skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've seen bendable batteries that can even be cut in half without danger (and they still work!) I even have some samples in my closet somewhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx08CGcyuAE
Silicon valley is doing better at politics, and yes spending is up, but is influence?

The big companies are very new to this game and the people who think they are big players, aren't. Apple seems to be the only one that has some teeth as they were able to resist being compelled for the signing keys, however the powers that be just went to the Israelis for a crack.

If you want to see what effective lobbying looks like look at Lockheed, Northrop, CACI, Honeywell etc... These guys get massive legislation passed, sponsor candidates, control voting on the floor of Congress. Musk has arguably come the closest to being a real player in the game but has a very mixed records and is not rely seen as as much of a threat to ULA and the auto industry.

Silicon valley is realizing it needs this, but it has been lucky so far that it hasn't had to fight many entrenched players. This will change as ambitions rise.
> When those ideas have abhorrent real world consequences...why would we not criticize the people who hold them?

I'm an academic. Academics frequently come up with ideas that have, or would have if implemented, abhorrent real-world consequences. If you're a liberal, think hardcore, Heritage Institute supply-side economics. If you're a conservative, think Karl Marx.

It is perfectly legitimate, and healthy, to criticize the ideas which you think are bad. However, the problem is that we as a society don't know a priori which ones really are and aren't bad. People have different opinions. The best way we've figured out to determine which are truly good and bad ideas is to have an open "marketplace of ideas" with free and open debate.

If we criticize and marginalize people who have unpopular (= we think are bad) ideas, then the only ideas left will be the popular ones. And that, I believe, is anathema to progress, far more so than letting bad ideas be aired and eventually lose in the court of public opinion. Another outcome is that the unpopular idea might turn out to be better and win, but would not have have a chance to if it were prematurely stifled. The best way to go, therefore, IMO, is to criticize bad ideas but not the people who hold them.

Humanity has tried before to stifle opposing viewpoints, and largely succeeded. It resulted in the Middle Ages. I prefer an open society.
> There really shouldn't be an use vs. them with China.

I never said there should be. All I said is that nationalism and fearmongering did not prevent the first space race from going well, and did not prevent eventual easing of tensions.
Enjoying the Struggle
There is a deliberately defined limit: The rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty. People are being asked by the Left to convict Trump of things he hasn't even done yet; after all, he is an "existential threat to democracy." The fact that HRC, Obama, and Bush actually did things that are criminal by any reasonable interpretation of the law--well, that we are asked to ignore.

This isn't about rational thought and calm, fact-based discourse. This is nothing more than monkey behavior and pure red-vs-blue emotionalism.
AirBnB isn't the entire hotel market.

If total revenues for the whole market are 100, and AirBnB's share is 1. Then the total revenues only have to go up to 102, for AirBnB to capture all the new revenue and thus double its revenue.

The marketshare isn't based on revenue, but total supply of rooms/listings available, so its possible to lose marketshare and gain revenue.
I kind of remember reading that somebody involved in the creation / testing of that bomb made a rough estimate of the area covered by the fallout and decided to ditch the U-238 damper on the second (third?) stage.

Also, getting the plane dropping the bomb to a safe distance before the explosion was kind of an act as it was, if the bomb had gone off at twice the yield, it probably would have killed the crew.

(All this is from rather fuzzy memory, though! If somebody has less fuzzy information, I'd be happy to stand corrected!)
I lean strongly textualist and I disagree with your conclusion.

1) The federal government is one of enumerated powers, but it has plenary authority over areas it is allowed to regulate. The Constitution gave the federal government the power to tax, spend, and "regulate interstate commerce." In a world where interstate commerce is pervasive, giving the federal government those powers allows it to do almost pretty much everything. But those are the words on the page! Just because the result might have surprised framers who were thinking about independent agrarian farmers for whom an interstate transaction might be the rare exception does not mean you can ignore what the words on the page mean.

2) As to agencies, the Constitution creates an executive, and contemplates the existence of executive deparments. The first agency, the customs service, was created by the first Congress in 1789!

3) The Constitution prohibits only "unreasonable" searches and seizures. That implies the power to search and seize. And the idea that warrentless searches are presumptively unreasonable is as much a judicial-created gloss on the Constitution as the idea of exceptions to the warrant requirement. Remember: the very first Congress created a scheme of warrantless searches by the Customs Service.

4) The non-delegation principle is itself a judicially-created concept. It's not in the Constitution.

