skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
EC2 g2.2xlarge is $0.1181 per Hour. That makes EC2 like 8x times cheaper. No worth wasting money to that company.
> every voter can assert that his/her votes are actually counted in the way they were made

This isn't currently implemented in paper voting systems, why should it count against electronic voting systems?

Also 5 isn't implemented too well at the moment either.

I think if you got printout with your vote identifier after voting, and then printouts with all the votes (secret identifier->vote) were available - peple could check if their vote was counted. In which way paper voting is more open or more secret than that?
Revolutionary Catalonia wasn't anarchist - your own source says "Although the Catalonian Generalitat was nominally in power, the trade unions were de facto in command of most of the economy and military forces."

Socialist trade unions and anarchists are pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum (assuming the anarchists are actually anarchists .... my experience of such people is that they often claim to be, but when the rubber hits the road they turn out to be communists too)
In Romania the law requires all retailers to display the maximum price markup they have. Dutifully every single retailer displays the same notice "This store practices price markups between 0 and 300%" (over 300% notices exists, but are rare).
I don't - I said specifically: "people associated with the core team"

As long as the core coders can associate and work well with good communicators, it's all good as far as I'm concerned.
Bypass iPhone Lock
1. Hold down the home button on the lock screen and wait for Siri to pop up.

2. Ask what the time is and click the clock symbol, which will take you into the clock app.

3. This should lead you to the World Clock tab, where there is a section that lets you pick what tone to play when the alarm goes off.

4. From here, there is an option to buy more tones, which takes you to the iTunes store.

5. From here, by clicking the home button, you can get to the phone’s home screen without entering the passcode.
There is a law in the UK that says for a product to count as being on 'sale' (introduced due to the almost legendary state of permament en-sales-ment some UK shops seemed to inhabit), it must have been for sale at the higher price for a certain minimum amount of time. Therefore on sales fliers you will see little footnotes actually specifying the dates the product was for sale at the higher rate.

Of course, one still suspects tomfoolery - the date ranges are suspiciously short, and it doesn't have to be every store in a chain. Tempted to feel sorry for some poor mark in some remote outpost who accidentally paid the higher sacrificial price...

I remember my own sad experience with sales, rushing to sign up for a new kitchen before the "Februrary 20% off" sale ended. The sale ended alright - only to be replaced by the "March 30% off" sale. I was a wiser man after that.
> I am sure promoting dog ownership over cats is frowned upon by /r/cats readers, too

You are wrong, nobody on /r/cats have gotten their comment removed or been banned for talking about dogs or any other pet on /r/cats.
Rules are defined in Python scripts which can have arbitrary complexity. However, it seems like most rules are just string or regex matching:

https://github.com/amperser/proselint/blob/master/proselint/...

https://github.com/amperser/proselint/blob/master/proselint/...
Do you think it has something to do with the size of the country? E.g. Switzerland has 8M people; is decision making easier there than it would be in e.g. the US and its 320M people?
This is the old "freedom/security" debate in the guise of interpersonal consent. Governance has always involved coercion at the individual level, because governments rule with force, and a certain amount of force is necessary for order and security; without making that move to unify under some law, a population gets mired in low-level disorders and disagreements. It can be a really shitty Hammurabi-style eye-for-an-eye law, legitimize slavery, rape, etc., but if it protects the interests of the ruling class and is not an immediate threat for most of everyone else, it sticks. Thus, for thousands of years, most people lived as peasants, and enjoyed equality and fraternity with their immediate peers, but few freedoms around property, invention, travel, or other such actions that might threaten harmony in society.

But the consent of the people does exist, as a mass body. It takes quite a lot for a critical mass of them to decide that the government is no longer legitimate and disorder would be preferable, but if they do, the government is pushed into crisis. And when governments make breakthroughs, it's in the moment of crisis where leadership is forced to either make a big concession or be pulled down by the mob. In between crises, the status quo sticks and politicians jockey for position within it instead.

What that never translates to is the individual who sticks out of the crowd, arguing for change, getting special treatment. At all times, even in the era of post-Enlightenment reason, they are viewed suspiciously, because good enough is good enough, and they might just be another "bad guy" (criminal/barbarian/spy/rebel/etc.) trying to pull a fast one. They get no credit; as with business and innovators vs. fast followers, it's the people who come afterwards, using more polished rhetoric and building existing small movements into large ones, who tend to turn those ideas into reality.
Show HN: HNBuzz – A Hacker News iOS App
I don't claim to have a magical solution for the problems but what I can do is get people talking about the current system and potential solutions. Isn't that the first step towards solving any problem?

