skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Even applying such retroactive analysis to determine the smallest set of people who could change their votes so as to alter the election result, that doesn't imply anything about why Trump voters voted for Trump. That doesn't mean they were brainwashed by Facebook, that they're all white supremacists, etc.
That's not unlike what you might do to recover a high frequency signal by using a band-pass filter and then sampling that (which is typically done by a mixer in a traditional analog system). If you know what the alias is you can reconstruct your signal. The point though is that you can't sample signals of a higher bandwidth without aliasing. If you know in advance the only alias is at a given frequency then you don't need to filter. The purpose of the filter is to ensure that the bandwidth of the sampled signal is correct given that you know nothing about the frequency content of the original signal. The sampling theorem is pretty specific and its proof is solid. So while it might be true you could use a single pixel to tell the difference between an apple and a banana, without filtering the image before sampling, it doesn't really relate to the sampling theorem at that point.
The self driving accidents might be the easiest for humans to avoid, but if accident rates are lower for self-driving cars, it's still worth it. Let's look at overall numbers and severity, not how avoidable it would be for a human.
I like Facebook to keep up with friends who I don't get to see very often. One on one communication with everyone would be untenable. The broadcast nature of Facebook (and Instagram) makes it perfect for keeping up with what my friends are doing.

For example, I literally haven't seen some of my high school friends since we graduated 22 years ago, but I know all about their kids and families and their recent successes at their jobs. I like knowing that I'm still connected to people I spent literally every free hour with in my youth.

It's especially salient for me because Facebook didn't exist when we graduated. Many of them I've only reconnected with in the last 5 to 10 years, so I remember what it was like when we didn't have Facebook to keep in touch.

It has real value for me.
This may be right, but not because of the reasons the author supposes.

I really doubt there is a strong genetic component to desiring a certain family size, but I believe along with most other people that wealth strongly influences family size.

The population bomb may re-arm as economic trends of rising poverty and working poverty persist. As the wedge between rich and poor grows with many more on the poor side of the divide, family size may grow.
It's the actions on the margin that matter here.

Just think of what this whole story (Foreign meddling) says about these marginal voters in that case: That they were so easily swayed, that they decided to vote ostensibly against their own better judgement simply by being shown a series of ads to influence their emotions.

Something is very wrong with voter education if it's that easy to sway a certain influential population of voters.
> but you never here anything about who is the makeup of the electoral college in msm - what their tax returns look like and who is paying them off. Why?

Because electors are temporary and almost completely symbolic. In the vast majority of states if the Republican candidate wins, electors nominated by the Republican party go to D.C. If the Democratic candidate wins, Democratic electors go.

The respective parties pick hardcore supporters who will almost certainly vote for the party that nominated them, and in 29 states they are legally obligated to do so.

No one cares about them because they never change the outcome. There have been a handful of times when electors have voted against the will of their states, but they've only changed the outcome once, in 1834. The Democratic nominee for Vice President should have won that year, but 23 electors chose not to vote for VP, so it went to the Senate, who voted for the Democratic nominee anyway (so the electors didn't actually alter the outcome).
> the company's valuation has fast growth baked in

That used to be the case. It's trading at a particularly unusual discount today in fact, on a growth to valuation metric. It's radically superior to Amazon on that front. It's better than Google. And it's dramatically better than Microsoft (which barely has any growth).

Facebook is trading for ~23 times likely 2018 earnings. And perhaps 17 or 18 times 2019 earnings.

Google has half the growth rate of Facebook, with a higher multiple (messy earnings statements the past year, but it's reasonably around 30 times 2018 likely earnings).

Microsoft has barely grown earnings for a decade. Their sales growth is single digits. ~30 PE ratio.

Amazon? Ha.

Netflix? Ha.

Cisco has had a contracting business for years on the top line. Profit has also declined. They're being granted a ~20-21 PE ratio on the basis of zero growth. That's barely below what Facebook is getting for considerable growth.

Or take Activision, trading for ~55-60 times earnings, with something around 1/5th the growth of Facebook.

Facebook has a PE ratio a lot closer to Oracle, which has a stagnant business that hasn't increased earnings in years.

Even pathetic Coca Cola, which has a collapsing business (years of sales declines), is trading for ~30 times earnings.

McDonald's which has a business that has been contracting for years, is trading for ~25 times earnings.

Facebook is cheap in just about every way compared to the broad market and compared to most slow-growth blue chips.
Maybe shouldn't be a driving instructor.
The flip side to "nothing to hide" is akin to John Hancock signing his name big and bold because you want others to know what "you" think and are doing.

That is not at all the same as not caring. It's using the platform with intent.

