skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
[Ask HN] What happens to your Internet assets when you die?
Question is : what happens to you Twitter, Facebook and all your internet social assets when you die ? Is there any way to make them "disappear" ?!
Shouldn't we start thinking about this now ?
In a 100-years period, we'll have a Zombie FB. Don't you think ?
That's pretty nifty - thanks.

EDIT: Also, I have used bpython, but since I use python more on the data side as opposed to web (or something not data) IPython along with everything else make it too good to not use.
I doubt you would wear them 24/7, and you'd only want to wear them if you intentionally did not want to be recognized (at an airport/casino/robbery) but the fact that you had them on would draw attention to yourself, plus I suspect it'd be easy to trace back to the purchaser if the adoption rate were low.
Motorola released their GSM required patents under FRAND licensing. Google buys Motorola and tries to use those same patents in a fight with Apple and Motorola (dragging Qualcomm in with them). Google has to agree with the FTC not to do that.

Why would Apple or Microsoft believe Google's patent and royalty free license given their behavior with Motorola's prior promises?
Ah, I was talking purely about the Linux and FreeBSD kernels, not distributions. I agree that FreeBSD exceeded its fundraising goal, but this isn't how I would want to measure its level of contribution.
My favorites date back to my earliest usage in 2008. Will these, too, be capped at 1000? Are there any time-based caps?

Thanks, again, for your work here.
There are patents covering VP8 and I would bet VP9 also is covered.
I wonder about the 2580s (vertical numbers on a PIN pad). It makes perfect sense for PINs, but not a computer keyboard. It could be people keeping their passwords consistent with their PINs e.g. using their ATM PIN for their online bank account password.

A lot sites (correctly) prevent people from using very short or simple passwords, including four digit numbers. I'm curious what sites his database comes from.
is search the only thing that would be better with SVG?

we opted for canvas as it gives us better visualisation capabilities in the future. we could easily provide searching with canvas by overriding ctrl+f.
Oh ok, I will think about it... thanks very much for the suggestion!
Hmm? What is the reverse of (partial map constantFunctionReturnsZero)?

A fold/reduce is just as sometimes-reversible, when paired with an appropriate unfold. (example: multiplication and factorization)

I think you mean that map is self-composable, in the sense that the map function distributes over function-composition, in the same way that (in first-order functions) multiplication distributes over addition.
Japan to launch world's first 4K TV Broadcasts this July
SmallNudges - Best examples of small nudges towards a higher conversion.
Inspired by Little Big Details, but focused on best practices for higher conversions.
It's certainly not trivial, but it was very predictable. France has had strong censorship laws for years when it comes to what is deemed to be 'hate speech.'

For example, what they've done to Brigitte Bardot for voicing her opinions publicly.
Well, yes and no. I actually mostly agree with your point, but just to play devil's advocate:

When we talk about secure passwords (Not PINs for the moment, I'll get back to those in a moment), we're mostly worrying about how easy it is to recover someone's password from a database once a system has been compromised. However these days, we don't store the password, we store a hash of the password. To recover the password, the hacker has to successfully 'un-hash' the hashed password, which is done by applying a brute force cryptographic algorithm. The computer detects hits by examining the frequency of letters in the output, knowing that letters don't have an even distribution in passwords (or any other text). Choosing a random password is actually useful in this case, because even if the computer correctly finds the right key for de-hashing, it doesn't recognize your password as 'de-hashed' and just passes right over it.

So, for passwords, it is fairly clear that a random password is going to be safer than a word / name or other commonly used password constructs, in its ability to resist extraction from a compromised database.

Can we make the same claim for PIN codes? It would be harder - you only have 4 digits to work with, which makes it much harder to determine if digits are distributed in a pattern or randomly. You would expect a lot of false positives and false negatives. Nevertheless, distributions in real life numbers do exist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law is an obvious example, which leads us to the non-obvious conclusion that making PIN codes longer probably leads to a lower level of security. On the other hand, the scenario in which this is a problem is when a database is compromised, and bank databases are amongst the most hardened targets on the planet, so the increase in risk is probably negligeable.
Those are very different kinds of software. Everything other than the last one is a real time OS problem with very known inputs and outputs. Validation is critical but manageable. And even then, most of them are outsourced to Bosch and other suppliers.
I'm not sure the Yale degree is as valuable if one misses out on the networking opportunities.
The crude variation of the attack-vector I'm describing is a backdoor, that is correct - but that's also what Thompson is imagining his attack being used for.

Thompson's scenario is more devious, more difficult to detect, and a lot, lot harder to implements (near impossible, as some of the SO answers point out). But at that time, people didn't generally download millions of lines of code written by perfect strangers and incorporate them into their programs, so that was the only way to pull such a thing off.
This isn't true. You can double tap to zoom.
and (partly) as a result of that it's been growing less relevant over time; to the point where I would no longer describe FreeBSD as having a healthy community.

