skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I understand their rationale for it, but I don't think it should be implemented. Having something immutable like this allows it to end up being used for tracking purposes. Just add a <script src="trackingcookie.js" /> that calls a function with the cookie and all the sudden there's yet another place to covertly store an ID for tracking a user.
Bribe government to erect a Great Firewall, and block Facebook, citing 'privacy concerns', 'reduction of online harassment', 'support of terrorist networks', 'undermining of freedom of speech', 'bad influences of outside cultures', etc... whatever works best for a specific country ;)
Unfortunately the amount of groups on Facebook is nowhere else to be found, especially important for people who move/travel a lot. Not to mention the majority of events & co often only is posted on FB.
> What is the rationale behind defining child porn age < 18?

The most widely ratified human rights convention, the UNCRC, defines a child as someone under 18.

While the US doesn't ratify those conventions (because constitution) they do try to put them into law. That means they enact a mish-mash of bits and pieces, and leave out quite a lot.

England does a reasonable job here. We have the law (The Sexual Offences Act 2003 covers photographs of children), and we have prosecution advice (which covers things like whether it's in the "public interest" to prosecute.) The sexual offences act has some protections for people who are over 18 but who have a vulnerability impdeding choice (eg, a learning disability) or who are in a weird power dynamic (eg university lecturers).

There are also differences in law between someone under 13 (where it's assumed the alleged offender knew they were under age) and someone between 13 and 16/18 where the crown has to prove the alleged offender knew they were under age.

English law is a bit complicated because the age of consent for sexual activity is 16. It is weird that you can fuck a 17 year old, but you can't have naked photos of that same person. There's a narrow exemption in law for possessing images for people who are under 18 and married.

Here's the sexual offences act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

Here's the Crown Prosecution Service guidance: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/...
Edit: I misread this comment, and agree that a review isn't a review if it's just a comment. Leaving my original comment for context of my error :-)

-----

No, they were reviews. See the screen shot in the article: it shows stars (in this case a one-star review) with the review commentary. Followed by:
"Except that in all likelihood the overwhelming number of bad reviews on Clinton’s book were not from genuine readers, but from a concerted attack to bring down the average reviews on her page. By 3:05pm New York time, Amazon had apparently deleted over 900 reviews of the book."
> I haven’t used FB for years (...) When I want to connect with my friends I use WhatsApp

Mark Zuckerberg rubs his hands :)

Not a criticism, I do the same, despite having refused to join FB.
Doesn't squash and rebase eliminate this problem? It removes all those possibly broken intermediate commits once it's in master.

I'll add that another annoying thing about rebasing is that if you make multiple changes to the same piece of code that conflict with changes on master, when you rebase, you have to resolve each change independently instead of only the last snapshot. However, if the changes are in different places, I like the incremental conflict resolution process of rebasing instead of the one-shot merge commit.
Yeah I thought that was the current behaviour, and shift-cmd-r actually invalidates all
It happens in many places. Look up Art of the Deal and filter by 1-star reviews, and you'll see many comments that are clearly just opinions of President Trump, as opposed to the book itself.
Based on history of previous "disruptors" like Microsoft disrupting IBM, Google disrupting Microsoft, Amazon disrupting Sears, etc... the disruption will be accidental and unplanned.

When people try to consciously disrupt an entrenched business with massive inertia like Microsoft of 1990s, it fails. Examples include Netscape (hubris of "the web browser+internet Windows is the new operating system and MS Windows is obsolete") or Linux (cue recurring joke of "1995 is The Year of Linux Desktop!!!"). When your agenda is transparent, you just paint a huge bullseye on your back and fail.

