skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Let me amend to say "...only a tiny percentage of people have income the government doesn't already know about."

Surely most of that capital gains stuff is stock and bond sales.
A LoveLY DAY
NSA Breached Money-Transfer System in Middle East and Latin America
Seems ridiculous, though, to use Samsung phones as an excuse to specifically ban Segways, but the not do the same for every other piece of consumer electronics that contains a rechargeable lithium battery.

I think what was really going on there was a combination of confirmation bias and groupthink - everyone settled on a convenient, if specious, excuse, and at that point none of the United staff really cared if it made any sense, because they didn't want to have to stop and think about wtf they were doing.
Interesting. Is this C++ anyone could do, or were they wanting maths and physics qualifications?

That salary doesn't sound far fetched for a contract though.
Tesla has such a head start on car production, I don't see how Apple can catch up.
Does anyone seriously think those scandals have hurt revenue?
No, it started in Feb 2017.
If you're not too familiar with the story, Where Wizards Stay Up Late is a good history of the beginning of the internet. https://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832...
I've heard people say: "don't say that managers don't know how to code; they'll be offended."

But it seems quite obvious that you disagree.
I just picked up a MATLAB book that was lying within arms reach, and here's what I observed:

The first few uses of the term MATLAB, on the cover, just inside the front cover, etc., all had the (R) symbol tacked on. On the copyright/notices page, there was a blurb saying "MATLAB is a registered trademark of Mathworks, Inc."

There wasn't anything like "...used with permission" like you see sometimes, and the rest of the references to MATLAB sprinkled throughout the text did not have the (R) symbol.

I also picked up a Swift book, and saw a similar pattern. The "Swift" on the cover and just inside the cover had the (tm) symbol tagged on. A page or two inside the cover was a page that just said:

TRADEMARKS

... iOS, Swift, Objective-C, Cocoa, blah, blah, blah are
registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc.

Again, nothing about permission.

Not sure how much you can infer from that, but I think the rule may be something like "you can use a trademark in this fashion, as long as you acknowledge it and don't mis-represent your relationship with the trademark".

IANAL of course, and if you're serious about writing a book, you might want to consult an IP attorney... or just call up Mathworks or Dyalog or whoever and say "Hey, I'm planning to write a book about your product, are you cool with that?" Best case, they say "Sure, go ahead" and you can rest easy.
Amazon already has non Chase cards available: https://www.amazon.com/iss/credit/storecardmember
I don't think it will get that out of hand. There is huge popular support for ad blocking, and many of the general public would show force on this.
I have a run of the mill Amex and definitely just use it for the perks. If my Visa card offered 6% on groceries I would use that too...
JSON-array support, fractional seconds in strptime/strftime, and other features
I have to say, a company has to try really hard to somehow come out worse than the TSA in a customer dissatisfaction story.

The customer does research online and contacts both United and the TSA to get pre-approval of bringing the device onboard.

At the airport, the TSA allowed it through their checkpoint. But he gets stopped at the gate because his itinerary actually reads: "passenger was advised he would NOT be allowed to board with device, and the device will not have to be checked, provided he can place device in overhead without crew assistance. Transferred passenger to TSA for clearance of device through security." As the author noted, one could read the itinerary note and work through the logic to recognize that it was likely a typo.

Now, I can understand the gate agent being somewhat skeptical. After all, he deals with dozens of cases each day and doesn't have all the context of every situation so he probably falls back on past decisions to deny approval. So the author gets United's Special Needs Services on the phone to reaffirm that the device was fine and that he should be let on. The gate agent delegates to the manager. Again, without full context, the manager simply assumes the item can't be brought on despite what was mentioned by Special Needs Services.

So in hopes of getting the answer he wanted, the manager contacts the TSA, and the TSA representative says device is perfectly fine. At this point, anyone could think to themselves, "okay those are two authorities who give the green light. I think that's perfectly fine."

But no! The manager then elevates it to the authority of the pilot, who acts all polite in person but then eventually communicates that he won't allow the device onboard. Manager gets the verdict he desires and the author is screwed.

First of, I would imagine that a special needs representative is far more adept at know which electronic devices would be safe onboard a vehicle than a pilot who is probably unlikely to know about every single new assistive device out there. But even if that were not 100% true, I think getting approval from the first two sources should've been good enough.

Secondly, life is already really hard for those with physical disabilities. Especially when traveling, where there's a lot of stress on top of the unpredictabilities of the environment. So to be humiliated and endure additional physical pain for spurious reasons is quite inhumane, even for an airline.

