skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Firstly, you assert that everyone wants their own big car. This is not true. I don't want one, and I'm not alone in that amongst people living in cities with good public transport.

I choose my mode of travel (including cars) as a function of the time it's going to take to get there, and how much stuff I'm lugging. If I am carrying a lot or travelling out of peak hour, I take a car. If I'm under time pressure, I'll probably take the metro.

In Paris we have Autolib, which is a wonderful car service where you can reserve a car at one station and drop it off at another. There are over a thousand if these stations in the city, so there's normally one near you and your destination. But the brilliance of this is that I can go to work using public transport (because peak hour), gi to the gym after work and then drive home. Or catch public transport to a restaurant in a Saturday evening, and drive home, or whatever. Self driving cars will make this type of system even better because I can use one without having a station near me, I just call a car.

At the moment city centres get clogged by cars because public transport in the suburbs is horrible. But if you can get a car to a transport hub and then commute into the centre, I think a lot of people would prefer that to being stuck in heavy traffic for hours. Maybe not you, but many people.
Did HN kill eff.org?

Access forbidden!

You don't have permission to access the requested directory. There is either no index document or the directory is read-protected.

If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster.
Error 403
www.eff.org
Sat Dec 5 04:27:56 2015
Apache/2.2.22 (Debian)
> as far as I know, in the US police are never given orders to hurt protesters. In theory, they can even get in trouble for doing so. In the other countries you listed, this was official policy.

Well, they don't need orders to hurt protesters. Some of them will actively seek out opportunities for doing so, because that's what they signed up for. Those would be the psychopaths, by the way.

Yes, in theory they can get in trouble for hurting people, but in practice we all know they don't.

> The final blow was a court ruling that said they have to clear out. (The wording was a bit more subtle, but that's what Wikipedia is for.)

I have no clue if that's accurate, but it sure would have been convenient for Wall Street.
D3.js shape library
Driverless cars will reduce the cost of taking a taxi such that it may become viable for car owners to completely opt out of owning a car. But if 10 million people need to get to work parallel to each other what does it really matter if the cars are Ubers or self owned?
Suddenly, a scene in Futurama makes sense to me.
Summit rules out ban on gene editing embryos destined to become people
I think you might enjoy this!
https://twitter.com/BobRossGameDev
Its gross misconduct and in the uk Malfeasance in office (surely there is an equivalent law in the USA.

And doesn't the US equivalent of the official secrets act apply to all police officers?
Ping tunneling
performance isn't just about bandwidth, how about latency?
I think we agree that is the intention. However it's more like putting up a sign on a hotel saying "Murder and mayhem will not be tolerated."

If there is a real risk of murder and mayhem, the sign needs to read, "If someone tries to murder you, please call 911!"

Harassment does not simple "take place" and that's the point. Participants enter zones of vulnerability caused by distance from home, separation from friends, alcohol, the need to socialize, etc. This draws in predators. The organizers need to understand that, and guard against it.

The term "code of conduct" is itself a problem as it strongly suggests "behave or else!" while talking to the entire audience.

Do you have a better explanation for the antagonism many feel (and I personally used to feel) towards codes of conduct?
>Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're suggesting that "externalities" are better handled by rulers

No, they're suggesting that externalities are not handled well by entities that, by definition, have no incentive to care about them.

But as it happens, yes I tend to think co-ordination problems are solved more effectively by a co-ordinator, rather than decentralised actors.

You can call them "rulers" if you like, but then you'd be ignoring the concept of democracy.

>you'd support voluntary co-operation

Except you don't support "voluntary" anything, because you're talking about property rights. You know, a system where people are forced to follow particular rules about resource allocation, regardless of whether they agreed to follow them.

As long as there is scarcity, there will inevitably be coercion in the distribution of resources. You can argue that a system of pure property rights minimises it, but please don't pretend that it magically avoids it.
I'm an I.T. in a high school where 200 PCs have only duckduckgo as a search engine. At first, not everyone was happy, but now, nobody gives a fuck. A little victory for privacy.
You've brought back a lot of memories. My Atari 800 was the same. The more we played the games, the more worn they'd get, the less likely they'd load. Favourite games wore out first )o;
CoC do explain who to contact for help, the equivalent to 911, if you will.
The Broads
> A court should not uphold a highly problematic interpretation of a statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly.

This. Whether a law is just needs to be considered in light of its worst-case abuse potential, not just on the basis of how it is currently being applied. It is a great advantage of the common law system that over-broad, ill-specified or otherwise broken laws can be remedied through precedent, however the responsibility still lies with the government to make laws that are well-considered, based on sound principles and not overly broad.
The Triple Helix (2000)
(For me) it's mostly a transparency and trust issue. People widely suspected that it was Mozilla looking for another revenue source, they aggressively denied that money is involved. And now it turns out that there potentially is, but no details are published.

