skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Show HN: How I built an image proxy server to anonymize images in twenty minutes
All this is astride the long understood fact that American election security is so bad that there aren't reliable records to disprove a machine that's been tampered with.

In this context, is it curious that no one has signed on to co-sponsor the following bill?

https://congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5147/tex...
The US also has famously high costs for education and healthcare.

The US is a great place to be if you are in prime working age with in-demand skills, no health problems, and no kids.
Very good article. I always reiterate that I and everyone else involved in my open source communities are volunteers. Everyone has their own agenda and unless they explicitly ask me for direction, they work on what they want. Maybe you can convince them to take on your bug, but if it doesn't affect them then it's probably not going to get looked at expediently, if at all. Send a patch!
This is just one case, we need to know the relative incidence rate before we can state anything. Even if we could somehow prove that a human driver wouldn't have hit the women that still doesn't mean that self driving cars are not massively better than humans: if self driving cars prevented hundreds of deaths they would still be better even though they miss this one situation.

Of course in the end self driving cars need to fix the bug that caused this to happen.
Boston Dynamics' Big Dog was built in 2005 [1], I'd imagine the cost today would be dramatically lower, no?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigDog
Excellent point. We've basically just outsourced the servants. I show up at one of a proliferation of restaurants, and expect cooks & servers at my beck-and-call. I set my thermostat, and expect someone will ensure the temperature remains to my liking with hardly a thought on my part. I open the tap, and clean water is carried thereto. A litany of robots (!) perform assorted household tasks which I minimally contribute to.

The point of this thread: today's "decent living conditions to the poor" are now significantly on par with then-"excellent service to the wealthy". Outright luxuries, scale & elegance which doesn't really contribute to sustenance, remain a defining difference, but are more a matter of "money to burn" than contributing to survival & prosperity.
I've used nested functions more often than I'd like to admit, because dealing with insane callback-heavy APIs is made a lot easier with them.
The media gives politicians more credit than they deserve. More like “politicians are America’s scapegoat du jour”.
This is the problem with articles above. The author of the article only speaks for 1 part of the community. The parent post here speaks for another part of the community. There is no authoritative voice. So you could follow the article's advice and offend the above parent.

It's literally a no-win situation, which is why not looking is usually the best choice because it's hard to accuse someone of being offensive if pretend you don't even notice them.
I have 3 slack orgs I'm signed into and macOS claims its using 100mb.

I admit I don't really pay attention but I've never noticed Slack using crazy amounts of memory.

What am I doing right?
10 Resource Management Software and Resource Scheduling Tools
I won't even comment on the generalization, but... why can't it be both? They're not mutually exclusive.
What makes you think that a safer C variant would win the hearts of UNIX kernels and embedded devs any more than C++ (which started as just a C variant).
Including Apple's encryption in the list of reasons SV is going to be regulated is a strange decision. I certainly hope people don't look forward to regulation that leads to LESS encryption.
This is what has always confused me when hearing people talk about "the economy"... Clearly in the US we romanticize the post-WWII era beyond belief, and indeed it was an incredibly prosperous time. But is it really reasonable to use that as a baseline for comparison as to what constitutes the "normal" state of things? During that time you had so many favorable factors aligning in just the right way that made the post-WWII era what it was, that to me it seems more like an example of an improbable and unusually prosperous situation, not "the way things are supposed to be". It just seems like now anything short of the economy of the mid-20th century is seen as a disaster.

I remember during the last recession how much everyone was always equating it to the Great Depression. I'm sorry but... what? Yes I know a lot of people were out of work, many in my family were as well. But my grandparents went through something of an entirely different magnitude in the 1930s. It's just not even comparable. But because we collectively have this idea in our heads of the post-WWII situation being "the real America", as soon as things deviate a bit and go south it's as if we're in an apocalyptic situation. Just seems to me like people need a bit more long-term historical perspective.

The Boomer generation (economically speaking) came up in possibly the most favorable conditions possible. But to them it was just the "normal" way of things so they wonder why younger people can't be just as successful.
I don't know why people are down-voting you, you make an excellent point - what benefit could having phone and text meta-data possibly have for generating targeted advertising?
You don‘t really expect a law to specify which hash algorithm you‘re supposed to use, do you?

The answer is simple: the law will stand for a long time, and legislators know their limits. Unlike many engineers, unfortunately.

