skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I really don't see how being that assertive is compatible with intellectual humility, short of actively lying. There will come a time where people expect you to state something firmly, and you will have to either say "the evidence isn't definitive" or be dishonest.

Edit: of course you can often be assertive about some things while being intellectually humble. But what I mean to say is that the level of assurance that is expected of a CEO is not compatible with that humility.
That depends on your definition of rational. Clearly, it's not the greatest risk, not even remotely close to that. But there are a lot of interesting cognitive biases at play here, and some of those exist for a reason.

For instance: it doesn't actually matter which risk is greatest; it's rational to fear that which is most avoidable. After all, that's where your attention is best spent. And similarly, we're social creatures and benefit from that hugely: and it's rational to spend attention not just on risks that you personally can avoid, but on those you can avoid with your community. And it's rational to spend extra attention to avoid in particular those risks which are exploitable by competitors: i.e. violence. After all, those risks (unlike "natural" risks) have a tendency to snowball. And then of course you have the fact that this kind of extreme violence poses risks to the community at large by undermining the trust a community needs to exist in the first place.

Humanity may well be one of the most peaceful of comparable species (in terms of probability of serious injury by others of the same species), but part of that may plausibly be precisely because we're particularly sensitive to violent abuse. Is that irrational if it grants such huge benefits? If it is, is any empathy rational?

In any case; I don't think the analysis can be quite as simple as risks ranked by probability of dying.

At minimum, pointing out irrationality doesn't necessarily help much to alleviate the fear.
Long live www.
I don't think this is about weed. It's about a structure that's set up with all the wrong incentives. Police departments get to seize assets related to drug offenses with no due process. Departments are being flooded with money to buy military resources, with the provision that they use them within the year. And once they have the resources there's a whole industry of ex-military businesses designed to train departments in SWAT-like techniques.

When your local police department trains on equipment meant for executing urban warfare, is it any wonder that the wars come to our cities?
But why is that bad?
The primary system selects the most popular candidate for the given party. Not for the population as a whole. So dem candidate will be "too" left and rep candidate will be "too" right.

Of course this doesn't explain why this election was different from any other. I guess increasing polarization between left and right, makes it more of a problem in practice than usually.
Frankly if one look at a 70s mainframe one have all the parts there, only running on transistors and tubes.

"All" we have really done is shrink said transistors, and the boards holding them, down to something that can fit on a fingernail.

Thing is that most of the people that are into computers these days don't know it, unless they dig into history. Because the mainframe world was so insular that microcomputers virtually started from a blank slate.

Most of the "cloud" stuff people are going gaga over right now could be done on a 80s mainframe.

Computing has been coasting on Moore's law for some 3+ decades.
Indeed, very cool. Plus, John Baez commented:

> Another way to think about the Planck length is that if you try to measure the position of an object to within in accuracy of the Planck length, it takes approximately enough energy to create a black hole whose Schwarzschild radius is… the Planck length!

That sounds familiar, here.
I'm afraid I've learned about them mostly by tinkering - the tool I use is: https://github.com/sarahtattersall/PIPE

I believe "Dining Philosophers" is the usual problem used to introduce the need and concept of Petri-Nets - googled for some examples I found:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/15671-f97/www/le...

Also here's the link to the PNML source used for tic-tac-toe: https://github.com/bitwrap/bitwrap-io/blob/master/bitwrap_io...
It's anecdotal. However, it should not be hard to test it out with 10 non-tech friends. I also don't recall having my credit card on file on any website that uses naked domain. That's pure correlation. Which goes on to show how valid any hard evidence on this issue would be.

Performing your own little user study is the best way to take a stance, I believe.
While Weber over-stated his case, he has definitely not been "debunked". Check out _Causes and Consequences of the Protestant Reformation_ by Becker et al[0], it's a survey of the literature and contains a lot of empirical evidence in support of the Weberian view of the Reformation.

[0] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d680/a29a28682b933d75e35d5a...
Now thats edging towards the gray goo scenario.
> If they don't suffer the consequences of buying a useless degree, why wouldn't they keep doing it?

Degrees aren't like, say, sodas or toilet paper rolls, a frequently repeated purchase, in any case.
In what sense do you think that you can trust it know?
No longer applies with c++17
> If you want to be able to receive email on your domain, you’ll need to set MX records at the apex domain. With a CNAME, no other records can be set.

> Want to validate your domain for webmaster tools? Or for the DNS validation required for some domain validated SSL certificates? Now you have to add a TXT record to the apex domain. If you already have a CNAME, again, that’s not allowed.

It’s actually worse than that. All domains have, for technical DNS reasons, both a SOA record and at least one NS record in them at the “apex” domain. This would conflict with an apex CNAME record. Therefore, you can’t have a CNAME on an apex domain, even if it would otherwise be empty.

