skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
American citizen here:

I was denied a entry visa into Paraguay left to be stranded in Brazil. I barely made it to my grandmothers funeral. I had to call the embassy and spend several days in limbo. I understood that I was powerless because I was not a citizen of Brazil nor Paraguay. I wasn't entitled to representation by either country nor would they provide it.

I was jailed in Mozambique for refusing to pay a bribe at the border. I did not expect nor receive any special treatment. This is the way things are.

I overstayed my visa in Chile by less than 24 hours, was forced to remain at the border between Argentina and Chile for the day and threatened with jail. I did not fight and riot nor protest. Why would I? I need to follow the laws of the country I am in.

What we have here is a nation so divided that you have people on the right who are for less government and rule, but respect the rule of law and people on the left who have no regard for the law and demand more regulations and laws.

Disappointing
Yes you are missing a lot. But you aren't alone. Everyone else is too. This is becoming a characteristic feature of the internet.

There is huge information asymmetry at play here that just cannot be communicated through the media, social media or a hn post.

Or as I would say to a second grader, if you want to understand things your cousin in college is talking about put in 10 years of work. If the internet gives you the impression that everything that you can't make sense of is one ted talk/one reddit ELI5 post away, that's just wrong.

This expectation has to change. Otherwise we end up with more and more people who don't understand the work it takes to know anything deeply.
How can you not see the difference between ending the program due to institutionalized xenophobia and pausing it temporarily in order to work on its safety? Are you being obtuse?
I suppose I should have said that's rare among Presidents. Obama, for example, flat-out lied to his base about his stance on privacy rights, forever harming the ability of US tech companies to compete with those in privacy-minded countries. When it came to light that he had authorized even more invasive government surveillance programs than any of his predecessors, including George W. Bush, he didn't even bother apologizing.
First, I appreciate the time you took to write a thoughtful response.

Second, I wouldn't really say I'm defending the ACLU here - namely because I disagree with their stance. I won't go into why I disagree, because it's not relevant, but the point of my comment was to point out that the original argument (which comes from an incredibly right-wing website - just take a look at the front page) overstates the case that the ACLU is anti-gun.

But finally - the 'states rights' aspect of it is more complicated. The ACLU, I'll point out, doesn't use the term "states rights" (which I agree is a dog-whistle term). They refer to the right being held by the state, but unlike the specific term "states rights", that's not always a coded concept.

And I think the thing that's missing in your argument is the basic fact of where the topic of gun control actually arose in US public discourse. You do allude to it here:

> Initially that was a round-about way of referring to black, inner-city communities, but with the increasing attention given to gun massacres in predominantly white, suburban, areas, that "right to be free of violent crime" has become more inconclusive.

Simply put: gun control was not a mainstream issue until black Americans[0] started arming themselves in large numbers and (importantly) in an organized manner. That was the tipping point that brought gun control into mainstream attention, and the early organized anti-gun groups had a very noticeable (albeit coded - not always explicit) anti-black agenda.

[0] Not just the Black Panthers - even Martin Luther King Jr. was a very adamant gun owner.
We're conflating two different things, which is the user's attitude toward the author, vs. the user's attitude towards learning the tech itself.

Given that the author showed sarcasm and hostility towards anyone perceived to be less technically literate from the very start, I wouldn't be surprised at the user's reaction, although I agree she should show some level of appreciation for what is essentially unpaid IT work.

> extremely basic thing to be confused about

No, the confusion is that PowerPoint even allows links and references, rather than directly embedding the content. You're expecting the user to be familiar with PowerPoint's feature set, and in my experience the linking/referencing feature is used rarely.

It doesn't help that the software purposefully hides the fact that it's a reference in order to make the experience more seamless.
I'm pretty sure we are - https://blogs.valpo.edu/law/does-the-second-amendment-apply-...
> When programmers come to me and simply say “this code does not work,” I send them away. Their problem is not solvable by me or anyone.

When people come to me and say that, I ask "in what way doesn't it work?" and figure out how to help them.
LOL you obama ass-kissers are more then laughable :))
edit: I'm being very aggressively downvoted in every thread that I point out the hypocrisy of only supporting civil liberties when your party is out of power, and suggesting that liberals should become consistent in their support of civil liberties. Fascinating echo chamber here.

---

Where were they during the 2006 Secure Fence Act? [1] Where were the vast protests when Obama pushed through the NSA data sharing policy during his last days in office? Violate the liberties of hundreds of millions of people, and they don't bat an eyelash.

