skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The early adopters have a unfair advantage.

That's absolutely true but consider this: early adopters always have an advantage, in fact just being born earlier than someone else gives you an advantage. Family wealth, real estate ownership, rent seeking, tenure and so on are all linked because of this.
Actually, they never supported backwards migrations: it just happened to work relatively well. They even explicitly noted this in the release notes. And it's easy to imagine that it would cost a lot of effort, especially with the massive amount of changes in 57, to support something that would be used only once by a relatively small number of users.
it’very possible to have an app with webview only, so absence of app does not neccessarily mean less data traffic.
What is a mistake, in your mind?
Incarcerated women risk lives fighting fires, long history of prison labor
I'm glad you brought up that article, because it illustrates that two consenting adults were participating in their own life choices -- choices which we as a community feel obliged to be inclusive of, no matter how much they offend us or make us uncomfortable; the essence of tolerance -- and yet once Larry was cleared of wrongdoing, he wasn't reinstated. In fact, he was asked to resign before the investigation was even completed.
Soar by Bishop T. D. Jakes
Elevate your thinking for success as an entrepreneur with the new book by Bishop T.D. Jakes- Soar. Available at YahWeh Online Store. Visit to place your order. https://yahweh.io/products/soar-build-your-vision-from-the-ground-up
Exactly. I feel that all these people complaining about bitcoin contributing to global warming would be better off focusing on implementing a global carbon tax (or cap'n'trade). That way the specific problem of greenhouse gasses gets addressed, while not interfering with the market.
Because in human history it's unlikely that people who perpetrate it will ever realize and/or admit it. And so it goes.
Lændesmerter aarhus, smerter lænden århus
I had the exact 1:1 same experience when I visited Zara in Spain. There was an awesome song, I shazamed it, and it had about 10k views on Youtube. It was awesome, I loved it, but nobody knew the song.
In terms of accountability I cannot think of any country where the police force is actually accountable for anything they do. Abuse of power pretty much everywhere and the police gets a blank check.
Ethereum of course
3 years ago German police officer /u/krautcop posted on reddit about his opinion on why police violence is much higher in the US than in Germany. [1] This might open a new perspective to some people.

1: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLEO/comments/2dgwkp/what_makes_a...
Your post ignores the social effects of technology. In the early 20th century, someone complaining about cars could be told the same - after all, cars were still rare, they couldn't annoy you that much if you just didn't get one. Fast forward a few decades, and now they're impossible to avoid, and often there is realistic alternative if you don't want to uproot your life. This is because by their expansion, they shaped society until they were impossible to avoid.

Similar thing happen to cellphones: in the 80s, if you complained that you didn't like that they allowed the provider to track your position, you could just be told not to get one. Nowadays, that decision is not nearly as easy, since many jobs expect you to be reachable at all times (e.g. those with "dynamic" working hours).

A person building a DIY for personal use is fine. A company pushing a device to every home they can get it into can't be that easily ignored.
Interesting analysis.

As a counterpoint to the headline that might be little fear-inducing, my first reaction when reading it was: only so little? Things must be bad.

I mean: the perfect situation is when there are no homicides at all. But in a little less perfect imaginary world, in which bad people never get the chance to hurt innocents because police stops it, some bad people might still go down resisting arrest, at which point 100% of all homicides would be police-inflicted, and that would be good. Not perfect, but better than what we have.

Statistics are funny this way.

The real question is, how many of those killed by the police were killed in totally justifiable self-defense, and not just because of policemen being trigger-happy. Or, put another way, what's the probability that a person who is not resisting arrest to get "accidentally" killed by the police.
Yeah, I'm often surprised Facebook hasn't published their own browser yet. Though then again I guess their other strategy is to move people away from browsers.
Are there standard mag stripe/chip cards that draw from a BTC account and exchange into fiat at the time of purchase of a good?

All the cards I've seen when I looked into it a bit ago converted into fiat at the time of charging the card with BTC (ie, you send BTC, that got converted into fiat immediately (at pretty mediocre rates), and then you could use that fiat to purchase stuff or withdraw cash (at pretty mediocre rates, again)).
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
Neither are you paying with USD even if your debit card directly debits your USD account. It's a proxy for paying with USD, just like a bitcoin debit account is a proxy for paying with bitcoin. That the conversion and account adjust ment happen in one currency or another does not mean that currency is directly involved, it is merely a convenient stand-in for the number reflecting your balance, an attribute of it.

