skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Will two resources share the same tcp stream even if they are from different origins? I thought that each domain was given its own tcp stream in HTTP2. Is that even feasible to have a single tcp connection shared by multiple endpoints like that? I've read through some of the specs but not thoroughly enough to know for sure.

One concern I could see for browser based adblockers is the Server Push features of HTTP2, in which upon a client requesting a page, the server can deduce which subsequent requests a client will make (for example, if a client requests index.html, the server can assume that a request for styles.css and scripts.js will be coming shortly after) and 'push' them to client over the existing tcp stream without the client explicitly requesting them.

This could deprive an ablocker of the chance to deny content if I'm understanding it correctly. Then again, its very possible that I'm misunderstaning it. I should probably read the specification more thoroughly to answer some of my own questions.
Yes that was indeed the case, Sun Solaris was losing hard to Linux and they were trying to go the open source route to get back on track (OpenSolaris), however since they (rather obviously) did not want to hand over their key technology advantages like ZFS and DTrace to Linux (their main competitor to which they were losing), they needed to release them under a non-GPLv2 compatible license to prevent Linux inclusion.

They were initially waiting for GPLv3 to be finalized (which would have been fine since Linux is GPLv2 ONLY) but it took too much time so they created CDDL which was, of course GPL incompatible.
> Where are the VCs getting all their money? Are mainstream banks exposed? Hedge funds? Corporations? Retirement funds?

VCs raise money from Limited Partners (LPs). Who are they? The regulars of course (fund of funds, foundations, endowments, large family trusts, pension funds, etc), but it seems pretty common for VC firms to also take on money from other wealthy individuals who made a lot of money from the machine, i.e., founders who got big exits and even other VCs or ex-VCs who likewise previously made bank.

In other words, there's a surprising amount of circulation or recycling of funds in the bay area tech scene. And that's awesome, win or lose.
You have to ask yourself why we subsidize certain kinds of infrastructure, and whether that rationale applies equally to transportation as to dams. The answer is it doesn't.

There are two basic concepts in environmental economics: positive and negative externalities. A positive externality is when someone benefits from something they don't pay for. Markets under-produce things that create positive externalities, because the price does not reflect that externalized benefit. You correct for positive externalities with subsidies.

A negative externality is when someone is harmed by something they do not get compensation for. Markets over-produce things that create negative externalities, because the price does not reflect that externalized cost. You correct for negative externalities with taxes.

Transportation infrastructure creates positive externalities. People benefit from a train line besides those who pay to ride it. Dams create negative externalities. The environment and people downstream are harmed by diversion of water, but they don't get compensated for that harm. Consumers buying produce is not a positive externality, because they pay for that produce. Water is an input to production, and the benefits accrue pretty much only to water users, or those who purchase a product or service from water users. If we stopped subsidizing water, the prices of California avocados would go up, but those prices would be efficient prices that correctly reflected the true cost of growing produce in a place with scarce water.
This probably sounds very awful but part of me really really really hopes that the vulnerability at the source of this was caused by one of the NSA programs to undermine security. Maybe then the sheeple will wake the freak up.
A language success is largely determined by marketing.
Go will succeed because a lot of brilliant people are using it and it's not bad.
That's exactly why node.js is where it is now, and PHP was cool back in the days.

That said, I'll just leave this here: http://yager.io/programming/go.html
My comment didn't say that China is or isn't polite. I just said the discussion of politeness can't be reduced to the usage of one or two phrases.
I think the closest historical parallel is Britain and its efforts to contain Germany in the early 20th century. Nuclear weapons will probably prevent a calamity like WW1 though.
I don't know all the details of bill c51, but I read about the citizenship changes that apply to dual citizens.

They're not going to revoke citizenships because you work in the US. They will revoke them from people who fought in armed conflicts against Canada, from people charged with terrorism related offenses in their home countries, and from people who intend to commit acts of terrorism.

