skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I know, but it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make any sense to me. It's publicly known that he has a mental illness. I would also like to believe it is generally known that solitude can, and generally will make a situation worse.

I see it as he is trying to reach out, but he is downvoted because why? What effects does a downvoted have on someone? I know I feel bad and I'm generally a person that says "eff it" to a lot of things. I would also like to believe people, especially here on HN, who are much smarter than myself, or so I would like to believe, have all read the same articles and comments I have over the years.

One doesn't need to engage if one does not want to, but where the hell is the humanity?

Sorry, the more I think about this the more upset I get.
I was about to say this.

My Debian machine updates software through apt + dpkg, and I
installed Skype via the Skype repository. Why would Skype for
Linux then choose to bundle its own updater, thereby breaking
the integrity a package manager provides?
This is true; genuine mindfulness does not suppress thoughts. Thank you for clarifying.

In practice, most beginners (a phase that can last for years) find it much easier to use an attentional anchor like the breath. Even advanced practitioners can find great benefit in such a practice.

As long as one understands these nuances, then yes, it is possible for "mindfulness" not to interrupt the natural learning process that can take place when we rest.
Too bad you have to be on Facebook to use Facebook video.
When I open the link in my browser it shows "0 école(s) correspondent à votre recherche" and no table, probably what happens to the analyzer too.
Yes, they state that 1024 bit RSA was used but they also mention that older versions of the browser mistakenly used 128 bit RSA... probably because they were using 128 bit AES and some developer didn't know any better! Or maybe the government told them 128 bit was the maximum they were allowed to use on any cipher whether it was symmetric or asymmetric. https://imgur.com/a/XA91L
You play the game. You accept the rules. That's how it works. You ever use Google? You are complying to their TOS.
I don't think she did know what she was getting into or else she wouldn't have signed the back with her name. I didn't know you basically had to get outed or setup an anonymous trust etc.

If nothing else, this story and court-case will make this information more commonly-known. Before/when you win millions, setup a trust and let the trust do the winning.
As long as websites display annoying ads, people will have the incentive to use ad-blockers, no matter how polished and non-intrusive DoubleClick ads be.
Note: The text of this comments is (AFAIK) originally from this 2008 forum post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/-/5-749519/
The lottery/state officials' story seems to be somewhat at odds with itself.

They say that they have to be open (makes sense) but they also allow you to claim via an anonymous trust, but she can't do that because she signed it. Feels like they could privately identify her to make sure she's the name on the ticket and then do the public part via a trust.

This might not fit the way the relevant laws are written, but they can't say that they're fighting in the interest of openness by not allowing this but allowing the anonymous trust in the first place.
Yes, that is probably the problem, when I looked for the text it returned:

[
0:{
"selector":".bloc-blanc > p:nth-child(1)"
"text":" 0 école(s) correspondent à votre recherche "
}
]
High school did a great job of preparing me to work in an office. I had four bosses who all insisted that their pointless busywork was the most important, and they all demanded that I complete said work with no outside resources on an unrealistic schedule.
If the only way to prove the lottery is legit is to make the names of winners public, why not just make up a name?
It’s not both sides, it’s just more control of the online advertising industry.

Google should be broken up over this type of behaviour. Spend too much money in Washington though.
People that can afford to live in either a new luxury flat or a 1960s ex-council flat, will generally prefer the former.

That’s not generally the gripe with gentrification; it’s that in the experience of most of the residents of an area, gentrification expells not enriches them. Their lives and communities are used as fuel for someone else’s private fire.
You'd think the government could keep records of this and catch fraudulent lotteries, without forcing the winners to be public.
Trouble is, almost nobody cares to spare that much money, least of all the typical gig economy servant.
Indeed, and we know people with privileged access have successfully abused the system in the past.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/programmer-pleads-guilt...
Buildroot is great! I'm using it to build distributions for several pieces of embedded hardware.

But I think Buildroot targets different hardware than Tiny Core. Buildroot targets embedded systems. It therefore lacks a package manager. Tiny core seems to target bigger systems, like notebooks, servers and desktops.
I don't think so. Many platforms include EULAs that basically state that they own content you upload to them.

> viewer's rights to unadulterated content

Not that I necessarily agree with you that this should be a right, but where in the world is anyone enforcing this as a right?
Respectively - merely coding is not very value adding. Knowing what to code, and why, and how, are. That well rounding is trying to set you up for success. "Just coding" does provide capital sustenance but does not enable one alone to develop into the best version of themselves.

Also - knowing stuff that you don't like is still knowing stuff.

Some people are natural autodidacts, but the school system does not start from the root constraint that everyone can learn by themselves.
"What happens in ~1955-1975 if AT&T, at their peak of monopoly, decided to blacklist you from their telephone service?"

