skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Which would make perfect sense if herd immunity wasn't a thing. I wouldn't care if you want to not vaccinate and die of some 19th century disease, but you're putting everyone else at risk as well.
From http://wordsmith.org/anagram/hof.html

Clint Eastwood = Old West Action

Madam Curie = Radium came

It's good fun to go find anagrams of friends and family. One of my nephew's comes out Alpaca Tits. He's not real happy about it but the rest of us think it's pretty good.
As a person who has a contrarian view on an issue that is highly politicized, it often turns out that those links of "facts" are links to web blogs that agree with the person that explain why the contrarian view is wrong. I suspect the original poster has looked at a few of the links before, found legitimate grounds to discuss possible flaws in their logic, and has been shut down.

There is definitely a tendency (on both sides) to collect links to "approved" viewpoints and push them as fact without being able to back them up with valid argumentation.
> Should elementary aged school children have privacy while surfing the internet from school?

Yes... yes they should. What would possess someone to say they shouldn't?

If this is about parental controls, it's a non-issue, as someone else explained. You can have both privacy and parental controls.
No it's not.

It's not about your body. It's about the society you're a part of and herd immunity. If you choose not to vaccinate, you are putting everyone else at risk.

So yeah, you can choose not to vaccinate, but you need to understand that if you do so, the rest of society has a right (and in many cases an obligation) to say "we don't want you here, if you're not vaccinated (for any reason other than medically unfit to be vaccinated) then you don't get to participate in our society, you don't get to put our members at risk, and you need to stay the hell away from us".
I regret starting this reddit-style oneup chain, my bad.
Hijacking your post to ask if you have a suggested news service that posts multiple sides to every story & avoids persuasive opinion pieces. I don't want late breaking news. I want well researched news that tries to understand multiple viewpoints. I also don't want to have to filter through articles to find the good ones. I would pay for this.
It wasn't always like this. Silicon Valley was a lot more diverse/tolerant in the first dotcom boom and until ~2006 or so than since. It really went off the deep end circa the Brendan Eich incident (2014), and then the most recent Presidential election cycle. The "Ex-communicate Peter Thiel" movement was the point of no return, and when I decided to flee permanently.

It doesn't seem to be as bad even in other equally-liberal tech areas outside SV.
People can't see past the end of their nose. This time is not different.
https://fee.org/articles/will-robots-put-everyone-out-of-wor...
Good catch! Just added the LICENSE file.
https://github.com/APIs-guru/graphql-voyager/blob/master/LIC...
Yeah, glad to help! Feel free to reach out if you have any questions!
Maybe, but that market demand exists because they are outside the law. Keeping illegal immigrants here allows a permanent underclass which can be abused by companies in ways that American citizens can't. It allows a race to the bottom where only companies which hire illegal immigrants can lower the cost of their product to a competitive level. The only way to end this cycle is to stop allowing illegal immigrants to work here.
You can already see it is different this time, if you are unskilled then the opportunities are very thin and have been for some time.
This draft law is for show only.

Sometimes that's the best a representative can do. That doesn't mean it has no value. It raises awareness, keeps the issue on the public record and, hopefully, eventually, leads to a pull toward the center and some reasonable compromise.
This might be true for your system and libc, where the system calls make use of things like vDSO for gettimeofday go fast, but in general this isn't guaranteed at all. Even on x64, for certain libc implementations, like musl, if I recall correctly, syscalls are made the old fashioned way by trapping 0x80, which would mean you would see a much bigger effect by reducing the number of syscalls.
The facts had a liberal bias.
Well, from a user perspective it breaks links meaning that they work in an unexpected way. For sure it is a much-needed improvement, but it is not a fix it all feature.
Conservatives are afraid liberals will laugh at them. Maybe tax them a bit more and be nice to brown people with funny names.

Liberals are afraid conservatives will take away their health insurance, starve poor folks, destroy the planet, start unfounded invasive wars, end their own bodily self determination. Etc. etc.
> “Stop calling us racists. Stop calling us idiots. We aren’t. Listen to us when we try to tell you why we aren’t. Oh, and stop making fun of us.”

