skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I probably wouldn't classify it as "contagious", it just stops being a deterrent. My parent's business when I grew up needed lots of reasonably skilled, but cheap labor. Turns out you can hire from two possible pools of labor for this: recent immigrants and ex-cons. If you just want cheap labor you hire young people.

For a while, in the early 80s, my parents hired young people, until the work they took on required people with more skill. Then they hired immigrants from South East Asia under some kind of asylum/placement program. I don't remember the details, but their shop was pretty multicultural for a long time. Eventually that program ended and they started mining the pool of ex-cons. Mostly guys with minor drug offenses and non-violent offenses.

They kept putting that pool of people to work for probably a good 15 years and I grew up working in the family business, side-by-side with them. One thing I learned is that you start to not think of prison as the end of the world.

It's supposed to be a BFD to go to prison, a life breaker. But here was a bunch of guys who did their time, and all had jobs and did well enough for themselves and their family. So it just seemed like virtually the same to young me as when people I knew in the military were shipped off for a tour or a long deployment somewhere. Granted, I wasn't entirely aware of the social stigmas attached to their incarceration at the time. But you can imagine being their friends or kids or what have you growing up with a father having served time.

Every once in a while, one of the guys would slip up and get caught doing cocaine or something and do a year in prison. After he got out, if my parents had an opening, they'd hire them back. From my pre-teen perspective it seemed virtually the same as being a soldier, bad pay included.

Once I got older and stopped working in the family business, the social stigma attached to incarceration was kind of a shock to me. It took me a long time to realize why these guys were working at my parent's place instead of the same kind of shop down the street for more money. It's that the other shop simply wouldn't hire ex-cons and my parents didn't mind/thought they could save the company some money hiring these guys at $.50 less per hour than a stand-up citizen (while also helping them get reintegrated back into society).
You can likely write it off for a tax deduction, at least, or ask your employer to expense it.
It doesn't actually seem like the Urdu Times is really "thriving".

It manages to employ one person, and keeps all the writers as freelancers. This is one of the symptoms cited of the decline of traditional print media.
Show HN: Percodate – Dating site focused on filtering your inbox
I don't feel strongly about widgets - I just did not like how KDE does them. I can rotate them.. cool. They have some funky mouseover-menu..cool. What about the functionality? Ah... well. It's not there. But as I've wrote.. I was not able to get some reliable hardware widget that displays the information gkrellm provides. It was cumbersome to adjust the seperate network/cpu/disk widgets on the desktop and the information was rather useless and barely readable. I hate to say it but this stuff worked with SuperKaramba on 3.5...(http://netdragon.sourceforge.net/ssensors.html) and well I don't know why I care soo much about it.. it just feels backwards having to fight with all this stuff while remembering how well it - at least from a user perspective - once worked.

Disabling the Desktop in a folder is the first I'm doing when on a new system with KDE. I can see how it is useful to have multiple folders accessible on your desktop but I can also do it with the traditional Desktop and widgets. Never felt the need for it - but there are a lot of different use-cases.

Activities are a great idea in theory. But the implementation got stuck halfway before being really useful. I would love to have a usable version of that and lot of use cases for them e.g. monitoring and terminal stuff in one activity / IDE in another and another one for the browser/mail stuff.. but it never felt right and I was not able to pull that off. It also seems like the programs in each activity do just stay in memory and not really separated... so it's some good idea that is probably really difficult to get right.. okay. No problem with that, but the thing that annoys me a little bit is that they feel so forced upon me. If I don't want to use them they should be to able to configure away completely - remember - I can even rotate my widgets.. ;) as they are unrelated to virtual desktops in KDE (at least that was my conclusion after spending time with them) and only annoy me...

I could go on.. and basically these small little things are what I would say is bad design.. however I can see how difficult these things are and how diverse the opinions are on these debates. But I have the impression that nobody is really happy and as long as there is little improvement in these areas I'm not really excited about QML and mobile stuff..

I still think that the majority of KDE users are running Linux on older machines for doing programming and office work and well... nobody seems to really care about this anymore. Unity suffers from similar problems.
Pi vs. tau: Ultimate Smackdown
Accelerated gradient descent is pretty common everywhere.
It uses iptables, but it detects things to block by reading log files, and it's not exactly efficient in doing so. As such, if an attacker can pump lines in (like by having their botnet SSH to your system), they can get it to spin a core.
Death of the Time Stamp: Medium, Slingshot and the Movement Away from RIGHT NOW
This seems like exactly the sort of advice that is great in retrospect once you reach scale but is effectively useless until you hit that point. There are far more important things for a startup to worry about (product market fit, retention, stability) than how to make the tech side of an acquisition easy.
This needs to happen more. The only language the people running our government understand is that of money. Perhaps if the executives running such companies as Verizon (and by money-proxy, the US government) are denied their monetary pleasures they'll lobby for reasonable governance.
Server configuration (for example, how many unicorn workers was the app running?) isn't given. Without this (and the many other testing methodology issues pointed out in other comments), the entire article is meaningless.
CIA wants to fight Thor.

