skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
From Snapchat's privacy policy,

"Snapchat captures what it’s like to live in the moment. So in many cases the messages sent through our services are automatically deleted from our servers once we detect that they have been viewed or have expired. And again in most cases, the services are programmed to delete a message from the recipient’s device once it’s been viewed or expired as well.

There are some exceptions though to this rule. Some of our services, such as My Story, Replay, and Live, allow users to interact with the messages and content you provide through the services for a longer period of time. That means those messages and content may be available on our servers and a recipient’s device after they’ve been viewed or expired. For example, if you add a Snap to My Story, other users will be able to view it for roughly 24 hours. And because Snaps submitted to Live and other crowd-sourced Stories are inherently public and chronicle matters of public interest, we may save them indefinitely and allow them to be viewed again through any of our services or third-party sources."

It seems like they've put in the new language so they can try to monetize their Live service, which should be expected (and users already give implicit permission to the company by sending a snap to them to display publicly). Otherwise personal message stay personal, as far as their privacy policy is concerned. I'm no legal expert, but surely they can't (legally) lie to their users about this, right?
Speedy trials are a constitutional right enshrined in the 6th Amendment; the only reason a person would spend years in jail waiting for trial is if they have explicitly waived their right to a speedy trial, which is either their fault or the fault of their incompetent legal counsel.

Edit: In California, this is 60 days after arraignment for a felony. In the 5th Circuit (i.e,. the South) this can be up to 2 years. Most jurisdictions are between these two.
The big issue with plea bargains is that the deals are worked out behind closed doors, and then just "sold" to the judge, who often have no incentive to question whether they serve justice.

You can get the effect you had with less problems if the judge has some discretion to sentence you to a lesser sentence for certain forms of good behaviour such as a guilty please, but without the ability to negotiate such a deal outside of the court room.

1.5 month to 22 days sounds reasonable. What doesn't sound reasonable to me is when people get offered to plead to something getting them 2-3 years when the alternative is 10+. In that case, either the plea deal is too lenient or the punishment they risk in a trial is far too severe, and the gap is so huge that it gives people a strong incentive to plead guilty when they are not - especially when coupled with a system where people who have not been tried are treated in ways that would be illegal many places if applied to animals, over periods of years.
An Upgraded Tape Gun Lets You Quickly Build Life-Size Wireframe Prototypes
> If the sentence is in part punishment then why should you have a shorter sentence because you confess? Yes we're also looking for people to reform, but to me that says you get the same sentence and a payroll board then assesses you to determine if there is any reform/remorse or indication of intent to alter behaviour and those who do not display changed behaviour get a longer stretch. It's practically perhaps not much different.

I wasn't saying sentences should be shorter - I agree that ideally you would get the same sentence if found guilty by a trial. My argument was more specifically about my situation, where I was in jail longer than my sentence ended up being, and a jury trial would have easily doubled that length of time.
The FBI should always advise companies never to pay ransoms. It's the only way to stop it. The Bureau doesn't care if a company or individual loses data. They do care about crime, and the only logical way to stop a class of crime is to remove all financial incentive.

Whoever is advising people to "just pay the ransom" is a fool.
How are they past that point? I doubt if they're all that close to an IPO in the sense that they haven't really proved any sort of monetization that can come even close to justifying even a billion dollar valuation. If they got an offer from FB I have to think they think long and hard about taking it.
Why don't you agree with the poetry definition put forth? Do you have a counterexample or alternative definition?
According to the numbers in the article, if everyone had a go in court, the waiting list would only grow and people would be spending their whole lives waiting. Since that's surely more unacceptable than what we have, it presumably wouldn't be tolerated and something else would be done to make it work. Like more courts or quicker/cheaper process.
“Start-ups need special services more than anyone in order to have a chance of keeping up with large internet providers,” he argued.

“By our reckoning, they would pay a couple of percent for this in the form of revenue-sharing”.

Thank you EU :-(
I'm sorry to be so tactless with this, but the notion that the country was "generally orderly" until a "general contempt for authority" appeared in the 60s is ignorant and bordering on offensive. I would hardly call a national policy of racial segregation "ordered" except in the most pointlessly literal sense, and certainly not a desirable world to live in. Likewise, to characterize the rise of such ideas as feminism and pacifism as mere base anti-authoritarian chaos is to whitewash history and ignore the real injustices these movements have made progress in alleviating.
I think I can agree with that. Perhaps the solution would be imposing a maximum sentence length on plea bargains. Make it so you can't have a sentence exceeding a year in a plea agreement. That would have a two-pronged effect. First, it would make prosecutors far less likely to pursue a plea for serious crimes. Second, it would prevent people from going to prison, as any sentence under a year and a day leads to jail instead of prison.
Jails are for short-term stays, i.e., defendants at any pre-trial stage (including pre-arraignment), and misdemeanor defendants that are serving sentences of 1 year or less.

