skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> UDP proxy doesn't sound like a great time

QUIC, in particular, is harder to proxy (if you're load balancing, say: https://quicwg.org/ops-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-manageability....).

If it is point-to-point and you control both those points (forward A to B with ports open as approp), proxying any protocol should be straightforward, no?
X is funding a lawsuit filed by Chloe Happe against her former employer, Block
Fixed monthly charge proposal: https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M528/K422/...
Those of us who can bear reading in the first place at least.
the only problem with this is that as an IC when your manager is really doing poorly and not grasping their job, its _really_ hard not to say 'dude wtf, that's just not right'. that can go pretty badly. so you really have to work hard to stay extra constructive and support them as if you were _their_ manager, without the authority that usually implies. and that's a heavy burden as an IC
"...via browser these days."

'Most people' = LCD/lowest common denominator.

If one doesn't mind grovelling around at the bottom then that's fine.
> A company created a dataset and updates it from time to time.

I suppose update frequency doesn’t matter from the perspective of just conveying how it works, but it could be updated frequently. For instance, any time a paper is published, or if the customer provided a data stream, etc.

> Ok. And what is the use case? What would be different if they did not publish the hashes on a blockchain?

The idea of blockchain is “don’t trust, verify,” right? Imagine you’re a researcher and you’re using this company’s services. Having the hashes on-chain allows you to verify the integrity of the data over time. Having it on-chain removes attack vectors associated with e.g. a standard database. Similarly, all of Vectorspace’s tooling for various services benefit from the same assurances that the data is sound. So like I said initially: data provenance.
> Having these types in the standard library is the language having those types.

It depends on whether you consider the standard library an indivisible part of the language or not. For Rust, it's clearly not the case, since you have the #![no_std] mode in which only a subset of the standard library is available, and this subset does not include these reference counted wrapper types (or any heap-allocated type at all).

> Perhaps it's not integrated to the level that a language like swift is. However, I think it's reasonable to say the language supports Rc when the standard library supports it. I'd say the same thing about C++ with `shard_ptr`.

It's one thing to say a language "supports reference counting", which only means you can use reference counting with it, and another thing to say "[...] languages with a reference-counting GC", which implies that the language uses a GC for everything, and that GC is a reference-counting GC.

> Does C have a heap? Well, technically no since malloc and free are just function calls in the standard library and you can write valid C programs without calling those functions.

It's actually the same thing: C can run on either a "hosted" environment or a "freestanding" environment, and on the later, most of the standard library is not available, including malloc and free. So C does not necessarily have a heap when running on a freestanding environment.
Ah yes, as everyone knows, "having a trillion dollars" is famously no match for "being able to code".
Real dogs.
I already felt like this was way too sophisticated for a random cybercriminal. It's not like making up fake internet identities is very difficult, but someone has pretended to be a good-faith contributor for ages, in a surprisingly long-term operation. You need some funding and a good reason to pull off something like that.

This could also be a ransomware group hoping to break into huge numbers of servers, though. Ransomware groups have been getting more sophisticated and they will already infiltrate their targets for months at a time (to make sure all old backups are useless when they strike), so I wouldn't put it past them to infiltrate the server authentication mechanism directly.
I’m saying no person who writes JWT anything should have the belief that a JWT is by any means associated with encryption. It breaks my brain, like no where in any spec are there these claims (pun)
> That was true at some point and I would agree that as long as it remained true "Why should I carry a credit card that I can't use anywhere?" would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say.

But using it as an argument against credit cards is dumb.

> People very commonly use bank accounts and checks

Yes, now they do. Used to be that most people held their wealth in gold or literal cash.

> You could say the same thing about V Bucks but that doesn't make it a real currency.

V Bucks (to my knowledge) can only be used to buy Fortnite stuff. Can I even send it to anyone I want? Guessing not. And I'm pretty sure I can't sell it on a market to anyone else either.
FWIW, I think you have this exactly backward. It’s higher incomes at the top that drive higher incomes at the bottom. Low skill workers in developed countries make more because they are part of what is essentially a labor cartel: there are certain jobs which can only be performed by, e.g., an English speaking person who understands the American cultural context and who is physically located in America. And restricted immigration and language barriers prevent competition from new entrants. So as more people are pulled into high skill, high pay work, incomes for even low skilled people go up, because their competition decreases and overall wealth in the society, ie wealth available to pay for their time, increases.
I'm curious to see how this plays out. It seems like there are a lot of lower paying jobs available and that stores are understaffed. I've also heard that the people working those types of jobs are having trouble getting enough hours. As someone who isn't very keyed in to this its hard to tell what's going on. Either way, its got to be hard to live in California on $20/hr.
If the start up is not well known and depending on where you interview, you can just change your title to Lead Engineer or something similar.

