skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
While I agree that many coastal liberals are often smug, the notion that people in other areas are groaning in the throes of oppression is not really founded in fact. Large parts of the country have great contempt for the more liberal enclaves on the coast and pour scorn on the people and civic societies established there. Try spending some time reading a conservative forum like freerepublic.com, though you might need eye bleach after you're done. There are a lot of decent, hardworking, and hard-done-by people in the midwest, South, other inland regions etc. etc. who don't want their economies exploited or their dignity insulted, and there are also some vicious mean-spirited people who habitually wish horrible suffering on others.
>Once McCarthy saw the pig in humans, he couldn’t unsee it.

This could be the caption to a Gary Larson cartoon.
For pollution in general, California might be a leader for policies enforcing cleanliness.

But for clean power generation, they're not the leader, Vermont is [1]. California is ranked #8 (Texas is ranked #22). This is based on a ratio of the power consumed, not raw power generation total.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electri...
How, given arguments in GP, does this actually do anything of value? Note that I do not consider signaling how much we care as valuable.
Regarding #3, angular momentum is conserved, so it neither increases nor decreases.
I'm still waiting for the button that clears your test data but leaves your subscription test plans intact. Guess this feature wouldn't be able to help with that.
If I didn't own property and were single, I'm 100% confident that I would have already packed my things and left. I was heartbroken on election night, and I am heartbroken now. As much as I understand the argument that I should stay and fight for what I believe, every instinct in my body is telling me to flee, before things get really awful.
> Due to these poor ad experiences, the usage of extensions that block ads across the web continues to rise, up about 30% from just last year. This reduces the ability for publishers to continue creating free content and threatens the sustainability of the web ecosystem.

Is this the first step to remove ad blockers from Chrome? I guess that 30% also affects Google.
I don't think there's a single economist in the world, without significant bias, who doesn't believe that China will be a serious economic powerhouse when it becomes a more developed nation.
Tim Cook blasts Trump's Paris accord move in email
those C/C++/Rust apps will perform worse on the web and a lot of glue code will be needed.
What does Go's GC need that WebAssembly doesn't have? I understand it might be hard for a language like Java that expects a GC in the VM
You posted a garbage book by a non scientist well known conservative climate denier. You are a crackpot and I don't have any more time for this.
Equity is confusing and the various moving parts all matter. It's often difficult to know what % of the Company you own, but you are entitled to knowing the 409(a) valuation which is going to be equal to your strike price when your options are granted. As this increases, you have an opportunity to capture some value at some point if/when the company has a private market, is acquired, or goes public. I've always believed this process is personal and not one that "general guidelines" can always solve. Self-awareness is critical. https://www.vestboard.com/okta-inc-ipo-what-employees-should...
Warlord feudalism vs. Liberal democracy.
To put another way, if you averaged out the beliefs of all who consider themselves Republicans, Trump himself doesn't believe most of it, certainly not dogmatically.

I think dragonwriter's point is that this is also true of most (many?) other Republicans.
Even if it was a good deal, which it doesn't seem to be, it was essentially a handshake Obama made with other countries. Send it through Congress.
God no, his face when he talked to the camera looked like a rubber mask
Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14465546.
Karat | Software Engineer | Seattle, WA

Hiring top talent is a critical activity for all companies, yet the way organizations interview candidates is broken. Interviewing is a time consuming process that is rarely data-driven. Here at Karat, we see a massive opportunity to transform the interviewing experience for every candidate and company.

As a member of Karat's engineering team, you will get to work on an exciting mission with a superstar team that feels like family. You will be able to easily relate to the product given that we've all been through technical interviews. We work in a Ruby and Unix environment, practice continuous integration and regularly unit test. As we are a young company, you will receive close mentorship from industry veterans as you help us to shape the premium interviewing experience we are endeavoring to create. We want individuals who are hungry to take ownership of their work and who want to make a significant impact. We believe that a flexible work environment is where people are most comfortable and productive.

About You:

- You believe in our mission and crave the ownership and responsibility we will give you.

- You have strong experience in a dynamic language used for web development, such as Ruby, Python, or Go.

- You are comfortable working on dynamic websites using AJAX and modern frameworks like Angular or React, as well as plain old JavaScript.

- You’ve worked on web apps - you know how HTTP, Rest, and web security works.

- You are at home in a Unix/Linux workflow.

- You have a distinct passion for product driven development and you love writing clean, understandable, and maintainable code.

- You have a desire to learn and improve your craftsmanship, plus you will always go the extra mile to provide happiness to your customers.

