skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm a practising Muslim and can totally relate with this point of view. I had a similar experience which might interest you. My family is fairly observant. We pray regularly and our dress and behaviour clearly suggests that we're Muslim. We stayed in a small apartment about 5 years ago and had two families as neighbours. Both were Hindu but one was very observant - they were Brahmins and very strict in matters of food, worship, dress etc. The others were also Hindus but less observant. They weren't vegetarian and were, atleast apparently, less observant than the Brahmin couple.

We all had young kids at the time and the Brahmin folks were much more comfortable leaving their daughter with us than with the other couple. This was mostly because we were conservative just like them and so could appreciate how strictly they followed their own dietary laws and things like that. They also trusted us to follow the same with their daughter. They weren't so confident with the other couple.

Interacting with people in real life belonging to any group is very transformative and "online" relationships are not really a servicable substitute.
Well if you want to get really pedantic, nothing is inherently anything because all meaning is constructed in our minds. Evil is a word humans use to categorize things, not a description of objective reality.

I would agree that most people don't think of themselves as bad, but since there's no objective 'bad', wether or not they're 'actually bad' is up to the observer. When a person is labeled as 'evil' it's not a description of them as a person but a description of what the describer thinks of them. Hitler wasn't evil because he killed millions of people, he was evil because the general consensus is that doing the stuff he did makes you an evil person.

If one loses sight of this and starts think of evil as objective reality, they're taking their biases and opinions as objective reality, and down that path lies ruin.
Government Launches $100M TechHire Grant Competition
I don't see anything inflammatory about their style. They are just being straightforward and laconic.

HN down-voters (the old-timers) are such a sensitive bunch.

Students in Mizzou can yell at their professors as they throw their tantrums and no one dares bring them down to civil discourse; be laconic in a HN forum and you get downvoted for not being sensitive to old-timers' feelings.
Law of truly large numbers
You are entitled to your opinion. As a Muslim, I feel sorry for those who don't get Islam's message yet believe they do when all they're seeing is the surface.
I tried to use it years ago and found that every time I used it, I came away from the site in a much worse mood than when I entered it. I started arguments with and began to loathe my relatives. I realized my friends can't spell basic English words or compose complete thoughts. I don't care about baby pictures or what you ate for lunch, so my time was wasted. My life was actively made worse by its existence, so I stopped using it.
Not the OP, but this looks like it's designed to be lossy, and prioritize availability over deliverability. If clients are unable to keep up with message volume, messages will be dropped.

That makes is okay for things like realtime dashboards (which this is apparently designed for) and other rapid events where transactionality is not required.

But it's obviously not suited for job-like scheduling like data processing or email delivery. Nor as an event bus for inter-service coordination ("on event X, do Y").
where do you live?
It's tech hipsterism. Plus, it's a quick-and-easy way to create a hierarchy in an industry where somebody who's been working for a decade has the same job title, dresses the same, and looks basically the same as somebody who's in their second year. "Oh, you still use jQuery? Yeah, I pretty much just write pure JS." It's ridiculous tech dick measuring (which is to say it's par for the course when you get three nerds together in a room).

It's the exact same impulse that says you're not a real dev if you use language X or framework Y.
It depends on the mall, but the nearest 80s-style enclosed mall to me has quite a few vacancies in it. The parking lot has tumbleweeds blowing across it, and they don't even grow here.

And on the other side of the equation, American cops are trigger happy, their SWAT-team-equivalents are swimming in drug war forfeiture slush, combined with military surplus purchase programs, and the citizenry itself has a decent quantity of concealed pistol carriers.

Shooters on foot could kill a lot of people in that first 30 minutes, but after that, the easy targets are all gone, and the retaliation force is on its way to "arrest" your shooters. It doesn't take all afternoon to [opportunistically grab some unpaid merchandise and] scramble for the exits.

Making Americans fear shopping malls is a tactical wrong move. We have already turned against them, mostly. You have to know the culture better. You have to make us fear our own cars and roads. If we stop driving on a daily basis, the whole country collapses.

But with over 30k highway deaths per year occurring already, in the absence of any malice, that's a steep uphill battle. It'd be like putting additional poisons in a carton of tobacco cigarettes.
The Rise of “Worse Is Better” (1991)
This is a classic example of the problems with using real GDP as a measure of anything. The US GDP counts crime and corruption as positive contributors to the economy; the error is so deeply embedded in the idea of GDP that economists have a name for it: the Broken Window Fallacy. Japan's GDP counts the world's most efficient urban infrastructure, best rail system, and world's best urban zoning, transit, and development practices against it because it makes unsubsidized city living relatively cheap. Inflation calculations in both countries are nothing but political propaganda.

