skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There are proposals for Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanisms in TPP/CETA/TTIP which could make it easier for corporations to sue nations, and discourage nations from passing new laws that could lead to corporate lawsuits against nations, http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-up... . Under existing law, here is an example dispute, http://t.thestar.com/#/article/business/2015/02/11/canadian-...

"WASHINGTON-The Canadian government has delivered a scathing response to a $500 million lawsuit from the American pharmaceutical industry, dissecting the intellectual-property practices of the company that launched the case.

.. Eli Lilly had filed for 12 separate patents between 1992 and 2004 claiming it could treat psoriasis, stuttering, incontinence, hot flashes, anxiety, learning disabilities, tic disorders and, finally, ADHD.

.. “Canadian law does not grant patents for almost-inventions,” said the submission. “Even if the applicant’s speculation at the time of filing is later confirmed.”

.. The Canadian government shrugged off its appearance as the only G7 country on last year’s U.S. Trade Representative watchlist. It described the list as a bunch of allegations from U.S. companies, published by the U.S. government."
Can someone explain how this is causing a kernel panic?
With regard to size, the gzipped size isn't the whole story - more code results in more processing time and memory usage.
Thank you. Adding the temporal domain and system states is what makes this easy to understand.

At the time of selection you freeze the probability of the sets (as this is the macroscopic world and the implications of the state in the other rooms must have collapsed due to interactions with all sorts of radiation from the rest of the universe).

Thus what you say is exactly correct.

* T0 - {1/3} {1/3} {1/3}
* T1 - {1/3 Your pick} {2/3 = {1/3} + {1/3}}
* T2 - {1/3 Your pick} {2/3 = {0/3 Host Pick} {2/3 Remaining door}}
I've always through Clef was really neat, at the very least it is great to see a company tackling security from a UX standpoint.
You can change steps 1-3 to just "Win+R, gpmc.msc"... which will take you straight to the group policy editor.
I agree with the grandparent post. Joyent has been so flippant, and specifically when Bryan Cantrill made that post, I just totally lost all respect for Joyent. I spent the winter writing Go, so had lost touch with node-forward, and came back to the pleasant surprise of io.js v1.0.x. I think at this point, it would be a step backwards (and a mistake) to give Joyent even a meter of ground that's been gained with the io.js fork.
Lucky you! I studied under someone who studied with Bill, but never had the chance to meet him.
The way I like to think about it is as follows: You pick door 1. Out of three doors you have a 1/3 chance of having a car behind your door. The chance that the car is behind one of either of the other two doors is 2/3. Let's pretend that instead of opening a door and revealing a goat, Monty instead says to you "You can switch to both of the remaining doors. If the car is behind either one of them you get to keep it." Your likelyhood of getting the car by switching is now 2/3.

Instead, Monty does the statistical equivalent: He allows you to know for sure which of the other doors definitely has a goat.
To be fair: Underscore doesn't follow semver, so breaking changes between versions should be expected. This thread just seems like an excuse to pile on jashkenas and promote lodash.
Think of it this way. If you choose door #1 and stay with your choice, you get one prize out of three: whatever is behind door #1. On the other hand, if you decide to change your answer you get two prizes out of three: the goat and the other door.
Indeed,

It is gradually recursing backward to "invasive targeting of completely innocent and ordinary people simply as a means to get access more innocent and ordinary people in order to ...etc"
Something I wonder about contactless credit cards / etc. What's to prevent someone from not bothering to clone the card, but just to do a relay 'attack'? (I.e. getting one person to stand next to the victim, another at the terminal, and relaying all traffic from the victim -> terminal and vice versa.)
In the US: Up-front, monthly or annually (for a discount), ACH. On one of my current projects, we gave a MAJOR discount to our first two customers for 3-year contracts paid up front. The projects were large enough that this almost (for certain definitions of 'almost') funded the product/service development.

If the customer wants different terms, we stick GE-Capital between us to deal with the impedance-mismatch.

