skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I don't think there's a need to create weak straw arguments, when an obvious argument is that GPL forces companies creating new products based on GPL-licenced software to open-source these products.

The obvious argument is that several people disagree with you on this (see the comment about linux being GPL or using GPL software at a bank.), so the GPL is not serving its purpose because people don't understand its purpose.
Possibly. We're already providing more than enough food in the US with existing farmland (although the problem is it isn't distributed properly to people who need said food). Pastureland could be reduced with meat grown in vats instead of raised on farms (or people simply shifting from a meat-heavy diet).

The population trajectory appears to be ballistic, with us hitting the apex in the next 5-15 years (educated women have less children and prolong having children until later in life; almost all first world countries are already below replacement rate, India and China won't be far behind).
You seen to be implying that the user is empowered only if he is also a developer, or has access to a developer. The respondent is trying to show how this is still empowerment.

Would you rather be in a position where you can't hire a developer to improve your software, or more likely download the patch that was donated to the community?
Sweet thanks! I had to make a workaround because supervisord doesn't have a way to serially restart "groups". Will give this a shot!
A user gets to use and benefit != A user has freedom.

It's not about maximizing short run happiness, but ensuring that the user is in control. This is important in the long run.
UIs tend to have a ton of connectivity and little logic/computation.
If you can't handle rejection, then building a startup is not for you.

Imagine you are the guy someone is trying to peddle something onto you that you seem vaguely interested in and then imagine telling that guy "thanks but not now". This is what you'll hear/get a lot, so you must deal with that first.

Secondly, you need to make sure that what you are building is out there and reaching the people who really need it.

Social media is great to get things going, but the person you want to target is the one who goes to a search engine and types:

I need XYZ to do something and your result should pop up somewhere there.
As far as i know Apache License, Version 2.0 is considered a free software license. To quote from gnu.org "This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL."
source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
Funny how everybody is "excited", "delighted" and "ecstatic" about being acquired by a mega corporate.
I don't think you have a particularly strong conception of what a right is. I do not have the right to represent my company to a third party (though I may be tasked with doing so in the course of my duties, as an agent of the company). I do have the right to discuss compensation with my colleagues, as enshrined by the government that ensures that company's legal status.

The world is not black-and-white. This is. I do not understand, Steinbeck notwithstanding, the steadfast desire to take the minimal power of the worker out of the worker's hands.
C# gets more love than not on HN. Even my suggestion of VB as an advanced-yet-approachable language ended up being voted to the top of a recent thread[1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908446
How Accurate Are Your Estimations?
I dont know if licensing was the only reason why GCC missed out on this market. Using parts of the compiler as a library to aid tool building, refactoring and analysis is one of those great ideas that seems obvious in retrospect. To the credit of LLVM's early authors they had a larger vision of what a compiler ought to be than other compilers at the time. I dont recall gcc or any of the other commercial compilers having this expansionary vision of a compiler stack back in the 2000s. Once LLVM was able to move the goalposts on what users expect from a compiler stack, I can see that the license could have eased the decision for the likes of Google and Apple to come on board. It would be interesting if someone from Google / Apple / Microsoft commented on what the thought process was regarding moving to LLVM / Clang and if licensing played a role.
That doesn't at all address or relate to the question I asked, but instead provides a completely different talking point supporting permissive licenses as a charitable act.
Wait, Shyp uses Sails.js for their framework? Huh, they might be the most well-known startup to use it. Sails development has really slowed down lately, especially since one of their core creators/commiters got into YC with a different project; I wonder how Shyp feels about that...

"Avoiding Sails isn’t possible in every situation, but we’ve found it’s a useful design principle - it helps us separate our business logic and our data storage layer, and will make it easier for us to move off Sails in the future."

Ooops.
Solar and wind forecasts are new wave of weather reporting
Well, so I can see this article being twisted all over the place.

It's hard enough to get proper time for planning technical projects without this kind of crap.

Guess what, planning time does save time and lowers your cost of ownership. ROI-wise, planning time is the best gift you can give your project.

But... then someone is like, "Speed, I hear speed is good... move faster. Dependencies... fuck 'em... I don't understand 'em anyway so fuck 'em. Let's just go as fast as we can and we'll worry about everything we should have worried about up front over the next few years after all our devs quit because they're tired of working on shitty code that was rushed through."

This article so rubs me the wrong way. "Technical debt? What's that?!"

