skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> 1. The Goldman Sachs speeches, showing that Hillary has a "public and private position", is still against gay marriage, wants open borders, wants to enact gun bans, and wants to establish a hemispheric common market.

With the exception of a common market I must strongly disagree with your assessments.

I'll also point out that everyone has public and private positions and everyone except the most socially inept tries to tailor what they say to their audience to get a better reception. That's half of being a politician: glad-handing and smooth-talking your constituents and colleagues into going along with your plan.

> 2. John Podesta (Hillary's campaign chair) giving a list of "needy latinos" to call.

What's your point? Is that supposed to compare to calling Mexicans rapists, saying more countries should have nuclear weapons, calling for a ban on muslim immigrants, saying you want veto-power over the press, claiming US elections are illegitimate, attacking a Gold Star family, ... I mean I could go on and on and on here.

> 3. The DNC planning fake Trump assault scandals

I haven't seen anything legit on this. Care to elaborate? I know some campaign staffers have occasionally proposed really stupid ideas but they were always shot down. If there is proof that anyone actually carried out such a plan please let us know.

> 4. Clinton Campaign Discusses Which Emails To "Hold" Hours After Subpoena

This is standard practice. It's called a document retention notice and every single company in the US follows this exact procedures. The court orders you to deliver evidence and you must figure out which documents are covered under that order. If you just backed up all your servers and dumped them on the court wholesale you'd be held in contempt.
> You say women that have settled in court or accused of Clinton of sexual assault should not be believed.

I never said that, no. What I did say was that their claims were investigated by Starr who had every reason to use them if he could, and he didn't.

> BUT Trumps alleged should be believed.

See there are a few big differences here. Trump's history of bragging about sexually assaulting women, the coherence of the accusations and Trump's MO, that Gloria Allred has decided to get involved, and that these are not 20+ years old accusations which were already dropped.

> In your mind should we or should we not believe women saying they have been raped?

You do understand that "we should believe [people] saying they have been raped" means "trust but verify" right? The allegations against Clinton were extensively checked two decades ago by people working against Clinton who had every reason to use these accusation, and they judged them not worth pursuing.

Not that the move makes any sense either way, if assault accusations against one candidate's SO are impeachable offenses, what are assault accusations agains the other candidate directly?
The only way I can see that someone can't understand why some people support Trump is because they have not made an attempt to understand the other side's positions. I agree with close to none of Trump's positions and abhor the man, but it is simply smug to dismiss his supporters (credit to Sam for not dismissing them as dumb).

1) Anti-Free trade. Bernie and Trump both were very popular with working class individuals who are out of work. Trade deals have definitely caused job loss for many workers. Many anti-NAFTA people blame it on causing the immigration from Mexico

2) Anti-Immigration. Job loss and racial identity are both at play here. Lack of homogeny in the country. Too much diversity etc.

3) Disgust with career politicians. They like how brash he is.

4) Lower taxes

etc.

FWIW, this is exactly the kind of post that shouldn't be on hacker news.
The killer app is fiber reliability as compared to copper and coax where line errors are the norm, particularly every time it rains and water gets into a compromised circuit.

The speed is just a bonus.
That is a very dark world where the minority need to legitimately fear the majority. No thank you.
What is the current value of CAPE/PE10? Where can I find the current value of it?
Expect the listings to move to NASDAQ. A bunch of European companies have primary listings there already.
Sounds like a cool course, not sure I'd call it computer science, though.
I am Canadian but I would gladly trade citizenship with someone in the event of a Trump win. Canada can provide all the "spending other people's capital income on unsolveable social problems" your heart desires while I enjoy deterministic optimism in it's least empathetic form.

TL/DR for Republicans: Ellen Pao provides yet another example of "look different but think the same" diversity propaganda for Medium readers in which she uses many adjectives to shame Peter Thiel for not agreeing with her on who to support in the coming US election.
Could you say what it would mean to have an idea of right and wrong that isn't an opinion? What would it be if not an opinion?
>Thiel doesn't support Trump because he's racist/etc, he does it in spite of that.

How do you know that?
If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

There are plenty of high-speed decompressors that could possibly be adapted to PCM data, though, I'm sure RAD would sell you one.
جيش الجزائر مستمر في تدمير مخابيء الإرهابين
> 1. A rich and powerful person parroting Trump's evil statements --> ban from YC.

