skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Or the axiom of choice: "the product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty." What a surprise.

Right. Since it's obvious, the Banach-Tarski "Paradox" must be a trivial corollary and intuitively obvious, correct?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Banach-TarskiParadox.html

Also: Any two objects in three-dimensional space which do not extend to infinity and each containing a ball of arbitrary size can be dissected into each other. Perfectly obvious, right? This follows from Banach-Tarski, and therefore the Axiom of Choice.

A fuller development of the Axiom of Choice: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/axiom-choice/

Some implications of the Axiom of Choice, and of not taking it: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/20882/most-unintuitive-app...

My point is that mathematics is all about taking obvious statements, such as the definition of sets and set cardinality, and using them to prove non-obvious results, such as the fact there are as many rationals as there are integers, and, in fact, there are as many rationals strictly between 0 and 1 as there are integers total.

The very best mathematical proofs are magicians, taking ordinary household items, waving and knocking a few times, and pulling a rabbit out of their cane in a way that is eminently fair but that you still didn't see coming.

So, yes, an axiom by itself is perfectly obvious. It's just a prop. The wonder is in how the props get used.
https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-256.htm
Megafilter: Nodejs Single user Google reader replacement
I wrote a single-user nodejs based replacement: http://callanbryant.co.uk/megafilter/ which I have open sourced on github. It can understand the exported feeds and starred items from Google Reader, and I use it to (re)publish articles that I find interesting on my website here: http://callanbryant.co.uk/#Recommended

You can host it yourself, so no more dependence on 'the cloud'!
No it is just ignorance on your behalf.

It is pretty easy for me to make associations like this as well. There are people will a myriad of profiles in all countries and if we start generalizing people from other countries based on one individual things will get pretty bad very soon.

Just relate to someone in your town, for example, that is an a-hole and you'll understand what I am talking about. I could very well put you in the same basket as him.
Wow - I would have thought that risked an even more exciting event with rocket propulsion. Is venting really the standard way?
Good call. I'll do that.
»Facebook and Twitter are not social networks, they are just platforms. _We_ are the social network.«

– Amr Gharbeia (https://twitter.com/gharbeia ), a few years ago at a conference, commenting on their activism in Egypt and coping with overload and unavailability of Twitter, Facebook, etc.

Also fully agree with your other points. I don’t use Facebook (Twitter though) and just email people whom I care about. Works fine, and those who really care have no problem with you not being on Facebook.
We can buy raw milk in the US, it's just a hassle. Sorry to burst your Euro-bubble.
In the U.S. state I'm from, you are not allowed to perform "kill shots". You are only allowed to shot to stop. Training classes will always advise against shooting at the legs. They are easily missed, take precious time, and waste ammo (hopefully you won't need to use all of your ammo, but it has happened to persons defending themselves against multiple threats).

Ask police officers or soldiers if they shoot at the legs of threats, or if their first shot is towards center-mass.
"All you need to do is to send emails to us." - no thanks. If you've built something more sophisticated than I can implement with Perl and Exim's system filter functionality, I might be interested in giving you money to save me my time. Maybe a per-domain license?
Great, so airlines have no incentive to get me down and I can wait an age before the flight, after the flight, and now during the flight. Don't give them any reasons to make air transport slower, please.
Bitinstant Has Shut Down (For Now At Least)
I'm surprised by how many world class super spy/hacker types there are on HN...who knew that, besides just generally being snarky about shit that you half understand, that you had so many secrets to protect?
Wearable Fitness Devices Let Others Monitor Your Sex Life
Any country can sue any person or any company around the world if they want to. The question is if such sentences can be enforced.
I do agree with you. I have the same thing at home and it's finicky and unpredictable, but twisting the analog knobs makes up for it to some extent.
Let me try to help you out since what I wrote is apparently not clear enough, I thought the 'default' in there covered the remainder.

If you make a public announcement that you have vast amounts of money or cashflow and that you are looking for help because you are out of your depth then you will find that this will attract besides a few possibly capable people a (probably larger) number of people that will just focus on relieving you of your cash, your company or both.

Personally I would never approach someone making such a call for help for any kind of compensation at all because I (1) don't want to be associated with the sharks (think of it as an easy way to differentiate) and (2) feel that they are better off to go out and do the approaching themselves.

Given that I have in the past approached people in situations like this, and have helped them out as much as possible without compensation (and in some cases spending some of my own money) should hopefully be enough to convince you that there are indeed standards here and that I try to hold others to the same standard as I hold myself to.
Yeah, but your "I know how SSL works" story is probably an NSA plant so that the NSA can read my secretz. NSA NSA blah blah NSA

NSA
He's so pretentious it makes me chuckle.
When I want sweet foods I just seek out things made with sugar rather than HFCS. If all I can find is HFCS or artificial sweeteners, I have to wait. And have some water, most likely.

