skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Lots gets published negative about those groups.

Lots? And you name one book that was marginalized more than 20 years ago.

> Lots of people are at least somewhat willing to be persuaded by arguments.

No they are not. Especially on matters like "history/propaganda/etc" that are INTERPRETATION rather than factual.

> I am wondering why you are so sure that it is impossible for human beings to look at history objectively.

Because it is propaganda. Because there is no "objectivity" in history/interpretation/etc.

Try this. Was the civil war about freeing the slaves or states' rights? Was the vietnam war about stopping communism ( vietnam war ) or neo-colonialism ( war of american aggression )? Was the holocaust about the jews? If so, why were most people killed in the holocaust non-jews/gentiles? If most of the people who died were non-jews, why has modern history/culture associated it with jews?

You think you know the answer and you think you are objective/right/etc because your answers fit your agenda/worldview/propaganda. History has always been about propaganda ( emperors/kings/etc would hire writers to write "histories" extolling their virtue and the virtue of their families/etc ). Now, rather than being propaganda for the king/monarchs/etc, history is the official propaganda of the state/nation.

Now, I'm not saying history/propaganda is unnecessary. I think it is needed to maintain the state/nation/society. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking history is the truth. It is not. Not here, not in China, not in Russia, not anywhere.

> One is that you just have a cynical personality.

Or I'm educated and intelligent and understand what history actually is. You are making the same ad hominem attacks religious or cult members make when they are confronted with someone who doesn't "believe". You can lash out at me and call me cynical, but the real cynic is you.

Anyways, I can see that there is no reasoning with you ( not that I'm surprised ) so this will be my last reply to you as you've resorted to ad hominems. I won't read your replies if you write them so please don't bother. Good day.
> You can certainly coerce someone into that by threatening their life or their family, but that's not entrapment.

umm, is that not the very legal definition of entrapment? If an LEO threatens your life or your family to get you to commit a crime, you have a very reasonable defense to saying you would not have committed the crime had your life or family not been threatened.
All they have to do is read this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11874395
Or just polyfill it with NodeList.prototype.forEach = Array.prototype.forEach and get nice readable code.

Point is: we shouldn't have to.

Vanilla JS also allowed you to look inside HTML5 FormData a few months earlier. And no, it isn't FormData.toString().
The red scare. The civil rights movement. Anti-war movements during WWII.

People distrust the FBI for very good reasons.
The web people want has all their favorite things like Facebook, Google, Netflix, YouTube, ESPN, Yahoo, and on and on.

People don't care about much else. It's the killer apps, not the freedom that people are buying. People trade freedom for shiny things because it makes them feel good.
I am pretty sure people deliberately disable javascript for a moment just to make the first "oh-site-is-broken-without-js" comments. I think it is pretty illogical to expect any site to work without Javascript considering that even HN would end-up breaking some of its features.
GitMarket: The right way to sell code
Thanks a lot. I learned something new today, after driving for nearly 20 years. That was suprising..

That said: The road in question certainly wasn't one of these - it looks like a random road between tiny "cities" (villages?). So 100km/h or less seems quite right here.
Theyre trying to extract the last ounce of value out of the name.
Most OO languages can do this now, and they wouldn't be classed as functional languages. I know this is always a sticky subject, but for me I prefer to think of functional languages as 'expression oriented' rather than 'statement oriented'.
4 years?? Holy shit, what a return.
From all I gathered about people that story was related to, it seems the F# project was done without looking at the C# implementation, on basis of same specifications.

If you were tasked to implement a project because first implementation failed, would you even read the first implementation or just base your work on the specification?
foreign bands coming to play SXSW have the same problem entering USA
JavaScript is default technology. So it's like if you could disable C++ on windows and then complain that application don't work anymore.

JS is like HTML and CSS, core part of today's web.
OpenCog is a framework for developing AI systems
Not that I dont feel sorry for the author of the story, since this is terrible experience, no matter who experiences it, but as an American, a citizen of a country that has one of most restrictive and humiliating border procedures around the civilized world (try landing with valid visa on JFK as non American human being...) complaining at this sounds - well, odd.
I wonder if pHash wouldn't make this a lot more effective. Anyone tried building an ES-usable distance function for pHash?
> LOL. Apple started with Apple Desktop Bus and then when that failed they tried unsuccessfully to force Firewire on their users and only caved and went with USB when literally the rest of the world switched to USB.

You really need to learn about the subject before trying to “correct” other people:

* ADB had a 13 year run starting in 1986: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Desktop_Bus

* Firewire is a standard (IEEE 1394) and was intended as a replacement for high-performance SCSI interfaces, which is why it focused on transfer speed and scalability at the expense of cost — and was complete overkill for keyboards, mice, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1394#History_and_developm...

