NoInputSignal

Isn't part of the beauty of app sandboxing in android how it leverages the concept of users in *nix OS? IRC, each app is considered a user to the OS.

Does anyone know what they mean when they say that Apps will be sandboxed? It can't be similar if the phone is running a desktop OS masquerading as mobile OS.

I remember reading another comment on HN somewhere that broke down how project costs are different from employee costs. Something to do with employees being recurring expenses vs projects being somewhat fixed....I'm not going to do it justice. If I find the comment I'll link to it.

I don't know what your reasons against are, but a big one for me is an infringement on one's right to assemble. I know it doesn't sound like much, but for a lot of communities (especially ones that may already be "targets" for law enforcement at all levels [local, state, and federal]), surveillance may keep them from feeling safe protesting.

For example, imagine being undocumented and wanting to protest. You may second guess going to a protest (even if it benefits you to do so), because you learned law enforcement is tracking the communications and movements of protesters.

IMHO, I think this counters a philosophical point of open source software.

The open code to the software we use should not be a handout or a gift ex post facto.

The open code to the software should be an invitation: to collaborate on it, audit it, or frankly do anything you want with it (e.g. WTFPL); before, during, and after using it.

Is HN actually based on this premise of winning? I come here to escape that premise in media (social or otherwise).

I think this points out that the semantics of trusting the header (which is still a part of the message) at all is flawed and leads to implementations getting it wrong and leaving gaps for attackers to exploit.

Don't really know how viable this question is, but for curiousity's sake, is it possible to build a Faraday cage around the machine?

I think you are on the right track, but I would say that any payment that requires banks or card providers (or both) to act as agents of the exchange will ultimately have these qualities. It doesn't matter if you wrap it in a pretty bow and call it a clever name.

I think this is where crypto currency shines, as it doesn't require a deep stack of agents to facilitate a payments. It requires two parties (maybe a third for escrow), and money can move with less friction.

Intuitively this becomes:

if(foo) doX() doY();

Intuitively, as a someone who uses C style languages, this becomes:

if(foo) doX(); doY();

Can someone confirm which intuition is correct?

I ask because, to me: it not being intuitive is a problem--even if it is not classified as ambiguous.

It being only contextually intuitive, also seems somewhat problematic--but maybe excusable if it is assumed you know some similar language going into it and it behaves similarly to that other language.

I think in a country like the US, where news networks can push a political bias (not needing to give both sides of an issue equal coverage), without accountability, it requires consumers to do their own homework on issues. I guess the question is, why not optimize and cut the news out of the middle?

I think one thing that may help that I haven't seen mentioned yet, is to read the codebase you are working on (not all of it, unless it's smaller than a novel)

Pick a certain starting point and follow it down the rabbit hole. Rinse and repeat.

A couple things I find helpful about this practice is: one, it let's you compare the over all architecture against the true implementation (which can vary), and two, it gets you comfortable with the implied standards--the things that can't/don't get written on a style guide (e.g. they keep prepared statements in a separate, common file)

I don’t think human “financial advisors” are going to be able to outperform these sorts of funds.

I think this is moot, because human financial advisors are not trying to beat anything, they are trying to spend your money. Read "Where Are the Customer's Yachts?" By Fred Shwed

Also Jack Bogle used to talk about the S&P 500 would be most people trading individual stocks (sorry I need to dig up the source for this).

Point being: you may not need fancy algorithms to outperform humans at the market, if your goal is only to outperform most humans. You may need something fancy to outperform all humans.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the majority of users don't use spacebar for scrolling in 2019

If you are designing the web for people of all abilities, then consideration of space bar scrolling is important.

Imagine the frustration of a user that expects certain behavior of the space bar and experiences something else.

Is there some traceability on what input parameters were used in testing computer models?

Is there a hypothetical world where the modeling software failed to show this scenario for the correct input parameters?

Either way, I agree, based on the links presented in the OP, there is no evidence presented of it being a software bug.

I wasn't really a math person in grade school, but I remember needing a scientific calculator in middle school and a graphing calculator in highschool.

When I got to college I retook the remedial math courses (starting with the equivelent of Algebra II) before I could take calculus (and the other math courses for a CS degree).

