skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It was created as a research project exploring: "transparent, lifelong program analysis and transformation for arbitrary programs."[1] GCC and other compilers were not setup to do this.

gcc was in fact set up to explicitly not be able to do this.

The developers of gcc made understanding the intermediate forms as well as creating plugins as hard as possible specifically so that you couldn't get around the GPL.

clang a direct result of attempting to coerce people with real money with the GPL.
Modern planes are designed to be resilient to bird strikes, but they aren't impervious, and a risk to safety will exists. Generally, when it comes to birds we just try to mitigate by reducing incidence rate (keeping birds away from airports), harden the planes, and then accept the residual rate.

With human caused issues, it's somewhat different since we do actually have more control of the situation. Or at least potential control.
Flexport is hiring engineers who love real-world problems
The fact that people need to be convinced to keep drones away from planes is a little disconcerting. People just aren't going to be convinced until there's an accident. I wrote the apology a couple days ago. Bookmark it:

https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/19/dangerous-drones-dai...

We're discussing it again 2 days later as the #1 HN story. Has everyone seen Groundhog Day?
I think having an open source application is useless to the end user. I mean really useless in and of itself.

What really matters is that the user is alive and healthy.

Say I'm dying of cancer. Two years later I die of cancer.

What do I get as a user? What benefit do I get from X being open-source? Almost nothing.

On the other hand, if X came with a cure for cancer, then I could get some real benefits.

The only thing open source does is allow developers to gain understanding of how it works even if no one understands how it works, and then write tools to "liberate" data from itself and extensive documentation of data formats knowing that it matches the source code. But I suppose you're right, none of that is useful if you're looking for other people to solve your problems.
> But Verge Genomics is able to cure brain diseases 1000x more quickly than big pharma by using algorithms

Guffaw. Tech journalism at its finest. The company sounds great, but I'm not sure Techcrunch is really doing them a lot of favors by just making stuff up.
Earnings Release FY15 Q4
I love the syntax!

Have you considered setting it up as a cron pre-processor? It would ease integration into existing systems and let people adopt the easy new syntax, without replacing their entire scheduled tasks architecture.
The paragraphs after the photo of Charlie Miller describe the process of identifying and isolating wireless exploits, including remote-activation of windshield wipers on a vehicle in one of the researchers' driveways. This did admittedly escalate quickly to passive "tagging" of vulnerable vehicles by VIN, but that's a far cry from the experiment in question.

The findings before physical tests (identifying cars with a lack of airgapping or other basic security measures) were also reported to Cadillac (as one example among others); said findings were basically dismissed with a "well we've already released a newer Escalade model with some more security features, so whatever".

This isn't to mention that the wired exploits should've been enough to at least spark some level of concern.
Actually you only need use your private key to sign a message to pay, which then triggers the deployment. I have an example, if you are so inclined: https://www.stackmonkey.com/demo/splunk/
This is scary. Malice or incompetence I think it's unacceptable for systems handling the breaks and other crucial functions of the car to be anywhere close to interacting with internet connection.
I am going to stick to old style cars for a while. This is really scary.
Well I manage a team, I have direct reports. I can tell you that Sally and Steve and Joe all have the same job title, but Joe is a rockstar and earns more, and Steve is a slacker who got the job because he knew someone. So when the averages come out, and Sally gets pissed because she's not making what Joe is making... that's what causes drama.

Pay really does, more often than not, reflect the individuals contributions. Why? Because as Joe's manager, I want to keep Joe. I know what market rate is for his position, and I do what I can to make sure he is paid above it. Steve... fuck that guy, let him make below average... he didn't deserve the job in the first place, and we'd all be better off if he quit.

Anyway the fact that it's not by name (so you can compare yourself to another person) makes it worse in my mind. If you are just going to share the salary for your position, we'd need to make different positions for Steve, Sally, and Joe... It would be Title Blah, Rank Joe. Everyone is different.

All names changed of course.
Well, technically we do know what's in the black box of course, it's just that for many methods it's not easy to summarize because there's so much happening under the hood. Leo Breiman (who invented random forests) gives some examples of how to do it, though: https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1009213726
Examining Microsoft Edge Browser Performance
No problem. :)

And I wouldn't call this a fight. Just an ethical debate. One that'll probably be a bit heated, of course, given the circumstances, but it's one that needs to be had.
Yeah, the article never does specify what type or size of aircraft was involved. The mention of commercial drones for aerial photography makes me assume they're talking about a small remotely-piloted multirotor, but it's not even clear if the article's author knows what type of aircraft was involved in this incident.
see also http://w3.win.tue.nl/nl/onderzoek/onderzoek_informatica/visu...
It's always great to see new approaches to pharmaceutical development. It's a field that's desperately in need of a better approach.

