skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well, that would depend on the size of that population, would it not?

A single middle-class person working to make as contrary to prediction market choices as possible would, I think, have a not significant influence

Even if they optimized for the size of the influence as well as the strangeness.

I don't expect the total population of people doing that to have a significant impact on the market.

There isn't much reason to do it, and it probably costs money over time, leading the people who do that to have less money over time,and so for their doing that to have less and less of an impact over time.
You don't need to target anyone, you don't need to monitor anyone. Terrorism is a fake problem, it kills barely anyone and is little more than statistical noise. There are so many bigger actual problems to solve and no one is proposing tossing liberty out the window to solve them. You are arguing from emotion, not reason; this is nothing more than a simple crime, let the police handle it and forget about it. You can't "fix" terrorism and it is naive to attempt to do so.

Mass surveillance is in fact a worse crime than terrorism, maybe we should jail you and all those who support it as you are the far bigger threat to liberty. Terrorism poses no threat to liberty, people like you do. Your ideas if enacted are far more dangerous to a free society than all the terrorists of the last 20 years combined.
Because so far it's primarily been radicalized muslims that have been involved in acts of terrorism?
Okay so this may feel like splitting hairs, but...

You're talking about input, I'm talking about output.

Experience is influenced (to varying extent) on sensory input, but they're not the same thing.

Sensory input of course influences experience, I'm not going to deny a sledgehammer to the hand.

While you feel that the distinctions drawn above serve only to obscure things, in fact the reverse may be true. The Cartesian perspective that "output is nothing but a response to input" has been pretty much discarded in modern research into pain, neurology, consciousness, psychiatry, and so on.

So i don't deny the role of sensory input. I'm just pointing out that input is distinct from output; they're not the same thing.
Worth noting that it turned out to be a non-story afterall, no armed car heading towards Paris.
I am very hesitant to call Israel's policies successful in the bigger picture, but I'll respectfully decline that entire debate.
"France admits soldiers have deserted to ISIS, including ex-elite special forces and French foreign legionnaires"
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/france-admits-soldiers-hav...
But that said black jumper doesn't mean a soldier ISIS likes their blacks (too early for humor but the latest South Park episode kinda dealt exactly with that), could be a professional soldier, could just be an experienced fighter, could be just a guy who spent 2 weeks in Libya training how to fire an AK that looked scary and professional because he had a gun and a black adult onesie.
Eye witness testimonies are often inaccurate even if they had sufficient experience to judge the expertise of the attacker they would likely over estimate it due to the trauma.
This is expected response if you follow the American media.

There is a very interesting video [0] of Noam Chomsky, after the 9/11 attacks, where he
says that any government and regime worth it's salt will use 9/11 as an excuse to
push their agenda over the public.

And they will do so using their fear.

[0] <For the life of me, I couldn't locate the video. Will update the post if I do.>
What is b2 ?
A classy news/weblog tool (aka log ware).

Two remarkable things in this statement

1. It's been a long time since people called this "weblogging", so long that most people don't even remember that's where "blog" and "blogging" came from.

2. Trends are really fickle, what is classy one year looks very dated the next, and in a decade or two comes back as retro cool.
I don't. I think it will have selective advantages, but saying this is like saying video is the future of journalism. And on the BBC News app, I still pass over every news item that is just video.
That's incorrect.

"all muslims living in Europe who have the potential to be radicalised" is the subset of muslims who have the potential to be radicalised.

Your comment would have been valid if he/she had written "all muslims living in Europe, who have the potential to be radicalised."

Yes, syntax matters. The HN crowd ought to know. ;)
AFAIK, Microsoft used public (US Government) imagery. Google bought Keyhole and that enabled them to own the sensors which gave them more power in terms of capturing content.
I understand your point is that direct confrontation at times cannot be avoided. In particular, you may be provoked to defend yourself, as in the Soviet Union entering WWII upon Germany violating the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I'm of the opinion that only this latter case of agression justifies taking up arms. Any violence by way of preventive action lends itself too easily to abuses, as we see with the so-called war on terrorism. In the context of WWII, it's not at all clear that anything other than collective action of the allies and the Soviet Union could have stopped Germany. And for that, the events had to run their course. One can find fault with indecision on refugees, but not with appeasement efforts.
is there some way you've imagined to pull that off without monitoring everybody? perhaps a survey where people can indicate how likely they are to follow radical Islam on a scale of 1-5.
> No, there's only one ideology on the planet with a radicalized extreme minority that supports and promotes this kind of behavior.

The Buddhists? They have at least one army and two terrorist groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/969_Movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Karen_Buddhist_Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodu_Bala_Sena

Or perhaps the Sikhs? There are still some active Sikh terrorist groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement#Abatement_o...

