skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Completely agree. It seems that some people tend to think that each time a new social network emerges there is going to be some moment where suddenly the terms are going to change completely in favor of the user. These new terms are no different than any other terms of service I have read for a social network.

You can find almost a word-for-word copy of this text in the LinkedIn, Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, and I could probably go on, but those are only the ones I verified the wording on. IANAL, but I would agree that without this line it would be very difficult from a legal perspective to monetize the site alongside the user content.
> This looks like a standardization of the way that screenwriting is done

I don't think many people have written scripts in plain text since they stopped using typewriters.
That article does not say that the pastors leading the witch burnings there are from the US, nor does it say they are not, it is not specified.

They quote someone from a US church saying they are no longer in contact with a Nigerian church they had been associated with.
What a Kafkaesque non-explanation. It is exactly as correct to say that the second factor is the number of copies.

People who don't understand a subject should not teach it. If they understand education but not math, then let them teach education.
Bad Day for Bacon: Processed Meats Cause Cancer, WHO Says
>For example, 3 bundles of 5 bananas is different from 5 bundles of 3 bananas although they total to the same number of bananas. Their structures are different.

I don't fully buy into this justification. The "5x3" problem on the test had "pure" numbers with no annotation of "objects". It's the blog writer that inserted an additional interpretation of "bananas" or "bundles".

Instead, the "5x3" can be interpreted as counting iterations of "rows" -- or -- "columns" of a rectangle. Whichever orientation the child picked in his head can yield 5+5+5 or 3+3+3+3+3. In fact, take a closer look at the photo and you'll see in Question #2 that the child had a "different rectangle orientation" than the teacher! The Q1 & Q2 should not have been marked as incorrect.

As for the other justification about possibly using a commutative law that's out of sequence with the learning curriculum, it still seems possible to interpret "5x3" using plain English as "take 5 and copy it out 3 times". No jumping ahead to Commutative Law required.
> "Not one of the downvoters, but a voting scheme seems totally unrealistic to me."

It's not too much of a stretch to see spending money as voting for economic activity.
Multiplication is commutative. I don't care if you can rewrite the definition on wikipedia, this is a fundamental truth of math. Far more important than your semantic nonsense.
By any reasonable definition of the term it is.

Of course, it's the courts that get to define these things and you can bet that they exempt themselves.
Justice Department predicted race and ethnicity by last names and addresses
Top 500 Startups Batch 14 Startups – Sorted by the Growth Score – Mattermark
On Misunderstanding Economics
Cool, look forward to it
Story of IndiaPlaza
In the number-fields used outside university multiplication is commutative (it even is for complex numbers!). So I can't imagine why this should not be correct.

There are algebraic structures where multiplication is not commutative, but I don't think this was the case here.
New York defines this differently. From an article about Kalief Browder[1] who spent 3 years at Rikers before charges were just dropped (he subsequently committed suicide):

> Many states have so-called speedy-trial laws, which require trials to start within a certain time frame. New York State’s version is slightly different, and is known as the “ready rule.” This rule stipulates that all felony cases (except homicides) must be ready for trial within six months of arraignment, or else the charges can be dismissed. In practice, however, this time limit is subject to technicalities. The clock stops for many reasons—for example, when defense attorneys submit motions before trial—so that the amount of time that is officially held to have elapsed can be wildly different from the amount of time that really has. In 2011, seventy-four per cent of felony cases in the Bronx were older than six months.

> In order for a trial to start, both the defense attorney and the prosecutor have to declare that they are ready; the court clerk then searches for a trial judge who is free and transfers the case, and jury selection can begin. Not long after Browder was indicted, an assistant district attorney sent the court a “Notice of Readiness,” stating that “the People are ready for trial.” The case was put on the calendar for possible trial on December 10th, but it did not start that day. On January 28, 2011, Browder’s two-hundred-and-fifty-eighth day in jail, he was brought back to the courthouse once again. This time, the prosecutor said, “The People are not ready. We are requesting one week.” The next court date set by the judge—March 9th—was not one week away but six.

... and so it continued. He went to court 31 times. None of those times for the actual trial. Yet most of the 3 years he spent at Rikers, the "clock was stopped" and so it was not counted by the court as more than 6 months.

[1] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-...
tldr: bunch of over-cheery SEO drivel
Mother Earth Mother Board (1996)
Basic income is absolutely not zero sum!

The people who would benefit from it the most would have the freedom to invest their time and money raising their children, bettering themselves, or taking risks and starting businesses.

Also, money repeatedly changing hands itself generates tax revenue, as well as personal wealth. Again, not zero sum. Giving these people purchasing power can also spur innovation from businesses who would offer them services that otherwise wouldn't be easily monetizeable.