It's not very productive of course, to only point out that so many liberals are extreme hypocrites on civil liberties. Democrats won't get my vote until they can act consistently on such, including against their own President. The effort now should be on encouraging the left to remold itself strictly when it comes to protecting civil liberties again, rather than turning a blind eye when it's convenient. There needs to be consequences for Dem politicians that support/ed the abuse of civil liberties, whether now or in the recent past (as so many of them have).

[1] https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/01/27/in-2006-demo...
Principle of least interest
If I may comment on a couple of these (have been running Debian at home and FreeBSD at work for a long time):

> And pkg is no better than apt.

Apt is pretty good, so being no better than it isn't that bad.

> * Directory structure - Why would you want a "blessed" vi? Why should a distro manager decide that /usr/bin/vi is (say) vim while neovim /usr/local/bin/nvi.

> * Default software - Maybe I'm unique, but I kind of like bash. I don't see why it shouldn't be my default shell except "Well, if it didn't exist in the 80s, it won't exist now" (It could also be a licensing issue, but as a user I don't really care about that).

It helps to think of FreeBSD base as a minimum workable install: the goal is not to install everything you need, it's to get enough software that you can a) build whatever you need from ports, b) rebuild the kernel and the world. That's why /usr/bin/vi is vi (not vim) and the vi you like is in /usr/local/bin/, it's pretty helpful to have a screen oriented editor, so they've given you a basic one. I personally am not sure why they ship tcsh in base, but it's probably because they always have; philosophically they should just let you install tcsh if you need it, just like bash. Running a simpler shell than bash for /bin/sh is just good sense, Debian uses dash for /bin/sh too.
I happen to run most of the latest of things on CentOS (server-side only, though). My approach has been to package and deliver modern versions of various runtimes (python, ruby, jre) into specific directories for my apps. This way, I am not dependent on the system-provided runtimes which are an older version.

For my work with Belenix (revamp not announced yet), I am working on examples where users no longer depend upon system-supplied package versions, and instead choose their own local instances.
Yes, every heroin addict robs people to feed their heinous, immoral addiction.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on crime in poverty stricken areas or those of one predominant race or another, I’m sure they’re just as well reasoned, tolerant, and coherent.

Behavior like yours is why many turn to other avenues of coping rather than feeling comfortable seeking help. Don’t think for a second I’m condoning what you perceive, but your definition of “addict” is likely one or two standard deviations away from reality, and to imply that all “addicts” are criminals or all criminals you see are addicted to heroin is more than a little amusing.
It is one thing to attack another country.

It is completely another to attack your own country.

Right now American liberties and values are under attack from a rightist presidency. I'm selfish, give me the latter over the former any day of the week.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Obama Admin banned processing applications from Iraqi refugees during a 6 month period [1]. They did not ban approved refugees from entering the US.

Obama Admin never banned permanent residents aka greencard-holders married to US citizens from re-entering the US because they held Iranian passports. The current executive order does. Doesn't matter if they are completing a PhD in Computer Science at Princeton and flew to Canada for a conference. They can now be refused entry for not breaking any laws. The smartest, most-hardworking immigrants and non-immigrant student-visa holders will instead choose Switzerland, Germany, and other places because of blanket bans like this.

1. http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration...
How did you get back in? Sounds like a security hole.
> You might not be able to turn an aircraft carrier on a dime but when you do you've got an aircraft carrier.

I'm not sure what this means.
It has already been reported on news sites. Just to name a few. Not much "spin" that I can tell:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-sets-5-year-lifeti...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-sets-year-lif...

http://time.com/4652703/president-trump-lobbying-ban/
> Google takes a lot of shit, and some of it is probably deserved, but there seems clearly to be a moral core to the people working there.

Where were all these moral people when Obama pulled the same stunt in 2011 and banned Iraqi refugees from entering the country for 6 months? Were they busy signing pledges not to write drone software that bombed the shit out of these same people that they now feel solidarity with?

