skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
it's reasonable to expect that a person know where their car is, but that does not amount to a legal requirement to do so, as you have admitted. In point of fact, you are not responsible for what other people do with your things. If you borrow a gun from me and shoot someone, I cannot be held liable for that shooting. Ownership may imply responsibility, but not liability.
Mate... the article was written for you. You don't 'grok' the difference between byte arrays and strings. Take a piece of paper and figure it out.
Taking away permissiveness from a programming language just leads to developers not upgrade. No surprises there.

Yes, Python 3's stricter model is less error prone (vs python 2 u').

the more annoying thing for me personally is the "print" function rather than previous "print" statement... Bugs the hell out of me.
I liked the exploded diagram, I wouldn't have guessed a single HDD was the product of 6 different countries.
Surely the doctor is responsible for determining the dose and frequency. I have personal experience of this and when the OxyContin and OxyCodone regime was found to be inadequate the patient was kept in hospital for three nights while they tried different drugs etc. and then settled on a Fentanyl patch as the principal pain reliever with OxyContin to be taken as required by the patient. This turned a nightmare into a managable situation with Oxy taken relatively rarely except for the few days immediately following chemotherapy.

My point is that the doctors and the health system are responsible and should not take any drug company instructions as gospel.
Snowden, Assange, Manning, Schwartz (RIP) ... Maybe Peltier.
The quality of JS ecosystem speaks for itself.
I'm always curious how many of these type of things get sold.
> The purpose of insurance is to protect yourself against rare, but catastrophic events: you will probably not experience a wide variety of expensive medical ailments, but if you do they will likely leave you in financial ruin if you're uninsured, so you pay an insurance company money to protect yourself against that risk.

Yes, this is what I am saying. However, that has nothing to do with the price of co-pays for routine care, which is by definition predictable.

> But no, you can explain that with regular economics too: insurance companies are incentivized to make annual physicals affordable and attractive, because they can catch potentially-expensive medical issues when they're still much less expensive, thus lowering costs for the insurance company.

See, this is another pervasive myth. For healthy individuals, the annual physical is not cost-effective - it is very unlikely to result in long-term benefits to the patient, and it is far more likely to result in unnecessary care (such as follow-up tests and differential diagnoses for false positives):
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/re-thinking-the-annual-phys...

Also, I don't know why you're drawing a dichotomy between what I'm saying and "regular market economics". Everything I have said is standard, textbook economic theory. There's nothing obscure or even controversial about it about economists.
It seems like the author has a lot of time on his hand and is actually putting it to something that is good for the people.

Granted this was probably just him getting mad and wanting to throw his weight around but it ends up being something that improves the quality of life for anyone who deals with these unjust systems. I wish more law-academics, or academics in general, pushed these types of reforms in their field. I wish physisists and chemists could aid the community and that lawyers who actually care can improve the legal system for everyone (remove red tape and blatantly unconstitutional lawthat no one normal can fight).
Hey at least house prices are rising though amirite?
Communist China is really good at massaging statistics to make things look better than they actually are.

Significant numbers of people in modern China can barely communicate to each other about complex ideas in Mandarin (several hundred million are 2nd language speakers or quasi 1st-language speakers).

Someone reading faulty pinyin and making a barely-comprehensible sounds might count as literacy in fluffy government surveys commissioned to show progress, but in reality being able to read pinyin does not mean someone can read in the way you or I understand it.

If you need to understand the meaning of something written in Chinese, you must see the Chinese character. Just because you can read the pinyin pronunciation doesn't mean you understand what's being said. Being able to produce sounds is not literacy - there's high amounts of ambiguity.

For example, reading

Shíshì shīshì Shī Shì, shì shī, shì shí shí shī.
Shì shíshí shì shì shì shī.
Shí shí, shì shí shī shì shì.
Shì shí, shì Shī Shì shì shì.
Shì shì shì shí shī, shì shǐ shì, shǐ shì shí shī shì shì.
Shì shí shì shí shī shī, shì shí shì.
Shíshì shī, Shì shǐ shì shì shí shì.
Shíshì shì, Shì shǐ shì shí shì shí shī.
Shí shí, shǐ shí shì shí shī shī, shí shí shí shī shī.
Shì shì shì shì.

