skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For one, social shaming can, occasionally, be an effective way to change behaviour: it's a short hand for "your opinion is wrong, because all these respectable people say so". For another, I don't have the time and energy or personal obligation to graciously engage with every single person who may be a complete asshole.

What Social Media has generated is a millieu that jumps at the chance to engage in social shaming. It's the same sort of corruption as embodied in a state the jumps at the chance to prosecute to gratify the crowd, regardless of how actual justice is served. I see social shaming as so often practiced as a way for one group to enforce its will over another and assure itself of its own agency. (Such groups also profit non-materially from the additional division and outrage generated.)

it's a short hand for "your opinion is wrong, because all these respectable people say so"

If that's to apply, then the people who are using it first need to have convinced society at large.

Analogy: there are points of etiquette that only apply in a particular culture. If you try enforcing one culture's etiquette when you are the lone member of that culture in a different cultural group, then you are just being foolish. So what about when there are approximately equal numbers? Taking such action in that case also just causes division. It's only when there is a clear majority, and when the majority acts in a benevolent and inclusive fashion that pressure works. Absent benevolence from the majority, there is also only more division. This is just human nature.

In the group dynamic, it doesn't matter that in your mind, you "are right." For one thing, you are only human, so you could well be wrong or misapplying context. In the end, you are either coercing someone or convincing them. It's only the latter that brings true change.

>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

This is exactly my point. This is why an "intolerance in spirit" which damages civic life shouldn't be tolerated. Those who are intolerant of others having a different opinion are engaging in a form of selfish intolerance. They are like free speech advocates who suppress their opponents gatherings or religious people who think freedom of religion only applies to their own religion. Somehow such people only need to obey the letter of the law, and the spirit of their principle only needs to apply to those they like.

(EDIT: How can we measure the sincerity of someone's tolerance? Are they ready to tolerate someone who is presently behaving in a tolerant fashion? Or are they champing at the bit to be "righteously intolerant" because someone was intolerant in the distant past or in an entirely different context? I would say the former is sincere tolerance and the latter is a short-sighted and selectively applied "tolerance.")
What makes is absurd?

The planet isn't random, it is one that can sustain life in our form. That we don't know everything about our existence, that we have to piece it together as best we can, and share our findings with the next generation, is all very exciting and amazing and awesome to me. I guess I am just the type of person who loves open world games :)

Also, it makes me get less upset when I see shitty things in the world - the fact that life that is just evolving to survive can get our shit together as well as humanity has, is frankly pretty amazing and impressive.
If you see one of those these days, it's quite likely attached to someone who thinks pretty carefully about their tools.

If that doesn't make a lot of sense, consider this: it's a general purpose computing device with a suite of acceptable productivity software (and third party ecosystem) that gets over 24 hours of battery life off of 4 AAs. Very useful for head-down writing/thinking.
2016's Top Ten Tech Cars
2% response rate on advertising is considered good.
What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithms_for_calculating_var...
> The killer app was always scientific documentation

Law enforcement and investigations, too. For a while Polaroids were the detective's camera of choice. But they died out quickly, just like consumer usages.

Weren't they big on film sets to check lighting, too?
This is the perfect hoverboard if you want to be the Green Goblin
>"It's like raiding the mailman's house for delivering an illegal letter with no return address," said one commenter on the tech website YCombinator.
YC has already confirmed in another thread that the rejection apply to both, sorry
We need to know the density of trees in various environments to understand how many more we can plant. And when you have that, you also know how many trees already exist.

It's also useful to know how many trees have been lost to development, which is closely related to how many currently exist. And all of that is based on knowledge of tree density in various environments.
My opinions so far:

Gaia's Children - 5 stars

Reflection - 4 stars

Mean and Clean - 2 stars
Yeah, I think we shouldn't forget that dictatorship is not a cute thing.
If anything I'd say that the play goes above and beyond what I'd expect to make the other characters look good by comparison. For example take the final song which shows Burr being remorseful about the slaying of Hamilton. In reality he never really expressed remorse. He spoke the words "I would have known the world was wide enough for both Hamilton and me." He was being sarcastic, not expressing actual remorse.
That’s an unsupportable summary.

Guevarra was politically naive and made many awful decisions w/r/t ideals, strategy, and tactics, with in some cases disastrous results. I think heroizing or canonizing him is a poor choice. But calling him a “mass murderer” robs that label of meaning. By any standard which you might consider him a mass murderer, most US presidents of the past 80 years would equally qualify.

