skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You would be wrong then:

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/i...

I'm also wrong about the chimpanzees - recent research suggests that they share only 95% of genes with humans, not 98% - but at least I'm not off by a few orders of magnitude.
261 Bits of Advice for Saving Money
I had the same problem with it, I don't know why it bothered me so much, but it was incredibly frustrating. I shouldn't let something silly like that throw me off, bud damn! Don't throw your red stop sign at me when it is _you_ that is wrong quiz!
So if we were to create a WebApp then it's perfectly okay for it to be closed, but as soon as we decide to write tools, then it has to be open?

As was mentioned in the previous post, we try our best to open source anything non-central to the core. We also try our best to document everything within the core and provide you the ability to extend and override anything, thus reducing any real need for the source to be open. We're even working on legalese to ensure that the source would be opened in any catastrophic event to the company. What else can we do?

Whether or not NOLOH is open has the same amount of impact on our users. If they have an issue they report it and we fix it, furthermore, they could override any functionality in the meantime if they so desired.

Essentially, it seems that you're arguing that nobody is allowed to charge for development tools anymore. We should just open it up, and donate all that time, money and R&D. If we want to eat we should be creating WebApps, rather than creating the tools to help you make yours.
Same thing happened to me, and I thought exactly the same thing. But the FAQ says...

"...But if you read the question carefully, you'll see that it is not talking about justifying the act of rape at all. It is talking about whether or not Peter Sutcliffe was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. Mind you, having said that, I think we may have been a bit provocative in the wording of one of our analyses! Sorry!"

Looking back at the question, it does in fact ask: "The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions." Still, they could have worded it much better, maybe even to the point where they wouldn't have to explain it in the FAQ.
It is a survey on your beliefs though, not on whether you act on them. What are the differences in kind between your firm, inner convictions and Peter Sutcliffe's?
You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true.

It is foolish to believe in something with zero evidence for it. Whether it's the celestial teacup or invisible pink unicorns. That's quite different to physical evidence of evolution.

The author of this test loves playing semantic games.
and hands, especially if you're left handed
I got bitten by that second one too. My reasoning was that rationality (or at least part of it) is likely to be a product of the universe in which you live. Assuming that God created it, they might be just as likely to create a different one where square circles might exist.
The wording of the questions is fairly precise, although the explanations may be a bit sloppier:

He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was
carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.

So according to your belief system, he was justified in believing it was God's will, but he was not justified in actually doing it.

(I didn't get any wrong :-P)
How to Make Hitman in Adobe Illustrator
"... Sometimes I'll go for a long walk, maybe six miles. ..."

I don't think it's just a function of the distance but the frequency and the empty mind you report is pretty close to describing meditation - empty mind observing - great stuff.
You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.

This is stupid. I said that god COULD change what is considered sinful and that god would WANT to minimize suffering. Being able to do something isn't a contradiction with wanting something else if they never do it. I'm ABLE to kick the cat, but I don't WANT to hurt it - my beliefs about the cat aren't a contradiction.

I never said that such a god would change the definition of sin to make decreasing suffering a sin, just that they would be able to and wouldn't want to. Where is the contradiction?
I was struck by the parallel with blue-black ink (chemical reaction for permanence + dye to see what was written in the meantime).
These are already too many instructions.

When someone provides a plan, for some reason I am compelled to follow it meticulously or reject it entirely. I could use an Ask HN on how to loosen up.
I think it's getting at: say you had more actual evidence for the God theory than you did for evolution. Your response seems to indicate that you would STILL prefer evolution, as you would require certain, irrevocable proof for God. Your previous response said that you didn't need that level of proof for evolution, hence it states your views are logically inconsistent.

I made the same "mistake", as I intended to imply that I would need "very strong" (but not "certain" proof) for the God theory.

Basically, the question's are a bit ambiguous (especially with only True/False responses), but logically I think the site is correct.

--
Ayjay on Fedang
I think the authors did not think of all possibilities. "Arguing back" might help them to improve the logical engine. I guess what I mean to say is that, rather than arguing back, we could contact them with suggestions.

Eg one thing they did not seem to consider is (my case) some of the implications of differences between the natural and the supernatural (say, God and the hypothetical Loch Ness monster).
Ad man Alex Bogusky annotates a recent Fast Company article about him
First, unless you're 100% certain that this startup is going to be making serious profit from day one this shouldn't be a concern. You are going to need a local operating company later anyway, so it might be best to startup normally and then transfer the operating assets over to a tax efficient company later.

Fees for getting a company set up in a 'proper' tax haven can be extortionate. And legal costs soon mount up, along with agent costs etc. Your choice might depend on where you live - it's no good saving Xk on tax if you're wasting X+1k on traveling thousands of miles to do things.

