skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There is so much wrong with the first section of the article, I could only put up with skimming the rest. The only thing I learned from the first section was not to marry the author.
D lang seems to be another obvious candidate here.
> much higher rate of PTSD occurrence than other crimes

Well, you don't get PTSD after murder, and I would say that rape is the next worst thing that can happen to you, so I don't think it's that surprising...
Oh god I recall this article.

I have three small kids. I am blessed that they are 100% healthy.

I can't imagine how some people handle certain challenges.
GitHub has a pretty extensive changelog in the form of blog posts. They also put them on the github.com homepage, top right (the broadcasts).

It's true that every webapps don't do that though, and that's a real shame for the "power users".
So does a 2 hour taxi line.
The single most awful thing people do is treat love as an 'emotional' affair, something which is beyond reason. That when it happens, it happens, and when you're in a relationship, you must at all cost keep maintaining the sense of euphoria or else everything will be gone.

This would be equivalent of starting a business with someone not on the basis of the value proposition of the business, but based on how you emotionally like the idea, and then hiding all the losses and constantly trying to achieve the initial profit you saw.
Three notes I would add:

1) In response to the "know yourself" bullet: I met my now wife at 15 - we learned a lot about ourselves between then and when we married at age 22. But we were pretty much committed to marrying by age 18, even though we learned a lot after. You can learn with another person.

2) Life pro tip on understanding other people (this is a quick reinforcement of a bunch of points in the article): if someone is behaving irrationally, 99% of the time its because they are subconciously insecure about something.

3) The odds of first marriage are better than 50/50. That statistic is for total marriages, but people who divorce once on average divorce multiple times. Success rate of first marriage is something like 65%. Also, that success rate goes higher if you're high income, like most of HN.
>more drivers than passengers and it couldn't pay the bills. How do we solve this? Limit the supply of drivers, therefore raising the price and reducing competition. From a consumer standpoint this is terrible.

Yes, but what regulators didn't realize (and still don't) is that economic incidence is tricky. Just because you can charge more, doesn't mean any specific factor in the production chain gets to partake in any of that.

For example, just because Gucci bags surge in popularity doesn't mean the Gucci office janitor can charge more for his labor -- the supply of such services is unaffected and they can find more providers at the same price.

And indeed, the same dynamic applied for taxi medallions: sure, you can charge more to passengers, but the immense supply of qualified drivers -- who only need a small takehome -- means that they'll bid up the price of the medallions (rental price or capitalized) so that the drivers are still poverty level, and almost all the monopoly profits go to medallion holders, not drivers.
Anything that relies on fear is going to miss the narcissists.
Reddit only succeeded because Digg wasn't good enough: it changed in undesirable ways, so users left. How are you going to convince enough redditors that Reddit isn't good enough that a critical mass moves to your platform?

I think it's prohibitively difficult, and only a decentralized system will succeed.
Why the newfound respect? I mean, do you think Apple would try to patch things up if there was no class action lawsuit?
this was a lot of rambling nonsense
Similar experience, different conclusion. We were not prepared to handle customers when getting into YC. However, the process told us in 3-4 months, what would have otherwise taken us at least a year.
Our customers were nowhere close to the "YC Crowd" either.
The paradox of tolerance arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance. [1]

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[2] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-...
Arrgh, no What you suggest is not possible if the firmware for the enclave is stored off-chip in mutable storage. Or rather, you could do it, but you'd have to hash the firmware and simply refuse to run any new firmware without a data wipe. Things like eMMC's RPMB partitions are designed to work around this (by having the transactions encrypted by a secret key stored on the SoC, generally in wrote-once fuses), but then you have the problem that you'd have to wipe all data on any firmware update, which relevant to this thread we now know is not the case.

Basically: people are hanging their determination that "the iPhone is secure from government snooping by technological measures" on a completely unattested fantasy design. The real device almost certainly doesn't work like that, and even Apple hasn't claimed that it does.
Doesn't exactly answer the question..
I would rather have incomplete knowledge of a topic than none. The toughest part of learning something, like so many other cases, is in getting started.

Also, I can't be sure pending research into this, but I would be surprised if these reports ended up worse than the typical news story attempting to cover such things.
>Hearing only the things that you agree with might be easy and comfortable. But the idea of a community where everyone only agrees with one another, and dissenting voices are promptly silenced, sounds more like dystopia to us.

