skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's complex. Only a very rich aristocrat gives a shit about it though. Obviously why it's stood for 110 years.
> you must follow it or resign--those are the only options, per your civil service oath.

What's the difference between bureaucratic incompetence and sabotage?
Another way of saying this is it is not science.

Usability needs to be applied to more than just the end user experience: but the entire SDLC experience.
That's the reason i hate linux. It involves unnecessary bugs and you can't get it's solution. LOL
Docker 1.13 release notes
the part I don't get here: What's the legal framework for allowing Zuckerberg to force a sale?

Let's say 20 people own parts of the house in front of yours. It's confusing, so you whine a lot, and suddenly a public auction is triggered?

At the very least, he must understand that he is _not_ the owner, so everything else is kinda moot right?

EDIT: seems like he bought out certain percentages of ownership on these parcels, and there's a law that can help to force a sale when the ownership gets too confusing.

Seems like the sort of law for billionaires wanting to have their own private beach.
I work on personal projects, read HN, or do other things on my computer while I'm at home. I'm sitting at a desk and using my computer for 12+ hours a day. I rarely ever exercise, or even move my body much besides my fingers.

This is really terrible news for people like me.
Except that's also policy for most large corporations, as well. If you're working at some place like Microsoft or Google, it's required policy that you preface anything you say about Microsoft or Google with a statement that these statements are your personal opinions only and do not reflect the policy of the company.
EF Commander 11.80 Crack Patch and Keygen Free Download
Q. What gives structure to bread ? A. Egg and Flour

Eggs in bread?

Where? Why?
Go feels like a beefed up version of C.

Swift feels like a high level language with static typing.

Interestingly, Swift doesn't feel much like Obj-C.
What the article doesn't mention is that we only got to this situation in the first place after centuries of nastiness and dirty tricks that deprived the native Hawaiians of their land in a similar fashion to the way the native Americans on the mainland were deprived of theirs. What is "legal" today is only "legal" because some rich white guys decided to make it so using methods that would horrify most of us today. But the reason that these methods are no longer used is not because the rich and powerful have developed a more refined sense of morality, it's because the populace has been subdued to the point where they are no longer necessary.
For anyone who wants to fix his posture, there is a great series of 5 articles called Neandhertal no more hosted on t-nation.

https://www.t-nation.com/training/neanderthal-no-more-1

https://www.t-nation.com/training/neanderthal-no-more-2

https://www.t-nation.com/training/neanderthal-no-more-3

https://www.t-nation.com/workouts/neanderthal-no-more-4

https://www.t-nation.com/workouts/neanderthal-no-more-5
I'm a pacific islander, not a Hawaiian, and while my culture (or rather my parents' culture, of Palau) has somewhat more well defined concepts of land ownership, it is was traditionally somewhat communal with families and clans owning land. It didn't help that in the aftermath of WWII our island was mostly in shambles, and people just set up shop where they could and eventually wound up on other families' land. Today, land court cases in Palau are contentious and common.

Some of the high clan families resorted to charging rent to those who settled on what was traditionally their land, which seems somewhat reasonable than just evicting them, but this still causes some friction because even that isn't really that traditional either, it's not like, AFAICR, we had a concept of rent back then.

Moreover, we never traditionally had a concept of strong property rights or ownership, there are stories that our original contact with Europeans turned violent because my ancestors stole goods from visiting or marooned ships, not because they were thieves but because their concept "ownership" wasn't nearly the same as that of European tradition. To this day, when I visit my parents, my cousins and friends hanging out in my house would just take small things and sometimes not return them, and I would think nothing of it because that's socially acceptable and just how things are.

I think the point I'm making is that this story reminds me somewhat of Palau because it is an attempt to mold two cultures together in certain places where they aren't very congruent. It sounds like there were no "owners" of the land, no one had a title(s), they just lived there because their parents did and their grandparents did and so on. In Palau, people who culturally had no strong concept of ownership have to grapple with some families who do, and it would not surprise you to know that these traditional land-owners are today the wealthier and more politically-connected class, using an amalgam of two cultures, Palauan and Western to their benefit.

I understand how it is difficult here. One person just wants to buy land (in the abstract, Zuck is the sixth wealthiest human on Earth) and have a clear concept of ownership for him/er but they have to contend with people who might not. Like Palau, I don't really know the answer but it's just valuable to be mindful where these issues come from.
There's nothing wrong with having aspirations per se. The issue is when these aspirations lead people to identify more with the upper class rather than their own class and voting against their own interests. For a very recent example, see the case of people who depended on the Affordable Care Act regretting voting for Trump. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-voters-didnt-t...) Also, you don't see something seriously wrong with the statement "Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the richest 1 percent"?
I believe that he found people with a partial ownership in the land and bought that partial ownership. Now, as a partial owner, he can force the sale.