* Apple was the first major manufacturer to standardize on USB and helped drive its adoption – in fact, it wasn't until the second generation iMac before they even added a Firewire port:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_G3#iMac_.28tray-loading.2...

This is particularly amusing for anyone who was around in the 90s because back then there were more than a few people like you were decrying USB as Apple's attempt to get consumers to waste a ton of money replacing perfectly good hardware just to have a new connector with, as they felt was obvious, no significant benefit to the user.

As for the rest of your “points” do note that you're arguing against “Apple was first” claims which were never made. Each of the actual statements made are simply factual — every time Apple dropped a feature, people complained. They got over it and most of the market turned out not to care but that doesn't mean that there weren't opinion pieces, angry rants, etc.
I think the vast majority of people browsing without JS are people who have manually disabled it. Which goes back to my first question: Can we make a JS that's acceptable to those people, so they will just enable it?
I actively avoid the US these days because the last time I went, we spent ages in a queue being shouted at by irate border control folk and then were required to have our fingerprints taken. This was just for a vacation.
I can't imagine a circumstance where I would be entering a country like the UK or US, and when asked what my visit was for, I would say anything except for "I'm on holiday". Being out of the ordinary is very dangerous.

That said people shouldn't be subjected to such unnecessary unpleastantness.
No graph appears in my Firefox tab.

Looking at it in Chromium, I don't understand what I am seeing. I know it's some kind of network of IP addresses, but I don't understand its relevance.
It's not that silly. Yes, a major version bump allows you to break backwards compatibility in some ways. But if the break is too severe you run the risk of preventing a large percentage of the user base from upgrading. So it's still a good idea to carefully consider exactly where to introduce breaking changes and to try and keep the burden of upgrading proportional to the benefits offered by the upgrade.
serious question: could you explain what you think is wrong with websites using javascript? Why do you refuse running javascript in your browser?

My understanding is that javascript is a part of the web today, and everything around it makes it easier to run javascript applications in your browser, making websites more powerful.
I personally love this and a lot of website I browse would be worse without javascript (google docs, calendar, etc.), so I have trouble understanding what is wrong with javascript running.

Also, since now most apps are complete javascript apps (and not only some DOM manipulation), it seems a lost cause to try to get website optionally "extend" their experience with javascript. That would mostly just imply to re-built most of the page for when javascript is disabled.
Senior Web Developer – ROLI – Music Tech – London
I do believe JS can make sites better. I just think that it's WAY overly used and abused, and actually makes most sites less functional. Think of it like salt: a little bit and it enhances your food. But if you keep piling it on, it doesn't keep improving things.
> Yes, there are a few “breaking changes” that justified the major version bump, but we’re hopeful the breakage doesn’t actually affect that many people.

BC is "desirable", not "required", if breaking compatibility makes sense to develop a major improvement, then do it.
This is one of the reasons many corporations have rules about only using internal messaging applications. Or, block external messaging apps. In environments I've managed, I've always enforced the rule: Anything confidential sent via a messaging app is no longer confidential.

Skype, Facebook & G+/GTalk have all "followed" URLs sent via their applications for at least a few years (that I have noticed). Anti-virus applications installed on computers have done it with URLs in email applications and such too.

One of the large A/V vendors (Trend or McAfee, I don't recall which) had a browser plugin that would follow all of your browsing activity. I used to be amused tailing logfiles to see a hit from a browser, then one of their corporate IPs with a "crawler"-like UA come along a few seconds later.

EDIT last line for clarity.
That's a very interesting way to look at it.
I don't, but frankly Google isn't in my cookie whitelist so their cookies never get stored beyond using a Google service (like YouTube or, uh, I actually don't think I use another Google service).
What languages and platform are you using?

I know healthcare insurance pricing has become the most insane invention of bureaucracy on the planet. That is why I can pay cash out of pocket and sometimes get an 85% discount. The providers don't have to chase their money from the insurance companies - private and government included.
It's a tragedy of the commons combined with the lack of any economic model other than tracking and ads.
> focusing on keeping compatibility through a major version bump seems silly.

I'd offer the Python 3 fiasco as a counterexample.
Theres a few things that I want from the next x.0 release. Until these get done, jQuery will look like a library that doesnt know what it wants to be but used to serve a purpose.

- removal of animation from core

- removal of styling from core

- Create a jQuery 'fx' library seperate from jQuery

- have a standardized serialized / deserialize for forms

- Ability to handle multipart forms in ajax post requests
As a hacker, I appreciate the platform the Web offers for code. So I don't see why you'd necessarily expect me to agree with a complaint about the ability to write code for the Web.