A small start up CTO is nothing like a CTO of a big successful company.
You don't need Kolmogorov complexity for this; simple hypothesis testing will do. The null hypothesis is that the coin is fair and the alternative is that it's biased. If Bob was correct, then there would simply never be any way to refute the null hypothesis of a fair coin, no matter what, since it can simply output anything at all with equal probability as anything else. In reality, that isn't how hypothesis testing works, and pretty much any standard technique (computing p-values, likelihood ratios, etc) will agree that 20 tails in a row is extremely unlikely given the null hypothesis in a way that 10 tails and 10 heads is not.
> Factor (A) asks whether the use is significant.

You're making the mistake of thinking "significant" here has some independent semantic meaning that must be read into the text. First, it doesn't; it's a descriptive label of the kinds of a "new use" that, if the Administrator determines fits the four criteria, is subject to statutory requirements. Second, A says nothing about significance. It says the Administrator must take into account the projected volumes involved.

As for the rest, I think what's tripping everyone up is that "use" isn't just any old use out in the world. The Code of Federal Regulations defines in great and painful detail what kinds of uses are subject to regulation: see 40 CFR Part 721, subpart B (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-721/subpart-B).

Manufacturers have to submit a notice of the uses they are putting the chemicals to. That gets reviewed by EPA. If EPA approves, that use (or the corresponding part in 40 CFR 720) is added to the chemical's listing in subpart E (see https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-721/subpart-E). But if EPA finds out that a chemical is being used in practice in a way that matches subpart B, but isn't listed in subpart E because no one sent the required notifications, they can take various actions to force compliance (under various penalties). When the manufacturer complies and submits the appropriate notifications, the use gets added to the chemical listing in subpart E.
It was dropped because they would have no luck proving anything. But if they had your credit card making the purchase, things would have turned out differently.
Thanks for the tip, meow looks interesting. I never got comfortable in evil-mode, but perhaps meow could be a gateway to trying emacs in anger.

Still waiting for kakoune/helix mode for gnu readline...

https://github.com/meow-edit/meow

https://github.com/jmorag/kakoune.el
One completely awful thing some scanners might choose to do is if you're offering RSA auth (which most SSH servers are and indeed the SecSH RFC says this is Mandatory To Implement) then you're "potentially vulnerable" which would encourage people to do password auth instead.

Unless we find that this problem has somehow infested a lot of real world systems that seems to me even worse than the time similar "experts" decided that it was best to demand people rotate their passwords every year or so thereby ensuring the real security is reduced while on paper you claim you improved it.
You should try quoting the whole thing:

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Yes, the government can’t conduct warrantless searches of any part of your body. It takes either very poor reading comprehension or affirmative bad faith to pretend that has anything to do with the government regulating medical procedures, or defining the parameters of homicide.
I remember signing up for GitHub and having to provide my public SSH key before creating an account which I did. I can’t imagine how many abandoned signups there were. I think Chris tweeted about it.
100GB of what?

Text documents? Word documents? CSV files? Excel files? Cat videos? Porn videos? Source code from a trusted source? Source code from randos? Games or apps installed from a marketplace? Games or apps installed as downloads directly from random websites?

It's like asking what's the chance you'll die from a fall if you live 80 years. The chance is hard to know, but it's probably more likely if you're a free solo rock climber than if you aren't.
It's the same discussion. The other article mentions the youtube and amazon aspect also. Share the court doc link over there. Discuss over there.
Did the US at least get round to fixing their laws around sharp cut-off and auto-levelling?
Open your Starbucks app when you decide to go to the store and initiate your (re) order. It considers your travel time and the Starbucks queue and schedules your order to be ready just in time for your arrival (at the front of the line), while indicating how long (if at all) you will need to wait.
Some examples for a particular algorithm: https://rosettacode.org/wiki/LZW_compression
If you want all the javascript, don't count the javascript against the quota.
If you don't want videos that you're never going to play deliberately, set the video quota to zero.
Apparently it’s not in the original repo, but in a build script in a distribution tar.
The fact is that in many languages, type checking and type inference are coupled together (for languages with DT, bidirectional type checking is needed). When writing proofs, it is almost impossible to let user specify every type.

Ok, let’s go back to normal imperative programming. What about alias analysis? What to do with devirtualization? You NEED type inference.
That is being said, I am not a fan of the “usual” ocaml’s style where ppl seem to write as less type annotations as they can. That is not user friendly.
Careful what you wish for. Missile defense is going to be viewed as an offensive weapon by any adversaries (and probably most/all of the folks pushing for it domestically as well).