Being based in a tax haven is going to make raising investment difficult - angels in particular will be unable to write off investments against their taxes.

You might do well to look at somewhere like Ireland - stable and reputable but generally low taxes.

Otherwise BVI is probably where I'd look.
Actually, the question was not whether Sutcliffe was justified in committing rape, but whether he was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. If "firm inner conviction" justifies a belief, and Sutcliffe had firm inner conviction, then Sutcliffe was justified in his belief.
Read it, it doesn't state up to how many significant digits that percent is accurate so it doesn't prove I'm wrong. They may have just shorten it for brevity.
Point Of Sale Software
Antamediapos.com offers Point of Sale Software. Support for multiple POS stations and many features for a complete POS.
But if he goes against the will of God, surely that's inconsistent - given the emphasis that (eg.) the Bible places on unquestioning obedience to God?

Unless he believes in an evil God...
Anyway, theres a lot more to evolutionary theory than that we all evolved from single celled organisms many billions of years ago. Some of the theory has been proven (for example, we do know that organisms evolve by replicating and mutation and that environmental pressure will allow certain traits to survive and other die), so that doesn't necessarily make you wrong here. This test makes too many assumptions about your belief based on simple questions.
Seems like a good idea to advertise developer jobs where the hackers are. Keep up the good work githubbers.
I'm not so sure that "irrevocable proof" really makes that much sense. How do you prove something and then revoke it?

Something like "irrefutable proof" would be better.
Fair point, though I was speaking more generally about heroes :)
Elon Musk (Zip2, Paypal, SpaceX, Solarcity, Tesla Motors); engineer/entrepreneur, and inspiration for the film Iron Man's version of Tony Stark.
Add to that architect, champion of liberty, states rights, and freedom of religion.

Also drafting the declaration of independence and being responsible for the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
> Am I offending egos by saying that a person in a hot dog stand has the same potential to get a phd as a person that currently has a phd? Is it that educated people like to believe that they somehow are special and separate from people that did not go to college?

I'm not trying to prove your thesis is false, but that sort of argument is not conducive to interesting debate. You're preemptively psychologizing people who disagree with you.

And it's not like you're saying something obviously true -- so that people who disagree with must have hidden motives. On the contrary, your thesis goes against our everyday experience, not only because we know people who are stupider than us, but also people who are much smarter than us.
There are so many problems with this test.

For instance. It sets up evolutionary theory as a true false theory.

But evolutionary theory is a model to explain phenomena. It's neither true nor false. (I say that as an atheist btw.)

Edit: Instead of just down voting why don't you come forward with an argument?
I wouldn't trust a (relatively new, correct?) Q&A site with commenting on research-level work, at least not above the level of informal chat. While outsiders, id est people largely not acquainted with the subject at hand or lacking the expertise, can provide a fresh perspective, I would not expect the benefits from a discussion on such a high-level to outweigh the potential distractions and/or misguided approaches. Let alone other issues that arise with discussing unpublished work.

On the other hand, a discussion in the spirit of "what are the concepts behind this proof?", or "what are the implications if this proof is correct/wrong?", or even "what is the approach of this proof? what are the pitfalls associated with such a process?" are excellent ways of disseminating knowledge and educating about the subject a) without having to resort to the few experts on the field and b) keeping the content in line with the principles of a Q&A site.
Why the US keeps minting coins people hate and won't use
Reminds me of how Flex does data binding, but with the added feature of blurring server and client. I don't think I like this idea, and I'm not sure it would save me code or headache in the long run... Still neat though.
I have a firm inner conviction that this test is wrong, regardless of external evidence to the contrary.
I get really infuriated by the phrase "too much time on their hands", when used to dismiss acts of creativity (like building a model of the Eiffel tower out of match sticks). At least they weren't watching TV.
The "Fun" language looks a lot like Ruby and the Camping web framework with inline Markaby templates created by Why (the lucky stiff): http://camping.rubyforge.org/

It's 4k of pure ruby art. Check it out.
FYI, the domain 'hackerne.ws' is registered by someone other than YC. Even if it currently resolves to the same machine, it might not in the future. Even if the current owner's intentions are pure, the domain could lapse into someone else's control.

So, better not to promote, nor login-to, 'hackerne.ws' URLs, unless it becomes the canonical domain linked from http://ycombinator.com.

