skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The salt was in the water to begin with. If you read that reference that you posted, you'll see that the problem is the waste chemicals (not salt), and the increase in temperature of the water. It's plausible that they could filter out the waste chemicals, but I'm not sure about the heat.
He doesn't write the chorus four times :P
Making it modular also makes it repeatable, which is a huge internal benefit.

eBay has been pretty liberal in letting me open source the things I've asked to. The only requirements that I know of are that it:

1) Isn't sufficiently complex to be considered proprietary,

2) Doesn't presume on eBay-internal infrastructure, and

3) Has a name that doesn't infringe any public trademarks.

Whenever I start working on a new feature, I design a generic library and then test it by writing a proprietary implementation. There are many benefits to working this way. Most importantly, I can share an exact replica of my environment modulo any project-specific code, which makes reporting dependency bugs or soliciting architectural feedback trivial when it would usually be nearly impossible. It also means I'll always have access to the tools I create here, regardless of what happens to my projects, my team, or my relationship with eBay.

Even if no one else ever found the stuff I've released useful, it's been beneficial for me to be able to share it.
Also webhostingtalk.com

In fact, if OP could scrape the VPS deals forum from there, that would be super cool ( do something that doesn't scale. ;) )
It's funny that twitter started as a failed podcasting platform. They were several years too early. Shows that timing is a very important part of startup success.
The structural and observational evidence seems to support the strong possibility that there are large voids (100s of meters or even kilometer-plus long voids) under the moon's surface.

This seems ideal for future moon bases. If there are already large areas under the surface to protect from radiation and they're structurally stable, it seems like a great starting point. At that point a moon base only needs materials to make it air tight, rather than structurally stable, which means it would require getting much less material into orbit. It might even be possible to accomplish that with heat or chemical treatments of the existing moon rock, further reducing the amount of materials needed.

Since it's also possible to produce oxygen from moon rock (http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lnews/lnmar97/oxygen.htm), it seems like this drastically reduces the cost/complexity of a lunar base.
I only use it for very simple icons (square, couple of lines, etc)
Tesla Motors Inc patents list
Hi, I Can access it. The site is not gone.
This is a very long-winded way of saying that libraries that are loaded via @rpath are vulnerable to having a malicious library inserted earlier in the rpath order than the actual library it wants to load.

But so what? That's not at all interesting. The given examples involve inserting the library into the application bundle (because the examples of @rpath-dependent loads are for frameworks embedded within the application). This is trivially detectable for any codesigned application (as the inserted library won't be part of the code signature), and for non-codesigned apps it should be just as easy to detect this at it would be to detect an attacker that simply swaps out the expected library with a new one.

Performing this sort of attack also likely requires administrator privileges, and an attacker that can get administrator privileges can perform all sorts of mischief on the system.

This also doesn't subvert the app store sandbox in any way, because malicious code injected into an application is still subject to the same sandbox restrictions that the application is normally subject to.
Genetics and That Striped Dress
What on earth are you talking about ?

You do realise that Objective-C was used because iOS is effectively OSX. And OSX is effectively NextStep. Apple is a big company sure but rewriting your entire SDK is never a quick or simple endeavour. So of course when the iPhone came out Objective-C was going to be used.
It's not even really true about Westerners
+1 for serverbear

In addition to basic info, it includes things like virtualization type and even a bunch of benchmarks, all usable as filters or sort criteria. TBH some of the variation in the benchmark numbers makes me wonder about their methodology, but it's still a very useful site.
Or maybe people that don't get enough outside light tend to have lower vitamin D?
> But why not just draw it instead of, well, typing it in ASCII?

Maybe because it is (or at least can be, the more advanced usages become less so) tolerably self-describing in that you can readily see what it is producing, in a way that SVG isn't, while still being source-control and diffing-tool friendly text?

For small things like its intended uses, it fits well within coding tools and workflows, and avoids separately documenting and coding the art.
I'm just going to leave this here:

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/scripting.html#the-te...
These exploits are all created well in advance. People hold them for the whole year just to use them here. They're usually made by teams, with one person chosen to run it at the event.

At the event, each person brings their exploit and the browser is run against it.

Somehow this gets changed to "browser hacked in seconds!" because the media is great like that.

