skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There's examples elsewhere. Eg France has public campaign financing (any candidate getting more than X% of votes gets reimbursed, and there is a ceiling on how much you're allowed to spend on campaigning) and pretty strict fairness rules for political advertisement and airtime during campaign time.
Think of it as a pocket calculator, or a sketchpad for melodies
Free the skies for commercial drones
Well, that shows what little I know about the Hugo and of fandom.

I don't disagree that others have that opinion about Star Wars. That's besides the point. You claim is that Babylon 5 is not part of science fiction. You think that the allusion to what other people think about Star Wars is relevant to your claim. But as you must well know, that question of "is Star Wars really science fiction" is old and well-worn (eg. http://pop-verse.com/2014/12/10/is-star-wars-science-fiction... ).

It is therefore a poor tool to use to answer the question of 'is Babylon 5 science fiction?'. My objection was to this use, not that others believe it to be fantasy.

This concept of "speculative fiction" as an encompassing term is a perfectly reasonable one to have. However, it does not address the question 'is Babylon 5 science fiction?'.

You can place Hitchhiker's Guide into "Comic Science Fiction", but note that "Science Fiction" is in the name. Granted, astronomers say that a dwarf planet isn't a planet, but a dwarf star is a star, so it's not always possible to infer an is-a relationship in a name, but so far it looks like Hitchhiker's Guide is part of science fiction.

You give what you say is the "classical definition" of 'a work of fiction that uses science as a story telling device to explore ideas'.

As you must surely know, there is no such classical definition, and "its exact definition remains a contested question among both scholars and devotees." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_fiction and reflective of my understanding.) Furthermore, there's an entire section in Wikipedia on just that topic, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction , many of which are not limited to your 'science as a story' definition.

I can assume your definition for argument's sake, but you still haven't answered the question of which TV series you think is actually science fiction under your definition, nor have you given any books.

This unwillingness to state examples is why I'm getting gatekeeper vibes from you. (A gatekeeper who is used to shutting people down for using the wrong terms is often one who does not want to stick a neck out for worry that it will in turn be cut down.)

Do note that the "science fantasy" link you give says the term "has never been clearly defined". The Heinlein example of 'Magic, Inc.' has many of the tropes of outright fantasy. I would consider "Glory Road" a better example for this category, with mixed fantasy and science elements. Indeed, if you look in the talk you'll see a raging discussion on just that point. In any case, 'Tunnel in the Sky' has no fantasy elements, so cannot fit into this category.
Urbit actually wound up with three different concepts which all want the word "type," and can't all have it. Worse, none of these quite matches the PL-theory meaning. So none of them wound up with the word.

One easy way to state a type is to state it as the range of a function. The function accepts all values, and produces some subset of all values; ideally, all values in its range are fixpoints, f(x) == f(f(x)). This is kind of nice because you've defined both a constraint and a validation function. We often want to validate untyped data and make it typed.

On the other hand, this range (Urbit's "span") is not the same concept as the function itself (Urbit's "mold"). Moreover, when you send data over the network, you don't want to send the range or even the function; you want to send the name of the function, which hopefully is bound to something compatible on the other side.

This namespace becomes a third level of type (Urbit's "mark"): like a MIME type, if a MIME type was an executable specification. One of the problems with most PL type systems is that they predate ubiquitous networking; so they're not designed to address the problem of describing external data, eg with MIME types, XML DTDs, protobuf schemas or whatever.
He doesn't understand your desire. I think he is noticing a certain tendency in posts like yours.
Poll: Women in Tech
Have you experienced discrimination at a tech company in any of the following settings?
Point of hire
Workplace culture
Not experienced
I bet if you gave extra cash to someone who regularly uses heroin and who "maintains", they'll put that extra cash to good use.
I've had similar issues to those described in the article. Especially "outlook.com accepted my email, but discarded it."

When people buy my book, I my server sends them literally one single email containing a link to the PDF they have purchased. And that's it.

Google delivers my email fine, in most cases. But hotmail/outlook was just deleting them most of the time for over a year.

I know I'm just a single data point, but I swear I'm not a newsletter!
Designing algorithms for Map Reduce
You can't beat haze no matter what the lens is.

Except maybe in space.
Email marketing via habitual data
The Dawn of Killer Robots
I don't distrust the state, because I don't view the state as an "other" that is closed or off-limits to me. I engage politically, and as such play a role in helping guide those regulations--especially at a local level.

Anyone can do this, too, and everyone should. Ultimately, anyone who relinquishes their political power this way gets what they deserve--to have others make their decisions for them.

I trust the state because I'm a part of it.