If you can destroy most of your target's counter-strike, deterrence against starting a nuclear war from mutually assured destruction is no longer a consideration. With an effective missile "defense" the US can first-strike nuke whomever they please with "acceptable" consequences for those in power (hiding in their bunkers). We have had presidents since Reagan who have lamented that they couldn't use our nukes.
I'm going to keep reading (because I love the KC topic), but I'd appreciate anyone confirming if the following are errors in this article:

1.) Conflating usage of the term "random" and "complexity". After all, a set of "randomly" drawn sample permutations from an alphabet are all equally likely. However, their "complexity" may differ, which is basically the point of the article, but the term more or less "random" keeps being used to refer to permutations with more or less "complexity", which I think is probably going to perpetuate confusion on this topic.

2.) From the article: "Moreover, a string cannot be compressed if its KC(x)≥|x|". Shouldn't the expression accompanying this statement be KC(x)=|x| ?
It’s not autonomous and it is not smart, you are giving a lot of credit for an expensive toy.
Possibly, but that’s a lot of separate systems.

It might make sense to look into a turbine engine on a hybrid. Though that’s probably been investigated I doubt anyone has invested the kind of time and money needed to make a real shot of it.
I agree, we trade horses for the wrong reasons.

For big companies, the cloud is about downsizing their tech workforce and speeding up delivery.

For tech focused companies, they could get all the advantages of the cloud by adopting cloud dev practices on prem.
I’ve done this several times. I’ve also worked for and managed several.

In my opinion, it’s great because ex-CTO types know what their managers need and are typically very easy to manage.
love that the author still uses the same dithered photos of Jajce, Bosnia - his hometown - as in Win9x days in the about page and website: https://www.irfanview.com/main_about.htm .. make me want to visit.

Edit: typo (thanks)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this recreating a thing that used to exist? I have memories of being told of a compiler older than GCC that could compile itself using… I want to say a bash script. It took forever to run because you had to run the script which of course was slow, and then it output a completely unoptimized compiler. And if memory serves that output didn’t have any of the optimization logic in it. So you had to compile it again to get the optimizer passes to be compiled in, then compile it again to get a fast compiler (self optimization).
The exploit, as currently found, seems to target OpenSSH specifically. It's possible that everything involving xz has been compromised, but I haven't read any reports that there is a path to malware execution outside of OpenSSH.

A quote from the first analysis that I know of (https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/29/4):

> Initially starting sshd outside of systemd did not show the slowdown, despite the backdoor briefly getting invoked. This appears to be part of some countermeasures to make analysis harder.

> a) TERM environment variable is not set

> b) argv[0] needs to be /usr/sbin/sshd

> c) LD_DEBUG, LD_PROFILE are not set

> d) LANG needs to be set

> e) Some debugging environments, like rr, appear to be detected. Plain gdb appears to be detected in some situations, but not others
Small world
I am sure this was true 2009.

But I feel like the technologies that started with MapReduce have now matured into BigQuery and Presto/Trino.

And those have incorporated some of the criticism in the article such as schemas.

Not indexes though, they instead optimize on partitions. But I think for the better since thay are more suited for the job and easier to work with.
> let’s assume that there exists a universal language U

Why not specify it?

> That gives us the true language-agnostic definition of Kolmogorov Complexity as follows:

Choosing the language of Turing Machines does not make the definition language agnostic.

Aiming for the simplest definition of description complexity, I instead based my definitions on the older computational model of lambda calculus in [1].

Unlike the assumed UTM above, the universal lambda machine is easy to describe in detail:

(λ 1 1) (λ λ λ 1 (λ λ λ λ 3 (λ 5 (3 (λ 2 (3 (λ λ 3 (λ 1 2 3))) (4 (λ 4 (λ 3 1 (2 1)))))) (1 (2 (λ 1 2)) (λ 4 (λ 4 (λ 2 (1 4))) 5)))) (3 3) 2) (λ 1 ((λ 1 1) (λ 1 1)))

Furthermore, it allows almost identical definitions of various variations of descriptional complexity, namely

1) plain complexity

2) prefix complexity

3) monotone complexity

all of which have their application in Algorithmic Information Theory [2].

[1] https://gist.github.com/tromp/86b3184f852f65bfb814e3ab0987d8...

[2] https://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulv/kolmogorov.html
I agree, but the social engineering parts do feel particularly cruel
Not op, but I use it for ruby/er/rails/graphql/SQL/typescript/css/html/Vue and various markdown mostly. Oh and shell, tofu/terraform, yaml - k8s/docker.
ACH is free
> Another thing to note is that Kolmogorov complexity of a string cannot be computed. There cannot exist a computer that will always guarantee the Kolmogorov complexity for all the strings.