(I didn't downvote, though. I just think it's strange to expect universal agreement with Javascript Luddism among hackers.)
Ask HN: Will domain/brand cybersquatters cause me trouble down the road?
I've been planning on starting my own data consulting business for some time. My current contract ends June 15, so a few months ago I set June 16 as the "go live" date. I tossed around a few names, bounced these off friends and family, and decided on "Mixed Metrics." Before registering, I did a couple quick searches and determined that this name did not seem to be in use. So on May 24, I registered Mixed Metrics, LLC as a business. Then I went to register the domain name and discovered that it had been created on May 23 by Media Plow, LLC, and was for sale for $2,995.

Clearly, either
1) We both discovered this name independently and registered it within 24 hours of each other.
2) They sniffed out the fact I was considering this name, saw that I hadn't registered it, and scooped it.
3) I saw their name, decided I really REALLY needed to have it, despite the fact that they had already registered it, and decided to proceed based on the fiction that I had been considering this name.

Now I haven't been operating, in fact, I didn't plan to have the website up until June 16, so for all you know, or anyone other than my friends and family knows, the third situation above is a possibility.

Now I have two options
A) Start from scratch with another name.
B) Use mixedmetrics.consulting (which I now own) and continue to operate as Mixed Metrics, LLC as I had planned, and hope this doesn't lead to trouble later on.
C) Pay them $2,995.

Any advice? If I proceed with B) will I be getting calls from a $75/hour lawyer threatening to sue me in East BFE over some sort of trademark infringement?
Not really. I don't run JS by default and the vast majority of sites work. They look funny, but they work.
I think that with graphic cards it is a little different: the manufacturing process is simply not perfect, so attempt to produce card with 56 Streaming Processors (Pascal) can result in 40 SP units working fine and 16 being broken. So you disable broken units and sell the piece as lower end card instead.
I'm sure Apple and Google lawyers/engineers are reviewing the patent portfolio with things with value and risk.
that feeling of superiority to anyone is severely misplaced.
The Voting Habits of Americans Like You
Err, if you already know the memory map of the functions inside a process image, then understanding the call stacks is trivial for any debugging or performance tool - on any platform. This does not require any instrumentation. And if you're reverse engineering, then dtrace is the wrong tool anyway. So, can _you_ point to any common use case of dtrace where the probes aren't already present in the kernel/libs/user code?
Opposite anecdote: I have a bunch of conventional screwdrivers in a toolkit, too, but I also have a single configurable screwdriver in the kitchen in a drawer. Rather than going out to the garage to dig through the toolbox, I find that most of the time I just use the configurable screwdriver. It's not as good at actually driving screws, but it's faster to change the head and do whatever needs to be done.
And spelling colour without a 'u' is nothing short of wrong. ;)
Unrelated to the issues raised by the article - I love that the callout text was not simply repeated quotes from the body.

I wish more sites/people would follow this author's lead.
> You can certainly coerce someone into that by threatening their life or their family, but that's not entrapment.

All coercion by law enforcement to commit a crime is entrapment, and entrapment includes a number of things that are not, strictly, coercion.
Contract iOS engineer here, based out of Colorado. My company bills $150-$200/hour for my time.

> Its simplicity is deceptively robust.

I've met some of the Instagram iOS team. Part of the beautiful simplicity comes from the fact that FB can afford to pay ~5-7 iOS engineers top salary to work on improving the app full time. And that's just the iOS app.
Isn't this indirect evidence of too little competition? It has happened in the past with Intel for example...
> Sandboxed apps are not really a good thing IMO.

Interesting because isn't that sort of what you advocating for. Ultimately what's the difference between strict compiled binary executable "HTML" and something like a Java applet?

> BUT, my critic is about the DOM and the text-only approach, and also HTML not being strict enough so that all browsers can use it.

But really the problem isn't the syntax of HTML/CSS/JS but the semantics. Everybody can parse this stuff pretty much equivalently now but they still do different things with it. I don't see how compiling to binary would change that.
Im surprised to hear your issues with Python, even Django can handle decent load depending what youre asking of it.
Very real answer to when friends and family ask "how long will it take you to make [ENTERPRISE APPLICATION CLONE] but with xyz for me"
Insearch of the Killer Bot
I posted this because I found the use of graphics to tell a story remarkably beautiful and effective.
C++14 deprecates a couple of things in the library, and trigraphs are going away "soon".
The writing style is muddled and kind of hard to read. I'm sorry this happened to her, but it seems like she could be a candidate for a perfect storm of miscommunication.
Honestly the verbosity of vanilla js apis just aggravates me.
>> The keystroke-based interface was trashed by critics.