I see a lot of that on FB. I don't agree with the intent all the time but I do pay attention to it and often use it with purpose myself.
I'm a male, but I do think it's an offensive term for women in the U.S., despite its more casual usage in the UK. The average female reader would be inclined to think that such slurs -- and their anti-female sentiment -- were considered OK here.

It's too late to delete but I think it's worth it (for future readers) to say that offense isn't intended, and that that word is frowned upon by most HN users and mods.
>I have no idea if China is in a fundamentally different position than Japan was in the 80s,

It is. Its economy is much bigger, it is not a democracy and, most importantly, today's China is much more expansionistic than post-1945 Japan ever was.
Their immune systems are pretty great at killing viruses and bacteria. Alligator serum is tough against: HIV, West Nile, and Herpes.

A long, but good read, on lizard immune systems can be found here[0].

[0]http://jeb.biologists.org/content/213/5/661
Announcing GA of Azure database services for MySQL and PostgreSQL
Are you just not paying attention to the Mueller investigation? There's like five guilty pleas by now. Is that just a nothing burger? Seriously, what do you think that's all about?

If you want a timeline of events you can go here[0] or here[1], but something tells me you won't accept these...

[0]: https://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide/tim...

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/05/a...
Additionally, “at least it’s not Hillary” is a pretty baseless reason without supporting arguments. The majority of Americans would vastly prefer her, so please explain your point if you aim to be taken seriously. This isn’t reddit.
I bet 10 bucks nobody here is going to reply with what you asked for. Because there is no "evidence" of any sort of "hacking".
I think this depends very much on what you consider the intention of a justice system to be. If it is to strive towards balance between individuals, then you are correct. If a person causes suffering, then they should experience suffering themselves. Balance attained.

However, if the intention of a justice system is to reduce the total amount of injustice done in the world, then punishment is surprisingly ineffective.

Being a criminal does not _preclude_ a person from also being a victim. People who inflict violence have very, very often experienced a great deal of violence against themselves. In these cases, punishment is going to do far more harm than good in society. Harsh punishment, especially incarceration, makes pre-existing issues much worse. It creates recidivism, and increases the total amount of injustice over the long term. Compassion, support, empathy, education, and carefully guided opportunity to improve would, in many of these cases, improve that person's circumstance to a point where they no longer have cause to harm others. The original victims may not have received the recompense that they deserve, but the likelihood of more people experiencing pain at the criminal's hand in the future is reduced.

So it's not quite as simple as all one way or all the other. I think that is why the raw concept of 'retribution' is a less desirable idea these days than it has been in the past. It makes the demands of individual balance at the expense of community balance.

Don't get me wrong, I think that ignoring individual balance outright in favour of community balance is equally flawed. The trick is providing lots of options, so that someone like a judge can make the call as to where that balancing point should be and be confident that it is played out.
Site Not Ranking in Google – Hidden Real Facts
Thanks for the suggestion. I think this will work fine in a home network that I can control. But this is not going to work when I am traveling and using my carrier's 4G network. Am I right? Is there any nifty solution to address the later?

I am a little disappointed that I can't do something as simple as install plugins for my phone browser that can block sites.
I'm curious to see what the next 'social networking site' is going to be, but I'm also wondering how much our expectations of 'social networking' have changed since Facebook entered the room and took over the conversation. (Took over, not changed)

My chief complaint, personally about these sites is that I'll use it, just let me use it the way I want to in relative peace. That means: unless I subscribed to a specific type of update, I don't want to hear about it. No "In case you missed", no "Your other friends liked x, why don't you go indicate the same by interacting with UX feature 42", no "Hey friend 88 is on the platform, go look at what they're doing and signal your emotional reaction to it".

Never thought I'd ever say this: I want to see the baby pictures again. What are your families up to? How are you doing? Haha that video you shared is great, gave me a good laugh during my work break, here's a quick private message, let's catch up over a cold one this weekend. I miss our humorous conversations. THAT'S the kind of interaction I miss, when I was the one initiating it.

Some say this stuff is driving us further apart and I couldn't disagree more. It keeps us involved while respecting the fact that we want to have independent lives we live on our terms. It lets my friends four states a way know I'm not affected by the bombings here in Austin while also giving me another resource to pop in more 1-to-1 and see if I can crash on their couch when I come to town.

I like that. It allows groups of friends to breathe when the pressure isn't to share everything but actually....create....NETWORKS.

Get it social networking sites? I want to use these features, but I want to use them on my terms, for crying out loud.

So to anyone who wants to take up this challenge...I'm not telling you how to run your site, but if you heed the above I may sign up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

There is enough evidence to substantiate beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia deliberately interfered with the 2016 presidential election. It is hard to determine the degree with which that interference influenced voters.
Oh it's her fault she was jay walking and the robots now take precedence. No need to ticket jay walkers! Uber's fleet will take care of these law breakers!