I'm glad they found their "moral core", although it is mildly irritating that only half the country is able to find one at any one time.
I think this is a good warning true or not. LoT is here and security is very lax. Incidents like this one will only get more serious.
Here's a great photo:

https://twitter.com/SmellTheTea/status/825577114871140352
If you're on Android, install Termux, then apt install python and an editor and you're done. The future is now :)
Most people do not get their news from the AP. They will see the spun version on CNN, MSNBC, etc. Or perhaps in this case, they won't see it at all.
He was kidding. It's from Seinfeld.
Because I am available for certain questions. I am available for
"quick" questions which only I would know the answer to, and for critical questions. I want to defer "easy" questions which the questioner can easily find the answer to, but is lazy or incompetent.
In my role, I will get questions from downright simple "how do I reset my password", or was a certain move-to-production done; to some really critical ones, or, where others move on my go-ahead. The move-to-production query means different things based on who is asking. One person asks only because a end-user or their manager wants to know the status. Another person is asking that as a start of "we are seeing something strange in production" on a related functionality. So, I ignore the first person when actually busy, and attend to the second person right away always.

Also, there are people change the status to 'busy' when they are not actually available, extended lunches and what-not. And there are more people who forget to reset their status to 'available'. So setting status to 'busy' is no guarantee that you will not get a ping. Or a phone-call.
No. But you clearly are.
Give up. Dissent from the hivemind is not tolerated here. Disassociate from all YC portfolio companies and move on. It's not worth it.
I have much more problem with killing so many innocents overseas than I do with some MIT student missing class or a researcher being kept away from their work. So that's why these protests seem really hypocritical to me.
Yes, but it is highly implied that citizens and permanent residents will get through without trouble.
So your point of comparison for the US are Paraguay, Mozambique and Chile? Also, note that none of the people being detained under his EO right now is actually being accused of breaking the law: if they'd arrived two days ago, they wouldn't have faced any issues at all. So it's unclear to me how your experience informs any aspect of our current predicament.
This listing seems to be missing https://upverter.com/.
Like this one? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_2:_Cruise_Control
I work for a so called big MNC, and I see "the agile problem" everyday. This typically happens because someone higher up decided to bring in a hot buzzword into the company with utter disregard to the impact it would cause to the company

The company is a heavily process oriented company, and it takes a minimum of 3 days to complete the process aspect of a software release!! That's how much process the company follows, add to that meetings and issues and bug fixes and the typical developer and everyone on the team is stretched to the limits - with some sacrificing their personal time and working for the company for free.

Add to this, everyone is scared to speak up. Personally, I have decided to move on as I see no hope in this company.

Bad practices sap the energy out of good people for doing great things.

I wish people didn't miss something as simple as this. This is a problem u can associate with a big MNC with a lot of inertia. A bad decision (like moving to agile even though they have too many processes to follow) could cost the company a huge loss in terms of people and money!
This is a pro, not a con. Slamming on the accelerator is a bad behavior that self driving cars will be correcting.
That is true of any Executive Order. And any future Executive can rescind or otherwise modify that order.

I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing in this particular case, but people sometimes forget that law created via EO only exists, persists, is enforced or not enforced at the whim of POTUS.
It's an EO, and therefore could be completely scrapped by any future POTUS.
>Errr.. the linked article means no, it is not safe to just cron an apt-get upgrade. In theory Debian is maintaining ABI/API. In practice there are issues. Rolling releases in practice have better tradeoffs, but require continuous deployment. On a workstation there are really no significant issues. On a production infrastructure, you need to use poudriere to maintain your own repos and orchestrate a branching and installation strategy.

There's a difference between manually logging in once a day and typing apt-get update && apt-get upgrade, seeing warnings, responding to them and applying and re-configuring/recompiling ports.

One can take five minutes. One can take an hour.

>On a workstation there are really no significant issues.

Yes, and on linux you can run testing. But I want more stability on a server.

> ZoL is fine, but support and integration still go Illumos > FreeBSD > ZoL. There are enough commercial products using FreeBSD ZFS that it is robust.

For some reason, all of a sudden everyone thinks that ZoL is legally safe to use. I'm not a lawyer, but whatever. The point is that it's still new and not tested significantly, but it should be more stable soon.

>UNIX uses the shell for a lot of things, interactive users are just one infrequent process. Bash is harmful as a non-interactive shell. Change your interactive shell to bash or zsh, problem solved.

So write shell scripts against /bin/sh or dash.

>Bash is harmful as a non-interactive shell.

How is it harmful? I mean why are your putting your shell in an untrusted environment?

Moreover, I understand if you like sh, tcsh, zsh or bash. My point is that it seems to me more of a "we always used tcsh/sh, so that's how it will stay forever" rather than "let's see what's the best default shell now and use it".