It rather depends on the reason for the decision to put you on the blacklist.

In general, AT&T was allowed its monopoly power under government regulation. A goal of the Communications Act of 1934 was to provide universal telephone service. Section 254(b) lists the Universal Principles, including (4), "All providers of telecommunications services should make an equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution to the preservation and advancement of universal service."

If your service was cut off because you liked to pump line voltage through the phone system, then they could do that because it's a nondiscriminatory meant to protect the phone service.

If they cut you off because you wrote a letter to the editor complaining about their services, then that's discriminatory, and you could take your complaint to the local public utilities commission or FCC ... or perhaps sue as well; I don't know the regulatory history.

In any case, there was certainly government oversight of what AT&T could do, in terms of putting someone on a blacklist.
List of useful free software available to students
Yet other countries (and even some states) get by without releasing the name. All you need is oversight, which frankly should be a prerequisite of a lottery either way. The real question is why investigative journalists are America's means of oversight rather than have a real system in-place?

The whole thing places lottery winners into a dangerous situation, and everyone knows it. That's why the stereotypical "change your name and move" advice is so often recited.
But how does making the winner's name public avoid fraud? I assume the government needs to look at something and say "looks legit". So couldn't they do that in private? Have some judge or gov't official put their stamp on it and say "yes, the winner was a real person not affiliated with the lottery" or whatever needs to happen.
Isn't that what "reflected" means?
A list of mobile-only bank accounts you can run entirely from your smartphone
You're right, but the fact is she could have been anonymous if she'd known about "this one weird trick to maintain your privacy" (i.e. setting up a trust).

Cases like this (1) call out non-obvious legal stipulations for the majority of us that don't read/understand every bullet-point of a TOS and (2) question the legality of such stipulations.
That's entirely why a number of states require it to be kept non-anonymous for winnings above certain amounts. Because the lottery is run by a private organization they don't want that org to be able to act like it's paying out without providing proof to the public. Otherwise you can end up with situations like the mcdonalds monopoly scam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Monopoly#Fraud
She already signed the ticket with her name on it. Altering it to be signed by an anonymous trust would invalidate the ticket.
>Seems fair to me. Am I missing something?

Rules rarely apply to rich people.
In the UK, the National Lottery allows anonymous retrieval of the winnings and yet there is still a very large amount of trust that there is no fraudulent activity.
The anonymity means you do not get financial advice from the lottery trust which seems like a pretty fair trade off.
Given the size of the prize involved, it seems like she could have had a duplicate "winning ticket" made, sans signature on the back. This would have had to have been done before all the publicity about the signed ticket though.

Even with watermarks, etc., the cost to manufacture an exact replica ticket couldn't be more than a few thousand dollars. Even if it were $100K to buy some specialized equipment, it would still seem like a worthwhile investment.
The only reason the lotto works is because people know you can win and it's not rigged, and the only way you can know that is by making the winners public

You have seen The Running Man, right?
> without having a policy statement, there's no argument being made, just a free-for-all mess.

Given that medical treatments are the second or third leading cause of death in the U.S., how much good is the policy statement really doing?
Aha! I see, it shows data based on POST request from FORM on this page http://www.dsden93.ac-creteil.fr/spip/spip.php?page=annu1d so if you provide just a link to the results page without the POST data then it will show you nothing. Sadly the tool currently does not allow for sending POST requests to the websites.
Don't assume I am talking about personal ROI. Team ROI is critical. Seeing a feature early so we can decide if the goal needs to be changed it valuable. Clean code that's going to be deleted tomorrow is not.

The 3rd time you touch a function is often a great time to make it awesome. However, a lot of code never reaches production and maintainability is more of an issue for code that survives.
> that enable literate programming

And if you've not actually dug into primary sources, you probably don't know what Knuth means by "literate programming" - what it's come to mean is a pretty small sliver of what was intended.
Correct, but time to market has it's value too. Also: mobile dev so Apple forces a rewrite every couple years anyway (on both design and tech fronts)
Yeah, I did miss the point. No one should be called stupid while they're trying to learn. But we should provide a lot of encouragement and hand-holding to kids to get them reading as soon as they can.

Gatto's quip aside, there are actual studies that look at correlations. "Using third-grade national percentile rankings... into below (0-24th national percentile), at (25th-74th national percentile) and above grade level (75th-100th national percentile) groupings, we find correlational evidence that students who were at and above grade level in third grade graduate and attend college at higher rates than their peers who were below grade level in third grade." https://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/Reading_on_Gr...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reading-and-maths... found a 10% difference in earnings at age 30 for differences in reading skill at age 10.
> I place a premium

I think the problem is are you saying this as an individual or are you saying this as someone in leadership with power.

