skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not too knowledgeable about this stuff, but would it work if end-to-end encryption was only initiated after the first time somebody replies to an address? e.g. If somebody contacts you for the first time, they lack your public key (and/or a shared secret for authentication) and must send you plaintext. Then, if you reply, you automatically provide them with your public key and/or authentication info to send you encrypted messages in the future. Thus, most spam would be in plain-text, anyone who knows how the system works would avoid discussing sensitive info in the first email they send somebody, and everybody else wouldn't know the difference.
It's amazing how little sender reputation can count for with Gmail in the face of other features, however. I have a good reputation as a sender but also send almost a million mails a month and I spend a lot of time investigating oddities in Gmail deliverability.

All of my mails are newsletters containing 10-30 links, and more than once I've found the mere inclusion of a single link to a certain domain can get something into spam versus a version without that link, often with no clear reason why (domains that are particularly new are one marker, though). Or.. how about using a Unicode 'tick' symbol in a mail? That can get a reputable sender into Spam versus a version without the same single character (all double tested against a clean, new Gmail account) :-) Or how about if you have a link title that includes both ALL CAPS words and ! anywhere? Your risk goes up a good bit, but just go with one of them, you're fine..

I now have a playbook based around numerous findings like this, some based on gut feelings looking at the results and some truly proven, and even with my solid reputation as a sender, I'm having to negotiate a lot content-wise each week. But do I like it? Yeah, in a way, because it's also what stops everyone else being a success at it.. Gmail sets the bar high! :-)

(Oh, a bonus one.. include a graphic over a certain size? Your chance of ending up in the Promotions folder just leapt up. Remove it, you're good. It doesn't seem to be swayed much by actual content. So I've stopped using images where at all possible now and open rates stay up because of it.)
Digicert, the CA that signs their cert, is all SHA1, so they'll probably need to change CAs at a minimum.
Isn't this how Steiner education works?
America Without the Makeup
> and which include a SHA-1-based signature as part of the certificate chain
I've been working on a system that implements this, called "bitnet".

The anti-spam system is basically what you said: you spend a small amount of bitcoin, and the server grants you some large number of "tokens". These tokens can be used to perform actions which use resources on the server, either storing messages, or getting messages. The exact price is configurable, and currently set low [1].

There is a second mechanism that I use, which is intended to lower costs for the average user, but still prevent spam. Essentially, in each bitcoin transaction, a small "transaction fee" is required, which goes to the miner. It is possible to prove, via a cryptographic signature, that you were the originator of a transaction, and therefore the person who spent that transaction fee. The bitnet system grants tokens to people who can prove they spent money on transaction fees [2]. The idea being, a typical bitcoin user will accumulate transaction fees anyways, but a spammer will have to go out of his way to send bulk messages.

[1] https://github.com/ortutay/bitnet/blob/master/bitnet.go#L50
[2] https://github.com/ortutay/bitnet/blob/master/bitnet.go#L38
Do you have any plans to release this software? I've got a small hosting business and SpamAssassin seems to be getting beaten on a very regular basis.
Shame I never got around to replacing the Queue site / app, it's one of the ACM's token CFM/Oracle sites with no caching.

Wheeee 90s tech!

EDIT: oh, it's loading again. It was looking all slashdotted. ;)
Design is much more than "fashion" and "user interface." Then again people who don't appreciate design tend to be down on Apple more generally...
You'll need to route it via the Wayback Machine to get a response.
It also says "[...] which include a SHA-1-based signature as part of the certificate chain". In other words, SHA1 is deprecated in the entire chain (minus the root, where the signature is irrelevant).
As someone who cares about security, thanks Google!

As someone who administers some servers that are affected by this, I'm annoyed, because I now have a new project that has to be done within the next 6 months.
> Hmm, does his charitable efforts these days make up for the pain and suffering he caused back when he was a barracuda?

No. Changing doesn't remove your past sins and helping one person doesn't balance your hurting another. To believe so would mean saving a life makes up for taking another life, obviously it doesn't.
Is there an actual rule on how much time a pitcher can take? I'm not aware of such a rule, but I think it should exist.
Yeah like bitmessage, but the network overhead (all users see all messages) of bitmessage might be prohibitive for battery powered clients, no?
Apple products:

1) are very pretty/trendy/fashionable

2) have a very high build quality(no cheap plastic, lots of aluminum)

3) "just work"

Honestly 2 and 3 are why I stick with them. After owning a mbp and iphone I can't go back to the crappy plastic that every piece of tech seems to be made out of these days, and I never have to worry about something not working on my phone or laptop like I had to with my countless android devices.

