skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
When a death row inmate is killed the executioner is without doubt responsible for the death. Just like the judge that sentenced him is responsible. Now whether they were justified or not is a different question (which many would argue there is never good enough justification for the death penalty)

Anyway, it's not interesting, the only thing the parents are responsible for is having a second child and breaking the law. What people do to enforce the law is their responsibility not the responsibility of the parents that broke it, the same applies for the murderer on death row.

Just because something is legal doesn't absolve you of responsibility. The same way soldiers "just following orders" are responsible for the actions they commit at the behest of their superiors. Both the superiors and the soldiers are responsible
Rkt v0.10.0: With a New API Service and a Better Image Build Tool
Australian researchers make quantum computing breakthrough
>I like the twitch platform, technologically

You shouldn't. Twitch is still holding onto Flash. They could have really leveraged their position as the most used streaming site to push for adoption of HTML5 streaming. They have a HLS mode, but it's only supported on Safari/Mobile/Edge.
> Going to 2 is a strange choice.

Its not really a strange choice, its been "1 with lots of exceptions that mostly make it 2" for some time (there were exceptions with a limit of 2 instead of 1 for many rural areas, for families where at least one parent was an only child, etc.) Going to 2 is a pretty obvious simplification that doesn't really change much except the degree of administrative overhead, plus the policy has hurt perception of China in the developed world, and changing it to two from one along with well-managed press relations get you lots of "China to end one-child policy" headlines around the world, and with most people not reading below the headline, that's a huge propaganda win for doing essentially nothing but making a totalitarian policy administratively simpler.

And, really, it was always the plan: the OCP was originally conceived of as a single generation policy to bring the population down, which would be replaced with a stable population policy; it didn't exactly work out that way in a crisp sense, but a going from a one-child policy with very limited exceptions, to a growing set of exceptions, to finally a two-child policy is, in outline, generally consistent with the original blueprint.

> There is obviously some natural limit on human population, but I don't think we're near it.

The practical limit is going to be dependent on pre-existing environmental conditions, technology and distribution of lifestyles and other factors; its a moving target. (And not necessarily moving consistently in one direction.)

> The fact that we hear less concern about it is says something interesting about the zeitgeist. think people believe in technological progress more in 2015 than they have since the space age and nuclear age of 50 years ago, maybe more than ever.

I don't think that's the issue. I think that the fact that Gen X and the Millenials have been less economically secure than preceding generations (reversing the trend toward greater security) means that increasingly, people are focused on more immediate, personal concerns. Plus, to the extent that there is a concern for broader, global environmental issues, the focus has been climate change rather than overpopulation (the two concerns overlap considerably, but climate change is more specific and concrete than generalized carrying capacity concerns.)

> At our current rate (ignoring the projected gradual reduction) we'll double every 65 years.

And, IIRC, in the mid-1960s, that was about 32 years. Which difference also contributes to the reduction in concern for overpopulation since then: we may be closer to whatever limit exists, but we're approaching it much more slowly now and that rate is still dropping.
Cyber-terrorism is the new terrorism is the new communism is the new facism and so on. The military industrial complex works to serve itself, and it will invent or even create and support enemies if those enemies can be used against the public to push a bigger budget. (See Operation Gladio A and B)

The thing to realize though is that the threat is from hard to find potentially non-nationstate actors, and the threat is somewhat real, but it is hard to detect and creates a constant state of fear... which is great if you want to capitalize on that fear. To a certain extent it worked for a better good by bringing tons of money into America which along with the UK and Israel is one of the top arms suppliers to the world. (a great intro book on this subject is the updated The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade.)

My problem is that this model of fear and money has been taken to the extreme is now eroding freedoms at home, and bankrupting us. Many republicans will rant and rave about the budget, but if you ask about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse (WFA) in DoD/Pentagon they hardly ever admit such WFA exists (even though everyone actually familiar with it knows how excessive it is, especially at the Pentagon.)

The other problem is that secretly, unbeknownst to you or the general public, in the smokey closed door places in the Beltway, the strategic thinkers have been saying we are returning to a neo-cold war, and to the tripolar world, and thats the real reason for our expansionism... used a measure of containment against our future enemies, (Russia and China) in the upcoming resource wars. Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Syria/Somalia/Georgia/Ukraine/The Stans, all make sense if you look at it from this perspective. Don't get me started on the petroldollar and world finance schemes.

