skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not at all. I’m not asking for a numerical analysis or rating; I’m asking for a qualitative assessment of what sort of scenario turns their personal knobs in such a way that they are willing to put up with an inconvenient situation.

A quantitative assessment isn’t reasonable here, and I haven’t requested that. It’s fully possible to examine questions like these in an exact manner without getting to a point of precision. Philosophy does it all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Everyone needs to make money.

The guy who owns the car, the guy who provides the software to drive it and the money guy all need their piece of the action.
Fire the people responsible for making this decision. Or they can resign.

This is against Mozilla values in a very different way, but as fundamentally, as what led to Eich leaving. The solution is the same in both cases.
I mostly work remotely anyway these days, but taking a bus/train has rarely been an option for me during my career. And that's very common for suburban/exurban to suburban/exurban commutes.
>The Midwest/Bible-Belt is ultra-Christian so non-Christian voices get suppressed.

Falwell University chose Trump over those who wear cross on their chest, the likes of Cruz/Santorum or Huckabee.

Falwell University chose Trump after he said "Two Corinthians".

If they can see what is good for the country and put their religion on a back seat in that calculation, then I, as a classical liberal, can do the same.

>The South is ultraconservative, so moderate, liberal, progressive, non-Christian, and non-white voices are suppressed.

South chose Hillary over Bernie by a wide margin, handing her the victory over Bernie. See articles from South explaining why Bernie lost there, promise of free education meant nothing for Southern Democratic voters. They voted for their benefit, not for the nation as a whole. Well, I chose to vote for my benefits and that of my country. It's been great so far.
You say you don't "insult" pro-choice people, but you use the term "abortionist" which is weaponized specifically by the fundamentalist right wing to imply that people who don't feel that they can assert supremacy over the bodies of women like abortions. Meanwhile, pro-choice folks, in most of the Western world, have generally sought policies that make abortion as "safe, legal, and rare".

So forgive me if I don't buy in. Words mean things and words tell you things and yours underline your bad faith.
He made his original point pretty clearly in my opinion.

As a result of his original post (which was totally harmless and not even slightly controversial), he's forced to write this mea culpa to avoid being labeled a heretic (which is literally the problem he's discussing in his original post), and has to end it with a dig at Donald Trump as if to say to the people threatening him with claims of heresy: "Hey guys, see, I'm on your side. Isn't Donald Trump the worst?"

The irony is just incredible. Nice try Sam, but you made the mistake of trying to reason with these people. You're not a person making arguments; to the people you're talking about in that original post, you're merely an embodiment of whatever ideology they think you're representing at the time.

Your critics aren't even concerned with what they think as individuals, they're purely concerned with the aggregate of what their contacts on social media will pretend to think publicly. Trying to debate them on an individual or intellectual level seems pointless, especially through any kind of broadcast medium. Your ideas will get through to some, but only the response labeling you a heretic will be shared.

There are jokes people will laugh at when they're in a dark room, but if the lights are on and their family is watching, they will shake their head disapprovingly instead. Politics is the joke, and social media is the light and family in that room.
Why Solar Trade Policy Matters
Do Good Companies ICO?
I'm not sure if GraphQL will ever replace REST as REST is suitable for most of the cases. REST is easier to grasp and still have a great tools and SDKs around. I know that there are fields where GraphQL is better but in general I think REST will remain No. 1.
Net Neutrality itself is an ideal. It is distinct from any regulation enforcing it.

Net Neutrality means the internet itself is a free market.

> How did you reach that conclusion?

I haven't heard a single point to the contrary, and yes, I have asked several times in several places for one.

The only statements I have heard against net neutrality regulation are against its being regulation, and nothing else. The only parties with something to gain from a non-neutral internet are ISPs. That gain comes at the cost of abusing customers, to varying degrees.

Your original comment was lamenting the current lack of competition between ISPs. Can I take that to mean you believe in free markets?

Well, the internet itself is a market, and currently free (as in freedom) for the vast majority of its users. There are many obvious advantages to this. That freedom depends on users' ability to use it however they want to. Clearly any constraint on the use of the internet goes against that freedom.

For ISPs who want to increase profits rather than improve infrastructure, a non-neutral internet is clearly a way to do that, allowing for new sources of revenue, and the right to blame customers who use more bandwidth for "using the internet wrong", rather than themselves for not having built the necessary infrastructure.

Clearly, such actions are to the detriment of customers.

That brings us to the regulation part of Net Neutrality regulation.

Bad actors - in this case, ISPs who would rather abuse customers than help them - need a significant reason to do otherwise, usually financial.

There are two clear reasons we can give them:

1. A free market. With competition, customers can choose the provider to support, giving ISPs a financial reason not to abuse customers.