What you've said is incorrect. There's a lot in bill c51, but no-one intends to use it against someone who works in the US.
I pay approx that for Idea. So people will pay that if the product is good.
This was also one of the more interesting tidbits for me. I'd love to see such a test. I wonder if it's easier to 'pass' or get a high score on a test like this in a written format rather than the real life type scenarios typically encountered where its not obvious that one is being tested.
To be fair, there is still mediocrity left in computing.
Not sure if it's the same thing you're talking about, but waaay back they did a license change for their language products that said something along the lines of anything produced with their compilers belonged to them. There was a huge outcry and pretty much right away they said "oops! our lawyers got a bit happy" and fixed it. I don't recall exactly when that was. Their Pascal was "Borland Pascal" at the time. I think that was an honest mistake, as I doubt anyone there at the time would have thought they'd get away with that.
Every time I got interested in buying gold, I would look at those 30-40 year graphs and decide differently, but maybe history will not be a barometer in this free money economy? I now look at my CD rate and it's .10 %. I look at the stock market and wouldn't risk putting in money now. I hear the economy is getting better, but just on my block there's so many unemployed men digging into that savings account.(The account that was meant for retirement?) Yes, tech is hot. VC's have money to burn--now. The average guy is locked out of the current party though. While I'm on the box, why do I feel the big boy investors are just waiting until the retail stock investors get over any 2008 residual fear, and start putting serious money into the market; then the big boys(who have had access to this free money) will pull out of the market--leaving The Retail investor holding an empty bag? I am not asking lister. I'm just babbling out loud. I guess what's really scaring me is these low interest rates, and maybe gold might be a good call?
Have you tried

ucbLogo
https://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/logo.html

or FMS Logo
http://fmslogo.sourceforge.net/

...no IDE, but there is a REPL. As for resources you might like to investigate:

http://fmslogo.sourceforge.net/workshop/
The problem with all statements regarding programming languages is that they rarely have empirical evidence to back them up. Do you have any data showing that generics will lead to a cleaner language? I have seen a study or two that tried to measure productivity, bug counts, etc with regards to generics and what it showed was that writing code using a library that is built with generics was ever so slightly faster. However, it showed that creating or editing a library that used generics took 10x longer.

It seems that you can't really make the claim that adding generics leads to a "much cleaner language".
Google is the leading search engine in both Africa and South America though.
im quite amazed that ocaml seems to be on a rise (judging from how often i've recently seen it on here). it reminds me of the time i started to dig into it more than a decade ago when mldonkey [0] was a thing.

also, this is the way to briefly introduce a programmer to a new language. just show the commented syntax. i just hate reading all the prefaces and texts of language manuals. it's good they're there but i'm just loosing interest too quickly if you don't show me code.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLDonkey
When interest rates start going up later this year this bubble will pop
Withdrawal from the Recording Media Business
This is always how I think of 慢走. "Oh really? leaving so soon? It was good to see you" - this kind of sentiment.
This sort of legalese and fear of any potential liability for anything is normal for everything in the US.

It's crazy.
yeah but it's left to the officer's discretion. Sure they say it's "intended" for this or that, but it can be used for anything. For example, if I protest a gas pipeline, I can be deemed a terrorist and my citizenship taken away without due process.
> Nobody thought of the Office of Personnel Management as security critical

This was the actual plotline of Skyfall.
The real question is, "if we're in a bubble, how do we take advantage of knowing it will pop?" (genuine question)
1. Lots of unicorn corpses. They either get down rounds, fold completely, or get bought for much less than their last round's valuation.

2. It would be harder for new startups to raise money. The big losses in the unicorns would then lead to smaller B/A/angel rounds.

3. Lots of unemployed people who formerly worked at startups, scrambling to get jobs and the handful of large survivors.

4. With money drying up, it would be a good time for bootstrappers or people who don't need much financing.
With FISMA no one builds even remotely secure systems, nothing anyone here would even want their name associated with. And this is because under FISMA government executives can "except risk", and they don't have to justify why.

So when your agency needs an application to do X, and you will face consequences if it doesn't get spun up, and to do so requires you cut a lot of security corners, but you won't face any consequences for doing so, you're going to cut those corners. Especially if not cutting those concerns means delays in rolling out that system, or spending a ton of money to fix all those security problems. The state of information security in the government is atrocious for this reason. It's not that complicated. There is no real incentive to secure systems, and very real insentives to not do so. You just issue the ATO and accept the risk. It's up an running and everyone is happy. If it's not and running people are pissed. It gets owned, people shrug and say "well nothing is totally secure".

Until this changes, compromises will continue.
Human Intelligence Enterprise (MIT Course)
It's not as if Microsoft voluntarily got nicer. They did every dirty thing they could to dominate the PC industry and simply failed. Now they're beginning to steer their leaky ship in a better direction, good for them. For me personally, I'll never be a fan of the company that selfishly held the web back with IE for a decade because they didn't want to compete. Sic semper tyrannis!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
Is it common practice for a newspaper to essentially reprint an article from another publication, without seeking a response from the (accused) parties?