It's kind of ironic how nowadays I prefer using Vim for coding and other tasks. And I also find myself preferring Markdown more and more whenever I can for a variety of tasks, from planning meetings to preparing presentations.
Store it in memory? I doubt the amount of data they provided for a test problem was so tremendous that it required a database.

In itself this is a good (dis)qualifier; if I give someone a problem and tell them the data will never exceed 10k rows, I expect them to be practical and not waste time setting up a database.
You should read the first two blog posts in detail. He didn't knew OCaml at all at the time, and answers your remark about Go directly in the second post.
Users couldn't find them.

That's my problem with the oft-maligned Ribbon. It changes it's appearance based on the window width.

So the first time an option might be a large-icon-with-text.

The next time you look for it, it may be a small icon, have no text, or be completely hidden. That's 4+ visuals for the same option.

</rant>
I looked at the code... writing my own parser would be faster than fixing it. But that's beside the point. I decided to use a 3rd party library because I did not want to invest my time into that. The moment I had to even look at the source code, that was broken.
That's right. And yet I still have 5-6 pages of apps on my phone. So I don't understand your point.
Backwards compatibility is still quite important in major version releases. Just look at Angular 1 to 2, Rails 2.3 to 3, and Python 2 to 3 to see examples of this.
Because getting caught lying to these authorities would make for a much better outcome.
JsonBox:

https://github.com/anhero/JsonBox

To give some credit to libhunt.com, they don't even list it :)
Is porting OCaml code to F# on Unix straight forward? Is there something similar to the Opam package manager in F#? Thanks for your thoughts.
A some point if you break too much compatibility, it just becomes a completely different product instead a new version of an existing product.
Time-slicing photos with Python and ImageMagick
Yes, and I'll try to make it more explicit for people saying that sound is also two-dimensional. Before any analysis, sound is one-dimensional, that is unless you count stereo channels to represent an additional dimension, but then it equally makes sense to represent colors as an additional dimension in images. Frequencies appear when you do a Fourier transform - but this transform is equally applicable to images as it is to sound, so again images stay at least one dimension ahead of sound.

So it appears that dimensionality is just not a good way of explaining the difficulty here. I'd say the neural style technique was developed specifically for images, and it's becoming apparent that we can't simply apply it to sound and get good results. Maybe by working something similar from the ground up.
Convolution by Evolution (from Google DeepMind)
Take that Vandenberg AFB. Surprised they didn't use the Nevada test site.
> Imagine how fast things would change if the president had to go through the TSA.

I don't think they would change at all.

30 minutes or an hour of time is inconsequential compared to the political (and non-political...) calculations that are made by someone in an office like that. People tend to be far more conservative when given actual decision-making power, and care much more about the big picture calculations than about their personal annoyances.

More-over, lots of congress people do fly commercial and yet support the TSA (either politically or actually).
Show HN: How far you can ride Uber, Lyft within your budget, on a map
The web I want is one that above all others, respects privacy and my rights. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845689
Without privacy, there can be no trust. Without trust, there can be no freedom, no access, and no opportunity. Even learning is hampered severely in a changing world, where the question of what society demands remain private changes from one day to the next.

In other words, privacy comes before everything else because it underpins everything else. Remove it, and the other values are all either illusory, or their non-illusory status is transient at best.
Having no talent and not being worthy of being in the gene pool are not the same thing.
1) There's certainly not "one way" to iterate in Python[1], and they're not even consistently named (xrange is the iterator version of range, but izip is the iterator version of zip).

2) You can use Python in the browser[2][3][4 sort of].

1. https://youtu.be/OSGv2VnC0go?t=3m20s

2. http://transcrypt.org

3. http://pyjs.org

4. http://www.rapydscript.com
1. I think cubism can benefit from an explicit time dimension, though exactly how it should be done, I don't know.

2. I agree, as they are in this video, but I think cubism could be used to capture the experience of entering the monolith even better than Kubrick captured it.
I'm no expert, but I'd call that coercion, where the victim knows they are being forced to do something they don't want to do. Entrapment is about tricking the victim into doing something that they wouldn't have done on their own.

The FBI is doing the same thing that terrorist leaders do: pushing misguided and easily influenced people into performing terrorist acts. The FBI is not likely to catch any of the leaders this way, just the grunts.
I've not had any serious problems entering the US, but it is always a mildly unpleasant experience with long queues, fingerprinting, and questioning by a humourless guard. The return trip is usually a little less unpleasant, with much the same queues but no fingerprinting and little questioning.

Once, when travelling from the UK to Canada, I was accosted for extra questioning because I had declared on the customs form that I was in possession of weapons. When they determined that this was a bag of swords they weren't worried and let me through, telling me that their main concern was Americans who had forgotten that they weren't allowed to bring their firearms into Canada.