skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I sometimes use the "pomodoro" technique as a trigger, a way to beat procrastination. Often I have trouble starting to work on a problem if I'm unsure about what to do, I think it's similar to writer's block. That technique forces me to start working and once I'm started I can usually continue normally without need to use the timer.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/activist-who-took-credit-f...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCx3ov55tUw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGRFEiLBZCE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPLxfH8_sZw

Good thing all those do then, I suppose.
This is a very good point. I do not think supporting Trump is outside the bounds of decency, and I would not disassociate from Thiel on these grounds. But Sam Altman stated that "If Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator." The recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision re-affirmed the intimate connection between monetary support and political speech. So this is a serious logical disjunction on sama's part. Every fascist is someone's friend.
Facebook, Instagram and Twitter Provided Data for Surveilling Activists of Color
This person gets it. Our society is under threat by more than just Trump or Hilary.
Should be noted in the title that this post is from 2012
Personal relationships, including business relationships, are governed by different principles than what brand of ice cream you buy.
Search Engine Optimization in 2017 – 4 Things to Know
The size of this thread, and the split of opinions, is a clear indication to me that this goes beyond the single decision of "Whether or not keep Thiel on board".

I would like to bring your attention to that bigger issue (sorry if this comment is useless to you in making up your mind about Thiel).

I consider myself a transhumanist, a futurologist, a technologist, that sort of thing. I got into this about 3 years ago. And I've done a lot of thinking/reading on this topic, and I've tried my best to gauge the perception about technology in the eyes of non-techies, especially economists, and politicians.

And my conclusion is that, except for a few, economists and politicians are hopelessly lagging behind the fast pace of socio-economic change. I also predicted that within a matter of years, we're headed for a serious social disruption of an unpredictable nature.

Here is my thesis: 2016 is the beginning of that socially disruptive era. And it's all due to technological progress and automation-driven-unemployment!

If you think it's only about the 2016 US election, and things will settle down within weeks after November 8 election of Clinton, you would be misguided. Of course the election fever will settle down, but not the frustration behind it, which is growing like a frog in a slowly boiling water. I can tell you right now, the 2018 election season would be worse, and 2020 season would be far worse!

Case in point: Have you seen the statistics related to self-driving cars and trucks? Arguably it'll put 3 million truckers out of work. This will happen within a matter of months, not years, not decades. What do you think would happen when all of a sudden 3 million people are without means to put food on their table? Something that would make you forget Trump!

You might ask, we don't have self-driving cars yet why do we have social disruption? Well, self-driving cars is a poster-child of automation. It's something that's easy to understand and relate to. There is a ton of subtle, behind-the-scenes, automation going on, that is indirectly making harder for humans to utilize their skills for making money. Smart-phone and related apps, news article bots, automated warehousing like Amazon Kivy, Uber/Lyft, Airbnb, Etsy, vertical farming, solar and wind power, on, and on, and on. But more importantly:

Social disruption is not a step function but a logistic curve. It's not that we'll have zero disruption until self-driving trucks are available for retail purchasing, and after that we'll have full disruption. Instead, it's a sign of things to come, and we're off the zero-level, and slowly rising up the S-curve of the logistic function.

Please think of this problem in a bigger context. If technologists cannot do this, economists and politicians definitely can't.
Node v6.9.0 (LTS)
Wow! I love your comment! That's exactly what I think to myself. It is so stupid to suppress such a powerful source of energy for changing something in your head or/and in your life.
Uber-like app for tractor hailing launched in India
Just curious, but my understanding is that plants are generally carbon neutral. Any CO2 that is taken in by a plant is eventually broken back down and released after the plant dies and is consumed or allowed to decay. Unless you take a significant amount of that plant matter and contain it so that the carbon can't be re-released, at best you get a static reduction of CO2 directly proportional to the increase in live plant volume.

So, no carbon scrubbing while feeding the world, but you could maybe scrub carbon by taking massive amounts of excess crops and burying/sealing them away. Not sure what the cost/efficiency of that would be.
Lots of good questions about what I mean by AI. I agree my statement wasn't very precise. And to be honest, that's a reflection of me not having a precise definition of what it is, exactly. However, I do think there's a distinction between speech/image recognition and what's commonly understood as AI, with speech and image recognition being sensory input systems, and AI in a more colloquial sense, such as learning and problem solving on at approximately human level. My statement was imprecise, and given I was expressing frustration at imprecision, my bad :)

Thanks for the feedback! Gives me more to think about.
A Schengen visa allows you to travel freely in the EU, but not to live anywhere unless you actually have a long-term visa for the place.

