HN user
Correct, because putting additional data in GECOS is completely optional. This isn't about having your email client know your birthday, it's about phoning home to gate functionality. Verifiability, attestibility, all the loopholes that you think make this harmless are the croaks of a frog that is unjustifiably confident that the water in the pot won't continue getting hotter.
It's literally not possible for one economic system to simultaneously "take over" the entire planet, so if a socialist or communist revolution ever took place there would absolutely be a first single country or group of countries to "go socialist." The USSR and its allies were, at the time of their existence and the height of their influence, recognized as being fundamentally communist in nature by communist scholars. Whatever deviations from that ideal caused them to fail are no greater in magnitude (or relevance) than the deviations current nation-states have from capitalism that libertarians use to No-True-Scottsman actually-existing-capitalism.
If communism 2.0 is a better system and wouldn't fail for the same reasons that the USSR did, then talk about those differences. When talking about communism 1.0 (and the many, many socialists/communists living today who basically have not deviated from the mindsets of the revolutionaries of the past), drop the special pleading and take the L.
No meeting of the minds unless the author can be proven to have solicited the attention of specific suspects, so no conspiracy charge. That's not to say the author of this site wouldn't be made example of if their advice ever became a nuisance to the police; show them any given soul and they'll find you the crime.
I think (and it's possible I'm being too charitable in the face of bad science reporting) it's a reference to the number of independent variables that affect a read operation, and not a statement about new spacial physics.
To clarify what I mean when I talk about what I think they mean (yes that sentence is confusing), consider the following example:
The pits on a DVD are subject to one-dimensional analysis because every position targeted by the laser for a read operation can be in one of 2 states (i.e. 2^1)
The pits on a dual-layer DVD are subject to two-dimensional analysis because every position targeted by the laser for a read operation can be in one of four states (i.e. 2^2, because there are two layers and each layer can be in one of 2 states independently of the other)
If I understand the article right, this technology uses 3 physical layers, and adjusts the size and orientation of each air pocket in the glass. So on each individual layer, a dot can be categorized in any one of 8 states (2^3) and there are 3 layers (2^3) of dots. That should give 2^6 possible states per read operation. So why do they say 5 instead of 6? There could be any number of reasons, such as certain adjustments to size and orientation at a higher layer affecting the ability to read from a lower layer, or error correction built into the decoding algorithm.
But yeah, that's my lukewarm take on their silly buzzwords.
Reminds me of a general-purpose version of the secure enclave that Moxie Marlinspike blogged about when he implemented secure contact look-up in Signal. Very cool Google released this as open source. Of course, it does require you to be able to trust the security of the enclaves and (at least in the Signal implementation) requires you to make some different performance trade-offs in order to prevent information leakage.
Tangent: On a whim I Googled 'secure enclave risc-v' and, sure enough, there's an extension in development called "Keystone."[0] RISC-V really has such a promising future.
They do need a warrant now, although they did not used to, and obviously don't need one if you hand an unlocked phone over upon request (same as if you go along with 'let me see your backpack').
It's unlikely this ruling will be upheld since providing biometrics to unlock a phone is difficult to construe as 'testimony' since it's performing an action, like complying with a court order to unlock your front door in response to a warrant should you not desire for the police to kick said door in.
The biggest gray area currently is whether typing in a password is 'something you do' or 'something you know', and you can find different precedent to support both conclusions in US jurisprudence for the time being. Hopefully SCOTUS will come down on the side of 'something you know' if/when such a case ever makes it before them.
Hasura's homepage[0] links to their Github[1], so it's definitely open source. The "Enterprise" section of the website seems a bit lite and all the pricing information is on the "Support" tab, so the business model seems to be support-based. I only skimmed so I can't speak to what missing features there might be if you roll-your-own.
Addressed in the article. You're supposed to declare to customs when you leave the country. He would have been leaving from Newark after a four-hour layover.
Also in the article: CBP had 90 days to respond after Kazazi decided to take the matter to federal court, but over a month after their deadline passed are still holding the money, and are refusing to comment.
No it does not, but it can imply it if you take it in the context of the whole article. One round of job posting led to three hires by the end of the article; should we assume that was a unique practice? If so, then the number "three" is an unusually arbitrary thing to mention in the quote you selected.
But that's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. LennyCrop would likely say that your attention to perfect parity in n=1 comparisons counts as moving the goal posts, and I'm inclined to agree. We don't have complete data for this company's hiring practices and it would be weird if we did; no matter what argument you want to make out of this article, some assembly is required.
I hope that people who read this chain ask themselves what they actually care about more: the source of bias, or the size of its impact. I've made my opinion known, but I'm willing to believe that reasonable people can disagree on that topic. It's a debate worth having. Challenging me on my Bayesian assumptions for reasons that are more parsimonious than anything else, on the other hand, is just a distraction.
