skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Wow, thanks for accusing me of being an NSA goon. For the record, I said the reporting was sensationalized, not the documents.

On the economic espionage front, I really don't care if the NSA spies in order to shape national policy. Things get a lot murkier when intelligence agencies spy and then hand off that data off to private companies. Huawei was caught red-handed using stolen source code from Cisco[1]. Cisco probably lost millions because Huawei was able to undercut them and skimp on R&D costs. Frankly, I don't want any foreign companies willing to steal trade secrets managing the same internet backbones I conduct business on, just like China probably doesn't want their internet backbones running on American equipment. If there is evidence that the NSA has been handing Huawei source code to Cisco, or any kind of data to any private organization for that matter, in order to gain a competitive advantage, then Greenwald has yet to show it.

You can consider Stewart Baker's opinion to be worth jack shit, but apparently Glenn Greenwald, Ryan Gallagher and Ryan Grim thought his opinion was good enough to quote extensively for the SEXINT article that they wrote. But that's not even the point - they could have been quoting Glenn Beck for all I care. The issue is that they quoted him very selectively in order to not discredit their argument. That wasn't even the first time: right off the bat they omitted slides from the PRISM presentation in order to make the argument that the NSA had direct access to Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/etc.[2] I can see in the PDF file for Greenwald's book that he still extensively cites the Boundless Informant slides, despite the fact that they've been thoroughly discredited[3]. I'm honestly curious - did he mention that part in the book?

The Washington Post silently corrected their initial reporting without issuing a public statement[4][5], and as far I know Glenn Greenwald has never issued any retractions. I'm sure that there's probably plenty of interesting information in the Snowden cache, but I don't trust most of the reporting up until now.

[1] http://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-co...

[2] https://medium.com/state-of-play/8ebc878074ce

[3] http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/search/label/BoundlessInfo...

[4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhall/2013/06/07/washingt...

[5] http://www.zdnet.com/how-did-mainstream-media-get-the-nsa-pr...
Yes, there is a unique path between every pair of nodes because the maze is also a spanning tree. Here’s another view which shows the path between the node under the mouse and the root of the tree:

http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/6ba3a15c9f08742b3a80
I wouldn't switch to another browser just because Mozilla doesn't implement DRM. In fact that strikes me as completely the wrong reason to switch to another browser. Continuing to use Mozilla and boycotting services that use DRM is a more reasonable approach. The good news is there will likely be an extension and/or custom build of Firefox that removes the DRM. Of course this means we won't be able to watch the DRMed videos until someone cracks the encryption, but if we're boycotting them then that means we weren't going to watch them anyway.
Fabien Sanglard (whose entire site is worth looking through), has an excellent list of books to consider as well: http://fabiensanglard.net/Computer_Graphics_Principles_and_P...
That's why Maybe (without fromJust!) is so nice. You can ignore invalid data for as long as you want, but you can also draw lines and say "it can't have been ignored if flow gets to here". I'm certainly not arguing in favor of exceptions!

Edited to add: That said, I'd rather that 100 hours of computation be cut short than take longer and be equally useless...
No. Google has power because it has influence outside of web browsers. Mozilla have basically no leverage - their product is at best highly competitive with a number of other choices. If Firefox becomes irrelevant, Mozilla as an organisation dies - no money to pay the bills. If Chrome becomes irrelevant, Google's still very much a functioning company.
Not a number just tells you what something isn't, not what it is. A NaN could be a string, or a potato, or an airplane, or the prime minister of Djibouti. Is a potato equal to an airplane?
It's hard to mobilize people. There were top stories here on HN about EME when Chrome and Internet Explorer started to ship it, it did get a lot of attention, and HN is a pretty good place for internet activism. But even here, basically nothing happened.

I've talked about this for a long time and tried to convince people about it. People just don't seem to care. I'm surprised at how much attention this is getting now, all of a sudden!
Just because Mozilla says they will lose users if they don't do this, doesn't make it true. They've shown no evidence of trends that this is happening. They are simply adopting DRM out of fear.