I haven't done any experiments. I've just noted that (a) imported Mexican Coke really does taste like I remember Coke tasting in my 1970s childhood, and (b) I drink less when I have a soda made with sugar because it satisfies my sweet tooth instead of just tickling it and reminding me that sweet things taste good, maybe I'll go get another one of the HFCS sodas I just drank.
>please cite a single law of any European country classifying those as hate speech

That's utterly naive, don't you think? They don't have to specifically classify those as hate speech. They just have to make the law vague enough -- and then the "offended parties", activists and other over-sensitive folks jump to take the opportunity.

"""In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says: A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."""

Can it be any more vague?

Here's an example of such laws in action: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm

Would you be OK if Atheists couldn't talk against Christianism in the same way?

>Up until then I'll say you are spouting utter rubbish.

You can say anything you want -- however rude and ad hominen. I'm for free speech after all.
That was a wonderful read. Thank you.
If you are specifically targeted in an investigation [...]

The purpose of services like DDG is to reduce the amount of casually collected, personally-identifiable private data you might be strewing about - data that might potentially be recovered and might potentially be used against you or used in ways that you don't like.

If you are specifically targeted by an investigation, a law-enforcement agency like the FBI, armed with probable cause and warrants can tap your phone, search your house, track your location, log your keystrokes, etc, etc. DDG can't help you there, you'd also be vulnerable even when using a service provider which really doesn't have access to your data, like tarsnap. DDG is not going to magically protect you from targeted (and perfectly legal, civilian, non-NSA-related) surveillance if you happen to have the bad luck of being a subject of such an investigation. It's a silly standard to hold any service provider to.
Interesting look at Australias venture capital sector (finance not tech)
I have the Seiki 50" and can confirm it is awesome for videogames. Using an Nvidia GTX 780 to drive the 4k resolution with "ultra" settings, and while the frame rate is 24-30 fps, you don't want to go back to 1080p.

Incidentally, sitting about 18 inches away from the monitor and you feel like you're in the game.
Not every company is a billion dollar company. Is yours?
Calling every asshole a racist is a slippery fucking slope.
Has anybody heard from the woman who set this whole thing in motion?

It would be a big boost to the case, I imagine, if she comes forward and says "I never wanted this". And sticks up for the poor kid.
DDG have a tor hidden service for search [1] and so you can search annonamusly through that, even if someone has access to the ssl privet key.

[1] http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/08/duckduckgo-now-o...
Most servers do not have any serious source of randomness (unless you buy another hardware RNG) which is partly why these were introduced (Intel used to have a motherboard RNG, and VIA had on CPU ones years back).

You can buy one of these http://www.entropykey.co.uk/ which are unlikely to be NSA "certified" instead.
>Free market is possible - the problem is that it is tool and not ideology. For it to work you need several conditions: 1. Relatively low barrier of entry 2. Non essential goods 3. Comoditization/semi comoditization of the products 4. Price, demand and supply elasticity

I don't see how all those are possible.

They presuposse a place where:

1) There is no government intervention.

2) Private interests play nice to each other and never take advantage of their position to skew the market.

That might happen temporarily in some sub-market (e.g cheap PCs in the 80s/90s) but it absolutely cannot happen in the overall market. Even something like "patents" and "copyright" is enough to fuck this up. Not to mention the issues of raw materials, infrastructure (roads, etc), foreign dependencies, etc.
"but this is limiting what can actually be expressed despite the context"

Not at all; the context - twitter, essentially a public broadcaster - is highly relevant. Most of us would defend the right of an individual to express themselves however they wish in private - or even in most public, but 'local' situations - even in terms of the abhorrent language/concepts expressed in this case. However, when your platform is a national - even global - one, the context is radically different, and incitement to commit racist crime becomes possible.

As you admit, there is no such thing as 100% free speech, even in the USA, so it will always be a case of finding the line somewhere. In Europe, we just happen to have the line slightly closer to civility, something of which I am very glad.
24/7 real-time monitoring is the very definition of distrust...

Do people actually wear these things while sleeping, though? How do you charge the battery, then?
Sorry, this is the first time I'm seeing a security proof in the form of interview, so I can't find it. Could you point out the relevant part?