Prisons are for felony defendants that are serving sentences of more than 1 year, though in many cases prisoners that are sentenced to less than 2 years end up serving their time in jail due to overcrowding in the prisons.
I'm the same, what's comfortable for me is freezing for everyone else (I've coded in my boxers in winter with the windows open).

Right now I'm sat at the office with all 3 windows wide open and a fan blowing to get some circulation, I loathe stuffy buildings they make me feel physically ill after an hour or two.
How is a plea deal not duress? Imagine if a cop pointed a gun at you and said "I'll shoot you unless you confess". We wouldn't accept that confession but we do accept a prosecutor saying "you'll get the death penalty at trial unless you plead guilty now." Same goes for lesser sentences vs threats of physical violence.
This is the problem for me. Why would I want to abandon Android when I have never had the ability to use their product as a daily driver? There is a massive difference between playing with a phone for 5-10 minutes and using it daily for weeks. I think the 950 looks amazing, but not enough so to ditch everything I enjoy about Android and fork over a massive amount of money.
I don't think Google mapped every street single address to a set of lat/long?? There must be mathematical formula to map a street address, knowing how the city allocated street numbers
How about the official Scala compiler? It seems to stagnant a bit... I know there is a lot of work behind the scene, but from developer perspective there aren't many things going on.

E.g. Scala 2.10 Introduced a lot of interesting features like string formatting s"Hello $name!".

Scala 2.11 offered minimal improvements, for me just compilation time improvements and better incremental compilation. I don't see anything exciting on 2.12 roadmap.

It looks like Scala compiler is very complex machinery, few key people left:
http://www.slideshare.net/extempore/keynote-pnw-scala-2013
and Typesafe doesn't monetize compiler itself, so it focus on building ecosystem around it (e.g. Akka).
You can download your personal data in CSV format via the web app--click your name in the top right and a dropdown will open with the export link.

There's also an API in preview: https://developer.microsoftband.com/cloudAPI
Useless device. Wrong heartrate which pretty much says it all. Try running in a red zone with this band and let me know how big the fluctuations are.

Having a powermeter on my bike but no Ant+ in the watch. Forget it. And you cant stuff all needed information into such a small screen.

No pace settng, no average, no stopwatchh...i could continue.

A fun gadget for a teenager, but I never consider using this as a workout device. Not even close.
Real Life First Person Shooter: Level 2 (Chatroulette Version)
I'm not sure why this is making the front page of HN now. It's been around since 2012 and it's predecessor was around for a year or two before that. When they started, they advertised it as markdown for script writing (in fact, it extended a format literally called 'screenplay markdown'). It's not really a standardization of anything. If anything, it's a vast departure from the standard way of formatting scripts (which is to just use Final Draft). One of the driving forces behind fountain was the ability to write screenplays on the iPad. This was back when Final Draft was dragging their heels about releasing an iOS version.

Anyway, I doubt they have a plan to 'foist' this on anyone. It's another way to write screenplays that still produces what everybody expects to read: pdfs and final draft (fdx). There are a number of other formats that do this. I used a LaTeX extension at one point (but I don't recommend it).
The mistake is to assume that their main differentiator is secrecy or privacy. It isn't. It's convenience, immediacy, ephemerality and its effect on how you communicate, and one-to-one direct visual communication—in that order, in combination. It's the experience, not the immaterial promises they make.

Privacy was always an empty promise, and it never mattered to the vast majority of their users.
Do you think it's fair that you were able to greatly reduce your punishment, not for doing something to mitigate your crime or reduce your chances of reoffending or anything like that, but merely for making things more convenient for the government? And especially, do you think it's fair that you were able to do this while someone in a similar situation who is actually innocent would have to risk substantially greater punishment if they wanted to prove their case?
> it ends up as a linear system of equations that is far harder to parallelize.

Yeah, basically this. If the fluid is compressible, you get a hyperbolic system with only "local interactions", and this is fairly easy to parallelize on standard CPU clusters by using domain decomposition. People have scaled this to millions of cores, but it's not very GPU-friendly.

If the fluid is incompressible, the problem is technically a differential-algebraic equation with an index-two constraint. To solve this you use a splitting method that gives you an elliptic (Poisson) equation for the pressure. This is a major headache even with the fastest interconnects we have today (we're talking 40 Gbit/s links), since the pressure at one point depends on the pressure at all the other points in your domain in each time step. For single-phase flow, you can use Fourier transforms to speed this up, but for two-phase flow you're outta luck.
>It may be a self-mitigating weakness, but still...

I think this is a strange way of looking at things. What non-trivial protocol doesn't have known design limitations?

