skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Cryonics possibly working in future means nothig about how the freezing process is done now. Maybe in X years we'll have a bunch of corpses and we'll be asking why they were so poorly frozen and how there is no possible chance of defrosting them.

If yu valie life you may want to spend the considerable amount of money needed by cryonics on living your actual life, rather than on gambling on a few more years at some point in the future.

Cryonics would be more convincing if they could show me a strawberry that can be frozen, defrosted, and eaten and that still looks like a strawberry when it is eaten.
The "stuff" is still there, in the company, allowing people to be employed for doing stuff they really like doing and to create more stuff... it's not as if he sold all his shares, converted it to gold and buried half of it in his tomb under a pyramid and left the other half of the gold to his children.

At least in 2000+ years we got to the level of social/human evolution where "the stuff" keeps flowing :)
Not just the proliferation resistance is a myth, but there are several others making the round: http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium_myths.html
There are good arguments against C++, but they resume to its extreme complexity and lack of extra safety compared to C. Both are fair points and why I avoid it.
This patch is setting OPENSSL_NO_HEARTBEAT, but openssl actually only disables heartbeats when you set OPENSSL_NO_HEARTBEATS (note trailing S).

Having negative ifdefs in the first place is a pretty bad practice. This clearly shows why.

If all your IFDEFs are "positive" they have to be declared somewhere and then it's easy to "deactivate" the things you no longer want, by simply commenting a line out.

It reduces the possibility for error, and gives you a better picture of how many IFDEF conditions you are dealing with around your code.
They will earn more coins by paying the electricity and using the already bought mining gear, than if they stop paying for the electricity and use that money to buy coins.
> So if the US would agree to pay $25/year ...

Given the option of keeping the existing model (free and subject to advertising and data mining) or the model that you describe ($25/year but no advertising or data mining), I'm convinced that there are very few people (in my set of "friends", at least) who would pay up.

The majority of my (very diverse) circle of friends simply don't care. Some of them act like they do, but they don't care enough to pay $25/year to stop it from happening. The exceptions are mostly tech/I.T. people like myself. Much like the NSA spying in general, the average person just doesn't seem to give a damn.
Strip string pyton
Static analysis (and other "expensive" techniques) should really be standard on something as critical as OpenSSL.

If I compare the effort we've had to go through building things that are allowed into a banking environment the OpenSSL project is very underfunded. Somehow we have to solve this "tragedy of the commons" problem in open source. OpenSSL must be worth millions of dollars to so many companies, but almost no-one cares about it. It seems very strange that the project is not getting BIG corporate sponsorship, given the value of the data it helps to protect.
Robinson's Difference Engine #2
Untag Yourself – You’re not What Others Think you Are
New Self-healing Plastics Developed
Thanks for the correction! Unfortunately I cannot edit my incorrect statement now. Upvoting so people can see the correction.
The really odd bit is that all the buffer management operations in OpenSSL memset to 0, even when it appears not entirely necessary.

However, the freelist code somehow fails to follow this convention.
Dolphin emulator
As a user it is more reassuring to me if I can identify the business model or the fees involved up front. The FAQ states that the drivers don't pay anything, and the customers pay the drivers directly in cash. That makes me feel like I am missing something.
> I agree with what you are saying: for proven security you need to prove properties of all the layers down to the metal. Not sure how difficult this is for good "safe" languages such as e.g. Haskell.

I wonder if optimizations affect the area of code that would need to be verified? Haskell is pure, and this fact is exploited in a lot optimizations and code generation - I guess one would have to prove that all of these transformations preserve the integrity of the Haskell semantics.

I guess you could have a small (compared to GHC) implementation of Haskell which is formally verified, which is small because you don't bother with hardly any optimizations?
Nah, not really. I think the main drive against things like D&D comes from a fear against anything which makes people think outside of the ordained box. The more people think - be it about fantasy and monsters or DNA and atoms - the less control you have over where their thinking might lead them. Free thinkers are the bane of organised religion, so anything which encourages free thinking is discouraged by it.
No I think people like to defend things associated with people or startup incubators they like. So in a sea of negativity they latch onto any argument in favour of the thing despite its lack of merit.
Sadly, it's not strange. And there are still quite a few countries where the retention requirements were implemented in the local law so it remains a problem.
Valid point and I clearly was under the misconception that Linux didn't care that much about the external interfaces.

However, VCL is more akin the the kernel modules, relying on the internal APIs which are much less stable. When the semantics on how Varnish operates (with 4.0, the backend threads are completely new) and so the VCL language _needs_ to change in order to reflect this.

