skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>When an entire class of a city are being priced out of their homes…

Presumably they are being priced out of their homes because they don't actually own the houses they live in. Is your solution to pass a law preventing the people who do own the houses from raising the rent?
Geothermal was debated back in the late 80's but was protested against as source of heat (lava) is a god (Pele) in Native Hawaiian culture. It is especially controversial since the proposed geothermal site was on Native Hawaiian homelands.
This hole allows server (or somebody who can control connection between client and server) to read "encrypted" messages between clients.
UK could build 50 new nuclear plants
The first thing they teach in hacking class is "Nothing is 100% secure. Even the brain.exe is vunerable.".. Well proved again. Nice work !
There was a good talk about this at EuroBSDcon but the video does not seem to be available or the slides. Running the Netflix Video CDN on FreeBSD and Handling 30% of all US Internet Traffic by Alistair Crooks.
Serious question: what are NoSQL databases really good for? I'm only really used to relational DBs, and I'm unclear about which problems a NoSQL database is useful for.
Just an anecdote, but I had a conversation with a statistician who worked for the electric utilities here in Australia, and he said that solar subsidies had been so successful that it has caused a large and completely unanticipated net drop in power consumption over the summer months. Further, the situation is embarrassing for the authorities because they negotiated massive electricity price rises on the basis of needing large infrastructure improvements to handle future load. These price rises have been very politically sensitive as they are asserted to be part of the cost of the "carbon tax". It is now clear there's no need for even a fraction of the infrastructure they're building, and one consequence has been that there's been a rapid scaling back of solar subsidies to try and make all parties look a bit less foolish.

I think the moral of the story is that people are way more enthusiastic about installing this kind of thing than rational analysis would estimate.
Who says BSD is outdated? I've never heard anyone say that, and I thought I'd heard all the OS whinges going.
Thanks for the article, but you still don't get it. It's not the words you said, or the existence of an article that said them first, it's that you said them in a context that seemed to circularly "prove" both that Mormons are known "primarily for loyalty, not critical thinking", and that NSA values those personality features above anything else, all under cover of an accurate statistic from a reputable article. If you care to understand or to convince me, look at my hypothetical Jewish thread analogy from last post and explain why it is either a) not offensive/illogical, or b) is not a fair analogy to the thread here. (To be honest, I probably would have said nothing if you had targeted another group, but I still would have found your post illogical and prejudiced.)

Either I am completely crazy here, looking for offense, or you can't empathize very well. I feel that I really don't care or get offended if individuals think I or any other Mormons are just loyal robots or gullible fools, or NSA et al. like hiring us for it, but it's totally illogical (and offensive to the spirit of healthy, honest discourse) for you to cite either as if they're a proof that the NSA only wants loyal robots. And maybe that is a completely misunderstood characterization of your original comment, but all your replies have been doing are re-emphasizing the parts I don't disagree with and seemingly ignoring the real issue. I'm not even demanding an apology or anything, but some sort of recognition of my real point or a nuanced rebuttal would be nice.
MC was the sole investor in the first startup I worked for -- while I think he has his positive and negative sides like any investor, the best advice I can give anyone is to not pursue a specific investor or set of investors, no matter how much you think they are the "perfect" fit for your startup. The more popular the investor, the more likely you are wasting your breath (or email). You are also more likely to get depressed when your "ideal" investor turns you down or ignores you altogether.

That said, you definitely won't get what you don't ask for, unless you have so much traction already that investors are beating down your door.
Poor, poor, Ireland. That must be just awful for them. Thank God we in America aren't at risk of hitting that 50% figure of energy supplied by wind or solar.
Take Redis for example: simple KV database with in-memory perf and a very comfortable API with option to flush data to disk periodically. Addresses a lot of interesting scenarios such as session storage, request throttling by a certain key etc. Not used as a replacement for a RDBMS most of the time, but rather as a specialized tool for a certain use case. At some point your RDBMS is already hammered hard enough, you don't need to dump everything into it, but ultimately you could, especially at first. Comes with clustering for free as long as you're aware of the risks and use it appropriately.