When I need to get work done I'll open up my vm or boot into ubuntu/fedora/etc. but other than that I don't need/care about endless customizability that android/linux offer me. I want something works and is easy to use.
I've never really thought of it like this – interesting. Are there any other examples of large/popular companies on par with Amazon"re-invest" mentality? I can't think of any off the top of my head but would be interested to look at others. Thanks
Welcome to Hacker News. Sanitize your queries and check your privilege. ;)

... I do look forward to seeing the source code though. I like small forums like this.
Even worse, I've seen Google originating emails being flagged in GMail as spam/fishing

(in mailing lists, and yes, I checked, it seemed to be a legitimate email, so I let the sender know, but never heard back)
When designing the rules for a spectator sport I think it makes sense to pay more attention to the experience of millions of viewers than to the dozens of players in a given game.
> A possibly better approach is to use money to create deposits. There is a protocol that allows bitcoins to be sacrificed to miners fees, letting you prove that you threw money away by signing challenges with the keys that did so.

This wouldn't work, because a miner can easily pay himself any amount of bitcoins that he has saved up in fees, and include this transaction in his own block (not broadcasting it). Thus he can basically create these "deposits" for free, and sell them for a profit.

That's the thing: whatever you try as a counter-measure, you always come back to money: in the above scenario, money would replace "deposits" because "deposits" would just be sold on the open market for money. Proof-of-work becomes money: if something important requires proof-of-work, you can be sure that a web app would surface that performs proof-of-work in exchange for money.

It always comes back to money, because whatever restriction you put on something, whether it be "pay fee to Bitcoin miners", "Solve proof-of-work puzzle", or something else entirely, these things will always end up being sold for money in an efficient market, because of the increased efficiency of division of labor: why should I use my inefficient smartphone to calculate proof-of-work, when I can pay a service with custom ASICs to do the job for me at a fraction of the cost?

As far as I can see, the only alternative that can work besides money is something that cannot be sold for money. And I can't come up with anything that fits this requirement.
Surprisingly, this is also getting solved. For example, there're demos of self-calibrating cheap Delta robots which use force sensors on the plate: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/deltabot/6fxnM20nYKc

Sure, it's not yet there, but with the space of feasible is growing fast.
The station agent gave me the prepaid envelope to send the damaged card to the black hole "processing center".
Tk is the reason I first used Tcl. Back in the 90's Tk was certainly the easiest, quickest way to create a GUI app, and probably it still is.

I mentioned my old Tcl/DB program--the server side. I didn't go into details of the tiered design or the client. The users interacted with a GUI app on the client hosts networked to the middle tier on the server relaying the response back to the client. And of course all of these components were Tcl or TclTk apps.

It took a lot more than 20 min to get all of it working, but the effort turns out to have been worth investing.

I agree with your comments about the web, and I've often thought similarly about Tk vs. html. Then again, rather different circumstances but the idea is still appealing.

There are quite a few Tcl web servers out there. I've written several web servers though not in Tcl. It might be redundant but lately I have been fiddling with ideas to create yet another web server in Tcl.

What I have in mind is different, using a very functional programming style. Tcl has become been blessed with more and more Scheme-like features, which is a good thing since I've used Scheme quite a bit. A lot of the functional style of Scheme can be translated to Tcl.

A related idea bubbling in my head is creating a TclTk program which can be used to design a GUI front-end to the Tcl web server. This client would also be able to output a Tcl function that works with the web server to generate HTML that would be sent to a browser. IOW the Tk client GUI could be "recyled" to produce a similarly functioning web client.

I realize that might not make a whole lot of sense when so briefly described. Naturally, even using Tk to do something complicated isn't as easy as we might imagine. If I can get my stuff together it would be a great idea to organize an open-source project to implement this kind of Tk/web interchangeable front-end.
Actually, for what it's worth, it's the widely accepted status of FP as a kind of elite ghetto that I was alluding to, rather than its practicality. I'm not the first to comment on that, and not the best placed to know how to fix it, but, you know, I was musing on what it might be like to have an ML family event involving kids learning functional programming. Something a bit "soft" rather than relentless logic and category theory.
If you hit somebody while on your phone, that's proof you're doing it wrong. But see, when I drive with a phone, I do it right and don't hit people. It's those other morons we need to worry about, not me.
Yeah, I've been thinking about that recently.

There are some challenges though. Probably the biggest one is that it's designed for a specific mail server setup: postfix + dovecot (configured for maildir) + fail2ban + php (the code is in php, because it was convenient) + mysql. I don't know yet how portable it will be.

If you'd like to try it anyway, let me know and I'll post what I've got to GitHub in the next few days.

edit: alternatively, I've been more seriously considering making the current network ban list available as an RBL. Since I already have DNS servers, it would be pretty trivial to do.
I suppose you're one of those people who think that drag and drop programming, or programming in english will be a reality?
Techstars equity return policy for founders
Wait! Maybe not so fast dismissing this.. G already does this, with web search. It ranks reputations and its publicly available.