5) The 10th amendment never meant anything. It literally says "any power not granted to the federal government is reserved to the states or to the people." It doesn't provide any basis for deciding what those powers are. Take something like Obamacare. If that's a legitimate exercise of of the taxing or commerce power, it by definition cannot violate the 10th amendment because it's an exercise of an enumerated power. And if it wasn't a valid exercise of those powers, it's void for not being a valid exercise of an enumerated power. The 10th amendment can never be the reason a law is invalid.
Actually, under non-brain-wedgie conditions, I can re-derive Newton-Raphson because I do have a good conceptual grasp of it. (In fact, after I got off the phone, I did it just to convince myself that I could. It took me about five minutes, which is nothing under realistic conditions, but a long time when you're on the phone.) But at the time I had a brain wedgie, and the interviewer just kept pushing and prodding and wouldn't let it go. It was damned annoying. I was sitting there thinking, why are you so fixated on this?

It was definitely their loss because the technical problems they were facing were very similar to ones that I had faced (and solved!) in a previous startup (network optimization problems). But I never even got to talk about that.

Because of that experience, I now make it point whenever I interview someone to always ask, particularly if they're floundering, "What should I ask you about that will let you show off your strengths?" I don't have any qualms rejecting someone who can't answer that question (and a surprising number of candidates can't).
No QI wireless charging :( Dear Google, I'll keep my Nexus 5
> When's a cheap day to fly to and return from Las Vegas?

This is exactly the problem I have addressed with my flight search tool, Concorde: https://concorde.io/sign-up
No thanks, as a non-white male I will not have my quality of life destroyed due to racist old whites who aren't willing to come into the modern age.
So Microsoft finally have an AI that can "wreck a nice beach". Along with text autocompletion, we are all set for a decade of irritating miscommunication.
Or North Korea - the idea that it could really threaten the US (like in the reboot of Red Dawn, a terrible film, stick to the original) is ludicrous.
> They get very few new projects produced and rely on residuals to provide income in between new projects

Let's take 'decades' at its minimum value - 20 years. That's plenty of time to get another project and if it's not, then it's more likely lack of talent than lack of wealth that's keeping that person out of the industry.

I agree with the GP. You shouldn't be able to rest on your laurels for decades from a single piece of work.
"For ordinary users, the situation is truly hopeless. They are pwned by default if they buy into IoT."

when was it ever different? This is just a repeat of the "buy anti-virus" phase of Windows, which wasn't sufficiently hammered home that it basically failed. No doubt there will be some responsible IoT manufacturers that address the vulnerabilities, but IMO, not many, and the market isn't exactly demanding of 'secure amazon buttons' - in fact there will be devastation because the manufacturers won't give a flying fuck about security as they stamp out thousands of pieces a day with default passwords in their factories.

If ever there was a use case for ipv6 then I suggest this is it. Sadly we aren't going to get there in time to stop a new wave of botnets. Who do I blame for the failure to properly roll out ipv6?

gotta love some of those domain name lolz

imscaredaf.xyz
swinginwithme.ru
santasbigcandycane.cx
>Be brave Altman. We'll support you

Do you support him whether he cuts ties with Thiel or not?
> Does painting all of your opposition's supporters as racist/sexist/xenophobic/ignorant/violent count as inciting violence?

Absolutely not.

Unless you somehow equate the phrase "criticizing behavior" with "inciting violence".

At the worst, that sentence uses the word "all" where the phrase "non-trivial subset" would be more appropriate.
I don't know why there is so much hype on debating if companies got sexism and racism or other oppression issues: they do have some, period. And it should be strongly improved.

If we pretend the contrary, we really have to question ourselves.
Security systems must retain collision-resistance even in the presence of adversaries. If your design doesn't have adversaries, you can use cheaper, less secure hashes. Nobody would still recommend SHA-1, though.
Obligatory reference to 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb', Rhodes. Terrific book on the people, physics, and politics behind 'The Bomb' and its use.

Any recommendations on biographies of Fermi?
This is such a tired claim. Every civilization ever has been built under the aegis of, if no one else, each other.

Of course you own it. The question is what "ownership" means. Ownership of a property is best defined by delineating the specific rights that you can exercise with respect to it. You may bar people from entering it. You might not be able to bar the government from entering it or making certain uses of it. There's a good chance you can't keep people from being underneath your house and extracting valuable minerals, if they're far enough down. Your rights don't extend very far above the earth.

But you knew all that when you made the purchase.
When I was in the UK recently I remember seeing ads for 999 year leaseholds. I thought that was very strange: like you kinda own it but kinda don't.
Well put. I could write a 500-word post attacking Marco and all Hillary supporters for this behavior, but that's not going to change any minds.