I'm genuinely interested to see if this works out. Not kidding. However, with a straight face, I can also say I'm not optimistic, because 'echo chamber' tendencies are kind of why those "communities" tend to flourish, at least in my perspective.
The question isn't whether or not shelters have the right to make rules that make it incredibly difficult for people to maintain a shelter bed. The questions is are they doing the right thing -- that is, acting in the best interest of both the shelter clients and the greater public.

Shelters are paid for with public money to do a specific job, which is to create a safe place for people to sleep for people who have run out of options. The public should be able to examine whether restrictive shelter rules are helping or hurting the shelters' ability to do their job.

And, in fact, this happens pretty regularly -- there were public hearings on revised shelter rules about a year ago (http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=51...). A lot of people argued, correctly in my opinion, that the current regime of shelter rules put an undue burden on poor and homeless people, and make their already incredibly difficult lives even harder.

That's not what we should be doing. As lots of other people in this thread, and all throughout the community of people who study poverty alleviation, have pointed out, simply giving someone a home, or some kind of shelter, without conditions, is by far a more effective approach.

The whole idea of subjecting homeless people to more restrictive rules than anyone else faces to keep their housing is based on the notion that people are homeless because of some personal failure or lack of self-discipline. The data do not support this assumption, and we need to stop making policy based on it.
'Regression to the mean' would be buying a stock that is currently cheap because of mistakes last quarter yet still has good fundamentals. So we'd expect it to recover based on those fundamentals. It's what a lot of people do already.
Failed Google Projects
I don't mean to nitpic but I tried to go read some of her blog [0] and it almost drove me crazy.... Someone buy her a Shift key! Lowercase "i"'s by themselves cause my skin to crawl as-is but she doesn't even start sentences with capitals.

[0] http://eatwritewalk.com/
"But he started it!" — My six year old.
Sorry, by "maintain" I mean "upgrading". Should've clarified!
There is one difference, which is that popping a nuke over a live target would make a Very Big Statement: "You have crossed a line that we believe now makes you an existential threat. Consider your next move very carefully." Which would then prompt the adversary, staring into the abyss, to search their soul a little before pressing matters any further.

(Or so goes the theory, anyway. In reality nobody knows how a nuclear-armed adversary would respond to that Very Big Message, because it's outside the realm of previous human experience. For all we know it could have the opposite effect, causing them to panic and unload their whole nuclear arsenal out of fear.)
Anyone know if this applies for Lubuntu as well? I use Lubuntu on my rencently bought new desktop for the default of LXDE. I intend to upgrade my desktop on which I put Lubuntu 15.10 (I bought a computer without OS so as not to pay the Windows tax) to Lubuntu 16.04 because I understand it'll be based on LXQt, the successor to LXDE (and it's not a matter of newer is better -- I am a fan of Qt) and also because I think Lubuntu 16.04 will be an LTS release and I've been very happy with the stability of Lubuntu 14.04 LTS which my previous main computer was and is running.
Nate Silvers wrote an entire book on this subject called "The Signal and the Noise" [1]. Humans are so often taken in by people claiming to be able to make predictions by combining new data points. The more unusual, or unrelated to the subject matter, the better. They make good headlines but (not surpsingly) almost always turn out to be heavily flawed in practice.

You can basically measure how much a pundit/expert is going to be wrong in their predictions by how ideological they are in their analysis. The best indicator is when they use only one or two metrics as a basis of a prediction of an otherwise very complex scenario.

One example from the book is how a researcher became famous before the 2000 US presidential elections by claiming to predict races with 90% accuracy [2]. He claimed that by measuring a) per-capita disposable income combined with b) # of military causalities you can determine whether democrat or republicans get elected. He said historical data backs up his theory. He then proceeded to fail to predict that years election and faded into obscurity.

Nate did his own historical analysis and demonstrated it was only 60% accurate instead of 90%. Plus that was only if you ignore 3rd party candidates as the model assumes a two-party system.

Plenty of other examples are provided in the book which makes me highly suspicious of the value of the predictions made in this article.

The general idea is that we need to stop looking for simple one-off solutions to complex problems. Instead we should adopt multi-factor approaches which suffer from fewer biases and are better grounded in reality. Otherwise these predictions are just another form of anti-intellectualism.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Signal-Noise-Many-Predictions-Fail--bu...

[2] the "Bread and Peace" model by Douglas Hibbs of the University of Gothenberg http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E5DD1F3DF...
Maybe note that this article is from 2012?

