skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ultimately, it comes down to people with guns.

Here's country X oppressing people. Are they going to stop because you ask politely (or even sternly tell them to)? No. Why not? Because they want to keep going, and they have guns. The only thing you can stop them with is bigger guns.

(Yes, an appeal to their conscience can sometimes work. It worked for Gandhi against the British. It wouldn't have worked against Hitler or Stalin, though.)

So until you have the biggest guns, you're not going to be able to form a world government that has any real impact.

How would you try to get there? You'd have to persuade enough people in democratic countries to put enough pressure on their governments that they'd cooperate with you. You'd have to do that in enough countries that it carries weight even with those who don't want to listen.
Which part of the article addressed that? It does talk about beliefs, but not about discussions. On one study they mentioned persuasive arguments on some topics affected reportes beliefs the way they measured it as part of that study, but that's not the same situation as a discussion response.

What I realized years ago is that everyone has beliefs, regardless of how religious they are, and most discussions DO involve people trying to 'help the other person to understand' their existing beliefs.

Its not just 'windbags'. Its almost everyone in most discussions.

And it absolutely is not something that is limited to online or any particular media versus a face-to-face discussion. People may be more free in expressing their beliefs online, but that doesn't mean they don't hold them in spoken conversation -- they might keep things to themselves.

There are no forums 'full of intelligent conversation'. People _are_ able to discuss things and sometimes gain new information or even change their minds, but the ratio of new information going in versus explaining why your belief is more correct than the other guy's is very small.

People _think_ that they are rational or 'scientific'. Generally though, people are good at rationalizing what they already believed, and only change their minds when all else fails. Including you and I.
I'll make you a deal, Thomas: If you'll lobby equally vigorously for Jane's use of comma splices [1] [2] as acceptable practice, I'll reconsider the singular "they."

[1] E.g., the second comma in "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." (Chapter 1, first sentence.) Or the third [EDIT: fourth] comma in "Not all that Mrs. Bennet, however, with the assistance of her five daughters, could ask on the subject, was sufficient to draw from her husband any satisfactory description of Mr. Bingley." (Chapter 3, first sentence.) [3]

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_splice

[3] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1342/1342-h/1342-h.htm#link2...
8 tutorials for OpenStack users and developers
I bypassed the paywall by googling the url of the article, because they whitelist google as a referer.
Average man in the US is 5' 10" and out of shape. Which is my point the average is a low bar.

Now, 0.1% of females might be at the fit 6' male standard but that's over 150,000 in the US. And there are sub 6' NBA players which suggests is an unreasonably high bar for the vast majority of things.
Yes, communicating / negotiating the decision with the other person. That's how humans do it.

Now try driving in dense NYC traffic, and you'll see humans communicating everywhere. Good luck to self driving cars in that scenario - unless humans are 100% off the roads.
> “The odd thing is,” wrote the cyclist, “I felt safer dealing with a self-driving car than a human-operated one.”

In the not so far future this will be a concept impossible to explain to kids. That we all used to drive around these multi-thousand pound machines and rely on the expertise of often distracted strangers to not be maimed or killed (and dying by the millions by the way)... It already is starting to sound ridiculous. The thought of no machine in control will be terrifying before long.
How do you cope with situations where the person driving might not be aligned with your decisions? (taxis, Ubers, buses, etc.)
I tend to agree with most of the other commenters - don't fall into the "I need a technical person because I can't do it myself" mantra. Build something, anything, to get off the ground. Learn as much as you can, by yourself. This will also help you manage and monitor technical work later on and woo technical co-founders potentially (who rarely like to work with non-techie types).

Like others have said, ideas are a dime a dozen. Execution is what matters. Most apps nowadays can be (rudimentarily) recreated over a weekend - it's likely that almost nothing you are doing is so revolutionary that is should be considered a state secret. If you are THAT worried, it could be a sign of insecurity in your ability to execute on the idea, not the threat of losing the idea itself to someone else. Keep that in mind.

Think of it this way, the Twitter technology itself was not exactly revolutionary and there were literally thousands of copycats after it launched, but their execution is what set them apart and helped them gain the traction they needed.
Can someone explain what a "track stand" is?
Reminds me of that Mythbusters. The junior team split in two, one drove aggressively over-taking, switching lanes constantly, while the other stayed in a single lane, didn't overtake, and just arrived as traffic allowed.

They arrived within a minute of another another, and the aggressive driver (who was Grant I believe) reported that it totally wasn't worth all the stress to arrive so close.

People who stress, get upset, and try to maximum their arrival time down to a second are only hurting themselves.

