skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Agreed on the institutional side. However LC also invests in their own loans from time to time, both directly or through LC Advisers.

In the early days LC invested their own capital more heavily to make sure loans were fully funded, and to ensure the community was active enough.

This is why they have "funded_amnt" and "funded_amnt_inv" to denote how much of the loan was funded by investors vs. internally.
> The law raises concerns about how the switch might be used or abused, because it also provides law enforcement with the authority to use the feature to kill phones.

This law does no such thing. What they are basing this on is a misunderstanding of this section of the law: "Any request by a government agency to interrupt communications service utilizing a technological solution required by this section is subject to Section 7908 of the Public Utilities Code".

That does not grant any authority to law enforcement. It's just saying in effect that they cannot use this new kill switch to bypass the restrictions 7908 imposes on government interruption of communication services. It's simply making sure that the new law is not introducing a loophole that would give law enforcement MORE ability to interrupt communications than they already have.

It's kind of like when schools teach kids in sex ed that they should always use a condom when they have sex. That's not supposed to be taken as granting the kids permission to go out and have sex.
It's all the birds. Up in the clouds. Cheep cheep cheep.
Because this would enable Comcast to then increase what fees it charges Netflix, higher and higher, until either Netflix says "that's enough", and don't pass on that increase, or Netflix starts losing customers to say, a cheaper competitor that Comcast prefers because it owns (part of) it. Better stop these games at the door. Most Comcast customers don't have a choice of provider anyway, so it's not like they can choose a different ISP to connect to Netflix. You don't want to penalize customers stuck buying from a monopoly.

Other customers paying $8/month to get this amazing Netflix service and are "forced" to "subsidize" Comcast customers, that won't elicit much tears from me. :P
One of the most useful ideas behind rump kernels, from what I can see, is as a technique rather than an end result: it's a great example of how filesystem drivers or other typically privileged code can be reused in a lesser privileged context or even across operating systems and/or architectures, with minimal effort.

This seems like mostly speculation on a mailing list, but I believe it's worth pointing out that this speculation doesn't do justice to what rump kernels can already offer. It would be nice to see other OS developers push models like this, to facilitate code reuse in widely varying contexts, instead of just "hypervisors".
> Clearly this is not a contract

I'm pretty sure making a pledge of this nature does form a contract. The terms of that contract are available here: http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/pledge/, which says:

> It is Google’s intent that the Pledge be legally binding, irrevocable (except as otherwise provided under “Defensive Termination” below) and enforceable against Google and entities controlled by Google, and their successors and assigns.
Is this program "almost certainly wrong":

uint32_t bytesToUnsigned(uint8_t bytes[4]
{
return bytes[0] |
bytes[1] << 8 |
bytes[2] << 16 |
bytes[3] << 24;
}

The behavior is undefined on a system with 32 bit integers because of signed arithmetic overflow (despite the fact that all the explicit types involved are unsigned, a uint8_t gets promoted to a signed integer before the left-shift operation).

Right now it will work on every compiler I've tried, but it would be perfectly valid (by the ANSI specification) for a compiler to assume that the result of that function can never have the highest bit set. In friendly C, the result is well defined.
Very nice. My only complain is the huge footer. It really doesn't match the theme. Also, bulleted and numbered lists have smaller fonts, and their line height is odd.
I have Moto G, and Moto G 4G phones and they are very, very good. And they are selling well.
Yeah i've bookmarked this in case i ever change my mind.

For now i think paying someone else to print is the best option, for low volume. I guess it's been the same with many new technologies, initially at least.
So, same as the https://encry.pt which has been around for 3+ years?
The most obnoxious and loudest people always superficially dominate any open and unmoderated conversation -- like the public square. That doesn't necessarily mean they're winning in the long game, just that being obnoxious and loud and pushing oversimplified bombast gets lots of attention.
It's interesting how much work they're putting in to making their mining process ASIC resistant. Their approach to implement a turing-complete scripting system into their blockchain which miner's must be able to execute is definitely interesting. But it's also very complicated. I'll be interested to see if they can successfully implement it.

In my opinion, a much more viable approach to ASIC-resistance - which is already implemented and live today - is proof-of-capacity hard-drive based mining. This is an approach to mining which Microsoft proposed in a research paper last year [1]. It's recently been implemented by an altcoin called Burstcoin [2].

I should disclose that I've been mining BURST, and therefore am financially interested in seeing it succeed. However I also genuinely believe it is interesting technology, and I'd like to see some sort of proof-of-capacity mining succeed purely because of the technical merits.