Not a single professor of a math course let us use a graphing calculator, and infact, most had a "no calculator" policy.

I never really put that together: you can learn the same curriculum with or without a calculator.

Here is a good high level book [1] that touches this subject

[1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982789742/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_...

That's why a lot of breaks are literally un-surfable in bigger swells. What was once a nice sandbar or reef, now only has whitewater and their are waves breaking well past the usual spot--usually in a way that is either two dangerous or not fun.

I remember paddling out at C-Street in Ventura in 14-17ft swell...didn't surf a thing and thought I was going to die. Go on a 4ft day and you will be lucky to find a place in the line-up.

I'm not taking a side on this specific situation, but shooting at a limb in a high stress, crowded situation would not be a wise shot. You would likely miss--and hitting someone that was not your target would not be good.

Another comment mentions training for center of mass, and I would assume that's what they do.

Let's say 80% of your shots constitute a "tight grouping", 20% being somewhere other than where you were aiming. Aiming for the middle of the body would likely mean you have a very high success rate of hitting your target individual. Aiming for the shoulder/leg/arm (each one harder than the last to hit) you are looking at a very low success rate of hitting your target. If you choose to use your weapon, I would hope you are confident you will hit your target and only your target.

Curious if anyone else has put any thought in comparing companies like Square and Stripe to the early goals of American Express (AMEX)?

Opinion (don't read on if you are looking for hard facts):

The way I look at it, AMEX designed a closed loop payment system to easily ensure payments between customers and merchants.

Square and Stripe seem to be trying to accomplish the same goal, but in the 21st century.

Strictly calling Square a tech company, would be like calling 20th century AMEX a paper processing company--or maybe I am misinterpreting the founder's point.

Checks you tend to purchase from the FI and credit card purchases have fees, but they are covered by the merchant.

Disclosure: I work for financial institution in the US.

I think that the nature of wire transfers makes them somewhat risky. The institutions facilitating the transfers assume some of that risk for their consumers. If a large some of money is moved from your account to someone else's, and you dispute the transfer, the institution sending the wire may have to refund you the money.

The cost of a single transfer offsets the risk of the aggregation of fraudulent transfers. This could be a calculation of volume, fraud rates, average amount transferred on that channel, etc.

This is all in addition to network costs as payment processors (third party inbetween financial institutions)

So, fees = portion of network cost + risk offset

Hope this sheds a little light.

I think the point is: unless the hacker is already aware of how to sell PII of this nature and how to move "good money" then a hack like this is for naught.

Reading the mistakes made in the hack itself makes me wonder if black markets and money laundering are a skill they posses.

Bug: clicked on "About Hoxly" in the footer menu, from that page (link https://www.hoxly.com) I was unable to open the top menu (device: Android, browser: Brave)

I've seen this with firewood in California. It probably costs the producer more to have someone there then it does losing a portion of stock to theft.

I think OP was asking: even though there are best practices to follow when storing PII, how can we trust every private entity that stores our PII to be using those best practices?

Personally I have only used Prolog in an academic context. I'd be curious to hear stories of people using it beyond that context.

This is implying the best & brightest drivers are driving tricked out super cars.

I see a lot of comparison of device makers, with regards to privacy, in this thread. I think this is a moot point, in that data is collected regardless of what company, service, device is used. The fact that the data is being collected is key; your anonymity is compromised regardless. Google is an easy target due to their size and market share, but many people here work for tech companies of all sizes. Reflect on what data that company collects, how it is leveraged, and if the semantics is much different. Collect, leverage, repeat.

Pretentious water is not a hill I am willing to die on. I was just pointing out that start ups are not backed because of their utility.

From an investment point of view, smart/rich people that invest in start ups know a large percentage of them fail [1]. The idea is to invest smaller amounts in a bunch of crazy ideas in hopes that one of them--for reasons you may not fully understand--succeeds and covers the losses of the others.

Anecdotally: you could argue that a car that drives itself is outlandish, or rentable electric scooters is stupid, or X other idea is ridiculous, but those smart/rich investors are still making money at the end of the day.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilpatel/2015/01/16/90-of-star...