skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you don't have any way to trust the signing key "out-of-band", then you shouldn't trust the binaries. I don't really see why they supply separate sha1sums in addition to the pgp signatures.

Now, the fact that people are more inclined to trust the bundled ca keys, rather than a web-of-trust backed pgp key is generally just because people don't understand trust.

Say, if you're in Thailand[1] and require a secure way to communicate, where do you get your os/browser-bundled ca keys? Do you trust a CA that is under influence of the Thai government? Under influence of a sympathetic government?

Do you really trust all the CA keys bundled with your os/browser/phone? Do you know which they are? If not, please don't spread FUD wrt web-of-trust based trust models.

To be clear, both have a bootstrap problem -- but only web-of-trust offers a reasonable way for the individual to ensure proper trust chains. No trust chain is (by definition) without trust, so no model (ca or wot) is immune to being betrayed. But at least wot is designed for the user to be able to influence (and be aware of) trust -- and for easy auditing (most keys are personal, or anchored to personal ids, while it can often be hard to tell who are able to access ca keys and sign possibly rogue certs).

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/thai-police-we-ll-get-you-for-j...
This line always comes out, for some reason, regarding patents. In other discussions we get completely different logic - eg: people get terribly riled up about whether Google is "evil" or not and it is rarely connected to whether it's legal or not.

The ultimate with your logic is that it would call for massive legislation to cover every facet of our lives - everything bad must be made illegal, otherwise nobody can even be criticised for doing it. I don't want to live in a world like that. Laws are far too crude for that, they can only work at extremes where it is clear you can put down a blanket rule. In between, people and companies behaving badly should be held to account through criticism and public pressure. We should expect companies to behave honorably and ethically and criticise them heavily when they don't.
Meh... as a Libertarian, I'd be disinclined to attend this, just because it seems to be perpetuating the myth that Libertarians are somehow innately more aligned with Conservatives than Liberals. In reality, Libertarians agree with Liberals on many things, and disagree with them on many, and likewise for Conservatives. And, IMO, the modern Libertarian mindset is a natural successor to the Classical Liberal mindset and is the actual modern Liberalism.

I, for one, certainly do not self-identify as a Conservative in any way, shape, form or fashion.
Apparently the app lays down ads on Wikipedia's content unless you cough up $3 or $5.

That sounds questionable at best to me.
I work outside fairly often - but that's mainly because I hate being in an office. You need a shady spot so your laptop doesnt glare - and even a portable wifi to work at the park.
In the late 1700s, a Frenchman named Claude Chappe3 invented a visual telegraph that used semaphore towers spaced 10 to 15 kilometers apart. With a telescope, each station could see neighboring towers and relay their semaphore positions to the destination.

In a world where long-distance communication was via horse-carried letters, Chappe's telegraph was a wonder. Signals from Paris were received in Lille, where the first stations were built (about 218 kilometers or 136 miles apart), after only a few minutes. The network soon spread to Brest, Toulon, Strasbourg, and later even across the English Channel.

Semaphore positions were defined in a codebook allowing a variety of messages to be sent. The well-crafted codebook provided easily recognizable semaphore patterns for common symbols, as well as error-correction codes that allowed a proper message to emerge despite errors in transmission or reception.

The Chappe network was in continuous use for more than 60 years. An electrical telegraph network supplanted it once the technology of long-distance insulated wires made that invention practical.

For our purposes, though, the most interesting aspect of the Chappe network came about in 1836 with the discovery that stock market information was being relayed across the network, buried in other messages, by means of what we now might call steganography. The semaphore operators were paid to introduce certain errors in the messages of various customers. Because of the error-correction codes the messages arrived intact, but if someone was privy to the raw symbols transmitted, the introduced errors contained a message that provided an advantage in buying or selling stocks.

TIL 1830s European stock traders were already into latency arbitrage using an early form of surreptitious DSL over optical telegraphs...
> The patents (1, 2, 3, 4) originated at a company called Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC; they are now owned by VirnetX.

It's worth mentioning that SAIC is not a lightweight. It is a large government contractor with $4 billion in annual revenue.
I am not saying having a recording of the class is not important. It absolutely is. Just let me download it.

I guess Khan Academy and it's breed could satisfy both camps.
Just remember that the CA certs (that anchor ssl trust) is usually also distributed in a similar way (on the install media). The difference is that you can more easily independently review the trust of any given pgp key (you've personally verified the key, or have personally verified the key(s) of someone that have personally verified the key).

