skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Having a population of idiots is not something Trump can claim responsibility for. He is simply an asshole who has exploited this for his own gains.

What exactly is there to learn from this? That democracy doesn't work when to large fraction of the electorate are ignorant fools.

The lesson should be a better school system for America. But of course that would not be in the interest of republicans. They rely on large number of idiots to win elections. So it is not going to happen.

They will make sure that there is an elite which gets good education which can run companies and create new ones. But there needs to be a large underclass of simpletons to keep the system going.
Racket has green threads, which gives us non-blocking IO but that's about it. There's another concurrency mechanism that uses OS threads but Arc doesn't rely on it, and from the little I looked at, I don't think it would work with the HN software's design.
"> (2) is a much lower risk than most would thing. But it is one of those things where the naive/amateur answer is far from reality, and that naive answer is scary. (Like nuclear, or more rules vs more responsibility.)"

Wrong. And Talib spoke about this and warned against it. Nuclear has a predictable and limited effect, both in area and time. The effect of an organism released into the wild (speak CRISPR e.g.) are can be unpredictable and unlimited regarding area and time.
Obama was wrong. Democracy wasn't on the ballot. Federalism was.
A large part of Trumps message was that Hillary was unsuitable as president. If Trump hadn't manage to get that message through and elevated that issue in favor of other issues much fewer people would have voted for him.
It's not going to be okay. A lot of marginalized people are going to be hurt even more, and yes, the people that voted for Trump are racists, sexists, etc., or at the very least they are fine with a president who is all of those things.
> What I essentially said was that nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation.

I'm not aware of any penal servitude in the United States.
Oh, come on, you know what I meant! As if the readership of HN was not massively biased! I'd love for this website to work, but if you're posting on hacker news, I doubt you'll get with a Trump voter from Montana!
> I find leaving your country only because you didn't vote for the winner is rather cowardly

I have some fairly close friends who are Muslim, Latino, and LGBT. Trump has been quite nasty towards the first two groups, and his running mate (likely to be one of the most powerful VPs in US history) makes no secret of opposing the rights of the latter group. This morning I'm hearing all of them express legitimate fear for their future. I'm not saying that running to Canada is the answer for them or anyone else, but this is not your typical "generic Republican vs generic Democrat, boo-hoo my side lost" post-election complaining.
Education can mean vocational training too, not just university degrees.

A plumber or electrician in Seattle can pull in 100k/year and they are booked out for weeks to months.
Do you really think Trump will reign over banks or reduce military exports? I'm not asking an asshole question or being rhetorical.

It's just that I can't see how or why would Trump choose to do that, once he is in office.
I live in a relatively small suburb of Seattle. I'm a software developer. There are no jobs for me where I live. None. None within 20 miles. The only job for me is in Seattle or Bellevue or Redmond, an hour-long commute. I love where I live, and I don't want to live in Seattle (which I could barely afford anyway-- I like owning a house). I also don't want to exclusively work-from-home and be cut-off socially from my co-workers. It sucks.

(And as I've griped before, this is only true of a couple professions, and software developer happens to be one of them. If I had become a lawyer, I could work in any town in the US. Or a plumber, or a doctor, or a school administrator, or a tow truck driver, or a...)

I'd just be happy with some policy that spreads these companies out a bit. Maybe a tax benefit for opening office space in communities under a certain population size. I'm not sure how it would work. All those angel investors propping up tech companies could also be propping up small town economies merely by moving their offices outside of Seattle, Bellevue, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc.

The last company I worked for had 55 employees, about a dozen of which were software developers. That 55-person company means nothing to Seattle. Not even to the South Lake Union neighborhood. It's not even a blip. But it'd be part of the lifeblood in a smaller town. It'd also help cut the commute for everybody, be able to recruit technical workers like myself who don't want to live in a big city, etc.

Anyway, just a thought, hopefully relevant to this site. Meanwhile I go back to the jobs site, sigh heavily, and judge positions on how close they are to the bus stops...
I don't think Peter Thiel is trolling Hackernews for ways he can explain why he's supporting Trump.
Well let's see what he thinks of Minnesota or California basically tell him to fly a kite.
Right. It's the "obvious" choice. I was asking for other ideas. Here's mine: Sight unseen so with a grain of salt, Portugal.
I don't mean to sound offensive but, how could you possibly draw that conclusion from what I said?

It seems like rather than address what I said, you decided to make baseless attacks against me.
Where's Thiel when you need him?
Except that they are expecting California and New York and other states to pay for their federal government services, while our own states lose money.

> Dominated by Republican voters who profess their distaste for the federal government and its social programs, these are the very states that rank highest on the dependency index.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/3...

I don't consider this a definitive source, but it's what I found fast enough to continue the dialog.
I believe you're incorrect in asserting that the election was about "disenfranchised blue collar workers". My daughter and her husband make about $200k per year and they voted for Trump.