Google/Alphabet for the first time in 2017 is about to pass Microsoft in revenue ($100 billion.) It took Google 19 years to do it. When Google started in 1998, they didn't know they would be working on a thing called "Android" in 2006/2007 that makes MS Windows less relevant -- especially for emerging web users outside of USA. Today, a mobile internet user with a cheap Android phone can check email (GMail instead of MS Exchange), look up encyclopedia facts (Wikipedia instead of MS Encarta CD), look up actors in movies (IMDB instead of MS Cinemania CDROMs), etc. Of course, that list includes Google creating a "launch pad" to other websites (PageRank search instead of MSN as web portal). MSN in 1998 was a small part of Microsoft's business. And things like GMail were not in Google's roadmap in 1998.

You can't disrupt Facebook head on with an obvious goal of disrupting them. Instead, you hit them sideways. You disrupt them by doing something else that doesn't look like you're disrupting them. For example, instead of creating a new "social network", you create a micropayments system that's easier than PayPal or Apple Pay. Or you create an entertainment platform with a "social" component as an afterthought. Maybe one of those non-social networks accidentally becomes a new focal point for social gathering and accidentally disrupts Facebook.

Put another way, the startup entrepreneurs that will disrupt Facebook are working in their proverbial "garage" right now -- but they don't know they will disrupt Facebook in the future. (That's because they're not working on an "obvious" social network.) It's good that they don't know that they're competing with Facebook because if they did, they'd trip over themselves with their ambitions and they'd start a battle they can't win. (E.g. Snapchat losing to Facebook's Instagram.)
Clarification about the Army taking in 17 year olds. They aren't allowed to be deployed, since the UN takes a very dim view of child soldiers.

The UK had a problem a few years ago when they accidentally deployed some 17 year olds to Iraq.
You are correct that the key differentiator between the two is philosophical, but

> If you value ideology over pragmatism

That laden false dichotomy died a long time ago. At best, one can speak of "short term pragmatism" vs "long term pragmatism".
I don't think that's entirely clear. At least for cpus, less transistors in practice means you get rid of super-scalar architectures, and over-engineered microcode decoding and branch-prediction units. This leads to a modest reduction in processing speed with far larger gains in battery life for mobile devices (think X86 versus Arm). Client side applications are mostly unaffected in terms of end-user functionality.
Persistence might be key? Some people may be addicted to gambling with lottery tickets, or may just buy more than others in the same area.

I remember once early in my IT career, I was doing work for the local government agency that was responsible for issuing all the 'scratch the ticket and find 3 matching symbols' lottery games in our state. They used to sell the tickets at the front counter of the agency office as well as various shops and newsagencies around town etc.

While I was working on a PC in the manager's office, another manager came in and said that one of the games had sold ALL tickets at the other retail outlets, and that they had about a hundred $2 tickets left at their front desk and the main prize of $1000 hadn't gone off yet.

When one manager left the room, the other manager looked at me and said "Well, the rules forbid us from buying those tickets, but if you have a spare couple of hundred on you, I'd buy up all those tickets at the front counter...". I thought it was all a bit weird and didn't bite, but I found out later that a friend of someone who worked there bought all the tickets, and sure enough, won the $1000 prize in that particular game. Made me wonder how many 'friends' of people who worked there were in on the old unsold ticket grey marketing?

Also while growing up, there was a family that lived down the road from us who always seemed to win almost every giveaway competition in our town - free TV's, food, whitegoods, airline tickets, you name it. One day I was actually there visiting their son who was about the same age, and I noticed that their mother was entering competitions almost as a full time occupation. She would get various catalogues and our local newspaper and sit down with the kids every afternoon cutting out and sending out coupons, competition entries and sweepstakes all the time - they would have to be sending out at least 20+ per day. Way to stack the odds in their favour.

They eventually left town in the most spectacular fashion - when Michael Jackson did one of his huge tours of Australia, the family won a set of tickets to see him in a sweepstakes, then promptly bought tickets for ALL of his other shows in other states in Australia! This information got leaked to the press, and Jackson found out about it, and ended up inviting this family to Neverland in the US where 2 of the kids ended up staying for years.

