skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> This is a wake-up call to the people of united states who are listening too much to the unjust and undue criticism of the US govt for surveillance. Post-Snowden some leftists are taking undue advantage of the atmosphere to spread their fear mongering anti-democracy propaganda amongst US citizens.

I don't know why you would equate opposition of mass surveillance with "anti-democracy propaganda". A major point of opposing mass surveillance is that it's anti-democratic for the government to be able to dig up dirt on anybody with the press of a button.
I find it hard to agree with you, but I don't go on reddit much. Can you supply a few reddit threads you feel are exceptionally high caliber? I mostly consume /r/askscience and /r/askhistorians. One of the problems I have with reddit (and this might come from not working hard enough at it) is not knowing how to find active, high quality, specialty subreddits.
How can I export all my gmail to CSV by sender/recipient
Hi friends! It would be hugely helpful to me if I could export all my gmail correspondence to a CSV and see all correspondence associated with each email account. Web-based CRM tools allow me to see email correspondence by sender do but are too slow to navigate for my purposes.
Hm. Article strongly states we need to measure this invisible killer. Also ranks this (unmeasured) risk high on a chart by number of deaths per annum. Seems like guessing to me?

I'm thinking 'medical error' is a catchall for some constellation of events, and only shows up high on the chart because its an aggregate of several causes. Once its measured and dissected, it will turn into 12 low-frequency entries and disappear from the conversation.
1. WebKit rejected adding barriers to support multiple garbage collectors and a super-GC to collect cycles, required by Dart or any 2nd VM. See https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-December/... where Fil Pizlo of Apple cites 5% throughput regression.

Dart was never going to make it, and adding 3 or 4 VMs with their own GCs is even less plausible.

2. See https://github.com/WebAssembly for progress on what asm.js showed was possible: a 2nd, initially co-expressive with asm.js, eventually more expressive, binary syntax for the Web. It's happening now, this year and probably shipping experimentally in 1Q2017.

Writing "easily take a decade" out of ignorance just says to me you didn't even bother to use google!
Pug – robust, elegant, feature rich template engine for Node.js
Reading this article and thinking back on the users on HN that I do enjoy reading comments from I think that a neat feature may be the ability for a logged in user to "favorite/mark" specific authors. Those authors only get some particular character in front of their name (or a different color) so that they stand out more. I do agree with this post about seeing certain names and knowing that the signal ratio will be higher is nice. May just need a better way to discern those when scanning a comments section.
Cool! I think it's great that he has access to computers and is able to better himself and others even while he's in prison.

Besides the benefits of doing something productive, I wonder if it also provided him with additional comforts in prison?
I applaud your use of trading lingo but it's just "long tsla" ;)
Absolutely. But the trade-off is not so simple. I can be fairly confident that if my code compiles there are far fewer bugs than if I had written it in nodejs or php. So while it may take longer to get to the initial point that I have something running, I save time on subsequent refactors.

And the added bonus, is that my code runs 10-20x faster. So I really didn't give up anything to get the increased confidence.

However, I have to backtrack a bit here, because the largest Rust backend I've written was probably a little less than 10k lines. So while it was non-trivial it wasn't a massive undertaking.
> Also note that unlike tech, the peaks and valleys are much less pronounced.

The point is that, unlike tech, you have to take on massive amounts of debt before you can even begin to work[0]. And even after that, there's a really high latency before you're earning enough to make more than the minimum payments. Six-figure debt compounded over a decade or more really adds up.

> That is a gross generalization. It is true in the US if you are a primary care physician or one of the lower-paid/lifestyle specialists. It is far from true if your are a higher-paid specialist or sub-specialist.

It's actually more true if you're a specialist or subspecialist. People who don't practice medicine tend to overestimate what specialists get paid, and to underestimate what PCPs get paid. It also doesn't help that, in the last ten years, the relative reimbursement rates have changed dramatically, and to top it all off, private practices have been rapidly going the way of the dodo - so it's understandable that the public perception would be out-of-date.

Overall, reimbursement rates for specialists have been slashed far faster than they have for primary care (with some specialties hit harder than others). Combine that with the fact that they have to spend even more time in training (during which time their debt compounds

> Also note that unlike tech, the peaks and valleys are much less pronounced.

Quite the opposite - tech salaries are relatively flat and stable compared to most other industries, and we get to take home pretty much 100% of our salary, less taxes. Yes, the industry as a whole has booms and busts, but so does literally every private industry. In medicine, unlike tech, even if you're salaried, you're oftentimes paying for a large chunk of your business expenses out of your "salary". This is one of the reasons why looking at listings of what doctors make is incredibly misleading. The insurance rates vary dramatically between fields of medicine (and practice locations), as does the necessary equipment and mandatory continuing medical education expenses (again, even salaried doctors will oftentimes have to cover these out-of-pocket).