If you measure cost of living against typical wages, Japan outperforms the USA and far surpasses the UK and almost all of Europe. Just compute a budget including owning a home in a good school district in a safe neighborhood. Don't forget health care and owning two or three cars in the USA. Add back in the value of all the untaxed employer provided benefits in Japan.
But Japans central bank has printed more money and longer than most countries and it still does not work in making its economy grow.

Western countries has copied Japans money printing expecting it to work better for us than in Japan.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

We will need to engineer a new economic system that can deal with climate change which requires less physical goods.
Valuing things more like renewable energy, repair ability, upgrade ability.
"was done" vs "might have been" - you're making a big jump.

If you weren't aware, Bamford is actually one of the good guys in this debate. Don't make him say things he didn't say.
I once heard one of the guys from Cray give a presentation where he told a story about playing a prank on one of the Army research guys. He said it was right after they had installed a shiny new (washing machine sized) hard drive. They had already duplicated his (many thousands of punch cards long) program onto the drive.

They had a glass room overlooking the actual computer room where you'd go after handing one of the techs your cards to be entered. They brought the guy up there and he was waiting after handing off his cards and they had pre-arranged with the technician to trip and dump the cards everywhere. He said the Army guy turned white as a sheet of paper and looked like he was going to cry (this would have necessitated many hours putting the cards back in order). Then he told the guy that it was fine and they already had a copy loaded in on the drive.
Imagine a situation where you want to have an insurance for a rare event. Say the Toronto Maple Leafs winning the Stanley Cup. You can set up a situation where N parties can be the judge of whether or not that event has happened. If there is a disagreement you can formulate a complex transaction where it only takes N / 2 people to spoil the whole thing by sending all of the money to an unspendable address.

So the seller if the insurance tries to not pay on the extremely unlikely event, then even they don't get the money. Nobody does. But if they do agree to pay out the insurance, then they get to keep a portion of the money that was in the wallet. It's a way of ensuring honesty if even a small number of people are honest.
His / her point is that de facto the industry takes a point of view biased on an economical perspective towards the situation. (Your answer ironically does reflect this as well). The benefit of having children is to have a family and to, in a more biological sense, have offspring which ensures your dna remains within the society. Having a family takes time and enforcing a young parent (especially a person with such a background) to start working in a relative short amount of time is very taxing on their personal life. A better possible solution would be to let the young parent have the ability to work home for a couple days, rather than just giving the option to be fired.
Speaking of cherry-picking data, no comment on the 2nd and 3rd points? As I said, I agree that terrorism (no matter how you categorize the attacks) is a significant problem, but that linking it with Islam is choosing to be manipulated by the extremists.
Strict evaluation order is less composable. It is less expressive, actually.
Async await lib for Angular, so you don't have to $scope.apply everything
Trying to open this link as a new tab seems to trigger jwz.org's hotlink detection, which then serves up a slightly obscene image.
> Just as with anything else, the closer and more involved you are with something the more you see distinctions between different categories of that thing.

This is often referred to as the narcissism of small differences. It's one of those terms I found had a lot of applications once I knew it so I thought I'd share.
The purpose of analogy is not to say that two things are similar in every way.
Show HN: Copy any code to clipboard in OS X, adding proper syntax highlighting
The missing piece to the React testing puzzle
IT Books 3.0 release.Permanently saving your data including books and bookmarks
I think his point is that we still have bad actors and states. We're just a lot better at PR and image management but to the dead that makes precious little difference.
In general, rail projects are considered to increase property values. In fact, I've read the argument that light rail isn't really cost effective vs. dedicated bus lanes but the commitment associated with a rail line makes often makes it preferable for planning purposes. (In that buses, in addition to having a lower-class image, can always have their routes altered so--the argument goes--people won't make property decisions based on bus lines.)
Ethics and law are two very different things. An act can be lawful and yet not good, an act can be illegal and yet good. Rosa Parks broke the law when she sat in her seat. I'm not saying that had she been an atheist she couldn't have acted, merely that you don't obey the law just because it the law.
Plus almost all legal systems have a Judeo-Christian basis thanks to history, colonialism and international trade. Even more than that most are either Roman, English or Napoleonic - so hardly a pluralistic background.

The concept of "no good without religion" has a pretty decent intro with both sides at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality#Morality_requ...

Personally utilitarianism, often held as the secular morality, threatens to go down some really dark paths and has done so. You could easily see how things like eugenics (widely practised in the West until the Nazis put it beyond the pale) became popular, and it was the Catholic church who led the fight against it.
Its entirely consistent to hold the view that Islamic terrorists are a problem for the world without also believing that the majority of Muslims are terrorists. This seems similar to saying that I can't consider people being hit by cars a problem without also saying that the vast majority of car journeys result in someone being hit.