People think that banks hold their money: they don't. The bank simply owes you your money but they don't hold it for you. What you get in return for your money is a statement from the bank what debt they owe you and a device to convert that debt into goods whenever you feel like it. That device is not the same as the underlying money, it is merely a proxy for your debt.

Which you'd find out about in a hurry if your bank ever went under and your card stopped to work.
You turned this into a discussion about what is and what is not a clone.

However, when we're talking about fads and popularity, it is much less relevant than what public thinks is and is not a clone.
> These days, people feel increasingly under fire. We have to watch what we say, what we do, who we offend, what our political affiliations are, and whether we are crossing any lines.

Is it just "these days"? Maybe I'm too young but I can't recall a time feeling like this was not a case. People judge you based on what you do, especially when they first meet you. I don't feel like this is a new phenomenon but maybe I'm just a judgmental person..
Not in my city, but thanks for the intention.
A theory that makes verifiable predictions is one that "works". Relativity fulfills this criteria.
The statistical abuse in this headline is extreme. It's so meaningless, yet so carefully designed to appeal to irrational confirmation biases. Consider some extremely simple thought experiments:

e.g. Imagine a world where police do their job even better, and eliminate all murder. But, in some cases, they have to kill the murderer before he takes an innocent victim. They never kill unless it's absolutely necessary and justified. In such a world, this statistic rises to "All people killed by strangers are killed by police", which sounds worse than the headline, yet such a world is obviously better than ours.

e.g. Imagine a world where police never do anything. They drink beer in the station all day. All people killed by strangers are killed by non-police. Such a world is much worse than ours, yet this stat looks a lot better.

Just these very simple thought experiments should give you pause about what this statistical comparison actually means (or if it means anything at all).

---

My two questions to those who think this is some sort of obvious travesty:

1. What would be a healthy ratio between [people killed by non-police strangers] and [people killed by police]? 1:5? 1:10? 1:100? Why?

2. How is this random choice of two statistics not just another variation on the Chinese robber fallacy? [1]

[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chine...
I find currying rarely useable in real life. Because you rarely need a fixed parameter to a function. And when you do it's solved in a better way by storing it in a state somewhere (even global variables will do in a pinch).

The closest real world example I can think of right now is calling a webservice. Which is usually something like

const baseUrl = 'https://some.tld'
function callExternal(resourcePath, data) {
fetch(baseUrl + resourcePath, data)...
}

// and then somewhere

callExternal('/some/path', {some: data})

With currying you could do it like this:

const baseFun = function(baseUrl, resourcePath, data) {
fetch(baseUrl + resourcePath, data)...
}

const callExternal = baseFun('https://some.tld')
// ^ you "pin" the first argument to always be 'https://some.tld'

// and then somewhere

callExternal('/some/path', {some: data})

I personally have had the need to write a curried function myself maybe twice over the course of the past 17 years.
While this is true, it is unfortunately hard to deny that Firefox has been losing a lot of market share, and that the situation on mobile is especially bleak.

That said, keeping things the same would obviously only sustain that trend. Hopefully Firefox 57 and above will help them reverse it. I'm hopeful though, if it doesn't, I don't think there's much else they could've done.
When Bitcoin was first introduced to YC community on YC 9 years back
I agree, the leap to 1,500 (in three sentences) needs to be explained. The analysis that was actually explained in the article led to an estimate of 1,250/y, which is slightly higher than but rather close to the numbers from other sources.

The Guardian's list of people killed by police in 2015 and 2016 identifies approximately 1100/y. [1]

And the Bureau of Justice Statistics released preliminary findings (for June to August 2015) from a redesigned Arrest-Related Deaths program that extrapolated an estimated 1200 arrest-related homicides per year. [2]

1: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/...

2: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ardprs1516pf_sum.pdf
Well, maybe it helps to compare:

Germany: 2155 homicides in 2011, 6 by the police.
Ask HN: I would like a new feature on Hacker news
Is there any way we can ask the admins for some new features. One which I would really like is to follow some particular handles.
That's a good point. It looks like there is a bit of it going on: https://soundcloud.com/cosstores
I can't manage to read the whole thing. It starts from an assumption of guilt and corruption. It is looking for support for an accusation. Such an agenda does not make for good science.

