skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The point is that the MITM proxy can scan the traffic for malicious content and block it before e.g. it reaches a browser.

The difficulty is identifying the malicious traffic in an automated way, your own machine can scan it to - but most likely your browser is already patched for known vulnerabilities (maybe if someone is still running old IE versions in your office this could be beneficial).

Secondly, you don't need to proxy to scan malicious sites, if you have a dedicated machine (or third-party service) that sees an outgoing request and if the address is not in it's safe-list, it tests that request by duplicating it (you can have a netfilter hook in your firewall blocking packets from 'non-safe' sites or delaying for validation from the dedicated device/service). This doesn't require a MiTM proxy in the SSL connection.

The SSL connection MiTM as far as I understand is only necessary if you want to check for malicious data being injected into an authenticated, non-publicly accessible site or form. Having one dedicated device which is re-routing office traffic through it's own SSL cert means that if that single device is compromised, so is the entire network.
I like Ramda[1] better than both underscore or lodash because of it's argument ordering (function first) and auto-currying[2]. It's 7kb minified and gzipped.

[1] http://ramdajs.com/

[2] https://buzzdecafe.github.io/code/2014/05/16/introducing-ram...
> If the DNA is just used for uniqueness identification like finger prints then I don't see the argument.

Your fingerprints don't tell me anything about your mother, your medical history or future, or hers.

Unlike fingerprints, when someone takes your DNA, they search your entire family.
TURN Your BEAGLEBONEBLACK IN TO a 14-CHANNEL, 100MSPS LOGIC ANALYZER
Good, though TBH, it didn't include removal of a certificate just few hours ago. I guess they're breaking under the pressure of PR shitstorm.
> If you care about filesize

I don't care about filesize. I care about code complexity. The more crap you add to a page, the slower it will run. You also get a higher probability of conflicts and problems in the long run.

If you need something, you need something. But if you don't and you just throw it in there, you're asking for problems down the road.
Just to use an example fresh in my mind... we're a Google Apps customer and bought a bunch of Lucidchart licenses to help wean people off Visio. One of the things Lucidchart does that, if we had known about it beforehand, we'd have written into our terms, is that they refuse to delete accounts even after a person's Google account is deleted, so we end up paying for licenses for terminated employees unless we physically add Lucidchart as a checklist item in our termination process, and then pay a guy to go do the needful and de-allocate it. Lucidchart is cheap by comparison to lots of things, but managing licenses is a pita (and they are by no means the only offender).
I've yet to find a NLP library that can give you multi-term synonyms as accurate that.. let alone a SOLR module/fix.
The most compelling part of Material is the tweening. I don't see many tweens on your demo page, and the ones that are there feel too abrupt.
I don't follow Underscore but whoever wrote this title (currently "Underscore 1.8 makes last minute breaking changes to master without discussion") must really have an axe to grind, and it seems inappropriate for HN. Doesn't really set the tone for any constructive discussion.
>I don't see how this would be different from lifting fingerprints from a discarded cup.

Your fingerprints don't tell me anything about your mother, you medical history or future, or hers.

When someone takes your DNA, they search your entire family.
Actually, one reason people still use PHP is backward-compatibility. You can take an old project, import it to the latest PHP, and it'll mostly work. Try doing that with node, Rails, Python, or Angular 1.0.

One big mistake Microsoft made was breaking compatibility with VB6 and VB.NET. What happens to all those people who spent years developing VB6 applications?

If you took PHP and refactored everything and cleaned up the bad bits, it'd be a new language and not PHP. You'd be starting over from scratch and competing with all the other hot and trendy languages fighting for users.
I switched from OS X to Linux a few months back, and I'm never going back. I thought like you did originally, that I needed something "standard" like Ubuntu, but found Ubuntu does too many things and installs too many things. Instead I'm now using Arch Linux and i3 Window Manager. It's a long stretch from the beautiful Mac UI that I used for the past 15 years, but as a programmer I can't stress enough how awesome it is not to move my hands off the keyboard for 95% of the operations I do. Almost no mousing required at all. It got even better when I hacked in a few Gnome bits (gnome-session & gnome-keyring) so I could have a more comfortable experience. Nothing will replace the well-written apps you expect on your Mac, but generally if you can live with working-but-uglier apps on Linux you'll be fine. And given that unless you specifically develop apps for Macs, you're probably deploying on Linux anyway, you'll enjoy developing closer to the production metal.
https://transferwise.com/blog/2012-04/send-money-abroad-comp...
From the Intercept article its not clear why this type of data was collected from an Icelandic carrier. The linked graph appears to show 100 IMSI's from Iceland, as opposed to 100,000 from Somalia* and tens of thousands from Afghanistan. It's possible that the Iceland data was acquired incidentally because it happened to come from the same sources that were sending data on more interesting countries. It's possible that there's something of value to be learned in Iceland. I don't know. The Intercept gives us very little context as to the actual products that the intelligence agencies produce. [Edit: Page 11 of this document indicates that the acquisition of keys from Iceland and Tajikistan was unexpected and that those countries were not targeted: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2015/02/19/pcs-h...]