Third, before the topic gets onto the economics of airlines (as it always gets to when it comes to customer experiences), I'd like to underline that the manager literally had to go out of his way to find a reason to deny the special needs of this individual. This isn't a case where the manager had to make a quick decision and had go with previous experiences, this is a person who disregarded explicit approvals from other agencies in order to validate their own belief.
Otto the Strange
I believe that distinction still goes to University of Chicago.
I don't buy this because among my friends, all sorts of boys did technical stuff or had technical interests. In elementary school the only kids that checked out books on machines or science stuff from the library were boys. And this was starting in 2nd grade, the books were about construction equipment or feats of bridge building. It was in at least two cases, me and one friend, obviously self-generated interest. Also in 2nd grade, we had a teacher who was a bit crazy and decided to turn the classroom into a set of autodidactic learning paths that students could take on their own volition, with little oversight. I remember one kid being super-excited about getting through the math stuff and learning exponents. Of course it was a boy. Many of the girls spent the time writing acrostics about each other.

Though I had a similar theory at one point that math ability was affected by how much you thought about math before puberty. The relative abilities of my classmates went through a reshuffling in that period.
Reminds this Yudkowsky's quote from a good article:

"Graham's number is far beyond my ability to grasp. I can describe it, but I cannot properly appreciate it. (Perhaps Graham can appreciate it, having written a mathematical proof that uses it.) This number is far larger than most people's conception of infinity. I know that it was larger than mine. ... "

http://www.mrob.com/pub/math/largenum-4.html#superclass
HN strips trailing periods from URLs; add a period at the end, or click the Search link at the page the above links to, to see the case. The raw opinion is here: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/0...

It's a very interesting finding. The appeals court actually did reverse parts of the decision, including the hard-drive-to-RAM argument, ending up in favor of MDY for many of the claims!

But the devil is in the details. Even though MDY wasn't found to be infringing copyright by breaking the covenants of the license agreement against botting (simply copying static code to RAM was not considered sufficient "reproduction" to be infringement)... it was found to violate the DMCA because it was circumventing Blizzard's Warden framework designed to protect access to dynamic server-side materials. MDY therefore had the lower court's "permanent injunction" against doing so upheld.

So if you were to create an ad-blocker detector that detected all current ad-blockers, and required that detector to digitally sign a request for dynamic content, but then someone circumvented that detection by subsequently creating an ad blocker that wasn't detected, would it fall under this precedent and violate the DMCA?

And there's also fuzziness around whether MDY was tortiously interfering ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference ) with Blizzard's contracts with its subscribers. In this case, it wasn't, because MDY arguably was behaving as a good steward here. For instance, the opinion cites how MDY "enhances some players' experience of the game, including players who might not otherwise play WoW at all." One could see an argument that an ad blocker would encourage more visitors... but if there's no other revenue source other than ads, does the pendulum swing in the opposite direction in favor of the content creator?

Very difficult to tell. Just because Adblock Plus avoided a lawsuit in Germany, and (as the research paper from the OP http://randomwalker.info/publications/ad-blocking-framework-... points out) most ad embeddings today are "trivial" overlays that wouldn't be considered DRM per the DMCA, that doesn't mean that advertisers won't evolve another piece of ammunition in this war.

(I am not a lawyer; the above is not legal advice.)
This is the YouTube link for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk

I haven't watched this yet, but I'm surprised there was another interview after the previous interview Lunduke had with RMS on the Linux Action Show did not go over well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA

Essentially, Lunduke was still mostly an Apple developer at the time and got in an argument after RMS said he should just go work in a factory or in the woods and Lunduke said that he needed to feed his family.
Ask HN: What is the point of https://News.YCombinator.com/s.gif
Is it just me, or was that black bar at the top of HN not there before?
The Centurion Lounge places Amex's lounge benefits on a whole other level.
The type system proves things about my program that must be true and disallows invalid programs. The undefined behavior system decides things about my program that may or may not be true and just breaks my program when one of us is wrong (and I don't even care who: whether it is the compiler that came up with something insane or me trying to do the impossible <- I honestly don't care).
Sad news.

My favorite Bob Taylor story is about the "class 1" versus "class 2" disagreement. Not sure which is which, but in the preferred case, the two parties are able to state each other's position to the other's satisfaction. One of his tricks as a manager was to help the parties get to that state.

This is either from Rheingold's Tools for Thought or Doug Smith's book.

update: kind of but not exactly like this great scene from Horace & Pete https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iRM1iN-3a4
That's what I have now. Windows 10 is OK-ish, but I miss macOS a lot. My plan is to buy a very strong iMac for my home office, and keep my Dell XPS 13 laptop with Windows 10 for when I am mobile.
It doesn't say anything about sales of Amazon devices. And I would take the initial volumes of Chromecasts with a big grain of salt. The iPhone is outsold by Android phones... it's not exactly an unsuccessful product.
Kicking someone off was the right decision if it meant another flight was cancelled/delayed.

United didn't do anything criminal by asking him to leave. This is in fact the opinion of the article were supposedly discussing.

