skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're gesturing here at a general lack of engagement in solving these difficult social problems, then coming to the nihilistic conclusion that, since nobody else (that you can perceive) is engaging with them, it's a lost cause.

I don't say this in anger, but it's a lost cause entirely because you (and many others, past versions of myself included) choose to believe it's a lost cause. Us all going back to our editors and forgetting this conversation in defeat is a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it's particularly insidious to publicly acknowledge your privilege and then make this gesture, because it sets an example for others of your level of privilege. It's isomorphic with the problem of white people who support the BLM movement in spirit, but think they can't become proactive allies to black America because they don't know how - but it's not a matter of knowing, it's a matter of taking actions, often difficult and uncomfortable ones.
I was thinking more along these lines: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/dont-swe...
Here's a big picture view of the Multiplane camera on my site: http://www.theymadethat.com/things/multiplane-camera

(Shameless plug) If you like what you see, please upvote and comment on my ApplyHN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11523675
Amazon Prime Video now has 4 times as many movies as Netflix
> So what?

Nice argument. I guess we're done here. If you want to debate about philosophy and morals with me, the bare minimum requirement is that you do care.

As noted before, the $0.05 bag tax is a very, very, very minor issue. It barely costs anything. Frankly, I'm surprised you cared enough to discuss the matter this long on an issue so mundane.

If you were to ask me how much I cared about this subject, I'd tell you straight up: about $0.05, the amount of "bag tax" in my county. I'm not asking for a miracle or anything here. I'm just saying this is clearly more fair for plastic-bag users to pay for the costs associated with their behavior (however small it is), rather than other people paying for it.

If you can demonstrate to me that using the bathroom at stores is a major enough concern that a tax is required, then we can discuss creating a tax on that behavior as well. Somehow, I bet you're being facetious.
Beast: HTTP and WebSocket Implementations Built on Boost.Asio
That's a really big obstacle, but it's not insurmountable. My companies often ask if the candidate is willing to be a contractor for a couple of weeks. If they're not currently working, it gives them some income to continue the job search, and it allows us to see what it's like working with them.

I can usually tell that someone is unacceptably bad within a few days of working with them, so it makes sense to do those few days before hiring (if possible).
It's not exactly difficult to find another IP if the one you're on is blacklisted.
>I'm pretty surprised by how far this thing has gone!!

Haha - so do we now have two examples of emergent complexity?

FYI, it's not that the complexity / length of the code caused me to fail per se - I've actually used that section of the code to design a kitchen - it's not user friendly, but it does ultimately work in that I could use it to find and follow all the rules applicable to my design. But I did fail to find a reference to the '18 inch rule' that you stated, but that's because that would require me to read the entire code, for which I don't have time (you need the entire thing because it has a nasty habit of having the rules spread out over multiple sections, probably in the interest of abstraction / generalization. ADA may well be an example of that)

One other thought: since the SF rules are written directly in relation to the CA rules, it's not like they are two competing standards. One if just a layer on top of the other. Of course, that could still create a contradiction, but in the one case where I saw that, the DBI found a way around it.
From what I know about biometrics they use heuristics to authenticate, whereas a key-secret-salt tuple is deterministic. That alone makes me not want to use them.
Women’s coding school Hackbright Academy acquired by Capella Education for $18M
In my opinion, if there is something that the web can't do as well as native it is a bug.

Web technologies can already do most of what you are proposing, including notifications. There are some performance issues, but they are well on their way to being fixed.
Amazon charges vendors up to 40 percent rake just to be fulfilled by Amazon. They are swindling the living crap out of 3rd party sellers while also maintaining their position as lowest price on most products within their own sham site. Very often these days Walmart or another online vendor will have cheaper prices than Amazon. The way Amazon treats its employees and the underhanded business tactics toward customers are going to be the end of them. They became a meme - just Amazon it Bob!! But Myspace was a meme too. Fuck up a phone, make your employees miserable, and foster a culture of dark doing customers.. and Amazon will fall just like Myspace. A name recognition can only take you so far. (fyi I recently worked as a dev for them in Seattle and left due to a hostile work environment so I do have bias but also a unique perspective.)
Spot on!

But don't forget SCOTUS Scalia saying that basically if you are later on found not guilty, but the trail on its own was done properly with no misconduct, you will still get the death penalty!

http://www.businessinsider.com/antonin-scalia-says-executing...