Sounds a bit puzzling. Surely for a particular programming language we can enumerate all programs, ordered by length etc. and check which is the shortest one giving the given string. So what's uncomputable here? For long strings that could take long time, but - ?
Couldn't you sell a solid white panel and call it an invisibility shield?
Here's what I said in a different comment:

As for the rest, I think what's tripping everyone up is that "use" isn't just any old use out in the world. The Code of Federal Regulations defines in great and painful detail what kinds of uses are subject to regulation: see 40 CFR Part 721, subpart B (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-721/subpart-B).

Manufacturers have to submit a notice of the uses they are putting the chemicals to. That gets reviewed by EPA. If EPA approves, that use (or the corresponding part in 40 CFR 720) is added to the chemical's listing in subpart E (see https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-721/subpart-E). But if EPA finds out that a chemical is being used in practice in a way that matches subpart B, but isn't listed in subpart E because no one sent the required notifications, they can take various actions to force compliance (under various penalties). When the manufacturer complies and submits the appropriate notifications, the use gets added to the chemical listing in subpart E.
What are underrated ideas in computer science?
A tool lacking portability does not mean the tool is bad. It means there are opportunities to support that tool (or its concept) in other environments and media. There are tools for code review in your editor which supports type inference. Snippets in books can include annotations. The author's argument and conclusion is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Wow, I see. I had no idea it was that sophisticated. Thanks for the explanation!

PS: why the negatives to an honest question!???
UBlock Origin has an option to block large media elements[0] by default / per-site. You can configure the threshold.

[0] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-...
On the surface this seems similar to seccomp https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html
Thank you for sharing. I feel like this is sound advice though everyone’s mileage may vary, so to speak.
Atherton
Well, good for you being one of the few exceptions who would make everyone submit themselves to a proper background check (presumably also covering the cost) before giving any write/commit access to the repo. That’s more than even most large open source projects do before giving access.
Allow me to suggest NixOS instead of Arch, for the same automation reason: NixOS meant a single (normally split in few) file(s) that describe your desired config, nixos-install/nixos-rebuild makes the system for you, so at any point in time if something break you just roll back to the previous build, not need to "emergency fix" something or have a test system aside. It's not a "distro war" but what I call a natural outcome of taking notes: in the same org-mode notes I keep my bills, my mails (ol-notmuch), my files (org-attach-ed and linked), a fully searchable "knowledge base" with just ripgrep, no recoll (xapian) or other indexers needed, but also my NixOS config, zsh config, ... and so on. Again the same automation (well, org-babel-tangle + little stuff) works for anything. The same documentation model works for anything. It's long to start, many things to learn, but it pay back much thereafter.

In my case while migrating toward a local approach I've tried some tools, like the idea of using Zotero for a bit anything, bookmarks, docs, ... it works, but it's not integrable with other tools like ALL modern apps, so I've put most in org-mode, bookmarks included, with Buku + ebuku to manage the SQLite DB from Emacs, org attaching stuff is slower than the Zotero connector but much more flexible, "Copy as Org-Mode" (FF extension) it's not as quick as Zotero notes, but the flexibility of one tool for anything is extreme, a thing we lost loosing the classic desktop model and today we can rediscover but still suffering the lack of development and the rest of the world heading in totally different directions.
How do you get it on macOS?
SourceForge was badly designed and was of no interest to the average developer
There are few robot welfare advocates complaining about robots doing what dogs love to do, though. Nobody is going to say robo-fido is being exposed to carcinogens or loud noises while it (merrily?) chases off birds.
Due to the cliffhanger abstract, here is a part from the discussion that may help.

> In our case, the manual curation of a proportion of triples revealed that Sherpa was able to extract more triples categorized as correct or partially correct. However, when compared
to the manually curated gold standard, the performance of all automated
tools remains subpar.
Please explain to us how this user deserved getting banned, purely because they are Russian:

https://github.com/erthink/libmdbx

Not to mention all of the users banned from social media at the request(pressured) of the government [1][2]?

1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-bowed-to-white-house-p...
2: https://reason.com/2023/07/28/biden-white-house-pressured-fa...
it's rare for the html file and the associated css is bigger than 2MB (much epub books is lighter than that if you reduce image size). The culprit are often media (fonts included), JS files, and files loaded dynamically. I'd say get the HTML and CSS files first, then JS and everything else and stops after the 2MB threshold. A lot of currently running JS code are unnecessary and I say this as a React developer.
OpenAI holds back tech that clones someone's voice in 15s due to safety concerns