skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In other words "you'll be able to have your cake and eat it, too". A whole bunch of bold promises this man can't possibly have a credible plan for being able to keep. The EU is going to be less than interested in accommodating all these lofty promises.

We're in a volatile time in the developed world. Economic liberalization has brought about a great deal of progress in the past 30 years. Yet, for a bunch of reasons -- globalization, automation, immigration, reduction of discrimination -- the social contract with the majority middle class has broken down. Where once there was a time that if you were born certain shades of skin color in certain countries, some level of economic superiority was your birthright, it's pretty clear that those days are numbered.

I personally think all of these forces of change are ultimately good things. The old system was immoral in a number of ways. However, I can also empathize with the very real loss of societal standing, even though the plight of the majority middle class is _still_ better today than those they feel are gaining prestige at their expense. It's no surprise that this is manifesting as a rogue wave of discontent against the elites and the power structures they control.

The saddest part is that, both in Britain and America, sleazy opportunists are successfully selling the notion that the genie can be put back in the bottle, that the way forwards is by moving backward. This would require re-oppressing the groups of people that rather invisibly propped up the prosperity of the majority in the past, and the opportunists and their supporters are becoming more bold in acknowledging this intention.

The other insurgent movement, embodied by Corbyn and Sanders, respectively, is calling for an explicitly egalitarian social contract, largely embracing multiculturalism (although less so pan-nationalism). It's interesting that there seems to be a very deep young-old divide between this approach and the reactionary approach. Even more so given that the youth hasn't even had the chance to experience the broad-based prosperity in their adult lives that the previous generation seems to have squandered.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the status quo neoliberal politicians have clearly been inept at addressing the concerns of the future, even as they've been largely effective at producing apparent macroeconomic progress. But the disconnect couldn't be more apparent for the average citizens outside the economic and political capitols. Up till now, the traditional elites been able to stay at the helm, bickering about the same old shit that used to motivate voters, but we're beginning to see the stranglehold of the duopoly falter. I think what lies beyond is basically a tri-partite battle for the future between nationalist protectionism, democratic socialism, and neoliberalism.

What's frightening is that it's far from clear that we'll end up with forward-looking governance. It seems like the interim will be chaotic at the very least, even if we avoid the slide into some kind of new fascism.
Internetarchive: A Python and Command-Line Interface to Archive.org
But that isn't what this measured. Like how the US census is suppose to be an exact count of everyone on April 1; it may change due to births and deaths, but on that day (at some time) it is suppose to be exact.

A vote is an exact count of the will of the people at a given time. There is no error. People can change their minds, but that isn't what the vote represent. That is, a vote is what people who chose to vote said they wanted, not a probabilist representation of what the people as a whole want.
There are two big results lately that pit the will of the people directly against the elite opinion- the Brexit and the nomination of Trump. Both have suggestions of being opposed by last-minute political maneuvering. It will be interesting to see how both play out.

The long-term (at least as long as politicians are concerned) impact of the Brexit is unlikely to be good- mostly because the EU has a strong reason to make an example of Britain that convinces other countries to stay in- and is also likely to be complicated. Further, politicians rely on wealthy backers, and these are going to be dismayed at the short-term implications of the Brexit more than anyone. So the new PM would have everything to lose and little to gain by invoking article 50 immediately. They could put it off a year. And then decide that issues arose requiring it to be delayed a year after that, and later... it could go on indefinitely.
The SM7s are by far my favourite mic, and what we had in my tiny little community radio studio!
I get the meaning of the "Cobra Effect", but I'm not understanding it here w.r.t. disabling paste on password fields.
Like Creative Computing, I remember the pleasure I got from Algorithm Magazine, which included pseudocode for fractals, neural nets, cellular automata, and all those things that attracted me to computers. Algorithm Magazine was put out by noted computer scientist and author Alexander Dewdney (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/faculty/akd/akd.html).

I would gladly scan the few hardcopies I still have (not a complete set though) if someone else would host them.
Another longtime Mac OS X user here who has seen bitrot.
Not at all. Generation ships, suspended animation, there are plenty of other, more possible options than superluminal travel.
So, what is the solution then?

I imagine something like switching to 'libre/free' social media, the way people switch to Linux instead of Windows?
So, given the apparent shock and the extremely large, irreversible changes that will occur if the referendum result is adhered to, why not hold another referendum, and make it binding this time? More voters have signed the petition for a revote than were the difference in the referendum; clearly this is an indication that the people don't want such a destructive change based in a single, simple-majority vote that many people didn't take seriously enough in the first place.

