skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Nice to hear thoughts on this subject i agree with.

Myself, i've long used Google and hadn't cared at all what information they collect about me. Rather, i openly give them information. Sure, if the world turns to hell and suddenly the government is at my door because Google "knew too much" then the naysayers can laugh at me all they like.. Then again, the world has turned to hell already, so is it really a time to laugh?

In the mean time, i want to give Google my info, because "Google Now" is a great example of a service attempting to predict my needs. Keeping up to date with my life, and giving me information i want, without having to even ask for it. I don't want dumb computers, i want intelligent meaningful interactions, tailored to my life. And i can't get that by being a black box.
It seems significantly more likely that the "hack" was in the account recovery system which allows -- via a couple of often easily discovered personal details -- a complete, immediate account takeover.
I thought this 'GitHub making MySQL better' was more along the lines of 'Facebook making PHP better'. But impressive nevertheless.
Very interesting resource, thanks for posting ; even if not for the playbook itself, the collection of tools is interesting.

Having your own server is definetely a good solution, it just needs experience and comes at a certain price, even if it stays reasonnable. But most people just don't want to be bothered with maintaining the box (hosting payment, security updates, domain name renewal, SSL ceritificate renewal and so on).

However, it is a fantastic way of learning by yourself!
Leaving aside that Kolmogorov's measure-theoretic approach is not the only axiomatic definition of probability (Cox's axioms yield a quite similar foundation, though with finite additivity only), you won't find anyone here that says there is a problem with the mathematical construction.

The frequentist/Bayesian debate is related to the INTERPRETATION of probability. Kolmogorov won't help you to map the real world to the probability space.

Let's say we have a loaded coin, we want to estimate the probability of getting tails (assume this is a i.i.d. random variable).

Alice decides to keep throwing until she gets a tail: she gets the sequence HHT

Bob decides to throw the coin three times: he gets the sequence HHT

Alice takes her event A, her sigma-algebra, the whole shebang, and produces an interval estimate for p.

Bob takes his event A (which happened to be the same) and his probability space (which is different because the experimental design is different), and produces a different estimate for p.

If you think that getting different results from the same data makes sense, you might be a frequentist.

If you think that it doesn't, you might be a Bayesian.

If you think that the question is not relevant because you can't derive the answer from your axioms, you might at least understand what we're talking about.
I will totally second that approach. Rather spending time on reading code line by line, you should have your team spend time (as a tester) to figure out use-cases. One by one. The end result of those use-cases should be a user-case/requirement document which you can feed into developers cycles to start building from scratch.

You can break the steps in more agile method and have 3 sub-teams.

1. Figuring out use cases
2. Developers
3. Testers
How the Sharing Economy Is Strengthening Emergency Response and Recovery
I don't see any new features that wouldn't be possible in async. Am I missing something ?
Brew your own craft beer with the click of a mouse
Sex geckos die in orbit on Russian space project
Every thread on React has your comment- JSX sucks or it looks like PHP (which sucks). Half of the thread is then devoted to refuting the comment. At the end everyone's opinion has calcified.

I would highly encourage you to try it before you dismiss it.
It is common knowledge that VirusTotal analyzes and shares submitted files with security researchers. The only blackhats who use VT to check their own files are those who are either incapable of setting up their own multi-scanning systems or paying to use one of the many "underground" services[0][1] that offer similar functionality and do not share submitted files. The fact that allegedly state-sponsored groups from China did not use these services is yet another example of the striking difference between their apparent lack of operational technical proficiency and the amazing results they achieve.

[0]: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2009/12/virus-scanners-for-virus-...
[1]: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2010/04/virus-scanners-for-virus-...
As long as the secret has enough bits, then the risk of collision is so negligible that it's basically zero in our finite world.

I think the concept of just how large some numbers are really sunk in for me when I read this article [1] from Bruce Schneier. One thing I learned was that it would require more energy than the total energy output of the sun just to power a computer to count to 2^256. Ultimately, this quote from that article sums up his point well:

> These numbers have nothing to do with the technology of the devices; they are the maximums that thermodynamics will allow. And they strongly imply that brute-force attacks against 256-bit keys will be infeasible until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space.

[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_...
Most fingerprinting can be avoided by not allowing Javascript. Social tracking scripts can be specifically removed by addons like Disconnect.me.
I'm still wondering if the Find My iPhone brute force bug was exploited.

Why doesn't Apple at least offer a bug bounty reward? Is it irresponsible that they don't?