This is not to say you couldn't turn Postgres into something similar. Put the data on a ramfs, relax various write guarantees (lots of knobs in PG) etc.
Especially in Istanbul, I guess it would be hard because

1) Roads change all the time, tunnels are built, huge sections of the city gets randomly closed to traffic permanently and so...

2) Istanbul doesn't have a proper road/street system but something which rather seems to be some paths randomly crossing and a lot of houses built in the smallest possible remaining land. It's also generally not clear which roads are public and private.
> To those saying RIP, Telegram will succeed. Without using it (I use a Blackberry), it looks to be top two of the chat apps when you combine usability/security. I will download it once I get an Android phone in January.

But it is not secure! That's the entire point.

Never mind "not secure against a well funded government agency", it's not secure against other attackers.

There are lots of usable chat apps that do not give you the illusion of security.

> and not looking to takeout anyone who has a different approach.

You seem to be mistaken about why they do this. It's nothing to do with pushing their app or their approach. They'd welcome good well-formed apps to compete with them. But when they see an app that claims to be secure they have an ethical duty to let people know if it is obviously not secure.

Most people are not bashing just for the sake of bashing. Some people need good cryptography software to avoid imprisonment, or torture, or state-killing. This isn't about stopping someone's teen-angsty poetry from being discovered by a sibling, it's about protecting political dissidents from an oppressive regime. In that context pointing out that a software is broken is not mindless bashing, it is a crucial part of the cryptography process.

(I'll accept that a few people are missing the mark with their criticisms.)

Pointing out flawed crypto software is part of a long tradition going back many years. It's part of the culture. Most cryptographer will start by analysing other software and finding flaws before implementing their own software.
Err, I think you are missing the point. We know ARP poisioning can be mitigated by using tools like arpwatch.

That isn't the point of this article.. I don't think it suggests it's any more reliable than existing methods to poison.

Generally, It's a great example of using scapy - in a nice clean manner. Thanks.
Telegram is making ridiculous claims that have the potential to hurt their customers. They are lying and/or incompetent. They absolutely deserve to be made fun of.
This library makes the classic error, it returns the first file descriptor that is sent then finishes.

You can then DoS the process by sending it huge numbers of fds instead of just one, which it will omit to close, and thus run out of file descriptors. So to be safe you need to iterate over all the fds and close them.
I always tell candidates "I am multi-lingual, feel free to answer in any language you want, with bonus points for Lisp or Scheme."

So far no one has taken me up on the latter option. :(

Everyone ends up coding in straight C, rather annoying really. I'd kill for someone to pull out Python or some other language more suited to the problem.

All that said, straight Java is also likely a horrible choice. Boilerplate code sucks. If the interviewer allows it (and some are super strict about these things...) ask if it is OK to mix and match syntax. If someone wants to pull in C# lambda syntax along with making up their own multi-valued return syntax, fine.

Some problems are about demonstrating language mastery (especially for some positions!), other problems are about determining candidate problem solving abilities. For general problem solving ability questions, I'd prefer the candidate demonstrate the ability to think outside the bounds of any one language!
Ask HN: Why is Amazon S3 the only provider to quote durability?
Comparing storage providers, only Amazon quotes how durable the file should be (which I read as chance the file is lost/corrupted).

Why, and is the number meaningless? I've had a frustrating chat with Rackspace who don't know anything more than the uptime SLA -- others must be interested in durability too?
You can't MITM without the browser giving huge warnings about how the connection is not secure, therefore I noticed that networks that do this avoid doing it for HTTPS connections.

The only way you can MITM successfully without the user noticing is if you control the browser used (e.g. Nokia).
i don't know why but statistically the number of times i've written code to BFS on a binary-tree given the day-hour experience i've had, is zero.So why don't interview patterns change too.

If we expect the person to design,code,execute with you , why don't we check those aspects instead of pure-academic questions on integrity of a tree-search for high-performance solutions delivered in a 10-minute conversation.

Also may be am wrong & am the one with a green toe and rest of work-places do want only academicians with linked-list experience.
youre_welcome gambling let_me_count_the_ways it's_hopeless
resume the Church scum vengeance in_theory heathen perfect
beep_beep is_it_just_me_or astounding happy_happy_joy_joy
wonderful humility I_love_you it's_hopeless my_precious
failure_to_communicate happy_happy_joy_joy ohh_thank_you
joy music you_don't_say joking by_the_way it's_hopeless
failure_to_communicate I'm_God_who_the_hell_are_you umm_what_now
Ivy_league I'm_gonna_smack_someone if_and_only_if epic_fail
are_you_insane Terry just_between_us handyman lying sex
air_head look_buddy pride smack_some_sense_into_you oh_no
money Ivy_league battle lighten_up services insane wife
test_pilot qed hang_in_there clever I_donno

C:\TAD\Text\DARWIN.TXT

y would retain this resemblance
all the more, as the variations, which afforded the basis for their
subsequent modification through natural selection, would tend from the
first to be similar; the parts being at an early stage of growth alike, and
being subjected to nearly the same conditions. Such parts, whether more or
less modified, unless their common origin became wholly obscured, would be
serially homologous.

In the great class of molluscs, though the parts in distinct species can be
shown
The criticism was mostly very well founded. Just because you don't understand it, that does not mean that it is unfounded. Just because a civil engineer only tells you that a newly built bridge will collapse in about 30 years due to corrosion and then a day later someone points out that you can make it fall down right now by parking trucks on it from end to end, that does not mean that the warning of the civil engineer was unfounded, it simply means that she pointed out a different weakness, and possibly one that you lack the knowledge to tell whether it is reasonable or not.

Or in short: We don't generally consider things safe until they collapse/explode/poison/... and people are actually dead. When an expert understands that something is not safe anymore for reasons that you don't understand, that still is a well-founded reason for considering it unsafe.
Ubuntu is a customer/"average joe" oriented OS, Canonical spends money to actively promote it as such (!), therefore it should be fit for this purpose.

I know this kind of stuff, but the average user isn't required to know this. Even if the product is free, having a default setting that shortens hardware lifespan instead of an automatic configuration for best lifespan/performance is to me simply cheating the customer. You may wave in may face the "no guarantee to be fit for a particular purpose" or whatever is written in the license, but when you are a commercial company that actively promotes a product, you are responsible to make it "just work", "by default" and to "not require me to think."

...and generally thinking, I think that we as software developers should take the "don't make me think" philosophy more seriously and ditch the "RTFM" mindset, even if we write libraries or tools that are to be used by other programmers. "RTFM" simply can't work at scale: when you use tens or hundreds of devices, apps and technologies, you just don't have the physical time to "read the manual" for all of them, so you should just be able to assume "sane / mostly optimal" defaults. And no, not even a large company can't just hire one professional that is expert in each particular technology they use, open-source or not: nobody can afford this, most shit should just work by default, and when we'll have technology that will be able to "read our minds" or "know stuff for us" we should actively demand that is does so.
For statistics I can really recommend 'All of Statistics' by Larry Wasserman (http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~larry/all-of-statistics/)

It runs through a lot of important topics, particularly in inference, without being either as turgid as most stats texts for people without a maths background or as dry as more 'pure' books (no measure theory required).

For biology I'd recommend 'Physical Biology of the Cell' (http://microsite.garlandscience.com/pboc2/) if you like to think quantitatively. About evolution specifically I find Schrodinger's 'What is Life?' thought-provoking if you already know the basics.
> Whatsapp is less secure then Telegram

Whatsapp never claimed to keep your chat secure. Telegram did. Many people offered gentle advice to Telegram, and they ignored it.