In tech, we don't have to worry about any of that. We have it pretty easy.

> in medicine you get paid more for working in lower-cost-of-living cities.

This used to be the case. It still is, for some fields like emergency medicine. It's a lot less the case in other fields, partly because of the consolidation of practice groups and the downward pressure on reimbursement rates across the board.

[0] Unless, as I said in my previous comment, you're independently wealthy beforehand, in which case this whole discussion of early retirement is moot.
Psutil 4.4.0 released
I both admire and feel sorry for the author. To pour your heart and soul for so long and not achieve your outcomes can be very hurtful and devastating.

The language in this document is telling in a few ways. There is not much about collaboration with peers or superiors other than conflict. The article left me with an impression of conflict and someone who wasn't a team player. I am guessing that cultural compatibility was an issue. It may be possible that the outcome may be for the best because it may help the author grow (although, public accusations will not be seen well by future employees as it's airing many people's dirty laundry).

I'm also note that the author raises some issues that I as a boss take exception to. For example, more diversity. I am aware that in today's climate, diversity is a highly charged, politically correct topic. The author talks about diversity by hiring by gender. What diversity is the author seeking? That of genitals? Is there some magic empathy or creativity that females supposedly have? I've always built teams based on needs of skills, personality, cultural fit. As an example, I knocked back a highly qualified, well presented male candidate because he was too ambitious for a maintenance role. This was not because of his gender, but, because he was unlikely to provide a long term ROI and would expect promotion that couldn't be delivered and cause unrest by venting disappointment as a lack of growth. I would most probably be seen by the author as being sexist for not hiring by gender to fill a quota and I would view the author as sexist for hiring by gender and being unable to see that diversity is not a gender, but skills and personality.

I would encourage the author to ask themself if they are a team player. I would encourage the author to understand themselves and the sort of culture they want to work in. Maybe, it is a culture of creativity rather than talent that the author craves (as an example). Seeking feedback from peers outside of work may be very helpful and revealing too.

I can be confrontational (too many fights over too many years), but I know who I am and I know what I want. I support my organisation above myself (during working hours) and I support and respect juniors, peers and more senior staff. I negotiate my views. I listen carefully. I seek feedback from my peers. I align my views with my peers where it doesn't compromise my principals. As an example, I would never work for a company that hires (or excludes) by gender or race because I want freedom to hire the right staff, not some boxes ticked. I know myself and my employee. I turn down jobs where I don't believe in the company for my own sake and the company's.

I wish the author the best of luck and hope they have the courage to ask the tough questions. I think they need to ask some tough questions.
The internet is interoperability. And IDN does not seem to be interoperable.

As such, it's just not a good idea use one for now.

As an aside, I don't even know why IDN's are allowed, it offers too many opportunities for domain spoofing and phishing.
Europe is not an open market for agriculture - and the Walloons are defending their agriculture here.

Also, it's not as open a market as you would think.

If it was there would be massive banking, energy and telecoms consolidation, and there hasn't been.
He's doing an AMA today on Reddit. Exclusively about SpaceX though.
A group called New World Hackers have claimed responsibility[1]. I read a bit that they stopped their attacks by 2pm EST, and that another group picked up some of the minor attacks later in the day. Anonymous was mentioned, but didn't claim it. I can't seem to track down that article at the moment... I'll keep looking.

[1] https://twitter.com/fbajak/status/789611472280178688 and http://www.anonintelgroup.com/2016/10/21/twitter-down-its-no...
Simulators are not the problem for renewal, they get increasingly better with time.

The problem is relying on automation instead of real piloting skills

I trust much more a pilot practicing manual flying in a simulator than doing real flying in "Children of Magenta" mode
Go doesn't have any of the same safety guarantees as Rust. If you look at most production Go code, very few make use of channels, most Go code is actually locking/unlocking memory, and the Go compiler doesn't validate against data races in the same way that Rust code would. So I don't believe that Go actually makes things better, in that respect anyway.
Not knowing more about your problem, I'm not so sure that something at the hypervisor level is necessary to see where you're losing performance on HVM, even though it could potentially help. Have you tried using tools like perf, SystemTap, or dtrace inside the VM?
> I worry that this is another example of throwing technology at a social and political problem.

I'm so lost at this assertion. How is this a social / political problem?

IPFS is not permanent hosting. It is not an attempt to take power away from others and distribute it to the masses. It is purely a technical problem, which i think is objectively true.

