skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You don't appear to be engaging in good faith yourself. You accuse HN members of name-calling, yet when presented with evidence that the first name you list wasn't actually being used in the way you imply, you backpedal and say "oh, no, look at this other one". And you still use the nazi example as the majority of your comment.

Good faith means doing that work upfront to ensure that what you're saying has some basis, and in the case of contentious issues, strong basis. Good faith also means backing down when you're called out on something and found to be lacking that strong basis, not continuing to push it forward.

Most people's good faith doesn't extend infinitely. They're fools if they do continue to extend it when repeatedly shown that the people they're engaging with aren't doing so as well.

And you still don't seem to have gotten my original point: I agree that name-calling is uncalled for and actively unconstructive and uncivil. The perception that "your side", whatever that may be, is being treated unfairly pops up on all sides of contentious issues here on HN. Go out and do some real stats work if you think there's something pernicious about some particular behavior. The data is out there. Just anecdotes don't cut it. Your bias (and mine, and anyone's) isn't going to let you see the picture clearly on its own. And when you're done, share the data, methodology, and results with the rest of us. I know there are a lot of people besides me who would be interested in seeing it, regardless of the actual results.
Personally, I am re-evaluating my stance on visiting the US in the next 24 months in order to attend SaaS conferences or meeting up with my US based co-founder.

I am based in Australia, which is NOT one of the countries on the 'ban' list, however yesterday, there was some confusion in our local media that the reciprocal visa agreement was going to be suspended as well, necessitating a visit to a local US embassy for a one on one meeting to apply for a holiday/visitor visa to the US. In my case, that would have meant a 3000km flight to get to the nearest US embassy - added cost and time even before I knew I could fly to the US.

Thankfully, that seems to be negated now, and the reciprocal visa agreement still stands, but section 2(f.) and section 10 of the new orders make that fairly tenuous still, IMO. Those sections basically say "be nice, or else find yourself on the ban list as well". Normally I would consider these just formalities and nothing to worry about, but the conduct of the current administration has meant that I take these conditions with a grain of salt and expect them to be used as leverage at some point.

So, my abstaining from travelling to the US would be in the order of 50% protest at the actions of the current administration, 40% actual fear for my safety while there (I am of sub-continental heritage) and 10% just not willing to put up with the hassle and cost of international travel in this day and age.
Good guess but you're wrong. They also get meta data like size of page loads Wich is more than enough to find out what Wikipedia entry you are looking at [there's a paper].
Likely would cancel if I had plans to travel. I'm not specifically targeted, but even then I'm currently interviewing with an American company and will have to stop - potential future travel, uncertainty about currency, potential issues how international employees / contractors will be handled - it's just not worth it...
I don't have that extension, I do have Comcast, and I don't see injected Comcast content. Either uBO or another blocker (belt and suspenders) is blocking that, or they don't do it in my region, or my block, or whatever.
This quote is attributed to his father William Avery Rockefeller.
As an American, I think everyone should stay away until trump is gone. The only way to drive trump out is to hurt the American economy. Boycott American goods, don't travel to America until he's gone.
I hope you're right, but I have to prepare for the very strong possibility that you're wrong and that he and his major cohort of supporters are not in fact amenable to reason and shared conceptions of fairness.
Carmack didn't like OpenGL, and partially he was right about OpenGL's shortcomings. We was wrong however in his proposed solution (using DX). Using lock-in instead of making better open APIs is a really bad idea. Luckily others understood it better than him.
i didn't realize it was a licensing deal, instead of trump owning the business there.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

I think these words contradict your assertion and are more representative of the American approach to immigration.

But, to your point, it is an empirical question. We could actually explore this with Census data, using income as a proxy for societal contribution and controlling for year of immigration, religion, country of origin, and other demographic variables. My question for you is if the data turn out to be counter to your personal experience, and that Muslim immigrants do end up as net positive social contributors in subsequent generations, would it change your position on the recent Executive Order? If not then there must be some other explanation for your support of it.

As for me, if it weren't obvious from the two quotes above, my opposition to the EO is philosophical rather than economic. And even if the data show that immigrants are a net economic drain on society, I would still continue to welcome them with open arms. That's what I learned America is all about.
> But you implied just earlier that she has no power.

She has the power to divide her time among several palaces, have lots of servants waiting on her night and day, have Prime Ministers and Presidents lining up to dine and chat with her, have the Royal Air Force fly her in luxury wherever she wants to go, etc, etc, etc... basically more power than you or I will likely ever have. She has all the power she needs.

But in terms of her formal legal/political power – on paper she has enormous power, but she only retains that power because 99.999% of the time she does whatever the politicans tell her to do. (If she ever started refusing to obey them, they would take all that power away from her very quickly.)

