skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think you completely missed the point. What you are calling his argument, is not his argument.

The point is this:

> I don't see how transferring my brain to a computer does anything for me. I don't want a copy of me to live forever, I want to live forever myself.

Copying someone's brain is, unambiguously, a copy of that person. The original still dies. I'm the original. I don't want a copy of me to live forever. That doesn't do anything for me. I want to live forever.
Isn't what you are saying is that if Make was better then it could be better than Ant?

Ant and Maven both have plenty of issues, but being dissimilar from make is not one of them. At the end of the day 'file based' tools like Make are not really suitable for Java which is more concerned with source directories - rightly so in my opinion. There is no program that cannot be written because of a consistent source layout.

There are ways to enumerate files, but nothing good (in my experience) and by the time you are using them the make files are no longer easy to read (never mind debug).

Make also has this Faustian pact thing going on. Access to the shell and all of its power and familiarity, but at the (significant) expense of portability.
Being a former IBM'er, I can tell you this, there is nothing altruistic in their motives. They invest billions into research with plans to reap the rewards. Health informatics, in Canada is brutal to say the least. See eHealth disaster. IBM employs some really intelligent people who intent to capitalize on this situation.
It would be spotted right away by anyone
remotely competent who glanced over it.

I'm not so sure. I'm a professional programmer mostly working in C++, and I didn't see the problem on first read-through. It took looking carefully before I saw it, and if I hadn't already known that these two lines contained a vulnerability I might not have noticed. I could see this being missed in a code review.
FCC Changes to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Take Effect October 16
One of the biggest changes: $500 per call to consumers if marketers violate the new auto-dialing rule without prior consent. Which begs the question: how to get one of those companies to auto-dial you without giving prior consent. Right? Right.
Scan gets $7M to do QR Code Scan To Pay
I think that the author covered most of the same objections in his essay that the FAQ you link does, missing only that evolution doesn't necessarily work well in small populations.
225,000 New Yorkers have signed up to Airbnb.

WHAT?? According to Wikipedia New York has 3,021,588 households. 7% of New York households are certainly livable but not good enough to rent out.

I would like to side with Chesky if he gives up his data and New Yorkers spruce of their apartments...
The points are

1. We're limited by our own models of physics. We can only record what we know about. That's a pretty significant issue when you're trying to simulate physics.

2. In physics, we can run an experiment over and over again so as to refine our model. We isolate systems and try to study simple interactions. When you study gases, for example, I think you will find that things are modeled statistically. We record details to the extent that they help with our model.

What I'm wondering is how we would do this with biological systems. Can you run the "experiment" over and over to try and understand the "right way" this biological system was supposed to behave? Is there a "right" biological system? How do you know what the relevant biological (sub)systems are? How do you identify what's important? How do you abstract? What's a "good enough" replica?

What I'm trying to get at is that I don't think there is a good layer of abstraction for biological systems. I think the physics is the only good layer of abstractions. But...

3. If we had to record states of molecules, for example, then making a digital copy of everyone seems really not feasible. It doesn't seem feasible because of memory or computation.
I've removed commuting of my daily life. I can now enjoy between 1 hour to 2 hours a night more sleep because of this... feels great to sleep 8-9 hours every night.
Being comfortable with saying "I don't know" a lot is something I had to kind of train myself to do. It's part of realizing that this is a truly enormous field that we're in, and nobody could possibly know more than a fraction of it. Anyone who doesn't say it much is either spending all of their time in a subset of the field that they know very well, or is throwing around bullshit, either from fear or bravado.
You'd be surprised. You're basically hearing some version of this when you hear someone talk about "manual curation", which is really little more than a euphemism for this. It's usually PMs that I hear this from.

Of course, sometimes this school of thought is correct. https://sivers.org/hi
What about the difference between "I want X, but there's no way they're getting in, so I won't bother" and "I don't want any of them"?
One starting place for some of these functions is:

http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Functions....

(note "foreach", "call", "eval") and:

http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Multi_002d...

For instance, from the "call" documentation --

"The call function is unique in that it can be used to create new parameterized functions."

Sometimes these types of functions are really important, and you have to be creative to use the builtins to set up the dependencies you want. For instance, by combining "foreach" with "call" or "eval", you can dynamically create sets of rules. This can be quite powerful.

And you don't have to use make only for software compilation. You can use it to create more general-purpose data transformations. When you get a batch of new images, for example, you type "make", and it just recomputes all the derived data (but only what depends on the new stuff). I have done this, and it was very slick, but it tends to stress the existing function set.
I'm afraid I don't own the IP and I've since changed employers. There are drop-in options (a brief search yielded fortune3.com, as an example), but I did not use any and can't really comment on them.
When you're awake? 'cause people who have sleep apnea don't usually have any trouble breathing whatsoever either. Use your phone to record a nights sleep, or at least SOME sleep, and you might hear: snoring, no breathing, sudden panicked gasping for breath, all without waking up. Or hopefully, just the snoring. Also, you were great in Sin City. :)
The premise of this comment is that the harm of having someone killed is outweighed by the harm of reporting a community of people to law enforcement.
Makes much more sense for what, exactly?