Also, what about Mega?
It's not so much that inflation is good, than deflation is really bad. Deflation manifests as unemployment and idle resources, and created a vicious cycle.
I'm surprised you don't recognize the principle of the matter.
There was an article posted a while back about "in a world of perfect surveillance, legal change would be impossible".
Much of social progress came about because people could communicate in secret.
You might be surprised how many non-US citizens will agree with that statement.
Yes it could be more vague, an amendment of that act means that section 4a now includes:

"""(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress."""
I got to know the numbers plugin from http://vim.spf13.com/
This distribution gets you a really good head start on vim and lets you install additional plugins easily with its VBundle Integration and its customization options.

And in case if you ever wondered, why the ESC key is used to change to normal mode, you should read up on the history of the escape key. Therefore I use CTRL-<P> to switch to normal mode, so my hands can stay on the keyboard.
"can it be any more vague" - easily; it's quite clear to me: don't spout fascist sentiments that are likely to result in violent hatred. I wouldn't want to live anywhere where, by omission of such a law, such speech is encouraged.

"Here's an example" - good: I don't believe you should be able to make and distribute a film equating an established world religion with nazism.
Why the "better relationship" quip? Get some e-mails from the CIA after publishing this?
For windows, SumatraPDF is great.
Slightly off topic: The article mentions a "dead man's switch" set up by Snowden prior to making his disclosures. If he is assassinated, apparently all the documents will be publicly released.

Greenwald also mentioned that the totality of what Snowden controls is "enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States." Let's assume that's not an entirely hyperbolic statement.

From the point of view of the Obama Administration, the real threat is not Snowden's/Greenwald's principled (even patriotic) drip of information, but that an enemy of the US might kill Snowden, and stage it to look like a US op, thus tripping the dead man's switch. Snowden has, on his own, made himself a prime target for any sufficiently ambitious US antagonist.

And so the US wants Snowden back not only to prosecute him, but also to "protect" him. (Nothing like four years of solitary to keep you safe, comrade.)

Until and unless he is granted a pardon or some other form of immunity from prosecution, it seems that Snowden's best interest is to stay in the strongest and most secure country he can find. A country with a highly developed security apparatus (to protect him from hostile agents), one that is adversarial to America (to disallow his rendition or extradition), but not openly antagonistic (to want to kill him to harm the US).

And that is exactly the country where he finds himself right now.

Obama and Putin have quite the chess match coming up. God bless the man whose life is in their hands.

[Edited for clarity]
what specific needs do you have that aren't met?
In the same way that you're not free to act in (almost?) every country in the world, including the USA, because 'someone else' gets to decide what an illegal act is. BTW, in a democracy, you get to decide who that someone is, so chances are that the definition will be a fair and balanced one.
Every mainstream newspaper, tv and radio channel has to have a state-issued license to operate. This means that state can always find a reason to dismiss the license and make business shut down. This fact creates a great bias towards discussing something safer in the eye of the state. Talking about Snowden character is so much safer than speaking openly about how NSA spies on everyone by forcing companies to give them access to communication channels and hardware and then forces them to lie to their customers about privacy.

"Free speech" exists only when there is no license to get and no armed SWAT team that will come if you don't have one.
DuckDuckGo: illusion of privacy?

His point is that if NSA wants they can do this and that. I suppose they can also take you to a Romanian black ops site and beat you bloody till you cough up your passwords. The idea is for average Joes and Janes to have a little bit more privacy. When you search on Google, they try everything possible to have you search while logged on and save your search history. All this is linked to:

your real name, location (Android)

maybe credit cards (Google Play, Adwords)

emails sent

videos watched

books read

sites visited (Google Analytics, sites visited that serve Adsense, Google hosted jQuery)

your private docs (G Drive, Documents)....

This is of course to make more money off you, they can charge more money to advertisers, and all this info is ready to be siphoned by Booz Allen and Hamilton employees and to be added to your file.

What do they get from DDG? Relatively speaking, nothing. The idea is to split your activities to make it harder for them, which is great for an average user. By using everything Google, it's even better than sending them a memo detailing everything you did each night.

If you're a target, long live TOR, which is not really usable on Google.
Music Festivals, Bluetooth Monitoring and the Behavior of Crowds
Price transparency will NEVER happen in the US market. The insurers all negotiate individual deals with providers, and it's a losing tactic for any one of them to divulge the details of their contracts.
I guess you never saw Transactor then? That was the good stuff. Hardware hacks, lengthy assembly source listings, it was hardcore.

