skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A whole lot of what you said resonates with my experience. The whole workplace being the place where you find genuinely honest "friends" seems to be a paradox. But its really true.
Socializing on the other hand is a hit and miss thing. Its like random sampling. You may get a bunch of honest friends but a whole lot of the people at gatherings are busy doing their own piece in the grander social dance.
On a sidenote, social networks as they exist are flawed. But there are certain micro-interactions out of the realm of a regular social network that sometimes have more meaning. Take for example your comment. Striking the same chord at the least makes me feel its not just me :)
I have been lucky enough to have interacted virtually with a bunch of people online (irc,quora, HN) which has turned into fruitful friendships. There is no pressure of constant communication but whenever we interact, it starts from the point where we left last time. Its almost like a breath of fresh air. So i wouldn't outrightly saw virtual interactions are futile.
BTW that SMS bit is so true. you hit a nerve there :)
I would expand your hypothesis: the goal of business is to take away all of our abilities to take care of ourselves--whether it's socialization, food, shelter, or anything else--so that they can sell those things back to us.

Our culture, increasingly dictated by commercial interests, is taking this strategy to the extreme. The result is a world which appears humane to the wealthy.
I wanted to know this too, just because I was curious whether my password was bcrypted. But if they're in the middle of remediating problems, I don't want to know so much that I'd ask them to go look something up.
Ugh. That reset procedure did not play well with LastPass.

I logged in (old password), hit change password (old password), then had LastPass generate a new password, which it handily saved over the old one in LastPass. Hit Save. And then the site asked me for the old password a third time.

Whoops! I don't have that anymore...
Notes on Discrete Mathematics [pdf]
I can't imagine how they get away with that if so. The answer to all the relevant questions (where do people go to buy apps? who do they give their credit card to? what merchant actually charges their card? who handles refunds? who holds the copy of the product before it's transferred to the buyer? who delivers the product?) is all Google/Apple, not the developer. This is as if a B&M store like Staples decided Intuit was responsible for tallying its own sales tax whenever the store sold a copy of Quickbooks.
The author is confused why "we" are OK with Robert Downey Jr. and LeBron James making millions of dollars. He proposes that is because we can see how they make their money, so we are OK with it.

I'd argue that it's because we can see where the money comes from, and not that we can see their skills on display. If you think "hmm, LeBron makes 10% of what his Jerseys sell, 10% of the Heat ticket revenue, and whatever he gets in endorsements" then most people are OK with that. I've paid to see a basketball game and if 100% of my ticket went to the players on the court I'd be very pleased. We can understand that all Americans who enjoy entertainment pay for it, and that some fraction of the money we pay goes to the entertainers themselves.

When you talk about a high-paid finance executive, I'm not mad at their comp because I don't understand what they do, I'm mad because I don't see where they money came from. To the general public, what a hedge fund manager does is take a lot of money from rich people, play stocks all year, turn $X into $Y, and then take a cut of $Y. All of this money is in a pool that Joe the Plumber has no access to, and likely never will.

The most true statement about wealth is "it takes money to make money" which has the corollary "it's very expensive to be poor". Once you have $10M, it's not too hard to turn it into $15M if you play your cards right. The rich have access to so many profitable endeavors (that are taxed at low capital gains rates) that most of us will never get near. Meanwhile the guy with $50 in his checking account pays a $15 fee for being too poor.
Among whatever other reasons there might have been, the difference between SHA1 and SHA2 is not meaningful for password hashing.
Try telling this to anybody in academia. Your funding is based on your deliverables, not the number of hours you work.
This would be interesting to do, and to play with the time given for each voting block. Depending on the number of people playing, I doubt you'd need very long to get a pretty good sample for the next move.

Either way; it'd be definitely be neat
If 25% of lung cancer cases cost less than $150,000 to treat, 50% cost less than $200,000 to treat, 75% cost less than $250,000 to treat, 99% cost less than $500,000 to treat and 99.999% cost less than $2,000,000 to treat, how much would the insurance company pay out for lung cancer?
For Joe to be 10000x more valuable than Frank, a given company must prefer to have one day of Joe's time, rather than 27 years of Frank's time. Is that possible? Absolutely. Maybe Joe can spend that day calling up an old friend from Harvard and get an extremely valuable deal going. Even if the deal doesn't close that day, the other execs can get it closed now that Joe got the ball rolling and made the right introductions. This can easily be worth hundreds of millions.