- Interviewing, teaching, or mentoring experience is a plus as it will help you relate to our mission and culture

Interested? Apply below to learn more and connect with the Karat Team.

https://jobs.lever.co/karat/586c77ea-5c3a-40e6-a940-f74ffeba...
Demonetize, tax on consumption, provide rebates to the impoverished. so many problems will be solved. Consumption based economy will go away (destroying the planet, so that's good) and industry will focus on basic necessities that aren't taxed as much - food, shelter, clothing, medicine.
> It's a little unfair

In this context, unfairness is required. It is unfair to tell the entire planet to stop burning carbon. We have been doing it for the better part of 200 years, why do we have to stop now? It is unfair.

But faced with reality, the realities of the universe, of our planet, fairness isn't on the table, the long term survival of billions of people is.

I disagree with flat out withdrawing from the climate accords, but saying its unfair so the two most populous countries in the world can continue to build up fossil fuel infrastructure for the next decade + is absurd. It should be an international stop, with developed nations subsidizing the cost of development of not-yet-first-world-countries by providing them access to cheaper clean energy, not giving them cart blanche to keep burning carbon.
Main discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14463732.
There is a VOD recording at https://www.twitch.tv/videos/148815066, if the mods could update the URL.
Facebook is evil. They knew people would be posting videos killing themselves and let others watch. If you know anything about psychology; trauma and copycats. [1]

Facebook retains your data, and you can't do anything about it. I don't know how any engineers can work there knowing in their mind the delete button is a ruse -- or "incomplete functionality". From what i've observed there is active censorship especially in regards to negative statements of facebook (of which i'm sure they are aware of copycats).

This company has brought out the worst of society and they are deserving of justice -- or at least balance.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/facebook-users-... "Experts have told us what’s best for these people’s safety is to let them livestream as long as they are engaging with viewers."
It's a straw man because it wasn't actually my argument at all. You declared my argument to be something it wasn't, then said you disagree with the straw argument (which is another way to say you think it's wrong).

That said, the rest of your comment is quite reasonable and I'm content to let this be. I'm not entirely convinced that the only thing we disagree on is terminology, but it's certainly possible, and I don't think we need to waste any more air in figuring that out.
How do you come by this information?
You can buy eggs in packages of six, and they last for weeks.
But remember where democracy came from: the no-aristocracy, one-man-one-vote model of democracy is primarily a child of the French Revolution. (The US revolution created a cozy oligarchy, complete with property qualifications; democratization came later.)

Prior to that revolution, the only way to join the French aristocracy was to be the child of an aristocrat; no amount of amassed wealth could make you noble, and the French aristocracy had even persuaded themselves that they were biologically superior to the commoners. (Hitler and Himmler really liked that notion; they even envisioned turning the SS into a new ruling aristocracy, not least for France.)

The French Revolution blew the lid off all this, and made it possible for earning wealth -- in one generation or several -- to be enough to rise in station. This was always possible in England, and this is probably why the UK has never had a French-style revolution: no "insurgent elites," no men and women frozen out of the circles of power despite being qualified to enter.

So democracy isn't a sham; or, at least, it wasn't originally one. There was a time when all of the factions you describe -- working stiffs, professional politicians, and the ultra-rich (especially rich Jews!) -- were more or less genuinely oppressed, and settled on democracy as a solution that gave all parties at least some of what they wanted.

(This assumes a traditional reading of the French Revolution, of course; I've seen a revisionist reading that it was the work of a small elite that never enjoyed popular support. But I'm skeptical of this; if popular sentiment was really anti-Revolutionary, why did France have so many more republics?)
I don't think so. To me, that simply reads as Google providing support for their claim that users are increasingly frustrated by "poor ad experiences".
Yeah... the reason why it smells like a conflict of interest is because it is a conflict of interest.
At only $1200 per citizen, that's actually within the realm of physical possibility.
A while ago someone mentioned an author who had a series of books on starting a civilization from the ground up. If anyone remembers it, please let me know!

edit: a thread on this, although not exactly what I was thinking of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9084466
Why don't you exclude the half of the Chinese population that's basically living a medieval lifestyle and recalculate those per-capita numbers, hmm?
I think services like this are fantastic for teaching people how to cook and meal plan, ideally for young adults living on their own for the first time. Outside of the foundational argument, I don't really understand the benefit.

To go a little off topic, what bothers me about groups like this, whole foods, and others, is the amount of needless packaging. For me, I buy all of my animal proteins at one of three butchers and most of my veg and bread at one of two farm markets (or a farm itself). At least around Vancouver, this is not difficult process to emulate.

These groups seem to justify their packaging by saying it's recyclable -- but that's just not good enough.

Whenever possible I try to get friends into the butcher / farm market system and away from those overly priced supermarkets. For me, I can make a fairly substantial dinner, braised chicken with plenty of veg in a madras curry sauce on rice with naan bread (from a local indian restaurant since its $2) for about $12 total. The main expense is the chicken, but even that comes to about $7 or so. This meal can easily feed four adults.