There are a number of protocols that have been promoted for use in the Internet of Things arena, for example, including MQTT and XMPP. All of them have different strengths and weaknesses.

Cisco did a nice short overview of them with a minimalistic comparison: http://blogs.cisco.com/ioe/beyond-mqtt-a-cisco-view-on-iot-p.... In the comments there, Peter Wahler goes into some more depth on the advantages that XMPP brings to the table. Among them are stronger support for authentication (SASL) and transport security (TLS and channel binding for some SASL mechanisms) and federation (including connecting firewalled entities). And, of course, an established base of libraries, server implementations and deployment.

Other protocols have their own strengths in certain settings, and I can totally see hybrid solutions. For example, using MQTT for local use and XMPP for bridging networks.
In your opinion, what rings true and what rings false? I'd assume that most of the points (e-mail trails, trusted sources) are fact-checked if verifiable.
I've noticed that dhcpcd always gets the lease, then broadcasts on the network to see if anybody else has that address, waits for a timeout, and then proceeds. This seems like an unnecessary waste of boot time when you're on uncomplicated home networks; the DHCP server can be trusted to give a fresh address almost always. Doubly so if you've set your AP to static MAC address mappings.

Is there a way to shut that off, or a Linux DHCP client that doesn't do that?
So, in that sense, the accurate claim should be something like "passwords are getting a little bit better, but crackers are improving by waaaaaay more, and that shifts the balance".
I bet the people here definitely don't appreciate funny names for internal projects either!
A little distraction for the Larry David file: It's annoying when you make a joke, and someone points out the joke as if you are unaware you are even making it. It's like they are simultaneously usurping credit for the wittiness, and insulting the intelligence of the originator. Why improve your cognitive ability at all, it's smart to be dumb.

And how about the food they serve on airplanes? Come on am I right?
What's wrong with garbage collection being built into the language?
Thank you so much. Best laugh I had so far this week. And brave of you to point it out.
The SAT is the exception rather than the rule. Most standardized and non-standardized tests reward you for guessing.
I've been trying to get some identity documents (birth certificate, marriage certificate) translated recently. Every place I've contacted wanted me to just email them scans of the documents, that will presumably sit on their ISP's server in plaintext indefinitely.

I definitely think there's something to a messaging protocol that's simply not able to be insecure.
Why just not use static IP addresses instead?
I'd suggest reading a bit on NVC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication

The primary problem I see with your comments is a slew of blaming statements. You started this whole thing by SPEAKING FOR SOMEONE ELSE, and it's continued through to this morning with comments like "Any attempt to turn the conversation in any other direction is an attempt by others to push their own agenda." Blaming statements like this shows you are trying to simulate why others MIGHT be intending - instead of just listening to what they are SAYING they intended.

I know you are frustrated about not being heard here, but I don't think it's anyone's fault but your own. It's a choice my friend. A choice.
The logo keeps on making me giggle. It looks like underwear to me. I don't know if I'd have seen it without reading this article, but now that it's in my head, it's hard to get out.
Cmd+Opt+K (or Ctrl+Shift+K) should take you to the console panel if you are in a different panel. For example, Cmd+Opt+S to open the debugger, and then Cmd+Opt+K should take you directly to the console, not close the tools.

If you find this isn't happening for you, please file a bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Firefox&c...
Whither the Pageview Apocalypse?
it was always my understanding that "good" IQ tests should have almost zero variance based on your vocabulary, or hell, even your mathematical abilities. A "good" IQ test simply tests your logic facilities.

Example "good" questions would show a sequence of 6 shapes and ask you what the next one in the series should look like. or perhaps a question like "given that all boogles are quinks and some quinks are flets, are all flets boogles?".

A question on a "bullshit" IQ test would be: "'Daring' is an appropriate adjective for: A. Rocks. B. Planets. C. Humans.". Another would be "x^2 = 36, solve for x"

Now, I know that some standardized tests (ACT, SAT, IBTS), will sometimes try to estimate your IQ by correlating your scores, but that is fraught with problems and shouldn't be taken as gospel.
I wish that Intel would have spent some transistors on an arbitrary precision decimal arithmetic floating point unit. That would have helped scientific processing but in the past has been 'too expensive' in terms of transistors to implement. Now that we have more transistors than we know what to do with, seems like that should be revisited.