Maybe Frank has no useful skills, and is extremely lazy on top of that. He might be yours for 27 years, but he'll do his job badly, lower morale, and make lots of screw-ups that his co-workers have to fix.

Now, I'm not saying that every CEO is like Joe or every minimum-wage worker is like Frank, but you (the reader) know that there are definitely people out there like each of those. Hence, one person's time can be 10000x times more valuable than another's.
True, it's an imperfect solution, but it was an example. Of course robots are inevitable for such menial tasks.
Just logged in, it does show a banner recommending I change my credentials. But after doing so, neither the old nor new password works.
What's interesting to me is that even in that state, it is not difficult to understand what the menu item does, so why even bother with the icons?
You've already mentioned the solution: Play a sport!
An Automotive Perspective on Software Development
The example of Robert Downey Jr. is basically the Wilt Chamberlain example from Nozick's Distributive Justice Theory [1]. On its face it makes sense to most people who read it, but the world isn't as simple as Nozick makes it out to be and I don't think the same logic applies to CEOs and Hedge Fund Managers.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia#Dist...
We've sent an email to all affected users. They're just taking their time to arrive across the net.
Huh? I don't follow this at all. Why should they not recommend password managers? More people should, in fact, be using them.

We'd all like answers to every question we could have about the compromise. As you can see upthread, they've already committed to providing some of those answers. In the meantime, they're probably slammed with other things, and you aren't actually entitled to answers to all of your questions. You are obviously free to take your business elsewhere if their answers aren't satisfactory.
The difficulty of linking to a high level definition of a hash function and its differences to encryption is not very high.

If a customer were to be curious as to what hashing is then that link should clear it up perfectly.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY on this f'd up earth is worth 2000x more than another human being.

It's not 30x --for some CEO's it's 2000x more-- if they earn 50 Mill, and a lower class worker earns 25000. 50,000,000 / 25000 = 2000!

Personally I think there should be one big union of everyone earning under $21--what minimum wage SHOULD be w/ inflation - and do rolling strikes, monday all McDonald's employees, Tuesday - all Walmart employees.

Of course, I also think Google, Facebook, Netflix, et al --should all boycot D.C. and cut off access to D.C. ip addresses in support of Net Neutrality. -- Probably never happen, but it'd be cool if it did.
All it takes is for the belief in political authority to dispel. Unfortunately, that's a massive change from where we are today.
Kant agrees that empirically, space and time are things themselves and exist independent of our perception. In fact, for Kant, anything that can come to us or be reasoned by us, and the relations of those things, must comply with space, time, and, therefore, mathematics.

I wasn't trying to say that space, time, and mathematics do not exist independent of our perception. Rather, I was refuting the idea that mathematics is either a Platonic form or something we made up. The Kantian idea is: anything we come into contact with or understand must come to us in a way that conforms with mathematics, or else we wouldn't be able to experience it. Therefore, everything we know complies with mathematics--it's not some Platonic form outside us or our creation, but the very structure of our understanding. There might be a superset of laws that things in themselves comply with that we don't have access to. We are, however, limited to the understanding we can achieve through space, time, and mathematics (which do describe everything we can encounter).

My initial response wasn't terribly well written and was rambling, so I tried to clean it up a bit. It started to address your point but veered off-topic. There's also an important difference between perception and intuition that I originally didn't express very well.

Getting back to what I was originally trying to say, I don't think the nature of mathematics has much to do with whether or not we live in a computer simulation. We could be bound to mathematics for any number of reasons that are beyond our capability for understanding. What I was commenting on was the article's introduction to the question. I suppose, though, that the article itself admits the relation between the introduction and the topic may not be strong ("But one fanciful possibility is that we live in a computer simulation based on the laws of mathematics"). I just don't think "Mathematics applies to everything we can experience, therefore we live in a computer" is a particularly interesting approach.

I really appreciate your responses.
That makes sense. Wikipedia says "The primary function of salts is to defend against dictionary attacks and pre-computed rainbow table attacks." So, I guess I was thinking that if salts were stored separately, then that would help on the dictionary angle.
Why 3 seconds... who made that choice
That depends on the value of "multiple". If multiple means thousands, that's one thing; if it means tens, it's pretty bad.
Haskell Snap Web App in Production
Bup is lovely. I used it to back up my huge home folder and only switched away to rdiff-backup because (at the time) there was no support for deleting old revisions.