Having courts interpret laws, with help from experts, is not a bug, but a feature!
The thing is the boomers who are still alive are either the ones who "made it" or the ones who were "born to make it." What you don't see are all the Vietnam vets who died from heroin overdose on the streets in the 60s. Looking at a typical Vietnam vet's life its hard to say that all boomers were that lucky.
A candidate for urban and suburban mobility
Why Spotify Can’t Scale Like Netflix
> What exactly is the intention behind this bill? Do they hope the demand for prostitution will drop, and thus trafficker revenues and incentives? That seems ridiculous, as demand for prostitution existed throughout human history and across civilizations, mainly as a cultural artifact.

I'm not a supporter of this bill, but to play devil's advocate: this isn't about eliminating prostitution, which as you said is impossible. It's not about all or nothing, it's about degrees.

Supporters of the bill think that by making prostitution more difficult, it will be more rare. That doesn't contradict what opponents of the bill worry about, that it will make sex work more dangerous: it's possible it will decrease the amount and also increase the risk.

It's similar to the topic of legalizing drugs: for example, it's very possible that legalizing heroin will increase usage (easier to buy, lower prices) but reduce risk (regulated product, less criminal involvement).

It's a tradeoff in both cases, and obviously reasonable people can disagree on whether it's worth it or not.
> not the kind of neighbourhood police implied by the name "Metropolitan Police"

Where 'neighbourhood' is the largest and capital city, and 'police' is the largest force in the country.
> Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please

When they harm others, then yes.

It's the same reason why we ban theft, murder, etc.
I'd be willing to bet they just aren't using EDGAR. There are other services like Bloomberg or individual company IR sites that provide the same data.
Way more time is saved not by letting commuters do more stuff, but by letting people who drive for a living work on something other than that.
People's names are public. I don't see any issue with OP sharing them. There's no context at all.
50 V/m 19h per day for your whole life is definitely not normal exposure.

Edit: back of the envelope, 50 V/m is equivalent to standing 2m away from LTE base station with 60W power and 18 dBi antenna gain.
That's not a "class" of customer, that's a status of being/not being a customer.

Class of customer, in the sense of the question, is a visual attribute of a customer making them unwelcome due the low probability of them being profitable for the store.
Dropbox hit the public market Friday, surging above $30 in its opening trades
If I were to make a mathematical argument sloppy enough to be open to hostile mistranslators and then on top of that address reviewer's psychology instead of holes she might tried to poke, text would get outright desk rejection on resubmission.

In science the odium lies on the philosopher to put forward his idea robustly. Not on the reviewers to understand it in the most favourable light and then... believe?
The fact that peasants did not work more hours is tied to the fact that they were agrarian laborers. Once you've brought in the harvest, what is there to do but lie around and wait until the end of winter? Indeed, "lie around" is most of what they did, and remaining inactive to lower their metabolism was actually a survival strategy to deal with the limited amount of food they had: burn fewer calories, eat fewer calories.

As the article notes, peasant life consisted of working only part of the year, with longer workdays during harvest season, and short work days (or no work at all) during the rest of the year. In some climates, like the Pyrenees and the Alps, people essentially "hibernated" during the winter: they stayed indoors, lived off their food stores, and expended as little energy as possible.

Citing Graham Robb's The Discovery of France: 'An official report on the Nièvre in 1844 described Burgundian day-laborers thusly: '“After making the necessary repairs to their tools, these vigorous men will now spend their days in bed, packing their bodies tightly together in order to stay warm and eat less food. They weaken themselves deliberately.” Entering this inactive state was a physical and economic necessity. Lowering the metabolic rate prevented hunger from exhausting supplies.'

The time that they spent not working was not some leisurely edifying "vacation" that they enjoyed as a luxury; for French peasants in the 1700's and 1800's, being inactive was a survival strategy.

The parent article paints the time spent remaining inactive in a romantic light, remarking that "the medieval peasant took his sweet time eating meals, and the day often included time for an afternoon snooze." The reality is probably closer to the fact that he probably risked starvation if he regularly engaged in any sort of vigorous activity (no surplus calories to burn on frivolities like dancing or sports or other active forms of recreation), and it's quite possible that the afternoon naps may have felt more like an obligation than an opportunity to "relax." Lying around all day doing "nothing" sounds less like a vacation and more like a prison sentence (quite literally, in the sense that it probably resembles the life that some people live inside of modern prisons, doing essentially nothing as they wait for the days to pass).
So they would turn down no advertiser and will capitulate to any advertiser's wishes if it made them more money? Of course not, so it's not capitalism plain and simple. To say it is ignores that humans can make decisions and changes the discussion point. It might be that the advertisers are the ones pushing a certain agenda. It might not. But don't kill the discussion about how things slant by saying it's only about money.
Thanks for that way of putting it. It articulates my feeling when I couldn't do it for myself.