2. Regulation. If it is illegal to abuse customers, and that law is enforced, ISPs have a fiscal reason not to abuse customers.

Since we do not have a free market with competition between ISPs, the clear choice is regulation. If that point ever changes, I will be totally fine with removing the regulation, albeit my own (potentially unpopular) opinion.

Like any other Libertarian, I am very skeptical of regulation. Before I accept the notion of something being regulated, I am concerned with why it is needed, what alternatives there are, and what detriment that regulation will have.

So far, I have lined out why we need net neutrality regulation, what alternative there is, and why it is not currently viable, leaving me with what detriment the regulation itself will have.

After careful consideration, I cannot find any detriment to net neutrality regulation.

The idea that this specific regulation will hurt free market competition, which Ajit Pai claimed as his reason for removing the regulation, is not only nonsense: it is malicious.
The short answer to both is yes.

The longer answer is messier and depends on context and various factors, but I understand the point you’re trying to get at so I’ll address that. I’m sure you’ve seen this cartoon before about equality vs fairness: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*8GivwZy2RijgvaGryS...

Answering yes or no to both questions would be equal but not necessarily fair. That’s because as a Christian, you enjoy the benefit of being the majority religion (assuming you’re in the US). You get a break on your holidays, nobody questions your traditions, and nobody really disparages you. As a Muslim, you have to work on your holidays, you have to hide your traditions to fit in with the Christian norms, you deal with strangers assuming you’re a terrorist and getting kicked off airplanes, or having your resume ignored because of your name. These disadvantages compound quickly even if each one individually may not seem like a big deal. So when a coworker disparages you further in the office, it should be dealt with more concretely.

In business terms, it’s similar to why it was ok for Apple to make fun of Microsoft in the early 2000’s but would be frowned upon now. It’s ok to punch upwards but don’t kick down.
The incidents you point to were rightfully prosecuted as civil fraud. Fraud can be either civil or criminal. Criminal fraud is something like taking investments from the general public and just blowing the money on cocaine. Lying to sophosticated counterparties in a business transaction is classic civil fraud.
Solar farms are definitely waste of land in urban areas, however US has plenty of land that is pretty much unusable for anything else than solar power generation.
Most retailers find that conversion increases alongside review count, with diminishing returns above something like 50 reviews. It's important enough that most of the largest retailers either incentivize reviews with rewards or run "seeding" programs where they send out products in exchange for reviews.
WHOIS in the GDPR era
There is a prisoners dilemma with car vs bus. If everyone would take a bus to go somewhere, in total people would be quicker home as there are no traffic jams. But if the traffic jams disappeared then people would selfishly take the car for a speed improvement.
I would be interested to see how the new preemptible GPU instances fare in this comparison, perhaps on the next revision? https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/instances/preemptible#...
I have been using Fakespot on Amazon and pay for the subscription features to simplify my online purchasing because it is needed. From what I have seen, Fakespot will detect ANY biased reviews. So if your wife had friends read and then leave a review with an affiliation as they mention in their FAQ/About.
Docker for mac doesn't use a virtualbox, it uses "HyperKit".

> Docker for Mac does not use VirtualBox, but rather HyperKit, a lightweight macOS virtualization solution built on top of Hypervisor.framework in macOS 10.10 Yosemite and higher.

https://docs.docker.com/docker-for-mac/docker-toolbox/
I find that the Atlantic has to much narrative in their storys.

The articles are more about peoples opinions than they are about the facts behind those opinions. Its like reading books.
My thought exactly. Not only that, but MSVC supports C++17 features natively so I have no idea why you'd want to do this on Windows.

Granted, the state of C++ on MacOS is embarrassingly bad.
I'm going to write an an called "mober", and it will be the most disruptive thing in the world of crime.

By applying Uber's tested and tried methods, "mober" will take over the criminal world. No more consequences for legal offences, yay!
So whenever someone says "there should be a law against that" that's something that should count against the GPs request for examples of laws that didn't pass?

Then "annoying children in restaurants" or something equally absurd would be the #1 most requested law by that metric.

I was referring to laws that would actually get presented to the legislature to vote on, which the GP is proposing as some metric, but as I'm pointing out can't be used as such because the very fact that it's made it that far is a function of special interests, think tanks etc.
You can't manage, sanitize, nor mainstream punk; you can name something managed, sanitized, and mainstreamed, punk, but that doesn't make it punk
Fair enough; let’s go with an easy example. Someone wants to kill you, and is actively trying to kill you. Naturally, you don’t want to die, and are actively trying to survive. You two are in rather extreme opposition; are you willing to tolerate their presence?