She's describes Trumps win as a great big middle finger to career politicians.
Ending the war? He has escalated on all fronts and opened new ones too. Obama talks a good game but under it all is more surveillance, more economic inequality and more violence.
People _can't_ move away. A large portion of their net worth is tied up in their house. They don't have the cash they need to move. There's no way you can reduce prices of housing in urban areas to match what the empty suburbs are at already. Not to mention the psychological issues of telling people they won't have a lawn or a house any more.
> both sides can leave behind the incessant name calling and hate that's plagued this election

Trump ran his campaign on incessant name calling and hate. If you voted for him, that means you're OK with letting the incessant name calling and hate continue.
The Medicaid expansion is a particular sore spot if the ACA gets repealed, a majority of our physicians are in California where Medi-Cal has had gobs of funding and covered an expanded population well before the ACA was implemented - but for those in states that did rely on the expansion funding I expect our collection rates are going to plummet as Medicaid patients continue to make up a large majority of those that utilize emergency department and urgent care facilities.

There's going to be a lot of people losing Medicaid if this happens that will become self-pay (aka, no money) patients. Not a good time to be in the billing industry.
Skilled and educated lbour is going to be being automated too. I'm not immune as it's creeping into my workplace - is your work safe?
>The strategy you're proposing (engagement) was tried and has failed.

What was tried wasn't engagement, it was an attempt to suppress the issue by holding what they expected to be a doomed referendum, so they could use the result as an excuse to ignore the issue.

True engagement would mean acknowledging people's concerns, and explaining their true causes and how you're going to address them.
While I agree with the principle, I wonder if a harder economic calculation of ROI on rapidly inflating student tuitions bears that out. Higher education wouldn't seem to work out as it's already at the point that students at the beginning of their lives have a difficult time working off the debts acquired in their education - and certainly not in a way that doesn't dampen their finances in a serious way. Slicing time off the returns doesn't improve that calculation any. So you're left with occupational education - and I think that's a lot less clear ROI and employers very unwilling to actually train people.
personal storage of "important stuff" doesn't need RAID, it needs BACKUPS. RAID offers protection only against a comparatively tiny subset of risk factors.
>> Not just the POTUS, but the trifecta of the house and senate as well. That's as loud of a mandate as can be expected from a strongly divided country

> I can't fathom you interpreting the result as a "loud mandate." The presidential race has been extremely tight with ~200,000 separating the two. Is that a clear mandate?

> No, it is a clear indication of the divisions in our country.

Yes, the country is divided. A single party taking all three major government divisions is as loud a mandate as you can expect in a strongly divided country.
But the engagement approach has failed. It is time for something new. Another cycle of engagement and acquiescence may only exacerbate the problem.

I;m not talking about changing views. I'm talking about making them aware of their views. They don't think they are racists. They don't think they are homophobic. Nobody has ever told them, they have never been confronted by someone they actually know and respect. Only once they understand that their views are describable in such terms can we ever then hope to change those views. It's a two-step process.

We all assume that convincing someone that they are racist will cause them to change. That denies the reality that someone can be a proud racist, a proud homophobe. I've got a pile of emails coming in from elderly family members who are very very proud of their anti-muslim and anti-gay views. Many start along the lines of "It may be racist, but that's what we need to fix today's problems." At least they acknowledge the description.
Well if it does work with Windows, then fine, I took it from the article, that there's no chance running Windows or dual booting after switching to it.

> because they don't want to spend money on officially supporting it

I hope this doesn't mean the warranty and support is void after doing this, wouldn't even surprise me.
What's worrisome is that on the graphical abstract you have nucleophilic substitution in the neopentyl position, a reaction every chemist knows won't proceed rapidly. And it takes place in dimethyl ether solvent, which every chemist knows it's a gas.

It looks a bit what you see in bad teaching materials, chemistry that is almost correct, but won't work well for some reason we are not telling the kids about. Please alleviate my concerns! :-)
By that definition, any job requiring specific skill training is blue collar, accountants, surgeons, lawyers, ..

Maybe the only 'white collar' jobs left would be politicians and sales?
It stopped working after I said "Hi" so it didn't work out for me, but I like the idea. I guess maybe it's being hugged to death at the moment.

I fear that once The Internet finds it, going there will stop being a pleasant experience.
what are you proposing if not acceptance?
> Obama was voted in on the promise of change, as all we got was a watered down health care bill and the ability for gays to get married.

While I agree with the general sentiment, specially since they had majorities and they couldn't get a much better health care bill, we got more than that. For instance:

- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

- Dodd-Frank
Americans can certainly reshape their society to bring back factory work, but there are practical concerns here. Who are your buyers, what are you making, who are your competitors, etc. Its not all fantasy make-believe on the economic level. There are real economic laws that you can't break via legislation.

