skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thomas, DNSSEC has nothing to do with last-mile security, nor does it have anything to do with confidentiality. You know that. Neither of those is the problem DNSSEC solves.

> 2014 advocacy for DNSSEC seems to me like distilled sunk-cost fallacy.

2014 advocacy for DNSSEC is merely a continuation of advocacy that has been going on for years now. The root zone of DNS was only signed 4 years ago. It's taken those 4 years to get almost all the gTLDs signed and 2/3rds of the ccTLDs signed. It's taken those years to get the DNSSEC-related tools to the point where the configuration and deployment is as simple as it is now. It's taken those 4 years to get the pieces in place where it can work well... and there's still more work to do.

> The manifold weaknesses of DNSSEC are completely unnecessary. The protocol has no meaningful deployment.

I've quoted many deployment statistics in other parts of this thread. You dismiss them. That is your right. But to say it has "no meaningful deployment" is to dismiss the great amount of work that has happened all over the world by developers and network operators who DO see DNSSEC as something useful. To go back to one I've quoted here - there are 18 million Comcast customers in the USA that have all of their DNS queries validated by DNSSEC. To me that is a meaningful deployment.

> Inflicting it on the internet in 2014 would be a grave and unforced error. Do better.

We are doing better. In the view of myself and many others, DNSSEC makes the Internet more secure. We're implementing it. We're deploying it.

If you've got a better idea bring it to the IETF and lets have the debate in the standards mailing lists.
No, it's spanish. Just spotted one mistake, would you care to correct what I wrote? BTW, there's no way to edit my comment here on HN right?
What I would have liked is a book that presented the bad arguments in a neutral and fun way so that I could recommend it as a neutral and fun way to learn about these things for anyone. A sort of coffee book primer on logical fallacies.

What I got is a bunch of back-handed cartoon insults towards the groups the author dislikes.

Still nicely done though, and the pictures are great.
If your current employer isn't entertaining the idea of a raise (especially a substantial raise), you should wonder how much they really value you as an employee (the answer: probably not too much).

You should always have your eyes open for a better opportunity, especially if you don't feel all that happy with your current situation (that's one small luxury we currently have in the software development industry—take advantage of it!).

On the flip side, if you're satisfied where you are, and you're on a great team, feel free to stay, but know that any kind of raise would be an uphill battle.
What possible autonomous system could be worse than a battery of ICBMs?
Some more recommendations: the book "Apollo" by Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox is really excellent as an overview of everything that it took to get to the moon, as is the HBO mini-series "From The Earth to the Moon"
Using the lens of 'what makes the most sense in the long term', could you really handle commuting 54 miles? Personally I couldn't handle that commute for any price.
DNSSEC is a hierarchical PKI, like the CA system. Just off the root of the DNSSEC hierarchical PKI are a series of branches that are controlled entirely by world governments. I don't know how to say this any more clearly without sounding patronizing. In a DNSSEC/DANE world, the Libyan government can successfully publish a fake certificate for BIT.LY.

I absolutely do not accept the premise of the question in your last sentence. No, let's not bake a trusted hierarchy into the core of the Internet, please.
There are several reasons I'd say someone still needs to know Objective-C.

Swift is still half-baked. No, make that quarter-baked. It is not newbie friendly. Vast areas are undocumented, the IDE is even more unstable than usual for Apple, the compiler crashes constantly (I probably crashed it more than a hundred times just in the first week), the standard library is lacking, etc. etc. All of this makes it pretty difficult for veterans to work with. If you're new to iOS, or god forbid new to programming in general, you're going to have an extremely difficult time.

Virtually all the sample code is in Objective-C. Discussions assume Objective-C. The APIs, though translated to Swift, are still rooted in Objective-C. Trying to follow all of this without knowing some Objective-C is going to be tough.

In a year or two, when the language is solidified, then going straight for Swift will probably be viable. But right now, it's a terrible choice for anyone new.

It has nothing to do with trying to protect our turf, and that's rather insulting. I feel no need to protect my turf, because as an arrogant dickhead, I feel secure in the knowledge that I will still be a better programmer than 90+% of the folks out there no matter how much good advice they get. I've never even heard of anyone remotely competent deliberately giving out bad advice to protect themselves.
I tell myself I could, but it's rough. A good 3+ hours in the car every day.
>"Actual" interest in cryptography?

I was replying to your reply and quoted part of your message and just snipped it off without really indicating that I had just ended it. The way it came out on the HN page it is hard to see that it was your message versus mine. :-(
This is how I'm starting to feel. I love the team. Part of me thinks I'm blowing this out of proportion and ascribing nefarious motives to the higher-ups when they don't actually have any... but I also think I'm telling myself that so I don't have to face reality.
My experience has been that happiness comes from not pursuing happiness.
You forgot "From the Earth to the Moon", which was an excellent miniseries produced by the same team that did Apollo 13.
Welcome to academia.

