skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
IANAL too, but believe that in common law systems like the U.K. and most of the U.S. that intent is required. In the jargon: Mens Rea is required in addition to Actus Rea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

That isn’t always true for certain laws that create “strict liability” which removes the requirement to prove intent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
You’re talking about two different kinds of things. Regulations exist to address conduct that isn’t inherently wrongful, but may be undesirable. Criminal laws exist to address conduct that is inherently malicious. They’re not on a spectrum, they’re two different things.

We repealed Glass-Steagall for the same reason we deregulated airline fares. It was part of a larger, mostly positive trend of deregulating major sectors of the economy. That really has nothing to do with whether there are criminal laws we could’ve instituted. Were we going to put people in jail for trying to combine a commercial bank with an investment bank? Were we going to put people in jail for shoddy underwriting of mortgages?

The fact that people always call for bankers to be jailed, but never specific bankers for specific conduct, is telling. When you’re talking about an anonymous our composite of an entire industry of people, it’s easy to project all the bad intent we consider necessary to prosecuting someone for a crime. It’s much harder when you’re talking about a specific person and his or her specific conduct. “We should send someone to jail because 35% of mortgages in this portfolio should’ve been valued this way if you used these different underwriting standards. No, he didn’t do the underwriting or tell anyone which standards to use. But he was higher on the org chart than the people who did!”
>How much comfortability they are willing to sacrifice in order to get along with someone who is extremely useful

Yeah, you want them to give you a predefined, quantified, model of their behavior.
Whether costs are mileage or time based vary heavily on the environment.

They don't salt the roads in the winter in Silly-Valley so maintenance costs are primarily mileage based.

In somewhere like NY it's going to be more time based because the vehicle will corrode at a fairly steady rate and salt solutions will counteract lubricants in places that can't be cleaned out (e.g. wheel bearings and ball joints) at a fairly fixed rate.
Well its subjective as I cannot exactly say feelings. When I mean "insane" I just mean it feels that way as you are pushing yourself toward something without definitive proof or in some cases breaking completely new ground that relies on a lot of things working out of your control. Definitely can be interpreted many ways, I agree.
Hulu's key role in Disney's plan – Axios
I can't be on board with this because the way it's treated currently is a one way street. As much as I hate the stuff you're mentioning specifically, I'm not going to call for those people to be silenced when it's acceptable and somewhat popular to say the same thing about whites, men, straight people, etc. And ultimately calling for silencing the far right while doing and saying nothing about equally abhorrent ideas on the far left only creates useful propaganda for the people you want to silence.

As for your specific example, it doesn't really fit into what's happening now. Violence towards people labelled as fascists is common, but not the other way around. And in parallel cases, things like "death to cops" has absolutely led to an increase in people murdering police officers. This whole thing is benefiting the far right from a propaganda standpoint.
That depends entirely on your local permitting regime and what arrangements you can make for selling the power. And what latitude you're at.
It's kind of a bummer to me that the one of the top comments here is about the syntax.

I get that people have syntax preferences and that there's a certain level of "sniff" test that goes along with these things, but as a fan of programming languages I am always interested in the semantics. That is, I'm interested in what's different about this language and its combination of features and goals:

http://clean.cs.ru.nl/Language_features

> The uniqueness typing system of Clean makes it possible to develop efficient applications. In particular, it allows a refined control over the single-threaded use of objects which can influence the time and space behavior of programs. Uniqueness typing can also be used to incorporate destructive updates of objects within a pure functional framework. It allows destructive transformation of state information and enables efficient interfacing to the nonfunctional world (to C but also to I/O systems like X-Windows) offering direct access to file systems and operating systems.

When I read that I think, "Wow! That seems really neat and reminds me of linear types, and I should check this out". Maybe that's just me though.

It's also worth noting that the features page does not mention the word syntax. That's not a deep insight or strong evidence for anything really but it suggests that the designer was interested in the semantics too and that the syntax was a secondary concern.
Show HN: Collaborative multiplayer game where you mine Monero to progress
microlink.io, get relevant information from any website
Hello,

microlink.io is a service for getting relevant information from any website.

with him, you can easily convert your links into beautiful previews. Similar to Facebook URLs on timeline or cards on Twitter/Medium, but out of the box.

This is an example using microlink into my Jekyll blog:

https://kikobeats.com/what-is-random/#truly-random

We built microlink.js to make the integration easy from the frontend side:

https://microlink.js.org

WordPress integration is coming; feel free to suggest one as well!

The pricing of the service is based on API calls. We offer a generous free plan under daily rate limit. Pro plans is oriented to popular sites, with thousands or daily request.

All the information about what the API can do is under:

https://docs.microlink.io

PS: If you feedback the project write your Twitter account and we follow you :-)
Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931633.
I believe that it is a reality that people die through the side affects of political hegemony.