>To be clear, the fact that United seems to have breached its contract with Dao doesn’t mean its action was illegal, as the headline of this otherwise helpful article by a nonlawyer on a frequent traveler website suggests. There’s nothing illegal about breaching a contract. If you do so, you simply have to pay damages. Dao’s lawyer, Thomas Demetrio, said Thursday that he is investigating possible claims against United.

>And once United in effect told Dao that it was breaching its contract with him and told him to get off, he was probably under a legal duty to comply.

He should have left and contested the charges as a civil case.
I am sorry, but I do not get the reference? What does it point to?
In the 1970s at Xerox PARC, regularly scheduled arguments were routine. The company that gave birth to the personal computer staged formal discussions designed to train their people on how to fight properly over ideas and not egos. PARC held weekly meetings they called "Dealer" (from a popular book of the time titled Beat the Dealer). Before each meeting, one person, known as "the dealer," was selected as the speaker. The speaker would present his idea and then try to defend it against a room of engineers and scientists determined to prove him wrong. Such debates helped improve products under development and sometimes resulted in wholly new ideas for future pursuit. The facilitators of the Dealer meetings were careful to make sure that only intellectual criticism of the merit of an idea received attention and consideration. Those in the audience or at the podium were never allowed to personally criticize their colleagues or bring their colleagues' character or personality into play. Bob Taylor, a former manager at PARC, said of their meetings, "If someone tried to push their personality rather than their argument, they'd find that it wouldn't work." Inside these debates, Taylor taught his people the difference between what he called Class 1 disagreements, in which neither party understood the other party's true position, and Class 2 disagreements, in which each side could articulate the other's stance. Class 1 disagreements were always discouraged, but Class 2 disagreements were allowed, as they often resulted in a higher quality of ideas. Taylor's model removed the personal friction from debates and taught individuals to use conflict as a means to find common, often higher, ground.

The Myths of Creativity, David Burkus
nice one--i wasn't aware of most of these.

also, i remember amex had exclusive deals with a few ultra high end retailers, Nieman Marcus, for one, and those are out--eg, so up until about 10 years ago, that was the only credit card accepted at NM.
I think you are wrong.
The reality is that It is an order of magnitude more efficient and safe to take the shotgun approach. We can stay here and try and push the half-life of our civilization out with ever decreasing returns or we can send out a _lot_ of bad attempts to colonize asteroids, moons, and planets and see much stronger gains to our species' half-live via redundancy.

A decent metaphor is that trying to make 1 system more reliable quickly becomes less cost effective than making a network that increases reliability via redundancy. While we have all of our life on one planet all our failures are essentially total. Have life on many planets limits the impact of catastrophic failures/random accidents.
The board can change the bylaws, issue new shares to get a majority of each class, wash out founders with a forward and reverse split. Preferred shares have all kinds of rights not given to founders. 50.1% of shares outstanding means nothing by itself.
Show HN: Scrolling as Design
Reusability take on React vs. Binding.scala
GAAP doesn't have to include stock based compensation as a normal expense. If you throw in the fact that Uber compensates at 50% in stock this is probably a shell game.
I check everyday, hoping that I can order one! Still no luck.
I think i get what he is saying. I see code as a kind of human expression. it would be like a machine compiling itself. the machine did not make the thing, it did what a human told it to do. so a human saying draw me a cat would not be making art, only the original code and the beautiful ideas inside would be the art. art and programming share a kind of knowledge called techne. as opposed to epistme like history and such. hence why traditional artists and programmers are both so concerned with craftsmanship.
Xcode and Safari are dealbreakers if you're a mobile developer or developing for the modern web. (Sorry guys, Safari is the mobile web, and it's mac-only.)

Other than that, I would be happy (likely happier) on linux vs. OSX or MacOS or whatever. I do not game, and living on the same basic bones as my servers is a win.
Here's what probably amounts to a dumb question why couldn't we just have an AI act like a real person and click on some of the ads that it deemed 'safe' and in a separate sandbox type browser instance? This would reduce the negative effects of adblockers on content publishers.
I recently finished writing my master's thesis on "the impact of self-admitted technical debt on software quality" [2], we use the same approach this article advocates to identify this type of technical debt, which we call "self-admitted technical debt" (SATD) [1].

We examined the impact of SATD on software quality for forty open-source projects. To measure this, we took into account three criteria commonly associated with quality: (i) on the file level, the relationship between defects and SATD; (ii) on the change level, the potential of SATD to introduce future defects and (iii) the complexity SATD changes impose on the system. The results of our study indicate that: (i) SATD and defects exhibit no correlation at the file level, (ii) SATD changes make the system more susceptible to future defects than non-SATD changes do and (iii) SATD changes are more difficult to perform on the system. [2] (an abbreviated version [3])

There are more patterns to identify technical debt than "TODO, FIXME or XXX". You can find the rest of the patterns here [1].