ALSO note that what you propose is an "enlightenment compliant" way of proceeding. Unfortunately much argument (especially in the less analytical disciplines) shirks this level of responsibility -- and is allowed to shirk it by the relevant professional community.
"rentier" is actually the german word for reindeer. The sentence reads rather funny if you are german.
Everyone is only interested in their agenda in politics, calling for additional research just happens to sometimes further a side's agenda. As of right now, the Democrats are the one's who want additional research in most situations, but that doesn't mean they want more research universally, and when studies have come back negatively (as they sometimes do), they are disregarded.

That said, there does seem to be an overall lack of trust in the scientific method among the political right, the reasons behind which being a bit more complicated than political efficacy.
As a soon-to-graduate Masters CS student in a top research university, I'd like to share, for what it seems, a different opinion and experience about this matter.

I came here from a 3rd world country that lacks a good education; Most of my CS experience and knowledge, at that time, came from the Internet, books, and personal projects. After working hard, I was accepted to this university as an MSc student.

I have never learned this amount of quality content as I've been learning in these past 2 years in this MSc program. Deep topics and subjects like programming language theory, low-level knowledge in distributed systems and machine learning, all this being taught by excellent researchers in their respective fields.

This was the first year, the course requirements part of the MSc program. Now I'm halfway through my research, and again, I've been learning tons. I've been writing very interesting code, building amazing things, writing papers, and working on my own ideas. I've never been this close to amazing scientists and engineers. This is priceless, in my opinion.

I've worked in the industry (before the MSc. program), it was super great. But I can confidently say that the MSc. program has made me a better engineer and taught me how to do proper research. I'm sure this may vary from university to university, department to department, and most importantly, from advisor to advisor. But that has been my experience!
Also, the compare-and-set operations enabling lock-free code is pretty cool.
RRB-Trees: Efficient Immutable Vectors (2012) [pdf]
I’m really just playing devil’s advocate. Half the time people talk about what the law is, and half the time they talk about what the law should be. In either case, it feels like half the time I want to talk about the other subject than what gets brought up.

To answer your question, you should always have the right to be wrong (e.g., choose or prefer a wrong policy). I’m sure people would prefer to say “you have an unqualified right to be wrong, but only on matters that don’t affect others.” But I’ll go further and say everyone has the right to be stubborn and thick-headed.

I am assuming that even with a right to be wrong, I don’t have a right to be violent about it, etc. It’s more “I have a right to be a crank (if I’m in the minority), and a right to vote for bad policies and expect them to be implemented (if I win and they don’t violate civil rights).”

In a democracy, the safety valves seem to be:

* usually it’s hard to prove which answer is right or wrong (society as a whole doesn’t pay much for less-than-optimal policies that aren’t actively bad)

* for policies that are actively bad, the people generally notice the high cost and change the policy.

If you think I’m wrong, or I think you’re wrong, we don’t get to steamroll each other. We have to try to convince the other side. This can be annoying, but every alternative we’ve tried has been worse. No dictator, bureau, monarch, etc. has a perfect record of always choosing right or always correcting past mistakes. So I think it’s reasonable to assume we’ll always have some mistaken policies. The question is which mistaken policies should we live with (answer: the ones we choose to live with).

I have an old game book that includes the quote “democracy guarantees the people get the government they deserve.” I’ve also heard the statement “democracy assumes the people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” I agree with both statements.
No, CL has had explicit notices posted regarding prostitution for a long time and has actively moderated for overt prostitution. You can't compare now, but if you compare ads on Craigslist to other personals / services websites like Backpage, Craigslist has been quite PG-13-rated for a long time and at least forces posters to be a bit more subtle. The "massage" section is actually mostly pleasantly legit in my experience, assuming you're not in a big city.
I’m worried that it is. Most of the legal precedents in the internet space hinge on the fact that it is impossible for things like search engines to read every page they index, so mandating they do will ban search engines, and the courts doubt congress meant to do that. (Sometimes judges will say the law has to “scale” to new technologies, and then find in the common sense direction, instead of following the letter of the law)

Google has said that it is now feasible for machine learning algorithms to police user content, which undermines the legal precedent. Honestly, I’m surprised this change had to go through congress, since the legal precedents were on shaky ground to start with.

I think you’ll fund the framers of the constitution did not anticipate the existence of publishers that cannot even enumerate the things they publish, and were completely silent on this issue.

A similar oversight occurred with online privacy: The government’s surveillance apparatus is much smaller than corporate America’s and nothing stops the government from buying legally available commercial surveillance data, so they just launder illegal searches through private industry.

