skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sure, but that's a consequence of a 2 party system and choosing the lesser evil, isn't it?

He's both Libertarian and gay, both are extremely socially liberal. Why do you say he is socially conservative? I'm not seeing that.

A lot of Libertarian tend to vote Republican because they feel stronger about economic issues, high taxes, 2nd amendment, freedom of religion, etc, than they do about social issues but that is just because there are only 2 choices (my bedroom vs my wallet).

A vote for either party is throwing everyone from the other party under the bus, isn't it?

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-31-control-o...
Awesome find. Sharing this.
> This isn't just about Thiel.

It is specifically and precisely about Thiel. As others have noted, YC has distanced itself from relationships for political reasons in the past.

> How would you like it if your boss read your comment and then decided to fire you as a result? That's the kind of society you're creating.

Yeah except no, see there are two issues with your assertions:

1. Thiel is not employed by YC and not in a position of weakness or dependency.

2. I live in a country where you can't just tell employees to get fucked without providing a very good reason. My boss being on record firing me for my comments would net me a few years worth of income.

> Yes. Living in a liberal and free society means tolerating views you find repugnant.

But not that other people can find them intolerable? Only repugnant views are worth expressing and defending? That's an… interesting point of view, and one with which I emphatically disagree.
As an American I share your view of Hillary.

There are other candidates besides Trump, but I feel like I am taking crazy pills trying to educate people on Hillary's history.
It seems to imply a hell of a lot.

"I'm not saying that darawk's down/up-voting should be revoked, but he sometimes upvotes things that aren't the best for our country."

The above (wrong) sentence would be an example of this type of implication.
Aren't Nintendo rumored to get back to sorta-ROM cartridges with their upcoming NX console? (The cartridges would be made of strictly speaking rewritable flash memory.)

They seem to care about loading times....
I highly doubt that Thiel supports sexual abuse anymore than I think all my friends who are going to vote for Clinton support foreign interventionism, the need to regulate video games like narcotics, etc.
Amen to that. Another non US citizen here with the same feeling about this election. You managed to successfully summarize what I feel towards Hillary for a few months now.
The obvious theory for Trump support would be:

He thinks Trump will severely harm America, and he really hates America.
Seriously I feel like I'm taking crazy pills on HN the way people are apologizing for Trump in this thread. This is a man that has sexually assaulted women and actively campaigned on kicking out all the "others".

Trump is not worthy of defense.
"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."

There's a ton of value in this sentence, because I find especially amongst the tech crowd, people are so isolated in the echo chambers created by their local populations, their choice of friends on social media, etc. We seek out likeminded people, and eventually, once we surround ourselves with them, suddenly other views, even popular views, seem crazy and radical. But they do come from somewhere, and generally those people have legitimate reasons for feeling the way they do.
Simmilarly, pre-quantum cryptographic techniques are ones for which we have not yet found ways of breaking with classical algorithms.
> That's not how things are done in this country.

Tocqueville, almost 200 years ago, begs to differ:

"I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.... in America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases; but woe to him if he goes beyond them." [1]

What's changed this year isn't that Americans are being purged for having the wrong political ideas. That's been happening not for 200 years, but well over 300. Roger Williams, anyone? [2]

What's changed this year is that the major candidate of one of the main two parties holds beliefs that would get any normal American purged. Added to this is the velocity of change: 50 years ago, most normal Americans held these same beliefs. (Heck, not 10 years ago, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were swearing up and down that "marriage is between a man and a woman.")

So you're seeing two processes: an increase in the speed at which America's governing class can evolve its beliefs, and a decrease in their ability to drag the rest of America along with them. No surprise that the latter group wants to respond to an existential threat with an existential threat.

[1] http://dailyprincetonian.com/opinion/2001/10/alexis-de-tocqu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams
>then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying.

This is a very dangerous way of viewing politics, and exactly the kind of black-and-white thinking we're trying to get away from. Just because you donate to someone, just because you vote for them, just because you campaign for them does not mean you agree 100% with everything they say. If 100% agreement were a prerequisite for voting for someone, nobody would ever vote. There has never been a candidate that has held all of my views, and there never will be, because my views are a pretty peculiar mix based on my experiences and exposure to information.
The article (and phrase) I found really helpful in understanding the split in support is:

"The press takes him (Trump)literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-ma...
Not true.