Also chasing popularity is like chasing money. It shouldn't be the goal. Those things follow after doing the right thing, and I believe for an organization with the kind of community and userbase Firefox has around it, not implementing DRM would've been the "right" thing to do.
Global mutable state in Emacs Lisp has been a nightmare whenever you're trying to make multiple libraries that are still being updated play nice together. Still single-threaded, still ick.

I'd go a step further and say I don't want side effects that aren't explicit either, but oh well. That's why I use Haskell :)
> So literally, what we see here is Google pressing Mozilla to support DRM

Could you give a source (it doesn't sound implausible, but for statements with such a scope I'm interested in reliable sources)?
You've drifted from your original claim that rentals don't make sense for digital goods, into railing against the effectiveness of DRM, while presenting your argument as railing against the idea of DRM itself. DRM is ineffective, yes, but that doesn't mean the concept is inherently bad. It just means the implementation is bad. It's certainly quite plausible that there is no way to produce good DRM, but that would be a different argument.

I'm not interested in debating the merits of implementations of DRM, nor of its morality (as it is quiet unlikely that an argument about the morality of DRM will ever sway any participant, as this is not a topic where logic and reason tends to apply).

If you want to try and argue again as to why you think the concept of renting digital goods doesn't make sense, feel free. But you'll have to go back and address my original reply again.
Mozilla was compromised the day they started taking money from Google.
>did people leave Netflix because of Silverlight?

They did, actually. If not by their own doing then by the fact that Netflix is just not available on certain devices and operating systems. As long as Netflix is a DRM platform, this trend will likely continue.

The irony here is that Mozilla is apparently being badgered into supporting DRM for "compatibility reasons" when the whole point of DRM is to strictly limit compatibility with whatever arbitrary restrictions the publisher wants.
This is a neat summary of an idea that always turns up on every DRM thread. If the best way to copy a movie is to buy some extra hardware to plug into your VGA port, and then play the movie back at regular speed while you record it, then DRM is working. Joe Bloggs isn't going to do that to give his mates copies of a movie he enjoyed.

Of course, someone out there will go through that and put it on the internet. But Joe's mate is worried that the government will track his downloads, or his computer will get a virus from these dodgy downloads. And every few weeks, the source he's using shuts down and he has to find a new one. Before long, he'll just decide it's worth giving Netflix a few dollars a month to get movies the easy way.
Quantum positioning system steps in when GPS fails
This is really slick. I wonder if it would be useful to build an object model for the filters rather than directly concatenating the code. That would allow for interesting inspection on the parsed expressions or transformation of them. For instance, combining two filters should be just as easy as combining two expressions.

var expression = compileExpression('transactions <= 5 and abs(profit) > 20.5');

...should also be possible to write as this, to help DRY everything...

var fewTransactions = compileExpression('transactions <= 5');
var lotsOfProfit = compileExpression('abs(profit) > 20.5');
var expression = fewTransactions.and(lotsOfProfit);

You might look into the Specification pattern [0] to handle the heavy lifting in a simple way.

[0]: http://www.martinfowler.com/apsupp/spec.pdf
Is there something inherently wrong with content creators controlling how their content is consumed?
Broad Ripple Art Fair
That's only if in the toss up between losing Netflix and changing browser, they pick changing browser every single time. Which they won't.

One thing you might not have thought about, is that at the moment, we have Flash, Java, Silverlight, etc which all periodically are found to have mahoosive security flaws - because they can do general purpose things. If Firefox moves to supporting a plugin which is used for exactly the same thing, but that can only do decryption, then suddenly the browser becomes much more secure. If anything, it's an advantage.
Another tiny attraction of bitbucket for science is MathJax support in reStructuredText [0]. Unfortunately not implemented yet for markdown [1].