Though, worth noting, source control is on the Joel Test specifically because at least some engineers needed outside ammo to bludgeon their employers into the 20th century. It was very much NOT the case in ~2000 that you could just assume any professional engineering team would be using source control.
Racy Photos Were Often Shared at N.S.A, Snowden Says
the top universities are top universities because of what? the standard metric is number of published papers.

So a university to on the top have to play by those rules. and we keeping regarding them as the top are by consequence valuing those rules.

the hypocrisy has to end somewhere. We can't keep up voting those articles that point the problems with academic publishing while giving priority to hire from the institutions that maintain that status quo.
I know it's not recommended, but I made a single page Note Type, and just put them on there:

<b>Be Happier</b><div>
</div>Interpersonal: Give the people around you opportunities to be generous. Ask them for favors.

When it comes up, I quietly read it out loud to myself. I've found that seeing these cards often enough keeps their concepts on my mind, so when I go out with friends and someone offers to buy me a beer, I accept it and thank them, instead of refusing even to the point of awkwardness (as is my natural inclination).
Ah you're right, sorry about that.

That post is really interesting. I know ggplot2 does quite a bit of it, but the visualizations are really nice.

You mention significance a few times but I don't see alpha levels or significance testing per se; do you mean significant in the casual sense, or are you just withholding the stats talk for the audience of (most likely) laypeople? If it's the former, you might find statistical significance in even the avg % grade by gender, given a large enough sample size.

I might be overlooking the part where you talk about this, and I apologize if that's the case.
I've rehosted it here:

http://share.rothamel.us/Apollo_11_Landing.mp3
That's the silliest argument I've heard in the past 30 minutes or so (that's saying something online!)

I loved the taste of lobster as a child. Feed me caviar then, and I'd be completely grossed out.
http://cr.yp.to/talks.html#2009.08.11

Downsides of DNSSEC are pretty well known, actually.

If you're worried about security yet still want to use a third-party DNS resolver, might much better off with OpenDNS.com and their DNSCurve client (called DNSCrypt), which encrypts and authenticates all communications.

http://blog.opendns.com/2010/02/23/opendns-dnscurve/

http://www.opendns.com/about/innovations/dnscrypt/
Why I Don’t Believe in Conspiracy Theories
In the casual sense. I've been having a little difficulty graphically conveying confidence intervals without making the charts unreadable/too complicated. The correct way is to use boxplots, but I'm working on other things too.
It only seems weird in so far that you are ignorant (aren't we all?) of the generic function approach to object orientation.

In the message passing approach you dispatch based on the type of the first argument to the method. Because it would be redundant to explicitly write down the argument it is commonly syntactically elided (though not fully in Python) and you get coupling of the methods and the object. This is not a fundamental property of OO but accidental feature found in most OO languages.

In the generic function approach, the dispatch is extended so one can dispatch on the type (among other things) of (ideally) all of its arguments. Julia follows this approach afaik and if one is familiar with the generic function approach it is not a controversial claim at all.

Erik Naggum explains it here in more depth: http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3243735416407529@naggum....
Any links for the curious?
Code wont disappear unless there's some magical evolution of the PC.

Last time I checked, the idea of a universal computer came from Robert Turing several decades ago, and no one has even come close to revolutionizing that.

Even quantum computers fundamentally are hardware devices that emulate other computational machines through means of software/algorithmic theory. It hasn't changed, and it wont.

Just because you can understand a couple languages doesn't mean you understand computation.
A very interesting source of thoughts is the work done by Bret Victor http://worrydream.com/ (take a look at Recent Output section).

Code the way we know it today will change. After all, human languages keep changing.

However, changes will happen in a very natural way, with selection of the best compromise between efforts and results. For instance, programming languages might not change that much while we might end up with more and more powerful frameworks to build software.

Nevertheless, next 50 years of evolution will be very very interesting to follow.
How can the DNS root alter my records?

Say my domain is "example.com" and I serve the zone out of my own authoritative DNS server running on my own host. I create a "www" record that I serve out pointing to my site's IP address. Leaving DNSSEC out for a moment, how can the DNS root alter my records?

All the DNS root does is provide pointers to the .com authoritative name servers. The .com name servers provide pointers to my example.com name server. My example.com name server serves out the zone data.
I agree that DNSSEC has nothing to do with last-mile DNS security! Where we differ is that you don't seem to care that it doesn't, whereas I am completely bewildered by the idea that anybody could advocate investing tens of millions of dollars into a forklift upgrade of DNS infrastructure that would solidify government control of Internet privacy without doing anything to solve the most urgent problem with the DNS --- if there is an urgent problem with the DNS at all, which is debatable.

