skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Here's my current issue with moving to TLS: library support.

I do a lot of custom stuff and want to run my own server. I can set up and run the server in maybe 50-100 lines of code, and it works great.

I know, I should conform and use Apache/nginx/OpenSSL like everyone else. Because they're so much more secure, right? By using professional code like the aforementioned, you won't get exposed to exploits like Heartbleed, Shellshock, etc.

But me, being the stubborn one I am, I want to just code up a site. I can open up a socket, parse a few text lines, and voila. Web server. Now I want to add TLS and what are my options?

OpenSSL, crazy API, issues like Heartbleed.

libtls from LibreSSL, amazing API, not packaged for anything but OpenBSD yet. Little to no real world testing.

Mozilla NSS or GnuTLS, awful APIs, everyone seems to recommend against them.

Obscure software I've never heard of: PolarSSL, MatrixSSL. May be good, but I'm uneasy with it since I don't know anything about them. And I have to hope they play nicely with all my environments (Clang on OS X, Visual C++ on Windows, GCC on Linux and BSD) and package managers.

Write my own. Hahah. Hahahahahahahahah. Yeah. All I have to do is implement AES, Camellia, DES, RC4, RC5, Triple DES, XTEA, Blowfish, MD5, MD2, MD4, SHA-1, SHA-2, RSA, Diffie-Hellman key exchange, Elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), Elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman (ECDH), Elliptic Curve DSA (ECDSA); and all with absolutely no errors (and this is critical!), and I'm good to go!

I'm not saying encryption should be a breeze, but come on. I want this in <socket.h> and available anywhere. I want to be able to ask for socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAMTLS, 0), call setsockcert(certdata, certsize) and be ready to go.

Everything we do in computer science is always about raising the bar in terms of complexity. Writing software requires larger and larger teams, and increasingly there's the attitude that "you can't possibly do that yourself, so don't even try." It's in writing operating systems, writing device drivers, writing web browsers, writing crypto software, etc.

I didn't get into programming to glue other people's code together. I want to learn how things work and write them myself. For once in this world, I'd love it if we could work on reducing complexity instead of adding to it.
> This is also the problem with the Skeptic movement, in that it's fundamentally about discouraging people from reading books.

Where do you get the idea that scepticism is about discouraging people from reading books?
I read it that she IS capable of fixing her own computer, but was directing others in said fixing in this story.
As for not making her a designer and programmer, who can say? Maybe the author wanted to emphasize collaboration, like what typically happens in industry when you're in a decently sized company?
We'll never know, and it's your typical low quality book mill pulp anyway, so one can't expect much in the way of consistency or storytelling. Worthy of a 1-star rating, not a whole blog post.
Microsoft Security Bulletin MS14-068 – Critical
My requirements for email are really simple.. NLP and analytics will probably just annoy me.

For example, when a calender invite arrives it should show up on my calender (and give 10 minute warnings, etc.) even if I did not accept it. Why? Notes makes me feel like an idiot when I miss a meeting just because I didn't look at the email.

Another: search should be instant, reliable and clear. In Notes, regular search doesn't cover the domain name.

Suppose I want to send mail to everyone on a calender invite. To do this I have to cut and paste the names from several fields and then delete my own name from the list.

They should address every single issue on http://www.ihatelotusnotes.com/ before worrying about analytics.
This is awesome, Thanks.
Well, you can consider it mentioned to the author... that would be me!

I shouldn't have tweaked Java so mercilessly since I did love the language for so long (lo, these many years ago). However, I do think you really underestimate the compile speed of Go. Even if 99% of your builds are incremental, you can't entirely discount the occasional clean build. While it has been many years since I hacked Java, even incremental builds could take more than a few seconds. Even a clean build on our 50 kloc Go codebase clocks in under 2 seconds (0.1s when the disk caches are pre-warmed).

As for generics, I do like them, and seeing them on iOS (with Swift) is a pretty big win. I'm not entirely convinced that Go is much poorer without them, however. The type system in Go is really unique; if you tried to program Go using Java-style paradigms, there's no question that you'd find it pretty disappointing. However, Go does allow some new ways of thinking about types that allow a degree of flexibility that simply can't be expressed with formal class hierarchies.

If what you're doing works for you, just keep on truckin'. But if you give some of these new languages a chance, you might find the areas where they really shine. We did!
Black Friday Hottest Deals Early Sneak Peek-save a Lot
On the plus side, even Kalanick has agreed that the spying and stalking suggestion is terrible and reprehensible, although there's no suggestion that a firing is imminent.
Tell HN: Wear a Helmet
I started commuting to work on my bicycle earlier this year and was not wearing a helmet for the first few weeks. A coworker gave me a hard time about it and I finally decided I should get one.