I actually think that with the way they did the integration, they probably should have received money (Otherwise, why not do a generic "read later" button and a way for services to register instead of adding a single, proprietary service). But for me, right now, the most important reason to use Firefox is trust in Mozilla, so I don't like it if it looks like they are not telling the entire story. (Compare to the advertising tiles: they clearly showed that they are receiving money for it, they also described what they did to preserve user privacy and security.)
> It's overly simplistic idea, but you get the point?

Yeah, schools are probably the culprit more than employers are. Many employers have flex schedules, but I've never seen a school that lets students learn starting at 11 a.m. Parents pick jobs that fit around their kids' school schedules; in that sense, schools have more power over when they commute than even their bosses do.

I also think you're too easy on employers. Many, many employers make decisions that affect commute length aside from when work hours take place. If McDonald's pays its employees minimum wage and then expects them to work in the expensive part of town, it has just mandated a longer commute since there is no way the employee could live in the neighborhood she works in. If that doubles the commute time of the employee, it doubles the stress on the transportation infrastructure.

I would argue that the current U.S. policy of giving employers zero responsibility when employees have hour-plus commute times gives them a huge pass on a negative externality, on both the community (transportation infrastructure) and on their employees (wasted hours on the train/highway, higher transportation costs). If it's not a good idea for the government to do something about this, we should at least apply social pressure to employers to be more responsible. It seems to be working a bit for improving carbon emissions and parental leave, and I think it could work for unreasonable commuting arrangements. Employers should brag about the low average commute times of their employees.
> Let's hope we never experience whatever catastrophic failure would follow from pushing back too successfully!

We don't need to; we already know how it looks like. It went to the opposite extreme when the Industrial Revolution started; our great grandfathers and their great grandfathers paid in blood to restore the balance, so that we may enjoy relatively humane employment conditions the current generation of entrepreneurs wants to fight against so hard.
I arrived in Chennai on the evening of the 30th. The rain really got started later that night and it poured all day and all night on the 1st. On the 2nd I realized it might be a good idea to leave if I could—but I couldn't. No trains, no buses, and no taxis were willing to try. I was very lucky that my hotel was situated in a relatively unaffected area (near Spencer Plaza) and we did not lose electricity. But obviously most people were not so fortunate.

I was finally able to get someone to drive me and another guy to Bangalore on the 3rd, but even then we were almost unable to find a route out. It took us 2 hours just to get out of the center, and we had to drive through many completely flooded stretches.

It was a scary experience, but I was so impressed at how Chennaites and concerned folks from outside Tamil Nadu were helping each other out on Twitter. Twitter was actually essential in my own escape—there was a lot of discussion of open routes out, and I was able to pass along some key street names to my driver.
But is it lossless?
>$30/month

thats what unlimited 250/20 cable costs in civilized world, goes to show how "Usage-based-billing turned out to be not a complete disaster"
How to Decimate a City
Also this actually increases the use of roads: Instead of just transporting people the cars have to drive between the points where it will load off people and where it will pick up people.

With ownership of autonomous vehicles it will get even worse:
http://www.humantransit.org/2015/11/self-driving-cars-a-comi...
If you're talking about the environment, then everyone is involved.

And we have a name for contractual agreements with everyone in a society. We call them "laws".
This "learn to code" stuff is about labor costs, not employing people. Developers are expensive, having more of them lowers the cost per.
How the Space Age Imagined 2014: Asimov's Predictions, Revisited
Great initiative!
Companies routinely establish themselves in locations where their employees can't live or can't afford to live. Zoning laws don't help with this either.
Sure. But I was also pointing out the relationship to Systemd. BSD is being talked about because of what's happening to the Linux culture thanks to powerful groups like Red Hat and Ubuntu, and the choices of major desktop environments, and how it affects the software ecosystem. Systemd is the symbol of what some view as corruption. That makes BSD seem like a refuge. But what they don't realize is, one of the founders of FreeBSD is eagerly in favor of all that Systemd and other modern intrusive type of approach, and it might go the same route. Then what OS will they use?
Sorry to inform you, but I cannot buy subway line to my home or work.
Windows 8.1 Product Key Generator Mac 2016 Free Download
With web workers although it use 3 Watts more CPU power consumption than Aurelia and gain 3 or more fps (Aurelia 45-48fps vs React 51-54fps) more on average.
http://web-perf.github.io/react-worker-dom/
Perils of Perception 2015
> Author neglects to consider that carpool lanes could (and should) be converted to "self-driving only", as a phased approach to increasing capacity.

