skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Exploiting human weakness is totally fair game. I am not an NSA policy setter. I have never directly worked for any government agency, but I have worked as a computer security auditor. If you don't account for human weakness in the threat models for your high value assets, you've already lost.

While there are no silver bullets, there are auditing policies [0] and technological mechanisms [1] that attempt to prevent improper use of credentials or improper access of information, and can detect instances of the same after the fact.

Yes, this sort of thing requires a lot of thought to set up, personnel to maintain, political capital to keep going, and regular objective and honest reevaluations to ensure continued effectiveness. However, I don't see any other way to do this if you've data that you need to protect from your enemies.

If protecting the NSA's highly sensitive information isn't worth all that trouble, is it actually worth protecting?

[0] Such as daily inspection of badge-in, badge-out, log-in, log-out, and document/resource access logs to verify physical presence and ensure that one isn't reading things that one's not supposed to have access to.

[1] Such as proper use of SELinux for fine-grained access control, WORM logging devices for tamper-resistant logging, account lockouts on detection of data access or log-in irregularities to minimize damage from account "spoofing" [You're at lunch, but you logged in to another computer? You badged-out for the day, but pulled some document from backup at the office? Instant lockout, termination of all of your processes across all systems, and message to facility security.], etc. etc..
This. Certain disreputable companies in my sector are recruiting staff from competitors just for their contact list.
flex-wrap is in Nightly, CSS Grids don’t have a stable spec yet.
Java in particular... I don't want to use a small community supported driver in production. Which may be the reason that popular frameworks will not release support until there is one.

I just trying to compare with my current stack spring mvc 3, spring data mongodb.
Does this raise a concern of people stopping donating to Watsi directly, since many, many treatments will be funded from this one donation and no unfunded treatments will be available?
Then yes, everyone is taking advantage of everyone. My cell phone provider is taking advantage of me because they make profit off of me. I'm taking advantage of them because they spent $1,000,000,000 building the infrastructure so I can use that cell phone. Apple is taking advantage of me by making a profit off of their cell phone. I am taking advantage of Apple by using that phone which they put millions of dollars of research into and shipped to my door.

So we both gain an advantage.

Jack gets a job with Amazon - he is able to afford a color TV and internet at home. Amazon hires Jack - they get their orders shipped to homes on time for Christmas.

Everyone is getting an advantage in all of these situations. No one would ever make an agreement that doesn't provide an advantage.

I assume you're asserting there is a power difference between Amazon and Jack that makes Amazon get more advantage from Jack. This may be true. Amazon, however, has a power difference with customers who ultimately decide whether the billions of dollars worth of infrastructure they are building is worth it or whether competitors will win.

Is it wrong if I decide to not buy from Amazon? Am I taking advantage of them by buying if their product is $10 but not buying if their product is $12?
I'm speaking in pure economic terms. The production inputs to mining Bitcoin have real market value and thus there is an opportunity cost to mining Bitcoin. I'm not arguing that Bitcoin has no value (because obviously it does if people are willing to trade them for USD) -- just that it has no intrinsic value.

As a physical good, the desirability of gold is simply to own it and stare at it. We can get into a philosophical debate about how you define utility, but for some people the fact that they find the appearance of gold aesthetically pleasing is enough. It's hard to find much aesthetic value in a Bitcoin. If people decided to stop using gold to store value tomorrow, it would still have industrial and asthetic uses. If people decided to stop using Bitcoin to store value tomorrow, the Bitcoins just lose all value.

Current banking is most certainly a product with associated value -- it's just not a currency. Bank checks are issued in USD, wire transfers are denominated in EUR, etc. I'm saying that Bitcoin, as it exists currently, is a digital asset with a high market value but no intrinsic value. It's not really a currency though, because modern currency is almost by definition controlled by a central bank to make it more useful as a transactional tool. If you have regular spikes and drops in the value of the currency, you don't know whether to buy bread on Tuesday or Friday. Everyone starts trying to time the market and you fall into a boom-bust cycle that is excruciatingly painful for individuals who get the timing wrong (see the US economy of the mid-to-late 1800s).
Death Valley in California is good enough for that IMO.
I recently stumbled upon an excellent, but slightly dark, browser game which explores these kind of themes. You play the role of a military drone pilot going about his everyday menial tasks.

Unmanned:

http://unmanned.molleindustria.org
I think this is one of the main reasons I went with space in this case. Hitting a shortcut starting with a key that either thumb can reach felt more like the Command key, which is part of why I like it. It seems that my thumb is more nimble (and has a much higher range of motion) than my pinky.
Thanks for the easy-to-understand take on the leader key. Not using the leader key is one of my known vim weaknesses I've been meaning to fix. I found your explanation and usage a great push into actually putting it in my .vimrc
I suspect that much of the contention around this famous problem is based on the original boundaries / rules of the problem being unclear.

