skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The main problem I see is that we don't look at the legal system like any other system or process; despite it's very high stakes we hold it to a very low, non-scientific standard of poor engineering. There are obvious solutions, or at least necessary steps to solutions, that would be implemented in any professional context (think of your own job):

* Quality control: Determine and track the accuracy of your system's output. This is done for systems with much less impact than human lives and freedom; why isn't it done for our legal system?

* More QC: Someone independent should be verifying the output in each case.

* The results from the first two steps should be incorporated into the design of the legal system. Build quality into the system.

* Accountability: If serious errors are committed (and someone being imprisoned in error is a serious error) people should be fired. Why does the DA still have a job? For reckless and negligent acts, civil and criminal lawsuits should follow.

As far as I can tell, the people who operate the legal system try to do their jobs with no feedback. They go through their process and have no idea how well it has worked. Imgaine if you were told to write software like that. How can they do their jobs well even if they want to?
Screen has aaugh easier interface for multitasking, including things like stderr not bleeding out from whatever background tasks you're running. Not to mention that switching back and forth between screens is what it's designed for and thus a lot easier than switching between job numbers. Also the ability to detach your screen and its running processes from being coupled to a specific login session, which is probably the main reason I started using screen instead of multiple terminals in the first place.
Yow! I wrote associative when I meant commutative! Oops.
The 8 creepiest places on the Internet
I agree that this is a problem, but it applies not only to startups but every proprietary service. The only way, that I can see, to eliminate the risk of losing a given service is to make a personal archive of everything (for primarily data-based services), and only use free/libre software (for computing services). Without the ability to run the service on your own machines, modify, and redistribute; I don't think you can have any hope of long-term availability.
Arabalar: Şimşek Hızı v1.3.4d Hile Mod Apk İndir
Indeed, I agree that "lost" isn't the best word choice here. Instead "spent" would be better. You've spent money paying for a service provided by the market maker. And due to the wonders of automation, the cost of that service has been drastically reduced.
Another way would be to move data acquisition about a case, such as DNA, etc. into the judicial branch, or at least out of law enforcement and prosecution. Tests should be blind, and equally accessible to the defense, and QA'ed by sending test data through the system. Prosecutors also effectively set the schedule for labs, which means difficult cases like rapes pile up.
> ...if government weren't imposing a distortion...

Interesting change of tune from our last conversation about a tremendously similar sort of thing. ;)

You would do well to learn about the dirty details of telecom subsidies, tax breaks, dirty tricks, and broken promises over the past several decades.
As I've said, that's a misuse of the repeated addition technique.
> Torvalds was concerned with performance

Performance is not a single metric. There is throughput, latency and then you can screw it all up and make it much harder by demanding guarantees on either of those.

Performance without guarantees is worth very little in quite a few situations.
Is it said to be him who wrote it?
Current juries aren't meeting the needs of society, either, so there's not much loss there. We also have the counterbalance of elected representatives, and in the US, sometimes judges are elected, too. Maybe it'd be enough for them to represent society, with juries in technical cases representing accurate justice for the case at hand.
You can name your tuples in Swift as well, I just wish more people did that. It's increasingly annoying to get a tuple and have no clue what indices are used for what.
Anyone know what the correlation is between "blood speed" and heart disease, and how this correlation compares to blood pressure vs. heart disease?

If the correlation is equally strong, this device might finally solve the limitation of current wearables in that they can only track vital signs that have poor correlation with heart disease (i.e. no reliable watch-like BP monitor is available yet)
Why should I be excited?
I think the fundamental problem here is that ToS need to be written to be as generic as possible. If Snapchat wrote a ToS that legally bound them to the exact way that their app works today, they would have to get a lawyer involved with literally every feature change they make (or feature experiment they run) in the future.

The very reason most people use snapchat in the first place is that they expect a very limited featureset with tight controls.

It rightly should be a cause for concern that they're making way for expanding the scope of the service.
GitLab is now used by Fortune 500 companies
Since you have the luxury of a FSF-blessed laptop, I would recommend trying GuixSD[0]. Transactional package managers are the best thing since sliced bread.

0: https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/
I think you would find we agree much more than we disagree. Though what I find most infuriating is the blanket assumption (with similar level of disconnect) that what is being taught is mindless or confusing with no value, often simply because it's labeled as a "curriculum" or a "learning objective". You're not automatically right because you "experienced similar BS"; instead you have to realize that you, too, are coming into it with a bias and blindness.

What I see is a a bunch of people who can't stand seeing that red -1, maybe because it has been ingrained in them that they have to be perfect. Or maybe it's natural, and no one helped them git rid of that feeling.

It's so important for young students to feel like they understand and will continue to understand, in order for them to then achieve new understanding. I don't know how to write that without sounding like a theorist, but I sincerely believe it to be true. You've got to get rid of that fear of red ink.

