skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You are off in the weeds.

> What is relevant to private communication is that it is private

This is not the basis for 4th amendment protections. You are also confusing things: attorney-client privilege comes to us from Common Law, not the 4th amendment and is not a good basis for discussing what is private, as there are many more restrictions on it (a warrant can almost never compel your attorney to testify against you, for instance, which is not the case for almost all normal communications).

The mere existence of a third party does not negate the reasonable expectation of privacy, otherwise no third party communication system would be safe from warrantless searches. What has long mattered is the reasonable expectation of privacy, which under current case law does not always but in many situations does override any details like the extent that a third party is involved in that communication (for instance, cc-ing Larry Page on an email does not make a message suddenly have no expectation of privacy any more than sending it to anyone else, as the limited list of recipients makes it on its face not for publication or public posting).

> It is the insertion of an active third party into the communication which is a problem. Its a problem because it damages the inherent idea of 'mail' as a sender-recipient private relation (post office =/= an active recipient). And from here, the problems start.

Again, this is wrong. The fact that there are people at the post office, people that could open your mail, people that do actively examine your mail for things like drugs or bombs does not negate your 4th amendment protections. Are you reading anything I'm writing? That's directly addressed in the quote three posts above this one.

> In any event, I think you are missing the legal abstraction at the core of the analysis.

This is just silly. What you are suggesting is that the third party doctrine has overruled all, and that merely using an email provider that scans for spam or looks for abuse has left you open for warrantless searches (which is almost all of them except ones your run yourself since open mail relays are virtually extinct). Not only have you provided no evidence for this belief, the ECPA says you are wrong for emails newer than 180 days, and it looks increasingly unlikely that the courts will agree with you for emails that are older.

You appear to be confusing Google saying that people sending email to users of gmail expect their emails to be handled by the machines that run gmail (or they should, because that's the only way it can physically work) with an argument about the 4th amendment. Breathe easy. That is not the case. Whether or not Google is breaching the plaintiff's expectation of privacy (and it would, again, be bad news for every email provider out there if they are found to), scanning your email is not publicly posting your email, and this tort case has no bearing on your 4th amendment protections from searches by the government. This was established in Katz v US 46 years ago, and remains true today.
Step 1: You upload content to some site, with the intent they'll display it to other people.

Step 2: They display it to other people.

Step 3: If they didn't have a clause like this, you sue for copyright infringement.

Basically, in order to do anything useful at all -- even to store the content, assuming a distributed store that makes multiple copies -- they need an actual, honest-to-god copyright license from you, the creator of the content. "But we figured he wanted us to because he uploaded it" is not a license and will not hold up in court.

Granting a license does not transfer ownership; it is simply a set of permissions. People who really and truly ought to know better continue to post scary and idiotic posts claiming that it's a change of ownership though. You shouldn't listen to those people.
The NSA and the US Govt is unequivocally to blame.

It's not legal as far as they're concerned, they wouldn't be pushing for legislation to give them more power, seek secret courts for unethical interpretations of the constitution or lie and try and hide the scope of their activities (where even members of Congress still have no idea what they're doing) if that was the case.

As far as they're concerned they've got all the power and freedom with the influence to push any legislature they need to, and continue unfettered in their mission to track anyone they want to regardless of the constitution, legislation or public opinion.
Either this guy is very lucky or something seems fishy here, how does he manage to get free hospitality by so many people to just invite a stranger to stay with them, I can't help but wonder if google is behind this somehow.
> It's telling of what exactly?

That the candidate favors transport-agnostic APIs or has limited familiarity with HTTP. One easy follow-up: "I notice you decided to call the method createUser..." and you've learned something concrete. They'll either stare blankly or discuss their preference for JSON-RPC or SOAP or whatever.

> And as far as I know, web apps with true RESTful interfaces are somewhat rare.

It's common to take advantage of HTTP's verb syntax.
The moment Ubuntu becomes unviable either because of their own doing or because other people in the linux community want to throw a fit and have a pissing contest is the moment I switch to Mac OS.
The problem is that Verilog/VHDL isn't a "programming language" in the sense that C, Lisp, Haskell, or Python are programming languages. So approaching them with a programming language mindset is asking for a lot of pain and misunderstanding.

HDLs like Verilog and VHDL describe digital circuits, not algorithms and instructions for manipulating data. If C code is akin to instructions for getting to a grocery store and shopping for vegetables, HDL code is describing the blueprint of a house textually. Maybe the solution is building some ultra high level abstraction that can somehow encompass both problem domains, but given how difficult hardware synthesis with existing HDLs is right now I don't know if that'll happen anytime soon. And the fact that logic takes so long to synthesize and simulate really has little to do with Verilog's deficiencies; if anything it's a limitation of the register-transfer level abstraction that's currently used to design digital hardware.
Sitting in bed reading this before I go to sleep, you could not pay me to watch that video.