And before you say that those groups don't affect America: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nevada-man-charged-aiding-...

Perhaps you mean Christians? There are a bunch, such as the Lord's Resistance Army (now operating in Sudan) as well as a bunch who have carried out actions in mainland US. In the US the main threat is from either Christian or right wing extremist groups.
Thanks - for anyone else looking your current version is in the Help > "..." menu (amongst other places).
Summary of key discussions:

==========================

If you're just an average user concerned about your privacy

1) Use Tor when browsing.You don't have to use Tor all the time (it does slow things down considerably and some sites will also block Tor traffic). But if you are looking at or for something that you feel is sensitive, then either set up your browser to work with Tor or use the Tor browser.

2) Use an ad-blocker. Says Snowden: "As long as service providers are serving ads with active content that require the use of Javascript to display, that have some kind of active content like Flash embedded in it, anything that can be a vector for attack in your web browser – you should be actively trying to block these."

3) Use a password manager. It doesn't matter how many surveys and reports come out that tell people to use different passwords and complex passwords, a huge percentage of us maintain borderline idiotic approaches. The simple answer is: get a password manager. It will protect you.

4) Use two-factor authentication. Many services such as Gmail, Twitter, Dropbox, Hotmail, and Facebook offer this now for no charge. So even if your password does get exposed, you still have a backup such as a text message to your phone to secure your information.

5) Use apps that protect your information. Snowden suggests the smartphone app Signal, which encrypts both your phone calls and texts. It's free and easy to use. Although of course, following a high-profile argument with the FBI, it would appear that Apple's messaging service is also pretty secure (although Snowden would probably have doubts).

6) Use the HTTPS Everywhere browser plug-in. This comes from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and will try to force all browser communication to be encrypted.

7) Encrypt your hard drive. This is comparatively easy these days but you have to be careful to do two things: one, have a longish phrase to make it worthwhile; and two, make damn sure you remember that phrase. There will be a slowdown in performance but nothing too bad if you have a modern machine.

8) Be smart with your security questions. Stop using your mother's maiden name for everything. Likewise your first school. The key is to mix things up as much as possible so if someone does get into one of your accounts, they can't use the same information to get in everywhere else.
Sorry, I guess I read too much into your comment.

Democracy, equality before the law and freedom of speech need each other to work. To me it seems self evident and I assumed it to be no-brainer to large majority of HN.

I thought that we we're discussing here a situation where freedom and democracy might be conflicted. If they cannot be conflicted, then we have to assume that people of democratic nation are unable to ever vote for ethnic surveillance. Which seems unrealistic assumption.
Yea, Snowden is responsible. Because we never knew about phone monitoring before?? Glad the terrorists never watched the wire or any other police procedural going back to the 70's.
The TerraServer project split into two branches, read both Wikipedia pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraServer

Also NASA World Wind got popular, just before Google Earth, and was initially more advanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_World_Wind
How to send and reply to email
It's not so bad. My wife isn't very technical, so I tend to frame my day in terms of projects and the people I work with. She works in a field that I understand about as well as she understands software, so she does the same when discussing her day.
Oh f* people who even think that way, let alone proclaim it.

France has porous borders. They spent $1 BILLION over the past year on security "enhancements".

If evil people want to be evil, they are going to find a way.
I don't think it is, really. A 13 year old child is not going to understand what they are fighting for, doesn't matter if they are from Syria or from US. We don't let 13 year olds have sex because they don't understand what they are doing, we don't let them drink alcohol, smoke or drive for the same reason - but going to war is somehow laudable? The only reason why there's "respect" in here is that he fought for the "good" side. If he fought for the "bad" side we would all be saying how horrible it was that they used children soldiers.
The assumption is that governments (and the people supporting it) assume mass surveillance keeps people 100% safe. That is not necessarily the case, anything higher then 0% if you disregard social costs is a win in their view.
Sprint Retrospective Exercise for Remote Scrum Teams
> Within the Schengen Area borders

Well, it's the same AT the Schengen border these days. It's not a border, it's a joke if anyone can go past it.
Important to note that there were a lot of mapping companies in the 90s/early 2000s, but the breakthroughs were really Google acquiring a number of mapping companies like Keyhole, where2. The big leap forward, of course, was the hyper responsive Ajax interface that google introduced around 2004.
Sorry I misattributed that. I swore I saw the same style somewhere in his book. I still think it's horrible =)
(sorry)

I remember one of the other preset themes was a lot better (though I have a lot of trouble trying to find a list of them)

I absolutely love your libraries and all that you've done with R. You've really transformed data analysis for me. Thank you.
That could be enough if your housing is free, and with rent control some people have very cheap housing.
By that reasoning it is three times more important to prevent automobile ownership, three times more important to prevent access to poisonous substances, and three times more important to prevent high places.

