skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm both.

I mean, I'd love to not be pro-illegal immigration, and if we significantly loosened our immigration laws (not to the point of genuine open borders, but to the point where a reasonable person had a path to permanent residency in the US without it being a lottery), then I'd be anti-illegal immigration. But with the status quo, I'm pro-illegal immigration.
Done kindly, this sort of thing isn't just funny but an insulator against actual silencing. (I can't speak to how the Stalin photo was meant, but it sure could be funny.)

If someone is outraged by your support for social programs and calls you a Stalinist, it's way harder to feel threatened when you're looking at a framed photo of Stalin your boss gave to you. Similarly libertarianism/Somalia or whatever other over-the-top pairing applies. It's part of why I tend to defend this sort of humor as not inherently wrong - when it's well-meant it helps ensure that people don't feel threatened or ostracized. The sting has been taken out of the attack, so there's more room to get along.
Okay, I'll bite.

I don't actually know what you're talking about. I haven't experienced either a gender or a racial war, or the promotion of it.

But I want to take this "personal". When have you, personally, been the victim of a gender / race war?

(My hunch is that you haven't, but that you see the promotion of one, because it sells.)

(Towards my points - the #1 difference is not the only difference, and there are dickheads everywhere)
The arrogance of your statement is shocking. Here are just a few counterpoints from a right wing perspective:

-Deny science: Like saying there is no biological differences between a man and a woman.
-Basic human rights: Like when applying for a job, that my skin color won't be taken into account? (i.e. race quotas)
-Lack compassion for people who come from less fortunate countries: Like how the left defends Islam, which murder gays, and executes woman for the gull of having been raped.
-If you feel you're entitled to things others are not: Like the right to have a political opinion, and being allow to keep my job.

How will you know that you're so clever, so morally superior, and more scientific minded, if you won't allow yourself to hear a different opinion? The country is divided right now, not because of the right, but because of this exact mentality.
"I'm willing to listen ${them}, as long as they don't question ${sacred_cow}" is a key aspect of the unwelcoming behavior described by the interviewee. To use your example, I'd wager that most global warming skeptics (especially the ones that you'll meet in SV) have a more developed and nuanced perspective than "global warming is fake". Sure, we don't have infinite time or patience to fully understand and empathize with each other, but even a cursory exploration should be able to put the caricature in your head to rest.
>> Substitute "Silicon Valley" for any major liberal enclaves, like universities and cities...However I feel like I get shouted down every time I merely bring up a contrarian view....

> Except that the contrarian views frequently turn out to be lies, and I can't spend all my time debating lies. Please suggest a contrarian view that's worth discussing.

You illustrated his point perfectly: you tried to shoot him down by equating "contrarian views" with "lies," without proof or even example; then turned around and demanded that he back up his assertions in a way you were unwilling to.
Okay, but with copy_if, you need an extra resize step at the end, which is annoying in C++ and that Ruby users currently have the luxury of avoiding. And this seems fundamental. The reason that copy_if can't call resize for you is that it assumes nothing about the underlying container; indeed there may not even be one. You say this is a good thing, and there are certainly advantages, but it doesn't seem to solve this problem, unless I'm missing something. Or maybe you're saying that the need to call resize is worth it, since you get a more general interface for the price?
This removes the last existing way (at least that I know of) to track a user between a reinstall of the app without using something like a user account.
The solutions. The solutions are not black and white. Believe it or not, some on the right actually agree with the left on many social issues, but the problem becomes how to realistically solve them. Fixing things costs money, and many on the right (or the rust belt who voted right this election) would rather try and fix their economic problems now then solve global warming which doesn't have a clear solution and might not even be possible as China and other large manufactung nations don't oblige by the same standards as we do (thus why in many Chinese cities people have a very hard time breathing).

Note that these aren't necessarily my views, but I live in the Midwest, I hear what a lot of classic Republicans are about and why people voted for Trump.
Deregulation has allowed strong players to capture more wealth. I think you have it all backwards.

Causation is not correlation, however, at the height of taxation and regulation, the middle class was the strongest ever. That has eroded since the '70's until today, with wages staying relatively flat.

So tell me why deregulation is better then? If things are worse now, and they obviously are in terms of wages. In the '60's a man could work at the factory and support a family of four. That is an absolute impossibility now.
> Right now the entire national government is run by people who have no trouble talking about these things, and much worse.

You seem to be implying that such questions are inherently immoral, and that's exactly the kind of sentiment that I challenged in my original comment. You can't demonize people for wanting to ask legitimate questions and have legitimate discussions.

There are difficult questions and there are bad questions. There IS a difference.

This question is bad: "Why do black people think their lives matter?"

This question is difficult, but not bad: "Is the Black Lives Matter movement doing good?"
That's clearly deemed wrong-think then. Clearly.