The referendum was also made non-binding for a reason. It was made that way exactly so that Cameron had the freedom to do something like he has just done, maybe not specifically the way he did it, but leaving the door ajar to avoid such an incredibly damaging result.
The extent to which a vote is going to be binding needs to be made extremely clear before the vote, and cannot depend on which way the vote goes. It's fine to say that "we will revote if the margin is less than 10%" before the election, but the government throws its entire legitimacy into question if it tries to say "You voted the wrong way, so we're going to pretend that it never happened."
The reason shotgun microphones are used is because the polar pattern[1] is highly directionally. Basically the amount of sound that a shotgun type microphone picks up is very strong in one direction and less in another. This reduces peripheral sound being recorded at the same level as your target sound.

[1] http://www.proaudioland.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/po...
This article has a nice breakdown:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-24/down-and-o...

2 things stand out:

Younger people voted remain

The richer you are, the more likely you voted remain. The working class is solidly on the side of Brexit (65%). Middle class is slightly on the Brexit side.

I wonder which of these is the bigger effect. Waiters in central London, for instance, who commute out far to get to their jobs. How did they vote ?

The EU has it's scapegoat: they're blaming the whole thing on David Cameron, for allowing a vote in the first place, in a supreme display of utter disdain for democracy. Of course, every vote save one about whether people wanted the EU saw people reject the EU, so I guess you can't expect Europe to like voters. Scarily a lot of people are going along with them. I don't understand why. Democracy is the central guarantee that protects workers and anything but the largest entrepreneurs from exploitation.

Also I don't understand why Hacker News, who mostly seem to be leaning to the left, are taking such a pro-capital stance. London's wealth is built at least in part, like Luxembourg's, on being a tax haven in the center of Europe, inside the EU but not paying most taxes. That's borderline criminal.

Does anyone here really think that playing on the side of big capital will work out well for you personally ? For 99.99% of the readers here it is simple: you are not a billionaire temporarily embarrassed by a misplaced comma on your bank account balance, you are either working or (maybe) middle class. Unless big capital, and the EU itself loses out big time you will die in poverty (just calculate out what your pension fund performance is when non-core inflation is 3% and interest rates are 0.25%).
Can someone please supply Mr Stallman with a better template or some CSS. I know he'll only use FOSS and is stuck with some basic tools, but I'm sure that layout could be improved.
I've yet to see empirical proof that stored procedures don't scale well. If you write an application in your SQL dialect of choice, that likely won't scale well, but putting data access behind an API should scale well no matter if that API is in Rails, Spring, or a stored procedure.
It's not a miscarriage of democracy to ignore the referendum result. The point of democracy is to elect representatives that can think about solutions and their consequences better than the average person.

In the case of Brexit, there are a lot of good reasons for the elected representatives to ignore the result. For one thing, while 52% of people want to leave, 48% of people don't. That's no better than a coin toss. Of the people that voted, there are many reports that they did it "as a protest", or didn't understand what leaving the EU meant. Additionally, a large part of the "leave" demographic is going to be dead well before the consequences of the Brexit are fully realized. Why should someone who will have to deal with the consequences for 10 years get the same say as someone who will have to deal with the consequences for 90 years?

Anyway, given the coin-toss like results, 50% of the people are going to be unhappy regardless of the eventual outcome. I would stick with 50% of unhappy people and a strong currency, personally, as opposed to 50% unhappy people and a weak one. I guess that's why I don't win elections, though.
You're right, I misused the term. Statistically, I'm sure the votes were counted accurately and that margin of error is extremely small and would not invalidate that vote.

I was referring to the fact that when a result is so close, the vote might have a different outcome simply based on who shows up to vote that day. If there's a revote, more people against leaving might show up because they didn't realize they would lose. And then if a third vote is held, the result might swing again.

Our country is clearly split right now, but the road ahead for the brexit outcome is terrifying and full of unknowns, as the commentator acutely outlined. Is it worth going through so much turmoil when there is barely an inch above a majority that voted this way?

My answer would be a resounding "yes" if the result was 70%/30%. But 52%/48%? Maybe we should spend some time thinking this through before enacting Article 50. And all the current leaders seem to think this way right now given how discreet they have become as the reality is slowly sinking in.
So, what is the solution then?