Trying to game the system in web search is a huge thing, cause there's a big reward. But G fights it pretty well.

Not such a bad idea G publicly ranks mail senders.
so why eat the meat at all, just toss some MSG on whatever
One of the big issues with the testing argument is that, the way common core is implemented at least, it produces no real meaningful change from past failed testing initiatives like NCLB.

An increased emphasis on tests sadly tends to lead to teaching to the test. I experienced this in the early days of NCLB even in a gifted and talented program where several weeks leading up to the test ate up time outside of normal class in order to prepare for the battery of standardized tests that had little relevancy to much of what went on in the classroom. In schools where instruction is already poor, it tends to take even more focus away and devote it towards this specific niche.

The other big issue is more one with common core's implementation itself where Pearson has ultimate control over the incredibly lucrative market, and the various contractors they are working with tend to do a fairly shoddy job of it. Test question writing has devolved to such a poor point, due to endless cheapening and outsourcing in order to lower costs, that a question on a major test may net the writer a few dozen dollars. Forgive the anectodal evidence, but my mother worked for a long period as a freelance writer, and when she considered going back to it recently she discovered that many of the questions, ones that have an enormous impact on education, are going for a pittance. Further, in her current occupation teaching adult basic ed and GED prep (they have to work towards common core too), much of the official testing materials and prep questions for educators have been so poorly designed that neither the students nor the teachers can understand them.

So yes, quantitative measurements can certainly be a good thing in order to help support improvement, but the current testing model is horrendously broken and moving further towards it is not really the right way to go.
It's perfectly possible for it to be a Remarkable Theorem which does not actually explain what is going on with the way people hold slices of pizza. And this can be true even if people are fond of saying it does provide such an explanation; it's not uncommon for this sort of thing to be frequently repeated without critical examination.

(I don't know anything about physics, but I felt like making the above comment nonetheless)
I have known "IT people" on wall street who were making 200-300k
MITMing the message with the public key attached would be pretty straightforward and impossible to catch without verification over some other secure channel
Was the one time pad HDDLC, or perhaps WJHLP or maybe BJENK or IEEOF?
Yes, I think it's too aggressive, at least for my risk-sensitivity preferences. I've actually never gotten spam in my Gmail inbox, but I've had two serious false-positives that caused me problems, along with a number of less serious false positives, like mailing list subscriptions disappearing. That level of aggressiveness is too much for me, and doesn't seem to be configurable so I can tell it to err more on the side of avoiding false positives.

The first incident was that Gmail flagged an important email from my landlord as spam because it contained a forwarded message written in Danish, which the filter deemed to be a language I don't normally correspond in (it is nice, to be fair, that the filter actually tells me why it flagged the message). True enough. But I do live in Denmark, and in fact a mail containing Danish is a very good signal, for me, that it should not be spam-filtered.

I've moved to hosting my own mail as a result, and it's been going well so far. I use a fairly conservative host-based filtering approach. Just blocking hosts whose DNS doesn't match their rDNS rejects >70% of spam attempts, and adding Spamhaus's DNSBL brings that up to >95%. As far as I can tell from perusing the logs, it's quite conservative, and they're all true positives. And at least it rejects (if it's going to) in the SMTP session, so the sender will get a bounce rather than get silently filed into a spam folder, like Gmail does.

I do still get some spam, almost all of it from legitimate free-mail hosts who I can't feasibly filter by host (mostly Yahoo and Gmail). But it's fairly infrequent.
the hope (gamble?) of price appreciation

hedging

diversification

lottery tickets on bezos owning a significant fraction of world commerce
The root could be SHA1 valid until 2050 and it wouldn't matter. Your bog-standard certificate is valid for one year, and you don't have to care until you're renewing.
This is an interesting idea. There'd need to be a delay between when the photo is taken and when the device OS begins to commit to "the cloud" to allow the user enough time to lock it down before it begins transmission.
Nope, free certificates don't have expiration dates in 2016 or 2017 or later.
Baidu Relying on Deep Learning to Make It Easier to Talk to Your Devices
The CEO of Burberry also happens to be a superb retail strategist with plenty of experience in selling within China.

She is a much needed and highly qualified replacement for Ron Johnson.

The YSL hire was specifically to help sell the iWatch.
>> Yes, and there's a reason. The ground truth about the medical field is what happens in clinics.

> True, but psychology is not the medical field.

This is becoming circular. I say psychology isn't scientific, you say I have to say which part of psychology I'm referring to, I say the very question indicts the scientific standing of the field, because scientific fields are united by consensus on the meaning of evidence. I use medicine as an obvious example.

Then you reject my comparison with medicine by saying that psychology isn't medicine. One, psychiatrists would vigorously disagree (their livelihood depends on an association with medicine), and two, it's a red herring. The issue is whether a field can call itself scientific if it's not guided by evidence, and if there's no consensus about the meaning of the theories that define the field. In the case of psychology, there are no such field-defining theories, consequently the field is splintered into warring factions like sects of a religious order.

