skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Isn't this an argument against putting any personal information into any app? Signal could turn malevolent tomorrow and start sending all your chats to their servers, which could have life-threatening implications for people vs just potentially being embarrassing.
This appears to be more limited than what CBMC[1] (the C Bounded Model Checker) can do. CBMC can do function contracts. CBMC can prove memory safety and even the absence of memory leaks for non-trivial code bases that pass pointers all over the place that must eventually be freed. Applying all the annotations to make this happen though is like 10x the work of getting the program actually running in the first place. CBMC definitely makes C safer than even safe Rust for projects that can invest the time to use it. There is an experimental Rust front end to CBMC called Kani[2] that aims to verify unsafe Rust (thus making unsafe Rust become safe) but it is far from the speed and robustness of the C front end.

[1] https://github.com/diffblue/cbmc

[2] https://github.com/model-checking/kani
> usually privacy products

Could you offer examples? Straight-up curious.
Thread Hijacking: Phishes That Prey on Your Curiosity
The barcode in the article decodes to "JGB S11221017031011395940006622112101 BC046285E760466C01" if anyone fancies having a crack at making a stamp keygen.
No, parent means "going public [about their polyamorous relationship]".
Besides books: ecstasy gave me the real experience being more empathy to other people.
just spam click... autowin.
The difference between this situation is that you still committed an action, compared to simply being acted on.

A better analogy would be like if you were a bank holding peoples' money. Armed assailants break into the money and take it. Is the bank liable because it did not have adequate defenses for the attack?

But the bank situation is easy to solve because it's money and money is fungible, so you solve it with insurance.

Leaked data can't be revoked and it's hard to quantify.

If you make the policy wrong, you essentially end up punishing a victim party (the end users are victims, but the firm that was attacked is also a victim).
Isn't that what the CCPA and other laws are trying to do? https://www.burr.com/newsroom/articles/summary-and-compariso... is an outline of some of the US efforts.
Because there's not enough demand to justify the regulatory headache for most types of international payments, unless you have the added benefit of interacting with DeFi protocols during a massive shitcoin bubble.
> Let us ask the question: Is there anything inherently unsafe about multiple (even mutable) references to an object?

Yes. The ability to mutate an object necessarily implies the ability to mutate the state of an object to break guarantees. While there are definitely patterns where multiple mutable references to the same object can be safe, it is not inherently safe, and proving safety is far more challenging because you can't as easily rely on pre/postconditions for lemmas.

The particular case that makes the utility of a one-mutable-xor-many-read-only model clear is something I trip over surprisingly frequently in C/C++:

// Getting a value gets a pointer to somewhere in the hashtable...
Value &V = hash_table[key];
// This may cause the hash table to grow, thereby invalidating said pointer...
hash_table.insert(key2, value2);
// ... and now I used it!
V = meow;

Sure, in a three-line function, it's kind of obvious (if you know to be aware of this possibility!), but in a function where the pointer and the use are separated by hundreds of lines of code, it's easy to miss that there is a requirement that the hash table not be resized between the two calls. With Rust, the fact that &mut for V means that I can't touch the hash table until I'm finished with V makes it a compiler error.

Yeah, there are times when Rust's rule here pisses me off and feels too finicky, but it's also saved my butt several times. And quite frankly, a lot of the finicky can be worked around by building some solid container libraries to handle the cases where you can guarantee the safety with higher-level abstractions (say append-only data structures).

More to the crux of the article however, I'm not generally impressed with automated theorem proving as a solution to safety. Already from the meat of the article, it seems that this solution is setting you up for using a complex language to specify the interface, which immediately begs the question of how you can be sure the interface is correctly specified.
Right. It's yet another "C with annotations". Been there, done that, as have many others.

The fundamental problem with fixing C/C++ is that you have to take stuff out of the language to make it safer. That's not going to happen.

The trouble with going to Rust is that the language is so different from C/C++ that conversion is tough, both for code and for programmers. It's not the syntax. It's the semantics of affine types. Strict single ownership requires a major rethink of program organization. The result is, arguably, better programs. But it's a wrenching change.
Interlinked data types have to be completely redesigned.

(There are people trying to fix that problem in Rust. There's "Arc::new_cyclic", which lets you have weak backlinks. Now you can find your parent in the hierarchy, which means you can do object-like things if you want to. There's also UniqueRc in development.[1] There's the theoretical possibility of proving at compile time that no .upgrade() operation on such objects will result in a failure due to two strong pointers existing at the same time.
If that could be done, the reference counts could be eliminated and Rust would have safe back-references. Nobody has figured out how to do that yet. So for now, the mismatch between C/C++ and Rust is pretty bad.)

