skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Author here. If I am not mistaken (I don't do web development.) very early versions of ClojureScript repl compiled code on the JVM side then piped the output to the browser. (Maybe it still does idk) I am thinking of doing something similar using Cling[1]. Ferret can compile and pipe output to Cling and use Cling as the repl.

[1] https://root.cern.ch/cling
"Under single payer system, it's illegal to purchase medicine or health care."

Total utter FUD. It's legal and normal in each of the 3 countries I've lived&worked in with a single-payer system. You seem very misled.
> If you want people like him to actually change their minds, you have to be willing to hear them out first. You can't show someone where they went wrong if they're too scared to tell you what they think in the first place.

I agree with you that this minimum amount of maturity should be the standard (though, again, I think it should be the minimum standard).

However, this amounts to being the guy who will let you finish your sentence, but isn't actually listening, they're just waiting for you to stop talking so they can say "you're wrong because..." without having heard anything.

Maybe it's better not just to make people think they can speak up, but also to make an effort to actually listen when they do.
Exactly !

But 'intertwined' means correlation, not causation. Being a woman is correlated with not doing software dev. in a tech company. It does not mean that tech discriminate against women, because correlation ≠ causation.
Germany is closer to Russia than France, and yet less "willing" to go to war.

Japan with 11% is really amazing, and yet it's near real threats with China and North Korea.

It would seem, countries who remember what war is actually like, would rather not fight; that would explain the results of Japan, Germany, France, Spain, the UK. The only exception is Russia, who suffered immensely during WW2 and yet would apparently fight again?

Or does it have something to do with age?
I've used both a little bit and as a complete novice to graphics/game development I would say the biggest difference was the lack of good tutorials which Unity has and Unreal not really.
The violence is institutional and coming straight from the white house.
I see. So, if there will be these profitable companies which profit from building and maintaining automation technologies, will they be so small that anyone can start their own automation company or be so big that they will require huge investments and go public?

In the first case, many people will be owners of such businesses and many people will profit from it... in the second case, people will buy stock of those companies and will profit from it. So, it seems like the money will be distributed over many people, basically anyone who is willing to invest. So, no universal basic income required.

However, that is not even the main problem of the idea of universal basic income. The main problem is that governments don't have any money to give out to anyone. Governments rely on people's money to operate. So, if people won't have any jobs, they will pay no taxes and governments won't have any money to operate, let alone give it back to people.

If they are going to tax businesses, people won't invest. Also, businesses don't want to pay taxes, so they would rather spend the money in expanding themselves than pay taxes on profits.
Great news. But it's still sad that defending common sense requires so much time and effort.
That's not a counter argument because women DIDN'T actually start companies and still doesn't. So what do you want to do? Force them to? According to you, that's what we need.

The reason why people get board seats is again one of those misunderstood discussions. It has absolutely nothing to do with qualification as in non-at-all. What it has to do with is the board members access to network, political power, special experience etc.

So as long as you and other keep insisting qualification is somehow important in this discussion, you are actually the ones making the noise.

Qualification has nothing to do with this.
I've seen a lot of this argument going back and forth on the concept of "how it would feel to be a diversity hire" or "if more qualified candidates aren't getting the job". This ENTIRE line of thinking misses the point of diversity programs. The purpose is long-term--to make it so that at some point in the future you don't NEED a diversity program anymore. And that's why they are critical.
Shhh, don't tell everyone that "privilege" is a double-edged sword.
I think this person might have grounds to sue Google for financial compensation. I don't think what Google did was legal. A good lawyer could probably sue millions from them.

But I understand why they had to fire him for PR reasons. It would be untenable to keep him. They will probably just write off any compensation they will have to pay him as the result of upcoming lawsuit.
That's true, I do not disput it.

My point was about the countries as a whole, including civilians and by including the displaced people. And I did include them because you pointed at the amputation of territories, which is something that happened nearly 70 years after the WWII, so I felt I could talk about what happened in the ten years after the WWII.

You know this point about displaced people strikes me because I am French:

I did work with (old) Germans and sometimes I felt some bitterness, including an occasion where one guy in an hotel told me of bombardments on Heidelberg (not a town that suffered heavily) and I was thinking that my father suffered also from bombardments (bombs exploded around him) as a 18 years old in France, so what was his point? Many years later I learned that the Allied discourse of "the good and the bad people" was an heavy (re) writing of history.
Best browser-based tools to sketch your software diagrams
Author here. It is the Half-Life logo. I wanted a lambda symbol for a favicon, love the game too so I settled on a open licensed logo.
In clojure you can always write a macro that will define your recursive function in an implicit loop form, if writing "loop" looks bad.

