skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I initially was upset at mr Nader, when Gore lost. I got over it and, in retrospect, the blame is fully on Gore. He simply didn't convince enough people with his message. It wasn't Nader's (or anyone else's) responsibility to make Gore more electable, it was Gore's responsibility.
we don't argue here: trump is evil, clinton must win for the sake of the universe (echo).
You also can't infer that he doesn't, which is what the commentor I replied to did.
Splixie
Help with choosing a business proxy network solution (e.g. Luminati)
Hi,
My company is looking for a cost-effective and reliable proxy network solution. Could you please share your recommendations.
Thanks!
The best things with UDP jokes is that the punchline can
> 50 years ago, most normal Americans held these same beliefs

Most Americans 50 years ago would be stunned that someone who has been married three times, and who has been caught on tape saying he wants to cheat with other women, is still running for President. That alone would be disqualifying.
Isn't AR less immersive, less good as means of escapism ? And less "Addictive" ?

and that means VR will have a larger market ?
Personally I think/hope that the next "magic" thing will be practical and affordable hologram projectors/volumetric displays a la R2D2 (but of course better.)
Oracle Critical Patch Update Pre-Release Announcement – October 2016
> Is ot because they are unlikely to be elected?

It's more than unlikely. There is effectively zero chance of a third party candidate getting elected president in 2016.

Voting for one is throwing away your vote. Worse than that, it's throwing away an opportunity to indicate your second choice preference.

The US's first-past-the-post electoral system is not great, but voting for a third-party candidate does not at all address that problem. Instead, it plays exactly into the agenda of the two dominant parties by effectively disenfranchising yourself.

If you don't like the US's voting system, great, work to change it. Probably start by pushing for more small scale and local elections to switch to smarter voting systems. That way, citizens can used to them there and the venues are easier to change. Maybe eventually that will percolate all the way up and we can change the Constitution and change how the president is elected.

In the meantime, vote strategically for which of the two options to choose from that is most closely aligned to your interests.
If I believed that Clinton was going to start World War III, and that Trump would stop it, then I would vote for Trump despite all of his nastiness.

In reality, I believe Trump is much more likely to start WWIII, which is yet another reason to be opposed to him, but it is extremely uncharitable to assume that all of his supporters support everything that he does. I think most Republican voters simply believe he's the lessor of two evils. I strongly disagree with them, but respect the democratic process.
I use it as well. A few years ago I had to switch to a clunky, oversold time management system (Workamajig) and in addition to the interface being extremely poor, losing my automated RescueTime categorizing setup was painful. (It's still technically there, but Workamajig forbids API access, probably because the internals are a complete mess.)
Thanks for the update.

It would be great to have a Discourse forum!
to all you babies literally wetting yourselves over trump, what the actual fuck do you think he's going to be able to do with two parties that hate him controlling both houses?
How dare he support a political candidate!
Thinking there is a possibility someone is crazy, racist, or sexist is definitely reasonable if that person is stating they agree with a crazy, racist, sexist. I'd wonder if someone was racist if they supported David Duke.
I'm kind of surprised 'Hillbilly Elegy' hasn't come up yet.

[1] http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-lives-...

[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-orig...
If there were more bugs, why weren't they found?

This is a form of "slippery slope" argument that holds no weight as to the security of VeraCrypt, one way or another.
Sam's entire post has one line about Hillary and ten about Trump.

Instead of trying to demonize Trump, perhaps it is important for you to advocate for your candidate. As the president said, go work for your candidate. People are not dumb. The contrast will be clear and then people can make their own choice.

I know its hard to compare, but would you say, "Buy my product to stop the other product from being successful because the other product makes claims that are outrageous". Rightly everyone then says, "Why buy any of the products?" Or "Let me try a third product".
I am sure you are correct on those points. But I feel that something deeper is at play. American society has an excess of complexity that people are unwilling or unable to deal with. There is a desire for simplicity that is sated by Trump.

The more comfortable you are with complexity in society the less you need Trump.
Even harder in 140.
Don't just assume they only feel like they're not getting ahead.

A large majority of these folks are in actual fact falling far behind, and that fact is not easily observed in many of the metrics people often use for measurements (like 'household income', and 'unemployment')
It seems that your argument is that this particular election is pulling items from the sphere of deviance into the sphere of legitimate controversy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallin%27s_spheres
They probably wouldn't. I think you overestimate the number of people voting Clinton just to stop Trump. A lot of people truly like her the most. (Not me, I'd like to note - not that I will be voting as an Englishman).

