skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I respect Sam's opinion, but I would like to hear any of his ideas for improving the economy in suburban and rural areas or creating greater opportunities for people who are less privileged or gifted.

Much of intelligence is a natural ability gifted at birth, and it's often easy to lose touch with that when you are surrounded by highly skilled and intelligent peers, as many in Silicon Valley or cities often are.

As an example, if you are an unskilled laborer looking for work, which is a large portion of the population, it may be directly applicable and not necessarily racism or xenophobia to be upset if illegal immigrants do indeed take those jobs. I have not been in that situation nor seen it directly, but I can envision scenarios in which it might be a valid frustration. If you wish to understand that 43%, you might not immediately dismiss the views that resonate with them as racist or threatening, and try to understand why they are agreeing with those ideas.

Many of those people also likely do not use computers or have effective typing or competitive communication skills, and may be very frustrated by their inability to voice their complaints in intellectually competitive online communities. I think it's possible that Trump has employed many manual laborers or "blue collar workers" in the construction of his properties and he may been been exposed to certain types of complaints which are uncommon in other corporate environments, which he is now championing to address. Given these circumstances, I can understand how to a large group of people Trump would not appear as a monster or dangerous, but rather as a legitimate hero.

Likewise, I believe Trump should do a better job of addressing how those policies might affect immigration as it applies to tech companies, and I can completely understand the emotional reactions to his policies from the tech industry.
It's fear of the humans engineering, managing, and politicking it.

Those humans haven't changed, and they don't seem to show much propensity for changing.
Support for Windows Server 2016 and SQL Server 2016 on Google Compute Engine
There were a few phases of the battle. There was also a wave of suicide attacks by small boats, and that's what I was referring to. The cruise-missiles seem slightly more reasonable for overwhelming defenses.

The closing speed makes the difference. Which is also complicated for the little boats on the probably rough open seas where they'd encounter the carrier group. Carrier groups travel in miles-wide formations. Even if your first warning was your support-ships getting hit you'd still have minutes to react to the incoming threats. Time to get multiple aircraft up, set the guns to the right mode for targeting ships, etc.

It sounds like its the result of arbitrary rules letting you to attack someone by moving into their hex, etc. I don't think you'd get this result with a real-world battle exercise, where soldiers had to drive the boats tens of miles off-coast in radio silence for a coordinated attack on a hyper-aware enemy.
Apple hires CMU professor as director of AI research to smarten up Siri
when you find out that the your own party has lied to you... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
I think the organiser of the conference is providing the value to the speaker, not the other way around. They're providing a platform for the speaker to talk about their project.
Sorry for off topic comment but I would like to know which programming languages u use? Do u still like clojure ? Thanks
What do you think 'right' and 'wrong' mean ? It will always be a matter of opinion. Especially since one side in this election is adamant to ignore empirical/scientific evidence when it comes to topics like global warming and discrimination.
Many attendees don't care, the trip is paid for by the company. It is a nice trip to an attractive location (sunny Florida in winter, etc).

At most conferences I attended, there were scores of presenters who, frankly, sucked, or the supposedly "technical" topic turned out to be unabashed product/service pitch.
True enough.

A lot of the most popular fears are either unsupported or provably untrue; most of my friends grew up being warned that (effectively nonexistent) childsnatchers and murderers lurked behind every corner. The cable news fixation on lurid crimes by people who don't look like us is absurd and alarming.

I guess I'm reacting more to the neoliberal insistence that things are getting better, and so we should all stay on this trajectory and not raise too many objections. It's a bait-and-switch where you rebut a popular fear ("crime is rising!") and pretend you've proven the broader point that there's nothing serious to fear. This sort of thing: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-guest-edits-wi....

We're deeply wired to not appreciate low probability risk, but I think that there's also a popular technocratic-left narrative that actively minimizes those risks. (I also think that a lot of our ostensibly political gains amount to credit-taking for a handful of good outcomes in environmentalism and technology, but that's another matter.)
I am the one here who's advocating for equal and fair treatment for both candidates not the usual prevailing one for Hillary and a more lenient and almost non-existent for Trump because he's a newbie to the world of politics.

This is not a game. This is a real and serious national election for a superpower, and this levity when dealing with these matters is not helpful.

Your position seems to be along those lines above. If not, please clarify.
> I don't understand how 43% of the country supports Trump.

I don't understand how 43+% of the country supports Hillary. A lot of what Trump says makes sense to me - questioning why the US military is involved all over the world, questioning TPP etc. Hillary is more militaristic, historically more pro-TPP etc.