The external API, made available through HTTP hasn't changed much.
The point being made here is that although many new stuff is being shipped through NuGet, there are still way to many "implicit" dependencies to the stuff that gets shipped through SDKs, installers, vsix, etc.

Setting up a build server is a good indicator really of all these "implicit" dependencies.

File > New C# Project results in a csproj file containing references to MSBuild targets and binaries that supposedly are already installed on the system. While that's a valid assumption on a developer's machine, these dependencies are declared "implicitly".
Why not make them explicit and reference the appropriate MSBuild targets and libs from .NET NuGet packages? (really whish .NET gets componentized and shipped through NuGet one day). NuGet package restore could then simply pull in all dependencies required to build the software.
The VM is a much smaller attack surface than all applications and all their libraries.
Logo interpreter with turtle
Thought it was a goat simulator rip off first haha. This looks awesome though.
I got it without (to my knowledge) overflowing any limits for any reasonable time period.

Do a Google search for the headline and click on the article that way. Or forge the 'Referer' header.
Very inspiring, but take into account that John (most likely) lives in a good enviroment to proceed with this, his job is intellectually demanding but he is not overworked or extramulti-tasked.

If your job leaves you depleted, and when you arrive home you're like a husk of a human being you can't expect to do something like this.

Take into account that great developers like John live in a place where they can grow, you can't copy what they do and expect to have the same great results in a not so great environment.
This little story is great. It's anecdotes like this (and on the linked URL) that I would have liked to see in that Jobs movie. Paint a very interesting picture of Jobs, with fresh perspectives.
You can use mathematics to prove other things as well. You could e.g. use a special bool type for all secure data that you can't branch on, so that no secrets could be exposed by examining the runtime path of execution. Or build a model of your CPU's caching and prefetching behaviour and prove that you're code doesn't expose any secrets by that channel.
Consider the scenario where my programme is dangerous for values of an unsigned integer less than or equal to 2. As far as I know, there is no such type for unsigned integers equal to 3 or more. Sure, in object oriented languages you can essentially define your own type, but this flexibility is where you are not protected against yourself.

I see your point about types though. That said, both types and testing exist to protect you. I stand by what I said, however; languages do not exist to protect you from yourself.
On the flip side, I grew up in a religious family. Conservative church three times a week, mom was a preacher's daughter and my dad later became a missionary.

Me and my brother played D&D frequently, had the books (the ones with devils on the covers), and it never bothered anyone. I don't think my parents were too worried a game was much danger to me.

Common sense for the win, I guess.
There are a lot of stupid rich people in this world, it's true. It's also somewhat of a dirty little secret that some of Silicon Valley's most successful VCs are stupid rich people.

The team at Andreesen Horowitz, however, are not among these stupid rich people. If anything, they have disrupted the standard operating procedure among their peers by outsmarting them, and the nature of how they have outsmarted their peers is strongly connected to an appetite for attaching high valuations to small groups of really smart people. Their organizational M.O. has been the exact opposite of bargain-bin talent hunting, which is why this whole Hacker Rank thing comes off so weird to me.

I want to be clear that I don't think A16Z is up to anything evil. Just something sneaky (which is fun!). These are smart people, and for them to publicly engage with the hacker community in this manner is indicative of some sort of really smart hypothesis being tested.
AWS JavaScript SDK
An alternative that I've used successfully in Europe in the past is anyvan.com
>Let’s look at the Node.js community and how they manage to do things

Node.js? The one that pulls in like 10,000 files to run a simple grunt build?
Profit != Cash flow

A business may be profitable (i.e. revenues greater than costs) but still have negative cash flow. Imagine I'm opening a chain of lemonade stands. I open a new stand each month, at a capital outlay of $3600. The stand will last me 3 years, so only $100 per month per stand shows up as a cost on my income statement. So, as long as each stand can make more than $100 per month per stand in operating profit (revenue, less cost of goods sold, less my staff etc.) from its first month onward, my business is profitable.

My business would be profitable even if I were to open 1000 lemonade stands next month. However, it doesn't mean I have the $3.6m required.

In short, IPO can be about funding growth. Profits can be a poor indicator of cash requirements if significant marketing costs or capital items (all of which cost real cash) are spread over time in the company's accounts. (The accounting treatment is useful, though, as it matches revenues to the costs which generated them, even if they were incurred much earlier.)
"I agree with what you are saying: for proven security you need to prove properties of all the layers down to the metal."

Proving all layers logically correct would be a great start :) We could probably have avoided this whole Heartbleed debacle.