(There is a technical, and very theoretical, way around this limitation: The administrators of the top-level .com domain could, for example, add a CNAME record directly into the top-level domain zone. This would be valid, technically, but good luck convincing the various parties involved to do this.)
Seems like a great opportunity to use video capture from all employees' GG cameras in order to train their robot replacements.
For emacs users, you can get a similar thing with iimage-mode and eshell. Kind of cool to have "$ cat SomeImage.png" do what I would expect and put it in the terminal.
It's a fair theory but this election seems to go against it.

Trump was not too right for the right. The establishment of the RNC was against him because he looked and had liberal ideas in many aspects.

Being politically incorrect may make him look "more extreme right" to the left but there's no evidence that he is (When compared, for example, with another important primary candidate like Ted Cruz).
Surely this very system (HN) shed a tear somewhere between brackets as well.
It is a very funny and fascinating book, the kind you get stuck on it and can't let go.

From the start until the IPO, Nike was constantly on the verge of bankruptcy. It is a fascinating story with lots of backstabbing, desperate moves, improvisation and insanity. It is a company created by, pretty much, manic obsession.

The only defect of this book is that it finishes, you keep wanting more when you're over.
Chuck Berry has died
What Is Bitcoin
You're just another censoring gatekeeper.
Government overreach happens constantly. Just ask the people who recently had biometric eye scans for domestic air flights.
The CIA uses board games to train officers
do you want to get rich or do you want to switch jobs? What's your question exactly?
Given what you say - what's the point of this website? After all, a safe client should connect to green things (but might not support everything, fine), and... should also connect to many red things (if they're actually safe).

What's the point?
How Not to redact a PDF – Military radar secrets spilled
That's because the UK government wants to replace as many manual process by the web and make a load of people redundant
iOS doesn't have UI to delete networks unless they're currently in range (except a big "Reset Network Settings" button). The only workaround I know of is to sync your networks with iCloud Keychain and use a computer to delete them.
You're eventually going to run into trouble attempting to use md5 at a government website. FIPS 140-2 (and soon 140-3) is a standard that stops the use of that particular piece of crufty, broken cryptography.
Think of a room full of assertive people. They hold their beliefs strongly but they /argue/. In a productive way. That way everything comes out on the table, so a decision can be made with everyone being heard, and even though your view may not be the final decision you get a better outcome.
The software installed on my computer doesn't understand your new record type, so if you want me to see your site, you're going to have to wait until I upgrade it.
Good Memory is a skill, not a trait
Maybe nature is secretly violating our privacy ..
_When_ you're buying a license, you're not "buying said SW", and you will have to abide by the rules of the license.

(As to the _When_, that can a point for contention, given that consumer software marketing material typically doesn't explicitly mention the license)
Probably being hosted by its hard drive.
Show HN: Map plot of JCPenny store closings
Meet the Artist Using Ritual Magic to Trap Self-Driving Cars
I have used AWS at a couple work places and I personally use Google App Engine. My sites on App Engine have less than 5 minutes of downtime per year as measured by Pingdom. Deploys to App Engine take a few seconds (though it can depend on your app).

You can choose to run your DB servers on top of generic compute instances in Azure or any other cloud provider. You aren't stuck using their database services.

> The claimed machine you get on cloud aren't anything like as performant as supposedly similar machines on dedicated.

This is true, I don't think anyone will dispute that.
That happens with emails. The future is here!

There was one time I booked a flight. A few days before departure, that particular flight had an accident (Asiana 214 at SFO): I need to check if my flight will still depart as scheduled, so I dig my mailbox and the reservation confirmation email I received months ago(!) now says "Your flight is canceled." Apparently emails can be retroactively rewritten, WTF.
Although the color-coding is odd; red doesn't mean insecure or even "dubious", even though it does sometimes... So using the site even for testing TLS clients seems a little non-obvious.

At least if the idea was that your client should accept green and reject red connections, the site has definitely failed.

If the idea was just to let you see what happens, then why the color coding?
come to Portland, we'll ride around, and I'll buy you a beer. I think you'll change your mind
Yes, I agree with you about FF7, and although I have more interesting things to say, I don't think I can discuss this any further, sorry.
I like starting with Swagger as the design tool for a new API, but I haven't done any generation directly. I implement as defined and let the json get generated by reflection to serve as documentation.
Maybe I just have the wrong idea, but I'm pretty sure the whole USP of Heroku is easy deployments without having to worry about Dev Ops and infrastructure. If you want to use AWS directly, that's great... but that's not the customer they're targeting.
I believe you misread, I did not say it wasn't possible, in fact I explicitly allowed that is possible.

The claim is that in general they are forces at odds and in most of those situations in takes more energy to project confidence or assertiveness.