Having this law makes sense, because as ownership gets more diluted you would never be able to get everyone to agree on anything.
It's a great idea in a level playing field.

But if half of the people are born on someone else's land, have to work multiple jobs to cover basic expenses, have no chance of getting good education without becoming debt slaves and get thrown under the bus if they ever get sick, then maybe, just maybe, the expression "personal responsibility" has completely different meaning for them from the meaning that the people born as land owners, and can enjoy free* (or very affordable) education and healthcare as well doors opening for them throughout their whole lives because of their name or relations.

(For a household making $2m or more per year, a $60k/year education is close to free.)
Billions bro the guy has unlimited money what does no one get about mark zuck? He has literally unlimited wealth and power HELLO

why is everyone in denial about it
Everyone wants to believe it won't happen to them and that their company must be special since they work there. But sadly this happens to brilliant people all the time.

Cash is king. Realize you don't understand finance much less finance in an opaque, illiquid company.

Say it 3 times: "Cash. Is. King.".

Max out your 401K and negotiate a company 100% match if you can. Start a private investment account and a savings account and distribute to them every check. Keep doing this. Maximize all this before you become Johnny Wall St. with your illiquid stock options. They're as useful as a penny stock as not as liquid.

Buy some of them if things look bright but classify the investment as your "highly speculative" class of investments and thus ensure they are a small part of your portfolio.
What you are suggesting, but won't say explicitly is that the black kid who wants to be a CRUD developer won't be good at it; that's a rubbish argument.

The NBA is much smaller than entire industries: there are more CEOs than NBA players.
In the excellent fictional work(s) of Humanity Has Declined, a failing and dwindling human race fritters away arguing over how to best implement a Human Monument to all their knowledge and achievements, rather then spending the resources to try to turn around the decline of civilization.
> Speaking personally, I found that work environments with lots of new or unamericanized immigrants had little collaboration, little in-office comraderie, and no socialization outside of work (e.g. pub nights). It was boring and I pined for a culturally American setting. Sometimes "multicultural" just means the subset of all cultures involved.

It sounds like you just wish they were more like you? Isn't this the kind of mentality that prevents diversity?

I actually hate when teams go to pubs because it just marginalizes people who can't/don't drink, god forbid there are any recovering alcoholics or people allergic to it.

While I can understand the frustration, I feel like you are in a position to get people to come together and feel more comraderie. After all, if these people are coming from other countries, their English is probably not that great, and it's likely difficult for them to communicate what they are thinking. I can see how they would want to go home and be able to speak in their native tongue, not to mention enjoy the things they used to.

It's our job to make them feel welcome and like they can express themselves in this country. Of course that's just my opinion and I'll admit I'm biased because I feel like I'm usually the one who doesn't fit in.
Erm, not to be all factual and shit, but politicians generally aren't in the 1% until after they're out of office. There are exceptions of course (the Clintons, because of the sheer length of service and variety of positions they've each held) but being a politician doesn't actually pay that well. There are perks, but you won't get into the 1% on perks.

The 1% is primarily made up of people who have enough money that most of their income is passive, in the form of investment income, dividends, etc. Also it's worth pointing out that there's a couple ways of calculating whether or not you're in the 1% -- you can do it based on annual salary or net worth. The people who are _really_ in the 1% are there based on net worth, and it takes almost $9M in assets to get there.

I'd break your list down into 4 categories:

The 1% who can fund a politician's campaign, primarily through super PACs and other funding mechanisms that don't come with limits on the size of a donation.

The people who may look and feel wealthy (they may have a fancy car, a job that pays well, but also a lot of expenses and haven't passed the point where their money has given them enough leverage to trade it for time -- instead they're still trading time for money). These people are the next 5% or so, with a minimum net worth of $2M. They are also likely to be the scapegoats for the true 1%.

Next up are _some_ politicians (the ones with real influence -- your local mayor may or may not count, depending on the size of the city you live in. Your governor may or may not count, depending on the state you live in. Your House representative may or may not count, depending on how long they've been in office, which party currently controls the House and what committees they're on. There's your Senators -- hey! they probably count!) These are the 1%ers of politians -- the rest of them don't make a ton of money _and_ don't have a ton of influence. These guys are hoping to get cushy boardships, lobbying jobs, speakers fees, etc -- stuff that they're well-trained for by being a career politician.