It seems more sensible to get tough on people illegally crossing our border than to get tough secretly bombing Syria as she suggests in Wikileaks e-mails. She's picking a fight, he is not.

Also, 43% of people don't fully support Trump. Some see him as the lesser of two evils. They may not like aspects of his personality or policies, but they prefer it to the alternative. The congress that will be elected will more accurately reflect how Americans think, with Trump and Clinton the choice is binary.

I don't support Trump, mainly because I think he would increase tensions between Latinos and non-Latinos in the US. However I also don't like Hillary's desire for military adventurism, how she leaned towards TPP etc. before polls quieted that down etc.

Trump is not the creation of yahoos from rural Indiana. He is the creation of the museum and concert hall sponsoring Koch brothers, whether their calculations include funding him or not. He is the creation of one of our media oligopolies, News Corp. He's the creation of neutered government regulators which allow scams like Trump University to exist.

Rural white workers voted for FDR, Truman, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. They haven't changed, it's the Democratic party which changed. Soros and company have destroyed the decentralized, grassroots Democratic machine and replaced it by a centralized, technocratic, machine learning targeting party focused on fundraising, not voters, and the interests of wealthy and upper middle class urban liberals.

From 1932 to 1996, West Virginia was a fairly reliable voter for the Democrats. Overwhelmingly white, poor and working class and rural. The Democratic leadership started writing them off, and the Republicans courted them, and now they vote Republican. Why do you think Trump and Pence drop mentions of supporting coal?
Out of the 40% that support Trump, the numbers I've seen are that roughly 10% support his identity politics. They might not call themselves white nationalists, but they are attracted by someone "telling it like it is" with respect to immigrants, inner cities, etc.

IOW, a very large part of Trump's core supporters are simply Republicans that will vote for him because he is at the top of the Republican ticket. They would also have voted for Rubio or even Kasich. They don't like a number of things he's said or done, but they will vote for the Republican before they vote for a Democrat (especially Hillary Clinton).

The minority, though, are not really Republicans -- they are truly a right wing nationalist cohort that is very attuned to things like Trump's "David Duke who?" initial response to his endorsement.

With respect to the other comment about Republicans reaching out to these people: the Southern strategy is a 50-yr old strategy that the Republican party has consciously and publicly tried to move away from in the last 8 years as demographics have made it less and less likely to deliver the Whitehouse. Yes these people have been loosely attached to the Republican party, but as the Republican party moves away from them, they've also moved away from it.

The natural thing, if we didn't have a legally supported two-party system, would be for a Marie Le Pen style nationalist party to form behind Trump.
FBI: Potentially Classified Info Found on Romanian Server from Clinton Server?
Here's why I disagree (also not from the US).

If you look at actual history, World War 2 happened exactly because some countries were unwilling to defend other countries, and let the Germans effectively try to conquer Europe. From a game theory perspective, you really, really want to pre-commit to not letting other countries do things that will cause war. So you pre-commit to protecting allies and other countries against e.g. Russian aggression.

The years of the cold war, while hard psychologically, were relatively peaceful, exactly because of these pre-commitments and threats to use force.

I think it's wishful thinking to assume that the world is at relative peace, and that can't change. That's not the default state of the world. And without knowing a hell of a lot more about international politics than I do, I'd be incredibly remiss to throw out the current establishment and say "yeah let's bring in someone new who wants to rewrite the rules". The chance that things will be worse is huge - that's what usually happens when you change things.
Wow, I initially agreed with sama, but this makes me realize how much of a hypocrite I am.
I find it interesting that the Nuremberg Trials are continually held up, often by people who ought to know better, as a shining example of "International Law" and not a fairly straightforward example of the victors of a war taking the opportunity to polish off a few key enemies they missed. Which is a time-honored and not especially surprising practice, but hardly laudable, particularly when it involved some ex post facto invention of capital offenses.

Had it occurred in the context of anything but World War II, and was it aimed at anyone other than the Nazis, I think the consensus on it would be much more... nuanced. But because there is a very significant interest (across the US, Germany, Russia, Japan, etc.) in maintaining the Nazis as a singular sort of villain, so abjectly evil as to defy all comparison past or present, special rules apply.

(Plus, I suppose, there's some grading-on-a-curve that happens when the inevitable comparison is made between the Allied handling of the postwar environment and that of the Soviets; the Nuremberg Trials may have had certain jurisprudential imperfections, one could easily argue, but at least they didn't require heavy equipment just to dig the mass graves. Though that seems like damning with faint praise.)
I don't want you to think you're alone in recognizing the injustice of Brendan Eich being forced to leave Mozilla. This is an excellent example of mob action and brigading.