Then generalize the vector coproccessing abilities of the GPU and that would be a pretty flexible base to work from.
I've got hand it to them for smashing six world records. Very impressive. I have to think that if you've accomplished that then you will have some problems on the technical side that would have been very difficult to anticipate.
Barely. IIRC it's 0 points if blank, -0.25 if wrong, so if you eliminate 1 choice it's worth it to guess. I'd like to see it be -5 points if wrong, since this is more reflective of the real world. When I entered the industry as an electrical engineer this was a difficult transition for me. In school, you're incentivized to guess and BS. But in the real world, the penalty for being wrong is HUGE.
> "... gained illegal access to a vendor's account..."

Kind of off topic, but suppose "FC" were arrested, could this person be charged with malicious entry into an otherwise illegal enterprise?

Do those legal rights extend to people who had already been breaking laws?

Obviously, a bank robber has a right to not to be murdered by another bank robber. But can the other bank robber be charged with stealing the victim's ill-gotten money in addition to the murder?
In the past people also used bloodletting and witch trials. Just because something has been done for centuries doesnt make it the most effective thing. What are we trying to accomplish? Reducing recidivism? Deterrence?

Finland has a better system. They actually educate people in the prisons and give them tasks to prepare them for the real world. And it has been amply shown that greater education is correlated with significantly less crime.
Fields medal is an award that explicitly targets younger mathematicians (below 40), whereas the nobel has no such stipulation
Gonzo mathematics !
> A good interviewer wants to get a look into how you think and how you approach a problem.

I consider that a red flag. In this case, the interviewer is almost certainly less concerned with whether or not you can do the job than they are concerned with whether you think like them.

Though I do like your suggestion to try offering a terrible solution to get the conversation started. Usually it's breaking the ice that's difficult.
StackEdit by Stackoverflow
What I learned from getting my side project acquired
MDMA sounds to humans what Toxoplasma gondii infection is to rats.
When Nobel created the price there were not computers, so Math was very similar to Philosophy, it became harder and harder to make great discoveries by the law of diminishing returns, while with other sciences it was different.
Yup, hostile coworkers are the worst. Incompetent people establishing process to bring everyone down to their level.

I've seen every trick in the book. This industry sucks.
This is one of the annoying things about Haskell code -- since many Haskell programmers come from math backgrounds, they tend to use very short variables, often one letter or a letter and a number, where a programmer would use a descriptive variable. Perhaps more annoyingly, as a result of this lineage, it's become part of the convention, so even those who come from a non-math background tend to use short, mathy variable names.
I haven't been following cracking development, is anyone aware of a back of the envelope analysis of how much using a preconceived mnemonic reduces entropy versus random letters? I would expect the math has been done, I think all you need are the 1gram counts for the first letter position[1].

[1] https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1DlRnW1...

EDIT: Based on a quick spreadsheet calculation, I think uniform A-Z each letter is 4.7 bits, and a phrase constructed of random english words each letter is 4.1 bits, so maybe not all that bad. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Ar03cGpoaUJ3dHp...
It's a startup opportunity.
Living With Ross Ulbricht: No Clues of Silk Road or DPR
A piece of telco software had been written in C language, a standard language of the telco field. Within the C software was a long "do... while" construct. The "do... while" construct contained a "switch" statement. The "switch" statement contained an "if" clause. The "if" clause contained a "break." The "break" was supposed to "break" the "if clause." Instead, the "break" broke the "switch" statement.

Ctrl-F the above phrase in

http://www.mit.edu/hacker/part1.html

Security concerns always seem to involve low level code in device drivers or firmware. Indeed, one character in the wrong place and we have problems
>>> That is like saying that GMail is protecting the privacy of your headers, because GMail uses SSL.

It does. Unlike Lavabit, though, there is ample reason to assume they invalidate this protection by granting governmental adversaries access to the information stored on their servers - the thing that Lavabit refused to do, at least on mass scale.

>>> since all the cryptographic operations were performed on the server.

I don't see what precludes you from sending emails already encrypted. Security has layers. You are not limited to using just one.

>>> leaves the server unable to fulfill demands for plaintexts.

You forgot to read the part of my answer where I use the word "envelope".

>>> Really, you think I am not using email anymore if I am running my own personal mail server?

It is irrelevant what you personally are doing - it is relevant what Lavabit was trying to do. They were trying to provide certain service - for people that - like, I assume, most of Guardian journalists - are not technically advanced enough to run a secure mail server on their personal computer and set up everything else in a way that allows it to accept email from the internet. This proved impossible, thus Lavabit is not with us anymore. That was my whole point.

>>> Ladar could have sold smartcards instead of selling cryptography as a service.