Since then, Bodhi (the brother) has been diagnosed autistic and they suspect he is also a paranoid schizophrenic, but he just doesn't verbalize like Jani does. Michael (the dad) had an affair and the parents are now divorced.

It is a truly tragic story. There is a well-written post from Michael which I can't seem to find where he gives advice to other parents raising children with mental problems.

(I found the quote, but not the whole piece)

> All I can tell you now is you have to decide what is more important to you In this life, with mentally ill children, something is going to have to go. You have decide what that is. It our case, it was our marriage. May Jani and Bodhi forgive me. I couldn’t do it all.
What's the difference? Hmm, perhaps a car analogy. "Wrong car for you" might be a two-seater sporty thing, and you have five kids. "Wrong car for anyone" has brakes that suddenly stop working.
I'm all for efficiency, speed, and fewer bugs but isn't there a point where you are trading actually useful features for size reduction?
There is a term used about older generations always hating newer generations but I forgot.
Part of the problem is that Renter's/Homeowner's insurance won't pay out if there's no signs of a "forced entry". Cases like above would mean that insurance wouldn't cover anything lost.
The odds of first marriage are better than 50/50. That statistic is for total marriages, but people who divorce once on average divorce multiple times. Success rate of first marriage is something like 65%. Also, that success rate goes higher if you're high income, like most of HN.

Yes, thanks, I was about to post the same thing. Also divorce rates are lower among college graduates (which is correlated with income of course).
But it doesn't describe how awesome it is? ;)
Don't forget the fact that they can force you to hand over encryption keys[0] and that posessing or creating drawings that appear to depict completely fictitious childlike characters, even with fantastical features, is illegal.[1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_King...
[1] http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/anime-fan-co...

I'm disgusted.
Bookface seems interesting. Any more info on that?
But, in general, Atlassian software is pretty solid. I doubt you can assume that the stability of Bitbucket is subpar, because their software, in general, is hard to install and upgrade. In fact, I think the pressure from their web properties will make their growing cloud services much easier to maintain.
I had the same thought on this, Puppy linux is great
The other problem as long as we're continuing with the "user is an idiot" hypothesis is that users don't read error messages. They see a box with a bunch of mumbo-jumbo[1] that's standing in the way of them doing whatever they were doing before the dialog rudely intruded.

[1]:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZyYfyEVAAAA6Eo.jpg
I don't find this especially convincing. Some of the issues here are reasonable things to look at; some aren't.

>1) I am surprised that there are only 20x more PRs by men. I would say it’s more like 100-200x more men on GitHub then women.

So they're comparing data (which may be erroneous, but is actual data), with a feeling: "I would say". And the data types are even different! The study compared the ratio of pull requests between genders; this person quibbles over the ratio of users between genders.

>2) But the women that are there are usually always employed by some small to medium tech company. So this study is possibly comparing mostly professional women with mostly hobbyist men.

Perhaps. It would be interesting to see data here. Again, saying "are usually" isn't based on data.

>4) In my experience a lot of people on GH with feminine sounding names are actually men from Eastern Europe (Sasha, Nicola, etc) or India (Sandy, Sunny, etc).

This is a complaint against a methodology that the study didn't use. From the study (https://peerj.com/preprints/1733v1.pdf):

>...we took a different approach – linking GitHub accounts with social media profiles where the user has self-reported gender.

You can say this wasn't a big enough ratio (they identified 35% of users' genders this way), or that people will report incorrect data, but if you're talking about "feminine sounding names", you're not addressing this article.

Point five has nothing to do with gender. Perhaps there's an unstated point there.

Point seven is easily testable; points eight and nine are testable, but not as easily.
> If your docking station needs a coprocessor, why not just use a desktop?

So I can carry my environment with me.

All with my OS, my custom keyboard, my own special vimacs… My email and favourite web pages are the same on the move and on the desk. I want to take quick notes while on the move, and organise them when I settle at home. I don't want to worry about synchronisation. I want backups of course, but that can be automated each time I have a fast connection.

Do do that, there are 2 problems to overcome: the first is storage: we need our phones to carry several terabytes of data. Thankfully with the new stacking flash memories, this should be achievable.

The second is processing power: it can be low while on the move, but we gotta achieve desktop performance at home. I don't see how we could avoid the need for co-processors in this case.
Can you find a definitive link?

I find this ...

"MacArthur articulated his most famous dictum—“never get involved in a land war in Asia”—after the Japanese surrender, because he believed that Japan’s simultaneous war in China made his Philippines victory possible. Japan had annexed Manchuria in 1931, then invaded China in 1937"
[ http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/rethinking-do...]

