for those living there to vote to change how it is.
I would most of all hope it would solve the problem of people asking such questions, by making them perfectly moot. Folks would be forced to settle for wistful speculation about what the world might have been had the thing not been created.
> It seems like you’re assuming farmers don’t get taxed on land. According to a brief Google search, “Nationally, 1.9 million farms paid $9.4 billion in property taxes.”

So, for all of the farm land we average to ~5k/farmer? It sounds like what is being discussed in this thread is a tax that would be debilitating to the land speculation market. 5k would not prevent a speculator from holding a plot of land.
> The charge will be disorderly conduct, or negligent homicide, or some other charge

This…seems like splitting hairs in a way to me.

It seems like a pretty clear acknowledgment that, in certain contexts, speech can be criminal.

After all, in those various charges it won’t be a free speech case because it’s settled law that speech in those particular contexts can result in a criminal charge.

So, I agree that the infamous line from Schenck (which was dicta already) is not good law. On the other hand, there is a kernel of truth that certain speech, in certain contexts, can be illegal and result in criminal charges.
That's Mark Twain. Here's the quote:

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.