skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I can sympathize with not wanting to do the same work over and over again, and I would never consider someone a bad person just because they're working on proprietary software. But I can't even begin to understand how the license "punishes" the engineer.

Your employer refuses to use an external tool. Their legal policy is simply incompatible with the licensing terms of the external product. Just as their purchasing policy would be incompatible with a $1B tool. So you're hired to make an internal version of an external tool.

Why not try to change your employer's policy? If they say they'd rather re-invent the wheel, aren't you just complaining about your job? Not external licensing choices?

I'm tired of doing the same shit over and over again.

Then why do you keep taking jobs to do exactly that?
Where are Maps going?
Is there a need? Pixate already performs Android prototyping.
NASA Releases First Full Image of Sunlit Side of Earth of Apollo 17 Mission
That wasn't their initial product that I even paid for.
Not that I minded, I actually liked their initial product until it got open sourced (but abandoned)
Can anyone compare Pixate to PencilCase.io?

When I tried pencilcase I found it fairly easy to use, and liked that apps can theoretically be exported and submitted to the app store.

What are the strengths of Pixate?
What you interpreted as "leisurely" was likely "caution". Overdoses can be very dynamic and dangerous scenes, and EMS will approach carefully. Did the extra 5 seconds have any impact on your friend's outcome?

I don't know what actually happened, but your description is not correct. "A Naloxone shot to the chest" is not something that is done.
I would buy one if I could. There's something to be said about having instant access to a car vs. having to wait for one to arrive.
Yes, researchers don't get a free pass. Nothing is free. They've risked lives and their reputations to save lives. It had happened before in the history. And hopefully it will happen again. Some times it is worth it.

(*) without risking lives there wouldn't have been a video documenting these life-threatening vulnerabilities in the cars.
how do you pronounce that word?
Sorry, I am not trying to put your current employer in a bad light. My apologies. I am not trying to give you answers. I am just wondering if there are ways we could benefit from free software in other ways.
This is very serious, because it can be used on a large scale and has terrorism potential. This could be used to kill people or disrupt an entire city. Where's Homeland Security on this? This is their job.

Meanwhile, do not buy a Chrysler product with the "connectivity group". It's an option that costs about $500-$600.
Blocking the visibility through the windscreen, then shutting off the transmission of a car, that is driving on an interstate overpass in traffic, is not white hat by any stretch of the imagination.
> leftist ... leftist ... Leftists ... leftists ... leftists ... leftists ... the leftist brain ... leftists ... leftists ... leftists

We've detached this subthread and marked it off-topic.
The lectures on computervisiontalks are directly being taken from youtube (but tags, navigation, bookmarking and in-video search capability is added). The lecture 1.3 (for spring 2015 class) is exactly of the same length. However on youtube, the lectures for machine learning class 2013 (also by Alex Smola) are available which are of a different length.
To begin with, the reproducibility of your sample is in question -
https://mrheisenbug.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/dear-american-g...

The resolution from uBiome data is also 16s, and (likely) too low to yield good information.

There is no definition of a good microbiome. The research is still in its infancy. Attempting to 'improve' your microbiome would likely be a mistake. The upside is that you may have contributed by paying uBiome.
I didn't mean capitalists in terms of a job - I'm a tech guy too - but in terms of being ok with capitalism and making money.
Could you provide some supporting arguments / evidence for this statement - "GCC used to be the king of the compiler heap; now it's well on its way to becoming an historical footnote." ?
I think it's because the article clearly names the two researchers, while WIRED is a faceless organization. It's a lot easier to get mad and blame the one with a face.
I've seen this also. Also community colleges (for example Austin community college in Austin Texas) are doing the same.
>> I'm not yet convinced that MIT-like, BSD-like, and Apache-like are any worse at perpetuating user freedom, and may in fact be far better at perpetuating user freedom due to their greater acceptance.

Just try to get source code to any of the Apple or Microsoft OS parts that were BSD licensed so you can tweak them. Then come back and tell me how free you feel. I know you probably don't have a desire to change most of that, but my point is that you can't - for the parts that were changed from their BSD origins with no source released.
But they didn't actually do anything to her! What did they do? Please, I am clearly missing it.

Yes they can absolutely be unhappy that their employees are causing a problem, that's why they tried to discuss it with her. But they didn't do anything to her for it.
Consider an alternative scenario: malware.

In that situation, as a consumer, I'm actually pretty jazzed about living inside Apple's walled garden on my iPhone. The phone refusing to run unsigned code gives me a little bit more security.