That said, it is quite impressive for a newcomer to clean house like this, even if he did have a year to prepare, assuming he wasn't working with a team.
Hideo Kojima and Konami Productions appear to be parting ways
I didn't realize one was an a-hole if they didn't write their README in Markdown. GitHub has won.
That changes what the call-site of the latter macro looks like. Which would you rather write, the indirect macro usage:

#define param foo, bar: baz
do_stuff_with(param, other things);
#undef param

or the parenthesized parameter:

do_stuff_with((foo, bar: baz), other things);

On the other hand, passing the name of a macro lets you do even more arcane things, like passing a macro that in turn accepts arguments, and having the macro you pass it to call your macro.
How would you expect anyone - government or otherwise - to accomplish that?
I wouldn't call that confirmation, it looks like it suggests a completely different mechanism.
Wouldn't 10X the most junior developer hourly rate be $200?
I'm not really interested in defending the subreddit. I am attempting to add a dash of reality: hate speech cannot be eliminated by clamping down on any particular subreddit. There will always be somewhere on the internet for people to express hateful, offensive views.

Of course, that's exactly the kind of thing a misogynist would say. And you could make a case that just because you can't stamp the stuff out entirely doesn't mean you have to let it happen on your servers.
They built a DMG with a "fake" Flash Installer that doesn't verify codesigning or trigger the Gatekeeper warning.
Ah ha, now it makes sense. Thanks :-)
Inflated implies larger than normal. "Bubble", when it comes to tech, has a negative connotation. SF could totally deflate. Imagine if Google and Apple moved away. Boom, there goes the neighborhood. If those people are gone, the prices go down.
Exactly, could not have said it better.
You're paranoid. I posted the article because it seemed interesting; in particular I had no idea a global-cooling hypothesis was part of the landscape in the 50s.
From 3 to 16: How to Hire and Build a Remote Team
For those who care, the Gmail app still has the option to not load images. It's why I still use it over Dropbox Mailbox, Google Inbox, and Microsoft Outlook (Acompli).
While I don't doubt that they pay more because of the Bay Area, the best developers are worth more money, and I think the best developers tend to flock to the Bay Area for the network effects.
The important part of the answer is "here is how".
While OSX will verify a bundle hasn't been tampered with, but (apparently) will scan a folder next to the bundle for shared libraries automatically.

This bypasses a number of security features (code signing, gatekeeper warning, network firewalls) and doesn't require the user click any unusual buttons or type LD_PRELOAD into a terminal.
Usually, when people talk about Elixir's syntax being natural, they go on to contrast it against either Erlang, which is known for having some odd syntax quirks such as having to end lines with different punctuation marks depending on context (something that can make changing or refactoring code difficult -- although, tbf, Erlangers have tooling that does help with this), or Lisps like Clojure, from which Elixir takes many ideas (it's macro system and the idea of the AST being normal language data types, it's protocols, etc). In fact, I've seen "natural syntax" defined as something like: functions are called like this: `my_function(arg1, arg2)`, and with operators so that numbers are used naturally, as in mathematics, like: `1 + 2` in contrast with lisps where function calls are like `(my_function arg1 arg2)` and math becomes `(+ 1 2)`. I do not know if this is any kind of technical definition, or just one that's been internalized by the Elixir community to some extent (I've seen it repeated in at least two or three places) but that's my guess as to what the author meant.

While Elixir may appear similar to Ruby syntactically, because of it's `do, end` blocks, that similarity is actually somewhat superficial. In reality, a Rubyist will only feel slightly more comfortable with Elixir's syntax than someone coming from another imperative language, for a couple reasons. One, Elixir's usage of do/end is far more regular than in Ruby, where `do/end` have a very specific meaning, and two, the differences from Ruby syntax (defmodule, defstruct, fn -> end, |>, calling anonymous functions) are actually greater than the similarities. But I think both the Rubyist and the (Javascript, C, Go, Python) programmer will find Elixir's syntax more natural than they would find the syntax of many other functional languages.

Of course, at the end of the day, our intuitions and feelings about syntax are quite subjective, and syntax is a very tricky thing because of this.

I can't say for sure what the author meant by natural syntax of course, but this would be my guess, based on how I've seen the term used in other descriptions of the language.

I'm curious what language background you come from, and whether there are particular things about elixir's syntax you found unnatural, difficult or uncomfortable?
Where's the "can pay anonymously in bitcoin" option? I thought that was a thing these days. ;)
What do you think about tjradcliffe's comments "...we had even less clue then as to how the climate system would respond to any perturbation than we do today, and we have relatively little clue today...With regard to the existence of anthropogentic climate change ["the science is settled" is] reasonably correct, but with regard to the consequences it's complete nonsense"?
The proposal - basically to re-kickstart Star Wars - is laughable. The physics doesn't work. We've known this for decades. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense, is only capable of 'intercepting a simple threat in a limited way' says the GAO. A full-fledged system, for the threat envisioned, would have to handle hundreds of incoming missiles, each with multiple warheads and multiple decoys. It's a lot cheaper to build a new ICBM with 1970s technology than build and maintain the hardware needed to shoot it down.

We also have no way of testing the system at scale.

