skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Just a quick hack around this... Android phones (at least those with the latest OS) will require you to enter a PIN the first unlock after a reboot. If you get a chance to restart your phone, do so.
I can relate to both sides, but I think the logic of wanting to engage is that at least having a dialogue path is an avenue to submit contrary evidence or examples for consideration. Sort of like "All X are like Y!" and then the refutation of showing "Several X are not like Y" without trying to attack the conversation participants. It takes both parties agreeing to the rules, and I'm not claiming either side always works through the dialogue in a mature or analytical fashion.
That's just as delusional as the people who gush over Hillary for her social justice stances, but get very angry when you bring up her hawkishness. That's not how it works. You vote for / donate to the entire politician. You can't elect half a President.
I upvoted your comment because I think it's important, even though I disagree with you. Would you mind explaining your position? I think it might be helpful in furthering people's understanding, although it does run some risk of devolving into an argument.
If you switch Trump and Clinton in that sentence, you'll get something that millions of Americans agree with as well.
Everything you listed in why people support Trump over Clinton. They view the following:

- erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage

- a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants

- shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency

As major faults of Clinton.
I don't follow what you're trying to say. Could you add a few words?
The Thiel situation reminds me very strongly of the Woody Allen situation. He married his step-daughter after cheating on his wife with her. You either ignore this fact or you don't work with him.

For me, I think the Thiel situation is worse, since his judgement is very important to the companies he works with, and that judgement is suspect given his recent behavior.
SNL writer Chris Kelly 'How bout instead of an “I Voted” sticker, everyone who votes Trump gets to wear a scarlet T for the rest of their lives?'[0]

Person thinks 40% of people are crazy, racist, hates women etc. Maybe the person who thinks that is the one not understanding the situation.

Clinton: Read Wikileaks, study Clinton Foundation (Haiti)
Trump: Read news from both sides msm and Breitbart & similar. Scott Adams blog gives you some sense what is going on.[1]

[0]http://archive.is/NiRJ4
[1]http://blog.dilbert.com
Isn't it curious how this sort of deep strife only flares up during elections?
> For instance, what is high frequency?

The 300 most frequent words in a representative corpus of text.

> And what if say blind speakers of the language disagree?

Blind speakers represent a small portion of all speakers, so even if every one of them disagrees, the majority of speakers will still agree.
No, there are not. That anyone even interpreted those e-mails that way is indicative of the utterly ridiculous, paranoid mindset that is far too common these days.

http://www.snopes.com/wikileaks-exposes-clinton-assassinatio...
What does being 'rated' mean in this context, do the Chinese and American entities building spacecraft use uniform criteria for these ratings? Or is it simply what gets built and stamped that way by local varieties?
I'm heartened to hear that Thiel's support for Trump --- which is ongoing and extensive --- has been a strain on Altman's relationship with him.

Thiel is not merely one of the 43% of Americans who supports Donald Trump. There are degrees of support, and there are different reasons to support him. Thiel has chosen to serve as a surrogate for the Trump campaign, appearing on stage for him at the RNC in a nationally televised event even as many of the leaders of the Republican party (including all of their previous Presidential candidates) refused to do the same. His support for Trump has continued even after Trump pivoted his election to run against the legitimacy of the US elections themselves.

I strongly agree that we must avoid ostracizing Republicans because of the actions of a few monsters in their party. We should continue the work HRC and Obama started earlier in this election, to de-normalize Trump and separate him from the mainstream Republican party. The country needs a loyal opposition and a voice for limited government, the strengths of our private sector, and humility in regulation. HRC and Obama have stopped this work, believing that the outcome of the election is a foregone conclusion, and are now trying their best to tether the party to Trump in an effort to win downticket races. As a loyal, lifelong Democrat, I think they're making a terrible mistake.

But that does not mean we should forget that the Trump campaign itself is truly monstrous, nor does it mean we're required to tolerate the least tolerant members of our society --- the white nationalist fringe that, according to Sam Wang at Princeton, has been within striking range of the Presidency for much of this election cycle.

Thiel isn't just a supporter of this campaign; he's a part of it. We should recognize that, and not gloss over it, or pretend that the discussion we're having is the same as the kind we'd have with John Fund and Jonah Goldberg at The National Review. Thiel isn't William F. Buckley. He's a man that just last week mustered $1.25MM in an attempt to rend the fabric of the American political system, a system which he has repeatedly argued against.

I don't ask that Altman sever formal ties with Peter Thiel. Shit's complicated. But as someone who has, yet again, acknowledged in writing the grave threat Trump poses to our country, I do ask that he live up to his own words and recognize publicly the role Thiel has played in this election.