Bernie was pretty far left and he got crushed by neo-con Hillary.
From The Education of a Libertarian [0]

---

"I believe that politics is way too intense. That’s why I’m a libertarian. Politics gets people angry, destroys relationships, and polarizes peoples’ vision: the world is us versus them; good people versus the other. Politics is about interfering with other people’s lives without their consent. That’s probably why, in the past, libertarians have made little progress in the political sphere. Thus, I advocate focusing energy elsewhere, onto peaceful projects that some consider utopian." - Peter Thiel [0]

[0]: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

---

Leaving aside all the drama surrounding YC and Peter Thiel, this is where it all breaks down for me. How am I supposed to take Thiel at his word today, when less than a decade ago he was convinced that politics is "too intense" because it angers people, divides them into us-vs-them groups, and tears them apart.

Is it simply that he's changed who he is in that time? I mean, that's a legitimate reason, and one I could respect even if it means I don't agree with who he is today. I'd want to know what changed his mind.

Or are there different Peter Thiel personas? I can understand this, too. As Hillary Clinton pointed out, Abraham Lincoln believed that politicians have a private and a public persona, because most of the electorate would shudder to see how our tasty, democratic sausage was being made.

Or is he a capricious man who doesn't stick to his principals when motivated by financial or political need? That would be disappointing, but the cynic in me says it wouldn't be surprising.

Without knowing who he truly is, and why there is such a divide between just 7 years ago (still fully within his adult life) and now, his whole persona just doesn't compute with me and I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that he's too chaotic to trust.

Does anyone have any insight?
"Difficulties accepting" seems rather different from the practical difficulty of closely following a fast-moving target.
Haha. Here's a comment I left in my solution to 1.7:

# This one took the longest, and it was just a shell command!
# I learned that openssl's documentation is TERRIBLE!!
I'm absolutely just shocked that it was his own hosts that cut him off.
Sam, thanks for ending this on the most important note (imho): understanding.

Not understanding each other is how we got into this mess.
It's pretty common to `set -o noclobber` in beginner dotfiles; doing deferred-open-if-exists is an interesting idea that would probably get a lot of resistance :-)
It's not black and white. Depends on which state you live in. Quoting http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donna-ballman/can-you-be-fired...

"Activity outside work: Some states and localities prohibit employers for firing or disciplining employees for legal activities outside work. If you’re involved in a political campaign and you work in one of these states, you can’t be fired for your political activities as long as they are legal activities."
This Reddit post really opened up my eyes to why people support Trump:

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/579v4z/head_of_iow...
Some consistency would be nice. If it's OK for the boss to talk about this, then bring back the Thiel piece out of flagblivion. If this is a politics-free forum, then absolutely flag the boss.

Peter Thiel funds World's Worst Startup: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-don...
>racist policies

Citation needed. I expect better for a top story on HN.

I'd also add that the US electing Clinton will show that corruption is now openly allowed in the US at the highest levels. That it simply doesn't matter. This sets a far more damaging precedent around the world than whatever it is people think Trump will do (like not starting a war).
Let's not applaud being stuck in LEO with 50 year old space systems. The US is dedicated to leaving LEO with the SLS and SpaceX, Boeing, and others. There is no roadmap with Soyuz or the ISS. They go nowhere we haven't been to over and over and mocking the US for being between launch systems seems short-sighted and childish.
Ordinarily, I might be more inclined to agree with you, but (as even sama seems to recognize) this is far from an ordinary 'vote my issues' kind of election. This is a more holistic matter of core principles.
Not allowing Muslim refugees in is another way of killing them.
I agree with your assessment. HRC represents the "devil you know" to many people vs. "the one you don't" (Trump). A lot of how people feel is fueled by our hyperbolic, news-as-entertainment industry, but not all of it.

It's not irrational paranoia to believe your government operates as a separate entity, one that is not subject to the rule of law. From the Iraq war, to torture, to retroactively legal bulk collection, to immunity granted to telecoms for doing illegal surveillance, to no one going to jail in response to 2008, the list goes on and on.

We have a government all too happy to throw millions of us in jail for the most minor of offenses, yet the same rules don't appear to apply to the people constantly on our TV screens or ones that aren't with enough connections.

HRC is not the devil, but she represents something deeply unsavory to a lot of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum.

Trump is an obvious mad man. The fact that so many people are willing to give such a man the ability to unilaterally destroy humanity speaks volumes about where western civilization is at right now.
They did the same with Bernie supporters. Seems like it works well for them.
IIRC one of its main uses was in places where one needed to protect oneself from government spying, like TOR. I believe, but don't recall specifically, that there were some instances like what you mention, though.
Perhaps its a popular position with quiet adherents? "The level-headed majority."
Right, we aren't talking about Mitt Romney here. If this were the 2012 election I would be defending him, but this isn't some "standard" GOP candidate.

Funny how the "binders full of women" seems so tame today.
Maybe he's a closet racist, who knows. But I think that's a dismissive assumption.

