skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Naturally, I asked him why there weren't people flocking from Europe (it's about 100 euros round trip from here). He said that even if dental care is cheap, everything around it sucks. He said that neighboring countries built the infrastructure to allow this to be possible (specialized resorts that have deals with clinics, etc). Tourism is thought with this in mind.

> He said that if you compare that with our country, there's too much friction for your average European.

> On a cost based analysis, it's still worth it.

I'll try to explain why this wouldn't be worth it to me, even if it would cost x100 less for dental care.

I'm in Germany, and I'm obliged to pay for a private health insurer provider (almost €300 per month), even though I'm a healthy late twenties individual. It doesn't matter that I barely use medical or dental services at all, I am obliged to pay that by law, even though I just use it for the occasional checkup, getting my teeth cleaned, etc.

I don't care if my dental work costs €5 or €500, my insurance provider picks up the bill. I don't care at all. In this case, the entity using the service and the entity paying the bill are completely separate.

My free time is very limited, I have a full schedule, working full time, social life, gym, hobbies, etc. I don't really have time to take time off for medical tourism to Algeria, I want to enjoy my free time. There is also the perception issue, I have no idea if I can trust anyone there.

Also, I wouldn't compare dental care costs between the US and Europe. From what I've read, the US is in it's own special price category for a lot of things related to dental/medical expenditures. Look at EpiPen fiasco, Turing Pharmaceutical, and many more. That stuff doesn't happen in Canada, Europe, Australia, or if it does its much rarer than in the US.
luajit. Better than things like V8 javascript with millions in funding.
By their mid 30's they will have 10+ years making six figures.

It won't matter if others salaries are just catching up - that is a great head-start.
I've found this to be a big plus in my experience. Additionally, if you're question has not been answered, you at least have the benefit of widespread familiarity with the text you are using. This means friendly internet folk will have less mental overhead due to notation, etc., and less of a barrier to answering your question if you ask.
I just locked myself out of an OpenBSD 6.0 box by putting the 'persist' keyword in doas.conf.

doas: syntax error at line 1

The word 'persist' does not occur in 'man doas.conf', so maybe this feature is so new it is not in OpenBSD 6.0? Watch out before you try it out yourself.
More like a traffic heatmap. California seems to have a lot of red dots on the I5 between LA and SF. Not a lot of people live there.
Just a lens flare
A late response just in case you check your threads.

I am not discounting your experience, it's more I do feel it's an exception. I do understand that you were using some exaggeration for effect, but my point was more that it's hard to get into an awkward conversation with the General PUblic (in the US at least) about Tor because the general pubic doesn't have the basis to even discuss it.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point a bit (and I'll gladly admit it if I am), but by and large in the US at least, the conversation about Tor by the general public is non-existent. It arises when interested parties need it (for good or bad), but much like "hacking" or "encryption", it's a very poorly understood and disassociated term amongst the general public. Most journaists can't describe what it does, much less how it works. They know that badguys use it for something, sometimes, but even then they can't really narrow down what Tor's function was.

The discussion on any privacy tool is muddied by child porn - there's no doubt about it. And while the threatening question of "what do you have to hide?" when it comes to encryption isn't anywhere near as damning as the association with child porn, I imagine it's a brief and short taste of something much much worse.

However, I think realistically most of the Western Population is oblivious to what Tor actually is, just like they don't really understand Apple's device encryption, they don't understand why Heartbleed was bad (it just was), and so on. Some persons may have a strong opinion, and these strong opinions can certainly be dangerous. But I don't think the majority of the population would be swayed.
I believe he is talking about an autonomy-enabled region, which is full of autonomous cars. It includes things such as modifying even the road infrastructure.
"the human eye can barely see the lander" is a bit exaggerated. It's not immediately obvious where in the image the lander is (it took me a few seconds to find it), but well visible once you've got the position.

"Considering that the chances of losing these landers is not that low" - most of the time, when the mission fails, they don't make it to the surface, though. As far as I know, Beagle 2 is the only lander that was lost and later found. The Mars Polar Lander likely dropped onto the surface from some 40m up, maybe a wreckage could be found there. But other than that, I'm not aware of any landers that could be found with a camera in orbit. Debris is hard to find, even on earth - it took over 20 hours to find a crashed fighter jet in Switzerland last week, and another day to find the pilot's body.
No reason you can't do both.

As long you don't mean being pretentious (Which I don't think you do) you should be able to save and party hard.
It's not observing itself, it's being observed by other autonomous vehicles.
That is what they seem to be doing, so yes. Generally speaking, if it has a all-intel (CPU, GPU, WiFi) chipset, chances are it will work with OSX.
There is one since the EU standardized CVs and created a webapp to build standardized CVs.
the article specifically addressed this objection and rejected it.
QM can be defined by the fact that the reality you observe isn't the "actual reality", but overall it doesn't really matter.

