skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I support repeal of net neutrality if I can charge internet providers access to the utility easement on my property.
WWDC: Apple plays catch-up
Barely support it? Hillary ran on it and Obama's pick lead to reclassification.
Couldn't you bootstrap it, get £5k on a credit card for the taxes to exercise some of the options, use the profit to pay the taxes on the rest (or a further bootstrap)?
It's hard to get a non-smart phone these days even if you don't want one, so yeah, Android sponges up a lot of that market share by default.
Ground Zero, population six.

More on the cameraman, civillian photographer Akira "George" Yoshitake. On the test footage shown: "he was not aware of what his assignment would entail, until arriving at the test center that day."

An interview:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/george-yoshitake-nu...

His obituary, 2013.

http://lompocrecord.com/lifestyles/announcements/obituaries/...

George died in Santa Barbara. From his name, it's evident that he's of Japanese ancestry. As the obit states, his family were interned along with other West Coast American citizens of Japanese descent, during World War II.
1) That's a great way to dismiss any woman's viewpoint: she just can't express what she really feels because of fear

2) good point. Groups of people are never wrong, and there's certainly no selection bias going on. And it was definitely the entire room and not just some subset of the room

3) I agree, but if this is about the supposed victim, then perhaps the supposed victim should have some input.

4) I'm not sure how you can claim it is sexism. Do you know the mental state of the host? Did you consider the supposed victims explanation of why it happened that was not sexism? If a woman is ever treated differently from a man or men, is that automatically sexism?
ergh, you weren't kidding. I hope that was a typo on their part; even low thousands rpm is mostly not a big deal on modern hardware.

Our gateway is on the frontline of our infrastructure. It receives thousands
of request per day, and for that reason we chose Go when building it,
because of its performance, simplicity, and elegant solution to concurrency.
Paleontologists in this case.
Which is the reason the US fought for air superiority first in any conflict after WW2.
It's the root, roasted. Skip the premixed brands people are suggesting – the coffee is very low-quality. Get a bag and make your own blend with whatever coffee grounds you like: https://www.amazon.com/Frontier-Natural-Products-Organic-Gra...

Not sure about Germany, sorry.
I guess it was a very forgivable lack of imagination. When we came up with form-preserving/insensitive we were motivated in great part by the interop mess caused by HFS+ -- we might not have arrived there without that mess, though I'd like to believe that someone would eventually have reached this conclusion regardless.
The only downside to this wild success is that profit is a lot more concentrated than it used to be. It's really hard to bust onto the charts as an outsider when there's so many incumbents.

For example, sucks to be someone who launched a game this week when Monument Valley 2 took over everything.
Agree ... just what it is
Nothing really new here, much of what the government has been doing for at least the last 25 years is unpopular with not only a majority of people, but a majority of both democrats and republicans.

What is s surprising is that, in many ways, the last 4 presidents all ran on a "change" message and have been unsuccessful at changing many of the things that both sides agree needs changing.

Why is a deeper discussion, with plenty of blame, but the best way to summarize it, might just be to call it a bad marriage, where two people can no longer give the other side the benefit of the doubt in conversation, so everything being said sounds like personal attacks.
Ask HN: Is Amazon down?
Many product pages are returning a 503 Service Unavailable Error

Edit: I'm in southern California

Seems affected pretty broadly (no affiliation):

http://downdetector.com/status/amazon
275ml is half a pint, or one VERY LARGE glass, so, yes it is that big. That's over a third of a bottle of wine.

UK standard measures are 125ml small, 175ml medium, 250ml large.

175ml is a normal glass of wine and is 2.3 units, or 16 units a week. 23 units is 2 and a bit bottles of wine.

You've got your units wrong.

https://www.gov.uk/weights-measures-and-packaging-the-law/sp...

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/alcohol/Pages/alcohol-units.aspx
One could say, it only matters if we care how the recipient feels about our actions
Twitter is comparable to a modern form of town hall meeting?
1950s U.S. Nuclear Target List Offers Chilling Insight (2015)
For anyone else who has no idea what these 5.x[a-d] numbers mean:

http://outdoorswithdave.com/climbing/climbing-ratings
Yes... the statistics in this article are annoying (par for the course for BMJ, NEJM, and other medical journals). They use mixed-effects models and a lot of potential covariates (good) but then bin the variable of interest (BAD). I've seen a lot worse, but it's not optimal IMO.

This is basically an epidemiology paper, and the apparent statistician is an epidemiologist. As an interesting aside, I recently sat down for lunch with biostatistics grad students, and apparently they consider the epidemiology students/faculty/field to be incompetent wielders of "statistics-lite". I took it with a big grain of salt, but it does seem epidemiology is harder-hit by the replication crisis than most other biology fields.