The root zone of DNS was signed 4 years ago, but the DNSSEC protocol has been under development since the early nineties, back when the forum for discussing it was dns-security@tis.com. That's approximately how long I've been following DNS security. The record names changed during the typecode roll in 2003, but if you blur your eyes, DNSKEY, RRSIG, and NSEC are just KEY, SIG, and NXT, and the core DNSSEC protocol --- authenticated denial, offline signing, no confidentiality --- is the same as the one TIS worked on under US federal government contract back in 1994.

I'm not simply "dismissing" the statistics you're providing. I'm challenging them. One US provider runs a DNSSEC-compatible resolver system. So what? Google DNS enabled DNSSEC years ago. You're talking about decisions that perhaps tens of people at those companies made and executed. So a cabal of hobbyists enabled DNSSEC at Comcast. What percentage of DNS queries at Comcast return DNSSEC-authenticated names? I don't know, but I'll put money on my guess: an infinitesimal fraction, because DNSSEC isn't deployed across the Internet.

DNSSEC makes the Internet less secure. It's a government contract that morphed into a standards committee boondoggle --- don't take my word for that, just read any of the mid-2000s Vixie mails to namedroppers begging the group to just please standardize something --- that has been beset for two decades by grievous technical flaws, ranging from the delegation signer debacle through the Unix-password-file-cracking NSEC3 scheme. It hands control over a critical piece of security infrastructure to world governments. It does all this without solving the most important DNS security flaws. Meanwhile, those of us who work in security can't help but notice that despite the lack of any DNS security over and above randomized source ports and query IDs, the Internet is not falling apart... because it's been designed and built over the last 15 years not to rely on the DNS for security.

It's taken two decades to get to this point because signing individual DNS records and treating zones as the fount of all truth on the Internet is the wrong design. There is too much data in the DNS to boil the ocean and sign every record individually, and even if you could, if the last 10 years have taught us anything at all, it's that Internet trust doesn't work like a tree with a single root. Global hierarchical PKI is dead. Let it rest in peace.
There is a difference between happiness and joy. Some have the definitions flipped, so I'll not try to define them. It's not important which is which.

One is a result of circumstances. If something bad happens, like you get a flat tire, then you're in some negative state of emotion. Most people are ruled by this, and since most circumstances are out of our control, we spend a large portion of our time in some state of unhappiness or frustration.

The other is trying to be at peace. If you're basically at peace then the flat tire doesn't ruin your day. It's just something to deal with. Things happen, you deal with them, life goes on, and you're mostly thankful for what you have.

The author's 20 minute comment, I suspect, is that he practices mindfulness meditation, and is therefore never longer than 20 minutes away from resetting his mind to a more balanced state.

Plus there is nothing new here. This is the ancient philosophy of stoicism. See "A Guide To The Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy"
They almost certainly won't fire you for asking for a raise. Like you said yourself, your replacement would certainly be more expensive, and they'll lose at least 3 months of productivity even if the replacement is adequate.

I'd start looking for other jobs and, in parallel, tell the boss that you value the lack of the commute quite highly and that if they want you to commute you'll be happy to consider their offer for what is essentially a new job. If they suggest "Your current salary" you say "Hah, good one. No seriously, what is your offer, knowing how valuable of an employee I am and how difficult I would be to replace?"

More generally: most engineers who feel they are getting screwed are indeed getting screwed. (And many engineers who feel adequately compensated are in fact getting screwed but have psychological issues and asymmetric information which makes this less than obvious.) People will NOT fix this for you. You have to take responsibility for your own career.

P.S. Ducking meetings with you is a negotiating tactic! And it is working! You have to summon a modicum of intestinal fortitude and say "Boss, the fact of the upcoming move means my salary is going to get renegotiated. You get to pick whether that renegotiation happens in your office or not."
How? Please explain how an attack can be carried out surgically against small targets from the root?
Current anti-aircraft/anti-missile/anti-mortar systems are already partially "sentient", they can see/heart/detect potential threats and respond appropriately (a human is usually required to press the "ok to fire" button but it's not necessary at all).

The article might not be very good, but this topic does need to be discussed publicly.
It's all the caveats you mention. So in a word, yes, but to get a decent system with coreboot your first stop should be a look at Google Chromebooks, not because they _should_ be the first stop but because they're above the curve in terms of being pretty modern, reasonably priced, and coreboot-supported.

The X60 is a good option, too.
The author mostly described the ancient philosophy of Stoicism. See "A Guide To The Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy"

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/02/what-is-stoicism-a...
I'm going to go against the grain here, but if you're planning on using it at a desk most of the time, I think it's not necessarily the best option.

The primary reason is that it's underpowered. A number of my co-workers used them until they got really frustrated with resource starvation slowing them down, and they switched to MBPs. Starting up Firebug on an Air on a sufficiently complex page or a webpage in Chrome that uses Flash can bring the thing to its knees.

