skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The word 'capitalism' was invented by communists

I don't think that is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Etymology
Is that more than the people who think that without Net Neutrality, Comcast, Cox, ATT will trample their First Amendment rights?
You're diminishing the gun control debate. It means more than the right to skeet shoot certain weapons.

You're inflating the FOSTA debate, it mean less than a general attack on free speech.
Is this when we get the accounts that show up with something like

"Oh I've been there and it's nothing like that."

Followed by something like:

"And it's not at all like things I worry about back in the west like" + Insert sort of odd complaint with odd verbiage.
Maybe float your servers in international waters or boost them into orbit?

There's a decent chance bad US Internet laws will be struck down by the courts on constitutional grounds, but most other places never had protections for those freedoms to begin with.

On the other hand, if you're going to be an outlaw anyway, you might as well do it somewhere where your bribes will actually buy you some measure of protection.
> If they wouldn't put those restrictions, in the light of the current gun-related events, they'll just expose themselves to a string of lawsuits.

Is there any serious group of people advocating lawsuits against platforms that allow videos about guns? In the US?
> I think we should try finding solutions for the bad drivers that text, drive drunk or speed on the roads, is not impossible to fix that and it will not cost lives.

In the time it took you to write that, some drunk person statistically has already killed an innocent person while driving. "It will not cost lives" is incorrect because even the time it takes to discuss this has cost us lives in the drunk driving debate.

It is impossible to fix, in my opinion. People will drive drunk no matter what. They love to do it and there is absolutely nothing that we can do to make them stop, except from eventually eliminating all human drivers licenses.

The punishments/consequences for drunk driving are already very high and they do not stop people from driving drunk and killing someone.
To be fair, cell phone cameras as I recall have a tendency to push the ISO up, so it potentially could look different IRL (I'm purposefully being vague).

Ideally /u/ghdana would have posted the camera settings which filmed this, so you could get a better understanding of the situation.

Not that I'm defending UBER on this, as others have said LIDAR and IR in addition to the cameras should have picked the woman up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campai...

"'They were on our side': Obama campaign director reveals Facebook ALLOWED them to mine American users' profiles in 2012 because they were supportive of the Democrats"

Is this news in the USA?
Uh oh, you suggested "Russian collusion" might be a load of crap. Good thing people are here to "downvote" and silence you.

We're literally in the middle of yet another Red Scare. You can speak out against such nonsense without being a Trump supporter.
WJS: A weekly roundup JavaScript newsletter
> The safety drivers should theoretically be operating under the assumption that the self-driving system can fail randomly at any moment.

Then the car should be equipped with a dead man's switch / vigilance devices to ensure the driver pays attention, trains have been equipped with these equipments for decades.

> Of course, humans are not wired as reliable backups to handle random split-second problems when the system, in fact, works correctly most of the time.

Indeed, but again that is a long-known issue and we've had solutions for a long time.
When was that? Right now if you are part of an accident, you only have rights via your insurance company and their lawyers. I suppose there's small claims court or hiring your own lawyer, but that ain't the same.
I yearn for the Obama days when this and Beghasi were the biggest scandals that anyone could come up with. Now it’s collusion, financial opacity in business dealings, sex with playmates, etc... it really is too much.
Asking a forum filled with aspirational CEOs whether the CEOs should give up 2/3s of her equity to an employee doesn’t sound like a promising idea.
Static Site Deployment Automated with CircleCI (+ Hugo)
If you feel this way, you should quit and start your own company, raise money, recruit a team, and be CEO yourself. You’ll never be happy in your current position, and you’ll never understand what your current CEO did and does until you do it yourself. Good luck.
Sorry to nitpick, but lotteries are generally not winner-take-all. There are tiered rewards based on "amount of luck" (number of numbers matched), and there is no cap on the number of people who can "win" simultaneously. Large jackpots are often shared by multiple winners.
did anybody else get the messages from EFF and ignore them?
Don't forget Taleb. Not sure if he's optimist or pessimist, but he's definitely not rational.
What the hell are you talking about? There is no stealing. People agreed to give their data to facebook and do whatever with it. read the terms and conditions of using fb.
"A new communications medium" ... "panic"...?

Since when is Facebook a new communciation(s [sic]) medium?

Her word choices and her not so deft deflections make me almost wonder if this is very subtle satire. The only other conclusion I can come up with is that she's a Mercer or Koch shill.

The tactics employed with this CA/FB saga were far seedier and subversive than just standard targeted advertising (and I believe she knows this).