Thor does frontal assault.
Exactly. I really like writing future focused interfaces like that. They're light weight, and can save a lot of time later. It's like building good credit to get a lower interest rate on your technical debt.
This Man's Gaze Is Harmful to Pregnant Women
The issue I deal with isn't in choosing a design that scales better, it is uncertainty in how things will scale. Say I need to handle group permissions depending on the context. I could hard-code the permissions changes for the one group that needs it now, or I could abstract and generalize context-switching behavior into its own component, ensuring changes to future groups will be easy and low-cost.

But, what if I never get a second group that needs this? While hard-coding values was an ugly shortcut, I may never have a need to revisit the code. If I had gone with a generalized solution, I'd still have to contend with maintaining all that code.
Structure your Martini projects like Django
Discarded Smartphones Upcycled Into Digital Forest Watchdogs
PG himself once cautioned about the connection between personal liberty issues and hacking:

I do believe the TSA stories represent a danger.
If there's a road from hacking to politics, it's
probably civil liberties.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1934880

So I would be somewhat careful about using that reasoning.
If this app works like this website makes it look like it works - major props to this team.

We're having a tricky enough time getting simple photo uploads working across iOS and Android. Can't imagine the technical complexity going into designing and developing something like this.
root is no worse from a security standpoint than any other user. If knowing your username helps somebody guess your password or bruteforce your key, the username isn't the problem.

Using multiple users is great from a compartmentalization / user_management standpoint, but it doesn't protect against brute-force.
With regard to #1, newer OpenSSH supports AuthenticationMethods, which lets you chain keys and PAM.
The overview paper [1] is a reminder of the pace of change in computing:

> DARPA’s HPCS program was launched in 2002 with five teams, each led by a hardware vendor: Cray Inc., Hewlett-Packard, IBM, SGI, and Sun.

It also has one of the more amusing euphemisms I've heard in a while:

> In 2003, the HPCS program transitioned to phase II, and a programmatic downselect occurred, enabling the Cray,
IBM, and Sun teams to pursue their proposed research plans.

[1] http://chapel.cray.com/papers/BriefOverviewChapel.pdf
Just wondering what theme you use? I have been using this https://github.com/metal696heart/Webmin-Theme-Metal
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow."

— Alexander Hamilton
35 of my BTC gone, PC not compromised
This is going to confuse the hell out of people who buy it second hand in 10 years time, especially if the maps go out of date.
First, get past the obvious benefit of a seemingly unfair advantage for
avoiding traffic tickets, such as reduced costs due to traffic fines or
insurance premiums.

Then get past the obvious harm of a seemingly unfair advantage for
avoiding traffic tickets, such as reduced freedom to drive "too fast"
and reduced revenues for law enforcement budgets [1].

The end result of tech like this (including the ultimate step of speed
governors preventing speeding) really seems to be all of us sharing
safer roads, and fewer of us getting hurt or dying in traffic accidents.

This seems pretty good at first sight, but unfortunately, it leaves open
one problematic question; if everyone drove at the speed limit (and
fully stopped at stop signs/lights --feasible to enforce with tech),
would there be fewer accidents?

Also, I wonder if there would be more or less traffic congestion?

[1]
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2226966/opensource-subne...
Why would it have been a big deal if healthcare providers did decide to share health data back? It seems to me all this data is available from one's current and previous doctors. What type of information is the article referring to?
Question: What is on-boarding new employees like with that system? How long does it take you to get people up to speed and being productive? I would suppose the lack of rules makes them fast in the beginning and in the end they are contributing to the mess in their own special way, doubling down on the technical debt.
40 Maps That Explain The Middle East
Great piece of work!

I've seen in the piece of code corresponding to the Fisher-Yates algorithm this snippet: "n-- | 0". Has the "| 0" any importance?
The Massachusetts police have privatised part of their operations. And the 'general counsel for the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association' has said that they're immune to information requests because they're private corporations. The article positions the purpose of the privatisation as secrecy. This seems like a very Bad Thing, so it's not surprising that the ACLU have stepped in.

But I'm going to play devil's advocate, because I want to know the truth:

I wonder if there are other, possibly more important reasons for forming these private corporations. Maybe the existing police system doesn't function optimally, and provisioning resources (such as trained officers with appropriate equipment for drug busts) is a process that's too slow, or inadequate. Maybe this is a way of detouring the bureaucracy and systemic bullshit that encumbers civil servants whose job is ultimately to keep people safe.