This post was a good start.
You would prefer Trump? Why?

Serious question.
I'm torn on the issue of parting ways with someone over them supporting a despicable person.

On one hand, supporting someone who's genocidal or something is bad.

Trump, on the other hand, might be the exact terrible thing this country needs to reign in government. Lets say he wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb off the coast of North Korea. (Borrowing from the most recent Dan Carlin/Common Sense podcast [0])

This would be objectively bad. We should not be nuking anything, anywhere, ever. Period.

If trump-the-president wants to do this, you might really quickly find people talking about the constitutional limits to declare war that Congress is supposed to maintain.

So, they might step in and say "Actually, presidents cannot unilaterally declare war. Oh, and they cannot create internment camps, or do deep packet inspection on the entire internet, or collectivize businesses, etc."

In other words, when a terrible guy gets into office, everyone else might wake up and try to roll back his power. So, it might be a net win, though it's a hell of a gamble to get there.

So, by that line of reasoning, I could see the GOOD that a trump presidency could bring about.

Even if I couldn't, I still don't know what the limit is for donating money to a cause and forcing separation with a company. The free-speech guy in me says it's fine, but... I really don't like trump.

[0] http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/
I spent my high school years in rural Arkansas (after living a more urban existence for most of my life). This article does a fantastic job of articulating exactly what I've observed.
We can start by not voting for warmongers and hawks. Americans had an opportunity to vote for Sanders. But I guess they are too far removed from these incidents.
What about Brendan Eich? I don't know if he is a billionaire, but he lost a job. Losing a job for having a particular view is oppression. Next election cycle, should you lose your job if you support Clinton? No. We're losing civil discourse by going this way.
> Isn't that what people said about music players and then about phones?

No.
I believe his point was that you don't know until Thiel actually makes the racist comments himself, so you can't infer that he does.
> if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator.

I find this logic is similar to the logic some GOPs use to support Donald Trump. Even though they condemned him for saying lewd/racist comments (or even committed to), they still give him the support. I don't know how you would continue dodging this for Peter when Donald Trump is being sued for actually committing to a criminal offense. YC needs to draw a line instead of playing this blurred line.
Let's not forget about all the weapons we are selling Saudi Arabia.

They are killing civilians with weapons made in the USA.
Zero Downtime Deployment with Warp
People will stop posting duplicates when other people stop flagkilling the article with no discussion. This is so obviously on-topic to YC that there's a form of censorship going on with the flags, either because people don't like Ellen Pao, or they don't like what she has to say.
>I'd take the financial struggles of the millennial generation over having to fight in WW2 and rebuilding the nation in the aftermath, which is what the Greatest Generation got tasked with.

What in the hell are you talking about (or smoking)? If you're talking about the US, which seems to be the case given your talk of financial struggles and "Millennials", the US won the lottery with WWII. In case you forgot, the US was completely unscathed (except for some bombed ships in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii), and there was no rebuilding to do! Instead, we were the only industrial power left standing, so we made out like bandits by helping everyone else rebuild. Why do you think we became so economically powerful? All the other powers had to buy all their stuff from us! The "Greatest Generation" wasn't "tasked" with much: they put up with 4 years of war (mostly finishing up the job after England and Russia duked it out with Germany, plus dealing with Imperial Japan), and in return they profited handsomely.

If it weren't for WWII (and maybe WWI before it), America would not be a superpower now. We'd be more like Mexico: a good-sized economy, but probably not the most powerful nation on earth both economically and militarily, as Germany and Britain and maybe France would have been too much competition.
You only need to look at Reagan or Bush 2 to see how long it takes to repair the damage of a very bad President. This sounds plausible in theory, but in reality it's totally reckless. We would be dealing with the consequences for decades.
You are misreading that sentence. You're talking about money talking symbolically. From context, Sam obviously means if Peter starts saying specific things that Trump has said.
Yeah I've read it all. It's way too high level to make use of.
The headline quote being "The key question on the Clinton Foundation is whether it saved lives. The answer is clearly yes." is laughable. The Clintons do not give a flying fuck about saving lives. What has the cost of life been in the Middle East due to the US invasion that HRC voted for and wants to perpetuate? Literally tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of women and children, depending on which watchdog reports you believe.

HRC is the same woman that literally laughed and bragged on a television interview about killing Gaddafi. As shitty as he was, he was a real person. A living human, and she laughs about killing him. It's fine to have pride in protecting your country, but killing someone (much less a head of state) should never be a laughing matter.
Perhaps. If you think of irrational or uninformed fears as memes (in the classic sense, not the "pictures with captions" sense) that propagate through a society, the Internet provides mechanisms for those memes to spread much more quickly, and with far less resistance, than before.