I used to be a Jehovah's Witness and am familiar with those outside the religion criticizing it because it frequently occurs that their children die due to the refusal of blood transfusions.

However I now think there is a similar type of ignorance which has stemmed out of politically correct thought.

I believe biracial children are more likely to die due to the side affects of ignoring racial topics in our society. Here is how: biracial children have a lower probability of organ donation matches, and a drastically lower probability of bone marrow matches.

I have never seen this discussed before but it seems self evident to me. In order for a Congolese-Belorussian (a real family I know) child to obtain a bone marrow match it must be sought out way in advance of the illness, if a match can be found at all that is.

Since few if any people are aware of the rarity of matches for biracial people it must mean a lot of them die, there just isn't enough time to source the match in time.

Of course there are failure modes for rightist thought also. Were biracial couples illegal I don't think that would be a step forward. Still the failures of our current order linger in my mind and I believe that a slightly more right wing policy with respect to biracial couples (activating searches for organ/marrow matches in advance) would save lives.

Some people here may suggest that this isn't right wing, it is merely common sense or logical. Sure, but as Sam Altman's blog post suggests, sometimes good ideas are quelled if they could potentially interfere with political heuristics.
Yes it's not. People 100 years ago didn't manage to predict the beliefs common today. What makes you think you'd be able to predict common beliefs 100 years from now?
Leveraging RISC-V for AI and Machine Learning
Two reasons. With an algebraic system, I have to plan ahead and add open parentheses, or reorder, to do what I want. With a stack, I can always push/dup, then roll or pop back. It’s the same reason I like having function calls and a call stack when programming, compared to APL.

Second reason, RPN systems are typically open: I or others can add operations. That’s pretty rare in an algebraic machine, though not completely nonexistent.
Homosexuality is a scientific fact -- people don't choose it like they do a flavor of ice cream.

In this light, how do we reconcile the position that homosexuals should have less rights with the broadly accepted idea of basic human rights?

Edit: To be clear, I'm a strong supporter of free speech -- I think it is one of our most important cultural principles. It just seems to me that the gay rights issue is very clear cut and incredibly personal. Thus, its opponents receive very strong feedback, which isn't that surprising. I do think calm discussion with hard-hitting questions is the best way to address offensive beliefs, but I also realize there isn't always time for that.
Sure, but you've also got to account for the return on capital which the equity investors are expecting. They're going to want a lot of that margin.
Here's my anecdote: my wife is an author on Amazon and personally knows most of the people who review her books. FakeSpot gave her most popular book an F grade because people were "suspiciously positive".

Most people leaving reviews only leave reviews for things they absolutely love, so saying that it's "suspiciously positive" is not an indicator of it being fake.

In her case, she knows these people personally and they're not fake scripts. Yet FakeSpot, who OP holds up as doing the great job that Amazon is not, is completely wrong.

tldr; spotting fake reviews is harder than it seems apparently.

EDIT: the other thing is that she has lost quite a bit of legitimate reviews from Amazon deleting them. Amazon is actually doing more than the end user sees about this problem.

EDIT 2: Another thing Amazon completely ignores are reviewers who get an early copy of the product in exchange for an honest review. This is how a lot of people kickstart reviews on their products and Amazon completely ignores that valid use case. In fact, they hurt it because they don't mark those reviews as "Verified Purchase" since the reviewer got the product outside of the Amazon channels. They need to come up with a system for this.
California advises against keeping your phone in your pocket
The other answers cover the math well, but I think the “why do you need attention?” statement is worth making (and answers the more engineering-y question of “how/when?”):

DNNs typically operate on fixed-size tensors (often with a variable batch size, which you can safely ignore). In order to incorporate a non-fixed size tensor, you need some way of converting it into a fixed size. For example, processing a sentence of variable length into a single prediction value. You have many choices for methods of combining the tensors from each token in the sentence - max, min, mean, median, sum, etc etc. Attention is a weighted mean, where the weights are computed based on a query, key, and value. The query might represent something you know about the sentence or the context (“this is a sentence from a toaster review”), the key represents something you know about each token (“this is the word embedding tensor”), and the value is the tensor you want to use for the weighted mean.
And yet so many RPN people are Lisp programmers the rest of the time. I guess it balances out.
In light of recent Net Neutrality events, is the browser the next frontier?
So here’s the truth as far as I see it:

Yes. Women and men are differently capable.

However, there are many ways in which we traditionally believed them to be differently capable that were actually that way due to discrimination and injustice.

So, people will be rightly annoyed when someone tries to downplay the effects of systemic injustice.

When we have fixed our systems to be more just and inclusive, only then can we begin to talk about inherent difference.

