skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I was really surprised how that CYA stuff is applied in the real world literally. And in their world it really makes sense, because they will not just cover their own ass, they will gut you the moment you leave yours blank. So the first thing a manager may tell you is to cover your ass as quickly as possible and as good as you can, and he thinks he's doing you a live saving favour.
Here is Lindybeige using that argument to justify why you should hop on one foot, and ban football.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R999ZLlSdI

But I agree that in general it's good principle. For climate change it's not that applicable. It's easy to show that burning oil is good for the economy. It's difficult to show that it's bad for the climate. If we say that Shell needs to show some proof that burning oil is overall good two things will happen: 1. Shell forges bullshit. 2. Everybody keeps burning oil just like today until there is some kind of replacement. Just for practical reasons.

So then it goes to "why we need to invest money to the alternatives". And then that precautionary principle could be applied to that investment.

TL;DR You need to show fossil fuels are bad, for practical reasons.
Coinbase site is down
Is the target a person? I'm pretty sure it was a person't public product. In this case, their public words, opinions and critiques. If your job is to produce works for public consumption and you can't stand a critique of your work, you should find another career.

To clarify my earlier point, there are few things as satisfying to read as a witty evisceration of an argument or stance. For a public persona, I don't see much problem with applying it to their wider body of work as long as you think the criticism applies well overall. My earlier statement was fairly ambiguous in this respect.
Imagine if programmers unionized and enforced corporate usage-based givebacks to independent software creators through collective bargaining.

When the default position of management is to fight progress (or hoard private profits enabled by using public goods), playing the role of docile puppies and kittens won't enact change.
The Aztec were destroyed by the spanish, particularly Hernán Cortés.
I stand corrected.

I confused the filing by Google with other WiFi supporters (which uses simulation results). I have read through the all the filing months ago and apology for the bad memory. I agree that Jindal and Breslin study is solid and raised a valid concern. But they were all addressed in a response though.

Now I'd love to know how others think after reading Qualcomm's filing and not just take on one side of the story.
If you're still getting stuck up on semantic whitespace in 2015, you must not use any of:

+ Python
+ Haskell
+ Javascript
+ Go
+ Ruby
+ Bash

Anything else I'm missing? Whitespace is useful. Figure out how to view it in your editor and move on already. This is so far beyond bike-shedding it's just a depressing comment on how much programmers obsess on syntax.
I don't like the benchmark grid given.

It's not hard to use fewer characters than Python if you add superfluous parentheses and don't use any of its higher-level features. Rewriting the Python code to be roughly idiomatic shaves off a good 100 characters, even without noticeably changing the algorithm, and that's even with adding some newlines and the indentation cost that entails.

And, IMHO, saving bytes by not having a #! or by using "1" over "True", or even "->" over "return, doesn't impress me much.
I'll pay $5.99 a month for Mailbox
Hey, I am ready to pay $5.99 a month to support the development of Mailbox. Any one else out there who is interested in the same or has suggestions on how to keep mailbox alive.
[[OwnPropertyKeys]] is not invoked by a for-in loop. [[Enumerate]] is instead, and while it defines that the set of iterated names is the same as that returned by [[OwnPropertyKeys]] it explicitly says that order is not defined.
"the idea that hijabs are protected and your employer must accommodate you"

This is not a correct understanding of the US law. An employer is not required to accommodate someone's religious beliefs if it would create an 'undue hardship'. See http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/qa_religious_garb_groo... .

For examples of 'undue hardship', see http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html. One is "It will typically pose an undue hardship for an employer to accommodate an applicant or employee’s asserted religious belief against providing or using a social security number.", citing:

> Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 1999) (hospital not liable for refusing to hire applicant who declined to provide social security number on religious grounds; because federal tax law required the hospital to obtain all employees’ social security numbers, accommodation of applicant’s religious belief would pose undue hardship); Hover v. Florida Power & Light Co., 1995 WL 91531 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 1995) (employee’s proposed accommodation that employer “make up” a social security number rather than obtain employee’s actual social security number posed an undue hardship), aff’d, 101 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 1996) (Table) (unpublished).

Another example (example 34) would be if a nurse did not want to participate in abortions, for religious reasons, and the hospital did not have another position which she could transfer to, then the hospital could terminate her employment.