Switch to open social networking engine, like Elgg, the way people switch to Linux from Windows?
I don't think it's quite true that there's a big divide between the social democracy of the continent versus the individualism of the UK. Both regions are significantly more committed to social democracy than the US, where universal healthcare is still massively controversial. And a very similar strain of nationalistic tribalism is gaining currency on both sides of the Channel. The British don't have any sort of monopoly on Euroskepticism and traditional ethnocentrism.
Theorethically yes, but there is a much bigger psychological barrier to doing that.
But you don't need the system to be precise or accept every correct program. Heck, you'd get pretty far with a simple conservative yes/no on whether a function might touch any globals. At least at that point you could copy-construct from a global. You could skip adding any complex mechanisms and just say, hey, every function instantiation/global variable combination is going to get a plain mutates/reads/no, which translates to how things would be if the mutable/const references was passed up from main, and if that ain't flexible enough for you, have your closure/object capture a reference to the global and we'll track it that way. [1] Of course that could get replaced with a specific annotation mechanism where we don't really put a reference in the object. But regardless, what this does is handle the problem of global variables for the set of global-using programs which you could still write, without having to think too much, if there were no global variables in the language at all.

[1] Edit: A mechanism for annotating that a class or method does not get implicitly passed globals would be very useful for things like std::function<>::operator() so that std::function objects are forced to access globals by capturing them, because totally unrelated uses of a std::function could stomp over the same type instantiation for this ultra-dumb analysis.

Edit: Here's the tl;dr version. One solution to the global variables problem is for the CppCoreGuidelines to say, "Don't use globals." Another is for them to say, "Don't use globals, but for the 90%-case we won't be dicks about it, we won't blindly pretend that every function could use globals when they obviously don't."
A personal tour of MAD magazine, in the crucible of a young life
So Boris has laid out his platform, and he has chosen option one, he claims Britain will retain access to the internal market while also putting an Australian style points based immigration system in place.

He also claims "EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU", which should worry observers, since he appears to be promising everyone a pony.

My guess is he expects to use the threat of an exit to negotiate some control over migration, and never to trigger article 50.

Is there any appetite for humouring Boris in Europe? Well Germany is, as ever, practically minded. France and others? They seem quite prepared to demand a pound of flesh.

It will be a wonderful magic trick if Boris, as laid out in his platform, can have everything he wants at no cost.
The last 10 years has seen major global progress, let alone the last century, wars included.

People always love to think they're at the pinnacle. The future will be far more fantastic than either of us could possibly imagine, because it will be imagined by people who grow up learning from the mistakes we make today.
Reminds me of this guy...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

Interesting tidbit about recovery: "A report of Gage's physical and mental condition shortly before his death implies that his most serious mental changes were temporary, so that in later life he was far more functional, and socially far better adapted, than in the years immediately following his accident. A social recovery hypothesis suggests that Gage's work as a stagecoach driver in Chile fostered this recovery by providing daily structure which allowed him to regain lost social and personal skills."

I wonder if Elliot from OP had the opportunity for a similar recovery.
Calling most of items commercial is a willful misconstruction of the structure and methods use by NPR. Corporate sponsorships is functionally no different than individual member contributions at the station level, station dues are how costs are apportioned and passed on to member stations.

However, If NPR is using excess satellite airtime to carry non-NPR programming, that could be considered commercial activity, yes.
As an alternative to #7, you can also like and fill in as much as possible, as a kind of obfuscation. Among my other exploits (according to FB), I've lived in Alert, Nunavut and Istanbul, was divorced twice before age 16, and overcame a small bout of ass cancer while starting my lucrative pole dancing career. Oh and I love the Spice Girls (not to mention every pop band from the 90's).

I don't know that this actually throws off Facebook's ad targeting and such, but it certainly makes them work harder.
This isn't hard to understand. Suppose crime is equal in two neighborhoods, but the police patrol one neighborhood 500% more than the other. What would the result of the algorithm be? Five times more arrests in one neighborhood than another.

Now, take that model and apply a really crude analysis. You would conclude that there is five times more crime in the more heavily patrolled neighborhood. Your algorithm, applied to policy, suggests that crime could be controlled better by patrolling the "bad" neighborhood ten times as much, rather than five times as much.

Now, consider the social result. The "high crime neighborhood" then sees its property values drop, and more homes sold into the rental market. This attracts poorer, rougher people who can't afford the "good" neighborhood. Now crime actually goes up, reinforcing the idea that the bad neighborhood is high-crime.

Now, imagine we've been doing this to those two neighborhoods for generations. What are the likely results of your algorithm? There's your uncomfortable truth.
Agreed on one hand. But on the other hand, these are literally (as noted in the log) people who have physical security concerns travelling to a large part of the world if their identities are public.

Only paranoia if your laptop doesn't get seized at customs every time you fly, etc etc.
Do you use dynamic connection strings? Is there a better solution?
Do you change connection string manually while deploying to different environments or do you create connection strings dynamically based on URL?