Aside from dangerous driving I try to keep as calm driving as possible, and like to just get a safe distance (4 sec rule) behind a semi on the freeway, and sit on cruise control until I arrive. Even if the space I give isn't massive, a lot of people utilise the space between me and the semi to transition from the fast lane[s] down to the slow lanes/exit, which I think is a legit public service, nothing worse than getting stuck on the freeway because you cannot transition.
I hear this story a lot but it has never been my experience; I've provided many meals to people who've wanted them (I can't say they were homeless, but it looked that way), and I've been asked for more. Could you provide any data or research to back it up?

I'm concerned because so many myths, such as the 'welfare queen', are spread to undermine social welfare programs and, at the same time, cynically denigrate the weakest in our society. (I understand that might not be your intent, and you could simply be reporting what you've seen.)
> If they are offered an identical position at a company they believe in, they will leave.

The way I see a position is a combination of money, culture and people. It is possible to surpass money. Sometimes people leave for that. Sometimes, your best friend leaves and you move with her. I have never found a company where all three things are replicated elsewhere.
I think so, rereading. But many people assume that simply visiting a page with a widget counts.
Where you stay still without removing your feet from the pedals by pedaling the bike slightly forward or backwards and turning the handlebars.
Or maybe a lot of them were worried if they didn't at least _claim_ to have contributed their share, they would ensure themselves a poor grade.
> Someone with a foot on the hydraulic breaking system and mechanical steering for when the electrics fail.

That already doesn't exist in a lot of cars (drive-by-wire).
There's a YouTube video linked in the article. Basically, stand off the seat, and balance while stationary by rocking forwards and backwards. Possible on a fixed gear bike because pedaling backwards moves the wheel backwards.
I wonder how they're going to handle event traffic. Football games, concerts and other events where the traffic is being heavily managed by traffic officers on the street. You're supposed to obey the traffic officer and ignore traffic lights, stop signs and even road directionality. If they direct you to go the wrong way down a one-way street, that's what you do because it is special event traffic.

Will the self-driving cars be able to handle this?
Potentially the car could flash the headlights, a signal that's commonly used today to say, "I am waiting for you to go".
There are only 578,424 homeless in the U.S.? That number seems much too low.
sarcasm;

:-)
(A late reply here) Maybe you can think of this as 'earn their belief' instead of 'ask them to believe'. The end goal is believers - but how you get there matters too.
TransMac 11.2 Serial Key and Crack License Full Free Download
I think this distribution would work with any physical activity. It is not just a cycling thing.

The reason is easy to understand: an accident that would cause only minor injuries on a 30 years old person may cause life threatening injuries on an elder person. Bones are weaker after certain age, and recovering from injuries is harder.
This obviously has nothing to do with the bike and everything to do with detecting and reacting to movement. I think the lede is buried here.
I believe that over-invested categories like food delivery, Uber for X and social media will face challenges. These businesses also require significant upfront capital to build out their infrastructure.

That said, I don't believe we are necessarily in a bubble. Investment decisions made today are much much more fundamentally sound than they were perhaps in 2000. In my experience, markets work up and down in cycles. If you are a good company, you will survive any market condition. This does not necessarily mean you need to be profitable during that period. Investors are just more cautious in these periods and want to know that you have a PATH to profitability; you don't need to have it today. Note that while valuations are dependent in a way to how public comparable companies are trading, that specific point is only one of many inputs in thinking about how to make an investment. Investors look at many more things than just that.

With the exception of extremely few unicorns, most of the valuation practice undertaken today by VCs and angels reflects three good things:

1. Investing in a great team and product vision: Most of the unicorns didn't become an overnight success. It took time, years. The investors did not reward them with their unicorn valuation in their first year as a company. However, the team and the product proved they can get traction, they can get customers, they address a need in the market. This is what attracted investors, and the startup's ability to beat its competition / creation of a new market is why they are being granted this unicorn valuation.

2. Market Opportunity: A common theme with the unicorns is that they are genuinely targeting very large markets. In some cases, they are even expanding the addressable market. Most of these companies are first of their kind in either establishing a unique product experience/service or business model or both. Valuations of these companies reflects not only their current growth but the potential they can achieve if they can get to be pseudo-monopoly in the future.

3. Supply and demand: While not every investment VCs make is a home run, the approach they have to investments is something akin to a baseball player's batting average. This means that when a hot startup or category comes along, VCs tend to double down. This creates competition amongst them and can lead to higher valuations for the startup. Even so, the valuations usually have root in either the startup's product, team, market opportunity and/or business model. Not everything is evident to us from the outside until later (case in point being Snapchat).

At the end of the day, the investors are not gunning to give the unicorn valuations. A wise founder also does not want a run-up valuation; it increases their risk of having a down round if they don't deliver on oversized expectations.
Perhaps Google will open up an API for authorities to override map information for temporary events.
It's pretty disingenuous to interpret this statement as the president giving a free pass to all twentysomething hackers.
Stable Accessible Data Infra(2014)
> It's my uninformed opinion that recursion is uninteresting and unintuitive.

