skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The NRA/Republican Party's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a total fabrication. The amendment was meant to apply to a standing militia organized by a state (potentially in opposition to the federal government).

The Founders weren't stupid. They did not intend for any random nut to have the right to carry a gun. The lethality of weapons available at the time the 2nd amendment was introduced is not even remotely comparable to that of the puniest modern handgun. Simply put, an armed individual didn't pose much of a threat back then. They could hardly envision the nightmares we have to endure today, or else they might have been more precise with the language in order to preclude exactly this sort of Al-Qaeda-esque interpretative perversion of a 'sacred text'.

That you're dispensing the carefully-crafted bile conservatives have vomited into our society is little more than a testament to their capacity to brainwash the masses.
This scheme doesn't allow you to verify your vote was counted at the end of the day though.
Amusingly, InRangeTV and C&RArsenal have both responded by using pornhub as an alternate distribution platform.
Huh didn't even consider that. Makes sense now.
Ask HN: Should I take voluntarily layoff package
I have worked for 10 years in this US company and due to cost-cutting strategies, the company is offering a good voluntary layoff package, around 28 weeks of package in my case. I was thinking to take this opportunity to start of my entrepreneurial journey. I have had multiple ideas which I always wanted to build but due to lack of time was not able to realize it. Any suggestions, apart from finance, health insurance, what should I take care. I am very confused at this point whether to continue with the current job or return to my home country where living expenses are low and continue to realize with my ideas.
This is not to mention that Facebook’s TOS have changed since the Obama 2012 tool. As anyone working with Facebook’s Graph API will know, the amount of data and filtering available to developers has been dramatically restricted in the last few years. This Cambridge Analytica approach seems to be a clear attempt to circumvent the spirit of the TOS and the ability of users to control their own privacy.

If anyone remembers the flood of spammy apps that used to be commonplace Facebook, those were built off of access to your friends lists. All you needed was one of your friends to play poker or take a quiz, and your personal information would be siphoned up by the app maker.

It’s unclear whether the users who took part in the sham academic study paid for by Cambridge Analytica will be able to obtain any legal remedy, but it seems pretty clear that what they were being paid for was not taking a quiz, but rather for access to hundreds of their friends’ information.

Edit:

It seems that these restrictions were implemented in 2015: https://techcrunch.com/2015/04/28/facebook-api-shut-down/. However, Facebook’s “platform policy” at the time did prohibit using data of a user’s friends for advertising (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analy...).
They'll eventually gain those users back anyways and make the loses back when they have a strong 4th quarter.
> Reach out to people other ways for events.

It's the other way around, he's being reached by other people through FB. What good would it do to make an account where his friends are not?
As opposed to all the places you can’t get computer science education outside of college? I’d say they are ahead of most.

I was lucky computer science was taught in my highschool, but I’ve been shocked how much of the country doesn’t have it.
I note an interesting stubbornness in all three of your links, where each writer seems determined to carry on with their preordained mission of fellating Theranos in print, even after smelling something fishy. Depressing indictment of journalists and journalism. The NPR reporter at least had the nerve to cancel the feature. Though redoubling her efforts into an even fiercer and more thorough investigation would have been great.
Can you say more about this Pythonisation process? How is Python any better at immutable operations? Ruby and Python are both OO languages which can be used in a procedural style. Hell, you can write a whole app in Ruby without creating a single class if you so choose.
The car likely didn't identify an obstacle at all, let alone a bicycle, as it didn't apply the brakes.
Google Maps for iOS now tells you how long restaurant wait times are
One day, the whole farce that is "you agreed to the terms and conditions" deserves to just die.

Almost no one reads them, so they should not be enforceable.

I mean, as developers we know when a session is established, pages are visited, and can easily see how long they've been on the page.

No one can read the typical T&C in 10 seconds .. let alone 1 minute .. especially without even opening the page! So the options should be something like:

[x] I don't care, just whatever dude.

[ ] No. Get me out of here. Because I don't know how to close the browser window myself.

EDIT: Found this as a way of proof
http://www.pcpitstop.com/spycheck/eula.asp
"Now, the good news here is that these problems aren’t necessarily rocket science."

"If you had asked me, when I got started with Facebook, if one of the central things I’d need to work on now is preventing governments from interfering in each other’s elections, there’s no way I thought that’s what I’d be doing"

These are just two examples, but quite a few quotes from this interview are verbatim from the CNN interview. Where has Mark been the last days? Probably rehearsing.
What kind of regulations does Arizona have?

