skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Do you not see how the constant accusations against suburbanites of leeching off the cities is equally antagonistic? It happens frequently on HN -- someone might post about inefficiencies of suburbs for transportation (often, but not always true) or the use of water for growing food in rural areas, then a bunch of others will pile on with escalating disdain for non-city life. But because the escalation is gradual and the disdain is so popular here, nobody notices that they've slid into an endless pit of belittling the roots of millions of people.
This is quite odd. I had posted a reply previously but it seems to have been removed.

Admin(s): tell me if I did something wrong but I believe I was just making observations about the docs on the site.
Adobe Joins Alliance for Open Media to Develop Next Generation Video Platform
Even in the case of mere want there are standards of road-worthiness, classes of licenses, etc.
Are you talking about a global UBI? That might be true.

A UBI in Europe could mostly just replace current spending at similar levels, and thus would be comfortable enough in eg Germany or Scandinavia.
It is, of course, possible that multiple parties hacked the servers independently of each other.
E3 diversity report – so was it a white guy-fest again?
Intuitively it seems like you could approximate by weighting/combining 15min and 30min caches. But also seems like a very esoteric problem!
It works all the time, you just have to realize that the goal isn't better results, the goal is getting elected by convincing people that government doesn't work.
Slack calls are now available on Linux desktops
> TSA is an effective deterrent.

Compared to what existed before? The evidence on that is...scant.

> It increases the risk of getting caught to a nonzero factor.

The risk was nonzero before.

> The amount of airplane hijackings has reduced to zero in the United States since the creation of the TSA.

There were no passenger aircraft hijackings in the US for about 18 years prior to 9/11/2001. So, its really not all that convincing that the TSA has done anything better than what went before by keeping the number to 0 in the less than 15 since it was established.

> Is it useless? No.

Compared to no security, its not useless. But is it meaningful better than what it replaced (which was not "no security")?
By that same reasoning there's no such thing as anything, as we all define words to be whatever we want them to mean.

Semi-automatic or full-automatic + submachine + machine pistols + ... is too much to say. It's a meta-category, which we use all the time to describe things and is incredibly helpful.
Not entirely true; the disadvantage to land taxes is that they discourage prospecting and finding things like oil. You can ameliorate that in a number of ways, but land taxes aren't entirely without their problems.
Transactions don't compose with I/O or any OS side-effects that the TM system isn't in the loop on, while locks compose fine with those things. One module that uses locks is free to call another module that uses locks so long as the relationship is one-way like user->kernel, so locks compose also, just with different constraints. In short, transactions don't compose with I/O while locks don't compose with cyclic relationships. So, the statement that "transactions compose" is false in both directions: it's false because transactions don't compose in general, and it's false because it implies that locks don't, while they in fact do.

The only empirical evidence about transactions being easier to use is actually contrary: even with the availability of HTM, it's not used nearly as widely as locks, because if you enable HTM for every lock then everything runs a lot slower (or doesn't run at all).
That "walk through" team would easily match TSA's current score at 0 terrorists caught in over a decade.
The headline should say "ideal". I say that the race you want to run and can train for is the ideal race.
>which is based on profiling that’s a combination of behavioral and racial (the latter of which is rightfully officially prohibited by the TSA, though allegations of racial profiling against it continue)

TSA being crap aside, I don't see what's wrong with racial profiling.

If a predominant number of actual culprits will be of a certain ethnicity or broader culture (e.g. because the organizations they belong too predominantly operate in certain countries or with certain religious groups), you should definitely that to the things you check for as a statistically significant correlation.

That's a totally different thing from being racist -- which is assuming a certain demographic are inferior humans.
Bill proposes copyrighting California government works
As someone else pointed out about this post elsewhere, there are very few things that any of us actually "need" -- do you need running water and indoor plumbing? Or, to bring it a little closer to home, does anyone really need an outdoor uncovered pool, or a drink of alcohol?

But anyway, before this gets derailed, the point of the post was really about laying out the rationales for the AR-15, while openly acknowledging that many people will still find them insufficient. What I really wanted to do, though, is move the discussion away from the "rednecks with small penises" rut that it seems to be stuck in. The "need" phrasing was the framing I chose in order to hook into the "nobody needs an assault rifle" phrase that's repeated over and over again.