I have no specific reason to trust corporations, but I certainly don't trust any corporation that wants to engage in policy-making; that is something that should be reserved for the people, not business organizations.
Power becomes increasingly ambiguous when discussing large social groupings and divide and conquer is only a tactic. The explicit ideal of American foreign policy is the Jeffersonian idea of an Empire of Liberty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Liberty
UP – Intel X5-Z8300 Board in a Raspberry Pi2 Form Factor
I'm delving deep here, but it seems that section primarily states what the FAA will not regulate or "not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding". To my reading, it does not state that operation outside those guidelines necessarily does put a craft under the FAA jurisdiction. I admit I could be reading it completely wrong.

But then if you look at this page[1] on the FAAs web site, it says only that operators are "strongly encouraged" to follow certain restrictions like line-of-sight operation. It doesn't say they have to.

Mind you, I follow all those rules myself when flying rc planes, and prefer that other in the hobby also do. I think they're good rules. I'm just playing with interpretation.

[1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/
The longer term effect is to me whats most interesting here, and I too would love to see some studies in that area.

But here is another way too look at it.

People with rich parents might not become as successful as their parents but they are rarely ending at the bottom of society.

Even if money alone doesn't motivate you (which I think is entirely fair to belive), you are more likely to try and use them for something useful if you feel like it's within your reach to do so.

The motivation isn't the money itself but rather opportunity within your reach.
That depends! Are you on the side of Cliff Burton era Metallica as a band that encouraged tape trading as an avenue for exposure, or are you on the side of Lars Ulrich era Metallica that feels people sharing music without paying money are enemies of the band?

If you believe in the latter, then that's a perfectly reasonable position for record labels and publishers who invest in "startup" acts hoping they get enough ROI to cover the failures, and then give the successful bands only what they're contractually owed after recouping. Sure, that's a business model. The only number that matters is the number of people paying for the recording.

If you're in the camp of the former, you might think that organic growth and demand for your supply means getting to hit as many ears as possible is a chance to broaden the base of people willing to pay for more. Just because somebody can get a recording for free doesn't mean they aren't interested in giving you money for a live show or a t-shirt or a sticker. The bigger the fan base, the better the income potential.

I'm going to assume you didn't live through the same era that I did, when Napster was more prevalent in dorm rooms than illegal booze. After that window got slammed shut, the industry narrative (backed by an ignorant Judge's opinion that "the computer is not an audio device") was that anybody who didn't buy retail was a criminal. Ever buy a used CD? That was another target.

There was a huge opportunity to embrace technological evolution. Not until Steve Jobs and iTunes worked out the mechanics of DRM and "buying a license" did the industry decide to get on board. It seemed like the industry had their cake and could eat it too...until Eminem looked at his contract and saw that digital downloads were being paid out at the "sale" rate of (est) $0.25 per track, but the words on the page said any "license" should be paid out at $0.50 per track. He took them to court, for himself, and also for clarity in the rules of business. He won. A lot of money. Other artists started to notice this...

There's an alternate reality where more forward people would've been thinking about consumers as audiences instead of wallets, but that didn't happen, and here we are, arguing over the table scraps that Sony/Warner/Universal leave for the independents.
Some static languages do have techniques for dealing with heterogenous lists. It is getting hard to find someone talking about a scala library these days without hearing them mention their use of hlist.
Ok I get it now... You are saying that this is a normal reaction given the current circumstances.
But still... a human life can't be measured in money and yet they routinely calculate and assign a value to it like it is livestock. All this misery just for making more profit. It's disgusting and it fills me with rage.
Ok we need to eat and we need transportation but we can also choose what to eat and what vehicle to drive. If are made aware of a vehicle (in this case) that causes harm to others and we do nothing then we are no different from the company that produced that vehicles with full knowledge of what they where doing and we have no right to complain.

I am not fooling myself, i know this is our 'reality' but people act sometimes with great selflessness. I refuse to think that we can't rise above our selfish needs.
The tests we run are based on our workload. Lots of Windows rpc, Outlook MAPI/RPC traffic and similar stuff.
In the past to rule out NIC problems I have temporarily used a "dumb NIC" like a 3C905 or other NE2000-compatible as a replacement. They're slow because they rely on the host CPU for much of the processing, but a good fallback to use when you want something that is known to work reliably.
I like the idea of moving all non-music related things (movies, books, apps, etc) out of iTunes, but we don't need 16 seperate apps to do so.

Also I counted 4 apps for just managing devices alone.
Right, this is basically a validation library
Context switches in to kernel land are a lot cheaper on x86 than they used to be.
"Grapes" is really well done. Jane Darwell is amazing in that.

There's a lot of nuance to those movies. Ford could be infuriating - the ending would be nothing more than the soundtrack plays a nicely resolved dominant chord and the credits roll. Maybe there'd be a terminal sentence before that. Maybe not.

