skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Note how the article says "voter registration rolls" but the headline says "voter systems", creating implication that these are systems that are used for actual vote, while maintaining plausible deniability in case they'd be called on it ("we didn't say voting systems, but voter systems!"). This is a pure journalistic malpractice, and it happens often enough to think it is done on purpose.

> they did leak the information that they acquired - clearly to shape the political situation. Still reprehensible.

This is not only legal, but has been done many times by all MSM outlets. Some got well-respected prizes for it. Some got movies made in their honor for it. May be still reprehensible, but certainly not something one usually gets indicted for.
> Like buttons are partially served by Facebook

Yes, the default configuration has your page include javascript from facebook.net which the browser will request on every page view

https://developers.facebook.com/docs/plugins/like-button

In the case of this the theguardian.com page it looks like they've got a webbug as the last element of the body, which results in a request to https://www.facebook.com/tr?

Having facebook count views of your like button is probably considered a feature to publishers.
I mean, aside from the DNC's emails [2] [3] and gaining access to Arizona and Illinois voting records [1]. I'd personally put 1 to 4 odds against direct modification of voting numbers, given that voting machines are woefully insecure [4].

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-i...

[2] https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-11-03/inside...

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign...

[4] https://www.defcon.org/images/defcon-25/DEF%20CON%2025%20vot...
Yes, the system was capable in many areas (although that wasn't enough overall). The socialism is designed to please the majority, first and foremost, so it normal to see that in USSR they addressed a lot of the common people issues that under a different establishment may have been addressed in a lesser degree. The industrialization happened, as I see it, because was an answer to several issues at once: a mean to employ masses, a mean to provide various resources thus a politically desirable and reasonably easy achievable economic independence (as before the industrialization the main exported commodity from USSR was wheat), and on ideological level - a way of depicting the viability of communism (having the industrialized nations as reference, nations that happened to be all capitalist). As for scientific progress, in USSR it had to have an ideological base (as it has to have an economical base in capitalism), and from this I see two occurring issues. First issue is that it works best when you have to compete with something other than yourself (like politically dictated/mandated cosmos-related scientific progress) and not so much otherwise, and the second issue is that things don't get multiplied the way they do in capitalist environment because things here happen when they are commissioned by the state (thus only one) actor and resource pool. (To be fair, I don't see anything serious impeding scientific progress in socialism/communism, just fewer reasons for it to happen.)
He's not wrong.

OSM is too complex for the majority of businesses. I know two that chose to pay Google for their mapping needs rather than jump through OSM's hoops.

Imagine if the only way to get Linux on your computer was to download and compile the whole thing from source yourself, instead of buying or downloading a distro.

If OSM had a mapping solution like Google's, it would thrive. And just for fun, it should undercut Google's pricing.
BTW, there's already a large open source project called Huginn: https://github.com/huginn/huginn
Context is indeed important, one could argue that the Soviets did the same in Korea, Vietnam, or any of the other major Cold War conflicts.
For anyone here interested, there's a website that has a nice UX for this: https://stackshare.io/

What I like about it is you can add open source projects to your stack, not just SAAS services. And also, you can split your server-side stack from your personal tools.
In daily use people (at least here) will also use the word 'stalking' for obsessively following a person physically or online.

Or if you want to stick to definitions:

verb (used with object)

5. to pursue (game, a person, etc.) stealthily.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/stalking?s=t
Here are some better pointers:

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-explained-721c...

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagaters-are-the-very...

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-is-making-ever...

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/10-trump-administration-a...

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-problem-with-the-clin...

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/clintonists-suddenly-clai...

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/how-to-criticize-trump-wi...
Even if your claim were supportable, it wouldn't explain how competitors not "seeking out to just do everything as evil as possible" have competitive prices.
A woman here is explaining that she prefers to interact anonymously or pseudonymously on the internet in order to avoid vicious abuse, amply demonstrated in screenshots. I find it very alarming that a significant part of the response here is to suggest that we should therefore eliminate anonymity and pseudonymity on the internet in order to force people to behave better.

This suggested measure would force this woman, and others, to face this vicious abuse all the time, with no escape except not to use the internet.

This seems like a bad idea. Problems like this are precisely why we must protect the rights to anonymity and pseudonymity, and indeed work to make them normative. (And that's without even getting into the fact that real-names policies have been conclusively shown not to make people behave better.)
"If Uber is able to deliver ride cheaper than everyone else, they can make a ton of money,"

They are repeatedly demonstrating that they are not able to do this profitably.
> easy and objective.

that’s the worst kind of data - gives a meaningless feeling of objectivity.
You're welcome this Jimmy. And you rock. You're one of the people who got me into OSM in the first place.

