skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
How exactly did you do this? I want my name on Twitter but it's being squatted on by someone who has zero tweets, zero followers and following one person.

I put in a request back in 2009 to free up the name and they told me the same thing that's still in their support document five years later: they're working to free up names but don't have a timeline. https://support.twitter.com/articles/15362-inactive-account-...
"Use the right tool for the job" != "language doesn't matter".

There isn't one language to rule them all. If there were, we'd be able to stop discussing them. But sometimes you need explicit memory management, sometimes you need rapid development, sometimes you need high performance, and sometimes you need a strong library ecosystem. "Right tool for the job" means that getting the language correct is important, but that it's not always going to be the same language.
I agree that legally, Levison probably made a mistake by stonewalling DoJ.

However, I worry about what losing this case means in the grand scheme of things. DoJ's argument was that they should be able to get the key to decrypt all e-mails for all of Lavabit's users, and the Court says that's fine because the government "wouldn't" use the key for anything other than the "target" - which seems like a ridiculous and incredibly reckless argument post-Snowden.

Would Google just hand over the key to all of their Gmail users? Let's imagine they weren't using PFS - or let's imagine they were asking Microsoft for the Outlook key, instead.
There are two interesting groups at play here - the tech companies that own all data, usernames, etc. on their platform and the user that needs to be on their platform for the company to exist and be successful. Our private information becomes public information when we share it with some of these companies, and they are given permission to own and use the information to a certain extent. They promise us security and stability at first because they need us, but when they don't depend on us anymore they can get away with sacrificing those users who don't contribute enough in order to serve their own interests. Because what does losing one person do to them? Are we all going to boycott Instagram now? Probably not. There definitely needs to be some regulation on how internet-based businesses can use and change a user's information because our public/internet identity has become so integrated into our lives that an incident like a sudden change in username can feel like a violation of privacy (even when it's not really one).
General Purpose Programming with Dependent Types [video]
Just use curly braces all the time. There's nothing in C or C++ stopping you from using curly braces around single line statements. It's just that you CAN omit them.

But having been bitten by this issue early on, I started always using curly braces. I think it's the better way to write C/C++. Frankly I think those who omit them are just lazy.
Massive FBI facial recognition database poses threat to privacy
Tor Project Loses 12% of Entry/Exit Bandwidth Because of Heartbleed
Whether someone is intentionally spamming or not, if they want to keep the registrar happy and stop getting complaints, they remove the email address of the complainant from the database if they receive a complaint. Unless there's a sufficiently large body of spam reports to automatically take action against the account of the alleged spammer - which may have happened after the OP's complaint - that's actually the best way to resolve the problem. 99.9999% of mailing list owners and blatant spammers alike are in it for the money rather than trolling complainants

I'm really struggling to see how GoDaddy could have a policy that fixes the issue of a person complaining about unwanted emails without disclosing the email of the person who doesn't want to receive the email any more.
The 'Dirty Cables' business could be a huge win for the DIY market, it is a real weak point that folks are constrained to existing cables. With a custom cable you can build interconnects effectively that enable multi-board projects (like the old Cupcake 3D printer from Makerbot) without weird wiring harnesses. That is a cool thing to be coming down the pipe.
We need a system of due process for situations like this.

Or we need more, and better publicized, instances of people getting screwed for relying on privately-owned social media infrastructure.

In some ways this make me think of towns that improve the interaction of cars and pedestrians by reducing, rather than increasing, traffic signs and traffic control signals[0].

When people think their best interests are being provided for they tend to become lax and too trusting. When (in the case of street traffic) pedestrians and drivers realize that the onus is on them to make things right they are more mindful.

People using assorted profit-focused Web tools need more reminders that no one is looking out for them except to the extent it raises the bottom line for someone else.

They need reminders that they are the product, not the customer.

They need reminders that they have near zero claim on anything and have no reasonable expectation of fairness.

As it stands, sites like Twitter, Facebook, et al, have the best of both worlds. People use their sites as if it were forever their own personal property (and so become deeply invested in it) while the actual ownership remains with the site.

0: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/controlled-chaos...
I wonder if Eiffel could have gotten a more widespread use, if Bertrand Meyer had gotten a major OS vendor behind it, instead of trying to cater for the enterprise.
Totally get your point, and we could have a fun philosophical discussion around whether or not people SHOULD want to learn how to code.

However, it's pretty clear that most of the people in the world who want to create/share content on the web are NOT interested in learning how to code at all, right? I mean, that's a big part of the reason why blogging platforms, and many other user-generated content sites are so huge (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. etc.).

Yeah, people could just stick with what they know if they don't want to code -- but then there would still be huge barriers between having an idea that you want to create and get out there, and actually having the ability to make it real.

