skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I use the text-only browser, in text-mode, to dump HTML tables to ASCII. I do not necessarily need the networking code. Reading HTML tables as ASCII is its primary purpose for me. TCP connections and generating HTTP headers are handled by other programs. Text processing is done by other programs. Legend has it that accounting logs on an early Research UNIX saw Ken Thompson using something like 240 separate programs in one week. While I will unlikely ever reach that plateau, I am not going to use a single, large, complex program where I can use separate, small, editable programs that give me greater flexibility.

Do I need javascript to accomplish any of these tasks? No. I am not interested in graphical web pages. I am interested in retrieving information, images, documents, sound files, video files, etc. I never need javascript to get these files, nor to read, edit or view them.

Simple example: I do not need a webpage full of javascript to view a YouTube video. I only need a video player (compiled without networking code).

Years ago, links added a javascript engine. Later it was removed. There is no point. A script can still consume inordinate amounts of RAM, even when there is no GUI. And for what? What is that javascript doing?

In the distant past, I recall browsers used to hand off media files to other programs, based on Content-Type (see article on MIME posted earlier today). Today, these external programs have been subsumed by the "modern" browser.

Perhaps modern browsers can be useful as offline image viewers, document viewers and media players. As I am in text-mode, the graphical browser is on another computer, connected via crossover cable or LAN. After inspecting their contents in text-mode, I transfer the documents and media files to a fileserver.

The decision to forgo using the so-called modern browser comes down to how important web design is to the user. If the user is interested in how fonts look, how a page of text is arranged, icons, styles, etc. and wants each and every website to look different, then the "modern" browser may be unavoidable. Probably javascript is needed to share in the web designers "vision".

The text-only browser OTOH makes all websites look more or less the same, regular, and if in text mode there is only one font, easy to read, IMO less eye strain on black background. It is perhaps better suited for the user that wants fast information retrieval, reliable, efficient file retrieval and cares little about graphical web design.
This is a refreshing move. Doing a traditional IPO is not a recipe for success anyway (hello, Snap).

I personally would be watching this and probably try and buy a couple of shares - Spotify is a streaming music pioneer and I shudder at the thought of yet another industry segment being dominated by the GAFA players (in this case, everyone but Facebook -- Google, Apple, Amazon).
when will these stop making news headlines? i look forward to it.
Rational argument is difficult to scale (certainly more so than memes and propaganda bots), but not impossible. Real social progress takes real work, but it’s worth it.

Your last two paragraphs sound an awful lot like the book 1984. If you haven’t read it, I recommend you check it out.
MoviePass is run by an ex-Netflix executive, and it seems to have the same Lando Calrissian business model: they're going to have to keep altering the deal, and it gets worse every time. Netflix started off offering a library so large (and so filled with recent hits) that it put Blockbuster out of business for a monthly fee. Now it's basically HBO. MoviePass is likely going to end up doing the same thing: offering less and charging more as soon as they have enough people on the hook.
Descript – Transcription and Audio Editing
Sorry for the edit on the fly! You responded fast to my fast response.
I think that you're the one who misunderstands free speech. Free speech means precisely the ability to speak freely without negative consequences. In our constitution, it is guaranteed that you can speak freely without any legal consequences. The principle of free speech goes further though. The principle is that society is better if people can discuss things openly and honestly without fear, and that open discussion will lead to a better society than having people afraid to express their true thoughts. Hardly anyone is a true free speech absolutist, where you can say literally anything without any consequence whatsoever. On the other hand, if you're not in jail for your speech -- if you're merely on a universally adhered to employment blacklist, you still don't have free speech.

What this really comes down to is people's ability to compartmentalize. If I'm willing to be on your software team even though I think you're a sinner who is going to hell, I'm compartmentalizing. If you're willing to serve on a school board with me, even if you think I'm evil for eating meat, you're compartmentalizing. This sort of compartmentalizing is how we build a functional society that provides what we all need even though we don't all agree on everything.
I've noticed that my TV takes a while to change resolution+refresh rate, which typically happens in concert with switching inputs to/from my Chromecast.