I suppose in theory one could take a snapshot of CA keys, sign them with pgp and use that a s "know set" (note: not known good, as there is no way to be able to fully trust all the certs typically supplied as CA roots -- a subset could probably be verified). But that's not how the CA system is designed.
Tl;dr: He thinks reliability trumps performance. I mean, he has a point, but then there's the reliability of the hardware, and any process can be made more reliable if you know the details of the the software instead of just trying to make everything about the system the software runs on reliable. I guess a reliable OS can be a middle ground between bespoke systems with redundant hardware and a single computer running Debian. Well, I guess a reliable OS is always a good thing, but it'll never be enough for everything.
[Citation Needed]

Just re-read it. Again, I didn't see anyplace where it's actually said that Go is faster than Java. I can see many places where someone touchy and defensive might take it that way, however. Either the apparent knee-jerk reaction is a deliberate attempt to troll by creating a false argument, or it's simply a cringe worthy false argument worthy of a Picard meme.
Why would the billionaire in question even be concerning himself with the transportation of some machinery? This decision would be taken by whoever was in charge of the excavation.
My programming professor used to say that programming an algorithm was always more effective on paper and that computer removed some of your skill.
Why would they do that? It's Samsung. They probably already have a "covers everything forever" license for the whole MPEG pool.
In general, I would say you want to have schema. However, both yaml and json lack this. Still I find this a nice approach.
Not sure why people would still want to use JavaScript to interoperate with Cocoa interfaces, Swift is easy enough to be used as a scripting language and it was designed to work nicely with Cocoa.

To me it makes more sense to either go completely native with Swift and Cocoa / Cocoa Touch or use hybrid model where HTML 5 content is embedded with the new WKWebView API (aka WebKit 2).

WebKit 2 framework will become public in iOS 8 and OS X 10.10 which means hybrid HTML5/Native apps will be able to run with full speed thanks to JIT, split process model and other optimisations.
Why? From a legal standpoint, it's obviously permitted under either the GFDL or the CC-BY-SA license. From an ethical standpoint, the developers of the app have obviously invested time in this; it's not even like it's a zero-effort shell around the website. I can't see any problem with releasing an ad-supported version.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ usually covers outdoor use in their laptop reviews.

I have a 4-year-old macbook pro with a matte display that I occasionally sit with on my back portch. It works well enough in shade but not in direct sunlight.

My main source of sunlight, though, is it taking a 30 to 40 minute break to take a walk once or twice a week.
I agree that it'd be great if they released the application for free, but I don't see a problem with charging for the app.

This company is arguably improving the experience of viewing that content, and, as a consumer, as long as they're upfront about the ads/cost when I purchase the app (I haven't checked if they are yet), then the ball's in my court to decide whether it's worth the ads and/or the $3/$5 price tag. I can always use a free app or just go to my browser if I don't want to pay.

Or are you finding the fact that they're charging for a product that's built on top of a free service inherently questionable? I definitely vibe with that sentiment at times, but in this case, I can't see a problem with it, especially if it meets Wikipedia's restrictions/standards.

Or is there something else that you find questionable?
> I like that YouTube comments now have real names on them. It makes them much less toxic.

Not sure what part of Youtube you're browsing but comment quality has not increased in any way with the real names policy from what I've seen. Just a lot of Google+ mentions embedded in comments now with the same asinine comments.
Google gets grief over being "evil" because they publicly claimed not to be, and got a lot of popularity and goodwill in the marketplace as a result. When people get "riled up" about Google, they are threatening to take away that popularity and goodwill, that's all. It's not the same thing.

Also, what makes you think we don't already have "massive legislation to cover every facet of our lives"? Have you ever heard of the book "Three Felonies a Day"?
I think it says more about the extremely high cost of strict planning regulation. Not everything is about inequality.
The operative word there being "little". The grips are so small that you can only really grip them between the tip of your thumb and the tip of your little finger. Yes, it's obviously possible to perform the reposition maneuver with the pro mouse, but it's a lot easier if you can lift the mouse by grabbing it anywhere along its sides.
http://opengarden.net/2013/07/using-tor-over-open-garden/ might be a solution to that.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.torproject...
Once again, another fantastic idea that sources its idea from the demoscene, one of the two great alternative software movements (the other being the opensource movement).
"This line always comes out" - as does yours. We can only solve patent trolls by legislating every small piece of our lives is a fallacy of logic. One doesn't inevitably mean the other.
Wow, that's so full of wrong assertions and ad hominem I don't even know where to start.

First of all, I don't even particularly like Golang as a language, so you're incredibly wrong about my motivations.

Secondly, if you don't think Python to Golang adoption is on the rise among SV start-ups, you're living in a bubble. Look up HN Golang posts and count how many of them are from Python backgrounds. This may not represent the entire global Python programming community, but it's without doubt an important and influential segment of it.