Moreover, what could you possibly hope for in addition to a self-mitigating limitation, i.e: a theoretical limit that doesn't matter in practice?
Yes, there is some discussion about it:

https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-mega-trade-barbs-over-ho...
Who knows, good old Microsoft may want to put more cash down than FB or others on an app that gave then a legit piece of millennial mobile activity.
Or an utterly broken legal system that disproportionally victimises people too poor to hire legal counsel that actually have the resources to present an effective attack on these abuses.

This has been a massive ongoing problem in New York. The state gets away with regularly saying they're ready to proceed, get a court date well into the future, and then ask for more time again when the court date gets closer, and effectively gets most of the time "not counted" for the purpose of the court considering any claims about the lack of a speedy trial.

They grind down defendants without sufficient resources to get anywhere before said defendants find it too gruelling and plead guilty. It's a system so broken that we even get cases like this[1] where someone who "beat it" ended up committing suicide afterwards.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-he...
I know of people who would lose their jobs if some of their stuff went public. I don't think that's what it's for though.

This seems to be more fodder for the insatiable targeted-ad/law enforcement data crunching monster.
Great suggestion. This was one of the first books I read as I was starting a business many years ago. It proved invaluable. For anyone not familiar with it, a big focus of the book is about running your business like a franchise. Don't let the word franchise put you off... The reason this is so crucial is that like you mentioned, you don't want to create a bunch of new jobs for yourself. Rather, you want a finely-tuned system that runs itself and frees up your mind for the more important aspects. If you don't do that, you'll be spinning your wheels with little stuff and won't be able to step away from it.
> ..in "Dark Pools", they discuss how some of these traders would call up Nasdaq wondering why a certain trade did or didn't work how it did. And they'd find out all sorts of strange rules. Which makes me wonder, wtf? Are Nasdaq's rules hidden? Or were people doing this as a living just too lazy to read the specs?

Sometimes the functionality is obscure or poorly documented, so it's difficult to understand how it will work, or you make an assumption that turns out to be wrong. Sometimes, different order types interact in unexpected ways (these are effectively complex systems).

Sometimes, the exchange just gets it wrong. On a number of occasions, I've investigated an incident and it turned out that there was a bug at the exchange's end.
>Why is this downvoted?

I didn't down vote it, but...

Not everyone is technologically savvy. Snapchat became popular because of the implication that the pictures you take with it are ephemeral and private. It's sort of the whole point, isn't it? If not, how is it different than a SMS picture message?

Sure, to those who understand the tech, it's pretty obvious that whatever is sent through the pipes is out there, in perpetuity. But most people don't think like that, and Snapchat played on that misconception as a model.
As always reddit and hn is full of nerds not engaging in any form of critical thinking. If you understand the Snapchat product, or take the time to understand the product and the features that it provides, this Terms of Service change makes sense and is not the sky falling, it has no material impact on any Snapchat user. This Terms of Service change simply clarifies what's already happening.

The reddit thread is even more embarrassing: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3qya7j/snapchat...

> Tl;dr - snapchat is pointless now.

> RIP Snapchat

> In other news. Snapchat files for bankruptcy protection after flood of members decide to use anything but.

> How to kill your product in 30 days or less? Seems like this is one of those "we don't want to be in business anymore" moves.

> Snapchat luddite here. Delighted. Saw this coming a mile off.

People should be embarrassed to make comments like this because they show that they have taken no time to think, they've just blindly assumed the headline is the full story and formed their own demonstrably incorrect opinion.
I think the point is that ad hominem attacks are actually relevant in this case. The idea might (or might not) be good, but the fact that Kim Dotcom is involved is fishy.
I don't mean this negatively, but I don't understand what point you're making...
What does it feel like to be fired from Google?
Entrepreneurs don't fail, organizations do
Greenpeace also used bombs. Morally is also ok, but if you check my posting history - I don't value moral or human life at all.

Edit: I was thinking of PETA not greenpeace.
Sorry, I meant that using Free software to keep secrets from the government (against a warrant) would eventually be criminalized in the US, after such norms have been established for easier to attack proprietary solutions. (Proprietary solutions can be attacked using commercial law to ban their manufacture, whereas USG seems to know it can't really prohibit the distribution of Free software).
Is there any other uses of snapchat outside sending nude photos?

Is it possible for Google to create a ToS that grants them all ownership of email you send?
Sure, Wikipedia defines it as 3+3+3+3+3, but the Oxford English dictionary defines it the other way (as 5+5+5). They are both correct.
The SoCal Network: The companies behind LA's tech boom
Wow, feel the Google wrath. My view of Symantec is that it's an over-the-hill tech company that has its hands deep enough in enough enterprise stuff that it stays alive. I'd love to see someone animate a video of Google battling Symantec...
> why is "investment" the primary benchmark?