We're much better off scrutinizing ideas rather than candidates who frequently change their ideas based on who's listening or their chances to get into/hold onto office.
I think many systems use two hashing methods to verify this claim (e.g. SHA-1 and MD5.) Are there any known collisions that affect both algorithms?
Good question. I haven't gone as far as seeing if a specific flight has a different price or not. It is, however, from the same airline that Hipmunk has a lower price for. I do know that. I'm not sure if it's the same specific flight or not, though. I can look into it more...

In general, I based my original comment on what Google Flights show as the "Best Price" vs what Hipmunk is showing as "Best Price." And there isn't any filters on either platform that would be quick to explain why the huge price difference.
No it is not. It's like saying since New York Times has more circulation than my blog they don't get to enjoy the First Amendment like I do. The underlying premise of it is "I'm ok with dissent but only when it does not really matter". No, quite the opposite - it is important to be OK with dissent exactly when it does matter. That's why the First Amendment exists - to protect speech that matters.

And it's quite possible for vast majority of Americans to participate - they are doing it right now, before your very eyes, it's an undeniable fact that this is exactly what is happening right now.
Earlier this year I was working with an outfit that was on Java 4 for A Really Important Business Application. That said, they were looking at moving to IIRC 7 just as I was leaving.
"completely misinformed"

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-...

"“Clinton could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike and recalled much debate pertaining to the concurrence process. Clinton knew there was a role for DOD, State and the CIA but could not provide specifics as to what it was. Due to a disagreement between these agencies, Clinton recalled having many discussions related to nominating an individual for a drone strike. When Clinton exchanged classified information pertaining to the drone program internally at State, it was in her office or on a secure call. When Clinton exchanged classified information pertaining to the drone program externally it was at the White House. Clinton never had a concern with how classified information pertaining to the drone program was handled.”"
> Java-8 is using java.util.regex <

No, the fastest Java program shown does not use java.util.regex

The fastest Java program shown uses com.basistech.tclre

> a C package and performs a lot faster <

You're welcome to contribute a Java program that uses the PCRE library --

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/play.html
Americans aren't fleeing America, also wealth inequality is shooting up in one country much more than the other. I'll let you figure out which one.
LOL. Reminded me of a friend who skydove/skydived. He read a magazine about the sport, which had sprinkled throughout concise descriptions of skydiving accidents.

They had one thing in common - cause of death:impact.
My point is that "apt-get -f" works less than 100% of the time, contrary to the "would be just fine" claim.
That probably would work better. I tried doing the math and ended up with some really weird answers. Definitely not 10 kt.
Isn't getting back plagiarized answers a good indication though? Did you tell them you wanted it to be their own work?

As I have gotten older one of the things I'm cognizant of is the difference between what I mean and what my kids hear. So "take this problem home and solve it" from me means that they should take it home work on it themselves and bring back their best solution. But they might hear it "take this out of my sight, put the answer on it, and bring it back to me." where in the land of "out of sight" there are really no restrictions on what or how they get it done. As a result I find myself being a bit prescriptive, saying "Take this home and work on it, and bring me your solution tomorrow, we're going to talk about your process of how you got to the answer. When we talk, saying 'I asked on Stack Overflow' isn't going to be a good answer, ok?"

Their response will be informative, from moral outrage that I would suggest they can't do the work, to understanding that the integrity of the process was part of the problem set. All of that helps you understand how they approach being asked to do things.
Honestly, most times, the Indian representative does just fine. In all my time here, I can count on one hand the times that a customer service rep was ineffective. Larger companies especially (Amazon, WalMart, etc.) will bend over backwards to please the customer. My experiences in NL dealing with customer service has been bad on average.

Disclaimer: lived in the Netherlands for 20 years, living in the US for 12 years now.
expensive jets, aircraft carriers, naval warfare, cyber

But it is - the US military fought the Taliban in a landlocked country with F18s launched from aircraft carriers 200 miles away!
Barenblatt looks like something I need right now -- just put it on my library list for tomorrow. Thanks!
> we can get rid of stupid hundreds of MBs dependencies to transform a arrow function.