Hardcoded "everything is NTSC" vs a mutual handshake/negotiation and mode change makes sense, though I too wish it was much faster.
Unfortunately, pointing out the fact that this sort of faux scaling will lead to centralization is never going to be popular among the tech illiterates at this site who believe Roger Ver over listening to people who actually work on the bitcoin code.
I thought Pence was being a bit ridiculous as well, but now seeing what is happening I'm beginning to think there's great wisdom in it.
There's a lot of assumptions baked into that cake. The most obvious being what's considered acceptable behavior in a man by his female colleagues. There are a lot of countries where this kind of thing is considered part of the job by women.
Unverified allegations are a terrible way to deal with any systematic problem. Over time they open the gates to terrible abuses in themselves. That said, this approach has credibility because you have litany of viscously abusive men who managed to make themselves impervious to any other way of being sanctioned.

Get enough of that and a larger number of people will view the ends of dethroning these types as a justifying the means of trial by publicity. But if this bad way of solving things continues, eventually there will be a counter-counter reaction.

However, rather dealing with the situation, "sht storm to sht storm", what would be nice would be to have a process that allows bad behavior to be dealt with immediately and effectively and clear standard letting any potential bad-behaver know they're going to face consequences. The reason for companies to have strong, clear policies on this sort of thing is to prevent events of this sort from causing more chaos.

It seems reasonable that X person who's moving into a position that is going to make them irreplaceable to the company should be investigated even more.

Also, applying strong pressure on a subordinate for sex may seem like "just flirting" but it is actually abusive and illegal because it puts the subordinate in the position of fearing retaliation if the refuse. It's different from a person being offensive to a person that don't have a lot of leverage over.
I don't think it's common, but if you host NIPS in a city with a beach (hey long beach), you may at some point want to go for a swim, and it seems pretty easy to go for a swim without getting handsy. Parties with free booze seem common to most industries with money sloshing about, there was definitely free booze for everyone who wanted some every night, including at the conference venue.

I don't think the Pence rule is necessary or helpful, I would say avoiding sexual relationships in work situations is probably a good idea in industries with highly skewed gender ratios, but many people complain that just doing that is too high a burden.
An overwhelming sense of relief washes over me as I read your comment. It's obvious the author of the article doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.
I think in most cases I agree. Most people are replaceable. But we have exceptions like Musk, Von Braun, Bezos, Hastings,(among many others).
I thought that too. Funny how they spin it the other way, like "hey, signals either win and get transmitted perfectly or lose and aren't receivable, so there's no icky mixing of signals!"
The article hasn't been removed from HN in any way. It's just lower in rank because that's what user flags do. I'll try to expand on this later but my phone just rang.

Edit: ok, it's a bit complicated because the influences of these factors are constantly varying, so giving you an accurate answer means sounding like I'm contradicting myself. But at present, the story's rank is only being affected by upvotes and user flags, not by the anti-flamewar software and not by moderation.

The tug-of-war between upvotes and flags on HN is the fundamental dynamic of how the community expresses what it wants. There's a balance between the two and it has worked this way for a long time. Sometimes upvotes get the upper hand, sometimes flags do. But it works the same way in every case, more or less. You're right that part of the community is interested in discussing the article, but then another part of the community feels otherwise. Both matter, and the community is rarely in agreement.

If you're in the camp that wants a particular article on the front page then obviously you will be tempted to conclude that the other camp is trying to suppress the topic, possibly with help from secretly-opposing-you mods. Usually this is not accurate—it just feels that way. In reality there are many more things that go on. One is that when a similar article has just recently been thoroughly discussed, the community's distaste for repetition kicks in. It isn't that people oppose the topic, it's that repetition is boring. In cases like that, we turn off the flags only if the article is unusually substantive or contains significant new information. I don't see that here.

Another factor is that if there weren't countervailing mechanisms like anti-flamewar software and moderation, attention would flow, every day, to the same few controversies that happen to be hot that day. Empirically, that's just what upvotes do. No one wants an HN that looks like that, and we need both software and moderation to actively prevent it. To have HN be HN—that is, a site about intellectual curiosity—the system can't be purely upvote-driven. From our point of view as moderators that's all we're doing: providing a systemic service. But from the point of view of people whose wishes about a particular article are thwarted, it feels like moderators are intellectually, politically, and even personally aligned against them. People notice the cases they dislike much more than all the times the roulette wheel comes out in their favor, so it's both easy and common to feel consistently aggrieved, yet still come back to the site every day. That's kind of weird if you think about it.
The US negotiators are making all sorts of ridiculous demands that Canadians will never agree to. I think the Canadian strategy is to counter with their own set of politically infeasible demands, so that they have something to give up when they meet in the middle.
>conservatives were strongly against the depiction of violence and sex in video games.

Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh and Jay Rockefeller were all Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protectio...
Has this guy been fired?
> people who are essential to the success of a company

That's a myth. People leave companies all the time and they continue to exist. Executives are not paid high salaries because they contribute anything special other than what any other person would do. It is just that they, as a group, have the power to give themselves high compensation. If I were part of a group of people who decided their own salary levels I would also increase it!
Aha! That is a very likely explanation. Thanks.
I posted Tim Ferriss direct words...He didn't leave out details.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15937836
Exploring data with pandas and MapD using Apache Arrow
Indeed. Amit Singhal was allegedly fired for sexual harassment after 18 years at Google. I don't believe someone starts harassing women after almost two decades. But as the head of Search, and a guy who rewrote Google's search engine from scratch back in the day... he was almost certainly protected a long time. And even when he was fired, he got to "retire".

I presume he was too mission critical to get rid of as long as they could keep it quiet.
The fact that you're being downvoted shines very poorly on the HN community as a whole.
When powerful men stop abusing their power?
> None of these hypotheticals are being seriously contemplated as potential outcomes of the FCC relinquishing its Title II authority over ISPs.

Yes, an internet version of Verizon’s “controversial and unsavory” text message policy it's blocking of NARAL is definitely a serious concern.
No, that is the actual definition of the term “entitlement”: people are literally entitled to those things.
Sounds pretty similar to Dash with the nodes, doesn't it?

Dash has been doing quite well recently... so it mustn't be a terrible idea.
He plead not guilty and they already selling his forfeiture? Shame on them!!
I'm glad that people are beginning to stand up to this type of behavior. It is completely unacceptable and has no place in our society, let alone the workplace.

That said, I do fear we may take it too far. Unwanted touching is never OK, and abusive/hurtful language is not OK either. However, I saw a poll the other day where a significant number of respondents said that asking someone on a date was sexual harassment.

There have also been a lot of cases where sex was consensual, but later on one of the parties had regrets, and now it was considered rape (even though it was consensual at the time it was happening). This sort of thing is what happened with Louis C.K. What he did was sick and weird IMHO, but the women actually consented to watching him pet his monkey, but then later after the fact had regret, and what in the moment was fine suddenly became a heinous act. If this is the standard, I think we're all screwed, because we have all undoubtedly "raped" or at least "sexually harassed" somebody.
However his reputation already took a hit.
> Agreed, but at the same time I think this matter shouldn't be broadcast publicly until the investigation finishes.

As we've seen over and over, very often there's no investigation unless the matter is broadcast publicly. So much easier to sweep things under the rug.
This is the worst kind of whataboutism.

Yes, Obama and Bush and Clinton did things we didn’t like. That doesn’t mean they are even remotely comparable to Trump and his administration.
ugh I stopped reading after the first sentence:

"Earlier this year, I noticed something in China that really surprised me. I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco."

I also feel comfortable speaking about controversial things foreign cultures would not have the appropriate context to judge, out of concern for being rude, culture value differences etc.

I'm losing a lot of respect lately as it turns out more and more people involved with YC seem somehow okay with Peter Thiel and Trump supporters. Even VICE for fucks sake (Gavin McInnes's all white trash fuck boys) etc.

Have a little respect for your country fellow Trump supporters!!! You have a fucking KGB puppet in charge! Actively working against the long term interests of your country who also happens to assault women, writes asinine shit and gets in the bed with the enemy.

that's enough anger seething...im just anxious that the US is veering off course and into a different beast that would allow more nastier beasts to come into power.
Our democracy is fragile and is not the default state of our society, and speech is central to democracy. I defend all sides right to speak and if appropriate advocate for a change of laws.

One of the last times this happened it was McCarthyism, and many communists and socialists had their freedom of speech taken away. However, that time it was done through the judicial system so this time is arguably more dangerous as it is done in an extrajudicial manner.

I think what you are arguing for is a non-inclusive society where democratic discourse is not possible, and where mob-rule is tolerated and rule of law is not expected.

Edit: I would like to point out that MLK was a strong believer in democracy and justice.
> Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements.

SS and Medicare and the buy-in attached to them is what the term “entitlements” (in terms of government programs) was coined to refer to.