I say that tongue in cheek, but that's the point. Science has become a dogmatic pseudo-religion, not a method of inquiry and discovery. Human rights are those that align with radical preferences rather than principled ideals. And "lack of compassion for people who come from less fortunate countries" is a grotesquely glaring expression of the purely fatalist mentality that somehow America and Europe and even Australia, for that matter, somehow happened to fall into "fortune" by luck and not through Protestant work ethic that inspires to honor God through work and achievement and scientific investigation that shows reverence, respect, and closeness with God and his creation.

I know that sounds lame to may here, but reality is that the values and culture and society are the parameters that define the outcomes. There is no fortune that rewarded western culture of European origin, also referred to as "white" culture; while somehow other cultures and societies are penalized. No one is really preventing others from adopting similar values and practices and culture beyond the constant whining and fatalist excuses made based on far gone, irrelevant, perceived ills.

The Japanese adopted western ideals and values and it is precisely what propelled them to where they are. It is what the Chinese are doing, even though its through theft and fraud to get them where they are. It is not "fortune" that made the west what it is and such fatalist "others can only be successful by coming to western society" mentalities are actually quite racist as they essentially assume those others cannot achieve the same things.

Is Silicon Valley the result of being fortunate? Where is the concern with states that are less fortunate within the USA? There is a lot more here that I don't even think such people even themselves realize. It really quite noticeably reeks of self-loathing, self-interest, subversion, sabotage, and deceit.
I think everyone on this thread still arguing about what's right or wrong should really read this essay.

I especially found this part interesting:

> The most intriguing thing about this theory, if it's right, is that it explains not merely which kinds of discussions to avoid, but how to have better ideas. If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible. [2]

Last couple of years I see people come up with all kinds of buzzwords--VR, AR, Bots, "Voice is the future", Drones, AI, etc.--and turn it into their identity. "I'm working on bots", "I'm working on deep learning", etc. I doubt any successful company will come out of these people because these mere concepts have already become their identity and they are unable to accept ideas adjacent to what they're trying to build.
> We are unwelcoming to people who are factually wrong.

I'm amazed to see a comment like this on HN of all places.

What's "fact" today can be false tomorrow.

History is full of ample proof.
The joke is that you do the same thing you are criticizing so you're just trolling us? Like "ha ha you thought I was serious"?
When Russia invaded Finland in the second world war all they got was a bloody nose.
A lot of it depends on your approach. I'm one of the brashest people around, and even I have gotten into constructive (and instructive to me) conversations about thorny topics with people, with one simple approach: don't be an asshole.

I haven't been ostracized, I haven't been "silenced" or "oppressed". I have had my ass handed to me about uninformed opinions I held, though. And that hurts your pride, but eventually makes you a better person.
SBaaS will be extinct by the time the PaaS (Profit as a Service) offerings hit the market.
Any specific ideas?

I'd make several assumptions:

1) It's possible for humans to act like Nazis
2) It's possible for a democratic state to gradually become not only a host to Nazis, but become a host that's run by Nazis
3) At an early stage, many people can't distinguish between Nazis as a positive or benign force and Nazis as, well, Nazis.

So, perhaps I could use some tips. What would acting like Nazis look like?
Wearable Fitness Devices Don't Seem to Make You Fit
I think there is another option you might have missed.
Good job on Sam for opening up his world a bit and letting us share the newfound knowledge of "how the other half lives". I'm eagerly awaiting the next few installments:

What I heard from 100 poor people
What I heard from 100 women
What I heard from 100 gay people
What I heard from 100 black people
What I heard from 100 immigrants
What I heard from 100 Native Americans
What I heard from 100 chronically ill people
What I heard from 100 former felons
Just like "Black Lives Matter" doesn't mean "Only Black Lives Matter" their statement doesn't mean those are the only extremely important topics that need discussion.
The only fair solution: The leader of a group should be selected by random. The probability that the least competent will be selected is then inverse proportional to the size of the group.
>Republicans were almost on board but it never got over the hump for whatever reason.

The "whatever reason" you're grasping at is the latent racism of the Republican base. As much as you want to believe the focus is on "illegal" immigration the Republican base understands this as a coded dog whistle for not liking Brown people.

It's not about a marketplace of ideas, it's about signaling which tribe you align with. The marketplace of ideas happens in the policy world, not the political world.
This has worked quite well for me. I tend to ask one of two types of algorithm questions:

1. Pick a simple but relatively obscure data structure, something they are unlikely to have crammed the night before. I always start by asking the candidate if they are familiar with it; the answer is almost universally "no". I then pull out a wikipedia printout and a notepad, and spend 10 minutes explaining it to them, with diagrams. Once they are sure they have understood the basic operations, I ask them to implement one of these basic operation we just walked through. The amount of code here should be ~10 lines; keep on adding simplifying assumptions until it is.