I check URL to see the environment and use the connection string accordingly. Is there a better way to avoid changing them manually?
I second this book. If I recall correctly, it shows implementation on their fairly unique hardware, but getting their examples working in a modern CA library shouldn't be impossible.
The best circle is about 1500 miles off from my actual location. The most overlapped area isn't even in the right continent, let alone country. I think massive margin of error is a bit of an understatement.
I feel like the "so many things to do" thing is weird and not human. It feels to me like the illusion of choice one is presented with when they enter a supermarket and have 30 brands of the same thing.

I don't hate fun and definitely think people should get out there and experience things, but wanting to live forever so you can do IT ALL feels like a form of mental hoarding.

I just see life as a much deeper gift and one that I don't want to wear out my welcome with. People are still going to die accidentally and in conflict/war and stuff right? Who would want to live through that? Who would want to watch generations of those without immortality die off. yuck.

The human mind can only witness so much pain in the world before it's kind of toast, at least that's my opinion. To think of oneself as worthy of immortality before it's available to every living human is a sickness people need to cure first. Death is the great equalizer and that is a good thing.
Hasn't Tor already demonstrably failed to protect people from US law enforcement?

Tor is an important research project. But that's what it is.
> What's "extremist"? Dabiq?[1] Stormfront? Donald Trump? The National Rifle Association? Fox News?

No, of course not. None of those have the most important component of extremist ideology: leftism. Except possibly for Dabiq, they're all respectable, mainstream politics -- you know, right-wing.
This is fantastic. I wonder what the contemporary equivalent is.
>People protesting against austerity and gentrification have broken windows of banks and stores. Is this terrorism since in the end civilians own those?

No, it's "terrorism" because the purpose of "terrorism" laws is to crush domestic political dissent rather than to actually ward off foreign ideological militants.
Going Server-Side with Swift Open Source and IBM's Kitura
Agreed. The contents look very helpful but a sample would give more confidence about the quality of writing and information provided.
Private equity takeover of EMS services around the US with disastrous effects
Trader Joe's is great for prepared meals, but they are absolutely the worst grocer with regard to meat and produce. Often substantially worse than discount grocers like Krogers or Smart and Final.
Intel considers sale of cyber security business: FT
Scalability, but at what cost?
I came to the same conclusion, and wrote this ORM for SQL lovers:

https://github.com/iaindooley/PluSQL
> The original signers to the agreement should have put in provisions requiring a supermajority vote to undo membership.

They did, however, put in 'non-binding'. The referendum actually is 'give us your opinion', regardless of whether it was pitched that way.

> The consequnces of rethrowing are more perilous than letting it land.

Nonsense. Another referendum of "Lots of you seem to have been unaware of the extent of the ramifications of this. Let's hold another referendum to make sure that we want this, before we start down the irreversible path. This time, it will be legally binding to avoid a repeat of this action". This isn't a playground, but real affects on people's lives - it's worth being sure first. You're still asking the people for what they want, and this time they will have better educated themselves about the issues for and against.
Mobile Web Debugging with Eruda
I agree with you. Language is an incredibly important part of a social movement. When you strip away the orwellian-ness of terms, you expose the true meaning. Manipulating language like that just isn't the same thing as using slurs like "democrap". Terms like "useds" highlight an important part of the true nature of advertising companies like facebook, but terms like "democrap" are simply insults.
"TOR's funding never was a secret."

Sort of. The Pando article they reference, which showed me more about them than the author, points out that they try to promote the funding as "independent" source rather than U.S. government-backed groups made by or tight with CIA. All the press around the situation would make you think it's a group for the people, by the people, and so on with some historical military connection. Whereas, the people aren't funding most of Tor: "The Man" Tor appears to oppose is. Even in this conversation, they're worried about that image situation and how to minimize exposure that one CIA person might work in Tor despite the fact that such types are funding it it. If it's so transparent, you wouldn't have so much work on that.

Who knows why it's coming up & it's not secret as you said. Yet, Tor pages I've read certainly weren't describing themselves as a tool of U.S. intelligence agencies funded by their fronts. They seem to work at avoiding that in favor of some image independent that U.S. intelligence just happens to also like and use. Which is inaccurate.

I'm curious. If we take away all U.S. govt connected funding, then how much is left for the developers and how many will that be? That should be a hint at level of independence.
Keep your settings in a configuration file. Have config files per environment. When you deploy, combine the application and the appropriate configuration file.
GoDS (Go Data Structures) (golang)
> Someone need to make lisp without the parentheses [...] Throw in some strong imperative programming so that it's a lisp masquerading as C

This actually describes the R programming language pretty well. A lisp with C-like syntax and vectorized primitives.
This NASA documentary is a little hokey, but it gives a reasonable intro to the mission and each of the instruments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka6OERznXh4
Macbook; full system restore