The article says that Tewksbury, MA paid $4600 for membership to NEMLEC. That town has a population of around 28 000. It doesn't make sense for a small town like that to have a police force with a dedicated SWAT team, computer crimes unit and schools incident response team. It also doesn't make sense for a larger jurisdiction to serve the smaller community when it [the smaller community] needs it, and get nothing in return. It seems as though it's a way for police departments to share resources. I'd imagine that if a small town's police department found themselves unable to deal with a time-critical scenario, like a shooter in a school, they'd call in backup pretty damned quickly. Perhaps the quality of response a small town could get through NEMLEC would be better than going through traditional police channels?

To me it seems like the primary purpose of forming these private NPCs is not secrecy. As the article says, government police agencies already do that - "police agencies have broadly interpreted open records laws to allow them to turn down just about every request."

So, if it is actually easy for police agencies to turn down requests in the first place, why go to all the effort to form, finance, and manage a 3200 member [1] corporation?

[1] http://www.nemlec.com/who.htm

edit: clarified a sentence by adding 'through NEMLEC'
Wow, that's a very early Amdocs news article.

From my understanding, as an outsourced billing provider, they mostly handle metadata related to communications rather than communications themselves.

The number of mobile networks they have embedded themselves in globally is absolutely shocking: most of the developed world.

Partial client lists are available on their website.
The Revival of the Urdu Script
How Apple, Microsoft, Google and HTML community can save the dying Urdu Nastaliq script from the hegemony of the Western alphabet and an overbearing Arab cousin? And some are already doing it!
The idea that patents are not necessary, useful or relevant in today's society is childish. Patents still play a very key role is spurring innovation and allowing innovative players to profit off of their development and creation of new products.

Clearly the system is broken to the point that people patent anything just so they can sue others who meet the general ideology of the patent. Clearly this is not what the spirit of patenting was designed for. A system overhaul is more appropriate than to rid all patents.
For what it's worth I thought they were cool ;)
Part of my point is that you don't feel over-engineering nearly as much. If it is under-engineered, it probably doesn't work, and at least has a list of pain points that are fairly obvious.

Over-engineered components will work (sometimes flawlessly), so you don't realize you've spent too much time and money on something until long after you built it.
nsenter is part of util-linux, which means it will eventually make it into pretty much every Linux distro around. The functionality doesn't belong in Docker, because it isn't Docker specific - all it depends on is cgroups, and cgroups is a kernel feature, not a Docker feature.

Once it's in there, a "jexec" equivalent would a couple of lines of shell script.
I read the article, and yes, their conclusions point to the fact that they did indeed miss such a completely obvious flaw. This sentence, their conclusion, was in bold:

The disparity in sentencing between whites and blacks emerged as the single factor making the disease of incarceration a true epidemic among blacks. Not the socioeconomic disparity, mind you, but the actual sentences. This conclusion is so obviously wrong it's absurd on its face.
That is a funny way to look at it.

Say she is making a point about cheese, and says something about the population of France. She might be wrong, but who cares? Or you can shout her down and criticize here, making her uncomfortable. Showing how smart you are, and how much of an asshole you are as well.
Eliminating patents altogether may be better than what we have now, but I think there is a sweet spot to be found where they encourage more private investment and publication of research than there would be with no patent system.
Benchmarking on VMs (especially on EC2) is a no-no. It introduces a lot of other factors that can skew results drastically. There are entire companies built around the idea of variable performance in the cloud. If you want to do a decent benchmark, do it on a real piece of hardware.
Exactly. There is not yet a pandas equivalent, there is no scikit-learn, etc. Hopefully this will happen.
Interesting way to look at it.

Another example, of course, would be digital rights management. Interestingly, DRM's high-water mark (from the perspective of those who insisted on it) began shortly after this article was written, when it was formalized by the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions. As the author would say, this helped to enhance the costs of “breaching” the DRM’s contract. (In the same way, laws against vandalism and petty theft enhance the costs of “breaching” the vending machine’s contract.)
Hey, what are you using for the tech stack?
Madoko – Online markdown processor implemented in Koka (MS Research)
> The idea that patents are not necessary, useful or relevant in today's society is childish.

Also, highly impractical.
x | 0 will truncate a floating point x to an integer. The multiplication happens first so the overall expression acts like i = (Math.random() * n--) | 0.
There's a ton of services that do precisely this (http://sideprojectors.com). Why here?
"Every second, Norse collects and analyzes live threat intelligence from darknets in hundreds of locations in over 40 countries. The attacks shown are based on a small subset of live flows against the Norse honeypot infrastructure, representing actual worldwide cyber attacks by bad actors. At a glance, one can see which countries are aggressors or targets at the moment, using which type of attacks (services-ports)."
To implement something described in the article, it requires experience, not intelligence, nor age.