Ridiculous and this company after all it's done is still around and now it's killing people!
In Australia the Liberal party did basically what CA was doing - in 2013. There's a pastebin dump floating around containing the JS code; notably, it flags any of the user's friends who lived in specific electorates (I think they were opposition-held swing seats at the time)
Can you spell it out? How did Russia "hack" the election? Please try to be specific. If I wanted random news stories, I'd google them.
>Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination.

Are you being serious? She was the overwhelming choice in the primaries... Bernie lost by like 4 million votes. What are you talking about???
Maybe if they combined it with some maker stuff --however, I think perhaps the maker stuff has a too limited audience. And besides, their locations do not lend themselves much to drop-ins. Like, while I'm at it buying something at [some place] I'll drop in at Toys R Us. They tend to be in out of the way locations.
When all the stories first started coming out about U.S. torture around 2005 the first stage was denial by supporters of Bush. The number of intelligence officials, the number of investigative reports, etc. is such that someone denying Russian influence is being willfully naive. The question isn’t if they did influence the election it’s just how much the influence really was. It is beyond question that the Russians were involved in shenanigans. The U.S. has regularly unduly influenced elections in other countries so I don’t begrudge the Russians for what they did. I do begrudge those of our leaders who don’t care.
Is it possible that you ever ran a medical device through clinical trials? The are demanding and hideously expensive.
The question always is - Does the Average person own the problem(or care) to actually do something about it?

Most of the examples from above - Intel, UA, Wells Fargo etc had serious issues. But the average person didn't own the problem. Today if you talk to an average person about Intel's issues they will respond - Is my laptop/pc working without issues? If yes. Then I don't care, let Intel come up with a patch.

Chipotle on the other hand was a case of customer's owning the problem. In people's mind having a burrito from Chipotle posed a health risk. Hence, the bottom line impact.

If you tell an average person, and I did try, about how Facebook sold their data and the issue with Cambridge Analytics etc, they dint seem to care. The reason is while Facebook did let CA misuse the data, it didn't really "force" people to share their data -- this is an actual quote from a non-technical user.

So, as far as an average person is concerned, the question is - will Facebook change it's structure to make it difficult to share their location, last meal etc for some likes? If not, then they don't care.
ahhh, Yes... I remember IRC. I used a different client though.

I looked at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Internet_Relay_C...

mIRC is the only familiar one. Then again, this was back when I was a kid. Vaguely related, AIM was my jam. I was a script kiddy and needed IRC to talk to all the l337 h4ck3r5.
21 मार्च बड़ा बुधवार नवरात्र का महासयोग, चुपचाप यहाँ रख दे थोड़ा सा गुड़ चैत्र
Actually, he won thanks to ~63,000,000 votes. You’re also trying to make it sound like there was something uniquely nefarious about his campaign. He used the same marketing tactics that all recent campaigns have used. The same tactics that Obama was widely praised for in 2012. He won because voters liked him more.
So I want to cut off an argument at the pass here. Specifically: "Everyone knows Facebook already gathers all of your data."

We, as people here both on HN and people in the tech world take for granted the fact that we both know and understand how our systems work (mostly). We know that companies package and sell our data, that if something is 'free' the real subscription fee is what they collect on us during each use. But there is a significant population that simply doesn't know, think it's too much of a 'conspiracy theory' or don't care.

My parents, as much as I love them, are absolutely hair-tearingly bad at anything related to computers. They've had issues with scammers and Microsoft phoning them up so that they can upgrade their computer's ram. When I tell them about what kind of things Facebook does, they don't understand. They don't get why their data is so valuable ('well so what they get my phone number not like it affects me') and a lot of the time they have trouble understanding what they actually do.

Breaking stories like this is not necessarily surprising no, not to us. But it raises awareness and makes people wonder what companies actually are doing with their data. I doubt it'll result in the bubble that is Facebook finally popping but opportunities like this are always great times to pull aside your family and let them know why things like this matter. And in this current environment people are hyper-aware of things like this possibly more than ever before.

So I don't think the argument should be based around normalizing this sort of behavior by Facebook and other companies but rather revealing it to those that might not be aware.
They also organized anti-Trump protests after the election : http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/16/indictment-reveal...
You as well. Probably we have to agree to disagree on this one.

Assad being one of the most brutal dictators between Iraq and Turkey within the last 20 years I'd probably agree with.
After selling his customers to Facebook for $20 billion. Cool story bro!
Most of the giant media-loved scientists have died at this point - Sagan, Feynman, Salk, Pavlov, etc, and are finally starting to drop out of public-rememberance.

The 20th century had a lot of movies featuring (fictional) scientists, like Dr. Strangelove and Men in Black, too.

