skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Lineage is a good alternative, there's also Sailfish as a fuller Linux system. These have similar advantages and disadvantages, the major issues are the drivers are not great in particular for cameras, and the reliance of some apps on Play Services (which of course has been carefully calculated by Google for that purpose).
>The new youtube rules will also get rid of entertainment channels like Hickock45 and Demolition Ranch (the proceeds of which help subsidize the creator's other channel, Vet Ranch)

Also, channels like Forgotten Weapons which are non-political and just provide really great information on old or obscure guns.
Thanks for the link!

I definitely agree, gut flora is no joke! And I don’t recommend messing around with it unless you have something pretty serious you want to fix
The Resurgence of Artificial Intelligence During 1983-2010
>Should a scientist be barred from studying greenhouse gas emissions if he is a known advocate of curtailment of fossil fuels?

Probably.

>If not, why is that different?

It's not.

(Now, sure, they could do it. In fact, they do do it. It's not like my opinion is law. That said, historically, researchers with some personal bias had all kinds of problems related to that in their research -- many examples).
Great work!

An alternative I have been using recently for some projects is Molnify [1], it has more focus on exposing calculation logic in the app created and less control over background images and layout. Takes either a Excel file or a google sheet doc as input.

[1] http://www.molnify.com/
Well, in my view I was responding both to the comment ("i am leaving") and the commentor (making the years of participation and 4000 points relevant). If someone has been a contributor for many years then we should consider why they chose to leave. it might be them, it might be us.

I actually believe i am representing HN as a place where different opinions can be voiced, hopefully in a manner to generate light not heat. Heated discussions are rarely the useful or interesting ones to read.

Thank you for appreciating my enthusiasm.

PS
Are you using two accounts - one ("my 'unpopular opinion' account) for saying things you fear people might not like? That seems odd. May I ask why?
"banning the ownership of guns except for members of the militia "

The definition of militia is here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

There are two "militias", the national guard, and the unorganized militia...

When I read the Federalist papers, I interrupted it as Hamilton and Jay were trying to describe a defense strategy of the country, which included internal, and external threats. When I read it, I got the feeling they both were very much against the state of affairs we have today. They advocated for a small professional army, and a large reserve of men if needed.

I personally feel this is the right model, today our DoD budget is 600 BILLION dollars! Every social service other first world countries have, we can't afford. That is directly a result of our military spending. If we spent less getting into conflicts we probably don't need to be involved in (I still do not understand what the national interest in Afghanistan and Iraq is), and we had a very large reserve of men. We could maintain the defense readiness we have today, but also have publically funded education, healthcare etc.

I do concede that the requirements of training are much different though. A model like Switzerland's militia might be preferable. In their model, each citizen has 1 year of conscripted service. It's spread out a bit but is an adequate amount of time to train someone properly. It also provides a method for "weeding" out individuals who should not be a part of this reserve. Their gun laws are also far more strict. Gun ownership is more of a privilege there. I don't know how much of that we can do here, but I think it's a good example of how to build a militia in modern times.
It's often much faster to modify something in place than to create a modified copy.

Suppose I have:

Point point = new Point(50, 50);
int x = 100;
int y = 200;
Point translatedPoint = point.plus(x, y); // new Point(this.x + x, this.y + y)

This code suggests that Point is immutable. Once defined, a point never changes. This makes a lot of sense -- if you change the values of x and y, you have a different point, in a mathematical sense.

But newing up an object is tremendously slower than integer arithmetic. Suppose I can do this:

Point point = new Point(50, 50);
point.translateX(100); // this.x += x
point.translateY(200); // this.y += y
Point translatedPoint = point;

This is going to lead to translatedPoint much more quickly than the first code. But it's riddled with troublesome outcomes. Who else was relying on point? What happens if I change it again? Why am I able to mutate something that, mathematically, isn't mutable?

The basic reason mutability improves performance is that you can change things in-place without making a new copy. Most of the stuff being done during the copy construction is overhead compared to the thing you're changing. The price might be too high in a performance-sensitive situation.

There are workarounds based on using copy-on-write datastructures with clever shared bits, but they're not native idioms in Java-land or in most languages without a strong functional heritage.
Now that I think about it, I work in a four story office building and of course I never ever hear anything from the other floors. The apartments where I was were old and cheap. Must not have been built with sound dampening in mind.
Immutable classes are far easier to reason about than mutable classes. You run the constructor and know "this instance won't ever change again" - but it means if you want a change you need to create a copy with the changed data, which can be a performance problem if you have to do it very often.