Getting these ingredients from a typical supermarket (not Whole Foods) would easily surpass $30.
While I agree that 102% marginal rate is ridiculous, you are incorrect, she didn't have to pay more than her total income.
And often the Sphinx is shown in the foreground so it looks like it's on a similar scale. The Sphinx is tiny compared to the pyramids.
Patriotism is barely related to any borders, but the culture of a group of people snapshotted in time. Unfortunately, so much tension in the world comes from reality and cultural fluidity outpacing any snapshot.
They're making a decision based on pretty measurable psychometric variables (flashing, size), not content. They included in their position a commitment that they will not serve their own ads on such sites, so they stand to lose if the publisher commits to losing. It's the publisher's choice if they want to degrade the quality of the open web by overselling psychological manipulation techniques that advertisers obviously want to employ. But Google is exercising its right to exit that market.
I can only speak for myself, but I did recycle whatever I could from the leftover materials when I was subscribed. My apartment complex made it very easy to do so.

Either way, needing to recycle is not unique to Blue Apron at all. You can easily go to the grocery store and come back with dozens of bags and packages and wrappings. Plenty of folks don't recycle in those circumstances either.
If there is any valid criticism of the Paris accords, it's that they aren't stringent or BINDING. Which is the exact opposite of Trump's complaints about them. By the very nature of them being non-binding, they don't impose anything on the US.

Just that fact almost entirely undermines whatever Trump said.

In addition, however, new coal is already more expensive than renewables, which are getting cheaper at a rapid pace. However, more importantly, it's significantly more expensive than natural gas. The odds that the US would build a coal plant are minuscule (and even if someone did, assuming that somehow coal got cheaper than natural gas, the amount of money saved over building a natural gas plant instead would be meaningless).

I would have thought a master dealmaker like Trump would know that giving up something you weren't gonna do anyways in exchange for anything is a good deal.

But finally, none of this matters, because Donald Trump could have continued to do whatever he wanted (build coal plants, increase US emissions, etc.) without the Paris accords imposing any sort of mechanism to stop him from doing it.

What this shows is that the US cannot be trusted to stick to even a promise as toothless as the Paris accords. Combined with the lack of reaffirmation of Article 5 in NATO, the only real effect this will have is diminish the US's standing among its allies.

The Paris Accords were largely symbolism but important nonetheless in bringing everyone to the table, and showing a way forward and showing that climate change is something all countries need to handle and worry about. Donald Trump's act is also symbolism showing that the US doesn't care about agreements and pacts and that Climate change is not something they really believe in.

Btw, both Chinese and Indian governments have targets that are much more stringent than what they agreed upon through these accords, and both are well ahead of even those more stringent targets.
Protests usually follow some egregious government policy or action. Yes, there are protests that aren't very well organized, or lack a core concept to them. But those quickly fall apart with limited or no intervention. When they don't fall apart, it's an indication of something that's already wrong, rather than something that's about to go wrong.

There were actually some leaders with sympathetic and liberal movements in the times that led up to (and during) the TS incident, but afterwards the Chinese government either forced them to toe the party line or removed them from power. Their unwillingness to allow peaceful dissent, their massive overreaction, and their blatant suppression of the facts and of the expressions of grief afterwards have certainly fixed the governmental direction for quite some time. Hardline censorship and oppression supporters got more power, while those opposed got purged or learned to stay quiet. The government policy was at a crossroads until then, but they doubled-down on a surveillance state.

A government that straight up murders citizens during a peaceful protest and then refuses to let them talk about it for decades after has a huge effect. It's not just on the leaders in power, either. Even if they don't get the whole story, the Chinese populace is quite savvy about what can and can't be talked about. Most people will stand up for what they think is right when the risk is relatively small. TS reflected that, with academic elites being openly honest about their opinions about the state and future of the country. China was changing a lot and they thought there was finally a chance for a dialogue. But it was made quite clear that non-violent protest will be squashed and you will quite possibly be murdered or smeared for speaking a contrary opinion - even if it's out of patriotism.

It drove all dissenters into hiding or out of the country, leaving an empty playground for military and political power seekers who had no problem with heavy-handed retaliation.

> Curious how the extreme violence of the Chinese response in Tienanmen is responsible for the continuation of the government politics; while the same extreme response in Syria would be responsible for tearing apart the country.

