skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This used to be true, especially with Comcast, but I read a blog post about a year ago stating that in most cases using Comcast's DNS servers is actually faster nowadays.

I closely benchmarked it and they turned out to be right, though 8.8.8.8 had only a little bit more latency. And it makes sense; your ISP will always (theoretically) be able to provide lower latency than Google can when they put the effort into it. Unless Google is your ISP. :)
Concur with this. Log everything, and use Logstash/Kibana to sift through it for what you are looking for.
Bio is dire for two reasons, IMO:

1. NIH stipend levels are pretty low. When you talk to people on NSF or DoD funding, they're like "You pay your postdocs what!?"

2. There are fewer "eject" options. Physics, for example, has a long and established pipeline into finance. The group I'm with does lots of work on complex networks - that has applications in tech. Bio work, for the most part, leaves you qualified to do bio work. So there's both less salary pressure for "We have to pay you or you'll go work for tech instead" and the feeling of your education being a sunk cost.
If I can get a self-driving Model S on Uber whenever I want, why would I buy a car?
How would they turn on such a feature without each account holder generating keys specifically for those TxOuts and moving the funds into appropriate P2SH addresses?

It sounds more like, it means it's possible given the necessary end-user configuration to enable multi-sig, not that all coins are already benefitting from that level of protection.
I think that is a perfect analogy. Anyone with marginal skills who wants to get a job as a 'data scientist' would be well-advised to do so before the music stops.
What to See in Le Marais, Paris
What Kleiner Perkins Thought About CES 2015
I think you might find this article relevant. I think that liking your work shouldn't be in exchange for fair compensation and work conditions.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/...
NSA played key role linking North Korea to Sony hack
Back in the day, Opera did not care whether a form had autocomplete set to off, or even if a form was bizarrely structured, the magic wand would fill in whatever you wanted on command.

If only it didn't morph into a low quality Chrome-clone...
Stupid question...

Why not 'let' and 'var' instead of 'let' and 'let mut'?

It's just so ... weird.
I quite like this style of video, I have only watched the first ~15 minutes, but I find it a much more engaging way to jump right into code like this, or learn some Go while I watch.

I would love to see some popular figures in the open source world, talk us through a pull request etc. I would be surprised if it didn't drive a few more contributors to the project and if nothing else would be a powerful introduction to the project.
He probably should try to use Coq proof assistant. If Coq proves his proof, then mostly like it's correct. Of course, it's easier to say than to do, not a trivial work, and he's the only one who can do it, since he's the only one who can understand the proof.

But if he indeed able to write the entire proof in Coq, then I'm sure at that point, his proof will be much cleaner as well.

Then again, this will never happen.
Multi-sig transactions work as you describe but many darknet markets have had that option for some time. It's actually recommended you use multi-sig for every darknet purchase.
Personal car insurance services will be a multi-billion dollar marketplace beyond 7 years from now.

On the face of it, it sounds like you are steering the conversation towards what you'd rather talk about, which is fine. Just be forthright about it. There are bigger threats to the profitability of car insurance lead gen in the short and long term.
The "less than" is ridiculous.
Please tell me those discussions are on the mailing list.
It's not actually all being naive and manipulable. If nothing else, there's also an intense selection bias in your sample - if you are talking to your professors, generally speaking you're talking to people who made it. As a university student, its very hard to find the bitter postdoc who left to go work for a defense contractor.
> LWR reactors have been built for a long time, so they're very well understood (known risks are better than unknown risks)

After Fukushima, I don't think most people would agree the risks are well understood, at least as reflected in the actions of the nuclear industry and its regulators.

The NRC (and hence most of the world's regulators) uses a "design basis" approach to establish what emergencies reactors should be able to respond to safely without the release of radioactive materials. The design basis is supposed to quantify the known risks.

In 2011 we saw just how inadequate the design basis framework was. It failed to predict risks such as multiple systems failing simultaneously, emergency generators being flooded, the plant being cut off from external help, multiple meltdowns happening simultaneously, valves getting stuck open, and a litany of other things that actually happened, resulting in the level 7 accident we saw.

While the exact set of events that happened at Fukushima Daiichi is unique, similar accidents could happen in the US, or indeed anywhere (e.g. many reactors are downstream from major dams and could theoretically experience catastrophic flooding).

And just as the NRC's computer models deemed Fukushima impossible before the accident, the NRC has largely ignored the recommendations of its own near-term task force in how to improve the regulatory situation in the US after the accident.

It is up to us to demand that the nuclear power industry, which is wielding technology of massive destructive power at the behest of its shareholders, transform itself into the transparent, accountable industry we deserve.
I got my PhD in Math from Harvard in 1979. Based on http://abel.harvard.edu/dissertations/index.html, it seems that 5-10 folks per year did that in those days. Perhaps 20% went on to research careers big enough to have Wikipedia articles now -- mainly in academia, although there's one in industrial cryptography (Don Coppersmith) and another in finance. Most of the rest have had decent careers in academia or business.