Does not tell you the actual the meaning of

石室詩士施氏，嗜獅，誓食十獅。
氏時時適市視獅。
十時，適十獅適市。
是時，適施氏適市。
氏視是十獅，恃矢勢，使是十獅逝世。
氏拾是十獅屍，適石室。
石室濕，氏使侍拭石室。
石室拭，氏始試食是十獅。
食時，始識是十獅屍，實十石獅屍。
試釋是事。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-Eating_Poet_in_the_Stone_...

Another story entirely is the idea of adding "Simplified" Chinese characters. Now people who want to be seriously literate have to learn an additional set of characters. But I digress.

For another example of massaging statistics to show progress, notice how when a comparison of "China's educational progress!" is made to the West, a place like Shanghai - whose school district is among the best if not the best in the entire country - is often then compared to the national average of other countries as if one were somehow representative of the other.
another simple tip:

stay away from products whose legitimate use is specious and illegitimate use is vital to the product's success.
They do restrict competition in the app store. Especially if it competes with apple itself. They just banned app store app that tracked down lost airpod via realitive (Bluetooth?/WiFi?)signal strength for PR reasons.
I agree that having stricter coercion rules makes sense in situations where the coercion might be ambiguous, whether adding byte-strings and Unicode strings together is such a case is debatable though (I think it is), as in many cases implicit conversion yields an acceptable outcome. Again, this is more a question of design philosophy, but the thing with Python (2) is that implicit coercion was the default behavior in many cases, so changing that is painful.

Personally I think we should double-down on type annotations and stronger (optional) typing for Python, because the lack of a good type system is by far the biggest obstacle for building robust, large systems in Python.
No, if that was the author's intention, he would've simply pointed out that "unicode" was renamed to "str", while "str" was renamed to "bytes" and is no longer considered a string. Instead, he wanted to demonstrate how Python 3 string handling is some sort of a major breakthrough when it's largely a cosmetic change.
In the US in 2013, there were 236 pedestrian deaths of children younger than 14. Thats under 5% of pedestrian fatalities, and the vast majority of pedestrian fatalities are in the dark, with half involving alcohol.

There's about a 17% risk of death if you're hit by a car going 30 mph, vs 12% at 25 mph. This doesn't seem like as big an issue as you're making it out to be.

Your slippery slope argument doesn't hold up - people don't go 45 in a 25 on a regular basis. Almost every driver goes 5-10 miles above the speed limit on the highway and 0-5 miles above everywhere else. The limits are designed with this in mind.

These things can get really personal, but I don't believe the law should.

Nobody thinks it's cool to run through a red light. People go through yellows because that is legal to do.
Sorry can you please elaborate? When I see 我, Wǒ. What do you propose I should do?
That is exactly the kind of thinking that brought Prop 13 to California back in the 70s.
Obviously, if no one is truly around, then speeding is less dangerous. However, it is the person or car you don't see that you are most in danger of hitting, so I don't think allowing people to ignore traffic laws when no one is around is a good public policy.

Accidents happen when people make mistakes. One of those mistakes is thinking no one is around when they actually are.

This is the same thinking behind "Well, is yeah I drove drunk, but I didn't hit anyone or cause an accident, so what is the problem?"

Yes, you didn't cause an accident this time. But you took a risk that society deems is too great, so we need to discourage the behavior even when nothing bad happens.
While I think your general point is probably right, I don't agree with your last point that 'Parliament governs by wielding the power of the monarch".

That - to my understanding - is backwards. The power of the monarch is subordinated under Parliament. Parliamentary sovereignty is inherent, not derived from the crown.