It also largely defeats the scenario where I can hire someone to modify my phone's software. But I'm OK with that tradeoff, because I think it puts me on the side of greatest benefit to myself. I suspect most non-programmer users would fall in the same camp.
Rubik's Cube: 19-Year-Old Australian Wins World Championship in 6 Seconds
The article says "This security update is rated Critical for all supported releases of Microsoft Windows." - are you sure?
It seems like you are drawing a distinction between "tank" and "pressure vessel", could you explain what the difference is?
>depleting the community of improvements to the work they have made freely available under good faith.

You pretend those improvements would happen anyway. In RMS's world, proprietary software is not a business. The only way those improvements get created are

1) People individually fix their own problems and support their own use cases. Then boring, unsexy problems that no one is passionate about don't get solved. See: Linux desktop.

2) Businesses perform the least amount of development they can as a cost center; their actual business is consulting.

3) Some wealthy, benevolent patron lights money on fire so that the engineers making that software can keep warm.
No. They absolutely did not have to produce a life threatening event. They could have done it 5MPH and car manufacturers would still take notice because it would still spread like wildfire on the Internet. What they did was supremely irresponsible and the cops should have been called.
I agree, but I fail to see how that relates to the current context.

Unless the unruly bear is these security researchers, the fleeing campers are other security researchers in the same field, and their fleeing is them correctly assessing that some LEA is going to be taking down any bears nearby that even twitch wrong after this.

Bad actors ruin it for everyone.
I think it isn't needed for 99% of all web-apps.

But if you have heavy competition and need a snappier first load experience, it is an option you have.
this is the very motivation that caused us to build Shred Video! "I paid $400 for this camera, and the footage sits dormant" is a super common experience with these cameras, one we felt personally.
Uh... the word "link" doesn't even appear in the GPLv2, so the idea that its language is centered around it is sort of laughable. I think you're trying to talk about the derived works definition and the fact that the kernel license has express language with a specific definition that excludes running programs on the kernel.

I'm not really interested in arguing, except to point out that the kind of ignorance you're showing about how the GPL actually works has far more to do with "corporate acceptance" in "industry" than the actual details do.
>Believing it is ok reflects the same juvenile thinking that motivated another "researcher," Chris Roberts, to apparently "experiment" with live airplanes, as reported by Wired and other news outlets.

Hackers are not entitled to jeopardize the lives of innocent people in order to make a point. They can prove their discoveries without putting others, who have not consented to be guinea pigs, at risk.

Part of me wants to agree. Part of me wonders how many times a major security issue can be ignored, jeopardizing lives, simply because it doesn't get media coverage and was disclosed to the company but ignored by them.

Do you trust companies won't simply sweep a problem under the rug and try to forget about it? I consider that to be naive.

The person you cited, Chris Roberts, had brought up the issue with multiple airlines multiple times for years. The problem persisted because he was ignored.

Would it take a malicious hacker hijacking a plane and killing all 200 passengers/crew on board to fix the problem? Or would you rather him try and publicize the dangers of their systems with a harmful stunt of dropping down oxygen masks (which he didn't end up doing, just tweeted about how he might)?

Personally I'd take the oxygen masks, but it seems other people would prefer to wait and see if 200 people have to die before an issue gets fixed...because that's the more "ethical" solution.
The end of the article says: "The current preview only supports Windows Store apps written in C# and running on x64 or ARM machines, but we’re hard at work adding support for other scenarios."
Sounds cool, I signed up to give it a shot. Are all categories being judged by popular vote?
They were so spiteful that they offered to license the whole thing under the GPL. But because RMS uses an e-mail client written in the last century he missed the offer.

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...
Which Universities Produce the Best Startup Talent?
i just purchased it.

was a bit disappointed that it downsampled my 4k videos to 720p. was there some sort of preference setting that i overlooked?
Ah. I'll wait until I upgrade this computer to Windows 10. I will follow up with a clean install of Windows 10 if the nVidia drivers don't act up. Thank you!
Dude, if you wanted to open a file and read the first line, then just do so. What you're doing is try to derive this simple task in a cery complicated matter full of weird symbols that, even if you don't believe it, are not entirely obvious. People who want the first line of a file want something that expressed that in an obvious matter, not with a baggage of functional programming theory.
> It's insane that people think you need to do all this just to get a live updating counter.

Dismissing this guy's tutorial because he didn't clone Facebook is kind of short sided. Everything is about trade offs. You don't need to make your React app isomorphic if you don't mind a slower initial load and lack of SEO. You don't need to use Mongo, you can pass data from your RDBMS directly to your components as props when you render server side or have them call your REST API using an isomorphic request library. You don't need to use ES6 if you use something like webpack and babel.
Ask HN: Should I start a salary sharing spreadsheet at work?
Is this going to be a total career limiting move? Would it impact me even after I have left the company?
The presentation is available for viewing here: https://youtu.be/nwhZ3KEqUlw
I must say I think the written one is better. It has additional information that I found interesting.
Orthogonal persistence and seamless process checkpointing destroy the "reboot to fix corrupted software" solution

Well, not if you can also just restart to known-good states. Having a reincarnation server of some sorts is a given.