However, in the very rare circumstance of a constitutional crisis, she does actually have some real political power. Consider something like the 1975 situation in Australia – if something similar were to happen in the UK, she would have real power to decide what course of action to take.
It is still at 1 signature.
Interesting that you attribute Obama getting 93/96% of the black vote to his...charisma. Yes, I'm sure that was it.

> There is no way Hillary or any other democratic candidate could match that.

So, black people vote for a "charismatic" candidate, but when they are left with a mediocre candidate and a candidate that (as is argued) hates them, they decide "Hey, the guy that hates me is better than someone who isn't so charismatic"?
> If Donald Trump was Prime Minister of the UK

A demogogue without the support of the party establishment can't become PM of the UK.
Popular marketing tools and add-ons used by 10,000+ of the top e-commerce stores
There are official job threads, including "seeking freelancer", posted automatically by the 'whoishiring' account at the beginning of each month.[1] Any other job posts are prohibited by HN guidelines.

[1] The most recent one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13301833
Only a glimpse of what is to come i fear, lets hope the best.
Real-World Concurrency (2008)
They only inject when you're on "xfinitywifi" networks and if you've pirated something and they want to inform you that you've been caught, iirc.
> This is a temp 90-day ban

Is 90 days a hard limit, or could another order introduce a further 90 days?
> I'm particularly interested in what types of machines

More important is to look at who's got owning shares in those machines.....

In the perfect world, we'd have open source machines that all enter voites into a public blockchain/ledger and you'd get a private key you could verify your vote with. Optical sounds awesome. But good luck with that. The fraud just seems to swing back and forth from left to right every X years instead. It's madness.

My claim is just a bet right now. But it's one I'm willing to put money on IF they actually do a national investigation, which I'm not confident will happen.
Netflix CEO: Trump's actions “so un-America it pains us all”
There are reasons you might already know...
> Trump voters are a minority, they should be defended also.

This is a bit of propaganda commonly employed by the racist right (I'm not saying you are racist or a member of that group, but IMHO that's the origin of the concept).

In some sense everybody is a minority and no President every has been elected by a majority (a plurality at best), so taking the word "minority" literally is not meaningful. What is meant by "minorities" is groups that are abused by larger groups due to their overwhelming lack of political power. The people who voted for Trump were never slaves, didn't suffer segregation, weren't lynched, aren't suspected of being illegal, and generally are not excluded from power or opportunity due to their race or ethnicity.

Look at any group of powerful people, from Fortune 500 CEOs to members of Congress and Presidents to Silicon Valley leaders to leaders in academia, the military, actors, chefs, coders or almost any other field - look at any college campus - you don't say, 'wow, there sure aren't many white guys there'. White-skinned people make up 66% of the US population; black-skinned are ~12%, Latino ~16%. Those aren't comparable situations.

That doesn't mean that Trump voters don't have legitimate concerns, but they aren't at all a "minority" in the common meaning of the word.
How does that make any sense?

At best, this is stupid posturing--at worst, it's just plain stupid. How would a boycott lead to Trump's removal? How would cutting yourself off from the American economy hurt Trump?
So what? One good thing that's come from the Trump presidency is unity. Me and my more conservative colleagues and friends were always cordial and have had healthy debates but we are now in vehement agreement -- against Trump.

I'll give you that Travis is a total scumbag. Maybe he is. Maybe he doesn't care about this issue. I don't care. He's right this time, about this issue, and when we're talking about it, that's good enough for me. Trump's policies will be devastating and he will attempt to loot, pillage, and destroy every part of the country. It will take our country decades to recover from the damage he does, if it ever recovers. If the coalition that forms up against him is slightly different for every issue and creates some unlikely bedfellows, well so be it. We need all the help we can get. The office of the president is unbelievably powerful -- something some of us have been very concerned about since GWB and on through Obama.

In fact anti-Trump republicans/businessmen/'generally all around bad guys' mean a whole lot more right now than the guaranteed liberal coalition against him.
We younger programmers started with Scratch. Sure, it makes pretty pictures, and you don't have to type, but it has only global and object-local variables, barely has function calls, and is generally awkward.

Or at least, it was last I used it.
Please be more detailed. How is it belligerence? Is he doing it against these countries' governments' wishes?

From all i can glean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Joint_Task_Force_–_Op... is aimed against terrorist and rebel organizations, in cooperation with 58 other countries, while the entire world is screaming at the USA to finally destroy those terrorist organizations. Particularly in Iraq this is being done in cooperation with the iraq government as well. And from what i hear from friends who read more about this the usa is actively by the countries in question to help their efforts by doing these things.