I've recently wondered why there isn't some sort of "test", where they throw various scenarios at the self-driving cars, and see how they react.
Tips for Successfully Promoting Events
> The pedestrian always has the right of way

That's a very common misconception, but in fact in the majority of states in the US vehicles have the right of way on roads over pedestrians outside of marked crosswalks and crosswalks at an intersection [1].

I think this misconception arises because many people overestimate what privileges and protections having the right of way confers. Some people seem to think having it means that you can go come hell or high water, no matter what the people who are supposed to yield are doing.

It is not nearly as powerful as that.

All that having the right of way actually means is that others that want to use the same resource as you are supposed to let you go first. If they ignore that and try to go ahead of you, it doesn't mean you can unsafely force your way ahead of them.

For example, if I'm standing beside a highway, nowhere near an intersection or a marked crosswalk, looking toward the other side clearly wanting to cross, the cars have the right of way in most states. I'm supposed to wait until there is a gap in the traffic sufficient to let me cross safely.

If no such gap comes and I start to step out into the street the cars have to stop even though they have the right of way. If police witness this they can ticket me for something like "failure to yield".

[1] http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross...
Yes, another great thing about Paris.
come on. this is the post of a person who has a bit of a hindsight bias. if only she published this article the wsj wouldn't have had to publish theirs and theranos would have been immediately outed!

or... maybe she writes this story. says something to the effect of, "Hmm a bit WEIRD? What's Theranos hiding?" and then all the VCs and tech people start accusing her of having an agenda against Theranos.

without any hindsight, what is the story?
Not everyone owns a bump stock. Anyway, you can also destroy it yourself.
That's true, but we have drivers with phones without google play services. Strange thing, but it's true :) Also sometimes we need to use phone without internet access .
It was a side impact, so pedal reflectors aren’t going to be visible.
Adevărata origine a ţiganilor (I)
The bicycle is visible in the video during 0:01/0:22. The glint of the reflector appears when there are two full white divider lines between the camera and the victim.
Yes, but you need to specify coefficients somehow for that and add calibration step.
> the media reports it (a newspaper in this case), and more ordinary users get to know the trend and would consider doing the same

If FB allows these reports to be shown in their feeds. /s
Why I Upgraded My Website to GatsbyJS from Jekyll
> So many parents seem afraid to be the one who teaches their child first about the "tough" things in the world like sex and drugs. Yet, the tough things in the world should come first from them, imo. I just don't get it.

I am a parent, dad of two girls: 4 and 9. I completely agree with you.

I have a rule that I will never lie to my kids when they ask a question, and that I'll always answer to the best of my abilities. In the rare case where I feel like they're not ready for the answer, I'll tell them that. So far it's worked well.

A couple of months ago we moved ~1k miles. My nine-year-old rode in the moving truck with me for 10 hours, and most of that time was spent discussing sex. Most of her questions were initially about the mechanics of the act, but as I explained things she ended up being just as interested in the emotional and social aspects. That conversation spawned several follow-ups where she had more questions after she thought about things. The only aspect I stopped short of explaining in full was pornography - she's aware of its existence, but not the reasons people participate in it or view it... and that's hard to explain to someone who hasn't yet experienced the impact of hormones during puberty.

The way I see it, my kids are going to learn about the world one way or another. I see only positive consequences of being the trusted source of information and guidance when they first encounter it, regardless of how difficult the conversations may become.
App access to private data should have an expiry date. Looking at app access and seeing apps you tried for a day 5 years ago shouldn't be the default.
Move into a new high-rise built with a concrete structure and strict building code on noise. I have lived in two in different continents and never hear anything.
As expected, when there's a death, there will be overreaction. I'm surprised the Hacker News crowd is part of it.
Pedestrian Crossing: 50 State Summary
No, I was thinking of an American politician who has been in the news quite a bit, who is a big opponent of immigration. He really represents the values of his NIMBY supporters.
Worked for drugs, and tax evasion, and human trafficking, and alcohol for awhile.

Simply make it illegal and it goes away!
No, it's more like a bookstore not selling books they don't like.
> a reminder of the existential peril of nuclear weapons

Yeah, this was a real walk down memory lane. I haven't read an article discussing the strategy of all-out nuclear war since the fall of the Soviet Union. The idea of the US launching a preemptive strike against the USSR's... er, I mean Russia's siloed ballistic missiles and command structure is absurd and terrifying. Trading nukes with North Korea would be bad enough, but at least they don't have hundreds of sub-launched missiles carrying MIRVs. Maybe it's time to watch "Dr. Strangelove" again.
Only for DNS records under your account.
"Zuckerberg: We took action immediately at that point. We banned Kogan's app from the platform, we demanded that Kogan and Cambridge Analytica and a couple other parties that Kogan had shared the data with would legally certify that they didn't have the data, and weren't using it in any of their operations. They gave us that formal certification. At the time, they told us they never had gotten access to raw Facebook data, so we made that decision.