That (or plainly using loop) forces you to be explicit whenever you want to use tail recursion (still unsure whether this is good or bad). But the good news is that now the compiler will catch as an error whenever you intended to use tail recursion and your function wasn't tail-recursive, which I'm sure has caused more than a headache in other recursion-heavy languages.
FOXX Financial Loan Offer

We give out loan at the rate of 3% interest rate, if you are interested for a loan, you are here by

advise to fill and return the loan application form to this Email( foxx.loanfinancialaid@gmail.com) alone to know if you are truly interested in loan. I am here to put smiles in all sad faces.

FULL NAMES:
ADDRESS:
COUNTRY:
AMOUNT NEEDED:
DURATION OF LOAN:
PURPOSE OF LOAN:
SEX:
MARITAL STATUS:
MONTHLY PAYMENT:
PHONE NUMBER:
EMAIL:

By replying with these details to (foxx.loanfinancialaid@gmail.com),
we shall move forward to the next step which is the terms and
re-payment plan schedule.

Mr. Howard M Colleman .

Phone: +18475128241
Almost everything in this comment chain is incorrect. Manufacturers do list all ingredients including fillers and inactive ones. Ask for the "package insert" and the pharmacy will give you the sheet with that info.

Also, brand name and generics are tested to the same tolerances. If the generic is allowed 10% margin the brand is too. In fact, sometimes they're made on the same production line. A few years back when generic Protonix came out it was a huge issue, as it was extremely easy to mix up the "brand" and "generic" because they looked identical and came in similar packaging. I remember hearing about pharmacies getting fined for supposedly mixing them up. If there is any chance of a mixup between brand and generic (missing DAW is a common typo) you had to throw them away because there was no way to tell them apart.

Something else you overlooked, related to the above, is that "Brand name" companies typically own as least one subsidiary that produces generics. For example, GreenStone is 100% owned by Pfizer, so i have doubts their generic products could be any different.

I'm not normally a dick on HN but I don't appreciate people blowing facts out their ass when it relates to common misconceptions. The drug companies want you to believe generics are inferior, and they spend more on marketing than drug research. You should speak to some pharmacists if you want honest opinion on the matter. They're easy enough to talk to and I think you'll find that the vast majority share my opinion.
I think I did the opposite? Pretty sure I blamed the corporate culture for him not having a better way to express himself without causing this problem.
After reading this and some other comment sections and blogs I still haven seen single of his "stupid views" refuted in concise and logical manner, without relying on assumptions that only sexism and biases in hiring are cause of gab in distribution of sexes in tech.

Based on my personal experience during my education I think his assumptions are quite accurate. Men are more inclined towards tech and science while women are more inclined towards education and social studies. But this is generalization. You also have women who excel in math and men who excel in education. Its just that there are less of them.

Imo James was very careful with his words and stated multiple times that generalizing is harmful. He even included graphical representations of that: https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1502146696203-S...
I edited out the overt vitriol, because on reflection it was unhelpful. But I don't think it was unmerited, and I think you miss the point of it, which has nothing to do with the rather silly but largely harmless app and accompanying promotional piece.

'moneytalks might genuinely be interested in convincing people that it's more worth finding ways to step out of their comfort zone and help others, than it's worth using some kind of "randomize my life" app. If he is so interested, then he goes about it in the worst way possible - what he ostensibly advocates is difficult enough for many folks to contemplate, without adding the apparent likelihood of doing so only in order to have to put up with the kind of pretentious, contemptuous priggery we see on display here. But 'moneytalks spends so much more effort on being a pretentious, contemptuous prig, rather than suggesting it might be worthwhile to do somebody a good turn, that it's very hard to credit his interest being in the latter, rather than the former.

That's what merits my ire and my vitriol. I don't care if some random Google or Amazon or whatever decides to shake up his routine in the most stereotypically Silicon Valley way possible. I agree there are lower-effort, higher-impact ways to go about that, but I'm not going to get all judgey over it. I am going to get all judgey over somebody using "we should help other people" as an excuse to spit contempt that makes no one want to actually do that, and if anything puts people off.

If you want to get all precious and self-gratifying and put yourself on a pedestal over other people, read Pitchfork and be a music hipster, or Petapixel and be a camera hipster, or pick some other ancillary realm of human endeavor, where the distaste your behavior elicits will do no harm. Being a helping-people hipster goes from useless but harmless to actively toxic, and I don't see why anyone should expect to get a pass on that.
That theory would be in serious need for backup, because I can't see any connection. The pension systems will break down in countries like Germany without substantial mass immigration, that much is true, but is clinging to existing power the major motive for avoiding this breakdown? I'm not sure about this second part.