The proof-of-capacity mining process basically works by pre-generating as many "plots" as possible to your hard-drive. Every plot is like a lottery ticket for a lottery that takes place once per block. If you have the luckiest plot for a block, then you get to claim the next block. After initial plot generation, the mining process is very energy efficient since it only requires a small amount of hard-drive reads per block. It's also ASIC-resistant and likely to remain very decentralized because the of the wide distribution of hard-drive storage capacity.

[1] https://research.microsoft.com/pubs/217984/permacoin.pdf

[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.0
No clue, but here are the changes:

http://sync-help.bittorrent.com/customer/portal/articles/163...
Comcast gets paid at both ends of the data transfer: from Netflix to send the data, and for users to receive it. But the data is only sent once.
That cheaper competitor by Comcast already exists: http://www.comcast.com/streampix
You just made that up.

Here's a link to the bill [1]. It's not long, and not very complicated. You should read it.

[1] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...
It's not a grey area: people are calling them out on it, but since Comcast et al. are monopolies, they can just ignore it, until the regulators come a-knocking... This is the story here.
It was worth a try! :-)

All joking aside, the mention of NLP above reminded me of some stuff I'd read a while back. I'm fairly skeptical of NLP, but I can see how some of those techniques might have a certain sort of value.
It's a reality that consumer internet is heavily oversubscribed, and sold with the assumption that the average load is much much lower than 100% per costumer. You can claim that the data is already paid for because you are paying for X mbps, but the real price for sustained X mbps 100% is much higher. The alternatives are charging a helluva lot more per customer to actually cover costs (business-level pricing) or a much much lower mbps limit.
No, Its as if the Post Office agreed to delivery my mail at .43 a letter, but then asked me for more money when my Mom started send me 10 letters a day with the proper postage.

I (and millions of others) pay Comcast a certain rate for a certain data plan. In my case, about $50/month for 50Mb down, 2Mb up, capped at 250GB per month.

So if I want to watch 250G of movies in a month, at those data rates, why should I or anyone else have to pay more? I've already contracted with Comcast for that much bandwidth.

The reality, of course, is that Comcast (and all other ISPs) MASSIVELY oversubscribe their own network. They don't have any where near the capacity to actually support what they sell. And they want Netflix to foot the bill for the buildout required to provide the capacity they claim they sold me.
> My final piece of advice - do us all a favor and do not give Makerbot your money. They are the exact opposite of what the global 3d printing community stands for and works towards.

I'm not too familiar with 3d printers and hadn't heard anything like this about Makerbot before -- anyone know what the conflict there is about?
The Players' Score – A Video Game Music Documentary
Gefälschte Grafikkarten: Die Spur Führt Zu Point of View – C't
China might Never become the biggest economy in the world
Thanks for setting the record straight. The video looked interesting and coherent for layman like myself (gotta admit though I only watched at first the older version that didn't mention quantum mechanics), but I never cared to check what real physicist made of it. Gotta love physics stack exchange!
As I mentioned, rethinking your approach is also valid. Making bad assumptions upfront is the cause of a lot of added complexity.

Maintaining complex software is also infeasible. Maybe we're doomed.
I'm 26, so not sure if that is considered fairly young or "over the hill" haha. Maybe some subset of users are still using it quite regularly and my friends/family have all stopped because of some kind of chain reaction.
Oh dear. Thanks for the link. Hello anti-trust. Hollywood Studios were split up once for this.

while history {
history = true
}
It's pretty much the same as the iOS 7 version of that. Here's what the law requires:

• New smartphones (the law does not apply to feature phones or messaging phones or other phone-like devices) have to include at the time of sale a technological solution that can remotely "render the essential features of the smartphone inoperable to an unauthorized user when the smartphone is not in the possession of an authorized user"

Apple already does this.

• "The smartphone shall, during the initial device setup process, prompt an authorized user to enable the technological solution. The technological solution shall be reversible, so that if an authorized user obtains possession of the smartphone after the essential features of the smartphone have been rendered inoperable, the operation of those essential features can be restored by an authorized user"

Apple already does almost all of this. I don't know if they do the required prompting during initial setup.

• "A technological solution may consist of software, hardware, or a combination of both software and hardware, and when enabled, shall be able to withstand a hard reset or operating system downgrade and shall prevent reactivation of the smartphone on a wireless network except by an authorized user"

iOS 7 does this.

The law also says:

• "An authorized user of a smartphone may affirmatively elect to disable or opt-out of enabling the technological solution at any time. However, the physical acts necessary to disable or opt-out of enabling the technological solution may only be performed by the authorized user or a person specifically selected by the authorized user to disable or opt-out of enabling the technological solution"

Apple does this. I believe I've read that Samsung's version works almost identically to Apple's.
I don't think this is a fair analogy.

You don't pay the post office a flat fee for the ability to receive all packages, but from my perspective that's exactly what I pay my ISP for.

