skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My friend recently told me that they recruit through the popular mobile game Clash of Clans in the UAE. They provide players with in-game resources and support, and slowly start using their leverage to brainwash youngsters. It's scary stuff.
Or we can just allow secession without a civil war.
Because the people who demand respectful discourse are the ones who rarely participate in it themselves.
The rich are already paying taxes in other countries so it's like they already left...
Life expectancy is better today, but life expectancy as a hunter-gatherer was probably better than you think. [0] suggests a modal adult age of 68-78 years for hunter-gatherers. Infant mortality is indeed way down, and that's a big point in our favor (and the biggest driver of the life expectancy difference).

Infectious diseases, though, are very much a product of agricultural society, as is starvation/famine. We might be living through the century (or possibly, have just lived through the century) where our technology finally enables us to fix these two problems caused by our ancestors' conversion to agriculture.

[0] http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2...
Yet another note taking tool I use: http://www.daemon.de/NOTE

It features encryption and is more useful than I thought before trying out.
why would a pro-hillary group flag a story on here that says she's not guilty of crimes (or at least that charges won't be pursued due to the actions not warranting criminal prosecution)?

I'm literally in disbelief about how people think it's Hillary trying to hide these discussions. Liberal media, indeed...
EEG?
Ah, but I used Aaron Swartz as a concrete example, for emotional impact. Hemingway would be another good example. Where as you are asserting full conspiracy nut with a bullet in the head.

I get it, you're an absence of evidence is evidence of absence guy. That's fine. We're prohibited from actually going and looking, so i think there's no way to tell one way or the other.

I don't think you can assign zero probability to prosecution for "April 2016 -". The whole weev debacle shows there can be a perfect storm of a bad person using something that's not legally rock solid that establishes case law. Apple can afford 1.5 million. Random startup by an ex drug dealer can't. And thus we get new case law.

Anyway. It has been fun to think about.

edit

I know it's bad form to talk about downvotes. logicallee has good points, i happen to disagree. Don't fall into the trap of downvoting them because you viscerally disagree with their opinion.
You're getting the wrong impression of those who disable javascript. Yes, they tend to be programmers, or otherwise tech-minded, because they have to know what javascript is, know how to disable it, and (most limitingly) understand the reasons for doing so. And naturally, if you disable javascript, you're going to be annoyed when sites don't work, going to consider the trend of requiring javascript regressive, and going to publically complain in the interest of promoting the health of your own profession. Notice that "taking great honor in complaining" is not the underlying cause of disabling javascript but rather an effect. The actual motivations vary.
Ok, better to just say that, but I still don't agree.

> Do we perform any action that is not "in our nature"?

Of course we do, much of culture isn't in our nature, but is learned. Advanced mathmatics isn't in our nature, it is learned. "in our nature" essentially means because it's human, and that isn't tautological imho. The OP could think of no reason humans would have conflict over land, human nature is a reason, this is not tautological.
> Is it not plausible that sometimes we periodically really do lose something valuable...

Absolutely plausible. I'd even say it's probable! But we usually gain something valuable as well.
I found it disappointing this lengthy article didn't touch on Basic Income at all. It would have been helpful to see how that (potentially) slots into all this.
This doesn't really make sense to me, an example would be helpful. Also, wouldn't it be trivial for a "vetted but not trusted" party to mount a 50% attack against the private blockchain since there is very little hashing power backing up the network?
$100.2 billion tiny dollars in 2015. $97.7 billion of which was paid to US gov.

Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. The stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans. Member banks also appoint six of the nine members of each Bank's board of directors.

This is not ownership. It is membership. Membership that is required by law.
If you are planning on working in Asian countries, which if you follow international geo-politics, it will be more likely that you will, then yes.

There's a LOT of professional value in learning Chinese and any other widely spoken language besides just English.
Do you think this particular contraption is not useless?
Ask HN: CMS vs. no CMS statistics?
Are there current statistics out there about percentages of websites using a CMS
(any CMS) to manage content vs percentages of websites that don't use a CMS at all? I've looked around and don't see much, and certainly nothing current.
Thank you.
10 Million Android Devices Infected by Hummingbad
No, I would appeal to your own common sense. But if you must, you can infer it from the recidivism rates (>5%) quoted elsewhere in this thread, which must be larger than the base rate.
>Rather than believing central banks can make economies more productive, it’s my bottom line that there’s a naturally occurring growth rate for each economy, and that rate dictates the long-term output, not central bankers’ actions.