The problem as stated sometimes leaves out crucial information that affects the outcome.

Example:

Game show, 3 doors. Contestant chooses one door. The host opens another door, which has a goat. Do you switch?

In this situation, it is not explained whether the host randomly picked one of the two remaining doors to open, without knowledge that one of them would contain a goat. This is the key missing information. If the host ALWAYS reveals the goat, then it is beneficial to switch as 2 out of 3 times the contestant wins by switching.

However, if the host is simply opening another door at random, and the door happens to contain a goat, then there is no advantage to switching, as the odds are 50/50.

edit: it appears that from the original version of the problem stated in Parade magazine, the implication is that the host knowingly reveals a goat.

"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?"
True, from a perspective that accepts that arguments where gender is different from sex are valid (which I do). I am aware however that not everybody agrees with that viewpoint and so I went with something that is much harder to deny as it does not rely on accepting other people's opinions of what goes on inside their own head, but can be directly observed instead, which makes it much harder to bullshit around.

edit - what I am essentially getting at, I guess, is that I don't think that using a more inclusive argument would have made the argument stronger. It would have made it nicer, but not more effective. Those who already agreed with the point will applaud it even more if it is couched in their preferred terms, but those who disagree will either get put off by the language or try and argue about the definition of the group, which is much easier despite being larger, precisely because it is not as well defined.
where can i state that i am _offended_ -- extremely! --
by people who _choose_ to "be offended" unnecessarily,
when absolutely no intention to offend is even apparent?

did you really, truly, honestly believe that that comment
was a roundabout drive-by on mentally-challenged people?

because frankly, that kind of uncomplimentary inference
impugning someone else with unsavory motives is repugnant.

i came here to say a dirt-simple "no thanks" to the idea,
without commenting on it, because its stupidity was simply
too obvious to require any statement. but that doesn't mean
i believe kevin rose is "stupid", because i certainly don't.

i can separate the idea from the person who suggested it.

and if somebody else calls it a "retarded" idea, which is
simply another way of saying that it is a _stupid_ idea,
then i don't think they're criticizing kevin rose either,
let alone a class as _remote_ as the mentally-challenged.

retarded people can use lots of help. so give them some,
instead of engaging other people in pointless semantics.

because you're _not_ helping, or making anyone "think"...

-bowerbird
ASK HN: Is there a good list of attorneys for startups?
I honestly don't know where to go to find ratings for trademark attorneys or even ones that will take my case. Any recommendations on where to start looking?
Random choice would be optimal if the host didn't know the location of the car. If the host is blind & car wasn't revealed already, there's 1/2 chance. If the host knows & the car is hidden, then the remaining door has 2/3 chance
The one shot for Mars may have been missed, millennia ago, when rocks blasted from Earth landed on Mars.

On the geologic scale things get knocked around a lot.
Dragon 32 - the pride of Wales: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/01/the_dragon_32_is_30_...
Actually, famed anarchist David Graeber has hypothesized that the capitalist class figured this one out a long time ago, and in fact designed the current neoliberal system to enable them to profit off cheap, indebted labor in preference to mechanizing, which (according to Marxian analyses, at least) could reduce their rate of profit.

Thus, the fight for labor rights becomes an important way of forcing the capitalists to mechanize and increase productivity.

Certainly if you look at some simple economics, it makes sense, as a hypothesis: a higher price of labor means a greater comparative advantage for machines, a lower price of labor makes massive sums of heavily exploited manpower easier to pay for than expensive mechanization infrastructure.
Yeah these lists are a bit futile without pricing ranges.

Last time I saw a post with a domain I fancied I replied back with a £XXX amount and was told the price desired was £XX,XXX which was both insane and a waste of time for both of us.
No one thinks the final win chance is 50%. They mistakenly think it is 1/3 with either strategy.
There was an article about how they prefer to hire Mormons. It was interesting because this was before it was revealed that the largest NSA DC was to be built in Utah.
To be fair the article is from 2010, when legacy browsers mattered far more (aka were more prevalent) than they do nowadays.
You don't have to trust anything. If you want to NIH everything yourself, nothing is stopping you. It is however more likely that many packages on NPM are better than the ones you or your team can create if simply for the fact that they may have been created by a person very versed in the particular domain the package is for. Or maybe it will be shit but whatever :)
Severe hand kept alive on man's ankle
Words like "worse" and "should" are very loaded in this context. Was the blitzkrieg "worse" than the trench warfare of WW1? Was using nuclear weapons "worse" than firebombing (see: Firebombing of Toyko, Dresdon).

