skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>Ah I see, you consider the current PoS systems that rely on getting the initial state for a new client from some trusted source to be "centralized".

No, that component is just broken. If anyone trusted is a bad actor and gives you a bad blockchain, you are not in consensus, thus any system using this cannot be considered a consensus system. The centralization I was referring to was other mechanisms commonly employed by PoS systems.

>Though you'd probably argue there's no debate, because someone disagreeing with your position isn't a "real researcher".

No, someone not doing real research isn't a real researcher. Someone who understands consensus and security (not Vitelik) and creates a paper describing a system and its security model clearly is a real researcher.

It isn't my fault that that hasn't happened yet.
A Replacement of sockets.mbed.org and IoT Container
Give it a little bit of time. They will come up with appropriate laws regarding drone delivery. It may become mandatory to have an assortment of safety features.

Mentioning safety features... let's think up a plethora of patents.
It's an interesting point about Ive having spent his time designing a relatively small number of products. However, those are only the products that have been released.

Ive may have had the opportunity to work on a far greater range of products within Apple, and I'm left with the impression that he'd relish the opportunity to work on a car, for example, should that particular rumour bear truth.
It seems that outside the context of the coercion of earning a degree most of the professors are boring as hell.
I reread your post a few time but I'm a bit puzzled. Can you explain the connection between the fizzbuzz test, being a real developer, sexism and the article?
It says there is no exploit as yet, but I imagine one would revolve around a malicious user with an account on that instance (either because they should have or because they've gained one via another exploit) using the reset feature to repeatedly reset their own account. If they are able to gain kowledge of the RNG's internal state by using information gleaned from many runs of this process, they can then use the feature against another account and guess the reset token that gets generated, allowing them to gain control of the account without needing to receive the password reset email (which will still go to the right user at that stage).

How practical such an attack would be is debatable, but it is certainly possible and perhaps someone more skilled at being a malicious user than I am can thing of something "better".
There are at least two large errors: First, Tor isn't a browser. The Tor project provides Tor packaged with a browser, but the Tor project is more than that, while the Tor onion router is something completely different from a browser. Second, "non-standard" is a terribly misleading way to describe Tor. That's in the "not even wrong" category of being off the mark. Anyone not familiar with Tor reading that will be worse off than uninformed.
Digital Disruption Disrupted
I’ve been working on this little side project as a proof of concept. It's a port of libssh2 to Javascript via Emscripten. This let me implement a complete ssh client in browsers alllowing end-to-end encrypted ssh sessions. The session is proxied via a simple golang server. Connections are currently sent over Tor, but the Eliza demo will connect to the local server if you’d like to try it out.
Indeed, create a new throw away account; find out where in the PRNG table the password came from for this throw away account. Use that information to guess the next "Reset password" password then use that to hijack the target account.
Very nicely done, technically. And the marketing message is both true and useful: Swimming at sea is surprisingly hard, and life jackets make a huge difference.

I was once a very strong swimmer, and back then, I tried swimming 60 feet to shore in water with choppy, 6-inch waves. I wound up repeatedly inhaling water and choking. To combat this, I tried to keep my head high above the water, which was exhausting. After 30 feet, it was clear I was in real trouble, so I called to the rowboat shadowing me 5 feet away and they towed me to shore.

Similarly, cold water will shut me down frighteningly fast—even with a wetsuit and lifejacket, I've been stunned into near immobility after less than a minute of swimming. And I'm somebody who grew up swimming in the Gulf of Maine, which can be frigid (because Cape Cod deflects the warmer Gulf Stream eastward). The actual risk here is cold shock, not hypothermia—rapid vasoconstriction in your limbs will flood your core with blood, causing your heart to work much harder to maintain circulation. It's incredibly draining.

A life-jacket will keep your head above water with minimal exertion. This means that (a) you keep breathing and (b) you remain visible to rescuers. It turns survival from an incredibly strenuous and terrifying athletic event into largely passive floating.
Popularity is a strong argument. It's however not the only argument. In the case of git and hg popularity is important because the other arguments are too weak to matter in comparision.

