skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be true. So far all proposed proof of stake systems suffer from problem that miners don't consume a resource to attempt to contribute to the consensis. In other words, the problem of proof-of-statke is that there is nothing at stake. There is no reason for a miner to not attempt to extend every chain that they can— or at least every that they don't hate— and, in fact, doing so is the solution maximizing behavior. In proof of work, by comparison, miners must choose to expend a resource for every attempt and so an effort to try to mine on one fork requires a choice to not spend that resource on other ones. The best strategy then becomes putting all your effort on one chain which you think most likely to survive. Optimal POS strategy is to mine all forks you can, just in case any survive. This issue seems fundamental, but perhaps someone someday will find a clever way around it be changing assumptions.

Peercoin was attacked this way— a miner grinding out alternative histories and finding ones where they were awarded almost every block— _immediately_ when POS mining became possible on it. The attack was thwarted because PPC has a central control mechanism where its developer cryptographically signs blocks to force the network to accept them over longer, otherwise better, chains... and it was later closed off by requiring POW blocks to select the POS blocks that can mine. (But now, the security of that coin reduces to the security of POW and the security of the signing key controlled by its pseudonymous developer).

See also section 5 of https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf
Ease of use. Exactly the same thing all the bitcoin fanatics are talking about improving. Exactly the reason Coinbase was created. I'm lazy.
Namecoin isn't defunct:

https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin
That's because (a) CephFS isn't ready for prime-time (according to every talk I've seen at linux.conf.au in the last two years) and (b) the early push for btrfs as the underlying storage for Ceph has faded in favour of XFS until they're happier with the state of btrfs.
Actually at least for me, the concerns are the opposite. I do not want Facebook to know what I am doing. I do not mind you getting my name (though I would consider it rude not not accept a pseudonym of my choice).
This depends very much on who you're doing business with and how much you like them. You might not prefer that the slightly shady guy you're forced to do business with on occasion become a big-name mobster with a protection racket.
EasyBib has a ton of features and aims to be as comprehensive as possible, and grants you more low-level control over the end citation. SpeedCite optimizes for speed and simplicity.
Honest question. Do they print a trillion dollars (equivalent) a year out of nothing?

I'd like to know the impact of printing paper money in the world's largest economy. In our case, we will know for sure in the next couple of years.
> Github isn't a social network

Isn't it? I can join, commit no code, fill out a profile, create and join groups, add (well, follow) friends.

It's not Facebook, but it appears to tick most of the social network boxes.
It doesn't benefit consumers for any transaction. Unless you consider the deed itself to be a benefit, outweighing all the negative. I don't.

As a consumer, I don't like getting fucked by the spread on exchange rates on the buy AND sell sides when I try to pay in bitcoin. Want to buy some bitcoin? Unless you're doing it face-to-face you're going to get jacked a few percent. Want to spend them? Unless it's at a bitcoin-only merchant, jacked again.

Add in the fact that I'm not getting whatever points my credit card would have given me, that I've got absolutely no recourse against the merchant, and that I have to worry about hackers stealing my money... there's no reason for me to use it.
But it's not a binary choice between a) excluding everyone without LinkedIn and b) spending an infinite amount on search. Surely, there are affordable ways to evaluate engineering candidates other than their LinkedIn profiles. For example, looking at resumes alone is often sufficient to exclude 90% of applicants, simply because 90% of applicants list no relevant skills or experience.
The benefits of testability as a focus of requirements gathering and automated tests in the source tree as a concrete artifact of that requirements gathering is:

(1) If something is specified well enough to be automatically tested, there is clear agreement (and not superficial agreement hiding different interpretations).

(2) If automated tests are created and in the source tree, the unambiguous knowledge in #1 is preserved which makes resolving future questions of expectations and intent of the existing code base easily resolvable.
> Hacker News does not ask for personal information. Does that mean we shouldn't have to log in on HN?