My chain broke on my short ride home today for lunch leaving me quickly unbalanced and on the ground in a hurry. My helmeted head definitely hit the ground and would likely have been badly injured had I not been wearing it.

I am very thankful that my coworker pressured me to wear what I thought was fairly unnecessary due to my short commute and safe riding habits.

If you ride a bicycle, please wear a helmet.
> The problem is that the world at large is often in a flux and can't be conveniently described in terms of static relationships

Apparently there was work in the late '90's on accounting for this without `assert` / `retract`-style messiness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_logic.
Detroit database held for ransom
I don't understand what you mean by "But in a rare code path, that may not to be triggered." Can you explain?

I wasn't suggesting using tests; I was suggesting using asserts. Directly in the function that is type sensitive. If that function is ever called with an incorrect type it will throw an exception.

I get the benefit of optional type checking without a compile step in development like with Flow.
I don't understand why is it compared to C, when it can be compared to Perl or PHP, which are also dynamically typed, interpreted, etc, but much faster.
Haskell does not practically eliminate the need for tests. I am very concerned that Haskell programmers are getting the reputation for claiming such things because they're simply not true.

Haskell's type system does statically check many things you might want to write tests for which makes those particular tests unnecessary, but it doesn't eliminate the need for tests in general. If you hear any Haskell programmers making claims that sound like that please ask them to be more precise.
If you really want to learn to do this stuff yourself, I would suggest starting simple. Take a configuration management tool (I would suggest Ansible, which is a lot easier to use than Puppet of Chef) and an EC2 instance. Create, configure, terminate, rinse and repeat.

The simple fact that you can pretty much screw up everything you like, throw the whole system away and start again where you left off in a matter of minutes helps increase confidence and speed up learning, plus the configuration gives you a 100% accurate documentation of what you actually did.

But just like development, it's easy to get started but it takes years to master it.
In theory you could see it, but you couldn't think about it or use it -- you need to follow clean room rules.

It's two sides of the same issue: either way, the code is not available to you.
The hardware is remarkably simple. It's the software that's tricky. It's nowhere near the level of insanity (all for good reason) you find on modern PCs where you boot without knowing how exactly you'll get to your RAM.
You hit on the key problem, which is: what if my salmon steak is 1 1/2 " thick? Or 1/2" ? Are you going to have a selection grid? What if I just took it out of a fridge? What if its starting at room temperature? A bit dry?

One of the first things you need to learn to improve as a cook (professional or just out of interest) is to control temperature. And that temperature isn't what it says on a dial, it's what's happening at the interface of your food and the heat. But pan temperature is only one variable, and others are at least as important.

At the end of the day, you are never cooking "a salmon steak", you are cooking this salmon steak, with all it's characteristics, on this equipment. Part of getting better as a cook is to be aware of this and always adjust what you are doing, not to your expectations of what should happen (e.g. any recipe, or what happened last time, or ...) but to what is actually happening. To that degree having a live readout of a particular pan could be useful, but not earth shattering.

Anyway, I don't think it's a terrible idea and may well help people who are afraid to diverge from a recipe. Heck, it may be very useful to some people who are very experienced, I don't know.

My initial reaction though is the form factor is too constraining, and the benefit too marginal, for me to get excited about it.
I don't think being written in Go will make the compiler produce intrinsically fast code. Rather, it will be easier for them to iterate. It is much faster to develop in Go than in C.
I digress but...

you're not wrong, but out of curiosity, I just genuinely wonder how often modern programmers really hit type errors on smaller projects (obviously not FB size). I don't think I've ever had a type cast bug in my js code, provided we don't include accidental nulls in that statement. So in my experience, if I were ever told that I now had to always use annotations, I would feel like I was losing flexibility in the language for little gain. And I feel like the reason I never hit type issues, is because I write full test coverage, which in turn make it painfully obvious what is and is not expected in each method.

For the reasons above, I love the idea of this tool dynamically checking all my code paths, and looking for things that are likely mistakes or result in null exceptions.

But I'm afraid to recommend this to my boss, for fear that for now on, everything must be maximum static... everything annotated, no union types, etc.

Just my 2 cents.
Meet TZOA, the World's First Enviro-Tracker
Interesting. What I wonder is how it compares to using a PIC which also does precise temp control (though not in an app obviously).
I think I may have misunderstood all of you. Is the audit process itself really that time consuming? I can imagine the amounts of bureaucracy involved, but I can't image this takes much longer than, say, a month or so. Most of the time is probably spent waiting for someone or something, right? I mean we're talking about very capable people here who have done this kind of thing before.
Has the cellphone collection they used been ruled illegal? I just thought they withdrew because they didn't want to share the tech they are using to collect the evidence.
Cross-site scripting in millions of web sites
It's Intel's money; they've been rumored to be doing whole BOM subsidization (so the x86 is almost zero, and the non-Intel components are subsidized too).