NOPE.
I may be digressing but the symbolism they chose for these names is rather spooky. The US program is named after the first battle in the American Civil War, and its UK correspondent after the first in the English Civil War.
The service Medium provides is that people will actually read what you write. If you've already built an audience, then it's probably not for you.
"Discontinuation syndrome," AKA withdrawal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSRI_discontinuation_syndrome

I'm a big "weird crime" geek and pretty much every single one of them, if you dig deep enough (and quick enough--I've seen news articles "cleaned up" after-the-fact to remove references about medications. Doesn't need to be a conspiracy when we have HIPAA), you find that the perpetrator had either been prescribed new meds/upped dosage in the past week or discontinued suddenly. Also, it's a little bit like a miscarriage--if you talk about it even a little, the private stories come out of the woodwork. Some tragedies, some "holy cow, am I glad I figured out what made me want to buy a gun." What kills me is not knowing how many suicides could have been avoided. And that the word isn't out yet, how many more will we see?

I am seriously a little terrified about a mass shortage of these medications (SSRIs and antipsychotics aren't the only medications that can cause akathisia, delusion, homicidal/suicidal ideation...we've got Larium, ADHD meds, I even just read about a weight loss drug with suicidal ideation as a side effect...banned in Europe but A-OK in the US). How irresponsible if pharmaceutical companies just cut these drugs out without giving their patients a method of safely withdrawing from them... Dig around for withdrawal-induced crimes (especially at the local level; more data there), and you'll see that it's actually murderous. The least they can do is research which genotypes are most susceptible to dangerous side effects (for example, is it possible that people with the MTHFR gene mutation or other characteristics are hit with serious withdrawal symptoms?) to share with prescribing doctors.
It’s All About The Games
This is the exact reason why I built Silvrback. If you haven't seen it yet (was on HN a couple weeks ago), here it is: https://www.silvrback.com/dsowers/introducing-silvrback

Shipping soon.
If there is a break or panic in the iterator, not the loop using the iterator. If the loop using the iterator closes the channel, the program will crash.
Instead of manually installing Ubuntu and all that to follow along for this, it'd probably be way easier to just install Vagrant (http://www.vagrantup.com/) and run a couple commands:

$ vagrant init precise64 http://files.vagrantup.com/precise64.box
$ vagrant up

A few minutes and a couple commands versus a lot of manual work.
No, the NSA document clearly states "consumers and other adversaries".

The adversaries are not the people trying to find out what you are doing. The adversaries are the people trying to password-protect their private files. We are the adversaries.
Not really a challenge. This is how I explained it to my non-technical father years ago:

"Nothing you do online is anonymous. There is a record of everything you do."

He understood it right away and ( I think ) has always treated everything online as public. No need to go into any technical details.
Maybe you can't compare the exact same product, but you can certainly compare the type of product.
Every -phobia has a -philia, though the word "homophobia" was made up about 30 years ago or so, maybe they weren't thinking about the Homophile. I'd prefer to use standard english as to avoid confusion. What's wrong with somebody just saying whether or not they like or don't like sodomites, and skip all this newly infused terminology. And it wouldn't be depriving the SPLC of their love for attacking the intolerant. In this case their target would be those intolerant of sodomy --clear, simple and biblical.
Yep.

Also I recommend grabbing the VMWare license from them if you use VMware, otherwise Virtualbox is fine.

Seeing long tutorials like this make me cringe now that Vagrant is so easy to use and setup compared to longwinded tutorials... though it's better for you to learn from the first time, after the first few times (if you're not restoring from snapshot) it's tedious.
But it wasn't written that way. The word "other" has a specific meaning in that context, which means it isn't an ordering problem.
I think one reason the paleo diet works for so many people is that most people are just bad at predicting the caloric content of food. So they think they are taking in about the same amount as before, but actually it has dropped significantly.

As an example: every single sandwich on the menu at Applebees, including the grilled cheese and the veggie burger, has more calories than the 12oz New York strip steak. The BLT has nearly 3x as many calories!

Another reason is that because it has such specific dietary guidelines, it tends to encourage people to prepare their own food rather than eat out. This alone drops more calories than people think, because of how most restaurants prepare food (with a ton of sugar, butter, fat, and oil).

I do agree that it delivers more nutrients than packaged food, which would improve health and make people feel better. It's easier to continue putting up with inconvenience if we feel better.
Adversary is a term of art in both intelligence and cryptographic circles: it means an attacker trying to get your information/thwart your goals. . The NSA does not consider normal people adversaries in that sense. Targets and potential terrorists, possibly, but actively capable of screwing with the NSA, no.

