skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There are a lot of negative things about Trump in this post, but aren't any positive points about Hillary. It seems to me that if one were to endorse one candidate over another, they should talk about the policies of the candidate they're supporting in a positive light.

> He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage.

There are a slew of former Secret Service agents from Bill Clinton's detail who say the same exact things about Hillary. One even cites being hit in the back of the head with a Bible by Hillary.

Also, is anyone even the slightest bit concerned about the revelations in the Podesta emails? One in particular that comes to mind is a conversation about Hillary hating the 'Everyday American.'

To me, having done hours upon hours of intense research into the two major candidates, this post sounds more like a regurgitation of the narrative put forth by the mainstream media rather than a well thought out and informed point of view.
So just to clarify.

Trump supporter = racist is now a fact?
The demand for repair parts will increase significantly and cars will expire a lot faster.

Cars that do 400 miles a day will reach 200'000 miles within ~1.3 years. Usually most cars are fairly low value by then. They would reach 400 miles by being on a highway for ~6.5 hours/day, which is fairly reasonable to assume.
My guess would be that a CS program would cover more fundamentals on which you can always build upon, but a Sw Engineering program might not focus on the basics as much. Of course there might be exceptions in either programs.
Why do you assume I'm angry? I'm quite happy while questioning your agenda
I honestly don't know a ton about Taft's presidency, but what made him such a bad executive? I really should invest in some books about him, since on the surface, he's pretty interesting: only dual President/Supreme Court justice (which, even if it's inarguable that he was great there, seems completely at odds with the ostensible non-partisanship of the Supreme Court), Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Presidential run was a somewhat direct outcome of his tenure, all on top of the many apocryphal stories about his girth. If you've got any recommendations for learning about his weakness as a President, I'd appreciate them.
What did the system administrator bring back from the beach?

A C (sea) shell!
It's often used to refer to cosmetic for coloring the lips.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=define+rouge+&oq=define+rouge
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rouge
For what it's worth, I haven't heard many complaints about Bernie Sanders claiming elections are bought.

> We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates. Let’s not kid ourselves. That is the reality right now. [1]

(He also is fond of claiming "the system" is rigged, if not elections directly.)

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-takes-on-bil...
Counterpoint: many of the founding fathers were crazy sexist racists, yet we still hold their other opinions in quite high regard.
Scott Adams blog has turned into sensless propaganda.

From what I can gather by reading below[0] he does not like Clinton raising taxes. The rest of his points are such insightful gems as:

"I don't know the best way to default ISIS .. negotiate trade policies .. neither do you but you probably think you do... Given the uncertainty about each candidate – at least in my own mind – I have been saying I am not smart enough to know who would be the best president. That neutrality changed when Clinton proposed raising estate taxes"

what kind of convoluted logic is this? since we as voters are not sure how to fix all these problems that somehow makes these candidates equal? and tax policy breaks the tie?!

Then he regurgitates the usual Trump arguments about Clintons health. And then cites Trumps superior persuasion skills. His comments have been "temporarily disabled" so no way to respond to this nonsense. I've lost all respect for this guy

[0] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-...
Did you ever actually see anything like that? Because I've been attending to many of IT conferences and never ever seen something even remotely close.

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassmen... - here is a very reasonable CoC that mostly deal with behavior that is actually law breaking.

https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
i cannot because i'm pretty sure it hasn't been discovered yet and cannot be certain it's even possible to figure one out. IANACSPhD.
Dear Peter Thiel
In what way a group of people that has the almost unanimous support of mainstream media, the current government and the (most likely) upcoming government can be called marginalized?
*A justice system in a land that has an extradition treaty with the US.
Silencing America as It Prepares for War: John Pilger
"commercial software typically just doesn't care about software reliability to the extent anyone in real world systems does"

And there is nothing wrong with this! I'm not suggesting every line of code should be "engineered". I do think that more projects could benefit from the engineering mindset you are talking about here. Operating Systems for example.
I think this is basically the major and effective meme/emotion that Trump plays into: Nostalgia. Thiel also voiced concerns about the state of the infrastructure at a GOP Convention. Nostalgia is a strong emotion and it is often based on false memories or weak comparisons. Sure, large parts of our infrastructure are worse than they were 50 years ago, but on the other hand we had very different problems back then. We used to consume goods that turned out to be toxic. Today almost everyone has access to extremely fast transportation via air travel. Almost everyone has access to the world's knowledge at any time. Medicine has improved a lot. "Make it great again" is the central lie and people are dumb enough not to question it and to believe his financial independence would make him a superior leader, when in fact he only displays characteristics that are opposed to the ones we should expect from a good leader, for example decency and intelligence.
Wouldn't it be easy to intercept 4G, e.g. by setting up a fake 4G cell. Anyway, their previous tweets state that contingency plans have been enacted, which surely implies they've set up something alternative.
Azure would be a subset of light blue in Russian.
Let's say that, as a hypothetical, 1-2% of the population per year have been experiencing exactly what you describe as credibility-undermining behavior from major publications.