I don't know enough to quite disagree with that justification, but my problem is that if that's the real reason, the public deserves to know, but our reps and the military brass have all just held that close to their chest and we are hemorrhaging money that gets wasted and it all ends up in VA and NY, and our constitution is being undermined, while our media is captured and corruption is rampant in all three branches of government, and the surveillance state grows so the intel agencies are more and more powerful against their own people and less and less useful abroad...

All this spells disaster in my opinion.
We are also killed more frequently by illegal aliens. Let's put our troops on the border rather than Afghanistan.
Instead of a government for the People, the People, and of the People, it's actually a government for the Opulent Minority, by the Opulent Minority and of the Opulent Minority.

James Madison stated: "Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
Talk about bad things about China -> Get upvotes.

Talk about good things about China -> Get downvotes and people rebutting you with clearly one-sided sources.

Am I surprised? No.

Am I pissed? No.

I believe time will tell.
I guess liquid water doesn't exist.

I'm really unsure what point you're trying to make.
Anthony Bourdain has observed that the only way to cook like a professional is to be a professional cook. If you aren't doing it full-time, you just won't have the same chops. (By comparison, imagine if you only wrote software a few hours a couple of times a week. Think you'd be as good?)

But really, this turns on a grey line. If someone is doing a weekly or semi-monthly meal in their own home, for a handful of people, is that a "restaurant"? If I invite a friend for dinner and they bring a date, am I now a "restaurant"? On the other hand, if someone is doing this three nights a week and turning a real profit, that's kinda different. A regulatory line should be set.

The cleanliness issues, I think, are totally overrated. No one is going to be serving something they haven't tried making before. If they poisoned themselves, they'll learn. Cleanliness is harder cooking at scale.
Anyone with access to OSX and Xcode.
> http://shouldiuseacarousel.com

There are certainly good use cases for carousels. This is one of them.
Good bit of feedback on the website, we need to take another stab at it. On security - it's something we're actively working on.
Yep I remember this too. In my engineering college days 97/98 in the 90s we were fairly aggressive early adopters of mp3s. We quickly learned that to reliably dj a party with just mp3s you needed at least someone with a 133MHz Pentium to not stutter or have issues on any tracks.
That should make you more optimistic! They want to make sure that the data format is well-specified from the very beginning, ensuring that there can be a third-party ecosystem that doesn't have the issue Git has right now where the only real definitive definition of Git's data formats is Git, yet people expect libgit2, JGit, etc. to work.
Socket.io Down
It is quite amazing how the founders were able to translate serious Stanford research into a simple and affordable product.
CISA: Why the financial and retail industries support it
The "carrying capacity" of earth is well, well above (constantly revised) estimates.

What will need to change is the efficiency of how we as a species make use of the earth. We can feed many times the current world population easily. We can house many times the current world population easily. What we can't accomplish is doing those things the same way we do things now.

Advances in agriculture, energy and housing are needed. Advances which are happening as we furiously type at each other.

Either we all die horribly or we'll all be fine.
We had a wifi radar at school. Was scary good. Only downside was that it jammed wifi for half the engineering building
The founder says he acquired the data through an assignment for the benefit of creditors. I'm not an expert in ABCs, but my understanding is that the assignee in this process has a fiduciary duty to creditors and therefore must attempt to maximize the liquidation price of the company's assets. So I'm still curious as to how the twenty-something co-founder of the failed business acquired the data.

That aside, if we assume the data was acquired appropriately, it makes the questionable behavior[1] all the more baffling.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10468700
It worked a bit later for me when I tried (maybe a half hour later) and it works now. (Nice photos!)
197+CLUB+REVERSE+MARKETING
An Introduction to Natural Language Processing
It's a common narrative, this is a phrase I've heard about many other first-in-the-family to be "educated". The intent is very likely honest, and simply meant to make Jennifer seem extra impressive.

I didn't take a racist interpretation immediately, though I see why it can be taken that way. I've always felt like this narrative is more classist. A family that has no bachelors degrees is another way to say "poor", and it's supposed to be surprising that someone from a poor family can get a university education and go on to do great things. To me it often seems like the implication is that socioeconomic status is an indicator of intelligence or academic capacity, or even the potential for it.

But my interpretion, and yours, are both cynical. The statement was almost certainly meant in good faith as a compliment, and on top of that, the sad truth is that the rates of people from non-white families who haven't gone to college breaking out and going to college are lower than the rates of middle class white kids going to college. It's not necessarily racist or classist to point that out, or to applaud someone for managing to break the trend; one might even argue the opposite.
In my opinion, fearing nukes, in general, is pretty rational.
Solar is not cost effective on the scale of dollars. That doesn't mean it's not cost effective though.