You that old saying - you make your own luck. I think this particular family lived it.
I have been thinking about another tradeoff recently. For lots of rapid access, you want your filesystem to behave like a character device, and to be able to async dispatch all operations (including open and close). For fewer accesses to large data selections you want block devices that map to memory (in the process, you lose async options).
You gave an impressively long comment, but here are my two cents:

There’s no precedent to set here. There’s already a license for BSD+PATENT, and it’s called Apache license. Is Apache setting a bad precedent as well?

Additionally, it’s not like companies licensing open source work under customized license is uncommon — tons of software do that, and Facebook is by no means the first. For example, OpenJDK customized GPL by adding a classpath exemption.

Why then, do you need to give Facebook special treatment, and make this look like a dangerous slippery slope? Oh yeah, because Facebook is a evil megacorp that’s “hostile to the open web”. How is this, as part of a discussion about the license, “completely and utterly pointless”?

This whole argument could be summarized into we want GPL, react’s license is not GPL (“In WP we take no exceptions to GPL compliance”). That’s it. Instead, you have to point to supposedly evil motives behind putting the PATENT file there, and yes, I’ll say it, using not-so-true arguments to spread FUD and perform a character assassination. It’s ridiculous.
Grandparent's point is that it's not a real review if you didn't actually read the book, it's just a bullshit comment masquerading as a review.
> Operating systems should really have two separate systems, [...]

That was the promise of exo-kernels: remove all abstractions from the kernel, leaving only what's required for secure multiplexing of resources, and then let user level libraries handle abstractions and cross-platform concerns.

That includes multiple different file system in user land.
Investing doesn't give an incentive to be nice either.
> stupid

I am not defending the totality of EFX's process by any means. I am just pointing out that "install every high severity patch right away" is not as easy as it looks.

Others have pointed out this patch was not available for all current versions, for example. So, to install the patch you need to upgrade. Oh, that breaks <dependency>. So we need to upgrade <other thing>. But that regresses a feature we use ....

The major issue with EFX was the fragility of their overall architecture. A single weakness should not be enough to lay the whole DBMS open.
What's the hurry to optimize away the revalidation requests when the user clicks reload? Is it just beancounter mindset about saving a few "304 Not modified" responses? In that case they shouldn't count the percentage of requests, but percentage of bandwidth or CPU seconds. Tiny responses are much cheaper with HTTP/2, so be sure to benchmark with that.
There is a third option nobody seems to talk about `git merge --squash` (a squashed commit bundles commits into one commit). Which produces like `rebase` a linear commit history, but preserves the single commits.
Then I'd agree with that point. That's not how I read the comment, though on further reading of it, I can see that.
Impressive. Let me amend my original statement from "no" to "a tiny minority" then but I believe my point stands - frantic patching to keep up is no substitute for an architecture with no single point of vulnerability.
Full disclosure up front: i work for a company which sells ads based on user behavior.

I get that it's creepy, "spying" on users, but really, would you rather have ads from services which know nothing about you?
Companies want to buy ads that users are interested in, obviously. If I have a company selling vegan food i would optimally only buy ads shown to people who are already vegan, right? And they probably don't want ads from your local butcher, but might be interested in my new awesome vegan food.

Again, i get that it's creepy, especially on Facebooks scale, but I feel the discussion gets lopsided sometimes.
I don't use Facebook much, but I'm fine with that my browser behavior is tracked.
I've found the same situation, the more people pay the nicer they are. The ones that pay nothing are generally the most vile, and demanding.
Create a third party client app that merges and bridges your contacts/feeds/events/etc between facebook, G+, Wechat and whatever. Make it better than the facebook app. Once enough people get accustomed to it, start phasing out facebook by making the experience better for another decentralized network.
> I think I would have preferred an outage over leaking millions of american's private information.