On the other hand, I don't yet see a trend here. Though many founders and other influencers espouse views consistent with mainstream Democrats, I see other influencers/founders/execs in tech espousing Libertarian viewpoints.

I could be myopic about this and would love it if you could comment further. Thanks for posting this; I think it was well-articulated and thoughtful.
We are witnessing the emergence of a new degree dysfunction on the left. If it continues to gain traction, it may eclipse the dysfunction that we witnessed on the right in previous decades.
I am helping to raise money for Feedback Madagascar, http://www.feedbackmadagascar.org/eng/index.php

Endorsed by Sir David Attenborough.

Here is a list of what they do:
http://www.feedbackmadagascar.org/eng/whatwedo/

In a nutshell, they are helping the environment through education to replant the local forests. These trees are a key part of the silk production, which they harvest and sell.

The are also improving education and healthcare in one of the poorest countries in the world.

PS They have a trusted party to handle the credit cards.
> So it's sheer coincidence that it has led to starvation, slavery, and mass murder every time it's been implemented?

No. It's the consequence of the fact that all that have been implemented are offshoots of one particular political ideology, namely Marxism-Leninism. And that is the case because it was the only Marxist-inspired ideology that was brutal enough to prevail against attempts to suppress it - more liberal-minded Marxists that put more emphasis on democracy, such as the German Spartacus League, were violently suppressed.

After that initial period, practically every left-wing movement was quickly co-opted by Soviet Russia / USSR, if not created by them outright, and so it inherited the ideology. In some cases, viable alternatives were also violently suppressed by Soviet agents (as was the case with e.g. anarchists in Spain during the Civil War).

Stalinism, Maoism etc are all derivatives of that same system.
This is a guy that 17 nuclear commanders have said isn't fit to have the launch codes; who erupts on Twitter at the slightest provocation and said he'd fire on Iranian ships for looking at US ships the wrong way.

He'd take us to WWIII in a heartbeat.

Your reference to the "Rothschilds" also seems like dogwhistle anti-semitism to me, which has no place here.
how on earth can you trust someone's advice if they truly and honestly think like that?

Maybe Thiel is like an idiot savant who has a natural talent for investing. Just because John Nash was literally mentally ill doesn't mean he wasn't good at his job.
> There are a lot of people who don't like discussing this stuff [... or because] they just don't want to deal with any more stuff about politics/social issues

Especially those of a foreign country, in which they don't have right to vote
or even visit (because of visas).
Well considering things like visual mode and line numbering are not defaults that seems to be leaving an aweful lot of functionality switched off.
No one is trashing rights. No one is denying LGBT people, their humanity. Thiel is literally a homosexual, why do you choose to ignore that. I don't think it is in his self interest to dehumanize himself.
"Representative democracy... practical system"

Not anymore. We need to restructure if we the people are ever going to have say in government again.
To be fair, this pretty much describes why the two party system remains dominant despite increasingly fractured and contentious primaries. Take a look at how aggressively Hillary campaigned against Obama in the 2008 primaries, for example.
Sorry but wasn't the NYT shown to be colluding with the DNC to stack the deck against Sanders in the emails wikileaks published from the DNC hack?

https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-berni...
Sure. There are individuals in any large group that stray in philosophy and behavior from what the majority consider rational or acceptable, and that includes Clinton, Johnson and Stein supporters.

So what is the acceptable number? "Almost half"?

And what does that say about the rest of the group? Are they too to be damned by association, for standing too close to the "real deplorables"?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts in a civil, well-reasoned way. To me, this is a good example of how one can approach a divisive position in a way that has some hope of reaching people who may not agree with you. Much appreciated!
In the past we wanted to protect children and people who lack capacity, and part of that was protecting their privacy. So the courts had fierce reporting restrictions. Sir James Munby, current president of the Courts of Protection and the Family Division says that some degree of privacy is still needed, but that most case rulings should be public.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document...

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document...

> Also, in what sense is it secret? Is there some punishment, the affected grandmother is facing for talking to the media about the case?

In the past the case was held in a closed court. The press could not report it. Public weren't admitted to the court. And the rulings were not published.

That's changed a bit. The rulings are anonymised and mostly published now.

I think she can talk to the press, so long as she does not identify the child.

The submitted article severely distorts some elements of this case. Soundwave106 provided a really useful link about this case: http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/i-am-calm/
> Any first past the post system like we have will trend towards a two party system as people vote strategically for the most tolerable mainstream candidate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

FPTP also greatly increases the effect of gerrymandering, especially in single-member constituencies.
If the choice is between Hillary and Trump, I would expect Trump to do more damage to the world than Hillary. Everything about his behaviour so far has shown him to be easily baited and given to irresponsible escalation. These are not attributes that I would expect to go well with international politics.