Until then, it is not urgent.

Justice first.
Fabulous comment, thanks for researching and reporting back on this!
An F-18 pilot saying "there's a whole fleet of them" on radar is pretty incredible.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000005607812/look-at-tha...
Huh. I've never really had an issue because I chalked it up more to people buying cheap crap and expecting it to be good. But $65 for a pair of headphones isn't exactly cheap. Was it a familiar brand but maybe a counterfeit? Or was it a brand you've never heard of, but the price is justified by very positive reviews? I'm curious.
I feel the same about some other things. For me for example abortion is murder and completely unacceptable. But I don't insult abortionists, I try to understand why they think like that.

That said I'm out of this thread because nothing good could ever come of it. :)
I edited my original post to just my thought, not my feelings (to your point).
I don't know enough about finance or law to know what should have been done. But I can clearly see that what was done did nothing to restore public faith in our banking institutions.
Do you think anyone will go to jail for causing the next great financial crisis?
I personally don't think offering discount contracts for specific services violates NN. As long as services are all accesibile at all time at the same speed, that's NN.

Whether it's free Spotify streaming or free Spotify membership or free iPhone offered with your contract (Vodafone UK does all three) ... They're all the same and nothing to do with NN in my mind.

As long as all data streams the same at all time. Everything else is just marketing and sale offers.
Rust web frameworks benchmarks
It literally is Assault in the First Degree in many states however.
What are the advantages vs just downloading g++ 7?
Uber used contractor who used stingrays to track employee
The video looks fake..?
I see asking for domation in firefox bottom quite often
I was going to make the same comment. It's amazing how often I see enthusiastic reports on new tools whose equivalent has been just a keyboard shortcut away in IntelliJ for years.

Maybe I should add a c2.com wiki page for 'SmugIntelliJWeenie'
I have not - to the best of my knowledge - stated any opinion, except that debate should always be an option.

I do hold opinions on the postmodern x-gender nonsense, but have no illusion that expressing them on HN will have me avalanced out of existence.
No, you don’t ever pay cgt on gains in an isa, that’s the whole point of them. So if you could hold bitcoin (at the moment only an etf is possible), there are no taxes on gains.

https://www.gov.uk/capital-gains-tax/what-you-pay-it-on
I've been using Fakespot when buying anything I don't trust on Amazon now. It's amazing how many highly-rated items with 300+ reviews get an F grade.
I think the real issue is mozilla essentially gets an infinite supply of money from parties like Google, no matter how shockingly incompetent they are.
Watch the first seven episodes of the mockumentary Bubbleproof
I think there are grey areas in terms of what opinions are intolerable. ("Meat is murder"? Does anyone really feel threatened by that? What about forced-birth advocates who want to deny women the right to make decisions about their own bodies?)

There are not grey areas about "usefulness". I don't care if you're Albert fucking Einstein, I'm not going to let you scare off the other high performers or even cleaning crew that make my business productive and livable.
Interesting price to pay for taking a class, is it part of any particular degree?
On the other hand I guess you really get to learn how your government watches you.
I think you’re being uncharitable in the reason why myself and others are disagreeing that advocation of violence is necessarily violence. This is a problem of definitions, but not the way you’ve said: in the common case, using the word “violence” denotes a sort of harm that is not equitable with the negative effects of advocating for violence.

This is important because of accountability and nuance. If I advocate for war, it is unreasonable to try to invalidate my position by claiming that I should volunteer to go to war. You can incorporate that into your argument, but it does not on its own invalidate my argument. Similarly, my advocation of violence is not violence itself, despite how violent all war must necessarily be.

This is a matter of using the right methods of investigation and persuasion; you might end up at the rational conclusion using an irrational method, but that method will insidiously steer you wrong elsewhere. It is important to be able to posit advocation of an idea is wrong according to some set of moral axioms without trying to posit the much stronger (and untenable) stance that advocation of violence is itself violence. Rational methods of investigation generalize, and irrational ones do not.
> When we have fixed our systems to be more just and inclusive, only then [...]

This is not something that ever finishes.

I think we have to allow both to happen side by side, constantly struggling to balance them as best we can.
Your counter argument to public transit is flying cars? Your entire statement is a strawman argument.

No one is saying get rid of cars, simply improve traffic by adding mass transit
The word "violence" only recently had its definition broadened to encompass hurt feelings. There is an established legal definition for violence that makes it clear it is always physical

The term has unfortunately been redefined by the same people who want to use it to censor speech.
DO Not install Windows 10 update KB4054517 12/17 (until Microsoft fixes it)
I have solar and generate far more electricity than I could ever use. I investigated cryptomining as a way to use up that electricity, and no matter how I crunched the numbers I couldn't make it profitable.
I'm think this is a work in progress? Seems to be in ieee format, where pages are gold, and one would almost never waste an entire on references(surveys), and leave another mostly blank space. I'll wait for the peer reviewed version.
I got scammed on some hdmi cables and iPhone charging cables a few months back. They all broke within a month, which I thought was weird, definitely the worst purchases I’ve made on amazon but they were top reviewed products on the front page of a search.