I would expect at the very least for the BBC to seek a response from Snowden/Greenwald/theGuardian/etc before publishing this article with subheadings like:
>'Hostile Countries'
>'Huge Setback'
BTW, it's not just for dual citizens. It's for all naturalized citizens also. In fact, you can lose your citizenship even if you're born in Canada, but can potentially qualify for some other country's citizenship through your parents. It's all levels of fucked up.
Will the next financial crisis be caused by a Haskell space leak?
On Naming Variables – RC “Bob” Martin [pdf]
The UK govt have lied time and again. Weapons of mass destruction.

BBC are also totally unreliable when it comes to the top level stuff. They get told what to write.
There's also the loud "excuse me" with upwards inflection which denotes the person has taken huge offence.
In fact, yet another of iOS 9's features is a custom VPN protocol API, so you could probably do this purely client side as a "VPN" that just connects directly but blocks certain hosts.

Disclaimer: There may be reasons this wouldn't work, technical or approval-wise, that I'm not aware of.
In those Techempower benchmarks Java destroyed Go for web app style requests.

And given that the JVM is so dominant in big data (e.g. Spark, Storm), online betting and applications like high frequency trading you could make the reasonable assumption that Java is anything but slow.
Local public libraries have had this problem since they were invented. Weeding is a huge part of managing a collection.

My FIL is a director of a public library system. Weeds tons of books.
The numbers (in startups, at least) are much, much smaller than 2008. Total VC funding was about $48B in 2014 [1]. By contrast, the subprime mortgage in 2007 was $1.3T [2]. The current student debt loan burden is about $1.2T [3].

I predict that the coming tech crunch will be a sideshow in much bigger chaos caused by the effects of rising interest rates on newly-minted college grads. We live in a bubble in Silicon Valley; across most of the country, youth employment never really ticked upwards. If interest rates go up, I think we'd start to see widespread non-payment of student loans and possible political unrest. That's much scarier than a few startups going belly-up.

[1] http://nvca.org/pressreleases/annual-venture-capital-investm...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Subpr...

[3] http://www.forbes.com/sites/specialfeatures/2013/08/07/how-t...
> In the GPL v2.0, there's some language in section 2 that suggests that if you ship your closed-source app with the open-source app, then you're licensing both under the GPL. GPL2 isn't super clear on the issue.

That's unequivocally false.

It's not even a matter of GPLv2 making vague suggestions or being unclear. It's explicit and says the exact opposite of what you've written.

You can ship closed source apps and free software together. If that wasn't the case, then none of the Linux-based consumer devices that ship with proprietary userland would be able to exist.
Professor Zimbardo created a tyrannical environment and found "proof" that humans were innately tyrannical. Right.

As this article suggests, but doesn't quite state openly: the Stanford Prison Experiment says as much about Zimbardo's psyche as it does about human nature.
Likely the evidence for a bubble
that would be risky for our economy
is the surprisingly large number of
recent
unicorns, that is, private
companies who have a recent funding with a
post money evaluation of
$1 billion or more.

One reason for so many unicorns, that is,
such valuable private companies,
is the reluctance of significant private
companies to do an IPO. Reasons
include (A) having to
try to please Wall Street
that has a very
limited view of real progress
for a company and a very short term focus
and (B) the
overhead of Sarbanes-Oxley.

But I believe that you will find that
a surprisingly large fraction of
the unicorn fundings are
more like traditional private
equity instead of venture capital.
So, for the unicorns,
the high post money
evaluation may be at high risk
(bubble bursting),
but, due to the deal terms,
the last investor is
relatively well protected and
at only low risk.

That high
post money evaluation was just
something out in the ozone anyway,
a long way from that much in
actual cash,
so that, if such high evaluations
suddenly
disappeared, that is, the bubble burst,
then
the effect on the economy would
be minimal.

So, why do these goofy late stage
fundings and unicorns even exist? The
companies may want the cash from
the equity funding and not
want to attempt an IPO, and
the private equity investors
see maybe an upside, if the
bubble doesn't burst first.
The american attitude towards seat belts is amazing. The article describes him as a great guy, and mentions the belt only a single time, regardless of the fact that, while he did not hit anyone, that crass irresponsibility caused immeasurable injury to his family, as well as massive amounts of cost to the tax payer.
Exception handling may be an acquired taste.

But it is infinitely better tasting than Go's ridiculous error handling which is something you would expect in the 1980s.
Hmm. The UK has a Freedom of Information request process, much like the US (ie just as neutered). The request would be, essentially: "prove it". The hard part would be putting it in a form likely/able to be answered.
The level of access Snowden accrued may be symptomatic of structural access failure.

