skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not to get unnecessarily political, but there is almost certainly an analogy to be drawn here to American federalism and the state v. federal government interplay on behalf of their citizens.

Taking the analogy further, the App Store trend is analogous to the 17th amendment[1] superseding the states' right to appoint senators. The relevant implication being that tribal power inevitably gravitates toward centralization on behalf of the "user."

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the...
Well I'm glad you have the objective viewpoint on which kinds of propaganda are OK and which aren't.

If ISIS recruiting materials shouldn't be hosted, then neither should military recruiting materials from any other nation or political group.

Of course, the real solution here is to not try to police political speech on the internet and let people decide what they believe for themselves. If people are deciding to join ISIS, our job is to communicate why we think ISIS is wrong, not to subject the internet to moral censorship.
It's not a "meta category" at all - it's a category based on looks rather than functionality, so the term gives the illusion of a useful description without being much of a useful description. The way the term is used it does not include full-automatic + submachine + machine pistols at all - it just describes semi-automatic rifles that have plastic stocks instead of wood. There's no functional difference between a varmint rifle with a ten round magazine and a wooden stock and an "assault weapon" with a ten round magazine and a plastic stock.

That's why gun manufacturers were able to make a few cosmetic changes to turn illegal guns into legal guns the last time we had a (completely useless) "assault weapons" ban. The California "assault weapons" ban was even dumber - they listed models in the ban, making it trivial for manufacturers to sell essentially the same weapons by changing the model number.
> Why is it a call for research?

I assume it's their catch-all term for things that they don't expect to be profitable as a business.
How much productivity would society lose because people can't work anywhere more than a few miles from where they live?
If you're willing and it's not too personal, would you share more about your experiences using the AR-15? My father was in the military and I only ever saw his service weapon once. If it was present in our home growing up, I never knew. I mention this because I find that getting the perspective of people who have actually had to employ weapons for their original purpose adds a lot of richness to these discussions.

Thanks in advance for sharing.
Unfortunately yes, it's pretty common. It's less than 3% of deal value though, so they don't lose the option to say no.
I've been in both politics and Infosec long enough to know that you're probably correct.
They make their business by helping individuals flout the law and yet when they are wronged they run to the law?
Here's a gun right that I'd like. I'd like the right to restrict one other person from being able to obtain a weapon. Even at the cost of my own right to do so. Like an anti-concealed-carry.

A huge amount of times the people surrounding these nut-jobs seem to know in advance that they're trouble. If every person had the ability to give up their own right to bear in exchange for preventing one other person from doing the same I think it would make a difference. Think of it as virtualizing the shootout between the two, each neutralizing the other.

Or perhaps a "credit" system where endorsements vs anti-endorsements must be positive? (You'd start with +1 for your own endorsement of yourself).

Difficult to implement to be sure but interesting idea?
If Guccifer 2.0 writes a blog about "My first 10 minutes on a server" It would be a great read and we would know he reads hacker news.
How does ovh handle ddos attacks for their customers? Do they just claim it or do they actually provide it in your experience?
What We Look for in a Freight Rating API
Something like a lever action Winchester Model 94 is a 'non assault' rifle.

http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/rifles/model-94/model...

My impression is generally assault rifles tend to be lighter, shorter and generally less accurate than say a typical hunting rifle. (Rifles types tend to blend into each other the same way different types of hammers do)
Are you developing in Windows or Linux? If Linux, what is your toolset and workflow?
I feel safer without the gun than I would with one.

If you have one, you're the first target for everybody else with a gun. Kill you before you can start shooting back.
What other conspiracy theories are you referring to?
>if the implication is just that Obama is soft on threats

My point is that he is suggesting something more sinister.
The group says they are doing it because of ISIS material.
I like the URL for this article.
Was it continued, or initial existence of ISIS?
Show HN: SolutionLoft – Bite-Sized Freelancing Gigs
Acoustical consultant - mainly to architects in new construction

Side project - building software tools for acoustics[1]

[1] https://10log.com
Just out of curiosity, where would you draw the line? Mini-14? Shotgun? SKS?

Is it a capacity issue? caliber? detachable magazine? or a combination?
Ruby Plus Podcast Episode 7
So I'm no gun person (I don't even live in the US), but I know a little bit and have shot some.

This post has as much misinformation as anything else you'll read about gun.

1) The Henry rifle thing. During the Civil War period and up until WW2, military rifles and hunting rifles were basically designed with the same goal: shooting and hitting things at range. During WW2 people noticed that most person to person combat was actually at close range, and rifles were mostly used for suppression fire. Rifles like the AR-15 were designed for this close range combat scenario - which is exactly like most mass shootings. Yes, you can use an AR-15 for hunting - they are pretty good at killing things, but that doesn't make it a hunting rifle.

