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.