However I am glad you were able to be strong for your aunt.
How to Draw Kanye Using Captain Picard’s Face
A bit late to reply, but I had to think of your post while spending some hours idly staring at at the top of an airliner wing today. Slats (and non-flat airfoils in general, I suspect) are there to allow a harder angle of attack ("amount of pointing up relative to the direction of movement") without stalling.

You can push the air hard on the underside, but on the top side, you have to gently accelerate the flow downwards, or else it forms vortices and you suddenly lose a significant fraction of the amount of air you would otherwise deflect downwards.
>The answer would be rigor. A huge problem with sociology is the dependence on the story. Unfortunately, since the sociologist is often a human with their own biases, they are going to see what they want to see.

This is the exact problem, yet it is hard to get someone in the social sciences to admit it in my experience. For instance, I am a computer science student, and I'm currently taking a political science class as part of my university requirements. A recent exam question was worded in multiple choice format, to the effect that the professor was seeking an exact specific answer to a completely subjective question, such as "What is the most important issue facing China as it's population continues to grow?". It's completely absurd, and you end up with an exam full of questions with one "correct" answer, and a bunch of nonsensical gibberish for the other options.

This lack of imprecision drives me absolutely mad. I understand that social sciences are inherently dealing with subject matter that is harder to quantify than, say, computer science. But the issue is when one asserts that scientific conclusions can be made about these subjects when no formal system of reasoning exists. To quote from a recent article I read,

"Until we have a deep understanding of the brain, we can't shape falsifiable, general theories about it, and mind studies cannot provide a reliable understanding of the brain. In short, no theory, no falsifiability, no science."

http://arachnoid.com/psychology_and_alchemy/

In short, if social scientists simply accepted that their fields do not fit the traditional rigors of science, it would do much to alleviate the issue. Studying these things can still provide valuable, actionable insight.
But to treat it on par with the natural sciences is fraudulent.
After having a quick look at the site, my understanding is that you don't approach Google directly for this, you either approach a Glass Certified Partner to do the work or you become one yourself. There are no apparent links for becoming a Glass Certified Partner though, so my guess is you simply can't right now.
Things like this are why I will never trust any computer with privacy.

There are processors and memory systems everywhere. There are so many entry points for snoop attacks which can be completely invisible unless you know exactly what to look for.

If your freakin' hard drive can be running linux or a web server then how can you ever trust anything?
I used to think the same as you, but you should know that your just changing the medium, using your hands instead of your mouth. The language still evolves with its culture and its users on a local level. They tried to make a universal sign language which is based on American Sign Language, but after traveling in different continents I can tell you that people using sign language, use the local version, and I don't think I met anyone who knows the universal one.

Personally I think using English as a linga franca is good enough, as most people already know it, and so there is no reason to do difficult about it.

It's not the first time people try to invent a new universal language, and see it never reach that goal.
You can have P(your position | information available) = 1 all you want but in practice that's a useless proposition, nearing a tautology. In practice you (should) know that you don't know everything and must take that into account. As Rumsfeld famously stated, you should even know there are things you don't know you don't know.
An assertive person could easily say, firmly and with confidence, that "I don't have an opinion on this topic, because the evidence isn't definitive." If you can't do that, then there is something in your scenario that's incompatible with intellectual honesty, but it's not assertiveness -- more likely, it's a feeling of needing to satisfy the expectations of others that you will have an opinion. That feeling is like antimatter for intellectual honesty, but it's totally different from assertiveness.
Apparently it's shocking enough that people would choose to pay $600 to live in a closet rather than spend $500 of it moving a couple hundred kilometers away and have a lower rent and more than a closet...
What is your definition of rich?
Justin Bieber Impersonator Accused of 900 Child Sex Crimes
>At minimum, pointing out irrationality doesn't necessarily help much to alleviate the fear.

The only way to get over an emotional fear is to recognize that the emotional fear is at odds with reality. This is ignoring psychological fears of which there may be nothing you can do. For psychological fears I am referring to very specific phobias that may or may not be the result of a traumatic experience.

People scared of clowns usually had a bad experience as a child. My uncle swapped my Barney VHS with Stephen King's IT. For a long time I was scared of clowns. But it just isn't rational for me to be scared of clowns and I eventually got over that phobia.

Some people are terrified of the color yellow. There's no rhyme or reason - they just are. I'm sure there are various treatments ("exposure" seems to be a common one, similar to PTSD treatments) but some people will just have to live with their phobias playing a large and disruptive part of their lives.

Being so terrified of police, terrorists, people throwing pennies off of buildings, etc. are simply things I cannot empathize with. If I was worried about every freak accident in life I'd never leave my house (but what if a meteorite struck my house? [0])

[0] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130220-russi...
I did not say it wasn't possible, in fact I explicitly allowed that is possible.

