skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think being to strong willed is a bad thing. It's called stuborn.
The instructions under "concat demuxer" on this page work for the video but no so much for the audio:

http://ffmpeg.org/trac/ffmpeg/wiki/How%20to%20concatenate%20...
I assume you mean 10 joules per GigaHash (with ASICs), a joule being a watt-second.

Put another way, such an ASIC doing a GigaHash per second would consume 10W.

It's bad enough that science journalists routinely confuse energy and power units -- let's not do it here on HN!
Mathematicians Team Up on Twin Primes Conjecture
You use Gmail's undo feature as an example, but it doesn't work in the way you prescribe. It's the cheap & easy version of undo that doesn't require building your application around the command pattern: just implement a reasonable delay before making the irreversible change, and show the Undo action during this delay (which is really a "cancel the pending change" action).

No, it's not as clean or as good of an experience for your users, but it works great for applications such as email that perform fundamentally irreversible actions.
There's a problem in asking "How much did they deserve?" because there are so many hard to answer questions.

- Did they uncover some unique IP, or was the exit the work of subsequent management?

- How much did the VCs influence the exit?

- Did the founders trade downside protection for more upside?

It's hard to know the answers.
I'm curious: what do you mean by risk management (other than credit card fraud prevention - or is that what you meant?)
This is one of those interview questions that is so disconnected from the day-to-day work of systems administrators and DevOps types, yet it's probably the second-most popular question to ask (behind to "Do you have any questions for me?"). It's not a dumb question, per se, it's just that 90% of the details of the answer is stuff that most of us will never have to mess with.

Still, it's asked so frequently that it's worth learning. While you're at it, take the time to learn dig(1), inside and out. This is something that you'll use frequently and having a solid understanding of dig will make the DNS question a breeze, especially if you are quizzed on aspects of the resolution process.

Bonus points when answering this question: mention the existence of NIS as a resolution option when discussing nsswitch.conf. :)

All of that said, I never ask this question. I'd rather test a candidate's knowledge by asking them about things that we do have to do frequently, like holding a package with APT...backporting a package...writing IPtables rules...structure of Chef cookbooks, etc.

73's. :) NW5W
"Did a murderer and a sex offender just save Oklahoma $20 million?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6664588)

Let's connect the dots.

(The obvious follow-up is: Are these men African American?)

((Obligatory response: Point still stands. Change all the variables. Make them androids with upgraded and legally "blessed" virtual mental cores for all I care.))
>there is still no reason to assume that it will ever stop having these extreme fluctuations.

Think of the difference in waves occurring in a big pool vs a little pool, when a person of the same weight dive in it. In a little pool, a person dives, the waves are proportionally very big. In a big pool, the person diving hardly affects the water in its totality.

The same applies to Bitcoin. The more each coin is worth, the less big buyers and sellers will impact the overall market.

So, if Bitcoin had a total market capitalisation of, say, 10 trilliion, then even big players would only affect a few Satoshi as they buy in and out of the market, therefore the fluctuations would decrease.

Of course, there's still be people who had held on to their coins from the very beginning, so their leverage on the total market would be big, still. But such people would be very few and far between, because everyone has a selling point. Also, it wouldn't be in their interest to rock the boat very much, just as it isn't in any central bank to buy too much gold in one go, because their movements affect the market price much more than people buying and selling at the margin.
This is amazing.

I shared this with my stepdad and his friend,
and we started talking about retro-gaming and
how things were in the 80's-90's with gaming.

I hope to see this hit Steam :)
How is this possible? I would expect repeated failed login attempts would force a timer making a brute force attack impossible? Or at least more difficult. Is that not the case or am I missing a key piece of info? (Serious question, not trying to troll or be smug.)
And a keystone of this madness is the War on Drugs. End it, and the police will have a lot less to do...
Well, it's more of an impression than an informed opinion, but if you're interested use your favorite search engine with, say, Nielsen india outsourcing to start with.

I should also emphasize from hard, personal experience that how "hot" the area(s) a company is working in is pretty much orthogonal to whether you really want to work for them. Especially a company with such an established brand name and cash cows, which can allow a whole lot of awfulness without killing the company, at least for a while.

I mean, for about half their IT staff it was a terrible place to be in 2007-8 when they were laid off, but not before training their non-resident Indian replacements. Or to put it another way, IT isn't a respected part of the company, obviously viewed as a cost center. Really try to avoid those sorts of outfits if you can afford it.

And their CEO loves stack ranking ... surely that's enough to cool enthusiasm prior to carefully examining the company (e.g. check out the Ask The Headhunter approach).
Zwingit 
Check out Zwingit - a new location based messaging app for you and your friends
What was the purpose? Were the repositories private? Was the attack targeted toward known accounts working on new projects -- i.e., industrial espionage?
The article did mention the use of 40k unique IP addresses, so I'm guessing their rate limiting is based on IP address and not the username or IP+username combination.
With each of these algorithms or approaches, there is a person or group receiving credit for inventing or discovering the method. Of course, the reality is that there is generally a culmination of ideas that leads to a method.