I plan to share some of my thoughts and potential solutions in a blog post, and I will be sure to share it here.
If you know a bit about optics it's not hard to derive. The difference between correction at 6m vs infinity is 1/6 - 1/inf = 0.166.. dioptres.

On top of this, one thing that surprised me was the difference in correction between red, green and blue light. The refractive index of the eye varies according to light frequency such that blue is focused approximately 2 dioptres more than red. If your myopic eyes are corrected for red at infinity, you won't be able to focus on any blue light further than 0.5m away! Not really a concern in the natural world but very noticeable in a server room full of blue LEDs or on a screen with blue text on black.

The difference in power between red and green is less but still useful enough for some vision tests. If you can focus on red traffic lights but green ones are blurry, this is why - consider a stronger power as long as it doesn't strain your near vision.
You can do that already, just donate to universities and public research institutions doing drug research.

Now, do you think that investors should be forced to invest in pharma companies offering lower-than-market returns?
Maybe we shouldn't let Pharma companies do the R&D and then pay for it via expensive heathcare. Maybe we should take the money and directly fund research and make the results free for everyone.
I think all of the things you said I can disagree with on some level:

- voting is secret - I think everyone's voting record should be made public! How would this be a bad thing?

- voting is free - the media spend a lot of money cajoling voters down certain paths. Voting isn't free - I mean look at all those poor republicans voting against their own self interest.

- voting is equal - your vote should count as the inverse percentage of your age. Young people will be here longer and should have their votes be worth more, old people who only have a few years left disproportionately affect policy.

- voters can't currently tell if their vote was counted and in a lot of cases (i.e. Electoral college, jerry mandering) votes are worthless even without direct cheating.

- the counting process is open and accessible - this is making the software open and the votes tied to real people. That would completely solve this, especially if it was on some kind of public ledger.
A zipcode to geo pipeline using RabbitMQ
From Moscow to the Museum
The Stack That Helped Medium.com Drive 2.6 Millennia of Reading Time (Oct 2015)
Nuclear waste management is a partly externalized cost (nuclear waste will outlive the companies that produced them).
Sometimes decomissioning is externalized (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300#Decommissioning).
The effects of Uranium mining are externalized (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(mining_company)#Histor...).
The effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima were externalized. E.g. many boars are still too radioactive for human consumption in Germany.
It's really not outside the realm of possibility. We manage to have free and fair elections, with a voters roll. We manage to have pretty well-run surveys of public opinion, which are quite reliable.

Every citizen could have a unique code or login which allows them to vote. Security would be important and require some of some 3rd party who designed the system. That will take trust. However we trust our government to make all the decisions for us daily, and we trust 3rd parties to our security and privacy all the time.

Look at the blockchain as an example of an open, secure, trustless, permanent ledger. It or a similar technology could be utilized if no 3rd party is desired. What's lacking is the will to implement such a system, not the technical feasibility.
I don't see how comparing the value of a pointer, the area of memory to which it points having been previously freed, is undefined behaviour. Is there a source in the spec for this?
Its Apple, if any company in the tech biz knows PR its them.
Секретная прибыльная стратегия в Webt
Hemingway Mechanical Pencil made from pure Titanium. Superb gift idea
i am surprised butler got this far on hn. read this before the next elections. before the next assad. before your friends and relatives go on tours with the troops.
=> https://gephi.org/ + log aggregation/tracing - see http://opentracing.io/ and http://zipkin.io/
> Who's going to pay for the research needed to prevent a pandemic?

Actually given that this is a real threat, someone will. Even if only to save themselves.

And because they'd have extreme problems if they saved only themselves, rather than the entire civilization supporting them, they'll make it available to others too.

Yes this is hardball negotiating 101 : if doing something solves a strategic risk for someone, don't pay them a dime to do it. You may even consider making it more expensive for them to do, if that provides you with an advantage.
"Take the money directly"

Whose money? The investor's?

"Maybe we should take the money and directly fund research and make the results free for everyone."

And that would be more efficient than letting companies compete for funding from investors?
Same here. Which side of the Med? East or West?
This made me think of the PatchMatch algorithm, see e.g. [1].

It is almost as if this is a generalization of that algorithm. It would be interesting to know if that is the case (for example, it would be interesting to know if the examples from the patchmatch papers can be reproduced with this image analogies algorithm).