"Should" used to mean "probability or expectation", then yes, it "should" continue to to get "worse" (read: change).

War is a horrible endeavor at its very core. It will always be, we try to "civilize" it via rules that are always broken as soon as things become dire. It isn't the implements or efficiency that are the problem, but the waging of combat itself.
Working in the consumer space is not just an easier sell from a sales prospect, it's also easier to persuade talented people to join your company. Great engineers and designers want to show off their work to friends and get bonus points for working on cool stuff.

Working on an enterprise application/system tends to be process heavy and requires lots of QA before shipping. It's driven not by the engineers or designers working on the product, but by requirements outside of their control.

If you're someone who just wants to work on hard problems, then enterprise is a no brainer. Though the common theme I hear amongst startup folk is that they want to be part of the decision making process too. They aren't interested in being handed a list of requirements and just asked to make it work.
25 SONGS IN 3 MINUTES  (REMIX)
Software has always been set back by an absense of business models that support the development of high-quality software. Either it takes draconian copyright (which severely limits the usefulness of the software), DRM/no reverse-engineering licenses, or advertisement/3rd-party tracking, or some other braindamaged scheme.

The future I see is in crowdfunding development up-front. It takes a social change alongside the development of technology to facilitate that (improved payment processing would help; lowering transaction fees and allowing micropayments, etc.). We're getting there, but it's really tough.

I don't have a good answer. But copyright and license agreements aren't it.
DIY Water Softener System
Well, now I know what I'm getting myself for christmas.
Both Snowden and Assange are avoiding apprehension while being non-violent.

I said nothing about violence - in fact, your comment is the first on this page to mention violence - so I don't really understand where you're coming from.
NORAD Tracks Santa's Path on Christmas Eve Because of a Typo
So what managers end up doing is being responsible for all of the shit work so their team can go do what they do best.

This is the definition of management if it is being done correctly. In effect you manage inbound tasks from upper management to ensure that important tasks get completed while FUD is diverted or eliminated. This strikes at a larger point though that if you didn't get crap from above there would be little need for management.

The issue is when everyone thinks their project is the most important and should have resources allocated towards it. Then you need someone with a better strategic picture to marry all of the competing requirements such that it fits into the position that your organization takes in the market for that time period.

It also reinforces the fact that there are different layers of "knowledge" from strategic global markets to lines of code. If you want anything better than luck to line those two things up across dozens or hundreds of projects you will need some kind of middle management.
In the Monty Hall problem the door with the car is never revealed until the end. In the 3 door version if you've selected the prize door, the goat revealed is selected at random. If you've selected a goat, the other goat is revealed and the car remains hidden behind the remaining (at this point unselected) door. So with 40 doors, after your selection 38 goats would be revealed. It may be that you selected the car by chance (1/40 chance), in which case 38 of the 39 remaining doors would be selected at random (as it doesn't matter). If you selected a goat only the other 38 goat doors would be opened (but the contestant can't tell the difference between these circumstances).
Generals are always to some extent bureaucrats (how did we get to WWI?) but they're bureaucrats in a military organization who give orders that directly result in people being killed.
> Unfortunately capitalism gets in the way.

> I think best bet to achieve that reality is to be your own boss.

In other words, the system (capitalism) is broken for the vast majority out there who are not their own bosses.

If something is broken, then it needs fixing, is the way I see it.
You would be dead without the bacteria you have to help you along. But I'm not sure how this relates to a planet where said bacteria, if they exist, are sitting at the top of the biological pyramid.
Correct. As the engineers we need to breakdown our technological components and realize how they will get assembled by the end users. Our moral obligation doesn't stop with "just making tools" and leave the hard problems up to the people that will ultimately be pulling the trigger.
Even restaurants do soft launches.

It's important, even as a "smoke test" (albeit in a bigger scale)
Honestly, I think the most rational thing to do is shift the conversation to specific alternative institutions. So, for instance, if you propose "We should replace today's join-stock companies with joint-stock cooperatives, and institute commons trusts, empowered to levee taxes on economic rents, for management of public resources", you're likely to get a pretty broad buy-in, from almost everyone except the most hardcore, deontological minarcho-capitalists and revolutionary socialists.
SAFE and Sound? A Primer on the new YC Docs
Pros and Cons of Passwordless Login via E-Mail
I like this question:

Flip a coin. If it is heads, flip again and answer Yes for heads and No for tails. If the first coin is tails, answer the question: "Have you ever cheated on your spouse?"

Now, what is the probability the person is a cheater given they answered yes?
- The history items are stored as commit objects that are identified as a SHA-1 sum of the contents (including meta-data like Authored By, Committed By, etc).