The dollar is a debt-based system which means when something is bought with a dollar that thing is assumed to be owned and loaned by someone. No one owns the sun, it's free and basically infinite.

Oil is the commodity which creates the most demand for and thus the most value out of the dollar. 6 of the 7 richest companies in the world in terms of revenue are oil and gas companies.

So with all things considered the cost effectiveness of solar power to the dollar is not a valid comparison because what you are basically doing is comparing the cost benefit of solar for oil production and the ability to create debt.

>Even after all this time the Sun never says to the Earth, "You owe me." Look what happens with a love like that, it lights the whole sky.

-Hafez
If you know emacs I recommend taking a look at org-mode. It's an emacs mode that let's you write in "markdown" (but including tex-syntax for math) and then lets you export to html or pdf (via tex/latex.)
Oh also the DNS wasn't resolving and we use google 8.8.8.8 DNS servers.
That has got to be a troll post. Nonetheless, on the danger of starting a flame war, here is a brief answer:

No, Haskell is not the obvious language. Though no doubt a very nice language, it is nowhere near the top of the most commonly used languages. Thus, it's money-making potential (in terms of available jobs) is pretty low - which seems to be the main factor the OP is interested in.

As for functional programming: much as I love it, it is not the non-plus-ultra answer to life, the universe and everything. And even if it were, there are other languages that are also functional; all the various Lisp dialects to start with.

And by the way, please refrain from personal attacks on HN.
Not exactly. It's more that making the page faster is fairly predictably going to get you $X in additional revenue. Adding a new feature is going to get you anywhere from $0 to $Y in revenue, but you can't know what $Y is until you've launched it and given users some time to learn about it. So the only way to avoid getting stuck in a local maxima - your current feature set, as optimized as possible - is to periodically try to shake up the page, add some new features, and measure their effects. After a couple years or so, the features for which $Y < their cost in latency & developer maintenance are killed, and a new round of optimization & code cleanup starts based on the current feature set.
People of color have the same ability to not conduct criminal activities or resist arrest or attack police officers as everyone else. Yet, why does a higher percentage choose to do so? Why is South Chicago less safe than the Appalachian per capita?
The behavior of the interview team was truly appalling here, and this was a good post. It's important to be aware of just how bad things can get in technical interviews.

However, much as I'm always game for a good horror story, I'm more interested in the damage that the ordinary, polite, courteous technical interview/exam may be inflicting on people and our industry.

As I've posted in the past, I believe that tech interviews are essentially entrance exams that software developers are forced to take over and over. Actuaries, for instance, take exams on topics that correlate closely with mathematics classes, like numerical analysis or vector calc and linear algebra. These exams are recognized for what they are - rigorous entrance exams to show competency in core subjects. We don't call these exams "interviews" and leave it to an some dude who sits in cubicle D-12 to decide how he feels like testing an experienced Actuary's understanding of integration by parts today.

The reason I prefer to focus on the polite, respectful, professional interviews is that it helps us see the fundamental problems with our approach, rather than the misbehavior that can occur in any interview situation. I do think that the intense technical interviews in our field have taken the place of the bar, the actuarial exams, the medical boards. However, most professional entrance exams adhere to a code of conduct - students have an associated study path, they get a respected credential (reassuring their peers and hiring managers that they really do possess this knowledge and ability), they are aware of who their examiners will be and are assured that they possess the proper credentials and expertise to conduit the exams properly, fairly, and most of all, consistently.

I really would like to see developers, as a profession, determine how our competence will be established relative to our peers.

Now, one more thing - I said that I prefer to focus on the polite interviews than the horror stories, but I absolutely do acknowledge that a process like tech interviews may be unusually prone to these horror stories. In short, horror stories like this may not be entirely orthogonal to the core issues, they may very much be a common side effect.

Instead of highly respected practitioners and acknowledge experts sitting on a board, we go grab a few developers and hope they know what they're doing. When I defended my MS project, Berkeley didn't go out and grab a few people who seem to know the industry well enough (uh, I guess, oh, he's busy, well, this other dude seems pretty good, have him sit in) and have them decide whether I would receive a degree. I'm not saying there is no variance among experts, some may pass you, others may not, without question. But I could be certain that the people on my committee were qualified to evaluate my work, that I had rights as a student sitting for an exam, and I would receive a lasting and meaningful credential with feedback (not just a "we've decided not to proceed with your application at this time, but we'll keep your resume…).

With such a capricious and chaotic process, yeah, the sort of thing described here is more likely to happen.
This can be seen in the animal kingdom as well.