Wait, whaaaat?!?

As our intellectual property law trends more towards giving a single entity credit for any given invention, we have the IEEE saying that algorithms are essentially just a product of their times?
I have heard from people who work in operating security at tech giants that they don't build from source or use ppa because to them stable release is stable and if a release is tag stable for a specific ubuntu release it means it has met the standard. I am not sure if this is crap or what. When I run my own in-house apps I use the latest from ppa.
Legit complaint and I'll look into what happened. Sorry about it, can you let me know the ticket number so I can check it? Thanks.
If you get a user-password combo, you can try it in more sensitive sites that may have stronger protection against brute force attacks. People reuse passwords a lot, specially the kind of users that use weak passwords on the first place.

If the account has an email address connected to it, you can also try the password against the e-mail account. That can be worth quite a lot if it works.
Yeah, it's kind of a simulated undo. I'll update the post to point it out better. But anyway, the end result is (almost) the same for the user, which is what counts at the end of the day.
I felt like I was having déja vu reading this article. Happy to have found why, Aza Raskin in 2007: http://alistapart.com/article/neveruseawarning
From the blog post:

"While we aggressively rate-limit login attempts and passwords are stored properly, this incident has involved the use of nearly 40K unique IP addresses. These addresses were used to slowly brute force weak passwords or passwords used on multiple sites. We are working on additional rate-limiting measures to address this. "
Write (More) Effortlessly With Markdown
You may not be trying to troll, but either you didn't bother reading the article or they added details since you read it (doesn't seem likely). They answer this near the end of the not-very-long article.
This seems somewhat related to "not sure if serious" or the general form "not sure if [adjective]".
Not necessarily. Strong-willed implies that you won't compromise on the goals; stubborn implies you won't compromise on the means. If you surround yourself with others whose goals line up with you, being strong-willed can be a very good thing.
So Github Is Not Your CV. It Still Matters
This post seems like you don't understand the Bitcoin protocol or the exchanges.

The current BTC trade goes as:
You --> some money handler --> exchange --> bitcoin --> a bunch of nodes which take a cut for processing a transaction (and 20 minutes to hit the network) --> exchange --> another money handler --> recipient.

What part of that seems like it has less middlemen? And oh yeah, very few of those parties are beholden to any kind of regulation or ability to seek remission if something is not as advertised.
I just checked my security section (Didn't know about that!) and there were 12 attempts on my private, totally non-corporate, account.

My password has not been reset by github but I have updated it anyway.

On a sidenote I think that is a very clear and well written overview with clear details and a nice reminder about a section of the site that I was not familiar with.
I just tried sending a message in Gmail, and it didn't give me an option to undo. Is it a feature I have to enable?
Wow, ~40,000 unique IP addresses were used to circumvent rate-limiting.

Thankfully that even with that many unique IPs and presumably a few tries per IP, you still only have enough tries to crack weak passwords.
Some useful starting points:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-of-flight_camera

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured-light_3D_scanner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_imaging
One can already run Java->OpenCL workloads on Hadoop using https://code.google.com/p/aparapi/ you don't need buy any magic sauce. It compiles kernels written in java down to OpenCL which can run on SSE or GPU backends.
The attack was done using 40,000 IP addresses. You can only force a timer per IP address.
You're right, it's actually a "labs" feature: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1284885?hl=en
Rate-limiting based purely on username/password is a great way for me to lock other people out of their accounts (Or force them to do a password reset, or wait for a timeout) by just failing to login to theirs a few times.

The way around this problem is to add source IP into the rate-limiting algorithm so that I cannot mess someone else up.

Unfortunately that can be worked-around somewhat by using 40k different source IP addresses.

No perfect answer. Personally I think GH did ok here.
On writing with fountain pens
well that dodges the point made. If you don't care about what your boss thinks or whether you have a boss or not, you don't have to work at Google where the bosses are "more like facilitators" .

This is like saying "If I am not afraid of torture or starvation and don't fear death, what does it matter if I am in a concentration camp? They have no (real) power over me". This is technically true, but somewhat unimportant in a discussion over whether concentration camps and torture are evil or not, and whether "Arbeit macht frei" is a genuine slogan or hypocrisy.

The point made is that "bosses are facilitators" is a bunch of HRSpeak and has no real meaning, even at Google.At best it is a vague ideal layered over real differences in power and compensation.

