skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Many applications will require signed updates, but considering how much software the average person has on their computer (especially a tech geek), odds are at least one will upgrade over regular HTTP.

And that's all an attacker needs.
Being dominant doesn't mean that there is no foreseeable threat to dominance. Preventing a hostile browser monopoly which could work against Google's search dominance is a credible motivation for Chrome (though probably not the sole motivation -- moving web technology in a direction favorable to Google's non-search roadmap was clearly a factor, as well.)

Similarly, a major reason for Android could be seen to be preventing a hostile mobile-platform monopoly which would either block or extract monopoly rents from (and thus limit the value of) Google services reaching mobile users.
Facebook Messenger bomb exploded
The New Share Economy is Making Us All Better People
Any time you have a dict with stringy keys that you know when writing the program. HTML attribute lists, database records, http request parameters, config files.
The conundrum is that the high-level customer-facing stuff wouldn't be possible without the low-level behind-the-scenes work that was done on protocols and kernels.
Java is a very important language that's missing from your list. You should probably spend some time learning a bit about it. And Scala could be a language you'd decide to stick with to build some serious stuff.
Unit test will not detect everything. You need real data under heavy load for Haskell. This is a _fact_.

Most of you here should stop writing BS about Haskell and how it is going to save the world.

> I never said that. Your argument was that this is specific to Haskell which is not.

It is specific to lazily evaluated languages, especially Haskell. To test Haskell program you will need a real environment under heavy load - maybe Google or Amazon could afford it. Tiny unit tests which are perfect for strictly evaluated languages won't detect these kid of bugs.
I think it would be rather inefficient, that is, not very useful. What would be the gain? Languages like Java have shown that AOT compilation doesn't really benefit them very much over runtime JIT. C->asm.js makes a lot of sense, but I'm not sure it would be very much of a win for Java or Scala, especially non-math heavy apps.
Thats exactly what i mean - checksums are useless in this scenario. They should have been signed with a key your computer knows. (Retrieved before the first install)
You're mischaracterizing a problem that you can encounter in Haskell as being unique to Haskell and intractable. You can leak space in effectively any language and just like in other languages there are tools and conventions to detect and avoid it.
Exactly - as in the original blog post by Yossi Kreinin, I'm talking about a difference in degree only, depending on just how many levels of dependencies and abstractions you're building on top of.

Your comment brings up a good point that writing portable code (cross-browser, cross-OS, across compilers, across processors, etc.) adds to the difficulty level because it requires you to target a higher-level abstraction (web standards, POSIX, ANSI C...) rather than a concrete implementation, while still dealing with implementation-specific bugs that leak through that abstraction.
Interesting that the only pattern that was consistent across gender, race, and economic status was this:

"Despite being in the labor force a greater
percentage of weeks, individuals held fewer jobs from ages 23 to 26 than they did from ages 18 to 22.
While ages 18 to 22, individuals held an average of 4.3 jobs and were out of the labor force 26
percent of weeks. From ages 23 to 26, individuals held 2.7 jobs while being out of the labor force
16 percent of weeks."
That's an excellent point - surely missing a delivery offsets the benefits of a LOT of no-left-turning.
I've actually been looking into it somewhat. I just grabbed Eclipse but though I might gather some opinions before I start investing serious time.
Or you could forego connectors and have them all intersect slightly. Once in space, pop out the panels where the intersections will happen.
Does somebody know of good papers about potential links between computation complexity and why we do not observe large scale quantum behaviours ? As a basic computer guy, I have always suspected that the large computer that is running our universe does not have the resources to handle quantum entanglement on a large number of particules, and has to fallback to some classical approximation to be able to run the full simulation in real time ;-)
Revolutionary Wedding Showers
If you want to experiment, Rust might be something for you.
I sftp a .war file to a remote deployment directory. Old app gets undeployed, new app gets deployed.
First Look – AWS WorkSpaces
It's probably not.
Those projects do not have a comparable userbase, so that is somewhat expected - but that missing popularity comes with another set of problems...
I'm curious how the email attack worked, don't most web-based email services flag emails that come from one domain, but contain a link to another?
The streets in the picture were at least designed by someone with half a clue, and most drivers would hesitate to turn right at speed here.

This is what this normally looks like (theres no collision here because as a cyclist you constantly monitor other lanes and slow down until its clear the idiots have noticed you, or just switch into the full lane):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGGeMBvM4e0

(London, so right-turn is the left-turn equivalent)
> Unit test will not detect everything.

I never said that. Your argument was that this is specific to Haskell which is not.

> You need real data under heavy load for Haskell.

How is this different from other languages?

> This is a _fact_.

Using "_" does not replace an actual argument ;)

> Most of you here should stop writing BS about Haskell and how it is going to save the world.