All they offer now, as far as I have found, is a mention on this web page:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1318

And, does the fact that this bug made it into production suggest a lack of internal security audits at Apple?
Google Partners with UCSB to Build Quantum AI
His point is more about not putting all your eggs in one basket; you certainly don't tell your barista about an upcoming physician's appointment, or that you are in the market for a house. Your barista is also disconnected from parties who may leverage the information you provide him/her. Similarly, you don't tell your broker that you prefer Ethiopian coffee. Google offers so many services that it has a much broader insight into who you are. To the privacy-conscious, that's an unacceptable fact. Nothing to be pained about.
Also a great way of visualizing some basic problem with concurrency.

Gridlock is excellent demonstrated as above, if you are putting things in a queue for a thread that is taking forever to run, the producer thread will eventually (hopefully) be blocked due to memory issues, thus passing the slow down further up the chain. Much like a road, and exactly like the visual effect seen here.
Does anything similar exists for music?
Fortunately the freight traffic is mostly after commute hours. Imagine what will happen with those so-called "high-speed" trains coming through!
I've spent some time thinking about and talking about ti with friends in the security world before.

I think it's a good idea, but falls short in reality. Celebrities arguably don't want it, you'd be a babysitter between them and their devices/APIs. Something they'd likely hate and continuously undermine, especially when a large part of their "job" is connectedness.
It is worth mentioning that commercial distributions of MySQL feature pool-of-threads as well. Percona Server features what is essentially a re-implementation:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/faqs-thread-pool.html
Tips for using RabbitMQ in Go
> Cancel what?

What you're currently doing, which is deciding if you'll kill the program or reboot the whole thing. This isn't rocket science.

> hitting Escape would just throw you back into the stuck program and would help you not at all

That depends on if you hit ctrl-alt-del because you thought the app was hung or if you thought Windows was hung. You might have hit it because you thought Windows puked but when you saw the Blue Screen you knew it hadn't and maybe the app hadn't locked up and you're going to go back and give it some more time.

Either way you had three options, one of them 'Do Nothing' and you might think otherwise but 'Do Nothing' is a valid option because of why you may have ended up here.
>More generally, logic can be used to demonstrate the limitations of logic

This is of course true, but nevertheless it is an interesting result (hence why we study Gödel's incompleteness theorem).
If knowing that I prefer Ethiopian coffee helps my broker better serve me, I'd tell them in a heartbeat.
>Additionally, making "security questions" passwords in and of themselves is going to tremendously increase the volume of your support tickets. At some point, you need to make a cost/benefit analysis and make a decision including that, not just looking at "what's more secure if we assume our users are stupid".

I think as long as you can choose your own level of security, this is actually the best solution, even though some people will not have a firm grasp on how much security they are choosing to have. Right now the default is a fairly low level of security (answer the security questions correct, plus possibly an e-mail loop), but you can just answer the security questions with another password if you want to, assuming that they don't have any kind of thing that detects weird answers. Unfortunately, almost no one lets you selectively disable things like security questions or password resets.
It's sad that the only alternatives he can come up with for one set of cloud based services by one set of providers is another set of cloud based services by another set of providers.
Google's self-driving car cannot drive itself on 99% of U.S. roads
This is a well-known observation, but it's not at all the issue I was trying to get at, and which the existence proof of the OP raised.

From the last paragraph of the paper by George Cybenko referenced in the OP:

"While the approximating properties we have described are quite powerful, we have focused only on existence. The important questions that remain to be answered deal with ... how many terms in the summation (or equivalently, how many neural nodes) are required to yield an approximation of a given quality? [...] We suspect quite strongly that the overwhelming majority of approximation problems will require astronomical numbers of terms. This feeling is based on the curse of dimensionality that plagues multidimensional approximation theory and statistics."

[I'm highly familiar with both the paper by Cybenko, and the paper by Tom Cover on linear separability that is the source of the Wikipedia quote pasted above, having gone through them carefully as part of my PhD. Andrew Barron, mentioned above, was Tom Cover's student, and the work Andrew did can be viewed as another approach to this problem.]
Wait, so it can figure out case classes on it's own?
This is what is meant by "learn" in the context of machine learning. From wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning

> "A computer program is said to learn from experience E with respect to some class of tasks T and performance measure P, if its performance at tasks in T, as measured by P, improves with experience E". This definition is notable for its defining machine learning in fundamentally operational rather than cognitive terms, thus following Alan Turing's proposal in Turing's paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" that the question "Can machines think?" be replaced with the question "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?"

It's important, because we don't need to care about cognition or consciousness, and we can still write programs that solve problems well by making inferences from patterns in data.
Take a deep breath. Now another one. Sit down. Remember what Maurice said in "Out of Sight": You know, in a situation like this, there's a high potentiality for the common motherfucker to bitch out.

Two things you need to remember:

(1) Having competitors, even when they're better than you, is good. Competitors validate your space. Especially in B2B products. Businesses want multiple choices. A better-funded competitor is going to blaze a trail through the market for you. Even if they're the only name most people know, businesses will find you just by seeking out alternatives to them --- a lot of times, even if they like your competitor, they'll look for alternatives because they're required to solicit bids. And on a purely tactical level, competitors are a product management gift that keeps on giving: just watch what they do, and each time they do something new, you can choose to match them, outflank them, or ignore them for now.

(2) You have an enormous advantage over a funded competitor, because you don't answer to a board. You can price your products and devise a go-to-market strategy that doesn't have to make sense to a room full of small-time investment bankers. You can trail them, even miles behind them in the market, and still be viable. Not only that, but in some cases you can end up being more attractive for being small: acquirers may see you as an easy to way to buy functionality without paying a premium for a client base which they may already have ready to plug into your offering. (Cisco did this to my last company, buying lame also-ran fast-followers, twice).

You don't have to change anything. Just keep making smart, near-term business decisions. What happens with the new competitor may influence those decisions, but if they determine the decisions, you're doing something wrong. And applying for loans and going all-out for capital merely in response to a new entrant sounds wrong.

If you're lucky, you get to have a dogfight now. Have fun with it!
Love the idea of taking power from naturally stored energy. I wrote this up a little bit ago. Their own press release is here:

http://www.newswise.com/articles/tattoo-biobatteries-produce...

And my article with a couple other nontraditional power solutions is here, though not sure HN is really the target audience:

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/taking-charge-power-g...
I thought the Tor project sort of agreed that Hidden Services could be discovered by a not-that-awesome adversary. Doesn't that vastly increase the risk of being found? After all, with The Silk Road, part of the evidence was that they had imaged the VM -- but they didn't say how they found that VM in the first place.
60m high lava fountains from a 1500m fissure
No, although I've chatted with Dolly herself the few times I've been in. Oh, you mean Philz ... also no. Really nice space, though.
"sh" [1] by amoffat did something similar to this in python. It's so marvelous I've also ported the same ideas to "gosh" [2] for use in golang and "josh" [3] for use in java. There's probably others as well -- I'd love to hear about more options in other languages.

[1] https://github.com/amoffat/sh/

[2] https://github.com/polydawn/pogo/blob/master/gosh-demo.go

[3] https://github.com/polydawn/josh/

(The golang implementation is probably my favorite of these, since pipelining the output is by far the most pleasant experience there, and channels actually provide parallelism in a similar way what one expects from unix pipes. I'll admit I haven't benchmarked, but I suspect pipelining a lot of information in the python one is going to encounter the GIL; and as for the java one, well, let's just say I'd like to have a word with the authors of the current java subprocess invocation APIs.)
The "postcard -> unencrypted email as letter-in-envelope -> encrypted email" seems to be a very good analogy for explaining the need for encryption to laypeople.

The technicals are trickier (and outside my scope of expertise), but the "why do I need to use this" answer is one of the trickiest and most important questions to answer for any security application.
I remember many years ago someone comparing a photo spread in TIME on Iran, which was all moody black and white shots of murals of martyrs, and Flickr photos from Iran, which was people having fun at the beach etc.
Apple confirms celebrities’ accounts breached in “highly targeted” attack
This apparent breach may be the same group of Russian and Ukrainian
hackers responsible for the data breaches at Target, Sally Beauty
and P.F. Chang’s, among others.

Interesting how financial and geopolitical motives coincide for these thieves. The batches of stolen credit cards are named "American Sanctions" and "European Sanctions".

By the way, what happened to the supposedly massive state-sponsored breach of JP Morgan Chase from last week? That attack was also linked to Russia, but I can't find any updated stories on it.
I just told you the difference. What is it that you don't understand?

Google's whole business revolves around showing you targeted ads. Apple's business is to sell you iDevices. Apple will not target you to the point where it's invasive and creepy (although I'd argue even the smallest amount of tracking is invasive, but I've been trying to look at this from Gabriel Weinberg's point of view) because Apple can not do anything to harm its main source of income. Google's job is to track you and they legally (and sometimes illegaly) do everything they can to be successful in their business. They can not hurt their main source of income by being invasive, because being invasive is their business.

For the record, I'm not saying Apple is any better than Google or vice versa. As I said, I've been trying to play the devil's advocate.
1. Stores can contain more than one "model", they cover a certain "domain"

2. Stores contain immutable data. This allows for reference equality checking which will yield performance gains

3. Stores do not contain asynchronous code. From the view of stores, it doesn't matter if user manipulates the state directly or triggered a fetch from a server.

Using Backbone models is a valid strategy in my opinion though...
I'm sure people will leap out to argue with me when I say yes, but: yes.

I don't say this out of a belief that Apple is pure and Google is evil, and certainly not out of a belief that Apple shows a deep understanding of security (boy, howdy, do they not show a deep understanding of security). I say it out of my understanding of their business models. Basically, Apple makes money from you because you give them money. Google makes money from you by analyzing the data you send through their services.

"If you're not the customer, you're the product" is too glib by half -- both Google and Apple want to make good products that you want to use, and it's certainly in Google's interest to keep their users (i.e., you) happy. They're arguably much better at online services than Apple is. But Google has a vested interest in "reading" your mail, tracking your searches, and so on. Apple not only lacks that interest, it's arguably a competitive advantage for them to not keep any more information about you than they absolutely have to. They've spelled out in the recent past just what they keep, and it's largely "what they absolutely have to." Apple's corporate culture genuinely seems to be supportive of privacy, albeit tempered with profit-driven pragmatism.

This is not an argument that Apple is full of good and wonderful people (I believe the ad copy should be "magical and revolutionary") and that Google is full of terrible people who hate their users. Not at all. And Apple has had a few high-profile privacy biffs where they were collecting information they shouldn't have been, which leads some people to be highly suspicious of them. I get that -- but we're often handing even more data over to Google routinely because that's what they require. That's their corporate culture: their mission is to organize the world's data, and fulfilling that mission requires them to have access to the world's data. All of it.

And, last but not least, none of this is particularly relevant to government snooping except to the degree that the less information is stored on a server that isn't under your control the less information there is to be compromised. (At least compromised via that particular vector.) If you're deeply worried about that you shouldn't be using either Apple or Google.
In the title, we replaced the linkbaity "The Correct HTTP for All of Mobile" with a sentence from the article.
They specifically mention "Find My iPhone" as NOT the source. I'm not sure if you missed that bit, or you are you saying you don't believe them?
>I think it's a good idea, but falls short in reality. Celebrities arguably don't want it, you'd be a babysitter between them and their devices/APIs. Something they'd likely hate and continuously undermine, especially when a large part of their "job" is connectedness.

If Entourage has anything to do with the real world, you could as well be talking about their agents. And as far as I know, there is no celebrity without agent.
> Do you seriously believe that's how conspiracy cases work? "They were in the same restaurant several times, they must be involved in a criminal conspiracy". I guess every waiter, cook, hostess is also indicted for conspiracy as well, if that's all the evidence they need.

I think you need to read up on the 'domestic terrorism' cases in the USA and how NSA investigations actually proceed. One fun instance was Clapper giving presentations on a network of possible terrorists all linked together. The link was a pizza place.
Dolly, I meant.
Regardless of the outcome of this initiative (which has little chance of succeeding, but best luck to them), this is pretty bad for the Scala ecosystem overall. There's a general lack of confidence from the community toward Scala and Typesafe and this certainly contributes greatly to the general uncertainty about Scala's chances of success.
The bigger problem is that almost every message you send or are sent ends up going through one of goog, fb, or twitter anyway
I wrote this in the other thread on the leak before it died:

> Even if the leaks result from one at a time social engineering, it still really calls into question the practical security of the cloud. I doubt it's much harder to steal, e.g. confidential business documents from executives' cloud accounts than it is to steal pictures from celebrities' cloud accounts.

> If I were a big organization with confidential information, I'd really be thinking hard about my cloud policies and my BYOD policies right now. The policy at my previous employer (we handled a lot of extremely sensitive information), was pretty draconian: data never leaves a company desktop, laptop, or blackberry.

The fact that the users may be the biggest security leak is more alarming than it is relieving. Software bugs can be fixed. Getting users to follow proper security practices is much harder. And frankly, it doesn't help that the industry is actively user hostile. I gmail my passwords to myself because every site has different password rules and force me to change my passwords too often.
Is the count for total occupancy or patrons in line? (I haven't been in that location so I don't know the layout).
The cult of personality is the problem
MySQL Gotchas
The analogy I would use for thread-pool is to insert a waiter in front of the chefs in the kitchen.

It doesn't make sense for all workloads, but I have found thread pool to be useful in cases where application servers can overload database servers (either via misconfigured connection pooling, or no pooling).

An example where it might make less sense: a dedicated worker queue running in N threads connecting to MySQL.
google is not a "search engine" anymore.. so why would I keep using it for?

all services that I keep using, are those that kept me from going somewhere else (gmail replacement?), or those that I'm forced to use (not-removable android apps?)

so seems to me, I'm stuck with google -- at least for now