If you are not one of those 1-2%, how would you know about it?
5 Life-Changing Ways to Validate Your Business Ideas
The NYT is the publication that originated the story about the HRC external email server during her tenure at the State Department.

The NYT frequently publishes articles critical of Hillary Clinton. Here are several hundred: https://www.reddit.com/search?q=subreddit%3Athe_donald+site%...

I'm using this example as an internet community that curates information critical to Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party campaigns. In that list are several that discuss content within the email leaks in a fashion critical to Hillary Clinton.

Publications should be permitted to publish stories critical of both major political parties.
Out of the ones mentioned in the article Movidius was/is specifically focused on low power vision tasks, the rest are fundamentally same stuff as we have today with CPUs/GPUs, just faster, lower power.

Wave Computing will be interesting if it's not vaporware. I posted some more details about them a few weeks ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12458171
I knew what to expect from the title. An actual computer scientist wouldn't be clueless enough to suggest (s)he can teach everything about computer science. Instead he would probably say how (s)he would teach something in his(er) narrow field of specialization - algorithms, databases, operating systems, compilers, whatever.
> Trump thinks all Mexicans and Muslims are violent madmen who should be barred from entering the United States.

ok honestly this is just outright wrong. you're just reciting false talking points from your liberal tv when you clearly haven't actually taken the time to listen to what Trump actually said. He never once called all Mexicans rapists yet you say he did. He never once said he wants to ban ALL Muslims from entering the US yet you did. For your information, the FBI notified congress and local governments that they currently are not confident that they can properly vet all incoming refugees. If the FBI is saying that, how on Earth can you claim it's wrong for Trump to call for a temporary stop until the FBI says it has a handle on it?
You just summed up what I have been trying to explain for months.

Sometimes things need to get worse before they can get better.
> If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?

Trump does not threaten technological innovation the way that SOPA did.

>I think it's fair to ask whether, if Peter Thiel is so clueless as to donate

In what way is Peter Thiel demonstrating cluelessness comparable to being in support of SOPA? You are conflating a demonstrated incompetence regarding the impact of SOPA on innovation, with more generalized differences of political opinion.
I was speaking about overhauling the entire system. Both sides of the political divide in the States have e.g. maintained support of NATO allies.

I think both the OP and others are talking about Trump as "let's get rid of the current political establishment and get an outsider". That's fine, but an outsider that threatens a lot of the foundational international strategy of the US is a threat to world stability.

I also think Trump is threatening the very system of democracy int he US by calling the elections into question and threatening to lock up his political opponent. That's a very direct threat to democracy.
A five year old could at least disarm you with how cute they are.
> What's not acceptable is if a politician is a puppet for donors.

Absolutely! I agree wholeheartedly.

> The amount of money and network it takes to become president in the US is ridiculous, and basically necessitates being dirty and indebted.

I thought we just agreed that politicians should not be puppets? And now they must be dirty and indebted? The situation is definitely ridiculous!

> Also, Clinton is most likely no worse than most previous presidents. There's just considerably more information about her.

That is certainly a rational outlook on the matter. We are definitely in a period where we have more information available.

But something else has changed (some 60 years and just 10 presidents past) - politicians are now evaluated largely according to TV performance, and costs have spiralled out of control. Perhaps when it was much less costly to become president, you didn't need to be dirty and indebted?

> But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter.

Only this convoluted bit of logic could possibly suffice: I think Clinton would make an acceptable President, and would continue the status quo. There would be little reform-instead, things would just get a little bit worse. Trump would be awful. However, I think that I (and my son, who will not be 18 in this presidency) could probably survive with only moderate loss of personal resources. As a result of that... experiment, I expect that in coming years the DNC and the country in general would institute various reforms that would be good for the long-term health of the country.
Four years of Trump would allow him / the GOP to appoint at least one SCOTUS justice. That alone is enough for me to vote against him.
Besides all of the other counter-arguments presented here, remember the article isn't arguing that Apple won't create a ceramic iPhone, just says that it'd be impossible to hide such a massive manufacturing shift so it effectively can't be the next one.
I think because CS degrees tend to produce more competent programmers, for some reason.
Thanks for reminding me of that. I've read it before but I enjoy it anew every time I see it.
No, Trump hasn't joked about drone-striking Assange. He has joked about torturing suspected terrorists and stated his intention to see Edward Snowden executed. But he didn't make a tasteless drone joke, that's true.
What could he really do with advance warning and no communications? Assange can't really run anywhere so the most he can really do it bunker down in a safe room or something, which he's probably ready to do anyways at a moment's notice any ways.