However, I don't recall grants -- beyond grad school fellowships or whatever -- playing a major role in pure math at that time.
Uber Announces Price Cuts in 48 Cities, Drivers Will Earn More
impressive - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor#AVR

" There exists currently no dismantling method for the AVR vessel, but it is planned to develop some procedure during the next 60 years and to start with vessel dismantling at the end of the century."

German methodical planning :)
10 Steps to Planning Your Postgres Deployment (Part 1)
Typing the Letters A-E-S Into Your Code (2009)
One reason is that let takes a pattern, so you can do things like:

let (x, mut y) = ...

Another reason is that we feel 'mut' more cleanly communicates mutability than 'var.' Another reason is that we prefer immutability by default, and let/var doesn't communicate that as nicely as let and let mut.

There are some discissions about this on the ML archives, RFC repo, or discuss, if you're interested.
Especially considering Microsoft is providing you $150 a month in Azure services for 3 years as part of your participation in their BizSpark program.
> If nobody understands a mathematical proof, does it count?

Nope. That's the social aspect of mathematics: your proofs have to be comprehensible and considered to be correct by those in the mathematical community that read them (at least peer review) before they're accepted.
I think this thread demonstrates (at least part of) the issue. If you've been hired then you're already past the first hurdle. The attitude that you somehow have to 'pay your dues' is part of the overall problem and is akin in spirit to 'hazing'. There are may ways to give encouraging feedback (I'm sure there are plenty of books on it), so it's more of an attitude thing.

The comparison with the professional chef is amusing considering the TV chef shows I've seen. They're regularly abusive, cantankerous and create terrible environments to work in (imho). Not something that the developer community should aspire to.
They can be, but this avoids the round-trip time entirely. Microsoft's not forcing you to keep your secrets in the cloud if you don't want to, what they're saying is, "you don't have to run it all yourself if you don't want to" or for those already in the cloud, "it's more secure (or audit-able, at least) to store and share secrets using an HSM than to use plain-text on a hard drive". Of course, nothing's perfect, and even your secrets will eventually end up in RAM, but that's why they call it "defense-in-depth" right? Plus, it means if you're encrypting something, you can use the HSM to do it and know that only the HSM box has the keys to what you're encrypting, and it's dedicated and designed for that task. I personally like HSMs as a concept and look forward to lower cost options as we rely more on encryption in the cloud.
It's relative. The loss is a single-digit percentage of total bitcoin deposits held by Bitstamp. They're eating it.
The problem being that they don't get an equity stake in anything in return. There's no upside potential.
Portions directly copied from comedian Louis C.K.
Free Hacking Tracking Online
Came across a new website that offers free hacking training, and it's pretty in depth...topics in video format ranging from ethical hacking to advanced penetration testing...

and no, its not italian based, though the .it would make you think it was lol

www.cybrary.it
It doesn't sound like Richard would appreciate this scenario though, which I find a little sad.

Of course. That's why they're doing it. Everyone is walking on eggshells trying to appease RMS, but he's not having it. Later in the thread it sounds like he's about to have a tantrum. Someone calls him out and says that writing what RMS thinks would be acceptable is a waste of time to which RMS responds

You consider it a waste of time, because you see the value in what
I am trying to protect.
You're arguing with a general observation. The fact that it's not universally true is unsurprising. If you take the average quality of third-party libraries and the average quality of libraries in the standard library, I think you will find that the standard library is generally pretty good.
For some reason I had pointers on the mind. You're right, no real use for pointers in that scenario. Storing by value makes more sense.
I appreciate the idea, and that's a good list of broad topics (I'm currently working off a similar one[1]).

But I'm actually talking about sub-topics within each of those broad topics. If you take a look at page 59 of the ACM pdf I linked to, you'll see the level of detail I'm hoping for. As just one example among many, see the algorithmic section, core tier 1 of 2 (followed by the corresponding learning objectives):

• Simple numerical algorithms, such as computing the average of a list of numbers, finding the min, max,
and mode in a list, approximating the square root of a number, or finding the greatest common divisor

• Sequential and binary search algorithms

• Worst case quadratic sorting algorithms (selection, insertion)

• Worst or average case O(N log N) sorting algorithms (quicksort, heapsort, mergesort)

• Hash tables, including strategies for avoiding and resolving collisions

• Binary search trees
o Common operations on binary search trees such as select min, max, insert, delete, iterate over tree

• Graphs and graph algorithms
o Representations of graphs (e.g., adjacency list, adjacency matrix)
o Depth- and breadth-first traversals