As for Germany, by the way, the explanation is kind of simple. Contrary to popular belief, the German border cannot be effectively closed, and once someone has seeked for asylum, this needs to be checked. At the same time, the Dublin II regulation is extremely unfair and unsolidaric, it was designed for a few refugees here and there, and insisting on it would have tumbled Greece even further into crisis and alienated Italy. More importantly, however, the German constitution would have made rejecting refugees impossible, as it guarantees the right to asylum to someone who comes from a country in which a war rages. Moreover, rejecting them would also have violated Article 18 of the EU constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1951 Refugee Convention. This is constitutional law and ratified international law, so Merkel thought something like "Blimey, what do I do now? Break all these laws and loose in front of the Supreme Court or European Court of Human Rights , or risk my career while standing in for those fancy human rights values I've always held speeches about?"
Game development is hard and making anything substantial will require spending thousands of hours in either engine, so it's more about the purpose of the engine rather than ease of use, since you will eventually have to learn all the ins and outs of either one.

Unreal is a "AAA" engine originally meant for large teams. It has much better level design tools and collaboration features, but all programming must be done in C++ which is fragile and can break the whole engine. Lighter scripting can be done with Blueprints which is good for designers making levels interactive. Unreal is a good choice if you are aiming to make a serious production with a team making large detailed levels.

The Unity Asset Store has many more plugins and it's easier to put together a sandbox type game with lots of features, since its managed code design makes it easier to drop in scripts other people have made. There are level design tool plugins available that mimic what Unreal does, but they aren't as polished and collaboration is harder.
In short the problem is that there's no explanation for why you only experience a single branch, and no explanation of why the probabilities associated with those branches are given by the Born rule.

Although there are many versions of MWI, the general claim is that a single axiom (a unitarily evolving wavefunction) is sufficient to explain our observations of the universe. Without getting into what it means to "explain" something, it seems fair to demand that a sufficiently intelligent agent with no prior knowledge of our physics should be able to predict what the theory says about their future observations. However no one would be able to make any experimental predictions based on the above axiom. There's nothing there to suggest that if the agent becomes entangled with a quantum system then they would only experience a single branch of the entanglement. Even if you add that in, there's nothing to suggest which branch the agent will experience (this is roughly the preferred basis problem). Even if you add that in, there's nothing to suggest with what probability the agent will experience that branch.

You could always add in the above as additional axioms. You could postulate some physical content to the Born-rule, or to something weaker from which to deduce the Born rule. But this would break the illusion that MWI requires fewer axioms. Instead, a great deal of energy has been expended into deducing the Born rule purely from that single axiom. There have been many very clever attempts at this, but none convincing enough to settle the matter.
I fail to understand what the US Constitution has to do with this conversation.

The US Constitution is a document that outlines what powers the people of the US have granted to the Federal government, it has no bearing on what I am talking about
Penny-sized nanochip pad is able to regrow organs and heal injuries
Life is too short to not spend it in great company rather, to spend it being so weak you consider a bit of reflection and having compassion for others as "worrying". An unexamined life is not worth living, as Abe Lincoln said during the Super Bowl show, so what are you even calling life? Furthermore:

Love and knowledge led upwards to the heavens,
But always pity brought me back to earth;
Cries of pain reverberated in my heart
Of children in famine, of victims tortured
And of old people left helpless.
I long to alleviate the evil, but I cannot,
And I too suffer.

This has been my life; I found it worth living.

-- Bertrand Russell

Who also said this:

> Although both love and knowledge are necessary, love is in a sense more fundamental, since it will lead intelligent people to seek knowledge, in order to find out how to benefit those whom they love. But if people are not intelligent, they will be content to believe what they have been told, and may do harm in spite of the most genuine benevolence.

Life is a big word, and I find a collection of unrelated experiences without connecting any dots to be more a hysterical undertaking born of lack and leading to more want. Others can disagree, but they cannot tell me what fulfills me in my life. Life is too short to be a coward about it, life is to short to not face the music, life is too short to not own up. Ultimately, I care more about saving myself than anyone else: I need to not be crooked, I can't help everybody but if I help nobody who would I be?

And frankly, I don't know a single selfish person who seems happy, they all seem scared, like feeding some monster in their basement that is never full and just keeps growing. Life is too short to have pity on them, or to accept what they offer.

> Say honestly, "I love arm-chairs better than free men, and pursue them because I choose; not because circumstances make me. I love hats, large, large hats, with many feathers and great bows; and I would rather have those hats than trouble myself about social dreams that will never be accomplished in my day. The world worships hats, and I wish to worship with them."