With full 100% hindsight vision, of course.
1. Keep your money.
2. Wait five to ten years. Facebook will implode on its own.
3. ?
4. Profit.
Sadly, I'd fully agree to this. Things are possible now that were not 10 years ago. But mostly, only performance increased on things we could do 10 years ago, while hardly any new abilities came along. Machine translation, linguistic parsing, etc. came a long way. But we still can't do satisfactory abstractive summarization or create a conversational agent for more than an extremely narrow domain. Yet, at least the things we can do can be done at levels that are "production ready".
Well, I barely knew Caddy (had to google it again), but after reading the "Ugly" section I am sure I will not become a caddy user anytime soon.

I mean we all know how brutal (emotionally) online communities can be and I respect anybody who stands against it. Nevertheless, I do not think that 'Entitlement' and 'Emotional Manipulation' are the real problems here, because those are just honest expressions of what other people think. Those comments are some kind of feedback which the maintainer can accept or ignore.

On the other hand, there are a lot of dicussions where we have personal assaults, like 'the maintainer is a prick' or 'what a dumb move'. Those are totally unacceptable and the people discussion should show what they think about such comments.

And in the end, HN has a very heterogenous group of commenters, but Paul Graham gave us a guide on how to write good comments: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
http://linear.axler.net/
"All the Linear Algebra You Need".

The title is misleading. In general, I like an applications-first approach, but I have hard time liking a tutorial with the title like that and which proceeds to say things like

>Neural networks consist of linear layers alternating with non-linear layers.

without providing a proper definition nor intuition what is linear and what is not. Next step they are constructing NN layers of ReLU's and not telling what is a rectified linear unit and only barely hinting it is supposed to do ("non-linearity").

The article is not a worthless, it's a nice tutorial to building a NN classifier for MNIST, but don't expect full mastery of the mathematics relevant in understanding NNs after reading this tutorial.

Chapter 2 of the book by Goodfellow et al. is a serviceable concise summary of the relevant concepts, but I don't think that chapter alone is a good primary learning material if you are not already familiar with the subject. For that I'd recommend reading a proper undergrad level textbook (and doing at least some of the problem sets [1]), one example: http://math.mit.edu/~gs/linearalgebra/ and then continue with e.g. the rest of the Goodfellow's book.

[1] There's no royal road into learning mathematics. Or for that matter, learning anything.
> The balancing between protection of the abused and individual freedom is easy to make: on one hand, you have children being raped, on the other hand, you have young lovers that may have to wait a few years before fucking. I would say the first goal has priority.

No, no, no. That's not how age of consent laws work, not even in parts of the US.

The main purpose of the age of consent is to define the difference between rape and child molestation. Both are illegal acts involving non-consensual sex, but the latter has a much stronger punishment, because society wants a larger deterrent for it. We think it's the worse crime.

The secondary effect is that it's easier for the person below the age of consent to be believed by the courts if that person claims the sex was non-consensual. Many regular rape cases unfortunately end in a he said/she said without much technical evidence, in which case there's no conviction. If an underage person is involved, society spends more resources on figuring out if a crime actually happened. This is good, because it adds to the deterrent.

In case of consensual sex between two people where both are below the age of consent or on different sides of it, it's obvious to me that society shouldn't pursue a criminal conviction. In the US, this is usually codified into age of consent laws as a "Romeo & Juliet clause", and other places usually have something similar.

There are of course parts of the US and the world where age of consent is high and there are no exemptions, because those places are neurotic about sex and want to impose some sort of morality on their teenagers. That's unfortunate, and I hope people oppose those laws.

> If we open the pandora box of consent under 18, we will have to tread very carefully.

What box? It's under 18 for large parts of the US. It's 14/15 in many places in Europe, and it has been that way for decades. There's plenty of facts if you want to measure the effects of different ages of consent.

Also, I believe that the average age of sexual debut is 17 in many parts of the US. To criminalize over half the teenage population is, to put it bluntly, fucking stupid. The laws of a society should reflect the morality of its citizens.
What I think is also important to consider is median income and net worth of US citizens at that time.