Zuckerberg: Yes. They gave us a formal and legal certification, and it seems at this point that that was false."

Does it matter whether CA breached some form of "agreement" with FB?

What is the consequence of that?

CA losing their FB privileges going forward?

Does that really address the harm done?

Does "formal and legal certification" mean anything if FB is not going to take legal action against CA? (Maybe FB is worried about FTC and violating their 2011 consent decree, i.e. self-preservation.)

If anyone should be requiring "formal and legal certification" that data was destroyed and that there was no unauthorized usage or transfer, it is the owners of the data: FB users.

Why are FB users upset with FB. Shouldnt they be upset with CA.

There must be a reason that there is so much focus on FB as the problem and not only on CA.

What is it?
The object is, that every man should have a gun - Patrick Henry

You might well be a member of your state militia and not even be aware of it...
The wearable brain scanner you can move around in
That’s a good point. Are you just assuming the majority of users are read-only or is that informed by some other source? I would probably assume something similar as far as posts and less for comments, but as far as just liking things, I would assume almost everybody who logs in does that on a regular basis. They probably do it a lot less but logging in and browsing but not liking anything seems a little uncanny to me. I mean it makes sense if you just don’t see anything you like but that doesn’t seem like a likely habit to sustain itself.
So that's very interesting. For any future litigation it establishes a clear timeline of when he was aware of these issues.

So if it turns out he has any liability for the data breaches they don't have much to stand on.
Sure, you can simulate immutability in Ruby or Python but it's not real immutability. It's just shallow freezing. The real point, however, is that immutability is not idiomatic in OOP languages. Objects are intended to store state and have it modified. It's not what a language can be made to do that matters. It's what is idiomatic.
Yeah true I use these for vaping, although regulated mod not mechanical mod.
Cloudflare WAF is only available on the $20/Pro plan
CEOs presidents and actors have a lot in common. Much of their job is performance/comedy/tragedy/entertainment. I wouldn’t expect anything substantive to ever surface in a public facing interview
I'm lost on the employees needing protection concept here.

If you're going to call your boss an idiot, don't do it with the company tools. That seems like a pretty reasonable boundary to maintain.

I've never thought of much of anything that was my employer's as mine. If I wanted a private email conversation, I'd use my email, same with chatting and etc... that's just smart no matter what the local legal traditions are.

The volume of negativity surprises me if only because there are all sorts of ways to obtain some private channel communication.

Do people need to talk shit about their boss THAT often, but they feel they should use a work provided tool to do it?
Surely the reason he is being invited is not because he has an account on an online platform. We are in a hyperconnected world where an infinite number of ways to communicate exist.

You don't need to rely on a single closed-garden platform for communication. F*book sole purpose as a corporation is built around harvesting as much personal data about you as possible and selling it to the highest and most nefarious bidder.
For detecting larger obstacles like buildings or other vehicles would be my guess.

Realistically faster sensors should be used to detect obstacles. LIDARs I could find with some cursory googling can run up to 15hz. Computer vision systems can run much faster (I have a little JeVois camera that'll do eyeball tracking at 120hz onboard, I assume something that costs more can do better).

But more importantly, you're vastly trivializing the problem - Standing right in front of it, sure the LIDAR will see the person no problem. Standing 110 feet away (which would be min stopping distance at that speed)? Realizing that, for a LIDAR with a 400' range at 15hz moving at 40mph you get ~7 samples of a point before you're at it... For at least the first 3 frames that person is going to look like sensor noise. At 110 feet that person (which I'm calling a 2' wide target) is 1 degree of your sensor measurement.

It's not that it's useless or broken, more just this a seriously bad case where optical tracking couldn't work and where LIDAR is particularly ineffective at seeing the person because of how it works. More effective might be dedicated time of flight sensors in the front bumpers, unsure how long a range those can get, but they are also relatively "slow" sensors.
I suppose net neutrality doesn't have a wide definition. /s
Please man, the pre-Heller 2008 argument of “well regulated” where you need to pretend means “lots of regulations” and not the real meaning of “well trained and in good working order” is tired.

Leave that nonsense at Reddit.

I used to... I still find it interesting how the “collective right” angle is pushed post Heller and MacDonald with the obviousness that’s always been there of “can you read the rest of the right past the first few words?”
Speechless after reading this...