But I know that minds that have already been made up are slow to change and are more likely to do so in private than in the heat of a debate, so I'll take this parting chance to plant one last bug in your brain -- a paraphrase of one that I used in a very similar conversation on HN just shy of a year ago:
If x% of the white male population is working in the field of software engineering, but only x% * y% of the non-white-male population is, and getting people interested in software engineering isn't a zero-sum game, then making y as close to 100 as possible can only be a good thing. Making a concerted effort to recruit diversely, it is hoped, will have accelerating returns as intentional involvement of diverse contributors will lead to more and more organic involvement of diverse contributors. Even if you want to argue that the reasons people have for deciding not to get started with coding are wrong or that those reasons shouldn't affect the industry for some other reason, the fact is that social patterns will self-reinforce if not corrected for and will ultimately have negative impacts on everyone by deterring more hands from coming on deck.
Again: If this wasn't the right way to begin to solve this problem, then what is?
Quoting you, quoting the article:
It seemed that whenever we had our monthly engineering all-hands meeting, the new hire announcements featured three more young white guys
Arguably so. I'm sympathetic to her goal and that in particular stuck out to me as an over-correction. It doesn't undermine her point that simply changing the job listings can dramatically impact the makeup of your talent pool. That particular provision ended up being unnecessary, anyways; 75% of applicants for the newly posted position met the criteria for diversity hires.
Your point seems to be that explicit bias against groups that are historically over-represented in certain professional fields is of equal or greater moral concern than implicit bias against groups that are historically under-represented. I think that both can be bad, and that reasonable people can judge the magnitude of the harm on both a systematic as well as a case-by-case basis: Prior to the author of this article conducting her live experiment, 0% of non-white non-males were hired for an entry-level position; whereas in the course of her experiment, 25% of qualified applicants were white males, which doesn't sound far away enough from their makeup of the US population to trigger any alarm bells in my brain.
Even if you think that bias-by-writ is always worse than bias-by-complacency, it's still fair for a devil's advocate to put it to you: If this is not the way to solve the latter problem, then what is? If your answer is some version of "leave well enough alone," then I will be unmoved by your heightened rhetoric.
Cursory posts -- whether they're posted by trolls or cynics or anyone else -- that are quickly read and just as quickly upvoted, but don't receive a thoughtful reply, tend to persuade the uninitiated.
In the next paragraph the author specifies that they were trying to attract a wider cross-section of candidates. The hires wouldn't have been on-boarded if they weren't the best candidates who applied, but there's no way to know if they were the best candidates available when the signals sent by the job postings disincentivize applicants along axes that do correlate to race or gender but not to job performance. That's literally the entire point of the article, as far as I understand it.
Since the strategy here is to split the files up into equal-sized pieces, I wonder if the encryption key of each piece could be encrypted with a public key rather than a symmetric key, a-la the experimental (and now apparently defunct) One-way encrypted File System[0].
[0] OweFS discussion thread on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10911913
If the app still wanted to support puzzles that had notes scribbled in them then it would need some kind of OCR to tell the difference between a "starter" cell with known-good data and "puzzle" cells it needs to solve.
But treating the symbols in the starter cells as arbitrary is ingenious, imo!
Quoting from above:
...whether or not people submit code is often silently affected by intangibles, like whether or not they think they'll be welcomed into the community and treated with respect and as an equal.
Even if you want to argue that the reasons people have for deciding not to get involved in open source are wrong or that those intangibles shouldn't affect open source projects for some other reason, the fact is that the pattern will nevertheless self-reinforce and affect open source by deterring more hands from coming on deck.
Do you know how you appreciate your opinions being evaluated on their merits rather than through a political lens? Social movements -- which is something that the free software movement explicitly considers itself to be -- cannot hold anyone to that expectation and expect to make inroads with them. Just as countless entrepreneurs have commented in various threads on HN observing that making your product is never as hard as marketing it, so too are the challenges of convincing people to change...well, damn near anything, inclusive of how they think about the ethical relationship between people who make software and people who use it.
This new high priority project is, in the most cynical and utilitarian interpretation, very good marketing. More likely, it was proposed and approved by people who see an inherent value in it that you might not. If you still don't understand that value, there probably aren't a whole lot of other ways to explain it than have already been offered to you in this thread.
The goal isn't to make everything equal (at least not in the exact sense that cannot exist anywhere), but to change the widespread perception that treatment of different groups is not equitable.
The goal of getting more hands on deck by going after low hanging fruit (ie people who are capable of contributing to open source but currently aren't doing so because they feel uncomfortable or excluded) seems to be a worthier goal than "fostering an environment that accepts its inequity in a positive manner."
If you disagree, you are welcome to flesh out your proposal and submit it to the FSF as a candidate high priority project.
The user you're responding to was trying to articulate that whether or not people submit code is often silently affected by intangibles, like whether or not they think they'll be welcomed into the community and treated with respect and as an equal.
Even if you want to argue that the reasons people have for deciding not to get involved in open source are wrong or that those intangibles shouldn't affect open source projects for some other reason, the fact is that the pattern will nevertheless self-reinforce and affect open source by deterring more hands from coming on deck.