Learning Outcomes:
[Core-Tier1]

1. Implement basic numerical algorithms. [Usage]

2. Implement simple search algorithms and explain the differences in their time complexities. [Assessment]

3. Be able to implement common quadratic and O(N log N) sorting algorithms. [Usage]

4. Describe the implementation of hash tables, including collision avoidance and resolution. [Familiarity]

5. Discuss the runtime and memory efficiency of principal algorithms for sorting, searching, and hashing.
[Familiarity]

6. Discuss factors other than computational efficiency that influence the choice of algorithms, such as
programming time, maintainability, and the use of application-specific patterns in the input data.
[Familiarity]

7. Explain how tree balance affects the efficiency of various binary search tree operations. [Familiarity]

8. Solve problems using fundamental graph algorithms, including depth-first and breadth-first search. [Usage]

[1] And yes, I started Grossman's course on PL. It is excellent, and really regret having to drop it, but I was totally overloaded with work at the time
1) please read the paper that was published (http://www.cs.unm.edu/~dlchao/flake/doom/chi/chi.html - the Discussion section is the meat of it) and don't base yourself solely on the webpage

And then

2) please enlighten me as to the "obvious reasons" that make it a stupid idea, as I don't find them obvious at all.
Why You Need Mentors (and Why You Don’t Have Them Yet)
Haha. I've done very little interviewing/hiring, but if I was the interviewer I'd probably laugh along with you at that point - especially if I had just pressed you for more details about why you're leaving the current job.

Maybe it's how you're saying it, and not what you're saying? Is there somebody you could practice with? Somebody who could point out body language or tone of voice or other cues that could be giving interviewers the wrong impression about you?

One other possibility...

Maybe round out that story by mentioning how you (or the team you were a part of, even if you weren't the lead person on the effort) tried to solve that problem in a constructive way. "We gave our boss a presentation on three popular, low-cost issue trackers that we tried and liked... to no avail." Surely your next employer will make some decisions you don't agree with - they're wondering how you will handle them!
That won't get you less warnings, it just won't turn these warnings into errors for doc tests.
The opposite is also true; a good package manager can avoid the stdlib to bitrot ala Python, because you can easily swap out an old module by simply repackaging as a third party dependency.

On the contrary, the benefits of having a standard set of batteries, especially those upon which other might be developed, is fundamental to a sane ecosystem development. For instance, a standard framework for async I/O programming is important, because then people can write thousands of protocols that can be fully interoperable; if 2-3 different framework arises, each one can then develop its own ecosystem of protocols and libraries (not interoperable), and it's hard to think that each one would be as rich as the one in the former scenario. The same can be said for a HTTP library, a threading library, a XML/JSON marshaling library, a threading/concurrency library, and so on.
They're actually RFCs. And the results are in a repository. I'm on mobile or I'd link you. But they generally codify already-existing style, rather than mandating it, although sometimes we just need a decision to tear down a bikeshed...
Uranium reactors use something like 2% of the total energy available in the uranium. Molten-salt-reactors use something like 98% of the available energy. Additionally, the 2% that is waste contain extremely rare derivatives that can be used as cancer "smartbombs", metals pivotal to deep space NASA missions, etc.

This has a pretty good overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
This means that in the event of a problem the reactor both shuts down and passively disposes of the decay heat so that it has not chance of going critical (starting up) again (which was a risk at Fukishima without active cooling).

At that point you can just let it sit there "forever" if you want. Not that you would of course, you'd want to clean it up.
I suppose nothing on Azure would stop you from connecting your Azure instances to your own HSM outside of their DCs (although that would make maintenance your problem instead of Microsoft's).

Granted, that solution wouldn't be as nicely integrated with their other services. I guess from a business POV, making it easier to be compliant with various security standards that require practices like encrypt-at-rest > building a solution that's secure even against state actors.
We run all our ec2 instances on ephemeral disk instances. Historically running on ebs was a great way to ensure application downtime.

Ephemeral drives mean you need to change the design of your application to be able to withstand full loss of machines. But it's really not that hard. A good replicated database (riak, cassandra) spanning multiple availability zones gets you 95% of the way there.
I run Reverb (https://reverb.com) and there's a lot of good information in this thread. Backups, Security, Alerts, Monitoring, all good things.

However, the biggest piece to scaling your application is the automation of everything you possibly can so that you can scale when you need to. You're going to be in a bit of pain if you need to scale everything manually.

Here's a few things I automate using Jenkins:

* Creation of web application servers(whether it be Puppet, Chef or Ansible, etc) make sure you can bring up a new node quickly and scale your app layer horizontally. Ideally automate the addition of this node to the LB.

* Data store backup/restores to all staging environments on a schedule(tests backups/restores) this is done using some custom code and the Backup gem. This way your dev team has access to an env that closely resembles prod and can resolve current prod bugs.