That would decrease capacity for the rest of the road. Maybe you could allow single occupant self driven cars to also use the carpool lanes. But to move carpoolers out of the carpool lanes and make them exclusive for self driving cars will simply cause car poolers to stop pooling and will increase traffic.
> However it's more like putting up a sign on a hotel
> saying "Murder and mayhem will not be tolerated."

I have previously held that view, but now think that was mostly a function of my white male privilege. If you go to a hotel proprietor and report murder and mayhew, you have a reasonable expectation that it will be dealt with properly. Many people apparently did not have this expectation of technical conferences, based on their experiences. Many people like myself - who hadn't had those experiences - assumed it was so obvious it didn't need saying.

> This draws in predators

I think that's right, but is a massive simplification. I think good people can act in ways that make other people feel uncomfortable, without meaning to, and that also needs some consideration.

> The term "code of conduct" is itself a problem as it
> strongly suggests "behave or else!"

Really? To me it says "these are our expectations".

> Do you have a better explanation for the antagonism
> many feel (and I personally used to feel) towards
> codes of conduct?

I think many men growing up have negative formative experiences with certain women who have considerably more social power than them (for simplicity: the popular girls!) exerting it to make them feel ashamed. They see potential for what they see as a safe space being used against them. They have a genuine fear of their well-intentioned actions being used to label them as a bad person. They see the Adria Richards and Pycon examples as a realization of their worst fears in this area.
HN moves in a mysterious way
Its downvotes to perform...
Unfortunately this seem to have become par for the course on HN. Disagree, but don't say why so no one can counteract your arguments. Anyone who looks at self-driving cars from an engineering perspective know that there are still many challenges.

Congestion is more a factor of tolerance than technology. As demand and tolerance for long commutes go up we might actually see less efficiency. [0]

It's still hard to match the human mind, especially without significant overhead. [1]

Cars are a compromise and aren't as efficient as pods or as fast as trains. [2]

Current electric vehicle technology can only drive you for about an hour at relativly slow train speed, at which point you'll have to charge for about as long. [3]

etc.

The car really is the weakest link in the "self-driving car". Which isn't unexpected because it's engineered around the driver.

[0] http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transport...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp3ik5f3-2c

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULTra_(rapid_transit)

[3] http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/203/modelsrange...
It was incredibly exciting when games started coming out on cartridge for instant-loading, although IIRC there weren't too many games available in that format.
>Usage based paying is fine

this is how you get people not getting medical treatment
Here comes a download link. https://github.com/stkim1/pocketcluster
The more such data becomes required, the more demand there will be for means to falsify it.
Driverless isn't about driverless cars per say. It's about driverless vehicles and a future where large fleet based transportation companies use various driverless vehicle formats to optimize for efficiency, speed, and comfort. A bunch of driverless SUVs might not alleviate consumption much (although they could if they were all full of people), but a fleet of fully enclosed driverless motorcycles could. Once the technology matures I could imagine our subway infrastructure being repurposed to serve as channels for vehicles like this.
My biggest problem with this essay is the idea that in all instances of egregious social misconduct it's the result of psychopathy. I think the psychopath factor should be given a much higher prior, but not an absolute one. Sometimes people didn't get the socialization that they should have gotten in childhood or adolescence, within this industry in particular it seems odd to ignore the possibility of social impairment through autism. Sometimes people really do make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes make you go "Wow how did somebody not know this wasn't okay?"[0], and sometimes they know better and had a lapse in judgment or read the wrong signals.

Predators exist, psychopaths exist, most harassment is probably repeat victimization by the same bad actors, but mistakes still exist.

[0]: I know I've asked this question about my own behavior before, I somehow suspect most of us have at one point or another.
I know wildcards are useful and all, but they enable bad practices and increase risk. Now that LE makes it easy to mass-request certificates, excuses for using a wildcard are wearing thin. I'd rather LE never allowed them.
Lol... Yea... So besides your superb use of ironic hyperbole, I would say if you think that is Tesla's business model then you don't think it is copy Apple's.
Then again, my CS program offered lots of 'practical' courses, like iOS and web development. They even created a BA program that removed most of the math requirements and replaced them with those vocationally related classes.