Ford and Eastwood ( and later Wayne )had a rotating cast of actors - Ward Bond, Hank Worden, others in the case of Ford.

The movies Wayne made while he didn't serve in WWII were also almost all overt propaganda movies - very slick propaganda. That doesn't mean you have to hate 'em.
already happening https://theintercept.com/fieldofvision/the-above
The section 336 says that the FAA will not "not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding" if certain criteria are matched. For example that the aicraft is a model aircraft. and c) (2) says that a model aicraft is "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft".

So if you exceed visual line of sight it becomes a normal aircraft, just like every other plane. And they all have to be registered.
One reason Uber is able to get away with it is they don't own the cars. Leap owned the busses, which centralizes the target for litigation, and made it very easy to stop things in their tracks.
Your reply demonstrates perfectly why in-kind benefits are politically superior to cash.

Pardon me, but you remind me of the "What have Romans ever done for us?" scene from the Life of Brian.
They ARE out to get you.
What Happened to Working Women?
There was some promising research on using turmeric, the stuff that gives curry it's yellow colour, to treat Alzheimer's:

>We describe here three patients with the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) whose behavioral symptoms were improved remarkably as a result of the turmeric treatment...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665200/

Turmeric has strong anti fungal properties.
The rebuttal has to do with the definition of economic growth (assuming it isn't connected to energy consumption and gdp), which the economist argues has to do with quality of life. The rebuttal is that quality of life can only objectively improve to a certain point, and that the remaining measures aren't really quantifiable.

So the last, albeit minor, argument is that there would be a point where there isn't anything to invest in to grow, which essentially describes the ultimate form of secular stagnation. I think the economic counter-argument goes something like the money supply isn't inherently finite. I could see that being an interesting argument.
> You've now demand that specific goods be added to the list

In fact, the opposite:

>> It turns out that, in practice, parents do a better
>> job of assigning resources to their children's welfare
>> than governments do.
"just give cash" is sufficient, because the other things are just as likely to be fall-out from the bad choices that may have been the best of a bad situation (heroin usage, dealing, theft, etc, etc...).

There is another comment below about giving in-kind stuff instead of the more fungible cash, but the problems with that (and with your example) boil down to that being moralizing. People want to moralize rather than enable. If a person has the means and doesn't use them, then and only then, can we claim some other problems remain to be fixed, but we cannot even logically conclude that the problems are blocking something debatably-desirable at this point. We can't have a non-armchair/inherently-smug-and-preachy discussion until everyone has a basic income.

This problem isn't going away, and is only for lack of numbers. Even someone who wants to die by heroin would be better off being allowed to, than forcing them to harm others (or themselves differently) in order to get there.
Someone already replied to you about norms, although you could, in an extreme case, consider people liking you as having attached to it some expectation (like you liking them back) as a norm. At the end of the day, you have freedom to choose your own values and live by them.

The idea that society will out live us as individuals is a fact, however. That does not need to bother you, and if it doesn't, I can disagree but I can do nothing to stop you from enjoying yourself.

Mr. George, at least in some capacity, enjoyed the company of others. He was not a complete introvert then, so he might not have had your extreme aversion to people. Moreover, his death was clearly felt in some people, so unless we are only allowed to consider his feelings, his aversion to others had negative effects on at least one or two other people.
100% percent sure! The only person that i can boldly say he can cure GENITAL HERPES VIRUS and any other kind of disease like CANCER,HIV/AIDS,LOW SPERM COUNT,MENOPAUSE DISEASE,ASEPSIS and can also solve any relationship problem, is this great herbalist man called DR.OKOJIE after i came in contact with him, thank you DR.OKOJIE for restoring my relationship back and CURE GENITAL HERPES out of my body. You can contact him via email: drokojiespellhome@gmail.com or call +2348051984310 or my email lisamcclean360@gmail.com
replace drone with car. still stupid?
Did anybody actually read the story?

The key observation is that a study published in Nature "found a correlation between child brain structure and family income. Simply put, family income is correlated with children’s brain surface area, especially among poor children. More money, bigger-brained kids."

This is supported by the Cherokee study: when the families became a bit better off ($4,000 a year) the kids did better when they grew up.

So it's missing the point to argue about how grown-ups might (or might not) "waste" money and whether cash is better than other forms of welfare. The point is that bringing up children in poverty creates a worse outcome for society as a whole.

The fact is that $4,000 a year for 20 years is a very small amount compared with the cost of US police, courts, and prisons. If a poor kid grows up, gets a job and pays taxes, that's a massive win for society compared with the same kid growing up in the sort of deprivation that leads to a life of crime and jail.
There seems to be an obvious need for a classification system that is clear enough for the general public to understand. I have no personal interest in aircraft, but I understand that model airplanes aren't the same as military drones. It would be useful if there were some clear regulatory standards.
Thanks for the advice. I know you mean well, but none of it applies.