The whitepaper starts "Nuclear war is the only foreseeable threat to America’s survival in this century". I'm confused on how that's foreseeable, while biological warfare, coastal flooding due to global warming, and the emptying of the Ogallala and other aquifers, are not.
This is the best evidence I've ever seen, I think, in favor of not worrying about "having a great launch/1.0 product". Even if you're Apple and the whole world is watching you keynote the product on stage, people will still forget the first kinda-sucky versions, and instead remember the first good-enough version, as the first version.

(Mostly because, for the critical mass of users, the first good-enough version is the first version; it's the first version their friends were excited enough to tell them about, so it's the first one they tried.)

Which is all to say: stop worrying about putting people off with a bad launch product. Ship the dang thing, and keep shipping it, and eventually, somewhere in there, the thing you're shipping will get good enough to get people paying attention. It doesn't matter what the early adopters think; they don't get to write history.
The basic answer was nothing conclusive. I know they had some guesses about age but even then it didn't seem to really explain anything
Not exactly - the economics are important.

Anyone who builds an exploit like this is not going to waste it. It's either going to be used in targeted attacks, or reserved for pwn2own. They're not going to burn it by leaving it on some hacked site to get used on your grandmother.

Those types of attacks happen after the exploit is already known and has patches available. The good stuff trickles down, and the early days of active exploitation are more or less restricted to those with the deep pockets and legal impunity.
Your link goes somewhere unrelated to this drug. Copy pasta error?
URX (YC S13) is hiring a product design intern
IMO what you said might mislead inexperienced people about a Phase I trial. It's entirely true, but people might not realise there are usually some previous experiments (e.g. in animal models) suggesting that the drug will be efficacious.
Old Woman Gets Stuck on Escalator Rail
I'm a Westerner and just don't understand the revulsion, except from a vegan. Yes, I wouldn't chomp down on a raw cricket from the backyard, but the same goes for a rabbit, only more so -- a rabbit seems more conscious.

I gave a friend some cricket bars and he thought I was joking about the ingredient until after he'd tried it. Well, that's one answer to the ick factor.
Gabriel's Paper Horn
> [Tech workers] do seem to be the primary reason why rents and housing prices are going up so much in the bay area.

In 1998 (at about the height of the dotcom bubble) a 1-bedroom apartment in my apartment building was renting for ~$500/month. In 2010 (shortly after the real-estate bubble collapse) that same apartment rented out for ~$1500/month.

Does it seem to you that tech worker salaries explain that 3x increase? Remember that as of last year, tech workers made up ~8% of SF's population.
This is cool, thanks and good work. I'd love to see filterable OS support, multiple IPs, locations... :)

There's also ServerBear.com which is a bit more detailed than this.
This isn't monochrome. Stroke and fill colors can be specified per-shape, just not in the diagram itself.
I am slightly confused:

> Once the beta period ends, your copy of Monodraw would expire and you would not longer be able to use it.

Does this apply when you purchase the beta?
California Taxi Companies Team Up to Sue Uber for 'False Advertising'
I've been a founder and an early employee as well. As a founder, you sign on for the bad times. As an early employee, I always got duped.

As an early employee, I've had to go without a paycheck on multiple occasions. I had to go without healthcare for several months even though I was told the company already had it in place.

Sure, I could leave anytime I wanted. But I would forfeit all my stock if I left. Even if I left because they stopped paying their engineers. Besides, the money was coming. Why leave now? They promise they will make it up.

I've been told that everyone in the company had to take a 20% salary reduction to keep things alive. I could have left then too. Again, forfeiting my shares. But again, I bore the downside of the business without anywhere near the potential upside.

The important part is that none of this was malicious. The founder just had no idea what he was doing, and thought they had to lie for the good of the company.

As an early employee, I hired people into both the companies I'm speaking about. I'll never do that again. I haven't ever done that again. I urge everyone to not be the first engineer.
Wikipedia Wants a More Secure Web, but It's Not Encrypted by Default
At least he's being honest with himself. I see many posts here about people learning a tiny bit of some programming language, making (IMO) unnecessary products and then looking to cash out / sell out at the first opportunity and move on to the 'next big thing' to do it all again.
“There’s effectively no municipal broadband movement in Canada,” Noss said. “There were enough opportunities in places that actually wanted it, and that’s where we focused our attention. People are pounding on our doors from all over the US. We have not had one inbound request from Canada.”

Can anyone here speak to - reasonably speculate on - why that is the case? I see a lot of Canadians complain on forums about their fixed and mobile access, what's preventing competition from solving that and stealing customers away from Rogers et al?
Who says the specific programs have been challenged in court? The argument is that they rest on principles that have been set forth in previous Supreme Court opinions.

