skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have trouble agreeing with this. I know nothing of the law around this, but also realise given the international nature of the internet, the law probably doesn't mean much in perspective. Would Aurenheimer be prosecuted if he were Chinese?

The grandparent making the point about status 200 has a point, especially in regards to this case. If a website is returning 200s for a get request. Then you are implicitly 'authorized' to see that page. The counter point made of SQL injection is also valid, but SQL injection wasn't used here. Just plain old GET requests.

It's difficult to draw real world comparisons to things like this. So I don't think you can simplify it down to locked/unlocked doors, or public/private property.

If I go to cia.gov/supersecretfiles and it returns something... did I just "hack" the CIA? It doesn't make sense to me.

URIs that return 200s are public resources.
Committing fraud: illegal.

Using stolen identities to purchase goods: illegal.

Attacking a database: not illegal without CFAA.
The point is that it matters at the margins.

You'll stop. And some people will foolishly keep going without the coach.

But are you seriously arguing that the screaming coach has no marginal impact?
> From ad-hoc approaches to the extremes of elaborations that attempt to solve every possible future problem.

If you're writing code that needs to be maintained (i.e. not just run a few times to generate results for a paper, but read and written by several different people over time) this is pretty bad and leads to much more technical debt than would otherwise be accumulated.

This is the type of thing you learn to avoid by working in industry a few years and is why experienced ICs are paid more than new grads.
It doesn't require that at all. I keep all of my movies and tv shows on my mac and use AirVideo to stream them to my Apple TV using my iPhone or iPad (with no hacks, jail breaks, etc)

http://www.inmethod.com
No, he would not have been prosecuted if he were Chinese.

The point about "200" error codes is sophistry. We all know that every 200 code is not actually a deliberate authorization. If you believe otherwise, then any SQL injection attack that uses GETs and generates 200 must be authorized.
No one needs to prove it's due to humans; it doesn't matter what it's due to, it only matters that it's bad for us and we can do something about it. Natural is not equal to good, claiming it matters if humans caused it is as stupid as refusing to stop an asteroid from hitting us because it's not a man made disaster.
Add to that the multiple perverse incentives in every direction. Folks are discouraged to be curious, regardless of their intentions for harm. Meanwhile, the penalties for creating a system that fails to protect the most valuable details of customers is punished very lightly, if at all. Companies are only, in theory, obligated to disclose breaches that could reveal customer data if they learn of them. The easiest route for a company to take, is to take a lackadaisical approach to security and expend the bare minimum of effort on audits, with the hope that any breaches will be sophisticated enough to be imperceptible by them. We've seen this approach played out in the real world with lots of companies.

We should be thankful that braggarts and clowns like anonymous et al exist because they bring to light many breaches and weak security systems that would have been kept secret otherwise.
I think that you should go back and read the prior response and then think a little bit about whether or not it represents a "cult-like irrationality".
what do you mean by "the hardware to do Airplay video" what kind of hardware would you need for that?
Yep, maybe trading wasn't the best example, although they are still effectively at the mercy of the security of their data providers network - which admittedly is probably quite good.

Let's say you're a P.I., journalist, researcher, law enforcement, or intel agency, and need to automate news or people searches for some reason. If you were able to very strictly define the data you're expecting to receive, isn't there any way you could automatically pass this data on to a secure system without opening yourself up to exploits?
Google acquired Android before 2 years before iOS came about. I think it was more a case of "adjacent possible" developments [1] happening in parallel and learning from each other (as great artists are prone to do).

1. http://www.practicallyefficient.com/home/2010/09/28/the-adja...
This seems like one of those things people say to score points, rather than to actually engage in the process of using their brains.

There are a myriad of things that are legal for the government to do that are illegal for a common citizen. There's no irony in that.
I've been involved in (but did not run) another smartphone-to-postcard app, popular mostly in the German market (http://www.kartensender.de/web/us/) but also available in the US. The main difficulties we faced were payment options and lack of control over the user experience.

Payment options: While the situation is slightly better in the US, accepting micropayments is still very difficult. You can basically count on losing 25-40% of the end user price to payment processors. More if you accept credit cards. But with Mastercard Secure et al. rolled out all over Europe these are useless for mobile anyway thanks to the abysmal usability of those systems. In-app payments don't work because those are only permitted for virtual goods (though I've seen some competitors do it for a few months before being shut down). Selling batches of cards (we called them "voucher codes") is a neat workaround but customers aren't huge fans of the idea in my experience.

