skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Take it. I worked in a job like that, the emergencies are few & far in-between. When there is one, there are probably multiple people on the team that can handle it.

My group used to have a list to sign up for going out on sea trials. I never got high enough on it to go. If you don't want to go, I doubt you would have to.
Do you mean to tell me you've honestly never felt held back by the poor range and lack of fluidity to your human expression?
Statistical events tend to be lumpy. If you've ever experienced firsthand the act of winning a reasonable amount of money gambling, you'll realize the draw is more than trying to just beat the system.
The only way is to communicate to politicians in their own language - money.

Put the money toward campaign contributions to outbid the competition. Apparently they are relatively cheap and you only need a majority consisting of the cheapest ones.

Here is the apparent price list for the congress people involved:
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-...
Stripe and YC W17
Ad hominem much? Try doing your own research rather than casting aspersions. Mutant fish turning up in the Pacific. Japanese fishermen unable to catch fish. Deleting that food source has very strong repercussions for the survival of the human race, let alone a highly radioactive payload that is god knows where and likely in the water table.
Fake title. Actual title: "How the Republicans Sold Your Privacy to Internet Providers"
Have you met the Trivago guy?
Optenum to enrich the database of arguments:

https://github.com/mattboyer/optenum
There has been a lot of fuss about those concessions in the past, I really wonder to what extent the poorer EU countries that had no say in this when those concessions were given would be willing to give the UK something they themselves had to give up to join. That might not go over well and there are a lot of those countries now. That's a dangerous game of roulette.
This Swedish ad perfectly skewers the hype surrounding self-driving cars
That's not the only cost of fossil fuel power plants. Coal plants kill huge numbers of people. The coal industry pumps huge quantities of uranium dust into the atmosphere alongside fly ash.

The biggest externality of coal in particular is not carbon emissions but the massive health costs and human suffering.

If fossil fuels were subjected to the same safety requirements as nuclear in terms of preventing public health effects, the cost would increase substantially.
Time is funny in Ruby
Dancing with Go’s Mutexes
It's mostly about the language and acquired culture. If they spoke the same language, a Portuguese and a Latvian will find that they get along extremely well.

Hell, I'd say language is the only barrier for those open minded who can learn about new cultural phenomenons and think before deciding whether they like/approve/hate/reject it...
Nature is the random process.
There have been other attempts to bring awareness to this problem. Here is a half funny, half sad version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhpUJRGrZgc&ab_channel=Cereb...

I like the approach of sharing some data / statistics; but it would be nice if we could combine the two. The saturated humor when combined with the real information might make more of an impact.
> Britain organised a full blown referendum for Scotland after Scots voted a separatist party into their own local Parliament ... a referendum the nationalists then lost.

A major (and perhaps decisive) point in the remain campaign in that referendum was the (quite correct) point that Scotland leaving the UK would face significant risks in remaining in the EU, since other EU members with potential breakaway regions would see that as potentially encouraging their own breakaways.

Had it been known that staying in the UK would guarantee Scotland would be taken out of the EU and not even be in a position to try to negotiate admission, the independence referendum might well have gone the other way.
There are people like Richard Lindzen, who even extends his gadflyism to smoking and lung cancer (and as somebody who sees the DNA damage in whole genome sequencing of lung cancers from smokers, boy is he ever stupidly wrong there.)

Then there are the gadflys that are not in climate research that, when they actually do some science, realize that the field is on the right track:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

I'm not sure how much these people have done to help the field become more rigorous. But then I'm not in it so I can't judge personally.
I'm surprised there aren't fifty million examples "on campuses" of this.

1. robotics & business club goes to school for permission

2. find local businesses to deliver items for to dorms.

3. ...?
Obviously this scheme is just political pandering. They want to create an organization whose sole purpose is to assault the legitimacy of factual science for political purposes, and put it inside the government under the guise of "scientific rigor".

But it made me consider: we are facing a serious crisis of replication in psychology. Medical studies are very unreliable. Economics is quite truly a voodoo science; state the conclusion that best lines your pockets and you can find a scientist who says it's just good economic sense and anyone who disagrees is "ignorant of economics". Climate change is based on science but because of the denial there's this air of a faith-based test whenever it's discussed (oh, you're one of THEM?). All of science, since it's a human activity, tends towards an echo chamber. Conservatives don't become social psychologists, lo and behold all social psychology research is blatantly pointed towards reaffirming liberal world views. Communists don't become economists, so economics has become the clergy of unrepentant neoliberalism. Plenty of people aren't particularly concerned about the environment for its own sake, but none of them become climate scientists. This is partially because of initial ideological attraction, but it's largely because these fields require conformity. Being a detractor is difficult: undergraduate lectures are you being lectured about things you fundamentally disagree with which are often not scientific. Every person in your classes and your professor all agree in lockstep about these fundamental concerns except you. When you advance, it's hard to get respect or publications. No matter how rigorous, trying to get a paper published against a tide that strong is impossible. You're ostracized, minimized -- that's even if you get that far, which most don't. They pick a different topic of study where they feel more comfortable.