I think he's looking at it from a product/sales lead perspective. HN isn't trying to sell us anything.
Hmm.. IMO you might be confusing correlation and causation here.

You think the geopolitical relationship between us and OPEC countries would be different if only we paid in Euros?

What will move the needle on this is simply not buying their oil. And that's precisicely what's happening.

Say what you want about fracking, I'd rather pull petroleum out of shale than buy it from Opec.
Lessons From the Man Who Scaled Engineering at Dropbox and Facebook
Authors recommendations seem bit "handwavy" to me. I understand that this article probably is not intended for end-users, but still it would have been nice to have more concrete advice. Eg dm-crypt is usually used with XTS mode, what would the author (or the good crowd of HN) say to be "better" solution (not necessarily at block layer) for eg. protecting laptop?
Introducing Facebook’s Audience Network
Namecoin isn't defunct. In fact, it has several developers. The blockchain has been secured since the incident I assume you are talking about, and there's work on numerous things ongoing - a lite client, an implementation of Namecoin as a library, a proxy allowing any program to connect to Namecoin domains.

There is an IRC channel at [0], a mailing list, and a website with a wiki and forums at [1].

[0] irc.freenode.net#namecoin
[1] http://namecoin.info/
And moose, for our hockey-playing friends.
If you're a small innovator facing off against IP theft by a large company, it might not look like such good news. Now you have to worry about their lawyers racking up huge bills and convincing the judge you should pay them.
I am indeed referring to for-comprehensions. Any time you have nested flatMap/maps you can replace it with a for, since that's all a for-comprehension really is...

computation1.flatMap { result1 =>
computation2.flatMap { result2 =>
computation3.map { result3 =>
result2 + result3
}
}
}

Becomes...

val foobar = for {
result1 <- computation1
result2 <- computation2(result1)
result3 <- computation3(result2)
} yield {
result2 + result3
}

Or, since I'm using the async Postgres module which returns Futures, to make them run in parallel you need to create the futures beforehand. I often have something like this...

val fProject = Project.findById(projectId)
val fTask = Task.findById(taskId)

for {
projectOption <- fProject

taskOption <- fTask

students <- projectOption match {
case Some(project) => Student.findByProject(projectId)
case None => Future.successful(IndexedSeq[Student]())
}

result <- (projectOption, taskOption) match {
case (Some(project), Some(task)) => {
/* do something with project, task and students */
}
case (None, _) => Future.successful(NotFound(s"Project $projectId not found"))
case (_, None) => Future.successful(NotFound(s"Task $taskId not found"))
}
}
yield result

By creating the futures first, they both run in parallel and their results are 'collected' by the for comprehension. In the first example, the computations necessarily run in sequence.

I'm using Play framework, for me, these for comprehensions are usually found in my controllers and the final result is an HTTP result.

Passing along failure can still be tricky but I find this much more organized than nesting callbacks.
How about this slightly more realistic example?

https://gist.github.com/spion/33b3bf013cc9181171b9#example
Keeping your credit card number out of their database where it can't be hacked is a practical reason to use bitcoin. It reduces your risk of merchant's getting hacked, which happens all the time.
It's a hunch, for sure. I actually wrote a few hundred words on why I thought so, but scrapped it because it's basically just rationalization rather than based on specific data. The pros and cons of AirBNB have been debated to death on HN for the last few years, so I saw no point in repeating those arguments.

But to flesh it out a bit: the threshold for getting something onto the ballot is around 9500 signatures, while the # of registered voters is in SF is just under 500k. Getting 2% of the electorate to sign a ballot petition on a hot-button local issue is easy in SF.