Place a premium all you want. But if you're a grunt, that opinion is going straight to dev null.
There's still a conflict of interest there - arbitration will only continue to be used if it provides a more favourable outcome than going to the courts.
> The standards are difficult to turn into lesson plans

That people can say that with a straight face indicated to me that we have a real problem in teacher education [0]. The standards you link may be different than what is addressed in lesson plans that have been handed down with only incremental modification for decades, but nothing about them seems to difficult to develop a year-long lesson plan that incorporates then.

> They will never have extended reading time in class.

Which is hard to blame on the standard you post, since you almost certainly cannot properly assess CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.1.4.A without it.

[0] and, to be fair, also in allocating work time and pay for the one-time effort of initial curriculum development to support the new standards; the effort is clearly different than adapting existing lesson plans to incremental changes to legacy standards.
Yep, the mobile phone number or something called as Virtual Payment Address that looks like an email address (name@bankname). It's actually quite useful and a lot of apps support it including WhatsApp and Google's Tez.
The follow up is pretty good advice too and is the advice I have been given by lawyers I know that are familiar with these problems... also they have all advised getting the hell out the country for awhile. Congrats, you are taking a two-week vacation in London or Paris. Long enough to get paperwork dealt with and short enough that it does not need explanation to family, friends or colleagues.
The US military is powerful and effective, just not in the way you might think.

First, discard any notions you may have regarding "winning" wars or "mission accomplished". The military hasn't been at war in a de jure legal sense since 1945. But it has been involved nearly continuously in de facto wars ever since then.

Is the world really such a dangerous place? Or is there another hypothesis that might explain it?

Here's one: the US military is an instrument for moving public funds from the Treasury into private hands with little or no public oversight, designed to work equally well when popular opinions swing in favor of the military or against it. To this end, media channels and public relations outlets are controlled through the use of financial incentives and proactively crafted narratives.

Milo Minderbinder is in charge. The US military spends $600 billion every year. Powerful means of moving money. Only $150 billion goes to personnel. Effective? Depends on what you think the intent may be.
Not sure what "inalienably correct" means, but I guess it means you are not open to change your mind or open to debate, so I will just stand my point of view to justify my initial comment.

I didnt imply causation to Hollywood, I just used it as an adjective. I agree that storytelling with heroes personification is very common in humankind since always (since there is written documents at least). It happens that Hollywood became a thing by replicating this phenomena in fiction, so I think is very fit to use it as a qualifier.

But I disagree that this human characteristic is the cause behind human progress.

Collaboration was a human evolutionary advantage, so I think human are more naturally colaborative that competitive, at least intra tribe size levels.

I also think that humans seek recognition among peers - and a peer has a very broad and flexible definition, not necessarily recognition from history. So I disagree that highly focused scientists motivation is to be like historical figures. They want that recognition in life, from peers, not historians.

Still, I also think recognition from others is not the sole motivation for all human endeavors, not even the biggest factor.
> When we built Chrome, we wanted to create a way for people to interact with the magic that is the web, without the browser getting in the way. We created a browser that took up minimal space on your screen...

Only for websites clutter that free space with hideously large and empty headers and unmovable footers that cover a good 20% to 30% of vertical space that would be better spent on the actual content of the page. (If I want to navigate your site, give me link to your homepage, and I'll take it from there.) Oh, and lets not forget those social sharing icons, even for people who don't social network!

Let's rub salt into the wound:

> (These ads are) designed to be disruptive and often stand in the way of people using their browsers for their intended purpose—connecting them to content and information.
So moral of the story is to never sign your ticket.

Looks like some lucky person was smart enough to do that.

"In 2016, the last winner of the Powerball followed that advice. The $487 million prize claimed through the Robin Egg 2016 Nominee Trust, which was created by Shaheen, and he serves as its trustee."
I have a feeling Diaspora isn't going anywhere anytime soon until they clean up their UX. Here's the initial experience:

1) Go to the site, click Join Us.

2) Get shuttled down the page to a wall of text. Click Sign Up since I don't want to read the text, and I see a green button.

3) See a list of "pods" - looks like a chatroom? I click the "Confused" button which auto-sends you to a pod.

4) See a bunch of text in German.

5) Press back.

6) Click the pod at the top of the list that says "US".

7) Get a 500 error.

8) Close tab.

I love the idea here, but I hate to say that it is poorly executed so far.
She still has the choice to refuse the money. She can't have both in this case. Sometimes the world isn't fair. I really wish to hear other people talk about the "threats to liberty this entails" because I'm being down-voted to oblivion.
The point of oversight is to avoid fraud. The point of releasing a name is for publicity and nothing else.