There is an unfilled niche for version control with out-of-the-box rendering of scientific formats:
- mathjax everywhere
- And of course full latex. This may be specialized enough to be better served by separate services, but now that sharelatex is open source a tighter integration is possible.
- bibliographies (rendered as publication lists?)
- Notebooks like IPython [2] and Sage; literate R.
- plots of various kinds
- tons of formats I never heard about (chemistry, bio, astronomy...)

Third-party web renderers exist for most formats (e.g. nbviewer.ipython.org) but there would be value for doing them all in one place - making repos pretty enough to serve as poor man's website (think how Github's up-front README rendering was good enough for many projects).

The obvious direction is improving[3]/forking Gitlab. I hoped Banyan.co would be that but just discovered they went down :-(.
Authorea does some of this.
And cloud.sagemath.com exposes an impressive amount of tools under one roof. Though it's focused on working more than browsing.

[0] https://bitbucket.org/cbensf/test-math
For some reason not working at test-math/src view
(reported https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issue/9483)
[1] https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issue/7908/enable-mathjax-...
[2] http://nbviewer.ipython.org/urls/bitbucket.org/mforbes/paper...
[3] http://feedback.gitlab.com/forums/176466-general/suggestions...

BTW, Gitlab.com also has free private repos.
Given that Apple is one of the major DRM vendors, it's a pretty good bet that Safari will support EME. WebKit proper, it's unclear.
A Dying Dog
> If this binary blob from Adobe isn't presented with a similar UI as regular "plugins" (that the user can disable or uninstall), then I will look into writing an extension to disable it, or perhaps rely on a Firefox fork to give me a Flash-lite(tm) free browser.

Again, it's been stated that you will be clearly given the choice to disable the CDM entirely.
Payments: The end of a monopoly
I do sometimes wish that I had "the college experience", the dorms, the parties, the social aspect and forming long-term friendships with people.

However, as it seems that the most common reason people go to college is to be able to get a good job afterwards, and I currently have a well-paying job that I enjoy very much (programming), and no college debt, I call that a success.

Having the "college experience" is not worth the thousands of dollars of debt that I see my friends and peers struggling to pay off, especially for those who did not go into a well-paying field like programming.
Firefox has many forks. Iceweasel, GNU IceCat, and Abrowser to name a few.
> Semantically, I would say NaN == NaN should return undefined (assuming JS here).

I thought that the philosophy of JS was to make meaning out of every execution and value, even the meaningless ones? Kind of the opposite of the fail-fast-and-hard philosophy.

String index of NaN? JS will find a way.
I would assume that all else being equal (a huge assumption there!) paying teachers the same thing in San Francisco and in Houston would give you teachers of worse caliber in San Francisco. That's because the cost of living and salaries in general are lower in Houston, so for the same amount of money you can hire more qualified people who have more options on the job market.
After reading the comments here and learning that you have hired Condoleezza Rice you have lost yourself another paying customer.
YUP!
I covered that exact subject (http://aminastaneh.net/2014-04-23/misconceptions-about-mitig...), but it didn't catch on in HN.
Two arguments combine and reinforce the conclusion that DRM is never needed. To clarify:

1. Rental of digital goods doesn't make sense for me (explained above).

2. Even if you can come up with sensible reason for rentals of digital goods, DRM is still ineffective so there is no point of using it anyway, which makes rental unenforceable which kind of makes it pointless even more and brings the argument back to #1.

> I'm not interested in debating the merits of implementations of DRM, nor of its morality

That doesn't fit with your statement that "that doesn't mean the concept [of DRM] is inherently bad". Unethical nature of it makes it inherently bad. Ineffectiveness of it in combination with always crippling the usability makes it inherently bad. Security and privacy threats it represents makes it inherently bad. Implementation is always bad because it's always aimed at crippling usability and treating all users as potential criminals by default. It's the definition of DRM. So there can't be a good implementation, otherwise it wouldn't be DRM anymore.