It's also worth noting, what third party candidate? There isn't a perfect option there either.

It's a first past the post system - third party candidates are never going to happen because of the psychology, number of ingrained voters, and the way electoral college votes work.

If you are in that situation, the best thing is to vote Clinton, then instantly start putting as much pressure on her and other Democrats to change that system once she is in office. Start now, and get support for a candidate so in the next election you can have one you actually like standing, or at least push towards one. The biggest problem is people getting worked up in the presidential election, then when it's over, ignoring politics for four years.

Change in politics does not happen quickly - generally it involves waiting for old people to die, because people are bad at changing their beliefs. I'd love to believe a third party vote was worthwhile, but the truth is, in reality, it's not. We know that. The system is broken. Work to change that.

First past the post simply isn't democracy. It's a vague semblance of. Until you change that, you'll have two parties and your choice between a turd sandwich and a douche.
I don't see anything ignorant about expecting that the burden of proof in cases of rape requires more evidence than a statement from the victim, specially when all the circumstantial evidence goes directly against said statement.

"Rape can happen under complex emotional mechanics, therefore the word of the victim is sufficient to prosecute and jail the accused, as this overrides any other objective evidence" isn't a position likely to be enshrined into law any time soon.
This is an amazing answer and I like this on a number of levels. You've given me a number of things to think about. Thank you.
I imagine even the most Type A extrovert gets worn down after spending 3 consecutive days with the same people?

I don't think the introvert/extrovert thing really factors in. If you spend X amount of time with person Y, you need a break from person Y.
I didn't say we should assume he's racist, but you assumed he isn't. In fact you assumed his motivation very explicitly. I was asking how you made such an assumption.
To add onto the admirals statement, I have two kinds of critical bugs mentally:

Critically dangerous, but understandable(complex crypto/ interactions). Those do not indicate low code quality.

Critically stupid/unwise(you know what these are, e.g. the libressl rant list). These do.
I don't see these two goals as being mutually exclusive. Even if they are, it'd be good to aim for a balance, rather than just choosing one entirely over the other. They're both good goals for a conference.
What changes are you making to the implementation to prevent this from happening in future?
How could you possibly equate a private company disavowing a single billionaire with the president of the United States harassing and deporting millions of people?
Thanks a lot for the pointers. Many here have already pointed that I am buying too much into the "free market" propaganda; may be I was indeed brainwashed into buying that, but I am trying to open my eyes and learn. AFAICT, there seems to be strong correlation between wealth/prosperity of a nation and the openness of its economy. Are there any counter examples to this?
Coming to back to the original topic, is it fair to say there is no strong correlation between development of science and freedom of thought? Well, it may be true if the state does not repress the ideas being produced under science; I can now see why that might have been the case under USSR, and even in China. Scientific thought being largely apolitical may not have to be repressed by authoritarian regimes.
Any holes in this logic? Sorry for being naive!
Build truly open communication platforms.

Reddit, Twitter, HN, and Facebook have all shown heavy bias and a willingness to stifle conversation that they didn't agree with.

I would like to see ad free communication platform that supports content creaters through donation and patronage.
http://www.techworld.com/news/security/fbi-hackers-fail-to-c...
The fact that a candidate for President of the United States -- whichever party they represent -- would decide to dismiss a sizeable portion of the country as contemptible or wretched seems to be the issue.

Mitt Romney dismissed 47% of the voting public in 2012 and was roundly criticized for dismissing the people he supposedly wanted to lead.

If Clinton had said 46%, would that have made it ok?
"Holding people responsible" means punishing, in one way or another. Not doing business with them, trying to get them tossed out of a group, get them fired, shamed, etc. And who is going to do this to whom? Those with the popular opinion would be doing it to those with the unpopular opinion.
Trump is a racist, Hillary is a warmonger. As an American you might be more concerned about racism. But I guess rest of the world is more concerned about drones and missiles that miss the target.
Let's also not forget the recent Podesta wikileaks email, where they openly admit to Saudi Arabia and Qatar donating to the Clintons while simultaneously funding ISIS.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774
http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/wikileaks-podesta-emails-guide...
While I cannot deny the claims and cases of corruption and collusion on the Democratic side, I have to concede that the Trump campaign and the 'alt-right' have taken conspiracy theory culture mainstream.
I'm not sure I follow. Any political view usually affects all people in any room.