Outside the US, similar structure (not ACH, of course), and usually with either DB or HSBC there to work out any mutual trade-finance/payment-timing issues standing between us.

Sticking a bank in-between works well on a number of fronts, and one is that the client doesn't owe you -- they owe the bank. It's not free, but saves a lot of hassle for international deals. Even domestic.
No honor among criminals. They also:

Actively remove global proxy injected JS by
either removing the JS from HTML or blocking
the requests to the ad server.

So if someone else injects JS, they remove it before injecting their own.
What about instead of space elevator some sort of re-usable space launcher - i.e. a HUGE tunnel like contraption that basically propells a vehicle up and out of atmosphere without rockets but something else... - - think like a large hydrolic delivery system that goes x amount of miles from upper atmosphere and vehicle launches at whatever the velocity is to break out of atmosphere ? (I'm no rocket scientist obviously)
1234567890ramlalkumawat
https://www.npmjs.com/package/lodash-fp

Don't know how they compare though.
How Oregon's Second Largest City Vanished in a Day
I'll give it a shot.

When you choose door 1, you have a 2/3 chance of goat. That means that 2/3 of the time, Monty doesn't get to choose a door (You're on one goat, he can only reveal the other goat). So he only has one choice, the other goat. Since 2/3 of the time he's forced to avoid the car, that means that 2/3 of the time you will switch to the car.
Ramlalkumawat
I think it is, indirectly. This is a side effect of everyone else making worthy frameworks, languages, etc. I've been doing this long enough to remember when the choices were basically Microsoft C++ or Borland C++. Then Java was basically the one best choice. Now, there are too many choices.
Do you (or someone else) happen to know of a good introduction into Bayesian's intuition about the plausibility of statements?
And you can learn a lot by letting them in and seeing what they look for.

Emphasis on can, of course.
Yeah, and linking to a PR risks a bunch of parties w/o a real stake in the project piling on and shitting up the PR. Really poor form, OP.
One way to intuitively believe the answer is to imagine there were 100 doors, you picked one, then the host opened up 98 of the other doors, revealing goats. Switching would be the obvious answer in that case.
Will Car Buyers Embrace Apple's Innovation?
Twitter bot tweets when someone on a campus edits another schools Wikipedia page
Designers Freebie Pouch of February, 2015
Were you born in S. Korea?
After a little more thought, it seems obvious to me now what the problem is. :-)

The shocking thing is that the certificate name matching algorithm has been standardised for over 15 years and yet those who wrote the cert generation code weren't aware of how browsers implement it.
It makes a bit more sense(to me) if you adjust how you are looking at it. When you are choosing 1 door out of 3, your chance of being WRONG is 2/3. No matter what happens with the 2 other doors, your chance of being wrong with your original choice is still 2/3. By switching to the second set, you've doubled your chances to win. You can see this in action and try it out yourself with this code here: https://github.com/ardalis/MontyHallMvc
It's a testament to the brilliance of game show producers that they took something like this that both the contestant and the audience will misunderstand (but looks so simple!) and made a long running show out of it, making millions along the way.
NSA and UK spies hacked world's largest SIM card manufacturer, report says
Well you don't have to MITM SSL in order to proxy it, it can be done in other ways. They probably choose to do so in order to see the details of the request.
because the door you "selected" was never selected - it was never opened, nor the contents changed. it was the representation of a concept of a door, but it could have just as easily been the other door. in fact, in statistics land, that's exactly what it was. "one of the doors".

when you "switch", you're also switching the representation of a door from 1/3 to 1/2. and the odds are better when there are only 2 doors remaining.

remember, you don't always win by switching - it's not magic. over time, it just wins more often than not.
> But the mathematics of the probabilities can be written down on a napkin they are so simple, so how was no one able to convince these scientists with a clear, concise technical proof?