(Why does it work? Seems the News.YC code doesn't care about the 'Host' header in requests, which it really ought to, so that people don't get into a habit of using sketchy URLs that could bite them down the road.)
You said:
------->
On the contrary, your thesis goes against our everyday experience, not only because we know people who are stupider than us, but also people who are much smarter than us.
<-------

This reminds me of how a couple of hundred years ago it was obvious that the earth was flat and how we were the center of the universe.
I feel very lucky to live very close to a promenade - a space designed for taking a nice little walk by the sea. As others have said, walking is very helpful for problem solving and creativity.
Sec. Robert Gates announces sweeping defense reforms, IT consolidation
I think some risk-averseness drove the combination as well: at the very end, two teams with very similar performance were looking at it being more or less random chance who'd finish a hair ahead, with one getting $0 and the other getting $1m. So they merged and split a much safer $500k each.
The previous question said "Is evolution essentially true?" Well, yes. Plenty of physical evidence for it.

I read the question as "Do you need actual evidence to believe in a God." I say yes. I don't see how my views are conflicted there - evidence means something is "true" (ah, but what is the definition of truth? We end up going down the rabbit hole about evidence, models, likely truths, etc)
Just for you: follow the last instruction only.
I love the energizing effect a walk can have on my mind. What I also love is to have a smartphone and a notebook with me. This allows me to quickly jot down notes and thoughts once I get kissed by a muse.
>>Not everyone is talented enough to be a professional >>athlete or a tenured physicist.

Many of the people that think this way always think that it has to do with talent. The thing is that the road to get there is paved with thousands of hours of hard work. That people can be lazy and make excuses I do no dispute. However, we all have the potential to do almost anything we want, as long as you are willing to work for it.

The differences that you are talking about have to do more with environment and culture.
Caribbean places like British Virgin Islands and Nevis are so shockingly cheap and easy to set up a corporation, it's amazing.

On a whim, I emailed TridentTrust in BVI with the name of a new company I'd like to incorporate. 2 hours later they emailed me back saying it was all done, the completed certificates and paperwork were FedEx'd to me, along with their annual ~$350 bill for resident agent services. Amazing.

I brought my Certificate of Incorporation into my local Wells Fargo (where I already had an account), and 10 minutes later was out the door with a business checking account, checkbook in hand, and a Visa card on its way.

I agree with AlexMuir's comment here, but there are situations where you don't care about that stuff. For example: I just needed a holding company for a new project with no physical office, no employees, and no investors. I'm not living in the US, and not sure which country I might end up living in. So a "tax-haven" corporation was a good choice.

See a comparison of the different jurisdictions, here: http://www.tridenttrust.com/PDFs/Companies-IND.pdf
I like walking. [0] I like it a lot. It's my preferred mode of transport but I also do it to keep my observation skills sharp and mind clear. I used to like running, but that requires a whole different level of concentration and preparation. You also get injured more. Less so walking. Walking is one thing pretty much everyone can do. I've kept up walking ever since I was a kid at school. From Primary to High to Uni I had to hoof it [1] and the one thing I noticed from High School onwards - "I stopped seeing my peers walking".

The author is correct observing nobody walking any more. I see a lot of runners who I join occasionally and the only consistent walkers the elderly (fit) and ethnic (fit). Why? Well people don't see the value in it and simply write it off as wasted time. Here's the thing, the benefits are cumulative so it might appear a waste of time but the advantages (fitness, psych, clean air, thinking) roll on, the more consistent you are.

[0] Last year I clocked up 2000K ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/sets/72157623445003205... This year I walked 240km from Canberra to Mt.Kosciuszko (9 days) ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/collections/7215762379... This month I covered all of the city of Singapore on foot in 2 days ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/collections/7215762454...

[1] Because every time I saved up enough money for a car I bought a new PC.
There is no satisfaction like adding value to someone's life through your work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Door_jamb&oldi...

Depending on the context that inspired you to ask, the literal explanation may not help.
Warren Buffett - Honest and successful, shares his wisdom, extremely independent thinker, wildly frugal, giving it all to the best run philanthropy to be spent entirely within a short period after he dies.
SF Federal Reserve study anticipates another recession summer 2011
Something similar happened to me in the US, but then again I've been stopped by the police in the UK too while out for a walk. In the latter case it was about 4 a.m. and I must have looked suspiciously sober.
You can't eat prestige. Nor find joy in a life of isolation. Look at Rembrandt's philosopher if you want the true picture of the life of the mind.

How history remembers you only matters after you're dead. Can you really tell someone to live a life of solitary confinement? The isolating parts of academia honestly suck. But everyone convinces themselves that academia is so great, in part because so many have gone before, suffering, down the same path.

Look at all the theoretical physicists and mathematicians. Do you think these people are HAPPY? Remember, if you leave math you are "dead." It's about sacrifice, not about your health or happiness as a human being.