Are you referring to Trump's bigotry? Sure, I'll admit, he is definitely a character in that regard. But again there's realistically only 2 choices. Thiel is going to take whichever one is closest. It's not ideal but that's the choice Libertarians are often forced to make.
How is the NYT trustworthy. The front page contains a dozen or so anti-Trump stories and zero about anything in the email leaks. I want to trust the NYTimes but it's hard to take seriously a paper that ignores something important. The same would be true if it had ignored Trump's leaked tax docs.
> I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. But I’d like to find out

So, have you not sat down with Thiel and asked him why he supports Trump? If so, what were his reasons.
i found this article enlightening as well:

http://www.stirjournal.com/2016/04/01/i-know-why-poor-whites...
> His racist, isolationist policies ...

Had to take a pause right there. (Disclosure: I am a Muslim, naturalized American citizen that emigrated to US in '79.)

Critiques of Trump's positions are as exagerated as the candidate's own verbiage, perhaps even more so.

I will not touch the "racist" item :) but as to "isolationist", this is false at face value. Non-aggression is not isolationism. Very clearly stating that US should work with Russia, Syria, and Iran (!) to finish ISIS -- oh, the irony -- is not an "isolationist" position.

There is a very clear choice on the table: Will US continue as one of the principle entities pushing for globalism, or, will we revert back to pre Bush '41 and let the globalist deal with their collapsing house of card in EU and elsewhere, while we reboot substantial industry (read: not "service" industry) in this nation.

[p.s. I am endorsing Jill Stein, per my evaluation of the entailed Karmic risks in this election. /g]
Not really, the minority is anybody who's ever had the wrong opinion on anything that sufficiently socially powerful people think is worth burning the heretics over. If you really need to get at somebody, it may in fact be sufficient to just make something up:

https://twitter.com/nodevember/status/771520648191483904
wow talk about delusional... how does she reconcile this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
Write a man page, but it's 2016, you don't have to write it in ROFF... It got a lot easier to get people to write or update man pages for a bunch of in-house CLI tools when I found ronn https://rtomayko.github.io/ronn/ which starts from markdown (you'll still get a lot of copy/paste formatting from your other man pages but at least it'll be readable.)
Did Thiel say he likes Trump because of his "authoritarian leadership style"? I'm skeptical.
I agree with most of that. And I agree that her campaign is mostly about fear tactics. I suppose the difference between us then is just that I think, despite the lameness of fear-as-platform, I think that fear is pretty justified by the thought of Trump being president.

When you honestly consider that prospect, does it not terrify you? I don't mean that question rhetorically.
As a non-US citizen I have the exact opposite viewpoint, Hilary is more of the same sure but she isn't demonstrably fucking crazy.

The better question is how this election became an election of the Unthinkable vs the Unelectable.

The one thing I do like is that you make me feel like at least the UK isn't the only basketcase at the moment in terms of politics.
There is definitely a core of this message that I agree with, but another part that when I think about it makes me disagree somewhat with it.

I understand that a good chunk of the country supports Donald Trump. I also don't understand why, and I would also like to understand why.

However, there are too many parallels between what Donald Trump publicly supports with things of the past that I cannot ignore. An example that some may believe to be an exaggeration but I think is a close parallel. Segregation. There was a time in which a person running for office would be in full public support of segregation. I did not live through those times. But I imagine that those that privately frowned upon those views regret not publicly distancing themselves from those that did support that view.

Let's take that example into today. Where is the line that we draw when we talk about political opinion vs moral opinion? If Donald Trump was a public defender of segregation, would you then make an effort to publicly distance yourself from his associates? If so, what's the difference between segregation and xenophobia? Is the difference that many had to loose their lives and sacrifice their well being for years for us as a country to realize what an awful mistake we made?

I'm not asking rhetorically. I'd like to understand where the line is drawn, because frankly I don't see this as a political difference but a moral one that I'd like to understand, but not to excuse it.
"Mr. Potter, one of the requisites for becoming a powerful wizard is an excellent memory. The key to a puzzle is often something you read twenty years ago in an old scroll"

I skim technical books that are not immediately useful to i) build a mental index and ii) fill the gap of my unknown unknowns.

When I hit a problem, sometimes much later, I won't remember the details, but I'll remember that there is a concept that could help me, and know where to look to find more information.