Don't get me wrong. I would be very interested in finding real solutions for the tendency to see Blacks gunned down by the police. My assumption is this known trend is the driving force behind this piece.

I just think this is the wrong way to approach the problem space.

How to lie with statistics is an excellent book. I highly recommend it. It is a large factor in my decision to not bother to read this piece too thoroughly.
Can you point to exactly where you believe the analysis becomes inaccurate due to the researchers' purported bias? I found the analysis quite clear and the paper was even more illuminating.

If your issue is with the "final" 1,500 number (increased from 1,250), you'll find that it's well-supported in both the blog post:

>>> Keep in mind that the Bureau of Justice Statistics report itself excludes many jurisdictions in the United States that openly refuse to share any data with the FBI. The true number of homicides committed by police is therefore even higher. Though not a true estimate, my best guess of the number of police homicides in the United States is about 1,500 per year.

And the paper:

>>> As mentioned in Banks et al. (2015), these list intersection counts only include jurisdictions that reported any data (about 70%). As such, these numbers should be interpreted as estimates of the number of people killed by police in the reporting jurisdictions. If the reporting jurisdictions are missing from the dataset not because there were truly no killings in those areas during this period, but instead because they chose not to report homicides by police, the true number of police homicides could be 30% higher than we have suggested here.

Note that 1500 represents a 20% increase over 1250, which is lower than the 30% maximum estimate presented in the paper.
Wildcard certs really aren't that much trouble to implement. They are more or less removing a restriction that prevented you creating a cert for "*.example.com"

In the long run it might actually save them money by cutting down on the total number of certs their system has to verify and sign.
> but I think this is a complicated result of wider cultural issues, none of which can be isolated

The lack of accountability for murders committed by police in the US is not a difficult "issue" to isolate.
One of the worst videos I've seen on the internet is the Daniel Shaver execution from last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M62Va6Ft2cw

The Sergeant (voice in the vid) thinks he's fucking Jigsaw, and he wasn't even the guy that pulled the trigger. America is fucked.
The article makes it sound like it's fake accounts who are against some in the media, but it's really the entire population.

The article calls out fake profile pictures on facebook as some indication of an artificial message. This is wrong - many people on facebook use fake profile pictures. I use a fake profile picture myself, although my account is genuine. Probably a third of your facebook friend list uses fake profile pictures - go check for yourself. The article also says they have collected a database of facebook accounts that post pro-Duterte messages as if this is somehow an indictment. With Duterte having an 80%+ approval rating across 100mil people population, many of whom have Facebook accounts, do you think a database of 2mil posters is somehow unexpected or fake?

From my time in the Philippines, everyone on the street supports Duterte because he's given them a sense of safety again. For many in western countries, this kind of feeling is unknown because you've likely never walked the streets expecting to be killed at any moment - you have working police and institutions that keep you safe. For many years, the Philippines did not have this, and they see Duterte as having helped make them safe. This breeds an almost fanatical devotion for obvious reasons, and most Phillipinos on social media will defend him with ferocity. The article tries to associate this as something bad and fake. But it's not, it's real and genuine. You can open up Twitter right now and go to Trump's feed and you will see people who hate him and many who wish violence on him. That doesn't mean those people are fake - and the people supporting Duterte aren't fake either.

Here's a quick video on how regular people in the Philippines feel about articles like this one: https://youtu.be/siAjsu0ZmKE?t=429
If David Chaum were to release something like bitcoin it would only be after filing a few hundred patents, re-working it every time just before release and making partnerships with every commercial entity under the sun.
State is not controlling their police: they mostly walk after committing brutalities. Thus they've learned there is no need to restrain themselves.
From what I gather of this article I should be siding with rappler but I can't help but strongly dislike rappler for being part of facebook's effort to destroy the internet with their internet.org thing.

I also have a hard time having sympathy for a news outlet that choose to live inside facebook and then complains for having to deal with facebook's shenanigans. You should know better than that and you kinda deserve what happens to you when you choose to be subservient to a global master.

On the other hand this Duterte guy seems to be the usual violent dictator kind and there is no way I can get behind that.

I guess it is a story of two evils, one involved in violence and death but limited to a national local reach and the other empowering the first while having deep global reach and influence on a third of the world population.

Reading this was informative and I've learned about something I was not aware of but this leaves me in an incomfortable place where I feel powerless to help and unhappy to choose the 'right' side.

