skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Even though it's not an employer I would want to work for I do wonder if his is the type that would at least make a concerned mental note that he has a pseudonym like "killface". It's easy to call for the unmasking of anonymous people when you're not the one that has to worry about the consequences.
It's working well as a deterrent, but the goal is not to deter people from committing crimes; it's to deter minorities from going to white neighborhoods for fear of getting arrested. America's cities are very well segregated as a result.
Whenever I read something that emotionally moves me, it sets off my bullshit detector. That's especially true when it's something I'm predisposed to believing.

There is no context here, just a sad story. You can post a thousand of these stories. It all adds to to a bunch of "There's a bunch of sad stories in the world" without any other data.

It's odd, because I always get nervous about making comments like I did. People are much more interested in "who's side is he on" than critically looking at the information put in front of them.

Look, if consuming endless stories about the pain, sadness, and righteous anger that topic X provokes, all without any kind of context, then have fun with it. I gotta point out the logical problems, though, no matter which side of the discussion I'm on.
Does HN really think telling a person that you don't like them because of orientation/gender/race/religion doesn't contribute to a hostile work environment? That's kind of disturbing.
Reflexive defense of authority is a pretty common pattern. People doing it don't realize they're doing it, or they wouldn't. That's one of the fundamental mechanisms of racism, among other unpleasant things. Hardly anyone thinks of themselves as racist, so when they make a racist argument (not saying this one is, just making a broader point), they don't think it's racist - they think it's all about the equality.

The classic example of that is the "All lives matter" response to "black lives matter". Saying black lives matter is a response to the daily bigotry and institutional racism that black people in America suffer, every day. Responding to that with "all lives matter" is a way of disempowering even the acknowledgement of institutional racism, of denying the unique (and uniquely negative) experience of being black. But it sounds like equality. People who say it don't say it to be racist - quite the opposite. Being racist by acting not-racist. It's ironic and strange-loopy, but that's how it works.

Take it back to the post you're responding to. It's a reflexive defense of authority, the "few bad apples" argument. The first response to obvious institutional racism (really, this case boils down to "all blacks look alike") is to shout "Hey, the System isn't broken!" It's not broken if you're white, and you don't recognize how it treats people who aren't like you. It disacknowledges the experience of the individual at the hands of the System, by making sure defending the System comes first.

Thinking about this stuff is hard. Just watch... this comment will get a lot of downvotes, for even saying this stuff out loud.
Four genuine questions:

1. Isn't there something called prosecutorial
misconduct? Surely that would apply now.

2. Isn't it defamation to say someone committed a crime when they clearly didn't?

3. Being incarcerated must be awful, especially if you are falsely imprisoned. There must be legally available remedies for false arrest and miscarriage of justice?

4. His defender was manifestly inadequate. What sort of liability is there for deliberately not defending your client properly?
That doesn't mean it needs to happen silently; such interception should result in an unremovable browser indicator warning that it looks like your traffic is being intercepted.

If you consider it acceptable for the network you're on to intercept your traffic, then you can certainly continue to browse despite that warning. You might decide not to transact any private business on such a network, of course.
Revisionism with some sloppy relativism mixed in. For you to believe your argument, you must honestly believe that at some point in the future, it will be secularly moral to remove rights for gays, remove property rights from racial Jews, enslave blacks, and conquer, kill, and rape.

The truth is that nobody believed it was morally right to keep slaves who wasn't benefiting from it and using your type of relativism to sloppily justify it to themselves.
One way that scientists on the Manhattan project would refer to fissile elements indirectly was by using the last digit of their atomic number and of their atomic mass. So Pu-239 would be called 49 and U-235 would be called 25.

Some examples: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/ManhattanProject/LosAlamos...
The sleeving was chosen because the springy quality makes it easier to untangle.
> "corporation" is not a dirty word.

It is to these Bernie Sanders cult members!
Or more charitably, the grandparent comment author found a way to do the admirable (and for almost all of us, all-too-rare) task of reevaluating with renewed respect something previously dismissed.
I did read the articles. Did you read them to the end? Yes, Senate Democrats did claim there were holes and contradictions, but the victim claims there were not.

And, no the rapper wasn't tazed or his dog wasn't shot, but IRS agents did raid his home carrying shotguns.
Aging?

We have tales of yogis and other "adepts" who could supposedly live much longer than the average life span for their times or who could self-cure disease, etc. While I don't take these stories at their miraculous face value, I do wonder if there might not be some kernel of truth in there somewhere -- perhaps certain patterns of thought can and do have an effect on aging, the immune system, etc. We do know that people who are happy or feel socially accepted by friends and loved ones have statistically significant increased odds of surviving deadly cancers and other serious diseases.