> Moderate drinking some days but not others, perhaps your liver/brain do better because they get "total rest days", whereas light/moderate drinking every day may put them in a constant state of irritation or stress. Just like with workouts.

Actually my understanding is that the harm of drinking to the brain mostly does not occur during the drinking itself, but the withdrawal period after the depressant is cleared causes excitotoxicity for neurons. This is why quitting heavy drinking cold-turkey may not be best health-wise (but may be easier to do psychologically). Also, cycles of binging and abstinence cause your neurons to be increasingly vulnerable to damage via some kind of priming mechanism.

Personally, I've been trying to cut back, and I'm much more worried about my brain than my liver. It may be that the optimal pattern may vary by organ.
I don't disagree with what you wrote, or the spirit of its meanings.

But optimizations in a modern sense seldom means implementing a section in assembly. In most cases it means a skillful, well-considered use of appropriate technologies, appropriate algorithms (e.g. a hash table instead of a simple linked list for a lookup heavy section, appropriate database designs, etc) and a coherent design.

When you start from day 1 thinking "performance matters", it doesn't and shouldn't demand any added complexity. But it does demand constant consideration as implementing requirement.

Of course the counterpoint is that of course we should use appropriate technologies, algos, designs, etc. Who could argue otherwise? But whenever I've seen the premature optimization boogeyman appear in a modern context, it is usually in the context of just such a discussion. A sort of "performance is a concern for another day".
Right!

Or worse, you speak multiple languages, or learn new ones, and need to... switch codesets? How do you then access your old files?!

We must switch to Unicode. Full stop. If there are imperfections in Unicode script support, then we must fix those, but otherwise we must adopt Unicode.
Twelve Steps to MongoDB Englightment
Holy shit! I almost didn't believe you.

Then again, if they didn't have that beefy infrastructure, they could get DDOS'd from up to multiple request per minute! I mean you can't be too careful when you are in that league!!1!

Also interesting (in the same way as rubbernecking a car crash) is going to their homepage and viewing source.
I think it depends entirely on your goal. If you are trying to understand the political repercussions of something, then I agree the rhetoric is what is important. However I think that is one of the biggest problems with the current political climate. We are always focusing on the political aftermath of these decisions and not the decisions themselves. If the goal is to actually understand the views of the general population then the more details and the less buzzwords the better.

An "Obamacare: repeal or keep?" poll question might help some politicians stay in office, but why should I care about that? It is the "Do you think it is fair that people with preexisting conditions pay higher insurance premiums?" poll questions that would actually lead to a law that is a better representation of the beliefs of the American people.
While I have no conceptual problem with that, it only really makes sense if you pay for bandwidth. Right now, I pay for "internet @ speed". I think your model would work if I paid for "100GB of Internet @ speed".

The argument against it, which I am O.K. with, is that the carrier would bias consumption toward established brands, and that would set up competitive barriers to entry for new companies. This would theoretically reduce consumer choice and decrease competition, eventually raising prices. (after all, if the carriers just recoup the costs from Netflix, they'll eventually pass them along to us.)
What's up with that compression-pixelated lighthouse? Looks odd and seems to split up the content on the site for no reason.
> it's possible that she's the only woman on the panel because she thinks this way

Note I said "it's possible". I did that because I can't prove it. I don't think anybody can prove either possibility.

>why do you assume anything is racist in the first place instead of thinking it is just normal human behaviour?

I'm not originally from the US, though I live here now. While you may look at me and see a black man, I grew up in a country where everyone was black, and therefore nobody was. As a result, I'm probably the least indoctrinated into any movement or society based on identity. The idea that I might identify with racial issues faced by American blacks was one that was forced onto me by reality.

Imagine you're a black person who's never seen racism before. You'd only start assuming that the problems you face are related to race when you are repeatedly treated worse than your cohort, and when you're treated so badly that there is no plausible narrative that you can construct that will lead to another explanation. For example: Employers are shocked (and uncomfortable) when a black face shows up with your resume. Your job offers are lower and less frequent, although you're at the top of your field. People find issues with you and your work that they just can't explain, but accept and praise your work when submitted under other names. Senior leaders think you're a janitor when you lead a department. Patients refuse to be seen by you, even though you are indisputably the best in your speciality. I can go on (note these events have not all happened to me, but each has happened to someone in my inner circle). After a while, even someone who didn't know that racism existed would discover it. You're lucky you don't have to.

Movements like feminism and BLM must sometimes be wrong about specific events - there's no way to really prove what's in someone's heart. And sometimes bad things happen to women and black people - things that would have happened independent of gender and race. But when there's a distinct, recurring pattern, it's really hard to pretend like nothing's wrong.