I fact, I wrote the opposite in the parent of your post.
Hasn't this been confirmed on Mythbusters (in SF) as well (Episode 145)?
> Google (one is a VP...)...Hubris comes to mind. Fun word if you are unfamiliar.

Yeah me too, Google is a big organization! I also know core iOS engineers who used to work on super computers. My point was that those people are 10x to 100x or more in skill so if there was an "imap setting" that you ask about, it would be on by default unless it had some huge drawback. I feel like that's irrelevant, though, because if your machine is infected it is unlikely to have happened via Gmail. My best guess right now is that you're not quite sure on what "infected" means and maybe have some suspicious Word attachments sent to you that show up in the scan results, but aren't harmful. Until you offer something more to us, you are just making claims. (Yes I know you think you aren't making claims, but your statements are claims in substance even if they don't use the word "claim")

Ugh, you know what, this is a less than great posting and we should just flag this whole thread.
why would it have to run it in 'real time'? what's the difference between this universe being simulated by a very slow computer in the super-verse, vs being simulated by a very fast computer in the super-verse? for us, I'd argue there's no difference at all.
I don't know the true mean, median, or mode, but in my experience, even carless cyclists don't travel an average of 15,000 per year. "Risk for fatality per mile traveled" is not the only way the two activities should be compared.

Some numbers[0] show that cycling is about 6 times more dangerous per mile than car travel. If those numbers are correct, it's approximately equally dangerous per minute to be in a car on a highway as it is to be a cyclist on surface streets.

Of course, there are other considerations as well. For example, if exercise improves health, does cycling add more risk of death/injury than it removes?

[0] http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe...
> How does the player with the lower objectID detect that the sliding bug is happening?

In the original version only the higher objectID would react and disable his collision, thus not requiring the lower objectID to detect the problem.

It is not called out, but it looks like they not have both sides call out when a collision occurs, allowing both to turn off in this case.

So the collision occurs, both say "I am going right" and when they hear the other one doing the same they both stop.
You wouldn't necessarily need to increase the battery capacity. You could increase the time between pings. First week after activation, ping at the rate they do now. Then start increasing the interval.

The idea would be to have some pings still happening even after a very long time, because if it gets to that point it is clear no one knows where to look and the thing is only going to be found by accident, when something that listens for other reasons (submarine, research vessel) happens to pass near it.
> While it did explain the problem very nicely, the solution was to just disable the feature outright.

To be fair, they did solve the problem. If it isn't noticeable during gameplay and doesn't create unwanted degenerate actions from players, they succeeded in fixing the bug, even if the technical aspect is simple.
I gave a talk just a couple of days ago on the beauty of Python code[0] - the talk hasn't been transcripted yet. In it I gave an example of how we've been conditioned by evolution to see clever things as beautiful[1][2].

I gave this scenario in the talk: imagine you were a paleolithic craftsman making handaxes. Now, you have a competitor making them handaxes too. We'll assume you make a better hand axe - sharper, cleaner lines and more wedge-shaped than the competitors. This leads to a higher "usefulness" than your competitor's handaxe.

You consistently make better handaxes than your competitor. You get better mates than your competitor. You have a higher probability of spreading your genes. Your "good" handaxes has become a proxy signal for your skill in making handaxes, which itself is a signal of your intelligence.

Over time, if the population uses only the "goodness" of the handaxe as a deciding factor in deciding mating partners, the population needs to be able to discern "good" handaxes from "bad" handaxes. As the lines get smoother, we become more and more tuned towards this standard of "beauty", and we put more and more reverence towards the makers of such items of beauty.

In short, humans see math as beautiful because it is a signa for intelligence, which is a deciding factor of fitness in our evolution. Indeed, our evolution seem to value intelligence over strength anyway.

Now, all the above is personal deduction of course. But I believe if we do go on and figure out the evolution of the medial orbito-frontal cortex of the brain, we'd see it's tied to intelligence.

[0]: https://speakerdeck.com/chewxy/beautiful-python - not very useful slides without the talk. The 4 criteria can also be translated to: usefulness, simplicity, averageness (I used the example: if the man on the street can read your python code and understand it, you did a good job), cleverness

[1]: The Art Instinct by Dennis Dutton

[2]: http://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_...
Ask HN: Got hired to build a site/ what should I do now besides give a proposal?
I have zero idea on what to do in order to make it a legit job as a freelancer.

Any ideas on contracts or something? any help would be fantastic
At least in California, the car is supposed to take the bike lane rather than turning over the top of it. In this way the bike only ever passes the car on the left, and motorists (provided they look when taking the lane) are less likely to hit a cyclist if they fail to check their right-hand mirror again.

http://www.sfbike.org/?bikelane_right_turns
Should the 1% Protest the .01%?
Yes, they should. I'd be curious to hear more details about that.