For example, I've read much more about low level networking and messaging than was immediately useful at the time. Months later, a messaging pattern I read about turned out to be a good solution to a problem I was facing. If I hadn't read the book I wouldn't even have known what to search for.

(I also read about some technical topics more deeply for my own enjoyment/future career prospects, but the value of that is more uncertain.)
Nope.

"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened." -- Robert Byrd

"Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.

"Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy."

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/
> I fear that your reasoning for why you endorse Hillary and not Trump doesn't really speak to someone who likes Trump in the first place.

It's not supposed to. It's a bunch of feathers to convince hillary fans that he's on their side, and to soften the blow of telling them: You're categorically wrong if you want him fired.
>submissions were uniformly good

><list of different reasons some submissions were not good [and in one case, you would have been picked if not for this not good quality]>

please.

What are the chances this submission was brigaded to the top^ spot?

^http://hnrankings.info/12725337/
> 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's the problem. Who exactly are affected by these "Social issues"? (Hint: It's not rich white guys).
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865

So if Ecuador decided to cut his internet access, they may just have confiscated every device Assange has.
That train of thought is the only thing keeping the Hillary campaign alive.
While there are elements of Trump's desire to burn the system to ground that appeal to folks even on the left (like myself), I cannot dissociate the ideas from the man - the very disgusting man.The very thin skinned man who can be easily goaded into self-destructive behavior.

The POTUS can literally end humanity with a few words. That's not an exaggeration. I want change as much as the next guy, but not if it means handing the power to start the apocalypse to a man like Donald Trump.
Wow, I really couldn't disagree with you more.

It's not left vs right, its humanity denying stances.

Denying LGBT are human (which is what the "8" people were about) is a critical issue. Eich tied himself to the wrong side of history, and epically fucked up his CEO response proving he was a bad candidate for that role. He made his own bed and now lies in it.

As for Trump... well, this is a presidential candidate describing HOW exactly he sexually assaults women. It wasn't a theoretical "what I could do" conversation, it was a "this is what I do" bragging talk. Again, dehumanizing 51% of the population.

Maybe basic human rights is just a "cause" for you, but for the 60-70% of humanity you're trashing, it's kind of their lives.
I understand your argument and I might even agree with it. But, I would like to point out that there is a difference if we consider objective facts. Fact: Trump threatened to jail his political opponent if elected. That's how he has shown a disrespect for our system of government.

Now, I realize that Trump supporters really don't get why it's bad to put your rival in jail. But, that objective fact does actually matter to people who care about a functioning government.

At the end of the day, I don't think you can converse with Trump supporters. They are like creationists in their utter disregard for reality.
> (Completely ignoring that local, state, and federal laws all already exist to handle all of it.)

Except that they don't. If I walk around a conference saying that all the women at this event are filthy whores who should go back to the kitchen, what law am I breaking? Do you really think that's acceptable behavior at a conference?
Assuming all of this is accurate, Thiel's thinking and actions are so full of contradictions and irrationality it's hard to understand how he became a billionaire.
Just two that stick out right away:

"- Thiel is passionately against all forms of political correctness, just like Trump." - unless he determines that the political incorrectness in question happens to affect him in some adverse way. See: Gawker.

And yes, I think outing someone without their express consent is a form of political incorrectness, in addition to a personal violation. I also don't think that financial bankruptcy is an appropriate punishment for doing so.

"- Thiel wants to restrict immigration to highly educated people. Just like Trump." - But also believes higher education is not so worthwhile that it should be required or even considered important for all Americans. See: Thiel Fellows
I doubt you'd be saying the same if a VC was blacklisted for supporting Hillary.
Two questions:

1. You stated that Hilary Clinton is "an effective politician with reasonable positions". Which of Hilary Clinton's positions do you like?

2. Which part(s) of Bernie's platform do you think held back his chances of winning the nomination/election?
Minor quibble: Yarvin is not alt-right he is neo-reactionary. The main difference seems to be that neo reaction endorses monarchy as a system of gov.
I've actually asked people about this, and the prevailing attitude is "it puts lives in danger" or "sacrifices national security". While I don't agree with those opinions , the opposing viewpoint seems to view Snowden as a "snitch".
There is most likely a large portion of voters that are also voting 'against' Hillary. The only realistic vote against Hillary is unfortunately a vote for Trump.