Granted you do pay the post office in the form of taxes, but IMO that situation is different enough to make for a very poor analogy.
That's how I read this as well. That said, the medical applications are amazing - they might be able to do MRI-like (or better?!) imaging without the harmful effects!
>The problem they're trying to address is that C compliers take advantage of undefined behavior for optimizations

That's not a problem. That's a good thing.

>Such optimizations can cause very strange, unintuitive behavior that is very difficult to discover

That's a problem -- or at least the "difficult to discover" part is. "Strange" and "unintuitive" is helpful; it's a nice, big red flag. How does migrating from undefined behaviour to producing unspecified values make bugs easier to discover? I can see how they would make results more consistent, and the bugs easier to hunt down, but that's only useful once you know the bugs are there (inconsistency is another useful red flag here), and there are already good tools like valgrind and ubsan for tracking down the source of the bug.

>The goal of this proposal is to make them wrong in reasonable ways

That isn't the purview of C, though. It's a noble goal, don't get me wrong, but stepping on the optimizer's toes and reinforcing plainly bad programming practices -- I know that's not an intended effect, but it will happen -- isn't the way to do it. A better way, just as an example, would be to give the programmer a proper mechanism for encoding preconditions and other interprocedure-analysable constraints. This doesn't reinforce bad practices, it could actually help the optimizer if done right, and would perhaps encourage programmers to reason a little more rigorously about their code -- an ounce of prevention and all that.
Also, there is a Chrome plugin to do text messaging over Iridium.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/global-satellite-m...
If you're speaking specifically of this experiment, nowhere in the article does it say that it's using entanglement to do faster-than-light communication. So I don't think there's anything to explain.

If you're asking in general, the very brief summary is this:

(1) In both relativistic and non-relativistic formulations of quantum mechanics, it's possible to prove general no-go theorems which show that measurement of entangled states convey no information whatsoever.

(2) In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the Schroedinger equation has solutions which can propagate information faster than light. However, those solutions disappear in proper relativistic formulations of quantum mechanics. Physicists regard the non-relativistic solutions as mathematical artifacts: mathematically interesting, but not of any direct physical interest.

(3) People have constructed non-linear variants of quantum mechanics in which it is possible to send information faster-than-light using entanglement. These are toy models - a little like saying "But what if I had a box that could solve the halting problem" in computer science - and, to put it mildly, they are not regarded as promising candidates for physical theories. Not just on account of the FTL problems, either, but also problems like violation of energy conservation, and violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Fun toy theories, but not serious proposals.
There are some simple games like that. 4d mazes, 4d tetris, 4d pong, etc. The problem is it's pretty impossible for people to wrap their mind around it, and it doesn't project very well on 2d screens. Research has shown that people don't get better at it with practice either.
Show HN: Volatile messaging (self hosted and open source)
This Illustrator Makes $100K Selling Virtual Paintbrushes through Gumroad
I believe it's about them being closed source.
Makerbot is a company that has been making profit off selling ready-to-build kits of open-source-based 3D printers (which was okay, as they released their designs under similar licenses). They then closed off the hardware and software after a few revisions - even when their products are still based on advancements made by the open source community.
Second point reads like an opt-in, if so, I think iOS has that already for the initial setup and can be enabled/disabled afterwards.
What's the Real U.S. Unemployment Rate? We Have No Idea
I am probably just going to give the product away for free, but continue to support it. If any bugs are found I will patch them.

If I decide to continue monetizing the product I will definitely consider the contest. Thanks for your feedback.
Exceptions don't prove rules; they refute them.

The actual origin of the saying is quite different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
You should also consider not buying a 3d printer at all. Everyone I know who has one says it was awesome the first month, then they don't know what to do with it. Go to http://www.makexyz.com/ and find a cheap local 3d printer to print stuff you want. It will take a lot of printing before you can justify buying one.
I'm glad that there are so many open source 3D printers out there using Marlin and GCode. They aren't easy to use, but they allow us to create a unifying platform on top for usability www.printtopeer.com

We've solved the "hard to print" aspect first, and will be moving further into solving the "hard to calibrate", "hard to troubleshoot", "hard to share", "hard to integrate" aspects soon. I want these machines to be easy to use some day, and I think we're on the right track.
>Is this program "almost certainly wrong"

No, that one's a consequence of C's insane type system. The solution here isn't to change the semantics of signed integer arithmetic. The solution is to change integer promotion to use unsigned arithmetic like it should have done in the first place.
Makerbot started out the lead 3D printer maker and participated a lot in the community then sold themselves to Stratsys and closed up things like their Thingiverse and build file format etc etc. Lots of angst there.
Hmmm... interesting. We're Rackspace customers, but only due to inertia after their acquisition of Slicehost. But we're starting to migrate off of them due to price. I wanted to spin up a new server a few days ago and got sticker shock at the price, decided to check Linode and found that Linode was about half the price, for an instance with better specs. So that new instance went on Linode and I expect we'll move everything to Linode over the new few weeks and months.