At any rate, again, I acknowledged up front that I wouldn't be able to convince everybody, or even most people, and that I was ok with that as long as people on the other side of the "assault weapon" debate could gain some new information about these firearms and their appeal to non-crazy, non-penis-size-compensating, non-military-fetishist normal people.
I understand that many politicians are woefully illiterate about what they think are "assault weapons", and I sympathize greatly with how annoying it must be to constantly be accused of being "sexually inadequate" and other ridiculous insults that distract from the real issues. The main problem with this author's argument, as I see it, is that while the AR-15 is very convenient, making it easily accessible for any adults who wants one is not worth the price for society as a whole. That is - would it really be an infringement on the author's rights, if as the author points out, he would need to have 3 separate guns for sporting, hunting, and use of force?

When discussing gun control, I often personally consider my own opinions on the proposed banning/legal control over encryption in public debate. Specifically, I wonder whether it is hypocritical to want to limit the sale and use semi-automatic weapons, while simultaneously arguing that encryption must be fully legal and "everyone shouldn't be punished for a few bad apples". My conclusion is usually that banning/compromising encryption would fundamentally destroy the security and privacy of critical software for everyone on a massive scale. However, I don't think the impact would be nearly as severe for gun owners that might need to pass a few ID checks and own several weapons if needed for different uses.

So my question is, to gun owners that support existing laws regarding semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15- would limiting its sale really be really as devastatingly harmful to society at large (as to warrant those existing laws)?
They often lack ram too, so that const lookup table could be sitting on flash.
He did near the bottom, probably without thinking so when he called it a "gadget". It is indeed, albeit a deadly one, but so is a Cessna.
In the "boy who killed parents pleads for mercy as an orphan" department:

> Winn, meanwhile, wrote to Judge Jones that the location information about the disguised surveillance cams should be withheld because the public might think they are an "invasion of privacy."
Oh my god, you just activated part of my brain that was not in use for over 25 years, incredible that i still remember that.
It will be difficult to find anything with a mini-itx motherboard (170x170mm size, standard ATX type rear I/O plate) or smaller that supports ECC RAM.

There's lots of ways to put a nearly silent water cooling system on a 65W TDP CPU, have an awesome GPU in it and keep it fairly small, but the ECC RAM part will require you to use a workstation/server class motherboard.
People "need" cars because much of western civil infrastructure is built around the assumption that cars or something similar will always be around.

I think you could argue that without cars everyone would be better off. Less pollution, people would save money on gas, more public real estate for parks, etc. not to mention less people dying from accidents.
He does actually.

He mentions specifically a hunting scenario and the need to use a powerful weapon and also the ability to quickly issue a follow-up shot if the animal is only wounded, which is a humane action.

Just clarifying the point of the author, please don't project his views on me and mob me.
You say "typical government behavior". Please note that the problems you point out are limited to the US. At least, it's not been my experience when at airports in Europe.

Perhaps you think they are "typical" because you've been on the receiving end of decades of propaganda to convince you the government is incompetent, there's nothing you can do about it, and the only solution is the "free market"?

To start with, why can't the government raise taxes?
I love how this is twenty paragraphs of narcissistic libertarianism followed with a conclusion that hints at "shooter control" through "network effects", which is some truly Orwellian language for government targeting of citizens based on their religious, social or political affiliations.
yep - you don't get infinite rewinding :O
I took El Al out of JFK in 2001 (before 9/11) and they had their own separate security stuff in addition to the airport's. I got questioned pretty thoroughly.
I came away from this article feeling like I had a better understanding of why the AR-15 is such a popular weapon - considered configurable, reliable, etc. The historical argument about buying military-grade weapons because it's known to be reliable _because it has to be_ made sense to me as well.

However, I didn't feel like I understood why he needed that gun. Is he a hunter? Does he own his AR-15 for self-defense? As far as I could tell, the reason he wanted the rifle is because it's considered "cool" and he makes it clear that he views it as somewhat of a toy. Calling the AR-15 "a Lego kit for adults" made my stomach turn, but I understand where he's coming from.

EDIT: a commenter below mentions that the author lives on a 17-acre farm and owns a gun to take care of animals that invade, as well as for recreational shooting.

What's missing from this article is a discussion of why so many guys feel like they need to own such a weapon (and usually more than one) in the first place. If you're a hunter, survivalist, preparing for the zombie apocalypse, fine, yes, you need a weapon. That's understandable.

But it seems disingenuous for the author to write such a long post without including a critique of the way the AR-15 is marketed. A common ad I've seen posted is just a picture of the rifle with the caption: "consider your man card reissued". Call me insensitive, but the person who gets fired up by that ad is not someone I want to see owning a rifle. Or any kind of weapon for that matter.

Our definition of what it means to be "a real man" needs a deep and thorough re-evaluation.
Yeah, I get his point that it's the best general purpose rifle out there. If you need to own a gun, it's probably one of your better options.

But I still don't get why you would need a gun. For the most part, we don't need to hunt for our food. We don't need to shoot targets either. Home defense, maybe, but there are other ways to be secure at home without weapons.