Is there any support for that? (Of course, for a large enough hard drive, it's not much of a problem...)
China kicking out Google doesn't seems so crazy now. The American government is a worldwide aggressor that cannot be restrained. All defenses must be put up in an attempt to stop it.

As a side benefit China has fostered a large homegrown internet industry which many other countries lack. Services like Baidu and Sina Weibo are more than acceptable. Europe is more than capable of doing the same and hopefully with less censorship.
On top of all that, most companies start out violating all sorts of laws and get away with it here in the US.

Example: a friend of mine makes artisanal chocolates. When he started out he didn't have a licensed kitchen, any kind of food/health license, or sales tax collection. Nobody cared. Why? Because he got compliant before his company grew enough to be on anyone's radar.

Here in the US you can launch first and worry about legal compliance later.*

*Not for all industries or all definitions of "later".
The original title reflected the actual point of the article, but the mods have changed it. It's captured in the last sentence:

[A]ssume that bad technical decisions are made
rationally, for reasons that are not apparent.

I suppose changing the title from informative to non-informative is a decision being made rationally for reasons that are not apparent.

To the moderators:

I understand why you sometimes change the titles on submissions, setting them to the original title on the source page. I get it, I really do. But this article really, really isn't about the stadiometer, and while it's true that you've changed it to the original title on the source page, it is deeply misleading, and the extent to which it's not misleading, it's uninformative.

Please, please, can you sort this out? The title I carefully provided was intended to get to the intent and content of the item, and I feel that it was much, much more informative. You are removing information, and that feels like a really bad thing.

It can't be a 'bot doing the change, because it would've happened sooner, so there must be a human looking at this and making the decision to change it. They are already expending brain-power on the task, they are already looking at the submission, why not actually make a decision, rather than acting in a purely mechanical fashion?

Case in point, consider this submission:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7245505

You haven't changed the title on that. Why not? Because the title is "pub". If you change the informative title on this post to one that's non-informative, why not change the title on that one?

Someone, somewhere, is making decisions already. For the sake of making HN a better place, please consider a better process for doing so.
I don't have a source, but I remember reading that Apple's App Store revenue is classified as a commission to developers. As part of their 30% cut they have to deal with all of the sales tax.
Sorry -- I meant that one side of the demarcation line are theorems that we can prove (and prove that we can prove). The other side are two entities -- theorems that are true but not provable, and theorems we don't know enough about to classify.

I emphasize that the idea of a demarcation line is itself a matter of debate. Some theorems, by virtue of their unprovability, affect others and cast them into question, which blurs the very notion I'm discussing.

I shouldn't have made the demarcation line seem so certain. Even saying that such a thing exists risks giving it more credence that it may deserve -- except as a matter of discussion.
I tend to agree:

Handling Other People's Money is the essential part of their business.

They didn't detect the intrusion.

The last one tends to concern me in these sorts of incidents.
iirc, and my memory is hazy, it was to do with them reusing Google Checkout. The result was a mismatch between what would make sense were you running an online store of physical items and what you want to run a store of digital goods.
Ha ha. I did the same thing. If you edit your password in Lastpass, there is a history option that will show your old passwords.
if you accept the "spend money to make money" philosophy, the despite 85% being new money, the Huber wealthy still decide who joins their club.

If Robert Downey junior pissed off someone super rich on his way to the top, he would not see the light of day.
I'm sure it's possible on an Android device.
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=squats#!/story/forever/prefix/0/su...
As someone who's put considerable effort into implementing offline utility as an afterthought for a web application, the biggest favor you can do yourself when writing a Javascript web application is to make it "offline first".

In other words, make local storage, IndexDB, etc., the primary persistence layer. Then, at checkpoints, sync the whole MFing deal to the server (kind of like database checkpoints). From what I can tell this isn't a concept that's been explored by the community of dedicated front-end devs (of which I am decidedly not a member). However, I feel like it would be pretty awesome.