Look at the EFF's handy image: https://www.eff.org/files/2015/03/19/backbone-2015-color.jpg.

Do you see the box labeled "filtering aimed at eliminating fully domestic transactions"? That's there because precedent says the 4th amendment does not protect things crossing the border. So the crux of the case is showing that the unconstitutional part happens in the first box--when the data is first copied.

In my opinion, none of it is protected once it's on the backbone. If hundreds of AT&T or Verizon engineers can access a data stream, it's not "private." But I also think the question should be litigated in court.
Any browser that can be exploited on Windows can be exploited easier on OS X. It lags far behind in mitigations. So, the Chrome/OS X combo is not done because it's redundant.
There was another discussion about it recently on HN, which linked to this:

http://www.openbsd.org/papers/bsdcan14-libressl/mgp00025.htm...
Netflix God Mode
A great bookmarklet.
https://github.com/bit2pixel/netflix-god-mode-bookmarklet
Their "fake" installer is a copy of an existing codesigned app (Instruments.app) and a directory structure that causes the app to load a library from outside its app bundle when launched.

In this case, since it's loading a library outside of the app bundle, the code signature is intact. But beyond that, it seems no different than just writing an application that explicitly loads something from outside its bundle. The only benefit here is it can use someone else's codesigned app instead of having to get a certificate to codesign the app themselves. But that doesn't seem particularly meaningful.

Assuming the library itself isn't codesigned, this does suggest an issue with Gatekeeper, wherein it doesn't validate all the libraries that are loaded by the application. If that's true, it seems like something that should be relatively easy for Apple to fix without affecting legitimate functionality (because any codesigned app has no need to load non-codesigned libraries).

The results are also wildly overblown. The entire attack requires the user to open a downloaded DMG and run a contained app without copying the app. This is not something people do very often, and if this really is a serious threat, then a simple rule of "don't launch apps from DMGs" suffices (merely moving the app out of the DMG neuters the attack).
I'll never understand all the down-votes; this wasn't a criticism of the project, it was just mentioning that the beginning of the article suggests nothing like it had ever been done before.
How would you, anecdotally, notice a 25% decrease or increase in the prevalence of smoking in a country? I bet most people would have trouble noticing, even if they tried paying attention really well, and that's probably true even at a 50% change level. But that amount of change can be transformative from a business perspective.

What kills smoking as a cultural norm and destroys the tobacco business isn't everyone stopping smoking overnight due to ugly packaging. That's an overly simplistic and unrealistic scenario. But if packaging changes can result in a persistent decline in the prevalence of smoking that sort of change is still enormous. Being able to cut the prevalence of smoking in half over, say, 50 years? Still a pretty big deal. But it looks like these programs are actually far more effective.
Uh, that's a chart of the total cumulative sales, so just by the nature of the chart, it's going to make the early years look terrible. The raw numbers[1] were: 376K in 2002, 937K in 2003, 4.4M in 2004, and 22.5M in 2005. That's growths of roughly 300%, 400%, and 500% after the first year. That says to me while everyone may not have known about it right away (Apple was still the plucky underdog, instead of the $700B overgod), people were pretty quick on the uptake once they really got to see it. Anyway, even if you didn't rush out and buy an iPod for whatever reason, it was pretty obviously a very cool piece of gear that people would want. "Want" doesn't necessarily mean "buy". I want a McLaren P1, and I know a lot of other people do as well, but they will only sell 375 of them, ever. That's why I would put it in my first category along with the iPod.

[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ipod_sales_per_quarte...
> I would gladly accept that, and I think all reasonable people would too

Hello, apparently I'm unreasonable. And so is everyone else who has said that they choose torture over dust specks. If you select 3^^^3 people, you're going to find an awful lot of us. (And also some sociopaths who literally don't care if someone else gets tortured.)

Your argument seems to boil down to "specks is the correct answer, so anyone who gets it wrong doesn't count; and because we all agree that specks is the correct answer, it's okay to do specks".

On the other hand, I would totally accept the torture for myself, if it would prevent the specks. (At least I hope I would, and to the extent that I can model how I would act in that situation, it does seem plausible that I would.)
Use psexec: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897553.as...

It's occasionally useful to run regedit as SYSTEM.
http://imgur.com/iaaBe0n ;-)
Nonsense. Even PNG images have been used for attacking browsers.

Code is data, data is code. Both are interpreted, and both have exploitable flaws.
Nothing is stopping you stealing someone's computer with Secure Boot and installing a fresh Windows on it.

Yeah, I'd been thinking that if you were stuck with what was already installed, a thief wouldn't be able to get rid of any lojak / phone-home-and-brick-yourself monitors. But you're right, secure boot by itself wouldn't provide quite that level of lockdown.

:(