Then. Stop. Supporting. A. Racist.
You're right, the giraffe looks odd and creepy. They should change its facial expression to be a bit more neutral.
> For example with dual number you can say that:
limit(x->0) (sin(x) - 1) / x = 1

That is not a valid statement. Perhaps you meant this?

limit(x->0) sin(x) / x = 1
Smaller Apps with Dead CSS Removal in Angular
These are great points, and I regret that I used an example that inadvertently framed the discussion around "women marrying for money"- In fact I believe that women have a surprisingly catholic breadth of mate choice criteria, and the data available on reproductive variability in modern societies seem to bear this out.
As the preceding comments note, the existence of a Zipf-distributed hyper-elite is not necessarily a big problem for certain categories of goods.
I am actually more interested in the effects of the collapse of alternative status hierarchies and how this affects different status 'tournaments'. Global competitions seem to converge on a single figure of merit, and I wonder whether jagged multimodal distributions on a single variable produce different 'competitions' than normal distributions or multivariate distributions.
I would also note that an individual or group can affect a resource competition without directly consuming the resource itself.
Funny thing is: corporations really don't have ANY power. If the government doesn't like a corporation, they can simply pull the corporate charter. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction, allowed by law. There are some tortured legal arguments that it becomes "personal property" which can not be deprived without due-process - and in practice, this simply is never done anymore.

But any legal fiction can be simply signed-away into non-existence. There is no technical reason this can't happen. In theory.

The problem is, there is no political will to ever actually do it, even when it's necessary. Our entire facade of legality rests on political willpower.
Well what I'm saying is with the IR the pie grew. There were more jobs. Or think of the cotton gin. Intention was to reduce slave labor but it brought more because price went down and demand went up. The different here is that instead you are replacing workers with automata. So if a machine can do half the amount of a human, but is a third the price, and demand increases you buy more machines, not more humans. That's the key difference. You buy more machines, not humans to meet demand increases.

Obviously this is not going to be a universal thing and some sectors will be hit harder than others. But are we projecting 5 years or 50. It would be naive to think that there couldn't be a 10% unemployment in 50 years because of this stuff (not saying that it will happen, but that you have to consider that there's a nontrivial possibility). So you have to take the question seriously. IF that is where things are going, how do you transition smoothly?
Have you been poor in the US? Have you lived your entire life in the constant stress of not being able to pay for food, housing, or medical care? Have you had your house repeatedly robbed? Have you been assaulted and mugged walking home? Rejected from every good job because you're uneducated? Spent countless hours cold to the bone because your power got shut off? Had half your friends become drug addicts? Lived without a car or transportation? Have you been totally without hope of a better future?

Have you had to fall on the "safety net" of a homeless shelter?

Upper class liberals seem to only express interest in groups of people that it makes them feel virtuous to talk about. If you truly care about suffering, you should also open your eyes to the tens of millions of your fellow citizens that need help.
How would this work with second, third, etc, derivatives?
An alternative to Urban Dictionary
You like the logic of "Urban Dictionary" but don't love the environment because of it is too childish ?
Paradict aims to create a cultural area in a dictionary format that come together people around the world.

http://www.paradict.com
> I use iCloud Photos for my ~50GB of photos, and they are downloaded only when you try to open them. I have documents and desktop files on iCloud (get downloaded on demand as well), and I use Google Photos as an Apple Photos backup.

Are all your photos "backed up" on Google Photos via the iOS app?

What happens if iCloud fails, or if you get locked out of your account?
That sounds like a really fun interview. "Given a bucket of sand, build a machine that computes pi to the nth decimal".

(I'd give people extra credit for coming up with creative and interesting variants based on Buffon's needle, rather than building the full infrastructure to do lithography).
So what do you think?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-g...

It had never been his ambition to be a ghostwriter, and he had been glad to move on. But, as he watched a replay of the new candidate holding forth for forty-five minutes, he noticed something strange: over the decades, Trump appeared to have convinced himself that he had written the book. Schwartz recalls thinking, “If he could lie about that on Day One—when it was so easily refuted—he is likely to lie about anything.”
To be fair to them, it is hard to acknowledge you've fucked up and learn from your mistake if people mock you relentlessly about it. The easiest human reaction is to deny or retreat, not admit failure, ask for forgiveness and move on. That's why extending an olive branch and offering a safe space to discuss the issues they might be facing is the right approach (yeah, I know, it's ironic that we are even having this conversation about people who are quick to malign anyone who asks for a safe-space... but whatever.)
I'm more-or-less on the other side of the fence, complete with getting thrown link after link of... well, not sure I want to call them "facts".

I find two tricks to be useful:

Avoid statements, ask questions. Asking for summaries is good.

Play a little game: How little time can you spend getting the other person to spend the most time on their response? You win if you spend a minute and they spend an hour.

Note: Doesn't work in person, but in person, it's easier for everyone to stay calm.
It is trivial to cherry-pick facts that support a controversial, higher-level framing / viewpoint.
I just added an iteration operator to https://math.berkeley.edu/~kmill/tools/zgraph/zgraph.html

Example: z^2-0.4+0.57i+0.03*e^(i t) iterate 150

Use shift+left and shift+right to adjust the rate at which t varies. It starts at constant 0.

It also now has a composition operator: "z^2 then e^z then 1/z" computes 1/(e^(z^2)).