I have a feeling that you believe IPFS is partially designed to subvert governments/etc. And to an extent, that may be possible, but it is being built with DMCA's in mind. IPFS wants to allow governments / copyright holders to take content down from the network. It is not trying to become a pirate haven. Why? Well, mainly because piracy inhibits adoption. There may not be a way to DMCA currently (i haven't checked in months), but there are Github issue(s) on it. The creators don't want to see IPFS blocked in countries because it can permanently host illegal content. Which makes a ton of sense.

The problem IPFS is trying to solve, as i see it, is purely technical. As advertised in pretty much every pitch i've seen for this technology, we are simply scaling too fast in storage and not fast enough in bandwidth. It appears impossible to handle the infrastructure load of files we are creating. IPFS solves this by automatically pulling content as locally as possible, reducing network overhead. Furthermore, it means that a DDOS/viral/etc of a central resource will not kill it. It's safely and mostly permanently (barring DMCA/etc requests) available.

So with that said, what political and social problem do you see IPFS trying to solve? I don't see any.
See also: Nash Equilibrium
Just want to mention a book I recently read about a doctor's quest to eradicate medical errors through the use of something as simple as checklists.

The Checklist Manifesto, by Atul Gawande.

It's a quick read and very enjoyable. I'm not a medical professional, but Gawande makes the value of checklists clear for people in any profession.
> they have a really hard time reigning in

Reigning monarchs have it hard these days.

Not that reining stubborn mules is much better.

(Pet peeve, but really paying forward a good correction someone gifted me a few weeks ago. Otherwise quit, really ;)
I often think that the medical industry enjoys (or suffers) from some sort of a given god complex. They can do what they want as soon as they reach a certain threshold of saving. Nobody will debate them (most of us don't have the articulate knowledge anyway) and will morally and existentially satisfy from still being alive.

I just went through 4 doctors (gen. and specs.) about deep yet diffuse cardio vascular problems (life altering if not threatening). Their diagnosis was "nothing to see you are depressed". Since my problems started I can't sleep on my right side (causes heart race, pain and suffocation), and have now back pain; in order to sleep without pain I tried on my stomach. This configuration changed something, I felt stings around my heart, and a sudden relaxation, warm blood reaching my fingers and feets (something I didn't feel for a year). Stings moved along, hurting at finger and toe tips. I felt sweetly alive, jumped out of my bed (because now I can). Even cleand my browser tabs. So much for depression.

I tried discussing with doctors calmly. Accepting the data, their knowledge. Yet not backing down if I felt they weren't really solving my problems. But it's impossible. One doctor even dared me to reproduce transient symptoms with an annoyed tone. You start considering being hypercondriac, a crybaby.

Deep down all I want is a way to monitor myself deeply so I can take care of myself but I'm facing this paywall.
I left my old life to travel and work remotely to follow my interests
No one's asking for bulletproof validation. What I want out of input[type="fancy"] elements is:

1. Better detection of the platform than I can do myself. That leads to a UI targeted at the platform (different default phone keyboards, etc).

2. Uniform UIs across websites. I hate having to learn a new calendar widget on every website, it's worse for regular users, not to mention any users that need accessibility features that are prooobably not included in most home-rolled (or even popular) widgets.

3. Basic validation. Just to help the user a bit. I'll validate it again on the back-end, and I might even be validating it myself on the front-end. But basic validation helps and, once again, that uniformity thing shows up again here since the user could be aware of how that widget reports errors on their platform already and could be looking for them.
From operational point of view DJB always recommended ridiculous things.
Of course the top comment can sometimes be positive. For example when the article is about HN itself.

On a more serious note, I guess most people in the tech crowd can make a 5-item list of why HN comments suck and that is exactly the power of HN comments.
It shouldn't be about faith. Every "crowd" has all kinds of people, and even the very smartest people aren't always right. By reading critically (and following up with research if necessary), you can decide what's right and what's wrong.

In my experience, H.N. comments have a lot of wrong. But when the content is good, it can be truly great.
I miss the deep expertise often on display on forums like slashdot in the past which is conspicious by its absence here.

In many ways this is more of a professional board than a personal board. A lot of folks here are in the profession and don't seem to speak their mind, lest they lose career opportunities. This also seems to promote an affection of expertise and authoritative tone even on subjects commentators may not know much about.

There is offhand dismissal of dissent as 'resistant to change' and a serious lack of scrutiny that often allows broken technologies and services to be hyped endlessly untill people come back months or years later to report deficiencies but by then the train has left the station.