The second thing is that I'm a big fan of developers developing in an environment analogous to their deployment environment. Chances are pretty good that as a Node developer, you'll be deploying on Linux, not on OS X. OS X does a good Linux impression, but there are a lot of errata that you're going to run into. Running a VM on an Air is going to really tax it. As the "Linux user" in my group, I tend to know what kinds of deployment issues the software will have, while my co-workers struggle with a host of OS X-specific bugs that I never contend with.

I use a pretty oldschool setup - headless Linux server that I work on via SSH/Samba. It's not for everyone, but it lets me work on my desktop (custom built beast of a Windows machine), Chromebook, Linux laptop, MBP, or even from more exotic locations (I've fixed production bugs from my phone before, including running test suites). Having your full development environment a) mimic your production environment, and b) be accessible from anywhere that you can get SSH is amazing.

That said, the MBA is a great machine if you're going to be moving around a lot. The form factor and weight are significant benefits, and the battery life is remarkable given its size.
tangential: if you're worried about nsa-backdoored algorithms, instead of betting hard on one particular that you happen to judge beyond reproach, you'd be better off incorporating algorithm agility into your design (ofc in such a way that rules out downgrade attacks by construction).
Don't ever think of this as "what is fair".

This is a negotiation between you and employer and it comes down to supply & demand, market value and who has the upper hand.

If you don't have another job lined up at same (or higher) salary, then the company has the upper hand and you're too afraid to even ask for a raise because you worry that you'll get fired.

As others said, you need to at least try to get another job. You can always apply and not accept the offer but only by applying and going through the process to the point of getting an offer you'll be able to answer the following questions:

1. how hard is it for you to get another job ?

2. if you do get an offer, is it better or worse than the current job ?

If you do get a better offer then you can use it as a leverage to get a better salary at your current company ("Hi boss. I really like working here but I'm paid below my market rate. I have an opportunity to take another job paying $X but I would rather stay here if you can match that salary. Your move.").

But when you do that, you have to be willing to take the other job if your company says no. You can always wipe your tears with the additional dollar bills.
In other words, it was a fiction entertained by two people, one of whom no longer works there.
There's nothing particularly nefarious to "We have him at $X and have not been presented with any rational reason to offer $X + $Y." ("I deserve more" is not a rational reason. "You cannot purchase my services for $X and you want those services" is a rational reason.)
Since Dang has taken over as the main moderator and been more public about it, he's announced doing it more times than that.
Is the real life version less scary? http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/dec/images/640_darpa-atlas...

You wouldn't really be able to track a mobile robot with sophisticated evasion skills. It could popup randomly, kill with unmatched precision, then disappear.
An army of these robots would be nearly unstoppable.

Several robots are being armed these days, with grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and both light and heavy machine guns (as seen on the guard sentries in the article) https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/maars/

The only real limitation to current robots is the power-source / batteries. Right now we have to either strap a gasoline engine on it, tether it, or create it so that it's efficient enough to run off of existing batteries, which greatly limits their abilities.
The Netherlands does have a significant human-trafficking problem, though they have been somewhat successful in recent efforts to crack down on it: http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2014/226786....
That's two good hobbies and sixpack abs right there, if you spend that time on self improvement instead of sitting in a car. Commutes over on hour per day are a huge sacrifice from your most precious resource: unallocated time
Assuming the OP is an at-will employee (which is what it sounds like), I don't think the initial agreement matters. The cool thing about being at-will is you can quit whenever you want. Nobody can force you to stay there. The bad thing is they can fire you whenever they want for (almost) any reason.

That said, if you want to know your legal options, you absolutely should talk to a lawyer.
Like ancient dietary laws, our moral code may be rooted in ancient common wisdom about healthy choices.
I mean the TLD root. Aka the .com registrar.
Depending on the kind of job, remote working is a perfect way to get the job done. If you feel this can be your case, then maybe your boss is not acting very smart.

In terms of job alternatives, if you feel that you would need to commute anyway, look around, I bet there are several open positions for which you would be able to work remotely (in some cases you might trade something like 1 day a week at the office).

At the end, give your boss another chance to understand your situation, go talk with him. It will be the ultimate way to know if that's the place you still want to work at or not.
Kill Swift, Fix XCode
"Modules is, in my opinion, one of the most sorely needed features in C++. They have the potential of increasing compile times by an order of magnitude or more, thus bringing compile-time performance more in line with more modern languages, ..."

Presumably that should be "decreasing", not "increasing" (or "compilation speed" rather than "compile times").
Nowadays, I often find ordns.he.net to be quite useful. HE.net is getting to be a pretty big carrier nowadays, and they generally have better latency and locality than other resolvers. Will never use 8.8.8.8 ever again.
RSA-1024 is an easy problem to fix; it's not baked into the protocol. Other crypto problems in DNSSEC, not so much, sorry.