2. Pick a fundamental data structure from a high-level language runtime, something you would use without thinking: python lists, javascript objects, that kind of thing. I emphasise that familiarity with said language is not required, and list some real-world properties and performance characteristics (access speed, iteration, ordering, mutation), as well as common and less-common use cases. I then ask the candidate how they think it is implemented under the hood (i.e., if you wanted these semantics in a language that didn't natively provide them, how would you do it?) I often don't have a full answer myself, so we brainstorm the requirements and implementations together; no code, just open-ended discussion. The best candidates have often emailed me afterwards, having looked up an actual open-source implementation.
They've taken a lot of liberties with the "Daily" in "Anagram Daily." Fifteen days between today's anagram and the last one!

Plus one that is marked easy: MYTH. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I cannot think of an anagram for MYTH.
I think the issue with saying tribal competition is based on our biology, is that all our basic precepts concerning thinking are rooted in our biology.

We can no more escape our tribalism, than we can escape our desire for love and human comfort.
I drive Foothill Expressway in Silicon Valley to work everyday.

One of the weirdest things I noticed this election cycle was the near absence of Hillary bumper stickers. The lack of Trump ones, I understood. But when Obama ran, there were Obama bumper stickers everywhere...

But today, I notice perhaps one car a week with an H sticker.
Who runs the automation for UBI? With Artificial General Intelligence a person needs to run it.

Put another way, A self driving car can put 10 taxi drivers out of work, but it cannot manage a monetary fund. Neither can the mechanic who fixes the car.
See this comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13698252) by lmkg for an explanation of why Levenshtein distance isn't good.
OK, so then which of the following is true? It's important to separate a (justifiable or not) ad hominem attack from a stance on the strategic options available to the US.

a) Flynn acts completely in his own, corrupt interest

b) Considering a strategy of engaging with Russia, reducing sanctions, etc., is unreasonable.

c) a and b
You're proving my point that UBI will become a deeply political and partisan issue, and not only won't just be for everyone, but also will have people endlessly quarreling about who should get it.

Carrot and stick approach doesn't work when it comes to people. Vicious/virtuous cycles are a much better model of human behavior than homeostasis. As another poster said, you'll increase recidivism. It also undermines the "justice" aspect, since even after you got your punishment, you're still not considered a first-class citizen. That's unjust.

UBI would only really work if it was inscribed in the Constitution, and deeply culturally held as something that must remain universal. Otherwise, say hi to more social instability. And what about whistleblowers? Government shouldn't have the power to discriminate when giving out UBI.
I agree on the "about 7 years too late". But you're leaving out an important new development that is making .Net relevant again, namely that the three major cloud computing companies are supporting C# for their "serverless" cloud computing.
Conservative talk radio, and other similar media, have spent decades vilifying her. According to them, she has helped her husband prey on women, has had people killed to cover up crimes, is trying to push for a takeover of the US by the United Nations, and much, much more.

Not much of this is connected to reality, but that just doesn't matter.
Yep this. We have this "lets be friends" piece from Altman which seems to be a hamfisted way to address a rift in SV, instead of the sobering reflection of what a Trump win means for actual US citizens.

This thread is nothing but making strawmen out of liberals. I'm liberal and I do none of these things mentioned. Its incredible to me that the Trump win has left him as a being we are not allowed to criticize because "he won, drool lib-tards" and now we're being attacked because we dared support the science behind climate change, rights for the lgbq community, the benefits of globalization, immigration, equality for women, women's right to choose, women's rights to birth control, non-discrimination based on race or religion, a strong NATO, a strong EU partnership, environmental protections, and not conceding our role in the global community to blood-thirsty autocrats like Putin and Assad.

Lastly, Trump lost the popular vote by 3m votes and only a month in has a 39% approval rating and is mired in a dozen scandals that would have left a Democratic POTUS on the road to impeachment. So the idea that Trump represents anything but the typical GOP lockstep vote is ridiculous. The Electoral College works against the popular vote. There was no mandate or popular movement. If there was we'd see more votes and a vastly higher approval rating. In other words, just because Hilary was a weak candidate does not mean Trump was a strong one.

So somehow, to guys like Altman, I'm the extremist and out of touch? Come on. Lets stop putting feels over reals to make deep pocketed conservative SV financiers like Peter Thiel happy.
What's happening now has roots in his strategy in Congress in the 90s.
I believe Cycles (the Blender renderer) only relies on CUDA [1], so it should work. Depending on which AMD card you had on your Mac, it sounds like it might not be supported by Cycles. Because the NVIDIA K80 doesn't do Display though, you'd need to run say vnc or run Cycles from the command line.