Anything worth doing, is worth doing right. To the best of your ability. Doing things right takes time. Take your time, do things right.
You did the right thing. This was completely irresponsible. I'm shocked that Wired, the author, or either of the researchers have yet posted a "we screwed up, sorry" statement.

It's a shame because this is an incredible story and the work they did was great, but what a completely reckless stunt they pulled. Totally unnecessary too, the story would have been just as effective if the demo happened on a test track or empty parking lot.
Ask HN: How would you represent a downvoted comment in text-to-speech?
This is meta, but might still be interesting to think about.

On screen, a comment with significant downvotes has a different color. If it has enough downvotes, the contrast is such that the comment is harder to read; presumably that's the point. But when reading HN with text-to-speech (e.g. a screen reader for the blind), this information is lost. Sure, HN could be modified to add the word "downvoted" or the like such that only a screen reader can see it. But that doesn't have quite the same effect as changing the color. So, if you could solve this problem by modifying HN and/or the screen reader, how would you do it? Maybe add a background noise to the reading of the comment, and make the noise louder based on the number of downvotes?
I'd far prefer a generator that creates pure native code over one that creates a dependency.
I take it you also can't stop thinking about your wife and kids being behind someone whose engine stalls, or who slams one's brakes to avoid hitting a deer, or who runs out of gas on an interstate (which has happened to me, thanks to my car's faulty fuel gauge). You must have a lot on your mind.

I don't agree with the methodology, either, but based on the information in the article, it sounded like the researchers didn't have much of a choice, seeing as how prior demonstrations were casually dismissed by the automakers. The auto manufacturers and the public both need a wakeup call, and this is a much more sane wakeup call than the even worse alternative of outright-malicious crackers breaking into vehicles en masse and reducing highway traffic to shrapnel in ridiculously-large pileups.
The author gives good reasons for preferring the GPL to BSD-style licenses, but it seems to me that there's an even better license for his ideals: the AGPL.[1] It fulfills the same purpose as the GPL, but it fixes loopholes such as running code on remote servers (most website back-ends).

I've yet to hear a good argument from ideals that prefers the GPL to AGPL. The latter really does give people more freedom over how they can use and modify software.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
I learn from the kind if tutorials that are linked from HN, but if I google for a tutorial many have little useful information but lots of ads.

My own tutorials often focus on underlying principles rather than srep-by-step solutions. If the solution doesnt apply bevause the problem is different, say because a new release changed the UI of the software that the tutorial discusses, understanding the principles may enabke you to work out your own solution.
I think it helps to think of your story as a second product that sells the first. PR has a hell of a lot of moving parts, and could definitely be better serviced if you can provide for all of them. I like that it's been mentioned how many people's problems it has to solve. That's a really good start to outrospecting for this goal.
> Please make an effort to read and understand my point.

Please don't assume disagreement implies I didn't make an effort. I understand your point, I just vehemently disagree with it. Bringing up the word "bikeshedding" when discussing putting people in danger of death is just something I can not agree with.

> Yeah, maybe there was a case when a couple peoples' lives were at stake but nothing happened.

This is exactly why I so vehemently disagree. If we found all the people who were in traffic with them at the time, do you think they'd agree that doing experiments in public traffic next to them is a purely aesthetical issue? Recklessness isn't defined by the outcome, but by the possible outcome.

> The real issue is that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives are at stake RIGHT NOW, under conditions that are much less controlled than what people are deriding as uncontrolled conditions. But people are griping about the 1-2 instead of the 10,000-400,000.

Yes, and I'm saying both are very important issues. Experiments on public roads in actual traffic are something that should not ever happen. I'm also not sure I'd put the amount of people they endangered in the 1-2 range, since there was at least one other person in the car, one in the truck behind, and others in the cars that passed them.

I also wouldn't go so far as calling this controlled, since that usually means a controlled setting, safety precautions and such.

> How is this not dead simple to understand? I don't get it.

As said, I do understand, I just disagree. It would also make it much easier to talk about this if you weren't trying to insult me and others.

I agree that the flaw itself is a very big issue. I disagree that the way the experiment was done isn't. And nobody here is arguing that it's good that the cars have that fault, so it's quite natural for the discussion here to be around topics people disagree on.

You know what the perfect location and media would have been for such an experiment? A television car show with a dedicated track and a big audience of people driving cars.
> This is especially the case when a safer alternative to demonstrate this exploit easily exists.