Maybe it's a cultural thing? Not just domains-of-expertise (mathematicians going into crypto) but international?
Chase limits customer spending after credit-card security breach at Target
At the risk of being pointlessly pedantic: assembly is surely not the lowest level relevant to the topic at hand. When programming for very high performance, you usually need to consider the microarchitecture you are targeting.
nope.. lol!
I'm not saying you shouldn't campaign. You just read way too much into my initial "Hopefully not too many people follow your example" statement. But then you made some contentious statements so I felt I had to reply. Like saying the two main candidates were not good, stated as fact. Something clearly many people disagree with you on.
he would have been much more humble if his attackers toned
it down a notch.

Conversely you can argue that the 'attackers' would have toned it down a notch if Telegram had been more humble and receptive of the comments. The initial comments were quite civil and they were just dismissed.

looking to takeout anyone who has a different approach.

It's not just a 'different' approach. It's an approach that's likely to be dangerously flawed, as just demonstrated. It's unfortunate that the people involved have a 'rival' product and they could do with pointing to it a bit less, but it doesn't make any of the criticisms less valid. Painting them as 'politics' is just slander.
There certainly are legitimate reasons - the cost of generating is simply high. They aren't exactly raking in ridiculous profits.

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AHE&fstype=ii&ei=r7C2...
My take on the tea leaves is that they now realize that Snowden has been saving the best for last (or later).

Snowden is not leaking anything. He leaked most of what he had a long time ago, and now the documents are in the journalists' hands.
And that will continue to be the case, because the overwhelming majority of programmers even in really cutting-edge areas don't need it, so being able to speak Java is still valuable.

Knowing how to write code in functional languages has helped me write Java, too.
OK.

It's not an assumption, it's my theory as to why this happened.
exactly, the prize was at their own discretion(telegram) in the first place. And it was still for breaking their End-to-End encryption process.

To simply put it, you don't have to break a wall, just find a loose brick, once that is gone, the wall will have even more loose bricks, and eventually it will fall.
Agree on needing comments.

My C++ is a bit rusty, but I think the code is in fact checking if the number is divisible by 2 (i.e. n % 2 == 0).

I think it's using the bitwise and operator (single &) to AND each bit in n and (n-1) and then checking if the least significant bit is 1 or 0. The code would need to shift (<< or >>) to check if the number were a power of 2.

I thought there was another bitwise NOT operator, not the !, but I think, and this is the part I'm hazy on after getting home, that the ! applied to an int is intended to flip each bit. Here's why:

------------

n = 6 = 110

n-1 = 5 = 101

n & (n-1) = 110 & 101 = 100

!(110) = 001 => true

------------

n = 5 = 101

n-1 = 100

n & (n-1) = 101 & 100 = 101

!(101) = 010 => false only if the least significant bit is used for logic decisions... this seems non-portable for some reason, just like using the ! as a bitwise NOT. It may actually be that ! only looks at the least significant bit, but I can't find c++ docs to say one way or another.

Whatever the code actually does, this is exactly the kind of example to use as a poster child for adding just a few comments.
From my understanding, OpenSSL is well-tested, but not against the FIPS 140-2 validation (because it's not very meaningful), which is what would reveal this issue.

Like most open-source stuff, things that matter get eyes on it.
10 Logos That Mean Way More Than You Think
I’m not security expert, but I believe that:

- military-grade encryption – true

- world's most secure protocol – I’d consider this statement as false, I don’t know what they mean by most secure and what protocols were considered. May be messengers available at app store, better to ask them

Why do you think that they “rejected any attempt from the crypto community to help them”, especially after bug bounty proposition?

