skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> How do you deal with sites whose password requirements don't match the output of LessPass? How do you handle the fact that sites want you to change your password? Yes. There's a counter field, but how do you know what site uses what version of the counter? How do you change the master password without having to change all passwords?

While not perfect, I've addressed some of the issues in a similar password scheme of mine: https://github.com/onionjake/doh

* you can write specs for domains' specific password requirements so the generator can guarantee it is accepted
* the counters you append to your password when generated are not sensitive so can be saved/synced
* I have not addressed needing to change your master password, but I'd also like to point out using a password hashing scheme doesn't preclude you from having more than one master password, perhaps to segment work passwords from personal ones.
* sometimes domains change as well, so you can log the domains used it generate passwords, which might be sensitive from a Metadata standpoint, but from a hack-your-password sorta way. This also helps when I use it for passwords other than websites (like ssh key passphrases)

> Thing is: There's a solution for all these problems: All you have to do is actually generating a random password and store

I agree that generating random passwords gives a better user experience, which it is much more popular. I prefer holding all of my data even if I could store it remotely encrypted so hashing was the clear choice. I also kept the algorithm simple so that I could implement it from memory on a strange computer if needed. Definitely not for everyone!
60% YoY premium increase for the last 2 years on my parents' plan with a $13k deductible. Highest increases they have ever had. It's an anecdote, but it's certainly antithetical to what you said.
Predicting Donald Trumps Win: Cognitive Text Analytics
Cutting the deficit? Which one? If you are referring to the National Debt you are grossly wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St...
the entire project is on github. In the folder data/ there are some samples to "see" it in action. Otherwise you have to train it on your voice and apply to whatever sound you like
Yeah honestly I don't get the outrage. A national ID would solve a ton of issues. Individual states could add information to and remove from the ID and it could link up everything. Even people who are for voting IDs it could be used for that as long as it didn't cost anything.

Yeah I know it can help "track" you. Look, you're already being tracked far more without the damn thing. In my opinion a national ID would be well worth it.

I'll hold my breath.
The sad part of this is that if this election was about economics and not about racism and bigotry, then a lot of people voted rather nonsensically. The Democrats aren't exactly a social/left party (at least by global standards), but they're the party that brought better healthcare while the Republicans are the party of Ayn Randism.

So if lower class people voted Republican for economic reasons, they're only hurting themselves. Of course they'll blame immigrants or whoever, so that it can all end up in a vicious cycle of stupidity.
Can you cite an example where a modern dictatorship substantially improved its subject's lives?

This kind of demeaning talk is what got us here. Most people are, by definition, of nearly average intelligence. And someone's intellect doesn't preclude them from the right to have a voice in how they are governed just because they disagree with you.

I voted for Clinton, so I'm just as disappointed as you are. Let's work to fix it, not further divide our already fractured country.
Bullshit. It's not the 1930s any more. Australia and Japan are on good terms and China's not interested in taking over Australia.
Oh, it's not over yet.
Just wondering: you don't find his 'blood coming out of...' comment openly sexist?

If not, I am wondering what is?
+ We are outsourced there but we are the customers in that equation. The Chinese will not make things more difficult for American buyers - they are in a very pernicious situation as it is.

+ As for tariffs: the thing is - we are already in a trade war. China can sell in the US at will. China blocks tons of American companies from selling to China.

American exports to China are almost nothing.

The Chinese are already 'attacking' and have little to retaliate with.

Also - manufacturers are already moving many things out of China etc. and the gov knows it.

Tariffs may pinch a little bit, but if they do - they would be offset by a commensurate uptick in American manufacturing.

The only thing the Chinese could do would be to block 'Pizza Hut' and possibly Apple, which would suck.

Because of the trade imbalance, the Americans can do far, far more damage than the other way around.

China does hold massive US reserves, and could play some tricks, but it's not going to get to that, moreover, the Fed is ready to mop up any liquidity if the Chinese step out of bounds.

China has been playing a great hand of poker against the West - dividing and conquering - US and EU leaders all kow towing to China, and if they speak up getting slapped down for 'fear of losing access' to China. But we don't have access ... and we're never going to get it. Why would they give us access?

It will take some leadership to re-establish proper trade relations, and even though I don't like Trump at all - if he gets more aggressive with China it would be almost surely a 'good thing'.

The area I would worry about is military i.e. South China sea etc..