That's not the case for GNU Octave or Linux. Those offer significant financial, ideological and technical benefits over alternatives. Benefits a large part of their user base actually cares about. Hg doesn't have that luxury. Git is simply good enough and hg is not good enough to offset the cost for choosing the unpopular option.
In the end you basically end up with a cult of personality around the charismatic leader.
In the context of choosing a DVCS for an open source project.
Is Design bound to get cheaper?
The problem here isn't the culture. The problem is the individuals.
I think you overlooked the benefits beyond $50,000
Aren't investors supposed to be investing millions? Or are those "angel investors"?
I'm getting sick of this whole nomad thing. Brand it for "nomads" and you have another way to sell stuff to travellers. Even more ridiculous is the idea of building an online community for "digital nomads". What could you possibly have in common? The fact that you work online while travelling to a foreign country?
I would say that the problem with your proposal here is that those "more details" you mention consist of a vast horde of information we do not know anything about that far outweighs what we do know. At best, we know that certain areas of the brain concentrate certain functionality, and we can map rough levels of interconnectedness and activity traversal. That is not nearly enough information to build a brain. The neural nets that exist may sometimes achieve "Human performance" at narrow tasks but it's a big leap to infer that those neural nets are actually functional models of subsystems in the brain, or that their isolated functionality can be plugged into a larger group of such neural nets and have something coherent emerge. Our actual brains are far more interconnected and overlapping than is obvious from reading the latest fMRI study.
I think the overall problem is that traditional neuro scientists and biologists bring virtually none of the required skills to the table.

Moreover while neuroscience is able to show pretty pictures of brain activity, they have made insufficient progress in understanding it. On the other hand the physicists/mathematicians that have invaded the field have a background in computational methods, simulation and hardware development. So for example a group at the University I studied had previous experience designing analog chips for feature detection in High Energy Physics, a number of years ago they re-branded themselves as a neurophysics group and recently landed a ~100 million euro+ grant in the context of the Human Brain Project.

It is also much easier to learn the jargon and read some of the softer phenomenological articles than to develop a sound understanding of the underlying mathematics and physics.
Facebook's decision to police the names of their users wasn't a technical one. And the EFF article provides a number of compromise suggestions that would allow Facebook to keep their name policy while reducing the damage it does.

The article also suggests that Facebook's enforcement of the name policy isn't consistent with an algorithm but with manual reports. People are using this policy as a tool of harassment. Facebook needs to end it.
Here's a list of places similar to that: http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/List_of_Hacker_Spaces

Unfortunately, only the larger hackerspaces have laser cutters, so your milage may vary. Fablabs are also places you can look into, however they usually cost quite a bit (techshop for example costs 100$ per month) compared to hackerspaces.
>Why the comments above bother to debate any other aspect is beyond me

Because for some of us that question is hardly relevant. In a constitutional democracy the means don't justify the ends. Even if they were achieving a lot what they are doing would still be wrong.
The behavioural economic concept of 'hyperbolic discounting' serves as a pretty good explanation. We radically discount delayed consequences (e.g.: learning), while simultaneously overestimating our willingness to invest effort into the future.
He's saying that just because you don't have first-hand experience with something, or can't fathom how something is possible, doesn't mean it can't happen.
In terms of money you can't even make an argument. Working for a big company will usually be better for you fiscally speaking. Even the average exit or IPO won't usually make up for the investment opportunity cost. There will always be a lucky few who have life-changing exits, but this is the minority.

HOWEVER, money is not the main reason that most people in startups are there. Try surviving your 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th year in a big company, while still caring about what you do. Big companies will always struggle with internal politics, because they are the brand-name place to work, so they are going to attract political types who want to struggle for a piece of the pie.

If you work for a startup you will likely have a level of freedom, responsibility, and chances to do interesting things that only a select few people (who are both talented, lucky, and adept at politics) at larger companies get to do.

Big companies are a great place to start a career, because they are super invested in making the best engineers and retaining them. Especially at Google, so many resources are given to junior developers and the code that you get to work on will be world-class. However, after a few years of working at a big company you will probably be overqualified for whatever you are doing and it will be very easy to get bored unless you are very clever at maneuvering into the right positions at the right time.

Go get baptized at a big company, make some cash, pay off those student loans, go join a startup and have fun.

Edit:

OR, you know, you could come join the light-side right away ;)
They're too long. Once in a while I enjoy spending 5 to 8 hours on a Saturday learning about something new, but MOOCs often ask for an entire semesters worth of my time. I don't have that much time, I have an occasional Saturday. Divide the courses up into free-standing bite sized chunks, something I can go through in a day, and let me complete them on my own time. I'd complete more of them if that happened. That should also force brevity, which was lacking in a lot of courses I tried.
I'm currently a devops consultant embedded in a big enterprisy company. The scrums, endless pointless meetings, pointy haired bosses and general incompetence is soul crushing.

After almost a year of doing this I can't wait for it to be over and just pack a bag and go a-travelin'. I honestly don't believe this can even be classified as work really, as the output from these places is so low or even negative.