Here's a great article: http://theweek.com/articles/638051/why-does-peter-thiel-supp...

Some bullet points:

* He believes we've stagnated (see http://blog.samaltman.com/trump)
* He sees a unique opportunity to buy into politics at the highest level for a mere $1.25MM
* He likes being on CNN and on stage. He's famous, but not politics-famous.
* He found a way to get Republicans to cheer for the phrase "I'm gay"

Again, doesn't justify him... but potentially explains him.

At the end of the day, we shouldn't be surprised that a guy who's famous for asking "What's one thing you believe that no one else does?" is supporting the most contrarian candidate we've ever seen.
> dystopian nightmare that Hillary will unleash

What specifically will happen?
It works on both ends:

- Voters holding candidates responsible for where their support comes from, and whether that will influence their actions in office.
- Consumers / collaborators / whatnot holding financiers responsible for what they are funding.

I, as a voter, do choose to take into account who is funding a candidate's campaign.

I, as a consumer / potential employee / human, take into account the speech funded by someone I'm intending to conduct a transaction with / form a friendship with, as evidence of their character.
That article describes how the master encryption key stored on the hdd (your password encrypts this key afaik) gets corrupted, which means the author was unable to recover the files on the computer even if nothing is wrong anywhere else.

Now I'm not familiar with the inner workings of OS X as I don't personally use that system. However, with FDE (LUKS) on Linux, this is 100% avoidable if you backed up the LUKS Header: https://calum.org/posts/backup-your-LUKS-header-and-LVM-conf....

This does not negate the need for a real backup tho. So you should backup your data regardless, however you want to do that.
My Report to the President
Even if the government knew that said friend was there and spent ~£10M on 24hr security so that he couldn't leave without being arrested?
It's basically impossible to select a President you 100% agree with, unless you're voting for yourself.
The Reddit Ads Experiment: What We Learned for $250
> After peeling through the React codebase

Except you don't have to peel through their code base or intercept any calls, they expose a clean interface for this: https://github.com/facebook/react-devtools

You can capture it like this:

window.__REACT_DEVTOOLS_GLOBAL_HOOK__.inject = function(obj) {
// obj.Mount
}

Which is how we're doing SSR at https://www.prerender.cloud/ for compatibility across React versions.
UK surveillance agencies collected communications data illegally, for 10+ years
My counter to that would be that we accept that sometimes war is necessary and can be the lesser of two evils, while judging every Muslim by the actions of a few should never be necessary.

Hilary didn't say she wants to nuke Syria and Libya. She made a decision because she thought that conflict there was the lesser of two evils, and has applied mostly proportionate response, and attempted to limit collateral damage.

Trump has said he wants to completely ban everyone who shares a religion with the most prominent terrorists of the moment.

The two, in my eyes, are very, very different. One is a decision made in the understanding that we have to make difficult choices, one is a naive, dangerous blanket policy as a knee-jerk response that will cause more harm than good.

It's easy to say 'killing vs banning' and make it sound the way you did, but when it's 'carefully directed killing to try and reduce overall killing vs overreaching banning that will be ineffective and punish innocent people'...
I've said this in another thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12728761) but in case that submission gets flagged off the page again, I'll include it here:

From The Education of a Libertarian [0]

---

"I believe that politics is way too intense. That’s why I’m a libertarian. Politics gets people angry, destroys relationships, and polarizes peoples’ vision: the world is us versus them; good people versus the other. Politics is about interfering with other people’s lives without their consent. That’s probably why, in the past, libertarians have made little progress in the political sphere. Thus, I advocate focusing energy elsewhere, onto peaceful projects that some consider utopian." - Peter Thiel [0]

[0]: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

---

Leaving aside all the drama surrounding YC and Peter Thiel, this is where it all breaks down for me. How am I supposed to take Thiel at his word today, when less than a decade ago he was convinced that politics is "too intense" because it angers people, divides them into us-vs-them groups, and tears them apart.

Is it simply that he's changed who he is in that time? I mean, that's a legitimate reason, and one I could respect even if it means I don't agree with who he is today. I'd want to know what changed his mind.

Or are there different Peter Thiel personas? I can understand this, too. As Hillary Clinton pointed out, Abraham Lincoln believed that politicians have a private and a public persona, because most of the electorate would shudder to see how our tasty, democratic sausage was being made.

Or is he a capricious man who doesn't stick to his principals when motivated by financial or political need? That would be disappointing, but the cynic in me says it wouldn't be surprising.

Without knowing who he truly is, and why there is such a divide between just 7 years ago (still fully within his adult life) and now, his whole persona just doesn't compute with me and I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that he's too chaotic to trust.