The precedence rule is that "f1(z) iterate 3 then f2(z) iterate 3" is "(f1(z) iterate 3) then (f2(z) iterate 3)", which is f2(f2(f2(f1(f1(f1(z)))))).
Great writeup!
The CBP's job is to control the movement of people and physical objects across the border. They have neither the charter nor the capability to control information flow across the border. All they are accomplishing by trying to do the latter is to harrass travelers, the vast majority of whom are innocent.

So if they want to verify that an object that appears to be a laptop is not actually filled with cocaine -- great, have at it. But if they want to log in to it and poke around the filesystem -- no dice.

(Forgive me if I belabor the obvious here. But it seems the distinction needs emphasizing.)
What 100 Trump supporters told the president of Y Combinator
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

This explains some of what you are describing
Thanks for the feedback. CloudFlare (which is a great service) is under the "Monthly Plans" for the CDN :)
Azure and GCE are great tools and I see many people complaining about the lack of them on DeployStack, but they are quite advanced options comparing to other services, so they don't really fit well in, let's say the 'Hosting' category (they have much more tools than just hosting, they could replace your whole tech stack). And I wanted DeployStack to be used as "choose your own tech stack" - if you need only hosting, those are the companies that are good and cheap with just hosting. If you already have a website but need to get some statistics - here are tools for uptime monitoring and here are some for analytics.
I will try to find a place for them in the next update to the website (maybe in a more advanced section).
Pretty much everyone uses heuristic filters to decide what's worth consideration and what isn't. If a lay person's opinion of a scientific theory is outside the scientific mainstream, it's probably bunk. What is the goal in trying to understand their perspective on this issue? I don't get offended when people refuse to listen to my alternative views on the late Roman Empire.
You must mean "some software projects" and not "frequently."

In the 2000's and prior, it was common knowledge that the majority of software projects failed. Even if they succeeded on paper and shipped, they weren't actually used. By some estimates, it was something like 75% of software projects.

If you look at the contents of "ecosystems" like Steam and the the various app stores, you'll see much the same. Most of the software out there is a defacto failure, and much of it is due to the ignorance of the programmers resulting in substandard programs.
Oh man, I don't like Trump at all but it's so hard to resist enjoying the schadenfreude. I think my favorite part is the "nothing to hide" people who are now afraid of the surveillance state but couldn't have cared less about it before.

I think the "science, truth, and reason" thing really resonates because it's been used to as a shortcut to presuming the "correctness" of anything vaguely left-wing in areas where things are anything but black and white.

It's true, for sure, that there are some places things are fairly black and white, like climate change. Or vaccination.

But in other areas... there's anything but a clear cut situation. Take immigration. The second Trump started to try and start arresting and deporting people my social media filled with memes asking things like "who's going to dig up potatoes for $0.45 per giant bucket filled now?" So... start deporting undocumented people and the "Left" will suddenly embrace the propriety of paying people unliveable wages citizens would never accept? Why would anybody think that we won't in the not distant future be collecting potatoes with robots?

Likewise, there seems to suddenly be this notion that pretty much anybody who shows up whenever for whatever reason should just be allowed in to stay and work in America... There's a very real conversation about how isolationist we can/should be, whether/how/what-degree we should be trying to export our human rights norms, what kinds of employment visas we should have, what their conditions should be, whether we should accept refugees, etc. I find the current refugee situation embarrassing, but at the same time I think there's been real refusal to take a holistic look at making a comprehensive and consistent policy, let alone a "scientific" or "reasoned" one. It's like one group of people started jumping off the right side of a building (nobody enters) so everyone else rushed to jump off the left (everybody enters).

I think lots of issues are like this.
Take at look at the tone of the comments that are disagreeing. They are dismissive and accusatory in their choice of expression.

It's not a choice you'd make if you're truly interested in hearing out and understanding the other person's perspective. The comments to me look like they're more interested in winning the debate.
Don't use face book don't watch tv don't listen to radio don't use the internet - there's your safe space right there

If the only way to remain objective about the populace is to remove one's self from public, that includes making a living off others. Those (other) people who are to become your cattle, your cash crop, your money tree. Then MarkZ has become the anti-theses of objectionable and to top it off I really don't follow his line of thought, except as far to see it's all about his little cash crop of humans.

And then the real fun begins for us
I think they should, because it's surprisingly easy to bias who becomes a felon. https://theintercept.com/2015/12/09/floridas-ex-felons-strug...
My argument would be: UBI could be so simple that it wouldn't allow for corruption.

A dollar amount shows up in your bank account every day. If it doesn't, that's a problem. The one debate should be whether the number should be moved up or down.