These places are weird little cults or oppressive political regimes that you are an insider at. You could enjoy life as part of the politburo, it is objectively the rational way to go.

Startups to me have always been the 101st kilometre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101st_kilometre

"And then one day you find ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun."
How to backup data (super) cheaply withAmazon Glacier Storage
A Replacement for Ember's Deprecated Ember.Set
In a professional relationship, even the one-armed hug is crossing the line.

We have ritual patterns for opening business relationships. You can perform a symmetrical handclasp, pump twice, and release. You can do equal-depth bows, with hands at your sides, and then do a business card exchange ceremony. You can do the namaste gesture. You can, with the right sort of business, even pull off a fist bump.

But even adding another hand to the handshake is overly familiar, in my opinion.

If you're looking for a different sort of hook-up at an investment meet-up, you perhaps need to be pulled aside and informed that the dating events are held on a different night of the week. Just turning down the money is not sufficient.

It should be clear, "We decided to refuse your generous offer of investment because our company has a clear policy against sexual harassment, and it wasn't clear whether you wished to buy a portion of the business or a portion of a founder."

$50000 is not enough to hire an engineer when it comes from someone lacking basic business ethics. Professional employees do care where the money comes from, and if they figure out that the bankroll originates from assholes, the salary expectations will go up, your equity offers will be valued at zero, and their resume will never be removed from circulation. (Not that it would for a startup, anyway, but there's a difference between just keeping your eyes open and pre-planning the exit strategy.)
the next day, I sat down and wrote the investor an email. I told him that while we appreciated the offer, we were being very strategic about which investors to partner with. It felt pretty gutsy at the time...

This doesn't seem gutsy to me; it seems downright timid. Now, I'm writing this from the position of not needing or wanting investment in my startup; but if you've decided to turn down an investor because he's a creep (which makes perfect sense to me), why not call him out on his behaviour?

Sending a polite reply about being strategic in how you select investors sends the message that you've selected against this guy because he's not a useful angel investor; the message he needs to receive is that you're selecting against him because he's a crappy human being.
Download P0sixspwn 1.0.8 Jailbreak iOS 6.1.6pangu8
In a naïve sense, there is a bit of Zen philosophy in it. As you say, other companies obsess and work extremely hard to design products that are ultimately worse; what of the paradox that extreme effort results in a poor result? Why, that's one of the tenets of Zen.

At the same time, while reducing certain parts to a paradoxical simplicity, Apple knows where the effort should be directed: at building systems. Getting to the root of problems and optimizing them away. Asking the question, what is the core from which all of this grows? What is its form? And working diligently on that, trusting that the output will be pure because of it. That's how quality is done; it's why the Japanese so readily accepted the teachings of W. Edwards Deming, and it's fundamentally how Jobs turned Apple around.

Lots of lessons here, the most important of which are not technological in the slightest.

Recommended reading:

Zen in the Art of Archery: http://rum1.aarch.dk/uploads/media/Eugen_Herrigel-Zen_in_the...

The Zen of Steve Jobs: http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2012/the-zen-of-steve-j...

A Short intro to the teachings of W. Edwards Deming: https://shrikale.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/a-short-introducti...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
>In practice, this means a better and more widespread liberal arts education

Or, instead of making the science majors spend more of our very scarce time on humanities courses, couldn't you just make the humanities majors spend more of their less-scarce time on science and math courses?

Why is it that scientists are continually called on to "remain in touch" with "humanity" (as if we scientists are not human!) and "liberal arts" (as if anyone in our work-or-die society is free in the old Greco-Roman sense!), but nobody taking their education outside the sciences is called upon to display the kind of basic scientific literacy shown by passing intro-level courses in calculus, statistics, and research methods?
I think it's the wrong kind of risk - it's Apple explicitly trying to operate as an upmarket fashion brand, as opposed to Apple suggesting a fashion brand while appearing to operate as a technology company.

Watch is like to trying to sell a gold-plated Mac Pro. Suddenly the gold becomes more important than the computing.

All previous Jobs products majored in being useful. If you put an iPod inside a cardboard case with clunky switches instead of a click wheel, you'd still have a very practical music player. The clever design enhances usefulness that's already there.

Same with the iPhone. It was the first phone to pull together the phone, map, browser, email, calendar, and other features with maximum user benefit. You could make a case for competing products doing one or two items on the list better, but not for any competitor making everything work together so well as a package.

Usefulness again.

The point of Watch Edition seems to be conspicuous display of expense, with useful computing thrown in as a free extra.

That's a completely different product direction.