Does anyone have any insight?
HRC has moved the Democratic Party to the right. This has left many poor and angry people in the dust. Many have gravitated toward Trump.

Yes, poor people are more likely to be criminals and racists but let's be real, mainstream pols have been speaking racist language in a more coded and subtle way for a long time. It has always been ugly. HRC has done it herself when it benefits her.

What irritates me about this essay and the "stop Trump" argument for HRC in general, is that it supposes that it is not necessary to hold one's chosen candidate accountable and that we should just get on board and be grateful someone is running against Trump.

I could never vote for either candidate. But Trump's stark and unthinking narrative is matched by a similarly stark and unthinking anti-Trump narrative.
Classify Your RSA Key
And Trump uses his charity to pay off his businesses legal settlements.

Every time we get a new accusation from Trump (Clinton Foundation is a slush fund!!!) it turns out that Trump is actually the one doing it.

It's classic mis-direction. Accuse your opponent first to put them on the defensive, then when evidence if your own wrongdoing comes out you can muddy the waters and say no one has clean hands.

The Clintons used their personal connections and foundation money to lobby drug companies to give massive discounts on AIDs drugs to poor people. They've literally saved thousands of lives.

Trump's charity has done nothing charitable. He hasn't even donated to it in many years.
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

It's interesting to see people calling for more alternatives and more viable political parties in the US. It's not clear to me that having more political parties would be better since many European countries, where more parliamentary style representation is common, is also dealing with their own xenophobic and nationalist movements.
Without the war there would not have been 6 trillion dollars to spend...

I think Trump supporters are regular simple Americans who are looking around and seeing they haven't benefited from the economic prosperity at a rate equivalent to their output and are facing an all out assault on their labor via neo-liberal policies adopted by both major parties. Neither party is going to point back at themselves and Trump has seized their support by blaming common scapegoats and tapping in to populist racial, gender and religious discrimination. Democrats have and do do this too, ie "super predators", etc.
I've had gigabit internet (symmetrical) in my apartment in London for the past ~3years.

Some things I've found:

Even 802.11ac WiFi is really lacking. Despite link speed being 900mbit, it really struggles to push more than 200mbit/sec. On 802.11n it was more like 90mbit/sec.

Torrents are often IO (or even CPU) bound at high speed. I use a transcend drive on my MBP for more space and that seems to max out at 100mbit/sec (yes, bits) with very random read/write like bittorrent.

You end up not noticing internet faster than 100/100. I have 0.3ms pings to the local Cloudflare CDN, so latency is not a problem. You do notice slower than that. Especially low upload connections, you are so used to git push taking no time at all, you forget on slow upstream how slow that can feel.

While it's nice to have gigabit internet, I would rather 100/100 with low latency (eg: GFast) over 300/30 with variable latency (eg: DOCSIS3).

The highest non-4K (I don't have a 4K TV) bitrate I have seen is netflix at around 8mbit/sec, which looks great.

I honestly do think BT in the UK is making the right option in choosing a faster/larger deployment of FTTC and GFast over FTTH. Gigabit really isn't that useful, and I can't see this changing for the next few years.
https://www.producthunt.com/ (I guess).
I'm confused about the need to have a web app that 'runs anywhere' when you know exactly 'where' it's going to run. When you spin up an instance, don't you get to decide what OS and services you're going to use?

I could maybe see the advantage if you had no control over the environment that the app was going to be run in like you might have with a downloaded executable for example. However, if your product is just some kind of web application, I don't see the need for containers.
Well said, my thoughts exactly.
> such as capturing 3 Supreme Court justice appointments for Republican judges.

And Peter Thiel might be one of them.
I'm sure if you look hard, you can find some people who (would) genuinely enjoy taping up boxes too, generally among people who are mentally challenged. But like the baristas, these jobs will eventually be automated because it'll be cheaper and more efficient to do so than to have humans doing them. If I'm buying crap online from Amazon, I'd rather save money and have my boxes packed by a robot than pay someone to do it, and similarly, if I'm buying a drink, I'd rather save some money and have a robot make it for me, and be much more likely to have a consistent product (human-made coffee/tea drinks are notoriously inconsistent in quality; some baristas suck, and even good baristas make mistakes).

Personally, I think the only real reason to have human workers in our automated future is to have some human contact. So there's no reason to have human baristas: those people stand behind a counter and I may or may not be able to interact with them, depending on how the establishment is laid out. But if I go to a café and sit in a comfy chair and order a drink, I'd rather have a cute college girl bring it to me than a robot.

So basically, until femmebots are invented and perfected, the big value that humans can provide that robots and automation cannot is sex and socialization.

And if they ever invent AI robots that look and act just like people, it's all over for humans because the robots won't have our annoying flaws.