What a country! :)
>> "I don't think there's much of an economic component. If you look at the numbers, people aren't doing badly by historical standards."

What numbers are you looking at though? If you look at income inequality there has been a significant increase in the last few decades.
Can I install packages/modules for my scripts (e.g. using npm)?
And when the kids spill the milk trying to pour a glass, don't come crying to me when your house burns down.
I would argue that true freedom doesn't exist nor has it ever existed in the purest sense so what are we all arguing for?
http://www.businessinsider.com/tech-uniform-2014-5

what men wear at work is a frequent and unending topic of discussion, but you probably don't notice, because it doesn't fit your worldview.

... and if this hn thread were about that link, you'd probably be the person complaining that it focuses too much on men, and not enough on women. unfortunately, i don't have a quantum time machine, so we'll never really know.
I have a feeling, but not evidence, that this bank's security was this bad on purpose to aid the thieves. Someone in the middle or on top might be getting a cut. Has anyone looked into that angle?

And does anyone have an I.P. address to another Bangladesh bank with $10 routers and stuff on SWIFT network? Just so I can try to SMTP a warning to that address to help them avoid being hit, too.
Abstinence and fasting (Catholic traditional definition is one big meal, or a couple small meals) are sacrifices. They're also not sustainable (ok, maybe abstinence from meat, plenty of healthy vegetarians, but not fasting) over a long period if a population actually has to do any significant physical labor. Once a week makes it more significant than once or twice a year, but not so impactful as to prevent people from remaining otherwise high functioning (physically and mentally).

Also, Meatless Monday is not about concern for the animals. It started as a health concern, and morphed into an environmental concern. If the concern were for the animals, they should be going for full-time meatlessness.

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-h...

EDIT:

http://www.meatlessmonday.com/the-global-movement/

In reviewing the above link, it seems that Meatless Monday has been brought to numerous countries by various groups. The two primary motives seem to be about health and sustainability. There are, however, some countries where vegetarian groups brought it in, I imagine as a way to get more people implementing a partial practice of what they want, a more politically savvy way to move things where they want rather than insisting on 100% vegetarianism today.
Errr, reading the actual decision, i don't see a lot of support for the EFF's claims. It seems pretty cherry picked.

In fact it clearly states they can only retain stuff long term if the DOJ notifies them explicitly that they have a continuing litigation/preservation hold necessity (which is usually not the DOJ doing it,but say, a civil lawsuit that carries with it preservation obligations).

It also makes further clear that in all cases, the only people with access to most of any retained data is system administrators, not investigators, and that it can't be used for investigative purposes.

It does say general querying is allowed, but only people explicit 702 access rights are the ones who must be making such queries, or making such decisions. In all cases all records of who accessesd what with what query terms and their access level are explicitly logged, etc.

It also explicitly states that information acquired under section 702 will not be introduced as evidence against a person in a criminal proceeding, without
1. Explicit approval of the attorney general
2. in criminal cases related to national security crimes

In any case, this is not new, this viewpoint is something going back to FISC precedent from 2002.

So it's not like this just happened.

Additionally, the statute is pretty clear here.

It says:
"
(h) “Minimization procedures”, with respect to electronic surveillance, means—

...
(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and"

So again, nothing new here, this has been law for quite a while.

In short, i may hate a lot of things about FISA/FISC/etc, but i think the EFF is stretching to say this is a new problem, or to blame the court for it.
Do you know where one would go to perform an accurate background check on oneself?
Yeah, most American companies don't collude to screw their workers.
Do you have a blog or twitter I can follow?
I think the problem with interview questions is the following;

Asking candidates about algorithmic problems is great, if that's what you're hiring for. However, what has happened over the past decade is that a lot of companies who aren't even close to solving those kind of problems (e.g. digital ad agencies, web dev & mobile app shops) have started to ask these kind of puzzle questions in their interviews because "that's what Google does" and if Google does it, well, then it must be good.

Interviewing is hard and hiring the right candidate is even harder. A lot of interviewers don't even come close to having the experience of hiring a fellow colleague. A lot of these interviewers are basically hiring themselves meaning; if the interviewer has a PhD then the candidate they're looking should also have a PhD. If the interviewer loves Haskell then the candidate should also have this quality, if the interviewer can reverse a binary tree then, well.. regardless whether or not this has any application to the position they are hiring for,

When I interview I try to look for smart people who can explain and articulate problems well. I'm looking for people who are thoughtful and have a strong sense of integrity and an absence of ego. If they can talk about building software and programming I can easily spot if they bullshit or not. Smart people can easily learn how to reserve a binary tree.
That is one of the two reasons I signed up for prime in the first place, I'd always get super saver and 99.9% of the time it'd arrive in 2 days. All of a sudden it started taking the full time.