What tripe.
Excellent - Like the author, I was a victim of Bullying too at the same place - but, I retaliated when the bully was directed to me and the line was crossed - spoke up defended myself from the bully

In the workplace - lets have a conversation not a confrontation
Evaluating Detectron, Facebook’s Object Detection Platform
World TB Day 2018: US Food and Drug Administration Clears PrimeStore MTM
It's been a while since I worked out that way and ate at Guadalajara and the Chuck Wagon (it's the only Texas barbecue around, it's good, you take what he gives you when he's open and you eat it and like it). Guadalajara is good, but it's just not the same. (Do they even serve fried ice cream?)

Is that Portofino's in Chattanooga?
In fairness, the UK came close to not detecting the Polonium (it was just luck they had the right someone on the team) and they weren't sure Russia could have known the UK was actually capable of detecting it.
The fact you used the the acronym MSM already tells me enough about your opinions. And sure enough, I look and you are on /r/thedonald... we know the type that hang there.

Your Dezinformatsiya skills are laughably weak comrade.
Does it mean that websites now must prevent encrypted communication?

U2FsdGVkX18IeqlFqCOknXszPyMqiWSyn99anjBcKIl8bINzaUyWc0Le8lgEcj6t

zoGfSQvhXeaoNfMyrEd9WA==
I think this is important. In the bad old days, I always developed in Firefox. I made a point of following standards. I despised IE.

I still use Firefox as my personal browser, but some recent development I have done has been in Chrome. Mostly because Firefox is missing one critical feature for that project. It's not quite in the standard yet. It is Stage 3 with TC39[0].

Stage 3 means, "The solution is complete and no further work is possible without implementation experience, significant usage and external feedback."

So they need browsers to implement it and provide feedback. Chrome has had it since v63. Firefox has had a bug for it for more than a year, but no public progress. Node will have it next month.

I chose to move ahead on it six months ago, figuring Firefox would be on board before I was ready to release. I was wrong. But I'm not going back. Partly for the same reason I stubbornly developed in Firefox during the IE years. This one feature is all that prevents my code from working in Firefox. They will get there eventually. I will not go back to giant build frameworks and bundlers and code splitters and transpilers and gigabytes of tooling. My code works now without those. I look forward to Firefox stepping into this world. I'm eager for that to happen. In the meantime, my users can use Chrome.

0. https://tc39.github.io/proposal-dynamic-import/
The problem is what constitutes "enlightenment values"? -- I'm sure Haber saw himself as an heir to the enlightenment, meticulously unlocking nature's secrets and bending them to the will of man. But many of the men who's will his inventions fulfilled were evil. As you say, we indeed need power to solve problems, but we must be deeply skeptical of anyone who dismisses or minimizes the importance of critiquing power.
It came from the service notifications channel, aka the same one that you get login tokens from.

It's one message though, I personally don't mind.
All code sucks. Your code, my code, everyone's code. For every codebase, there exists a significantly loud contingency of eyeballers who will hate it. I've gotten into arguments with unpleasant people who hate GNU Octave's code. The very first time I showed my C++ code to someone, which solved a problem in what I thought was a clever way, their only response was to say "why are you using cout, use printf instead, and what's with the horrible indentation format?"

Code shame and code shaming is real. But this should never prevent code from being published. Your users can always benefit from having the code available, so you should give them that code.
TCL P Series Roku TV 2017. Review by Home Entertainment Solutions
CA used data that was collected for research purposes only. OfA didn't violate any rules.
Obama sex accuser panned as a liar urges Stormy Daniels scrutiny
> It's about time people realize that platforms like YouTube are private publishers. They have full discretion to remove or editorialize content, and there's no expectation of free speech.

I don't know. Can you explain, why should private companies be not allowed to discriminate, but allowed not to have free speech? In both cases you can say, well, if you're discriminated by a private company, you can always go to a different one.

I my view, the problem is that we don't want to force people (individuals) to non-discriminate or allow free speech. But institutions, it's another matter. If the institution has enough power, it can impede the rights of people.

So people asking for YT and such to respect freedom of speech are asking for them to be treated as institutions, something that is potentially more powerful than individuals. And they understand that freedom of speech (just like non-discrimination) is beneficial (for society) in any institution, not just government. After all, you can select a government too, by emigrating into a different country.
I've been thinking about this peripherally for a while, especially the bigger picture when some law is passed, and it seems exceptionally out of touch with the reality, and does more harm than good.

A depressing thought: What if we apply something akin to Occam's Razor? What if the lawmakers want to hurt the people struggling at at the lower rungs of society? To me it feels unlikely it is intentional in most cases, or conscious, but what if on some level, there is a motivation to hurt these people who they feel are inferior? You can easily apply Hanlon's razor here as a counter-argument, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm not attributing malice to any individual actor, but to something more subtle, e.g. unconscious bias.