I don't dispute the fact that the US government has intelligence-gathering priorities that don't involve terrorism. I would argue that at least one reason terrorism is discussed is that there are diplomatic consequences to saying one spies on foreign governments. I also agree with the more cynical view, that terrorism is cited as a rationale because terrorism is scary and something opposed by everyone the US is trying to convince.

I believe very strongly that the world would be a lot safer if the US government knew certain things like the intentions of the Russian leadership and the capabilities of the Russian armed forces. Or the state of the Iranian nuclear program and that country's negotiating position. Or what exactly is happening on the ground in the midst of all the chaos in Libya or Syria or Yemen.

The answers to these questions will determine the fate of entire regions of the world.

*A subsequent document puts a later figure for Somalia at 300,000.
Unsurprising. The most interesting thing to me were the comments referring to Lenovo ... sort of a (sloppy) smoking gun.
While this whole Superfish/Lenovo thing is certainly quite scary, let's not forget the very important fact that, currently, the user ultimately still has the ability to modify the software on the machines he/she owns, which includes among other things (un)installing software like Superfish, and also adding/removing trusted certificates. There will be those who advocate locking down the certificate stores and other areas of the OS (e.g. only "approved" software can be installed) in an effort to prevent companies from doing things like this, but I think that could lead to an even worse situation - imagine if this was preinstalled on a locked-down system that made it nearly impossible to remove (or perhaps even discover!)

To put it bluntly, I'd still prefer to buy a system "infected" with Superfish but which lets me reinstall the OS and configure it however I choose, than one which is locked-down so much that, even if such malware was not present initially, if something similarly undesirable is eventually installed by default, it would be nearly impossible to remove. Of course buying an open system that has no malware/adware preinstalled is even better, but given the way things seem to be going with "smart TVs" adding ads and whatnot, it feels like that might not be an option in the future.
Save money on machines, but buy good monitors.
This was fascinating. I can't believe so many academics got it wrong, and then attacked her gender over it!
Yes. Of course I wouldn't characterize it as blindly following so much as being able to rationally step back with some perspective and identify some trends as positive.

Lisps are a beautiful and powerful family of languages, but you are conflating the implementation with the idea. The names of functions from 30 years ago are not what makes Lisp special.
> 16:9

not even once
There are cases where you must adapt a known algorithm to fit your domain. In my job, for example, we work with automatic train dispatch planning [1]. The application is built in Java and one of the main components of the route planning is a custom depth-first search. The search tries to move a train through a series of connected tracks while considering the passage of time and checking for time-dependent constraints such as track blocks, other trains, speed restrictions, etc. This couldn't be done using a standard library implementation.

Also, I believe such knowledge will make you a better programmer, even if you don't have to build everything from scratch. I have seen experienced developers using a list to store unique elements, when the only read operation they would do was to check if an element was in the list. Their solution to speed up the checks was to sort the list every time it was modified and then run a binary search. In this case, better knowledge of algorithm complexity and data structures could lead to a much faster solution, using a set for example.

[1] http://www.academia.edu/6128585/A_Heuristic_Approach_to_Trai...
It's trivial to do even for a complete non-techie (just click next, next, ok, type something, next, next, done) and has been for a long time. The problem is that if you bought a computer with Windows that has bundled crapware, you won't get the vanilla Windows - the installation/recovery medium will have the same crapware bundled. You need to get your hands on a clean Windows, which usually means buying it (or pirating it, as was common in the past - yet another case where what you pirate is better for you than what you buy).
I want nice machines. We are doing c++ programming, so fast compile times is preferred. I basically want fast cpu, lots of memory, SSDs, and large monitors. We aren't making games though, so we don't need beefy GPUs
If you are buying bitcoin, all you need is the seller's (seller of bitcoin) address to send the cash to.
I believe Lenovo's official statement previously said "We have thoroughly investigated this technology and do not find any evidence to substantiate security concerns." However, it now has a link to LEN-2015-010, a high-severity security vulnerability.

http://news.lenovo.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1929
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9074676
http://support.lenovo.com/us/en/product_security/superfish
If Stripe is doing Bitcoin then I now know to stay from and recommend others to say away from Stripe.
Actually, sf_main.jsp is unchanged. Still references to Lenovo, still the meta tag disable.
I felt pretty stupid when it took me a long time to convince myself of the correct answer. But I felt better when I read that even "Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation confirming the predicted result"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
>The only way this has any effect on anyone's lives is if it is used to catch you for a crime you committed.