I just checked them on fakespot and they were both rated at 98% fake reviews. This is pretty confidence shattering for me; how do I pay $80 a year for prime if amazon is in cahoots with such obvious scams...
You mean, except for shipping CliqZ, a cooperative project between Mozilla, and the German ad, tracking and publishing house Burda, which receives all the URLs your visit (as a test, this was bundled with 1% of German Firefox installs)?
Where do you draw the line between the jerk and his freedom of speech and the brilliant genius spouting unpopular, ahead of their time, ideas. How do you make the difference?

If we accept that we can’t, shall we treat them all as jerks and deman a clean, PC world or shall we accept anything at all in the name of protecting freedom of speech?
People who had no voice have it now; people were angry and offended before, but lacked the freedom to tell you.
Is Mozilla strapped for cash or something? I’m happy to donate a bit if it keeps them independent.

Google’s behavior with Android/AOSP suggests they’re more than willing to make the open source version of Chrome useless in practice the second there is no viable competition.

I don’t see any organization other than Mozilla that can keep them honest.
No, they're not in it for money. In the end (the foundation owns the corporation), Mozilla is a non-profit.

They need money to achieve their mission though: maintaining a browser (in a landscape of evolving security challenges, performance & web standards) and research (e.g. projects like Rust, Servo & pdf.js originated that way) is not cheap. And currently it mostly comes from search engine deals. If they cannot get a similar one, it all collapses.

I can see why they try to diversify their income. That said, I don't agree with the way they do it here.
I mostly look at the 1 and 2 star reviews. It saves me a huge amount of money -- I will see something interesting and think I want to buy it but then I read the reviews and realize it is a bunch of crap.
Hard Times in Trump Country
No, he paid money to prevent others from having the same civil rights as himself. He is unfit to be CEO of any company, as he has demonstrated that he is willing to go to great lengths to persecute and hurt others. If he had donated to an amendment designed to prevent interracial marriage, would that be ok? What he did is no different, however, in its cruelty and hate. No person with such hate for others is fit to be an executive at any company, let alone CEO. This has nothing to do with holding a view, and everything to do with Eich's despicable, disgusting actions.
Sam, I think the best clarification would be a big long list of examples of what you mean. For example take this list of claims:

1. Women are inferior.
2. Gays are evil.
3. Whites are greedy.
4. Children are valid sex objects.
5. Hitler wasn't all bad.
6. vi is the best editor
7. Drug users should be killed.
8. Islam is not compatible with western democracy.
...

Immediately on writing this I make a distinction on "ethically falsifiable". Some statements just aren't clear (1,2,3). The ethically falsifiable ones (4,5,7,8) are closest to what you're talking about, I think. If you can control your rising gorge then you could have a rational debate about them! The debate would be about connecting some set of principles to the claim. "Ethical falsifiability" then means that a claim is well-formed enough that a connection to some set of concrete principles can be made.

I also notice that I've instinctively not introduced "scientifically falsifiable" statements, such as these:

1. Global warming is real.
2. Vaccinations cause autism.
3. The earth is flat
4. Evolution is wrong
5. Science is a scam.
6. Putin helped Trump get elected.
7. Light is a wave in luminferous ether.
...

To me, these claims are just not that interesting (the one exception is 5, a meta-assertion about the state of academic scientific inquiry itself). It would take a person with extraordinary credentials to get me to start talking about any of these.
> The trouble is, it costs money [..] I would imagine getting some funding helps keep things afloat.

Mozilla has accrued a lot of money over the years. So much money that they could have funded--just on interest--a comfortable loft somewhere filled with hackers on a decent salary who are fanatical about the open web, and maybe a single guy with a tie to "call google", in perpetuity.

That should have been the base case for Mozilla: open web, modern browser, users first.

Unfortunately, brass doesn't vote itself out for the greater good. A modern browser is a delivery platform. The "open web" is a marketing tool. And users are not as important as advertisers.

The rationale is that without clout, they'll be unable to prevent worse things from happening, so they have to allow for these compromises on the open web to maintain that clout, and every setback is relegated to "not our hill to die on," with every next hill becoming "not our hill."

It seems like an unavoidable tragedy, but if we look at similar organisations, can we imagine the FSF or the EFF making compromises on their respective missions, even if they lose popularity or even run out of funding?

I feel they would rather cease to exist than allow for corruption of their stated mission.