[1] https://vimeo.com/5024379
Consent of the governed does not mean, agreement of the governed to specific measures. No does it mean majority rule, which can easily be tyranny of the majority (possibly, the worst kind of tyranny, because it's possibly the strongest kind). One can easily consent to something without actively participating. The author of this oversimplified piece doesn't seem to even acknowledge a category of decisions that people might consent to, even if they disagree with them. It's obviously foolish to say that government is acting without consent, if it makes decisions that you do not agree with, although you are willing (and may even actively choose) to live under the system for making decisions. Nor, of course, does consent always mean actively choosing; it can mean accepting things. The concept of consent of the governed was articulated most effectively by Locke, whose philosophy was a key inspiration for the American revolution. To Locke, consent of the governed had nothing to do with whether or not people agreed with specific laws. Rather, consent of the governed was the foundation of civil society -- that is a society governed by rules and laws. Locke identified the alternative as a state of war -- government by bare force, unconstrained by the rules of civil society. When the consent of the governed is lost, it means that the people no longer accept the legitimacy of the government (sometimes stated as: government has lost the mandate of heaven, or some other revolutionary slogan). It means, change of the form of government, not just the laws and not just the holders of power. It usually doesn't come out well. But (rarely) it creates something new, and better.
The author seems to be a libertarian, not an anarchist. If he has any sympathy for anarchism, it seems to be for the philosophical kind [1] rather than the practical kind that you say is impossible.

Or perhaps his position might be closest to the "natural duty" argument for political obligation [2], which isn't all that far off from philosophical anarchism anyway.

The central premise of both philosophical anarchism and the natural duty argument is that governments have no legitimacy whatsoever by default, and only gain legitimacy to the extent that they help bring about beneficial consequences. The two theories differ in block size. Philosophical anarchism only acknowledges the value of individual pieces of law (if at all) that they think are beneficial, whereas the natural duty folks are more willing to give their blessing to entire systems of government in a broad brush.

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

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/#NatD...
He seems to have deleted the tweet in question - I can't see anything in his timeline.
Can't reply to your post down the thread for some reason, but your characterisation of trade unions as being anti-anarchist is a strawman. Go read about Anarchist Spain, it was a huge success, literacy shot up, productivity went up massively, it enjoyed broad popular support, it wasn't perfect but it functioned well, well enough to be considered a threat by the existing powers.

Another example of a successful anarchist society is the Rojava government of the Kurds in Syria, as mentioned in the thread.
Google is building a 100KW radio transmitter at a spaceport and no one knows why
Anarcho-syndicalism is a well known concept. If you are of the opinion that it isn't actually anarchist, you should just say so, otherwise people will just talk past each other.
An entrepreneur guide to how to do pre-launch app marketing
Two important attributes of a fair voting system are the ability to verify that only one vote is allowed per eligible person, and that it is impossible to tell afterwards which way a particular person voted.

A paper voting system fulfils both of these requirements, simply by the fact that a voting official can check your name and ID as you enter the voting area, and you personally can check that there are no distinguishing marks on your particular voting slip. Therefore the identification step is separated from the vote counting.

With an electronic voting system, it is impossible for the individual to inspect the inner workings of the voting mechanism and verify that the identification step is separated from the vote counting, so the second attribute described above is not fulfilled. As technology improves, computer systems become more complicated, not less, and so this becomes even more true. Because of this, I do not foresee any future technology that will adequately provide secure and deniable electronic voting that the individual can trust.

Sometimes the simple way is the best.
Crowdsourcing analysis and tuning of LLVM optimization heuristics
I agree with you, its not for everything but there inherent benefits to the bitcoin protocol/platform. Whether these integrate with your use case is (no offense intended) irrelevant to its properties
Some wars absolutely do need to be fought. Aggression, genocide, oppression need to be opposed, and sometimes the only way to oppose violence is with violence (though it should be a last resort; always look for an alternative first). But that's different from starting a war. Ultimately the question is: is the real reason for war to help and defend people, or is it for someone to make a profit? The problem is of course that warmongers often try to frame the latter as the former. Like Bush claiming we should invade Iraq to stop Saddam and his WMDs. But Saddam was never a real threat (unlike in the first Gulf War, where he took Kuwait, though maybe the real concern there was still oil dollars, and not the freedom of the people of Kuwait). And even then, even a "good" war can be an excellent opportunity for the arms dealers to make a profit.

The best approach should be what we've always known: be very reluctant, and only go to war when to do nothing means to allow the oppression or death of innocents. But we've known this for centuries, and we still keep messing up. We probably get it wrong more than we get it right. That's depressing. I'm not sure if I had a point anymore.
Conversation in german using skype
I believe it's more people get passionate to join the conversation such as in german using skype with Preply since it's related to technology, and people love improvement, as much as I do :D http://preply.com/en/german-by-skype
Sorry, I guess that example was too terse.