I do have to wonder, however, when having a focus on neurodegenerative diseases that are largely seen as proteopathies, how useful a method that is presumably targeting only gene expression can be, which is what I assume you're targeting. If the view of diseases like PD as prion-like diseases with perhaps randomly misfolded proteins that recruit others and propagate through the brain is correct, for example, will targeting gene expression be able to do that much beyond treating symptoms? And if targeting genes that are not necessarily

I'm divided on the usual search-of-preapproved-drug approach too. On the one hand, it vastly lowers costs, speeds up trials, and can actually make development somewhat feasible for startups, but on the other, it does really feel like searching through a bunch of drug candidates that have no reason why they'd be effective for your targets. It's unfortunate we don't have a better approach here. And of course, as I'm sure you know, success in mouse models often translates to nothing at all in humans.

I'd be curious to know what sort of genomic data you're actually using for your analysis.

Again, though, it's great to see a startup working in this area, and I'll look forward to seeing what you come up with.
How can a commercial drone take down a plane? Isn't that sensationalism?
Some context: tumblr feminism includes shining examples of humanity that fight the patriarchy by doing things like doxxing trans women. The quoted post is defending feminism by pointing out that the ridiculous tumblr wing of it doesn't represent the whole movement.

What's wrong with that?
The one instance that comes to mind of an airliner encountering an entire flock of birds, both engines were destroyed and they made a rather spectacular landing in the Hudson river.

Airliners are made to withstand bird strikes, but that doesn't mean they escape with no damage. I agree that there probably would have been no casualties if the plane had hit this drone, but it's not exactly a guarantee. It could have easily taken out an engine, and then a mistake or further equipment failure while handling the emergency could have caused a crash. The odds are good that everyone would be fine, but we're talking something like a mere 99.9% chance that everything would be fine (minus a couple million dollars to fix the engine), rather than the one-in-a-billion odds we're accustomed to seeing for air travel.
Does anyone make that distinction in a reliable or consistent way?
Ideas besides the already mentioned forums and other online places:

Go to a bookstore and talk to the owner to see if they would promote your software (if it adds value to the bookstore)

Go to a library and talk to potential users about the idea, get some to test the app and give feedback (buy them coffee/donuts as a thank)

Talk to the librarians, they probably know your user base, ask them how to promote the sw.

Go to a coffee shop and talk to those sitting and reading books - tell them about the app and get feedback.

Submit as show HN
Submit to product hunt
Submit to all the beta lists out there if it is in beta
For sure. The stack is designed to make hiring and maintaining simple, rather than to be completely elegant, so with that in mind:

Server is Nginx. Evaluating HHVM for migration is an ongoing concern, but there's some edge cases we run in to where it does wonky things. That said, within the next ~12 months, I expect we'll be on it.

MariaDB, with query results cached on Memcache. The data we deal with is massively relational, with some very large tables and result outputs, so there's no way around using a tidy RDBMS for us, and consistency is a big thing.

PHP, with a few tiny, high speed libraries for DB connection management and routing. As far as possible everything uses PHP functions that map directly on to underlying language equiv, and we make a lot of use of streaming and generators, which makes memory overhead nicely manageable. When HHVM becomes a thing for us, we'll then start pulling some of this over to Hack.

That's all set up as a bunch of RESTful APIs, which are reasonably HATEOAS in their outputs. Output format is either JSON or HTML, depending on request params.

Front end is a bunch of React bits. We're slowly converting into React, so initially we used HistoryJS to manage URL history, along with React to render stuff. Qwest for XHR handling, and a few little libraries and helper functions (of note: moment.js and numeral.js).

Everything then gets executed on the client. Current roadmap is to build something akin to React router for managing loading of assets and better history management, and to pull the entire front end into a single application. At the moment, it's better thought of as a bunch of distinct SPAs, operating over a common middleware.

Architecturally, the back end services are written MVA, with data going through our own DAL, with RBAC sitting in front of everything. Caching is handled in the DAL, so everything acts as a black box - models don't know where the data came from, adapters don't know where the model got it's data etc...

The front end is written loosely around a Flux style architecture. Data is held in a single area, as are all methods that interface with state. Those parts sit at the top, and pass data as props down to UI components, written to be dumb as to where there data comes from.

IO is mostly via single HTTP requests, but with the option to hook onto ZMQ for real time interaction.

Hope that helps! I'm currently writing some lower level thoughts on React on our blog (https://builtvisible.com/blog/) with some more advanced stuff coming shortly.

Apologies for the various TLAs. If you need anything explaining further, shout.
People trading some known bugs for a whole heap of new ones, ones likely to change all the time? Doesn't sound like the smartest operations move.