In the early 50s, much pf Europe and Asia was still rebuilding from war, and the US held an effective monopoly on multiple industries.

From the data I could find for 1952 in the US, a house was 5 years of income and a new car was half a year's income.

For many people in the US today, a new car (post tax dollars) is either completely unattainable (multiple years of income) or a complete joke (one month's income).

The numbers are different for 1982, but still closer to the 1952 US situation than today's 2017 situation.

So, I guess what I am trying to say is that $1,000 for a phone is still fabulously expensive for 99.3% of the world today who aren't millionares.

EDIT :

Thank you for your insight :)

I am thinking that maybe I am just very different from most consumers, or that our definition of "afford" is very hazy.

I am writing to you either from my $50 cracked screen wifi only iphone 5c, or my $40 2009 lenovo thinkpad running lubuntu.

What is strange to me is that I'm not buying this because I am price sensitive, but rather because "it is enough for what I want to do".

I have a hard time believing that a large percentage of the US market will buy an iphone X. Or if they are buying it, then they don't fit my definition of "affording it". Here's why:

Just 36.8% of US adults have a networth of over 100k.

That means 63% of US adults would be spending more than 1% on a mobile computer (phone) that is not very much different from a $300 phone. How many of these users will Apple capture?

Additionally, many people's net worth in the USA is tied up in real estate or retirement accounts. So these funds are not available to be spent, and it manifests itself in the following stat:

In 2016, 63% of Americans said they could not come up with $500 to cover an emergency purchase.

So, tons of americans can't even afford basic expenses, let alone luxury phones.

That is why I feel this is a millionaire's phone only.
You might find my Clojure Linear Algebra Refresher helpful.

http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure-Linear-Algebra-Refre...

This is the link for the first part. You'll find further articles there.

It walks you through the code, explain things briefly, and points you to the exact places in a good Linear Algebra with Application textbook where this is explained in detail.
Price being too high is an interesting question. I've found that people willing to pay, will pay a high price. You don't really gain anything putting it any lower. Those that want it free or else stay the same.

Maybe others have different experiences...
Hasse diagram of the 2008 Olympic medal table
Yeah? Where would one find genuine winners? It's not like there's an open market for this, and since winners are random people they are unlikely to be aware of black markets. Paying them a premium is obvious.
8 WAYS TO PROPEL ECONOMIC GROWTH
How Poor Credit Loans Align Themselves with Other Loans
Right, which is why all casinos, of whatever grade, attempt to appear glamorous and exotic in order to work up the most pedestrian of punters into thinking they are high-rollers. People in an elated state seem to be comfortable with taking more risk. Whether they understand the odds of the game is another question.
For some reason lots of companies are paying for Slack, even though it's basically IRC-plus-emoji, and easily replaced by any of a dozen other chat platforms.

Is it because it's user-facing instead of an infrastructure component?
(I agree, just piling on with more perspectives)

Where I'm from the age of consent is 15, but the law also explicitly states that there is no crime if the age difference is small. So in your example, if the two kids are fine with it, nothing would happen, not even if any of their parents were screaming bloody murder.

Were not exactly lacking blueprints of sane legislation in this area, or lacking datapoints on how different ages of consent affect different societies.

Why some places persist in prosecuting kids who have consensual sex with each other is just baffling to me.
There Can Be Only One...IO Monad
If I'm not wrong (but I might be), in some parts of the US you can get drunk, have consensual sex with somebody, and the day after somebody else can claim that you have been raped, as you were too drunk to consent.
Do you fear a world where multiple political entities (Obama, FBI, Singapore, Pentagon) have publicly requested laws that magically require you to somehow decrypt your users' data, else you go to prison for contempt?

It reminds me of the situation right now with the guy in Philadelphia who is in prison for contempt for not offering decryption password to the judge.