As for passage, I've written at length before on the conflicting economic interests of landlords, renters, and other property owners, and how SF's restrictive geography leads to the adoption of zero-sum strategies. For a better and fuller explanation; I'd refer you to that long TechCrunch article on SF's housing crisis: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/

I predict passage with a healthy margin because the larger problems are rather intractable, but it suits all stakeholders to make AirBNB a scapegoat for the city's structural economic problems. There are a lot of landlords, renters, and property owners who don't like AirBNB for different reasons, and short-term rentals give them something to agree about and lower political tension. Also, everyone knows someone with ludicrously cheap rent thanks to rent control, and punishing people who exploit that for personal gain will be popular (even though the number of people who do so and get away with it is tiny). If the proponents of the measure take out the 'snitching reward' mechanism and instead direct that 30% of the fines go to some popular local hobbyhorse like (much-needed) road repairs, support will probably go up.

Opponents of the ballot initiatives should avoid characterizing it as a dark horse backed by the hotel industry or service workers union, whether or not that is actually the case, but push the Chiu measure instead. Short-term rental proponents have been almost comically tone-deaf about how their arguments sound to people who can't/won't participate in the STR market themselves.
I would love it if Matt Cutts and the rest of the Google search team decided to seriously derank any resource that requires login to view. LinkedIn, Quora and Experts Exchange are prime offenders here.

There is absolutely no reason for google to index any information that the general public can't see without logging in.
I think it could (or maybe "should") be totally great for tiny payments. Less like 0.5BTC for a coffee machine, more like 0.001BTC for a single API request. It seems uniquely suited for tiny, frequent, low-risk payments. That doesn't seem like a very widespread business model, but maybe that's because it's been tough to do without something like bitcoin.
'More buyers than sellers' is a perfectly reasonable statement, and v-v. If one side competes more for trade, then it will have a price pressure.

Say you ran an auction of goods (paintings, junk, whatever) with 10 potential buyers in attendance, do you think you'd get higher or lower prices than if you ran an auction with 1000 buyers in attendance?
An Interview with Porpentine, Maker of Mutant Feminist Cyber Games
How Rheti is taking advantage of Facebook's new mobile strat
Here's the Wikipedia page on it. The second table has the deaths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_snakebites

Most are close to the equator. The data confirms Aardwolf's experience.
> The fact that a large number of people have had five-figure payments forfeited under this agreement (sufficient to afford and warrant evaluating options like this), yet none of them have invalidated the contract in a courtroom thus far AFAIK, is pretty good evidence that there's nothing so unconscionable present that a court would void the contract.

I'm curious if it hasn't happened or if Google has simply settled them all to avoid having their contract challenged in court.
There's a seemingly reasonable fallacy embedded in the argument that so far technology has been able to dig us out of the holes that it itself digs: That past performance is indicative of the future. Of course, the past often does predict the future -- yet, we can't bank on it, because there are sometimes qualitative shifts, and exceptions.

The problem with hoping that technology will solve climate change before it happens, is that we're gambling something we can't afford to lose. So, it may well be the case that we do solve the problem -- but what if we don't? There are limits to technology, after all.

To me, the danger in placing excessive faith in technology is that it can bypass our critical thinking. For example, right now our own technology (nuclear weapons, or biological weapons as that technology develops) is the greatest threat to humanity's existence. So while technology is a great thing, it may well be our species undoing rather than its savior -- at least until (if) we survive long enough to colonize other planets or enhance our own morality such that we can handle the responsibility our technology demands.
Reading this I wonder if it would be possible to use several weather balloons and then a large home made rocket to go the rest of the way (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-10/video-homem...).
Well, both of those are already in the regulations. In fact, also in the lease is the concept that you cannot sublease. 99% of NYC apartments have this clause, 99% of Airbnbs in NYC are, inarguably, illegal. Unfortunately, here I am with a damaged lobby and some nights of shitty sleep because my neighbor wanted to pimp our building out.

Whether or not that should change is another question. I don't necessarily think they need to be made illegal - that seems too drastic a response. But Airbnb is not self-policing itself enough and operate with a shoot first ask questions later legal policy. It is trivial for them to look at hosts they have and know if they are breaking the law or not. They ignore this in the hope that it will all go away eventually. They are begging for regulation.
Part 2 of Google Adsense Leak
The whistle blower posted up a second part to the Adsense leak on pastebin

http://pastebin.com/DXTu8Mcm
The block layer is a poor location to support security, whether access control or encryption. The lack of knowledge of upper layers & the resource constraints of the lower layers (block stealing for metadata) unnecessarily hamper its security and performance.