Lack of control over user experience: You can spend as much time and money as you want on making the app perfect and perfecting the print process (sth. the Sharktank guy didn't do--since when are postcard glossy on both sides?). In the end you hand the card to the mail carriers and those suck all. I'd estimate that 1% of cards don't arrive due to mail carrier error, with USPS causing so much trouble that the US market seemed unatttractive. Those 1% of disappointed customers whose card didn't arrive are 50% of your app store reviews and 100% of your Paypal disputes. And because a postcard is a physical product, Paypal will ask the vendor for a tracking number. Don't have one? Get your Paypal account frozen.

What surprised me in Sharktank episode is that they guy who invested seemed to consider the idea novel when in truth it's been tried and tested since the first opening of the app store. I haven't been involved with that app for several years now but they seem to still operate and last time I checked I could find around 20 competitors. Does that mean the sharks make their investment decisions without any research into the markets they are getting themselves into?
Awesome Video About Friendship, done by teens?
I don't do Crossfit, but I think it's a good system in general. I do powerlifting style strength training and Brazilian jiu-jitsu. The attitude you're talking about - patch me up so I can get back to training, until my next injury - is common to all sports and physical activities.

Now, it's possible injuries are more common in Crossfit than in other sports, but that's a question for the data.
It's kind of amusing how parochial a lot of the SV types are.

No, "the best developers" are not all in California.
The cyclical recurrence of interglacial and glacial periods (we're technically still in one of these) can theoretically be explained by cyclically evolving properties of the Earth's orbit around the sun such as the precession of the Earth's ratational axis (google Milankovitch cycles). This theory is consistent with the gradual cooling trend observed thus far into the Holocene epoch, and predicts it will continue for tens of thousands of years. The linked graph shows this very nicely.

A sudden, full-blown glacial period would be far more disastrous for human civilization than significant global warming. The latter would submerge densely populated coastal areas and force humans to move to the new coastlines, but the overall capacity of the Earth to support life would increase, just as it did at the start of the Holocene. The former would result in a large reduction in the Earth's carrying capacity and global famine.

Any change in the Earth's temperature is going to be disruptive to both human civilization and the existence of other species on Earth. We have reversed the effects of several thousand years of cooling in just a couple of centuries and, assuming we are able to continue extracting and burning hydrocarbons at an unabated pace indefinitely (dubious) we could significantly change the face of the world, but it will still support our civilization, just in a very changed state. Avoiding the pain of this change is ample incentive to curb the use of hydrocarbons. (Edit: It has taken centuries and a significant portion of the world's hydrocarbon reserves to produce less than a degree of warming. At this rate, even if we evaded peak-oil for another thousand years the Earth will still be in a glacial period.)

However, we should be much more aware of events that could trigger another glacial period. Megaeruptions or large meteor impacts could plunge global temperatures suddenly and catastrophically. These are far greater threats to our species, but we are both incapable of adequately predicting them or preventing them if we do predict them. The probability of this sort of event happening in a single human lifespan is remote, while global warming is a certainty, but these events will eventually occur with certainty. Managing global warming is certainly a good idea for the comfort of our civilization, but we should have more eyes on the bigger threats. (Edit: Even if we tried, we would be unable to maintain global warming indefinitely simply by burning hydrocarbons. In the ten-thousand year time-frame we will need to find other ways to combat gradual cooling.)
The public can't understand that, but it certainly forms opinions based on it. It votes, too...
I have a rock in my pocket that has access to all of the world's knowledge. Why would anyone deprive another human being of that?
Absolutly.... not.

Companies like Apple, Amazon, google, Microsoft, Yahoo, or developers of things like WhatsApp did NOT do it this why.

They build something for their own needs or something they think someone want to use.

So what is now right and what is wrong?
Most people don't come nearly close enough to working so hard they damage themselves. Since the overwhelming majority of people don't work hard enough, the fact that CrossFit pushes people is a good thing.
Because they might also have a boulder on their desk at home that has access to all the world's knowledge as well?
Not to mention the highly casual way the talk about the condition and how they caused it!

