skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sure. Especially in abstract algebra we have a whole, complex edifice that builds upon semigroups and monoids. But computer science doesn't have the same edifice (or anything resembling it), so you're mostly confined to "look, this is a monoid, isn't this neat?" and then things sort of end there. Actual use cases for monoids as building blocks for more complex concepts are pretty rare in computer science. And even in mathematics, the fact that (say) a ring is also a multiplicative monoid becomes mostly irrelevant soon enough.
Russia? Western minded country? When? Where? During the time of Peter the Great, maybe. But now? Absolutely not. There was a brief period of flirtation with Western Liberal ideas in the mid-90's and everything went to shit for them, so Putin put the kibosh on that.

Russia has never been a "Western"-minded country, outside of some "elite" circles in St. Petersburg/Moscow. They see themselves as distinct culturally from mainland Europe - they're their own thing.

Throughout history, they've always been a separate power with their own interests - always. In many ways like the UK, except the UK is at least part of "Western Civilization". Russia is neither.
Have you heard the theory that racism might be institutionalized?
> This is not true, if you run Debian / CentOS7 / Ubuntu, out of the box the settings are good. The thing you don't want to do is start to modify the network stack by reading random blogs.

I agree these are good defaults, but they are not meant to work well for all kinds of workloads. And yes, if things are working for you they way they are, that's okay; there's no need to change anything.

On the other hand, I personally don't know anyone who runs production servers of any kind on top of unmodified Linux distros.
I think a lot of what we think we know about this stuff comes from people who preface comments with "if I have to guess" being read by people who skip the first 5 words in those comments.
Don't you love how people here seem to parrot whatever cliche talking points that come from the standard left reading magazine stand? Salon, Huffington Post, Mother Jones (dear god), MSNBC and CNN.

They'll do a PR blitz with no supporting evidence and then for the next few weeks you'll hear the same phrase and comparisons over and over as if these people coincidentally all came to these conclusions on their own.

Remember a few weeks ago when you couldn't go one post without hearing "No moral equivalency between ANTIFA and neo-nazis." It hit the news. Then it hit the social media battleground as people basically parroted back what a couple of rich elites thought would be a good talking point for the sheeples.

And then ANTIFA beats the shit out of a white guy while a black journalist covers him to protect him and all a sudden the PR machine changes and decides to stop defending them. ... And now nobody is parroting the "no moral equivalency" cliche.

What happened? If the logic was sound and truly generated by unique individuals, why did it magically stop? Why would a chorus of people with the same argument stop thinking something they portrayed as a core, sound belief?! Oh wait, we all know the answer. People aren't unique. People aren't smart. And people are just using logic they borrowed from someone else, to smugly "win" arguments.

An easy way to tell people who have no actual depth understanding in their arguments is to simply ask them questions. The more you probe, the more you'll realize they don't have any fundamental understanding. They're the liberal equivalent of someone yelling bible verses at policy debates. "But God said X!" "But what did he mean in the surrounding verses?" ".. uhh.. uhm.. But God said X!"
Interesting, but I'm surprised it doesn't mention Iboga.
Even then the character pallete built into MacOS is much more convenient for searching, saving, and inputting.
How one man built a $51m theme park for his disabled daughter
I use it in the office (on Windows) and yes, the column mode is the best I used.
I did try the Mac version (of UE) but I think it was still in beta mode and I was not really impressed. But on Windows is really great.
Unless you really need to iterate over your class attributes I see no reason to do this. If you really want to save yourself the extra typing, could just as easily write a "make_slotted_class" factory function or a "SlottedType" metaclass that generates these classes with the same syntax as namedtuple/NamedTuple.

Edit: I stand corrected. There's no easy way (that I'm aware of) to generate an __init__ method in Python without resorting to string manipulation. Perhaps you could do it at the C level, but that defeats the purpose IMO.
No, it does not cause negative, destructive behavior. It causes you to lie down and feel good. And it also causes constipation. And, if your supply is interrupted, withdrawal symptoms. The rest is caused primarily by the laws and social environment. Having to interact with criminals? Getting uncertain doses? Overdosing? Those things are because it is illegal, not because it's an opiate.
Now that's just crazy talk.
Unfortunately, the drug war and punishing users of non-sanctioned drugs is embedded deep in America's political and social DNA - but seeing how much has changed in some areas of drug policy especially with variations from state to state - I hold out some hope that we might see some changes there too - but I just wouldn't hold my breath.
Ah sorry, I did misunderstand. Yes, no one is safe. Not Google, not Facebook, and not NSA or CIA or any agency or organization on Earth. A good defense is much harder than a good offense when it comes to infosec.
Actually, Yandex predates Google. But Google still managed to win in russian speaking markets. They couldn't surpass Yandex only in Russia I think. Vkontakte, on the other hand, was a Facebook clone that had time to excel before its worldwide expansion.
I really like the trendy something design. Going to go ahead with it. What if I need assistance during the Resume making process? Do you provide that?
I believe this is just a typing shorthand for `collections.namedtuple`:

https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html?highlight=name...