HMG - not parliament - exercises the royal prerogative (those powers retained by the Crown) on behalf of the monarch.
I hear this complaint about print all the time but I have never understood it. Why is print so special that it needs dedicated synta? Most languages don't do this and people don't seem to mind. Also, I almost never physically type print, but I do type a lot of function calls, so if anything I am more accustomed to typing it as a call.
Pharma profits are one of the reasons for the opiate crisis, which results in Heroin addiction in some cases. India is a good model where pharmas don't get a free hand.
Probably. I suspect it is not a simple one but look at alcohol consumption patterns in Russia. On the other hand there are plenty of poor people in other countries who do not drink so there are probably cultural and climate influences too.
Because in a cross examination, you're supposed to ask very narrow closed questions (yes/no answers only) in a series, so that you get the evidence out in the way you want the decisionmaker to hear it. Ideally, the witness isn't supposed to catch on to where you're going so that they don't try to weasel out of answering them with "weeeelll.. not really because..".

But you don't ask "the last question", which is the one that sums up the point you were trying to make, because then the witness sees how you've shown them to be full of shit, and they'll spend 10 minutes weaseling out of everything you just established. It's SO TEMPTING to ask it directly, because you really want to hit the point home, but it's often too risky because it can backfire by breaking up your flow -- you often have dozens of lines of questioning, and there's a "last question" to each of them.

What you're supposed to do is explain "the last question" in your final submissions, using the transcript from your cross as the proof the statement is true.
> Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system!

Rather reminiscent of the way religion worked in the middle ages.
Three Tactics for Improving Your Self-Management
I may be a fool, but will fight anyway...

It's not impossible to change these kinds of social mores. A generation ago, no self-respecting red-blooded American male would wear a seatbelt, I mean that's just not manly! But now we don't see that machismo attitude as much and even those with extra strong y-chromosomes don't mind wearing seatbelts.

I think given the right messaging it can be similarly possible to reduce the socially acceptable attitude about speeding.

My dad grew up in an era where if your car didn't have 8 cylinders and 400+ HP then it wasn't a car. But also twice as many people died in car accidents despite there now being more drivers. Much of that is due to improvements in car safety (and regulations that require safety features), but it's also due to changing social attitudes about what a car means to us. It used to be a symbol of our freedom, now that mystique is not so much around and it's really just a method of transportation.

I'm the guy who will tell a friend that he's going too fast or following too close when I'm riding shotgun (actually I tell my wife this too!)

And yes I am often disparagingly called a "Boy Scout" in reply, but dammit, I'm going to keep doing it because aggressive driving is needless and dangerous.
Stumbled across the exact same on a link trail a few days ago - funny that you mention it.

http://www.filfre.net/2014/11/portal/
If someone is killed by your gun and you don't tell who, you will be jailed at least.
I, one of the millennials, find it difficult to focus, both at home and at work. Mobile chats, Slack, Hangouts etc. drains all the focus. It's difficult to get back in the zone.
One moment you are chatting with your wife, in a deep meaningful conversation, the next you are checking WhatsApp or FB for a dopamine rush.
I like what Louis CK says about it. Not his exact words. "Just because something is out there, doesn't mean it has to be done. It's OK to feel sadness and loneliness. Through the experience we get the beauty of clarity. But we douse it with a quick rush we get from a like or a mention."

I am equally a culprit.
> emphasis on string, not bag of bytes,

This is the crux of the issue. You run around reminding everyone of this, yet you are fine with "read bag of 100 bytes, then go merrily utf-8 decode them" as canonical example in official documentation.
You make the classic mistake of equating "exceeding arbitrary speed limits" with "killing people's children".

People should be punished for doing harm, not for exceeding arbitrary limits.

If you run someone over, damage someone's property, etc. as a result of your speeding, then the speeding can be taken into consideration. Otherwise it's just needless punishment of people who've done no harm.
Your point is valid but the load time of modern sites is nowhere near comparable to dialup.

I started on 2400 and had 28.8k through high school on bad phone lines. I used to play solitaire while waiting for web pages to load. Some would take minutes!