See the difference between GregorianCalendar (or Date) and the more current java date APIs. The new ones are immutable and every "mutable" operation returns a new object instead of changing the old one.
Generic data types aren't necessarily a better approach.
My primary language for many years has been PHP, where the default approach used to be just to pass generic maps around for all data, and it was hell.

You cannot tell if a map passed to you has any of the members you expect, hasn't had additional unexpected members added, or anything else about it without parsing it, it's a mystery bag. There are times when a mystery bag is fine and you're going to be inspecting it anyway, but most of the time your code has at least some expectations about the structure of your data, and for that you need real specific types to maintain any kind of sanity. Otherwise, you're re-validating data over and over or writing code that relies on hope and faith instead of correctness.
> Ideally, we don't allow corporations to control so much of our communications.

What laws would you propose to actually implement this?

I like free speech a lot as well, but it seems that boundaries get a bit fuzzy here. E.g. if you were to run your own forum like HN, don't you think you should be allowed to ban material from, say, KKK supporters?
I have sometimes wondered why none of the mainstream OO languages implemented an access class of publicly readable but only privately modifiable.
Can ff really do much about that? Safari is probably getting a better battery life out of your Mac because Apple have a direct incentive to optimise for their own hardware.
Yet another step narrowing the internet towards the same bland and pre-mediated window of thought seen as TV.

It's too bad.
"extremely US centric"
All content services are like this. Even Netflix hides some content from non-Americans.

The common excuse is licensing and copyright. Yet none of these services are actively trying to fix it. They just do not care about non-Americans.

Many other American companies make excuses too. Apparently non-American money is no good. Heck, Microsoft have differing support services. They even actively try and hide the contact information. When you find you figure out quickly they ignore your contact requests. Unless you mention bomb, gun or addresses of their employees families. Oh the creepy things you have to do to get them to do their job. It is vile nasty work indeed.
Any online masters in Computer Science which could lead to Phd(Research in AI)?
Here are my intensions/situation;
Program could be MS computer science or Data Science or related.

- I am working on a full-time job
- Want to get a master degree especially which could lead to research in Artificial Intellegence
- I want to complete master while I am doing my job but plan to quit my job to join a Phd program.

Please suggest any good options if any? Or reason about why studying online could not help me go with my planned track.
Does Swift count?

private(set) is a thing
The original question was about your legal mechanism for implementation of a ban on private ownership on weapons. What change would you make to existing laws to enact this ban?

Additionally, what is your plan to deal with the potential for violent, armed resistance to this ban, and in what facilities would you put all of the violators of this ban?
You can make the argument with the long-term benefits. But you cannot make it without proper statistically sound evidence about the CURRENT safety of the system that you intend to test, for the simple reason that the other traffic participants you potentially endanger are not asked if they accept any additional risk that you intend to expose them to. So you really need to be very close to the risk that they're exposed to right now anyway, which is approximately one fatal accident every 80 million miles driven by humans, under ANY AND ALL environmental conditions that people are driving under. That number is statistically sound, and you need to put another number on the other side of the equation that is equally sound and on a similar level. This is currently impossible to do, for the simple fact that no self-driving car manufacturer is even close to having multiple hundreds of millions of miles traveled in self-driving mode in conditions that are close enough to real roads in real cities with real people. Purely digital simulations don't count. What can potentially count in my eyes is real miles with real cars in "stage" environments, such as a copy of a small city, with other traffic participants that deliberately subject the car to difficult situations, erratic actions, et cetera, of which all of them must be okay with their exposure to potentially high-risk situations.

Of course that is absurdly expensive. But it's not impossible, and it's the only acceptable way of developing this high-potential but also highly dangerous technology up to a safety level at which you can legitimately make the argument that you are NOT exposing the public to any kind of unacceptable additional risk when you take the super-convenient and cheap route of using the public infrastructure for your testing. If you can't deal with these costs, just get the fuck out of this market. I'm also incapable of entering the pharmaceuticals development market, because even if I knew how to mix a promising new drug, I would not have the financial resources to pay for the extensive animal and clinical testing procedures necessary to get this drug safe enough for selling it to real humans. Or can I also just make the argument of "hey, it's for the good of humanity, it'll save lives in the long run and I gave it to my guinea pig which didn't die immediately, so statistically it's totally safe!" when I am caught mixing the drug into the dishes of random guests of a restaurant?
Maybe uber made the quality of the image worse? I just don't trust uber.
I'd recommend deleting the app and just using the mobile site to save your battery.
When I’m oncall I often use my iPhone / iPad if I need to make changes to puppet automation code or similar.
I prefer getters setters over Car1 example especially for large classes. I am quite used to use prefix to filter for methods in IDE - get<thing>, add<thing>, set<thing>, create<thing>, is<thing>, to<thing>, etc. Often you know which one of those subgroups you are interested in and can do ctrl-o or ctrl-space and filter irrelevant options out. The worst option of all is when there are both getters/setters and public fields.