The claim is that in general they are forces at odds and in most of those situations in takes more energy to project confidence or assertiveness.

I think I would otherwise mostly agree with your post, that it is a skill that can be improved with practice, and to different degrees in different people.
> Even in the US you can find far cheaper than Palo Alto...

Even in urban/suburban Northern California, for that matter.
> The Obama administration + Congress did that.

Irrelevant. The quote I provided is from the current administrator of the EPA who was appointed by Trump.
What a moving piece. Yes, schools should teach sign language. How can I read this and disagree?

Now I can see a future where everybody understands and speaks sign. Deafness is a disability but it need not be so disablin. I will begin learning today.

I was particularly brought to tears by the image of a leader, the truest kind, addressing the deaf "How could I ever expect to lead you if I cannot speak your language? How could you ever look to me when you can't speak to me?", with disgrace at the idea of not knowing sign. We need, I think, more public leaders like this.
Google Glass is nothing compared to real AR like Microsoft Hololens. And for Enterprise solutions, 2k for these glasses vs 3k for a hololens Dev kit is nothing.
> I find it hard to believe that we won't have a way to capture radiation in the future

The problem is the energy density. Nuclear reactions are soooo much more energetic than chemical that it's ridiculous.

"Capturing" a gamma ray is really hard. Beta particles are "easier", but you still have to handle a LOT of them.

And cracking the nucleus apart is what you were doing in the first place generating energy from it. The best bet is to use reactor technology that actually burns up the waste almost completely rather than leaving 95% of it intact.

The problem is that the superpowers like their reactors that can give Plutonium. Until the a country decides it wants power rather than weapons and designs a reactor for that, we're going to continue all this political dancing.
History of Deep Learning
Young people everywhere think they know everything. A big part of the thing we know as "wisdom" is acquiring enough experience and metacognitive skills to realize how little one knows, and to act accordingly.
Reasons to use www:

* Cookies for the root domain get sent to all subdomains, so a subdomain for static content still gets flooded with cookies, slowing down requests. Now subdomains will get cookies you may not want them getting, complicating site design. You can end up sending dozens of kilobytes of cookies with each request due to the www-less cookies. The way around this is buying whole new domain names just for static content, and then duplicating SSL and all the other requirements for this new domain. Or hoping RFC 2965/6265 won't break anything using your site.

* There is a security boost by the same-origin not allowing a subdomain to hijack cookies for the root domain ("forums.foobar.com" could be made to set a cookie that "foobar.com" interprets, which can be used to hijack user sessions; this would not happen on www). This problem affected Github and they had to implement complicated workarounds.

* It is easier and more flexible to configure a round robin of frontend hosts with a CNAME (on www) than by A records on the root domain. If your cloud hosting provider's IP changes, they can change their hostname records without needing to modify your DNS records - less work for you and them. And if you think a single static anycast address could never have a routing problem, think again.

* Google will (or did in the past) ding you for duplicate content. The same content on foobar.com/ and www.foobar.com/ will appear as duplicate. Providing the content only on www separates it from other content and makes it easier to search subdomain-specific content. (This won't happen if one of them is 301 redirected to the other, however)

Reasons not to use www:

* "It looks cleaner."

People, you can 301 redirect your www-less site to www, gain all the advantages of using www, and the only "hassle" will be in how the address bar looks.
Can you tell me which `red` is not insecure? (or not obsolete)
Which apps do you use that make such heavy use of the function keys that makes any such difference significant? I'm not sure I'm aware of anything I use on a daily basis that uses the function keys. I use them so rarely, I usually forget that I need to press the fn key first to actually use them, and then I always have to hunt for the fn key; its placement by the home/end keys on my keyboard isn't exactly conducive to frequent use.
The post you're responding to was talking about the markup language used for Flex, which was MXML, not E4X.
> At my Web site, also a user never has to try to guess what an icon does -- there are no icons. Civilizations had lots of icons, and eventually we got the Roman alphabet which I believe is a huge step forward. So, for links I just use words in the Roman alphabet.

I mean, an alphabet is a huge step forward over freeform pictures, but the Roman alphabet offers basically nothing over its immediate ancestor the Greek alphabet except being a little better suited to ancient Latin.
Do you operate your own CDN?

If not, then basically on any CDN you need to trust them with the SSL certificates unless you serve your content over HTTP.

Unless you don't use a CDN at all!
> Google Glass is nothing compared to real AR like Microsoft Hololens

You can't wear Microsoft Hololens outside of your office, far from your desktop.

Also I'm saying that, but it's a bit silly to entertain this discussion as they are two completely unrelated products. Mircosoft Hololens is AR as in Augmented Reality while Glass is a UI floating on your face.
So many names and buzzwords and they couldn't even get 90% on MNIST. Quantum computers may help in the future, but it seems like they are not yet practical for deep learning.