- One of those meta-data items is "Parent Commit," so if you change one item in history, it changes the SHA-1 sum of all subsequent items (because at the very least they all need to be re-parented).

- All of the commit objects are stored under .git/objects.

- Branches are just files under .git/refs/ that contain the SHA-1 sum of the most recent commit on that branch. This is why they are called 'branch pointers.' That's basically all they are.

- If you have a history of 5 commits, and make a change to the initial commit, you now have 10 commits in your .git/ directory. Your (e.g.) 'master' branch will point to the most recent 'tree' of 5 commits. The other commits will still exist in .git/objects, but there will be no branches pointing them. You can use 'git reflog' to find them, or access them by their SHA-1 sum.

- Eventually 'git gc' (gc = garbage collect) will clean out the unreferenced commits, but this happens rarely if you don't explicitly run the command.

- When you 'git push,' you are only pushing branches to the remote repo, so commits that are stored locally, which are not referenced by one of those branches you are pushing, will not be pushed out. If you have commits that you don't want to end up in limbo like this, you should 'git tag' them or create a branch (e.g. 'archive/master-2013-12' that points to them).
Here's how it helps me to look at it. As others have said, you can play with the numbers, but the mechanics are basically this:

First step: you are choosing one option from all available choices.
Second step: you are now betting whether your original choice was the correct one.

By consciously narrowing down all the remaining options to one, the host is essentially asking you: "Do you think you guessed right?" As long as there are more than two available options at the start, the odds are greater than you guessed wrong.

As others have said, the important dynamic here is that the host _knows_ where the prize is and proceeds to open all the other doors, leaving only yours and one remaining closed. That remaining door then symbolizes an aggregate of all the doors you didn't select.
Optimizing Nginx TLS Time To First Byte
I'm sorry, but believing you did in the highschool what Carmack managed to achieve on the PC in his early games is delusional.

What Carmack achieved (by using the hardware features of the graphic cards of that day) is properly described in the link you give: smooth side scrolling on the PC. The kind of scrolling seen on the consoles of that day, which had a hardware support, or in the famous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros (a copy of which is the unreleased "Dangerous Dave in Copyright Infringement" made by Carmack). That has nothing to do with drawing only the changed characters with simple print at the given screen coordinates, what you did.

To achieve that, it used exactly hardware feature of changing the origin of the area in memory that is going to be picked up by the graphic chip to be presented on the screen. That changing was made in one pixel increments. Without it, no smooth scrolling. Second, he redraw the tiles, he didn't print the characters.

So no, that is absolutely not "pretty much what Carmack did in his old games." What you did at the end was done by absolutely every game at these times (using the commands of cursor movements to position the characters then printing them, in Turbo Pascal using gotoXY from the console library), what you started with (reprinting the whole screen just because) was simply as "pessimized" approach as it can be made at all. You didn't even optimize anything, you did what everybody did, you just started with the "pessimization." I'm old enough to remember. There is also at least somebody here who can provide a link to any computer magazine which printed such games in a few lines of code (at that time sources were made small enough to be printed in the magazines).

For the reference, at least the terminals in 1973 already had "Direct Cursor Addressing" -- the technology behind the gotoxy you used:

http://vt100.net/docs/vt05-rm/chapter3.html#S3.8

(It was already standardized anyway!) That terminal had 1440 characters, all directly addressable, and the maximum communication speed was 2400 bps which gives 300 characters per second or almost 5 seconds to push the whole screen to it. If you moved for example 10 characters, each with a 5 byte sequence, you needed only 50 bytes, so you can change their position 6 times per second. Everybody at that time knew that stuff. It was slow enough to see.
Would anybody be surprised, even sympathetic, if the families of the deceased joined Al Qaeda as a direct result of this? Americans killed their friends and family on a sacred day, and nothing would be more appropriate than seeing they pay for it. Such an atrocity is almost comical when you think that the reason it occurred was to stop Al Qaeda, ends up bolstering it. It's appalling on so many levels.
Cold selling a large org is brutally hard. Usually what winds up happening is that internally in the org, there are people who follow what options are available in a particular space and are in a position to champion them. Companies need to find these people and then help these people make the convincing argument. If users internal to an org want to use product X, they will do much of the hard part of selling for you. You can find these people all over the place -- meetups, confs, blogs, etc.
Borat said it best: "We support your war of terror!"
"We have reports that you beat your wife" is fair and to question someone on that is fair and is much much different from "when did you stop beating your wife?" which the GP said was a fair question. I never said or even implied you can't question someone until they have been convicted of a crime, I just said questioning them like they are already guilty isn't fair and I think is shitty journalism.