skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's pretty sad that the question "Why are western women, particularly American women, so miserable?" is now a political question. (And therefore resists attempts to discuss it, which I don't recommend btw.)
No you don't. You think you want micropayment, but you don't.

The problem with the "pay for quality article regardless of where they come from" theory is that you don't know what "quality" is until you have already consumed it. But then again, if you've already consumed it, then you're too late to decide if it's worth reading or not.

This is why reputation is important in journalism. If you step back and think about it, your sense of "quality" depends 99% on what other people think. I'm not insulting you, this is how it works. People have better things to do than sitting around reading every single article to figure out if it's high quality or not, and that's why most people regardless of intelligence rely on reputation to judge quality.

That's why the successful model will be building a news organization with high reputation. That's what people actually want (so they don't have to waste time trying to decide what to trust or not) and that's what makes sense for the organizations financially. That's why the micropayment model will never replace the subscription model and increasingly so.
She can't be tried again though, so how would they undo it?
Postgres doesn't do distributed consensus though does it.
Before anyone asks, "Why not immediately?" Considering the solitary confinement, a few months in prison (but not in solitary) where treatment could be given to reacclimate Manning is probably not a horrible thing.
pmap in CL is one library away, along with preduce, ... (https://lparallel.org/).
Building a community-powered product roadmap
At trial, Zuckerberg is “highly confident” Oculus built its own technology
250 KW per rack is possible using immersion cooling: http://investors.3m.com/news/press-release-details/2015/3M-N...
I am confident he will have a few tweets about this before tomorrow morning.

Does anyone know if President Elect Trump has the authority to overturn this sentence commuting?
Thank you, Nadya! It has a lot of unreleased features so stay tuned!
Yep.

mysterious and unsolvable breakage: Helping another startup work through one now. It's a case of reclaiming functionality from a mystery outsourced codebase (without source control) meets inexperienced developers who try their hand at sysadmin plus a 100% rotated bevy of actors (the whole team, PM and all, have jumped ship), no documentation and no technical oversight. Offshore outsourcing adds cultural fun.

unpleasantness: I would expand this to unpleasant or incomprehensible. I have seen projects be de-resourced because of lack of management comprehension when they literally paved the best and most rapid path to profit (later taken successfully by the now-dominant competition).

antiquation: The best example of this I've seen was a hardware product an employer was developing as a joint venture in Taiwan early in my career. Engineers had made the decision to use a sucky chipset from a struggling company to save money, but the supplier went under and the API froze (bugs, missing functionality and all) before our product development could complete. The target feature set was literally impossible to implement on the hardware and nobody wanted ownership. Many millions of USD, wasted.

replacement: It can work out, just infrequently. Generally when it works it's a smaller system with well defined interfaces.
This strikes me as a return to the world as it was. The world of "free content" is a relatively new one, 20 years or so? Before that, you paid for a paper if you wanted one. Of course, before that you didn't have "free fake" news available so readily.

Just a brainstorm, but perhaps this is a problem Facebook as the power to address? They want to get into providing content, and they have the resources.

And not to toot my own horn here, but I work for a mid-sized library (metro of about 200,000) and we subscribe to every regional newspaper. If someone wants to be better informed, the resources exist.
That's a business documentation problem. No different than if they get hit by a bus.
It's been said that one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

> The files she copied also included about 250,000 diplomatic cables from American embassies around the world showing sensitive deals and conversations, dossiers detailing intelligence assessments of Guantánamo detainees held without trial, and a video of an American helicopter attack in Baghdad in two Reuters journalists were killed, among others.

Has there been any sort of "ethical" system designed to show a person how they are supposed to whistle blow? I'm only familiar with the SEC's guidance, on what they expect you to do and going public isn't one of their main points.

How should a person become a whistle blower like Manning or Snowden while making sure there is no collateral damage to people in the field?

I mean, the main point against Snowden and Manning seems to be that they released way too much information to the public that could be seen as doing more harm than good depending on your point of view.
I was curious and looked up the difference.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3339765&page=1

A "pardon wipes out the conviction while a commutation leaves the conviction intact but wipes out the punishment."

It seems that the next administration can't do anything about it at least.
No because it's cheap to produce hashes for git.
It's just the money. For a 30% raise there isn't a job I would stay at. It's fine by me for a company to be just one more 2 year step on the ladder.

A bit of experience, a bit of pedigree, a bit of pay bump, and a good job while it lasts.