If there's exceptions (like criminals not getting it or something), then it's not UBI.
Haha I am amused at your assumption. I am not going to clarify the air too much, except saying that what you seem to be assuming is wrong :)
Unnecessary? I had a really bad experience with ancient skype version on modern Ubuntu desktop, and the fix for this was to set TZ environment variable to speedup first login/history fetch. Skype process was spending so much time doing useless work it was noticeable.
>he coalition on the right is full of cracks that could be exploited to split them up. Trump actually exploited one of those cracks to get himself the Republican nomination. When the left comes in to pour moral superiority all over people, it fills those cracks in like glue. People who would have otherwise split from Trump are sticking to him because the left is chopping at everything.

Your assumption is that Donald Trump forged some kind of political coalition. He didn't. The Republican Party votes in lockstep, by and large. What happened was that Hillary Clinton utterly failed to get people in key areas to the voting booth to get the numbers she needed.

The Donald fans can glue themselves together all they want, but it wasn't them who won anything. It was Democratic infighting that ceded it over to them. It's not the Republicans that need to get cracked, it's the Republicans who are pouring glue into the cracked up Democratic coalition.
Malcolm Gladwell rips into Stanford University's request for donations
Consider that as "much worse" from the perspective of those who see these topics as bad.

The people currently in power are more than happy to talk about murdering the families of terrorists and torturing suspects for information. If they were ever to express any resistance about discussing whether Islam is an inherently bad belief system, it would only be because they thought the answer was clearly "yes." When the whole national government is run by people like that, I can't understand this idea that topics such as you mention are somehow off-limits.
> you still see the majority of journalistic content provided by a small number of organizations

Do I? Or do I see major stories broken by a larger and larger number of small organizations?

I legitimately don't know. Both stories sound true to me. What makes you believe yours?
My /usr/share/dict/words does not have an anagram for "myth" in its 99171 words, which is already larger than almost everybody's vocabulary.
I believe the question is whether "news" is similar-enough in kind to "food" or "drugs" that it would make sense for the state to regulate it a bit, with the goal (like the "food" and "drugs" categories) of protecting people from their own mistakes.

In the "food" and "drug" cases, the state does this because large corporations have far more resources available to be applied to the goal of fooling people into consuming something that might be harmful to them, than people have available to figure out they were fooled.

The "news" case, though sometimes being similar to that, is also often very different: private individuals can be sources of news, news is often delivered without cost to the reader, and even news that is sourced from commercial institutions often reaches the majority of its readers through redistribution, without attribution, by private individuals (e.g. word of mouth; posting paraphrases on Facebook; etc.)

So, leaving alone whether the same principle could apply to "news" (or whether it's consistently trumped by free speech concerns, etc.), the implementation of such a policy would be quite different, perhaps different enough as to make it unfeasible. That is a complex question.
> This is different from what 60 year olds were doing with e-mail a decade ago in what way, exactly

volume, perhaps.

> Do you support fake news or do you support the construction of a censorship apparatus?

in one sense, there isn't really any difference.
I think it's naive to assume the "without violence" part
> I don't think we need to drag leftist / rightist belief into this topic. Fake news are concrete and they exist long before 2016 election.

Then why is everyone worrying about it only now?

> It used to be newspaper and TV are the source of truth for many, but now people rely on social media to get their news because there is no penalty for reporting on fake ad made up fakes.

Is there a sudden increase in such people in 2016? How many US users did fb add in 2016?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/247614/number-of-monthly...

It seems like facebook added 12 million users in 2016 to their base of 219 million users (in North America). Doesn't seem to be a game-changing increase in social media usage to me.

So, it looks like this is clearly a response to the left's allegation of "fake news" to certain tabloid-like websites like breitbart, in the wake of trump's win.

> First real fake news are totally made up.

I don't agree. Stuff like https://twitter.com/NubianAwakening/status/78773062551616716... is also "fake news". It is reporting about certain true events, but it is mixed with misleading opinions and lies.
The easiest answer I know is that it's a problem with selective (and unproductive) enforcement.

Lots of people immigrate illegally, and many of them stay at length, work hard, and build lives. The government pretty explicitly turns a blind eye to their presence. Then we change leaders, and suddenly responsible residents of 30 years are kicked out to a country they haven't lived in since childhood. Meanwhile, a great many other people in the same situation aren't.

It's a bit like my reaction to marijuana laws. I think the law isn't very good, but that's just grounds for reform. What I think is immoral is seriously punishing 1% of people violating an unimportant law instead of lightly punishing lots of them. It's about limited or variable enforcement of the law, which encourages people to play a lottery where a handful of players get their lives ruined.
And you captured a key point in my argument. "What IF this time is different?" That's the concern. It is naive to think that possibility doesn't exist. And if that possibility exists we should investigate and prepare for that possible future. That future doesn't happen, wasted some time preparing (but learned some stuff along the way). But if that future happens you smooth the transition.