All administrative acts will require you to have a long-term visa in the country you are doing them.
I am not sure how much of that I can answer in detail, sorry. But yes we have working strategies for dealing with both situations.
That's going to take a while to download...
> [Sam's] continued support for Peter Thiel is harming the goal he shares with me of preventing a Trump Presidency now, or in 2020

> (b) Pretty sure Thiel isn't going to shut up no matter what Sam Altman does.

The seeming dissonance here is interesting to me. Can you explain in more detail what outcome you're expecting will occur if Thiel is removed from YC, and how that will impact the election?
Because of extreme overuse, I think that now roughly half of the country don't care about being called racist or sexist anymore. Congratulations.

In fact, in certain circumstances it's actually a pretty good evidence that something "interesting" is being said and someone is trying to silence it, like how searching for grayed out comments in HN is the first thing I do in threads like this.
"You actually own your mailing list. There is no pay to play — just send them"
Yale Believes in Free Speech–and So Do I
Maybe the downvotes were because the burden of proof still lies with the FBI or Clintons to show it was indeed Russia.

Conversely, how can you prove that a state did not participate in a cyber attack?
> Try living in Mexico or Colombia and I bet you'd have a different opinion.

How did those criminals get to be that way, hmm?

It's not like they make all of that money off of ... kidnapping. Or robbery.

It's drugs. They make the money from selling substances that are illegal briefcase of our insane, failed drug policy. These criminals would not be so wealthy if drugs were legal. That's a simple, straight up, undeniable fact.
I agree that we'd also have to drive down healthcare costs using single payer.
My favorite programmer falsehood is that you can parse HTML with regexes.

https://blog.codinghorror.com/parsing-html-the-cthulhu-way/
Except that SHA-1 is strong enough to protect against MITM and will be for the immediately foreseeable future. Well-financed attackers could probably achieve a collision but that doesn't get you very far these days.
Facebook hack warning in developer tools
Probably won't happen. Judges are pretty much immune to the consequences of their legal decisions. One would have to really f##k up royally to lose his position.
CEO Mark Fields Sets Ford on a Dual Track
"A bit childish, considering the slot the candidate is running for is not in a dictatorship."

True, but Trump's rhetoric indicates he has not grasped the distinction.
Once had a job working in the basement of a building in Los Alamos NM operating a digital scanner to digitize various documents from the lab archives. I encountered a few boxes of photos of various atomic tests - beautiful and spooky.
Although, driver's can't set their own rates. To me, this sounds like employment. Historically, part-time workers have usually had to set their hours in advance, for practical reasons. To me, the only thing Uber's tech does is minimize the advance notice, but not really fundamentally alter the relationship.
Link has an extra semicolon at the end. Here's a working version: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2376272

EDIT: Just looking through the abstract I agree that it is a very scary assessment.

Abstract:

National security policy in the United States has remained largely constant from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. This continuity can be explained by the “double government” theory of the 19th-century scholar of the English Constitution, Walter Bagehot. As applied to the United States, Bagehot’s theory suggests that U.S. national security policy is defined by the network of executive officials who manage the departments and agencies responsible for protecting U.S. national security and who, responding to structural incentives embedded in the U.S. political system, operate largely removed from public view and from constitutional constraints. The public believes that the constitutionally-established institutions control national security policy, but that view is mistaken. Judicial review is negligible; congressional oversight is dysfunctional; and presidential control is nominal. Absent a more informed and engaged electorate, little possibility exists for restoring accountability in the formulation and execution of national security policy.
What exactly is new here?
Wait, are you trying to say something about Paul Graham, or something about Sam Altman? Because one of those wrote that essay, and the other heads YC right now.

You had a point somewhere up around "Peter Thiel is not an employee of Sam Altman [but rather a partner that can be let go of at any time for any reason]" but what happened to the rest of your comment?
When's a cheap day to fly to and return from Las Vegas?
Sorry. Can't answer that, you need to specify the exact
day you want to depart and the exact day you want to come
back, and we might let you look at results + or - 3 days,
unless you don't specify the exact departure airport.

Google Flights has this: https://www.google.com/flights/?f=0#search;f=SFO,OAK,SJC;t=L...

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, on an unrelated project.)
Your information is spot on. I have been working with Sabre daily for a few years now, and I don't want to think about the time I have wasted waiting for a Sabre response... it does go down once a week, which I guess is a perk
10 Top Websites to Start Your Programming Journey
This can only happen when you lack accountability and actual representation in a republic. I've concluded that the general chain of reasoning is this:

Unrepresented -> Corruption -> Money -> Corporate Influence -> Gerrymandering / First Past the Post / Term Limits -> Whole election system is fucked

The way the US, and most other governments, are organized is broken because of a lack of humanity. If you try having one person represent millions, those millions will always be numbers to anyone, and that person will just be a name on a ballot to the numbers. Real representation requires a personal relationship, and that means you need to build government on the foundation of your community first. I generally see every position added to the ballot as a failure of a republic, because what you really should be doing is electing, say, a regional council (using STV or other proportional voting systems) whom then both nominates higher offices and appoints everything you would normally have on the ballot. Because that is their job, and you would not be picking between the lesser of two evils on a ticket but one of a few hundred of your neighbors who is exemplary who would do the best job.

Most people I know, at least in less dense neighborhoods (and community interaction in cities and dense living always has been problematic) can name someone who lives around them they would want to represent them in government. And you are much more likely to have reason to trust, and hold responsible, your neighbor than some guy who lives in the richest part of the city, state, or country and whom you will never meet in person, and they will never know you to give a damn about your liberty.
> I'm not a fan of people getting paid for copyrighted works decades after the work was created [...]

Why not? It seems to me to be the most sensible way to pay people for creative works, if we assume that people who create more economically valuable works should get paid more for those works than do people who create less valuable works.

With many kinds of artistic works the value of the work cannot be determined until long after the work is created, and so it is very hard to determine what a fair up front one-time payment should be. An ongoing royalty based on the use of the work addresses that.
You are right, but only in a very strict, not-fun, manner :). Even if we had more data on different boats sinking, the model would not be very useful: We don't go with the Titanic anymore and plotted all icebergs. Still, if a cruise ship were to go down, I'd place a bet on ranking younger women of nobility traveling first class higher for survivability than old men with family traveling third class, wise predictor or no.

This dataset is more in line with what you are looking for: https://www.kaggle.com/saurograndi/airplane-crashes-since-19...
No idea why you have been downvoted
Peter Thiel's financial support for Trump's campaign, as well as Trump's campaign of hatred, racism, xenophobia and misogyny, are perfect examples of the Overton window sliding into insanity.

The next Trump may be slightly more moderate. He may accept that women may have some of the same rights as men. He may accept the fact some foreigners should be afforded some civil liberties. He may even accept access to healthcare is a good thing and that Islam is not inherently evil.

And, next to Trump, he'll be pictured as a moderate.

I am sorry if I look intolerant of diversity, but this cannot be tolerated. We cannot allow the subversion of democracies.
A lot of times, airlines sell tickets based on where the ticket is issued for multiple reasons. If you read some fare rules for these country/region restricted tickets, it'll say something like "valid only when ticket issued in Japan" which leads to people trying to get a flight ticketed on a region specific site of orbitz/expedia/some-airline.co.jp
It's not their fault really. Tv and movies, especially ones like the matrix, AI and Irobot call AGI, AI.

Doesn't make it any less frustrating, but also distinguishes the people in it versus those who aren't.
iOS development from Linux
> Your whole position is based on a claim that there must exist a nation state to have a "war".

No, my position is based on the fact that our treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war apply to nation states. Certainly we can be at war with a non-state actor (we clearly are). But our treaties around prisoners of war are not directly applicable, as the past administrations have made clear.

For wars not against nation states, there must still be some sort of due process for prisoners. The idea that being at war with some entity gives us the right to retain arbitrary people indefinitely, without even proving that they have participated in that entity, is morally unacceptable.

> Do you have references? The world's law experts don't seem to agree...

Do you have an references to the claim that law experts don't agree? There are a few treaties about war prisoners but they apply to signatories, which clans etc are not.

Beyond that, "laws of war" have historically been defined by the victors. I'm not aware of a body of law that applies to wars universally, nor do I believe one could exist. (Who could enforce it?)

> that by your definition we need a new word for civil wars -- at least one side is not a nation state.

You could argue that for civil wars at least both sides would effectively be signatories if the nation as a whole was a signatory before the war began.

> You also claim that the Taliban never was a government? They had control of a large part of Afghanistan. And they are still fighting, along with their allies. I assume you don't argue that a war stops being a war when one side lose control of their capital?

I don't claim any of that. I claim that Afghanistan is at least officially no longer ruled by the Taliban. We don't recognize them as the legitimate government. If we accept that we are no longer at war with Afghanistan then we must according to the Geneva conventions release any prisoners of war captured during the war with Afghanistan.

Any enemy combatants not deemed prisoners of war should be given some sort of due process. Again, the idea that being at war against terrorism gives us the right to indefinitely detain arbitrary people is morally unacceptable.

> You ignored my argument.
> Again: Afaik, you can keep combatants prisoner until after the hostilities. Which are still continuing. [Edit: This seems to be the relevant part in the Geneva Conventions -- https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs.... ]
> The Taliban had a government, they were a nation. So it qualify as a "war", even according to your definition.
> The Taliban and their allies are still fighting.
> Are you claiming that conflict stopped being a war when they lost the capital? Please give good references...

I don't see that I made any of those claims, nor do I feel like I ignored your argument. I don't believe that being a signatory on the Geneva convention in any way gives us a right to indefinitely detain people with no reasonable path to release and no proof of involvement in the conflict. Even if legally we can make that argument, I think it's morally repugnant.
There's no such thing as just vendored. If you include a 3rd party library in a nuget package, and the developer using that package also includes that 3rd party library. It can cause problems.
This is also true for pwople. How do you know humans are thinking and not following lots of social rules they learn thanks to special neural hardware for learning social interaction?

Think about the intelligence conveyed in ritualized greetings.
tptacek is arguing Sam A and Paul G are being inconsistent. I think maybe he could've made that point more clear by being a little less clever with his comments. :)
When liberal pundits get a platform from the NYT, his speech is qualitatively different than the opinion I write in my blog, yet I don't think we should legalize political retribution or censure against pundits who use too large a platform. Hopefully you agree?
Thank you for building ITA Matrix - it is amazing tool and I don't know what I would do without it.
Illustrations of the People Who Want You to Work for Free
I agree completely. But doing something _only_ for the purpose of moving into a higher income bracket may indeed be pointless (or less desirable) in a more equal society.

In such a society, any meaningful definition of social mobility has to include more than just income percentiles.
> His dissent essentially said that the matter should have been solved by a constitutional amendment.

Why should a fundamental right require a constitutional amendment? IMHO, this is a cop-out for Scalia: he knows how hard it is to put together a constitutional amendment, so instead of just saying "no" and appearing like a bigot, he punted the question as a constitutional amendment. I'm sorry, but I don't buy his argument.
After reading this comment, and given this is a rebrand of the jQuery foundation, I'm thinking the purpose of this may perhaps be just an effort to retain relevance by maintainers of outdated or waning JS tools.
This is false. Please don't spread innuendo like this. I'm all over the other thread about Marco Arment's post, but I've flagged a bunch of other YC/Thiel stories.
That's been there for little while now. I noticed it a couple weeks ago on Firefox.
You can't comment like this here. We ask that users post civilly and substantively on HN or not at all.
Are you attempting to separate the concepts of specialization vs reified generics? Java does neither right now, and both effects are due to type erasure -- the runtime simply doesn't have the necessary information. I'm not quite sure where you're trying to draw the line.

Furthermore, runtime specialization (as opposed to compile-time) would seem to require reified types. So that further confuses things. But you can definitely have reified types without specialization, which I think is the point that you are trying to convey.
When a native Promise incurs a rejection but there is no handler to receive it, a warning will be printed to standard error.

Probably the most important change other than improvements in es2015 support.
Man alive this thread. When SV wonders why it has a diversity problem, just point 'em here.

Where were all you Free Speech zealots when Thiel destroyed Gawker?

Where were all you Political Choices Are Sacred crew when SOPA was being proposed?

Where were all you "protect rich bigots" stans when it was Brendan Eich? Oh wait, that's right, you were on the wrong side there too, my bad.

As for you "I guess there's a 'wrong side' these days of things you just can't say" newcomers: surprise, there have always been unacceptable opinions, such as supporting fascism. It's just that a mainstream party accidentally chose as its candidate someone who holds and expresses those opinions. That doesn't give him, you, or Thiel, a pass.
Ok, when's the next 2GB Xbox One update and will this fix the problem of me saying "Xbox watch NBC", and it 'hearing' "Xbox watch TV"?
Users flag things. Not the moderators. From what I can see, the only thing any of the moderators have done with any of these stories is rescue them from user flags.
If you're trying to say that he should be seeking a CTO position instead of a developer/engineer position, then I agree.
>Email isn't assured to remain on trusted servers while in transit over the 'net.

Nothing is assured to remain safe.

>Moreover, if you had a stack of printouts containing your customer's credit card information sitting on your counter while you left your front door wide open, and _that_ was stolen, I would consider that you had improperly cared for the private information of your customers.

You have stopped trying to defend WikiLeaks and put all the blame on the DNC. Even if I grant you all of this, that still doesn't abdicate the responsibility of the people who took the data, or the people releasing the data. Taking someone else's private data, even if they made it easy for you to do, and broadcasting it to the world, putting people at risk and exposing their private information unrelated to any government transparency goal you may have, is irresponsible and dangerous.
I think one factor is that the standard response to allegations of large scale corruption was "ha! As if the incompetent government could keep a secret that big you conspiracy theorist".

That argument practically disappeared from public discourse in a crazy short time span. To me it seemed like the Snowden/NSA stuff was the nail in the coffin for that one.
Weird and sorry to hear. Could be due to them being on mobile and leaving their internet app. Have not experienced this otherwise.