I'd also like to know what domain was used for phishing, since you would think an infosec guy would either hover over the button/link before clicking, or get suspicious when he sees his browser load a site that isn't linkedin.com before redirecting.
Here [1] is the study, and here [2] the 60 equations that were rated. I feel the brain scans themselves are more interesting than the scores assigned to the equations by the participants. Still, I would have omitted the equation descriptions, as I feel it could create a bias, and would have placed the great contender, Euler's identity, in a position other than 1.

[1] http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00...

[2] http://journal.frontiersin.org/Article/DownloadFile/390079/o...
I'm checking out your links before commenting, so I'll remark on one specific thing in your post that I feel a bit wary about:

No one's saying he doesn't have the right to say it.
Free speech is not freedom from consequences like boycotts and criticism.

Can a society really be considered to have 'freedom of expression' if individuals have to worry that every statement has to pass some kind of checksum from a group that seeks his or her ouster for saying it?

It's kind of why I'm starting to abhor the "free speech doesn't make you free from the court of public opinion" argument; it's being used so often and without any substantive discussion that it appears to be a pseudo-intellectualist's cop out.

So sure, even if legislatively one has the 'freedom' to say what they want, what does it say about how we value that freedom if we tacitly strip people from the ability to have disagreeable views without launching upon them as if they were guilty of high-treason? Are you really free if what you say doesn't get you thrown in jail but gets you burned at the social media cross?
Low level is a lot more fun in the very least.

I wouldn't say it is easier by any means.

The first time you open up the debugger and your v-table pointer is null (presuming you know what a v-table pointer is!) things start to be interesting.

Or there was that time I printf'd a 64bit number and a random stack variable was corrupted. That was a lot of fun.

Memory protection? Haha. No.

For that matter, my team just came across a bug in our own code a couple weeks ago, we were performing a DMA memcopy operation (for which you get to setup your own DMA descriptors yourself of course) over a bus and at the same time sending a command packet to the same peripheral that was being DMA'd to.

oops.

Expected things to be put into order for you? Nope. Not unless you implement your own queuing system. (Which we are doing for that particular component now.)

All in all it is a ton of fun though. I'm loving it. Having seen an entire system be built up from setting up a clock tree to init'ing peripherals to our very own dear while(1). (We actually moved away from while 1, async is where it is at baby! Callback hell in kilobytes of RAM! oooh yaaaah)
Part of our society tends to "Denialism"(2009)
Thanks, so for the tires are two possible solutions: Rotate them, or bring them to the UK, if rotation is to much work. ;-)
Not always a fan of linking xkcd, but:

http://xkcd.com/505/
An Intro to Akka
I know this is really trivial, but I found the extended music intro and his unamused reaction quite comical. Over-analyzing, it's a juxtaposition to parts of his talk.
Exactly, I'm not much of a techie, but checking the domains of suspicious links is the first thing I do.
I guess the reason is "character control is super fast: your computer can execute button presses immediately and there is no lag involved in your own controls"
I suspect you are confusing Functional Relational Programming with Functional Reactive Programming. The latter revolves around programming with time-varying streams of values and has been implemented many times. There is an interesting discussion of related problems at http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4900#comment-78949.

Functional Relational Programming is defined by using relational constructs to model data and manage change and using pure functions to express computation. The only serious implementation I'm aware of is http://boom.cs.berkeley.edu/
That scales better than the eccentric design, but not as well as separate connectors.

Suppose, for example, you want to be able to assemble, from the same components, a flat-hexagon station, and an "asterisk" station like what you'd get if you drew radii from each vertex of a hexagon and then took the hexagon away -- a configuration which might be very useful, for example, as a "transfer point"; if the inter-segment connectors are adaptable to whatever standard governs spacecraft airlocks, then you can dock at least six spacecraft at once and interchange cargo among any or all of them. If you add a seventh "socket" to your central connector, normal to the plane of the other six, then you can tie your "transfer point" to a larger station, too, and assemble a larger structure, as for example might be very useful at a nearby Lagrange point, as a way station for ships inbound to and outbound from the Earth-Moon system.

(On the other hand, perhaps I simply spent too much time playing with Tinkertoy as a child.)
Is there an example of a similiar non-trivial problem for which there is an inexistance proof? I'm not a mathematician so I have a hard time picturing a way of proving this sort of thing when the number of objects is "tricky" (not too high, not too low), apart from simply showing a counterexample.
It'd be nice if consumer GPS navigators offered an option like "prefer right turns".
even if the bug is fixed most people wont come back and say how super it is.
Most people think that software runs well is the default behavior and its nothing special to them.
Even if you speed up something by 20% or more people wont come back and say how wonderful it is.
They will maybe write on twitter/fb/G+ about is.