While I don't disagree in general principle, I simply don't find this observation or belief all too compelling or unique as it's being framed in political context. Ever since Greenspan the Central Banking "toolchest" has been of questionable merit and practical utility. If anything, the asset buying irrational market behavior result (see: US stocks) disconnecting record highs from real-world growth or economic engine performance only seems to acknowledge the "naturally occurring growth rate" concept has merit.

Granted, some people don't like talking about how a negative growth rate can be natural too.

>The U.S. government couldn’t figure out how to stop it in the 1970s, and the nations of the world can’t find a way to start it today.

Oh, they can find a way, they just would prefer not to, methinks.
http://builtwith.com/
> Is there any question here that this has happened?

Yes. The notion that our capacity for "concentration and contemplation" has been diminished is a testable claim, of which I have seen no evidence, and I would approach any attempt to quantify that with an enormous amount of skepticism. (It's a hard thing to quantify in a meaningful way, and easy to do poorly.) Further showing that any such diminished capacity is caused by how we consume information online is even more difficult, and as far as I know, not done.
It has been argued so by persons that cherry pick evidence to support that claim. The most straightforward explanations don't come to those conclusions.
It's also grossly dismissive of employment abuse (like not paying wages, making illegal demands, etc), of underemployment, of market forces regarding employment, and more.

This is just the most head-up-my-own-ass article I've ever seen. He's challenging Trump for most egotistical statements uttered this month.
Yes, but not for the reasons we expect it to be. I think people would find other sources of self-worth and dedication too.
The problem is the guys who need people to play the games of power.
I don't think that a psychopath actually can exist without his daily dose of personal power and domination gestures. These guys need people to fill there little model trains that race against one another.
I think if you would automate the whole factory, up to the CEOs secretary, the market value staying the same, the reward staying the same, the CEO would drop the project like a hot potato- or would start to hire people for useless work.
And im okay with that- those guys are better kept from the streets.
To the New Junior Coder, Who Is Feeling Lost
Oh, the oatmeal experience http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
In fairness, where should their morals come from? I'm not religious myself, but it seems that for all their faults religions provide a shared morality.

Sure, based on defining in-groups and out-groups so we can decide who is and isn't worth mercy and salvation.

Works great when you're in the in-group. If you're, say, gay, it might not seems so great...

Personally, given that empathy is wired into our cerebrum, I'd think the golden rule would be enough to decide that helping a senior in distress might be the right thing to do.
Scala at Scale: Leaving Unhandled Errors Behind
+1 for startup api. It is a bit sad but the same goes for code. It rots really quick and it might not be worth building solid foundations because in next year it will be out of buisness and building solid foundation takes 6 months...
Apple? They're the people that shipped transparent CPU emulation mechanism to keep their ABI working and avoid breaking customers.

Twice.
Took a look at Silverstripe. Do users enter all content into one WYSIWYG? Is there a way to configure custom fields?

Thanks.
Hi! I'm the author of the post and happy to answer any specific questions here.
Hi all,

I'm the author of the article. I don't have much of a twitter presence but I love HN and value the feedback that's given here. If you have any Q's or criticism (good or bad) let me know. Thanks!
Well, it all depends on how you define 'work'. The article provides only one definition: “Work is something that you don’t want to do but you have to do.” Given the use of the following quote, this seems to be the defintion the author is working from:

"According to Everett, while some might consider hunting and gathering work, hunter-gatherers don’t. “They think of it as fun,” he says. “They don’t have a concept of work the way we do.”"

Under that definition, the "work-free world" the Author is discussing is one where all of our problems are being solved by people who want to solve them and thus we don't need to force anyone to solve any problems they don't want to.

The article isn't making argument about whether such a world COULD exist, but whether such a world is one we should strive towards.
The last Civil War, contrary to popular belief, was fought over this premise, and the outcome effectively gauranteed it will never happen.
> It's obviously true that "those who commit sex crimes are more likely to reoffend" than the average citizen.

You've grossly misunderstood the context here. "Reoffend" means "commit an offense _again_", which is meaningless in the context of someone who's never offended (a large portion of the "citizens" population). When considering "more likely [than whom] to reoffend", the only interpretation that makes any sense at all is "more likely [than the average offender] to re-offend". It should be quite clear that it's complete nonsense to compare the likelihood of re-offending with a population that consists largely of those for whom reoffending is impossible (which is what you're doing in your comment).
The first racist part was about South Americans and "coons".
U.S. 10-Year Treasury Yield Closes at All-Time Low
I took it to mean, that they had to buy more to cut costs, fuel (less trips), economies of scale etc. Your way is interesting!
It's certainly possible. One advantage of our setup is that rather than getting ok -to- noisy labels from customers, our CRAs understand the end-goal of the application and generate pretty great data. We are also able to incentivize them to produce fewer errors.
> if you must, you can infer it from the recidivism rates (>5%) quoted elsewhere in this thread, which must be larger than the base rate.