Or, for an example of how religious garb specifically can be prohibited, in Larocca v. Gold a lawyer who was also a priest was prohibited from "wear[ing] his Roman Catholic collar when appearing before a jury as a defense lawyer in a criminal trial" http://www.leagle.com/decision/1981806662F2d144_1792/LaROCCA... .
Compiler Construction Using Java, JavaCC, and Yacc, IEEE/Wiley, 2012

This book taught me how to create compilers. The author started from simple principles in grammars then slowly introducing a very simple compiler eventually adding more features to the compiler. I was able to adapt his method in developing a compiler. In later chapters, the book does a great job in presenting an application of what was learned from the previous chapters by implementing grep using automata theory.
I wasn't clear enough. I was responding to the flow of comments of the form: "Riemann hypothesis is hard, this is unlikely to be true." Sure it's true, but doing a little more research could inform that opinion well past the zeroth-order approximation of "it's a hard problem."

I didn't actually take my own advice, I just wait for Terence Tao to write a post then I know it's true :)
I think a uniform is fine, but they have to really be a certain kind of people who see you doing something illegal and be friendly. Otherwise people will treat them with the same suspicion.
Is the Future of Music a Chip in Your Brain?
(1) They say that 78% of the companies surveyed use OSS internally. I'll bet it's more like 78% realize or admit it. It would probably be very hard to run a business nowadays without using at least some OSS somewhere.

(2) The author's recommended approach of combining some OSS with proprietary enhancements (commonly called "open core") is certainly not the only way to make money from OSS, and I don't think there's even much evidence that it's a particularly effective approach. Some customers are "more than happy" to pay for an "enterprise grade" version. Others aren't, and that number goes up as the price for the proprietary version increases. They'll go it alone, hire consultants, or switch to competitors.

A recurring-revenue "subscription" model works surprisingly well. (This is where I should add a disclaimer that I work at Red Hat.) Customers will pay a modest amount, year after year, to get easy/timely updates, priority bug fixes, training, certification, indemnification, access to developers, and so on. People will be "more than happy" to pay for a safety net that they never actually use, and it's easier to keep TCO lower than competitors with this model than with the open core "freemium" model. Less immediate revenue per customer, but more customers and more loyalty. I guess "don't be greedy" is the lesson here. ;)
Mailbox is not an open source project you can just throw money at to keep alive.
Wow, Amazon has so many products.
His mistake was answering the officer's initial questions.

There's a hint of blame-the-victim in that statement. he seemed to be voluntarily proactive (initially) to hasten him being on his way. Right or wrong, police have broad powers of detention even before/without arrest.
Dismissive or not, he's right that that's mostly the case. You don't see the climate science community arguing much about this issue. It's right to dismiss them.
By shielding, do you mean that astronauts could live inside or behind the asteroid, just using its mass between them and the sun? That would be pretty dark and cold. As far as I know, no asteroids have major magnetic fields.

I am totally with you on using the asteroids for materials, but I am not sure that they would provide useful gravity either. Even one of the largest near-earth asteroids, 433 Eros, only has a surface gravity of 0.0059 m/s^2. Is that useful?
For once a news headline with "Donald" not matching Trump.
docker? not sure if it's profitable, but definitely very successful
Aspira Clothing
Warmists and the frauds who are perpetuating it. For the ring leaders, the goal is to get billions of tax payer dollars (via carbon tax) to be funneled to the UN for their uses. This is the biggest pyramid scam since Social Security.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarmin...
... C'mon. Are they _really_ ethnic foods, or are they the whitewash/watered-down version, for well, you know, Americans?
A decade ago, you could make the pi zero at the same size for a higher price. 20 years ago it would be hard.
I downvoted you, not because I disagree with you, but because you have your head in the sand. Not believing in human caused global warming at this point is like not believing in the germ theory of disease. The weight of evidence against that position is so insanely lopsided that the only way is possible to defend it is out of sheer ignorance. Please educate yourself on the topic so people don't laugh at you behind your back.
Pascals wager is a simple false dichotomy, a logical fallacy. It's not a rational argument.
> I would be glad to think the same of terrorist attacks. Unfortunately they're an almost daily occurrence.

Not in the Europe. That's our problem.

> Yes it will. And if we did nothing today, Islamists would still be seeking revenge tomorrow.

To whom? From whom does the west want revenge. This is the question. And apparently there are some people who'd say from all muslims, or from all arabs. You, and the other guy who responded me seem to be of that ilk. There are muslims like you, who seek a revenge from the whole non-muslim. We call these fundamentalist, radicals, etc. These are identical to you, with the difference of possessing less power. I hope all the people I refer here die painful deaths, that you wish upon innocents.
@teej nailed it:

> teej: "... They signed the keys away to Drew Houston and the management team at Dropbox. Mailbox dies the moment Drew decides to kill it."