As more jobs get replaced with automation, basic income will become increasingly attractive.
Requiring students to blindly memorize and regurgitate arbitrary definitions and punishing the use of intellect and common sense is the worst possible way to teach math. Or anything else for that matter.
What do you mean by difference in speeds? The assumption I made, simplifying the thought experiment, was that the cars had a fixed-length between them, and they were all going at the same speed.
Start using Signal - the real privacy app.
The Power of Nudges, for Good and Bad
Ask HN: Why not own internet instead of renting it?
Considering we are going to pay for it for the rest of our life, why aren't we paying EMIs on it like a housing loan? So that it might become free one day.
> Other than saving money/time for some people, how was it a net benefit to the victims (if any), or society in general?

The victim received compensation for their injury more quickly than they would have otherwise. Society at large probably did not benefit in any way. It saved me money as the punitive damages were reduced, though I think that part was probably a failing of the system.

> This is traditionally a power held only by judges come sentencing time[1].

I believe that's still the case. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the plea agreement is an offer to the judge re: sentencing, and they are free to reject it if they don't believe the punishment fits the crime.

Regarding the rest of your comment, I can respect that opinion. I agree that justice is best served by jury trials, and the coercion in some cases I've read about borders on the sickening. That being said, I think everything, including justice, is a compromise, and I believe that plea bargains serve a valuable (though heavily abused) purpose.
Sure, I wasn't saying that ad hominems are irrelevant here. I said, "aside from ad hominems," because I'm actually curious what technical/social issues are interesting and/or challenging about the idea. In other words, I'm not saying anything about whether the ad hominems already in the replies were good or bad, I simply want to have a separate, parallel discussion about the actual proposal.
> "it redistributes without creating productivity"

I take it you're in favour of financial market reforms too then?
> They are qualified experts on child education.

This is absolutely false. Becoming a 3rd grade teacher is not that hard (being a third grade teacher, on the other hand, surely is).

> It’s more important than ever for students to understand the difference between equal as a result and equivalence in meaning from a young age because it is a fundamental computer science concept.

It's not though, because you can learn these things later in life and still understand them just as well. What exactly is lost if you don't have this figured out on your 9th birthday?
> Other than saving money/time for some people

Time and money are both limited resources, especially in the case of the Criminal Just system. That alone is an argument for its existence.

> the prosecutor is the one that gets to decide leniency in terms of punishment.

IANAL, but believe the judge is the one who decides (e.g. you could potentially plea out and not get the deal offered by the prosecutor). Moreover, if you don't like the bargain you can always roll the dice in the courtroom where you'll face the established punishment for your crime (rather than the reduced one being offered).

To be clear, I dont like the system as is either. But I think a speedy trial would probably be impossible without bargaining. Thus I think the only route to a solution (i.e. the one we should perhaps focus on) is: 1. Reduced penalties for various crimes 2. Drug legalization
This article defends multiplication marked incorrectly because of a semantic difference between 5x3 and 3x5. I recognise there is semantic difference (although I don't think the Wikipedia reference is correct about its nature).

If the marker's motivation is to identify that difference, then this is horribly misguided. In my opinion the marker has just made an error.

Note the stated goal of the exercise: "I can use multiplication strategies to help me multiply".

Using commutativity is a multiplication strategy and it's an essential goal for students at this level to learn this as part of their work with number.
Mathematics education should embrace discovery as well as memorizing definitions. The commutative property for multiplication does not necessarily need to be taught before a student discovers it. They may not be able to rigorously prove it. Early on mathematics education should be about to discover and curiosity and lighter on rigor.
No matter what the FBI says, ransomware is going to continue until vendors ship systems that are secure enough to prevent ransomware by default.

Meanwhile, "don't pay the ransom" is not an honest answer to "what's the best thing for me to do now that I'm infected".
Next up, FBI will say you should negotiate with the terrorists.

From removing advice that you should encrypt your data, to arguing for backdoors, to advising that you should pay ransoms, Comey has been a complete buffoon.
I bought one in the UK, and had to send it back for repair as the inside rubber fell apart (I used my Band every day, it was great). It got repaired in Germany, seems odd that they aren't on sale there.
The answers were wrong. But I would have given the student at least 1/2 point if not a full point with an explanation.

Would probably depend on how how much the concept was presented in class and the books, etc.
Agreed. Few children are going to get to the point where the commutative property is a concern, anyway.

If we're going to be pedantic, use this as a learning opportunity. "Actually, 5x3 is slightly different than 3x5. Multiplication has this property..." Some of the kids won't care, but some will be intrigued.