At the end of the day, that's a problem. I think a red team is a great idea in science, if that means people can get grant money and publications and respect for verifying and testing experiments, conducting them again, reproducing them, re-checking the work of others in an adversarial fashion, challenging premises.

But you should NOT have anyone be a dedicated red-teamer. That's politicizing the whole process and giving credence where none is due. They should be selected at random from the scientific body and required to advocate against the consensus as best they can for the period of a grant, the way lawyers do pro bono work as a public service, then go back to their regular research.
The Most Powerful Single Click in Your Facebook Privacy Settings
So far the number of nuclear plant incidents has been pretty minor especially considering how many nuclear plants are in operation.

Meanwhile how many people have died in propane bottling plant explosions? In coal mining? In off-shore drilling incidents?

It's not perfectly safe, not even close, but it's statistically one of the least dangerous power generation methods.
You are comparing apples and oranges though. NATO is a purely military alliance. It has no control over the non-military affairs of member states, and little or no effect on the day-to-day lives of member states' citizens. The EU, on the other hand, acts very much like a central government for its members and exerts a lot of pressure on them to make them comply with its policies. That's why I compared it to empires.
> The author has rightly pointed out that regulating your way to your goal is not a solution. He is advocating for a free market solution which is much more robust then one that hinges on the right people being in power for all eternity.

Then the author should go all out and suggest that the federal government completely deregulate all the spectrum from, say, 500 MHz to 1 GHz. We'll have lots of wireless providers, and none of them will work well because they'll all interfere with each other.

There's a variant that might work, though: force the licensees to operate on a wholesale basis only. No Internet, no voice, no SMS, no phone number, no streaming NFL games, purely connectivity to a wholesale backend provider that can provide whatever services they like using whatever peering, transit, CDN, etc relationships they want.

As a practical matter, it would probably work better to let the spectrum licensees provide voice and SMS, just because the protocols are so absurdly complicated that it might be very hard to get it to work wholesale.

(As an aside, public utility regulators could do the same thing for wired services. Let one provider supply every property in an area with a 10Gbps point-to-point fiber link to a nearby datacenter. Anyone else can lease space in the data center and cross-connect to residents' fibers.)
What competition in the ISP space?
I feel like my definition of MVP is different. When did MVP become "marketing landing page and mocks"?

I'm not discounting the strategy. I think getting the idea in front of eyeballs to see if it is worthwhile is great. I'd even recommend it. I just don't think it is an MVP. You don't have a viable product yet if customers can't buy it.

I'm just curious if this definition is common.

My definition is: a product that has the minimum set of features implemented possible in order for people to be able to use it.
It can be Orwellian, institutions are often self-serving and unreflective. But it isn't always.

I know of a public housing complex that took large numbers of homeless people and had a death rate far over 10% per year despite the fact that every resident had a place to be and an income. If you know people aren't mentally well and are climbing tall bridges by themselves, do you wait 'till they fall off and die? In one case from that building, it turned out the answer (from the government) was "yes."

Part of the problem may well be that high death rates are their own reward, for governments.
You seem very conscious of the situation.

I hope you have left already to get double the salary elsewhere. That's always the right thing to do.

Use startups as a stepping stone when you couldn't do better. Waiting 2 years is rather long.
Personally, I absolutely would refuse a job in US or Canada because it requires a visa. And there's a bit of a difference between requiring a visa on entry, and suddenly requiring a visa from someone who is fully settled in a country and didn't need a visa previously, don't you think?
Is It on AWS? Domain Identification Using AWS Lambda
>Similar payment models doesn't mean you're competing.

It inevitably invites comparison though.

>We did not observe as many free edition conversions to paid as we would of hoped with C2.

I can understand that, and I wouldn't mind it at all if C3 was also a one-time purchase like C2 (if that was still the case I'd be buying C3 in a heartbeat), but I definitely think it's the wrong way forward with the change in the payment model. I have a bunch of small C2 projects from over the years I've used the program, and I can go back and edit them with C2 even today. However, if I got a C3 subscription for a year and upgraded my projects to C3, then a year later when my subscription ran out my projects would suddenly become essentially read-only due to the free edition limitations, and this whole thing of effectively locking me off from my own projects just completely kills my interest in the current free/paid model of C3. (I'm not actually sure how Unity handles this same scenario, but seeing how the free version still offers the fully-featured engine and how the tiers differ, I'd expect the story to be much better there.)