I do agree with you on principle. We've been doing this for over a decade and have learned best practices. We also know what our customers appreciate and are very mindful of content, frequency, etc.

But, you seem to be overlooking a key point, so I will state it for at least the third time: the problem was NOT the content, and it was NOT being marked as spam by recipients. Instead, we were erroneously classified by the service as sending to honeypot addresses and/or defunct addresses. So, your assumptions about our customers, newsletters, etc. are just not relevant here.

>the third party has no responsibility to you. They have a responsibility to their customers...

Their customers complained to us that they weren't receiving our emails, so they weren't serving their customers very well in this instance either.

But, what you really don't seem to be getting is that they do have a responsibility not to harm us. That's why there is a legal cause of action known as "tortious interference". I sincerely don't know how to make that point any clearer. Perhaps researching that term a bit might help.
Extensive discussion a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10385840
I'm not who you asked, but I've recently been experimenting with a Sony A7Rii (I primarily use a Nikon D810 & various f/2.8 pro-grade Nikkor zooms, from 14mm through 400mm). The Sony is really very good; feels good in hand, the sensor and image rendering is great, and the glass (55mm f/1.8 and 16-35mm f/4) are also very high quality. They also seem quite solid. The thing where the camera still misses a bit - for me - is in the ergonomics. The D810 has all the right buttons, dials, and switches, so I rarely need to go into a menu for things that change frequently. I find the Sony to be not quite there yet. They do seem to be evolving a lot quicker than the traditional DSLR makers.
I had this discussion with my manager once. I was of the opinion that there is no need for secrecy, which is why we were very forthcoming with the stats about reddit. However, he had one pretty good reason to keep financials and other stats secrets: It gives your competitors information they may not otherwise have.

For example, one stat is cost per unit. If your competitor knows that your cost per unit is say only 1% more than theirs, then they know how to undercut you to hurt your business.
I'm not as simple as you imagine me to be.
Join Shoptiques as a Senior UX/UI Designer (NYC)
I've gone to great lengths to avoid Windows 10 and its back-ported features but installing patches marked "Security update" now tries to download and install Window 10. Enough!

My story:

A few months ago, I trusted MS to provide necessary updates to my system. This means when they said something was an improvement, I accepted this and installed the update. For my trust I got the Get Windows 10! Ad-Ware installed. "'Reserve' your copy today" it said. Sounds good, I can reserve the free upgrade but wait to install it until the dust settles and I can make a reasonable decision about those apps that won't work any more. I "reserved" my copy.

What this really meant is that I had scheduled the upgrade. Windows Update had now become Microsoft's beachhead for capturing my PC. The release date came and Windows update was going to go ahead and install Windows 10. No prompt. No choice to leave it on my hard drive and install later. It was doing it... right then and there.

I rolled the system back to a restore point and hid the upgrade. No matter. Win Update had its heart set on getting Win 10 installed. Those new security patches... Nope, Win 10. That update to the keyboard drivers... Nope, Win 10. So I rolled up my sleeves and began hours of research and diving into forums and the registry and reboots and...

I uninstalled the updates for the GWX application. Removed its registry keys, cleared its directories, uninstalled the preparatory updates related to it. I marked them all as hidden. Success; Windows Update was doing normal updates again.

Then Microsoft back-ported the "user telemetry" system from Windows 10 to Win 7 and pushed it as a pair of updates. "Eases the upgrade experience" their KB article said, but I knew enough now not to trust that. I had to find alternative reviews of every KB. Now every update MS pushed was suspicious. The software that was supposed to keep my machine secure and running properly, was now the software attempting to erode my control over my hardware. Even though I had hidden the updates for the GWX app and the user telemetry "enhancements" Microsoft put them back in the update queue by reissuing them. Hide says I.

Now, with the latest round of updates, I carefully select only those marked as "Security updates", having read the KBs and confirmed them with non-Microsoft sources.

Update

Downloading Windows 10

Whisky Tango Foxtrot! I click stop. I write this.

I hate what Microsoft is doing here.
Just pay subsidy to both.
>Do you actually know anyone who has made this mistake?

If it helps, I initially did. That was my initial reaction after reading the headline, that it had something to do with military UAV's. After a second of thought and on clicking the article, I found out it was about private UAV's.

Whenever the word "drone" is brought up, the first image that pops into my head is that "Drone Warrior" cover for the Atlantic. I should note that I am not too familiar with UAV's--other than a small handsized drone a colleague bought me as a present, I have little experience with them. This might be a "hunter's association with the word gun vs. a non-hunters'" sort of thing.
I am disappointed that you think that I was "demand[ing] that specific goods be added to the list", and given that level of incomprehension, I don't think engaging further with you on this will be productive.