If you read the article, you'd know that said safer alternative was already attempted and presented to auto manufacturers, only to be met with dismissal.
I'm not scared of rejection. I've worked in sales. I expect it. I need it. But I'm not getting any now. So in a sense, I'm wondering how to get more.
The buildings weren't built robustly enough for that. They're cheap crap and often have horrible lighting and energy efficiency. (Not to mention that if you must drive to it, it's inherently bad for the environment.)

Also, no quality lunch spots nearby. You're probably limited to things like Applebee's and Subway.
This is the same as Java's "import static" functionality, which has been around since Java 5.

At least in Java-land, it's considered bad style to use this for anything other than constants.
I also feel the the GPL Affero licence (the GPL response to this, by re-wording it so that you still have to share the source if it's a webapp) is not very clear. I know the company I'm working at is willing to be a good GPL citizen, but refuses to touch GPL affero'd code with a 3 meter pole.

I like it in principle, but I don't feel like it's a good solution in practice, at least until we get some cases going before a judge to see how it gets interpreted.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html
This is the right answer. Instead of letting suburbs rot, we select some for renovation and reuse. With a little work, we can make suburbs more walkable, bikeable, and environmentally friendly.

A book on the subject:
http://www.sprawlrepair.com/index.html

Great Illustrations:
http://inhabitat.com/urban-sprawl-repair-kit-offers-simple-p...
Ironic and interesting point. The client applications also had more efficiency, reliability, and security when set up right. Really hard to do that with web apps to the point that it took a lot of work by smart people to get it working this well. So, we loose across the board.
Yes, you will be able to easily pass env variables when you start a container. What is your opinion about passing variables as JSON or web based form?
Locking a computer into running signed code is just like programming Firefox to refuse to access https sites without properly signed certificates. There's nothing about it that's incompatible with a fully free, GPL software stack. In the case of Firefox, you're trusting the Certificate Authorities. In the case of the iPhone, you're trusting Apple.

You could argue that Firefox leaves open vulnerabilities to things like Superfish (that Windows root CA didn't actually affect Firefox in most cases since Firefox keeps its own list), but you can take the signing concept as low-level as you like, including requiring a signed OS with a hard-coded, single software delivery mechanism which could still be fully GPL.
How does one actually access this special ray-tracing hardware? Some sort of OpenGL extension? I looked around, but couldn't find any answers. None of their press seems targeted at developers.
Here are my peeves. None of them are really things that make me actively hate launchd, they're just things that I think could be done better.

1. Too many different launchd file locations. See for instance http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18502705/how-to-know-a-sp... -- this can make it difficult to troubleshoot a startup issue or get a handle on what is and isn't being started and when.

2. .plist files are a binary format, ostensibly to save space, which seems a little bit ridiculous on an operating system like recent versions of MacOS X. So you have to use a separate set of tools just to interact with them. This also means that it's harder to fix corruption of .plist files or troubleshoot strange values they may have; in a plain text format, you'd just open it up in vi or emacs or whatever, and if you know what you're doing, you could find and fix anything that doesn't make sense.

3. The XML format in general isn't a very nice way to handle configuration files. Unless you've got syntax highlighting, it's hard to read.

4. Complex declarative configuration files aren't my favorite thing regardless, because it's hard to know what your options are and what the right values for those options are. With simple configuration systems where there is are several sets of values, and each set of values has the same half-dozen or so options, it's not so bad. But, in cases where you can have hundreds of different options, and not all of them documented well, an optimal configuration can turn in to a bit of black magic.

I guess maybe #4 doesn't really apply directly to .plists, since they're not intended to be edited by the user, they're intended to just be for application developers. But I'm not sure that's a point in their favor either.
> You can demonstrate the problem without doing it where you put real lives in danger.

Indeed. And according to the article, they already did. The manufacturers ignored them.
TCP sends data in-order but you don't need that for transferring a file. Hence you can do better than TCP.
Mruby
The semantics over what is considered a "distribution event" is not trivial, and it's largely seen as a "loophole" in the GPL that you can write a SaaS using GPL code and get away with it. (For instance, the AGPL closes this loophole.)

Legal departments understand that using GPL code in proprietary services violates the "spirit" of the GPL, which is why they want to shy away from it.

It's especially thorny because if say, a contractor logs into the server that's running your SaaS, and your SaaS is linked against a GPL library, technically that's a distribution event (because the contractor works for another company, and now you distributed it to him), and now your SaaS has to be licensed under the GPL too. Oops.