Wave-particle duality is a bit of a misnomer it's more of a pop-sci concept, all particles are defined by their wave function and there isn't a "particle function".

And if you think that we are too biased towards picturing everything made out of discrete parts then you won't like QM which is basically what the Q stands for which is "quanta" as in the smallest clump-thing-w/e of something.

That said most people that choose to study physics in high school (year 10-12) and or college would be exposed to Quantum Field Theory which makes everything make considerably more sense when you start thinking about everything in terms of fields.

Once you no longer think of an electron as an individual thing but as a electron field that extends through all space and the particles are the quanta of that field as in localized excitations of the field which when they reach a certain amplitude or energy level bring forth something we can measure and identify as an electron.

I wish QFT would be popularized more because it would bring so many important concepts into the common sense realm and it would actually be easier to explain things like why do particle accelerators work.
We are using Chartjs http://www.chartjs.org/ and HighCharts http://www.highcharts.com/ for our projects
For the version issue, I have to say when I started to research Lua, there's only 5.2 BNF I can find on the internet. So I decided to try it from 5.2. Of course, I'm willing to catch up with the newer version.

For ISSUE-1. Yes, I know it may break the compatibility of some existing code.
The problem is why people reference a variable named 'self' but not expect it to be the current table? People may named a var as 'self' to hold other value. I think that is the problem. 'self' is actually a reserved word in Lua, but Lua permit it to be used for other value. I don't think it's good. For example, some Scheme implementations allow users redefine primitives, you may redefine '+' with '-'. It's interesting, but it's bad when you want to build serious program.
Another point is mentioned in the article that people could easier find the error when they encountered an exception related to 'self'.

Anyway, my point is that a good Lua programmer should avoid to use a.b.c.foo() if one wants to get the current table, no matter how the function is defined (colon or point). But people always do wrong thing (include me), so why not provide a mechanism to let them avoid this problem? Fixed ISSUE-1 could let people get rid of this problem, even you make the mistake to use point reference on 'self', you can get correct value if you defined the function with colon.
The takeaway was indeed that they could deanonymise individual users, but they couldn't target it and it required significant amounts of human effort (i.e. it did not scale).

AFAIK, Tor developers are willing to implement cover traffic; the main reason it hasn't happened so far is that there is no known way to do this that clearly helps against that kind of threat. Until we have this (either from academic research, the Tor Project's own efforts or something else), it would be at best a placebo.
Here's some discussion on a related idea:

https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/2dfff4d31634d669f4c198...

In that case, the "offered" dependency was on the mysql2 gem. The intent was similar (don't want to force users of ActiveRecord to install DB adapters they don't use) but ran into an unexpected situation when the generated Gemfile entry didn't have a version constraint but the runtime-loading code did.
I'd also recommend you read Joe Haldeman's The Forever War, which is very much a response to Starship Troopers: while Heinlein was writing from the perspective of WW2, Haldeman was writing from the perspective of Vietnam, and it shows.

I haven't read Armor. I should check it out.
> If we don't like what NSA is doing under the President's command, [...]

For that, you would need oversight, which intel shops typically don't provide. For instance, there's a history of scandals being revealed long after they were done in western democracies.

There's also the matter of being able to effectively implement a political program reducing the powers of intel agencies. To my knowledge this has never happened outside of political upheavals. Even then, if you look at the Church committee report and the Snowden affair, advances seem to be quickly erased.
Nodevember: An update regarding keynote changes
>> Even a sequential implementation can produce different results if the requests arrive in different order.
>I never said that the withdrawal requests must be served in the same exact order they were received. This may or may not be the case.

My point is if there is no ordering in the first place, there is no ordering to be preserved.

> Parallelism is running independent computations simultaneously. Concurrency control is managing the use of shared resources by temporarily granting exclusive access to them to individual computations.”

Concurrency control != concurrency though.
Or Tails
> You rarely upgrade a gasoline car - you mainly fix broken stuff. I never heard of anyone handing in their gasoline car and picking it up a few days later with faster acceleration and longer range, just like Tesla now offers with their new battery.

Ever seen "The Fast and the Furious"? I am pretty sure people upgrade their gasoline cars all the time. People already replace modular parts on their cars similar to computers. OEM upgrades that increase acceleration, etc may not be common, but aftermarket upgrades that increase acceleration or horsepower are extremely common.

I'd bet there are many more options for upgrading an old 90s model Toyota Supra or Mitsubishi Eclipse than there are for a brand new Tesla Model S.
Philae found
The NSA is spying for a reason, and it's not just because they enjoy the challenge. Rather, they want to effect change.