With regards to all three of your claims, this seems like a fairly reasonable analysis: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lt4rb/was_i...
People can make a difference in a startup if it takes off. They can also make a difference by doing a small part of the work of a huge company which half the people in the world have heard about and from which hundreds of millions of people buy very expensive, important products.

If Ford can convince us that working for them is a path toward making motoring better for a hundred thousand people per vehicle model, wouldn't we be interested? Or are we only up for hacking on prototypes whose main hope of mass production is getting acquired by a major maker?
Just like creationism, simulation is not an explanation for anything. If we are a simulation, there must be something that performs the simulation. What is that? A simulation too? In the end, there must be something "real" that is not simulated. Why that cannot be our own universe?
This example works well for raw data but not for complex types. You could make the filter a template, taking the key and a "hasher" function as template args.
I read Yarvin's response to this whole incident: https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lam...

Could someone provide a link to his pro-slavery arguments?
Pizza Hut and Papa Johns are to pizza what a Big Mac is to a hamburger.

And it's not just the ingredients and dough. Very few people have an oven capable of cooking a pizza the way it needs to be cooked.
Only one good way to deal with those people: Computer, end program.
This is blog-spam
I AM concerned about autonomous cars, however, I'm even more scared of human drivers. Texting, drunk driving, distracted driving, and so much more. We've seen the path of destruction. Can autonomous cars be worst that than? I doubt it
I watched the musical in January and I just finished the audiobook version of the Chernow biography of Hamilton (pro tip: listen at 2x speed to save 19 hours) and I have to say the musical stuck VERY close to the biography. A few embellishments for dramatic effect but the substance is all spot on. Unless the biography is flawed, I'd say that ‘Hamilton’ and History are very much in sync.

In case you want to learn more, I posted "Three Timeless Truths Entrepreneurs Can Learn from Alexander Hamilton" earlier today based on what I learned from the biography: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11475047
By gum! Still with that story about the Cuban secret police in 2016...

I'm Cuban and I'm now in Cuba, university professor, not affiliated to any political organization, and I check HN almost all days and personally I do not feel limited in any way, only by its high cost. In the same way private internet access is not illegal, is just nonexistent as option because most Cubans cannot afford the current costs of Internet infrastructure at home.
All of which is true. But I think there's a more subtle problem: if you could simulate evolving creatures in a universe, how could you tell if they were truly sentient?

Being sentient as an experience is completely different to appearing to show sentient behaviour. You can make a model of sentience that's as complicated as you can invent, and you'll still have no idea whether or not a modelled sentience is having a sentient experience of the universe around it, or whether it's faking its responses mechanically.

The corollary is that having a model isn't enough to simulate a universe, You also need some way of knowing when sentience has been achieved.

Nothing in our current technology is anywhere close to even beginning to understand how to do that.
We got the invite in positive. Yay!
Yeobot – The Shared SQL and Natural Language Command Line for AWS
Great suggestion; I wasn't sure the idiomatic way to template this, thanks for letting me know!
Sorry for not being clear, I intended "scientific" to modify "documentation" and connote a set of standards for evaluating claims toward objectivity rather than a formal set of academic disciplines.
Those are contract lawsuits.

Are there any jurisdictions where a Software Engineer can lose their license?
Thumbs up for the Lode Runner screens!
In your thought experiment, you are presupposing many common factors; we can understand this better perhaps because you are positing "3+ dimensions" so we can think "the dimensions we see plus a couple more" which makes it seem like the other community is a superset of ours.

Likewise, in your former, generalized statement, it works if you continue to think of "our universe". The entire notion of anything remotely resembling a brain, or anything like what we understand to be cause and effect (like, nurturing something to keep it functional, or even the very concept of "functional"...) existing in the host environment (whatever that means! :) ) makes the abstract statement devoid of meaning.
An outside force converting everything to computronium at our early level of development wouldn't be good game design.
But there isn't, a blind selection process ended up selecting somebody that social justice deems as worthy of censorship. Hence free speech (blind selection of ideas on their merits - regardless of who it is) vs. social justice (ostracization of bigots by removing all platforms for their speech). The policies - of variations of these two ideological positions - are diametrically opposed in this case.
> I had never felt safer in any city around the world, including my own. While many buildings were falling down and their inhabitants living in near poverty, their spirit seemed unbreakable. We may not agree with their economic or social policy, but the people here seem genuinely happy.