I'll freely admit that I'm no expert on the BSD world, since I'm a Linux user myself. But I'd question whether or not there's any real research that demonstrates that the BSD community is less "healthy" (depending on how you define that) than the Linux community, because of the license. Heck, I'm not even 100% sure I believe that the BSD community is less healthy, but even if that were shown conclusively, how do we know it's the license and not some other factor(s)? I mean, the BSD community has had different challenges and issues, and a different culture, going back at least to the days of the AT&T (USL) lawsuit[1].

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi
The dissent makes no sense whatsoever.

Firstly, as people like Bruce Schneier point out again and again, terrorists are neither waiting for an accidental opportunity, nor do they take the risks involved in such an opportunity. They don't sit around waiting for a diversion and certainly not for a diversion that leaves a considerable chance to get caught.

Secondly, if the judge was right, airport security would be so broken it's not even funny. If he's right, terrorists can easily get a bomb on board: they only need someone to stage a fake protest, which is enough to divert the security people. Luckily, it isn't that easy.

This judge has insufficiently thought this through. He has the security of a school or cinema in mind, where some thief or other opportunist might sneak in when someone distracts the guard.
Pretty much a self fulfilling prophecy.
The BSD folks may not be interested in systemd itself, we are still interested in running various bits and pieces of software on top of the platform. When software starts requiring systemd just to run we have no chance what so ever at porting that software.

The same is true for a lot of Linuxisms. I have spent an awful lot of time getting software that states on the tin it is written for POSIX to run on BSD because its source code uses all kinds of Linuxisms.

The same holds true for people assuming that /bin/sh is bash, which may be true on certain Linux distributions but isn't so most other systems. I've started noticing the same issues with other things as well, such as the symlink from /bin to /usr/bin, /sbin to /usr/bin ... whereby software believes all software lives in /usr/bin when in reality that isn't the case for the BSD's.
This is awesome. Shame it slipped through the cracks and didn't make the frontpage
Taking this reasoning to its absurd conclusion, why have signatures at all? Every function could just have an implicit args array.
Has anybody noticed how sophisticated the new Facebook bots have become? 
https://www.facebook.com/kaye.dawson.716

https://www.facebook.com/haley.borden.9

https://www.facebook.com/alice.dawn.100

https://www.facebook.com/michelle.layson.31

They talk to each other. They visit local stores like walmart. They invite people to local events and invite friends to call local radio stations (legit I called) to buy tickets to a "midget wresting" event. (not sure if this is legit, guy on phone was just baby sitting the phone today and asked me to call back tomorrow.) They post comments about pictures that are somewhat relevant. They selectively like users posts.

Supposedly these stated popping up around 10 days ago in my area. Has anybody else noticed them and seen any other surprising behaviors?
Regarding your last point, the main thing that systemd excels at is managing the mishmash of power events, other ACPI events, service management and integration with DBus (which everything seems to require these days).

However, I run Linux in three locations and here's where systemd fits for me:

1. Servers. No use whatsoever. There are two power states: off and on. None of this is really an improvement over SVR4 init. It's just another damn tool to learn.

2. Desktops: No use whatsoever. I run mine like servers simply because if I need remote access, trusting stuff like WOL and ACPI is just silly on Linux.

3. Laptops: No use whatsoever. This is simply down to the fact that the power management on Linux i.e. hibernate/sleep support is a bag of shit. I run mine as power states off and on, much as 1 and 2.

Regarding boot speed - my laptop boots in about 14 seconds (SSD). Who cares about making it faster?

I find that a shell script is far more useful i.e. it doesn't enforce constraints on you which have to then be added as features to systemd. Plus shell scripts are generic tools i.e. learning how to write them will be of more use globally than learning systemd guts.

So basically, screw it.

The problem that this outlines is that Linux's power management, event and ACPI state management is crappy. We don't need another layer of crap over the top of it to make it work properly.
But I didn't mean "grow" in exclusively performance meaning. I meant the whole package (as with growth the requirements for reliability also ultimately show up, at least in some parts of the business). Even my current job that involves a lot of MySQL has important chunks of Must Never Go Away Or Else data, with a lot of complex insert/update action going on them, and somehow it's working fairly well for us.
No, generally you didn't have to care about the init-system unless you wanted to provide an init script. But it didn't matter how your daemon was/is started. With systemd that is no longer the case, you can use certain systemd only features thereby locking out people that want to use your service/daemon without systemd.
How to implement a hash table
Repeats aren't necessarily junk (e.g. TAL Effectors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAL_effector#DNA_recognition). Resolving them requires long reads. PacBio is currently of interest as an alternative to Sanger sequencing for this, although the error rate of PacBio reads is a bit of an issue.
I've heard of Heisig, but only recently.