How does releasing someone's name and location even avoid fraud within itself? It only works if people invade that individual's privacy (e.g. job, associations, etc).
The Heygate estate is an interesting point. I used to live in the foursquares, a smaller equally deprived estate just to the east.

At the time of the "regeneration" (2000s) it was a toss up between a number of estates and the heygate. However because of its size and location the heygate was chosen

My estate was turned around, and I was lucky enough to live in the estate, not on it. I got to know some of the original residents(and still do).

There are two important things to note, Council housing is almost exclusively of a very high standard (bigger than new builds by ~10+ sqm) Compared to the slums described so vividly in the road to wigan pier, a paradise. (running toilets, windows, heating plaster, enough bedrooms for each kid)

Until a rule change in the late 70s, you had to have a job to be eligible for council housing. There were (and still are, more or less) residents associations that look after the running of the estate. Caretakers lived on site, towers had 24 hour concierges, and ne'dowells were evicted.

However, that was all taken away in favour of dumping problem families, outsourcing cleaning and upkeep (In some cases, one cleaner 2 hours a day costs something line £80k annually.)

In short, there is nothing wrong with the estate fabric (of the surviving estates) but how they are looked after, and who lives there. Grenfell is a shining example, a solid block that was subdivided and halfarsedly put in new gas mains.
Except this isn't really how wars happen, because the US and NK have been trading barbs since ... the 1950s, even though we are technically still at war with them, there is nothing akin to a hot war, or anything radically different from the status quo, anywhere on the horizon
I question whether a "large majority" of people using adblockers are aware they are doing anything other than blocking ads. The HN crowd tends to overestimate the tech-savviness of the general population when it comes to this stuff.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Bad site. Bad admins. Bad System. Bad providers. Bad Buyers. It's a sandwich of crap from top to bottom. I prefer to find, engage, pay, and manage my contractors direct. Do I get burned from time to time and have a hard time finding good contractors? yes. But I'd rather do that than have my time, money, and reputation wasted by something I have no control over.
It CAN be addictive. I have a friend who spends all his free time playing an iPhone game - even when we're hanging out at a bar he has it turned on and he glances at it to make sure his character is leveling up. He also spent $10k plus on game items. I'd say he's very much addicted.
I don't know what those years of work were accomplishing, but they didn't make Skype decent.

Skype was decent a decade ago, and it has declined since then.
Another user posted that the criteria for shittiness is defined here: https://www.betterads.org/standards/

Seems pretty reasonable.
You are right; I cannot say for certain that someone else would have solved the nitrogen fixing problem in time to save humanity from global starvation, but for it not to happen, it would have required a lot of chemists to all not perform the sort of experiments that chemists are trained, employed and choose to do.

Having read somewhat widely, as a kid, about the history of technology, I was struck by how often several people were working independently on the same ideas at the same time, but that is not so surprising once you realize that the timing is often determined by when some prerequisite knowledge became available, or some prerequisite capability was mastered. Einstein stands among the most original thinkers of all time, but even he was standing on the shoulders of people like Heaviside, Fitzgerald and Lorentz (and Maxwell, of course) - yet the first three, at least, are invisible in popular historiography.
The Streisand Effect would apply if her name was being bandied about because she was trying to suppress the news. That's not the case.
The UN Climate Panel needs more women
Soon after birth? Partly, but this is a much deeper issue that starts soon after conception. Actually scratch that, it started soon after sexual reproduction and therefore sexual selection was introduced about a billion years ago.
How software is constructed has a huge impact on how well it ages. It can age like a Tolkien elf, or it can age like a fruit fly.
Name isn’t a matching criteria in our current payments system, it may be used later in the event of a dispute or error but it is not used initially
Okay, yeah. Looking at it from a site developer's perspective I can see where you're coming from. In fact, I'm certain that many sites which do display Annoying Ads[1] are going to be pretty ticked off by this move.

However, I think the type of "content" Chrome is discriminating against here is pretty far removed from what most users would consider "content". They're not basing the decision on whether to block ads on a news site on the _content_ of its articles, but on the placement of its ads.

To the extent that ads can be considered "content" then yeah, Google's not being content-neutral here, but while site owners might consider ads to be "content", I suspect most users don't.

It's a pretty similar situation with Google's Safe Browsing system. While a malicious site operator might consider malware to be "content", malware is almost certainly not the sort of content the user came to the site for.

[1]: https://www.betterads.org/standards/
I think it's more unofficial than that. As other people have said in this thread, identifying the people publicly allows others to see their face, and see that they are real people. If it were simply "A judge has declared the winner legit" every time, people would get suspicious.