I'm even more appalled that no one tried, you know, actually running the game. Have someone take a quarter and two pennies, mix them up under cups, let you choose one, show you a penny, then switch or not. Repeat several times. Switch places. When you're playing the role of Monty, the truth will reveal itself...
Yeah, doing a simple "sleep 2" and trying to press enter 7 times before it returns, showed me how much I was underestimating my button pressing. It's actually not hard.
I haven't tried the new build system yet, but from perusing the new site, the additions to Picnic CSS 3.0 look to be exactly what I would have asked for if I had bothered to ask: flat default style, modularity,...and the option to have a modal box!

I really feel like I've picked the right "horse" at the race with Picnic since it's been so actively improved since it was first introduced. Thank you for continuing to agonize over a few Kb of file size.

It's the well-crafted minimalism of projects like this and Mithril.js that keep me excited about the future of web development.
Strongest Natural Material Discovered in Snail Teeth
Go-gl: Massive Overhaul
Think about it this way. What if there were a million doors, and you pick one. The host then opens 999,998 other doors, showing you nothing behind them. Stick with your choice, or pick the other door? Of course you pick the other door - you had only a one in a million shot at picking the right door.
I think another explanation where there's 100 doors and the host reveals 98 goats door after you choose a door sums up the idea of probability increasing by switching doors very well.

The host who reveals the goat door has more information than you, he didn't randomly open a door that just happen to have a goat behind it.
Way to completely disregard the rest of the parent's comment, which makes a fantastic point, and instead blindly call him an idiot.
Nah, it was a copy writer. I don't know much arabic, but I know the correct translation for a lot of military words, including corps. I know that because it was once important to me, but 10 years later I can tell you that the Marine Corps has as much influence on my decisions now as the girlscouts of america :) That was the original point of this thread - addressing the silly idea that this spyware is somehow related to the IDF...
The point is that under the standard assumptions, the host has to show you a goat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Standard_ass...

If that assumption isn't true (e.g. maybe the host only shows you a goat when you pick the car), switching isn't necessarily beneficial.
The intuitive way to see it is to imagine 100 doors and then all but yours and one other door is eliminated. You almost certainly did not choose the right door from the outset so your odds are clearly better than 50/50 to switch.

The same logic applies to 3 doors.
One thing that bothers me about the problem as it's stated in the article is that it isn't explicit about whether the game show host is required to open one of the goat doors regardless of which door the contestant picks, or whether the host is allowed to choose whether to open a door or not. If the host were to only open a goat door if the contestant initially picks the correct door, then the contestant would lose every single time if he/she always switched doors.
Quickest way I've seen to understand this result is referenced on Wikipedia:

An intuitive explanation is that if the contestant picks a goat (2 of 3 doors) the contestant will win the car by switching as the other goat can no longer be picked, while if the contestant picks the car (1 of 3 doors) the contestant will not win the car by switching. The fact that the host subsequently reveals a goat in one of the unchosen doors changes nothing about the initial probability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
When you select the door, you partition the set of doors into two subsets, the door you chose and the doors that you did not choose.
At this stage the probabilities of the prize being in the partitions is fixed - 1/3 for the door you chose, 2/3 for those that you did not.
The new information introduced with the revealing of the goat behind one of the doors in set 2, only pertains to that second set, the information you have on the first set remains fixed.
On the other hand, you now have a 2/3 probability on the second set with only one door remaining (in that set).
I've used LilyTerm, Terminator, and a few others. I've been using gnome-terminal for maybe a month now, and haven't found a reason to change.
> Google was pressured into adding such logic by corporate users, whose IT departments want to -- supposedly openly -- MITM employees' connections

"openly"? Why doesn't the user see that a fake certificate is being used then? There is no excuse for not showing a big fat warning.

This only shows which side Google is really on when it's evil corporations vs. you, the user.
Ding, ding, ding. ;-)
Well continue the process. Suppose Chrome did flag such things. That'd break a lot of "legitimate" use cases, and someone would implement a workaround. For instance, they could just patch the Chrome binaries to disable the warnings or change the pinning logic. Insert their own certs into the pin list. Without something like Intel SGX, you or Google can't totally win.