You guys want to compete with the Vietnamese? Fine, but be prepared to have the lifestyle $150 a month in wages brings. I suspect Trump voters aren't going to find that acceptable.
The problem isn't with the concept of privilege itself. The problem is that the concept and the word have been weaponized into an insult instead of the admonishment to recognize one's advantages that it should be. That, and too much emphasis has been put on racial privilege and not enough on class privilege, or at least social class privilege.
I'm quite sure every campaign speech would disagree with you.

But that's not what gets coverage.
You can already own and operate a fucking arsenal, what more do you want?
>> trying to emulate type classes, build abstractions, do things like I would in other languages

I am pretty sure I read somewhere on the project homepage that you should not do this but do things on the elm way.
> Hillary focused her entire campaign on why people should stop Trump

Until now I thought that wasn't a bad strategy against Trump as he had said and done so many repulsive things far far beyond what I would of thought the voting population would of tolerated.

For example, "grabbing women by the p*y" I would of thought would have alienated the entire female voting population.

For some reason, some women voters seemed to of tolerated this. It should of been easy win for Hilary.
How AI Careers Fit into the Data Landscape
"Sorry for the crude language. I'm just annoyed by what I've seen in social media from liberals and conservatives on this."

I think a lot of people are. I know I am. A lot of that is due to the language people are using, especially when things get heated. Working on civil discourse, trying our best to refrain from saying things we might at other times regret not phrasing better. One of the benefits of forums is that we can take that moment before pressing submit to decide whether it's really something we want to send as written.
He called for a ban on Muslim immigrants, said illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists, and suggested that his supporters should assassinate his opponent. That's just off the top of my head.
The "Stronger Together" campaign's stance on affordable health insurance was 'We have a system that isn't working. We can fix it.'

The "Take America Back" compaign's stance on affordable health insurance was 'We have a system that isn't working. Throw it out. Start over'

I do not see how this could possibly be the real deciding factor. It is a convenient shield to protect your brother's true feelings.
What is the state of the art here? What models do we currently have to predict chemical/organic inputs/outcomes?
Yeah, he also owned slaves, and fucked them. It's not as though everything that came out of his mouth was gospel truth.
China & Pakistan are rebuilding the Silk Road at $51B investment
It's very interesting to me that so many union households voted Republican. If the Democrats can't rely on organized labor, they really are screwed.

Are the Demnocrats a party of elites and the Republicans a populist party now?
It's about the people, not the politicians. The fact that campaign strategy matters more than campaign platform is a huge weakness in the current system.
Someone could build a small portable HDD box like this with RAID. But not a lot of use if you leave it on the bus. ;)
Judge rejects Airbnb bid to halt San Francisco ordinance
> I refuse to believe that close to half the country hates people of color and wants to completely isolate us from the rest of the world by closing our borders. It just can't be true.

I have to agree with the other commenter who asks if you lived in the Deep South. I grew up in Louisiana. In the early '90s, we had David Duke (whose name you may recognize from this campaign), an actual, genuine, Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, be a state senator, run a very close to successful campaign for US Senate, and run a very close to successful campaign the following year for governor. Wikipedia recounts the vote totals for the gubernatorial election:

[Edwin] Edwards received 1,057,031 votes (61.2%), while Duke's 671,009 votes represented 38.8% of the total. Duke nevertheless claimed victory, saying, "I won my constituency. I won 55% of the white vote," a statistic confirmed by exit polls.

We can argue about what "hates people of color" means, precisely, but if 40% of voters, and 55% of white voters, are willing to put a KKK Imperial Wizard in charge of the state, it's not an implausible claim. Maybe not half the country. Maybe a quarter. Maybe the majority in some states and not others. Maybe the core constituency of some but not all senators. Is that okay?

And given this country's recent history of explicit anti-black political actions by people in power (see e.g. George Wallace's "segregation forever" and Lee Atwater's candid statement of the Southern Strategy), it's hard to argue that that all evaporated since then.

> I don't know if any of that change or disruption is going to be good or bad for me or the rest of America, but things are certainly going to be interesting for the next four years.

There are a lot of people (e.g., me, presumably you) who can deal just fine with four "interesting" years. There are a lot of people who can't. My LGBT friends are freaking out, for instance, and with a vice president who believes in torturing the gay away, I don't blame them. My capable-of-being-pregnant friends are freaking out. My non-citizen friends on valid visas are freaking out.

Disruption to force change is a fine way to solve some problems, like Netflix's infrastructure being reliant on AWS not shutting down machines. But this isn't Netflix's infrastructure, this is people's lives. I know plenty of people who aren't asking whether to uproot their lives but how, and they're pretty uninterested in having an interesting four years.
This twitter meme basically sums up my feelings: https://twitter.com/VoteTrumpPics/status/796032206238060545

If you can't open it, it's an exchange between Gimli and Legolas from the LoTR movie.