Has this happened yet?
Meanwhile, there are wikileaks of HRC and Podesta discussing Wetworks (before Scalia's murder)
Since this is all about docs, having gone from Java/Scala to Rust, I cannot emphasize enough how much better Rust is at this. With `cargo doc` I get a local set of static files for the exact version of the libraries I'm using. Why can't everything be this easy?
Usually when people tell me about some of the awful things that were said in the e-mail Wikileaks released I go look at the original e-mail and read it in full. It's almost always the case that if you read these statements in context, they just aren't that offensive.

For instance, the comment about public/private positions is one of the most common ones you hear people complain about (and Clinton was asked about it during the debate). Here's the full statement:

"You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work."

I would encourage everyone to look at the original source anytime someone makes a claim about what was said in the e-mail.
Endorsing Trump or Clinton isn't the same as saying you agree with everything they stand for. It is simply saying that you believe they are a better candidate for the position than the opposition, and unfortunately I feel like this election has turned into a "lesser of two evils" for many people I talk with. Nobody fully endorses either candidate's beliefs or ideals, but they definitely know which one they like the least for the job.

In that regard, donating really isn't saying much. It is simply saying "I think Trump will do a better job as president than Clinton."

That all said, I have no idea what Theil's political beliefs are so he might really agree with everything Trump says, but you can't infer that off of a donation to his campaign.
I have been saying this for months.

I would prefer 4 more years on congressional deadlock to the dystopian nightmare that Hillary will unleash.

Force the DNC to address its shortcomings, and push a real progressive in the next election.
What third parties? Would you rather have the libertarians or green party? Maybe a party or candidate with even less of a track record?

Neither offer a sane way forward.
On the other hand, they need growth (market expects that) and it is harder and harder to attract completely new iPhone customers. Increasing the amount of money extracted from those who are anyways buying iPhone is one option.

More expensive models can also boost the sale of cheaper ones among certain customers. This can give the brand a luxury image. Of course if done wrong, it might also drive some other customers away.
I don't think he's trying to convince anyone with this post. I think he's very honestly saying that he doesn't understand why someone would support Trump, and if you don't understand the support then you certainly can't make a persuasive argument.
This is what demagogues do, they raley and gain power through uniting groups of people over fear. The extreme political tactics by the GOP lead to the scenario we have today, and Trump is building off of what the GOP laid the groundwork for over the past 40-50 years.
Please tell me all the horrible javascript is going to be rendered server side soon

My browser would thank you
I am officially endorsing Donald Trump for president.

I doubt my endorsement, coming from an anonymous commenter on HN, has much weight but I'll put it out here for one reason in particular: As a message to anybody else who's feeling the same but feels that even announcing something like this will cause you to be shamed.
No, I disagree.

Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as Hillary or Obama is and should be held against the same set of standards like every politician does and this notion that since he's novice in this field he deserves to get preferential treatment and be forgiven for all his mistakes and wrongdoings is bit disingenuous.
What you are labeling as brand image is also dedication to usability that no mobile competitor at the time had. It's not that iPhones "seem hip" so much as they don't make you feel like a fumbling idiot when attempting complex tasks
Sooo, then you agree that the documents are true and accurate?

You keep using the word fake, and I don't think you know what the work fake means.
I'm no longer sure which post is "OP" in this thread, but the problem is definitely deciding which people are and are not disabled. Setting up an adversarial system where you have to prove disability makes the problem worse, not better: people who are only somewhat disabled lose out, while people who are better at faking it get the benefits.
He didn't say women shouldn't be able to vote. He said that giving women the right to vote has eroded some of his libertarian ideals, because women tend to oppose those ideals. Which is a true statement.
A case where it was divided along partisan lines 5 to 4 on the SCOTUS. One of the 5s seat is now vacant and the next president will appoint a replacement.

This is the primary reason I am so frustrated with friends of mine who are content to see Hillary and Trump as 'the same'. One of these two people will tilt the court away from the majority that decided on Citizens United. The other will tilt it further in favor of the side that decided on Citizens United.

Even if HRC was ideologically opposed to my own views I would vote for her since 4 or 8 years of HRC trumps (pardon the pun) the 40 years of SCOTUS seating the next president will set.
I encourage you to watch one of his recent rallies. It is not hyperbole.
Candidates A and B are for or against (noted as O and X respectively) the following:

Issue: A B C D E F G
A: O O O X X X O
B: O O X X O O X

Noting that they both agree on three issues, disagree on three issues. I have to weight each of those issues to determine which one I am actually for. While I disagree with Thiel's conclusion this year, I have to presume he's done the same sort of analysis (he's not an idiot, he's well educated and successful so he's done something right along the way). His scales have apparently tipped in strong favor of Trump (especially for him to double down with his donation), but that doesn't mean he specifically supports the more abhorrent parts of Trump's character or campaign.
...but is it reeeeally "freedom" if I am not free to attack others because they said something I didn't like?