If Watch has limited basic usability - if the battery life is too short, if it doesn't do something insanely wonderful and useful out of the box - I think success is not guaranteed.
Summary: it might be hard to believe that things like these happen, but they do. Just because you have not personally experienced it does not mean you should generalise your experience to all people. For example, many programmers fail the fizzbuzz test, despite the parent's inability to find such people amongst his friends and associates.
The real benefit of one language everywhere is reduced penalty for context switching and flexibility with your architecture.

The promise of "code reuse" is very alluring but reusing application code rarely happens in reality. However, reuse of patterns and libraries is very common – solve a generic problem once and you don't have to research how to achieve the equivalent in another ecosystem. Just grab the exact same library, browserify the thing and you're done (ideally).

"One language everywhere" grants you lots of flexibility – where your code executes is no longer locked in stone – you can shift responsibilities from the server to client & vice-versa without significant overhead. No need to port to a different language which perhaps lacks similar paradigms or tooling. Doors are opened to optimisations and architectural changes that would not have even been a consideration otherwise.

To get the benefits of "one language everywhere" doesn't necessarily mean "use JavaScript" but it's a safe decision to choose the lowest common denominator; JavaScript is not going out of fashion any time soon, it runs on nearly every platform and has an ecosystem that's competitive in a wide gamut of problems. An investment in vanilla JS will pay out in long term, while any investment in Framework-X or compile-to-js Y or AltJS-Z is high risk and usually only pays out for the 18 months or so while said tool is in vogue.

JS may not be the best choice, but it's a smart choice.
This. "Technical arcana" is exactly right.

Your code should rarely be clever or rely on the the weird dark corner-case cruft of a language. Too often I see JS code written like an entry in the Obfuscated C contest. Yes, that code can work, but don't do that.
Many more people fail the fizzbuzz test than you would expect. Likewise, more women are treated in this fashion than you would expect.
That's crackpot talk.

Both fluoride and mercury amalgam are considered safe by current scientific understanding. You need to build up actual science to disprove that rather than make ridiculous claims based on proximity of fillings to the brain.
This is a good informed summary, thank you. I asked the same question of my Alzheimer researcher friend, and he gave a pretty similar response including aspects like the huge computational requirements and the basic non-similarity of rNNs and ANNs (albeit with a disclaimer that he wasn't in the field).

Nonetheless, I look forward to seeing more simple rNNs being created over time (besides the C. elegans one that was modeled recently). Who knows what strange organizational rules or structures we will discover from this strand of research?
Exactly. When you know enough science (which will likely require you to be biased towards it, as otherwise the education system will make sure you don't learn any of it) things start to increasingly fall into place. You'll see that the whole body of things you know is internally consistent. It has to be, because the reality itself is.

So as you learn more and more facts and see how interwoven they are you're able to evaluate further information without having to base on trust alone. If, say, vaccines were harmful or synthetically produced compounds were somewhat "toxic" compared to the same compounds found in normal food, you'd have to literally throw half of your scientific knowledge away. So you can easily determine that those claims are bullshit. But that requires knowing relatively lot of stuff, which majority of people do not. They have to rely on trusting authorities - which keep lying all the time. So no surprise here that people just don't believe science or government and are drawn towards various pseudoscientific nonsense that is presented as contrarian and promoted by charismatic individuals.
Facebook doesn’t need a ‘satire’ tag. It needs a ‘news’ tag
Basically people do not finish the courses because they are not really interested or are not disciplined enough.
I’m finding the bizarre phenomena of people commenting before having read the article just as interesting as the article itself
Most modern "business practices" are little more than hedges. Things like focus groups, market fit, etc. are not recipes to build amazing products, but rather ways to avoid making really bad products. It's not that being authentic is hard, but being authentic and profitable is. So we end up with a plethora of artificial-feeling mediocre-yet-profitable product companies, with the rare, exceptional, truly authentic company.
Dev salaries in Stockholm
I'm currently interviewing with a company in Stockholm, Sweden. Since I have no immediate friends in Stockholm if have a hard time getting a clue about average compensation levels for (RoR) developers in Stockholm.

I'm: 4 years experience, independent, both backend and devops, ability to lead a (small) team

I was hoping HN could shine a little light on this.
I believe the OP is saying that while it is often difficult to believe that events like fizz buzz fails or overt sexual misconduct could even be possible because they seem so unlikely and outside of the realm of expectations in our personal daily experiences, that does not mean that they don't happen or are even all that rare given a broader sampling of human interactions.
Auto-generate ranked tags/keywords from any document