For years I've felt like I've casually observed a converse effect-- people who adopt a curmudgeonly "old" point of view in life often seem to have failing health. I have wondered which comes first. Could an "old" (in the negative sense) mentality actually age you?
The state needs to financially make whole persons who are wrongly arrested. There needs to be a standard set of damages that get paid out to someone who is in jail wrongfully.

I would propose that the state owes you double the highest paid salary that you have earned in your career for the duration of your stay in prison. This is to both make a person whole for their missed earnings, and to repair the damages that having an arrest on your record does to your future earning potential. Further, there should be a minimum cap of $5,000 / month, and a maximum cap of $1M / year. Finally, I would propose that this value goes up by 10% each year to account for potential career growth over that time.

Not only does this attempt to make someone whole for the time that they lost, but it puts a real financial burden on the state for making these kinds of errors. Right now, the state faces almost no downsides other than the cost of housing someone in a prison.

Edit: as noted in a comment below "Wrongfully arrested" may be more appropriate read as "Wrongfully jailed". This program or policy would be targeted at affecting prosecutorial misconduct and not police misconduct. While police misconduct is still a massive issue I think there are different policies that should be used to address police misconduct.
Related article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transf...
The problem is that this also goes on in adulthood and even in board meetings. Even if you have the majority on your side they will sit quietly and watch you take a beating!

Then think about what happens if you try to have a discussion about something that is not "politically correct".

The problem with not allowing discussion about extreme topics is that the extremists will end up only discussing among themselves. And that's where it can become dangerous.
> It was only after the Russians started making the US look incompetent by flying more sorties in a couple of days then the US did in a month, did the US begin to start bombing in earnest.

Source for this?
Other data support these ratios. For example, in surveys of crime victims such as the National Crime Victimization Survey, the race reported by victims of their attacker reflects the proportion of conviction rates:

"The UCR and NVCS show similar trends regarding the races of offenders. Generally, the number of minorities identified as offenders is disproportionately high compared to their overall numbers in the population. As Ronald J Berger et al. advise the NCVS, 'Data are consistent with the UCR. The offenders in these types of crimes are disproportionately young, nonwhite, and male.'" (NVCS page 312, can be found by Google search-inside-the-book)

I would be interested to research the topic further. Could you provide more information about the studies you mentioned? I have not previously seen convincing evidence that bias in the justice system is responsible for the racial disparity in these crime statistics. From what I understand, a lot of the murders are black-on-black violence, as well. In 2013, 90% of blacks were murdered by blacks. A majority of people are killed by one of their own race in general (though black-on-white violence is much higher than white-on-black). People are typically murdered by someone who knew them intimately.

[Updated per correction]
Blacks killed by blacks: 90% [1]
Blacks killed by whites: 8%
Whites killed by whites: 82%
Whites killed by blacks: 15%

In what way are these murder statistics going wrong? White people are committing murder and getting away with it? Whites are committing murder, but it's falsely attributed to blacks? There are single examples of all sorts of crazy things happening in individual cases, but I haven't seen evidence or argument supporting that this happens systematically to a degree anywhere near enough to explain the discrepancy. Murder is a very serious thing, and it's hard for me to believe that prosecution bias is responsible for statistics saying that blacks commit ~4-5x as much crime as whites, and 10x as much murder as whites.

I find it plausible that there are effects along the lines of what you're saying, but I find it hard to believe that it would result in a murder per capita discrepancy of 10:1. It seems more plausible that that kind of bias would result in a discrepancy of much smaller proportions, especially for murder. I would be glad to review whatever evidence is available.

[1] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/...
> Eich achieved hos goal of writing oppression into the state constitution.

You mis-spelt 'sanity' as 'oppression.' It's not oppression to pass a law saying that a man who claims to be a hyena cannot demand to be taken in by a zoo; it's not oppression to pass a law saying that a woman who claims to be Intergalactic Space-empress doesn't automatically have her orders followed; it's not oppression to pass a law stating that two people who aren't married don't get to force everyone to pretend that they are.
So long as the majority population deems an error rate to be preferable to letting the more extreme criminals (rapists, murderers, arsonists, blah) 'walk free', there will be an error rate.

I'd sooner let ten all-but-certain criminals walk free than convict even a single innocent person. But I am not most people. Furthermore, there is not a good demonstration that decreasing the error rate (which would require imprisoning less actual criminals whom lack certain evidence, etc.) is beneficial for society as a whole. I mean, there's no studies showing it is any worse off either, but I digress.