* External security scans using NMap (again using custom scripts). The jenkins job will fail if output is not as it expects. This way if we change a layer of our infrastructure we can know if something is exposed and shouldn't be.

* Static code analysis using Brakeman

Information you're going to need to scale your infra:

* Metrics on each one of your hosts. Use DataDog if you can afford it, integrates with all major systems and technologies. Great tool.

* Log collection via something like Logstash or Loggly and being able to visualize your application and web logs.

* Application response time measurements using something like NewRelic or building your own using StatsD and tracking the heck out of your application actions

Last but not least, have a plan for failure. While you're laying in bed at night, ask yourself these question:

* What would happen if the DB went poof? Can I restore it? How much data will I lose from the last backup? Will I know when this happens?

* What would happen if you're now being scanned by 30 ips from the netherlands, all of which are submitting garbage data into your forms. Are you protected against this? How will the added load effect your app layer? Do you have a way to automate the responses to those requests so as to deny them? This is a case of when, not if. Be ready.

* What would happen if my site gets put on Digg(lol)?

There's no magic bullet here. It's just practice, failure and learning from yours and others mistakes.

Good luck!
Not necessarily. Bitgo uses a 2-of-3 scheme, where they provide retail account holders with a primary key, and a backup key. In the usual flow, you and Bitgo sign a transaction. If you need to recover, you can use your backup key.

Source: I am a Bitgo retail customer, but I don't have access to an enterprise account and cannot comment on their Bitstamp integration.
that's well and good, but i personally don't think NK was behind this all by themselves. it just doesn't add up
For me, doing work that eliminates work is something to aspire to. It doesn't even matter if it's challenging. I would actually prefer to be down in the trenches doing something arduous if the end result is that nobody ever has to do it again. But that only happens in the software world. The real world seems to thrive on inefficiency, so much so that I think it's synonymous with employment. Automate the world, and everyone is out of work. I had a lot more written here but the gist of it is that I would work to eliminate labor, while simultaneously searching for a way that we can all receive a basic income from the newfound productivity. That's sort of my definition of the future, or at least a way of looking at it that might allow us to move on to doing the "real" real work of increasing human longevity or exploring space or evolving artificial intelligence or whatever.
Yeah, when that day comes, it will be nice. We just disagree on how soon it will be.
> We can assure customers that any bitcoins held with us prior to temporary suspension of services on January 5th at 9am UTC are completely safe and will be fully honored.

I, for one, am glad to see a Bitcoin story turn out with a somewhat positive outcome, at least from the users' perspective.

That said, the article says a breach resulted in the loss of ~19,000 BTC, or around $5.6 million. If they're honoring all user funds, does that mean they are just eating that loss out of their own profits, and perhaps try to file an insurance claim? Or were they actually responsible enough to set enough profits aside in cold storage self-insure the total amount floating in the "hot" wallets? On that note, I wonder if profits and hot wallet demands scale proportionately or not, or if their margins are just at a scale where this is a non-issue?
When I was in academia, I just used Word (and "Export to HTML") to create my university homepage. Even back then, I knew it was ugly as sin, but I had other things to worry about.

I still don't have a very good sense of design, but I can use Bootstrap. That's good enough.
The AWS HSM service supports backing to your own HSM: http://aws.amazon.com/cloudhsm/faqs/
I found my car insurance using Google's comparison tool. It was much slicker and easier to use than the other comparison sites.
EmTcl
> I believe that in about fifty years time it will be possible to programme computers with a storage capacity of about 10^9 to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.

He was mostly right, out of only some 25 years, 50% more. A really great estimate for something that changed so fast. But just next:

> Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.

That was quite off the mark.

Anyway, Turing's prediction was for 50 years in the future, that's orders of magnitude easier than 100 years in the future. And nearly all of the predictions by that time were completely wrong, what makes you think those people are the ones of our time that'll get their predictions right?
Saudi blogger to be publicly flogged on charges he insulted Islam
I'm a game developer and I don't use inheritance a lot, and when I do use it it's almost never for virtual dispatch. (I wouldn't mind it being added to Rust, but I don't expect I would use it).

Anyway, if you're already doing a component based system, why do you need inheritance? Just do a normal ECS. You don't subclass GameObjects in most implementations of ECS (and this is a good thing).
It's possible to achieve the best of both worlds. We could introduce the concept of a standard distribution instead of a standard library. A release of Python should ship with specific versions of requests, nose, and other packages that have a broad community consensus. Those packages could be individually upgraded later, but every install of Python 2.7.9, for instance, would have requests 2.5.1 or greater installed. That would avoid the stagnation packages see when they enter the standard library, and would maintain the benefits of universal availability.

Every language ecosystem should work this way.