So where exactly does the belligerence come in?
All the studies point that illegal immigrants positively contribute to the receiving country economy. They consume less public resources (they exercise less rights because, well, they're ilegal; as well as being in average young and healthy) and pay most taxes.

Most ilegal immigrants want to move towards a legal status and integrate successfully in the country.

The "burden" of ilegal immigrants is mostly false.
or dynamo, or cassandra, or several others that all exhibit good behavior around these things. Also all of the above (and riak) have event streams when tombstones go away so you can hook into this and reap the file.
Never assume otherwise, i'd recommend.
Like I said,

Horribly inconvenient, but not a blanket ban.
Yes, Trump's executive order is really shitty. It hurts good people while doing nothing to reduce real threats from real bad guys.

Kalanick is also really shitty. He legitimizes Trump by collaborating with him. It's complete bullshit that he's going to somehow influence this administration "from within".

Kalanick's collaboration does far more damage than any marginal influence he might have.

If Kalanick really wants to "stand up for what's right", he should publicly resign from Trump's "economic advisory group" in protest over this latest outrage.
Black-tar is, as the name implies, a black (or very dark brown) compound, generally pretty sticky (though it can be dried into a powder). White powder heroin is, as the name implies, a white powder.

Fentanyl is a white or yellowish powder.

For a variety of reasons, it is far more common for white powder heroin to be laced with fentanyl (which is hundreds of times more potent).
Seriously, what the fuck is going on? I had to read to the middle of the comments page to see this? There is nothing in the post about standing up to anything!

The post can be summarized as:

"Trump's decision hurts many people. We're going to compensate some drivers who were impacted. I had also decided to become Trump's advisor. If you disagree, oh well, tough. Also, I'm fighting for what's right."

Please tell me where I'm wrong, because all I see are vacuous statements with a title that makes it sound like this guy is doing something about something. It doesn't even say what he thinks is "right"! For all we know, he means banning all Muslims from entering the US.
I hope you are right. Would not bet on it.
Being a citizen involves far more than voting once every four years. And regardless of fault, it's everyone's responsibility.
Then it would make sense to list those countries' dual citizens or naturalized citizens as ones that would take more scrutiny.

But Any country other than the US? Heck, I know what I'm going through with immigration here in Norway, and I have one of the easier immigration avenues - marriage. Work and school are quite a bit more difficult. It usually requires one to live here for at least 7 years first: Marriage can cut that in half. That comes with things like the possiblity of having our house inspected so that the authorities are convinced we are living like a married couple and possible interviews with my spouse. Some countries have a more thorough check.

It just isn't the bureaucratic lottery nightmare that it is in the states. That doesn't mean that it is easy, merely better run and reasonable.
Every year it seems what presidents can get away with using executive orders gets more expansive.
Thanks. I don't know anything about crypto so I was just poking in the dark. From the resource I think I wasn't that far off but there's a lot I didn't understand (understood concepts but not consequences).
No... shame on them for expressing that disagreement by downvoting a thoughtful comment.
Going back to my original comment, widespread faith that the voting process is safe is just as important as whether it actually is. Casting doubt on the process without really solid evidence undermines this faith. By no means do I want to be Pollyannaish about this: it's too important. Which is why I want to see improvements in the voting process.

If voting integrity is something you feel particularly strongly about (I certainly do), I encourage to look into the work that's already out there. The 2000 election spurred a lot of research. Some good starting points are:

Ronald L. Rivest MIT

Auditability and Verifiability of Elections

ACM-IEEE talk March 16, 2016

https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/Riv16x.pdf

---

Ben Adida Google Tech Talks December 19, 2007

Theory and Practice of Cryptography: Verifying Electiosns with Cryptography

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s
> The US has demonstrated that it will unilaterally revoke permission to go or be there.

It's always done this, and has always done this. Every other country in the world has too--it's part of what makes a sovereign state sovereign.

> I also feel like I'm morally obligated to make some kind of stand about not visiting the US right now, even if everything goes OK for me.

Why do you feel you are morally obligated to do this, exactly?
Even with the uncertainty surrounding Trump's future plans, it's doubtful that the travel ban will target non-Muslim majority countries. Trump has said repeatedly that he's in favor of legal immigration of best and brightest, and there's not a compelling point in his tweets, campaign promises, among his supporters, or in the GOP platform to exclude non-immigrant visitors from actual neighboring countries. It's not unreasonable to suppose that he understands that countries which possess a realistic geopolitical capability to retaliate (economically, mostly...) will make for tougher targets of travel restrictions, so neighbors Canada and Mexico would fall squarely in this category. Meanwhile, the currently affected 7 countries are easy targets: with the exception of Iran, they are experiencing struggles with internal governance and thus lack meaningful ways of resisting or retaliating against this unilateral move. Iran is included as an extra bonus, and its inclusion just resets US-Iran relations to pre-Obama days.