This is quite an extraordinary claim; do you have any evidence that overall recidivism rates "must be" lower than 5%?

From Wikipedia:

> According to an April 2011 report by the Pew Center on the States, the average national recidivism rate for released prisoners is 43.3%.
The book The Victorian Internet talks about this. A good read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Victorian_Internet
In this case, it's much less responsible to do so. You have people who rely on their software to get things done. Making them jump through hoops like this just leads to frustration, or them abandoning using your program.
I think that's what he was saying?
I think you failed to understand the sentence.

>He made a lot of new jobs

As you know government cant create jobs except for government servants such as TSA screening agents. Their salary bill has be then paid for by the hardworking earning Americans. I think that is what that sentence means.

The Bloomberg article is talking about jobs that are creating by private industry. Government has no hand in it. If those business run a profit those jobs will be sustained else they will wither away unlike TSA people who will get paid no matter how much the passengers hate them.
I don't think the GP is about party politics.

It makes perfect sense if you replace "liberal" with "neophilic" or something like that. Looks like a bad choice of words, I don't think it is aligned with the meaning of "liberal" and "conservative" on US politics, but I'm not from there, so I'm not sure.
Former admin of DC# here (forgive the sourceforge hosting-- it was a long time ago! https://sourceforge.net/projects/dc-sharp/). Great write-up! This was a fascinating read- thank you for putting it together.

One issue to be mindful of- the HttpWebRequest.BeginGetResponse method does not honor timeouts, and you are on your own to timeout the attempt. Consider using HttpClient, if available in Mono / .NET Core. Otherwise, see MSDN for how to do this:

"In the case of asynchronous requests, it is the responsibility of the client application to implement its own time-out mechanism. The following code example shows how to do it." See: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.net.httpwebr...

I'm not sure if you have access to the ThreadPool class. In a bug that Microsoft's library had, I used the TPL Task construct to resolve this. See the pull request here: https://github.com/Microsoft/ProjectOxford-ClientSDK/pull/83...
> Making us pay taxes without asking us whether we thought the things we had to pay taxes for was something that was worth paying taxes for or not.

Reminds me of the fight for D.C. statehood.
We run a bunch of production workloads on them. Just look at the spot pricing history in US-East-1A and 1B for a good idea at the stability.

This is over a year now and only once did I have any sort of interruption and even there it was in only one AZ so of course I had other instances up and able to take the load.
Fight (blind) evolution with (directed) evolution. In the long run, it's the only strategy that works.
Why would you get to keep a right you just made up for yourself? If your random corporate process clashes with the law, the law wins. You still retain your constitutional right to counsel, you just need to contact prospective lawyers through private channels, even if that procedure conflicts with the bylaws of your board of directors.

There is no clever loophole here, it's a very simple order. The law says "no [recipient] shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2709

Here the definition of "disclose" is "whatever convoluted process you can think of".

Reading further, it does say you can talk to an attorney, but that doesn't mean you can make a Craigslist post asking for lawyers with experience in the Patriot Act.
Saw that later. Bah, the code words have now changed, the feeling is still there.

When you get to call the Southern European countries literally PIGS in print, without apology or consequences ...
iPhone 7 to Start at 32GB of Storage, Replacing 16GB Base Model
>For example, lending people money can enable them to buy things today that they otherwise mightn’t have bought until later (if at all). If a consumer buys a boat today with money made available through a low-interest loan, that’s a boat he won’t buy next year. Lending people money doesn’t alter their lifetime incomes, meaning consumers may buy fewer boats later, when the loans have to be repaid, causing disposable income to contract.

Is that really how capitalism works, though? I believed it was more like this: making available loans at low interest rates stimulates the production of boats to large levels. The sale of these boats at profits creates wealth for the owner AND the employees of the boat making company. The employees spend that money and stimulate economic demand; the owners/investors make great profit and thus concentrate capital even more. This capital is then invested in other ventures, perhaps even as low interest loans to other consumers.

Loans/Debt enable businesses, consumers and nations to create economic activity NOW and accumulate the capital NOW; we don't know what the future will look like but the concentration of economic power (i.e. capitalism) has certainly played a most important part in technological progress.
I've edited my post to remove the mention of political orientations (and if you edit your post, they will disappear).

I believe some political discussion is on topic should the political circumstances be particularly novel e.g. Brexit, but not the everyday fighting that goes on all the time I agree.