2) He's right about the "defensive rifle" nonsense. Is that even a thing people talk about?

3) He's right about the impossibility of defining "Assault Weapons" (although maybe restricting large capacity magazines isn't entirely stupid). His suggestion (?) about banning semi-automatic weapons seems reasonable to me.
I think the problem with racial profiling is a Bayesian one. Even if P(terrorist|brown looking person) is slightly higher than P(terrorist|white looking person) (which I'm not even convinced is true), P(terrorist) is so insanely low that the result is singling out and victimizing (by the shame of being pulled aside, the intimidation of being aggressively searched, the violation of being treated like a criminal because your ethnic group looks similar to another one, etc.) mostly innocent people based on the arbitrary judgement of what a terrorist should look like. It would cause enormous disruption and social harm, and not really move the needle on successfully thwarted plots.
Or, for that matter, that he faked his birth in Hawaii.
That's somewhat what the author was suggesting when he mentioned "network effects" near the end of the article.

And you're right: by focusing on shooters—not weapons—the quote-unquote problem of rifles like that AR-15 being available to the general public becomes a lot more tractable.
Whether anyone "wants" or "needs" an AR-15 or any other type of firearm, the rest of us need to know that anyone around us with such a weapon has some basic competence in using it and is responsible enough to do so. I had to pass a written and and practical test and I have to show financial responsibility to operate a car. If you can do that with your AR-15 then I won't object to your having it.

I suspect you are a careful, conscientious, and responsible gun owner and would have no problem demonstrating this, but there are a lot of people who have guns who are neither careful, conscientious, nor responsible. I hope you won't mind having to demonstrate your competence so that society can stop the other people, the irresponsible ones.

And of course, you might say that even if we had such requirement to demonstrate responsibility, the irresponsible people would circumvent the system and have guns anyway. I'm sure that's true for a few, but it would remove many guns from irresponsible hands and it would give law enforcement a reason to arrest the others and get them off the streets.
Candidates already feed talking points to the media via backchannels....there would be no need to leak this doc for that purpose.

Also, consider how benign the information is in the doc.
Unfortunately, the implication is that the Obama administration supports ISIS[0], and that Obama himself is actually sympathetic to their views[1].

Donald Trump, remember, doesn't even believe Obama is an American citizen, or legally qualified to be president to begin with. Believing Obama's a terrorist sympathizer isn't a stretch, if you already believe he's a crypto-Muslim plant conspiring to cover up his own illegitimacy.

[0]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/74307515450748928...

[1]http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/15/3788809/donald-...
Do they help people flout the law, or do they help people follow the law in the most optimal way? This isn't a rhetorical question, I actually don't know if they've done anything criminal. I'm not very familiar with the Panama papers.
Develop and compile on Windows with MS tools, deploy on Linux. VS+VsVim does a nice job with F# (I tried Emacs with evil but it's not as good for F#). Deployment is as easy as copying an exe.
And I love this ignorant response, because I (the author) voted for a socialist in the Dem primary, and my "network effects"-based shooter control scheme is decentralized and designed to appeal to libertarians.
I've maintained for years you can tell how well a shop/chain is run by how fast it processes your card, McDonald's are currently the fastest I've found generally with Aldi running a close second.

Seems logical that once people have selected what they want to buy you get them out the shop as fast as possible.
Yes this.

I was also uncomfortably aware of the transparent appeals to the engineer's sensibility ("open source", modularity, geeking out on youtube, using adverbs like "exquisitely", "lego-blocks" etc). I found it somewhat sneaky, and in no way whatsoever did it translate to need.

We are not talking about a car or a musical instrument, we are talking about an instrument of death. Necessary for certain tasks? yes. Something all civilians should have access to? no.

As a musician, "gear-head"ism always struck me as kind of sad, a rabbit hole that has almost nothing to do with where music comes from. Ultimately harmless, though. This kind of fetishization, on the other hand, frankly disgusts me.
Most people, actually, use the toolbars. Neither right-click nor keyboard shortcuts come close to toolbar usage amongst "normals"
I think you're vastly underestimating the arrogance and stupidity of internet vigilantes. Remember when Reddit fingered some random dude for the Boston Marathon bombing, leading to massive harassment of the family of a guy who, it turned out, had killed himself a month previous?
C++ Debugging Tips and Tricks
It is surprising that nobody in this thread has mentioned what I thought was the most widely-acknowledged argument in favor of firearms ownership in the United States.

In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns.