Later, Republican opponents of those programs started using the term for general welfare programs in order to attach negative emotional loading to it and discredit SS and Medicare by association.
In its essence, the problem will always exist. What if he/she kills someone? What if he/she has a heart attack? If your problem is depending on a single person for the company to work, then you should count on the fact that you are probably screwed.
But if you are implying that productivity is analoguous to toxicity, then in this case no statement was made on toxicity. It was left out, so it's like just counting lines of code without associating it with productivity. So maybe it's less useful on the surface, but it's also more accurate raw data that others could remix into their own solutions and conclusions.
This gives me ungood bellyfeel.
Support the Django Software Foundation
Tips for Effective Invoicing
Because it was not your thigh.
And the reality is back, teaching the maths
For now suspended, but do you reckon that his life and his career would proceed like before?
I believe that he is finished.
I don't think that he should go unscathed if he really behaved inappropriately, but between that and destroying him based on an unverified comment there is an ocean in the middle.
When they are watching Fox they are not being silenced, they are being programmed. They start to believe they are being silenced, but their views are just being opposed and offended and that they are (at long last) being told that other people think their positions are discriminatory. And without the visible and palpable sense that their views are not mainstream any longer, what is their incentive to change?
Good point.

Still, maybe we should publicize that allegations have occurred without specifying against who? And making it public if an organisation refuses to investigate. That should give the same public result without the need to attack someone who is only alleged.
Anecdotally, I haven’t had any problems with my local vaults (yet), though I rarely use 1Password on Windows.
Nobody does anything until there's corroborating evidence. Read the entire article; other people came forward and confirmed that "S" had harassed them or someone they knew.
I am really worried about this unintended consequence of self-segregation. This is us going backwards.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/upshot/as-sexual-harassme...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members-of-the-opp...
Believe it or not you won't see this somewsomewhere else
As a person of Chinese descent who grew up in America, face saving has no general negative connotation in Chinese culture -- but the fact that you think it does is very interesting. (EDIT: misread your comment, but this applies to GP)

I've observed that face saving behavior at all levels of society in America, but very few instances of people willing to point it out or discuss it, except sometimes to accuse people of 'covering up bad behavior'.

When you visit someone's house and they serve you food and ask if you liked it, unhesitatingly saying 'yes' is face saving and also just simple good manners.

When your boss makes a bad decision but you don't call them out in the next team meeting, and instead first bring it up in private, that is face saving. You're trying to avoid openly embarrassing someone and reducing their social standing.

In this case, face-saving just makes sense -- let's get a budget deal passed (which is in everyone's best interests), and then mollify the crazies in the base who refuse to see it that way.

I guess pointing out face-saving in the US is itself potentially embarrassing, because it implies that person might actually be worried about their social standing, which can itself negatively affect their social standing?
If you research the etymology of the word gender you discover that the word gender, up until the 1970's in academia, and up until the 2010's in the general populace, had an identical meaning to sex. Gender meant sex. Gender was used in writing and conversation in preference to the word sex, because sex also meant sexual intercourse. So to prevent confusion and so as to not evoke the thought of sex, the word gender was used. Gender meant "sex and I don't mean fucking". This meaning of gender originated back in the 17th century if I recall correctly.

In the 1970s, certain non-scientific branches of academia invented an entirely new concept and attached the label "gender" to it. The concept was that the way one presents themselves in society is "gender". This historically has never been the meaning of gender. The public at large continued to use gender in the original meaning (as you will see with official forms asking for 'gender'. If they asked for 'sex', people would add a box with "yes please" on it and tick it).

In the 2010s this new meaning of gender leaked out of academic circles and into the general vernacular. But it is a concept that is entirely the invention of left-leaning academics, cross citing each other repeatedly in echo chamber journals.

You say there is "great variety in both", but this is not true. There is great variety in "gender as a social construct", that is, the cosmetic way people dress, do their hair etc. But there is not great variety in "sex and I don't mean fucking". Disorders of sex development (DSDs) are extremely rare and do not constitute a new sex and are recognised medically as disorders. For example, XXYY occurs in 1 in 18,000 to 40,000 male births. XXXXY occurs in 1 in 85,000 to 100,000 male births. Compare that to the "normal" male sex characteristics, or the "normal" female sex characteristics, that each occur in about 1 in 2 births.

People erroneously make the claim that other conditions, like triple X syndrome, constitute a DSD (occurs in 1 in 1000 females), but because it causes no health issues or abnormal development it is not considered a DSD by the medical community. The DSD Guideline documents [http://www.dsdguidelines.org] are a trustworthy source of information and definitions.
That's the oldest trick in the book...
> Unverified allegations are a terrible way to deal with any systematic problem

In order to deal with any a systemic problem, you first need allegations to be made. Presumably Google's investigative team (which I've heard is very good) will be able to check the veracity of those allegations, and make a recommendation to his manager.