I don't remember exactly what the other reason was, but it involved a one time money savings which was > the cost of a year of Prime at the time.
Man... this is depressing...

I'm counting on you lot at HN and beyond to create the technology allowing widespread encryption that makes such surveillance moot.
Yeah, but someone always wants something printed.

In all news, you get what you paid for. If you didn't pay for it, it probably isn't that credible.
This depends a lot on data size & shape. There've been some applications where I benchmarked a std::map (a tree, in practice) against Google's highly-tuned hashmap for a small (~25-50 item) container and the tree came out ahead. For such a small data structure, everything fit in L1 cache, and comparisons to follow pointers could usually be resolved by looking at the first word of the key.

One thing often forgotten with hashmaps is that they aren't actually O(1); they're O(k), where k is the length of the key, and often need to examine the entire key to derive a hashcode. This oftentimes makes them significantly slower than a binary search tree when the size of the key is large compared to the size of the container.

As always, measure before optimizing. YMMV.
In case you want to quickly try out your own version. I created a fork that uses Auth0 for authentication so you can use any identity provider plus it has a deploy to heroku button. You can try it out here:

https://github.com/auth0-samples/checklistomania
This device made some pretty extraordinary claims no one else was making. That alone should require some inquiries. It's as if Intel would tell Dell or Amazon or Google, hey, we've got s new processor using our secret new core and next gen x2 photolithography that we can deliver twice the flops at half the power of our current processors. Book your orders now minimum Oder is one million units. And Amazon Google and Dell pass on any testing. But instead of it being Intel it was some new outfit.
Wonder what the avg life span is of businesses who have built tools like this in the past. Instead of offering a cash prize, they should just promise the winner they won't depreciate its API calls with the next update.
I think we're still very early in figuring out what "should" be a bot, what expectations are around what they can do, etc. there are a number of Alexa skills people really like (i like some you have built). But in the same way that there are good & bad websites and the UI conventions raise the bar for everyone, the same is true for conversational interfaces. we're all still in the learning phase. That's what makes it so much fun!
And then they came for me.
Well, here the 2 party system is like choosing between Coca Cola and Pepsi. Not very different from what happens with Communist countries.
They could've put OpenBSD on and properly configured a cheap, second-hand router with better results than they got. They owed it to their clients to do something like that to protect tens of millions in assets. So, feel free to [verbally] attack the hell out of them because they have it coming.
We've got a bag ban here, too. ;)
> Say if I press Cmd+Space on a Mac and type "Facebook" in Spotlight, it immediately begins downloading the native OS X Facebook app

That's exactly what Windows 10 does.

http://imgur.com/EqvATwL
What about The Morning Stream's perks made you want to pay?
Noone would ask this question about humans. Humans use tools, coordinate their activity by communicating detailed questions, statements, and commands, and contrive elaborate schemes for altering their environments to be more favorable. The ability to do these things is accepted without controversy as being essential to their success as a species.

But dolphins: what do they do in their natural environment that utilizes such intelligence? If they just swim around eating fish and mating, then they need not be any smarter than sharks, which do basically the same thing.
No. There are Bobs everywhere. Do your job, and Bob doesn't rip you off. Leave Bob to the courts - blaming Bob is like blaming your dog for stealing your lunch, or a wave for soaking you on the shore. You will not hurt Bob's feelings.

edit: Bob didn't betray you. Your friends and family betray you. Bob stole from you.
Oh, come on. The Fourth Amendment has existed and been debated, challenged, abused, and defended long before libertarians were calling themselves a thing. Suggesting libertarians care about it more is just additional partisan nonsense. And it's partisan nonsense that doesn't make sense for this particular issue. Plenty of right-leaning Americans care about the 4th. Plenty of left-leaning Americans care about it, as well. We could maybe tease out some commonalities among them in relation to how they define the contours of Fourth Amendment issues. But beyond that, you're pretty much just making stuff up.

I realize there's a great many HNers who love to brandish their libertarian badges at every opportunity, but it makes for a really annoying echo chamber, and it creates unnecessary partisan division on issues we could otherwise rationally discuss.
Not really remnants of Jewish and Christian practices. Jews and Christians were still fairly common in the areas where Islam took hold, initially at least.
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the outcome".