I see a lot of Obamacare being repealed, a tougher stance on illegal immigration coming for sure. I don't think that will hit the Valley very hard.
I don't think our system leaves room for three parties to coexist for any length of time, and with partisan identity being so strong these days the two major parties will continue to exist in name at least. But they have pivoted before, and in big ways. This Republican sweep has probably forestalled such a shift, but it'll be interesting to see which factions of the Republican party end up in conflict over the next few years, and which ones come to the fore the next time they're up against strong Democratic opponents. I think it's too soon to tell how the Republican Congress will get along with this Republican president.
And you know what? Eventually that changed. It takes time. The approach the left has been taking lately is to make sweeping changes that a lot of people aren't comfortable with RIGHT NOW OR ELSE YOU'RE A BIGOT AND YOU DESERVE TO HAVE YOUR LIFE RUINED. For a large portion of the population it was just too much, too fast and they had enough.

Well, that's the social side of it. The rest of the election was about economic factors.
Ask HN: What happens with USDS post-election?
Now that Donald Trump is the president-elect, what is going to happen to the White House's U.S. Digital Service (https://www.usds.gov/)?
With Trump’s win Silicon Valley investors start losing their damn minds
Does this not prove that "diverse" liberalism isn't so diverse after all? Shouldn't a diverse group of people have seen this coming?

Or is liberalism actually systematically excluding people by labelling them as "racist" and "sexist", when in fact they're just fiscal and social conservatives?
Point of information, it's an undergrad thesis[0], not a PhD thesis. Most of the language is now unrecognizable from that, with the original graphics library residing in this seemingly mothballed repository[1].

[0]: https://www.seas.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/files/archi...

[1]: https://github.com/evancz/elm-graphics
I believe Fox is the most watched news channel and Fox is the 2nd most popular network behind CBS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_television_networks

So not all media is as liberal as you say. The sad bit is that the source of media is so partisan that we only listen to what we want to hear (that goes both to the right and to the left).
How are you not allowed to cultivate your culture?

EDIT: A number of people are asking you this question, I don't want to make it feel like you are being ganged up on or in for a trick. I myself am asking due to curiosity.
Bathroom, Bedroom and Kitchen Interior Design Ideas for You
the neural network is just like a baby brain. If it is fed with Keith Jarret, yes it will also learn to deal with that
Part of it is also that Hillary's emails was pretty much handed to the media, with very little work required from their part. Digging into Trumps taxes or other scandals would require actual work.

As for Comey, he had a lose/lose scenario. If he didn't go forward with the new emails, and it had turned out that there was actually something worth investigating, he's would have kept important information from the US public, just before an election.

While Trump perhaps isn't exactly the ideal candidate for the US presidency, I have the same take on him as I did on the Brexit: The world is simply to boring a place for this to become a major issue. In the long run everything will be fine.
I agree. My impression was that Clinton was at least equally as hawkish as Trump, if not more so. She was (is?) certainly more in bed with defense contractors and the whole military machine--as any lifetime politician really probably is.
I agree with your points, but I take issue with this statement:

> We live in the darkest of times

You're posting your individual opinion on an internet forum, accessible only with an internet connection, a computer and electricity, and you did so presumably from a place of warmth and comfort.

I do not think you have any understanding, historically or geographically, of what a dark time to be alive might be.

There were times and there were, and are, places, in our world, where you would have been ostracised, physically abused or even killed for expressing your opinion in this manner.

There was a time when you would not have wasted the last oil in your lamp to pen down some little epistle of your small disappointment at the political goings-on around you.

There are places today where there is no internet, even no electricity. You could have been born as many other people alive today and be in a much worse position than you are in.

You could have been born centuries ago, and may already have been killed in war, or by less civilised people more inclined to scavenging in the absence of a system of government or a reliable network of employers and payment fulfilment.

An orange, hypocritical, potentially bigoted/racist/sexist fatcat and chronic bullshitter has been elected to office. Someone who has no obvious qualification to 'have a finger in the nuclear button' or to preside over an economy that dictates the fortunes of millions of people, domestically and internationally.

Which, ultimately, makes him rather similar to his predecessors. No one is qualified to wield the power he finds himself with now. Very rarely are humans rational, and quite often it is the irrationality of a typical human being that precipitates the humane or emotional choices, while it is often the rational and pragmatic decision to pull the trigger.

Make no mistake: Donald Trump is not the only racist or sexist to sit in the oval office. His predecessors simply did not yell it to the reporters because it would have been unwise one or two decades ago.

Today, it was precisely the aggressive cultivation of mixed press that won him the election through increased exposure of a perceived decisiveness and demur character aligning with the electorate.