(Yes...Im being facetious... discussions centered around "freedom" are meaningless because of how subjective the term is.)
It's exactly how populists want the voters to think and behave.

They nurture and encourage distrust, anger, aggression. And use it to fuel enthusiasm and support for themselves.

You see this pattern often in history.

When holding an elected office, this kind of separation is a big problem, because it necessarily seeps into political entities (parlaments, senates, congress) and makes collaboration hard.
> Apparently the apology was over "half" rather than "deplorables"

Which is fair. It's impossible to deny that there are white supremacists (who are deplorable) that support Trump. They're very candid about it.
Who cares? I'd rather have more rover and deep space missions and non-LEO manned missions than the propagandist wins of a floating bucket in LEO. Space stations aren't progress, they're just money wasters with a roadmap that leads literally to nowhere - being burned up in the atmosphere.

I never understood this mentality that when the US is between launchers everyone suddenly has a renewed appreciation for last-gen achievements. We did the LEO psce bucket with the ISS. It leads to nowhere and had questionable space science utility. Its not a stepping stone to anywhere[1]. We're building the SLS and investing in SpaceX, Blue Origin, ATK, Sierra, and ULA to get out of LEO and to have a variety of spacecraft on tap. Nations still stuck in LEO with 60+ old launch systems are going to be left behind and they shouldn't be applauded for it.

A few years of downtime will be forgotten the same way we've forgotten the time between Apollo and the STS. Meanwhile, anti-US biased people will dance during this peroid and project questionable attitudes like the US not being interested in space (No one comes close NASA's achievements, missions, and budget) or how the US is declining because a pig like Soyuz can still fly to LEO.

[1] by the time the ISS was built we had enough know-how to do things like permanent moon bases and other achievements that were within our technical grasp but not within our political one. Its very easy to vote for splitting the bill on a space station with a bunch of other countries. Its a whole other thing to propose risky things like moonbases and to have them funded by Congress. Thankfully with the SLS and SpaceX we're back to doing risky things.
Seems pretty strange that he can't just hop on 4G, they had that the last time I was in London.

It'd be pretty surprising if they were actually jamming wireless networks, but I guess that's what these tweets have to be implying.
I think in this situation the limit hasn't been reached; with 40+% of the nation's support, the Trump movement isn't fringe. Additionally, many voters intend to vote for him for politically expedient reasons, such as capturing 3 Supreme Court justice appointments for Republican judges.

Despite the objectively horrible viewpoints advanced by the Trump campaign, they do not approach David Duke's viewpoints.

From some points of view, pro-abortion advocacy is an unconscionable violation of human rights and outweighs religious (Muslim profiling) and racial (seizing remittances from Mexican nationals) concerns; it is a rationally-approached choice of a lesser of two evils.

This isn't strict cultural relativism; the argument has merit. I assert that including alternate viewpoints (but prohibiting bigoted / wrongful actions) strengthens institutions. The best demonstration of the strength of a world view is to accept discussion of alternate viewpoints. If we're right, we shouldn't be afraid of the alternative.
Sure (and to some extent, Obama did it in '08, and Bernie did it this year). It's 100% reasonable to run a campaign on a message of "My opponent is funded by $BANK and $PHARMA and whatnot. I'm funding this out of my own pocket / I'm funded by small-dollar donors / My entire staff is living off of ramen".

Does it single-handedly win an election? Probably not. Does it win some # of votes? Most certainly.
With the current one-tier election system, you will severely cripple the chances of your second best candidate to win, if you vote you your first choice independent candidate.
I googled it because I was very skeptical. This is not the paper but the press release to what I think the above commenter was referring to:

http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/09/15/bovine-leukemia-virus-br...

A PLOS one paper showing evidence of this virus in 59% of breast cancers sampled compared to 29% in non cancerous breast tissue of other women. N size was 239.

I think this deserves future study to see why there is this apparent association but the above poster's claim that this shows that it 'causes 39% of breast cancer' is simply not credible at this time.
This is an incredibly concern trolling argument. There is no right or wrong way to vote for third parties.
> then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying

Disagree.

Thiel is making an investment. He can likely separate his emotions from his actions. I imagine Thiel doesn't agree with a lot of what Pence says about homosexuals, but that certainly didn't stop him from making the investment.
Partners are not employees.
Its pretty simple why a lot of the country supports Trump.