Finally, I clearly struck some kind of nerve, since my comment is at the top of the page. You may not like my opinion, but it's evidently a common one.
store.apple.com sells Logitech mice and keyboards. You can just right click with a mouse in OS X, even on an Apple Magic Mouse, though it does need to be enabled in preferences.
Is there edit functionality? If not, it's not even remotely "Wikipedia redesigned". More like a personal wikicontent bot.

That said, if it does, I want it. Please port to everywhere.
I take exception to being accused of delivering 'a line'. I commented, as I only ever do, when I see a truth that for whatever reason I decide to broadcast publicly. The veracity of my statement may be the source of its ubiquity you observe.

Increased legislation is rarely the answer. I do not have a pre-rolled solution for the 'patent problem', but - contrary to popular opinion - this is not required to point out flaws in the current system. Perhaps the current system is the best we can do, but that does not excuse its flaws. We should always aim for what could be - and what we could, maybe, come up with is a system that encourages innovation (through financial reward) yet disallows this kind of destructive behaviour. How? Who knows.

I bet 10 years ago if you applied such thinking to finance you wouldn't have got very far - "central bankers supplying fiat money is good enough"...yet now we have Bitcoin et. al., a whole host of currencies whose aggregate behaviour is mathematically provable.

Focus on the could, anything less is not worthy of the tag 'innovation'.
Cool Idea. Wanted to add a tip but was required to sign up, so I didn't.

If you're worried about spam you could just hide tips from non-members until some manual review process?
> Is Hurd useful as anything other than a research project?

Bear in mind that a research project can be interesting in its own right, not everything has to be about large scale use.

Now if HURD is an interesting research, that's an entirely different subject...
> did you consider using strong types encoding exactly the assumptions you spot-check with tests?

Good luck encoding this simple contract (in Racket) exactly in your type system:

(define/contract (fun numbers)
(-> (listof (and/c (integer-in 0 255)
even?))
any)
;; do something with a list of even integers in a given range
null)

I hope you like your Zero and Succ n and are proficient with Agda or ATS or something like this.
The fact that this is being heard in court and the patent holder is winning means, according to my definition, they aren't patent trolls.

I define "patent troll" as an entity that has a sliver of a chance of winning, but 100% chance that they will impose high costs on the defendant at little cost to themselves. They use this assymetry as a form of legal extortion. They limit their downside by holding few assets aside from the patent.

EDIT: I am in no way commenting on the merit of the case or the 1% figure.
While this seems like a nice exercise, I wonder how much things would break when the JSON is slightly "off" in terms of the schema, which seems to be very ad-hoc.

And with so many standards for resume schemas going around, I fear this will end up in a http://xkcd.com/927/ situation.

Perhaps this exercise could've been more interesting if it were some nifty XSLT that took HR-XML and made HTML (preferably with tags that followed the hResume format) and LaTeX? The "XML Résumé library" http://xmlresume.sourceforge.net/ seems to be abandoned, but it is still worth to take a look.
Agreed on the admitting mistakes part but mentioning Scott Forstall as an example doesn't follow.

From what I've read, Scott Forestall was fired less for the issues in the Maps application and more for his refusal to sign any sort of apology afterwards for its shortcomings. I'm sure there were other internal factors for his firing but his refusal to publicly admit a mistake was a significant part.
My inexpert take is that Zen makes a lot of use of contradiction of expectation as a way of waking people up. When my expectation of a situation is violated and I have a WTF moment, I start paying a great deal of attention to the exact details of the situation, and I start questioning all my assumptions.

A good example is the story "A Cup of Tea": [1]

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a
university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on
pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain
himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and
speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

Without being there, I can't know what Kobun intended. (Even if I were I could well not know.) But one way to look at it is him getting people to empty their cups: they thought they knew what would happen, and suddenly they didn't. A joke? [2] A lesson? A metaphor? It almost doesn't matter, because now they're awake.

To me the ultimate purpose of this is to get people to see the flashes of blue sky that the article talks about, those moments of insight that help us see through the useful illusions we collect as a way of getting by in the world.

[1] From http://www.101zenstories.com/index.php?story=1 and I'd encourage interested parties to buy Paul Reps's "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones", a delightful book of similar and related material.

[2] You might also find a useful analogy in the Native American notion of a sacred clown, a heyoka: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heyoka
Begrudgingly, I agree. I don't consider a patent holder to be a troll unless they're clearly not the first party to develop said technology. If there's clear prior art, only then would I consider someone a troll.