I now have gigabit fiber and everything is so fast. A lot of sites are bloated and may take seconds to load on slower DSL but it's still orders of magnitude faster.
How about "谋"? More "take things into consideration".
No spinning parts. They do use less energy but not enough to make them more expensive TCO to SSD.
I think the question that I'd really love answered is why do all of the bootcamps focus on web development. Why don't some focus on systems development, operating systems, trading systems, and other things that won't be covered that I'd consider "important programming" stuff.
Volkswagen: force your tests to pass
Your comment would be more constructive if you could expand on what, in your opinion, Python 3's str failings are.
ΔΙΑΓΩΝΙΣΜΟΣ FREE FUCK 15 ΙΑΝΟΥΑΡΙΟΥ 2017 – escorts| athens escorts |call girls
> If Y < X, we should do Y.

This depends on whether you're fine with some people subsidizing other people. The average cost by forcing everyone to get insured is less because you're forcing some people to buy plans for whom it's not worth it. See adverse selection.
FWIW my personal experience comes from some benevolent work in homeless shelters.

Furthermore I am just answering the loaded question. People assume these things because that's what it looks like to them from the outside.
Keeping bytes and strings separated is actually the simpler situation. What it is not, is easy, because it takes a little bit of learning. Sadly many people prefer easy over simple.
Depends on how well it's configured. My guess is that an out-of-the-box profile probably wouldn't.
I think this is quite a good example of why protections like the 5th amendment are important.

A person might be tempted - in such a case - to confess to the crime and take the fine simply in order to avoid getting entangled in a bureaucratic nightmare. And because of that the state is encouraged to threaten bureaucratic nightmare in order to elicit a confession.

Isn't this exactly the situation that protections against self-incrimination are designed to avoid?
I know a chronic pain sufferer and according to her opioids are of short term help but make everything worse in the long run. Unfortunately there are not many ways to treat chronic pain.
You would think so, but it doesn't seem like there is any consequence for the officer.
While you're correct about availability, the rest of your statement is absurdly reductive as well as incorrect.
maybe 2020 also brings python4
New fMRI findings: racial/gender stereotypes literally warp face perception
I am taking Mandarin classes and our textbook has both pinyin and characters for almost everything. There is always a section in each chapter that is entirely in characters.

I have been buying books on Amazon to help accelerate my reading. I need a story to follow along with. These book indeed do not have any pinyin.

Pinyin is fascinating to think about. Sometimes words are created from pinyin when you say them. Example: New York is Niǔyuē (纽约). Another is how in English we say "ha, ha". In pinyin it has been adopted exactly that way: Hāhā (哈哈).
Looks like it determines "healthy" based on WHO standards which I did not read up on. Being lazy and on mobile, I did not dig into what the urine report yields (boolean? point scale?). I like the idea, but one worry is that it could give misguided results similar to the "low fat insanity" that has plagued the US for decades and encourage bad dietary habits.
> If no one is around no one is around and their purpose (preventing the public from bodily injury) doesn't need enforcement.

If a tree falls and no one is around, does it make a sound?

I find this to be short sighted. Someone might be around, and they could be the fatality of the accident. Or perhaps accidents could be avoided if reckless drivers are left without permits for offenses not involving casualties (preemptive measure).
>" I think the people at Google have had it with Andy."

But he was there for 9 years. Thats a very long time to "have had it" with someone.
What scale do you have?
I'd be more inclined to accept that if those weren't just a tiny part of the thousands of seemingly random documents she released. It certainly makes it appear that the exposing of air strikes was a by-product of the release, not its intent.
I'm against Pinyin for the same reason as why I'm against using Romaji for learning Japanese. Pinyin and Romaji uses latin alphabet for representing sounds in a foreign language and if you are a native English speaker like most of us on HN, it's really bad because your brain will try to associate your knowledge of English with Pinyin you are reading. If you use Zhuyin for Chinese, or the Kana system for Japanese, you are telling your brain to start learning the phonetic system from scratch, which makes learning Chinese or Japanese a lot easier phonetically at least.
Issue 135117 in chromium: Detect cat keyboard input
Feel good story, results have not been reproduced:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2616610?dopt=Abstract
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9148292?dopt=Abstract
This is a reasonable reply and I appreciate the very relevant data points.