Someone needs to sue them. For a lot of money. Maybe they'll get it through their thick skulls that it's not cool, or funny.
I hate to cast doubt on the guy, but he seems to have based the entire article on his own personal experience. So we have one side of the story from the most partial participant. Despite claiming to have approached the problem scientifically, he's only considered a sample size of one. If he's writing an article about this perceived societal issue, why not broaden the scope beyond himself? What percentage of CS PhD's are unable to find employment? What about Stanford CS Ph.D.s?

Further, I encountered a fairly high proportion of people in grad school who had, for one reason or another, difficult personalities (heck, this probably applies to myself). How do we know he isn't bombing the interviews for such a reason? We don't.

That said, it sounds like his graduate work was performed in an area that's irrelevant to industry. Despite acknowledging this, it sounds like he believes that this work alone (and the academic reward it received) should qualify him to work. He needs to realize that many employers don't think this way. They don't make the leap "He did X, so certainly he can do Y for us". That's just the way it is, and the sooner he realizes that and refocuses his attention towards the employers needs, (rather than his prior solution to an unrelated need), the better off he'll be.
crossfit is a scam. People go to crossfit to become more fit. Since they are presumably novices, how exactly are they supposed to evaluate the instruction they receive? Crossfit, as implicitly admitted in your post, is perfectly willing to allow poor and dangerous instruction to be sold with their name, as long as the cash keeps on coming.

and this:

If you go to a gym (CrossFit or not) that programs things that expose you to
to any kind of injury, then you should absolutely leave.

when you later call those people dumb is really amazing. Yes, they are dumb for trusting people like you who sell dangerous coaching with the crossfit brand. You're willing to associate with crossfit and turn a blind eye to how other crossfit coaches hurt people who trust them.
I wouldn't trust the dimensions of things made by this one millimeter.
People are adapting to texting and emails very quickly, especially the new generation. It's not true that you are somehow less responsible for what you write in a text message these days. In fact I think the only reason for somebody to believe otherwise is that at least you have it now on record as opposed to hearing nothing or rumors who said what when.
Regarding the reps and high weight.

Westside Barbell changes program structure from 3 sets of 5 repetitions into 5 sets of 3 repetitions (or even 8 sets of 2 repetitions) precisely because it allows athlete to control form of exercise. The volume is the same, the breakdown is different. As Westside Barbell is trying to keep traumas low, it is a good example why you should not perform complex lifts in long series.
Show HN: The Most Difficult Platformer Ever Made
Did you even read the article/listen to his bit on Conan? I'm a huge supporter of technology, but a lot of people overlook Louis's point, which is that constant access to everything makes people over-reliant on constant stimulation, and that constant stimulation can actually decrease happiness and satisfaction with life.

He himself has a modern cell phone, so obviously he sees the benefits. But he is also self-aware of the drawbacks, and does a good comedic job of demonstrating those.
Timely article, I just walked past a Crossfit place that opened today and saw it was full of people doing ridiculous interval exhaustion excersizes.

If you want the ultra lean, chiseled pro fighter look it's all about what you eat not overtraining yourself to death.
Building muscle and strength training means you should be doing slow, careful and correct weight lifting not jerking motions especially to exhaustion where you make mistakes.

Plenty of videos out there on how professional athletes train to minimize injuries. Go on youtube and look up NHL training or even MLB training you will never see them jumping off things or doing high reps, or anything that isn't completely controlled at all times considering if they get injured the team is out millions.
Say that sentence out loud and I think you'll understand my point.

Look, I understand the tremendously damaging addictive potential of new technologies. We've seen this again and again, from Pong to World of Warcraft, these devices provide dopamine and must be treated with caution.

But is it wise to cloister our children away from these developments? Or is it better that they learn to adapt, especially in a world where the speed of technological advancement, and the addictive potential inherent therein, is accelerating at a rapid pace?

Personally, I know which choice makes sense to me.
Because it's also a distraction rock that excuses you from the vestiges of normal human communication.
Yes, I think he has some great points. But those points are outweighed by:

1. The necessity of adapting to the lure of technology in order to successfully navigate the modern world.

2. The incalculable benefit such devices can provide if used correctly.
Elixir sounds very nice! Thanks for sharing the link.

It's really exciting to see functional programming beginning to be recognized by more and more developers. It looks like Elixir will be a great language to help that trend grow.
I am thankful for crossfit because it introduced me to powerlifting. But I quickly realized I liked the strength portions a lot more than the AMRAP (as many rounds as possible) and other timed workouts.