Hillary did not evolve, and so she lost. She would have been better for the country—as it appeared to be 24 hours ago—but it's a different country than anybody realised or wanted to realise.

Brexit was only the beginning. But do not mistake a few steps backwards for the 'darkest time' — such a millennial naïveté and sense of entitlement and ignorance is a very clear reflection of a problem in contemporary society that does indeed need to be addressed.

Trump may be a monster, Brexit may be a daft move, but they are realities brought on by real complaints and issues from real people. They don't stop being real people just because they didn't attend college or move from the pit to the office to the video conference—and the fact that they were not able to make the transition from dying industries is proof that there has been an issue in society in need of attention.
What are some examples you see of being forbidden to cultivate, maintain, and respect your own culture?
> It doesn't take "a few weeks" to learn a programming language!!!

No, it doesn't. It takes a few hours.

Which, I'm sure sounds flippant, but hear me out. In the 25-30 years I've been a professional programmer, I've been paid to use many different languages. FORTH, Fortran, C, C++, Pascal, Protel, C#, Java, Perl, Ruby, Go, Javascript/Coffeescript, and Python are the ones that come off the top of my head, but if I were to go through my CV, I'd definitely remember a few more.

Anyone who has programmed in a handful of the above will notice that (with the exception of FORTH) these languages are practically identical. They all have slightly different features and slightly different syntax, but once you know one, you can pick up another one pretty easily. Especially once you know 5 or 6 of them, you practically don't even need to look at the docs. Just glance at some example code and you are on your way.

Libraries and frameworks take a lot more time than languages. There are lots of crazy details that you have to remember. Luckily, most of the major languages of the same type have very similar base libraries. As long as you stay away from frameworks, you can be productive pretty much immediately. Learning the details can take a few weeks, but mostly its unimportant. Frameworks suck. I've been working in Rails on and off for... 4 years???? I'll never put that damn thing on my CV. I still don't understand how it works.

So, I don't know this author, but he is clearly knowledgeable in Haskell. Maybe he also knows Ocaml. It would take you about 15 seconds to pick up Elm from that background. The rest is discovering (and apparently complaining) about the bits that don't live up to your expectations. He didn't comment on the state of the libraries (except to complain about the political process for getting libraries distributed with the official tools).

I'm not going to defend his rant. I didn't enjoy the tone and I think he completely misses the point of why the language is there. But his technical complaints are perfectly reasonable.

I didn't vote you down, but I suspect the reason other people did is that you are a bit too quick to criticise the author's ability to accurately judge the language. He seems perfectly capable, even if I disagree with his conclusions and his tone.
It was not a genuine support: this election was historical in the amount of unfavorable opinions toward both candidates.

Today he gets a lot less unfavorable rating than either candidate, but no one knows what would have happened if he actually would have had to campaign against Trump.
Obama popular vote 2008: 69.5 million

Obama popular vote 2012: 65.9 million

Hillary popular vote 2016: 63 million, maybe

That's why Hillary lost, the rather lame turnout by Democrats.
No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for.

But even if it DID pass the House, the Senate would just filibuster it.

And even if by some miracle one was passed and signed, it would hit an immediate injunction from the Federal court of the abortion-backers' choice, using Roe as a precedent.

The concept makes for a good scare tactic to raise contributions and volunteers, but it goes nowhere in the real world.
> What sort of organizing principle would the world have then? I haven't seen anything historically like that

Basically City-States
Fivethirtyeight said the odds for Clinton where about 70-30 and trending narrower. Given how close the final win was I wouldn't really call that a miss. The miss where the models that where calling it 90+ for Clinton
> Trump seems to have much more moderate views on social issues than the Republican Party

Trump also doesn't seem to have much of a view at all, during campaign he expressed one thing and its opposite multiple times, he craves attention and acceptance and if the GOP does that (and lets him enact the petty revenges he's know for) I don't expect he'll have any issue enacting evangelical policies. Hell, he explicitly stated he'd leave the presidential busywork to his VP.
Again, some polls were right. Just like after the Brexit. The media just didn't give them any exposure because they weren't following The Narrative.

Maybe we'll finally learn from these polling methodologies. For example, some polls that were right used mostly robot-callers instead of actual human beings to prevent the "shy trumper" phenomenon.
Pretty sure Indians in India do not have just one culture either...
And you believe any agreement will block a foreign power from obtaining nukes? That sounds naive to me--especially when it comes to an exceptionally motivated foreign power like Iran.
+1 I did not vote for Trump, but I sincerely admire your enthusiasm.