Separately, you should know that racism and sexism are actually normal (meaning default) human behavior. People form groups based on similarities and exclude those who are dissimilar. These groups may include employment, or leadership at companies. Thats why this is so hard.
Yes, I have the same experience. Accessing from Fremont, Ca.
"Obamacare: repeal or keep?" with no preface.

Unfortunately, it's not that easy, because if you change Obamacare to the Affordable Care Act, the answer changes.

http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorial...

Search "11a"
> What is s surprising is that, in many ways, the last 4 presidents all ran on a "change" message and have been unsuccessful at changing many of the things that both sides agree needs changing.

Not really surprising: the President is the most powerful single individual in the US system, but the legislative branch as a whole is more powerful than the executive branch.
How is it trolling? Mansplaining is in the OED and I explained myself beyond just throwing the term out. Is it because I'm mirroring the supposed victims own words and not jumping on the sexism train, which goes against the received wisdom of this forum?
> since 2015 I think it has really grown up

The lie to this statement is that all of Uber's actions to fix their problems (fire people, outside investigation, hire new HR heads) have come in response to bad PR, not an internal recognition that things weren't OK. Travis Kalanick, who was 37 years old when he sanctioned all of this behavior, is still the head of the company. I am sure many of the people who turned a blind eye when star performers were protected, or women were leaving the company in droves, are still there.

This story is a case in point: Alexander wasn't fired, even after half of the executive team knew what he did, and the legal team ordered him to destroy the documents, until Recode started asking about the incident. If the company had really "grown up" as you suggest he would have been gone before the reporters started asking about him. If the company had "grown up" then one of the many people Susan Fowler talked to (in 2016) would have sounded alarms, before she wrote her blog post about it.

> unlike other companies, they have aired their dirty laundry

It's a well known phenomenon that people tend to overestimate the extent to which their habits and behaviors are shared by others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect. A simpler explanation for the series of bad headlines attributable to Uber and not other companies is that Uber was involved in worse behavior than those other companies.
There's no link for applying for the intern position.
Uber drivers pick up and drive paying passengers. Doing so is against local laws or regulations governing taxi services. Uber runs a service that enables and encourages this activity on a large scale. How does that not add up to criminal conspiracy or something similar?

Serious question.
Flagged for being from /r/The RedPill. Maybe it's a valid thing to discuss and if so repost from a different source, but HN shouldn't be sending people to garbage pile subs like that.
That's what I was referring to. Thanks for the clarification.
It's also worth pointing out that ISPs rely on the "dumb pipe" theory of their service to avoid liability for carrying problematic data like IP infringement, child porn, drug deals, etc.

I'd be less worried about net neutrality if ISPs acquired liability for content once they started being selective about what they carry. That would be a pretty strong incentive to stay neutral.
I did have 1 edit, around 5 minutes in.

s/world-wise/world-wide/

_________________________

And that's correct. I put no state-of-mind or otherwise speak for her. I'm acknowledging the complexity of highlighting a potential problem amongst your peers in a very public manner. Especially in Academia, where your peers approve, collaborate, and act as a peer, attacking them publicly could have disastrous consequences.

It is "safer", and provides face to be accepting of such actions, be they intentional or unintentional.

(Yes, I work in Academia. This sort of thing happens pretty regularly, from what Ive seen. What's that saying... The nail that sticks out gets the hammer?)
Could you do me a favor and point out any more old junk on the site that you see? We scrubbed but clearly missed FAQ items, too much eng work not enough mktg, lol. Thanks!
Totally agree. I was much younger then, and learned a lot from the experience. Even got a better job as a result. :-)
While the comments may be off-putting, the initial story and links to the tweet are accurate. Why flag? No different than Huffington Post links? Seems quite hypocritical.
But seriously, what the heck makes more current information better? We aren't talking about significant technological advancements in the last 30 years in dating. What about releasing the click bait news story when a date is corroborated by a new piece of evidence, instead of every time some new find is dated we change the scientifically accepted just to the new number. gnaritas, its hilarious how you ask a very legitimate question, and then the responses are all "Isn't it great how the scientific method allows us to blatantly...." Instead of a response like "Oh...why the heck did we say we had so much confidence before" Regardless of what commenters say, the truth is that yes, without corroboration or quantifiable changes in technology, there is NO VALIDITY in saying that the newest number is the best number. It's another data point, and more importantly its another data point to prove that its stupid to so quickly decide that once you find something in 1 hole in 1 location, that artifact MUST be the beginning of an era!
Same from Sunnyvale, CA.
Which is a great way of determining the level of knowledge people have about a bill. Simply ask them if they support he soundbite position, then start asking them about the details. Particularly telling is if you start asking them to prioritize one thing over the other.