It's too bad in a way, because I've actually been a fan of Rackspace in every other regard. But the prices just aren't competitive and we can't afford to burn money to support them.
> “It’s great for the consumer, but it invites a lot of mischief,” says Hanni Fakhoury, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which opposes the law. “You can imagine a domestic violence situation or a stalking context where someone kills [a victim's] phone and prevents them from calling the police or reporting abuse. It will not be a surprise when you see it being used this way.”

This will depend on how the phone manufacturer or operating system manufacturer chooses to implement it. The law only requires rendering "essential features" of the smartphone inoperable.

The law defines "essential features" thusly:

• "'Essential features' of a smartphone are the ability to use the smartphone for voice communications, text messaging, and the ability to browse the Internet, including the ability to access and use mobile software applications. 'Essential features' do not include any functionality needed for the operation of the technological solution, nor does it include the ability of the smartphone to access emergency services by a voice call or text to the numerals '911,' the ability of a smartphone to receive wireless emergency alerts and warnings, or the ability to call an emergency number predesignated by the owner."

Note that 911 ability is specifically not an "essential feature".

Anyone happen to know how Apple handles this? I have not been able to find anything about what works on an iOS 7 phone after you use the activation lock feature from iCloud to kill it.
Yeah, it's always better not to look too close. Just wait til you find out what lives in your mouth!

Reminds me of this piece detailing the writer's own "microbiome":

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2011/06/27/discoverin...
The only way you can make a device "not be world reachable" is to not connect it to the internet. It's silly to think that a vulnerable application invoking listen() is more dangerous than a vulnerable application invoking connect(). As soon as you connect to some cloud server you're exposed to any malformed data anyone can ask it to relay to you.
Perhaps the blog excerpted too little of the petition (it started at page 55, or PDF page 63). I recommend starting at section V.C on page 52, or PDF page 60 instead. I think the description of Comcast’s actions since 2009 paints a pretty damning picture of Comcast’s abuse of its monopoly on high-speed last-mile wire in many parts of the US.

Or, read the entire petition, which is a good read; it’s 100 double-spaced pages. The PDF also includes other evidence: 22 pages of statement from Ken Florance, VP of Content Delivery (PDF page 110) and 100 pages from economist David Evans (PDF page 134).
Given the crash in 2009 and how hard-hit most public lending institutions have been, you've probably done very well.
I was planning on using https://volatile.me, but $20/month for an ssl endpoint at heroku seemed at bit steep for a fun day-at-home project.
thank you because transparency is very key especially when you are talking about encryption.
Walking wounded: The British economy in the aftermath of World War I
This is fantastic news. Of all the sites I've tried within a similar vein, Pluralsight is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest. I will still go back and hit a book for certain topics but if you want to get up and running fast it's unbeatable.

Plus you can take courses in a series (say from beginner to advanced) and it feels like one large course even if it's different authors.

I know it has it's detractors but I love this site and it's worth every penny for me.
Luxurious living space in the air
Netflix is paying half the cost, you're paying the other half.
If I'm understanding your argument correctly, you believe that certain crowdfunding sites should make their fundraisers aware of the potentially harmful psychological effects of a failed campaign, both on the side of the fundraiser as well as the donor.

So yes, I agree that there are potentially negative effects that could result from a failed campaign. People put a lot of effort into raising the funds necessary to pursue their dreams. A failed campaign can be devastating to someone who is emotionally invested in their future plans.

However, I don't believe that should stop entrepreneurs from trying to solve the problem, especially in this case. Codefund exists because no one else has presented a better solution, and I believe that the existence of an imperfect solution is a greater good than the lack there of, despite potentially negative psychological effects.

As a company, we can do a better job coaching fundraisers about the reality of their situation, in an effort to regulate their expectations. We can and we should do that much at least. That being said, I don't think closing the doors on educational crowdfunding is the answer. I don't know what the ideal solution is, but Adrian and I are committed to iterating toward that vision based on your feedback.
It is the difference between security critical and mission critical.
The story goes Makerbot got really big on Open Source Hardware, this attracted investors, the investors demanded that the company lock everything down and some founders quit http://josefprusa.cz/open-hardware-meaning/

Makerbot disputes that investors caused them to change but "For the Replicator 2, we will not share the way the physical machine is designed or our GUI" http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/24/lets-try-that-again/
www.littleipsum.com - Not quite as flexible but is actually one-click as it's in the menu bar.