But most importantly, the real practical differences between these styles are minimal for all practical purposes. It is all mostly matter of habit. You might as well argue about which shade of blue is best for syntax highlighting.
Some do -- for example in C# you can do:

public int member { get; private set; }

That said, C# is very much my kryptonite and I hate it, so don't ask me any further questions.
Does a developer in SF really produce 500k of work while one in Nevada produces 80k? Would Google and Facebook pay up so much money if they were stationed in a European city? No they wouldn't.
Cities provide more people because of their higher population densities. Some of the residents are world class experts. Most of them certainly aren't. Most of them aren't even very skilled. Companies pay more money because they have to, not because they want to. They have to be stationed in the area with the highest population density to have access to more workers. What if they had both high pop density and low rents? How would that be bad in any way?

If you really believe in the "markets will fix it" rhetoric about workers wages (not to mention the wage=merit idea) then why don't you let the free market fix the housing bubble by allowing taller residential buildings? Right now, almost all of the extra wage ends up in the hand of land owners. That can be fixed, so the wages will actually reflect how much value the workers produce, not how exclusive the area they live in is and how much status they have.
It's well known that Japan has very little petty crime but bikes (and umbrellas) are something that is very commonly "borrowed". :p It's hard to compete with free.
Every company wants to reduce the cost of employee churn. Good companies to work for do so by building an environment where you want to be. Bad companies lock you in. They both want you to stay, but their methods for doing so tell you a ton about who they are.
Number systems of the world, sorted by complexity of counting (2006)
I prefer actions over getter and setters. The object should take care of itself (ddd style).

But xml and db to object mapper often need them :(
Getters/setters vs public properties has nothing to do with encapsulation. Obviously not all properties are public/have getters and setters.
Some Java frameworks let class and interface authors use decorators on getters / setters to control how particular class/interface fields are used in some contexts ... e.g., one might have a field (due to an algorithmic consideration) in an entity that's useful when constructing POJOs (plain-old Java objects) that eventually are written to a database, but that particular field should should not be persisted to the database -- one can use decorators to control whether field goes to database, or the data type used to persist the field in the database, etc. It's sometimes useful to treat the getter and setter asymmetrically.
If you ask your distributor rep, they should be able to procure a single unit or two for testing. We did this when Calxeda was a thing.
How We Test the Stateful Autoscaling of Our Stream Processing System
Not OP, but pointing at risky behaviour alone does not say anything about the drivers, the companies or the pedestrians responsibility. It's not football, so one does not have to choose sides at such issues.
If you search "Uber autonomous vehicle" you can see some videos of the display. From what I gather, basically gathers the signals into a human readable model. In general I wouldn't have recommended this driving style but it might have been too dark to see much anyway.
There's a reason for this. People love to go to the countryside for a weekend trip, but nobody live there. Why? Because there are no jobs and no people (or very few of them). Many families would be glad to escape to the countryside once they grow older and bigger, but they usually don't, because these problems still exist.
Would you give up your carreer and your disposable income when you start a family, just to move to a village? Can you even find a job there? What about your social circles? What about when your kids need to go to university?

I remember hearing a lot of talk about "the need to promote de-centralization" when I was a kid, but I don't remember hearing a single valid reason for it. It's always someone else that needs to move back to the countryside, not the speaker.
The driver wasn't fixed on the road but he glanced two times prior the collision and had no hesitation. It seems that it was at least dark enough for him not to notice a person + a bike on a large road.

I'm also very (sadly) surprised that she crossed that kind of road at night without hurrying or reacting to the sound of cars approaching.
I've deliberately chosen a title for this submission that says more clearly what the content is about, and thus helps people decide whether to click through and have a look.

The page's actual title is: "Number Systems of the World"

I don't think that's as informative.
Not to mention the chip may propagate cracks in the ceramic.
> It's not a good analogy the way you put it, because having more than one employer in and of itself is so very common that it's hard to be biased against it.

Your parent compared one (1) gap year in a resume being a red flag for the explicit reason that they might leave again, to someone else having switched employers atleast once, for the exact same reason given by GP.

It's a totally apt analogy. Leaving is leaving.

Your further reasoning doesn't change this analogy. Many employment changes in a resume is no different to many gap years, in regards to the initially stated premise.
>The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there.

If you want freedom of speech to apply in privately controlled media, you would have to compel them to distribute content they do not agree with, which is itself a violation of freedom of speech.