If, like me, you regard the encroachment of an unconstitutional American surveillance/police state as the primary threat to the way of life and values of the American people, this is a strong argument indeed. In fact I would like to see heavier, more military-flavored weapons proliferate for just this reason, especially since there are diminishing marginal returns for some types of arms escalation. E.g. armor piercing anti-tank weapons or surface-to-air weapons designed for hunting helicopters are not any more useful for shooting up a school than light guns chambered for NATO 7.62. But they have vastly different deterrent effects for a state actor contemplating violence against the populace.

You might argue that this is stupid because if the situation ever devolves to the point of violent oppression, they will just drone strike dissidents' houses invisibly from the sky. But I like to think the main effect of an armed, freedom-loving population is to deter the country's leadership from instituting that level of violent oppression in the first place.
All guns are made to kill someone eventually, so sure, every gun is basically an "assault" rifle.

However, some languages translate assault weapons into storming weapons, which I think describe this type of guns better. The storming weapons have the hint of the gun being used against a threat in an offensive way, whilst being able to inflict as much damage as conveniently and fast as possible. Therefore, by definition, it even sounds off on a linguistic level to use an storming weapon for hunting or for defense, since deers and whatnot are not real threats. Moreover, when the ammunition is manufactured to pierce kevlar, you can already figure out that you are using the gun for the wrong purpose.

As for having a storming weapon for collective purposes sounds to me just as sane as having a collection of bongs and marijuana seeds in a country where recreational marijuana is illegal. It just doesn't sound sane to collect something for the sole purpose of owning them so that you can rub them.

I gone to the army and I guess the rubbing effect is also the reason none of the officers let conscripts touch the guns outside of training, so that nobody would get charmed by the gun and it's deadly but rather simple working method. I guess they have figured out that some people get these kinds of mental conditions which make it seem justified to own one. However I do admit getting keen on my own storming weapon and its serial number as well, but at least the officers kept everyone on planet Earth by reminding that just how dangerous the thing is. Pointing an officer with assembled yet unloaded and safety locked gun would end up getting yourself beaten up and carrying the gun outside of training would end in criminal investigation.
C++: Because it (and C) runs the world. Including other languages (Java/Python/Ruby/Clojure/...)
For this kit, you're assembling the plastic enclosure, but the electronics are pre-assembled (and I assume pre-tested), so it's not exactly a bag of parts. I'd agree that it is not a full retail product. I'd say it is a somewhat boutique, low-volume product - for that I've seen much much higher then 3x COGS.

Maybe I'm just at a low hassle tolerance from having to juggle too many past return transactions on AlieBay components and am overvaluing getting the logistics done for getting working electronics without going through the time of finding the right LCD, integrating the parts, getting it to drive correctly, etc.

Overall, I guess I'm someone whose also willing to let a bit of extra margin go to Adafruit which keeps doing interesting things. In the end, there's plenty of room for everyone to make their own price/value judgement, I certainly don't think my view should override others in this area.
> In fact, children under 15 are about 40 times more likely to die by swimming pool than by an accidental firearms discharge [0].

You know, it's not really the accidental discharges I'm worried about. It's the mass shootings.

Also, you appear to be misquoting that article. The 40x number is scaled by the number of pools/firearms, and so is saying "an individual firearm is less likely to kill a child than an individual pool" (although firearms are vastly more common than pools).

And, finally, that article uses "86 children killed by accidental firearm discharge in 2000" as its primary metric. The top google hit [0] for "How many children are killed each year by guns?" gives a value of 1,500.

[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=How+many+children+are+killed...
First big containerships en route to the Panama Canal
Humans and the ol' lizard brain; atoms are atoms!
The terminology is attacked because people are calling for restrictions when they don't even understand the subject well enough to know what restrictions they're supporting.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings look at the number in the U.S. before TSA.

The last passenger aircraft hijacking one on that list before 9/11 was in 1987 (there are others in that period with US, along with other, flags on that webpage, because the plane was either flown to the US or was a plane of a US carrier -- I actually missed the 1987 one in the earlier report, which makes it only 14 years before 9/11 without an attack.)

> It's interesting that you had to qualify it with "passenger aircraft hijackings" to avoid mentioning the 1994 hijacking from Memphis.

Given that the main focus of discussion has generally been on the TSA security implementation and its application to passenger flights, I think that its an appropriate limitation. But even if you add that one in, the rate is still so low that the confidence that there is an reduction in the rate of hijackings since the TSA was introduced attributable to anything other than chance (much less one attributable specifically to the TSA) is not particularly high.

> The risk of getting caught with box cutters at that time was actually zero.