Depending on your target market, you may be stuck on ES5. Your users' browser behavior determines when you can remove the shims and transforms, and if they aren't upgrading you can't really force them to upgrade the browsers.
Factory workers at Porsche are unionized. They work less than 40 hours per week, around 35 per week , still Porsche is one of the most profitable companies in the automotive business with a well-educated workforce.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-11/porsche-pr...
I think the killer app for gigabit symmetrical internet service will be the ability to host your own apps (from social networking to video streaming) either on the router or another appliance. It's just hard to see how that will ever become a common practice until someone builds such appliances that are friendly with each other beyond their primary manufacturer because the natural inclination of any corporation making such appliances is to make them locked in. So it'll be interesting to see if that pattern keeps up or softens.
>Reified Generics

This will not happen.
>Every day there is a new headline about how Trump winning would destroy the universe.

I'm also an outsider (Canadian). It seems like an endless stream of anti-Trump news everywhere I go. Yet HN had a thread just the other day with people commenting about how "unfair" things are towards Clinton. I don't get it, either.
Are those the only choices? Or could the nation undergo a transformation about how money & politics are entwined and rethink the presidential elections?
Exactly. There is no First Amendment protection against _social consequences_ for abhorrent speech. Companies that choose to protect people who threaten the values of democracy are _choosing to do so because they want to_, not because of some higher calling or noble purpose.
She's Secretary of State, and parts of the State Department would like to have a say in whether drone strikes are approved. She attests that no formalized process was in place. This is not news to anyone who has been following the situation.

I do not see the name Julian Assange in the above report.
> DNA reveals the Higgs bison

I had to read that title several times.
It is a bit odd, but I have friends in African countries with TLDs that need to be registered via paper forms / GPG-signed emails only.

This move by Google just massively simplified the barriers to entry for small countries running their own ccTLDs in a more modern way.

(I work for a registrar, dealing with ccTLD idiosyncracies all day. If more registries adopt common premium price extensions, etc, it will make my life a lot easier, too.)
The risk that two blocks would hash identically by accident is astronomically small, but there is indeed some possibility that a skilled person might construct two blocks that do.

So as long as your data on disk hasn't evolved intelligence and actively tries to create two blocks with the same hash, your storage system is absolutely fine.
> You didn’t replace the service’s security with this layer, you simply added it to what already existed. Remember, the NSA most likely has great algorithms, but they still don’t publish them.

I feel like this is a great example of why this "obscurity as a security layer" is misleading, to say the least. Having a "great algorithm" that you don't publish is bad for the same reason security by obscurity is bad - there are fewer people criticizing and tempering the algorithms you use. This feeds into the idea that "anyone can make cryptography they can't crack" (NSA or not).

The problem with these "obscurity as a valid security layer" arguments is that there's already obscurity built into these protocols. The algorithm is open, the key (or password) is kept obscure. Adding some non-standard flourishes on top of a secure protocol is basically just using an insecure protocol (security by obscurity) to "extra" secure an already secure protocol. The point being that the overall security of the system is not meaningfully increased by these actions.

That said, I understand why you'd want to use a non-standard SSH port or port knocking or something to reduce noise on your logs.
Study finds ‘lurking malice’ in cloud hosting services
How to 2FA Everything, Part 1
For commodities, in general, buyers do move on to a seller who doesn't price-negotiate---commodities are interchangeable enough that a buyer has the liberty of saying no because there are alternatives the buyer values equivalently. Until sellers find a way to incentivize price negotiation again by making the buyer believe they are getting a special deal that applies only to them or people like them.

Stores in the US generally don't price negotiate at the register, but they do have coupons that discriminate shoppers into loyal shoppers (those that take the time to track down the coupons or join the store's particular flavor of loyalty program) and ordinary shoppers.
Paying doesn't help. It always galled me that I was paying for the privilege of getting ads.

My paper subscription lapsed years ago. The local paper is actually pretty good, but I find I don't miss it much anymore.
By that reasoning, McCarthyism was profoundly liberal: Communism was a direct, unequivocal threat to society, so hounding it out was perfectly justified. (Or even if it wasn't, lots of people strongly believed it was, with justification!)

To me, that's a pretty scary conclusion which puts some real doubt on the initial premise.
> plagiarism

Triplebyte controls for that by having a followup on-line session where you have to walk them through your code and modify it on the spot. They probably use regular plagiarism filters too.
How about a clear term of engagement, goal, resolution? I don't think we'd respond too well for France sending troops regarding Mexican citizens inside U.S. borders. We are not engaging state actors in foreign nations, and we are not engaging foreign actors within our own borders.

As it stands we have far more military engagements on foreign soil than we've seen since and maybe including WW2. We have a corrupt political system and state that is in ever excessive violation of our own constitution, and a people oppressed and divided.

We really need another JFK or Reagan in terms of charisma and general popular support, if not in somewhat similar political views. Another Truman or Eisenhower would probably be better, but could never get into office today.