This is how INTC booked a $1B loss on $1M revenue for mobile in the most recent quarter. Cynically I wonder if they just merged mobile with the revenue positive CPU business to better bury the bad news every quarter.
In the article it says the prosecutors dropped the evidence found from the resulting home search.

"Finally, Seidel said prosecutors would drop all evidence found during the search of the home — including, authorities have said, a .45-caliber handgun and the cellphone."
I am aware of this result. However, that differs from what GP said in one important way.

Grandparent said "This is very different from Perl, where a line of code isn't parseable until you know the values of the variables."

If that were true, it would imply that you could have a loop whose body is parsed differently on every iteration. It would imply that the parser runs inline with the interpreter. Neither of those things are true.

What your link says is that the parsing can vary based on whether or not a subroutine prototype with appropriate arity was previously defined. That is a very different thing. A statement in a loop could be parsed differently depending on what was defined before it, but that parse doesn't change just because a subroutine is defined later, I'm pretty sure.

Yes, this means Perl's parsing is undecideable, because you can conditionally define a subroutine (this might be limited to BEGIN blocks; I'm not sure). But that's not the same as saying the parse varies based on the "values of the variables."
This depends on your definition of secure. The way I use it, "security" is the lowest level of vulnerability to the highest level of attack.

Some OS's (notably OS X a few years ago) are thought to be secure because their installed base is low, so they're low-value targets for attackers. Apple, in general, has a terrible track record with security, and OS X's lack of malware was just security by obscurity -- the vulnerabilities hadn't been discovered because no one was looking for them.

Windows, on the other hand, has been incredibly high-value target for decades. It has a huge installed base, and it's used by many governments, militaries, banks, and corporations.

For that reason, Microsoft has been forced to become a leading security organization. You can't keep selling massive contracts to governments and large corporations if you're vulnerable to malware.

There are obviously ways to misuse any tool, including an operating system. Many operating systems are insecure if you configure them incorrectly. My statement was just about the incredible volume of attacks that Windows is resistant to, simply because it's been attacked so heavily for so long.
Tabs for Cygwin – Making Windows PHP Dev Closer to Linux
Also on the plus side, it was an off-the-cuff remark that only people who like getting upset over nonsense got upset about. If firing were imminent, it would be an insult to all reasonable human beings who know that sometimes you vent at parties. If you want to dislike Uber, dislike them over their anti-competitive practices, not over this.
F.T.C. Penalizes TRUSTe, a Web Privacy Certification Company
> Basically, you can't always parse a Perl program without running it.

That is true, but what the grandparent said is not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8626454

To expand on this, I think a succinct way of summarizing the issue is: you might have to run BEGIN blocks in Perl to parse the non-BEGIN-block part of the program. The canonical example of this is:

BEGIN {
if(arbitrary_function()) {
eval "sub whatever() { }; 1" or die $@;
} else {
eval "sub whatever { }; 1" or die $@;
}
}

# The parsing of this line depends on the result of arbitrary_function()
whatever / 25 ; # / ; die "this dies!";

arbitrary_function() can be anything, so the only way to parse the rest of the program is to actually run arbitrary_function().
1. "Hit piece" is a loaded term. So far there's no reason to warrant it just because they wish she was channeling their PR department.

2. Again, we have no reason to think this isn't true - they're in damage control mode trying to say it wasn't serious but nobody is claiming that it wasn't a real quote. Much as you seem to be personally invested in attacking her credibility, it's simply not possible to seriously claim that "My family and my children" (her words) is a particularly unreasonable interpretation of a threat to investigate “your personal lives, your families” (his words). Even assuming the most likely interpretation that the threat was to expose something about an adult (past legal mishaps, an affair, etc.) some of the most significant damage from those attacks would be suffered by children who don't really understand why their parents are being targeted.
This is a horrible question, why would you even ask something so stupid and mundane. If I were you I'd just give up and become a wordpress developer
"it's slow"

"just write a C extension"

"but then why use Python?"
"What else falls when you drop it?"
A duck!
How Harvard Gets Its Best and Brightest (2006)
$3k plus commission surely isn't out of the question for a part time salary, even in NYC? Not everyone is stuck with your costs of living.

A salesperson with connections in the relevant industry might even consider doing it for commission plus vesting equity only with those numbers.

If you feel that it's a business that needs a big development investment or push by a sales team to fully realise its potential or stave off competition then by all means go for a significant level of funding, but it would be a shame to give up control of your business for just enough angel money to look after your living costs after you've done the hard bit of getting nearly there
Our team is actually made up of both people who have never cooked for themselves and people who have cooked all their lives and love cooking. Pantelligent will never replace loving cooking. It's a tool that can make anyone's cooking better. In our beta testers, we have found that people who already cook use it as a tool to make their cooking more repeatable and stress-free, and people who don't know how to cook gain an extra super power that they didn't have before.
I feel that this actually takes away from the experience of cooking. When I cook, I've always learned from playing around and experimenting, I only ever roughly read recipes and never follow one without a little change here or there.