Chelsea Manning, too, got away with a considerable amount of material.

Surely other state actors would have moles at these levels - so they probably got all this stuff as well.

Security by obscurity may be a bad rule to follow at the state level - in the future we may need to know we are safe and not trust spies or wonks with our safety.

Cryptography needs to be provably secure. Perhaps safety should be? Which raises the question can National Security be performed transparently ?

Was the hack of GMail by China attributed to a NSA backdoor ?

The real problem may be general to any government department that lacks oversight - total and utter incompetence.

No-one has publicly hacked Greenwald - the secret services have been caught with their pants down at least twice.

The BBC reports Russia and China have cracked encryption implemented by Snowden. From what I read about Snowden it seems he would have used the best publicly available crypto and so that is quite a considerable claim.

Conclusion : leaks are more likely to come from the leaky sieve.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/3662a707-0af9-...

I cite Adam Curtis :

"Maybe the real state secret is that spies aren't very good at their job and don't know very much about the world"

These super secret departments get more funding and power when there is more terror not less.

The career incentives of the intelligence classes may not align particularly well with actual national security.
are you taking interns? I'm a grad student in Canada.
I imagine that if the alleged bubble burst, VC funded startups and their immediate environment would be where the most damage was/is. A lot of startups would just fail. Employees would lose their jobs and options/shares would be wiped out. Even otherwise healthy startups could suffer or fail from the mess. If a company is worth $200m one day and $40m the next, all sorts of bad things can happen even if they are profitable.

Beyond the immediate vicinity of VC backed startup land I don't think the fallout would be very severe. VC funded startups are not really a very big employers in the scheme of things. VC as an asset class isn't a big one either. Since VC investments are expected to be high risk, most end user investors allocate only a small portion of their portfolio to the class. It is expected to be high risk and on the whole it is considered very irresponsible to depend on its success. Even startup employees do not generally treat their jobs as highly secure, so at least psychologically they are prepared to one day find themselves looking elsewhere. They are also generally employable in the much large technology fields that are not directly related to VC money.

For an analogy think of the hypothetical bitcoin bubble bursting. Some bitcoin centric businesses would go bust. Some gamblers would too. But I imagine that most people holding large amounts are aware of the risk, they haven't bet the house on it.

I think the "systemic" impact would be minimal. The real dangerous bubbles are asset classes like real estate, bonds, blue chip shares and those esoteric but enormous "instruments" and securities. These are expected to be reliable and safe so money that must not disappear goes into them. They are also much bigger.

I guess you never really know unless it happens, but I doubt the kinds of levers that make big bubbles so bad are present here. A lender wouldn't/shouldn't be loaning out money to be invested in VC, so I don't think you would have the kind of domino effects that make crashes spread.

If it was severe and scary enough with big name "startups" going under, tech stock prices might dip. That might be a good time to buy. I can't see much of a relevance of a VC crash to Google, FB or MSFT's medium term prospects.

EDIT: One more - Since VC is a "professionals only" class of investment, we are not likely to see middle class people directly impacted. This means that macro-demand shouldn't be effected much either, except directly by employees losign their jobs and startups no longer consuming whatever they consume.
Yes, those frets ARE all wiggly, but believe it or not, this NAILS intonation
A lot of talk has been going on about this, and a lot of comments start with a few set of presumptions.

One presumption, usually left unexplained, is that there are a lot of "unicorns" that will collapse.

I am most interested in classifying these unicorns, and speculating which will fall and which won't.

Here's my list -- I want your thoughts on it.

1) Uber -- will not go down

2) Dropbox -- will go down

3) Airbnb -- will not go down, unless threat from regulation becomes stronger

4) Snapchat -- will go down

5) Twitter -- will go down

6) Facebook -- will suffer significantly

7) Square -- will go down

8) Apple will be entirely unscathed

9) Google will suffer, but be largely fine

10) Microsoft is suffering already. It will continue to suffer, but will not go down.
Who is talking about Europe? This is about reaching Kenya. It should actually be ~60-70ms.
A very contrived example.
Previous discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622720
Conflict Over Sociologist's Narrative Puts Spotlight on Ethnography
The content could still be loaded, but not processed or rendered, perhaps?
Woo hoo, thanks for the tip!

But I still need to worry about creating a memory leak with this. :(
Not sure if you are serious but the hard part of gcs is resolving and identifying cycles. Cycles with shared pointers are just leaks.