And why can't both shells (or zsh, which is MIT licensed) be included in base?
Exactly right - cable is $120 a month, then Netflix, HBO, Amazon Prime (all US) and a handful of Australian services. Still prefer the downloaded version since our connections here can be unreliable (altho Netflix is usually good).
See we are different. This is why I can dislike china so much for oppressing their own people even though they haven't killed any non-Chinese in almost 35 years. It is just a different level of bad to screw up your own country rather than others. America shouldn't become china.

I really can't judge why we do stuff abroad, but I can totally see what is happening in front of my face.
> doesn't have enough maintainers to keep a stable ports tree, so every update can break your setup

You mean frozen package versions + backported security fixes as in stable Debian branch? I think Debian is pretty unique in trying to support the whole world.

Just to clarify, FreeBSD as a project only supports the base system. Ports tree doesn't have any notion of releases and is intended to be always kept up to date, akin to Gentoo portage or Arch linux packages.
Of course it is rare among Presidents. It's stupid and counter productive. Presidents should be governing based on the national interest and educated, considered advice of the public servants. Not the ever changing, populist, ignorant whims of a minority of the country. I mean that from the left or right of the electorate.

And no have not seen any indication the US tech companies are struggling to compete with anyone due specifically to privacy concerns. Apple is still arguably the leader in privacy, even yesterday they widely deployed differential privacy across iCloud analytics.
Thanks for the pointer - i've found the same with CounchPotato - and the entire quality/category categorization much more confusing than how Sonarr sets it up.
Nah, laws and their constitutionality as determined by our judiciary have the final say. ICE disobeying them, even at the behest of the president, is a constitutional crisis.
Here's CNN's attempt at spin [1]:

"However, Trump's move to ban his aides from cashing in on their current jobs may be easier said than done. Lobbying can be ambiguously titled in practice, and while former staffers may not become registered lobbyists, they could potentially trade influence and government experience for a hefty paycheck all the same."

They also buried the story among many negative ones on their home page.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executiv...
Sometime I thank god that terrorists aren't technical savages.
Obama's version of the move wasn't great either, but it's not nearly a direct comparison; he temporarily shut down immigration from one country directly in response to a known and immediate threat, for a set and predetermined period of time. Trump is trying to shut down immigration from seven countries, indefinitely, for no particular reason aside from a general sense of feeling threatened by them. He also, unlike Obama, did so amidst a sea of his own angry rhetoric implying that the ban was entirely due to Islamophobic prejudice.

So, yes, the POTUS can deny rights to humans in all sorts of ways and no one will complain- we're far from perfect. But that he's denying human rights from outright bigotry is especially unacceptable.

Meanwhile, tech companies can decide they're for or against whatever they want- according to the (heinous) Citizens United decision, corporations are people now, and entitled to their political opinions just like you and me. It's not anarchy, its capitalism!
Is there something similar but for Python?
Featured on www.gitlogs.com today. Thought I'd share it.
Won't save you if self-driving cars are vulnerable. You'll just get a call that informs you that you need to pay or other self-driving cars on the road will crash into you.
Whether or not one agrees with it, the idea of arbitrary restrictions on representative government is at least as old as George Washington himself.

Were the USA a direct democracy it would be pretty easy to refute the idea of term limits, but as it's a democratic republic, the issue becomes far less clear cut.
I experienced the "can I ask you a question?" when I did that in office hours. My usual response is "Yes, what did you think I was here for?" After two or three times they just learned to ask the questions directly.
>> For one, I'm sorry

Pure Cuckold. You are the reason why there is so much mess. Why don't you leave this country and live in the seven countries banned?
207 comments and I'm the only one you'll find who believes these people don't belong here. Guess I represent the other 50%. Come visit the white(nd-out text's) side once in a while.
But the administration isn't directly affecting Americans -it's affecting some people who had legal residency (green cards) in the US and will for the time being affect potential visitors from select countries for 30 to 90 days.

When he ran, he ran on a platform to do good by America and Americans --none of the world shaping vision other presidents had (which then led them to foreign interventions which then lead to people calling America imperialistic and other tangling messes). So, it should be of little surprise he does not care very much about non-Americans (I think he takes that belief literally) and will try to deliver on it.

When the ACLU gets involved, I don't even see the "American" part of the civil liberties in there. I mean, good on them for caring, but at the moment it's doing work on behalf of foreign nationals, rather than Americans, directly.

While this may affect some friendships and relationships for Americans the impact is indirect.

Where is this policy affecting the civil liberties of American citizens? Obviously it's affecting some foreign nationals negatively.