> as it is quiet unlikely that an argument about the morality of DRM will ever sway any participant, as this is not a topic where logic and reason tends to apply

Why not? Ethics has its logic. I explained in this thread why DRM is unethical. The logic is pretty straightforward and similar to how it's explained that police state is unethical.

There are two major objections to DRM - ethical and pragmatical. Both can be discussed and both have valid logic. I expressed that before here: https://secure.gog.com/forum/general/day_against_drm_1/post6...

So far I never saw proponents of DRM coming with any convincing arguments against either of those objections. They either claim that since many users are ready to accept DRM's overreaching policing it's not unethical, or they claim that DRM is actually doing something useful. Neither of that is convincing, because many users have no clue or don't understand the nature of DRM, so their acceptance doesn't mean much. And DRM is proved to be ineffective on the constant basis. I'm yet to hear any other argument which actually makes sense.
You can renew it after two years though (still free of charge).
It's must be easy to tell others what they must sacrifice. Or did you take this stance your self and quit your job on moral grounds?
Police-friendly tech CEO charged with hit-and-run
Firefox's adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart
Snapdragon-based COM supports extreme temperatures
<acknowledgment and acceptance of terms>
It doesn't matter what you pick. It still won't work.
Fascinating how people accept handcuffs so easily.Because it' better than flash...not,you'll still need a plugin for the DRM and you're going to have to download a few different plugins because of course different vendors will have different DRM schemes,so back to 1999,realplayer,windows media plugin,ect...
That is a contrived example. In your example, the information would be kept, the fact the property was foreclosed would probably be stored in a cabinet or computer system in an office somewhere. You would make an effort to seek out and obtain that information legally and with justifiable cause. (To prove your ownership.) It would not be publicly accessible for the world to see for there is no reason for it to be. It would be a bit like medical records.

The core part of the argument to the right to be forgotten is to treat some pieces of information as medical information, i.e, private or not your concern. Things that you would rather not be known for they bestow little benefit to you except for you to profit at my expense. A lot of people find this uncomfortable, for good reason.

Should divorce cases be completely public?
> At a high level, I imagine she would support a law that requires all information that can be associated with an individual (google account, ip address, etc) to be stored with metadata tracing it back to that identity and require that companies be able to remove all the data by metadata

What does that have to do with linking to a factually true news story about a guy? It seems a lot more like she's trying to conflate things for a soundbite.

In any case, making all statements that are about information about someone transitively "personal information" seems like an awfully bad idea. That's great when Google can track an account or an IP address, but where's the metadata for Mario Gonzalez to be found in a newspaper's story about Mario Gonzalez? And considering that news stories are often about more than one thing, what's the balance when a story is about someone who wants the event to be forgotten and someone who doesn't (or it's important that it's not)?
I doubt it. The media outlets who led the smear campaign against Eich, benefit financially from stronger DRM. If you follow the money and influence there are many suspicious coincidences.
That's not a very high risk. It's trivial for users to switch to another browser that does work with Netflix.
GoDaddy SHA-256 Certificates Broken
Opossums: Survival Machines (2012)
Is it blurring out names or removing results? I'm under the impression they need to remove the page from the results.

The shocking thing about this is the actual producers of the data got an explicit walk free pass? I just don't see how that makes any sense.
> Completely unregulated markets aren't very friendly to capitalism

No, but markets which are regulated in favor of capitalists rather than restraining them are -- which is the feature of "capitalism" for which the system was named by its 19th century critics.

(Of course, "capitalism" gets abused to mean "a system with whatever features of modern mixed economies the speaker likes but without those which the speaker does not like" frequently enough that it is getting close to the point of being a completely useless term.)
It appears related to chips not having the SSE2 instruction set. netflix has the same requirement.

<pure speculation>

Likely has something to do with encryption, since SSE2 registers were 128bits long.