Larger creatures, and those higher on the food chain, having greater access to resources and higher survival rates, invest more in fewer children. Smaller creatures, with lesser access to resources and higher mortality rates, invest less in more children.

A rabbit doe can theoretically have 480 offspring, at 12 per litter, 10 times per year, over 4 years. That's the kind of thing you might do if 98% of your kids get eaten, because you will still have 10 left. Rabbits can also abort their litters when stressed.

An elephant might have one calf every four years, over 55 years, or a maximum of 14 children. That's what you might do if only one other species can reliably kill any of you, and you expect all of your babies to survive to adulthood.

With humans, the observed historical behavior is that poor or uneducated humans are relatively fecund, producing 8-30 children per pair, occasionally with multiple births. As wealth and education increase, and particularly when child mortality drops and elder care becomes socialized, birth rate drops down to the population replacement rate (or below). Middle-class first-worlders usually have 0-4 kids.
I can't agree. Context is almost always a sufficient indicator. If you really can't distinguish the difference between what's literally said/written and the intent I do feel bad for you but the reality is that most people can do it just fine.
Thanks for stopping by! Do you happen to know what type of license the materials will be under when they open up access?

I am an English teacher, and about 80% of my students are professional lawyers, so I wonder how free I will be to use this material in my classes. I already use Harvard Law School's free case studies, they're great, and under CC license if I remember correctly.
If that were true, we'd be seeing non bullshit terrorist convictions. I'm not a big fan of paying for snake oil.
If you don't consider any punishment the responsibility of a criminal, then I think you're using a different definition of 'responsible' than most people, and this might actually be a semantic argument rather than anything meaningful.
Thanks for the info. I'll try to double-check mine on that. :)
> Headlines like these are obviously created for sensationalism

It isn't. Depending on whose numbers you use, the statistic is either actually true or sufficiently close that disputing the difference is pedantry.

The reason the headline is shocking is that people expect there to be relatively few police shootings yet, if the GWoT rhetoric is to be believed, rather a serious problem with terrorism. The fact that the problem of police shootings is larger than the problem of terrorism is a strong, concise, true statement that somewhere along the lines we have our priorities inverted.

In particular, it implies that "fighting terrorism" with more and stronger law enforcement is highly counterproductive.
I guess the only thing we have to fear is not just fear itself but the fearful themselves who are driving the madness in this country because of their fear of what is essentially a ghost (terrorism). So much for JFK's America. Today's America is filled with fearful cowards, just like the people in charge the past fifteen or so years always wanted.
It's worth considering picking up and asking them to put you on their courtesy do not call list (not argumentatively, just ask).

Even scammers don't want to waste resources on people that aren't going to convert and this is a pretty strong signal.

It usually works even when you have to talk over an aggressive operator to say it.
It may be extremely unlikely, to the point of being negligible, that terrorists could develop, construct and deliver a nuclear device independently. However it may be possible for them to steal one. They'd find it hard to deliver it to a target, but if the theft went undetected (bear in mind that when the USSR disolved there was no definitive inventory of all their nuclear devices and there are still discrepancies in the records) it's certainly not impossible.
You can have sex with an infertile man. Vasectomy does not make the man lack lust, it just makes the man infertile.
Birth rates drastically plummet simply by becoming wealthier. I don't what causes it? More education? I don't know.

But it's a well documented effect. Seems to me the easiest way to cut reproduction is to simply develop countries.
Do you have any special reason to doubt his story so vehemently? Should we dismiss any workplace abuse story as embellishment? Bosses and coworkers are always friendly and professional?

I know people that have suffered boss/coworkers bullying and I find this story plausible. And I know this industry and some people can be very inmature and unprofessional.
There is a lot more at play in the middle east than "they never really wanted it".

As I wrote elsewhere, it's hard enough in a vacuum to overthrow a dictatorship and start a free and functional democracy. It's even harder when there are a multitude of foreign powers interfering in your country preventing this from happening. Democracy is failing in the middle east because there are a lot of powerful people and nations who don't want it to succeed, want the region to remain unstable, and want the region to remain within their respective spheres of influence.

And finally, how does anybody know "what they really want" unless you ask the entire country in a free and fair manner? This is the big fallacy behind "the people prefer the lesser evil of dictatorship." You can't say that. You don't have a clue what the people prefer. This is the whole point: if the people want a dictatorship, give them a free, fair, democratic vote and let them choose dictatorship.
A database doesn't help you when the called ID is spoofed to a random number that has no connection to the person calling.

I've noticed the robocalls I get seem to have the same area code and prefix as my number and the last four digits appear to be random.