skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Why not both? How about a combination tunnel-taxi solution, or a sled to carry bicyclists?

To be successful, this will have to adapt to a variety of cars and could carry other car-like things. It could be pretty modular system.
Very high. The disruption caused delayed countless operations, ambulances and GP visits. People will have missed vital medical assistance as a result, and that could easily be fatal.
Guaranteed Minimum What?
I've liked Elm.
This exact same comment could have been written 5 or 10 years ago about all sorts of anti-gay legislation that would be openly mocked today. Forcing people to use bathrooms that do not align with their gender is offensive, inhuman, and is in no way "sensible", by any definition of that word.

These types of legislation are nothing more than overt pandering to a certain type of paranoid, conservative person. It has no measurable (or even imaginary) positive material effect and meanwhile exposes people to further dehumanization, abuse, and paranoia.

Much as you might not like to admit it, there's actually zero cost to you to respect other people and let them expel waste from their body in a bathroom that aligns with their gender. And save me the "comfortableness" in the bathroom argument -- any trans person I know would risk far more chance of discomfort and violence by using a bathroom that matches their gender assigned at birth.

Once again, anti-trans criticism from someone who likely knows no trans people and probably has never met someone who was trans. Too bad that you have such strong, misinformed opinions about something that simply doesn't affect you.

(And a huge thank you to everyone who was willing to be cited in that article or are willing to talk about this issue publicly... and inevitably deal with such fear and hate from some people)
Yep. They wanted to keep the lie of democracy alive because it makes the proles feel empowered.
The new school frameworks' purpose is pretty much entirely orthogonal to that of jQuery's, although their features do overlap, which is I think why people mistakenly say what you just said so often.

Angular, Ember, etc. are frameworks for coding routing, components, state, etc. Barely any of this was the concern of jQuery, which the main purpose of jQuery was to provide a lingua franca for interacting with browsers that were inconsistent in their implementation of javascript.
Ok, if I used a switch for the IP side then I would only need to put a web server on the SSD board? would that be right?
Then take the financing and pay off the loan a month later. At least in this state, there's no penalty for doing so.
Treble: A modular base for Android
The comment that ate itself. You are aware of views in all majority Muslim cultures or just feel like you know how all Muslims think?
> It is disconcerting to me how the cultural element of free speech seems to be missing from the UC Berkeley and similar college populations.

The UC Berkeley controversy is a bad example. It is a manufactured controversy with the intent to paint all colleges as being unwelcome to conservative viewpoints. How receptive would Liberty University be to Planned Parenthood giving a speech to the students? It is a false equivalence and it is another example of manufacturing outrage by shining a light on deep cultural differences.
You're right. "Correct" is the wrong word. It just seems best to be as specific as possible in political conversations.

The point I wanted to stress was the "liberal" piece—the constitutional protection against mob rule.
It's the consequences of those that you're liable for.

You have rights; you are responsible for the consequences of exercising them.
>>> wouldn't it be more practical to put a train down there?

Because speaking from someone that Uber's 10 times a week, rode busses all throughout college, I gotta say, I really really like car ownership.

There's no smells.
There's no weird homeless people.
I don't have to wait 45 minutes for the next bus to show up.
I don't have to schedule a ride to go to the grocery store.
The same vehicle takes me from the city to the rural areas.
The driver doesn't cancel on you if you're destination is not far enough away. (Uber)
I don't experience surge fees. (Uber)
I don't have to cross 3 different types of transportation to get from point A to B.
Says the person who's probably never been on the receiving end of hate speech.
Are there statistics on before/after this law was implemented? It seems that kidnapping would become massively underreported as a result.
> Honestly, things like being racist to someone on the street shouldn't be allowed in any country

Going to point out that your language is ambiguous. What does "being racist" actually mean in the context of what you think should be disallowed?

It's an important question, because odds are very good that if you think through a real example of what you think ought to be criminal, there's a good chance there's already some other law that's already being broken, such as harassment. Of course, one consequence of this is that the censorious types have been diluting the term "harassment" to mean "anything anyone says that makes me feel uncomfortable." (Twitter is rife with this ridiculousness). But I digress. The fact is, harassment laws exist to protect people against the abuse of speech in public places, and there's no need for any particular special groups to have protection.

Here's some sample language:

He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/
I work with a lot of these 'business critical processes' done in Excel. Too often that information is squirrelled away on some 'business critical spreadsheet' and not shared properly in the organisation.