My method for learning kanji was to count the strokes (it's relatively simple to figure the stroke count for any character: http://infohost.nmt.edu/~armiller/japanese/strokeorder.htm) then use that number to look them up in a dictionary.

But everything I looked up was in the context of a sentence, while trying to read a report at work, e.g.
1.8 gigapixel ARGUS-IS a surviellience platform by DARPA [video]
Wow that is really a nice discussion. A very new and innovation way to look into your social assets.
The Fuzzy and Shifting Line Between Hacker and Criminal
This is a clip from PBS's "Rise of the Drones" [1]

[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.htm...
Generally when software relies on glibc or the Linux kernel it can be patched so that it works on the BSD's. In my time of porting to OS X for example I haven't had anyone not take my patch to fix a problem an upstream it with a "thanks!". This becomes more problematic with systemd, whereby we can't port systemd, and since the software depends on systemd (most likely for some reason or another the software developer thought it was a good idea) we can't easily replace/rip out those parts of the code and make it run on the BSD's.
I'm not sure I understand. Function calls work the same way in every call by value language: the binding of an argument to a value is the same as the binding of a variable or the assignment of part of a data structure. That's a pretty clear and simple thing to want to say, and "call by value" is the way to say it.

Since this is exactly the behaviour of Python's function calls, how is describing Python as call by value "not useful"? And where's this "misleading analogy to another language", given the concept is clearly explained without reference to any particular language?

I'm prepared to accept that people become confused over this, but I reject the notion that it is not a useful question.
Agreed; flashcards have worked quite well for me for learning lots of words. Also for me, vocabulary is normally the limiting factor, while Getting grammar an pronounciation up to a usable level is a lot easier. I guess that differs from individual to individual.

Trying to work with flashcards without a context (Learn the 1000 nost common words!), however, doesn't work at all. The words need to belong in a context with which I'm familiar, such as a book, film, or recurring conversation topic.

My attempt at vocabulary training (shameless plug, you call it): http://vocabulous.net. But that's pretty much only vocabulary, still on the drawing board on the rest of the components.

That said, the most important thing for the next big thing in language learning is that it's fun. Very few users will stick with it on willpower alone. Good thougts on this is at http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com. If I ever get the idea to learn japanese I'd check his stuff out.
Linux has plenty of expensive professional software in fields like rendering for film and so on where it is a real platform. People who use Photoshop just like Macs so the Linux market is not very viable right now.
Drepper may be intelligent, but I don't think I would put him into my "nice guy" list.
The intensity of people's hate for this guy is mind-boggling. Most of the stuff he made is really nice, proven by the fact that it's being used widely without issues.

Even without such an impressive track-record, people should at least give him the benefit of the doubt.

Even a cursory look into systemd design debunks most of the "criticism" people have against it.
> There's nothing that he has ever done that is considered "good" by a majority of Unix-derivative users.

Is there really anything at all that a majority of Unix-derivative users can agree on?
Wow. I know I'm not really adding anything to the conversation now, but I just wanted to thank you for opening my eyes to a world that I didn't know existed. So much information about something I didn't know was even a problem.

Awesome. Thanks!
The headline is misleading, it should be "Better Management Can Save the World". If a company want to improve it's management practices, perhaps hiring a consultancy isn't the worst idea, but it's the motivation (improving management), not the tool (management consultants) that is important.
Hubble looks really nice. There are times when I'm wanting to monitor particular aspects of how an application is running that this would be particularly interesting.

There's been a few mentions of having hubble do the requesting itself, but I don't think that should distract from arbitrary systems being able to post to hubble. That said, being able to have hubble handle your polling for local tasks would be particularly interesting: a kind of `watch` dashboard. With that in mind, perhaps opening up a `watch` like interface to hubble would work well:

hubble watch -n3600 --title "Bootstrap contributors" "curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/twitter/bootstrap/contributors | jsawk -a 'return this.length'"
You can't relicense it due to:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Scientists Build A Working Tractor Beam
Personally I also think of it like this:
If someone can make money out of what I provide for free, they're providing some service. They either have better hosting, promoting, features, bugfixes, etc, etc, if you treat this service, however small, as added value, it is only reasonable they can get paid for it.
Http vs Spdy: He didn't mention http features like, keep-alive and pipelining both can make huge difference when sending data over connection having notable latency
Vine, Vinepeek, and Visual Efficiency
Right. As long as you have moderately competent people and reasonable resources, and are trying to solve the relatively simple problem of a small to medium sized site, you should come out ahead of smarter people with more resources (but less per-user budget) trying to solve vastly harder problems.
Mega Resellers Take Down PayPal Payment Option
of course EC2 has worse availability, but it has many other benefits. The question is whether those benefits are a good trade-off for you.