Maybe subconsciously, there's a force that's trying to destroy people who are for whatever reason unable thrive in society? I guess maybe this force IS society?

Apologies if this is a bit vague and short. I just wanted to share this thought in case it resonated with anyone else. I'll be happy to expand upon this thought if there's interest.
That doesn't make it okay for an opt-out privacy invading study to suddenly be included. You shouldn't silently get less privacy protections simply because you updated.

You're right, Nightly users probably are more savvy so there's no need to decide for them. Lay out what the user's options are and force them to make a choice when the browser starts, don't have a default, and don't have an option preselected.

All this crap has to do with what's okay to do in the absence of clear user intent. If you remove the possibility you don't have to worry.
Thanks for your response - that's very interesting! I haven't read the paper yet, but have added it to my queue.
A class action lawsuit is more their speed.
Not at all. It's very common to get an M.S. in CS; which is mostly course work to differentiate yourself from a B.S. holder, which because nearly everyone has a degree has less value than in the past.

The reason many M.S.'s are failed Ph.D.s is that is easy to get funding for a Ph.D., but not for an M.S.
Please enlighten me. What is the splash damage for not being to own an assault rifle vs the splash damage of making platforms responsible for their users speech (even if they don’t know it’s happening)?
Introducing Jenkins X: a CI/CD solution for modern cloud applications
Seems like creativity will die in China. If we just stop giving them our intellectual property they should promptly decline.
Scare tactics to convince citizens to willingly give up their rights is even less innocuous.
It's pretty tasty but it's also mostly palm oil so may not be the most healthy thing to eat in large quantities.
Beautiful article. The moral panic around social media is getting ridiculous, and as mentioned in this article and elsewhere, there's very little evidence that any of the C.A. targeting had any measurable effect on anything.
This is a common argument, but what are the benefits of cars, vs guns?
Clearly cars offer numerous benefits despite the dangers, whereas guns (in public spaces, rather than hunting or military etc) are just a hobby, a fetish, or a "security crutch". The "defense" argument doesn't really wash (buy better locks, or running shoes), and the "militia" argument doesn't either (can you hit a drone, or pierce tank armor with your full-auto?).

The crazy people who don't follow laws can easily get guns now, since they are generally available. They wouldn't be able to get them if they were generally illegal and only available at shooting ranges etc, unless they were willing (and able) to put in much more effort (and money).

Some crazies might be sufficiently motivated and able to do that, but most won't be. That few are most properly dealt with by specialists, not have-a-go armed citizenry.
The irony though is that the personal section will most likely just migrate to another section of the website.
It's not that simple. Facebook's shifting privacy defaults are what enabled some of the deeper reach of the CA mining tactics and are arguably what gave them much more information than probably even Facebook had intended.

That's not to say that people are pretty careless about privacy management (and security), but this went well beyond what the informed public thought was happening (or possible) on FB during those years.
I think his point is that if you have entrenched inequality, the two proven ways of eliminating it are via war and via revolution. I don't think he's saying that all democratic socialist states are authoritarian, or that democratic socialism can't prevent inequality.
Thanks. This is all good to hear and something I'm struggling to reconcile. In academia I was always keen to show and develop a real capability, as opposed to being the comfortable academic. I wrote a lot of code and some decent engines for the different techs relevant to my field... but that's not exactly the point. I've been increasingly keen to learn about startups/entrepreneurship and have engaged with mentors and local startups and incubators for years in prep of making the leap. A large part of my value is taking away the risk and showing investors and potential recruits that we can get it done. My academic job wasn't handed to me.
Isn't this specifically tailored to address human trafficking concerns?
What makes you think this has something to do with kids on the internet?
I always had the impression that exploiters are rarely kids.

> which is not that big of an ask

Giving false credentials during signups is a more common practice than what is believed, especially for digital natives. How can you truly ascertain the age of users without mass surveillance practices?
Uber self-driving car may not be at fault in fatal Arizona crash
If you're writing mission critical software, you don't scribble all over memory by writing through unvalidated pointers. There's "software quality is hard", and there's "you're an idiot".

What you're asking for, fundamentally, is for people not to make mistakes. You probably don't hold that opinion in your professional life (yeah, I'm assuming you're a programmer). Why here?
> That first video is from a section of the road where the accident did not happen. You have to go past the stop light where the first video ends to get to the section where the accident happened (second video).

You don't need the videos, the slideshow has a comparison of the exact spot on pictures 1 and 2 (you can see the shoulder bend on the right). Picture 3 (a few frames back) shows the victim was struck pretty much under the streetlight.

> One video pointed out a black splotch over the pedestrian. If you pause and the video you can easily see it. A very unusual artifact to say the least.