EDIT: it’s fascinating that HN has people that don’t get that disbalancing a fairly balanced system (ecosystem) will lead to severe and, usually, hard to predict results. Birds and insects make up a vital part of our shared ecosystem. By breaking the balance in it further and further we are indangering ourself a further and further. The equation will balance itself, but that balance may or may not include us (humans) in the long run. I’d prefer we make significant concessions now, rather facing such dire consequences later.
I don't think this is a bad idea. I usually go to Github, perform a search and sort by stars or NPM popularity. This would be another alternative.
Dirty tricks.
You used to be able to target ads based on user ID. That option was closed off a few years ago - I was actually awarded a $2,000 Facebook Bug Bounty for spotting a vulnerability that allowed that option even after they shut it off.

But regardless, it was still a developer TOS violation to export user IDs of people that hadn’t personally authorized your app and use those IDs in any custom audience even back when Obama did it. In other words, you weren’t supposed to grab user IDs of friends of your users and use those in custom audiences. In fact at one point, in an attempt to enforce this policy, Facebook stopped returning friend user IDs, and instead gave proxy user IDs that were meaningful only within the API, but couldn’t be used for custom audience targeting. Then they got rid of the target by ID option altogether.
W3 Total Cache Settings – Updated Version 0.9.6
Thawing permafrost produces more methane than expected
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

IANAL but it seems like it applies to people not militias

Wikipedia gives some historical context which makes it seem more clear that it's about people not state-run militias:

> Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution: "Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures."
What about it gives you that indication? Are you just reading it at face value?
There was an excellent comment by curveship on the thread the other day [0] that really stuck with me so I want to parrot it a bit:

> Our car-based transportation system is far and away the most dangerous thing any of us accept doing on a daily basis ... everyone on the jury has in the back of their mind "that could have been me"

> drivers don't get punished for doing something dangerous, ... They get punished for doing something more dangerous than the norm.

> self-driving cars don't just have to be safer than human drivers to be free of liability, they need to be safe period. In a trial, they don't benefit from the default "could have been me" defense.

You are obviously correct that a "statistically better than humans" vehicle is an improvement over what we currently have. But this is the kind of technically correct answer that doesn't actually resonate with people, especially those outside of tech.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=16624910
Maybe it detected her but failed at predicting her path.
reading the article, this seems way different. Nowhere does it say Obama's tool secretely harvested information from facebook. Instead, it seems it provided tools for the user to encourage their friends to vote.
Those cars have multiple sensor feeds, many of which are far better than human vision. I have experience with off-the-shelf IR illuminators, and even an array of half a dozen of cheapo ones improve low light object detection at distances of upto 40-50m by orders of magnitude.

So I feel Uber would have selected whichever feed best supported the explanation that it was "impossible" to avoid such an accident, and handed it to investigators. Given the number of people agreeing with the "impossible to avoid" explanation even in a tech-savvy crowd like HN, I'd say the PR strategy's worked well and saved Uber some more bad press.
What's most troubling is it doesn't even matter if the uber car thought the slow object in the other lane was a pedestrian, a car, a tree, whatever. Even if it thought the object was say, the most "normal" thing it could be, another car, this would still be a special situation requiring action. Without knowing the objects classification the estimated speed is enough to decide. Why would a car be stopped in the middle of a lane on a fast road? It should be treated as an obstacle that could grow to the side. After all it could be a police, tow, construction, or disabled vehicle, and a cop or tow worker might be about to walk to the side.

Actually many states now require by law that you get as far as possible from a lane with a disabled vehicle, as many human accidents have happened.

I am convinced uber has been basically pretending to do the mountains of careful and sophisticated crap waymo actually has gone to great lengths to do, and is just racing to put anything out so they can keep stringing investors along as far as they can before the jig is up. Well the jig is up now.
Real email addresses
I'm interested in buying real email addresses in low price
It's only sad that people still trot out the 'crowding out' thesis ten years after it proved to be false.

Poland has its own currency which its banks create as required.

There can be no shortage of financial capital in a country with a free floating exchange rate and no dollarised sovereign debt. There can only be a shortage of stuff.
There are other cases where having a backup-driver might help: mechanical malfunction, sabotage, or a more obvious un-sensed danger.
Yes, this is the BIG problem I see with Rails yet you don't hear many developers complaining about it. Django and Laravel seem to treat validation separately from the model and so does Node.js. Why is Rails so rigid about this? Although I generally like Rails this the single potential show-stopper for me.