Actually I am not an American but am Irish.
Does anyone have experience with https://github.com/reviewninja/review.ninja
(3) ‏صيانة تكييف مركزي الكويت هاتف 55090348‏
I don't know if you've seen it already but some people on reddit talked about some improvements/tips here: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/4rcss2/buildin...

I agree with most of their sentiments, especially the parsing part could be made cleaner/more C#'ish :)

Otherwise nice work and very interesting writeup!
The whole point of warrant canaries is that while a judge can compel you to not say something, compelling speech is a much higher burden.
Interesting. As a creator, user and perpetual student of technologies, I've hardly suggested we not have them, yet whenever anyone brings up limitations of technologies, inevitably negative reactions follow, as though it's not OK to reconsider unquestioned faith in the infinite benefits of tech development.

Like most here, I have great enthusiasm for new technologies, but we aren't served by uncritical belief while ignoring potential or actual limits and unanticipated effects. IOW we shouldn't be consumed by our biases.

Health care is an example of work hugely impacted by technological innovation. Look at imaging, automation of clinical testing, robotics, and pharmaceutical development to name a few. Believe me, these tools are quite astonishing achievements and enormously useful.

Yet with all these marvelous advances, the number and proportion of people needing care hasn't decreased, if anything, there are more. One factor is the improvements granted by technologies enable finding more cases, and finer gradations of illness. More patients and findings means there's more work to be done. It follows that greater number and type of treatment options also requires more work to parse and apply treatments.

Also worth considering is that technologies might actually produce illness, one familiar example is RSI, "carpal tunnel" problems are common in programmers. Consider the evidence that developed nations have much higher incidence of autoimmune and other conditions vs. developing nations, technological differences being one factor. Currently research is looking at adverse effects of circadian out-of-phase exposure to blue light via LED illumination of devices as a source of metabolic disturbance, etc.

Again, the issue isn't whether we'll continue to develop technologies, certainly we will and should. It's equally important to consider unanticipated effects which are inescapable. Sorry to say, but history shows solving one problem more often than not exposes others, and the cycle goes on. That's in no way a criticism of technology or its developers, merely a fact of life.
Not sure why discussions on HN always have to turn into fictional comparisons, but to play along I would note that everything else has also gotten more efficient and will continue to get even more so.
Did You just write that?
Fair play to you!
Well, yeah.

Even if they can make a rock-solid case right now, why would they waste the chance to have a very powerful card they can hold over her head if (god forbid) she gets elected?

Not surprising at all.
> Can the government compel my speech ? Can the government compel me to make false statements ?

These are interesting questions, but I'm not at all sure the answer is not 'yes' to both of them, under the right circumstances.

The Fifth Amendment would not seem to imply (there's no criminal proceeding, and not necessarily any risk of self-incrimination) and the First Amendment, while applicable, would not necessarily prevent such a thing, in my estimation, if the circumstances were (in the government's estimation) sufficiently dire.

Alternatively, in some cases the USG could simply seize the domain name and/or server and serve up any content they wanted. See, e.g., Playpen. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/after-fbi-briefly... Though presumably they could not do this if the site or service operator were not also implicated in some form of illegal activity.
Gold: The Best Asset Class YTD
"I believe it is part of our human nature to care for other humans."

That only works for some people. Where do sociopaths fit into your worldview?
I'm old. I wrote many, many, many lines of JavaScript before jQuery ever existed, I know the difference very well. Nobody is confused.

Ignoring the fact that it clearly wasn't intended to be taken literally, "in 3 lines of JS" when speaking in the context of a team effort on a web application can be understood as "adding 3 additional lines to the source code." Context.

There's no need to be nasty and argumentative for no reason.
In the study the author linked to, it says that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is 5.3% -- lower than most of the other rates that the author mentions. He simply uses the "only 5 percent of new sex offenses..." statistic to make a point, and view the data from another angle. There's nothing misleading about it, and the author didn't misinterpret the data. Coincidentally, the numbers happen to be similar.

When you say "It's obviously true that "those who commit sex crimes are more likely to reoffend" than the average citizen." to point out the author's logical "mistake," I believe you might be misunderstanding the data as well.

You have some number of sex offenses, SO, and some population P, that contains some number of sex offenders, P_O.

.053 x P_O = sex offenders who reoffend

SO x .05 = Sex offenses caused by reoffenders

SO x .95 = Some subset of the general population, P, that commits a sex offense.

Only if .95SO = .053(P-P_O) does the rate of reoffense by sex offenders equal the rate of sex offense by the general non-offender population (with some simplifications like "people commit one offense at a time, then are persecuted, the only people who have committed two offenses are reoffenders"), which requires a LOT more information to decide, and is probably not true
This is the way many near-eastern cultures measured day as well as most of Medieval Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day#Boundaries