skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Mindset is key for enduring discomfort that won't kill you. A cold shower won't hurt you, and knowing that you can assume any discomfort is unimportant, just a nerve reaponse reporting the situation. Muscle ache is similar, it is counter intuitive but that you are sore in itself won't hurt you.

Knowing what will and won't hurt you is important though. Something as simple as hydration is a lost skill in dealing with heat. I would wager many have forgotten how to walk more than short distances. You can totally walk 2km, unless you have mobility issues.

Not to take away from those with genuine mobility issues of course, but I also note that many are quick to find an ailment to define them and through that can really cheat themselves out of great experiences, assuming they aren't capable when really they are.

I am glad we are getting smarter about this kind of thing though, and the ever prolonged age of retirement is probably going to do a few favours in keeping many active and healthy. When my grandfather finally retired from the farm it was just a couple of years before his mind and body had withered away.
They're just older and have first mover advantage. Like Windows...
Only apple fanboys checked out leaks. The average consumer did not look up leaks before the event.
It's their failure, and one's own frustration is, at least, limited to downvotes-received.
Since an autopilot in an aircraft will not avoid a mid-air collision, this doesn't seem like an inappropriate term. Tesla's autopilot maintains a heading and speed, just like an aircraft autopilot, and usually behaves better in irregular circumstances.
Greed implies excess.
Krista Tippett (from the "On Being" podcast) talks about this as one of the most important social tasks at the moment - to help calm fears of those around us so that as a society we're less fearful of each other, and more open to each other. I found it a fascinating call-to-action, as the rise of fear is something I feel like I've been noticing.

Having said that, I'm only 30, so don't know if the local pattern of rising fear is part of a larger story of less fear (compared to cold war days, for example).
I agree the the environments should be open, but in the same way academia is, where putting ideas out there is fine but equally you should be prepared for them to be challenged. "Hostility" shouldn't be meaninglessly applied, but equally bad ideas shouldn't be encouraged.

That said, the completely incorrect way of handling this is to bias the outcomes, a.k.a purposely hiring genders (or any group) to meet quotas, balancing pay checks despite job descriptions, etc. That just puts incentives for unhappy people to remain where they are, nobody wins that way.
> It's absurdly expensive

How much do you pay?

Mine is $4.50 AUD per day, regardless of dose.

RE. Customs: it depends on where I'm travelling. I get a letter from the Queensland government (signed by the Attorney-General, interestingly) and have zero issues with even months worth of take-home doses.

Downside is, some countries (like Dubai, which I wanted to go over to for a conference) won't let me in at all with it. Oh well, only another 24 weeks and I'm off it entirely -- though I'm not looking forward to my depression returning, its an amazingly effective anti-depressant for myself.
Can someone please explain to me how this is still legal? Has this not been challenged through to the Supreme Court? The idea that the police can just steal money like this without a trial seems like textbook unconstitutional behavior. How has this been allowed to continue for so long?
Is your face scan really publicly available?
> I dunno what it is I just have a decent amount of faith in America's ability to generally move forward over time.

So with this, you just happened to touch upon an only tangentially related strongly held opinion of mine. So I'll rant for a sec: It is my strongly held belief that society and life does not just get better over time. All of the improvements we've seen in society have been from people fighting incredibly hard against entrenched systems in order to improve live for future people. Rights to vote for women and minorities, child labor laws, ending slavery, workplace improvements, anit-discrimination laws. Absolutely none of those improved "with time". All of them involved difficult, confrontational and frankly uncomfortable fights to improve society for everyone.

I think your view (and i'm not selecting you) is endemic in a lot of people in this country (particularly younger generations) that think life will improve if we just sit back and do nothing and give it time. This has never been the case in American society. People have been pushing hard to improve society and I really feel like a lot of people now have a view of "just wait and it will just happen". I personally believe this is an extremely misguided and hazardous view.

I'm definitely not looking to start an argument about it, but I do ask people to think of any major social improvements of the last century+ that didn't involve a large associated active social fight for it. Without people pushing us forward systems and societies calcify and then begin to rot.

---

On the topic at hand I absolutely think the majority of police mean well and are trying to help. However I do think as an broad generalization - as an organization police departments (and their unions) don't take feedback well, often work to defend/justify their actions rather than find ways to improve, and have a view of being above the law or that they should be granted exceptions because of their circumstances. This makes it difficult to root out those offices who condone and commit bad behaviors.