Given they've gone and written stuff to automatically restart the processes under certain conditions anyway, might as well just catch the memory leak and restart, rather than gamble with "not for production use" software in production environments.
A beautiful story about the inner workings of a patent-pending species-specific insect repellent based on a small strip of magnetic strip. As one might guess, it involves encoding the words "FLEA" and "TICK" on the strip. Or maybe "AELF" and "KCIT" to properly actuate the quantum polarity? The story was written in 2010 while the patent was still pending. But surely it's been rejected by now. Nope. Also as one might guess, the patent was granted by the USPTO with the the main claim intact: https://www.google.gg/patents/US8382001

Have you ever thought to yourself "Sure, this advertisement says 'patent-pending', but that only means that someone was able to scrape together enough money to file a patent. It's not like someone has vetted the technology and actually granted them a patent." Well, now you see that you can safely shorten that to "Sure, this advertisement says 'patented', but that only means that someone was able to scrape together enough money to file a patent. It's not like someone has vetted the technology."

This is probably not surprising to anyone who understands the role of patents. They aren't designed to act as evidence that a technology is useful, or even possible. Instead, they are designed to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", which seems to be interpreted as to "create a secondary market for dubious patents". I was surprised though to see that they had been granted a second patent, covering the ornamental design of the tag: http://www.google.com/patents/USD626704

I was aware that design patents existed to cover essential innovations such as the rounded corners of a "portable display device" (http://www.google.com/patents/USD670286), but I hadn't realized how broadly they could be applied. Is there a threshold that needs to be exceeded when determining how much the grant of a design patent will "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"? Or can one expect to receive design patents for any design variation you can dream up?
I'd like to see the assessment they provided to their review board comparing the risk of their actions with the risk of not doing their actions.
Sad to see speedtest.net instead of http://speedof.me -- an HTML5 speed test that doesn't need flash and works cross-platform.
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean nobody will do it.
my experience is like yours that unit test developed in development are rarely useful.

however, having a framework in place helps a lot when working at user submitted issues: those are the issue one should strive to replicate trough unit test. In a six month of production, you get a fairly robust suites of test on all corner cases undiscovered in development.
That's perfect, thanks. Answers question precisely.
George Lucas to build AH on his land ‘we’ve got enough millionaires’
Bringing Distributed Ledgers to Wall Street
> Many of these would be big wins for developers. <

I sometimes wonder if devops is the developers way to get admins out of their way so they can work on the next shiny without the admin going "sorry, not until you can prove it is as stable etc as the one we already have".
This is a good idea for a little bit later. First you need to understand what to write about. What are the keywords, what are they looking for, etc.
It probably depends on how the exploit works. If you can OTA update a firmware that allows wireless control, that is a huge flaw.

But this article doesn't really talk about how the exploit is triggered. This is pure speculation, but I bet it requires some physical access to install. And then the wireless control works.

Why do I suspect that? Why else would the journalist have to travel all the way to St. Louis to test it.

Imagine how huge the story would be if these guys disabled a car they never got within 1000 miles of over the internet.

There is probably some CPU in the Navigation/Entertainment display that needs access to the CANBUS for stuff like warnings, speed, airpressures, etc. and also is connected to the UConnect thing for entertainment purposes. You can't airgap because you need the car data.

So the lazy solution is to just firewall it. Make sure the CANBus controller for the entertainment system only sends data and doesn't receive any. Maybe you encrypt all data transfers on the bus for good measure.

But with temp physical access you can reflash that controller to allow it to give commands it receives from the internet connected entertainment system.
Tell that to US Air 1549...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

Birds are still extremely dangerous to airplanes so it's clear that drones (or quadcopters or whatever you want to call them) which are typically larger, heavier, and much more dense will pose issues too.
Facebook is now bigger than General Electric
The word "drone" means an aircraft without a pilot. That's been the case since militaries began testing anti-aircraft weaponry with unmanned aircraft, around World War II. The reason it is used specifically for small RC multirotors (as opposed to RC fixed wing planes or single-rotor helicopters) is that more specific terms like "multirotor" or "quadcopter" are less well-known.
How much experience do you have with the lithium polymer batteries commonly used on hobbyist drones?

I've been flying for a little over a year now and personally seen some pretty gnarly LiPo failures in that time.

I would _not_ want to be flying on a plane with one of those hitting the turbines. Would you?
Because quadcopters are very easy to fly compared to either fixed-wing RC planes or RC helicopters with the traditional rotor arrangement, and the price of the technology has been in free-fall. And quadcopters are a relatively new thing; Affordable ones have only been on the market for a few years.
I remember how many _years_ it took Apple to figure out how to do right-click properly while their competitors were speeding along with that silly second button.

Speed is important. Patience is important. Stepping back and smelling the flowers is important. It's not about fast or slow. It's about right, and you can't be right all the time if you're stuck in the habit of zooming along all the time.
These days I build things that people have been anxiously waiting for. Like, every day it doesn't exist is kind of a problem, that sort of thing.