We haven't figured it out yet and have essentially thrown in the towel, settling for an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of a "real" database in the name of "getting offline to work".

edit: If someone reading this eventually does get this figured out, and easy, please for the love of god let me know. My email address is in my profile.
The "Greater risk requires greater reward" is BS anyway. Someone making $400k/year would have to be unemployed for 9 years straight to be brought down to $40k/year. I don't need a graph to know that even in finance, the risks aren't that bad.
The line about the rich taking on greater risk is particularly absurd. The rich risk making less money in a recession relative to their baseline income, sure, but that graph doesn't seem to suggest they face destitution, which a factory worker would face by losing his job, or, until recently, many middle class Americans faced by getting sick for an extended period of time.
That's a good point, and while it sounds fuzzy, it actually has roots in a formal difference between the US and most other countries: our system is rooted in common law, which implies that most regulatory questions are punted to the courts. (There's a downside too; it can be trickier to find out what's lawful or not, since you might have to look up court precedents).
Personally, those amounts for the actors, authors, athletes seem pretty obscene to me, but lets ignore the philosophical issues over that, I'm aware the general populace isn't exactly into philosophy.

I can't speak for all the human race, but one of the issues is whether there actually IS some connection between pay and actions and renumeration. Some people get paid huge amounts of money not merely because of what they do, but because of who they are and manipulation of social power structures. Queens, kings, heirs, priests....CEO's?

We know that there have been relatively wealthy individuals throughout all of history, and we can also probably ascertain that many people would think that some actions should be socially more deserving of social remuneration/reward than others. There are rich people who are rich because of being rewarded due to doing great things for lots of others, and there are rich people who are rich because of nothing they did for the rest of society but because of current social structure or through random chance or through false beliefs and manipulation of those who sent money and social power their way, and there are rich people who are rich because they've done some pretty nasty shit. Some have probably done all three.

So which are the CEO's (if we must talk of them collectively)? Well, I would say to Mr Mankiw that if the easiest answer is that CEO's make millions because of merit, then their merit should be easy enough to measure. Because if its not easy enough to measure, then on what basis could the boards possibly be connecting merit to pay? They couldn't be. Perhaps it is merely a cargo cult or back scratching operation relative to the amounts of capital they have available to them? As I said, there's lots of classes that have received money through the social mechanisms that the general populace has accepted, but just because the pope sits on a throne of gold, doesn't mean he's actually communing with god or deserving of it.

Indeed, perhaps we could answer this empirically. We can take CEO pay of various public companies, and control against regular share-market index movements. Define a function to relate company size to CEO remuneration, and then define a function to relate this to company worth over time after that CEO has been hired. It should become pretty apparent, pretty quickly, that those that paid more for a CEO at a particular time had particularly better outcomes after paying high prices for said CEO after he came on board, on average, than those that paid less. If they didn't, then its pretty clear that of all the reasons people are getting paid so much money, relative merit isn't one of them and perhaps we need to look for other explanatory variables.

So out of curiosity...anyone on HN aware of any such studies?

/and by all means Mr Mankiw, people in your position bringing out the "but the rich pay more in taxes!" just reinforces my impression that harvard and higher education institutions are a complete sham.
Join Nerium
There's an attack on credit cards because Target had a breach!

See, I can say ridiculous things too. Someone using bitcoins didn't follow protocol and as such as scammed out of money. This isn't a bitcoins-protocol issue, this is a people issue.

Note that the other exchanges are up now, very quickly after everyone stopped to check themselves.
What is Nerium
I don't think any EU network is likely to exclude the UK, given BT's ownership of so many key telecoms patents and the fact that they have the contract to provide external connectivity for the commission, Parliament and Council, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Maritime Safety Agency, the European Aviation Safety Agency and the European Agency for Reconstruction.
Sounds like you went to a shitty school. Mine spent maybe a few weeks over the entire school year reviewing previous material.
No, they can't. The websites allow anyone in the world to make a guess at a password. Keepass doesn't since it requires having the private database file which you store locally.

The websites allow for a vulnerability in third party code to expose you. Keepass, even if it has a vulnerability, can't be exploited remotely since the database is stored only locally.

The websites are in the browser and encourage browser extensions. Browsers suck for security... that's a massive attack surface and they are, by their nature, integrated with the network. Keepass is a dedicated application with a tiny surface that barely communicates with the internet at all and has no need to. A whole class of attacks miss it.

Keepass is leaps and bounds more secure.
I'm just a user/donator/whatever, albeit with a last name that starts with A, and I got my email notice 55 minutes ago.
Groupon thinks Alexander Hamilton was president
Do they handle people's money? I thought that all went through AMZN.

In any case: if you're setting the bar for "handling transactions online" at "must be the first to detect any compromise", you're probably good with using Amazon and... hm, probably nobody else.
Read his comment again. Hash the password to SHA-1 using the old system, then apply bcrypt to it. It's a migration pattern I've seen in practice a few times.