As for taking an ideological stance: weigh this choice yourself. It's doubtful that one person's protest will make an impact, but if you start or participate in a movement such that the social or economic impact is felt, you may have accomplished something. But don't count on it. Instead, investigate his previous tweets (luckily public info) and construct a profile of how you think he'll respond. I believe that Trump is not likely to be swayed by reason or protest, and is instead more prone to reactionary escalation.

But, as a resident alien (green card holder) from a boring, mostly-inconsequential European country, I won't be leaving the States just in case.
You're right --- but as John Maynard Keynes famously wrote, "In the long run, we're all dead".

In the medium term, it is unreasonable to expect middle America to compete with workers from countries with no environmental laws, no safety regulations, and no worker safety. Likewise, it is unreasonable for ask us free people to compete with H1-B holders who cannot leave their jobs without being deported.

Besides, historically speaking, we make productivity advances fastest when labor is expensive. In a sea of cheap labor, technology stagnates. Of course, in the long run, we're going to have a single integrated global economy. But a policy of immediate free trade and free movement is not a feasible or fair way of getting to this state.
Yes, the Republicans complained incessantly every time Obama broke the law with EOs. Nobody cared. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you're wondering why Republicans aren't leaping to help you?
Flatly, plainly false.

http://lawandborder.com/risk-abandoning-green-card-abroad-6-...
Do some reading on "harm reduction". There is actually a fair amount of research on this topic.
Executive orders are the President directing the executive branch how to carry out their jobs.

Executive orders can be illegal if they direct the executive branch to either do something illegal or if they direct the executive branch to fail to carry out their mandated duties. In that case the executive order may be challenged in court -- that is one of the things that is going to happen with this executive order. There will be cases flowing up the court system of people claiming this order is illegal, discriminatory, and violates the rights of legal residents.

Executive orders can also not be illegal, but may be taking advantage of flexibility that Congress regrets giving the executive branch. For instance, if the President begins selling off national parks, that may actually be within his authority, but it might inspire Congress to pass a law prohibiting him from doing so in the future.

As to how Trump is doing so many radical things so quickly, I would simply point out that he likely is not worrying about the consequences.

The President can issue executive orders very quickly if he chooses, but when most Presidents issue one creating a new, radical change (as opposed to the several dozen executive orders that get signed every time control of the White House passes between the two parties, like the Mexico City Rule), he first will spend a lot of time working with the affected departments and with his own lawyers to figure out exactly what he has the authority to do. For instance, before Obama introduced DACA, he first had to spend a lot of time figuring out exactly how much of the DREAM act he could get away with implementing purely with his executive power -- he didn't want to take the action and immediately have it reversed by the courts.

Now, if you don't worry about what you can and can't do and just do it, everything moves a lot faster. You might say Trump is governing the Facebook way: Move Fast and Break Things.
Father/Son.... That is a powerful quote nevertheless, speaks to some more than others.
I can't imagine being a kid today. But if genetic me were reborn today, I suppose he would adapt as all humans do.
Ask HN: How can live CNN, Fox News streams on YouTube exist?
This is becoming more and more predominant on Youtube. Simply searching for CNN live [1] on Youtube returns multiple feeds, same for Fox News and presumably other channels. How can this be allowed on Youtube? I remember it being rather rare to find these types of channels. Why is Youtube OK with this and the news channels not doing more to stop it? If the channels want their content on Youtube why not publish it under their own account? Seems like the answer is a combination of yes and no to whether they want their live content on YT. Can someone shed some light on this?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cnn+live
As you mentioned:

https://youtube.googleblog.com/2009/09/five-stars-dominate-r...

Seems like when it comes to ratings it's pretty much all or nothing. Great videos prompt action; anything less prompts indifference.

> Why would the default rating be the very top of the scale?!

Because most people don't care about an average meal, but they do care when it's bad or great.
Yes? Of course? I'd be ecstatic that he's showing some backbone and thinks it's important to do the right thing? That someone is willing to check Trump's power when he does horrible, horrible things? If Pence wants to be right then I'll all for him being right even if it's only one time about only one thing -- that's better than nothing.
If this was another ISP, I might be irritated, or even angry. But I can't work up the effort.

I mean, this is Comcast we're talking about. Even by the very low standards of ISPs, they're pretty nasty and generally unpleasant. What did you expect?
Scientists Create the Highest Quality Hologram Device Ever Made
I guess "locking up" is not intended to describe the kind of lockup you can fix by entering your login password.
There's a famous quote to the effect that when somebody tells you who they are, you should believe them the first time. There are some things in the world that nobody has any business being conned by.