It's not an argument you can make to most people - they'd rather "keep their family safe from potential murderers" than "not be sentenced to 20 years in prison for a crime they didn't do" because they cannot imagine themselves being sentenced for 20 years for a crime they didn't do but they can imagine a criminal harming their family.
This is not true. If you have a discrete uniform distribution, you can only have finitely many elements in your probability space, so it wouldn't make sense to have an axiom which refers to countably-many disjoint sets. The axioms are most useful for continuous distributions, and are closely related to measure theory.
Python Context Managers Screencast
You have it backwards: all of her personalities were blind, and then the sight returned for one of them. With therapy, now only two personalities still experience blindness. The fact that her episodes of hysterical blindness coincide with the so-called transition to specific personalities is interesting, but not definitive.

Even if we accept DID as a legitimate condition, that doesn't mean these separate personalities are real entities in their own right. On of the patients personalities is a 13 year old boy, with all the memories of a 13 year old boy. But these memories are completely false: they did not actually occur. People with DID don't have multiple selves, they have no self at all: their personality is shattered and stitched together by a patchwork of delusions and artificial personality traits.
An alternative datapoint - I have a charger that's not yet frayed, but it is starting to get intermittent - sometimes I need to wriggle the wires where they go into the mag safe connector.

That's the original charger for my 2006 black MacBook. It was in daily use by me for work until I got my mid 2010 MacBook Pro, and was then used as a "home machine" by someone else up until early this year.

The charger from the 2010 Macbook Pro is still working fine (but I'll point out I left that charger at work almost all the time, and "borrowed" the 2006 one when I needed to top up at home).

I suspect a difference is that I never "wrap the cable round the hooks", I just loop the cable up loosely and drop it all in my bag. I do the same with my iPod/iPhone cabes, and I've only ever had one of those fray (and I suspect that was one that got borrowed a lot). I wonder if this is a "you're holding it wrong" design oversight, where they've had lots of people using and testing them, but all in very similar ways which are not the only way they're used outside Apple?
Hm, I can't stand DFW's writing style, but I'll check this out anyway since I admit he has fruitful thoughts on occasion.
George Mason University (formerly George Mason Community College) is a right-wing lobbying organization. Their "Law and Economics Center", to which Google donated, says "The vision of the LEC is that if policymakers understand economics, they will be more likely to make sound decisions that support the rule of law and the free enterprise system, thus advancing innovation, job creation, and economic growth. ... LEC is uniquely equipped to positively affect national policy outcomes."
Content on HN needn't have anything to do with tech, as you'll see if you read the first of the site guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's not good that large parts of the thread have erupted into low-rent flamewars, though.
America Is Too Dumb for TV News
> You mean to say "that's what MagSafe was for". Magsafe is gone now... (although I would generally agree that type of connector is good).

It's not gone, it's present in all most selling Mac laptops, my latest rMBP has it, I think they only removed it from new MacBook because it's too lightweight and the magnet need to be super weak in order to get itself ejected once it's pulled without pulling the laptop itself, and usb type c was probably used to eliminate excessive separate chargin port to make this particular laptop lighter and smaller which is its main purpose.
> Its hard to be incarcerated for murder without someone actualy being murdered.

No, its hard (but not impossible) to be incarcerated for murder without someone being dead. In a system in which law enforcement, the judiciary, and/or the population from which juries are drawn are biased against people like you -- whether for race or other reasons -- it can be quite easy to be incarcerated (or worse!) for murder without having killed the person who is dead, much less having murdered them (which is legally more specific than merely having killed them.)

> People are not being wrongly incarcerated (wholesale) for violent crimes that dont exist, not being violent is sufficient to avoid incarceration for such crimes.

No, even if the premise was true (that people are not wrongly incarcerated for violent crimes that do not exist), it doesn't justify the conclusion: not being violent would not be sufficient to avoid incarceration based on that premise, you'd have to stop everyone else from being violent, too, since only the existence of the crime, not you actually being the one who committed it, is posited as necessary for the punishment to occur.
I have never seen a single person take the position you a suggesting with any real seriousness, this is a caricature of a real discussion, the problem is who gets to decide on what the current brand of "band ideas" are. At the moment its who ever is the biggest bully.
The Desolate Wilderness and the Fair Land – Printed annually since 1961
The Desolate Wilderness - http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122765706006858171

And the Fair Land - http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204482304574216001051255042
The best thing I read about modern computer security came from Google, I'm fairly certain, though I can't find the reference now.