When you consider all this, there's no wonder large companies just make blanket policies of no GPL, ever. And the GPLed works out there suffer, because those same large companies are happy to use permissively-licensed libraries, make fixes, and push those fixes upstream. But they can't do that with the GPL, because they don't want to touch it to begin with. It's ironically preventing the exact thing the GPL was meant to encourage.
Who goes "this software has stability problems" and decides the correct solution is to go with the even more unstable branch?
http://blog.pgaddict.com/posts/postgresql-performance-with-g...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=clang-gc...

Show gcc and clang to be broadly competitive without a clear winner in terms of speed of execution.
Compiles .NET/C# to native code using LLVM framework:
https://github.com/xen2/SharpLang
It's not that introductory but for applications: https://www.math.upenn.edu/~ghrist/notes.html

There's lots of different kinds of topology, Hatcher's 'Algebraic Topology' is one of the standards: http://www.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/AT/ATpage.html
Interesting choice in building this atop DigitalOcean. Not that it's wrong by any means, but I'd be interested in hearing what process you took in choosing them. (just curiosity)
This tool mostly feels like it'll help the popular people get more popular.

I'm really not sure how I feel about knowing that I'm currently the 3077th-best-earning creator on Patreon. (Although that number is kind of deceptive as I'm paid per creation, which can vary from 1/month to 8/month. On good months I'm more like #595, although I'm sure there are other per-creation folks who make more things per month and/or get more per thing.)
Had that Jeep run into you or you ran into it as a result of this experiment, you may have found that you have a profoundly different threshold for what is, "necessary to get the attention of auto makers".

Just because automakers are seemingly keen on ignoring security vulnerabilities does not justify putting people's lives at risk. And let's face it – a multi-ton vehicle that is not entirely in its driver's control puts lives at risk in just about any situation. The reason you and others argue that the demo's methodology is effective is precisely because of the risks involved; not in spite of them.

It is the responsibility of researchers to demonstrate risks without exercising the extent of those risks. Imagine if virologists regularly demonstrated communicability risk by injecting humans with disease outside of the lab.
This is a speculative outsider's view but a few things likely contribute to the pro-American statistic. My musings are based off of living in Vietnam for the last two years with my wife's family.

1. Half of the country was on the side of the Americans in the American War. The people that were on the losing side had a bad time after the end of the war. The Vietnamese refugees who went to the US had a much better time. Almost everyone in South Vietnam has a friend or relative who moved to the US.

2. An unusually large percentage of the population is young. They were born after the war and have been consuming American movies and pop stars since they were kids.

3. The Vietnamese don't seem to hold grudges for very long. For whatever reason, they seem to be a lot less traumatized by the war than the US was. This is despite the fact that they lost millions of people in the war.

4. China is currently the only real existential threat to Vietnam. It has been periodically invading Vietnam for thousands of years. The only ally powerful enough to curb a belligerent China is the US.

The other thing I would say is that I think the current economic growth is more a consequence of changes in economic policy in the 80s than anything that Bill Clinton did - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_Moi

I do agree however with you that the current US policy towards Cuba is silly.
Criminal negligence is a high bar. We don't want to send people to jail for mistakes, accidents and miscalculations.

Civil liability is a lower bar. Regular negligence is essentially not using reasonable care. Whether air-gaping a cars computer is reasonable car would be up for debate. But I think you'd have a good case.

Product liability is similar to negligence. It holds the builder, designers, sellers, etc. liable for design defects. But I'm not familiar with caselaw about how hacking vulnerabilities intersect with design flaws.

>If history has shown us anything, it's that we cannot rely on software to separate two systems sharing a network. Only physics can do that.

Yet, a shocking number of critical systems are exposed to the internet.
Hi all! I'm one of the founders of Verge Genomics. We want to change the way drug discovery is done and are passionate about getting much-needed medicines into patients hands within their lifetimes. Happy to answer any questions!
Thank you sir. I'll also be visiting/engaging B&M bookshops. It's online marketing that seems less straightforward.
Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks
They will often send you emails where you have to complete a form/survey to get the offer. I usually request the comp. You can call in or email - if you're 1K / GS, there are dedicated email addresses with 24 hr response
I think the AGPL addresses this concern.
I'm really curious how the acqui-hire model is sustainable given the disconnect between expectation and reality. Surely there would be internal models to see the attrition rate of acqui-hires and questions asked whether the money paid was accrued in the form of services to the company. I read somewhere that the acquisition team works on a model similar to an investment bank which kind of explains this disconnect between what's pitched and what eventually transpires.