A vocal and deplorable minority of Muslims are actively attempted to split the world into Us and Them, I don't see that playing into their hand and deciding that I'm going to declare all Muslims want me dead is really going to help matters.
The numbers in this article are misleading as they're drawn from ridiculously underestimated assumptions. 25 - 33% is a more accurate number.

Why do you think your guess is more accurate?
> The more hatred you direct towards Muslims, the more you drive them apart from you.

I find this comment very strange. It's as though I can't acknowledge that Islamic terror is the biggest violent threat facing Europe whilst at the same time not hate muslims (?!?!?! how can anyone do that ?!?!?!).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Apostasy_in_...
It's even more absurd than that. The premise is that we can have a public worldwide debate that emphasizes how important encryption is to successfully carrying out terrorist attacks, convince the world to give up their privacy for the sake of safety, and after the majority of the protestors have been defeated by public awareness that encryption and terrorism go hand-in-hand, the terrorists will go back to using phone calls and unencrypted email.
People don't spray random other people with automatic weapons because of the marginal level of welfare benefits. The fact that you can even entertain that opinion is mind boggling.
Waiting for the day when it is insisted that only criminals/terrorists use end-to-end encryption.

I'm not surprised by liberals who want this and think government is mother/father (to be clear I am progressive) but I am REALLY surprised by conservatives that now want government monitoring every part of their citizen's lives.
And as long as false positives aren't properly addressed, not exposing your DNA information is a simple way to avoid some risky scenarios.
And they go around planting byte-order marks everywhere.
> "Know you are fighting men who look into the barrel of your gun and see heaven, how can you compete with that?"

Do not give them death them. Give them suffering for years and years without the release of death. Let's see how they enjoy that.
Google Removes Android App Tasker from the Play Store
> I'll change it to "randomness"; i.e. in a society of nondeterministic people, some will try to kill the others.

I think "randomness" is even worse, because it makes it sound like these actions could be expected from anyone at anytime. Statistically, a small portion of the population is responsible for most of the violence, through repeat offenses. Also, in many situations there are clear warning signs (e.g. mentally ill with clear homicidal ideation, member of a gang). Are you really arguing that a dice roll is a good fundamental model for human behavior?

Nondeterminism (assuming humans are truly nondeterministic) doesn't really matter here, except for the fact that we don't have a way of precisely predicting people's behavior (and may never have one). If it turns out that humans are just complicated, deterministic machines that we can not feasibly predict, the reasons for which we have developed societal structures do not disappear.

> But from that same randomness we get music, science, justice.

I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between the first two and violence. I agree that the third is a bit trickier. If what you mean is that the exercise of both these and the dispositions-formerly-known-as-base-instincts are a result of allowing for a significant measure of personal freedom, I'll agree with you. But writing human behavior off as having no more structure than a random number generator ignores a lot of predictive and explanative power that we do actually have.
I really don't get the argument here. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it. No one is forcing you.

Many people choose to use Facebook, and in fact use it a lot more than almost any other site/application. Who are you to decide for someone else whether Facebook is good or not? Who are you to decide that these people aren't really getting something out of Facebook? Who are you to decide that they're all "manipulated", forced to do something they don't want to?

Seriously, at what point is it considered arrogant to just assume that so many people are "wrong"? 1 billion people choosing to use Facebook sure sounds like a pretty compelling argument that Facebook provides them with at least some value.
That's a very polite way to deal with the problem.

I've seen first hand that most people bend easily. A very charismatic leader can do a lot of harm.

I'm a firm believer in anti-hate-speech laws.
"Your comment is unhelpful, you're agreeing with the author" lolwut
I've always viewed this as a false choice. If you give up your freedom you won't get anything in return. You won't be safer and you won't be more prosperous. <insert Ben Franklin quote here>.
Ah, thanks for that. I can accept that argument and stand corrected.

Also, thanks for letting me know about HN not letting you reply to my other comment. HN is very much into controlling who can talk to whom, and what thoughts can be shared among its participants.
> because the C-CEX exchange would take money for "destroying" coins

Who would use such a service?
Why Docker Is One of the Most Talked-About Technologies
I born Muslim but quit religion as soon as I understood how everything works. I'm against every single organized religion. It's just a device for dictatorship in my opinion. But Islam is just like Christianity and other religions you might know. It's a old school of thought with super vague sources. Anyone can have their own take. I can read the Bible and say according to it I should kill and rape, same for Quran. They are all the same and they are all stupid. Don't discriminate between stupid religions!
> believing that the majority of Muslims are terrorists

Nobody in this thread has suggested this

> ... declare all Muslims want me dead ...

nor this.
At this point in my life, there is not much strategic effort involved in getting myself to learn things. I think this is true for many people who spend most of their time engaged in intellectual activity.