For example, this Webflow Interactions site was entirely created by someone who isn't a coder (I know, I work with him). How long would it have taken him to learn all of the code he would have needed to know to create it all from scratch? Or how much would he have needed to pay a developer to build it for him? And how long would that back and forth taken to get it all right?

For a lot of people, those types barriers are insurmountable (they don't have the time/skill to learn themselves, or the money to pay someone else). So should their ideas just not ever have the chance to see the light of day?

If everyone who ever had a great idea could code it themselves that would be awesome. I just don't think it's feasible -- and tools like Webflow can bring a lot more people a lot closer.
So instead of seeing it as personally disinteresting and moving on you painted the issue as not interesting, or not worth talking about, which is an age old silencing tactic[1], and add no critical points of your own.

[1]http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/This_is_boring

It may not be interesting to you, no one is tell you it has to be, but silencing other people's issues because they're boring to you is really, really lame.
I wish someone had done this for PCs 20 years ago.
I'm just saying that that distinction is no less catastrophic. It really depends on the line in question, but if a line has side-effects and isn't idempotent, it could be infinitely catastrophic to repeat it unless it causes a syntax error.

Even in the gotofail case, ALL cases were not affected, only the ones after the line. It would be more catastrophic higher in the function and less lower.

BTW, his code sample is NOT what the real bug was -- in the real bug it was more like this

err = f1(cert) if (err) goto fail;
err = f2(cert) if (err) goto fail;
err = f3(cert) if (err)
goto fail;
goto fail;
err = f4(cert) if (err) goto fail;

fail:
cleanup();
return err; // if this returns 0, the cert is good

The issue is that we jumped to fail with err set to 0 (no error), but we skipped the f4 check. The bug is only a problem if f4 would return an error (not ALL cases)
Apple – Making the all-new Mac Pro
Agreed. I am curious what they are going to offer there.
Did you not have a co-founder? That appears to make quite a difference.
If you run Chrome for Windows 8 on an Intel based Windows tablet in full screen mode it's hilariously similar to Chrome OS.

I agree with you on the state thing. The problems we have (hopefully temporary) are the number of choices of where to store our state are inadequate (i.e. too many hosted in the US) and we're living with the layers of crap that is the modern web. The idealist in me would prefer a clean slate completely, but the pragmatist knows they're approaching this in the only way the idea will get traction.
Why Users Fill Out Less If You Mark Required Fields
It's clearly true that having a language which forced an explicit ending to an if block would have prevented the goto fail bug.

But is there any actual evidence that code written in modern languages have fewer bugs overall? Or is it all, "let's focus on this one example"?

As another commenter mentioned, the goto fail bug would have been utterly trivially caught by any unit test that even just tested that it reached the non-error case in any way (you don't even need to test the correctness of the non-error code).

I would like to see data before I believe that "errors that would have been prevented by non-C semantics" constitutes a significant fraction of all bugs, or that they aren't just replaced by bugs unique to the semantics of whatever replacement language you're using.
So Python and COBOL are our only options?
Know Your Consumer Rights: Credit Card Minimums and Fees
The article itself claims it was inactive.
Thanks, man.

Actually, it was kinda neat for the first 3 months or so, to have reason to dive deep and flesh out the dark corners of my bash knowledge. There's a few things I picked up that have served me well since - and I'd lived in the shell for years beforehand... The balance wasn't kinda neat.
Commit log of the OpenBSD fork of OpenSSL, LibSSL
I'm quite curious to know what this rocket is going to be used for. Say, next 5-10 years.

Saturn-V was used for an important national program, where money weren't the option. N-1 was closed after 4 unsuccessful flights. Energia flew only twice. Shuttle flew for long time, but it was expensive, political and at a time even the only option.

All other rockets had LEO payloads under 25 tons. That helped them to be cheaper, which, in turn, helped to prolong their operational life.

SpaceX can't afford to have an expensive rocket. To fly only occasionally is dangerous - reliability may suffer. To fly frequent... Where they're going to get payloads for that? 50+ tons - that's a lot these days. Unless price per launch will be quite comparable to other launchers and reliability on par, F-9H may be left without paying customers. And to launch this rocket cheap may prove unwise for the company which is making it.
Oh no, not another UI Kit™
Email in capital letters: court tells 'insensitive' father in custody dispute
One thing missing from this picture is Streams - the multivalued analog to Promises (Futures in Dart). The button click example would be quite easy to handle, even without Zones, if the button had an onClick event stream, rather than taking a callback.