It's my informed opinion that I personally often find unintuitive things to be uninteresting, because thinking about them is less rewarding.

I wouldn't take your lack of interest to be a sign of your lack of intelligence so much as a different distribution of intuition.
That's a truism. What are these solutions, how much do they cost, what are the relative pros/cons compared to self driving cars?
Government maybe isn't the best way to think of this. I'm thinking more like an international digital "society". This was all more thought up for the need for more rights and freedoms (I'm really against C-51 for example), and the need for inexpensive services.

So think of all the government things without the physical part, that's what I meant by landless. Education, healthcare, international representation, voting, identification, census/population metrics, maybe business services, and have this social network/connection tool built around it.

So yeah, like a "crowd-sourced lobbying organization" but with more perks. Maybe like a global union or something like that.
While a human driver can easily see a rider doing a track stand isn’t going anywhere...

Ok, I'm just going to come out and say, I'm a licensed human driver and a bicyclist, and I find track stands confusing too. Like a skateboarder in the bike lane, there's a lot of potential for unexpected motion, and that needs to be accounted for.

The bicyclist is wobbling in place, but could easily transition to going forward or backwards without warning. The bicyclist is intent on the stand, so drivers won't be able to gain eye contact.

I think the cloud of uncertainty around bicyclists is also why cars wrongly yield to my bike so often at stop signs. Some bicyclists do unpredictable things, and drivers incorporate that into their mental models.

People learn, and I'm confident that self-driving cars will too. Eventually.
Traffic police will be looking to make up lost revenue from being unable to ticket autonomous car riders, so those aggressive drivers will be a better target. (Not that I approve of using tickets as revenue, just saying that it will happen.) And those autonomous car passengers now have their hands free to take video of the unsafe human drivers nearby, for later public judgement ;)
I have yet to see a production car that doesn't have manual brakes, either hydraulic in the case of master-slave cylinders or mechanical in the form of parking/emergency brakes, that can be engaged without electricity. There might actually be a rule about that, else parked cars could start drifting away if their batteries run down.
This is a very interesting idea. Airbnb (or the sharing economy in general) for providing homeless housing in spare bedrooms.

Obviously a big problem is the fear many people have of poor people. I think it's mostly just fear of people who are different, but someone would have to give hosts confidence in their own safety. If you could solve that ...
Counting buttons is no less distracting than a quick glance away from the road. If you don't have time to glance at a screen, you shouldn't be messing with physical buttons either.

The trouble starts when the UI is designed poorly enough to require more than just a glance.
Fwiw I avoid writing both loops and recursion as much as possible. Collection data structures usually come with their own fold/map/etc functions, so this works well in practice.
> Sorry for the interrogation, I'm just really curious and thinking of a transition myself.

No worries, keep asking all you want and I'll do my best to answer them.

> Can I ask why you feel that way?

Mostly because I was getting burnt out in PHP, the community was getting pretty hellacious, and because I wanted to do something new.

Regarding the Rails question, I actually when decided to leave PHP I was debating on learning Rails/Ruby or moving to NodeJS. But because I had been tinkering with NodeJS already (I wrote a pretty extensible IRC bot with a few friends to get the hang of things) and because I already have an understanding of JavaScript I would go NodeJS.

It helps that I'm not jumping between 4 languages in my stack, PHP, JavaScript, HTML and CSS to 3 languages.

Why I feel it was the best decision is mostly because it made me a overall better developer. I started learning a lot more stuff, and found out very verbose things in PHP are simplified in JavaScript.

I mean, look at popular PHP frameworks vs popular NodeJS frameworks... Laravel and Symfony are orders of magnitudes bigger than Express and Hapi/Sails.

PHP while getting better at it, has the NIH mindset whereas NodeJS is about building small packages that do one thing and one thing only and everyone uses them.

> What do you think about Rails vs Node/Express/etc when it comes to startups? Are more choosing Node lately, or is Rails still the startup gold standard?

I think NodeJS is a solid alternative. There's huge companies using NodeJS now, Walmart, Netflix, PayPal just to name a few. And with the fact that NodeJS and iojs team have come together and the Node Foundation exists is great. iojs has been expanding heavily and that's good. NodeJS v4.0.0 is due out in the coming weeks and I can't wait.
The recursive definition is intuitive and easy to come up with given its mathematical definition. To avoid redundant computation, the function can be memoized. Yes, you can write it linearly as well, but oftentimes the linear algorithm is harder to come up with. SICP spends a lot of time on this subject in one of its early chapters and its worth a read. Also, some languages support recursion better than others. Scheme is top notch in this regard as the standards do not specify a stack, meaning that implementations can do things like heap allocate stack frames that grow and shrink according to demand.
The meat is the last hope for when the machines fail. And they do fail.