If you'll allow me to elaborate on the security properties, it's worth pointing out that even if your TLS implementation ran on top of a formally-proven correct VM and used formally-proven correct libraries, and ran on a formally-proven correct kernel and processor, you still have to prove that it resists side-channel attacks before it can be said to be secure. Doing so is open-ended, and likely impossible, since side-channel attacks come in all shapes and sizes, and some are outside the scope of software engineering. For example, how do we prove that a logically-correct TLS implementation is secure against acoustic analysis? [1] How would we have done this before it was known that acoustic analysis was possible? This is the essence of what makes writing secure code hard.

[1] https://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~tromer/acoustic/
I think also too a lot of people don't realize when they parrot out this story is that Jobs and Apple never abandoned Woz, Woz just chose at some point not to work there anymore and move on with his life. On his Wikipedia page it states that even though he no longer works there, he's still on the books as an employee and receives a stipend from Apple estimated at $120K.
After in coding in languages like C/C++/ObjC for a while, it took me a while to parse your Scale equivalent.

Personally I find the C++ much clearer – I don’t see either as that much better/worse.
Tangentially related is the Yale Haskell Group's (well, mostly Paul Hudak's) project Euterpia: http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/euterpea/
You give a URL that exists on an HTTPS webserver you control that you've patched to send SSL Heartbeats that have a payload size much greater than the real payload.

If the client code (at whatever site you are targeting) is vulnerable then each heartbeat response you get from the client site may give you up to 64KB of its memory contents.
How we got read access on Google’s production servers
tl;dr: How we got $10.000. We were able to upload an XML file to Google. The XML parser was vulnerable to XXE. We got full read access to their production servers, including the /etc/passwd.
I'd take the test to see what's inside but... 3 hours?
Can I get a t-shirt if I complete it at least? :)
McDonalds coffee drink rewards occur after just the fifth drink, and the free drink counts as one, so it's really four drinks for a free one
That's a myth. Satoshi compared it to gold multiple times. Imagine if gold was digital: You wouldn't be able to make it fit into a single category like "currency" or "investment". Or maybe you could, but you would have to leave behind this common modern assumption that a currency must have the exact same value every year, or even lose 2% every year.
Do you know his name and/or github ? I'd be interested in the dev of this integration
Xkcd: Heartbleed Explanation
What do you mean by "Lack of extra safety compared to C"? I'd have imagined the exact opposite, but maybe I'm missing something there.
Side-channel attacks are my primary concern with writing secure code. For example, if Haskell optimizes and makes some decryption functions run faster than others for an attacker-chosen ciphertext, the attacker could use the runtime differences perform a timing attack [1], and potentially learn your secrets.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_attack
It went up 2000% since they jumped in.
Interesting, how did you end up in Dart team? I mean that "famous" Google-way of randomly assigning employees to projects. And is there any way to apply directly to Dart (or any other) team?
I said "most" projects :-) But even with that I don't have to go through my build logs 50 times before finding out which dependencies have to be installed for the build to work. The build should "just work".
Using Facebook's `folly::gen` library [1], you can get it down to:

vector<int> squareVec3(const vector<int>& v) {
return from(v) | mapped([](int i){ return i * i; }) | as<vector>();
}

which is pretty slick.
There are a bunch of the usual LINQ/functional operators in
`folly::gen` that are quite nice. As an example, to filter out the odd elements of `v`, you can do

vector<int> squareVecFiltered(const vector<int>& v) {
return from(v)
| filter([](int i){ return i % 2 == 0; })
| mapped([](int i){ return i * i; })
| as<vector>();
}

https://github.com/facebook/folly/tree/master/folly/gen
Terribly written. As an excerpt:

> OpenSUSE is another Linux distribution. This is best for those who use Laptop. This is ideal for a laptop user. This is very user-friendly. It comes with wonderful tools meant for the network connectivity. This is very user-friendly and the beginners who need to connect to different network can use it very easily. It also comes with a cellular support that helps you to use your cell phone as a modem. As there is no scarcity of people interested in studying computer science degree; there is also no scarcity of people who are interested in using OpenSUSE.
The early rock and roll era was a pretty interesting time.

For the first time, kids had easy access to cars, and thus they could be away from their parents more often. The cultural construct we have today of teenagers being so independent from their parents didn't really exist in the generations prior.

Not only were these teens in their cars, away from parents, they were listening to the radio in the those cars. Outside of adult supervision. And so white kids could hear black music for the first time. So they were crossing racial lines, and eventually the lines became more and more blurred, which is how rock music grew.

And, of course, those kids were having sex in the back seats of those cars. Away from parent, and while listening to rock music. Which, in the pre-pill era, led to a lot of unplanned pregnancies.