Why do you think that they lie more then TextSecure advocates? Each of these messengers is safe to passive listening. But unsecure to similar degree if user downloads them from app store and runs on hardware and software that could be easily patched. Current implementation of telegram api is prone to MiM attack but I would not consider TextSecure completely safe app and that every other app should be thrown out.
The contest was stupid and shady, but they did explicitly state the rules. Its not really fair to accuse them of wrongdoing if they don't give this guy $200,000. If I were in charge of telegram, I'd pay the guy the whole amount, but that would just be out of the kindness of my heart. Morally, they aren't obligated to pay just because the rules of their contest are ridiculous.
Encrypted drives are problematic. I've found it easier to just run fstrim manually once in a while.
Lol, I don't know whats so bad in Telegram being a bit "braggy" about their stuff. I mean, it took them a lot of hard work, in the first place since they did a lot of things on their own, instead of using pre-set standards. Everyone can loose a grip on self control, more than a few times. So what!

Besides, its only to inspire someone to crack their program, it is necessary to come across as a bit arrogant, so someone would loose a screw and crack it. never mind the buttery language post-cracking, since that usually comes from appreciation for each other.

Putting up a challenge publicly is a great PR tool, I feel its not reasonable to only bash 1 company about it. Unless, there is something I don't know, about what they said/did earlier on HN.
What, nobody take a chill pill till '81?
This is what happened in the new Battlestar Galactica.
I don't know. It's a hard question. MongoDB is pretty much used in any hackathons simply because it's easy to setup, driver support is good, and schemaless. The last one is really why people use MongoDB over SQL DBMS. For startup, there might be a concern that schema migration is tough.

But one can argue that not careful with schema design can break api and make codebase messy.

I guess I will stick with the hard work now... I guess not careful with schema will definitely bite me.
HN is (rightly) interested in easy to use secure software.

So when something easy to use claims to be secure HN waits for some of the well known cryptographers here to kick the tires.

In this case many people kicked the tires and pointed out some weird obvious flaws. People hoped that Telegram would listen, and seek help and advice, and continue to make a great product.

Telegram's actions made the situation worse, and created a pile-on.

Telegram made a few mistakes.

1) Smart people without crypto experience designed crypto software, but without getting involvement from cryptographers.

2) They released this product as finished, secure, ready to use.

3) They dismissed concerns.

4) To try to quash those concerns they created a rigged challenge with a high value prize. This is a well known red flag for cryptography software, and it's surprising they weren't aware of it, but as soon as people saw that the pile on accelerated.
The wishing of failure isn't great, my personal wish would be for the Telegram people to learn the errors of their ways rather than necessarily completely fail.

Overstated claims of privacy could get people killed if they trust them so it is a serious issue.

Telegram have an arrogance that is inappropriate in security/crypto protocol development. Most crypto protocols, even those developed by experts initially have problems (at the protocol design level even ignoring the implementation bugs) which is why even experts only come up with new ones when there isn't any existing one with the required properties and even then reuse as much existing battle tested technology as possible and submit it to worldwide evaluation tentatively and nervously.

The competition was set up in a way that clearly excluded most threats and was either another sign that Telegram didn't understand most of the threat space OR that they did and wanted to rig the competition to be unwinnable while claiming that it validated the security in some way.

So at least until yesterday Telegram were arrogant and either completely clueless about crypto protocols or PR bullshitters with some clue and a poor protocol. They need to get a clue AND drop the arrogance to get support from me.

Until these things happen Telegram are a danger that people should be warned about and not regard as secure.

I am also a neutral party with no relationship with either party.
Um, if PS4 has netflix support and PS4 runs FreeBSD then ... you can, in fact, access Netflix on FreeBSD? ;-)
You may be a bit confused. GNU keeps things open. FreeBSD and/or Linux ... well, I don't mean to troll. :)
One has to wonder do proper sound proof case like Fractal Design that are lined with foam inside can thwart the attack.
proof please...
Processing financial transactions is the canonical example of when you need ACID guarantees. Using a trendy NoSQL database there is ridiculous.