For below: I totally agree that autopilots can be distracting. The same was said of cruise control and even automatic transmissions. We adapt.
> And they focus more on specific characteristics in decision making, and less on asking big questions.

It seems more that it's behavioural economists that do studies relevant to your marketing, not a flaw in psychology itself. Psychology is an incredibly broad field, and it asks questions both big and small. Plenty of psychology studies ask very specific questions looking for very specific effects.
Show HN: Animated GIFs delivered by SMS
> I had never heard of Heritage before I read the article I posted,

Well I have and they're hacks and frankly they make you look bad by citing their one note analysis of QE.

Brad Delong just this morning on Stephen Moore (coauthor of your citation):

http://www.bradford-delong.com/2015/08/stephen-moore-is-a-he...

Jonathan Chait on Moore: Guy Who Gets Paid to Say Obamacare Doesn’t Work Can’t Find a Single True Fact to Support His Case

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/obamacare-hater...

> but I'm inclined to trust actual economic analysis and a clearly rigorous understanding of the situation

You won't find that at Heritage, they do propaganda water carrying not serious economic research. Heritage is another incarnation of the scientists that worked for tobacco companies. The econmists that work at Heritage aren't paid to do real economic analysis, they're paid to support Heritage's policy positions with something that looks like real economic analysis.

> From the little I've read of Krugman, I'm baffled as to how he received a Nobel prize.

Uncontroversial pick, was one of the favorites.

> His opinion pieces in the NYTimes are TERRIBLE and seem to be written with one goal in mind: start as large of a flame war in the comments section as possible.

His opinions throughout the financial crisis have stood up as well as anyone elses, certainly much better than Heritage with their constant claims of QE leading to inflation.

> That, and promote his books or whatever he is selling these days.

'Don't trust anyone who writes books' is not a strong argument. Better advice might be, don't trust economic analysis that validates the preferred conclusions of the organization that paid for it.

> Also, you'd be a fool to just straight out ignore something because someone told you to.

This assumes my only reason for ignoring them is because someone told me to. No, I ignore them because they've time and again exposed themselves as hacks. Krugman's 'little mantra' is simply an easy to remember form.

> The least you could do is read and understand it to form your own opinion - then you can make an informed decision on its worth, rather than blindly following a pundit.

You'd be a fool to waste your time with parties who have already shown themselves to not be good faith participants. An informed person doesn't need to read your article from Heritage to know what it says about QE. It says QE is bad and will lead to inflation and perhaps other badness. An informed person knows this because that is what Heritage always says about QE, even years after they've been wrong over and over again. Informed people might be glad that they did not invest their money in line with Heritage's constant predictions that QE will lead to inflation.
Much more informative video for throttle than mail pilot.

However, I think the major pain for me is getting control of my current inbox. Just getting an overview of who has my email, who sends what and how often, is extremely hard.

Secondly it would be difficult to choose who to give my throttle mail and my real mail address to.

I don't want the Amazon spam mails, but I still want to know what to type when I log in to their website.

Other, trickier, problems I don't know how to solve:

I want updates from my coursera course, but not from coursera. Actually that's the same with Amazon: I want them to send my receipt, but not the monthly/weekly spam mail.
The chances of those drones flattening me and my motorcycle are extremely slim.
There have been a lot of major protests in the past however many years. Looking at things like the Arab Spring, Occupy, the LGBT movements, Bill C-51, I think people aren't generally happy with their governments.

I think we need something that is actually run by the people, for the people. As I've come to think of this more, it wouldn't be a complete replacement for established government, but more like a global union.
> Incidentally, heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US, is a real health epidemic, and is preventable by putting your butt in a bike seat and riding a few miles every day.

Standing ovation.
Cryp – simple command line encryption
How Fear Can Derail an Entrepreneur
Hmm, interesting. It sounds from your comment like you would still be able to replay the hash in order to connect though, unless there's a bigger system at play that I don't know about.
There are decentralized social networks, but how many of them could actually scale to the size of FB?
I think it's more amazing we went from 0.02 miles one way, to 477800 round trip to the moon in just 66 years.

I vaguely recall the google director saying their autonomous cars already drive better than his parents.

Even if it's only daytime clear weather driving, super cruise control would be insanely useful for commuters, truck drivers, and city busses.

It's easy to fall into the trap of perfect or nothing. Even partial solutions create a lot of value. Complete autonomous driving will be here real soon, but there might be a few intermediate steps along the way.
Why? If California is your norm, keep in mind that California has 20% of the U.S.'s homeless population (California, Texas, and Florida have 58% of the under-18 homeless population). It's really not a universal problem.
Tracking CVE's found by afl-fuzz