skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is what I sent to my wife about this story earlier today. I think it's true for the public too.

"I guess people can do whatever they want with their money. For me the bottom line is that Hogan is a public figure and the definition of “newsworthy” isn’t up to anyone other than media to decide on. Sure, it’s tacky as fuck to report on him fucking his best friends wife and it isn’t any of anyone’s business but the market can decide if gawker should be in business or not. It shouldn’t be able to decide what they are or are not allowed to report so long as they’re true."

It's creepy that the billionaires can fund lawsuits against the media because they wrote something that the billionaire didn't like but that's a free market. I don't think anyone that reads Jezebel or gawker or valleywag is going to stop reading it because Nick Denton publishing something about an ex-pro wrestler fucking a dj's wife. That's their market.

The people decided this verdict was just. I think it's ridiculous but then again Trump is probably running against Clinton for the leader of the free world so you get what you get.
Around 65% of the population in SF are renters. If it were simply homeowners vs renters, renters would win in a landslide.

Who do you think was pushing for proposition I (an 18 month development moratorium in the mission) to pass? It wasn't homeowners, that's for sure. It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced.

Why did 60% of SF voters (keeping in mind only 30% are homeowners) vote for Proposition B, requiring a city wide up-or-down vote on all new waterfront development over 40-80 feet? A measure that was also endorsed by multiple major newspapers? Because people are afraid of everything changing too quickly and the nice beautiful waterfront turning into midtown Manhattan.

It's complicated. This isn't homeowners giving the middle finger to everybody else. The situation is more akin to existing residents fighting against future residents. Though whatever the situation is, pointing fingers at individual constituencies instead of trying to understand the problem holistically is not helping anything.
Like I said above, it seems that for a lot of people, the freedom of speech rhetoric just comes down to whose ox is getting gored.
"The free press" is rather a grandiose title for a rag like Gawker.

If Gawker counts as part of "the free press" -- the people Americans trust with the privilege of mediating their access to much information -- then yes, "the press" deserves whatever it gets.
scarcity has never brought the price of anything down. your idea only works if the freaks could still live here, which they can't (mostly due to prices). why not support a bill that allows everyone a space?
Yes. It is always ok to finance a lawsuit. The premise of our legal system is that optimal adversaries debating in front of an impartial judge produce the best possible outcome.

If Hogan wasn't able to finance the lawsuit on his own, that would be the perversion of justice. But if our court system operates as it should, and there is no indication to my knowledge that it has not in this case, then billionaires funding legal teams should only enhance the level of justice available to all.

If the above is not true, then that is a problem with the court system, not a problem with people funding each other's lawsuits.
I also agree with chris_7 that I'd prefer NSUndoManager to use blocks rather than selectors.
Ha. Yes, fair enough. But, presuming they didn't, would it not be in facebook's best interest to allow their app to still work, perhaps with a visible warning?
Police chiefs answer to strong encryption row
Startup Jobs
I am very very conflicted about this, do we classify Gawker network as blogs or journalism ?
> but are you suggesting that being extremely wealthy is reason enough to give up on privacy?

Well not in the strawman form of 'give up on privacy' - but yes, if the information may be of public interest (I definitely don't think that sex-tapes are fyi) - than the legal standards are different.
What if they were Buddhists or Hindus? Notice that I didn't name every religion? The response to my post (currently -4) is the same belligerence and myopia that I referred to in that post. It's incredible that I can post a message of hope that humankind can collectively evolve to a higher intelligence and civility, and be met with negativity.

As for the religions that I did mention, I was careful to point out that my condemnation is based on observed effects of those religions in particular, and not on the causes for those effects.
Funny enough, I read your comment in the default sans-serif font of HN on my Apple `retina' display..
If the intended deterrent is simply the cost defending or settling, then you are right, it is no different to a SLAPP suit.

However, our legal system holds that even where we have freedom of expression, we still have a responsibility to not invade people's privacy, and not cause them emotional harm. A court found that Gawker didn't act according to those responsibilities, so they owed damages. That's exactly the kind of deterrence that our civil law is designed to provide.
> For example, you don't have to have been poor to contribute solve poverty.

You DO need a level of understanding and context, though. You don't have to be poor to contribute to solving poverty, but you do need to have experience with poor neighborhoods to know what the pertinent issues are and to get a more wholesome understanding of the predictament of the affected. I wouldn't expect anyone who's never stepped into a neighborhood with Section 8 housing to know the whole story enough to come up with any substantive solutions, and the same applies for racial issues, as well. If you don't know the stories of people who experience them and fail to properly evaluate their worldview, any opinions you have on the matter are based on faulty reasoning and can't truly be taken seriously.
Because they are appealing the award. The 147M or whatever it is is thought to be enough to wipe them out, which would be no great loss.
It depends on the point of space-time, but at each point of space-time it is just a scalar value, unlike a vector for a vector field. Moreover in physics we classify fields by their Lorentz transformation properties/representation. So when we say scalar field we actually mean that is transforms in the "(0,0) representation" of the Lorentz group (although then it's not yet specified whether one means scalar or pseudoscalar).