And any forum that promotes downvotes to signal dissent cannot by design promote diverse discussion and will naturally coalesce around a 'socially acceptable' consensus.
Maybe that was the intention? Not of management, obviously, but perhaps of someone who actually set things up...
Twitter image encoding challenge (2009)
Is there any risk that the LLC owners would be held responsible for the company's actions?

I have zero knowledge about this stuff, quick googling returned a result[1] which says the owner might be held personally liable if "intentionally does something fraudulent, illegal, or reckless that causes harm to the company or to someone else"

[1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-basics-30163.htm...
I don't think you understand how spoofing works. And no, this attack was not spoofed. It was just hundreds of thousands of IoT devices each pushing a small amount of traffic (0.5-1mbps).
"idiots" is euphemistic. My ire is directed at the whole arrangement which obviously isn't working very well (our healthcare is expensive and not particularly outstanding, especially when you consider that after all that expense there is still an awful lot of under-served demand). I see it as a choice made by the US as a whole, not simply as lawmakers and regulators responding to incentives. 2 days ago I picked someone who could barely walk up from the hospital. The funding model took discretion away from the doctor, so it was left to the patient to try to decide, through the fog of drugs and their recovery, between paying the outlandish room rate out of pocket and leaving.

The idea that "indirect incentives" would seriously be suggested is a great example. Of course indirect incentives will provide a great opportunity to indirectly exploit the system. You want innovation? Pay direct bounties for innovations, contingent on reasonable cost-plus access to the innovation. You want basic research? Pay for it directly.
Great, then it's a DOS attack. Unless it is limited per IP, and then it's not effective again if attacker has a botnet.
10 Insanely Addictive TV Shows Like Game of Thrones
I like that idea! The only problem I see is that great comments are often embedded within an extensive discussion - how do you give readers of such a digest the necessary context without too much bloat?
Absolutely disgusting behavior by Kevin. But thats par for the course - some people are pathetic.

More interesting, is the behaviour of Upwork. With such a clear trail of abusive behaviour from the said "Client", Upwork still decides to terminate the guy's account. If you use Upwork, you are a sharecropper. And the landlords are capricious and have no loyalty to the replaceable tenants.
I wonder if that is the same "Kevin" who left a Yelp review for the company?
My kingdom for a compiled, maintained PPL with recursive queries!
The world's first website and server go live at CERN
Can someone in the know please comment about how this is useful ?

I mean yes this is neat, but inference engines already work declaratively with factor-graphs and potentials.

Are there techniques exploiting algebra/logic that helps make inference faster in practice ?
"Some downsides of immutability"
...
From my own experience, you can get jokes through the filter if you go against the rules of comedy and explain the joke / provide a serious version of the point in the same post.
Power plants are more efficient than a car's combustion engine, & power plants can change over time without changing the vehicle. Modular design ftw
This is sort of illustrative of a prevalent failure mode in high level R&D strategy in medicine.

What they are doing is reasonable as an immediate extension of trying to map the disease process front to back, which is what pure research should be doing. The outcome of that, however, tends to be that people end up manipulating biochemistry to slow the disease process rather than fix it. You can get useful results out of this - see statins, for example. But you can't get cures. People who take statins will still end up in the same bad place in the end, just a little later. Also, it is very expensive to find safe new states for cellular operation that provide a decent benefit:harm ratio.

One right thing to do in Alzheimer's is map the whole thing end to end, them make a decision on what to do. An enormous task that is basically the same thing as understanding the human brain end to end - which is a good thing in and of itself, and if Alzheimer's provokes that work (in the same way that AIDS provoked analogous major efforts to understand viral biochemistry) then good. But in the short term that doesn't produce useful therapies.

The other right thing to do is to identify the fundamental differences between young, non-diseased tissue and aged, diseased tissue and work to revert them - even if you don't know how they are causing harm. Successful removal will tell you a great deal about the significance, and steer other research, and in the best case produce a useful therapy. Thus a focus on amyloid and tau, and immunotherapies to clear them, and dysfunctions in cerebrospinal fluid clearance mechanisms, with approaches ranging from simple mechanical adjustment of fluid drainage channels behind the nose to proposed stem cell therapies for the choroid plexus to addressing immunosenescence in the brain's immune system.

However, Alzheimer's is such a multifaceted condition that researchers tend to focus on reverting one of these items, then don't produce wondrous benefits because the other mechanisms are still in play, and then the people who prefer to slow disease progression instead arrive to argue that this means they shouldn't look at this direct approach of reverting differences. To fix Alzheimer's will likely require clearance of both amyloid and tau, and even then it is likely that since 60% of sufferers also have vascular dementia, it will be challenging to produce good trial outcomes under the present regulatory system.

If damage repair doesn't work, that means you're not repairing enough of the damage.