The best part of academia is the collaboration, the social aspects. As for the environment, it could definitely be renovated to make accommodation for humanity. Obviously that will never happen. So there needs to be big CAUTION signs posted up whenever someone lauds the greatness of academia, saying it is not all fun and games, lots of people spend decades locked in offices hunched over pieces of paper.
Richard Branson admitted to doing something unethical and illegal in his early days - he was caught by the authorities and he has said that it was a real big lesson for him. I think sometimes the path to 'easy money' can be tempting
"... This guy here knows what it's all about: http://imjustwalkin.com/ ..."

not a touch on Ed Stafford: 859 days & 4,000 miles of walking the entire Amazon ~ http://www.walkingtheamazon.com/ but looking at the shots, beautiful scenery. Envious.
Being able to build a successful company based on that model is probably even more satisfying.
I can't justify it at all. I wouldn't do it now. Funny how people are sticking up for me. It did say "anything unethical" and unethical it was, criminal in fact.
I didn't do it for long, tbh it was more for the lulz.
Very few, really. Here goes:

- Taglist : uses exuberant ctags to parse your code and present you with a nice source code browser. It's a lifesaver for large projects.

- surround : Add, change or delete surroundings (punctuation, quotes, tags, etc.) in pairs.

- lhCpp : a suite of C and C++ plugins

- SuperTab : all insert-mode completion done with Tab

- minibufexpl : if you're working with buffers a lot, it will make your life easier

Those are all, I think. Of course there's heaps of other functionality that I've added in my own .vimrc, does that count? :)
I'm tempted to say that your hypothetical is either impossible, or it's already happened.

On the "impossible" side -- search engines, or search directories, pre-date the web. A lot of people downloaded their first web client from a Gopher link or by looking it up on Archie. HTML itself was kind of about providing an index for other files -- "index.html", get it?

However, on the "already happened" front, in 1997 Ticketmaster sued Microsoft just for linking to content on its website. And ever since automated search engines have been around, people have been suing them -- for replicating portions of their content without explicit permission, for instance.
There's plenty of stuff in the Bible about God allowing/condoning/performing murder and rape as well though ....

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

--
Ayjay on Fedang
Death to Best Practices
Btw here is my list:

* pathogen : install plugins in seperate directories

* NERD_tree : Tree navigation

* NERD_commenter: Comment/uncomment lines. File type agnostic

* Rename : Rename file in buffer

* Ack : Search using ack not grep

* Command-T : Fuzzy find files in path
* Rails.vim : shortcuts to open models, controllers and other ruby on rails related stuff

* snipMate : Textmate like snipplet funktion

* surround : Add, change or delete surroundings
hahahaha, did you just the indian immigrant never experienced something like a texas summer. :)
Wow, I am really offended by that, I think mostly your "happy times" statement. I guess it's because I am assuming that your competitor was a startup and not some big corporation. Were they?
No, even if you only look at the people who work really hard for a very long time, some of them do better than others, and some of them just plain don't make it. I'm not talking about the guy that watched TV six hours a day instead of studying--I'm talking about the guy that works his ass off and doesn't keep up with the top of the class. You've never meet--or even heard of--those people?
The problem is, neither squares nor circles exist in our world. Talking about a world where square circles exist is meaningless.

Squares and circles are mathematical concepts. They often are a model of parts of our world. Of course, the fact that we created these concepts is a product of our universe. But the concepts themselves are independent of any universe. Therefore, they are independent of the will of God (if she exist).

The definitions of squares and circles alone are sufficient for us to tell that no square is a circle, and no circle is a square. That conclusion is likewise independent of our world and the will of God.
> I would guess-but do not know-that it is probably being
> sold at printing cost

You sound more experienced in these matters than me, but this seems very unlikely. I presume the book will be excellent, but Myrvhold has never been shy about making money. Do you have more evidence back this up?

I haven't seen this book, but in general I've always been astonished by how _low_ printing costs are even for full color hardbacks. A cost this high for printing alone would seem extraordinary for anything but print-on-demand.
The test refers to a belief as a conviction, not a supposition. You seem to use it in the opposite manner.
I escaped unscathed, but I will say this: I was squirming as I answered a lot of the questions. Having denied the existence of God, how am I to have an opinion the nature of divinity?

But it made me realize that I'm actually more sympathetic to the notion of God than I had thought. Apparently, a preponderance of evidence suggesting the existence of a very wise and powerful being would be enough to make me a believer. That's a much lower bar than I would have expected.
I disliked the part where he assumes he can tell where someone is born by looking at them. :(

I wonder if he thinks he looks like a native-born or an immigrant?
Nearly 45 percent of the electricity in Portugal’s grid will come from renewable sources this year, up from 17 percent just five years ago.

Very impressive makeover, indeed.