Interestingly enough, you can say this about most places you visit for a short period of time. As a tourist you typically get a surface feel for the place. After spending a measurable amount of time (9 months+) in a Similar place (the dominican republic) with friends who said similar things after short visits, I can say much of this is attributed to seeing people in nice, quaint, sanitized parts of life you see as a tourist rather than an accurate description of what's actually happening culturally.

That's to say that you don't really get into interpersonal relationships when you're in a place for a week. People seem generally happy because most people are friendly - specifically to strangers - especially when those strangers mean revenue or money for themselves, their business or their community - especially on the first pass. After spending time and living there - there's many of the human emotions you're familiar with stateside including contentment, joy, but also anger, sadness, jealousy (and yes) unhappiness too (gasp) - it's just that you don't see the negative emotions when you're only there for a week.

It's always a little disingenuous or a little naive when people come back saying "they have so little, but are so happy." It is true on one level, but also is conveniently dismissive of recognizing that you only experienced a sliver of their actual lives.
Somewhat ironically, when I was at Kodak, there were some old Polaroid oscilloscope camera backs in the test equipment storage area of my building.
Awesome, good luck !
Paiton Hartley videos
It shields you from a lot. For example if you create an array x of size 100 and in some other piece of code you write x[101] it throws a compile-time error and the error is human readable and explains what's wrong. It's a good approach overall.
@nefitty, you posit that the diminishment of the self is a "permanent positive change." But you didn't provide any evidence. The reductio of your argument is that it's better to just be matter, since no self is involved. Few will agree with you.
Rant: You're not paid to write code
Probably something like this:

template<
class Key,
class Hash = std::hash<Key>
> class BloomFilter;
> if at any point in the future, we ever run even one simulation of the world at our current time, then our odds are 50/50 of being in that simulation

That's the contention, though. Someone in the future might simulate some unknown one-year slice of the past, and leave it at that. That would lower the probability significantly below 50%.

> (although they very likely will use approximations and variable level-of-detail to effectively simulate space using less resources than the space itself would use)

The devil is in the details, though. You can save a lot of time approximating an ocean using fluid dynamics, but you're axing all the low level chemical reactions that would make live evolve in it. There are no ways to use variable levels of detail that won't make the simulation diverge from the original. And I'm not even mentioning the synchronization issues and the overhead you'll need to resolve them.

> they have other advantages; you can pause them, take snapshots, revert to earlier states, branch, etc.

Only if you use hardware that's analogous to modern computers, but that hardware is not good at simulation to begin with. Unless you use specialized simulation hardware you're probably going to have to endure billion-fold slowdowns, and I'm being generous.

Assuming you have good hardware for simulation, you can't assume the ability to pause, snapshot or branch, you have to build it in. Each of these features will add overhead and make the simulation slower and larger. Nothing is free.

> As for simulating whole universes being a waste of resources - if we're in a non-historical simulation, we don't even have any conception of what "a waste of resources" means in universe zero.

That's possible, although the fact that it is possible is basically all we can say about the idea. There is no way to evaluate the probabilities involved.
If I want to investigate this project, where should I start? (after configure/make)
> Everything was so obvious, answer for question "why?" was known, even if i couldn't say it out loud, i could feel that answer for this question was somewhere in my mind, but i just couldn't access it. Feeling that it's there made everything clear, i felt peace.

So, what was the answer?

> Everything that i did in life before and what i would in future seemed such trivial and not important. That connection with reality, understanding different forms of it, changed me. I feel like LSD can give you answers, answers for questions that you would not find without it.

Reality includes the past and the future though. This just sounds myopic.

I apologize for not immediately grasping your experience, I've not experimented with LSD.
Anon for obvious reasons. I got an offer from the SV Ford location and it was about 1/2 of what Google offered, if you count everything.
Most GNU/FSF software will be "or later" licensed, so Ubuntu could quite easily come back into compliance using the provisions in GPLv3.
Edited title to reflect update at source.
Ask HN: Is there a place to see my final YC application after submission?
I made a few updates to my application on the night of the deadline, but didn't copy my changes over to a doc. Is there some place to see the application I submitted?
Moonshine is amaze. It really is.
$125M Regeneron deal in hand, CRISPR/Cas9 star Intellia files for IPO
What is a "secret police?" Doesn't the USA have "Secret Police" (NSA) monitoring web traffic for things they don't like ("threats to national security")?
> I ended up depressed and anxious for about three or four months afterwards

Holy shit, that sounds awful.
Yeah, it's definitely a catch 22. I do know that you are not allowed to present evidence that you know to be false, such as your client bringing you an alibi witness that is in direct contradiction to your other evidence.
I think it's better communicated as "compile-time guarantees that no runtime errors are unaccounted for".