Unfortunately, patents are becoming more commoditized than healthcare in our country. It seems silly to me that someone is permitted to sue on the basis of patent violation when a) they weren't the original inventor, b) they bought the patent for the entire reason of profiting from litigation, or c) they're suing people who 'violated' their patent prior to the time they purchased it.
When to make your move
If "unknown unknowns"[1] make people idiots then everyone is an idiot and the term is neither an insult nor meaningful. Likely there's some other reason you have for wanting to use a mean and angry word that you haven't articulated well. What you describe in your original comment is probably just the Dunning–Kruger[2] effect.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Maybe just get over caring about the "main" internet, and leave it to be the ad ridden, surveillance clusterf*, old and rusty one?
I don't know if it's fair to call VirnetX a "patent troll." They're an NPE, but there's no indication that they're abusing the process or trying to get a low-ball settlement just to avoid actually going to court. Furthermore, the patents aren't just something they churned out. The technology in question was developed by SAIC for the CIA. SAIC is a major defense contractor and R&D company: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/contr....

Also, the inventor listed on the patents, Dr. Robert Short, who previously worked at SAIC, is CTO at VirnetX: http://virnetx.com/company/executive-management ("Dr. Short has been the Chief Scientist for VirnetX since May 2007 . . . . From February 2000 to April 2007, Dr. Short was Assistant Vice President and Division Manager at Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC. . . . Dr. Short is named as a co-inventor on substantially all of the patents in the VirnetX patent portfolio.")

I haven't studied the patents in question and am not commenting on whether they're any good or not. But considering how much of the core internet technologies were developed by private defense contractors working for the government, it's not far-fetched that some of them would hold key patents.
If this happens, then maybe Apple will get behind real patent reform.
Thank you for not asking in a rude and confrontational manner.

No, I don't have any solid data, but I do think the majority of people posting about Go on HN have either Python or Ruby backgrounds. I 've also found a lot of Python people in the Rust community (which I personally prefer vastly to Go).

People need more performance, particularly multicore performance. Traditional Python supporters can put their head in the sand about this if they want, but these highly-performant new languages have clearly found a niche among Python folks tired of trying to optimize all the time.

And yes, there's a fine line between conducting needed optimizations and wasting time prematurely optimizing, but people would clearly rather spend a little more time up front in exchange for a big speedup. The choice is no longer between C and Python -- there's a nice middle ground.
Using and loving G+ and Hangouts to this day. I like how easy it is to get a group chat or a video chat going in the browser, and I like the increased control over sharing I have, especially relative to FB. (I can even share with people who don't want to log in because they hate the service. My FB friends cannot.)

I'm trying to sift through the complaints to see if they're relevant to me, but haven't had much luck so far.

1. Everything

Complaints on the order of "it broke everything" just seem hyperbolic and silly.

2. Nymwars

I think they should allow pseudonyms, but I don't blame the company for trying build something tied a little tighter to real world identities after fighting a decade long war against fraud and spam behind the scenes. I feel like it's within their prerogative to say they're building an identity service, because pseudonym based logins are already widely available. Faulting them for that choice is a bit like saying you don't like Gmail because you think email is stupid.

3. YouTube

Among the other major complaints is that they broke YouTube comments, ie, the worst den of inane and offensive comments on the internet since 4chan. Good for them, the team deserves a medal.

Someone made a mashup just to illustrate the depravity of comments on the video site a few years ago:
http://comments.thatsaspicymeatball.com/

4. Popularity

Probably the other tacit criticism is that Google launched a service that didn't immediately trounce all other social media sites, delivering everything for everyone. It's used by a mere 350 million people. It's been criticized for that number being only a third of its registered base, but that seems perfectly on track or better than estimates for other social media sites. Twitter's active userbase is probably roughly 20%, for example:

http://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-total-registered-user...

It's weird that a site with 350 million active monthly users is considered an embarrassing failure. I'm sure lots of services would be happy to trade userbases with G+.

It had a few cool features. It wasn't world changing. I feel like it hit some of the Segwey effect, a victim of its hype more than of its failings.

5. Aesthetics.

I feel this is the most inarguable complaint. Some people don't like the style of G+, don't like its approach to usability, or find its sharing system needlessly complex or confusing. By all means, these individuals should not use the service. I don't like the look and feel of Pinterest. I shouldn't use Pinterest. To each her own. I worry some authors subtly shift this argument from "I don't like the feel of it," or even, "My friends don't like it," to "It is a failure of design that no one should use." Seems a bit unfair.

I believe there are good usability guidelines, but I don't subscribe to the belief that there is a perfect one size fits all, that all implementations of any service will eventually converge to one platonic form. Competition is good because we all like different things, each find different styles more intuitive.

I'd be happy to consider other arguments, but so far allegations of the service's abject horribleness seem somewhat exaggerated.
Yep. It seems like crypto devs have never heard of abstraction layers. That's what we get for letting a bunch of c programmers write this stuff ;p