The official line is "you're only competing with yourself," but in practice that's not the case. Especially when there's a whiteboard and everyone knows what the various times/number of reps are. Trying to force anything with a strong technique component (like olympic lifts) into a time based or number of reps based competition just seems like a bad idea.

Also, with the wide variety of WODs, it's hard to track progress. Yeah, the workouts repeat, but if you only do something a couple times a year it's hard to keep track of progress.

I ended up doing Starting Strength instead. I got my squat from about 80lbs to 245, and then 295 with some intermediate programming. I almost never got sore - only a little sore after the first couple workouts, or if I missed a week or two. I'm currently trying to figure out how to integrate cardio and lifting, which is one thing that crossfit has going for it, but I liked powerlifting workouts a lot more than crossfit.
If he really wants a programming job he should get his hands dirty and publish some apps, either alone or meeting up with tech meetup or study group.

Speaking from the grad-school/research perspective: we never think of that. Why? Because our entire training is in thinking about research-hard problems. From our perspective, anything you can get together in a Hackathon and crank out an "app" for is trivial and beneath consideration for someone proposing to do serious work.

And yes, I do realize exactly how this sounds. The best I can say in our defense is that we still face all the normal design, development, testing/QA, and marketing issues after we've solved a research problem.
Android was a substantially different system before the iPhone, very much concentrating on keyboard input as a sort of Blackberry alternative. Google saw which way to shift, though, unlike RIM.
Very possible. I've never examined the timeline in depth.
I don't think his argument makes a ton of sense. Children still interact through school, recess, sports, etc. Yes, they might post something hateful on Facebook or text something insulting to a friend but they still get to see the effects of their actions by comments. They still have to answer for their words the next day or right in the comment thread. No child wants to be excluded and will learn to play nice eventually. Phones can probably be related to board games or cards of the years past. Children have always found ways to keep to themselves when they're bored.
I have a phd in computer science that doesn't involve much theory. Pure theoreticians exist, but they are quite rare. If your company doesn't have hard problems to solve, it doesn't need phds.
Your comment seems to go against what other people have said is wrong with Ph.Ds. Other people are saying that researchers tend to write code that just works at a bare minimum, but you're stating that they tend to like to rewrite code so that it becomes better code. I think this whole thread might be giving ph.ds a bad rap. disclaimer, i'm not a ph.d.
NSA Letter Reassures Its "Extended" Family That They Will "Weather" This "Storm"
A CIWS will kick in at about 3 miles and has a 100% kill radius of over 1 mile. This will increase when the system has been upgrade to use lasers (soon).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

The CIWS is only used if the SeaSparrow missiles (which have a 40+ mile range) and RAMs do not hit their target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESSM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missil...

Those would only be used if the jamming equipment/planes failed.

Don't forget that carriers always have several ships traveling with them with even more anti-missile firepower.

It would literally take a nuclear missile, severe incompetence, or numerous malfunctions on multiple well-tested systems to hit an aircraft carrier with a missile. Plus balls, the US will come after you hard if you mess with one of it's carriers.

But yeah, shooting a missile with multiple nuclear warheads is about the only thing that can be done to take out a carrier, and that's a pretty awesome claim.

Oh, I guess a railgun would work too, those would be the real carrier killers. The US DoD should definitely assign some extra IT security personnel to the contractors working on railguns.
use the rt kernel - https://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
I'd be surprised if someone from http://csl.stanford.edu wrote that article. My point is that it matters a lot what area you did your PhD in and not just that you finished a PhD in CS. If your area was Machine Learning and you can't get a data scientist job then you obviously messed up. If your area was networks/systems and you can't get a programming job then you obviously messed up! Those cases are very clear (and rarely ever happen). But you can't take a specific case of working in an area outside of core systems or ML and then try to generalize it as the "PhD -- industry gap". CS is an exception, and not an example, of the PhD--industry gap. Try talking to grad students outside of CS and you'll see how envious they are of CS PhDs finding industry jobs.
Eh, only if you make the large-ish thing solid - this can easily make hollow / drain-able structures. And since it's partially supported by the liquid as it's built, you don't need as much temporary supporting structure as an extruded plastic version.