They were represented quite a bit.
I'm a strong Trump, and even more so Putin, hater, but I don't really get why Russian "meddling" is so bad. I kind of expect them to do this. I am sure the US is supporting candidates it wants to win in other places.

If it is hacking polling stations or other illegal activities, that is pretty bad. But still the responsibility is on the harmed country to make that harder, detect it and show proof.

Of course it would make Trump appear illegitimate, but I don't think it should be unexpected by Russia. Can't really expect them to be silent and do nothing when they know Hillary has strong negative views (for good reason!) of their country.
This is a really nice piece of work! I’ve been experimenting with building something similar for my employer... I like that theming isn’t really a concern here. It makes sense because Pinterest already has a “theme” and this implementation enforces the theme. I have a few questions... These aren’t framed as “defend the choices that were made because I think they’re dumb” kind of thing, haha. I just think knowing some of the reasoning behind some of the implementation details would be illuminating.

Why not use something like Glam or Emotion to handle className generation?

With absolute positioning on <Box />... is there a reason why the top, bottom, left, right props are limited to static values of and not like top={48} or left=“12px”

Also curious on api that dictates Text component: color = css property color and Box component: color = css property background-color

Does Pinterest not use textShadow? Curious why that’s not a part of the Text component. Text styling seems to be the most difficult part of a component based design system.

Anyway this is great work! Hopefully I didn’t ask any stupid questions with obvious answers. Ha
Funny thing about Chipotle, I never stopped eating there because I guess I felt that serving food not loaded with preservatives might come with a slightly higher chance of gastric disagreement. Sort of like shopping at a farmers market. The food is fresher, but you're a little less certain about safety because it hasn't been bleached, gassed, irradiated, pasteurized etc.
> from the tens of millions who feel wronged and cheated by electoral results that they lost fair and square.

Are you not doing as exactly as you are highlighting?

If there were underlying forces at work that were foreign would that not mean it wasn't fair and square?

Citizens United vs FEC[1] unfortunate decision in 2011 led to infusions of foreign funds[2] that outnumber what US citizens are legally allowed to contribute. Too much money and now foreign money that is the real problem, it reared it's ugly head in 2016 no matter who won.

We have to backtrack on Citizens United vs the FEC decision or else foreign countries and oligarchs will be deciding every election. If that becomes the norm, it was a good run for the United States but it will be ending.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

[2] https://theintercept.com/2016/08/03/citizens-united-foreign-...
To answer your question. Me, as a European, I like a POTUS who doesn't drag us into a war with Russia, thank you.
Um, what? The whole point of this is whispering hundreds of half truths and individually targeted propaganda into voters ears. It’s all a fabrication even the “Cambridge” connection was faked! What the hell is going on with Facebook running their own investigation and turning up at Cambridge Analytica’s office? Why is Facebook asking to see this whistle blowers laptop? All seems very strange as if there is something to hide here...
It's forbidden to publish the benchmarks, not to make them. And it's because most users are rubes who can't tune 2 databases at the same time.
I especially like it from a "where are they now" perspective. What schadenfreude have you been feeling from the past several days?
Uber is apparently the best way for this woman with cerebral palsy to get around, given how much she uses it. Even with some drivers deciding that they don't want to take her.
Your timeline is a list of accusations. You’ve provided no evidence to support your claim of Russian’s interfering with the election.

More importanly: why should I care about Russians interfering with elections when we let corporations do that to a far greater extent?
I think that’s because the comment is ambiguously distinguishing between academics and engineers or lumping them together.
So we make it illegal, punishable by the death penalty, let's think about how that plays out. Facebook might be destoryed, Zuckerburg might be strung up, but what happens after that?

Some company in Nigeria starts a funny website with quizzes like "what telly tubby are you?" that convinces your friends and family to provide data. The let them upload photos so they can be photoshopped onto the telletubbies for a good laugh. Now that company in a different jurisdiction is building up profile data. They'll build crappy android apps to track GPS data. There won't be one of them, there will be many and they will buy and sell data, accumulating it into bigger and bigger data sets. This isn't even a hypothetical, it's been happening in the west for a long time.

Do you want to attack the root of the issue or keep chopping heads off the hydra?
You're the first person in this thread to introduce the word "hacking".
My point still stands. Whatever adjective you prefer.
Actually RTB's do need to do processing quickly - RTB stands for Real-Time Bidding, and bids are rejected after 250 ms.
* he won thanks to 304 electoral votes and ~3,000,000 less popular votes.
The point of the internal affairs department is often to appease voters by looking like they're doing something about police corruption. They're incentivized to go after high-profile career making cases, not the run-of-the-mill "cop says one thing and the videotape says another".

Making it easy and profitable to take clear-cut cases like this to civil court adds incentives to go after these sorts of things.
TechTool Pro 9.5 Crack and Serial Number Full Version Download