skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Gray's point is that no such set of values exists, that Enlightenment thinkers were always in contradiction with each other,

That's simply untrue on the face of it.

Even if every Enlightenment thinker disagrees with other Enlightenment thinkers on the majority of issues, you can take an average over their positions and see that as a group, their average position and the range of positions they take on a variety of issues is markedly different from pre-Enlightenment thinkers. You can do clustering.

Whether Pinker has convincingly shown that, I'm not sure, but you are setting the bar unreasonably high.

It would be like saying like there's no such thing as an overall 'hacker ethos' that differs from the general population's, just because we have disagreements on HN, or that there's no coherency to Christianity, because there are many denominations that disagree on theological and doctrinal questions. It's both possible and common for there wide diversity within an overall unity.
Just to add.
$7,500 in AWS credits is for the Super Pro plan ( $199 / month paid for year)

$5,000 in AWS credits is for the Pro plan ( $59 / month paid for year)

$0 in AWS credits is for the Basic plan ( $0 / month)
Can anyone speak to the difficulty of hosting your own instance? Is there any reason (besides maintenance) for everyone to not be on single-user instances?
It quite obviously meant both. The British army, against whom the people who wrote that clause had just finished fighting a revolution, was an army of "the same state" when the fighting was happening.

Any attempt to deny that the founders were very worried about tyranny imposed by the government of the country in question, and intended the second amendment (among other things) to allow the citizens to resist against the army of that government, is outright ahistorical.
https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-secure-is-telegram

>Telegram is more secure than mass market messengers like WhatsApp and Line

Why are you defending these fraudsters?

>I use it, so it isn't nobody.

Don't play silly word games, you just said "I would guess that usage is definitely below 1%"

>It's implemented by the Android and iOS apps, which are the most used ones.

Ah, so it'll only fail to work 30% of the time? That's not terrible UX at all.

>How is this actively discouraging?

Why do you have to press a button to chat securely, when the "less secure" WhatsApp does not require that? Is it because of Durovs superior encryption technology?

You simply can't justify that button.
That's why we have independent judges.

"Pressuring a judge" would be an impressive feat. They are generally obnoxiously aware of their untouchable status.

And if society's stance really changes, we want the courts to take that into account. Again. feature, not bug.
Ask HN: Will #DeleteFacebook Impact Social Media Tooling Startups?
Will the social media startup ecosystem be impacted by an exodus of users from Facebook?
The Mad Man said it. We've already known this all along though from the forensics right?
We could call it.... Spacebooks. I could surf my Spacebooks feed, while eating at Spacedonalds, before heading to the Spaceradioshack to get parts for my Spaceship before heading to Spacemars.
~6 due to how early my kid's bus comes. I could go to bed earlier, but I hate giving up my "kid free" time.
“These forms are often accidentally elevated to subspecies status when they appear in literature. Not adding the ‘f.’ (form) or morpha implies that the taxon is a subspecies instead of a form, as in Biston betularia carbonaria instead of Biston betularia f. carbonaria. Rarely forms have been elevated to species status as in Biston carbonaria. Either of these two circumstances might lead to the erroneous belief that speciation was involved in the observed evolution of the peppered moth. This is not the case; individuals of each morph interbreed and produce fertile offspring with individuals of all other morphs; hence there is only one peppered moth species.” - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth
I would argue that none of the potential harms you talked about are either realistic or of the same magnitude of closing the online dating industry to new entrants, forcing discussion forms of all sizes to adopt automated censorship programs to defend their owners against a credible threat of jail time if anyone is found posting anything about trafficking on the platform, and a plethora of other side effects better described in the original article above.

I think you’re right when you say the technical detail of the assault rifle definition is irrelevant. Just because I don’t know as much about gun types as you does not mean that I can’t see that banning a particular type of firearm will not lead to civil war, but weakening 230 will lead to the centralization of censorship of the internet.
Were you a C/C++ programmer before? Your starting perspective matters a lot.
"getting type annotations right can be so difficult"

I had the same experience. After getting lifetimes (more or less) this became my largest headache...
I wish for stronger type inference and features like this: https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/7.10.1/docs/html/users_gu...

I feel my productivity (and code quality) would increase a lot. For example right now I have to struggle so hard if I would like to write generic code, while in haskell that's more or less the default thing (the compiler infers it) if I just omit type annotations...
>Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country?

Individually, not much, but like vaccines and herd immunity, it works well when large number do.

>How does your right contribute to the security of the state?

"in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"

http://www.billofrights.org/

>How did you come to believe you needed this capability?

History makes a fine lesson. Maybe 100 million killed by democide in the 20th century.

>Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?

Yelling "fire" in a movie theater has nothing to do with "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers". Neither does slander, verbal assault, etc.
Also, how does this compare with Secure Scuttlebutt?[0]

[0] https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/
This is why you should have your own domain for email. Your email address is important and should remain constant regardless of who is providing your email service.
> they should make it more obvious that nightly isn't just daily builds from master.

From the downloads page [1]: "Firefox Nightly automatically sends feedback to Mozilla." Not sure how they could make it more obvious.

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/desktop/
> It is possible, believe it or not, for people to have personal values and beliefs that extend beyond the ceaseless desire for money.

The best trick is to make people believe this when the opposite is more true.
Being a libertarian does not take much intelligence. It however seems to be correlated with a lot of arrogance and with overblown ego.
Most websites ask for users' email used as the account name.

From what I have read on this topic, email address is considered a personal information.

> the necessary work to make sure you've done at least the minimum to protect what they've shared,
> especially if you're profiting from that data.

The OP was willing to comply, she asked what "necessary work" means and how to define "minimum".

Also it seems to me that GDPR applies to non-profit sites.
The auction you mentioned would not be a good one. If bidders don't know that they will be protected by a single clearing price, they will drastically reduce their bids. It would basically guarantee that everyone who won the auction would be immediately under water. This risk aversion leads to people bidding under their expected value of the stock, and instead results in them choosing a price that they're much more (e.g. 90%) confident will be good.

Generally speaking, the highest single price that clears the entire demand is best, and would result in bidders submitting their most honest and aggressive bids.

The problem with IPO "auctions" is not that they're at one price, but that they aren't really auctions at all. It's just a private negotiation wrought with many conflicts of interest. Dropbox, for example, had 25x more demand to pay $21 a share than actually traded. And instead of raising the price further to clear the market at a fair valuation, banks instead used this archaic matching system to give shares at below-market valuation to themselves and their friends in hedge funds.
The graph on page 9 shows that the number of people in poverty since your first graph ended (in 2000) has increased by 15 million.
The concern is that complexity is a subsidy to the large and well connected. Regulatory capture is a particular example of that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

...so if Google gets severely impacted by regulations, they have the money, connections, and power to get the rules (or at least their enforcement) altered. Small players just go out of business and we forget about them.

See all the community banks and hospitals that have been getting punished in the last ten years. Big banks and big hospitals are figuring out all the new changes just fine. But the disparate outcomes are clear enough that I am surprised by arguments that regulations are good for little players and bad for small ones.
It could be old. Rope doesnt break down quickly is why.
> Terms that don't appear in everyone's favorite bill: "voter-verified", "open-source" (not sure why Gabbard has that hyphen), "preservation".

HR 5011, rather than trying to cobble together a bandaid over hackable electronic voting systems, has its central mitigation the voting system problem (it addresses more election infrastructure than just ballot-casting) incentives and grants to get rid of electronic voting altogether in favor of the proven system of voter-marked paper ballots. Voter-marked ballots that are the thing that is counted in the normal case is much better than voter-verified receipts that are selectively or conditionally used to audit counts, and open source is irrelevant when there is no software, and the idea that open source is somehow equivalent to secure has been refuted time and again.

Now, sure, it arguably [0] wouldn't be bad to add something like HR 5147s requirements for hold-outs that aren't going to abandon electronic voting into HR 5011, and that would be a very good debate to have when HR 5011 (or, more realistically, the similar bill introduced in the next Congress) is heard in committee.

[0] Arguably not, though, because that could encourage people to see electronic voting as safer than it is; maybe better would be to amend in a hard deadline requirement for abandoning electronic voting in favor of voter-marked paper ballots, a stick to go along with the grant-money carrot.
Looking at that list, I see two main categories.

One are outcomes dubiously tied to boycotts - did Sea World change their orca problem to protect revenues, or because they feared legal intervention?

The second is indirect outcomes, where the bad actor and the boycott-ee are different. If you threaten a purchaser over a supplier, or a supplier over a purchaser, they can hope to change behavior with no major loss of revenue. It's a very different situation than changing the actual bad behavior.
(And in many of these cases the bad behavior was unchanged, some external company just dissociated from it.)

There do seem to be some solid successes there, for instance with product safety, food source sustainability, or sweatshop labor. But even there, I'm curious whether the threat of boycott was a primary influence compared to the other activist campaigns around it.
Please don't give the Daily Mail your clicks. https://outline.com/UCs4vs
Pre-IPO investors don't have to sell their entire stake on an IPO. Often, they don't even have a choice to sell, due to lockup provisions.
> I think its articles difficult to understand

AINAL, I am a security/privacy consultant. I have a strictly technical/security background but didn't find the GDPR that hard to understand at all. Actually, I was pleasantly surprised that the text itself was quite easy to read, even though really understanding the consequences requires a bit of background research. A year ago, I got CIPP-E certified in a month just by self-study.