[1] https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/dev/render/cycles/gpu_ren...
UPS tests drone deliveries in Florida with eye to cost cuts
I've had pretty good experiences with recruiters who talk to me about the job or department they are hiring for. I've enjoyed the process but maybe I've been lucky.
WTF !
The assumption with the study you mentioned only works when those included in the study are a random sample of the population, expected to be representative. I'd argue that people who vote aren't a random sample and not representative of the population. In other words, when people don't like either candidate, they are more likely to stay home. Therefore, a percentage of the population that voted for a candidate could potentially be an interesting measure. Just pulled together some numbers by dividing the winner's popular vote by the total US population in that year, and was actually surprised at Trump's showing. He's at the median of all presidents since 1960. Not sure what meaning could be extracted from it, though, as there are many factors that would affect turnout.

Trump 16 - 19.5%

Obama 12 - 20.9%

Obama 08 - 22.8%

Bush 04 - 21.2%

Bush 00 - 17.9%

Clinton 96 - 16.9%

Clinton 92 - 17.5%

Bush 88 - 19.6%

Reagan 84 - 23.1%

Reagan 80 - 19.3%

Carter 76 - 18.7%

Nixon 72 - 22.3%

Nixon 68 - 15.8%

Johnson 64 - 22.3%

Kennedy 60 - 18.9%

Sources:

http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
Is there a functional difference between "my production code suddenly stopped processing work because it rejected a newly nullable input value" vs "my production code suddenly stopped processing work because it crashed on a newly nullable input value"?
Your "belief" is not based on evidence.

Full stop.

Name any dead, famous scientist. They upended the scientific conventional wisdom and accepted truth.

If you could do that, you'd be in the history books.

You can't.

It's like arguing with he time cube guy, but not about what he is gonna publish next Tuesday, but the future of the human race in the balance.

Do you get now why it is infuriating?
Who: The A Hiring Method http://www.whothebook.com/ by Geoff Smart (son of Brad Smart of Topgrading fame)
Great example of supply chain risks and attacker's with a flexible approach here.

Why bother compromising a large number of hardened bank/government networks when you can backdoor a software update server that delivers code directly to the desktops of privileged users in those companies...

It's a tricky problem to solve to. Automatic updates are very good for reducing the number of people running outdated & vulnerable code, but centralized software update servers become tempting targets for attackers.
This is different from what 60 year olds were doing with e-mail a decade ago in what way, exactly? As someone who grew up around AM radio and gun show culture, the sudden pearl-clutching is amusing, but also disturbing since it's so coordinated and with clear political motivations.

The question is this: Do you support fake news or do you support the construction of a censorship apparatus? For me, there is a very easy answer.
Interserver Webhosting and VPS – Renaissance
Why should people be marginalized for their political opinions?
1. Why do they hate her?

2. Do they consider him not racist/sexist because they are a little bit too? (Not trying to be inflammatory)

3. I hate it too.

4b. Why are they hurting? Why is median household income so low?
Which explains the medias eagerness to not report immigrant crimes in your country and Germany.
I do the same. I have found that both conservatives and liberals get angry. But by far, the harshest are liberals, in my experience.
"Shouting" ... I don't know, people disagree, ask questions. Seems all quite civil to me. If that's shouting I fail to see what a discussion looks like.
Can you at least see how that kind of thing isn't conducive to a useful discussion, but is really just a way to stop someone from saying things you don't want to hear?
True, but how arbitrary are probability distributions for topics like homeopathy, 9/11 Truth, Young earth creationism?

Spend a few hours investigating "facts" and arguments on all sides and smell where the bullshit is.
If you want to see some cognitive gear grinding and confusion, if you run into anyone that believes that vaccinations should be mandated by law, ask them "if it's my body, isn't it my choice?"
1. I thought it was funny too. But they also legitimately believed and expressed that anyone who believed in social welfare was a communist.

2. They took the frame back.

3. They did. I was working at the store as an hourly employee. The customers were generally middle to upper middle class.
Most can get on board with recognizing the difference between someone who just recently came illegally who might have a criminal record versus someone who is law abiding, has been here for many years, and potentially who has legal family members here. The worry here is the current administration's policy does not distinguish between these two and the goal isn't so much about safety, but is to report high numbers of deportations at all cost.
You need an actual majority in order for there to be a silent majority. The correct phrase would be "vocal minority, concentrated in a few specific geographic areas engineered to have more power over the electoral process" which is nearly the opposite of a silent majority.
It's because they are "prominent" liberal people, that's what they are known for.

Not the case for average Joe.
There's no general way to answer that.
In other words if your "ideas" are "alternative facts", don't act shocked if others disagree with you, even shout you down.
Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wrote an interesting piece on this topic.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-pro...