There's an archive of scans of every issue here: http://csbruce.com/cbm/transactor/
Gibson is about as credible as I am when it comes to security - ie, not very.
I don't see how that makes it a cheap shot. Everyone is drawing from the same pool of ideas that were discovered decades ago. Could you be more specific?
The best approach to have is IMHO here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//dev/random

Gutterman, Pinkas, & Reinman in March 2006 published a detailed cryptographic analysis of the Linux random number generator[5] in which they describe several weaknesses. Perhaps the most severe issue they report is with embedded or Live CD systems such as routers and diskless clients, for which the bootup state is predictable and the available supply of entropy from the environment may be limited. For a system with non-volatile memory, they recommend saving some state from the RNG at shutdown so that it can be included in the RNG state on the next reboot. In the case of a router for which network traffic represents the primary available source of entropy, they note that saving state across reboots "would require potential attackers to either eavesdrop on all network traffic" from when the router is first put into service, or obtain direct access to the router's internal state. This issue, they note, is particularly critical in the case of a wireless router whose network traffic can be captured from a distance, and which may be using the RNG to generate keys for data encryption.

It shouldn't be a religious but an engineering problem. If you manage keep some state between reboots and use it after the next reboot, you're making it hard enough for anybody not having the physical access to that state. Then you can also use RdRand to mix it with the output of your stream based on your state, and with other sources of entropy if you have them. If RdRand turns out to be suspicious, you're at least much better off than using only hard coded states.

Anybody knows if some kind of described state is used now?
Shhh, don't ruin the ongoing circle jerk.
1. Since the U.S. government has given itself both the power to compel U.S. corporations to spy for them and the power to prevent them from revealing this, we can't take the claims of any U.S. corporation at face-value.

2. DuckDuckGo is a U.S. based company.
It is carbohydrates and "low fat" diets making people obese. The only think unhealthy in a bacon cheeseburger is the bun.

Until we can kill this "low fat" nonsense, people will continue to get fatter.
If you want to prove it to yourself, fire up Wireshark.
> but can they actually force a company to spy for them, and change their service in such a way that makes it possible?

Hushmail is the standard example here. They provide encrypted email. Criminals used them for communications. Law enforcement went to hushmail with correctly formed legal documents, and Hushmail handed over plain text from users.

There are two ways that plain text is available: using the web client encryption is done on the server. There's a step where plain text is available to Hushmail.

Or if users are using the Java client Hushmail could push a malformed version to the user. This is something that Hushmail has said themselves.

This wasn't under any weird FISA or patriot act law either.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushmail#Compromises_to_email_...)
don't think it's hyperbole. Snowden planned this for a while and looks like he had access to and knew where to find everything. USA probably spends $100+ Billion in intel and knowing what foreign leaders, generals and business leaders say and write can be more powerful than a few aircraft carriers.

Of course then there is the trust issue, many world leaders will be pissed to learn that their "friend" has been reading their emails and monitoring their phone calls, even private ones.
Website Uptime Monitor
Kenya's Gov to Currency Innovators: "Forgery! 7 years jail"
Remember when it used to be quiet?
Wasn't the debian vulnerability discovered because someone noticed that two different servers had the same key? That would have gone down exactly the same with closed source.
Calculate how many bits intel could fit on a chip. Apply statistical tests until you're sure the output contains more than that much entropy?
>> Can they refuse to collaborate with the NSA if approached?
What I would like to know if they can really refuse when big corps such as Google, Microsoft and others can't?

>> Gabriel Weinberg comment: We have not received any request like this, and do not expect to.
But if they receive such request can they just really say NO while other big companies can't?
Find Your Why: Why Do You Want To Make Money Online?
To be fair, a "market" is by definition trade under ENFORCED circumstances. Therefore a "free market" is in theory possible if the statutes of such a thing are the terms of governance.

Of course, there's no reason to believe the consequences of this are optimal or even desirable, though they're not necessarily worse than what exists now.
solitary confinement could trigger it as well probably, it depends on how things have been set up.

Obama should have handled this in a totally different way, he should have treated him as a partner for having shed light upon a corrupted practice of the NSA, and should have asked the people heading the NSA to resign.

This would have been a checkmate against any other US antagonist in my opinion, but I admit that is definitely too easy to judge things you don't know in every aspect from the comfort of your own home.
Which part is doing it for you? That Twitter would hand over your identifying information because they don't like the contents of your tweets? The idea that governments can prohibit the written expression of thoughts and ideas? Or was it the distasteful tweets of some bigots (or perhaps more likely, just unfunny and immature people) about the jews?
Yeah, his response made me laugh out loud for like 30 seconds straight.

How uninformed and naiv can one CEO be? Did he hear about the secret courts at all?
Tim Pope's unimpaired plugin [1], apart from other very useful key mappings [2], also has a mapping to toggle between relative (cor) and absolute numbering (con).

[1]: https://github.com/tpope/vim-unimpaired

[2]: http://vim-doc.heroku.com/view?https://raw.github.com/tpope/...