I think a few the obamacare surveys did this, but people were frequently too partisan to change their minds about it, even when presented with the fact that it wasn't going to kill all the babies, or OTOH, create cheap wonderful helthcare for all.
Thanks, this is the kind of feedback I most enjoy getting :-) Glad you found it useful!
What you are doing here is turning something that is quite likely completely unrelated to gender, into a gender issue.

This is not useful. It doesn't "fight sexism", it makes the battle harder to fight because you end up fighting an enemy that doesn't exist. You're moving the goal posts.

And I am 100% for fighting "unconscious biases", but my point is this isn't even necessarily that.

Please read some of the comments here. Please read Veronika Hubeny's reply. None of the people who were actually involved in this think it has to do with sexism/gender. Great, a woman stood up for another woman, an awkward moderator was humbled, and we all learned and felt a little better at the end of the day. Now, by turning this into a sexism issue, trying to claim that the moderator was "mansplaining" without even bothering to figure out whether it is conscious or not, not only are you drawing a new dragon to fight against, but you're subjecting a moderator to potential bullying and harassment.

None of this is motivating. It's pretty dreadful in fact, and the idea that you might be subjecting an innocent to this sort of treatment is turning people off the cause -- in fact, it's far likelier to make them even more cautious and tread even more carefully when talking about it (which through continued self-censorship ends up turning the entire community into an echo chamber).

Please focus on the real dragons. Changing people's views and behaviour takes focus and patience. Look at the environmentalism and lgbt movements: They're fighting for issues that the majority of people aren't (directly) affected by, but they're winning because, the majority of the time, they use other people's compassion to fight real issues.

Here instead, you're taking something we've all been guilty of in our life (talking too long and over someone else) and turning the person into an enemy because it might have had something to do with gender. Do you realize how horrifying that is?
In Python 3 functions like reduce were moved to the functools module, not removed from the language.
As a Mediterranean man, my perception (possibly biased, of course), is that 6 to 8 glasses of wine a week seem excessive as a standard for moderate consumption. I think I drink moderately, and in the last 3 weeks I had two, maybe three glasses of wine and maybe 5 beers.

Weekend binging is more excessive for younger people, but I don't see people my age drinking in working hours, only older men.

Cheers!
I'm not a right-winger and I'm not dismissing the statistic. The statistic is correct. The question was "why aren't wages tied to productivity?".

The answer is, an employer will only pay as much as necessary, even if workers become more productive. That's just common sense.

An increase in productivity correlates with an increase in wages only if market demand supports it. An increase in productivity combined with stagnant demand will reduce the amount of labor required, increasing the supply of labor, lowering its price. Is that not obvious?
Care to share some layman's reading on effects of alcohol (that isn't "fire and brimstone")?
"Three beers a day, spaced out over 16 hours, as one per meal, will still ruin your liver over decades."

Almost certainly not.

"Of all chronic heavy drinkers, only 15–20% develop hepatitis or cirrhosis, which can occur concomitantly or in succession."[1]

Not only do many chronic, heavy drinkers not ruin their livers, but further "three beers a day" would not even come close to any definition of chronic, heavy drinking.

I certainly think it's a bad idea and not something I, myself, would practice - simply because of the effects on athletic output and exercise regimes, etc. However, you very badly mischaracterize the behavior you've given an example of.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_liver_disease
As someone who started drinking from time to time later than most I don't know what clarity you're referring to. I've felt a much bigger change from quitting soda and sugary drinks rather than the occasional stiff drink. Completely anecdotal.
Resources for Ocean Hacking
You are arguing against something other than net neutrality. I don't know what you're arguing against (sounds like a strawman for socialism), but it's not net neutrality. The purpose of net neutrality, like the purpose of antitrust laws, aren't to subvert the free market, but to prevent bad actors from subverting the free market for their own gain. Nobody's asking Spotify to have every song, because if I don't like what's on Spotify I have tons of alternatives.

Comcast customers (for example) are already paying Comcast to receive bits from Netflix. Comcast wants to double dip that traffic by charging Netflix to send that data to those customers. That's it. If there's no legal impediment to them doing that, they are going to do that. Ultimately, customers end up paying for that- any service that a telecom double dips on will be forced to charge their own subscribers to cover at least part of the difference. So really, it's just more money leaving customer's pockets and being indirectly routed to Comcast. No value is added. Maybe, possibly, there will be some extra resources spent on the telecom side to help a double dipped content provider better distribute their content. But that's not a guarantee and there's nothing preventing them from making such arrangements already.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with whether or not telecoms can build better infrastructure to better support certain content providers. Net neutrality is about making sure telecoms don't double dip, just because they can.