It's the experience that is in question. There is a lot of radically different and unique technologies that would be required to be mastered in order to implement a medical device such as this, safely and reliably. Not to mention extreme business prowess to wiggle ones way into a tightly guarded community such as the medical industry.

(It's likely she brought in outside help to do the actual implementation, which is normal, other commenters have noted that she came from a family with great means, which would extend her reach by a great margin).

Originally, I was commenting on it being absurd that in the US, one can patent an idea that one has no clue how to actually implement/build. Perhaps that was not the case here (although it seems to be), but unfortunately that is the case for an awful lot of patents here in the states.

Anyone can think something up -- but to actually do it... that's a whole different beast.
Looks decent. Only I don't have a apple device. I'm sure it will help others though.
On the one hand this is fucking terrifying on the other I'm off to tag everything with stupid speed limits. Five mph on the motorway and 70 outside schools.
Show HN : Female colleague
Chmod reference table
This looks awesome! Thanks so much for this. I have a sort of unrelated question that I'd like to ask, since you implemented this so well. On one of my current side projects, I was also trying to implement scrolling by j/k, but couldn't find a nice way to do it. Could you explain how you managed to do it? I have something that works, but it's really jerky, and doesn't accelerate properly like yours does. Thanks again for this awesome site!
>they _did_ have their own domestic chips 20 years ago.

No. Not back then, not now. There hasn't been a chip there able to run Word/Excel/email. The best "native" chips are the 30 year old ones, with some updates, in the anti-ICBM systems.
None of this examples seem to fit your original statement:

> Just because a single instance of an activity is legal does not necessarily mean that N instances of the same activity are legal.

> 1. Marrying > 1 person

Is not n instances of marriage under the same conditions. It seems like to fit your original statement it would have to be that one couple marrying was legal while N couples marrying was illegal.

> 2. An S corporation can have at most 100 share holders.

The number of people is changing but it is only one instance of forming a S corporation not N instances of forming an S corporation.

> Zoning limits on the number of people that may occupy a structure are common.

The N+1 person moving in is not really doing the same things as the first person moving in similarly to the unlawful assembly.

It would be interesting to look at laws implement actions which are legal with 1 instance but illegal with N, but the example you have quoted so far to do seem to have any carry over to the Aero case.
I usually use Gyazo but I always have to upload to ezgif to downsize the gif, then copy-paste that to imgur. It's a PITA doing this several times a day. Will give this a go!
If you are concerned about granting access to the host...

Everyone should be.

There's a simple solution: Group your Docker containers in KVM vm's.

I consider that an ugly hack that should be avoided at all costs. Why? It's not viable without up-front automation investment, ongoing maintenance overheads, and additional latency and inefficiency, for starters. It's also probably less portable, particularly to embedded systems.

it makes little sense to add to the complexity and attack surface to add a process monitor per container and an sshd per container

Process monitor? What are you talking about? At least with LXC, each container has PID 1 (master application process, init system, whatever) and can be stopped/started easily with lxc-stop -n nameofcontainer.

As for sshd, my point was that it can make sense because it's secure, remote-accessible, proven. The article premise was that it's a bad idea, but none of its arguments hold, to my mind.

Both are easily abstracted behind tiny (1-2 line) scripts...

That aren't remotely accessible, without breaking the abstraction and creating some shared access scenario on the host. The entire point of an abstraction is to be clean. It's not clean if you have to adopt hacky workarounds and dump all of your existing tools in order to play with it.
Graduated with a CS degree in 2004. The breakdown of the primary languages I used were:

75% Java
25% C

With some smalltalk, SQL, and C++ sprinkled in for some of the more specialized classes

Asking a friend who graduated 2014:

60% C++
40% Java

Some C#, Python, PHP for some of the specialized classes
Stupid.

Speed cameras exist to stop idiots killing innocent people.

Yeah police profit. Who cares. They need all the help they can get with crystal meth literally turning a fair slice of the world into psycho zombies.
The code works, but the type of the generic is not guaranteed at compile time. FunctorResult could be anything at all. There is no compile-time obligation for the code to return a Dictionary<KeyType, P>.

The more canonical example of a Functor is really the Optional. The mapping method for an optional looks like this:

func fmap(f: A -> B) -> Optional<B> {
switch self {
case Some(let a):
return Some(f(A))
case None:
return None
}
}

However, with your protocol, I can define the mapping function for the Optional as:

func fmap(f: A -> B) -> B[] {
switch self {
case Some(let a):
return [f(A)]
case None:
return B[]()
}
}

This would pass the type-checker, but is not what a Functor does.