>Worth mentioning is that we're planning on selling C3 for ~$99 USD per year, if you want all the Gamemaker export options you'll spend > $1,000. I feel in comparison to that, our pricing is still competitive.

While that's true for Game Maker Studio 2, you also have to consider that both Clickteam Fusion and Game Maker Studio 1 have shown up in several Humble Bundles for practically pennies at this point. I actually own both CF2.5 and GM:S along with the most important exporters available for them (Desktop/iOS/Android/HTML5) and I only paid $15 for each (and I bought both because I wanted to see how they stack up against C2 today, which cost more than both combined). From usability and performance standpoints I don't see GMS2 being that big of an upgrade, so sticking with GMS1 would certainly be a viable option for anyone interested in it as an alternative.

>And, as you put it, we are wiping the floor with the competition so we feel reasonably comfortable at this stage experimenting with a different pricing model.

Well, sadly as much as I like Construct as a 2D game IDE, it pretty much kills the program for me and also makes it way harder to recommend to other people as well, which is something I've done a lot with C2 over the years (I got a lot of people at my uni to use it and know several people who ended up buying personal licenses as well).

Personally I think you could expand the free version and make the paid version more expensive. If I ever get around to doing commercial products with Construct, I certainly wouldn't mind paying more than $99 a year for a paid version, even if it was just to get rid of splash screens. You could also take cues from how Unity differentiates the tiers in other regards, like with the cloud build queue priorities and multiplayer support etc (if you're using Scirra-provided infrastructure).
You're not welcome to post like this on Hacker News, and we ban accounts that continue.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Ember.js' future, with Tom Dale [video]
1) you do understand that "unelected" doesn't mean "no vote was held". For example in the us system the supreme Court justices and the president's cabinet are referred to as "unelected" although they are held to confirmation votes in the us legislative assembly.

2) it doesn't strike you that this convoluted process with several confusing and in some cases similarly named governing organizations is itself the problem? It gives enough of a shade of the franchise to call itself "democratic" while insulating itself from the consequences through technicality and obfuscation of responsibility
The github page says "more simple and fast". Can't find any benchmarks.
You're making it sound like reproductive coercion is a one sided systemic attack by women against men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_coercion

>Around 10% of U.S. men reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or stopped them from using birth control. Around 9% of U.S. women reported having an intimate partner who tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to or refused to use a condom.
Ok, but the commenter said that people are making the meaning.
A large part of hydro actually is storage rather than production though. It's most valuable as a stabiliser for the electricity network.
I'm tempted by this answer, too - but the death rates amongst those who are mentally ill but untreated can be pretty spectacular.
Can you link to where he says climate scientists are delusional?

I've only recently looked at his blog, but what I've seen him say on the topic has been this-

1. He doesn't have the training to evaluate climate science, so he gives climate scientists the benefit of the doubt in that climate change is happening and is driven by humans.

2. However, his personal experience with complex models is that they're never very good at predicting the future, and so he doesn't trust that complex climate models are either.

3. Climate scientists suck at using persuasive techniques to win people over to their beliefs. This seems to be his main thing as he is attempting to brand himself as a guru of persuasion.
I've found Comcast to be fairly responsive when I inform the agent I'm speaking to that I will be filing a complaint with the FCC. Always ask for the name of your agent when mentioning this, for additional motivation.
Yeah, no shit, that's the whole point of a strong economic union.
> Which ignores that some regulation is needed to keep a level playing field.

Think about the original purpose of the FCC. Some regulation is required to make the services work at all. With a completely deregulated system, your microwave would disrupt cell-phone service for blocks. Your computer power supply might do the same thing. And Verizon phones would probably intentionally interfere with AT&T phones.

Low-frequency spectrum is a public resource, full stop.
That comparison is based on properly functioning nuclear power plants and coal. I daresay when you throw in the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, the balance shifts dramatically in the opposite direction. Also, the radiation from nuclear disasters is highly concentrated, while that from coal is distributed at far lower concentrations.
Do you have magical pixies to transport the nuclear material there that can ensure it won't be stolen in transit? Can you create a secure facility in one of the most hostile climates in the world? If not, that will never work.
You read your own link?
There is not much art there which the computer is doing.
For what it's worth, my place is not a farm and not particularly beautiful, but I do have a pasture and keep chickens.

On to my real response: my "exception" invalidates your argument wrt whether or not animals should be raised for consumption and have their lives cut short, which you said was an "obvious answer."

I think most people agree that it's okay, so long as the animal is allowed to have a normal, fulfilling existence.