Gimli (wearing Bernie hat): I never thought I'd be fighting side by side with a trumpster.

Legolas (with MAGA hat): What about side by side with a deplorable?

Gimli (wearing Bernie hat): Aye.

Gimli (wearing Hillary for Prison 2016 hat): I could do that.

Ordinarily if the choice is bad I'd vote third party, but I really didn't want Hillary in and I was pretty sure this wouldn't be the election when the third party wins it.
(I'm in the UK, but I think the discussion is broad enough to be applicable)

Given Trump's win, looming Brexit etc., what's the way forward for a moderately-progressive-mostly-centrist like myself?

I can completely understand where a big chunk of Trump's support has come from. For a large number of people, globalisation is shit. Employment has become less stable; the gap between rich and poor appears to be growing; there is a sense of disenfranchisement with politics, and there is rampant corruption. Generally, people have every right to be totally pissed off with this situation; they essentially feel ignored by a distant 'elite' or whatever, and it seems pretty obvious that there will eventually be a reaction against that.

I certainly don't feel that Trump-ism and Brexiteer-ism is an actual solution to these problems; they do seem like relatively opportunistic populist movements that have capitalised on popular resentment. I have basically zero confidence that these movements will solve any of the problems they claim they will, and think that they will likely cause lots of damage along the way.

But the big question is – where is the credible centrist or even leftist alternative to this approach? Was it actually Sanders in the US? (I'm a little unclear on the extent of his support). In the UK, there's a leftward swing in the Labour Party, but that's complicated by a lacklustre leader. But is it actually the same sort of populist rebellion, just expressed in a different way?

I don't subscribe to old-fashioned Socialist views of the economy – but still, I'd like to see a world in which corruption is tackled; in which all people have a fair chance to succeed; in which education and healthcare are widely available regardless of wealth; in which companies are free to trade but are responsibly regulated… but I'm now deeply unsure of what the next steps are.
> Locking specific hardware to Windows has emerged as an issue in recent years. For example, Intel’s Kaby Lake chips support only Windows 10, so will AMD’s upcoming Zen chips.

> Another option is to buy Linux-based laptops with the latest Kaby Lake chips, like System76’s Lemur laptop, which starts at $699, or Dell’s XPS 13 Developer Edition, which starts at $949.

So, which is it? Can Kaby Lake chips support Linux or not, because those statements seem contradictory.
Having the same opinion for 24 years is not a virtue.

In the (probably apocryphal) words of Keynes:

> When someone persuades me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?

It's not a sign of vice either; I'm sure he's been believing that the Earth is round for 24+ years, and that's fine. What matters is accuracy, and updating in the face of new evidence, not consistency. Consistency in the face of new evidence is called faith.
Yes, the DNC leaned on the scales which really meant fundraising. If you look at Bernie's fundraising, it was about individual small donations. He did well there, well enough. The DNC had control of PAC money and lists.

This was a contributing factor but Democrats voted. If Democratic voters are as gullible as you're making us out to be then we deserved to lose. Democrats are a center left party. Bernie is progressive which is a little further left. Democrats voted.
And being polite ("nice") makes it more likely that people who don't yet know each other well will receive mutual advantage through collaboration.
The same way as people do every 4 years when one side doesn't get their way. This is the system we've collectively chosen. This is how it works.

The alternative is even more extreme.
He did not attack specific people or clearly identifiable subgroups or minorities. He attacked a broad category of people for holding certain views. I think that is well within what is acceptable in online debate.

If you are going to attack this argument, then you might as well say it is unacceptable to call people who favor cutting off hands of thieves for barbaric. Sure you characterize people with a mean word "barbaric", but it you are not singling out particular people only those holding such views.
It depends on your definition of "abuse", but what's going on in China and Russia with respect to the internet is far more abusive than an underused and ineffectual dragnet surveillance program.
Yeah. I expected the populist insurgency to come in the form of a progressive agenda, but this is the way it went instead.

The problem is, people who used to make a livelihood don't want a minimum wage job, no matter how high the minimum wage. They're adults used to providing for themselves and possibly a family, for god's sake! They don't want some elementary retraining program to make them barely capable of doing a modern job. They want to feel productive and useful on their own, like most of us.
That must have been exceedingly difficult, after so much time invested in Switzerland!
Yes, and the same thing happened to Ron Paul. The RNC colluded to ensure he didn't get the nomination. They actually changed rules during the convention to make sure that couldn't happen.

I'm sure if we had wikileaks of the RNC during that time, it would have revealed much of the same type of insider corruption.
You're much more closely watched though. If things go bad now the scope for harm is much greater.