> dhouston: it's not going anywhere :)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5381671
"He needed to know why my out-of-state drivers license didn't have my current California address"

Actually, that's the law, if you've been in CA more than 20 days or accepted a job here. Otherwise, you are technically not licensed to drive here.
I am from New Zealand and I love Turkish delight.
also its extremely easy to get someone to make a micro-economic decision in their best interest
I wonder how much that video must have cost him! It's such a great production. I really like the way the table and the props match the theme of the relevant book. I'm guessing $10K for the one minute video?
How Steve Ballmer Got So Much of Microsoft (2014)
Meteor Weekly Issue #6
rethinkdb https://www.rethinkdb.com/
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10691110 and marked it off-topic.
This isn't thats complicated:

Because email is dying and is already mostly optimized.
For tax questions, there aren't simple answers that would apply for everybody. It depends on where do you have your personal tax residency, do you travel, your health care/insurance/pension situation, etc. The tax rules for people who live and work outside of Estonia (for most of the year) are simple on the Estonian side, but you have to include the rules on your person tax residency side also.
For a more personalized answer visit us at https://www.leapin.eu and send us an email please.
I think for the majority of Americans that aren't used to trying these foods it's likely more a matter of supply. It might be hard to support a Vietnamese restaurant in a smaller town with an extremely small Vietnamese population, and the restaurant might go out of business before many people have a chance to even try it (or overcome any hesitance they might have).
I find that specifying parameter types, encouraging pure functions, and encouraging small functions is the best formula to be able to reason locally about code, which I think is one of the most powerful abilities in order to not be overwhelmed by large and complicated projects. I find myself increasingly drawn toward languages and frameworks that encourage this sort of programming. Fortunately, I seem to be in agreement with many language and framework authors these days, and I'm really excited about the landscape over the next few years.
MailChimp? Constant Contact? I may be wrong, I'm not terribly familiar with either, but I believe they're largely focused on email.
That power is limited by the fact that the president is not really free to do anything he pleases from what's allowed, but is even before he hits the office tied by tons of deals, negotiations, behind the table alliances, special interests, donors, party loyalty, and, one would imagine, down to pure old blackmail and/or payola in some cases.
Validic: The Digital Health Data Connector
Email is most certainly not dying.
Would you mind explaining what does "a moat" mean in this context?
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10691974 and marked it off-topic.
When abandoning a market and an app, there is no strategic advantage in that code. This means the solution to that equation is CaCa.
I read it more like: "Things aren't better yet, but here's a token gesture. A black president. Ain't the American Dream grande?".
Are you an Islamic terrorist? If not, then no - you haven't been targeted. It's a pretty simple check, at least for a first-order approximation.
Science is about finding truth. Truth doesn't give shit what anybody thinks. (Except in psychology, but lets not get there.)

Scientific consensus is just educational and political tool. Get everybody on the same page. But it's pretty detached from the actual process of science itself.

Questioning established consensus has been scientifically very valuable in the history.
Sorry they forgot that everything has to be secular just for you.
Putin's Russia, and Xi's China, are extremely skeptical of global warming. Russia outright considers it a fraud and conspiracy, Putin has stated exactly that. Plenty in the developing world are on board with that skepticism.

Which is why China is going to keep their emission levels completely uncapped for the next 15 years at least, allowing for dramatic growth in said emissions. The best they've agreed to, is that maybe emissions will fall after 2030 (emphasis on the fact that it's an entirely empty pledge).
Nine years to change one letter? Jeez, and we pretend that technology moves fast.
Ah yes, good ol' World Government theories.
Any specific examples?

And preferable of nearby decades (e.g. not comparing Roosevelt with Bush senior), as what's to be practiced changes a lot with the era and culture at large, aside from whose President.
I agree. But in a long-term scenario as long as all developers within a company know (and share with their co-workers) that their management are not open-source friendly and do not give back to the community of developers that they directly benefit from will find ways to revolt silently. Whether it's look for another job, or spend an extra day on a project they could've wrapped up in a few hours.

Those corporations who do not have good hearts and do not make good choices within their leadership will ultimately lose to those that do. Darwinism in full effect.

EDIT: In fact one of my ideas for a while now is to have a standardized disclosure that corporations could use to publicize to the world how they give back to the open source community (specifically and generally). This public disclosure would be primarily used as a recruiting tool. Eventually if it became big enough, the assumption would be that those who are not disclosing are probably not contributing. Huge implications as a recruiting tool IMO.

And it's not a lot to ask. It's not like you're asking for even $1000's of dollars. Khan Academy I think set the bar when they announced a while back they would allocate $5/mo/developer to allow each developer to donate to open source projects as they saw fit. If a company with a large team of developers can't afford something as simple as that then they have bigger problems.
Thanks. It is vastly better, in pretty much every way. We also support Android and Exchange now, which we didn't back then.
"If I don’t ﬁnd a job, maybe I’m going to have to join al-Qaida for real."