The only reason for block-level encryption in software is because it was too much work to retrofit UFS, ext23456fs, FAT, NTFS, etc. with encryption. The block device provided a convenient bottleneck, and no one cared too much about the downsides you bring up because it seemed better than nothing.

ZFS generally gets this right, using AES-CCM (an AEAD mode as you recommend). It also has proper integration with the deduplication layer so encryption doesn't waste space. These reasons and more show why security needs to be implemented at the filesystem layer.

Another good example people here may be familiar with is Tarsnap. Again, it handles encryption, integrity protection, and deduplication without storing keys on the server side or unnecessarily restricting itself to a block device metaphor.

You're right that TC+DB are not a safe combo. Dropbox needs to be the encrypted Dropbox.
It's not worth much to speculate about upward or downward price pressure. People made the same arguments when the exchange rate was $5, $25, $50 on up to $1,150, and now back down to $440/BTC.

These arguments have zero predictive value.

What's interesting to me is the repeating boom-bust pattern that we see as more people learn about cryptocurrencies, and as the Bitcoin protocol holds its own against an onslaught of attacks.

In the summer of 2010, the exchange rate was $0.05/BTC. Over the next year the price increased by 60000%, then proceeded to decline 90%. Even after losing 90% of its value, it was still up 4500% from the summer of 2010.

By the spring of 2013, the exchange rate spiked to $250/BTC, up 10000% ... then crashed and lost 80% of its value. Its post-peak minimum was still twice as high as the previous peak.

Again in late 2013, the price zoomed up nearly 3000% ... and it's now lost 60% of its peak value, still twice as high as the previous peak.

The past doesn't necessarily predict the future, but we're not seeing anything today that we haven't experienced at least three times already.
How does Bitcoin provide you any "freedom from financial and fiscal paternalism"?
Yeah, and a clean record up until now is at least a theory? I'm wondering if there is any evidence to back up the untrustworthiness OP is accusing Coinbase of.
For me, it was moving from Java to Scala, but YMMV
I love the 12 Factor App! I recommend that link all the time to people. It's kind of like functional programming, in that once you grok the fundamentals, it changes your attitude completely.
Trend-Spotting: UltraLight Startups
This is very strange to me. I had a LinkedIn for a couple years, but it served me absolutely no purpose except one or two pings from recruiters who were looking for vastly different skillsets anyway. I got sick of the security issues, endless deluge of useless email, and generally having to care about it at all, so I deleted my account a few years ago.

Now I get more recruiter email, except they actually sort of know what I'm good at, because they found me through GitHub (or my blog) instead. Not to say that GitHub is inherently a better indicator of capabilities, but it's more likely to be looked at by someone with some technical understanding, whereas LinkedIn is basically keyword soup.

I don't believe I've ever once been asked for my LinkedIn. But I work for an SF company, so maybe your experience is a reflection of enterprise and its love of résumés.
The US has more arable land. In terms of total land, China is the second largest contry in the world, behind only Russia.
Parse Pricing: Now Cheaper and Simpler
Facebook Audience Network Mobile Ad Network Launches At f8
That is another part I missed, the ASM implementation seemed to optimise the function while potentially deoptimising the whole program.

For most code overflows are rare, jumping to deal with the rare cases but otherwise just doing the normal is often best for whole program performance.

But to be honest I am not current in assembly as I like managed languages to much.
" at the same time they are extracting money from the market"
This is the sentiment I don't understand. They aren't extracting any money. HFT market makers provide a service in the form of liquidity. It is natural and expected for the price of liquidity to go up as demand for it rises. There are liquidity purchasers that want to minimize the price of liquidity and therefore obscure their demand. This is also natural and expected. These are the forces that drive price discovery, this is what we want the markets to do.