Teaching it this way is a gotcha.
Hi, this a game I'm working on
And if they can't afford to hire good counsel, it's presumably their fault for being accused of a crime whilst poor, then?
The difference between being held in jail awaiting trial and being held in jail after being sentenced may have legal significance, but I don't think the distinction is very important for this question. The fact remains that an innocent person who chose to fight for his innocence would have been imprisoned longer than you were, and that you were able to greatly reduce the term of your imprisonment, not for doing anything to make up for your crime, but merely for giving the government less hassle.

I don't understand how your proposal for a maximum sentence length would make things any more fair in a case like yours.

The fact is that an innocent person in your position would be faced with a choice: either plead guilty and be falsely convicted of a crime but suffer less, or fight for their innocence and suffer more. Meanwhile you, an actually guilty person, were offered a much easier choice.

I do not see any part of this as an argument for why plea bargaining should exist. It looks to me like a perfect example of why it shouldn't, and also provides a compelling argument for why trials need to happen more quickly in cases where the accused cannot be released on bail.
This has fuck-all to do with James Comey. You might as well blame Obama, or Ban Ki-moon.
I mean to the community at large, many of whom might point at the failed war on drugs as something the government got wrong, but still want to castigate the guy "distributing meth to the children".

To capture what I meant, I should probably have said "because the guy is utterly indefensible ... in the eyes of most."

The point though is that it is those cases in which everybody (or enough of everybody) agrees that the defendant is "bad" and must be "punished" that our rights take the biggest hit, because so few object to a warrantless search executed on a guilty meth distributor, or pedophile, or terrorist, or whatever other bogeyman is accepted as belonging 100% to the out-group.
The leap from the implied definition on Wikipedia to the authoritative "by definition" one sentence later is truly stunning, surpassed only by the sudden parachuting of bundles and bananas into the unsuspecting 3s and 5s.
There are just too many assumptions in this article. It says: Use the repeated addition strategy to solve 5x3. That is clearly what the student did.

The argument about bundles and bananas is besides the point. But even then it works because

3x(5 bananas) = (3x5) bananas = 5 x (3 bananas)

Of course, if I define my own special multiplication, then 3x5 != 5x3. If I put enough concepts on top of it an operate in obscure mathematical domains, sure, I'll need to be careful about things being accidentally equal but not equivalent. But I bet the student expected that multiplication behaves just like the multiplication an elementary student knows. Or do you expect them to define the operations they're working with?

When I grade the work of students, I will accept any answer that is in accordance with the question. Who cares how often they commute things that commute, or if they picked an entirely different approach that was never even discussed. If it says solve X using Y and they solved X using Y, they deserve the points.

If the teacher didn't make it clear enough in his question, then it's not the student's fault.
That is not our business model. We are recruiters (or at least: we plan to figure out how to be). We do not provide information to outside recruiters or hiring managers.
Fountain lets me screenwrite like how I code, which is awesome. I use Goyo[1] and capslock.vim[2] to reduce distraction and make the capitalization easier. Git in Dropbox works well when only one person is committing.

1: https://github.com/junegunn/goyo.vim

2: https://github.com/tpope/vim-capslock

My cowriter uses afterwriting[3] (locally[4]) to view them although we still use unformatted .docx for rough drafts, since he normally writes those and I revise.

3: http://afterwriting.com/

4: https://github.com/ifrost/afterwriting-labs
I found this link interesting. Under this "Common Core" curriculum, apparently, students are trained to read 5x3 as "five groups of three" which is why 3+3+3+3+3 is right and 5+5+5 is wrong.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-55515-is-wrong-under-the-...

It's hilarious because I read 5x3 as "5, 3 times".

Anyhow, just goes to show Maths teachers have now been replaced by box tickers who refuse to apply their brain. In my book, the kid demonstrated repeated addition and should have got the mark.
A similar discussion rescued from about 15 years ago: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58567.html from which I quote:

"To my mind, it makes no difference at all which is which. In fact, today it is more common to call them both "factors" and not make such a distinction. I wouldn't fight over this, on either side."
I think the argument of the article is flawed. Reason being, the "=" sign denotes equality and not equivalence. And the argument hangs on the observation that while 5+5+5 and 3+3+3+3+3 may be equal, they're not equivalent. Yeah, right, but that wasn't asked here, was it?

Edit: Also, "5"x3 or 5x"3"?

How many fingers do you see?
As soon as you pay you will be a specific target for the future.
I could just keep a text file if I didn't want those features, and I honestly can't think of any features I would subtract.

But the point about simple & flexible tools is not to miss on features for the user, but to separate those into different tools. The people who prefer a simple text editor to an IDE aren't doing everything else by hand, but using a set of different tools to accomplish the same as the IDE built-in features would.