I find it surprising that Trump is portrayed as an isolationist candidate when personally I think the likelihood of him getting involved in a serious war is probably higher than that of Hillary doing so, despite her being a hawk. Trump repeatedly talks about getting tough and the importance of being strong.

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

This sounds like a deliberate policy of collateral damage.

"With Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water" - Donald Trump

"We're going to have to do something extremely tough over there, okay? ... Like knock the hell out of them. And we have to get everybody together and lead for a change. Because we're not knocking them, we're hitting them every once in a while, in certain places, we're being very gentle about it, you have to be very tough, and there are countries that are getting hit harder than we are, and you have to get them together and show leadership. And you know, you have to fight, the battle's over there. And you have to fight the battle." - Donald Trump

That sounds like a plan to escalate attacks abroad rather than reduce them.
> Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

In that instance not racist since Islam isn't a race however that complete lack of nuance and the absolute torrent of shit he has said makes him incredibly dangerous.
That's not the point. Is it only left or right in America? Both candidates are rubbish and if you support Hillary you're no better than your average Trump's redneck.
And Finally Tesla Is Partnering with Panasonic
> Likewise, you can't build an application that requires such tremendous bandwidth unless you know there are enough customers out there who have it. A few small towns here and there aren't going to cut it.

From the article

> about 14 percent of Americans have access to gigabit speeds today.

That is quite a bit more than "few small towns here and there", and frankly nearly 50M people (just in US, globally much much more) should be more than enough for building user base.
Rare Virginia Rocket Launch to Light Up East Coast Monday
Agreed. This raises even more questions: Do we need more computer scientists or software engineers? Why do so many universities offer computer science programs, if the job market is primarily asking for software engineers? Even worse, why do so many universities offer software engineering programs that call themselves “computer science” programs? Isn't that lying to students?
I'm not sure where some of these other responses are coming from, but the cold war was very much front and center for my generation, growing up in the 70's and early 80's. If you want to get a good feel for the grinding fear that the possibility of nuclear war instilled in people, just watch the movie "Testament" or read the book "Alas, Babylon" and you'll get a good idea of what that fear was based upon. As another poster indicated, there was nothing "binary" about nuclear war unless you were lucky and were within the blast radius and it killed you instantly.
Project Include ditches Y Combinator after Peter Thiel gives $1.25m to Trump
Get a bunch of men in a room, and discuss abortion.

Get a bunch of straight folks in a room and discuss AIDS research funding.

Get a bunch of white folks in a room and discuss police treatment of African-Americans.

Get a bunch of 5th-generation Americans in a room and discuss funding for ESL programs in schools.
"Maniac" and "fringe" have no absolute relationship. Look at Hitler. I'm not exaggerating. Let me quote Wikipedia: "On election day, 6 March 1933, the NSDAP's share of the vote increased to 43.9 per cent, and the party acquired the largest number of seats in parliament."

I'm not equating Trump and Hitler, btw. But Hitler proves that being mainstream means nothing.

Separately, it is also my perception that both men's source of power are somewhat similar. They both have supporters that want an aggressive, authoritarian leader to change things drastically because the current direction isn't working for them. I think that's a dangerous thing to wish for.
Regardless of what you believe about Wikileaks, it doesn't follow to think they're in league with the provider of the leaks. If you know anything about how Wikileaks solicits material, you'd know such isn't the case...

It does suck that they're timing their release with political motives, and Assange appears to be a gaping asshole (though not a rapist), but none of this is even remotely novel for Wikileaks.
How are you using your mouse? like writing and well everything actually 90% or more of the movement should come from your shoulder/elbow.
I am thinking of just writing my own application-specific layer to communicate with the native mongoDB driver... Sad that Mongoose is not maintained
Except it's going to go hand in hand with nationalism and fear-mongering. It won't bring people together and that ultimately a lot more sad.
lot of accusations but maybe there are reasons that half the country believes in what he's saying? we've had more terrorist attacks, more foreign policy disasters, and more cultural and racial unrest in the past few years than in modern times yet you shut down the conversation by attributing it to "fear" as if people don't have a right to be fearful... nice
Holy moly that number keeps getting bigger.

The budgetary cost of the Iraq war was, according to the Congressional Research Service, $815 billion[1]. Even if you would rather model long-term or indirect costs, there was never, ever $6 trillion in the Federal budget over the corresponding period that could have been redirected to "infrastructure for working class Americans".

[1] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf