skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Where does it stop though? Where is the line where you say "I disagree with you, therefore I will not associate with you"? There is definitely a line. Supporting a candidate who says a lot of stuff probably isn't it. I knew people who were against Obama because his religious leader had said something that could be construed to be pro-satan. Obama is not a 100% mirror (or even a tiny bit) that religious leader. Not supporting Trump for what he says seems fine - he's 100% responsible for what he says. Not supporting someone else, who supports Trump, is not OK. That other person has separate thoughts, and input from hundreds/thousands of other people. It's like saying if you support someone who supports Clinton, you support top secret emails being on everyone's private servers. It's a tiny slice of the whole. Or, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".
That's interesting. Just a few days ago with great regret I decided to drop the (free) Scala course on Coursera after almost finishing week #3 (of 5 I think). I'm actually already pretty familiar at least with the essentials of functional programming but would like to go even deeper.

However, I found the step too steep between the easy to understand lectures and the exercises, and the latter not as useful as they could be. It felt like I was suddenly dropped off and left to my own devices with no guidance. "Now implement this!" Uhm... what? Sure, that's easy, I've been implementing much more complicated things for decades. The problem is I have no idea how to approach it "the right way" as far as Scala is concerned, that's why I'm taking the course!

Looking at the forum - extremely sparsely populated even after over 4 months - showed that I could also expect no guidance from there. That meant that even when I finished a task I was unable to find out if what I had done was the right (functional) way. For one and most importantly, there is hardly anyone to respond, but also since the only exercises are the homework assignments you can't just post your code, that's an "honor code violation". There also is no "solution", i.e. you can't see how the course author(s) would have implemented it.

Another example, people in the forum complained about extreme differences in performance for very minor differences in the way you wrote something, and you had to find all of this out completely for yourself, again no guidance at all.

Another point is that I found the problems too academic. Sure, I can walk a list of head.tail or a tree of left.element.right tuples. But overall the problems were all from what I did a long time ago at university and it felt very, very far from what I deal with now - and I don't just do CRUD or other boring stuff and actually do have interesting algorithms to implement. The course feels like being made for university students - in a negative way.

Overall I found the course more frustration than it was worth. I could have solved the programming challenges easily enough in a way I already knew, but what's the point? I wanted to learn the new (Scala) way, but felt all alone in trying to do that.

The course was like a good violin player demonstrating a piece and then giving me some sheet music and shoving me out the door "come back when you can play that". It's hard to complain about "free", but if course forum participation is a guide, both total numbers as well as the steep drop-off after week 1 and 2, it isn't very successful.

The course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/progfun1

Note: Enrolling in the courses individually is possible for free, going through the "specialization" page at https://www.coursera.org/specializations/scala only shows the for-pay option.
That article is rough around the edges but very insightful. I keep this in mind a lot. I think to just go ahead and label all Trump supporters as idiots or degenerates is very unproductive. There is some message that speaks to the people left behind that maybe the Democrats are ignoring.
I get the 'catalyst for change' argument, except that's not how it would work.

For one, Trump could do a huge amount of damage in four years - destroying peoples lives through taxation and repealing rights, destroying international relations, filling the supreme court with hard right wing candidates.

Not to mention the damage that would be done in terms of social norms. Trump getting elected is a massive signal to the right that it's OK to be racist, sexist, and trample other's beliefs, identities and cultures. Those people will be more vocal, which means more kids will get sucked up into that ideology.

Also, why would the left move left if Trump wins? The message there is someone as crazily far-right as Trump can get 50% of the vote. They'd move right, not left.

I honestly can't believe that anyone who supports Sanders - someone who is so strongly in favour of the things Trump intends to trample, and such a strong pragmatist, would want to follow a course of action that is so clearly shooting your own nose to spite your face.
This is exactly the kind of "my politics are so certain they aren't even politics anymore" manipulation that I'm seeing everywhere.

Movements don't exist in a vacuum. A massive trend like roughly half the country making a choice you don't agree with is pressing back against _something_, and one of the things it's pressing back against is attitudes like this.
1. Discrimination in the workplace is more pernicious than people reacting to public speech.

2. Political contributions are public speech. That's why they are protected by the Constitution. People have a right to answer to public speech. If an executive goes to publicly declare horrible things, but legal under freedom of speech protection, their actions will have an effect on the economic prospect of the company.

It's not that Brendan Eich donated to the wrong cause, or that Peter Thiel supports the wrong candidate. It's that when you make a public statement, you must be prepared to accept the consequences of your public statement. If you are not, speak in private.

When Rosa Parks said no to the man who asked her to stand up to leave her seat to a white person, she did bear the consequences of her public actions. People who go and support right-wing causes should be held to the same standards. Bearing the consequences is the price of public speech.
I think that accusing the left as being monolithic and acting unanimously adds to this divide.

Can you describe this trend so we can further the conversation?
Remaping caps lock to ctrl changed my life on vim (amongst other things).

I didn't know about C-[ though, i've been using C-c which is also an <Esc> equivalent by default. On MacOS anyway.
I think the trick might be treating "work" and "employment" as separate concepts. Systematically unemployed people might find fulfillment working on things they decide for themselves are worth the effort.
One option of course, which as a European who had to live with media-government collusion his whole life, is to triangulate: Read foreign media, read political opponents views on the same topic as the mainstream media, read (if available) conflicting mainstream media stories. Take it all in, and triangulate. Very often the BS from one side cancels out the BS from the other side and you are not closer to reality. But very often it's the scrutiny from either side on an opposing paradigm, that gets you closer to what actually happened. Finally, draw your own conclusions based on history/education/philosophy.
Writing bug reports took me 5 minutes to figure out how to do in the real world (or maybe an hour, or even a day, but not too long). This is not something you need to take a class to figure out.
> The War Powers Resolution requires the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

The US military can break a lot of things in 48 hours never mind 60 days.
Funny how two attendees of the 2016 Bilderberger meeting and partners in YC - Altman and Thiel - support opposing candidates - Clinton and Trump. USofA never ceases to amaze me.
U.K. Closing Kremlin TV’s Bank Account Latest Strain with Russia
Strom Thurmond also repudiated his earlier racism, but that didn't stop the OP from using him as a litmus test.

Why is that?
>Ooh, me, me, I debate it. This is a dumb thing to say and you should feel dumb for saying it. It makes no sense and is not based on anything.

Insults do not qualify as debate. His claim is based on, or should include, the portions of the Podesta emails that have showed a dismaying amount of coordination with the press. Approving quotes, approving stories, printing talking points. Compare their behavior against the guidelines set out by the Society of Professional Journalists. It's a disgrace.
https://tikayhaiti.org/

http://blogs.barrons.com/penta/2014/08/29/how-to-wisely-give...

All the money goes towards care. Right now the founder (an infectious disease doctor who is uncompensated by the charity and frequently pays for charity expenses out of pocket) is in Haiti to help with the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew and help prevent another cholera epidemic from recurring.

https://tikayhaiti.org/hurricane-matthew/

I volunteer for them as well (for some technical things, like the website.)
> Building cars is a low-margin business.

So is building phones.
TLDR; Caching improves performance.
The job market seems to favor Computers Science degrees over Software Engineering degrees.

Although it favors job experience over both.
Sorry, I must be ignorant of some facts. What am I missing? I haven't seen anything from Thiel that would be lead me to believe he is anti-gay. It seems quite the contrary to me. He even said in his Republican speech that he was gay. What do you mean by self-hating? His choice of the Republican party? There's really only 2 choices so you can't really take that to mean he supports everything from the Republican party.
Thanks for clarifying; by your statement it does indeed appear that the quote is being unfairly taken out of context.
IBM and Sun know.
Would YC keep Thiel if Trump were running as an independent polling at 10%?
I don't believe that the occurrence of an election is itself causation at work.

The reason it seems that way, to me, is the same reason that abused women tend to step out of their shame when they see other women doing it, or when their anger is kindled into a flame that exceeds their fear. People feel empowered when they realize they're not alone (edit: and someone they identify as a peer has given a voice to their own beliefs, experiences or feelings)

Sometimes, that feeling of empowerment makes them speak up. Sometimes it makes them lash out. It's an unfortunate coincidence that a presidential candidate is directly responsible for catalyzing both groups of people into responding so passionately today.

Realistically, I believe that the electorate has felt disenfranchised (using the more general "deprived of a voice" definition) for many years now, and for various reasons. A republic such as ours can never have an electorate that, in its entirety, feels like their voices are heard. I don't know how to help that; I don't think anyone does.

Dividing the electorate further isn't the solution for any leader. Inciting them to illegal or violent behavior isn't the solution either, unless you aim to dismantle a democratic republic.

I've always felt "us-vs-them", and I believe everyone has, because my peer group has ideals different from others. So we find other groups that share them, and we try harder to be heard, or to exert the influence that the framework of our republic grants to us (i.e. voting) or that society grants to us (i.e. boycotting).

But I do not believe the election itself has caused a divide, it's the candidates (yes, one more than any other, but all have contributed) whose rhetoric has amplified a divide that was there all along.
What logic is this?

Pretty it up in some rhetoric, but not matter how you slice it, at the end of the day he _IS_ saying that he regrets the 17th amendment.
Notice the FIRST off topic description - stories on politics.

here are the Hacker News Guidlines:

"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures.

If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
> Voting for one is throwing away your vote.

No. It is not. The reason the two party system continues to exist is because so many people insist on there not being other options, despite there literally being other candidates on the ballot. There's a reason why Democrats have continued to spend money on turning Texas blue for years, despite the argument that they are "throwing money away." Momentum matters. Please don't listen to this. It's the absolute worst outcome of the two-party system: they've effectively convinced people that they're stuck with them, and it's why there are regular Republicans voting for Trump. Someone told them that not voting for him was throwing their vote away, and they listened.
What is Tape Drives
Well, most of the countries you're not guilty before proven... Right now I'm not sure. Because of all these stupid false allegations the meaning of raping someone has devalued in the eyes of society.
You're welcome!

You might also be interested in some analyses I found of how these points apply to Trump. Unfortunately some of these links are a few months old so they don't mention some more recent events (the second debate gave us plenty of more material for #3 and #14 and probably others, and the whole thing with the tape and the sexual assault allegations adds fuel to #12):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12175456

http://lithub.com/umberto-eco-on-donald-trump-14-ways-of-loo...

https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-che...

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/fascism/502841/

(and if I find more within the edit window, I'll add them)
actually, it would be more like students submitting 100,000 term papers to a teacher after the teacher proofread the drafts and the students made all his suggested fixes.

auditing a large codebase certainly isn't as easy as proofreading a paper. it's not a "one and done" scenario. especially when you also factor in the security requirements of encryption software. the world won't end if there's a missed spelling mistake or two in a term paper, but if there are critical vulns in VeraCrypt the entire software could be rendered useless
That's a two-edged sword. A couple of examples --

1) Germans forced to march through an extermination camp because their cowardice in not stopping Hitler made them responsible for his actions.

2) Osama bin Laden justifying 9/11 by saying citizens are responsible for the actions of the US Govt.

Do you like either interpretation of your statement?
I agree with you in principle, but not with some of the specifics. Of course Brendan Eich has the right to donate to whichever poitical party he wants. But I found his actions distasteful because, in effect, Eich played a role in trying to limit the liberty of a group of people. I also think that the reaction to that was rather overblown, but it's water under the bridge now.
Let me take on that question, as someone who would willingly attack Hillary while simultaneously refusing to support Trump.

If I want to be internally consistent as a supporter of truth/justice/liberty/all those tasty things, I MUST NOT hesitate to release damaging information along those lines for the sake of a "lesser of two evils" justification. Your statement of zero-sum two person race is also a principle I believe one must sacrifice a "lesser of two evils" discussion to rally against, I believe that accepting we are in a two person race is part and parcel with the level of polarization/group-think we're seeing nowadays. The first steps to a better world in my eyes are to question EVERYTHING and become as vehemently anti-tribal as possible, and that means not withholding things that my moral code would demand I act on, even if it might harm the horse I'm rooting for. (quite to the opposite actually, if I saw that my main candidate had flaws and wasn't getting called out on them, I would see it as my obligation to do so even MORE so, since to whitewash in that direction to my eyes weakens what would otherwise be a valid stance. e.g., all things have negatives, even perhaps a positive choice, but to ignore them is duplicitous.)

tl;dr, my goals in this are not "this election" or "this candidate"; it's "getting people to question more"; "getting people to realize it doesn't NEED to be a zero-sum game". One may say this is idealistic/drop in the ocean etc; but I cannot reconcile with my personal philosophy giving up, because if I did, then there is no justification for ANYONE ELSE to push for these "impossible" goals, and thus the status quo/tragedy of the commons continues.
> Trump threatened to jail his political opponent if elected.

actually he said he would appoint a special prosecutor to the case which honestly should have been done a long time ago and based on the context of it is perfectly reasonable.
You're right, polls showed that Sanders would do better than Clinton against Trump. The Democratic elite doesn't want Sanders because he doesn't represent their interests.