I think you're correct that speed limits are designed knowing that most people will exceed them slightly. I'm curious if there are any studies that have addressed this? Eg. traffic surveys where they either raised or lowered a posted speed limit -- how much impact does that have on behavior?
Distracted driving is far more of a problem in my opinion. Not to mention, rarely have I seen an accident caused by speed, though speeding can make the outcome much worse and avoidance more difficult.
"if you're serious about learning chinese, don't use pinyin unless you want to spend extra time undoing the damage done by doing so."

Please explain this. I have been learning Mandarin, can you tell me what damage has been done to me?

Can you show us an concrete example of pinyin vs zhuyin and why zhuyin is a better choice?

Let us start small: Dàjiā hǎo. Dàjiā hǎo ma? (大家好. 大家好吗？)
Having started originally with Threema before I gave in to WhatsApp I kind of like the trust levels they established in the UI. Might be an improvement for the WhatsApp UI to downgrade the trust level visually in case of unexpected key changes.

Beside of that, and thinking through this comment by moxie, I fear he is right. I've a bunch of dead keys listed in my Threema contact list. All from people which are in general quite tech savvy but still were too lazy to transfer their keys on phone changes. And I already had to rescan (the QR code) quite a bunch of people when I meet them maybe once a year.
Thats for my modest 20 something Threema contacts. Now think about the not very tech savvy average whatsapp user with his 150+ contacts. Maybe about a third of them will change their phone or MSISDN throughout a year. If you see 50 alerts per year in your chats that something changed, how long will you care to verify those changes that they're valid?

I don't like those defaults choosen by WhatsApp and once I knew about it I changed it. But at the scale of WhatsApp I understand the decision they made. You might also want to add the common argument that in the real world close to nobody will give a shit about the encryption. Since Snowden a few percent more care but it's still a small minority. So to bring at least some security to the majority that do not care is still a win. Everyone else has to make informed decisions about their own configuration.
I can't comment on the content, but I like the design.
Interesting facts about pinyin and Simplified Mandarin -- Mao and his cadres were interested in spreading the gospel of Communism, but with high illiteracy rates, people were generally not as susceptible to propaganda.

Both initiatives, pinyin and Simplification, were designed to more easily bring literacy rates up, for the purpose of spreading Communist teachings.

So you invent an essentially new language, make it accessible via Roman letters to even non-Chinese people, and all documentation and literature produced in that new language talks about the glory of the CCP. Pretty brilliant (if sinister).
I, for one, don't like the tone. You mention the progress. Don't you think we'd have made a much bigger one if it wasn't for all those advertisements, gamified social media et al providing less value than they cost us in attention?
The first theory "has been endorsed by some excellent journalists and broadcasters, from Sam Quinones to HBO’s John Oliver", two die-hard liberals, and according to this article it does not make sense; the one that makes sense, though, is the one that says that people living in zones historically neglected by liberals (such as the Rust Belt) "feel more distressed and disconnected".
It probably was originally an insult by an opposing side's fans.
I wouldn't say they are not ASCII strings, because they are if you squint.

Better say "bytes are not Unicode strings".
20 years old now but this is a great history of the rise of the PC with lots of familiar faces:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115398/
Akka ️ Ammonite by Jason Roth
How big brands use Twitter moments for promotion?
I think it could.

Here's a write-up showing how AppArmor can protect Docker containers and the underlying host... quote from the article, "So without even patching the container we have prevented rouge pid from spawning using a correct security profile with AppArmor."

https://scottydoesntknow.io/container-secure-right/
I wonder, could you extend that argument to taking explosives onto a plane? If you don't set them off, then no harm has been done but if you do and everyone dies except yourself by some miracle, then you should be punished...
This is not phrased such that it can be said to be true or false. Yes, accessory to murder is a felony itself. Accessory to speeding is not, and being ignorant of the crime is the opposite of accessory. Would you like to rephrase your objections?