That sounds like great programs that all universities should offer. They just shouldn't call it a CS program.
Very interesting analogy. Many 3D modeling programs had undos based on clean abstractions (history of transformation matrices for object P/O/S, stack of operators to influence geometry) but it often broke when you go below. Houdini (one that was fairly dogmatic about being 'procedural') had to reify vertices/edges modification as an Edit node in its object graph to stay coherent without losing information (or making it a second class citizen).
There's a reason: it generates unique input data for each user, presumably to prevent a given user's answers from being reused. If you have a Github account, it's trivial to authenticate and doesn't request undue privileges with your account. (That's what I used.) Up to you whether that's too high a bar, but IMO it's really not asking a whole lot.
I'd add to the third point: if you see a good solution, go for it and tell your colleagues about it.
Why Behavioral Economics Is Cool, and I’m Not
China Creates a World Bank of Its Own, and the U.S. Balks
> this casual suggestion that some sort of "police" should exist to monitor people's behavior and catch policy violations quickly is the worst thing that is currently happening to humanity

What alternative do you suggest? Putting the entire weight of dealing with predators on the people they seek to victimize? I mean, you seem to be invoking Godwin's law over an example of the responsibility borne by a host to a guest -- "final solution"? Really? -- so I'm not expecting a reasonable discussion with you on this subject, but I figure I ought to ask just in case.
Am I the only one a bit annoyed by the 90 day expiry limit? Although the reasoning for automation is sound, I don't see how a small expiry limit actually improves security [as stated in one of the reasons] in any way.

Especially given the cert is basically now a requirement to get onboard with http2 at all.

I truly appreciate the heroic efforts of let's encrypt, however that seems to be an annoying middle step before DNSSEC.
Normally people do more good things to others than bad things. It's hard to estimate what the ratio is but I would say it's closer to 1000:1 than 10:1. If being at good is the baseline, it would make sense to ignore those events most of the time.
Welcome to the fold. I've been primarily using ddg for several years now, and am very happy with it.
Footnote 3:

>All orders for multiple accounts beneficially owned or controlled by the same person or entity, and all sub-accounts of a person or entity’s master account, must be aggregated when determining whether the 390-order threshold has been exceeded by that person or entity.
Global climate change draft agreement reached
We know that self driving cars will not solve all the world's problems, but one can reasonably expect there to be some improvement. Whether that improvement suffices for a satisfactory level of service is another matter and will depend upon the reciprocal interaction between demand and capacity - which the article does not go into. But there's no such thing as a panacea to free movement, whether you like the current form of public transport or not. Even if we got Star Trek's transporters I'm sure there would be complaints about the congestion in transporter room five.

There are significant costs to public transport that the article hasn't addressed as well. The switching costs of using public transport, whether you stay with the same form of public transport or not, are significant. The time you spend waiting for connections; the time spent waiting for all the other people to board, and alight, at their connections; the bother of finding which platform your train is going to be on when under time pressures to make the connection; the incredible cost paid when a bus, or train, is overloaded or unavailable.

It's all very well to observe that a train can carry a particular number of passengers per mile per hour on a particular space of track, refer to the maximum theoretical capability of the system when trains are running within a certain safety distance. If you look at figures for energy costs, then public transport will similarly come out as the vastly superior option. But the cost of a form of transport is assessed in more than simply its use of space to move people through or its translation of energy into passenger miles.

Even when one is going to be stuck in traffic, it's often more reliable, faster, and certainly less bother, to drive to the destination. Especially since the bus is going to be sitting in traffic anyway, that's a tragedy of the commons problem going on there but it doesn't change the underlying trade-off. For some that trade-off is so great that when denied access to private transport they can't make the trips at all - I know people who don't own cars, who cannot work 10 miles away, because the buses don't run that early in the morning, or because there is one bus that runs that early in the morning and if it's unreliable they've taken on a financial liability in gaining the job that they'll be unable to effectively discharge because they'll lose their job.

None of which is to say that public transport is a bad idea. I love the idea of fast regular trains that are little bother to get on, despite the fact that most of the time I drive to work. But if one's in favour of it, perhaps it would be better to be in favour of it - in favour of improving it - rather than against something else.
Otoh, being too specific allows someone to change one thing and claim it doesn't infringe.
Ugh! There are sooooooooo many patents and copyrights that don't deserve protection but because of the broken systems in place no one is willing to challenge them.

No game company I know of was wiling to challenge Namco's patent. It's not worth the money even if you win. Just remove the feature :(

Other game related patents include

zooming a camera from Virtua Racing, patented.

Ghost cars from Midway's Hard Drivin', patented.

Patent to have a arrow point the way to go from Crazy Taxi

Patent on plus shaped controllers. That to me sounds about as crazy as a patent on round knobs but IANAL

Patent on making a wireless controller go to sleep after a certain amount of time.
"So the solution is to remove the incentives and opportunities for misbehavior, and raise the risks of exposure. Then, bad actors will adapt and self-select. Either they will behave, or they will go elsewhere."

That sounds good, but nothing in the rest of the write-up actually "removes incentives and opportunities" etc. It's the usual sort of "don't harass, don't touch, don't X Y Z ..." litany, without any procedural prescriptions as to what to do in case someone does X.
Hi everyone,
Thanks for the props. I'm the author of apollo17.org. I really appreciate the post.
Sony Xperia C5 Ultra – Newest Release in Sony