I was referring to a hypothetical American creative writer, writing a scene in which a British character writes a letter. In this hypothetical work, written in US English, there would then be a section of text that used UK English spellings. The naive spell-checker would not understand the context, and would flag these as misspellings.

This was meant to be analogous to my "incrementing a void pointer" example; the static analysis tool produces warnings which the author knows to ignore. In the C programming case, my function was passed the size of the objects comprising the array pointed to by the void pointer, so the linter was wrong to tell me I was making a mistake. Similarly, the spell-checker was wrong to say "change this instance of 'colour' to 'color'".

Similar considerations apply to prose linters.

Polonius would be a lesser character if shed of cliches, and a good writer would know to ignore the linter's opinions on the matter.
> The author is arguing for anarchism, which generally doesn't scale beyond one person

Anarchism has been the default way of running the show for most of our species's existence. Civilization is only 10 thousand years old. Seems to me like it's population density rather than numbers that anarchism has trouble with
Religious politicians in the US are not successful in promoting religious groups' goals. This may provide nice careers for politicians of repeating appropriate slogans but: gay marriage has been legalized, small business owners are even forced to cater to the ceremonies, new companies have to pay for contraception, etc, etc.
This sort of logic does not really work for drugs or even for science. Business processes like management, cost cutting, harassment, implicit and explicit threats, don't really produce better or more accurate results. Or lead to cures or drugs faster. Usually you have a single star scientist with his team working his ass off to get to an understanding or cure, and he or she is not usually doing it for money. Business does not really work with science, it corrupts science and forces an unnatural order on it which we pay for as a society.
> - voting is secret - I think everyone's voting record should be made public! How would this be a bad thing?

Because it allows votes to be purchased or coerced.

> - voting is equal - your vote should count as the inverse percentage of your age. Young people will be here longer and should have their votes be worth more, old people who only have a few years left disproportionately affect policy.

Old people choose to vote. Young people do not. Disenfranchising those voters with the most experience (and one would hope, the most wisdom, but that is not always the case) in favor of those who currently cannot be bothered to vote is absurd.

> votes are worthless even without direct cheating.

Every time I hear this I think of Zeno's paradox. But in reference to the above, an individual old person's vote is meaningless, yet somehow they are disproportionately affecting policy...
Material Memory
We must distinguish between the American school of libertarianism, which is capitalist in nature, and has nothing to do with European libertarianism, which came first and was always a socialist movement.

However for the purposes of this discussion we are referring, of course to the American version.
> At the moment the limiting factor looks like it's going to be carbon emissions

Carbon emissions can be (and have been) reduced without culling humans. Effective public transport infrastructure would do more for emissions than limiting the number of humans while still mostly commuting 1 vehicle per person. Alternative energy sources are also an effective solution which is independant on the size of the human population

> Balance? What kind of balance are you talking about?

Equitable trade and a little less nationalism & market protectionism. Farm subsidies and food donations (counter-intuitively) are destroying farming in developing countries

> And what exactly would "better management" look like?

* Less corruption by leadership, and literally "better management" there is more than enough food to feed every human on the planet, yet famines still happen.

* leaders who take a long-term view on development (rather than focussing on the duration of their terms). Sustainable development will increase the quality of life

* less corporatism/oligarchy/crony-capitalism and more people oriented governance which will lead to improved quality of life at the cost of (ill-gotten) profit. Social democracy appears to be a better way (IMO).
I (and I suspect most others) cannot accurately value a product without points of comparison. We rely on the market to conduct the price discovery process. If thousands of people have bought an item on Amazon, and it has many great reviews (including some that call it a good value for the money, and none that strike me as fake), then I judge that the price is a good one. There's nothing morally wrong with introducing a new product with a high list price and a heavily discounted sale price, but I'm probably not going to purchase it until I see whether the market will bear that price.
To be sure, when Abraham Lincoln said "no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent," he was referring to owning slaves. The men governed without consent were literal slaves; the governers were not governments, but private citizens.

This is a really strange article. Look at its claim that "the exercise of coercive power without consent is a bad thing." First of all, coercion means without consent by definition; you can't have consent and coercion. Second, most laws are about actions which affect other people. What does consent look like there? You can't unilaterally refuse to consent to speed limits, because that affects me by putting me at greater risk. You need my consent too. And if we disagree?

It also refers to "nonconsensual government," implying there's such a thing as "consensual government, and later references "a government that genuinely derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." But it doesn't explain what that would look like.
What steps you take during the development phase for creating a buzz about your app so during launch day it has a big success?

If you have some well-known channels please share your experience.