The reports from the planes were that the hijackers had a variety of weapons, which included box cutters, but also firearms.

> Also, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, airport security improved at many airports in the 1990s.

The federal government set standards for a long time before that, and the federal standards were enhanced in response to the 1990 gulf crisis, true.

> TSA was implemented with the intention to standardize this.

No, it wasn't. It was implemented specifically to negate future liability from the airlines for security failures, because the airlines (many of which were reportedly near bankruptcy) felt that with the need to provide coverage for potential liability for future security failures made evident by the 9/11 events (for which they also sought specific, after the fact immunity from Congress) they would no longer be able to operate profitably.
It depends.

I'm a security guy, so it would be embarrassing and possibly bad for my career if any of my servers got hacked, but I actually don't set up servers that often--it's not part of my job. These Web 2.0 configuration management solutions change pretty fast and don't care about reverse compatibility. So between my infrequent setups my configuration scripts pretty much always break.

Contrast this with bash, which cares a whole lot about reverse compatibility, and it's a no brainer. I've got scripts where the only modifications I've made since 2005 were to add functionality or increase security, never to fix existing functionality that was broken by a change to the system. I'll take that over Chef or Ansible (both tools I've used) any day.
Exactly. Also, queue on a low population region at say 4 am when many players from said region are not on.
Show HN: Slack Driven Development
I don't think anyone disputes that there are many things that we do that we don't need to do. These are luxuries and desires and many are allowed and legalised and many are not.

However not all luxuries are created equal.

If indulging in your luxury creates circumstances where others are now at more risk then I don't think that is OK anymore.

Having deadly weapons broadly available definitely increases homicide and mass shootings, the evidence is irrefutable.

My point and many others is that luxuries are not rights, they are not things you need and as such should not be protected beyond general freedoms. However there is a cap on freedom and that is when it infringes on the freedoms or rights of others. In this case the right to be safe and the freedom to live life without fear of these sorts of horrible things happening.
Seem like souped up hostels -- when you are single, it might be fun living in these kinds of spaces in cities like San Francisco instead of shelling out lots of money on rent for your own private space. Specially if you are in places for short periods of time.
The argument for needing encryption is very similar to the argument for needing firearms (without getting into the veracity of that need), so you've made a great comparison here. One could argue that firearms for personal defense and encryption for personal privacy/security would be completely unnecessary if the state could prevent all crimes that necessitate their use, but they do not and never can.

At the same time, the same encryption technology can be used for criminal images, terrorism and other criminal communications. The same goes for firearms being used for homicide, terrorism and other crimes. To prevent all of these, or at the very least reduce their occurrence, crippling the ability of the average citizens to protect themselves is necessary.

You also cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Encryption has been made widely available, as have firearms. If we try to remove them now, they will both still be available to individuals, but only ones willing to break the law.

To work with your simile(?), banning the AR-15 (and similar black rifles) would be more like banning AES than encryption at large. Other ones would take its place, and be no less lethal or capable of criminal use. For example, here in Canada, we restricted the AR-15 and variants but other just as deadly weapons simply took its prominence as a non-restricted weapon. For the uninitiated, restricted weapons may only be used at a range, require a permit to transit (down to the route you may use, these are only approved for transit to a range or when you are moving), must be entered in a registry, and require greater RCMP clearance to possess.

I'm not sure what side of this debate I sit on. It's a very difficult one and I doubt we will ever come to a consensus.
On the question of “why is there no moderate alternative to the NRA that attracts middle-of-the-road gun owners?”, what a lot of people who aren't involved in the community don't understand is that the NRA is the moderate alternative group. The more extremist groups include Gun Owners of America (https://gunowners.org/), Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://jpfo.org/), National Association for Gun Rights (https://www.nationalgunrights.org/), and Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (http://www.ccrkba.org/), among many others at the national and state level.

Last I checked, all of these smaller gun rights groups still have bigger membership rolls than the biggest anti-rights groups.
It's my understanding that you shouldn't use a RAID controller with ZFS...
I think you're probably a reasonable guy, and you've gotten your wires crossed, so please go back and read the article again, because nothing in the following paragraph is a response to anything I claimed in the piece or actually think:

"The Henry rifle thing. During the Civil War period and up until WW2, military rifles and hunting rifles were basically designed with the same goal: shooting and hitting things at range. During WW2 people noticed that most person to person combat was actually at close range, and rifles were mostly used for suppression fire. Rifles like the AR-15 were designed for this close range combat scenario - which is exactly like most mass shootings. Yes, you can use an AR-15 for hunting - they are pretty good at killing things, but that doesn't make it a hunting rifle."