Not to mention "turn it off and on again" usually never works for Unix to begin with.

Dynamic code upgrading loses much of its benefit when users want to be prompted every time an upgrade is ready.

How does DSU hinder post-completion prompting?

But developers actually have an incentive to make their own job harder, as long as they charge for their skills. Tougher development serves as a barrier to entry for the profession, which increases the wages they can charge. Make an OS so developer-friendly that the end-user can develop and the profession of software engineer would go away...which may not actually be a bad idea in theory, but neither software engineers nor end-users seem to be that keen on it.

This is actually an interesting hypothesis. That a lot of inefficiency in software is really a form of job security.

It might make sense, but then again it seems like programmer wages dropping is inevitable, since software does not have scarcity unless you maintain it artificially. I'd wager FOSS has had an impact, though it obviously hasn't finished the job.

It's certainly possible this is why programmable UIs like Oberon and Cedar never caught on, though.
What? The Internet of Things is equally exploitable if your devices are connected over ethernet (or ethernet over powerlines). The key factor is whether or not it's connected to the Internet.
Tell your wife not to tailgate and get off her facebook while driving, and all will be well.
This was a great read. In my mind, it reminded me of the true underlying simplicity of everything on the web. He's right--we are riding the shockwaves of the computer revolution and its fizzling down. The transistor is getting smaller (I think Intel's newest one is 7 nanometers) but soon we won't be able to physically make it any smaller. Does this mean the computing revolution is over? No. I think it just means the future is going to be about combining computing with other fields like medicine, the arts, and so on.
What changed was that VLC relicensed to LGPL, I believe, for this very reason. (Edit: This is incorrect, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9924529 )

However, there is a distortion in your post that is very, very critical for this argument.

Like all software licenses, the GPL controls DISTRIBUTION of the software. This is a legal concept, not a technical one. Downloading software to your computer and copying it to your iPhone isn't distribution, because you own both devices.

The GPL, as a copyleft license, specifies that a distributor may not make any additional restrictions on future distributors (like users). This is so I can't redistribute Linux as proprietary software, for example.

However, Apple had, at the time of the VLC removal (and likely has similar wording today), this clause in the App store ToS:

>You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules.

And, in the Usage Rules:

>The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, IN ADDITION (emphasis added) to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party.

TL/DR? Apple places ADDITIONAL restrictions on software distributed through the app store. This violates the GPL.

You have this backwards in your post. You say that the GPLv3 prohibits use on the iPhone, but in fact, the Apple ToS prohibits DISTRIBUTION of GPL'd software through the App Store.

End-users are perfectly free to install VLC on their devices. They aren't breaking any laws by doing so. The GPL expressly allows using the software for any purpose. They could install it on a DRM'd toaster if they wanted to. However, DRMOaster Inc. can't distribute GPL'd software.

Instead of modifying its ToS to be more user-friendly, Apple decided to pull VLC from the app store. It could have gone differently.

(quotes pulled from https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...)
> but in terms of being ok with capitalism and making money.

That's exactly what I mean as well. I'm a socialist looking to replace jobs with cheap renewable energy, software, and robotics automation. Definitely not a capitalist. To each their own.
HealthKit Basics
I didn't witness the Naloxone shot so I don't doubt that you're right about that, but I know he got one because the cops told us and we found the empty syringe afterward.

I really don't feel like it was caution. The cops were already at the scene. I talked to the paramedics as they entered the house. The whole thing was conducted with a total lack of urgency -- I got the impression from the cops and the paramedics that they were just pissed off to be there, tired of dealing with stupid junkie kids.
I think the missing piece is still how app logic interfaces with the UI code outputted by these design tools. How do you do it so the UI can be updated without breaking interface with app logic?

Immediate-mode UI could be part of the solution, but I still can't see a complete solution that wouldn't piss me off as a developer.
>These developers naturally want to use the great software at work they do or use as a hobby, so they are willing to compromise with the powers at be (business leadership) and release their software under a more permissive license (or pressure their peers working on OSS to release it under more permissive license).

The funny thing is that using the AGPL or GPL would benefit them; the company abides by whatever rules they want since they hold the copyright and the developer gets to use the code for their side projects. The only people who are out of luck are competitors who can't use the code unless they want to abide by the AGPL or GPL.