So while early rock didn't really cause negative effects, it's not hard to see how worried parents could make the associations. The kids were indeed literally out of control.
It's not perfect, but at least you don't have to manually install 10,000 files just to be able to build in the first place. Or worry that your build server is running on the wrong version of Windows. Or even do anything special to get it to build. It's not perfect, but it's better than what we have now by a huge margin.
Seems like they bought Zopim for 1,803,345 shares. In their S-1 They mention: "20,267,882 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options to purchase common stock that were outstanding as of December 31, 2013, with a weighted-average exercise price of $1.41 per share;"

Which would bring the Acq. price of Zopim to ~2.5mil USD, if I understood it properly.
LTC Insurance Quotes
Having regularly read and appreciated grellas' comments here, I think he is responsible for some of the best and most interesting comments on this site. I have no reason to believe his reasoning is not sincere.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Linux does need secure boot, it's a very important security feature, if you care about early boot stage compromises.

What Sam fails to mention is that the MS specs for secure boot require that users be able to load their own keys into the bios, this freeing them from MS signing. It may not be a standardised interface, but it is required.
The only reason MS signing of linux boot loaders is important is so that it works out of the box without users fiddling with bios settings.
I think that, if HN was split into subforums where I could choose to visit a particular topic, that would be fine. For example, if there were five subforums (like below), users could either visit those subforums or not as per their choice:

- Startups, Entreprenuership (a.k.a. classic HN)

- Politics

- Off-topic

- Ask HN

- Jobs and Hiring

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

That would never have happened under pg but who knows what the future holds with new people running it.

Under the current HN model though, I flag anything political. Politics is difficult here. The old HN was "a LOT of young Californians who used their real names" and the new HN is "a LOT of international users and most people use aliases". The political differences between ages and between geographical regions make this a very difficult thing. For example, does a 43yo Texan want to talk US politics with a 17yo kid from Ukraine? Probably not - the ages and cultural differences are just so huge that finding common ground takes time and, in a short format like this, that's tough.
It's more than a decade old. Not exactly news.
EFF uses StartCom?!
There's nothing technical that would prevent nuget from including MSBuild targets that are then picked up after installing the package, right? (Worst case would be that you'd have to use a wrapper project which gets the dependencies and then builds the actual project, in case project includes are handled before the nuget target.)
Dunning-Kruger is the opposite (when unskilled individuals think of themselves as being much more talented than they actually are).
How complex must that model be?

At least as complex as a real CPU, so we're back on square one.
I like the Python version of:

def square(vector):
return [v**2 for v in vector]
Right--this will work on some types of side-channel attacks. For example, I could prove that my decryption function runs in a constant amount of time no matter the input.

However, you can't proactively defend against side-channel attacks. By definition, a side-channel attack exists because the designer didn't know that the cryptosystem leaks information when (s)he designed and proved the correctness of the implementation.

Proving that the cryptosystem doesn't leak information is damn nigh impossible, and often outside the scope of software engineering. My favorite example is acoustic analysis (https://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~tromer/acoustic/). Before this was shown to be possible, how were cryptosystem designers supposed to know to defend against it?

The best we can do is come up with and formalize a threat model, and then prove that the cryptosystem is secure against the adversaries in the threat model. The problem is that threat models don't help you with adversaries in the future, who have means of getting information from your cryptosystem that you didn't think of.
> It doesn't matter if that code is a VM or unsafe code.

What does matter is the amount of unsafe code to trust. It's much easier to check that a small area of clearly-marked unsafe blocks does "the right thing" than if your entire program is a gigantic unsafe block.
I did some research on CPAN - comparing it to Ruby gems and Python's various packaging solutions...

CPAN is the defacto Perl standard, mirroring and testing built in. With perlbrew, localLib and cpanm, the tooling for Perl is world class. I think Ruby and Python are still catching up here. No doubt they will, but CPAN is an amazing feat of engineering.
My co-founders (2 sales guys) got no client for 21 months
I take that back. It sounds like the purchase price was closer to 15mil.

>> In March 2014, we completed an acquisition of Zopim. The purchase price of approximately $15.9 million ($5.0 million of cash and $10.9 million of our common stock) includes $1.1 million of cash and $2.4 million of common stock consideration held back between 12 and 18 months as partial security for standard indemnification obligations and which is payable in the future under terms specified in the stock purchase agreement. In connection with the acquisition of Zopim, we established a retention plan pursuant to which we will pay up to $13.9 million in cash and equity consideration over two and three years, respectively, to Zopim employees in connection with their continued employment.
Lamma mobile meteo Tuscany