I can't find the link to a analysis which showed how such system work in the internet but if your project is big and runs on so many platforms and you get a ration 10 bad to 1 good your doing pretty well. Things like Smartphone markets only work beacuse its only one platform and your app will be good or bad but not both
Oh, I see what you mean. I wish I saw a way for that to happen in the Windows ecosystem, although I suppose the "Windows Store" might drive evolution in that direction.
Of course you can leak space in every turing complete language even on purpose, but in case of languages with lazy evaluation (like Haskell) you are no longer able to trivially reason about your programs behavior until execution on real data in real environment.

I agree that Haskell has some good (old) ideas and it is pleasant to Sunday programmers.
At 18-22 people are very young and, generally speaking, have very little life experience. They are looking for their place in life, so it's not surprising they are trading places easily. As they mature, they become more stable and better realize what they need/want in life (and job is a major part of life for most of us), so it's only natural they start sticking more to what they found.
But if you control the DNS, you can serve a fake LinkedIn from linkedin.com. Can't do https though.

Edit: Ignore it, I forgot he didn't control the DNS at that point. So this is invalid.
Haskell.

I notice there's nothing functional on your list. Any functional programming should prove really interesting for you, and teach you a lot. Certainly learning a bit of Haskell has changed how I write in all other languages. I would go for Haskell because the strict type system is also a really interesting thing to learn, but alternatively you could go for Erlang which emphasises error handling/recovery for services with high uptime, or something like Scheme which has s-expressions and macros which are apparently really great to learn.
> I scan with various virus/worm tools and I see ONLY gmail infected files. They are not emails I've ever looked at, touched, clicked on, opened - anything. They happen to be on my machine under the spam/junk folder.

OH! This does not mean what you think it means. This means that Gmail is correctly classifying evil emails into your spam folder. You are, for your own reasons, downloading the SPAM folder to your computer instead of leaving it on Google's server. This brings the email text and attachments into the email app's storage folder on your HDD.

Your anti-virus software is scanning local files for virus or malware signatures. The attachments on these emails have these signatures. This has nothing to do with you opening them, running them, or being infected by them. Your email client dutifully downloads the SPAM folder, stores it locally, and your AV tool is spotting the bad sequences of bytes.

That's sort of like having a collection of viral agents in glass vials. You've collected them, but you're not infected.

Opening the email and running the attachment, that'd be a problem. Or, if the attachment can get itself to run in the context of just viewing the mail, and you view it, that'd be a problem.

So, (1) Don't download the SPAM folder, waste of time and storage; if you don't download it, Sophos etc won't see/detect the bytes. (2) Don't browse the spam folder if you don't want to be infected by things in spam emails. (3) If you do download the spam folder because, say, you have a lot of false positives you need to rescue out of it, then check for them frequently and delete the rest or set it to auto-empty.

I'd go with just not downloading it.
It does exist:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/archive/2011/03/22/authe...

The problem is that it doesn't help users any, the only way to stop them is to take control of the system away and it doesn't go that far.
Looks like its US Patent No. 4441125

https://www.google.com/patents/US4441125
Can we start a HN Young Adults at mid to late twenties longitudinal survey?

Statistically speaking, I'm 27, over-educated with a BA degree, single and not living with a partner, making an 25th percentile salary relatively to the US average. Saving less than I should of my disposable income but in the 10th percentile relatively to my peers due to my working professionally for 5.5 years while most of my other over-educated peers in other fields are still enrolled in post-graduate training. Working in IT and living in an over-priced metropolitan area.

Anecdotally speaking, I'm ambivalent about marriage and career advancement. Personal experiences have informed me that relationships are less about true love and unfailing commitment than being able to compromise, communicate and having the financial and mental wherewithal to deal with (inter)personal issues. Unlike my younger self, I'm less anxious about "coupling" and more keen working on myself and working out my bad habbits/addictions.

Personal experiences have also informed me that IT careers esp. if you're not working at a Fortune 500 company are quite transient. Programmers (maybe other professions as well?) are treated more as sub-contractors entities than tenured employees - meaning that the company will keep you around if you're contributing efficiently to the bottom-line and cut you without sentiment otherwise.

Whereas my younger self aspired to "apply to YC, work at Google," I'm less keen on the promises of potential prestige and fortune but focused more on the longer term of angling more for more domain specific positions (e.g., Computational Biologist vs. Software Engineer on Genomic Data Platform) and more work-life balance (summer hours, regular 9-5 schedule) to pursue my other hobbies outside of coding.

Everyone is very different but I'd love to hear what stage other young adults on HN are (not talking about the wide-eyed CS undergrad still dreaming about The Social Network), both statistically and anecdotally speaking.
George Takei – Well, that was fast