When you say "staff who have a deep understanding", I'm not sure what you mean. Did they pick the RAID controllers? The UPS?
Can the universe be described by a formal system, or will doing so always result in a model?

If such a system exists, are the number of rules finite?
Rethinking "Learn it Once"
Because he's always been a part of the system he pretends to criticize.
No, the black swan is a figment of your imagination. It wasn't a swan. You didn't know what you were looking at. You made it up. I don't care that lots of people saw it, you're all delusional. You're crackpots.

The problem with the scientific method is that scientists become very attached to their hypotheses, and the longer a hypothesis stands the more attached scientists get. This causes them to reject contradictory evidence, often going to ridiculous lengths to do so. A change of the hypotheses, a scientific revolution, only happens on the fringes of science when a maverick persists in examining evidence that most scientists reject.
He had a pregnant wife, that he chose not to protect, in favor of staying with his parents.

That's a tough position, and I am slightly critical of his decision, but recognize it as a tough call. Optimally, he would have put her on a ship and stayed with them, I suppose.
Danger Will Robinson!!! Back when I was at Google, we were advised to tripple-check compiler warnings, manually look for undefined behavior, run valgrind, etc. if we thought we found a bug in the compiler or TCMalloc. A high percentage of claimed bugs in the compiler or TCMalloc turned out to be relying on undefined behavior.

If switching on standard optimizations is causing "miscompiled" code, especially in both GCC and Clang, it's very likely that your code has silent bugs that are revealed by optimizations. Compilers are perfectly allowed to perform very unexpected optimizations where they detect undefined behavior.

One of the gdb gurus at Google was telling me about a bug brought to him by a fellow engineer, where both branches of an if-else had logging statements in them, and the common code after the branches had a logging statement. Only the logging statement after the if-else was logging anything. It turned out that the branch condition was the result of undefined behavior and under very specific circumstances, gcc had optimized away both sides of the if-else. The optimizer had essentially decided that the bool was never true and was never false. This wasn't a compiler bug. For implementation-defined behavior, C compiler are required to do consistent and sane things. For undefined behavior, C compilers aren't required to do consistent or sane things. Essentially, undefined behavior are the corner cases that compiler writers are explicitly allowed to ignore when performing optimizations. A classic example is int i; for(i = 1; i > 0; ++i) could legally be left alone on one line and be optimized away to while(true) a few lines later, since overflow of signed integers is undefined behavior, the compiler is allowed to perform optimizations as if overflow can't happen.
> what they've done to Brigitte Bardot for voicing her opinions publicly.

Made her pay fines under "incitement to racial hatred"?
Think Foolishly: How to Think Like a Fool # 5: Try a Really Bad Idea
I've seen this implemented in a Lisp compiler before. It's surprisingly easy to do.
Which elephant is in your room?
Beat the Series A Crunch through M&A
Prime example: climate change.

We have precisely fuck all idea what is going on regardless of the models.

Proof of this can be found by examining all the climate change news articles based on scientific papers going back to the impending ice age in 1972 (people have a short memory for climatology theories).
You clearly come from a rails background. I would even go as far to say that "many design from the UI backwards" is extremely true in the Rails crowd (I would know).

This level of thinking create monolithic, poorly organized, unstable applications.
12 Ways to Optimize Speed of Large WordPress Websites
To me systemd looks mainly useful for servers. Some of the nice server features:

1. It is way easier to write a systemd unit for an in house application than it is to write a correct sysvinit script.

2. Everything runs in a cgroup making it easier to add resource limits and see which process is started by which service.

3. Easy to check which daemons are running and not.

4. Reduced startup time for containers.
Regarding your response to 3: I agree that system stability is a very important goal. However, there are also plenty of use cases for faster boot times, so it shouldn't be disregarded as a valid pursuit in system engineering.
> The goal should be to restart less often, not to restart more quickly.

No! These are not mutually exclusive. The goal should be to restart less ofter, but restart faster when it is necessary. Systems have to restart. Well run/maintained/designed systems may not need to restart ofter, but they do need to restart.

Consider: Many moons ago I was responsible for (among other things) the company's CRM systems. These were a couple of mid-range Suns that were extremely reliable. On an anual basis, the business operations department issues downdown cost estimates for business critical systems (these were used to develop inter-departmental SLAs), and estimated that the CRM database server cost the company about $250K per hour of down time, or, almost $4200 per minute. Or read another way: a 10 seat license for our software in a saturated (niche) market.

The point is, outages happen (no you can not account for all possible failure scenarios), and startup times matter.