If x% of the white male population is developing on open source, but only x% * y% of the non-white-male population is, and getting people interested in open source isn't a zero-sum game, then making y as close to 100 as possible can only be a good thing. Making a concerted effort to recruit diversely, it is hoped, will have accelerating returns as intentional involvement of diverse contributors will lead to more and more organic involvement of diverse contributors.
Weird that I still see it (duplicate text hastily underlined with imgur's editing tools)[0].
Saying magic words in legalese that sound "right" to the choir in the court of public opinion is necessary but not sufficient to see through to overturning standing precedent in courts of law.
Maintaining, and abiding by, a DMCA policy is the price of doing business online in the US and WIPO treaty countries.
Why is "You must identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed." listed three times in your DMCA policy? Does the information actually need to be submitted in triplicate?
To my knowledge no such report exists. The only answers you'll find will come from reading dozens of articles like this one over a long span of time, mixed with reading "primary sources" (put in quotes because as often as not those sources may be trying to sell you something).
While I am not qualified to put together a comprehensive report, I've been following this subject with some interest for a while, first as a skeptic, and now as someone who believes that not all of these people are completely full of hot air.
Even with my change of heart, I'd still bet against anything in your list other than crispr having any quantifiable impact on longevity in the next decade, and even then the first applications will be specific to particular age-related diseases.
Something resembling a more full "maintenance approach" to preventing aging and age-related disease may be within reach within 20 years, but I'd bet against that, too. Sticking my finger in the air and guessing, I'd say that such a complete overhaul of medicine is at least 50 years away. Although I should stipulate my guess is only that pessimistic because I'm biased towards thinking that such advances won't be made in my own lifetime because, hey, it rarely hurts to be a pessimist.
CmdrSprinkles is incorrect: at least in the United States, mining and other forms of receiving Bitcoins are no different in principle from receiving large quantities of other non-dollar goods or currencies that have an estimable dollar value.
The Bitcoin wiki article on this is incomplete, but informative[0].
[0] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tax_compliance#Are_bitcoins_taxab...
I'll admit that I'm far enough out of my depth that I can't compete with the level of detail your opinion, informed by your professional experience, espouses. So I'll have to concede that there are clearly things I don't know about bias in journalism and thank you for an excellent distraction :-)
I'm not stipulating any of my claims on the lack of lopsidedness in the editorial positions of the journalists in question. A Really Big Number doesn't change what they care about more: being on the same team as the Democrats, or their drip-feeds from campaigns.
If they thought that far ahead, they'd fall behind. They live from headline to headline. The fact that Trump is chum right before the election instead of Clinton is partially stochastic and depended far more on the immediate reception to the stories than anything else.
You wrote a good post and I apologize in advance if my reply doesn't do it justice. I'm on mobile.
I can assure you the things in those emails between the press and the Clinton campaign are shameful on a journalistic ethics front.
And programmers get taught to write documentation and not make things work with hacks or produce spaghetti code. The way the sausage gets made not comporting with professional standards is neither unheard of nor is it isolated to journalism.
They're being shameful, yes. But they're doing it because it's a living, not because they have an agenda.
if you want to buy into the philosophy behind the press and why it's given so much leeway in American law, then their fundamental role is to serve as the fourth estate
Off-topic, but I don't. I view all media -- explicitly biased and ostensibly not alike -- as fully protected under the umbrella of free speech, for which I am an irrationally ardent proponent.
We can make objective claims about our present media not doing a very good job at informing society without getting into that, though. Our principal disagreement seems to be about why that's happening. You seem to want to ascribe agency to it. I think that's a mistake, in the aggregate. Maybe I'm just being a cynic, but I don't think so.
the bulk of the press has decided to burn their credibility in promoting Clinton
I'm not a fan of Clinton by any stretch of the imagination. I see how Clinton scandals get significantly less airtime than Trump scandals, but I have a hard time believing that isn't being driven by ratings. Trump has been graded on a heck of a curve at times, in ways that can't be considered "objective."
And it was seven coin tosses ;-)
The politico guy being a self-confessed hack just reeks of the same problems we would expect to arise from a chaotic system driven by short term interests. The notion that the media is cooperating with Clinton's campaign in order to make her win is contraindicated by the attention they paid to the Benghazi hearings and the email server. The Access Hollywood video simply emerged after those things stopped being news. They've taken priority over Podesta's emails because a) sex, and b) if you're not already a Trump supporter or a Bernie-or-Buster, they're mostly a nothing-burger.
It's not a defense, but it's not a distinction without a difference. If the problem is collusion on behalf of a particular ideology then the solution is different than if it's a problem caused by current models for monetization of news media being driven by short term consumption habits and an attendant compulsion on the part of journalists to get something, anything, new before their peers do even if it's grade F horse shit and they had to sell out to get it.
The rhetoric I was replying to implied that the politicians and the journalists are on the same team because they have the same goals. That's not the case. I think keeping that in mind is plenty useful.
This isn't disproving my thesis that people on political beats sacrifice impartiality and independence on the altar of access.