Given that cutting off internet before means he can't do any new live data releases ("Maybe he screwed up setting up his dead man's switch?" unlikely but possible at this point) and means that during a raid there'd be no heroic live stream from inside the safe room "resisting the oppressive dogs of the US government come to silence him."

I don't really see what there is to gain from a raid to seize him now though. Presumably wikileaks is capable of trickling out whatever 'damning' emails/cables/files they already have without him so it's probably not the goal.
Sounds like a Software Engineering course. Probably want to add in the rest of Computer Science if you really want to teach Computer Science though.
never going to happen. you people are crazier than trump is.
> 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.

This really resonated. It's hard to overestimate how isolated we are from The Outgroup and how rarely we actually do anything about it.

If anyone is genuinely interested in talking to someone who is very different than themselves, I'm volunteering to play recruiter/matchmaker and coordinate some (hopefully) interesting conversations. I started a Ask HN thread to discuss so please let me know: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=12729057
It was not fully investigated at all since the prosecutor decided by himself the case was not worth prosecuting. That prosecutor has now been dismissed from the case which leaves an opening for a new procedure to be started. As the suspects - which they still are, no matter what this prosecutor says - have not been prosecuted yet there is still an opportunity for justice to be served. I can only hope this will happen as this case has put a severe dent in the trust people have in the justice department - let alone the trust the rape victim has.
Not even on good days do I even come close to 100% agreeing with myself
No. he actually said this:

Clinton: "it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country."

Trump: "Because you'd be in jail."

Maybe, (surprise, surprise) Trump wasn't thinking it through and just wanted to get that quip in on Clinton but the language is clear: If Trump was in charge of the law in the US, Clinton would be in jail.

Parse it all you want, but Trump has continued to say that in his stumps and is fine with selling merchandise that says Clinton should be in prison.
Behavior such as these from CNN: [1] and [2] has been par for the course for the mainstream media as far as I have seen this year. Scare, divert, suppress, collude, whatever it takes to avoid the public getting to the truth if it will hurt their candidate.

I just can't understand how this does not scare people. How is this different from the state run media in third-world countries we used to laugh at as kids?

It may be working out for your team _this_time_, but the same behavior will almost certainly be used against you in the future.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWKwEBIkYhI
[2] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205
Listen Amir Najam’s Playlists and Tracks on SoundCloud
Not for Apple.[1] Margins on iPhones are huge.

[1] http://fortune.com/2016/04/04/apple-iphone-se-3/
I find it preposterous that it took this long to hear that Trump bus tape as well as the Stern recordings. If you were connected to either of these shows, wouldn't the first thing you did when Trump started to become a story was go looking through the material you had on him? It's simply not credible that they "just found" the bus tape. Was it lost behind a toilet somewhere? That they had this for a while now and were saving it for maximum impact is far more likely than it being only now discovered.
And yet Apple makes the majority of mobile phone profits for the entire sector. Weird.
That's probobly a bad pattern to use the local registry like that. The goal is to be as stateless as possible, so pushing and pulling from an external registry would fix that.
And what about the 'T' in 'LGBT'?

Surely you haven't already forgotten the rise in anti-trans discriminatory legislation in recent years? Do you think Trump and his supporters are the type to not support those? Which party is it that's been at the forefront of anti-discriminatory legislation and equal protection in general?

It sucks that the first past the post voting system of ours all but guarantees that we must choose between the lesser of two evils to avoid throwing our vote away, but what else are you going to do? A vote for a third party is a vote that increases the probability of a Trump presidency.
Many of these are old and do not address the content of the emails. There are perhaps 100 significant stories that could have been written based on the information leaked in the past 10 days. We got zero.

The paper has also declined to collaborate with Assange to release stories about many other leaks. The NYT is America's Pravda.

By the establishment and for the establishment... the definition of conservative.

To think of all those who undertook personal risk over the years to build a great news organization! Too much competition from buzzfeed seems to have left the paper toothless and officious.

Historians will likely view the gutting of the adversarial, investigative press as the factor that accelerated our civilization's return to authoritarianism.
A few points:

1. Donating to the Clinton Foundation is not the same as donating to the Clinton campaign.

2. Buying an album is not the same as donating money to a campaign or voting, both of which can meaningfully affect a large number of other people, unlike buying an album.