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/90
That sounds like inertia to me: they had a ton of institutional knowledge and practice around mature designs, which kept things from going too badly when the financial engineers first started – and since nothing fell from the sky, clearly that meant they had earned those bonuses and should go further!
My dad worked at SRI for over thirty years and my mom also worked there. Money has always been an issue at SRI. You always had to be on the lookout for the next contract. If some company or part of the government wasn't paying for your work, there was always the chance that you would get laid off. On the other hand, my dad got to work on a lot of different projects over the years, from growing silicon crystals, to working on holograms, laser range finders, and a laser chemical weapons detector (deployed during the Iraq war), something called the Spindt cathode, which I honestly don't understand, LED printing, and many other projects. I think it was a very fun place to work, but also quite stressful. You always needed to be ready to switch to something new if the money started running out. It doesn't sound all that different from the way it is today.

The employee open house was really neat, with different labs showing off whatever they were working on, from early noise canceling tech, to computers with color screens, cell counters, you name it. I know we visited "Doug's Lab" but I have no idea what we saw there. As any aspiring nerd, I was quite impressed that my dad and him were on a first name basis.
A nonconformance is generally a physical thing. For instance a part my be out of tolerance or have have damage that makes it nonconforming.

A noncompliance is generally referring to procedures. For instance not documenting a step in a quality review or not following the assembly procedures for a door plug and ending up with some extra bolts.
I wish mine still was. I'm a filthy landscaper and all the print on my cards inevitably wear off.
See the Non-Violent Communication books.

They also have classes all over. Check their website.
well, i think it is or was more than duty. it was necessity because your children were there to take care of you in old age. (and i have seen that in action with the great grandfather of my kids)

and there is also a sense of purpose. with the same conviction that young people work to provide for their family, which is something they learn to do because everyone else is doing it, grandparents simply see their purpose as taking care of their grandkids. i think that's much more than just duty. its their reason to live.

this is in part demonstrated by the distraught reactions by the hopeful grandparents when there are no grandchildren coming. (based on one person sharing their experience with me)
All this sound like fairytale when 50 years later same people still crossing fingers to bring vehicle in orbit, what to say for more distantly flight with men on board...
Prime Boeing juror material
Yes, your definition of "solved" is useful for nothing but obfuscation and denial. Mine is useful for planning what to do.
Congratulations on the new release!

How is the support for SVG which I can interact with? I’m thinking of something like drawing a sudoku as an SVG, then letting people click on each cell.
Boeing's MQ-28 Ghost Bat Getting Facility to Ramp-Up Production in Australia
I have some qualms with the design, specifically the fact that it seems to ignore data races, but...

> Wouldn't the safe way to write that code be to just allocate the value on the stack so it has automatic lifetime managed for you?

To be fair, there are a lot of reasons why you might not do that. One reason is that stack space is limited, so if you are allocating a large object, it would be unwise to necessarily use stack space in some cases, as you might overflow the stack, and it's hard to know if your code is overflow-prone since different platforms have different default max stack sizes. Another reason is if you don't know how much memory you might need at compile-time and thus can't use static allocations. Finally, and probably one of the main reasons, sometimes the lifetime of a memory allocation just doesn't map to a stack frame; it may malloc/free within one stack frame, or it may malloc and then get freed in a parent stack frame indeterminately. Basically, any reason you might use a smart pointer in C++ is also a reason you'd reach for dynamic allocations in C.

Sure, if you malloc(1) specifically, you know it's only one byte, and a static allocation. But clearly, that's just a contrived example, so focusing too hard on it is a little silly.

> Excepting that, why are you annotating functions, it's the pointer itself that has the use case invariant. Shouldn't the type be annotated to declare these semantics instead?

Their entire hypothesis is the idea that the boundaries between interfaces is where the unsafety occurs. The pointer itself has the invariant, but locally proving invariants like "pointer can never be freed twice" or "pointer is either freed or returned" can be done trivially using control flow analysis; the problem comes when you start calling other functions. If you add annotations and make it a compiler error to have invalid annotations, you can make it so that these invariants can extend across function boundaries without needing to recursively prove the control flow over the entire program, which would usually be infeasible due to the amount of possible code paths.

I'm not suggesting this is necessarily the best way to go FWIW, but this is also pretty similar to how, say, TypeScript adds incremental safety to JavaScript; null safety is accomplished by having not just the types but also the interface boundaries contain assertions that can be checked on both sides to avoid needing deep, recursive control flow analysis.
What does it being a speculative vehicle have to do with FTX stealing the money? These people did not lose money because their speculative investment lost value. On the contrary, it has gone up considerably in the meantime but FTX pocketed all of the gains.
Laser printers were invented at PARC, the physicists were a whole other element of what was going on there, beyond the computer work
Here is another way to avoid use after free: lint out calls to malloc/calloc/realloc/free in all but a small subset of files. Define a header with an interface with something like:

void with_bytes(size_t count, void (*cb)(void *bytes);

You also may need to write similar wrappers around dependencies that require manual freeing of resources.