Standard artefact from the sensor bottoming out, as soon as you're below threshold there's literally no signal anymore.
From your own link:

"The initial usage of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others") and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour").[22]:237 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels referred to the "capitalistic system"[29][30] and to the "capitalist mode of production" in Capital (1867).[31] The use of the word "capitalism" in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of Capital, p. 124 (German edition) and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those of capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear more than 2,600 times in the trilogy The Capital."

Louis Blanc was a 19th century socialist. Marx and Engels went on to popularize the term and concept. Marx's main work is Das Kapital, in which he criticizes 'capitalism'.
How We Crafted a First Year Product Strategy for Ruum by SAP
Hacker Guccifer 2.0 revealed as Russian agent when forgets VPN
> The US is poorer for no longer having these staples of 1950's and 1960's culture.

Veering a bit off topic, but they're coming back in some locales. Multiple have opened in my area.
This post brought me to tears, and made me feel incredibly guilty. First: Thanks for the work you do and for being such a decent human. Second, will heed your advice strongly and make an effort to also invest in the labour of yourself and folks like you, my apologies for not being cognizant of this till fact my 32th year.
I'm not in the US either, and my knowledge of the matter is largely from Mayday or Air Crash Investigations which runs on the National Geographic terrestrial TV channel here. But I would expect that this Uber case will get a somewhat similar treatment as airline crash investigations.
Heck just ask anybody on a code review. In my experience, they are simply code shaming and one-up-manship institutionalized. No effort made to address feature or correctness. No, endless squibble about names, indentation and which particular language feature they prefer.

I know two companies that are hamstrung at this very moment, by endless code review nonsense delaying projects indefinitely. They think more people will help. Ha.
</rant>
Not since the rise of DLC. With companies providing DLC support for years after release, games are moving to a SaaS-like model.

Take, for example, Crusader Kings II, a game released in 2012 that's still getting DLC and free patches subsidized by DLC sales to this day.

And there's also this infographic about day-one DLC that's been going around for a few years now: http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/DLCWor...
Hilarious to read a comment equating sex work with mobile game design. And then being ok with oppressive rules against the former. On a tech site full of people working in the latter.
From the early days:

Sourced from http://www.businessinsider.com/embarrassing-and-damaging-zuc...

ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard

ZUCK: just ask

ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns

FRIEND: what!? how'd you manage that one?

ZUCK: people just submitted it

ZUCK: i don't know why

ZUCK: they "trust me"

ZUCK: dumb fucks
And then potentially cause the entire website to fold when they are charged with sex trafficking in random places.
Whoops, you are correct!
How Sequoia’s $2B Dropbox win became as big as it is
OP's comment is pushback, the point is so weak it is barely existent.
Anyone else wonder if google's on a massive PR drive given all the privacy-related bad press that tech has been getting recently?
You were asked as a CTO to a very young (yet VC backed!) company. You knew very well that a large part of the success of the startup would depend on your expertise. You agreed to 50% equity.

What has changed that you feel you are owed more now?
This is not an example of colloquialism. The commenter is stating that they think their experience is the general rule. If they said "I 90% guarantee" it still wouldn't change my point.
Both of these reviews bring up the matter of irrational responses, in the form of what Aaronson calls 'hostile mistranslation', the willful misinterpretation of the work in order to build whatever straw man the reviewer wants to attack.
I believe there are four reasons why people open source their code, and what the reason is directly affects the quality of what they put out in the open;

1. They want their code to act as their resume. These people put a ton of effort in to making their code work well, look good and read nicely.

2. They genuinely believe in the Open Source movement, and want to share what they build so other people can add to it, improve it, and use it more freely. Their code looks good and reads well, but often not as well as the people in group 1 because the results actually matter more than the code.

3. Pure vanity. They want to be famous and think making their code open is a way to build their rep. They'll give things a bit of polish before putting it on Github, but often quality is second to quantity.

4. They put things on public repos without really caring whether anyone sees the code because they write the code for themselves, so it's technically open source but only because it's not private. The code is usually really hacky but no one sees it so it doesn't matter.

By the sounds of things you're in the second group. In your position I'd tidy up the code as best as I can but I wouldn't stress if it's not the best there is.

(I'm in group 4)
Unfortunately then you have to communicate with twice as many people. Communication overhead is real and doubling team sizes can kill projects.
Note that the story was broke by a news outlet linked to Chelsea Clinton: https://medium.com/@jashobell/the-daily-beast-is-owned-by-ia...
Do this simple thought exercise: what happens if you leave the company?

You lose a funded company.

They lose (I'm inventing now) the only chance to get the product to work.

A VC would probably want to help you settle this dispute, to avoid wasting a) the money and b) the opportunity to have funded a successful company.