We love our chickens and take no pleasure in butchering them, but I feel certain they are happy to get a shot at life, even if for some of them that life is only a year or two.

I've had a minute now to think about your "obvious answer" from up-thread. I had a lot of fun by the time I was 6 years old. Experienced a lot of love, caught a lot of fish, explored a big world, rode my bike on dirt roads. I knew where "deer road" was, I knew how to sneak up on the bridge there and spy on the turtles. A couple of those years just might have been my best. I don't think I can agree with you.

Anyway, if we pose the question as "is it okay to raise animals for consumption? animals that wouldn't have had a life otherwise?", I think the answer is something like "Yes, if we treat them well."

So the answer isn't (necessarily) to become a vegan. A perfectly viable option is to source your meat differently.
OJESY - Female-Only Taxis in Indonesia
Moving away from fossil is very hard. Essentially we have two power sources available to us - Sun and nuclear. We are not very good at capturing sun energy directly, and doing it on massive scale requires both huge investment and global size actions that would have very serious consequences on global scale - from trivial cases like dams changing the terrains to more subtle like massive wind/solar installs changing wind/reflection/heat patterns and thus influencing the climate. I don't think we have any good data on how that would work on the scales needed to replace fossil fuels. With fossil fuels we essentially are using solar energy accumulated for millions of years. Very long term there's an obvious problem there, but on shorter term if we want to make do with only solar energy that is incoming right now, we need to become drastically more efficient in capturing it, and I don't think current technologies are there yet, and that we know how to deal with it on scales required to cover all present energy needs.
Oh my God, that is low.

And quite frankly, for a of people, they're probably right. Especially because people don't understand what they are giving up, because it somehow has to do with "computers" and are therefore different from real life.

If, however you were to explain to a person, that this would be the same as his landlord knowing every single step he took in his home, when he took that step, what he was listening to when he took the step, who he was taking the step with, exactly how he looked when he took the step and use it to shoe advertising, he would cry foul and he would understand that this was not a small thing.
It seems like a in the case of var args, the args should always be an array, since the meat of most var args based functions is iterating over that array.
Silicon Valley: Season 4 Trailer (HBO)
Even if it did lower the price of the service, those advertisements aren't going to be purchased unless there's profit in it, and there isn't going to be profit in it unless they convince the people exposed to it to spend money on stupid crap.

Those poor people will pay one way or another. Given the indirectness and inefficiency involved in the advertising approach, I wager they'll pay more that way. And it'll be less fair: people with less willpower will pay more.

Advertising makes sense when direct payment is impractical. Broadcast TV is the classic example. It's really hard to charge money for it, so ads let you indirectly collect money from your viewers. On the internet, paywalls are practical technologically, but tend to add too much friction, so we get ads instead. But there's no reason for it here.
Unlikely. Sperms die rather quickly in plain air (read: not inside a vagina). Even in a vagina, they die quickly if the cervical mucus isn't perfect (because of the acidic pH environment of the vagina) – and it's only perfect a few days before/on ovulation day.
No matter what you're replying to, personal attacks like this are not OK on HN.
He won because of the broken electoral college system which gives us tyranny of the minority.
I like Vivaldi well enough. The features I use most are tab stacking, page tiling, and full-page screenshots.
> That problem is so very far from solved, and it's a massive problem.

I thought the problem was solved:

1. Dig hole.

2. Put it in hole.

3. Guard hole.
My Right Hand
I didn't say pollution and privacy were identical, or even similar. My whole point was that the fact that the author's argument would apply to almost any type of regulation is proof that it's over-broad.
There's no PowerShell support. That's not any command.

http://explainshell.com/explain?cmd=Get-ChildItem
The red team idea makes great sense in espionage or epidemiology, where you have an actively antagonistic opponent whose causal vectors are obscure. I'm all for brainstorming, lateral thinking, and the prioritization of imagination - when other methods are failing.

Notice how all the (supposed) cleverness in these proposals is directed towards refuting the consensus about the causal mechanisms of climate change. Not a word about novel approaches to mitigation or adaptation.

Also, has anyone noticed how the people who fuss most loudly about being intellectually pure scientists and alleging the existence of a conspiracy among climatologists are perfectly comfortable with sweeping predictions based on astonishingly rudimentary models where economics are concerned.
George Orwell’s Letter on Why He Wrote ‘1984’
That struck me as odd too. I know roughly how much one of those rifles weighs but I would imagine that the vast majority of the people reading this have never held one.
Earth?
Our team present to you: 1080p streaming on Twitch
Unsubstantive comments like this take us straight into partisan flamewars, so please don't post them.
Must. not. search on eBay.