Because consumers want faster speeds, lower latency, and/or expansion of coverage (to areas that currently don't have fast speeds - or even broadband internet at all).

That all qualifies as investment. If we were talking about something that is a pure commodity utility with pretty much no ongoing technological improvement, like water[0], then investment is less important than ongoing maintenance.

But our Internet is a piece of infrastructure that's constantly evolving, and keeping up with increasing expectations requires investment.

> Are they serving more customers, and is customer satisfaction improving?

Serving more customers almost certainly requires investment. Customer satisfaction probably does too.

Yes, there are other factors which affect those two metrics besides investment, but investment is one that is very easy to measure and is a leading indicator (whereas those two are both lagging - the results are only observed long after the actual work has taken place).

[0] There are plenty of technologies associated with better and/or more environmentally friendly ways to supply and deliver water, but the point is that to the consumer they're all the same. Nobody is clamoring that they want water 2.0, which is wetter than water 1.0.
Bandwidth was more scarce too. If not for the commercial explosion the Qwests and Level 3s of the world would not have spent billions laying fiberoptics.
This talk by Dan Geer is really great. Worth watching, or reading [1].

[1] http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt
Yes, but such analysis involves formal models, so in the absence of such models we can safely shout "quackery!".
Remember Usenet? Ah the good old days.
The wikipedia definition includes commutativity. Multiplication is defined as inherently commutative there.
This is just wrong. It teaches children to hate this type of math, where even the correct answer is wrong.
> Equal is defined as, “being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.” Whereas equivalent is defined as, “equal in value, amount, function, or meaning.”

Nonsense. By those definitions, equality is a special case of equivalence - one that simply neglects to strongly emphasize function (which could be taken as value; the latter still doesn't mean 'identical').

5 x 3 = 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3
and
5 x 3 = 5 + 5 + 5

are both numerically equal and functionally equivalent. The student at least understands the commutative property of multiplication, unlike the teacher.
The awesome thing about this is that it lets you use git. It's a shame your chances of finding a co-writer who can use git are negligible. I wonder what Final Draft etc do about version control?

Another thing: I wish I could work out a free, no-nonsense way of turning fountain into pdf on Linux. I've been going via html, which works OK but feels a bit dirty.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10482068
>"isn't my case an example of why plea bargaining should exist, at least in a limited context? It saved everyone involved time and money."

Other than saving money/time for some people, how was it a net benefit to the victims (if any), or society in general? Care to elaborate as I'm not quite understanding what you're saying?

I don't think I've ever encountered the notion (other than in Law&Order) that the prosecutor is the one that gets to decide leniency in terms of punishment. This is traditionally a power held only by judges come sentencing time[1]. Personally, it's akin to the prosecutors acting as judge and jury. You were not judged by your peers, even though you knew you were guilty (and probably everyone around you). But the prosecutor took the role of jury to essentially "blackmail"[1] you using the power of leniency that a judge would have.

The system is broken, and we shouldn't have to come to a point where we make such comments or interpretations. The expectation is that laws should be obeyed, and punishment of them is applied equally to all. But what we have here boils down to "equally for all", except "more leniently" for those that don't waste money and time of those involved.

[1]. Correct me if I'm wrong historically.
[2]. One broad definition of the term blackmail is: "the use of threats or the manipulation of someone's feelings to force them to do something."
> Do you think it's fair that you were able to greatly reduce your punishment, not for doing something to mitigate your crime or reduce your chances of reoffending or anything like that, but merely for making things more convenient for the government?

As I mentioned in another comment, I don't believe I got my sentence reduced significantly (if at all) by accepting the plea. My sentence was only 15 days, and my lawyer told me it was unlikely that I'd get more than that in a jury trial. The reduction in time was time saved not being stuck in jail for a trial to run its course.

> And especially, do you think it's fair that you were able to do this while someone in a similar situation who is actually innocent would have to risk substantially greater punishment if they wanted to prove their case?

No, I definitely don't think that. As I mentioned in another comment, I think it would be a really good idea to put a maximum sentence length across the board on all plea agreements, regardless of the severity of the crime. I also think that it should not be permissible to lower the severity of the charges for the purposes of a plea. If a reduction of charges is offered in a plea, it should automatically be applied to a jury trial as well.

Edit: Also worth mentioning, the judge rejected my blind plea (a plea of guilty with no agreement in place with the prosecution) at the first hearing on what I believe was the fourth day of my confinement. He told me he wanted me to be fully informed what my sentence could be before I plead down. I'm not sure why I'm mentioning this, but it seems relevant.
What a defense of nonsense. The marking punishes a student for achieving a correct answer in an appropriate way, regardless of pedagogical justification.