Because the three most common causes of accidental death in the US are Unintentional fall deaths, Motor vehicle traffic deaths, and Unintentional poisoning deaths. And each of those kills roughly three times as many Americans as guns.

When you add in intentional firearm deaths, it's roughly the same as automobile deaths -- yet we give 16 year olds the keys without a second thought.
Nothing is shown there. I assume it needs javascript. Why would I need javascript to a page with image links?
Lime Text: A text editor primarily developed in Go
I didn't try to do that. I just think that conflict fueling unrest more than anything else. And it's lot easier to imagine Israel to disappear than to imagine half of Islamic world to disappear.
> We don't have to change. The delusional stone age brutal inhuman apes pushing around nonsense have to. The world needs to unite against them, not respect their bullshit religion and ideology.

That it is itself a brutal stone age tribal point of view, you have become what you claim to despise.
> I don't see first option as a viable one

I agree "option" wasn't a good way to put it. As to Breivik, I didn't know that he played WoW. You are probably right that games don't offer enough substance/not a positive atmosphere.
Bali Secret: Luxurious Private Stay at Bali Villa – Infossible
It's been a while since I played the series, but what similarities exist there?
Jihad John gets an excuse to rape random women and kill people. It gets him outside the social structures that would not condone these sorts of aggressive activities. I don't think it's against self-interests for messed up people.
For the US government, it doesn't matter particularly if OPEC keeps the level of supply up or not; low oil prices may cause the local oil production to stall but they also dramatically help all other branches of the US economy. If supply goes down and prices up, the exports will just resume again.

Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members however need high prices, they are not just a mere luxury to them. They may have $10 lifting costs but they have overextended their state budget by relying on oil profits to the point where they need a $80+ price to just maintain the status quo. They have no meaningful other economy.
I'm having a hard time understanding your example. That someone who knows what your car looks like and roughly where you live could use Google Maps to find the specific address?
Thanks. I was genuinely curious.

To me "power projection" in itself is morally very questionable. Even without terrorist attacks. Unfortunately modern geopolitics is more Machiavellian than Machiavelli himself was.
I remember using this on my first 486, maybe a 386 on a CD that came bundled with Microsoft Encarta. This was just a hair before the internet started taking off on modems and such, I beleive we might have had an internet connection but it was still at the point where sharing floppy's and CD's were the best way to share software.
I waited as well :'(
"We, the West, overthrew Saddam by violence. We overthrew Gaddafi by violence. We are trying to overthrow Assad by violence. Harsh regimes all — but far less draconian than our Saudi allies, and other tyrannies around the world. What has been the result of these interventions? A hell on earth, one that grows wider and more virulent year after year.

Without the American crime of aggressive war against Iraq — which, by the measurements used by Western governments themselves, left more than a million innocent people dead — there would be no ISIS, no “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” Without the Saudi and Western funding and arming of an amalgam of extremist Sunni groups across the Middle East, used as proxies to strike at Iran and its allies, there would be no ISIS. Let’s go back further. Without the direct, extensive and deliberate creation by the United States and its Saudi ally of a world-wide movement of armed Sunni extremists during the Carter and Reagan administrations, there would have been no “War on Terror” — and no terrorist attacks in Paris tonight.

Again, let’s be as clear as possible: the hellish world we live in today is the result of deliberate policies and actions undertaken by the United States and its allies over the past decades. It was Washington that led and/or supported the quashing of secular political resistance across the Middle East, in order to bring recalcitrant leaders like Nasser to heel and to back corrupt and brutal dictators who would advance the US agenda of political domination and resource exploitation.

The open history of the last half-century is very clear in this regard. Going all the way back to the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953, the United States has deliberately and consciously pushed the most extreme sectarian groups in order to undermine a broader-based secular resistance to its domination agenda.

Why bring up this “ancient history” when fresh blood is running in the streets of Paris? Because that blood would not be running if not for this ancient history; and because the reaction to this latest reverberations of Washington’s decades-long, bipartisan cultivation of religious extremism will certainly be more bloodshed, more repression and more violent intervention. Which will, in turn, inevitably, produce yet more atrocities and upheaval as we are seeing in Paris tonight.
"

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/13/the-age-of-despair-re...
Many of the people orchestrating it have probably been pining for this for years. Insinuations like "When the next attack comes, maybe some people will start to think differently about these leaks" was in the talking points from the start.