And I still love OSM. I want to see it succeed!

Go Igles!
Don't be naive. The TPP will no more fetter the CCP than the WTO has.
I eagerly await the investigation into Israeli interference of the last 10 US presidential elections.
If it will be open there is no problem at all.
That would definitely help a lot (and osmdroid at least does support vector map sources); I imagine the traffic would still be significant though.
> For example, an EU resident hits your server while they're on vacation in Australia.

If you don't provide specifically targetting EU with your services, you aren't under GDPR scope. Specifically targetting means stuff that shows that you specially consider EU users, for instance by allowing payments in EUR currency or having a website in a language only spoken in EU.

> You've stored analytics, IP addresses, etc.

Even if you were under GDPR scope, storing information purely for ensuring network security is perfectly fine under a law.

> The law also broadly contradicts loads of other laws about how data must be retained for legal and compliance purposes.

GDPR allows for storage of data for legal and compliance purposes. In fact, feel free to read https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...

> So now any jurisdiction in the world can declare that if you do something they don't like that even remotely affects them, you owe them whatever they want.

No, GDPR doesn't apply to everyone. If you don't provide services specifically to European Union countries, you don't need to care about GDPR at all. For instance, if your website has a Greek language option, it's understandable that you are offering services to Greece or Cyprus (both of which are European Union countries), and GDPR applies to your website. GPDR only applies when it would be enforceable to begin with.

> What if some oppressive regime passes a law that if your website is shown to one of their citizens and doesn't have a message praising their leader, you owe them 100% of your global revenue in perpetuity.

They would have difficulties in enforcing it, as you likely don't specifically provide service to them. And even if you did, you could just disable the website for that country instead of paying 100% of your global revenue. Similarly, with GDPR, you can just remove support for EU languages, EU currencies, and so on.

> If the EU gets overly broad and punitive here (as I'd argue they have), then companies will either just leave, or shift their digital operations to jurisdictions where courts can't enforce those laws.

True, that's an option, but at the same time, EU is a big market that may be not worth ignoring.

> Ultimately, I think that the realistic path here is that Google and Facebook will fundamentally change almost nothing. The user experience will just get worse, because we'll have to constantly be agreeing to a long list of terms about how our data will be used, etc, etc. And people will just agree and move on.

GDPR is not EU Cookie Law (which actually was badly designed law, unlike GDPR) where you could just put some silly notice and that's about it. For example, an user may demand his information to be removed, and you actually have to handle this request or you risk being sued for not complying with GDPR.
The strength of a democracy should be that its citizens can stand in the battleground of ideas unscathed and our abandonment of that ideal does not bode well.

Then you need to have some sort of standards for how that is conducted or how truth is established. If people are fed a constant barrage of lies of lise then some portion of them will believe in those, and history furnishes us with numerous examples of foolish collective behavior when a sufficient portion of the population becomes enamoured of a bad idea.

A friend of mine observed last year that it's easier to weaponize fiction than to monetize truth in a market economy, because the truth includes things that many people don't want to hear.
Was referencing voting systems/records, sorry I wasn't more clear.
What a massively ineffective conspiracy you've proposed. Can the deep state at the same time be all powerful but still let Trump get elected? The Nunes memo is nothing but hot air. There is no evidence of most of it's claims and it contradicts itself. It's little more than a political campaign ad.
Special Counsel Mueller Indicts 13 Russians for Election Interference
> Lots of news reports about this, but none provide a link to the actual indictment...

NYT's report had it near the top of the article, although the topic was below the recent Florida news on the front page.
> The brain then starts rationalizing attributes about it that were designed or hacked in for totally different reasons in a past of constrained hardware lacking knowledge or tools of modern, language design. That context no longer applies to most users of C. It's just myth-making by users reinforcing use of it.

That's just _your_ rationalization. I don't think it's commonly claimed that all was set in stone from the beginning. The history is there for everyone to read.

Another possible explanation is that C is so minimal (in spirit) and doesn't get in the way, people are able to pull of impressive things, which makes them love C.

And now why exactly isn't (the gist of) C sensible design? I fail to see your argument. By the way, please enjoy this cool video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khmFGThc5TI
You might want to actually click on the article's links. It isn't just private security companies.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-departme...

Additionally, if you look at the private security company posts, they ALSO cross reference material of note.