At the same time, these same communications mechanisms allow falsehoods to be debunked much more effectively, assuming that readers would rather believe hard boring truths than comfortable exciting falsehoods. Then again, I've seen enough people (even on HN!) say things like, "I would rather be passionate about a lie than bored by a truth" (paraphrasing) that I wonder if even this is true.
Can't comment on the ACM conferences.

But for most conferences, interesting speakers provide the whole value of the conference - it is what attracts attendees. Therefore, organizers make decent money off of speakers, so no, they are not like regular attendees.
However, I do not agree that it's fair to call an investor's competency into question due to their political views.

Even extreme ones? Can you brush everything Trump has done under political cover? I really think that's going too far.
Performance is directly related to profit on consumer apps. See http://glinden.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/marissa-mayer-at-web-2...

plus like you say PHP might be faster to get started with but becomes much slower on larger projects due to inconsistent error handling and language design.
Sam stated anyone that said what Trump does would be banned.
Palantir is under investigation for racist hiring practices, so there's pretty good reason to think he supports Trump because of them.
Sam, could you add a paragraph or two with critiques of HRC that you acknowledge but which don't change your voting rationale?
That reasoning strikes me as flawed. It would be like submitting a term paper to a teacher after he proofread your draft, with all of his suggested fixes, yet his final response is "Oh sure, you fixed all the problems I found. But I found so many before, what about the ones I didn't find? C+"

This was a third-party audit, and VeraCrypt fixed all of the critical ones that they found. All software has bugs. To find some that are critical is not necessarily indicative of the quality of code on the whole.
The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less.

I see it differently than Sam here. My father is also a vocal Trump supporter. His path, and the path shared by his friends, appear to me to be driven not by what Trump says he will do, but by what they feel the government has not done. These people feel disenfranchised by their own government who appears unresponsive to their concerns and dismissive of their point of view. And in their world view, by reflecting their fears, Donald Trump appears to be listening to them.

When you overlay this perception of listening, and the historical divide of the role of government (Is it there to take care of you or is it there to enable you to take care of yourself?) It surfaces a lot of Trump supporters.
My thoughts exactly.

I'm under the impression that e.g. wind power should not be built at all for electricity production (output is just too little) but all the subsidies it enjoys makes it a worthwhile business. Considering whether this is true is difficult because the facts are intentionally obscured and for example the wind power capacity is often at some nominal wind speed which is often a lot more than the average at the location. In my home country, a 1MW wind turbine was built but the nominal output is at 13 m/s while the average wind speed is around 6 m/s, yielding about an eighth of the nominal power (proportional to the speed cubed).

The same is true for photovoltaics as the raw materials need a huge volume of earth to be mined for a miniscule amount of material.

Nuclear isn't any different, it's hard to get facts from uranium mining and enrichment, especially given its military value and the surrounding secrecy.

For this reason, I usually refrain from any energy policy discussion. I can't have an opinion if I can't have the facts. Without facts, these discussions often devolve into emotional shouting contests.
By the way it seems like both presidential candidates' main selling point is is that they are not the other candidate. Really not how things should be.
> unless he wants to watch something that is only available in his local, non-US, region

Not sure there's anything good that's UK-only. It's usually the other way around with all the good shows being available in the US.
I have never really liked Donald Trump, he is an abrasive egocentric character and I quite like Hillary she being an attractive intelligent woman. Now I am not so sure, I find Hillary smug and untrustworthy and am finding Trump refreshing honest, if a little over-exited at times. its important to respect diverse views even if they fly contrary to your deeply held beliefs. Its not easy but if there is an open debate. thats probably a good thing
Nutanix Elevate Security Week – October 24-29
If Trump were to win, Dems would for sure do a reshuffle and look introspectively. If Hillary were to win, there will be little introspection.

If Clinton wins, the Repubs will go into a tailspin and introspect, if Trump were to win, Repubs and Dems will have to both look inwardly to figure out how their machinery failed so miserably in the face of a hack -a blowhard with no political experience who will say anything to win and who likely, if elected would make Taft look like a good executive.
>Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as as Hillary or Obama is

I hope you're kidding when you say he's as much a politician as Hilary. He has very limited political experience. She's been doing it for 30+ years.

He's a candidate, but has held precisely zero public offices thus far.

>this notion that since he's novice in this field he deserves to get preferential treatment and be forgiven for all his mistakes and wrongdoings is bit disingenuous.