Maybe the word “intolerant” is what you disagree with. I think that word is useful because it forces us to examine situations in which we are reacting as strongly to someone as others react to us. In other words, I think it’s helpful to consider “intolerance” to be a symmetrical position, not an asymmetrical one.

If we take this abstraction and pull it back down to reality: many people are sufficiently intolerant of gay people that they actively work against them having particular rights. Gay people are generally intolerant of this view, in that they actively work against that one.

Now, personally I believe gay people should have the right to get married. But if I initially consider these conflicting positions as symmetrical disagreement, I force myself to rationally derive which one is the “bad” one. “Intolerant” is therefore a helpful, generalizable placeholder for any given pair of conflicting viewpoints, positions, values, etc.
> my wife is an author on Amazon and personally knows most of the people who review her books.

So your wife has people she knows leave positive reviews in order to bump her book's review score and you're upset that Fakespot gave it an F due to them being non-organic reviews?

As a consumer it sounds like Fakespot is doing a great job, and exactly what it states on the tin. What your wife is doing is at best dishonest and I'm glad they're exposed as sham reviews. Hopefully these people are putting a disclaimer in the reviews stating the conflict but I highly doubt it.

> Yet FakeSpot, who OP holds up as doing the great job that Amazon is not, is completely wrong.

Except according to your own anecdote they were completely right?
Land isn't such a scarce resource when you get outside the city. A centralized solar farm is cheaper to install and easier to maintain than installing on roofs and parking lots.

If people want solar on their roofs or in their parking lots, then by all means they should install it, but if your goal is to deliver the cheapest cost per killowatt-hour, then finding some vacant land away from people and putting up a lot of panels is a good plan.
> In her case, she knows these people personally and they're not fake scripts

Still, their opinions aren't trustworthy to me, given they are written by people close to the author. So I could actually agree with FakeSpot on this.
> After all, their whole "disruption" is "how about we just ignore all the taxi legislation"

The laws I'm familiar with for taxis specifically apply to a vehicle that you hail (wave down) from the street. If you call a car service and arrange someone to pick you up, the rules are entirely different than taxis. Uber found a way to make it really easy to arrange for someone to pick you up which is what allowed them to use drivers who only met the car service requirements. In general, their innovation was to reduce the inconvenience of arranging a ride with a car service and make it even more convenient than dealing with a taxi.

(I'm not saying they haven't ever done anything that ignored legislation, but it is a stretch to say that their primary innovation was to ignore taxi laws.)
Alright, here's my thoughts:

You can be friends with your workers if they are friendly. If not, just be professional. There should be no reason to either have to a) force employees to be friends or b) force employees to be robots.

For fuck's sake, the issue here is sexual assault and harrassment, it's a far cry from misinterpretation of comments or intent, which for some reason, people think is a bigger deal than the abuse women and men have faced in the workplace. How about you respect people as people? That seems like a better prescription than forcing people to be cold to each other.

I do agree some of the rules are different with bosses, as the maxim goes, with great power comes great responsibility. But your conclusion that colleagues are not your friends seems ridiculous to me. It ignores the organizations where people are friends and there are no issues.

So I am being a little combative, but please tell me how this opinion is still problematic. I am genuinely open minded and want to discuss this.
Right, the Bloomberg article does add additional info, so people should probably read both articles.
The impact on labour is difficult to predict, but most people will have invested in something, either a house, 401k, pensions, etc. Returns on those assets will be lower in the next cycle (I'm not predicting when it'll start), and that would impact people's ability to accumulate a nest egg for retirement.
As previous threads have already mentioned: that is not straightforward JavaScript. There’s nothing impressive about stripping down a scripting language by making it’s structure exactly the same as c in the end.

What’s the point of JavaScript in the first place? What we had done is we took a microscope and then made sure it’s made of toughened glass and the strengthened steel so that we could nail a few nails with it.
I find that reviews on books and reviews on everything else amazon sells are two completely different ballgames. I don't trust product reviews on amazon at all anymore, but I still trust book reviews to be honest 99% of the time. Books don't seem to be plagued by the same review spam as everything else on amazon.
Yes, that's the first Google result, and they suggested building your own using socket.io -- read my article, if you haven't already (but some of their other _stack_ suggestions are decent).

Their ready-made signaling server suggestions are complete garbage (Signalmaster is buggy and incorrect).
200% agreed. It drives sales and that's a certainty.
As I said, they added the additional information after people started complaining. It only said "Looking Glas - MY REALITY IS JUST DIFFERENT THAN YOURS" as the description, no clear reference to the show, no link to additional info, ...
Yeah, that's a VM they're describing. They need a tiny wrapper running with its own Linux kernel.
And symbiotically, C was written to write unix.

edit: to note that by 'written' i mean designed and initially implemented.
I don't know, the clouds don't look real to me.