The author of the article seems to imply that this is a tongue in cheek comment on the part of Mr. Touré, but it seems to me that this type of meddling via "sting operations" could easily create more converts to terrorism, even if only out of pure utilitarianism on the part of the converts.

Fortunately it's unlikely to be as effective (in terms of sheer numbers) at creating new converts as UAVs dropping bombs on weddings and hospitals is.
So is the conversation something like, "air/water/ground pollution" X "planet is becoming uninhabitable"? Where X differs depending on who is talking?

For Schwarzenegger, X seems to be "therefore". For me, X is more like, "but not". I treat the two arguments as separate.

Shocking warnings have always come with pollution. For me, those warnings have mostly born out as true. I have chronic asthma, probably from air pollution. And, I have eyes so I can observe the haze and smog over the city in the morning. I've been to China and seen and felt what happens when there are no pollution controls at all. Rivers catching fire/all the life being killed off in them by dumped waste is a real thing that happens.

Acid rain, though? That one jumped the shark for me; I think acid rain was all hype. Fantastic claims need really fantastic evidence is all I'm saying.

I do like pollution controls though and I am amazed at how improved the air quality is in the states over what it was in the 1970's. I have kids, and I want to continue our regime of pollution controls. Renewable energy sources are the way to go.

Global warming appears to me to be bad science, however. All the computer models predicted a spiraling warming effect, but instead we're cooling off, and we're potentially heading for another mini-ice age. The sun, being the primary energy input for the system, is never causally linked to warming or cooling trends on our planet. Why is that, especially when we can measure the sun's energy output is not a constant? Money and power is my guess. I don't see any proof - at our current rate of energy consumption and pollution - of how we are making a dent in this absolutely massive system. The scientific claims seem to predict destabilization, and I just don't see any proof of that happening.

Honestly, if global warming theorists want to bolster their claims, they should keep links between pollution and warming very abstract. Trying to use health effects of pollution as a proof of atmospheric destruction weakens the argument because they're two separate effects. Arnold does a disservice to his cause here.
I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

The 'end' is but a moment and it's very well possible to have a success even if it ends in one way or another. Success is a measure of the total net effect a company had. if the net effect was negative then a company can be classed a failure, if the net effect was positive then the company was a success.

Selling out is to sell a company with the specific intent to shut it down, that's different.
Unfastening the holster means two things:

1) he's making a display of readiness, and
2) he does not consider the detainee an immediate threat to grab for his gun.
First of all there is tooling - lots of smarter and smarter editors, IDEs, mockup creators, programming languages and environments, graphical editors and so on..

Then there's github and software which is built out of 'dependencies' and the programmer only needs to write the glue code between the various components developed and maintained by others.

And then there are the advances in AI - like natural language comprehension, voice recognition, search, vision and so on.

Put the three together and you'll be able to explain what you want created in natural language, while using your fingers to "sculpt" the generated user interface if necessary.

Still not there yet, but it seem quite possible in the not so distant future.
Yes it most certainly is on a secular decline. It is no longer growing at rates that are keeping up with the online user base. New internet users are no longer even setting up email accounts.

Email is dying. Its not dead, but it is no longer the go-forward internet communication platform.
If this comment implies that Docker is profitable, it would be nice if you expanded a bit, because your parent commenter and myself, while (obviously) being aware of Docker, aren't aware of how profitable they are or (speaking for myself) what they make their money on.
Could you be more specific? For example, comparing SMS and SMTP, the two most prominent transports?
The thing that I hate about this argument of 'consensus has been wrong before' when it comes to climate change is that essentially, the argument seems to be 'everyone always said we were pumping too much CO2 into the air and that would cause global warming and now there's people saying that consensus is wrong'.

Unless I'm seriously wrong with my scientific history (and it's extremely possible!) I didn't think this was the case. Decades ago there were people talking about it but the consensus was that it was crackpottery.

However now that consensus has decided "yeah, we were wrong" people point at that consensus and say "hey, consensus has been wrong before!". I look at that and just think... yeah, we know. It was wrong and we've spent a heap of time finding that out.

I mean, it's not the case that 100% of people knew it as a 'scientific fact' that CO2 lead to climate change and now we're starting to question that consensus. The questioning has already happened.

Or I completely wrong in this?
Excuse me for the digression, but the best thing of this post was to reencounter with Mr. Spinellis blog. I love his books (there's a new one!) and since I ditched RSS readers, I've never more visited it. I advice you to spend some time there.
I'm sure he's got video people on staff, so probably very little marginal cost. Look back at some older posts, there are a lot of videos. Here's one from last week about his dad's 90th birthday:

http://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Happy-Birthday-Da...