Last I checked `collections.namedtuple` had some infamous performance implications (although I vaguely recall some discussion about changing it's implementation):

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2646157/what-is-the-fast...

I believe that `collections.namedtuple` is beneficial for memory consumption [1], but you pay a cost when accessing members by `__getitem__`.

In general, judging by timings of the StackOverflow above, I think it is better to use `__slots__` in most cases than `namedtuple`.

[1] http://blog.explainmydata.com/2012/07/expensive-lessons-in-p...

Edit:

Also, fun fact, is that namedtuple does a clever bit of metaprogramming where a string class definition is formatted and passed to `exec`:

https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/b14308524cff/Lib/collecti...
Good ol' "Rock or something"
So they make things a bit nicer, sometimes. Alrighty then.
Have you tried getting a reporter at Reuters on the phone to make sure they know this? It seems like big, if true.
I plan on doing the same after a few million appear in my back account.

The thought of having something like Top Thrill Dragster in my backyard gets me very excited.
That's because single quotes used to be rendered as a right single quote (as you might have in a contraction), and the backtick was angled much less aggressively. That is, it looked much more natural at the time.
Yeah, because it's pretty clear you didn't read the article. It has nothing to do with trust.
You might be confusing the associative property with the commutative property (I do this all the time):

associative: (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)

commutative: a + b = b + a

For example, appending strings is associative, but not commutative. Appending items to an unordered set is both associative and commutative.
> it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed

As a reminder, the post to which you originally replied was answering this question:

>>>>> Did anything significant happen [in the 1960s/1970s] to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly?

This is a very reasonable and important question about "gender parity, cultural values, and other political issues".

IMO the parent provided a pretty decent, if pithy, answer. You have stated that you agree with the substance of parent's answer.

> edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation.

The way I see it, OP answered an important question in a mostly accurate manner. Their language was perhaps crass, but the substance of the "head out of their ass" claim -- that the US prior to 1960 was very bigoted and the political movement to end that bigotry contributed in part but not in whole to a move toward gender parity -- is one that you even seem to agree with.

So, parent wrote an accurate answer to a significant question about the very topics you deem important.

In turn, you replied with a condescending rebuke of his tone, a sequence of straw-men that distract from the original conversation about the cause of historical trends in employment, and a sequence of inconsistent positions about the role of rhetoric in argumentation.

I don't think these sorts of meta-conversations are particularly useful, but the content of your posts contradicts your stated preferences.
Crack vs powder sentencing isn't relevant. The violence was all on the crack side, which is what prompted the harsher sentences.

And yes, Obama got a law passed based on a lie. That happens all the time.

EDIT: Most people really don't care what you put into your body until you make them care, and that's what happened. You'd open up the paper and see another eight-year-old on the way to school got shot in the head because crack dealers were spraying bullets at each other again. That happens often enough and the public decides Something Must Be Done.

Personally, I thought a better solution would be to teach the crack dealers how to shoot, but nobody liked my idea.
> ... biblical literalism as being a straw man.

There are some definitional problems here (1). "Biblical inerrancy" is a more accurate term, but it's used interchangeably with "biblical literalism" for reasons I'm not clear on.

Nobody reads every word of the Bible literally. Portions of it are obviously poems. There perhaps wasn't really a Good Samaritan. That was a parable. But people who believe the Bible is inerrant do not think, "Hey, this part seems dumb to me. Let's just get rid of that part," which is a different reaction to reading the Genesis creation story.

But there are people who think the world was created in seven days 100k years ago (or even more recently). I was trying to describe a few different approaches, one of which involves interpreting a passage of Genesis as a poem. Other two approaches take that passage more literally. All of the above fit under the umbrella of "biblical inerrancy" rather easily.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism#Background
Can you trade GOOG -> AAPL without first converting to USD (i.e. selling the GOOG stock and then buying AAPL stock)?
Note: if for some reason your b3126 doesn't work properly after running b3143, I found that deleting just the Packages folder from my data folder [0] was enough to get b3126 back to normal.

[0] https://www.sublimetext.com/docs/3/revert.html
Alcohol is one of the only substances on the planet that can cause you to straight up die from withdrawal alone. Deaths from opiate withdrawal are secondary, usually from falling during a seizure. But with alcohol, your heart can simply stop or your brain have a massive stroke from the withdrawal. We think it harmless because its legal, but alcohol is radically dangerous from an addiction standpoint.
Imagine your an accountant for a firm, you realize they are committing unethical accounting practices, some which may be 'legal', some which may be 'not legal'. You feel like they are pretty heinous and they breached the 'trust of the public' by doing so.