There are tons of poor ways to teach, and poor curricula. This teacher could be doing a fine job with this student (and the parent's the ones that don't get it), or could be seriously hindering the child. I certainly wouldn't teach multiplication strategies this way. But it's not clear to me that marking this particular answer as only partially correct is inherently and unquestionably wrong.
I do like namedtuples also. I definitely agree -- dot-based access is handy! Addict is a dict subclass that offers dot-based access (pip install addict)

Shortcomings are that it's not in stdlib and does have a few quirks (for example, be sure to convert a Dict to a dict with .to_dict() before json'ing). However, it's a nice and well maintained module.
Solid Converter PDF 9.0 Crack with Keygen Full Download
DoulCi+9+Bypass+iOS+9.1+iCloud+Activation+Lock
Governor Brown vetoed AB 465 which could have helped put a stop to this with regards to employees having to arbitrate instead of having their day in court. His reason for vetoing AB 465 was that Federal law pre-empts state law.
The federal government is too tightly controlled by large corporate interests, and I don't see reform of the Federal Arbitration Act happening any time soon. There are just to many powerful interests with a lot at stake, who would lose if arbitration were reformed at the Federal level. Maybe we should put this on the ballot as an initiative instead. At least it would send a message.

The problems with arbitration is that it does not affect court precedents, the records are private, and there's no jury involved. This all weighs heavily in favor of the employer over the employee.
Simple looks incredible. Is it as great as it looks?
Is Bend Becoming the Next Startup Haven?
Tangled Up in Entanglement
Probably not a major one, but it's a pretty nice place, so if it gets "enough" of an ecosystem, things will go quite well here.
Because they can't directly give the person a death sentence. If you turn down the plea, you go to a regular trial where a jury determines if you're guilty and the judge & jury determine your sentence.
Yes, this is true, but you're overlooking a few of the things I mentioned earlier.

Gofmt is extremely opinionated -- you can't customize it. Most other tools involve customizing to fit your own style conventions. Gofmt doesn't allow that.

Gofmt also ships with Go, so it's a built-in language tool, not a third-party tool. That's a huge benefit right out the gate, meaning that everyone's code will look the same. You don't really appreciate how nice this is until it's actually true

Finally, gofmt is dead simple to use. `gofmt <file>`. Boom. Done. Compare with, say, PHPCS, which is like: `phpcs --standards=<standards-file-path> --autofix=true --exclude=<exclude path>` and so on. Gofmt is just stupid simple to use.

Yes, you're right that other tools exist, but gofmt is the one that really makes it click for developers, and they think "Man, THIS is how code formatting should work." And then we take it over to the other languages, to C or Python or Javascript or PHP, and we introduce tools that are similar to gofmt. That's why gofmt in particular has "changed my life" (hyperbole, sure, but the point remains that I code completely differently now). Without gofmt, it's doubtful I'd ever adopt code formatting tools to the point that I have today.
>> There is no privacy when posting something to the internet.

> Why is this downvoted?

I agree with it, but that sentence doesn't add anything interesting to the discussion of this article. It also has a pretty decent chance of starting an even less interesting sequence of "no, I disagree," "no, I agree," "no, I disagree,"... replies.
The most delusional bit of the ToS:

By using the Services, you agree that: [...] You will not post content that contains pornography,...

If you don't want that on your service Snapchat, you should shut down shop today.
That post came later but used a different URL (since changed). We're working on the dupe detector to make this less likely.
The inflation argument is a little misleading. We have been printing money to offset historically low and increasingly declining money velocity. The money velocity is declining precisely because wealth is being aggregated in silos and not being spent. Money velocity is essential to a healthy economy. And quite frankly, we could do with a little inflation to encourage spending and not hoarding by the uber wealthy.

Thinking that properly raising children and investing in bettering oneself doesn't tangibly generate revenue is a bit short sighted.

In 15 years when machines are cheaper and better at driving, manufacturing, and doing most unskilled labor (or even some knowledge worker type jobs). Would it have been a bad economic investment to have all the kids growing up today have parents with the financial freedom to go back to school or focus on giving their kids a proper childhood (so they can grow up and be productive citizens)?

Do you genuinely think that we are better off as a society sticking to "you have to work to live" when the machines are outperforming an entire class of people at their jobs? Not everyone can or wants to be an engineer. At some point our populations will stabilize, and technology will make it so that we have enough food and basic essentials for everyone.

We are all in it together.
You can't use your instagram credentials to log in on sites that have Facebook logins..
Named tuples are fine, but what do they have over using classes or dictionaries?
Well, maybe you can find a source, but I can only find sources that define multiplication as I have and then mention that multiplication of, say, real numbers, is commutative.
Scientists find what controls waking up and going to sleep
Contracts are probably subject to copyright, which means the DMCA could shut down such a repo.
Take a look at the Mill's security presentation.