> For better-or-worse, many theories in psychology are not all-or-nothing.

You're missing the point that there are no scientific psychological theories. There are no such theories that are open to falsification by empirical evidence. And there has never been a scientific falsification of any psychological theory, ever, anywhere. Your use of the word "theory" is misguided, because it resembles how scientists talk.

>> If that's true, then psychologists lose the right to describe themselves as scientists

> It is true, and I disagree.

This is not a literature debate and it is not a matter of opinion -- it must be resolved by evidence. No scientist, when given a chance to present evidence, instead says, "I disagree".

> Bad science is found everywhere.

Psychology is not bad science, it is non-science. In bad science, theories are weak and short-lived, but they are falsified, as with astrology, phrenology, the Phlogiston theory, the N-ray theory, and so forth. In non-science, theories aren't open to a comparison with empirical evidence, consequently they cannot be falsified.

No falsifiability, no science.
I regularly get cheap garments to last five years. The quality gap is no that broad and certainly not justified by the extra expense. Anyways, since when did fashion need to be durable? More often than not people change their style to fit the fashion trends long before they wear their clothes out. Plus, clothes can be easily repaired if you're that frugal.
As I remember it, your original write up painted a picture showing that you were in dire straights as a consequence of the situation. That came across, to me, as going too far. The outcome of your situation was certainly impacted by them, but really you put yourself in the situation and therefore it's outcome. While I do think they were being cheap, they did not land you there - you did.

I hope it works out better for you in the future. I'm pretty sure it will, you obviously have the skill... just need to find a better fit.
It's the difference between teaching someone how to work around contemporary limits in programming framework du jour, vs. teaching them about timeless algorithm design and data structures.

Great literature is timeless and says more about our wild world than any "non-fiction" permitted by incumbent power structures du jour.
The OOP MVC Framework Hammer Is Not the Only Tool for the Job
Some of my contacts have been using verification gateways/whitelists for email for decades. If spam were to become a problem, I would use one.
This is beautiful! I was always wondering how the chain tagging effect played out in this Fundraiser.

I would love to see some or all of the following in your site.

1) Influencer Count: How many people (rolled up to the individual page we are viewing) did a particular individual influence?.
Example: When I click Bill Gates' face, I would like to see a count of how many people he influenced, which would be 3 he tagged + 3 * 3 that the 3 people he tagged, tagged and so on till you reach the ending roots of the terenary tree chains.

2) Top Influencers: If you implement #1, then a page showing the top influencers, by the count of how many people they influenced into taking the challenge and donating.
Am I misreading you? It sounded like earlier you were saying that it's justifiable to ruthlessly renege on agreements because if you don't, you're sure to take losses. If that wasn't what you were saying, I made a mistake, and apologize.
I've responded to most of this in the original comment, but to one particular point.

I think you are exactly wrong about the effect of buying the expensive version of something early on if it meets your needs. I think of this as necessary but not sufficient to change. Typically these sorts chickens, to stay with the example, are expensive because they are being raised in small numbers, without the advantages of scale and the sort of research that goes int the big producers. Sometimes the farmers themselves haven't really worked out how to do this as well as they can yet, too.
If some people who can afford to don't choose to support these people at the price that makes it viable for them, then it will never get past this point, period. If enough people support it though, the interest will be noted, the scale will start to get better, and the price will come down a bit. Not, obviously, to the levels of the price-is-everything practice, but cheaper.

Much like some tech will never really get off the ground without early adopters supporting it.
Funnily enough, proof-of-work was originally invented to combat spam and denial of service attacks[1][2]. I asked that in a reply, and it seems that the large gap between server compute power and mobile compute power would make a reasonably taxing proof-of-work system too costly for mobile phones[3].

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash

[2] - http://hashcash.org/papers/pvp.pdf

[3] - https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/messaging/2014/000782....
The WordStar keyboard shortcuts influenced other programs. Turbo Pascal and other Borland apps used the WordStar layout, for example. The joe [1] editor still uses it, and that's probably why it's my go-to text editor when I'm in the shell.

In particular, Borland's IDEs supported both a clipboard and the WordStar "block" commands, which gave you selection superpowers. A block was a selection that persisted even if you moved the cursor around, and even if you copied or pasted stuff in/out of the clipboard. So you could copy something to clipboard (ctrl+ins), move/copy a block around (^KB to begin block, ^KK to end it, ^KC to copy current block to cursor, ^KV to move it), and then paste from the clipboard (shift+ins). It was very much like having two clipboards. I had colleagues watching over my shoulder trying to decipher how I was able to edit code the way I did.

[1] http://joe-editor.sourceforge.net