I'm not going to stop switching until people stop offering me 30% raises. Once equilibrium is reached I'll start evaluating them on merits, but the jobs that pay better have also been better in all dimensions. At least that was how it has gone during my career progression.
One of PostgreSQL's best features is transactional DDL: You can run "drop table" etc. in a transaction and roll back afterwards. This has saved me a few times. It also makes it trivial to write atomic migration scripts: Rename a column, drop a table, update all the rows, whatever you want -- it will either all be committed or not committed at all. Surprisingly few databases support this. (Oracle doesn't, last I checked.)
What does Intel documenting their own specs have to do with AMD?
how much you wanna bet that Julian Assange will conveniently forget his agreement to be extradited if Manning gets pardoned? https://www.yahoo.com/news/assange-agrees-extradition-us-rel...
Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13421298
This is a trend I've noticed: because everything is on a scale then people just feel justified to basically pick whatever they want. Because its impossible to say anything with certainty, everything can be given equal consideration?

You can allow for nuance and uncertainty without using faith-based logic for news, science does a pretty good job of it and gives a good framework for best-guess judgements.

Just because everything is "fake" to some extent doesn't excuse lazy, confirmation-biased opinions.
Spirituality seems to have many different meanings. The one you propose may be valid but it's one that's entirely compatible with atheism and materialism, so I don't think that's what the other commenter was thinking of.
Is it for desktop only? Tried it on my mobile and nothing happened. Android 7.1.1 with Chrome 55.0.numbers.
I run some very simple Clojure [1] on an RPi 2 as part of a home monitoring system.

Startup is considerably longer than on other platforms (30 sec or so), but I haven't had any issues with runtime performance, and having a Lisp running on what is essentially an embedded platform is very useful.

(It'd be easy to make the argument that my agent code doesn't do much, but it doesn't diminish the fact that Clojure is able to usefully work on an RPi. :-))

https://github.com/mschaef/metlog/tree/master/metlog-agent
Obama commutes sentence of Chelsea Manning
Shell Pipelines Support Vectorized, Point-Free, and Imperative Style
Sadly, this act was just another political tool to contrast with Snowden.

Quote from the article:

the White House spokesman, Joshua Earnest, discussed the "pretty stark difference" between Ms. Manning's case for mercy with Mr. Snowden's. While their offenses were similar, he said, there were "some important differences."

"Chelsea Manning is somebody who went through the military criminal justice process, was exposed to due process, was found guilty, was sentenced for her crimes, and she acknowledged wrongdoing," he said. "Mr. Snowden fled into the arms of an adversary, and has sought refuge in a country that most recently made a concerted effort to undermine confidence in our democracy."

He also noted that while the documents Ms. Manning provided to WikiLeaks were "damaging to national security," the ones Mr. Snowden disclosed were "far more serious and far more dangerous." (None of the documents Ms. Manning disclosed were classified above the merely "secret" level.)
'Cause it's true, what they say-ooh-ayayy...
How neglected is the Mac?
Now pardon Snowden
Manning indiscriminately leaked tons of diplomatic cables, as part of a personal vendetta against the US Army. It is without contention that the vast majority of the leaked cables revealed nothing that anyone considers wrongdoing. This wasn't the act of a whistle blower. It was the cowardly act of someone who put their own petty fantasies ahead of their solemn duty to protect the information they were entrusted with by the people of this country.

This is nothing but Obama pandering to the left.

EDIT: How telling that this comment has been flagged. Downvoting opinions you don't like is bad enough, trying to kill them altogether by flagging betrays a serious contempt for open discourse.
Subsequent presidents can "un-pardon" people pardoned by previous presidents, so I have a hard time imagining that a commutation is somehow immune to that kind of thing.

EDIT: See follow-ups. I may be mistaken here, and need to run to a meeting, so I can't dig any more now.

EDIT 2: http://swampland.time.com/2008/12/25/more-on-pardons/

Relevant quote, "Ulysses S. Grant’s first clemency decision, on his third day in office, was to revoke two pardons granted by Andrew Johnson. Both men challenged Grant’s power to do so, and lost their case in federal court."

EDIT 3: Here's the link to the blog post linked from the Time article, in edit 2, from the Wayback Machine, for sake of completeness.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090212091707/http://pardonpower...
> A robot will soon be able to be trained to flip burgers, or drive a car, or take a customer's order, etc, etc.

From what I've read, we're not going to have completely driverless cars anytime soon (too much difficulty with all the potential edge cases). If we look at productivity growth, it's actually somewhat slow at the moment. People are claiming that soon it will be rapidly increasing, but they've been claiming that for several years now and it's yet to materialize. The evidence of a "robot revolution" is pretty weak at the moment.

And that's not even getting into the question of what effect this would have on the job market. The horse population might have crashed, but that's because you can't retool horse to weld skyscrapers or make advertisements. You can use humans for a variety of tasks, and until we have a post-scarcity society there's always going to be a desire for more production. And even in a post-scarcity society there will probably be a demand for more researchers or artists.