But I have been on the other side, too, building things users mostly hated. Even when the thing we made seemed clearly better than what it replaced, our users hated it. Or at least some portion would - probably good to keep in mind that people who are happy tend not to speak up as much.

It's quite a predicament for a company to be in, and I always felt bad for the designers. For me it was OK, it ended up allowing me to try lots of different ways of building things.
Exactly how lasers and birds can take down planes: very rarely.

I'm sure that answer would be of no comfort to anyone whose plane's turbine got struck by someone's toy though.
I was thinking about this recently; seems like affordable consumer quadcopters are a consequence of the availability of cheap, lightweight solid-state accelerometers. Why are accelerometer chips cheap? Because they're ubiquitous in phones. Why are they ubiquitous in phones? Because Steve Jobs wanted the original iPhone to be able to tell which way up you were holding it.

(also, due credit to laptop hard drive 'freefall sensors' as another contributor).

Combine that with the cheap lithium battery and digital radio communication chipsets, also driven by phone volumes, and that's why 'radio controlled helicopters' are no longer a niche hobby, and instead a danger to aviation.
Oh, it does, but those traditional jobs, doctor, factory worker, they're harder and harder to get. The bulk of the jobs are less dependent on those factors.

What's left? The sorts of jobs where a personal office is a luxury that few companies are willing to pay for. You get a desk, at best, and a laptop.

Still, as difficult as it is to purchase office space in some markets, it's not impossible. You just need to make do with less. No on-site parking, no gigantic health-club facility or cafeteria.
It really depends on what I am trying to do and the type of tutorial.

The more detailed the better and if it explains pit-falls as well it's nice.

But if you considering SO a "tutorial" or something like fixing small problems - then no I don't learn much it's mostly quick fixes and I'm off.

It comes down to the details and how much time an author puts into a post - Quality comes secondary (ie: authors primary spoken language)
It's because they're more popular now. That's it.
"we as human beings would be all better off without trade secrets, without closed source, and with the explicit permission to tinker, modify, and improve the products we use every day."

So, without Apple products? I don't think so. Far from it.
Moderate sized birds can take down airplanes and helicopters and have done so in the very recent past. Why is everyone so loathe to admit that flying these near aircraft is insanely dangerous?
Far more likely that someone had some bulk tags or defect tags and found a way to spin them into another product.
This is hard. Best case, your manager was someone who was good at what the team he managed did... and wanted to stop being good at that and waste all his time in meetings. Ha.

You have a valid point... and that is to say that leadership doesn't have to be from the managers only. But often they're the only ones who (because of all the damn meetings) have a full view of what's going on with the company, their competitors, and with the market as a whole.

The amount of time I devote to not coding... it makes me good at things that aren't coding. The amount of time my trusted tech lead puts into coding and helping train junior devs (so they'll hit me up for raises) is also staggering.

I miss having a hands-on job, but it's sort of a question of "who are you doing it for?" He's doing it for the staff, and I guess indirectly the company. But I would say I do it for the company, and when the company is healthy that indirectly helps the staff.

You're going to need both kinds of leadership.
True. I got the impression that the specific nuance of benefiting FOSS as much as non-FOSS was being a bit glossed over, though.

It's a little bit more nuanced than "mass adoption", too, though. For me (as someone who tends to lean permissive in his software projects), it's more about deduplication of work and making my things as useful as possible for everyone. I'd love for a GPL project or an MPL project or an Apache project or a BSD project or whatever to find enough value in the code I write to not feel that they have to write such code themselves.
>Do the people on the road during this situation not have a voice?

Of course they do. They can call the highway patrol or 911 and report a disabled vehicle. Let's imagine how that call would go.

911: 911, What's your emergency?
Driver: Hi, there was a vehicle travelling slowly on the freeway with its emergency flashers on, I had to switch lanes.
Pause...
Driver: Hello?
911: Sorry, I was waiting for you to finish. Was there any other information? Did the driver or occupants appear to be in distress?
Driver: I don't think so, he was alone and appeared to be talking to someone, perhaps on hands-free, or maybe On-Star?
911: 911 is for emergencies only, in the future please report events of this type to local authorities' non-emergency number accessible via 411. Goodbye.
>The IRBs as they currently stand are too strict with their regulations.

Better?
The build we're using was considered pretty safe and was performing better for us than 3.7.x - of course we aren't grabbing the new nightly constantly and plan to move to a "stable" branch soon :)
It's not really clear what you're trying to accomplish. Are you running a central server, or local server for a desktop app?

In addition to Owin self-host, you might want to check out Edge.js, which lets you host .NET under Node: http://tjanczuk.github.io/edge/