This code, which doesn't work as intended:

function thirdPartyFunction() {
function fakeXHR() {
throw new Error("Invalid dependencies");
}

setTimeout(fakeXHR, 100);
}

function main() {
button.on("click", function onClick() {
thirdPartyFunction();
});
}

main();

would instead look like this with a Streams-based API (I'm assuming a Dart-like API, since I don't know the proposed Stream API for JS):

function thirdPartyFunction() {
function fakeXHR() {
throw new Error("Invalid dependencies");
}

setTimeout(fakeXHR, 100);
}

function main() {
button.on("click")
.listen(function onClick() {
thirdPartyFunction();
})
.onError(function onError() {
console.log("now it works with errors");
})
}

main();

Since onClick is executed by the Stream, even a synchronous exception in thirdPartyFunction will be caught and given to the onError callback. JavaScript could really use a better DOM API with Promises and Streams in place of most callbacks. I think most of the Streams work is here: https://github.com/whatwg/streams

So Zones aren't really needed here. They are very useful though. AngularDart uses them to intercept any external trigger of the event loop so that it can run it's change detection code (this is why they ported Zones to JavaScript). Dart's unittest library runs each test in a Zone to wait for outstanding microtasks and catch async errors that might happen after a test appears to have completed and associate it with the correct test. And of course using Zones to string together async stack traces or debugging is invaluable.
The problem is related to proving whether discrimination exists or not.
You definitely need connections.
In point one the OP complains that the term "Product Guy" is too vague and generic (which I agree with), then in point two she complains that people using the term makes her uncomfortable because there isn't an informal female equivalent.

If "Product Guy" is such a vague, generic term that myself, OP, and others feel it is, is it really a big deal that there isn't a similarly vague and generic female equivalent?
I actually disabled the touchscreen on my Pixel. The coating on it means it picks up dirt like no other laptop screen ever, and if it's touch enabled it goes crazy whenever you try to clean it.

That and if touch is enabled things like Gmail like to add lots of padding around stuff regardless of if you're going to use the touch at all.

Frankly, I found the touch utterly useless, especially since the touchpad is so good.
Have you considered submitting the attack to hacker one?

https://hackerone.com/internet
That's the expert point of view. But when you're learning a technology, you don't know what's the expected behavior, where's the problem (your code or the lib) and if you understood the spirit correctly, so you don't know where the problem is, you just need an expert pair of eyes to make sense of things. So you get kicked out of SO for lack of point-worthy question, and of github for lack of repro.

Moreover some projects do their support on github (not saying it's good or bad, just confusing).

I've had that recently, I don't even know where to ask what's the expected behavior (google chrome APIs, impossible to reach a human being).
Interesting site. I don't know if this is intentional, but the category scrolling can look kind of odd right before the transition: http://imgur.com/OB7SbYn
I'm unhappy that Levison's overbearance on email caused Pamela Jones to quit Groklaw. Ordinarily these are exactly the kinds of cases PJ would be able to demonstrate some of her expertise on, by explaining how longstanding legal principles apply to problems in the tech sector.

She was never a coder though, and so her expertise on tech was limited to what was explained to her. I don't think Levison was making his claims about all emails everywhere being read by the goons at Minitrue in order to scare PJ in particular, but that was the net effect.
I think the crux of the DOJ's argument is that they should be able to get the key because less intrusive methods they might have employed have been blocked, so it has become the least intrusive method available.

Google wouldn't hand over the key to all of their Gmail users — they would offer a better option, which Levison did not.
Also: just because you can omit braces, doesn't mean you should. Stick to 1TBS and this kind of mistake shouldn't happen.
I'll take one responsible author with one harsh-but-knowledgeable critic over a hundred would-be authors without the ability to sift useful content from polemic criticism.
The Definitive Survival Guide For Traveling Engineers
100 people, 760 commits, 43k lines added to the YAML files in 13 hours. Thanks all those taking part - we were expecting this to take a month and it looks like it'll get done in a day :).

Still plenty more to do if anyone else is interested in dropping by and helping close up issues.
I've not got a Windows Phone myself, but from all the reviews I've read the functionality is neutered somewhat, even after the applications have reintegrated themselves.
I think you have a very narrow definition of "investment" that doesn't match how others use it. I challenge you to explain why speculation in equities is an "investment" but speculation in real estate isn't. Suppose I create a corporation, sell shares, buy real estate, sell it for more money, and return value to shareholders. Is that an investment?

I think your argument is thin here.
I can't read this article. The font and spacing is horrible. Makes my vision shimmer and shake. Perhaps I'm just getting old.
Works fine on FF on Ubuntu 28.
I keep seeing this meme, and it persuaded me to buy a Samsung Chromebook, specifically with the intent of putting Linux on it.