Let's not kid ourselves... Democracy is no perfect ideal to aspire after. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Let's also consider what Bastiat had to say[1]:

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization
of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend
his person, his liberty, and his property. These are
the three basic requirements of life, and the
preservation of any one of them is completely dependent
upon the preservation of the other two. For what are
our faculties but the extension of our individuality?
And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend even by force —
his person, his liberty, and his property, then it
follows that a group of men have the right to organize
and support a common force to protect these rights
constantly. Thus the principle of collective right —
its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on
individual right. And the common force that protects
this collective right cannot logically have any other
purpose or any other mission than that for which it
acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot
lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or
property of another individual, then the common force —
for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to
destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals
or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases,
contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to
defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say
that force has been given to us to destroy the equal
rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting
separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights
of others, does it not logically follow that the same
principle also applies to the common force that is
nothing more than the organized combination of the
individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than
this: The law is the organization of the natural right
of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common
force for individual forces. And this common force is
to do only what the individual forces have a natural
and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties,
and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to
cause justice to reign over us all.

Now I don't agree with his appeal to "God" as the justification for the inherent nature of the right to self-defense, but his basic argument is sound.

[1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G004
Should You Email a Professor During the Ph.D. Admissions Season?
Foresight has been essential in this.

Without Stallman's foresight of the need for public domain open source software, there would only be proprietary software, all subject to PRISM.

Without the foresight of potential Government's to come the US founding fathers would not have written in such protections as still exist today.

Before Snowden there were many that suspected but now everyone knows.

>Um. Who thought this?

Snowden himself:

"I had too much faith that the government really would do no wrong. I was drinking the Kool-Aid in the post-9/11 moment. I believed the claims of government, that this was a just cause, a moral cause, and we don't need to listen to these people who say we broke this law or that law."

pre Snowden this was unopposable, the NSA's James Clapper lied to Ron Wyden in Congress about mass surveillance.
There were plenty of successful projects written using waterfall. Not a great fit for all, but not an anti-pattern.
PageSpeed Insights shows 56/100 on mobile and 74/100 for desktop.
Seeing that your target audience is probably younger, you may want to boost that performance for mobile.

Move that "make my day" button higher up, and on the left. Eyeballs go there before the far, bottom right.

The first screen doesn't really tell me anything. It's just a bunch of pictures of "pretty" people with small text. If that is by design for your users, then right on :)

That button CTA and page speed are two big items I see right off the bat.

Hope that helps
So let's get this straight shall we?

Apparently, allowing players to gamble in game for real money, fine. Allowing people to gamble for them and then sell them through third party sites, fine.

But featuring a casino in a game causes the age rating to go up, even if it's non interactive (at least in Europe)? Letting people gamble with fake money that can't be exchanged for anything outside the game (in a casino esque) setting causes the rating to go up?

Yeah, some of the media watchdogs have really screwed up priorities. Apparently they find the Pokemon Game Corner more offensive than the mobile app 'freemium' content or CS:GO case gambling.
Not so fast. The public was split on the Apple vs FBI case. As electronics penetrate deeper into our lives and identity thefts, spam, virus, social network attacks, credit card leaks, password leaks, etc become more common and more consequential, and the spread of the hopeless feeling about the lack of control of our data, we as a society are becoming more acquainted with security issues and more aware of why they are so important. I predict that governments will eventually be forced to come down on our side in the fight for maintaining our data private and secure.
Their fundamental business model didn't account for and compensate for the incredible amount of risk involved in handling large amounts of money.
To give a Reconstructionist answer: people adhere to these restrictions because they find them meaningful. It may be one or more of

* to feel a connection to one's ancestors

* to be connected with one's community (people bond over food, so a group of people who eat the same way can connect more easily)

* to be reminded of a tenet of one's faith (as with many other rituals)

* to make it feel like the holiday (Is not eating bread on Passover so different than always eating turkey on Thanksgiving?)
Have you looked at the size of native apps these days? They make the web look almost unbloated by comparison. (It feels like half of them are shipping an entire HTML rendering engine too.)
I didn't mean to imply that it has infinitely negative monetary value. I mean that it is a sort of wrong that cannot be undone by money.
much bigger problems exist, you know, like the quality of the news media. commenters on message boards: not so much, paid or not.
How to win your first clients
Are you saying that's too high or too low?