If the sentence was written by a cryptographer, it most likely reads as the NSA is an adversary in the context of the cryptographic system(since they are braking it) and they want to make sure that only they and not the consumer or another intelligence service knows of their exploit.
Milton Friedman predicts the invention of Bitcoin in 1999
He's got a real point here. Medium helps you drive traffic to... Medium. From a personal branding POV, you're probably better off with even a free Wordpress site. (Though, really, if you want to control your online presence, you should definitely host your own blog. It's not hard or expensive.)
Duplimab
I am a study patient currently taking Duplimab. It really works for me. I have never felt this good.
> allocate some memory.

Think of it as allocating address space, not memory.
Can be as simple as a B12 deficiency, too, which is ridiculously common. http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/vitamin-b12-deficiency-ca...
Secondary market provides liquidity to the shareholders, but not to the company. There is no cash-flow to or from the company if you buy an AAPL or GOOG. As I've said: the cash comes to the company only if it decides to have another public offering.

I see where you are going with the "what motivates people to buy ownership" part, and it has truth in it. My grandparent response was to the part "moving real capital to real businesses in need". Many people don't realize that the secondary market is not moving capital to the business, only the public offering.
I hadn't heard about super fast optical transistors, but a few months ago I was reading about ultra fast transistors that operate at 600GHz.

The idea came to me, to write a x86 emulator in 6502 assembly. Run it on a 6502 CPU built using ultra fast transistors, and boom, you've got a faster x86, just it's an emulated x86, MMU and all!

Typical 6502 instructions take 2-8 cycles if I remember rightly, so as long as it takes under 200 6502 cycles to emulate one x86 instruction, you're beating a 4GHz x86 processor.

I'm sure there are practical problems that make it difficult or impossible in reality. But still fun to think about. :)
> There isn’t even a way for me to put a link to my twitter or my personal website so that I can drive that traffic somewhere useful.

> Joe Wegner
Career Nerd. Was an IT guy. Is a software engineer (@CultivateStudios). Loves Christ. Married to @Erica_Wegner. http://t.co/yEBP9xbDiu

Am I missing something?
> The assumption is that a block cipher is secure to differential cryptanalysis.

That assumption was not taken for granted back in the 90's. It was only with years of cryptanalysis of AES (which had had resistance to known plaintext an explicit design goal) that designers felt comfortable with things like CTR mode.

In practice, we've learned that the block ciphers are by far the strongest part of the system, and it's the block cipher modes that provide the weakness for attackers.

IMHO this is the type of poisoned knowledge that the US spies should be blamed for.
NIMH dropping DSM as gold standard for psychiatric research (April 2013)
You forgot that in your examples, foreach loops are rewritten by the compiler into code that makes use of iterators.

So you at least need to write them for your own data structures so that the code knows how to navigate them.

But yeah, Go still needs a few improvements to be usable as a language for generic programming.
> To say that "double-blind prospective trials are nearly non-existent" is very wrong.

You need to read each word and think about it. In a prospective trial, subjects are chosen in advance, they aren't drawn from an existing population of people who have already decided to seek psychological help.

A "double-blind, prospective trial" would have to sign people up from a cross-section of the population who have no interest in, or association with, psychological treatments. Then they would be divided into two groups. One group would receive the drug under test, the other would receive a placebo. And the trial would have to be designed so that the two groups wold not be able to tell to which group they belonged. Unfortunately, about the drugs under test, most of them have side effects, which means the subjects aren't blinded (the placebo group have no problem realizing who they are).

Even will all its defects and shortcomings, what I have just described is unheard of in psychological testing.

> Unless you are referring to very old psychiatric drugs, most of them have gone through such trials.

Absolutely false. The kind of design I am describing is simply unheard of. Most trials are of self-selected psychological treatment clients, and it's not uncommon for the "control group" to be what are euphemistically called "no-treatment controls". Guess what that means -- it means the experimental group is compared to people who are told to go home with no treatment and no sham treatment.

> There was a lot of disagreement about the paper you referenced.

Yes, of course -- and that's the way it should be. But there have been enough similar studies and meta-analyses that the outcome is not in question.

> But you know what? That's the best we have right now.

Different topic.

> There certainly is a strong requirement for efficacy in psychiatric drugs as evidenced by how many have failed to get approved by the FDA.

Most of the drugs that just were proven ineffective were not ever tested for efficacy as psychological drugs, they were prescribed off-label -- they were originally approved for some other purpose.

> The end result is that patients with psychiatric illnesses will end up with fewer treatments options unless this changes.

If the treatments were effective, that would be a shame. But they aren't, so it isn't.
Animal bikes
Manufactoria gets insanely hard incredibly fast. I need to retake Automata & Computation.
A kindle version is a good idea. The PDF is difficult to read on the kindle in its current layout and an auto-conversion by Calibre makes it worse.