There is a reason why teachers choose goodie-two-shoes types to be hall-monitors. When given power over others, people need to be held to an even higher standard of behavior, vs be granted exemptions from rules/laws/accountability because of their job. Everyone should feel 100% at ease and trusting of their encounters with police. For whatever reason in today's society a lot of people justifiably don't feel that way. And we as Americans should make it a priority to fix that. Police and society should be on the same side - both against criminals.
I like the whole sqitch approach much better than that provided by most migrations (if I'm in migration land, I use https://flywaydb.org/). From the version control perspective you get the sprawl of changes across files like you do with migrations.

I find that, for tables, if I write anonymous "DO" blocks in a single script to manage both the initial creation of the table and any later deltas, I get a very satisfactory version control history. This is a bit different than the recommended approach (if I'm not mistaken).

I just wish it wasn't written in perl with 10,000 cpan dependencies which may or may not build in a given circumstance.
Rebel Wilson Wins Millions of Dollars in Defamation Case
You can also use the crown.
Facile comparison is facile.
You just disable FaceID in that scenario and go back to using a passcode.

But again if you can't trust your twin well then your phone is the last thing I would be worried about.
I enjoyed seeing a side-by-side comparison of some differences between the two systems. It seems to mix tooling support with language features, but I think that's fair, because good tooling is essential. It would be nice to see some more examples, but clearly some effort went into this evaluation.

I'm surprised the author thinks that Flow is more popular amongst the React community than Typescript. I hardly ever hear about Flow, and I work with React and follow it's development. I've been gradually concluding that Typescript has won in terms of future-of-frontend, so I'd be curious to know if people disagree.
I wonder what will happen to a generation obsessed with idols who don't contribute anything to society aside from memes, hot bodies and various rants.

But I guess I'm just old and grumpy.
I feel uneasy when I see people suggesting regulation by analogy e.g. with public utility regulation, as if laws regulating one sector could be transplanted onto another. Regulation must be properly thought through. But people seem to be rushing in to say that "this must be regulated" instead, even though it's not yet quite clear what "this" is. Is it "fake news"? Is it free speech? Is it market share? Yet these are all different issues.

For example, a case for economic regulation can be made for any service which exhibits network externalities. This might go in the way of limiting the market power of tech firms. But that would come short of pro-free speech regulations, and might say nothing about "fake news".
Labeling people does nothing to help change the situation other than alienate people from agreeing with you and understanding that things need to improve.
The two can coexist side by side.

A moderate libertarian might simply be someone who wants lower taxes, less regulations, and the government to stay out of people's personal lives.

Nothing about those policies or viewpoints directly contradicts a normal western democracy.
Hi. We're I'm from, we mostly say the plus the name of the road. So "take the Monash". But the Monash is officially "Monash Fwy". It's also called the M1. Country roads often have long names like "Main Neerim Road" or "Warragul Korumburra Rd". When I've had to give a direction involving them, I say "just before you enter town, turn left towards Warragul" because there will be a giant sign in Korumburra pointing towards Warragul; if you're in the middle of the road, you have a sign pointing to Korumburra and another pointing to Warragul.

Such roads often have numbers. But I've never committed them to memory or used them in ordinary conversation. Based on the precedent of the "M1", I guess I'd expect "the C520" or whatever. But that recommendation is probably not worth the paper it's printed on.
PyTorch DDPG for continuous action reinforcement learning on OpenAI environments
Not sure if I'm mistaken but isn't the major thing about this the TCKs? As far as I'm aware they are the keys to kingdom for alternative Java implementations. Never shared by either Sun or Oracle so if and when this happens it will be a good thing™.
> Once upon a Time you could mostly trust the news

Could we trust them or did we simply not have the means to fact check them and communicate the errors? Awful current affairs programs were around before the web and they were reporting some pretty dubious "facts" back then. Tabloids have been around for 100 years, maybe more.
Not a chance. Though they might change their name to Equifix.
> if you want people to believe you have to get them to opt-in to believing

There's a very nice article I read recently [1], on a situation in educational research (as in, how learning happens). The authors point out a situation where a group of 30 scientists published a letter informing teachers about a persistent myth about students. They go into a beautiful examination of the impact of this, what the scientists (possibly) miss, and what effective persuasion may look like. The authors' recommendations, suitably generalized, are a great read for our times, when polarization and tribalism are high, with a startlingly low tolerance for people with “different” ideas. Highly recommended:

[1]: https://deansforimpact.org/why-mythbusting-fails-a-guide-to-...
Will this pass the Senate?
Given that there are more MacOS than Linux machines, I'd say that is exactly what users want:

(And don't get into some "But Android is linux" nonsense)
Jeff Wayne's musical version of The War of the Worlds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6ckXQoBw2M
Her books are wonderful for small children-cute without being cloying, clever without being obvious about it. It's a shame to hear that she hasn't won any major awards for her works; probably, she'll be another of those artists who aren't recognized until they're gone.
The wireless industry is significantly more competitive than it would have been and this can exactly be traced to TMobile being independent and providing more unique plans which can be directly traced to the 2014/2015? Decision to prevent the AT&T acquisition of Tmobile.