Computers have made this process extremely fast and efficient to the benefit of nearly every market participant.
That's an argument for why you're willing to use it, but not for why anyone should trust it. If you're lazy, it's easier to not have locks on your doors, but that's not secure.
Ask HN: How do you explain "this" to beginners?
"Why didn't a classroom teacher do what he did? Because our system does not reward teacher innovation and trying new things."

Because most people don't give a shit? Why doesn't every STEM graduate have the same ambitions as Elon Musk? The reality is that most people are too chicken shit to have their own interests and to pursue them in a serious way. You think throwing money at things solves problems?
Like it or not, the US has a very heavy influence in essentially all financial markets. If they do it, it sets the precedent for the rest of the world.
You're an idiot if you implement this. On iOS, use the device token and implement truly anonymous login without having to deal with anyone else brokering your users' data; I'm not sure what the Android equivalent is, but it can't be much more difficult.

Remember, Facebook is the same company that cuts deals with shady data brokers like the Datalogix (the company that buys your grocery store discount card data and re-sells it, among other things) to build a comprehensive profile of everything you do. Using them for this pseudo-anonymous "anonymous login" helps them a lot more than it will ever help you, as a standalone developer.

I can't wait for Facebook to trademark the term "Anonymous Login," just to complete the irony. Remember, if it was actually anonymous, you wouldn't need Facebook's help to implement it.
It's worth noting that this is exactly, word-for-word, how I wound up losing money in the Mt. Gox collapse. I was lazy. I liked their two-factor authentication. It felt safe, and I liked that no thief could steal my coins without access to my phone. I simply didn't stop to think: what if Mt. Gox failed tomorrow? And then it did.

The problem with Bitcoin right now is that it isn't convenient, even if you use these third party services. It's not convenient having to trust the services to provide you with convenience because if they fail, you fail.

But, ultimately, if you don't mind losing your money, it doesn't matter whether you trust Coinbase.
False, just because a miner can merge mine doesn't mean they will, you don't automatically get bitcoin's hash power just because your coin can be merge mined.
- Catastrophes happened in the past that killed lots of people. Technology did not always save our ass

- Read "Collapse"

- What about resources like housing? It sounds to me as if housing in SF has run out? Build lots of skyscrapers everywhere? Then what about sunlight in your apartment?
> I would imagine you could to the same for screen.

I'm not so sure. According to the Arch Linux announcement from 4.2.0, the switch screen made was from named pipes to sockets [1]. Presumably this implies they stripped out support for the former in the latest version, which would mean the announcements are valid and it's therefore impossible to reattach an old session.

Although, it didn't matter to me. I usually read release announcements regularly before updating my distribution. It doesn't guarantee that I catch everything (or that I even remember to check), but it does limit the number of surprises I encounter. Completely closing off a few screen instances and restarting them wasn't a huge issue, but it was a mild annoyance.

[1] https://www.archlinux.org/news/screen-420-cannot-reattach-ol...
One of the last things I'd want is lots of drivers near me to be even more distracted saying "Hello? Hello?" into their phone and repeatedly looking at it to see if they're still connected or still have a signal.

Also, good luck if you're in an accident as no-one nearby can call the emergency services.
OpenSSH makes compiling against OpenSSL optional
What Brands Can Learn From the Oscars
That's the thing I don't understand about this whole discussion: The SafeBrowsing blacklist bloom filter that Google itself made and uses is significantly smaller, is updated in real time, and doesn't have a big runtime overhead. Why not just have a bloom filter for revocations, with a Google server doing the false-positive elimination?

(Yes, there is a little bit of a chicken-and-egg problem when it comes to the Google server, but that's a much smaller problem than being unable to check if most certificates in the world are revoked or not.)

Edit: Looks like Adam (of course) already considered this: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/04/29/filters.html