It is very interesting to see developers confessing their workarounds and hacks through source code comments, as it can alert later contributors to the technical debt induced.

References:

[1] http://das.encs.concordia.ca/uploads/2016/01/Potdar_ICSME201...

[2] https://www.scribd.com/document/345197805/Sultan-Wehaibi-mas...

[3] http://das.encs.concordia.ca/uploads/2016/01/Wehaibi_SANER20...
Don't buy that this is undetectable - browser sends a lot of signals, including position of the mouse and interactions with content, so it's not a big stretch to say that it would be possible to detect interactions or lack thereof in the area that is supposed to be the ad and determine that it's likely blocked. Once detected, publishers are free to not let you consume content via paywalls or simply letting site break.

It's also not going to be able to be effective against stitched video, especially if the player playlist doesn't let you skip around easily - at best you'd end up with blank screen for the duration of the ad. Sound is another problem.

We need better solutions for advertising, not yet another escalation in blocking that will lead to even more intrusive/annoying behaviors. (Much louder sound from stitched mid-rolls than the content anyone?)
Wikileaks is extremely pro-American, at least if your definition of American is civil liberties and not CIA.
That was awesome too. The comments are great as well.
At least we have each other.

Honestly, I am completely baffled that people who write software think self-driving cars are just around the corner. At this point I think it's basically a futurist cult.
I have both the Amex Platinum and Chase Sapphire Reserve. If I could only justify one annual fee, I'd keep the Platinum. The Centurion Lounges are second to none in the US and Amex's end-to-end ownership of its purchase/return/travel protection benefits is too good to give up.

I recently attempted to file a return protection claim with my Sapphire Reserve for a display cable that turned out to be faulty. I tried the Visa Infinite site, but Visa as an organization doesn't recognize the United States as a Visa Infinite country yet so I couldn't find anything relevant there.

Then I recalled eclaimsline, which was the site I used a while ago when I had the Sapphire Preferred. It asked for my first/last name and credit card number, and then did not show me the option to file a 'return protection' claim -- just purchase and travel protection.

After that, I went on Chase's website and dug through their documentation and eventually found cardbenefitservices.com, where I was prompted to create a new account and then verify my card number again. Upon filing a claim, I was asked to upload my purchase receipt and credit card statement proving the charge had hit my account. I waited one week and received an email in my spam folder that asked me to mail the item at my own expense to Visa before my claim could finish processing -- mind you, this is for a $20 display cable.

My experience with Amex would have been a three-step online form containing a very small number of fields followed by an immediate credit within 48 hours.
Auckland is definitely more multicultural, but in my experience as an ex-wellingtonian it's more divided. Wellington's size and geography tends to force people together, whereas Auckland keeps them apart.
http://www.stefankrause.net/js-frameworks-benchmark5/webdriv...

Performance perhaps slightly lower than React though.
> The naivety on HN is staggering sometimes.

This is pretty arrogant given that you're trying to prognosticate something that historically isn't predictable, the financial outcome of a company.

What you neglect to acknowledge in your post is that the there is a lot of signaling from Travis about his ethics being questionable, existing investors want to get their money out so there's no assurances they're being ethical, it's not impossible that Uber will come out as playing Enron accounting games.
A mentally unstable person decided to go on a police car and start yelling at the police. While up there, she broke the rear windows too. What did the police do? Did they shoot her? Did they taze her? Did they beat her? No. They waited. They waited till she came down from the top of the car at which point they restrained her.

Those police officers deserve praise for defusing the situation without escalating it. And at the same time, it also shows that yes, police can find ways to control situations without resorting to extreme violence. Even in this case on the airplane, I could easily imagine a competent officer saying to United, "is there any way you could convince someone else to give up their seat? Maybe offer more money?"
1. I imagine they'd be more or less the same thing. Any mandated/deliberate backdoor is probably going to look very similar to an accidental bug - it lets you deny it exists, gives a valid explanation for if/when it is found, and potentially lets an NSA/software company "double-employee" add it without the company knowing.

2. It'd probably be a method of last resort, so the NSA et al. would gather and use zero days anyway. Any use of the backdoor risks it being noticed, so using other entry points make sense if possible.

A less comforting interpretation would be that relying on zero days suggests they are confident in their ongoing ability to find them and/or have a sizeable cache of unknown exploits already, so adding a deliberate backdoor wouldn't provide any additional access.
Oops... misread. It is from 2017.
They were built by the CIA in the 70's/80's... Pretty misleading title.
In Brazil, I've only found a few places that don't take American Express. Even places that don't show the logo, or they don't know if they do/do not, have accepted it. I did find a few places that only took local cards or foreign debit cards, but not many.
'Mental Canvas' – 3D Drawing and Illustration Tool by Yale CS/Arch Professor