If it were the same at all space time points it would be a constant, and rather boring (more like a cosmological constant).
> I'd come in and the entire rest of the class would be sitting around sharing their homework answers, copying each other on the ones they couldn't figure out, getting help from each other...

This is actually one of the reasons I frequently avoided study groups for many of my math classes in college. There was too much of an emphasis on just getting the answers from each other, which meant you might get a decent score on the homework but not on the tests. What's worse, you wouldn't develop a true understanding for the material, which would hinder you in later and more advanced courses.

It was definitely a lot more work for me to labor through every problem myself, but I ended up at the top of almost every math class I took, and I really do believe that my avoidance of the study groups was part of this. They were just toxic to a degree. If I really hit a stumbling block and needed help, I'd go to the TA or the professor, who were always extremely helpful because it was obvious I'd put in real effort and wasn't just seeking a quick answer.

I will say that this approach backfired in one case -- a course on advanced integration theory with extremely difficult problem sets, no exams, a very old professor who was brilliant but not very good at all at interacting with or helping students (his lectures were quite bad too and his handwriting illegible), and an invisible, incredibly harsh grader who was not available for advice at all. Doing every problem myself was too much of a burden and I got my first and only B in a math class ever because I didn't join in on the study groups. A year later I met up with some students from that class who learned that I had done every problem myself, and they were collectively in shock and awe due to the length and difficulty of the problem sets.
Girl SHREDS Wipeout on Ukulele in Waikiki
He's saying that land is the actual limited resource and therefore landowners will capture all the value that comes from upzoning. But as-of-right zoning makes it possible to use land much more efficiently than before, because the buy-side of the market really does care about housing units. So while they might still be willing to pay 50% of their incomes from housing, their demand for land will fall as housing units require less land. This will shift the balance of economic power in the favor of residents.

Think of what happened with modern agriculture. Food used to be much more expensive, then we greatly increased yields. People still need food and would be willing to pay more for it, but as the cost of production has fallen, agricultural landowners failed to totally capture the benefits. Instead, society allocated resources that would have gone into low-efficiency agricultural production to other uses, such as industrial goods production.
It's a difference of degree. The effect of most local policies on the region, nation, or world is negligible. The effect of San Francisco's is very large.

See this magazine article on how NIMBYs pushed suburban sprawl on surrounding areas:

https://web.archive.org/web/20001001083046/http://www.sfweek...

See this article, on how restrictive urban land use is estimated to lower America's entire national GDP by 5-15%:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647614-poor-land-use...
My last name is shared with about 8 people in my country, so I managed to snag lastname.ca and now my email is firstname@lastname.ca (but I still own firstname@firstnamelastname.com which is a mouthful.) lastname.com is parked but it keeps getting renewed shortly before it expires. Both domains cost around $10/yr
The script probably never left the company.
Doing a little googling, it looks like Palantir is a somewhat suspicious cyber-spying company implicated in a number of dragnet espionage programs. For instance, China's espionage program used, in part, for political oppression in Tibet. It also looks like he distanced himself from an effort to use his software to try to take down Wikileaks. I'm not entirely sure what sorts of things Palantir really does and if I'd consider them ethical or anti-privacy, but it does seem like a point of concern and probably what the person above you was referencing.
The fact is, the meaning of words can entirely flip over time, and meaning is informed by the context in which the word is spoken. The evolution of "nigga" is such that within the right context its meaning is neutral or positive. It is essentially a reclaimation a word that was used to denigrate. The problem is that there are still people who would use the "nigger" version as an insult. These are two similar sounding words with two entirely different meanings. Which one is intended is largely determined by context. The usual assumption is that anyone who is not black (or someone where a close friendship is already established) is intending it in the negative way. But there are plenty of blacks who don't like any version of the word at all.

(A black male who occasionally uses the word)
<cough>relevant username.</cough>

I take the government's actions very seriously. I left the country, wife and kids and all, because I got tired of it.

I respect Jon Oliver's work. I think he makes discussions about things like this more approachable to more people than any article cnbc will every publish.
Money in law is a major issue - but I don't see how this is a problem as much.