It's awful. Forget about accelerated graphics from that nice chip - the drivers are proprietary. Oh, and so are the DSP drivers, so no HD decoding. Enjoy pressing Ctl-D every boot; don't mis-type or you'll wipe the drive. The keyboard lacks essentials such as "home", "end", and "delete". The Crouton OS and ChromeOS get into fights sometimes. HDMI is a crapshoot. I never did get VLC to stream the webcam. The finish is about as durable as whitewash. And so on.

If you're a developer reading this thread and considering buying a Chromebook because it looks like a nice machine for the price, PLEASE don't. Do yourself a favor and buy a used thin 'n' light business-class laptop from 2006-8. You'll take a medium hit on battery life and weight, but you will get a comfortable, well-designed, durable, powerful machine for your money.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Workstation_PRD
Unfortunately I don't have a co-founder yet. Started working on the idea not so long enough.
ZPAY Time Billing Window v2.0.7 Incl Keymaker
Yeah, that's a bit janky. Could just have the switch happen slightly before they overlap. Thanks!
Well, I did say 'ironically.'

But I'm not saying that women are more predisposed to like this sort of thing than men; rather, that men are less likely to care about a woman's use of such an app than the reverse. Everyone likes accents, I think you can find some in-depth analysis on OKcupid's stats blog.
Teespring (YC W13) is hiring for Growth, Full Stack, and PM
Andreesen Horowitz backed, mother approved, Teespring is the company you are going to wish you had started working at a year ago six months from now.

We are the no money down, pound for pound champion of monetizing online audiences and communities through gorgeous custom apparel.

If you are a talented PM (project or product), Full stack dev (RoR), or want to join our Growth Team please check out:

http://teespring.com/jobs

Or email your resumes / notes directly to jobs@teespring.com and put (HN) in the subject line to get extra special attention
Recoil funny music video (must watch)
How HTTP Libraries Should Support Redirects
Python doesn't allow misleading indentation in the specific case at issue, but does allow misleading indentation (e.g., inside list comprehensions split over multiple lines).
> Would Google just hand over the key to all of their Gmail users?

No, Google would comply with the narrow, specific warrant the first time. Again, it bears repeating that the only reason DoJ asked for the master key in the first place is because Levison refused to comply with the narrow requests. If Levison wouldn't do it, then the government would figure it out on their own, but the only reason this situation even came up is because Levison wouldn't do it.

Not complying with a narrow and specified warrant is highly hypocritical, especially in this case since Snowden's initial claims were entirely about wanting the NSA to have to have specific warrants for their searches instead of using broad search authorities. But when push came to shove and the government presented a narrow and specific warrant, of a type Levison had previously honored, all of a sudden that was no longer good enough for this particular privacy advocate.
The idea of renaming an account on Github concerns me because an account's repos may be referenced by others' git submodules. I'd hate to find one of my repos inadvertently referencing a repo I did not intend to reference.
In the early years of yc, people said there weren't any good companies. It took years for Dropbox to become Dropbox. There are actually a lot more great founders and companies now, but it will be years before you realize it. That's the nature of this business.

Your point about ambition is a good one though. Filtering out people who are just there for the prestige generally isn't that hard though -- they have ways of self identifying :)
I think the PC analogy is wrong. I also framing this as money saving option is wrong.

The potential is in flexibility. Phones are small. Tradeoffs are substantial. Some people would prefer 50% more battery life at the expense of the camera or weight. Maybe someone can make an e-ink screen that will double battery life. Some people might want to spend $800 on the camera.

IMO, that's the benefit.

Commercially, I see this as something can keep buying add ons to. The market of people who buy 2-3 pricey covers for an ipad is legit. People like their phones and add ons might sell because people will just want to buy new things for them.

In that sense, maybe this will extend life a little or partially as you take some old modules with you, but that's not the point. The point is can flexibility let people make a phone they like better and enjoy doing it.
I always thought of it as the place for essential binaries needed for system rescue (single user boot). For this reason, they should also be statically linked. I got this a long time ago from reading the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard [1]

Not that this rule of thumb helps define the location of bash. It may or may not be considered essential for recovery.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb/fh...
I think it is also a matter of culture.

The modern language communities tend to be more open to static code analysers and unit tests than the C community, even though they have lint since the early days.
To address only the "goto fail" example the author uses, I don't see how the proposed Eiffel solutions are conceptually any different than always using brackets in your C/C++ constructs. Brackets are the mathematical notation for a set, and having a set of instructions inside them makes perfect sense even if the set only has a single element.

Since

if(condition){ instruction; }

instead of

if(condition) instruction;

is already considered good practice, couldn't it also be enforced via compiler pragma?