Then you have everyone else... Roughly 90% of Americans, just trying to keep their heads above water, hoping they have enough money to pay the mortgage, the rent, their kid's college education, the electric bill, or what-have-you. They are translating their time into money, but have almost no economic mobility -- meaning they have almost no chance to join 1%, and will only join the 5% at retirement at best.
Having loosely coupled microservices has benefits for maintenance as well as scaleability. If you are quickly iterating on a product and have it up in a rough state then you can easily work on seperate parts without having to worry about effecting the whole.
Which is itself a rigged stat.
Thanks a lot for your answer! I sent you an email
Yes, in socialist terms it's us "the intelligentsia" -- the educated people "engaged in the complex mental labours that critique, guide, and lead in shaping the culture and politics of their society". Take Noam Chomsky's comment for example:

"The system operates through a complex of inducements, privileges, class interests, etc., relying on the tendency of much of the intelligentsia to conform to power (while proclaiming their courageous independence of mind), and the unwillingness to endure vilification, lies, and denial of the opportunity to work and publish, as punishment for telling the truth."
Kind of reminds me of the Crocker "Spite" fence, on Nob Hill in SF.

One of the big four millionaires in San Francisco build a spite fence around the undertaker who wouldn't sell the property to him for his mansion. The undertaker in turn build a giant coffin on the roof, visible over the spite fence.

Here's the fence, before the coffin: http://i.imgur.com/n1o7S3T.jpg
I see this common theme in thread, a sort of asinine pedantic appeal to "data." It's not as if those that recognize clearly that "solutions" for Iceland and it's, as others have correctly, very small and largely homogenous population will not bear the same results in the US do not somehow believe in science or "data."

It may seem like hand waving to those constantly repeating the "data" refrain but it is also very naive ignore the rather obvious qualitative analysis. World societies are not like ant colonies.

There is not enough time in the world to gather complete and precise sociological datasets and even if there were, it would, honestly, be a waste of time for those some, and this will unpopular, common sense about the problem.

It's sort of ironic that those crying most about the data are just shrugging off the several orders of magnitude quantitative difference between Iceland and the US across a panoply of population datapoints.

You cannot just try every single possible experiment for "completeness"; it is impractical and especially when it flies in the face of common sense (or substitute "good qualitative analysis" if you like).

Also, on some level it is a bit silly, do people think there have not been after school programs in the US already? It is hardly a panacea; I mean it is not even in the ballpark.
Oops. Too bad I'm not able to edit anymore. Thanks for pointing out.
What HTTP Error Codes Tell Us. A List of the Most Common HTTP Errors
Well, couldn't you then be making a safety-checking tool for C? If you can do that, it shouldn't be hard to translate from there to safe Rust.
Wolfram Alpha automatically generate code from natural language question
This is far mode complicated than the privilieged white man narrateive you used here.

I don't like this topic, but when someone talks about this I'd like to know their opinion on this:

- what is his/her ethnicity
- what ethnicity does he/she think jews have.

Why I raise these questions? Becase if someone talks about this topic this is pretty sensite, and also pretty context sensitive.

Do "privilieged white" people consider jewish people also "privilieged white" people, or of a different ethnicity?

Do jewish people consider themselves "privilieged white" people?

Do other ethnicities consider them as the same?

What ethnicity does Mr Zuckerberg consider himself? His is of jewish herritage, as far as I know.

This "white people" narrative is pretty destructive, but also is an overgeneralization, and just as destructive as overdifferentiation. I beleive both are a form of destructive, retrogade racism which has crept into Public language lately and is plaguing the thinking of people and destroying the progress of the last half cetury.

I don't blame you for using it, and I don't beleive you wanted to say anything nasty, nor do I want to do so, just formulated some questions the topic raises in me.
Cycle-to-cycle accuracy of an atomic clock (then called a timing and frequency standard) is never dominated by the resonance frequency, and you never extract the timing information from the radio-frequency that interacts with the physics directly.

The reference frequency used externally for timing is the reference oscillator which typically was 5 or 10 MHz, but nowadays tends to be 100 MHz as HF electronics became better.