Though, that effectively means no runtime errors depending on your definition of runtime error.
If someone were to crop an arbitrary side of the image by 1-2 pixels would that defeat a system like this? Extending that thinking a bit further, would it be trivial to just build out an Apache extension like Google Pagespeed that sort of did this randomly?
In the same vein of startup-like enclave within a large institutions but in the Boston area, Shell has a startup/incubator space in Cambridge that do innovation on drilling and exploration.

http://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/innovating-togeth...

Also lots of major hospitals also have "innovation centers" that try to innovate on in-patient and out-patient care and IoT in a clinical setting setting.

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/healthcare-information-...

Also finally, also very curious if GE's move to Boston will be just for tax breaks or if they are planning to open up an tech incubator of their own in the area:

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/techflash/2016/03/ge-...
The attempt to be a neutral platform is laudable, and the wording used to express the idea seems to be well thought through.

The fact remains that even though that insist that they are not endorsing any of the speakers' views, the mere act of giving a divisive speaker an audience (even if the presentation is entirely topical and non-controversial) acts as an implicit endorsement. Denying this doesn't change the effective endorsement.
If they can do all that, how about adding it to their tracking number system so I can see where my package is and an estimate of what time it will arrive?
Would love to hear more!
I updated the blog post with your suggestion; CDN should be updated soon :)
That's a totally reasonable question. I typed my initial response on my phone and was going for brevity.

People live in society together. Broadly speaking, political decisions are decisions about what the rules for how we should go about living and working together are. We tend to think of things as _obviously_ political when the community has a debate about whether or not something is acceptable (like abortion). But because politics sets the boundaries of social life, it also defines its interior.

For example, you and I (probably) both agree that it's totally reasonable to go to Starbucks and buy a cup of coffee. We don't think of this as an action anywhere near the boundaries of acceptable conduct, and so we both think of it as not having a whole lot of political meaning. A Marxist, however, would argue that we're participating in an exploitative system because we're using private property, shopping at a capitalist-owned business, etc.

We both don't buy their argument, but simply because they've made it, we're forced to concede that buying coffee is political act. By buying coffee, we're saying we're comfortable with the structures that created Starbucks, or that we judge any harmful consequences of buying coffee to be less important than our day to day convenience. The fact that the action is normal doesn't change the fact that at some point _we decided it was acceptable_, and that decision was _definitely_ political.

To give another example, the Free Software Foundation, is explicitly founded on the idea that everyday acts have political meaning, no matter how normal they are. Take this passage from their site (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor...):

>>>With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to mistreat the users in other ways.

>>>Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a program to carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on your having control over the program. You deserve to have control over the programs you use, and all the more so when you use them for something important in your life.

The FSF is arguing that the way you distribute software is a political decision, not just a matter of technical convenience, and they're totally right to point this out.

Anyway. To bring it back to LambdaConf, De Goes is clearly wrong to claim that things have "become" politicized. It's more accurate to say that giving a speaking slot to racists was political acceptable and has become politically disputed. De Goes doesn't like that things have gone from acceptable to disputed, so he claims he doesn't want things to be "political". But things were always political, it's just that previously they weren't controversial.

This is why people who argue against "politicizing" issues are implicitly arguing for the politics of the status quo. They're arguing against change.
On a tangential note, I challenge you to find a better product video than what Land had Charles and Ray Eames produce for the SX-70.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jaiq_ZZ_eM

It was the same team that did the famous "Powers of 10" short a few years later. It included a rousing voiceover by Philip Morrison, an MIT prof who worked on the Manhattan Project but later became a major proponent of nuclear nonproliferation.

This video has a special place in my heart. It effortlessly moves from a commercial to an instructional video to an impressively coherent discussion of how it works before ultimately explaining that the camera is a tool intended to further increase the true potential of humankind.

You can laugh all you want, but years later I cannot watch this without tearing up.
I'm glad, I had a Polaroid once too. They were pretty awesome. The original folding SX-70 was amazing when it came out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Camera
Thanks for pointing this out! There are a lot of small issues we need to address (favicons, title tags, better typography, etc).
Without going on a spiel about the realities (often times) of working for startups, I'd say that - if Ford gets/hires the right people, I can't see a major reason not to consider them over many an SV startup. They at the least should have resources.
As far as I've seen the motherboards are made in China. The final assembly of the server is in the USA.