What preferential treatment are you talking about? Who said anything about "forgiving" him? I'm saying, "what on earth do you expect by nominating a TV personality"? I expect more from my politicians. Apparently you don't. Perhaps that's why your election is a mess?
The smartphone enabled internet usage in the third world, which was a pretty big change.
There's another issues, both parties are courting the more extreme views within their parties.

That is, the Democrats are looking further left/liberal, and the Republicans are looking more right/conservative.

Neither is looking after the centre, they only seek to appease the more vocal within their ranks... the extremists.

Typically when the pendulum swings things average out, but politicians have learned over the past several decades that if they want to gain 10 miles of political position they should negotiate for 100 miles from the outset and beat the other party into submission before settling on 20 miles (everyone's a winner).

The entire system seems to promote seeking an extreme position even if such a position isn't desired by anyone.
> Sam, just so you know, many of your sentences could exchange Trump for Hillary and be exactly what Trump supporters I know say. Especially this one:

> > [Hillary] shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if [she] becomes our president.

Except one is based on a set of statements made by the candidate and his own campaign, the other is mostly built upon the massive pile of conspiracy theories and mountains-made-from-molehills that constitute the argument against Hillary.
There are 'wrong political candidates,' and there are fascists.

The question is all the more urgent, but the conclusion that there is neither justification nor need to drawn clear bright lines is not.

Support for Trump is not something about which reasonable people can disagree.

People who do so should be called out, isolated, and challenged.

That goes double in environments like the Valley, given to libertarian hubris, over regard for one's own talents and discernment, and undo concentration of wealth married to an unjustified sense that it results from genius...
IE8 doesn't support SVG, which might matter for some websites
I think a lot of the problems with the YC/Thiel discussion stems from the difference between how people view it: is it a political disagreement, or is it an ethical disagreement?

In a "normal" election, this would be pretty cut-and-dry: it'd primarily be a political disagreement over taxes or something, and letting someone go because of their political beliefs would be viewed by many as being pretty extreme.

Many people — myself included — view support for Trump today as an ethical problem. When you see him and his followers advocating misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, aggressiveness, and basically all the other -isms and -obias, it becomes much harder to "see the other side" of the debate. It's not political for many people who will see — and have seen throughout this election cycle — very real repercussions in terms of discrimination and hostility that affects them every day in their lives.

So yeah, there's a lot of anger with YC supporting someone in a leadership position here. I know YC keeps mentioning that Thiel is in a part time position, but he's still in an advisory position, which brings with it a lot of responsibility and ownership that we'd hope YC would be much more understanding about the impact of such a position.

I appreciate that it's a tricky situation for Sam and others to be in, but I do hope that they'd reconsider their stance in the future. Until then, on a personal level, I'm not interested in applying to Y Combinator. That's one small thing that I can do in the meantime, at least.
For a more formal look at this, I'd suggest looking at Sarah Kenzidor's work over the past year. She's a journalist in St. Louis with a PhD in... sociology? (I think?), specializing in the Uzbekistan country & regime. She's brought that knowledge to bear on the Trump campaign and has spent a lot of time trying to explain to the 'coasts' Why Trump. Her book on this is called the "View from Flyover Country". I haven't read the book, specifically, but I've read most of her articles on the matter since the spring.
The discussions are often not productive, or, worse yet, predictable.
Probably 2 or higher at this point. We've made some real strides recently in getting everything documented somewhere.
This doesn't sound like a Computer Science course. Maybe for something like a Software Engineering degree, but not for CS.
In this case, the minority are rich and powerful people.
>its become clear to me at least that a large percentage of the country simply put, is not 'getting ahead' - the anger that drove the Trump and Sanders campaigns is very real and must be solved if we are to prosper.

The key there is that they _feel_ like they're not getting ahead - a very different thing than not actually getting ahead, and much more dangerous.
According to Wikileaks it's the Ecuadorian Embassy that cut his access.

"We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT, shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs."
Why is it okay to call out white western males, but to focus down on any other gender and race with a negative statement like that would be seen as intolerant?
InterSystems Developer Community – Internal Structure of Caché Database, Part 3
Let's say I was independent and lived in Ohio or some other swing state. What choices do I have?

* Vote Dem, have a reasonable chance at my pick winning

* Vote Repub, have a reasonable chance at my pick winning

* Vote other, have no chance at my pick winning.

In an ordinary election you may be willing to do #3 to 'send a message', etc. But in THIS election almost everyone seems to agree that one or both of the candidates are horrible and will ruin everything. So if you go #3 then you get no say in which major party candidate will win. I'd much rather have A win than B, even if I liked some third party more (right now I don't anyway, they're pretty crazy this year too).

I'd want my vote to count, and I don't think it would unless I voted major party.

As it is my vote won't count, because the outcome of my state is not in question at all.