I think it's a good thing that those who have earned money can use it to attempt to change the world - and Gawker did a jerk thing.
It's not to say that this is what happened here, but our legal system disagrees that it's always OK to finance a lawsuit (see SLAPP).
A Tesla brings itself to a complete stop safely if you don't assume control when it required you to.
I think it is essentially true. I recently graduated and definitely 99.9 pct of students cheated/took adderral at some point in their studies.
> That's why environmentalist organizations like the Sierra Club support infill development

Except the Sierra Club in SF, which strongly opposes dense housing.
Perhaps just put it on github, and just drop the link to it whenever you mention it in a comment here?

(Or just put a link in your HN profile, people can click through that easily.)
To clarify, I'm not defending the question that were asked on that interview. That's not learning, that's trolling (or else an astounding depth of ignorance). My remark was in regard to the general concept that, yes, we should be actively seeking to learn about other people's experiences, and you really can't do that without asking questions (and no, spending time with them is not a substitute, since you can't spend it from their POV - although it is also a valuable learning tool).

That said, even misguided and offensive questions like that are not as meaningless as they seem, given the right context (which, again, obviously wasn't a case in that interview - but could be a case in, say, a study on the subject). For example:

>> What decisions are you making that are based on questions like "why do black people sit together at lunch?"

If the answer involved discrimination or exclusion by other students, which is the most likely explanation based on everything else, then those are issues that need to be addressed. And even if this is outside of your personal area of responsibility, at the very least, you have a moral responsibility to ensure that the people who you elect and/or fund who are responsible for it, pay appropriate attention.
Gawker proudly published Hulk Hogan's sex tape (while shaming him for it), while also shaming websites for publishing J.Law's nudes. I can't see anything redeeming about such an inconsistency: http://imgur.com/gallery/CQ5qgvu
Gawker wasn't some bastion of journalism - it was a libelous rag, good riddance.
"To me, the tech "industry" has been ruining the city I love since the Dot-Com boom. To me, they are an invading army culturally speaking. In a very real sense my home is being destroyed."

Isn't this just what natives say about every group of immigrants? The West Coast, in particular, has seen this before:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DXu9eKM4kJI/T_D5ucc8SPI/AAAAAAAABK...
That is one reason why transit-oriented development makes more sense today. We don't want to build a lot of car-dependent neighborhoods because the freeways can't handle it. It is very important today that cities develop in ways that make sense, are sustainable, and contribute to the health (financial and otherwise) of their cities, instead of being maintenance burdens without accompanying tax revenue. In my city of Oakland unfortunately we have both. A successful example would be the Fruitvale transit village (https://critical-sustainabilities.ucsc.edu/fruitvale-transit...).
> Peter Thiel is not directly damaging Gawker with his money. He's doing so via the intermediary of the justice system, where for whatever reason money has relevance. It is there that we should find danger, not that Peter Thiel circumstantially decided to send his wrath in the direction of Gawker.

I felt the same way reading this thread. I also thought about an h3h3 video I saw earlier today https://youtu.be/fEGVOysbC8w where they talk about fair use and how a lawsuit can cost you $100k in legal fees if you prevail.

The question to ask should be: should our legal system be a game of chicken? or a sick twisted game of poker where you can't call "show" but just keep raising stakes?

I hope we have not forgotten that the attorneys responsible for Aaron Schwartz's case are still in charge of things.

I am by no means endorsing what Mr Thiel is doing. I think it is in extremely poor taste (even though I hate gawker). I simply agree that our attention should be more focused towards fixing our broken "justice" system.

edit: no, the winner getting reimbursed for legal cost by the loser is not a fix
what you have to consider is they will send money home and have many connections in China
> To me, they are an invading army culturally speaking. In a very real sense my home is being destroyed.

This is xenophobia in another skin. There are a lot of people who don't want brown people coming into the country and changing the "feel" of their home too.

Anyways, as long as we severely restrict housing, techies will continue to outbid the locals on what remains. Passing this legislation might give the weirdo-freaks a chance to remain in the city.
also a good example of trade-offs. sometimes small batches are better, sometimes a big batch is better. depends on the situation and your priorities.
The slowness is not due to Rails. It is mainly due to us not scaling up the infrastructure team fast enough and now having problems with the file serving backend. We're working on it in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/operations/issues/42
I imagine it was the interviewer trying to be upfront and casual about it, but coming across as very awkward instead especially given that they were his opening questions in a professional setting!
I don't know enough about the case at hand to comment specifically, but arguing that it is always fair to use "augmenting the resources of someone with a legitimate legal claim" as a tactic is not uncontroversial in the general case. Keep in mind that selectively punishing common legal violations is a common censorship tactic in many places. Consider this case in Mexico:

"On 12 March 2015, two journalists from MVS, Daniel Lizárraga and Irving Huerta, were fired after they used the station's brand name without permission in a newly-created website known as MexicoLeaks, which leaked reports on government corruption" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Aristegui#Second_firing...