The thing in common is that, rather than listen to their citizens, the government chose suppression and murder. The citizen reactions in both cases are hugely different. But the source of the problem isn't different - an oppressive government. We don't shame people who back down when the alternative is death or civil war. It's an understandable choice. But we do shame people and governments who literally can't tolerate dissent without military might. Especially if they won't let you talk about it afterwards. Resorting to military might is a sign of political weakness, not strength.
Wonder what you'd think of a pull + datalog mix, which is what Datomic / Datascript do: https://github.com/Datomic/day-of-datomic/blob/master/tutori... The neat thing about the syntax there is that it's a datastructure which if you write a generic visual editor like https://developers.google.com/blockly/ over that only fits puzzle pieces when they satisfy https://clojure.org/about/spec you could...
Green Chef has a once-a-month plan. Disclaimer: I work for Green Chef.
I can imagine a statement like: "We block all the annoying ads, and therefore there is no legitimate reason to use ad block, therefore we are forcing you to view ads because now they are all relevant".
Quite a few conservatives have been planning a second civil war anyway due to demographic anxiety about whites no longer having an absolute popular majority, and their goal is to instead establish a majority white ethnostate founded on hardline religious principles. I'm not being hyperbolic here, and will happily supply you with abundant academically rigorous documentation of this. It's not a fringe movement either, but one of national scope and ambition that has been following a gameplan first developed in the 1980s.

Now, I don't expect the western states to secede any time soon, but by 'soon' I mean within the next 5 years. A breakup of the US is fairly unlikely, but large-scale civil unrest is a significant and real possibility.
In some ways, it doesn't really matter. Regardless of how hard people try to fight against alternative energies, the market forces will seek out inefficiencies. Consumers are driving demand for electric cars, cheaper energy and states are turning away from coal more and more every year. States that adopt alternative energies will see long term advantages and those that don't will eventually be forced to confront it. Some states have already adopted measures far beyond what the US has ratified or even proposed.

Trump can posture as much as he wants, he's against a huge tidal wave of change and on the wrong side of history.
.edu is only used in the United States.
That's awesome.. but when you look at the numbers that actually matter on a macro level Texas ranks 44th. #notThrowingShadeJustFacts

Regardless, we got a lot of work to do as a nation :-/

Source: https://energy.gov/maps/renewable-energy-production-state
Rustfmt changes
Maybe do a comparison next time there's a more traditional Republican candidate running to get a better idea of how much bluer a state is becoming.

Or compare midterms. Presidential elections can be wonky. Surely you don't think Wisconsin has made a dramatic red shift based on 2012 vs 2016, do you?
Whoa, that's right up my alley! Too bad I'm not really looking for a new job and you only offer remote within the US... Well, I might still contribute just for fun!
Google's official announcement on their blog: https://blog.chromium.org/2017/06/improving-advertising-on-w...

IMO, if Google's goal is to improve the web experience, it would be much better if Chrome was spun off into a non-profit of its own, and not controlled directly by Google.

A non-profit not directly controlled by Google would eliminate the major conflict of interest that is:

1) Google is the biggest ad publisher/network in the world.
2) Google controls the majority of web browsers today.
3) Google will control how ad blocking is implemented, managed, corrected, adjusted, etc., as they see fit.
Don't forget all that poor people vote at far lower rates than middle class and rich people. Rich & middle class white people and culture war evangelicals with a small but relatively unusually large smattering of poor people in a few key states put Trump over the top.
I don't think the author was talking about the general case of continuations -- he was talking about the general case of unwind-protect in the presence of continuations -- what Schemers nowadays call dynamic-wind.
It is true that they disagree. It is not true that they're lives are definitely harder. For every person in the US, there are four in China. Even imagining that China had the same wealth distribution as the US, which it does not, that still means there are vastly, vastly (at least 4x) more people with lives that are empirically more painful, with less medicine, less availability of electricity, and less food. This isn't because China is doing a bad job, it's because there are a lot of people.
I suspect there are a lot more Detroit-style food deserts than Palo Alto-style ones in the US.
The answer is to start a startup. Before that, work at a startup. See if you like it. Specifically, work at a YC startup then apply to YC.
Why Bleacher Report Chose Elixir
No, the post-hoc justification is sometimes anchored to the concept of marginal utility to the individual by people who want more progressive taxes.

You rob banks because that's where the money is, not because you feel like the bank can more easily handle the loss.
Microsoft facial recognition tech helps find a lost kid
Google is reacting very slowly to their declining ad revenue model in the face of social media and influencers, they are stuck with a degraded experience/platform.

It will be interesting to watch how they are going to salvage their ad network with a much more ad-aware and a younger demographic with purchasing power.

Time to pivot, but I doubt this will work or the recent chrome ad free beta.
The interesting thing is when it turns out you are exploring this hill-space by looking at the ground and nearby like bacteria or such, but over time "humans" have evolved things like being able to look toward someone that's on a different hill shining a light at you, which allows communication across agents exploring this space in channels outside the utility function itself.