For an older Caesium clock, a block diagram is explained on this page: http://www.leapsecond.com/museum/hp5062c/theory.htm

{a Rb clock is very similar electronically, only you are not looking at count-rates of Cs atoms flying through your spin filter but you are observing the optical attenuation of a rubidium gas, both vary with radio-frequency waves being injected into the package. Also Cs is a primary standard and Rb is very stable - but adjustable and susceptible to extarnal magnetic fields.}

From the reference frequency, a series of synthesizers / multipliers generate the radio frequency that is relevant to the physics process. And this frequency is then modulated slightly (137 Hz label in Figure 5) so that correlation in the physics process from being too high, or too low in resonance frequency, can be observed (Figure 9, you vary between f2 and f1 137 times per second).

A good GPS steered quartz oscillator will use around 100s of loop time-constant, the time constant for the control loop in a caesium clock will be much higher.
I agree that this article, or at least the title, the article itself is actually pretty well written, is somewhat sensationalist, but I found it gratifying for two reasons.

First, I had no idea about these kinds of land titles in Hawaii, pretty interesting stuff for me at least.

Second, as someone of pretty low education, I enjoy coming to HN because I get to be in the company of posters who are much smarter and more knowledgable than myself. Admittedly though, this leads me to fall into the trap of viewing everyone posting here as being well informed. Articles like this, and some of the subsequent comments that to me at least sound as if posters didn't even read the article, force me to consider that even people with great domain specific knowledge aren't necessarily open minded or knowledgable about subjects outside of their domains.
Really? Some of these people, as reported in the article, didn't even know about the land they have a share in, and that share is minuscule to the point of uselessness.

I'm no Zuckerberg apologist, but it's clear from the article that there are varying situations represented here and at least some reasonable fraction of them are totally happy to sell him whatever percentage they own. The one person interviewed who actually had a connection to the land is supportive of the sale, because he probably can't pay taxes on it, at which point it goes to the government.
If you exercise early and hold it for an year before selling them for cash then you pay less tax.

The way I see is options only make sense when you have the following aligned.

1) Employer grants options.
2) Every pay check you save enough for strike price and estimated tax hit.
3) Exercise early when the price is low (assuming IPO will happen while you're still employed)
4) Sell when IPO or later when price is good after one year or more of exercise.

Or may be sell in bits to stay under the aggressive tax rates.
Good grief. Any child with $2 in pocket money has more wealth than 2bn people. If you are a doctor with a massive student loan, you're probably in the bottom 10% of humanity in terms of wealth.
I know a lot of people at HN don't like mma for whatever reason but this can really help people like me who are learning to code in that we can side-step the syntax/magic word barrier.
Land rights shall need be part of Universal Basic Income. The capital class will buy away all the land from the labor class faster as automation and capitalism keeps kicking ass.


Whats the use of owning 700 acres of beachfront property if you can't exclude all the humans that used to live there. It's not like you could have avoided displacement by purchase of a smaller plot to enjoy. It's not like he could have chosen a less populated island to start with.

Privacy advocate Mark Zuckerberg deserves more privacy at the cost of mere mortals. Sue that underclass till they break Mark! /s
> If the top 500 coders declined to participate in a project that savagely violates human rights - and encouraged this as a norm in our communities - isn't it plausible that doing so could either prevent, derail, or meaningfully weaken such a project?

Not sure what the top 500 vote totals were on this, but when Snowden's documents revealed existence of a massive domestic surveillance program that included large amounts of data collection, parsing and analysis, most people were surprised at the breadth, depth and sheer amount of data.

Worth noting that it was developed without any significant leaks either, which spells doubt on the idea that top 500 were even invited to express their stance on the subject, which nevertheless did not force the project into derailment. For all we know, some might have participated, through a government or a third-party contract that did not specify exact goals of the project and provided limited view into the overarching theme.

One thing that's hard to judge from the outside is the quality and efficiency of that code. It could be very bad indeed.
>For the Clinton server, I never stated that work email being wiped was intentional.

No, but your graph shows that of the 30K emails that were deleted after the start of the investigation (with bleachbit, as you say), 2800 were work related. The FBI does not claim this, nor do your sources. It is as far as we know, a false claim.

>It's a case of Simpson's paradox where the subpopulation does not conform to the aggregated whole.

Its not, you are never combining groups. Its just a bad application of percentages (and perhaps a worse visualization).
And how could you enforce that -- sue the owners to force them to live on the land?

At least this way, all the owners are finally identified (at considerable cost to the plaintiff, I might add), and they are properly monetarily compensated for the land.

If the current owners really did want to live on the land, they are more than free to band together and bid on the parcel themselves in the auction -- especially the ones who didn't know about the land before.
Continuous Integration Certification
it means we programmers will make more money but die sooner. makes all that money earnin' kinda pointless, won't be able to spend it all lol