Sure, you might not be able to imagine what people of the future will do, but that's not surprising. If you told someone 150 years ago that less than 2% of the population would be involved with agriculture, they probably would imagine a mass employment catastrophe. They wouldn't imagine jobs like social media manager or video game developer, nor would they probably imagine that there would be enough offices to provide employment to so many administrative assistants. If you go back far enough, people would probably have a hard time believing that so many people could be employed in work that required reading and writing - surely the vast majority of humans can not be trained to read and write!
They don't want to send down the entire message history every time you switch to a particular conversation window, they want to be able to store as much of that locally as is possible/sensible so that the user doesn't have to wait for a network round trip and it still mostly works offline. They would like to store these messages in IndexedDB but they would like to encrypt them first.
He did damn good job!
Most of you know AirBnB's journey, but not like this
I don't think anybody has answers to your questions, and there seems to be no solution in sight for these issues.
A 7-year prison sentence is about what you get for horrible violent crime in most of the civilized world. That's not a great "tone" to set.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13421298
Turnover is not always bad by any means. Often a company accumulates (bad hires, acquisition, good apples going stale) people who would be better off gone for everyone's sake.

There's good turnover and bad turnover.
He has a likable personality.
Given that was the opposite of what 538 said I'm not sure you are think of the same site?

Here is their final forecast: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-election-update-t...

They gave Trump a 28.6% chance and pointed out that the model had an unusual amount of uncertainty.

Given the lead Clinton ended up with in the popular vote and the small margin Trump won by in the critical states the prediction seems pretty reasonable to me.

What do you think his chances should have been?
He didn't pardon her.
If you're knowledgable enough to censor the documents yourself before release, that's the way to go. Not everyone has perfect knowledge. Releasing only to journalists and stuff is a fairly good method too, but maybe create unnecessary exposure.

Manning also went for a bulk dump strategy rather than being selective. Ultimately when you're dealing with a lot of data, that might be the only reasonable way to get it, but leaking unnecessary data where no incriminating evidence is present certainly detracts from the legitimacy of whistleblowing claims. If you can afford the time to be selective in your dumping or at least in your releasing, take it.

Unfortunately some of Manning's stuff got leaked in full, I believe not due to anything of Manning or Wikileaks' fault, but because an uninformed or careless journalist published an insurance key he shouldn't have.
At the least you can set a lower bound, right? And if that number causes you to quail, that should be food for thought.
The NYT have conducted internal investigations like this on a few occasions in my memory. I don't have specific examples right in front of me, but I vaguely recall reading of several other major internal reviews, all of them with the intention of being 100% honest, no matter what they uncover, to be sure, since 2007. Interestingly, I can't think of a single time where the conclusion was simply the quality of their editorial discretion, i.e. stories they cover, resisting telling a story according to an already familiar, established narrative, etc.

Many people on HN are probably familiar with a similar design pattern: hiring consultants to either a.) tell you something you already know or b.) support a competing position with data points from an outside source. In fact, I vaguely recall the outcome of these internal investigations being something to the effect of needing to ramp up in the digital age with more multi-media, fancier toys, and things of that nature.

I would argue that just as necessary as streamlining the editorial process to compete with online-only new sources, like Buzz Feed, would be to understand their major failings and differentiate themselves from their competitors by owning up to them with action. I'm in no way an expert on the subject, just a reader like anyone else, but off the top of my head I can remember the misreporting of the evidence behind the need to invade Iraq, and failing to report NSA mass-surveilinance before George Bush's reelection - the same revelations that came back years later from Snowden (along with more).

Granted, they did own up to these failings, and others no doubt, but what editorial changes have been made? Why aren't the actual people who choose what news gets reported and how the facts are presented ever included as part of the outcomes of these reports? If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's for the same reason as when a consultant is brought on to figure out how to tease out data points in support of justifying some new (and bold) initiative to, say, dockerize a division's infrastructure vs. actually getting to the bottom of why the reliable tooling of yesteryear are slowing development and deployment down. You get praise for doing things, and so you pay someone to give you a path towards justifying that. In many cases, I see a parallel between the reporters who lead this investigation and the ones from the NYT who are out there working in the field: to them the truth is all the news that's fit for their editors to print.
Isn't that exactly what Obama was trying for? I've never read any statements from the Obama administration that makes it seem like they find anything about this case justified or acceptable.
Gtk 3 should (GIMP is still using 2 unfortunately ...), not sure how the support is on Mac.
What need does Obama have to pander to anyone right now?
_I_ am proof? I wonder why you are making it personal. Its not about me though is it?