It's an architecture where there is no real border between a monolithical kernel and a microkernel. It's just differences on access control policies, to the point that those names lose their meaning.

As always, it's a very interesting architecture. I hope they produce it someday.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10458248
"Excited" is the wrong word for this sort of development. "Interested" is probably a better word. Right now, I see this sort of thing as a project for its own sake, and that can still be interesting.

More importantly, projects like this frequently spread their ideas elsewhere, even if the project itself isn't very useful. Another possibility is that someone gets a bunch of skills from developing in the much more open territory of Hurd and uses that knowledge to contribute in a more limited fashion in the Linux kernel.

Of course, I'm sure that Richard Stallman & Friends would be unhappy with my characterization of Hurd as an academic toy project, but them's the breaks. It's on them to show that this is dompetitive on any level with Linux, and right now that's not the case.
The point is that your written text reads like someone talking. It makes sense to review the text for this aim.
> Years ago there was a single-floppy QNX demo disk: you booted from this and you got a basic desktop with dialup modem support and a web browser. SINGLE FLOPPY.

Dan Hildebrand's original announcement on comp.os.linux.development.system back in 1997: http://marc.info/?l=freebsd-chat&m=103030933111004

Archived homepage of the QNX Demo Disk: http://web.archive.org/web/20011019174050/www.qnx.com/demodi...

including "How we did it":

http://web.archive.org/web/20011106140711/http://www.qnx.com...

and "What people are saying" (to give folks today an idea of the excitement around a 1.44MB GUI OS with networking and Japanese support back in the 90s):

http://web.archive.org/web/20011106141359/http://www.qnx.com...

Download links and screenshots:

http://marc.info/?l=freebsd-chat&m=103030933111004
This appears to be the point the parent comment is missing. Making coal economically uncompetitive speeds the adoption of alternative energy sources
The trouble is that if they're not continually involved in the driving process, drivers can't actually concentrate well enough to be able to step in quickly when something happens that the automated systems can't handle. If I recall correctly, there have been studies on this and it takes tens of seconds for drivers to be able to respond to an unexpected situation sensibly if they haven't been actively driving. Mostly-automated cars that rely on drivers to step in when something goes wrong are probably not an option.
If you look at the code for it you will weep. If only python had hygienic macros.

I would settle for better namedtuple syntax though.
Google's car is an attempt at full autonomy.

Tesla's Autopilot (mostly) keeps you within the lines and regulates your speed to match the car in front of you.

Does this really need a full article?
Cyber Letters of Marque and Reprisal: “Hacking Back” (2014)
I always thought it would make a fun game to build levels (Super Mario Maker style, with build constraints) to defend against an onslaught of A.I. Marios.
Ugh. This is the nightmare scenario for walled gardens. Don't like the content? Don't let it into the ecosystem.

I hope the open web continues to exist and we move past the app era, but I think this is a pipe dream. It's Compuserve and AOL 2.0.
> What stops an exchange from quantizing to, say, a second or so?

That wouldn't be fair, an order book is a line, such a rule would allow people to cut line and get shares at better prices before you allowing them to drive the price up or down even though you were in line before them.

> As far as more decimals, it doesn't sound plausible that all the market makers are gonna come up with the same price to 8 decimals. So the time priority will give way a bit to price priority.

That's how it used to be, compete on price first, but a minimum decimal put in place by law, the sub penny rule, to try and dampen HFT, it's only made latency more important since HFT traders can no longer compete on price. And he's right, there's always a minimum price below which there is no profit, so whoever posts that price first wins. Orders compete on time and price because that what is fair. Latency is inherently part of fair trading, you can't remove it and keep the market fair.
You know where coal would be awesome? The moon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_coal_gasification

Now all we need are space-based oxidants. Maybe we could capture a large-ish comet or two.
Didn't the Microsoft NT project start off as a micro kernel and then changed course to a hybrid model ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel
This is pretty sweet. A lot of people get addicted to OTC sleep aides. Maybe this will lead to better, more targeted help for people with sleep problems, and not have them get addicted to things that don't even really help.
Or take the same amount of money and convert/build plants to use natural gas. It creates half as much CO2 per unit of energy created and we have more of it than we know what to do with right now. Instead of burying all that money in a coal mine we could get some new infrastructure, some jobs, and less CO2.
Since clearly Rikers has over 400 violations of the 6th Amendment (since by no sane person's definition can over two years in jail be considered speedy), how about releasing these people on their own recognizance until trial?
Why it was faster to build subways in 1900
How to make stress your friend (2013)
Opinionated Stack – Angular Kick
Instead of just attempting to influence the market price, how about targeting coal beds that have significant carbon sequestration potential first?