With this, people won't learn to cook, they'll learn to do x when y happens. That's not learning to cook, that's being a robot.
I can pick up a durable frying pan for $15 at most, and it does the job with my skill level.

Just in passing, if you cook a lot, you should spend more than that on a frying pan, like $50. A heavy pan distributes heat more evenly and an anodized or ceramic finish is an awful lot less work to clean (which will easily pay off the cost of the pan in terms of time and meals saved).
I just bought one of these so I can cook more often with extra virgin olive oil without approaching the smoke point. At $19 for an IR thermometer, they should probably be in every kitchen next to the probe thermometer.
True.

So, with element of answer 1) ruled out as Lua is also dynamic, and 2) ruled out by your evidence, remains

3. Python's object model can lead to inefficient memory access
I don't want to learn to cook. I just want to eat cheap/healthy/homemade food.
Yeah, this really isn't interesting to anyone except maybe their investors. If they provided this functionality in their API it would've been big news.
Book design inspired by Edward Tufte
It isn't learning at all, the users are just cooking their food, I don't see a problem in that if that's the desired goal.
Sharing is caring
Join enythings.com now and share your favourite blogs! Let others discover your favourite websites.
Well, to be fair it's if you use any language that uses some equivalent of the Maybe Monad.
Court rules FAA can regulate and enforce rules on drone flights
[pdf] Yahoo in Federal Intellegence Survallence Court
Called it! Check out my blog post from 2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8613878
Looks like a great tool. The documentation at http://flowtype.org/ is excellent. Should be easy to add it to a Gulp/Grunt workflow.
I saw a transcript of Rob Pike's "Less is More" where he says

"What it says is that he finds writing containers like lists of ints and maps of strings an unbearable burden. I find that an odd claim. I spend very little of my programming time struggling with those issues, even in languages without generic types."

and I had literally not three days before fixed a bug in somebody's c++ code caused by using their own hand-rolled stack class instead of std::stack, so I'm not inclied to be charitable on go's lack of generics.
Because 90% of the runtime is spent in 10% of the code.
they sure can. we should have journalists who cover other journalists too.
No reason bad actors can't be encrypted on the wire just like all the other actors.
TrueConf Supports Video Content Transmission to Any VC Endpoints
Another comment that just occurred to me: JavaScript becoming gradually typed is an interesting reflection of the recent history of the optimization of JavaScript interpreters, which consist of deducing where semantically dynamic objects behave like static class instances, then inlining the accessors and where beneficial, the "class methods", and specializing && JITing the semantically dynamic functions that almost always take as argument "instances" of this "class".

(ref this absolutely fascinating paper

http://bibliography.selflanguage.org/_static/implementation....

and this piece of V8 dox quoting the aforementioned paper

https://developers.google.com/v8/design)

It seems that adding a type system to a dynamic language has little real drawbacks compared to designing language and type system at the same time, for both performance and type safety considerations.
Binomial nomenclature has a very strict syntax:

- first word is capitalised

- second word is all lowercase

- entire phrase is italicised if possible

Embarrassing for a scientific magazine to get it wrong thrice (once in the title "Homo Narrativus", twice in the text "homo narrativus", "homo probabilisticus"). It should be Homo narrativus.
Tips for Interacting with the Geek in Your Family
It's a letter, issued by an occult kangaroo court, that coup d'etat forces hold in hand while demanding the keys to the kingdom - a demand that can't be challenged in a legitimate court of law.
Ask HN: How to Raise Seed Money?
I have an MVP for a SaaS product with a lot of potential, large market highly segmented, did some financial projections with a friend who a CPA in corporate finance and audits companies valuations for a living they said my projections of having 38 million a year in revenue after 5 years seemed very reasonable with still a lot of growth left after that. I already have about a dozen customer and am making a little over $4000 a month after a launch earlier this month. I want to raise money but am really stuck on how to go about it. I have a partner who lives in New York and I live in Austin. We both have consulting companies we own with full-time staff so can only work part time on the product. I'm just not sure where to go to raise money. The local angel group in Austin didn't seem very interested in my product from the few members I talked to. Their are a few seed funds here but I don't know the right way to approach them. From what I hear cold contact is not the way to do it but I'm not that plug into the scene. I'm really confused about how you use angel list. Some people have told me I should just get a ticket and shop it around in San Francisco but I'm even more far removed from that scene than I am here. Neither me or my partner really seem that interested in doing an accelerator at the stage we are at since we know our product but I keep reading it should be done just for deal flow. I'm kind of stuck on where to go any advice from the community would be great. I'm wanna try and raise $250k.
Because beautiful control structures and a REPL ?