I do agree with his point that if you're going to argue against guns, you shouldn't pick and choose categories that are "ok". It's either we ban guns or we continue to live with them in our society.
So, according to this article, Apple was making a deal with Sun to use ZFS, and later finally dropped it after an alleged discussion between Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison when Oracle owned it.

My question is why did Apple think they needed to make a deal to use ZFS in the first place, and if so has Canonical (who says they'll ship openZFS with Ubuntu) made a deal with Oracle ?

It's true that OpenZFS is more than Oracle's ZFS, but unless I'm mistaken, the vast majority of code in that project is still owned by Oracle.

This article makes me uneasy.
http://research.google.com/pubs/pub35162.html
What about the theory to which Trump alludes suggesting that Obama is somehow complicit in the continued existence of ISIS?
Somehow reminds me of Buffet's corp structure before the SEC forced him to simplify things.
In my view, attacking terminology is a convenient way of making dialogue impossible. I suspect that "assault weapon" may have originated with the gun manufacturers themselves, as a marketing term, or within military / police circles.
Good point. I've always said that "change.org" is the largest Internet Bullying site.
I don't see why a state actor (one that ostensibly wants him to become president) would reveal that it was responsible.
People submit all kinds of articles to the 'new' section all the time. Some of them get upvoted to the front page.
> Take it up with the standards body then.

I'd like to, but I doubt they'll listen. As a compromise, I'd be happy to have browser developers allow me to ignore the more user-hostile parts of the spec.
How depressing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_term...

> Prior to its use in U.S. firearms laws, the term "assault weapon" was limited to naming certain military weapons, for example, the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle,[19] or the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, a rocket launcher introduced in 1984.

> In April 1985, Art Agnos introduced in the California State Assembly a bill to ban semi-automatic "assault firearms" capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more. Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Agnos said, "The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people." The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote.
People are going to study the way Trump captured the hearts of the alt-right, white supremacist and conspiracist fringe for years to come, if Trump actually wins. It'll become the new and improved Southern Strategy.
I convert escape to caps lock, I also change : to ; in vim so I don't have to hit shift all the time.
> A UBI in Europe could mostly just replace current spending at similar levels

While UBI is more administratively efficient than means-tested benefit programs, it also inherently reaches a lot more people with its maximum benefit. I don't think there is any major country (there might be some small ones with a lot of money flowing in from the outside) that could sustainably keep UBI at any comfortable level rather than an alleviating severe poverty level at this time.
That one is actually easier to swallow than others if the implication is just that Obama is soft on threats. Every leader can be considered 'complicit' in that regard.
I like the analogy of swimming pools. I don't _need_ a swimming pool, and having a pool by definition makes neighborhood children and visitors with children to my house less safe.

In fact, children under 15 are about 40 times more likely to die by swimming pool than by an accidental firearms discharge [0].

I still have a pool. There are reasonable laws about having auto-closing gates and a fenced-in yard. I don't see anyone clambering to tighten restrictions on assault swimming pools.

Likewise, semi-automatic, detachable-magazine-fed rifles are responsible for something like 2% of shootings. The only real place they have significance is in mass shootings. The only refute I have to, "but if we ban these rifles we won't have shootings" is that it would just happen through a different means. The Happy Land Fire killed 87 people, not a shot fired. Timothy McVeigh killed 189 people with fertilizer... and that was in 1995 -- under the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994.

[0] http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-sw...
Scientists Say They've Unearthed a Completely New Kind of Meteorite
In a free society, the burden of justification should be placed squarely on those that would restrict your rights. You should not have to explain why you need something, the person telling you "no" should have to defend their position.
>So my question is, to gun owners that support existing laws regarding semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15- would limiting its sale really be really as devastatingly harmful to society at large?

The core of this issue, like so many political issues, is fear and selfishness versus hope and love. These people do not want to inconvenience their hobby to make society safer.

I would feel safer if I carried a gun everywhere. I think that I am more responsible than most people, and that I would never use it in anger. But I know that most people think that they are smarter and more responsible than they really are, and that if everyone carried a gun communities would not be safer. Choosing to be unarmed for the benefit of society is true bravery.
Hey, I'm the CTO @ Flora, we're working on a cannabis breeding platform for selective breeding. There's a ton of room for optimization in the breeding process, let me know if you have any specific questions on it, I'd love to chat.
Any caveats with creating a fake one?
Nice bundle. Wish each book linked to a list of components required to complete the activities.
> "Compared to what existed before? The evidence is...scant."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings look at the number in the U.S. before TSA. Look at the number after.