Programming in this style will force you to think about the life cycle of every allocation and there are ways you can still shoot yourself in the foot. But as long as you avoid storing references in static variables, you will generally avoid memory leaks and use after free when programming in this style.

And you can just do this with any c compiler without relying on new dependencies.
That's explanation of central limit theorem in statistics. And any language is mostly statistics and models are good at statistical guessing of the next word or token.
This sounds good to me. It should not be legal to mislead consumers into thinking they are dealing with a human when they are not, whether explicitly or implicitly.
4k sectors for hard drives has been around since roughly 2010, depending on your specific drive. 512e drives are very common; if you do a write that's not 4k aligned, the drive will turn it into a read / modify / write cycle.
Closed-form continuous-time neural networks[2022]
wouldn't do much to prevent bots
> we haven't had time to really adjust emotionally.

I think we adjusted, but we just apply broader context. No one would recommend going all-in on FTX with your life savings. Likely no one involved is really poor and this affected his life strongly. People lost money for their retirement retro vehicle, it's fairly easy to adjust to that.

This not saying it's ok, but its annoyance in effects mostly or should be(I think likely there are may be people, who put too much money, but then again internet financial advisory board all appears and says: HA! Told ya not to do it!).
For reasons I don't really understand, I've never liked any of the GUI versions of Vim.

I use Vim for coding and even writing Markdown docs, the thing I like using GUI text editors for a place to dump copy/paste stuff, writing down phone numbers real quick, quick stuff I can click and copy-paste from. The console version of Vim is fine, but getting stuff to and from the system copy buffer is a bit cumbersome.
I agree. It honestly feels like these could be boiled down to about 30 “standard” options.
Anything secret cannot be considered well-known, by definition. The common impression being X is more commonly phrased as “X is well known”.
They are sourced mostly from the same population and crawled from everything can be crawled.
I am currently studying Typescript and other JavaScript libraries to improve the library’s performance. So adding GPU support is in sight in the future.
Sorry, what about that would be dumb? Attempted reuse is exactly what would be prevented by scanning the barcode and seeing it had already been used.

This is exactly why gift cards have scratch-off material covering their secret keys, otherwise folks would just take a picture of the next card in the stack, wait for it to be funded, and then use it before the recipient does.

edit: And would you look at that, you can buy stamp sheets on Amazon.co.uk, and users have helpfully submitted a bunch of photos with barcodes visible.
You're like reading my mind. Flash Boys made me question everything he ever wrote. I happen to know a great deal about HFT, and Lewis was like a proto-GPT, espousing with great confidence things that were easily verifiably false. It made me wonder if all his books were just as ill-informed and my ignorance of the subject kept me from realizing it.
You should try for a full 3D implementation of Doom! I'm sure it's been ported to JavaScript at least a dozen times.
And Zcash and others doing the same?
Yep... I think already companies have a profit incentive to not keep data they don't think will provide them value. They are keeping the data not because they are not thinking about security, but because the data is valuable to them, either to sell to a 3rd party or to better target/market to specific customers.
trying to figure out if this is a joke about stack allocations
The obvious risk was that FTX would just take their money? I would have thought the obvious risks were crypto tokens losing value. They didn't get burned by that, except in the sense that their tokens were no longer theirs while the value went way up.
or internet consortium of financial advisor will tell you: it is a bit of your own fault, you should always diversify
> which should ensure precision, at least over short distances.

why? i dont follow. transformers should provide some attention over -all- distances, no? why does layering truncate this to "short distances"?
If that's the case and if older developers are always complaining/citing ageism or leetcode startups getting them down, why don't they band together to propose an R&D lab?
From their privacy policy:
https://matter.xyz/privacy

> If we make changes to this privacy policy, we will update it here and update the effective date at the top. (We can’t email you about changes because we don’t collect everyone’s email addresses.) Changes to this policy will not apply retroactively.

Effectively they can change it any time and you probably won't know.

If they violate it, what power do you have to enforce it? Pay an attorney six figures? For what damages under what law?

Also, I'm not sure what 'retroactively' means here, legally: They have my data and change the policy; can they tomorrow use my data according to the new policy? (Not that it matters much, because I won't know about the changes anyway.)
The rest, however, will own nothing and (be forced to) be happy about it, or at least ok with it. Those margins have to come from somewhere...

Nothing as in, no house because the prices are out of reach, no stable jobs because late stage capitalism/AI/the current crisis/whatever, no good furniture (IKEA, if we're lucky), no quality goods (because enshitification), no public infrastructure (becase late stage capitalism), no healthcare (because exorbitant charges and, in countries that had it, the slow killing of public healthcare), no voice (because politicians could not give less fucks for anybody who is not a sponsor), and even our software we don't increasingly own, we just rent...