Look at the Open AI Universe, Deep Mind AI Lab, Good AI Universe, etc. Look them up. They all say that the goal is artificial general intelligence. All of these companies/programs have multiple literal geniuses and tens or even hundreds of millions or more in funding. The AGI environments are public, so who knows how many hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of talented programmers and scientists are working towards the same goal.

Do _you_ think that all of these large programs, companies, investors would be so publicly pursuing this goal if it were not feasible? If not within two years, then how many years do you think it will be before these projects yield results that have human-like generality or abilities?

If you suppose they will never achieve that, then what level of generality do you assume them to be limited to? Certainly those groups expect to achieve some type of general intelligence. So perhaps you assume in the near term it will not be human-level, then at what level do you suppose it will be limited? Dog-like intelligence? Once agents achieve dog-like intelligence, why would you assume there would not be a way to progress beyond that? We have already achieved super-human intelligence in numerous particular domains.
Sigh... The scheming and carefully crafted rhetoric that White House has developed against Snowden is just plain disgusting.
This would be a good time for me to point to my profile disclaimer that opinions here are my own opinions, not those of Stripe.
To compare, LuaJIT is about 400 KB, and that includes the Lua standard library, a JIT almost certainly more advanced than Pixie's current one, an incremental GC, and a C FFI.

Back in the day, Smalltalk was criticized as bloated because one ended up with stripped binary+image of about 2MB. Someone around that time got SqueakVM+image down to just under 400k. There were specialized Smalltalks in company R&D that got their image down to 45k.
You could also have much better safety systems - I.e. total oxygen evacuation for grease fires. No need to worry about people getting hurt. In fact, you might be able to make food in a 100% neutral environment (N2?) and have no fire risk at all. Then, you can use closed-loop air filtration and not exhaust grease and combustion byproducts into the atmosphere.

OTOH, the nice dining experiences will be done by people who can improvise and improve day-to-day based on their own tastes. eventually, the stuff people do will be the "good" stuff, and the stuff robots do will be the "bad" stuff. Hopefully. A more negative viewpoint says that robots will do the "high value" stuff and the people will only do the "low value" bad stuff.
There is something new going on in the social network realm that can undermine trolling efforts as they exist today.

Social networks started appearing when tech adoption was relatively scarce. They predate the smartphone revolution. As such they had to bend out of shape to produce as much public or semi-public content in order to attract and engage enough users to sustain the network effects. The direct side effect of this approach is transparency of the discussion. People who disagree would butt heads because the feel the need to defend "their side" in "public". A manipulation agent can assess the current state of discussion as well as the immediate outcome of his actions, so that he can fine-tune his campaigns.

Now that the smartphone adoption is basically 100%, it becomes possible to build private social networks without making everything public or semi-public. The ones where content is only posted/shared in a close group and is not observable by trolls. No shares, no reposts, no likes, no "people are talking". Nothing. How would you use Snapchat to assess and manipulate the public opinion? The best you can do is check the hits on your web site. What if you lost even that to some sort of caching? Now you're flying completely blind.

Pretty much every popular messenger app has the potential to mutate into an opaque social network. Perhaps many already did.
> you'll be hard pressed to find any company willing to sacrifice a slice of their earnings to employee people just because it's the right thing to do.

Sure, but that's what legislation is for. We have a minimum wage and laws protecting workers for a reason. Companies do have a disproportionate influence on politics, but only to a point. When it comes to a truly unhappy populace, politicians know what's more important to continuing to perpetuate the system.
The article was talking about clemency, not pardon.
> The worst part is that a lot of this is predicated on the idea that giving something a 1 in 3 chance is the same as saying it'll never happen, when it's almost the opposite. There are some critical misunderstandings of statistics going on here, on all sides.

On the morning of the election, FiveThirtyEight said that the chances of Trump winning were roughly equal to the chances of a random coin flip coming up heads twice in a row (25%).

In that situation, a good statistician would certainly say that the expected outcome is for at least one of the coin flips to land on "tails" (75% chance). But if the coin lands on heads twice, you wouldn't say that "statistics is broken"[0] or that the statistician predicting the outcome was wrong.

Similarly, let's say that you had a separate person predicting the probability of the double-heads coin flip to be 90%. If it does happen, that doesn't mean they made a good prediction, just because the outcome was correct. They predicted the correct outcome, but the degree of confidence they expressed in it was completely wrong.

Predictions aren't just about getting the outcome right - they're also about expressing the right degree of confidence in the results.

[0] Which is literally what some otherwise-respectable journalists complained after the election
Jan Koum's Tweet About “Backdoor”