We acheived our goals of stopping the Communists from conquering a friendly nation; so it's a victory.
Great job Ben, the dotnet core team and the asp.net team!
I installed Chromium OS on my mom's old notebook. It's actually nice, works very smoothly, practically everything out of the box and there are no bloated settings, applications etc. to confuse her, she doesn't need more than Gmail, Google and Google Hangouts anyway.
I think the simplest fixes for Reddit would be just to make sure anyone who works for the site actually agrees with its goals. That's what caused most of the reason issues, they hired people who didn't really like the challenges that being pro freedom of speech brings, and who favoured doing well with companies and celebrities over being a place for communities of like minded people to discuss things they enjoy.

The other improvements they mention sound good, but Reddit's issues are more down to leadership problems than community/cultural/technical ones.
Airbnb has a history of enthusiastic individuals creating microsite "resumes":

* 2011:
https://kathleenkowal.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/custom-airbnb-resume/
Kathleen went very physical, but it wasn't a good fit for Airbnb in 2011

* 2012:
http://www.ericlovesairbnb.com/
Eric more or less pioneered the "microsite" approach [at Airbnb, at least] and is still there today

* 2013:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2600264
Loren was not extended an offer, and has unfortunately taken down his "resume" site

* 2014:
http://www.katielovesairbnb.com/
Katie was successful and is working on killer stuff at Airbnb these days

I'm sure there are more examples, but I thought it would be interesting to contextualize. Some of these folks got jobs there.

As for the "hadn’t worked at facebook or google or studied at stanford" from the recruiter ... well, sometimes startups become BigCos and idiots are tasked with interview duties.
Netflix cloud: AWS EC2, tens of thousands of cloud instances, mostly Ubuntu.

Netflix CDN (Open Connect Appliance): lots of physical boxes, FreeBSD.
Isn't the fingerprint data (hash, whatever) stored in the secure enclave? If you're sending spoofed fingerprints, you'd trigger the firmware 5 attempts lockout and need a password.
disable javascript to get past the adblocker wall.
I don't know their reasons...but virtual memory is generally non-deterministic. In practice, when I did real time programming with C, we had to empirically test for best case and worst case latencies, and then model our code performance in order to make sure that it wouldn't kill people. Perhaps if this is running on a processor with well defined instruction execution timing (that doesn't describe most modern processors), they can get full determinism.
Really?

I had the feeling that data-models of document stores like MongoDB often only fit one use-case and fail after that.

A blog, for example.

You have Article and Comment and when using a document store, it comes naturally to embed Comment in Article, because, well the first thing you need is to display comments below articles.

Then you want to show the comments of a user, but they are stored inside the articles...

If you had a relational data-store the way to retrieve the data for both cases would be the same mechanism, a join.
I'd love to see some performance benchmarks for Nginx's caching vs Varnish (memory, reqs). Even if Nginx can do the same thing, if I need more RAM to do it, or it handles less requests - I'd rather keep Varnish.
> right to mitigate risky conduct and requires them to wait for actual harm in order to react.

Isn't that the way the judicial system typically works even when it is obviously broken? Isn't this the reason we have things like weird laws that are "unenforceable", because as a matter of policy we tend to wait for actual harm to occur before we expend effort to address it?

>can't require safety inspections for aircraft, gotta wait for a bunch of people to fall out of the sky first!

That's actually the way the FAA came into existence. The Wright brothers didn't have to send $5.00 to the FAA for a permit, or submit to safety inspections, or anything like that. Nor did anyone else, for a long time WRT the early aircraft industry in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administratio...

>Oh yes, that well funded concerned mother lobby. Fucking it up for sociopathic assholes since 1980.

There's the appeal to emotion common to arguments in favor of harsher sentencing for DUI offenders. It appears to be the case however that more and bigger sticks aren't really reducing the number of sociopathic assholes driving drunk.
As I asked in my second paragraph, what if we got rid of the system but brought back the racist protectionism only? Would that benefit the community and all the other good things that are suggested above?

Being very concrete, I'm suggesting that we take any protectionist system which uses a random number generator (e.g. first 10,000 people to apply get a sweet gig, everyone else is screwed and forbidden from economic competition) with a different random number generator (whether a person was born $rightrace). Nothing else.

My emotions say the same thing about non-systemic racist protectionism, although your proposed solution suggests this should be ok. So I don't think your solution works.