I wish we could get rid of facebook, this thing is epitome of everything wrong in our western world.
While they may be faster, you will occasionally be luckier,
and find it first.
I believe the reality you described is the basis for the movie minority report, where the cops are so good crimes are stopped before they happen. If I am a relatively good person when I decide to commit a crime there would be no warning for cops. There’s no trail of paperwork, rap sheet, or perp associates... if cops were to be able to stop me given what I just described, I’m not sure I would want to live in that reality.

With the title in mind a third of strangers killed are killed by cops, shouldn’t they be better at not killing people?
There's this: https://github.com/opencollective

Docs here: https://github.com/opencollective/opencollective
> If the reporting jurisdictions are missing from the dataset not because there were truly no killings in those areas during this period, but instead because they chose not to report homicides by police

That's a rather large assumption that needs to be justified.
If you think that's cool, you might also be interested to know that Marvin Minsky programmed a neural network all the way back in 1951: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_neural_analog_rei...
If only it could have stayed a great idea instead of becoming a huge carbon emitter fueled by people naked greed...
Better the Russians than the Chinese though! Right?
Spread the swamp? Trump admin wants to move government offices out of D.C
> But in a little less perfect imaginary world, in which bad people never get the chance to hurt innocents because police stops it, some bad people might still go down resisting arrest, at which point 100% of all homicides would be police-inflicted, and that would be good. Not perfect, but better than what we have.

What kind of dystopian nightmare is this?

> The real question is, how many of those killed by the police were killed in totally justifiable self-defense, and not just because of policemen being trigger-happy. Or, put another way, what's the probability that a person who is not resisting arrest to get "accidentally" killed by the police.

It's rarely an accident.
You managed to cram so much wrong into a post it's unbelievable. Let's start with your 'off by one' address scare tactic. Bitcoin addresses contain a built-in check code, so it's generally not possible to send Bitcoins to a mistyped address.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address

Ecological concerns? A global, nacent value exchange system uses a little more than the total electricity of holiday lights. In fact many miners use cheap unused energy that would be otherwise costly to build infrastructure to sell normally.

https://icenter.co/chinese-hydroelectric-crackdown-herald-de...

Too confusing? Seems familiar. Here's a video from 1994 with some talk show hosts confused about 'internet'. Just watch this, please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlJku_CSyNg
Relativity is hugely useful for scientists and make predicted with extreme accuracy.

So it's a theory, but one could say that it is much more useful than Bitcoin.

Btw, Bitcoin also works based on mathematical theories. If someone were to prove P = NP, Bitcoin doesn't work any more, because I can now steal all your money.
The current belief is P != NP, that's why people trust bitcoin, and crypto in general. But it's still a theory.
I read it as "of those who struggled to fundraise, these are the mistakes they believed they made expressed as a multiplier of those who did not struggle".

Makes me suspicious about the presenters intentions because that type of convolution is often to facilitate cherry picking. More charitably, it might be an attempt to give advice to those experiencing difficulty fund-raising about where their problems may lie.
> someone faster than me finishes the same proof of Work first, I would never mine a single bitcoin?

That's right.

Now, probabilistically, you'd occasionally get lucky and get the full (big) mining reward, in proportion to your fraction of total hash power.

The alternative is that you join a mining pool, and then receive the same amount (in expectation), minus the pool fee, but with much smaller variance, as the larger pool will much more frequently get lucky and then distribute the reward (minus the pool fee) to the contributors in proportion to their hash power.

But either way, your expected reward will be approximately the same, whether or not you work in a pool (modulo the pool fee), it's just whether you get a large amount very rarely or a small amount very often.
And it's one of many, just in 2017 and on camera.

> America is fucked.

Yups. Unless when you have a lot of money/influence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVHmshtmDqo
Isn't delusional overconfidence practically a prerequisite to get through the VC filter? Chris Sacca for instance once praised Systrom for talking in radical future-spect when raising seed funding (paraphrasing, 'once we reach 50 million users, we'll add this...').

If the VC community is applying selective pressure to identify that type of person, then it's no surprise that these kinds of surveys will reflect that. VCs know most of these companies will fail, but their portfolio mechanics still make it the right game to play. On the flip side, entrepreneurs know they have to deploy an airtight reality distortion field. Bidirectional obfuscation is practically an emergent property of the industry.