In this dilemma which trust has the higher priority? In your opinion it should be the US military, in Manning's case, it was not.
One point seems to be about trust. She's noting how society depends upon digital, not analog, trust.

She thinks of that as dystopian because of the foreignness and inconvenience.

We, as technologists, can improve upon this by talking empathetically more with our users about how they interact with our technology, to help steer the product towards incorporating more human-focused designs. This could help avoid this Stranger in a Strange Land phenomenon becoming more prevalent, and avoid the negative psychological behaviors which disconnected individuals typically exhibit.
> this impoverished view of matter is wholly incapable of accounting for qualia

That's conjecture. The only arguments against physicalist explanations for qualia amounts to a bunch of meaningless philosophical hand-waving.
>I still find Reddit comments the easiest to read and follow (HN is a pretty close second, especially after they added comment collapsing)

Really? I hate the tree style of comments. It's all well and good when you're reading a chain of replies, but then you run into a comment that's halfway back up the tree and have to make several attempts at collapsing comments to figure out which one is the sibling.

I much prefer a comment system like 4chan, where the post you're replying to is linked and previewable, as are posts replying to yours.
I believe that depended on the manufacturer and country convention. Most US keyboards didn't have an accent character. For example, here's one from the 1950s:

http://www.typewriters101.com/uploads/1/7/6/6/17660651/s7662...

For acute or umlaut you could use a + backspace + ' or u + backspace + " (or the opposite order). For grave or circumflex, I don't think there was a solution. Write it in by hand?
Show HN: Howto-cli – Master your command line
It's a higher level API and you're deliberately ignoring all of its higher level features and concentrating on the part that clearly is underdeveloped. Maybe you should use your imagination instead of putting a square peg in a round hole?
On the other hand, vim + tmux is pretty awesome, and for that reason I prefer vim on the terminal. I've never particularly liked gvim, even if I'm not using tmux. In Linux, hitting the start or end of a buffer causes some sort of screen redraw that I've never been able to fix, but that might have to do with my configuration.
To everyone saying that Caddy made it simple for automated LE; I agree, but also, it's not that difficult to setup with NGINX:

Edit /var/nginx/ssl_common.conf

ssl_certificate /etc/letsencrypt/live/<site>/fullchain.pem;
ssl_certificate_key /etc/letsencrypt/live/<site>/privkey.pem;

location ^~ /.well-known/acme-challenge/ {
default_type "text/plain";
allow all;
root /var/www/example;
auth_basic off;
}

Edit crontab, add:

30 2 * * 1 /bin/certbot -a webroot --webroot-path=/var/www/example renew --renew-hook "systemctl restart nginx"

Make the cert

mkdir -p /var/www/example
certbot certonly --webroot -w /var/www/example/ -d www.example.com

In your NGINX HTTPS server blocks add:

include ssl_common.conf

That should be it...
Didn't mean to single you out. Apologies.

I was trying to point out (for the lurkers if not you) that atheism doesn't get a free pass just because there are all sorts of creation stories to consider. A materialist story is a story nonetheless.
> How often do you document an API in such a way?

Every time `instance Monoid Foo` occurs in the Haddock documentation of a Haskell datatype which is pretty often!

> Does the frequency with which this occurs justify introducing new terminology?

"Justify" according to what set of criteria? Personally I prefer it.

> you artificially inflated the wording to make "x is associative and has a neutral element y" look more complicated than it actually is

So your suggestion is

* baz is associative and quux is a neutral element for it

Really, if you're going to go that far you may as well go all the way and just say

* Foo is a Monoid under baz and quux

> while not even naming in your "short" case what the operation and neutral element are.

Well, in the Haskell world they're implied by the typeclass instance, but I take your point.
If the real problem is simply inequality, it has done a bad job of arguing it. Many wealthy people in England are born into it regardless of whether their silver spoon came with an engraved coat of arms, many more wealthy people have little better claim to their London real estate (eg the Russian oligarchs), and more fundamentally, personal traits like intelligence are not earned or deserved either but are (currently) flukes of the genetic lottery + good luck in parental genes. Talking about the aristocracy, as opposed to all the much larger and more important groups, would be a severe case of missing the big picture, and runs up against all the ranting in the article & title about the aristocracy, so I am pretty sure that is not what they were aiming at in the first place.
I think if there was any justice in the USA, a court would declare that the Equifax breach was significant enough that the damage caused is greater than the value of the Equifax company, and the company itself would be taken from existing stockholders and shares distributed among the american public affected by the breach. The company could then continue trading with all proceeds going to the people harmed in the breach, and the employees could then go on to work for the people that they harmed.
Have you studied the crack epidemic or have you simply slurped up some recent liberal political journalism?
There's that, and there's the fact that people of mainstream faiths tend to resent their beliefs being compared to primitive animism, and there's the fact that those comparisons are also an Internet atheist activist trope.