> I found it is very difficult to translate from the regulation text to code, to actual implementation

Well yeah, I'm with you on that one. I think it is not because the text is too vague, but rather because it was written in a way that allows companies to implement it in a way that fits their size and the sensitivity of data. Art. 32 is the most important one for security/technical protection. It allows you to implement security controls the way you see fit, as long as you can demonstrate that you made an appropriate decision based on the risk of the data. I think that is the strength of it, not its weakness: A small company doesn't need formal authorization processes if they can show that the user administrator knows all personnel personally and issued the correct authorization profiles for the roles. Telephone numbers from contacts don't need to be protected in the same way you need to protect medical data.

The advantage of the wording is that the controls just need to be "good enough". The disadvantage is that there is no checklist of security controls to take, and hence, you never know for sure whether good is really good enough until you had a visit from the data protection authorities. That remains a problem, but I think if you can explain your reasoning, they might disagree, but if the reasoning is solid enough they won't fine you for it because you can demonstrate you acted in good faith. Therefore it is important to document the reasoning behind your decisions.

> I found this regulation put too much burden on small businesses.

For a small company, setting up the "records of processing activities", doing a basic risk assessment and setting up processing agreements can be done in a couple of days. I don't think that's too much a burden. For many of my clients it helped them to identify weak spots in their security, which is a win-win for both the company and their customers.
There's nothing at all preventing you from having a Vec in a struct, and the use cases for variable sized structs are pretty rare. It sounds more like you conflated having a different problem with having a Vec be in a struct and stuff like that poisoned your further attempts to understand the language
> The average website owner need not worry about SESTA,

The average, maybe. But consider a hobbyist-operated website used by millions. Proactive compliance is just not possible for everyone.
Ask A Manager has a lot of interviewing advice, and I think they're pretty good. Here's a thing she did for interviewing: http://www.askamanager.org/how-to-guide

I thought there was also a video part of this where a person on the screen would ask you questions, but I can't find it right now.
Are you referring to Facebook like pages? They've been essentially pointless for a while now, since you only get onto your followers feeds if you "boost" a post, money that for a "poor" or "just starting up" new venture is better spent elsewhere.

What they did was genius - encourage everyone to make their Facebook following central to their online marketing strategy, then lock them out unless they cough up.
On that point I agree without reservation.

Based on the evidence available right now, I don't think there's a link between cellular technology and cancer. If there was about one more study like this one -- from an overall reputable research outfit, with a good population size -- I'd start to reconsider.

And if another study is done and doesn't find the same effects, then that's still another interesting case of the decline effect. So, either way, it's a win.
4chan. Obviously.
I feel you.

To nit though, I think the right thing to do regarding the vector is the tie the vector's lifetime to the struct. (I don't know how exactly to do that syntactically)
Your friend should write a book and sell seminars on how to launch a multi-million dollar shopify store then. That's where the real money is.

Source: https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/117-the-worlds-most-ex...
This is great. I think a good alternative interpretation of the findings that I haven't seen mentioned is through the lens of information theory. If a network has generalized well, and each neuron is firing seemingly at random, then that sounds like the neurons of the network all have very high entropy. If you have neurons that fire only on certain inputs, then those neurons have low entropy (ie. you can accurately predict when they will fire, which is the definition of low entropy). So those neurons are less efficient at providing you with information.
If you assume that the goal of the network is to maximize entropy, then I kind of would have thought that low entropy neurons would be the ones you'd want to delete first. So the fact that they're saying they have the same effect as more random ones is interesting. Or that there's another way I need to be thinking about how entropy can be measured for a given neuron...
But I think that lens is a really good one for conceptualizing information flow through the network.
Looks like your complaints were

> I fixed a lot of code after updating to the latest Rust compiler each day.

When referencing your experience, it might be good to point out that this is before Rust hit 1.0 (commits mention Jan 2015 and 1.0 was released May 2015). This problem goes away and a lot has improved about the language and ecosystem since then.

> But nothing in life is free. GTK is sufficiently complicated that a Rust "safety wrapper" is in order. The one available was not complete.

I think GUIs might still be a weak point for Rust but it sounds like this has gotten better. I hear a lot of positive reactions around relm

http://relm.ml/relm-intro

> And then I tried to abstract the font rendering code into a widget concept, and everything broke down. The Rust compiler has many false negatives - situations where it is a compile error due to safety, but actually it's pretty obvious that there are no safety problems.