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10473289.2003.104...
This is stupid. Why are we playing these economic games? These people are literally destroying the environment for all of us, which is already resulting in deaths and billions of dollars of destruction and will likely result in far worse. We don't need to pay them to stop killing us, we need to make laws making what they are doing illegal.

The problem isn't that we don't have solutions to global warming. We are still subsidizing fossil fuel energy far more than renewable energy: one easy, obvious step would be to stop doing that but we haven't. The reason we haven't done simple things like that is that it isn't profitable for billionaires. I'm quite tired of the conversation about global warming centering around "finding solutions" as if we don't have solutions. The problem isn't a lack of solutions, it's that amoral corporations control environmental policy and don't care if we all die if it makes them a profit.
Funnily enough, I just got back into doing some AI stuff, and I had a vague recollection a few days ago, that I'd read something about researchers using games like Mario for this exact purpose. Guess that memory was real.

I'd like to work on some game playing AI, but since SMB isn't open source, I went looking for an OSS clone of SMB, or something similar. Luckily enough, there are quite a few:

http://opensource.about.com/od/desktopapps/ss/5-Open-Source-...

This seem like something that could be a lot of fun. Or a massive time-sink. :-)
The thing the author is missing is that Google can't incrementally improve, since they're not in the car business. Tesla, on the other hand, has the option of either incrementally introducing autonomy to their cars or taking the Google approach of shipping a 1.0 in a big release years down the road. That they've clearly chosen the former is telling.

The author pretends that both companies have a choice and have chosen different strategies, but it's clearly not the case. Unless Google was planning on building a traditional car business first (a fairly ridiculous proposition), or partnering and integrating with the supply chain of a major manufacturer (a stretch, if just to introduce fancy cruise control), they were never going to be able to iterate towards a robocar.
The only lever the APA has is to revoke membership of participants, that won't stop the government and it won't stop many individuals from participating.

As far as I can tell, they aren't a licensing body, so that revocation wouldn't even stop someone from continuing to work in the field.
RMS isn't really involved in the Hurd, in fact he's mostly given up on it. It's being developed by a few enthusiasts, and academic interest in it has been dwindling.

Being competitive with Linux isn't even a project goal.
TeaVM – Java Bytecode to JS
Well, no, society can no accept that people wave their basic rights away on a contract, even if those people think it's a good deal.

Slavery waits on the end of this route.
A better approach from JVM to Web platform.
>Tesla has stated publicly they believe that within three years their cars will be capable of full autonomy

Tesla has stated many lofty objectives, some of which they've met, some of which they haven't. These engineering problems are hard.

I agree with the article; what Tesla has introduced with "Auto Pilot" is an improvement on current technology, like adaptive cruise control and park assist. It's cool, but it isn't in the same sphere as what Google is doing with their autonomous cars.
I've always wondered how autonomous cars would handle the first and last quarter mile of the journey. I'm talking specifically like portions of the trip like the driveway, getting out of the parking ramp, or navigating small alleyways where the car could be parked (where GPS could be weak in the city). Things like even knowing which entrance to go to. Will fully autonomous will ever be able to take us from A to B 100%? Will humans always take over the last tiny bit where the maps aren't detailed and to park? Humans love to drive around the lot to park at exactly the "perfect" spot. Cars can parallel park now, but how will cars decide where to park exactly? Will we ever be able to have the car take us through the drive-thru?

I personally think autopilot-like auto-cruise just on the highway and more established local roads would be good enough. The convenience afforded by having the robot take us from A to B parked to parked may not be worth the insane price it must have on its tag to get there.
"...the Google cars look like something one buys for their four year old niece or nephew. "

You have to stop thinking like some guy from Mad Men and more like somebody buying AWS instances.

Imagine that instead of buying a single car that you drive everywhere you instead reserve a car for your daily commute, you might get various options, eg:

$500/month - Tesla Sports car, 30min journey, unshared occupancy
$300/month - 2 seat Google-Car, 30min journey, unshared
$125/month - 8 seat van, 40min journey, shared, up to 1 vehicle change

Now if you are a go-getter gunning for VP you'll pick the sports car. But others might not see the extra expense as being worth it.
I think the problem isn't just plea deals but the combination of plea deals with holding suspects for way longer than the law allows, and under inhumane circumstances to beat.

If this guy had been let out of jail, still had his job and girlfriend, and didn't have to experience Rikers while he waited for his trial, giving him the option to choose between a certain thing and the somewhat gamble of a trial still could be called cruel, but I think it would be significantly less so. Surely, it would be more likely that a suspect will hear "You can get the death penalty unless you plead guilty now", even if the prosecutor says "you will".