Which is fine of course, thats just the way the world is structured these days. In the olden days, I suppose the feudal lords said the same things to the peasants, "we are just here to do the nasty things that you don't want to do. Please ignore our castles and silks and focus on working your fields, we are just facilitating your efforts. We are all the Children of God after all" ;-)

What really makes somebody a boss is that they have power to affect your career and otherwise exert power over you (and a genuine facilitator doesn't -they have to persuade you to act a certain way). You may have a temperament to not care about the effects of such power being exerted over you (you may be indifferent to being promoted or fired for e.g) but then you can be just as happy at any BigCo,and don't have to bother with Google HR blather about 'bosses being facilitators' etc.

That said (and I don't want to drag this too long, so signing off with this response), your attitude is a healthy one to adopt, as long as you have(or are working towards acquiring) the chops to always have choices of jobs etc. I am sure Peter Norvig, Guido Van Rossum etc don't spend bandwidth worrying about the points they score in some arbitrary HR metric. Having or acquiring real power (or choices, which is often the same thing) is always a good strategy.
Ah, yes. Probably right on that count. That's probably a better phrasing. The self-deprecation is nonetheless implied.
Whoever runs bitcoinfog might want to revise this statement on their gateway page:

> And once again, running through Tor makes it not likely for us to be shut down under pressure from the authorities. When in doubt about this, consider Silk Road.

When I consider Silk Road, it makes me less confident that this service won't be shut down.
Why Open Companies?
Putting Pencil to Paper: FiftyThree debuts the best iPad stylus yet (hands on)
Interesting, my account's Security History shows a few failed login attempts in the last 3 days from Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia, and my account is not even popular.
(For those interested in more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Money_laundering)

Never mind the fundamental fact that if your fine was less than the profit you gained from your illegal activity, you can just write it off as a business expense. Fines have to be punitive or they will have no effect; it's simple math.
You're right, very similar point. I'll add a link to it, thanks!
I would wager that the reason Undo isn't implemented more often is that it is very difficult.

Executing a DELETE statement and deleting a bunch of data is simple. Implementing "undo" is more difficult, especially for browser based software. How long is the undo valid for? Can you undo every action? How many levels of undo do you support? Do you allow an undo for UPDATE's as well (updating a blog post to set it's content is essentially deleting it, and would probably be something you want undone, for example).

On top of just building the functionality in to your app, communicating it to your users is also difficult since the web app medium is so different than the desktop one.
Very cool to see this on HN. :) I developed a 1hr class in March or April for Facebook's "bootcamp", and kind of just kept going, collecting in war stories from smart folks around the industry. If you have any questions or want to suggest a topic to add, fire away.
A rich black guy, Eric Holder, had been found in criminal contempt of Congress (I have a vague idea what it is but it sounds more serious than grandma-showing), he is still free and keeps his job. So it takes as much for a rich white guy to go to jail as takes for a rich black guy to go to jail.
Would like to see:

- Mining
- Auction House
- Scripting language
- Player driven economy like crafting

You will eventually need some kind of gold sink to balance out the inflationary nature of in game currencies.
To me, something about the brevity implies idiocy, hastiness, or half-bakedness. Despite this, some of the examples here are celebratory in tone (because bacon, because beer).
On Mike Acton’s review of OgreNode.cpp
Probably not since it is known that is what they are doing, torrenting the game is usually faster as well and users choose it. I wonder though if they just told the user and also gave them a piece if any at least in game but also bitcoin them maybe people would do it. However the stress on a normal gpu/cpu probably isn't worth it for the output as it has gone way past that. GPUs might start failing also and causing refunds/complaints.
Ah yes, what with the usual "email address being the skeleton key to your online identity" and all. I keep forgetting about this, and find myself wondering why the heck people are phishing me for my LinkedIn account login.
I would say that quote is not relevant at all.
Show HN: redditletter.com
A couple of months ago, I realized I was wasting too much time on Reddit. So I quit cold turkey and created a website that would email me top stories from Reddit every morning. After testing it on some of my friends for a month, it is now ready for the world. If you like discovering interesting stuff on the internet without losing much time, check out Redditletter and sign up if you like! :)
LOL was added to the OED a couple of years ago [1]. The point of this article is that there have been enough sighting of "because [noun]" in the wild in enough different contexts that it is starting to make that leap into the mainstream, beyond just UrbanDuctionary and it's ilk.

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12893416
Yahoo flickr PhotoBooks
A couple of months ago, I realized I was wasting too much time on Reddit. So I quit cold turkey and created a website that would email me top stories from Reddit every morning. After testing it on some of my friends for a month, it is now ready for the world. If you like discovering interesting stuff on the internet without losing much time, check out Redditletter and sign up if you like! :)
This was a really great explanation of glue records. It seems like those are often overlooked when learning about how DNS works.
I have always seen "Because noun" as being a dismissive "Don't think to hard about it; that is just the way it is" reason. Or for a situation where there is no rational explanation.

e.g.