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
WeWork works because many autonomous individuals still have the need to have an office... a place to get work done. Also because clients wouldn't meet you at the library or coffee shop for a meeting.
If it wasn't for germs and muskets, the Comanche would have conquered North America just like the Mongols conquered Eurasia.
So instead of lots of parens, you get lots of {}, [], and () spread across more lines, and curly braced blocks are often nested.
Except for the fact that people interested in strategic matters have been discussing this and warning of the downsides since long before the electoral campaign in question.
Don't Google own Waze? I don't get why they don't integrate the data.
For another cool .y (YACC) and .l (Flex) setup, check out what Postgres uses to parse SQL queries:

https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/backend...

https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/backend...

Link to all files / README: https://github.com/postgres/postgres/tree/master/src/backend...
That can't be it either. Giving 65 million brits even £5,500 would cost £357b

EDIT: oh, what's a million or a billion between friends?
No, what dang said was, "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." No reasonable person could possibly interpret this as meaning, "it is not possible to disagree, because a) she identified as being female, and b) said it was gross, c) it was mentioned in the context of abuse."

You are just trolling, and I am only responding because dang's comment may not be visible to other people reading this thread.
First things first: we do need some solution to the problem that she faced, and it is a real problem, that relates to gender. That said.

> How much will it take to convince the average HN reader
that sexism actually is everywhere?

In a sense, it obviously is. But I want to reflect a bit on what that might entail.

You will note (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16390786) that the amount of sexist threads was 14 per week, which, in the period of 3 months with 2100 messages, gives about 1% of messages.

For reference, the DSM gives the prevalence of psychopathy at 3% for males and 1% for females (https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-people-are-psychopa...).

So, even though this sexism is a societal problem (in the sense that it exists in our society and is hard to extricate from comunities) it is not clear that sexism (or at least the sexism displayed in the article) is a problem with a social solution: teaching children (or people in general, as it may be) that this is not OK probably would not reduce the problem much further.

I predict, therefore, that no amount of society-wide measures against sexism can reduce this (very marginal!) behaviour (if the chat itself remains consequence-free for the users). That is: that fighting sexism is not gonna help this at all, and we'd need other, technical and local-to-the-website solutions.

> How much will it take to convince the average HN reader that sexism actually is everywhere?

That it is everywhere, in the sense that some (few) people bring it everywhere, not much. That it is everywhere, in the sense that all of society is guilty of it and each person should try to fix it in themselves, evidence of an entirely different sort.
It seems that the goal was to promote discontent in general. There were anti-Trump activities as well, such as the post-election NYC protest set up on Facebook.
For the record, if you've ever tried to go on welfare/unemployment (in USA) you'd know that it's anything but convenient. I had to fill out paperwork, meet deadlines, show up for in-person meetings that took an hour longer than they ought to have, remember to re-apply each week... definitely not as easy as checking Facebook for the millionth time this morning.

It's also a bit disingenuous to say that these services cripple your ability to independently operate - when I was on the dole I was having a blast going hiking and biking, drinking wine, writing music, and playing Nintendo Switch. That's about as independent a life as I could ask for, frankly.
>If we, as a nation, were actually serving our citizens and maintaining the level of education and sustaining the standard of living required for democracy to function across most of the population I do not think these Russian-style campaigns would be very effective.

A well-educated population capable of critical thinking is a threat to a ruling class that aims to take as much as they can from the world while pawning off all of society's problems on whatever boogeyman they see fit.
Those are obviously-partisan opinion articles by a self-described "rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper."

Call me crazy but I'm going to side with the intelligence community (and Obama and John McCain and the Dutch government and even Mitch McConnell) on this one.

[edit: added adjectives, and the Dutch because they deserve it]
Waze is pretty great but it has a habit of running you through hospital parking lots to save 2 minutes or turning multiple times to avoid a intersection that isn't really that busy.

What I wish Waze would do is have a mode that allowed me to learn a route. Maps, and Waze both 'optimize' so much that its sometimes hard to learn a route from point a -> b because every time you go it sends you on different paths.

Many of the path optimizations seem to save you _seconds_ and when I'm driving I don't care about seconds, I care about minutes in greater quantities than 10.
Google maps does update route in real time. They also integrate Waze data since they own them. Waze was taking heat for routing onto residential side streets which makes me wonder if Google is taking a softer approach. Interesting that you mapped your route with Google maps and Waze at the same time and compared them. I'll have to give that a shot.
MVC framework?
I miss a decent self-hosted photo/video library.
Capitalism is absolutely supposed to minimize costs, that is how competition works. It is more a consequence of economic reality than a function of capitalism that massive vertical integration and economies of scale can let market-spanning monopolies form.