> But if you choose the liberty and pride and strength of the single soul, and the free fraternization of men, as the purpose which your life is to make manifest then do not sell it for tinsel. Think that your soul is strong and will hold its way; and slowly, through bitter struggle perhaps the strength will grow. And the foregoing of possessions for which others barter the last possibility of freedom will become easy.

-- Voltairine de Cleyre, "The Dominant Idea"
>>I fully support reservation for people who belong to traditionally marginalized communities when it comes to education.

This was the original vision of the people who designed the reservation system in India. Their idea was some people where so behind in the social strata that merely expecting them to make up on hard work would take it forever to work. But this policy should have some expiry conditions. Else it leads to absurd conditions like it does in India.

There are cases where the father is a well earning rich doctor, and the kids still get reservations. There is a guy who has just done his MBBS, and yet he qualifies for reservation for a MD seat. Entry and qualifying marks/percentages are lower for reservation seats, so you have a condition where exceptionally good performers and bad performers are both in the same peer group in a class, and then the bad performing group routinely does bad and loses out.

>>Reservation policy should not extend into the work force.

Once you create a entitled group of people, you can't succeed them in stopping them from asking special privileges in other places.
Why not divulging too much? Anyway thanks for your story.
There are famously-many other axioms that can be added to ZF, and which turn out to be equivalent to Choice.

Of the following three equivalent extensions to ZF:

* Axiom of Choice

* Zorn's Lemma

* Well-ordering Principle

Jerry Bona quipped:

"The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the Well-ordering Principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?"
Thanks, now I think about it, that makes a lot of sense.
Nanochip could heal injuries or regrow organs with one touch, say researchers
I suppose it is easier if you learn proof-by-induction first in a math class.
"Have an honest discussion", "review", etc, are all weasel words for "cut down on". This is the same across industries, it's bog-standard doublespeak. To "have an honest discussion" about a diversity program that we're not already having means that at least one party has a strong belief that they should be ended or seriously cut down.
Well, entertainingly enough, DRM is serious problem for farmers these days. (Much worse, tbqh, than it is for techies.) Even farmers run unapproved firmware these days.
I don't know how this is possible outside of science fiction but I wonder how popular military service would be on a historical timeline, all else being equal but the variables being we turn on or off a livable basic income and free of cost health care (like medicare) for all. Would people still be eager to join the US military?
Coutinho and Barcelona Just Hours Away – La Liga News UK
I had once had to take apart an optical camera.

The approach which worked for me was:

a) Unscrew a few parts
b) Screw them back
c) Unscrew a few parts and some more
d) Screw everything back in that same order
) .. repeat until done

Finally, it all ended well
Did you read what those scientists say? While there is consensus on the memo's statements about biological differences (which again - I agree with), there is hardly consensus on the conclusions drawn:

"But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe. Not precise enough to do much good, probably will cause a lot of harm."

That pretty succinctly summarizes my view.
Abstract: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/376

In December 2015, Juniper Networks announced that unknown attackers had added unauthorized code to ScreenOS, the operating system for their NetScreen VPN routers. This code created two vulnerabilities: an authentication bypass that enabled remote administrative access, and a second vulnerability that allowed passive decryption of VPN traffic. Reverse engineering of ScreenOS binaries revealed that the first of these vulnerabilities was a conventional back door in the SSH password checker. The second is far more intriguing: a change to the Q parameter used by the Dual EC pseudorandom number generator. It is widely known that Dual EC has the unfortunate property that an attacker with the ability to choose Q can, from a small sample of the generator's output, predict all future outputs. In a 2013 public statement, Juniper noted the use of Dual EC but claimed that ScreenOS included countermeasures that neutralized this form of attack.

In this work, we report the results of a thorough independent analysis of the ScreenOS randomness subsystem, as well as its interaction with the IKE VPN key establishment protocol. Due to apparent flaws in the code, Juniper's countermeasures against a Dual EC attack are never executed. Moreover, by comparing sequential versions of ScreenOS, we identify a cluster of additional changes that were introduced concurrently with the inclusion of Dual EC in a single 2008 release. Taken as a whole, these changes render the ScreenOS system vulnerable to passive exploitation by an attacker who selects Q. We demonstrate this by installing our own parameters, and showing that it is possible to passively decrypt a single IKE handshake and its associated VPN traffic in isolation without observing any other network traffic.
He cited some primary sources. And some Wikipedia pages. But I'm comfortable saying that he doesn't review the issues fully.