There was also a time when typing pools were totally essential, we don't defend typing pools and insist on having them now though.
I don't think it fair to say that inflationary models aren't empirically testable. It would be more accurate to say that inflationary models cannot be subjected to experiemental manipulation. It is not my field, but it seems to be of the sort where the model gives you an idea what you might see, then you go see if you find what you predicted.
Here's an idea; four arrows moving right, towards a line. The line has a hole in it, only allowing one of the arrows to pass through. Demonstrates filtering and doesn't have any accidental significance from symmetry.
Given how the most sought-after car today literally receives driving instructions through an OTA update, I've got a feeling we've all collectively decided we're ok with the dangers this brings, even if we didn't actually take part in that discussion :-/
I would be interesting in finding a medical doctor's or a biologist's perspective on this. Suppose we consider the NHS to be a body, in the greater environment of the internet/economy/government. What traits of that environment led to the evolution of this ransomware pathogen? Now that we have had a massive, but not lethal exposure to it, how can we build up an immunity? What changes to the environment would eliminate the refuges of this pathogen?
I'm curious why casinos are on the list?

I'm generally not a good barometer apparently given my work in HFT & adtech, but I'd think building a sports book would be fairly interesting & not evil.

Things I think are a shade past where I want to be: high risk consumer credit, for profit prisons, private military contractors & pyramid marketing schemes.
Not sure of the actual legal structure but in terms of "not broadcasting copy written material" it seems that property rights preeminate free speech.

This was the justification for banning so-called trolls from twitter.
Let me rephrase: there is no central part of Google that could "declare a winner." Google is a bunch of small companies that happen to share office space and a treasury, and are all called Google for some reason.
This is real, and it's happening. Things are getting dark.

Two months ago, Canada passed M103. A motion that the government investigate hate speech, "Islamophobia", discrimination, racism, and a whole bunch of other similar things.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m-103-islamophobia-motion-vo...
There are lots of ways. Think of it from an anti-malware perspective: how can the botnet agent on my PC, which has OS-level privileges, discover and communicate with the daily command-and-control server, if each day the network admin blocks the previous day's CnC server IP address?

Any network communications that the OS is allowed (or that a Microsoft program or driver that the OS trusts is allowed) can be used to carry extra data about which IPs to talk to in order to exfiltrate "telemetry" or download updates. DNS and WHOIS queries (where MS can publish arbitrary queryable records), peer to peer DHT-like networks (ditto), Tor (designed not to let your router/firewall know who the OS it talking to), the list is endless.
Why? Why should everyone by driven/obsessed? Most people are fine doing the minimum that is required to maintain their desired lifestyle level.
I'm not an expert, but I do not think the Thai king can make law by edict any more than the king of the United Kingdom can.

I point it out mostly because I remembered reading an article where he said "people must be able to criticize me" and then days later people were prosecuted for doing just that.
There's no double morality - the balance of "who decides what can be said" is mostly taken away from government and given to the people.

It's legal for Facebook to say what it wants, and it's legal for Facebook to never say anything that it doesn't want to be said.

It's legal to make your own Facebook with nipples, four-letter words, blackjack and hookers; and it's legal for Facebook to forbid any posts containing letter x if they so choose.
A Powerful Chrome Extension Manager
Some context on the law in Ireland, since the article is somewhat hyperbolic about it:

The law was enacted in 2009 to replace blasphemy laws enacted by the pre-independence British state, dating back to 1703, pending a constitutional referendum to have it removed completely. This came about on the back of a paper produced by the law reform commission 1991, so there was quite a bit of foot-dragging. (It was not, as the article implies, newly invented in 2009).

The complaint against Stephen Fry, as mcphage alluded to here, was made not by an offended conservative Christian, but rather somebody attempting to make a point about the now over 8 year delay on holding the referendum to remove the law.

Unrelated aside: the article also says Fry was joking about his belief that a hypothetical Christian god would be “quite clearly a maniac.” I don't believe he was.
Hey, I'm not claiming he's an enlightened figure.
Damn, they are killing it.
How can a place be known for pluralism and tolerance if it literally jails people for blasphemy against the majority religion?

I can hardly think of a single Muslim-majority country that doesn't have absurd violations of basic human rights like this one.
All men are created equal lay the groundwork for what would come later.

The ideology came from not founding a single country but from negotiating the formation of a federal government around multiple independent states with varying populations. This negotiation forced people to think well beyond simply "majority rules".
The fighting words doctrine has been repeatedly weakened by the Supreme Court and doesn't really work anymore: https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-wo...

The original case that created it, Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, would seem outrageous if it were upheld today.
The law of the land in the US is that the only speech that can be restricted is speech that poses an "imminent danger". You are allowed to communicate the most vile bigoted ideas as long as you are not inciting people to commit violence.
> Hate speech could be as little as explaining factual reasons you don't like another race.