The course of events here are very straightforward and clear in a way that's extremely rare where corporate actions are concerned. There's very little doubt that the FCC's actions preventing AT&T from acquiring TMobile has led to a significantly better wireless environment for US customers and Republican appointees, especially Ajit Pai, were on the wrong side of that decision.
how silly is that!
The world at large is pretty complex, but participating members of a democracy often need to take simple decisions based on that complicated web of information. Society's evolution and functioning requires that we take those decisions.

In many cases it's not possible for all individuals to understand because it would very time consuming and one may not have the training to do so either. So we need the help of journalists and agencies to make sense of the world.

I agree that the availability of sources where it is reasonable, should be made to the public. But that is also not always possible, since it may, in some cases, expose the sources to danger.

A consequence of this is that since we rely on intermediaries to simplify information for us, we are vulnerable to malicious propaganda conveyed by agents disguising themselves as trusted authorities.
Follow the Bitcoin with Python, BlockExplorer and Webhose.io
> Lovely, so I can officially claim I use a standard that is required by many commenters here if I just hash random bytes!

Stop pretending that you don't understand what a cryptological hash function is, or that using a strong crypto function is the same as rolling your own, or that using the hash function on your input is the same as running it on random bytes.

> Thanks for your analysis!

Thanks for the anecdotal evidence.
I'm not normally a shit-on-Apple/Android-is-amazing guy, I'm actually typing this on a MacBook Pro right now. But let's reel it in for a moment. Edge to edge screen, Galaxy S8. Smart watch: Pebble, Galaxy Gear, ZenWatch, etc. SmartWatch with cell service that isn't huge: Galaxy Gear S2 3G (frankly, I think better looking than the Apple Watch). Wireless charging: YEARS go in dozens of Android phones. The only thing announced today that Apple very well may have done "right" is the face recognition. Nothing else today was new or r/evolutionary. Yes, Apple frequently does things right that other people have failed on. The iPhone truly revolutionized the smartphone, the iPad made the tablet a non-crap market, iPod was fantastic, but let's not pretend everything today was iPhone 1 level amazing.
This happens. It's not good that it happens but we must expect it to happen.

What power to we have?

Change our perspective.

These online services which area now beginning to dip their toes into censorship / advertiser-hedged editorializing, are not to be seen as reliable ubiquitous platforms existing for the convenience of all. As much as they perhaps want to be seen as such, their actions belie this.

They are closed niches with particular stances, and their loyalty is never to us, despite marketing.

And we can treat them as such, we will be okay.

Backup your things. Use multiple providers. Use multiple accounts, a burner account for content against their editorial stance, and a longer lived account for other things. Run your own services. If you despise this state of affairs so greatly, form your own business services, and ape to take some of their market.

Tl;dr they are not our friends. Stop expecting them to not betray us, expect betrayal, and keep them at an appropriate distance.

Don't complain. Just start doing it if you want to protect yourself against it. I think github and npm can be included in this.
> People took such awful chances with chemicals and their bodies because they wanted the quality of their lives to improve. They lived in ugly places where there were only ugly things to do. They didn't own doodley-squat, so they couldn't improve their surroundings, so they did their best to make their insides beautiful instead — Breakfast of Champions
Libertarian economics is the most radical extremist free market economics that has ever been imagined and has never been implemented and never will be implemented.

Every modern and nearly every recent historical society has been a mixed economy. The only reason the middle class exists is because it was fought for, hard, by explicitly anti-Libertarian structures (new deal style reforms and make-work projects, welfare, healthcare, unions, minimum wages, worker protections, tarrifs, GI bill, universities, very high taxes on the rich and very high corporate taxes, publicly owned infrastructure, bailouts) fighting against or protecting free markets from themselves when they inevitably crash and burn and destroy themselves and the societies around them. Without these protections free markets would annihilate the entire middle class in a heartbeat for the sake of "efficiency" as is their nature (the middle class are by definition not the owners of capital so their concerns are not considered by a capitalist economic structure), a process that is occurring albeit more slowly in the US as we speak. Markets are very powerful engines for generating efficiency, so they are good at building economic engines (through exploitation, of course) while ignoring any and all other concerns or consequences. They are a paperclip maximizer. Not entirely useless tools, but horrifyingly murderous and dangerous ones that have a tenancy to seize power with disastrous results wherever they go.
Why aren't they already being done then?