Or your child. I guess you don't care if you send your kid to the chair though.
Which is why multi-signature transactions eliminate this negative.
NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements [pdf]
We have a small engineering-only team and I want everyone to have nice machines. I am just wondering where the best place is to buy them.
There have been previous events in underscore's history that lead to sudden breaking changes without following semver. That's probably why.
Welcome to the War over General-Purpose Computing.

http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html

http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

The future really scares me. And yes, backlash from Superfish fiasco will probably only make things worse.
...is it blindly copying any x509v3 attributes present on the certificate, or just the one that you seem to be carefully not mentioning? Can you email me (one is listed in my HN profile)? I just thought of a pretty horrible exploit. 2199399413f2e63e6291a3f3e60f3475518aaf88215434222c65d6bc6fe41f34
Lenovo Laptops Shipping with Superfish
Also check this parallel article (from the comments) https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory...

A bit less romanticized.
Barn converted into storytale wonderroom
The only explanation that convinced me that my original guess was incorrect was this one (which is alluded to in the article):

If there are three doors, the odds that the car is behind any of them is 1 in 3, or 1/3. Once you select a door, the odds are 1/3 for your door, 1/3 for each of the other, unselected doors. Put more simply, 1/3 for your door, or 2/3 that it is not in your door. Once another door is opened that does not have the car, then the odds of it being your door are 1/3, and the odds of it not being your door are still 2/3, so it makes sense to switch.
These guys aren't the brightest bulbs out there. You could even have it switch certificates on every reboot... or not do this in the first place. ;-)
One interesting variant, is the case where the Host opens a door without knowing if that door had a goat. Expressing relief that he opened a goat door, he asks you to consider switching doors.

IIRC, you get less information in this case, since there was a 1/3 chance that the host would accidentally pick the "car" door, but you still have a 1/2 chance of winning by switching.
Russian Researchers Uncover Sophisticated NSA Malware
I did, the joke seems lost on you. Look, there is no such thing as "Intelligence Core". So your link, while it contains the same sequence of letters that you've regurgitated, is wrong. Either his time in the "Core" left so little an impression on him that he can't properly spell the name of the organization, or more likely the task was outsourced to somebody else to generate the copy (the two words are phonetically the same)... which also hints at relevance.

I'll hear your apology now... or you can dig further and try to tell me how the "Core" is so ultra secret that blah blah blah. But before you do that, consider for a moment how invested in your position you are based on a single line of text on a shitty website - is that the extent of your critical thinking abilities? You're better than that, everybody is better than that :)
How to Become Batman
>I think you're reading too much into the question. It's not really ambiguous -- he is asking if any citizens of Mexico been accepted to Y-combinator.

Yep, just this!
In Australia its common to have a surchage when paying by credit card.
Your "evidence" is underwhelming, I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. My argument wasn't based on the "STEM crisis" so debunking it is irrelevant. If you look at figure 1 of your Georgetown link it seems clear that STEM degrees correlate with lower unemployment, liberal arts with higher unemployment.

You don't get to just cherry-pick the easy comparisons. Your link suggests technical educations have, as a whole, lower unemployment. In addition to that, average salaries for recent STEM grads are 25-50% higher than their liberal arts counterparts.

Maybe it's not fair of me to say that one is awesome and the other is horrible, but if we're going to make one of them more like the other it seems clear which one is falling behind.
Preliminary cause is described here: https://status.cloud.google.com/incident/compute/15045
> still have a 1/2 chance of winning by switching

It seems that you are referring to the other variant, in which case this is false, because that one has a 2/3 chance of winning by switching.
I still think that the problem is wrongly cast as a probability problem, rather than the game-theoretic problem that it is.
Some people are saying that Lenovo's UEFI only allows an re-install from the Lenovo-provided Windows disks, otherwise it will show the Windows piracy warnings after a few weeks. However, I suspect that falls in the category of First World problems atm.
here's a related question.

what if you are a sole proprietor? do I start incorporating and setting up a business bank account now before they ask for the details?
It always amazed me that so many academics got it wrong. Once you understand the way the actual game works, it's pretty obvious that you gain a statistical advantage if you switch.
Now try it when one of the data centers is unresponsive.
Gotcha. Then I am in absolute agreement.
See also http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18 - the current unauthorised intercept of data, installation of a MitM system appears to be an offence under inter alia Section 1, 2 and 3 separately.
I'd re-frame it this way:

"The host has zero incentive to reveal what's behind the door you already picked (or the choice of switching would be a no-brainer) so the fact that they left it shut doesn't tell you anything."

"However, the fact that they didn't (or couldn't) open the remaining shut-door hints that it may contain the prize."