Part of the problem in this discussion seems to be that people have different definitions of 'hate speech'. That definition could be applicable to their country of origin or personal belief but it's pretty clear that definitions aren't even remotely compatible and it makes any sort of level-headed debate very difficult.
> But the police had investigated Fry under the law, which, far from being a relic, was enacted in 2009.

Equating Ireland and Indonesia is quite the stretch. The 'law' was enacted in 2009 but here's the full story (yoinked from elsewhere):

Blasphemy is mentioned as an offence in the constitution, and the Defamation Act 1961 declared that the publication of blasphemous material was punishable by up to 2 years in prison.

Nobody was ever charged under that law until 1999 when some prick tried to bring about a private prosecution for blasphemy against a cartoonist. But blasphemy means different things to different people, and the Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the law was too vague and it was struck down. So, much like the issue of abortion following the X case, our laws were out of step with our constitution.

Ideally, we would have removed blasphemy from the constitution at that point, but holding a referendum to remove a crime that nobody had ever been convicted for was deemed to be too wasteful. When the Defamation Act was being updated in 2009, the Minister for Justice (Dermot Ahern) had the tricky decision of what to do with the section about blasphemy. He chose to define the crime of blasphemy in such a narrow way that it would be almost impossible for someone to be convicted for for it.

It's a pointless law that doesn't have any real power and which exists as a technicality to satisfy a requirement in the constitution.
What's technologically feasible is irrelevant to our moral expectations. It's technologically feasible to brain you with a club and steal your stuff, and has been for millennia.

Preventing the misuse of Blunt Instrument Technologies™ is literally what laws are for. Surveillance is just a club we don't have laws about yet, but should.
It's clear from the responses here and the downvotes that I'm receiving that a lot of you have never actually witnessed real hate speech, never seen what it does to people, never seen people killed by people who were inspired by hate speech.
I wonder how global this trend. Driving on a highway in southern Europe in summer made me realize why white cars were not popular there. My car was visibly covered in blood of killed insects after 500 km of scenic road.
Fitness Industry Needs to Get ‘Appy’ to Stay in the Game
Amusing that this article is going out as Europe is being hammered by ransomware on unpatched Windows computers.

If the US wanted to take out all EU computers, presumably they'd use an airburst nuke, and target all the electronics, not just the Windows boxes. Of course, if things got that bad, presumably the "logical" course of action would be to scour the continent, rather than let a pissed off high skilled population live to join Putin.
Indeed. The second part of my comment was aimed more at api's comment below.
Obviously this is political and so shouldn't be hitting HN, but I'll swing at this pitch. "Violence" is always somehow brought into the mix by conservatives. The whole Berkeley-is-against-free-speech talking point falls apart when you see how quick conservative America was drop Milo like a hot potato once he said something that crossed their lines. Ann Coulter is the same way, and the sheer craziness of saying a woman on the New York Times best seller list, on talk shows everyday, somehow is having her right to free speech stopped by not being able to give a lecture on campus at the most crazy liberal college in the nation.

You believe in free speech, so long as it's your free speech and don't pretend otherwise. I'm not out protesting at Fox news for giving Coulter a talk show, but we've seen how far conservative belief in free speech goes for Colbert this week.
Bill Gates no longer owns a significant amount of Microsoft stock. Ballmer was the largest shareholder the last time I looked.

Gates isn't hoarding anything, and in any case, all his wealth is going to charity.
When a new market comes about, there's enough profit to go around for everyone, but once the network effects kick in, then new competitors can't come in, and if they try to, existing ones can just lower their prices and drive them out. So barring any killer secret or patented exclusive technology, I don't see how its viable for a new company to come in, and that's why you haven't seen any.

When a limited public resource needs to be shared, such as wavelengths and pipes running to each home, then there must be some mechanism to allocate them fairly, and the most obvious solution to me seems to make it work like a utility, which it is.

Amazon and FedEx don't seem quite comparable since they're not quite using a shared public resource, or at least not one as constrained as wavelengths and wires/pipes to your home. I actually do wonder why UPS allowed FedEx to even exist, and why Sears/Walmart allowed Amazon to come in, but they're not quite utilities (yet) as in they're not the only vendor around.

I don't think it's quite as simple as keep the government out or have the government run it, but when markets don't have numerous buyers and sellers, they don't work, so you need to have something tip the scales to make it benefit society as a whole.
WannaCry ransomware used in widespread attacks all over the world
The non-disabled people have it bad enough.

Consider being 7 feet tall. You may split your head or get a concussion at the door or from things that hang down. The seats are too small; you'll have to sit with legs folded up and knees by your chest. You can't stand up in the restroom.

Consider being 4 feet tall. Your knees are on top of the seat. As your legs hang off the end of the seat, pressure on your upper calves is painful. You might be tempted to relieve the pain by kicking the seat in front of you.