But as others have said, unless barriers are put in place (economically natural like mindshare or opportunity cost or artificial ones like bribed legislation) the monopoly can't abuse their situation without opening up avenues for new competition to arise to compete with them.

On one hand, capitalism is obviously not optimal - a monopoly is only held to a price ceiling of what the most nascent newcomer is capable of. They are almost always able to take home the profit of their scale and integration even in the presence of competitors. On the other hand, the only way historically nations have battled this is to micromanage a market to guarantee enough strong entrenched and scaled competition to keep there from being a decisive market leader. But over time all markets trend towards that kind of centralization.
This is actually one of two papers published by the lab in Nature. The papers together go much further than just describing the mechanism of action of ketamine and propose a potential mechanism for a cause of depression.

Kir4.1 paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25752
You do know that Google owns Waze right?
100% agree with you.
> Mueller describes a sweeping, years-long, multimillion-dollar conspiracy by hundreds of Russians aimed at criticizing Hillary Clinton and supporting Senator Bernie Sanders and Trump

Since when criticizing Hillary Clinton and supporting Senator Bernie Sanders and Trump is a crime one can be indicted for? I know millions of Americans engaged in multibillion-dollar conspiracy aimed at criticizing Hillary Clinton and supporting Senator Bernie Sanders and Trump (the last two probably not at the same time :).

I can get why hacking into private email is something worth indictment. I don't see how "criticizing Hillary Clinton" can even appear in indictment as something that is worth being prosecuted for.
I can’t recall the name now but there was a book swap many many years ago where you got a few points for a new account and then you spent points for someone to send you a book and got points for giving one away.

Similar concept, and one that’s been borrowed heavily. Not sure why a block chain would improve that.

Except that this is a clear sign that we are deep into buzzword territory now.
Im my opinion the biggest problem is the data model (or lack of). Tags i.e. key-value pairs are used to add properties to geometry. Mappers use different combinations of keys/values to describe the same thing. The post touches on this, but does not offer solutions other than adding "layers".

There should be a strict schema that would be community managed through some process.
There's good reason to believe that the increase of loneliness is being caused by an increased sense of alienation in society, which was predicted to occur due to economic forces under capitalism by Marx. So heartwarming to see this loneliness being viewed as just another potential to extract profit from people...
Even Apple the most valuable company in the world with hundreds of billions of dollars of cash on hand is way behind Google in terms of mapping.

https://www.justinobeirne.com/google-maps-moat/

If Apple has trouble keeping feature parity with Google Maps, there is no way that an endeavor like Open Street Maps has any real chance of making something with the breadth, features, and usability of Google Maps.
I used to work in the building with the USGS map store. It was very sad to see it close. It wasn't commercial map providers that caused it to close, it was the avilablilty of USGS topo maps online, and a faster data collection to map pipeline. You can still order maps printed on demand directly from the USGS.
I still use them (replace + with quotes around the word), along with searches for quoted words. Sometimes you have to click the "search for what I typed, not the spell-corrected version" button, though.
> For example, an EU resident hits your server while they're on vacation in Australia. You've stored analytics, IP addresses, etc. Congrats, you're now in violation.

If you don't do business in the EU (Take money from EU customers), there's practically nothing that the EU can do to you.

> That's the tip of the iceberg.

This is a very unimpressive iceberg.

> The law also broadly contradicts loads of other laws about how data must be retained for legal and compliance purposes. So now that everyone is breaking this law, regulators are free to just decide who they want to punish and how much. That's incredibly damaging to the fundamental idea of the rule of law.

Fortunately, we have something called 'the courts' that will iron out these ambiguities. And as other posters indicate, this is actually addressed by the GDPR.
> it's only because people think you're a bot

I wonder if people are more likely to assume it's a bot when a female image is used - I've noticed that a lot of sites that are automated (or at least aren't so directly connected to a real person) use stock photos of female staff. Certainly not a justification, but could be a factor.

I wonder if there's any way you could control for that to get truer data (I'm not doubting the overall conclusion that sexism is rampant) - maybe explicitly say "This is/is not a bot" or trial photos that look like very stereotypical/generic stock photos?
> I'd really like to know everything FB tracks on those like buttons, it's probably an obscene amount of personal data.

When you request a page like this guardian article, all they'd have access to would be:

* The url you requested, along with time and IP
* Any facebook.com/facebook.net cookies you have stored
* Any other headers your browser sends
* Metadata about the page itself that the publisher publishes via "og:" tags

Said og: tags look like this:
<meta property="og:title" content="Facebook ordered to stop collecting user data by Belgian court"/>

How does that compare with what you meant by "obscene amount of personal data"?