How can spying effect change?

1. Providing knowledge to the US to improve our decision making

2. Providing intelligence to the US to change French decision making

3. Using (1) and (2) effectively so that 100% spying is not even necessary. That is, France chooses the path that would result from spying anyway
book that's more popular

Yet another benefit of popular books is that they won't be first edition, so a lot of mistakes that make it into the first edition will have been ironed out.

Don't underestimate how much a strategically placed typo can confuse a learner.

Rule of thumb: avoid first edition maths books.
Besides the questionable effectiveness, the fact is that periods aren't nearly as regular as this stuff would like folks to believe, and this is completely inappropriate for women with highly irregular periods.

Hormones cloud all sorts of otherwise reasonable judgement as well - I'm guessing if you pay attention, you'll notice it in yourself as well.

In addition, this can be dangerous for those that shouldn't get pregnant for health reasons, yet can't get sterilized (there are many doctors that won't sterilize childless people, nor folks that are young - and it is often not a covered procedure).

Folks that have reasonable intelligence, pass high school biology, and have a reasonable understanding of health should understand these down sides. A bit of understanding of risks and statistics would probably lead the person to assume it is a lesser risk to use another form of contraception or two.
> If you were willing to ignore English grammar and definitions, and several centuries of precedent, and many many other things, you could interpret it that way.

Wow, talk about being uncharitable. I'll just ignore your insult that I'm an ignoramus talking out of my ass and just address the content: the Supreme Court has ruled only twice on the interpretation of "the people", but there is still considerable debate over its true meaning [1].

The declaration of independence also makes a broad statement that all men are created equal with unalienable rights. It's not at all a stretch that the bill of rights is an enumeration of how a government should preserve some subset of those rights. This is precisely how constitutional protections have been interpreted in other countries, for instance.

> The Constitution is "We the people" laying down a basic framework for governing ourselves.

It's actually "the People" in the constitution and the declaration of independence when referring to the governed, and only "the people" in the bill of rights. Capitalization matters, particularly if we're talking about intent.

Further, the constitution lays the basic framework for establishing a government, and "governing yourselves" is only ONE purpose. Or did you forget about "provide for the common defense" aspect of government? It's in the opening paragraph of your constitution.

> This is well trodden ground. Your interpretation is facetious.

No, this is objectively not well-trodden ground, and you're kind of acting like a dick. I recommend not doing that.

[1] http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_t...
A few comments:

Can you offer international numbers for this, or is your main market the US?

You don't specify on your site where the postcard is being sent from. I assume the US?

It may be an idea to ask specifically for a country to send to, unless perhaps it's in the US. You don't seem to mention this in the text instructions but have Surrey as an example, which is in the United Kingdom. Perhaps a bit confusing? :)

Photo examples of how the finished postcard looks (particularly the back - font, size...etc.) would be helpful I feel.

Just a few comments/ideas, feel free to ignore!
I've lost general respect for German intelligence and policing apparati after Thuringen willfully destroyed evidence regarding right-wing-terrorists to cover their misdeeds. Happened again later in a murder case in Kassel in the same investigation. It may be isolated incidents, but that this is possible and the fact that there have been no visible consequences to make up for it is telling.

If there are long-term interests/plans and these are games like those played by the CIA, then at least let the public know about this little detail and argue for keeping it confidential and excuse collateral damage. I won't condone it, but it would be an explanation, if it's not brought forward on every 2nd incident.

That said, I do have respect for the foot soldiers in the force, just as I do for hospital staff.
I read about this phenomenon where the two slit experiment could be replicated with drops bouncing on an oil bath (here's an article on it: http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-class... ). And one about how a higher-dimensional mathematical object could dramatically simplify certain quantum mechanical calculation ( http://www.wired.com/2013/12/amplituhedron-jewel-quantum-phy... ). I realize this proves nothing, but I'm still holding out hope that the randomness we observe is just a result of the interaction that higher dimensional "matter/energy" does when it intersects with our 3/4 dimensions. Maybe god doesn't play dice after all, maybe there's just a whole lot going on before we get to make our measurements.
You are making the assumption that spying is common, so it is justified. Or even that if spying results in favorable outcome, that it's justified.

But I ask, favorable to whom?
Have you looked into copper-based IUD? No hormones, yet very effective. We've been relying on one for 3 years, and would highly recommend it.
> Perhaps they're more common in the UK than the US?

I can't speak for all universities over here, but my undergrad had a single textbook from what I recall. The rest were all printed notes or simply lecturers writing with astonishing speed on the blackboards.

There was certainly extra reading we could do, and I'm sure someone did. But most of the learning was from attending lectures and watching someone go through things step by step.