A: "Why do some people have such a fetich for eating tiger penis"

B: "Because china"

Am I alone in this?
I'm going to guess it was simple spray-and-pray. (My account took its fair share of compromise attempts, too, probably because I use the same username everywhere so it's going to be in many modern dev-heavy password dumps.)

Github is, for better or worse, a high-value target these days. Compromise of a Github account will often get you credentials which you can use to compromise high-value targets, for example production machines.

(Example from the Rails world: if someone gets read access to your git repository, expect them to figure out your secret token which you use for HMACing sessions to prevent forgery. If an attacker can forge sessions, they have remote code execution on your production servers. You can assume they will go directly from code execution to root on those servers, and from root on those servers to a systemic compromise of your entire network (if they want to do that).)

Use your imagination on what a mass compromise of accounts gets you. The simplest possible example is grepping for /bitcoin/, finding the full source code and credentials for a Bitcoin exchange, and rooting them then emptying the hot wallet. That results in fairly obvious economic advantage, right? You could also use scriptable attacks to root thousands of big-n-beefy production machines on fairly trusted IP addresses, then add them to a botnet, which you'd use for spamming or various other nefarious activities.

Then, even farther down the list, you have a dedicated adversary actually go through every repository they got access to and look for something uniquely fun to do with that particular target.

If you were looking to do industrial espionage on a particular target, you'd probably pick a way that was less likely to be detected and cause a company-level security response. (Use passive recon to identify one or a few likely target email addresses, find one or a few likely passwords for them, and try them first. Heads you win, tails you just left evidence in a log of perfectly normal user behavior. You might follow up this perfectly normal user behavior with a social engineering attack.)
I don't think it's belligerent or simply compressed. AFAICT, it warns the listener that a lot is being left out. It is, in fact, the independent phrase version, using a single noun as the independent phrase. This tells the listener to deduce the rest of the phrase. The verb and object are generally omitted for reasons other than brevity.

"I added bacon to my ice cream because bacon" [is the most awesome thing ever] (and if you don't already know that or don't agree, I don't want to try defending it).

"The project failed because politics" [generally causes everything to fail] (and if I start talking about that I'll start ranting and no one wants that).

"Root beer in a square glass is beer because math" [uses "square" and "root" as opposites] (but if I said that explicitly it would harm the humor of the joke).

Contrast "I added bacon to my ice cream because of bacon", which would suggest that everything you need to know is there and it is the nature of bacon to be added to ice cream.
> behind to "Do you have any questions for me?"

A bit tangential, but I never liked that question. I mean, I understand the importance of giving the interviewee a chance to ask questions they may have about the company, but sometimes it feels like there's the expectation that one should have questions, and if you don't have any, it means you don't care, or aren't invested, or aren't a good candidate.

[In my experience, it usually means (A) someone else (perhaps one of the other interviewers) already answered it, or (B) it's hard to come up with questions on the spot.]

But maybe that's just a holdover from me having done interviewing workshops, etc. in high school/college which were tailored more for jobs in the financial sector, where this very much is the case.

Does anybody else feel this way? Or perhaps more importantly, if you conduct interviews (and ask this question), how do you react when a candidate doesn't have questions they want to ask?
What a good looking question!

The idea is that you want a dual stack environment where IPv4 and IPv6 coexist. Mac, Linux, and Windows all support this and do the right thing: if IPv6 is available on the client and server they try that first, if not they use IPv4.

Since you are asking I am assuming your ISP does not provide native IPv6. If you have a public IPv4 address that does not change more frequently than every several hours, the best solution is to set up a 6in4 tunnel (ignore any docs that refer to 6to4, different beast). Sign up for an account at TunnelBroker.net and create a regular /64 tunnel. What this will do is that your router will encapsulate your IPv6 packets inside IPv4 packets and send them to a Tunnel Broker router. That router will then strip the IPv4 header and send the packet off as a pure IPv6 packet. In most cases latency is measured in milliseconds and you might actually see lower latency since IPv6 servers and routes are currently less utilized. YouTube is certainly faster.

After you have your account and tunnel set up, it is best to set up your tunnel end point on your home router that supports TunnelBroker.net. Anything that runs OpenWRT does this, as do some commercial router firmware. OpenWRT is great for many reasons so you should use that anyways, this is just a bonus.

After your router is able to reach IPv6 hosts (google.com), you would set up and enable a service called radvd (router advertisement daemon) on your router. This will automatically give all the hosts on your LAN instant IPv6 connectivity.

Lastly, you would set up an HTTP ping to Tunnel Broker to let it know if your IPv4 address changes. Once again, OpenWRT does this out of the box.

I am writing this from my phone, so I cannot provide much specific advice, but email me at igor <at< igorpartola.com and I will answer any specific questions you may have.