> It increases the risk of getting caught to a nonzero factor.

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

> There were no passenger aircraft hijackings in the US for about 18 years prior to 9/11/2001. So, its really not all that convincing that the TSA has done anything better than what went before by keeping the number to 0 in the less than 15 since it was established.

It's interesting that you had to qualify it with "passenger aircraft hijackings" to avoid mentioning the 1994 hijacking from Memphis. Also, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, airport security improved at many airports in the 1990s. TSA was implemented with the intention to standardize this. The public was incensed (rightly or wrongly) at the failure of the airport security to stop the 9/11 hijackers.

> Compared to no security, its not useless. But is it meaningful better than what it replaced (which was not "no security")?

Did I dispute this? Please don't attempt to inject meaning in my position that isn't there.
Im against it because its insanely stupid, not because its racist.

Lets take Islamic Terrorists as an example, they have a very wide pool of people to choose from, many of whom do not fit any stereotype you could come up with.

As soon as its known that security targets specific profiles, it becomes trivial to bypass security.
Author here: I consider responses like this a win, because if we're going to talk blanket bans then the discussion should really be about whether or not anyone needs a semi-auto weapon. If we moved the gun ban debate from "AR-15" or "assault rifle" to "semi-auto weapon of any kind", that would represent a step in the direction of sanity.

I personally would prefer to forget about the "what" and focus entirely on the "who", but more on that another day.
"Guccifer may have been the first one who penetrated Hillary Clinton ... but he certainly wasn't the last."
“What I am not for are bullshit arguments and lies. ‘Fuck off, I like guns.’ It’s not the best argument. But it’s all you’ve got.” ~Jim Jeffries
You become indispensable by doing things that nobody wants to do. For example, I remember an Engineer I used to work loves writing Perl/awk scripts to go through tera bytes of data to create reports. The data has anamolies and you need to custom create regular expressions to filter data that you don't need. The last I know he is still there.
For a time I was paid by the US gov't to use the AR-15 for its original purpose. I was well trained and used it very effectively. Later I was trained to smith it as well.

It fucking terrifies me that so many of you people have one.

It's a tough position for me to be in. I support the 2nd amendment but I don't think you folks should have access to this sort of weapon of war.

There are plenty of options that provide the utility of home defense, plinking, target practice, and hunting without having a 30 ROUND FUCKING MAG.

In a military context we wouldn't call the AR-15 a "mass casualty producing weapon" because there are relatively higher caliber, faster cycling, higher capacity, man portable weapons. However in the civilian context the AR-15 is most definitely a "mass casualty producing weapon" and should not be easily obtained.
A Map of Where Your Food Originated May Surprise You
missing a 't' in electronics
I've worked with commodity exchange software, for cocoa. It is amazing the amount of rules they have come up with. Not only you have grades, but there's a whole process to store, maintain, audit, split and combine commodities.

What's more, once it is accepted at a warehouse, everything else happens electronically, until such a time the commodity actually has to be moved somewhere. In the mean time, all that gets traded is the paper. Or its electronic version, or paper. If paper is involved (usually is), then there are business specializing in storing it, and providing certification that you indeed own this piece of paper, with in turn says you own X tonnes of cocoa of such grade at some location.
He didn't need to go hunting any more than I needed to go to the cinema last night.

The difference being that my going to the cinema doesn't impact the inherent safety of our society.

He wanted to go hunting. He wanted to use a powerful weapon while doing so.

I understand the desire to want things. I too think it would be cool to have a powerful weapon.

However I am also rational enough to understand that laws can't exist that grant me a powerful weapon and deny it to 100% of nutjobs.
So given the option between having a cool gun and living in a world where I may get shot to death in a cinema or club vs just not having the gun.. I choose to not have the gun and I think any truly rational person would come to the same conclusion.
Reliable because it has to be is also a strong argument that what he's doing with his guns doesn't need that level of reliability.

if that level of reliability was needed, non military grade guns would have it.
You're not wrong, but the DNC has done a pretty bad job against probably the easiest candidate to beat so far.

I mean something like this: '“Dangerous Donald,” the “loose cannon,” hated by loser Republicans, capable of doing anything. This is all straight out of the orange idiot’s dream journal.' - http://gawker.com/dont-blow-this-1775111772
Apple does things that are good for themselves and their users. The scope is narrow, they are not biased by existing ways of thinking and most of the time they deliver. Thats a very lean mindset. They are doing something right. I cant complain that they are not doing enough of something.
I counter with gray's law [1]
"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

It's pretty clear that the DNC needs a huge shakeup. DWS is a blathering joke.

[1] http://joshuabrauer.com/2007/07/grays-law