Of course, Chrome could give some indication like a lock+eyeball or something, and hope the interception vendors are too lazy to bother modifying the code. They could also only disable warnings if the machine is connected to a domain or other management system.
It would be interesting to try any of the Lenovos at a Microsoft Store (say at San Francisco Center) and see if they also contain this malware.
Great article! Thanks.

Excerpt:

"The hospital lawyer mentioned during orientation that it never fails that the family members who live in the area and have spent lots of time with their mother/father/grandparent over the past few years are willing to let them go, but someone from 2000 miles away flies in at the last second and makes ostentatious demands that EVERYTHING POSSIBLE must be done for the patient.

Your doctors will nod their heads and tell your family they respect their wishes. It will be a lie. Oh, sure, they will carry out the family’s wishes, in terms of continuing to provide the care. But respect? [...]"
I think the difficulty in understanding have something to do with the way human interpret probability: it seems like frequentist is our default interpretation, and this problem is very much a Bayesian one. The host didn't pick the opened door randomly, it's conditioned on him not picking the door with a goat. If the door was opened truly random, then the chance of your door having the prize in all cases is 1/3, but then in 2/3 of all cases, the door being opened will have something behind it too (so the game then makes no sense!). The probability of the picked door doesn't change because the event following already conditioned on the door.

If you still don't have an intuition after reading the 2 explanation in the article (especially the one with 100 doors), I'm not good enough right now to explain it any better. But the one way that works for me is to play around with more Bayesian statistics -- one day it just suddenly doesn't feel weird anymore!

In Bayesian interpretation at least, knowledge does changes what the probability would be, as the number just correspond to your belief of an event happening. Just tangentially related, but this might have some interest to you: http://lesswrong.com/lw/oj/probability_is_in_the_mind/
State Dept. has yet to clear its computer network of hackers
Charity: Water – Wanna Build Your Own Sensor?
The founders of AirBnB rented out air beds to friends to support their startup work in SF, that's how they got the idea for AirBnB...
My dad saw this post and asked that I post the following here for him. He didn't want to make an account:

"Why do it if you are Lenovo? Well it seems clear to me that there was a financial inducement provided by superfish. I mean Lenovo is not loading software unless they are financially benefited. Come on.

As far as other inducements go, consider this. Two weeks ago I got an expensive, new Lenovo machine. Got it running just fine, thank you, and then I download Chrome from what was very, very clearly identified as google.com. Who do you trust man. Fired it up and immediately my machine locked me out and became unresponsive. Called Lenovo and for $200 worth of Lenovo.premiumsupport they fixed it and gave me 10 months of additional support. $20/month for 10 months on top of a normal laptop margin does not provide much of an inducement to cease and desist."
This is pretty sweet. Looking forward to playing with it tonight.
Ask HN: Security camera system recommendations?
I'm looking to set up a security cam system at my house and hoping to lean on others' experience. Preferably an outdoor camera with decent night vision.

What brands of cameras to look at? Which to avoid? Has anyone had any good/bad experiences with fully hosted (remote) systems, or should they record to a local machine? If local, what kind of connection should be preferred?
I think it's easier to understand if you use more doors. There are 10 doors and you pick one at random. Now Monty Hall opens 8 other doors and they're all goats. So that leaves you with your original choice or the other door that hasn't opened. What does your gut feeling say you should do now? If the number of total number doors is more or less, how much does that change your gut feeling?
Similarly, I've been impressed by Duo's mobile applications.[1]

They offer a push authentication capability, so you only have to click "accept" or "deny" in the app on your phone. They've also got code generation and a hardware token as backups. In practice, I can usually authenticate through the phone in 2ish seconds.

Clef does look like an awfully nice user experience, though.