I'm limited to reading this on my laptop and my phone now. It looks like good content. shame about the format.
I blame them all, but even more so, I blame the people. Snowden isn't the first whistleblower to emerge; google William Binney, Mark Klein, and Thomas Drake. This knowledge has been within earshot of the public for nearly a decade now, yet people just don't seem to care enough to do anything about it. There seems to be some kind of implicit collective trust in the government, that whatever they're up to is for our own good. I don't think it's ignorance; I think that people generally have known that the government was spying on them for years, they just never really cared, and now that we have full-blown, concrete evidence that it's been happening, the majority still doesn't care. It's strange.
So I'm totally making stuff up here, and my interest in crypto has a hackish rather than academic flavor, but...

Couldn't we design a system that doesn't fall in this scenario, by using a constant-rate packet-blasting network that emits "background radiation" even if nothing is happening, and then filters out the good stuff via chaffing/winnowing [1]? This would clog the tubes like a torrent and run you a similar tab, but wouldn't it be 100% anonymous even in the face of such an adversary, while still being low-latency?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaffing_and_winnowing
"they're just asking for a license that allows them to distribute the content"

The license is much broader than this:

"By furnishing your User Content to Medium, you give Medium a non-exclusive worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable license to utilize all copyright rights now in existence or that may arise in the future with respect to your User Content, in any medium that now exists or may arise in the future, as well as to do anything else that is reasonably appropriate to our Service and its use of your User Content (including, but not limited to, use of your name in association with your User Content to identify you as the contributor). The license has no restriction as to the medium, dissemination method, type of Service we may offer, or the type of systems or products that may be used in conjunction with your User Content."

You can revoke the license by removing your content, which is a silver lining.
I wonder why the common assumption is that the NSA doesn't run Tor nodes. Why wouldn't they?

The NSA's (authorized) budget is $10.8 billion[1]. For $5 you can get a server with 20GB SSD and 1TB of transfer per month. It doesn't seem like it'd take very much money to be able to ensure that at least, say, 1% of Tor users' traffic passes through your entry and exit nodes, de-anonymizing them. So over a long enough time scale, that would de-anonymize quite a lot of interesting traffic, and interesting users.

One solution is VPN over Tor. But the NSA claims they've cracked 30 VPN providers, and are focused on cracking the rest as soon as possible. That's a lot of compromised VPN providers.

You could set up your own server and use that as a VPN, but if you pay with Bitcoin, then it's trivial to analyze the blockchain to tie your identity to the server, unless you use a tumbling service like bitcoinfog. But even if you manage to get a server set up anonymously, then what? You still would want to use VPN over Tor, since that's your best bet for privacy. But as soon as you get de-anonymized on Tor, that correlates your home IP address with your anonymous server, thus de-anonymizing your server too.

I can't think of any options to be truly safe from a global passive adversary that doesn't also cost >1MM to set up initially. Any ideas?

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/black-...
> to be fair, putting a symbol on a CGA screen is a two-byte affair - one for the symbol, one for attributes

Text-heavy stuff was supposed to be done using MDA graphics cards, which were praised at their introduction for allowing large amounts of readable text, especially on IBM's own monitors. I'm sure a lot of business users running 3270 terminal emulators and word processors got a lot of good use out of MDA, but the fact it was, as its name stated, monochrome pretty much killed it in the home market.

Anyway, the IBM PC was very definitely built to a price point and a release date; it was also built to avoid cannibalizing any of IBM's pre-existing product line, which explains why Compaq, not IBM, would come out with the first PC built around the 80386. It was fairly impressive compared to S-100 bus computers running CP/M but the Apple II crowd would have been forgiven for not being bowled over.
> Most mental health disorders are inherently self-limiting and will disappear without any treatment

Source?
Don't forget the bailouts too!
I think it comes down to rational ignorance. The whole thing is a negative feedback loop, nothing about it should be surprising. Breaking out of it is an uphill battle. Blame everybody, the NSA, the executive, the courts, and the population.
An LFSR? Really?

If this person was really NSA-qualified to recommend this stuff, he would have known that known plaintext was the least of your problems.

I'm sorry, tytso. It sounds like you all got expertly socially engineered.
I spent a decent amount of time country-hopping after college.

I can assure you, if you're friendly, the hospitality of others is endless. Particularly of note was Central America -- you could just get off at a bus stop, wander to the nearest cafe and people would be throwing themselves at you to hang out and chat. I had my guard up at first, but after a while it got so normal that it wasn't uncommon to find myself on some random person's couch/floor for a night/week here and there.
Yes, but Tor is already very slow, and it has a lot of resources behind it already. It would take a substantial amount of money to bootstrap your network. It'd be a worthy 1-10MM investment --- assuming you don't want any ROI on it.