The legal case, of course, focused on "used the station's brand name without permission". But the actual reason for their dismissal was "a newly-created website known as MexicoLeaks, which leaked reports on government corruption".

Now, I am not saying the Gawker case is or isn't appropriate, but the intent of the parties matters, if not legally, then morally. When you are using a lawsuit, not to redress a wrong, but to attack a rival, the fact that the letter of the law is on your side doesn't make your actions ethical. This is specially true for governments, but there is no reason why it might not true for individuals as well (wealthy or not).
I think the influence that money has on our judicial system is a big concern. The threat of frivolous legal action has a very real chilling effect on freedom of speech. The legal system in the US disproportionately favors the wealthy and this is a legitimate concern. I think that in this case Thiel is warranted here, but no I don't like that wealthy people get to sue people to get their way. The costs of litigation should be minimal and the outcome unbiased by money. However, that's not the case and it's a travesty. I don't think this is simply a case of hatred for the "extremely wealthy."
Let's not forget the broader geopolitical context and the relations among nations that can result (this basically expands and refines the author's main point). For example, South Korea's material prosperity is also the result of American geopolitics. If you had told someone not 75 years ago that a nation of rice farmers would become an advanced industrialized country in the time that it did, you would have been laughed out of the room. The US needed South Korea to be what it is and the country benefited from it economically. In other words, it was in the broader American political and economic interest to encourage South Korean growth.
Just because they published things that have been good journalism allows them carte blanche to publish things that break the law and are morally reprehensible? I find this logic baffling.
I have no idea what a good quality brand is. And if I did find better bulbs it would cost a fortune to replace all of the bulbs I just bought two years ago.
An obituary is a news article that reports the recent death of a person.

Does an obituary qualify as authentication that a person has died? I would have expected them to require a death certificate from the relevant government department. In Australia these are handled by state level, eg.[1]

1. http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/bdm/deaths/applyforcertificate
Maybe not necessary, but I could see how they might be helpful amongst colleagues more so than in a work relationship with a power imbalance (boss, interviewer, etc).
> Also, I hear Portland is nice.

As someone who grew up in Portland [1], I could write a post just like yours, and I'm sympathetic to the frustration...

But I still side with the pro-housing crowd. What are people who seek to move up in life (i.e., take that dream job and build a career), but who happen to have been born in the middle of nowhere, supposed to do? Is it fair to say "hey, my home, don't come here" when a large fraction of the industry is in one place and the individual software engineer has very little power to change that? Yes, long term, we should spread out and build clusters of industry elsewhere, but that doesn't help the fresh college grad today who gets an offer in the Bay Area but can barely afford rent.

[1] and I want to move back someday so please don't ruin it!
> There's no solutions manual for building stuff in real life lol.

That is unless you are this guy:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/17/business/us-outsource-job-chin...
Geek Gifts Under $50
This is happening on a mass scale at University of California, Irvine. Nobody is investigating.
San Francisco, and several other American cities, were places for freaks and weirdos in the mid-20th century because of a historical anomaly in which the US federal government deliberately subsidized white, middle-class families into leaving for nearly-created suburbs. This trend began reversing in the 1980s and now land-values in the urban core reflect what is seen in cities all over the rest of the world -- that central areas have higher land and housing costs than the periphery.

It was a great, interesting, trippy twenty to thirty-year period, but it doesn't exist anymore and its loss in the Bay Area was probably accelerated in part because California has such an unusually politicized and unpredictable land-use and development process that has led it to consistently underproduce housing for the last 40 years.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/hou...

The "young Gods" you speak of tend to have higher incomes not just because of the tech industry. They have higher costs because the elder babyboomer Californians rigged and created a system that is so constricted that only the wealthiest millennials can afford to participate in it.

Look at the differences in housing cost burdens based on year of birth here:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/120
And they owned ValleyWag which tried to out Thiel as gay.
Certainly, but a characteristic of SLAPP is the plaintiff hasn't got a solid case, their purpose is to drag legal procedures long enough to bankrupt their target.

Hulk Hogan won this lawsuit fair and square.
you can totally google this question, you know. that's a lot of history (200 years) for someone to sum up for you when the information is already out there, although I understand your curiosity and lack of local knowledge.
Congrats, you're my first down vote. Seriously though, here you either add to the conversation or perish. Bragging about your GPA is not only childish, but completely irrelevant to prett much everything....in life.
Maybe it's just me but I've never seen able to ignore nipple clamps.