I also wonder why resolution mist always be this low, my cell phone ($250) can shoot 4K and a plane that costs millions can't shoot video that is detailed enough to investigate the phenomenon.
This mathematical hand waving plagued the field of genetic algorithms and its variants in the 90's until the 'No free lunch theorem' was published from the Santa Fe institute. It essentially said (my take on it) that if you had no information about the landscape you were searching - then couldn't say much about the algorithm you were selling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_in_search_and_op...
I don't agree with the "without our permission" thing. You installed Firefox — you gave them permission.
It doesn't matter where they live. Foreign investors can still be required to pay income and capital gains taxes on money earned in a particular country. The government can always block or seize international payments to tax evaders.

In theory the countries where Lewis Hamilton races and earns his income could tax him there. But generally they let him slip through loopholes to maintain good relations with F1.
>you won’t let the best ideas get past the fragment stage.

More than encouraging "best" ideas, Free Speech is needed to root out bad ideas.

Unless people speak their mind, how would you know that they are wrong about something, needing correction?
Again, the question is whether or not there can be consent, not whether or not there is a power differential. The existence of a power differential doesn't necessarily mean there can't be consent. Citizens consent to, for instance, the regulations relating to driving when they get their license that the government (which is superior to the individual) sets.

But again, my main point stands. If we are to shut down any discussion of the scenario I gave, which many people would be willing to do, by your own considering this would be shutting down a discussion on whether we can drive on the right side of the road or whether we should shake hands.

And then this is predicated on such lack of debate not causing any harm, when it can be argued there is similar harm as what people say gay people experience.

Again, please, these are devil's advocate arguments. Not personal views.
They do.

- Search
- Pick a category
- Select "Amazon.com" as the seller
> Fuck me dead buddy, I hope you're not

You've broken the HN guideline that asks: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take them to heart. We need that in order to preserve the container for discussion here, which is under constant pressure.
how many hours in the air do you have that you've used to make that decision?
I think it's worse. It's used to blame students with below-average grades, and blame schools where the students have worse-than-average grades, and blame poor people. See, if they only had grit they could succeed.

I am a fan of the blogger Peter Greene, a high school teacher in Pennsylvania. He frequently talks about the negative sides of grit. I'll quote from him, as he says what I would like to say, and is better about it. The quote is from http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2015/01/what-doesnt-kill-... concerning a Washington Post editorial by Virgie Townsend titled "What doesn't kill you doesn't necessarily make you stronger" http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-doesnt-kill-you-... . Greene commented:

> Townsend goes on to catalog, from the Puritans through Teddy Roosevelt through Helen Keller through Oprah, how we love the story of redeeming and clarifying suffering. I would add that it's worth noticing that one of the first things people do in these stories of growth and strength is they stop suffering. It's not like cake. Nobody (well, almost nobody) says, "Wow. That was so good, I think I'll have some more." Suffering in these stories is so good for the hero, and yet the progression, the path, is to move away from it as swiftly as possible. So I'm going to call our attitude confused, at best.

> Townsend notes that we all benefit from "life's healthy and normal challenges." But researchers have found that "traumatic incidents often have long-term negative consequences." Childhood abuse or trauma can result in toxic stress-- stress that is literally poison to the body. "In work published in 2012, Harvard researchers found that people who had been mistreated as children had, on average, a 6 percent loss in volume in their hippocampi, a part of the brain involved with learning and memory. Toxic stress also damages the prefrontal cortex, which is linked to social behavior and decision-making, and the cardiovascular and immune systems."

> Research suggests that childhood trauma increases the risk of cancer, heart disease, mental health issues and (surprise) poor school performance. "A 2009 study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine reported that people who had six or more adverse childhood experiences died, on average, 20 years sooner than those who had none."

> The classic story of redemption and strength has also been found to be helpful to children, but only when paired with the support of stable adults. Simply invoking grit or Kelly Clarkson is not enough.

> The message is clear. Childhood trauma stacks the deck against the children who suffer through it. Invoking grit or repeatedly firing the teachers who can't work miracles won't help.

So, if grit were only used to describe surmounting "life's healthy and normal challenges" then, sure, exercise that so-called 'muscle'. But the problem is that 'grit' is used as a catch-all to surmount all problems in life, including traumatic incidents and childern suffering from the long-term effects of systemic racism and disdain for the poor.
The war advocacy example is a straw man. I don’t even know where to start with the rest of your comment built around that premise.
Definitely agree we should have paid off mortgages instead though.

Wow, OK. Let's think this through a bit further. What effect on the housing market, to say nothing of civil society, would you expect if the government were to stop the music and pay off everyone's mortgages using everyone else's taxes?