But more generally it's a little weird asking someone outright why they belong to a particular religion. It's not something you're meant to litigate. We rightly feel irritated when fundamentalist Christians proselytize to strangers; this is another instance of the same thing.
You think so? We've talked to a few law firms, and it seems it's a really hard market to crack. Docx support was our next feature before we decided to halt new feature development.
> evidence-based medicine

non-evidence based medicine that uses the made-up-on-the-spot holistic approach is upheld by the idea that there is no scientific method available because it is about the body as a whole.

I think that rebuttal is reductionist and that there could be a method that is applicable to that form of treatment.

does anybody have thoughts on that?
In case you're looking for a sincere answer: being physically dependent on any otherwise unnecessary drug is a drag. You constantly have to seek it out to feel better. Even though caffeine is easily obtainable, I still have found it to be inconvenient when I've been at high levels of consumption. Plus, it does have health effects. It may not be so, but you'll likely feel a lot better without it.
The startup has extremely limited resources, it's a bootstrap, as I explained. The licence prohibits us from using the personal licence, and there is a time cost involved in building and maintaining our own version. $1200 a year is not good value for us when NGINX will do the job for free.

I never claimed that no one should pay for anything, and I wish the people working on Caddy the best of luck. I think it's a fantastic piece of software and, as I have said several times, I am very grateful for the effort that has been put into making the project what it is.

However the change means that I have to act or be left with an out-of-date internet facing server. If you cannot see why I am annoyed at being given no choice but to spend time or money on solution because Caddy has introduced a new commercial licence, then I will not convince you of anything.
ST or Emacs?
Name changes aren't an edge case. What's dystopian to me is the unwillingness of people to actually work out and solve issues for their clients, customers, and citizens. "Computer Says No" is used to avoid having to work and avoid having to escalate.
Ask HN: What would you do with MySpace
I am just curious to think what other people around the globe would do..
Let's assume someone sold you MySpace for a dollar/euro/yen...
You now own every piece of data / equipment / IP that MySpace comes with. Except the debt(s).

What would you do?

And no, I'm not "asking for my friend". Im genuinely curious!
How would you know my opinion on it?
Just because you're praising Bill Gates for things that aren't true doesn't mean you're not praising the same Bill Gates.
> Under my Foo API you are able to combine Bars just like adding numbers.

No. Firstly, Bars may not be commutative. Secondly, would you really say that taking the unions of sets is "just like adding numbers"?
It may be. It might also be the term that economists use when they talk to each other, to avoid having to go to "Cut Out the Middle Man Conference 2017." Just because someone isn't using a colloquialism doesn't mean they're pretending to be an intellectual.
Yandex predates Google just like many other search engines predated Google but couldn't give relevant results. But I suspect Google's page rank algorithm was the deal and Yandex at some point improved their search results after Google was the hot kid.

Now that LinkedIn is banned in RF (is it still?) there's a chance for moikrug or other local startups to come up.

In Moscow I have seen and met (including Yandex) dozens of startup guys copycatting successful US ones. I was always curious why they were more successful than the Berlin ones or other west and east European ones. My conclusion has been the cyrillic alphabet. Of course a country of ~150millions with CIS expansions.

I would assume China, Korea, Japan, and some south Asian countries with a different alphabet and a large population offer the same opportunity to to startups.

Curious case is India - and I don't remember they having winner tech giants except outsourcing ones.
I'm not advocating for a specific side and it's interesting that is the conclusion you instantly went to. I'm saying WW2 wasn't about a global fight of good versus evil or even about individual rights per se. Those were definitely parts of it, but saying that's the ideological basis is untrue.

> "Sorry, but you're the one who is "forcing a narrative" here. You have defined the sides, such that all "sides" have crapped on human rights."

I consider my views to be Independent, not left, right, or center. I don't think things can be boiled down to two subjects easily as there are often many more considerations that need to be made when making a decision on what to do. If I did have to advocate a side, my side would be in the interest of trying to talk about things in as complete a manner as possible. That means I generally try to resist boiling things down to dualistic evaluations.

I'm not arguing that all sides have crapped on human rights and that somehow invalidates the good actions of the USA. I'm saying that what you claim to be the ideological basis of the war is untrue. Doesn't mean that the war wasn't necessary and a good thing. If anything I'd make the argument that we really messed up the post war and betrayed a lot of people who were looking to us for help. I still consider it rather ironic how Ho Chi Minh was originally a supporter of democratic instutions and a friend of the US, until he decided the independence of his people mattered a lot more.

I think I can understand why you went to the conclusion that you did, but I don't think you're arguing against what you think you are.
Are all kurds members of PKK? Is there any evidence that US is giving these weapons specifically to PKK?