Tangentially related: https://theintercept.com/2015/09/11/today-14th-anniversary-e...
Bootstrap – what it is and how to use it
Well, a tweet from a former press secretary of a US president. I'd say it's pretty news-worthy, since this seems to be a coordinated campaign by some (albeit a disgusting one).
Ever since I first set up a printer on Linux many years ago I thought Unix printing was awesome. In those days, before this current era where every mainstream print ui has some variant of "save PDF", it was a huge breath of fresh air to have an interface so simple as "pipe postscript into lpr". Once you got that part working you could pretty trivially set up samba to share it with Windows machines and not have to worry about the hideous world of Windows printer drivers. (For the rare occasion when I need to print I do that today on my home network, with OpenBSD running lpd and samba talking to OS X and Windows clients.)

Recently I read on HN that in the 70s, formatting documents with troff and printing them provided the financial justification for Unix back then. I was not surprised. Unix philosophy and printing mix well together, probably not by accident.
The cycle of government:

1. We need this tool to stop terrorists. if you don't give up liberty for safety, the terrorists win.

2. (Inevitable terror attack happens)

3. Our tools weren't strong enough to stop the terrorists. We need _more_ tools and a larger mandate to stop them.

I've been told that, due to the above cycle, we should all realize that the primary purpose of government is to pretend to fail.
Google brags about constantly doing large scale refactoring on heir codebase.
My experience is that in NY you can basically get any food at any time you want. SF and LA, not so much.
> with half-baked interpreters written in an obscure language like Haskell

Because the author thought it to be fun. You know, hackers and all.

> or written in Perl 6 itself using half-baked Perl 6 to 5 converters

Oh, I don't think that ever happened.

You may be thinking of NQP? Which is still a Thing, and it's what Perl 6 is written in, which is amazing.

There was also the initial idea that Perl 6 could run Perl 5, but this is proving impossible. This is done now using the Inline::* modules, which will use say, the Perl 5 interpreter. [0]

So, there's one for Perl5 to allow for compatibility with Perl 5 modules, but also for Python[1], and most likely for x language. That's awesome!

Of course, the inverse is true, too. You can call up Perl 6, from Perl 5![2]

> or targeting the .NET CLR or JVM, or targeting very
> obscure and limited VMs like Parrot or MoarVM.

Targeting .NET or JVM is also a good idea! Many languages do it. The general idea of Parrot shares a lot of interesting ideas with .NET - I almost want to say Parrot precedes .NET. The April Fools joke certainly did. If it didn't, Parrot was certainly inspired by .NET - or it was just an idea that was in the air at the time. Good idea!

[0] https://github.com/niner/Inline-Perl5
[1] https://github.com/niner/Inline-Python/
[2] https://metacpan.org/pod/Inline::Perl6
That smells pretty bad.

First we lose our friends, then we'll lose our privacy? I was horrified by the reaction of some of my acquaintances back home in France: "Let's imprison all those who went to Syria", "We should forbid Tor if this is what those terrorists used to kill our people", and the now classic "if you don't do anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide".

What's next?
I blame Bush for declaring war in the middle east for what happened in Paris. Not Edward Snowden.

Note how the government also uses times like these to rush through new policies around privacy.

Did phone tapping stop the US from preventing 9/11? No.
Before Snowden came along no terrorist ever heard of electronic surveillance, right?

If anything, mass surveillance is to blame for lack of intel. Before spying was so ubiquitous, terrorists might have said something on the phone or by email.
Yeah. The seamless "scrolling a map in a browser thing" blew everyone's mind. It did a lot in cementing the image of Google as a visionary company.
Ok, (edit: not new. Idk why I said new.) New conspiracy theory: the attacks were allowed to happen (not intentionally caused, just allowed to happen, or perhaps just not worked quite as hard to prevent) in order to get public support for further government powers.

It's known that governments have had plans as to how to get support from a tragedy if one happens. Is it that far fetched that preventing tragedies which are more likely but have a benefit to them for the government, would be considered at a somewhat lower priority than one which is less likely, but does not have any side benefit for the government?

Now, I'm not claiming that this is the case, not really, but it is something that comes to mind, and the most likely version of it does not seem that absurd?
The Coming War on General Computation (2011)
But you're being a bit dogmatic. We use psychological techniques to reduce pain in, for example, cancer patients.

You're reducing pain to some reaction to the physical world, but we see that some people have pain with no physical stimulus; and we some people who can reduce their pain even though there are physical stimuli present.

When you properly control a study on pain meds you see such a strong placebo response that it's hard to justify using the meds:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10351230

http://www.nature.com/news/strong-placebo-response-thwarts-p...
Closing borders isn't going to help if you have thousands of people who have no future and who are looking for revenge out of frustration. This is not to blame anyone, but it's more a matter of fact. Paris has seen many riots in the past years, where hundreds of cars have been destroyed by these people. It's not surprise that you can find some people in that group that are vulnerable or attracted to the tactics of IS.