Any examples of false negatives?

The main source of them is borrows that don't need to live to the end of the scope ("non-lexical (borrow) lifetimes"). While in most cases this is easy to work around (add a scope), things are progressing for the Rust compiler to understand these.
I can speak to what I did, and I recommend people at least start doing this immediately, even if they don't intend to switch email providers. Buy a domain name of your own, make an email address at it, and forward it to your current email provider. Every time you log into a website, make sure to update your email address to your new one.

Now, you're no longer tied to one company! When I decided to switch to FastMail, eighteen months later, I repointed the domain, and the vast majority of my email started flowing to the new service automatically! As a side bonus, if your email provider ever decides to ban your account (as Google has been known to do for spurious reasons), you can repoint your domain somewhere else, and you won't have to worry about losing access to all your other accounts and online assets.

You can use an IMAP email client to transfer your old mail, of course, and then I occasionally check my old mail account for stragglers. I chose not to auto-forward it so I'd clearly see what was or wasn't routing through my old Gmail account. I used to check it as often as I check FastMail. Then every couple days. Now I check my old Gmail account every week or two.
9 hours. My ability to run on little to no sleep died when I turned 30.
I didn't notice you posing this problem. Frankly I don't understand the difference you announced you'd be trying to make. 1) Discussing a critique, 2) attributing critique to a work being criticized and its author without justification? What was your point?

About the equal standards. You would be shaken to discover reviewers are not held to the them by the journals and this is by design. Because, as I first said, the burden of making the argument robust is on the original work, not on the critics to robustly scrutinize beyond all doubt. I think you ignored what I started with, and then mistranslated me sidestepping anything.
Exploring the internals of the .NET Runtime
>Waymo's cars, and a few others use long-range LIDARs able to see 200m or more...There is a dark irony that this longer range LIDAR is what the Waymo vs. Uber lawsuit was about<

Prior to the accident, I gave high probabilities that Uber performed a surgery on their LIDAR systems after the lawsuit, aiming to eliminate anything with legal implications. If the above comment is true, and uber is not using any long-range LIDAR, please someone with better knowledge help to stop Uber testing of an unsafe system.
I don't have the studies handy but "Why We Sleep" goes into the myriad bad things that happen when you short sleep, all backed by studies. Those bad things aren't "undone" five days later; every night you short sleep is doing irreversible damage along a variety of facets (immune, memory, learning, emotional stability, restoration, etc). Indeed it's absurd to imagine one could wreak havoc on their health for days on end, an incredibly complex system, and then undo it all on the weekend with a few extra hours.
We were talking about caloric surplus, not macro nutrients.
And I’m unequivocally stating that I will not.
It does, actually! If you have the camera app open and have a qr code in view, the link comes up as a banner which you can tap.
My favorite part of Jessica's memory:

"he suggested Drew delete his Demo Day presentation in the middle of giving it, and then recover it from Dropbox and keep going. Usually we don’t suggest gags like this during pitches, but this one made people pay attention."
Yeah, I'm not a fan of religion actually being a protected group. It probably is there for historical reasons, when it was harder to "get out" of one's religion.

Freedom of speech and political expression is very different from your right to not be discriminated against for expressing your political views. I will defend your right to say "poor people should not be able to get healthcare", but having this political opinion provides important information on your character, which seems very legitimate to consider when making, e.g., a hiring decision.

There aren't easy answers here, and laws and policy are blunt instruments that will usually have some unintended and undesirable consequences.
>Decades ago everyone _knew_ smoking caused cigarettes.

Surrealists, dadaists and fans of retrocausality tried in vain to warn us that smoking caused cigarettes
18 million shares traded on the open at $29, and since then 23 million shares have traded between $28.80 and $31.60. Safe to say there's a healthy bid at $29.
Velodyne Lidar Inc. baffled by Uber crash
Samsung is privately held as well.

~$300bn revenue.
The GDPR explicitly does not set out to specify implementation details because of the reasons here: https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-15/ (Technology neutrality)
> Similarly, I'll be far less likely to hire one who has Facebook on their resume.

Could you explain why? I don’t see an obvious reason to avoid ex-Facebook employees
Does anyone know if it works if you change your location to Europe and then delete your account to take advantage of the better privacy protections?
That's my boy! We need more tech leaders to take this stance.
Hahaha. This comment is hilarious.
So would you say the side effects of banning Assault Rifles have been negligible?
And what would you say of the potential side effects of SESTA/FOSTA?