I'd be interested to know if other courses are more textbook based - although I know which I would choose.
> Unless other parts of the comet is more flat

It's pretty hard to see the details of a cometary surface from earth. And there isn't much you could do with no gravity and an all-rubble surface either way.

> It included bolting itself to the surface, if I remember correctly, but it seems almost impossible to fixate three legs with almost no gravity on that surface.

Philae had a harpoon for anchoring itself to the surface (with a thruster on the other side to compensate). The harpoon failed to fire. The legs were not intended for fixation, only to dampen the landing.
http://c3js.org/ is the free version of HighCharts, and combined with D3.js you get a powerful and flexible charting library.
Is it really so easy to outperform Zlib?
It's this generation's version of "you kids"
> The number of components in rockets and IC transistors are probably roughly comparable.

Unless you are counting the payload, I really doubt it.

ICs are only possible because people create some way to mass manufacture those features, and people don't even design the features by themselves.

If people created them at the traditional route of "manually design|manufacture this -> encapsulate into component -> use components to manually design|manufacture that -> encapsulate again...", it would be impossible to create chips as complex as we have now. But there still aren't better way to produce rockets.

All the problem with rockets is that they are created by joining a big number of things that don't really like to stay together (or, in a few cases, don't like to stay by themselves either). I doubt they have more bare complexity than a modern car.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12430298
Shameless plug: more examples of literate Clojure in Emacs here, https://github.com/limist/literate-programming-examples
Well, at least the BVerfG, which does care about privacy, has jurisdiction about the BND.

It’s been quite obvious in the past years that the only part of the state the people trust is the court system.
Research examines the dogmatic internet commenter
Many would call paleo and mindfulness fads too. A good way to check is if the government has something to say about it. They move so slowly and are so cautious in their advice that it's hard for them to pick up short lived fads. They also do more thorough research than finding a couple of unreproduced papers that support something. Nutrition is very hard. We hardly know anything and I think that's why people like to cling to fads. A bit like we clung to religion when we hardly knew anything about nature and we cling to alternative medicines when we hardly know anything about medicine.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/nutritionis...

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/03/why-cbt...
This is even more incredible than the already unbelievable amaze generated by this mission as a whole. Hat off.
Literally none of this addresses any of the issues brought forth. "Sorry, let us restate exactly what we said before." This conference is a joke, adding more words to say the exact same thing isn't any more polite or respectable.
Right, and I think you've pointed out the real problem...impending inflation.
INANE (I Am Not A NASA Engineer), but perhaps 4 or better yet more legs arranged in a tetrahedron or analogous polyhedron would better ensure the lander did not get stuck inside a crevasse; an inner rotating body could then bring the lander into a working position. The more the legs, the higher the chance the lander could 'roll' to a lower ground when initially bouncing off the surface, but the optimal number of legs could be determined in advance by simulating the terrain (you wouldn't want it to roll all the way down a slope, ending at the bottom of a crevasse etc.).

Harpoons protruding from each leg could be fired automatically as soon as a stable enough position was detected, or manually when deemed safe; having more legs available could only improve chances of getting a safe fixation.
see also these discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12422420

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12425061

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12414285
Sure, I know that there are some specifications P that are hard to implement (and some that are impossible!). What's not clear to me is whether the specifications we care about implementing in practice are hard to implement.
The case of a conversion error that didn't doom a Venus probe that never existed
I won't comment on the article's view as I know people who are involved and haven't really got to talk to them about it yet, so I cannot really get into it.

I notice the article doesn't mention Three Affiliated Tribes which is the Native American tribe that have gained the most from the oil. If martindelemotte is correct and its a Venezuelan report then that is probably significant. You might check out this link for a lot of stories from some Native Americans perspective http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com

It is Lakota not Dakota. Standing Rock is Lakota. The Dakota tribe in North Dakota is Spirit Lake. There is a difference although both are Sioux. Dakota were a force migration from MN and still aren't "legally" allowed to enter Minnesota.

I do want to add that the Google News team needs to get its sh#+ together. I submitted a story https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12384851 that shows how they have done something truly bad in regards to snopes.com, which I see is still broken.

Go to news.google.com and search for [North Dakota Indigenous Tribes] then look at the snopes.com articles. One has the title "North Dakota Gives the Green Light to Shoot Indigenous Tribes on Sight". This is not helping and just plain stupid.
https://unpkg.com/plottable@2.2.0
The evolution of stop-motion
IIRC Bosch was the subcontractor on the electric conversion of the Fiat 500 and I thought they did a fantastic job. A joy to drive.
In the case of a commit to a standards body - sure, go for it. As you said, that's the whole point for a standards body.

That aside, I don't see where in this comment chain we're discussing a standards body. This type of commit to individual projects should, in my opinion, be strongly discouraged.