Every election the media brands the Republican party candidate the devil and stupid (Romney was tagged as a racist last election and stupid for thinking Russia might be a threat). They also read all the leaked e-mails calling them stupid and see what the Clinton Foundation has done. They aren't ignorant or stupid and see when a fix is in. Never mind the various people that Sec. Hilary has declared she will put out of business.

I said it in another thread, "if you keep demonizing a group, expect them to send an actual demon eventually".

I honestly believe if you cannot understand why people support Trump, then you just don't want to understand or believe that they are full of hate. They aren't full of hate. Most just don't believe the media anymore. Take the media outlets this morning blaming Trump for the burning of a GOP office. I think the quote that comes up most often is "If he were really that bad, NBC would have had to fire him during his time on TV and besides Bill is worse". The media outlets didn't do themselves any favors by holding onto tape from 2005 until after the convention and using it as an "October Surprise".

As for me, I didn't get to vote in the primaries because of issues with the GOP and the ND GOP. My candidate didn't get in (Rubio), and the Libertarian candidate is a disaster. I was hoping the Libertarians could get that magic 5% like Perot's party did in 1992. I might still vote Libertarian. I really doesn't matter as far as electoral split. I am more interested in the governor's race. I won't vote for Hilary since she is an actual demonstrated threat.
I get that this is a big deal and it will keep coming back... But is there anyone other than Ellen Pao who could tell this story? Seriously?
> I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump.

Didn't Clinton "explain" that a few weeks back?
Funny you should mention Stalin, because it seems that people on Clinton's side are mostly using free speech to express their disgust, while Trump's camp has literally advocated mass deportation and legislating unsympathetic newspapers out of existence.
Yeah, that's the same as admitting to hiring mentally ill people, homeless guys and young kids to start violent interactions.
No? What part of my comment suggested I agreed they were true and accurate? I laid out what about them was false and inaccurate.
>Blame the stock market. Once a company has a solid product line in one area that doesn't suck, every publicly traded company is under tremendous pressure to move into new markets rather than iterating on previous successes, often to the detriment of preexisting products.

First of all, I'm not sure there's any evidence to support your claim that public companies are under pressure to diversify over iterate.

Second, public companies have chosen to go public. It doesn't just happen. So, blame them.

>lso, if you look at all the big tech companies (American ones at least) over the past 30 years, there's a recurring pattern of a company becoming preposterously successful, then spending a decade or more reaping the benefits of that success while repeatedly throwing money at the wall for different new projects to try and find something else that sticks.

In other words, luck is a substantial portion of success.
Perhaps it's because the two leading independent candidates have terrible policy proposals? (Not to say that both major party candidates have great proposals, either)
You made the comment I was going to make. Though I would have included the following too:

> The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less.

When it comes down to it.. its become clear to me at least that a large percentage of the country simply put, is not 'getting ahead' - the anger that drove the Trump and Sanders campaigns is very real and must be solved if we are to prosper.
Positional tracking plus something like Leap Motion on a mobile headset will get us there. We're just a year or so out from that yet.
Publishers may need to get past angst over ad blockers
When you try to decrypt a partition encrypted using TrueCrypt, you need to click a checkmark that says "TrueCrypt compatibility mode". It never failed me.

I think that what they mean by "not 100% TrueCrypt compatible" is that it doesn't work the other way — you (probably, I've never tried it) can't decrypt VeraCrypt-encrypted partition with TrueCrypt.
I don't know, but it sounds remarkably like the tool is going to be merged into Tectonic (CoreOS's paid service).
> As long as you hold Michael Moore to the same standard.

I know you're trying to be dismissive with your glib comment but let me tell you: I do hold him to the same standard and I find him to be a jackass.

That doesn't change the fact that James O'Keefe is a convicted criminal (attempted to wiretap Sen. Mary Landrieu's office).

It also doesn't change the fact that he heavily edited the ACORN video to skew the story, nor that they were humoring him and reported his nonsense to the police. Conservatives wanted to believe his lies so they did.

O'Keefe has zero credibility.
Yeah I'm not quite sure I understand the whole "I'm voting Clinton because it's the only way to stop Trump" argument.

No it's not. If enough people who are voting Clinton purely to stop Trump voted 3rd party, 3rd party would actually have a chance.

In this overflowing toilet bowl we call the 2016 Presidential Election, your best bet to unclog it is to use a plunger, now throw another turd in. Vote for the plunger, not the turds.