It was once the case that various commitments, emotional states, and competing interests (consuming cheap entertainment like computer games, TV shows, etc.) reduced my efficacy here, but for reasons unknown to me I find these much less distracting than I did when I was younger. Sorry I can't be more helpful in this regard.

As I've gotten older, I would say the only conscious effort I've made is to educate myself more deeply on subjects of personal interest instead of constantly exposing myself to humanity's knowledge base at large. Sadly, there is too little time in a life to know everything. Better to have a deep understanding of what you find fascinating than superficial knowledge on a broad variety of subjects. (Of course, if you can manage both, more power to you.)
If you come to America, you should have to learn the AMERICAN Standard Code for Information Interchange. Speak the language. None of this Unicode i18n nonsense!
As a non-developer of any sort (web front end or otherwise) with just enough HTML/CSS/JS under my belt to be dangerous, I've found Bootstrap to be a great framework for quick and dirty landing pages. I've also found it to be nearly perfect for simple but responsive, beautiful, mobile friendly websites for showcasing art and literature without the complexity and requirements other frameworks demand.

That said, I agree with the author that it's not the best tool for every, or even most, jobs. You could use it to run a blog, but why? You could build an online e-commerce site out of it eventually, but dear God why?

And that's the beauty of the modern Web. There are so many awesome frameworks out there that do a few things very well, and others that do just about everything decently enough; it's an embarrassment of riches for anyone involved in the industry.
Introducing Xamarin 4
Keeping just the landing gear away from the autopilot doesn't keep anyone safe. That's letting it do all the hard parts but out of some weird neurosis not letting it do one of the easiest things.
Yes, of course, that would be a wise thing to do. No problem at all with that. But surely you can spare a few extra bytes by implementing your own, while still using essentially the same "battle-tested" Bootstrap approach.

Also, you wouldn't be constrained. Bootstrap means a predefined set of breakpoints for responsiveness: you can change their values, but not their number - you'll always get 4 breakpoints. Bootstrap also means a float-based grid system; you may want a flexbox based solution if you're targeting new browsers. And, of course, another pet peeve of mine: Bootstrap-powered HTML source-code looks all the same (a bunch of .row and .col.xs-N). Of course, you can use the mix-ins, but I think every Bootstrap user can relate: the mark-up for the user details page looks an awful lot like the order page. :) I actually prefer to write (and, even more, maintain) mark-up with semantic classes.

As I said above, it's not a big problem and using only the grid is a wise thing to do. I just don't think it adds that much; might as well implement it myself, targeted to my needs (and I'll do it once or twice, then reuse).
I don't think that the numbers of ISIS and the numbers of muslims worldwide bear meaningful comparison.

Your third point I responded to in another reply.
Biogen R&D Chief Launches Exosome Biology Startup to Fight Cancer, Alzheimers
The veil of ignorance [1] is a very nice step in the quest for a universal human morality. It abstracts away culture and makes biases and prejudices painfully clear, whatever the cultural background to reveal universal human values.

Try to imagine being a black islamic lesbian undocumented immigrant in a small bible belt town. You have little knowledge of the English language. An immunology disorder makes it dangerous for you to get a vaccination. Your hobby is collecting fossils.
Your neighbors would have to throw quite a bit of their culture out of the window if they really want to treat you with the respect you deserve as a human. Good people will make the effort, and rightly so.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_ofA very strong reason for moving moral positions for may...
_ignorance
>You are using the "someone did some bad things some time ago (and now that I've put things into perspective for you), lets allow another someone do another something bad right now, because it's only fare!" argument.

So many misunderstandings I don't know where to start.

First, did I say anywhere "lets allow another someone do another something bad right now, because it's only fare!"?

No, and that's why you didn't directly quote from my comment. In fact in it I very precisely write: "We should condemn all violence -- not forgive the one that has better PR and is done by cool looking people who have the same background as us.".

Second, I don't try to justify or excuse (I mean, Jesus!), just to put in perspective and explain. And one main I try to explain is that "40% of people" believing a horrible thing is neither irredeemable, nor unknown for even in our countries, even in the time of our fathers and grandfathers. Those people grew up in countries that resulted of those conditions and heard those horror stories from their relatives.

Third, as I noted it's not "some time ago", it's something ongoing. Foreign powers still plunder, meddle and hold those countries down, with unbelievably far greater blood tolls than all those attacks combined.

So, more like "If you fuck people over repeatedly, including having a history of enslaving their parents, you shouldn't be that surprised that they might come and hit you back, or that they develop a cult of hating you and what you stand for".