BTW, you should know that, at this point, the election is basically over and Clinton has won. This election is far too polarizing for the kind of swing Trump would need to win (people who still have hope for Trump are basically hoping for a Brexit scenario where polls significantly underestimate his support). So their strategy worked, even if it was risky.
All of your requirements can be satisfied with properly configured VMs.
For your clarification, Shor's algorithm just involves encoding every possible value of a function (say f(x) for all values of x) into a bunch of qubits, taking the fourier transform, and measuring, which will tell you the period of that function (some r such that f(x + r) = f(x) for all x). Thus, you can find the period of any function that you can define a fourier transform for. For breaking RSA, your function is on the domain of integers modulo n, so you use the discrete fourier transform. You can also define a fourier transform for functions on the domain of an elliptic curve as well! In fact, any finite abelian group has a unique definition of fourier transform (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontryagin_duality for some of the math behind it). That means we can't just upgrade our crypto to some more complex curve space, because all of them will be vulnerable to Shor's algorithm.

The mathematics behind Shor's algorithm is actually a really interesting read if you enjoy pure, abstract algebra and topology.
Is there any evidence of this? or is it just US election time
It is that easy with Java/Scala... if... you are using an IDE.

Eclipse through the maven plugin (m2e) will auto download the source code and will show doc as you code (along with drilling into the code. Intellij does something comparable as well. Racer can do this as well (and I admit far nicer in that it is editor agnostic).

The problem is the tools for Java/Scala are all over the place so developers have different experience with the language that probably have very little to do with the language itself (syntax and libraries) but rather the tools.

I would agree Rust is not the norm and IMO perhaps even the gold standard of what modern language organization and tooling should be.

Java/Scala should probably have better builtin tools (or atleast mutually agreed on tools like auto formatting, editor agnostic completion /refactoring (ala racer), package management (Java is actually decent on this as maven is the standard), etc).
There's evidence in the leaked emails that parts of the media take orders from political entities or politically interested parent companies. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a source that isn't essentially a known liar.
I use Android and hate every moment of it.
I'm an American voter and I'm not voting for either creature. I did my civic duty in the primaries by not voting for either. For the election, I'll just write-in someone I prefer and sit this circus out.

I have to assume that there were a LOT of uninformed voters that had their anger whipped up by Trump. I suspect there was a lot of cross-over voting in open primary states.

Perhaps we've made it too convenient to register to vote, and the misinformed/lazy have stolen the show.
The human biodiversity crowd aren't white supremacists. They claim that different races have different average IQ scores and that these scores are meaningfully correlated with intelligence. These first two claims are extremely well accepted by the relavent fields. They further claim that these differences are largely genetic which is much more controversial but strongly suggested by twin studies - nonetheless this will be settled by cognitive genomics soon.

They do not think white gentiles are the most intelligent race. Rather what they claim is Ashkenazi jews are the most intelligent ethnic group with an average IQ of 115, followed by Hans Chinese,high-cast Indians and descendants of the African Igbo tribe at 107, followed by white gentiles at 100, hispanic whites at around 90 and African Americans at 85.

Their claims are descriptive not normative, are not flattering to white people, show many ethnic groups (including some African tribes) have much higher average IQs than white gentiles, and the fact that Ashkenazi Jews are found to be the most intelligent doesn't seem particularly white supremacist.
I understand. I'm just making the point that donating to Clinton obviously doesn't mean you are saying everything Clinton has ever said.
It seems like the list of things for which people want you to lose your job or business has experienced rampant growth
You are correct about Hillary. She represents the worst of everything. Even paying supporters to start riots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

The irony is that what Trump supports, the Clintons have always supported for the last 20 years if you look at their old debates. They are nothing but crowd pleasers. Saying yes to anything, but rarely following through. Not sure how people don't see that.
Open source ResinOS adds Docker to ARM/Linux boards
Start laughing: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865
For most of the history of photography, you only had two (and a half) of those five at your disposal - shutter and aperture, the half being iso, which you effectively changed by using different films or pushing/pulling the exposure.

As others have already stated, the Fujis score big in UX - I'd like to add that their lenses are second to none.

As a long-term luddite (I own two digital cameras (A Nikon DSLR and a Fuji X100), but most of my shooting is done using either Fuji or Leica analog cameras), IMHO the camera is secondary - it is merely a light-tight box where you affix a lens at one end and the film at the other - the lenses are what matters.

Fuji makes some wonderful lenses. Resolution is awesome, contrast excellent and colour rendition best-in-business for those who care (I don't, I am colour blind - the last point is just parroting) - all in a (for the current mirrorless crop) in a very compact package (my GX680 lenses are somewhat less portable).

Fuji's current range can probably be accurately described as photographer's cameras - they've, just like Leica, distilled photography to its essentials and made their way to the front of that niche. Kudos!
> Trump shares this antidemocratic sentiment.

what tangible evidence do you have that he is anti-democratic?