He could also have sold hotdogs and Carribean timeshares, how that's related to the topic? He was trying to create a secure email as a service - for those that can not create the same by themselves, which in 99.999% of the population of email users. Not provide solution for completely different problem such as key exchange and creating VPNs and other stuff.
Key insight: "The problem with many security systems based purely on secrecy is that their usage is itself anomalous. It singles out and attracts attention to the users." In other words, the very use of secrecy is itself a weakness that can be exploited by attackers.
Ghostery blocks this entire article for me... (first time I've ever seen that happen)
I don't have much time right now to sift through so many papers, but see these for instance:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10583700 , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1372342

I haven't stated anything outrageous, it's been known for a long time that piracetam is a positive modulator of glutamate receptors.
I think it's the linkedin widget. I'll remove it
I would love something like QuickCursor... How did you install QuickCursor? (builds won't launch due to the OS X Sandbox?)
I've worked on the problem of entering well modeled medical data for a decade and I have seen very slow improvement over that time. Not only is the overwhelming majority of medical data not in a proper data model, the data that is has most likely been subject to selective pressure (which will probably not be accounted for in most analyses).

Once you have enough well structured data, the next challenge will be reducing the dimensionality taking into account the meaning of the data. The fact that a patient is diabetic, e.g., can be inferred from a specific diagnosis, a set of medications and several lab tests.

It is a very promising field but I see non medical people entering it with a certain amount of cockiness.
Read the page lightly. Sounds like since the datacenter is in the United States, the federal government has some legal authority.

Tangentially related, post-Wikileaks, US payment providers have scrambled to deco uple international branches from US government involvement. Essentially, the US's ability to shut down international payment networks spooked foreign governments enough to consider creating new payment networks and services.
I have not noticed a speed difference after enabling filevault.

I have not measured either. But the OSX boot time is still measured in seconds with the SSD.
He nevertheless proceeds as if this is something that is generally true, with it only being false in exceptional situations. There is no reason to suppose that this is generally true, which makes the heuristic useless, and hence his reasoning gets very shaky, for example:

How about opiates? Morphine and other painkillers can easily be justified as evolution not knowing when a knife cut is by a murderous enemy and when it’s by a kindly surgeon (which didn’t exist way back when), and choosing to make us err on the side of always feeling pain. But recreational drug abuse?

#1 doesn’t seem too plausible - what about modern society would favor opiate consumption outside of medicinal use? If one wishes to deaden the despair and ennui of living in a degenerate atheistic material culture, we have beer for that.57

#3 doesn’t work either; opioids have been around for ages and work via the standard brain machinery.

#2 might work here as well, but this dumps us straight into the debate about the War on Drugs and what harm drug use does to the user & society.

He completely misses here what he wrote himself earlier for example about there not existing a simple mutation from the current state to the "desired" one.
Well I am a heavy magit user.

There are numerous advantages one of being that magit uses multiple buffers to show contextual information. For example I can get a nice ASCII view of the commit log in one buffer (in all the available formats) and see the diffs for each commit with glorious colour-highlighting in the other, side-by-side. The diff buffer updates as I scroll through the history.

Easier to remember mnemonics for common tasks.

I can use magit-blame-mode to see the blame information inline with the file as I edit it.

Diffs are super-easy and I can jump right to any file to fix things as I come across them from the logs or the status view.

Plus emacs... so I get hooks into magit that I can use from other packages like org-mode, etc.

I find the command-line to be tedious and slow now. I'd rather use a smart front-end with sane defaults and a nice interface.
I think it would be the opposite effect actually. Sleeping less, according to the article, seems to increase inflammatory and immune system responses, which are what cause allergies. So sleeping more, presumably, may decrease a person's allergic reactions.

Of course, this whole article is based on a really small sample size...I would take it more as a suggestion than a solid scientific result.
But aren't the password and the salt hashed together?

So a password with different salts will result in a different hashes. Therefore you have to know the salt in order to guess the password (for offline matching against a dataset of hashed passwords retrieved from a target site). Ideally, every password will have a different salt, and the dataset of salts is stored separately from the dataset of hashes.

Or am I missing something? (Genuine question, because this is not my area of expertise).
I'd been following Dorsey's career for a while and had read up a lot on how he founded Twitter and Square.

Then I read Steve Jobs' official biography, and I started to realize how much of what Dorsey does and says is influenced by Steve Jobs. This new Bilton story is basically just the straw that broke the camel's back.

If you ever have time to check out this talk he gave at Stanford, it's a great example of how he takes bits and pieces of stuff that Steve Jobs was famous for and and makes it his own:

http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2635

E.g. using and emphasizing the words "beautiful", "amazing", and "great" over and over again (a staple of Apple keynotes), talking about focus (like "We want to do a thousand things but we end up only doing 1 or 2 of them"), talking about "telling a story about your company", I could go on but I'll stop here.