The key is that the host's choice is not random.
People actually do kill for social acceptance - literally. Gangs are the most obvious example
A fair point, the hosts' choice of door is not random at all. He could open the door you'd already chosen, but that would make your choice to switch-or-not a no-brainer.
So I believe the 2/3 answer to be true. I see the evidence in those tables. But intuitively, I still don't get it, and the explanation in the article isn't helping

> The short answer is that your initial odds of winning with door #1 (⅓) don’t change simply because the host reveals a goat behind door #3; instead, Hall’s action increases the odds to ⅔ that you’ll win by switching.

Well, why don't they change simply because the host reveals a goat? If you show me a three sided coin, I'd say there's a 1/3 chance of getting a particular side. If you then magically change gravity such that one of the other sides will never ever be landed on, would the two remaining sides not now have 50/50? I guess the article asserts that the "probability" doesn't get redistributed amongst the remaining options evenly, and I want to know why it doesn't and why it instead all "goes" to the one I didn't pick.

I don't mean to be confrontational in asking, and I don't doubt the answer, I just don't get why. Could anyone explain it better, or point me somewhere that does?
Buy nice large Dell monitors (the U series, say the Dell UltraSharp U2410), two per developer.

Then, round up your engineers, drive over to Fry's or Microcenter, and buy parts and build your boxen together. That's one of my foundest memories of my first job.

It'll be cheaper, it'll blow an afternoon, and it'll bond your team.
I read about this problem and the fact that multiple educated writers falsely called out vos Savant in an old Martin Gardner column, and it shines in my memory as one of the problems that illuminated math for me and made me see recreational math as worthwhile. Of course back when he wrote about it the topic of sexism was mercifully left out, and I honestly hadn't given a moment's thought to the fact that vos Savant was a woman until I read this new take on it, but there you go.

Have standards for what makes something confusing and difficult to understand risen significantly over the decades? When I brought this problem up with my group of (admittedly geeky and mathy) friends no one was left unconvinced by the end of the afternoon, and most even had the intuition as well as the mathematical proof of the answer. Clearly we aren't any smarter than the public figures who couldn't comprehend this puzzle a half a century ago-- so it all in the framing of the problem?
Agreed.

But they are trying that through the signature store.
Impossible to graduate from Berkeley with a CS degree without hearing this problem :)
Thank you for the comment! I've installed Arch Linux and i3 in VirtualBox and it is really fast. I don't mind the looks really—in fact, I like them much better than the flashy animations of OS X. It all feels much more focused.

I'm wondering, though, what terminal emulator do you use? I tried terminator first because it seemed the most featureful, but its central feature seems to be duplicating a lot of functionality that i3 already has. A few people have suggested gnome-terminal, which I like.
Just noting that CommonJS has nothing to do with this capability, it will work in any format.
>If a major multinational bank is caught laundering literally billions in drug trafficking revenues //

That of course should read "If the personnel at a major multinational bank ..." - it's those who created and authorised the scheme, real actual people, that are getting off. It's not a vacuous idea of a corporation, the corporation didn't commit the crimes, people did.

Other than that, yes, powerful millionaires don't get put in prison for scamming the demos. Prison is only for the proles it seems.
An intuition pump for the problem, especially if you know about conservation of expected evidence [1], is that the asymmetry between the door you picked and the other door that wasn't opened is that the other door passed a test. The door we choose got a bye; we learned nothing about it's ability to win car-containing contests. The other door was at risk, and survived. We gained information about it.

1: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ii/conservation_of_expected_evidence...
The Secrets Behind the Design of the Apple Watch
I know right? I don't blame them for getting it wrong at first glance-- I'm pretty sure 999 out of 1000 humans would. 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? They really needed a computer simulation, as I've seen it claimed?
Exactly the way I like to think of it. When he opens the goat door there are now two possibilities: you were right the first time, or the remaining door has the car.

By selecting the other door your are now betting against your initial choice, which was a 1/3 chance. Thus your new odds are 2/3.
You're right. I think I mis-remembered reading the Applicative instance for ZipList.
Because when you ponder this problem, you're considering the probability of two different states. When the host reveals the goat, the state of the problem has changed, and so has the probability of choosing a correct answer (it improved).

Your mistake is somehow thinking they are the same state.
Can you point out which animations feel too abrupt?
Perhaps he usually referred to the Corps by its Hebrew name rather than an English translation.
Now I see your perspective, and I definitely agree with you, but I'm not sure the Python situation isn't a special case. For PHP though specifically, consider the changes that 5.4 brought. I think for all those changes, it went pretty smoothly bringing most PHP programmers to using those features without a lot of fuss. But you're in a much better position to say if anything I'm saying has merit.