Trump's victory speech was gracious and I hope Americans rally behind him. I intend this to be a general comment: once a candidate wins the presidency, I think it right for Americans to offer best wishes and as much support that they can, given their political views.
And of course, one major power refraining from blundering into situations tends to create the opportunity for another to replace them

The US has been less militarily active in Syria than in other recent Middle Eastern conflicts, partly as a result of fairly unambiguous policy mistakes in that region over the past decade and a half.

Their place has been filled by Russia. I've yet to see a remotely persuasive argument that Syria is less badly off as a result.
The American dream took a beating with Nixon and died with Reagan. You'll need another FDR moment to bring it back, but since apparently the closest thing to FDR was unelectable because he was "socialist" you're fucked.

There's no future for America now. It's going to squander everything it's earned in the last 240 years inside of two.

Way to hand China the keys to the world.
I paid for offline GPS software which lets me download whole continents of data to my phone. Paying roaming charges to be able to navigate is a joke in my book.

No, you can't save the whole country in Maps. You can't even save certain regions in certain countries (Austria being an example).
When or if you find back the connection to reality, you will realize how Trump actually won.

Trump won by appealing to people who historically felt they were and deserved to be the in-control majority but now feel they are the not-in-control minority, and he won by claiming he would make them feel like an in-control majority again.

It is that simple. It is also simply the case that the people who historically felt they were and deserved to be the in-control majority were white men.

Populism in American politics is nothing new. Nor is populism oriented on racial lines. There is no secret "untouchable" issue lurking behind it. You pick a large group, capable of forming a powerful voting bloc, a group that believes it has reason to feel resentful, to feel cheated out of power that's rightfully theirs, to feel that "elites" are conspiring against them to ruin the country, and you tell them they deserve power and you're going to give it back to them.

Exactly 120 years ago, William Jennings Bryan ran on a similar platform of "restoring" political and economic power to people who felt they once had it, lost it, and deserved to have it once again. In the process he delivered one of the objectively greatest political addresses in American history (the "Cross of Gold" speech). The only difference is Bryan lost the electoral college by about the same margin Trump won it by.
The brilliance of our republic is that the government transitions without violence -- where the loser concedes to the victor without fighting a literal war of succession. Don't let the personalities on the ballot this time around confuse you into thinking that they are the embodiment of our republic.

In four years, we'll gather and vote again, and transition peacefully again.
History is complex. And interesting. And often we (and I) get it wrong. So I always enjoy a good discussion. :)

The US profited hugely from slave trade and labor. (Which most Americans usually conveniently ignore) Which helped it build up. So colonialization and domination was a factor for the US before they became a superpower.

It's true that in the earlier 19hundres the US were more reclusive and isolated.

The US economy wasn't in a good state before and after WW2... The war gave a huge boost to the economy and lifted the US out of the Great Depression. That probably laid the groundwork for the huge military-industrial complex today.

The Marshall plan wasn't just good will and benevolence either. A major goal was to create an export market to trade with. The US economy really took off after WW2! ( I can dig up a paper on that). Of course, building up a power base in western Europe to oppose Russia was also important.

Also, the falling apart of the old, Europe based empires from the late 18th century to 1930 and then the WW2 left a power vacuum, which the US filled, together with Russia.

And the world got a lot smaller then, thanks to airplanes, better technology. Nuclear weapons.
"...but are not allowed to cultivate, maintain and respect our own (American) culture."

Could you give an example?
Why did Russia need Crimea and Eastern Ukraine?
What do you mean by "system"? The post talks about how other languages solve the problem, e.g. typeclasses, or emulating them with classes.
I guess you don't live in one of the suburbs terrorised by the African gangs like APEX? Melbourne is a multi-culti shithole and I'd know, I live here.
Eh... The Prime Minister of Australia is actively working against the technology industry here, and he actually states that preventing Australians from having better internet access is his biggest accomplishment.
Even modern computing is still vulnerable to the old GIGO phenomenon: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

The way data was collected has some very serious flaws.
No it's not. They are merely two data points. Look at Germany. I guarantee you Merkel is going to be reelected next year.
Okay, the AFD is going to gain some power but it is outright impossible for them to win the election. But this isn't just about the AFD. What the experts and the media forced down the throats of the people is that there is no alternative to what's currently going on. SPD, Grüne, Linke, FDP don't even need to bother finding a Chancellor candidate.
Having watched and listened to Thiel for several years now, I came up with a pet hypothesis I call 'The Wolfian World' that I feel describes what's going on more accurately than the newspapers.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12884413