Don't worry, it's more of a rhetorical question than one seeking an answer.
I didn't say there was nothing left to be discovered, I said that most of the low-lying fruit has been picked. Obviously there's a lot left to be discovered, but what's left is manifestly more difficult to figure out than what has already been figured out.
Which society, the customer's or their mortal enemy's?
The question is if that middle ground can support the $20bn SNAP valuation.

I would put my money on no. Snap seems like a worse version of Twitter IMO. Less value from a financial and social sense that was ridiculously overvalued at the IPO.
Are we talking about millenials, or boomers here? Cuz the complaint seems it could lobbied at pretty much anyone.
Funny, I could never trigger it when I wanted to. The method is simple though; start your swipe from below the edge of the screen. For you, maybe don't swipe from the bottom of the screen, that's what the scroll acceleration is for. ;D
> you can never change your fingerprint

Not quite true from the phone's perspective. Most people have nine backups to fall back on if they really need to.
What a load of bull. A simple photo doesn't work, there was a lot more work involved in subduing the facial recognition on S8.
BlueBorne: Worst Bluetooth Attack Impacts Billions of Devices
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/05/28/google-releas...

This says it's an international number but it also puts the % of female CS grads in the U.S. at 12%.

Other ways it might be off include that women who get CS degrees enter non-development positions at higher rates(Project managers, business analysts, etc) and drop out of the industry at higher rates(I've heard).
What you're starting to edge towards, then, is an educational issue. Personally I feel the only time I've seen an 'autopilot' shown as a fully autonomous system was in the 1980's film Airplane!

I couldn't narrow down exactly where in life I learned about autopilot systems in aircraft, but I always considered it to be common sense that autopilot doesn't mean "can completely fly itself"
they will create a rapidly evolving and flourishing entertainment industry, of which globally, america has the largest. this in turn boosts growth in related industries fashion, marketing, online retail, and of these the US is probably also the largest in all three.
I'm curious why this would be down voted.
They'll get old and then complain about the new generation doing the same thing.

Just like those geezers in The Clash complained about 'phoney beatle mania'
Snapchat started out as person to person app but at some point decided they will become person to world app (via snapchat stories), and it was doing well, to the point where most users use the stories feature more than the 1:1 feature.

Then came Instagram and ate their lunch. Now they can't go back because they have already IPO'd with the ad-driven business model (instead of somehow capitalizing on the ephemeral nature of the medium, which would have been much harder for FB/Instagram to copy).

So yeah, this is why people keep comparing these two.
Cryptocurrency chaos as China cracks down on ICOs
Many people make the naive mistake of assuming that this isn't what people want. The truth is that most people, and especially your average reader who doesn't spend their time on online forums as a matter of routine, are distressed by dissenting opinions on important topics, and will reject platforms that thrust this upon them.

For example, I've posted a number of "controversial" comments on HN that were purely technical and resulted in substantial discussion of the intricacies of the solutions discussed. Because these comments condemn the listless tech-hipsterdom that many devs rely upon to feel valuable (and that many important companies subtly leverage), people complained to the mods, seeking protection of the echo chamber. Apparently some of these people were important enough that HN reacted by throttling my account, initially by claiming my posts were too "tedious" and later revising the rationale to the facially spurious explanation of "engages in flame wars".

I haven't flamed anyone, but now I can't participate much in active discussion threads, hitting a something like a 3-hour throttle at something like 5 comments within an hour. Because my voice was drowning the chorus of echoes a little too much for comfort, and this displeased people whose opinion HN values.

This craving for echoes of validation is why reddit can't shed its negative image. reddit's concept of a unified identity with "default subreddits" severely limits the site's appeal, because anyone whom doesn't find the front page appealing is going to leave. Since the front page frequently contains acerbic content that is either critical of a large section of the public or presented in a manner that is conventionally considered crude, hostile, or defamatory, many leave not only uninterested but actively offended. How would your mom react if she loaded up reddit.com and looked around?

This is why the big players like Facebook and Twitter start each user with a blank feed and suggest only the most generic initial follows (usually late-night talk hosts, reality TV stars, and sports figures), and proceed to give each user total control over what they see. People demand echo chambers.

It surprises me to see jedberg still confused about this after all these years.
The funny thing is the results where gained either through paced pondering or by ridiculously talented individuals like von Neuman. Big science for non-applied fields is an oxymoron. Once a principle is figured out you can chuck a ton of people at it. But before that arrives, you can't pretend everyone is von Neuman and put them racing against each others. It seems there is no room for time and craftmanship in the publish-or-perish approach to science.
Apple watch 3 with cellular