But some on HN make $250K/month and higher, so "everything is fine", it's not like there is a huge majority in the situation I describe. Why even acknowlegde the rest of the population exists, unless it's for virtue signalling about caring for the underprivileged on some status update?
This has been my thinking too. When I make any purchase I am giving everything about myself away now. A long time ago I had the idea to create an 'accountability' e-mail server/credential generator that generated emails/credentials with unique ids along with a note about what it was used for so that you could see exactly who sold your info when you saw junk mail come in. There are now ways to do this but it is still a bit manual. It would be great to have this tied in with auto opt-out and auto reporting of abusers. Of course creating a personal e-mail server now is almost impossible.
While I agree, I think autonomy to act is more relevant. If I'm dealing with a person who is only allowed to paste in some boilerplate platitudes (a al Uber and other bottom of the barrel customer service orgs) does it matter that if it's a real person or a machine?
Flagged for intentional misgendering in editorialized title.

All the best,
I was somewhat disappointed since I clicked expecting something about a swarm of vacuum cleaners.
The problem is that this gospel has been said for almost a decade now and despite, literally, billion dollars of assets that Vitalik has, and others flowing this is not happening.

Not saying that this could not happen as an hypotheses but cryptocurrency foundations are far far from business execution basic practices.

As an insider I can say that most money flows to a very small group of people and the governance is not really decentralized. For example, very few people can decide on Bitcoin and Ethereum protocol changes, and these people cannot be changed...
Do you support subqueries and joins?
The Port of Baltimore does not even have an oil handling facility, never mind the fact it could not admit a VLCC even if it had cause to.

Even ports on the US Gulf Coast do not generally have the capability to dock VLCCs.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36232

If Baltimore had been anticipating VLCC traffic in the 70s, then presumably the bridge would have been built accordingly and this incident would not have led to a collapse.
Even aside from business incentives, there are plenty of people in the workplace who act cruelly due to prejudices, perceived threat, spite/vengeance, a need for control, perceived threat, general emotional unhealthiness, or just plain old personality disorders. Some end up as managers.
By far my biggest takeaway from skimming the first ~10-15 paragraphs is that there is significantly too much jargon in the crypto space.
I like to see progress with multiple languages in the space. Julia, R, etc. It does seem though, that python really has a big and commanding lead. So much so that mojo is betting their business on it.
Any more details on how exactly that works? I've always associated plasmas with a buzzing noise but is that because they all vibrate?
And here is an interesting conversation when Binbin came to the Kvrocks community: https://github.com/apache/kvrocks/pull/1581#issuecomment-163...

* Me: @enjoy-binbin Out of curiosity, do you have a fuzzer to test out Kvrocks? Your recent great fixes seem like a combo rather than random findings :D

* Binbin: They were actually random findings.I may be sensitive to this, doing code review and found them (also based on my familiarity with redis)
The bing AI reference in the promo video is a bit misleading with the "3D rendered..." prompt while Babylon.js is I guess only used for the subtle waiting animations.
I'm confused by your use of the word incapacitation here. You don't mean incarceration?
Well they are male, that's the whole problem.
A lot of folks keep making that argument. What it sounds like you're saying is that Average Joe should really understand that crypto implicitly carries a risk of fraud and you are likely to lose your money. We should shout that from the rooftops. If you deposit BTC/whatever with someone, they are probably going to steal it. When they do, we will remind you that this was a foreseeable outcome.

I'm starting to think that these organizations need to be regulated as banks, stat.
that's the problem. not everyone has that, but we've had the same number since middle school. sms is the default. i could delete fb tomorrow.
If I had the answer to that I'd be a billionaire.
I love salacious details like everyone else, but it sounds like you're looking for data where none exists. Why would those relationships affect the company, and who is going to consent to an interview about it? What exactly are you expecting Lewis to do?
Thanks for the reply. Love your work.
What's LSP?
Remote Work Isn't the Issue–Lazy Managers Are
Think about what happened as soon as a grownup entered the room and saw their records? Real financial companies have tons of regulatory and insurance requirements for things like audits, reserves, etc. to prevent things like that from happening but the entire point of his field was “that stuff’s just slowing me down and we don’t need it!” because everyone was focused on getting rich and overrode their judgment.

It’s the next level of risk up from people who buy stocks because the price is going up without checking the fundamentals. If all you do is hang around with other people hyping the same thing, it’s really easy to focus on the “number goes up” part and not want to be the person spoiling the party by asking about value.
But then how can I make billions with targeted advertising using their metadata?
She should sue Boeing for wrongful death. If they really continued this behavior, and she doesn't sue, they got exactly what they wanted.