3. If you knowingly fund criminal operations without actually committing said crimes yourself you can definitely be held accountable for it by the law.

4. The US Supreme Court did rule that donating money is a form of free speech in Buckley v. Valeo, but this doesn't imply that free speech is limitless. As with other forms of speech, Congress has the power to place reasonable limits on it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
So...what do you think about the women who are still voting for Trump(who number in the millions), even though they've probably seen the same video you have(and come to different conclusions about it being sexual assault).

Are they too stupid to know what's good for them? Trapped in some kind of Trump stockholm syndrome? They enjoy being dehumanized?
I think there ought to be two copies of the header these days; each written out separately and atomically, and checksummed, similar to GPT (in the UEFI spec).
The point is that in English, there's still a common word for, say, both "scarlet" and "crimson", grouping them together. But there's no such common word between "red" and "green" - the latter are primary colors, always distinguished.

In other languages, that grouping is done differently, and two colors that would both be appropriate to call "red" in English don't have a single common color term at all.

To get a feel of how this looks from the other side, consider various Asian languages that don't distinguish green and blue, and have a single word that has to be translated as "green or blue" to English.
Sadly, racists always find ways to rationalize their racism.
Seems like a good start for a class. If he keeps it up, and does a lot more work, he'll end up with a good program.
The other countries people have stated make sense, I wasn't aware of a serious issue with Germany? Unless you're referring to Hitler?
> The only two vocal Trump supporters I am close to are Peter Thiel and my grandma.

Ignoring the Thiel stuff in this particular comment to focus on the grandma part. If you read this, sama, is her support based on anything more than him being the Republican nominee? I ask because my grandparents (from a very rural upbringing, and lifelong Republicans) are also the only Trump supporters I'm close to. It's been illuminating to me, as they vehemently opposed him in the primaries, and his policy positions (if you can call them that) are at odds with everything they've ever discussed believing in. Their justification seems to be based on a simple assumption that once he's elected, he'll just become a generic Republican, and that everything he says during the election is irrelevant bluster. It honestly has made me question if they'd vote for Hillary had she run as the Republican nominee.
I agree with both of you and am a bit bewildered that I came a cross as a "grand" conspiracy theorist. The is a very simple reason why the press hates Trump so much. He has not only threatened to sue journalists very often but has also hinted at times that he would limit the possibilities of journalists if he was elected.

That being said, don't underestimate the amount of ordinary collusion and the work of spin doctors during election times. My point is that this is massive this time, definitely more than in past elections.

Finally, although I generally agree, a little warning about your last comment: Since we only see failed conspiracies, we lack the data to adequately assess the question of how much real conspiracy there is. ("conspiracy theories" on the other hand, are easy to debunk, but that's another issue.)
> "This is what demagogues do, they raley and gain power through uniting groups of people over fear."

Which candidate are you referring to? Both major candidates are aiming to pick up votes by spreading fear of the other candidate. I'd argue that's pretty much their strongest argument at this point.
This is a neat idea. Some thoughts:

Maybe there are already other projects like this?

Maybe it could use some kind of taxonomy of whom you might get to talk to?

Maybe it could use some kind of ground rules about confidentiality? (or am I being too paranoid?)

Maybe it could use some kind of advice for people's ensuing conversations? (or am I being too pessimistic?)
12-factor?
A lot of them actually aren't, though, by any reasonable metric.

Health? Number of close friends? Lifespan? Addiction rate? Income? Unemployment rate? Labor participation rate?

By any of those metrics, life in a lot of rural-red communities is getting worse, and has been for years. I'm aware of the "better but it feels worse" pattern - crime rates are the prime example - but it's far too glib to say that covers everything. Inconvenient as it is, sometimes you have to actually improve things to make people feel better.

I suspect that most people will not accept any definition of 'ahead' which leaves them sicker, poorer, lonelier, and dying younger. And I don't think there's any reason that they should accept it.
Publishing from prison as a service? Maybe there is market for it...
A few of the basic concepts:

Smarter memory design means that data does not need to be constantly reloaded, saving time that would otherwise be wasted on data transfer.

Using lower-precision, fixed-point arithmetic is more efficient than standard-precision floating-point arithmetic. As a result, less time and components are wasted on unnecessary precision.

Someone more knowledgeable about processors can better describe the benefits of the Wave architecture.

In terms of benchmarks, Wave claims[1] that a single Wave machine is 25x more efficient than 100 GPUs for Google's Inception network.

[1]: http://wavecomp.com/technology/