Taking the Beeminder example, and with the caveat that I've never used it: the graphing system seems cool, but it can't be used by anyone who doesn't have access to a credit card; if the graphs and the commitment payment systems were two separate tools that you could connect instead of a bundle, one could use the former with an alternative commitment system.
Also with graphene replacing silicon.
The limited nature of time and money for the criminal justice system is artificial scarcity. We choose not to fund them adequately, and make up for this by making unfair and unjust arrangements with the accused.

The portion of government spending that goes toward courts is not terribly high. If we wanted to and needed to, we could increase it by a huge amount without greatly increasing tax burdens.

There is no practical reason we can't give every single accused person a speedy trial. We just don't feel like putting in the effort.
is it possible for vendors to ship a system like this that would also allow for users to encrypt their entire hard drives? Maybe it would be something like OS X firmware lockdown, but that is less convenient and takes away a lot of the options for the user.

Is this an either/or scenario?
Cancer treatments have advanced hugely, I'm told.
China certainly imprisons a much smaller proportion of its population, so that's a good question.

"Worse" probably depends on who you ask. China is decidedly un-free for everyone in that everyone knows that certain things puts you at risk, and so e.g. in terms of free speech China is clearly worse.

But if you're sufficiently poor in the US, your odds of spending a substantial proportion of your life in prison is vastly higher than in China, and I frankly don't know if your chance of getting a reasonably fair trial in the US in that situation is all that much better than China.

Personally, if I in some parallel universe found myself on a US jury (which I won't - I'n not US), I would vote to acquit in all but the most atrocious cases, as I would not in good conscience find it moral to contribute to subjecting anyone to the US prison system. But as we see in the article, in most cases, it's not up to a jury.
> How about the official Scala compiler? It seems to stagnant a bit

It is. Odersky is spending most of his time on Dotty these days and he doesn't seem that interested in Scala any more, except when he's obligated to talk about it at keynotes (and he tends to talk more about Dotty there anyway). Despite the grandiose plans of possibly back porting Dotty features to Scala at some point in the distant future, Scala has been in maintenance mode for a couple of years now and with more and more people leaving the core team, it's probably going to stay this way.

Such a missed opportunity.
Maybe if that contempt for authority had been more present when the US was first getting involved in Vietnam, that whole mess wouldn't have gotten as far as it did in the first place.
All the more reason to share and teach the mantra.
Thanks. Nitrokey looks nice. I'll have to look deeper into the github repo to see what it actually supports in hardware though - the website does not mention the smartcard standards that are actually supported.
What I read in 2015
How do you not read it "5 times 3"? Why would you re-arrange where the "times" is?
What nonsense. I'd write 5+5+5, every time, because it is less handwriting than 3+3+3+3+3. To me, this shows that the kid was able to step back and optimize his process, in addition to applying the rules of math.

Those are definitely qualities you want in a programmer.
Here's a view of why it might make sense for a teacher to emphasize one way over the other that doesn't focus on "it's the definition and definitions are important":

> The teacher obviously knows (I’m assuming) that 5 + 5 + 5 is the same as 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3.

> So why would one method be preferred over the other?

> Because thinking of 5 x 3 as, literally, “five groups of three” will help them when they learn how to divide. (That’s what the Common Core standard here is getting at.)

from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/10/21/why-...

Also notable is the explicit assumption of good faith:

> Let’s assume for a second that this teacher isn’t an idiot. (I know. I know. Bear with me for a minute.)

> What possible explanation could there be for deducting points from this poor child’s exam?
It might be construed as unethical, but it's also a case of adverse selection, which for what it's worth is instrumental to a large class of business models, and especially in the digital age. Much of it is software's intrinsic ability at providing external uniformity even in the case of internally unsound design, coupled with withholding of source (primary auditable information) as essential to business.

It's not just Snapchat. Lots of software targeted towards programmers, sysadmins and power users relies on similar smoke-and-mirrors branding that tries to hide as much technical details as possible in favor of presenting grand high-level summaries that present it as a solution to an imminent problem. Either way, the assumption is you won't screen them.
Baidu Is Mashing Up Human Faces in the Name of Artificial Intelligence
Ah, ok. But no one knows if they have stored any images. They have simply updated their terms in order to not get sued if they choose to do so. As long as they say that they're deleting photos from their servers there's no reason to believe they're not.
I hope this kid goes to school and tells the teacher that they were just using the Peano axioms of arithmetic.

x * 0 = 0
x * S(y) = x + (x * y)

So the original 5 * 3 would be

5 * S(2) = 5 + 5 * 2
= 5 + 5 + 5 * 1
= 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 * 0
= 5 + 5 + 5 + 0
= 5 + 5 + 5