Consider being 500 pounds. Your neighbors will be terrified. You might actually injure them. It has happened, causing nerve damage. You might injure yourself.
> fire in a crowded theater - threat against life

> classified material - potential threat against life

> copyrighted material - protected by the constitution elsewhere

> death threats - direct threat against life (ability is irrelevant)

> corporate espionage - generally falls under contract law

Any and all of these may be abused regularly, that doesn't mean that any of them are protected under free speech.
Avast reports on WanaCrypt0r 2.0 ransomware that infected NHS and Telefonica
So it the car is the problem, what if you could build out new train rails everywhere and get people to use them?

What if people refuse to use the train because it's scary, dirty, stinky, etc.? What if you could re-imagine trains where everyone can bring their own private mini-car and add it to the train? Then the car can be private, clean, luxurious, cheap, or whatever the owner wants. Would people adopt it then?

Yeah. that's pretty zany. As long as I'm not forced to pay for it, why criticize? I'm curious to see which zany idea out there proves itself.
No idea to be honest, but i'll speculate about an application of this:

Let's say you're simulating an ant colony, there's going to be a lot of empty space, there'll be choke points with a high number of interactions, and quiet areas with not much going on. You could do a totally offline simulation, and it'll take an unpredictable amount of time to do some number of ticks - because the complexity of each tick is unknowable ahead of time. But if you want reasonable guarantees about how long a simulation will take to run (and assuming there's an upper bound to the complexity), being able to easily and automatically scale up the computing power would be very valuable.

So the utility isn't restricted to real-time, but more generally about having a predictable execution time per tick regardless of simulation complexity.

Of course, this is all speculation, I'd love to hear some real world applications of this.
Why wait? In most companies I've worked at (a few startups; IBM), if your computer isn't working, they take your current one and then hand you a spare out of a pile they have in a closet. The original gets sent for replacement, but you're already at your desk re-doing the documented onboarding process on the new machine.
Knewton, a Pioneer in Big Data in Education, Faces Major Setback
We're also on the extreme end of individual wealth!

Sometimes the extreme ain't a bad place to be.
And these regulations stipulate a price?
Isn't free speech by its definition binary?

The minute the threat of state sponsored violence and kidnapping for "bad free speech" is there we don't have free speech. We have permitted and unpermited speech.
> This is a poorly written article.

This article seems to originate from the Netherlands, drumming up anti Microsoft rhetoric that was very prevalent a few years ago here.

It is important to understand with these types of articles, that Microsoft and their local partner companies (disclosure: such as the one I work for) has competitors who stand to benefit from stories like these. Other companies (like IBM, Oracle working with local ISV's and service companies) want to sell their, also propriety, but non-Microsoft based solutions. They promote independence from Microsoft as a feature of their software, and have budget to hire PR firms and run a lobby too, just like Microsoft.

But their solutions often come with a worse type of vendor lock-in. The Oracle type. In the Netherlands, most public backend administrative software is not based on Microsoft technology, and it is completely closed, unable to integrate with (Microsoft based) front end systems or web api's.

The article states that Microsoft makes 2 billion in the EU public sector, I don't know if that is true, but in the Netherlands spending on Microsoft software is somewhere around 1-2% of total public IT spending, and I'd say they provide relatively good value for that.
The violent anti-free speech people are not necessarily UC Students. I'd guess they're mostly not. A lot of the action wasn't even on campus.
I would say the alienation of the worker from their product is the most clear in programming jobs for companies. All these hours of code crafting, while having no control over the design-and-production protocol and getting only a part of exchange value and no recognition - while IT nowadays is one of the most important intellectual labour that keeps a business running. Meanwhile, the work of med students and lawyers still offer emotional connections with other people and are often seen as virtuous professions.
It's a non-binding motion, and not legislation. At most, it may inspire a Senate committee to blow a few dozen million dollars gazing at their own navels.
This logic has never been held to consistently.

Why hold gun-owners responsible for a few nutters?

Why hold police responsible for a few bad apples?

etc.
Blasphemy is not hate speech. It doesn't incite to violence, it's not bad for mental health, and it doesn't discriminate. It doesn't actually harm people, it merely offends them.
A front end developer can most easily jump into machine learning by reading the docs for a machine learning API then querying it. Won't take years and years and no PhD needed either.
It depends on how you define major, but I believe there is no afterlife in Judaism.
Most of my local Tories know that any kind of direct assault on the NHS would result in instant annihilation at the next election.

There are more subtle methods of course including outrageously broken internal market management restructures (Stafford Hospital Trust, 'fund holding GPs' in the time of Thatcher) and the like.