[1] https://www.duosecurity.com/product/methods/duo-mobile
Yes, this was the source of the controversy and why vos Savant's self-congratulatory tempest was so annoying.
Las Vegas 'Road Rage' Shooting Arrest: Family Knew Suspect
Looks like Mac is still the best choice of a good quality *NIX laptop that works out-of-box. PC still has a long way to go.
When you pick a door, before the host does anything, there are three possibilities: a car; goat #1; goat #2. These are the same possibilities AFTER he reveals one of the goats -- the goat he shows could be goat #1 or goat #2. Now of the three possibilities for your door, two are losers; by changing doors you have a 1/3 chance of losing (if the car is behind the door you first picked) and consequently a 2/3 chance of winning.
The Data Driven Life (2010)
If that's seriously a problem then just don't check it out. I personally find it ridiculous that it's a requirement for someone's identity to be attached to a project in order for someone to even consider seeing what it's about.
Stripe's fee is .5%, but https://blockchain.info/ is free. Lately used it through SudoPay. Our merchants looks happy with its speed.
Bought it and recommended it to someone already, thanks for the suggestion!
I find it's easier to explain the answer when you consider 100 doors. You've selected 1 door out of 100 - which is a 1/100 chance of getting it right. The host then opens 98 doors, leaving you with 2 doors - the one you selected, and one other.

Are you going to change your choice? No matter what you selected initially, the host was still going to open 98 doors and give you the chance to swap your choice. Would you? It's obviously not a 1/2 selection at that point, is it? There were still 100 options, but now 98 of them are eliminated. Your original door was (and is) 1/100, making the other option 99/100 for a total of 100/100.

If you extend that out to 1,000,000 doors the game is even easier to play. What are the odds that you just happened to select that one special door out of 1,000,000 options?
Vos Savant originally posed the problem with ambiguous wording.
If you remove the password, how is that a two factor?
The day you loose your phone/get robbed could lead to your worst nightmares. Definitely would never opt-in.
I loose my phone all the time (I know...), but I am pretty sure I am not the only one.
My crack at it...

1/3 chance prize is behind a given door. Pick a door, you've got a 1/3 chance it's behind it.

But there's a 2/3 chance it's behind one of the other doors.

So you've got two sets of outcomes at this point. Set A has 1/3 probability (the door you chose). Set B has a 2/3 probability (the two doors you didn't choose).

You then get this incredibly valuable information. The door in Set B that doesn't have the prize. So now Set B still has a 2/3 probability of having the prize. But you know that higher probability now applies to only the one door in Set B.

So you end up with:
Set A door = 1/3 chance |
Set B door = 2/3 chance

Make the switch every time.
Energy storm in ‘boring’ galaxy sheds light on supermassive black holes
FDA Authorizes 23andMe to Market Genetic Testing for Bloom Syndrome
I agree. I think the car project is just a way to recruit smart people. What they really want a technical edge in is batteries. Apple pushes design boundaries, making everything thinner and thinner every year. I bet batteries is the biggest design constraint they face in all their products.
This is a great answer.

To answer the question about the 3-sided die: the question is flawed for 2 reasons.

First, the way you phrased it, you know the information a priori. It's like me learning that the car isn't behind door #1 before I choose. In that case, I have a 50/50 chance on the other doors.

But what if you didn't tell me before? This introduces our second problem. Let's say I roll the die and you hide it under a cup. I tell you I chose side A and you tell me A is physically impossible and ask me if I want to switch. Well of course I want to switch ... but I didn't learn any more information about sides B and C. It's a 50/50 toss-up. In terms of the game show, you basically just opened the constant's door.

A critical element of the original problem is when the information is learned and knowing that the contestant's door will not be opened. It is what allows the phrasing from zaksoup above.
So slightly less than 16,000 trees per acre?
> Paul Thurrott said on the podcast Windows Weekly about a week ago that crapware is going to get a lot worse this PC cycle.

Did he say why?
I've checked http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/en/elasticsearch/referenc... But, couldn't grasp the usecase. Can anyone share some thoughts, where will it be helpful?
For their 2015 outlook issue, The Economist asked readers to submit predictions by Twitter about the year's events. One prediction they published said, "The Economist will continue to recommend market-based solutions for everything."
That's a clever battery hack. I'll be using it on my sp3. Nice.
Yes--because it's the law.