And this is the problem with a simplistic idea like "Freedom of Speech". It is not possible for everyone to hear everyone else's point of view, so some speech will always be restricted. Therefore, our society inevitably makes decisions about which speech to amplify and which to silence, and just because that decision is not being made directly by government, does not mean it is not being made.

In practice when people complain about censorship, what they mean is that these implicit decisions are not being made in a way that they like. And in saying this, I'm not trying to imply that their criticisms are wrong, or that they're being disingenuous or malicious in trying to change those decisions. I'm saying this to reframe the debate, because framing it as if access to speech can only be controlled by intentional malicious restriction prevents us from questioning the ways in which society already controls access to speech.

The most common way speech is restricted is economic. The rich can afford to amplify their speech, and the poor cannot. We have historically accepted this without question as an economic reality, but then the rise of social media gave us a glimpse of a world where economic restrictions are not as big a factor, and so when these restrictions start to re-assert themselves we question them.

People call it "censorship" and demand "free speech", because this is the most pervasive set of ideas we have to understand this dissonance, but the reality is we are always censored, and speech is never truly free, and unless we accept that, we will not be able to ask real questions about what kind of societal discourse we truly value.
I have never heard that one before. Do you have any sources for that?
> It degrades the concept of objects being smart independent entities.

"Smart independent entities"? That's a new one on me. What does that mean?
Then what on earth was the WhatsApp CEO thinking when he told people to abandon Facebook?
For me the difference is that drugs and alcohol usually predominately affect the user. This obviously isn't always the case...

Guns aren't toys. Yes, they can be used for hunting or just shooting stuff, and most guns aren't especially more effective at killing people than a variety of other household items, but assault rifles were actually designed to kill people, to assault entrenched positions (the stg-44 in WW2). It's not made for hunting or anything else, it's made to kill people.

The consumer ar-15 is just a variant of the m-16. With a bump stock it becomes fully automatic, easily getting around any laws. I posted this in another comment, but the Vegas shooter had 14 of those modded up. 14! Why does anyone need one of those killing machines for fun, much less 14? It's easy to see how he killed fifty people in a crowd.

I don't understand the justification for that. When your ability to have fun with a "toy" which is actually a killing machine makes it easy for dozens of people to get murdered while they are out having a good time, it's an issue. Seems like a warped sense of priorities. Yet you'll find people (many here) who believe that even limiting them to one (or god forbid anyone even suggest it) is some kind of assault on their liberties. That's not reasonable. The Bill of Rights wasn't written with anything beyond the notion of hunting rifles and muskets. It doesn't say "all citizens should have the right to fire 90 rounds per 10 seconds to defend themselves or have a good time".

Should attacks like that continue to occur, it's going to be that complete lack of moderation by gun users themselves which is going to get their rights taken away. I don't say that as wanting that to happen, but it seems obvious.
10.seconds is not part of the Ruby stdlib. It's Rails ActiveSupport. That's why it's different.
While it looks very powerful, does anyone know if the miserable light gray on medium gray UI can be changed? I despise this modern trend (Pixelmator drives me nuts too) as I have difficulty reading text with such low contrast. This is terribly unfriendly to people with vision difficulties.
Not bad.

The best change in real-world implementation is probably going to be letting high school kids take CS for math or science credit. Opens up a lot of options for students.

The next big issue:

"Each school district within the state shall provide educational programs sufficient to meet uniform student content and performance standards at the level established by the state board of education in the following areas of knowledge and skills."

Now the BoE has to establish good CS standards. I don't really love the CSTA standards (my issues with which are beyond the scope of this post) but they're a decent starting point.

http://www.csteachers.org/page/standards
>they can only make sure that the driver has eyes on the road. Not that they are actually paying attention. //

I'm certain that if you can design and build a self-driving car that you can design a simplistic human attention monitoring system that will cause the car to pull over if attention level is too low.

Gaze monitoring that checks for looking downwards or away from the carriageway for extended or too often repeated periods wouldd probably be enough.

I imagine the attention of the "vehicle operator" is vital to the proper training of the vehicles -- if they don't see near misses, or failures to slow for potential hazards, or failures to react to other road users then how can the softwares faults be corrected? Do they get a human to review all footage after the drive?
What's interesting is that the Mobile section doesn't mention Firefox for Android at all? Given that both Firefox Klar and Firefox Focus are mentioned, which I thought were different names for the same product, I'm probably misunderstanding something. Anyone who can clear that up for me?
Elon Musk: First Principles
> dumb aggregations of data that have no significant behaviour.

The horror... /s