Basically, the old model was two-party: you vs adversary. It could be assumed that your computer was trustworthy unless it had already been compromised by the adversary. Security in that model was largely based around the "computers should do what their users want" idea. Unfortunately, it doesn't line up with the actual state of computers and computer users today.

Modern security systems (especially those in mobile devices and web browsers) are designed to be three-party: you, your agent, and the adversary. You can be trusted, the adversary can't be trusted, and your agent (software on your computer) can be trusted sometimes. It's not automatically true that code running on your computer, on your behalf, is actually safe. Most users have no idea what that code is even doing.

This three-party model is what underpins the app sandbox, it's what underpins web app security including the same-origin policy, and it's what underpins things like Mozilla and Chrome's plugin and extension blocking. You can't always assume that computers are doing what their users want.

I think what is difficult about this is that, as your technical expertise rises, the two-party model becomes closer to the truth and the three-party model less so. As a developer I find my computer telling me I can't do something enormously frustrating. However, after the thousandth time cleaning malware off my mother's helpful computer, I really wish it would tell her what she can't do more often.

So, while I buy the "we can't control the layer above us" argument, I don't find "do what the user wants" compelling at all. Where was that argument when the users wanted to install old insecure versions of Flash? Or had apps that Google remotely removed from Android phones?
The embedded TI MSP430 microcontroller can easily be had for $.15 in quantity 1 compares to the original Mac's 68K, but using 1% of the power of the 68K. From the article:

The 68000 microprocessor from the original Apple Macintosh and the 430 microcontroller in the charger aren't directly comparable as they have very different designs and instruction sets. But for a rough comparison, the 68000 is a 16/32 bit processor running at 7.8MHz, while the MSP430 is a 16 bit processor running at 16MHz. The Dhrystone benchmark measures 1.4 MIPS (million instructions per second) for the 68000 and much higher performance of 4.6 MIPS for the MSP430. The MSP430 is designed for low power consumption, using about 1% of the power of the 68000.
Shift Messenger (YC W15) Working with Gap as Part of Stable Schedules Study
What I would love to come over from C# is:

* Auto-Properties - Get rid of all those ugle getters and setters cluttering up POJOs

* Object and Collection Initialisers - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb384062.aspx
It's complicated, though. How do you define "wrongfully arrested"? "Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent". "Charges dropped" is not the same as "innocent". This is not to say that all those arrested are guilty - far from it! But you would need a separate legal mechanism to distinguish actual wrongful arrests - and sadly, that mechanism would almost certainly be as badly biased by race and class as the existing courts.
dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10627472
> I do feel more negatively about their choice to use a third-party list of domains to blacklist, particularly since they can't offer any effective appeals process

If your site appears on the malware list, then both Firefox and Chrome will produce giant warnings on your site that will cause almost everyone to refuse to browse there. So you'll have much bigger problems than not getting a certificate, and you will need to get yourself removed from that list anyway. (And, for that matter, figure out what got you on that list, such as running an ad script that serves malware, or having your server compromised and serving malware you don't know about.)
Except carte blanche sentencing on intent is not enough. The attempted murderer after 10 years may be incredibly vindictive and immediately seek revenge, possibly mass murder in retaliation for his incarceration.

Likewise, the 25 year sentenced individual might wholly repent after five years, and thus sit in prison for another twenty with no rehabilitative meaning, he just rots to serve as an example to others.

You need informed decisions in the process of removing people from society and when to reintroduce them. It is not something to write down on paper or try to set universal rules. You need extensive oversight to prevent exploitation of those given the power over the lives of others, but you need informed and intelligent decision makers with multiple opinions deciding when the dangerous are fit to participate again in society, not arbitrary number guessing.

And no, its not cheap. But its more expensive socially to have the redeemed rot and the vengeful run free.
Company Plans to Resurrect Humans with Artificial Intelligence by 2045
More recent studies suggest that current heating, with or without human C02 outputs, would continue for the next 50,000 years.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5585/1287
>"a real financial burden on the state for making these kinds of errors"

I agree with everything in your post except this; the state does not care whether it is burdened or not, it simply taxes the citizenry to cover these expenses. At least a portion of this compensation should come from the responsible parties if this type of problem is to be discouraged. Imagine that you are a prosecutor or police officer set on obtaining a conviction for moral, corruption, or career reasons; will the possibility of future costs to the state give you any pause, or make you reconsider your actions?
The Thunderbolt display is handy to avoid carrying chargers around - except if you own a Macbook Air (and even more so on the 13" model).

You see, a Macbook Air charges on one side, but the Thunderbolt port is on the other side. It creates a lot of strain. No such issue with Macbook Pros.
Yes, so that's why we invented plugs. That's a thing we can do.