</pure speculation>
Mozilla still has some power, but they don't think they have enough to mount a lone assault on video DRM. I'm inclined to agree with them.

But I'd rather they saved that power for the next fight rather than going kamikaze on this. I'm sure there will be a next fight, and there's a good chance that it will be something smaller, or they'll have another major browser on their side.
A search engine does not know how old the contents of a page are. They'd have to diff different versions of a page, which is not foolproof; for html it's particularly noisy compared to, say, code. Even when that strategy works, or when there's only one version of a page, it's only possible to determine when the search engine first saw a piece of content, not when that piece of content was created.

In contrast, things on a credit history are dated.
Flash attempted to do everything - what we're seeing from it now is just the last few use cases for which it has not been replaced with HTML5 - and the solution is for the single use case for which HTML5 is a bad fit - reducing the bloat, enabling performance improvements and massively reducing the size of the TCB. Ultimately it's about as good as can be got out of html5 video.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I have to disagree. Mozilla has real power because they have a real revenue stream, which is (unfortunately, but realistically) almost entirely from Google.
Oh really?

Mozilla brought this on itself when they took the epic lead they had with Firebug and utterly squandered it by thinking real dev tools were not something a browser should include out of the box, in favour of an utterly useless "3D" DOM view that is a made up diagram conveying no useful information about compositing or layering.

Mozilla brought this on itself when they treated memory leaks and extension crashes as performance issues to be papered over rather than fundamental flaws in an architecture unprepared for how people wanted to use it.

Mozilla brought this on itself when they treated OS X like the idiot stepchild instead of delivering the native experience users clearly loved in Chrome and Safari, thus alienating the Mac-dominated cutting edge of web tech.

Mozilla brought this on itself when they provided incomplete implementations of CSS transforms, Web Audio and WebGL (an idea they originated!), and a bunch of other specs people actually wanted. Parts of WebGL are broken in the current stable release of Firefox, and yet Mozilla wants to go around claiming the high ground with Unreal and asm.js?

If they'd spend less money on having their 'evangelists' show off trivial toys around the world, and more on actually solving real daily problems (like the Chrome developer tools team did), we wouldn't be in this mess, and they wouldn't think moves of desperation like asm.js are a good idea.
I like what you are saying and I too think this way.

My solution has always been that we need to teach people and make it easy for them to hop onto the darknets and any decentralized networks while also helping smaller companies and indie devs establish their business outside the boundaries of the commercial internet and onto the Deep Web.

This will allow us to reboot back to the early 90s and rip power away from all these present-day corporations who've turned the commercial internet into a money-grubbing mess.

Data exchange should know no boundaries.
Seems it locally applies a css. Any permanent option within twitter settings to revert ?
That seems pretty reasonable. What is

> undefined == undefined

In Haskell? Exception: Prelude [...]
It's already here in fact. About a month ago, Comodo stopped issuing certificates from its old SHA-1 intermediaries. When we had ours reissued after Heartbleed, it was signed by a SHA-256 intermediate certificate.

We found out the impact of this the hard way -- not only with Windows older than XP Service Pack 3, but also with embedded systems and devices built with OpenSSL older than 0.9.8o.
Agreed on that count. Have you come up with any good solutions for angular? I always feel like my tests end up with too much boilerplate.
It's not inherently wrong but it's inherently not a completely free market.

Almost all markets have elements of regulation, and these must be kept in mind when discussing solutions.
Why the FCC is legally obligated to rely on Title II for net neutrality to exist
> The core part of the argument to the right to be forgotten is to treat some pieces of information as medical information

That sounds great, but this case clearly shows that's not the case at all. This is information that can be widely and freely reported, just not by everyone. A newspaper could run it as their front page story every day, but some other people can't report it, and, in fact, can't even tell you the fact that someone else is saying something related to the topic you're searching for. That's something very different than treating it as private data.