Basically, using the GPL protects the company. The only concern you should have is if a competitor has enough resources and is unafraid of the GPL or you don't want users to self-host (supposedly eroding the revenue stream in a SaaS, though I don't see it since it takes effort to self-host)
I remember a big argument in the early years of Android. Google kept promoting it (to the users) as a liberating "open source" OS - except it only worked that way until it reached the manufacturers and carriers. After that, completely locked down, and often with many pre-installed annoying things on it.

So next time another company promotes "freedom" and "open source" let's make sure it actually directly benefits the user.
This is my throw away account for privacy reason. I would like to have some advice about my career path (and to echo Sam's post regarding "it may be the difference between going to work at a big company and starting the next Airbnb")

I am a 22 software engineer working at Facebook right now. With the current stock raise, my annual compensation comes out to be a bit over 200k/year before bonuses. I am much more excited about the start-up scene and building product. But to throw away that non-trivial income away is a really tough decision. I am wondering if anyone has done it before or if you have a more general advice. Much appreciated!
I'm saying that in imperative languages for loops are more "above the noise" syntactically and frequency-wise than sequential error checking is, at least traditionally. It's not as obvious that there is anything there to give a name to, and so without an underlying motivation, monads are quite a bit more abstract than a lot of other FP concepts.
It's too time-consuming to actually do journalism when you can just paste a twitter timeline and then move on to the next headline before your competitors can.

It's not about journalism anymore, it's about getting clicks.
But Stuxnet harmed nobody and nothing until it was hooked into physical hardware. This is my main point - I can't actually change anything in the real world, unless I am controlling some hardware, but then the situation is the same as if I was operating it directly.

I agree with you that surveillance is unpopular among hackers, but I am old enough to remember when censorship was considered at least as bad I would like it to stay that way.
Congrats to Paul and the team!
> just like "holes" in P-type semiconductors can be measured to behave like quasi-positrons

I'm sorry to ask because I should actually know this, isn't the remaining positive charge accounted to the protons in the core? A moving "hole" is just a figure of speech.
I'm torn. I understand the benefits of enforcing user freedom. But it's not clear to me that users aren't better served by the ubiquity of re-use that the more permissive licenses have encouraged.

For example, permissive licenses have helped with the walled garden that is iOS. But would end users be better off if we hadn't had iOS? If it were GPL'd, sure, but in reality it would never have been. So is its existence, and the competition it fostered with Android, net beneficial to users?

Maybe more concretely, I feel that the deliberate hamstringing of GCC wrt a published IR to be, well, wrong. Again, I understand the arguments and I appreciate the reasoning but it's not clear that the end user is best served by this.

For me, at least, it probably comes down to the simple statement that, as much as I value end user freedom, it isn't always the most beneficial thing for the end user.

On a different day, mind, I'd probably argue the other way...
>depleting the community of improvements to the work they have made freely available under good faith

What is this insane logic?

If someone modifies my code and doesn't give it to me, it doesn't deplete me of anything. For that to be true I would have to lose something I already possessed.

You maybe meant "deprive," but at no time did I ever have a right to anything that they created. It seems you're asserting that because they used my code I suddenly should have a right to use their modifications. I think that logic is flawed.

I do believe I should have a right to use anything I've created [1]. And if someone feels they've made changes that would be generally useful, and submits code to add to the code I've released, then I would be thankful.

But I wouldn't feel that I had the right to something created by someone else just because I gave them a gift that didn't even cost me anything to give them (aside from possible opportunity costs).

That's not to say that GPLv2 isn't useful for dual-licensing situations (like Qt), so as to convince companies to pay for full commercial use. But the latter situation does NOT guarantee user freedom (people will only pay if they AREN'T willing to release code, after all), and the pro-GPL arguments on this article seem to focus on user freedom, so you can't really have it both ways.

[1] I would love to see a programmer's bill-of-rights that guaranteed a developer the ability to reuse any code that they'd ever written that didn't include any actual business or trade secrets. I once wrote an awesome string class for one employer that was even actually open source, but that was licensed in such an annoying proprietary manner that, even though I can still legally have and use the source code, I can never redistribute the source code. The company made games, so there was nothing at all about the string class that anyone would ever have cared about in a business sense.
When the Internet’s ‘Moderators’ Are Anything But
You can try https://www.dominodatalab.com/
In the Container-as-a-Service there's also EC2 Container Service (ECS). AWS just did a nice technical deep dive on how their orchestration works:

http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2015/07/under-the-hood-o...
coo-bur-net-eees
TIL I don't have a preference, but an agenda. While I'm at it, I suppose it's time to go kill some kittens...