(The CLOUD act extends this to launder the searches through foreign governments, and also expand US law enforcement’s jurisdiction to the whole planet—that seems much more likely to fall afoul of the constitution. Issues of sovereignty and protection against foreign influence were clearly well understood when the constitution was written.)
People could kick up a big stink about it, but the reason it won't go anywhere is that Ryan can hold it in committee in perpetutity.
, isn't it?

The voting machine observations aren't new. They're old, some dating back to Bush-era elections.

I think technological illiteracy and States refusing to replace costly machines represent the bulk of the opposition.
"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made clear that the company has finally accepted responsibility for making sure that the platform isn’t used to undermine political processes around the world"

I recall that during the "Arab Spring" Facebook was heralded as a force for good precisely because it did undermine political processes (if those processes were considered to be authoritarian/tyrannical by the US government).
Why does this sound like Ukraine
I can't understand. Millenials and those titles are ocidental stuff or "usonians" only?
It could be possible theoretically if not the context of the article. "We are asked to imagine" and so on.

But even if it were the case, the fact that the same idea was commonplace in the USSR means that it's not inherently connected to capitalism.

And, obviously, I am still wondering why people decided it was about capitalism vs. Communism.
People don't treat others all alike. We naturally interact with people of different genders, ages, and in different contexts differently, and continually pick up social cues (such as how loud or forward someone is) and change our behaviour with regard to the situation. When people are unfamiliar with the signals they perceive from others, this usually causes them anxiety. Clearly, with your experience of interacting with disabled people, you've become accustomed to it; you know to speak with a quieter voice for instance. Most people do not have much such experience, and feel uncomfortable because of it.
How Smart Contract can make games like HQ Triva , Loco even better
I think content providers and platforms should be free to make whatever choice they want regarding content on their platform, provided they don't discriminate illegally (i.e., based on membership in a protected group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group)

If you fully ramify your position, you're advocating that the government tell me that if I host videos, I can't prevent people from posting videos that I don't like. E.g., if I make a cat video hosting platform, and someone uploads a dog video, I can't stop them.

Again, this is a debate about where to draw the line. It just happens to be the case that there are some people who are fierce advocates for maximizing the amount of gun stuff that is readily available online.
OK now I have. Google recommended an article [0] which starts with the following:

Vice President Mike Pence reportedly used a private email account to conduct public business, including homeland security matters, while he was governor of Indiana. Records of the emails were obtained by IndyStar through a public records request.

See, in the second sentence, we learn how this was different from the Secretary's emails! On top of which, this is Indiana we're talking about. Not much of geopolitical import there. I certainly hope that VP has learned proper email discipline at this point.

[0] https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/penc...
This is a good point.

Taking it a step farther, I’d expect that road conditions in the Uber tests so far have been more benign than average city driving. Less bad weather, straighter roads, etc.
Silicon Valley, and software engineering in general needs regulation, but it also needs to regulate itself. The whole Libertarian wet dream is fine when you’re in college, less so when you’re building self-driving cars or surveillance networks. The lack of enforced ethical standards has always been problematic, but now it’s getting dangerous.

Once you’re involved in everything from healthcare, and automobiles, to drone strikes, you’re sll grown up and the training wheels need to die. The alternative is that this pressure continues to build and the public demands extreme regulation without understanding what they’re regulsting.

Tl;dr grow up, or they’ll come for the good (encryption) along with the bad (carelessness with human lives a la Uber).
I've always liked the idea of djb's boringcc[0], except with different definitions of undefined based on what users were using C currently with. This would allow people to "upgrade" into boringcc with their current code bases. So with a single invocation of a compiler, you couldn't use more than one set of defined undefined behaviors.

[0]: https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/boring-crypto/48qa1k...
From safety1st's excellent comment:

"- The article also doesn't mention that the GSI arrived at 57,700 by designating a tier of the least enslaved countries studied and estimating the number of modern slaves at 0.018% of the population. The same formula is used for Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, etc. I'm not trying to detract from the importance of the issue of modern slavery but mentioning the 57k out of context seems a bit misleading, the US is literally among the best in the world in this area and the number is so rough that it could be off by tens of thousands. And again, it has nothing to do with trafficking, let alone sex trafficking!)"
>" I already have plans tonight, and it's not reasonable to make me change them with no notice."

I find the fact that you even feel you need to include this part disgusting. I'm paid for 40 hours a week. You are not required to pay me overtime. You do not get a second extra of my time
When distributions get it wrong – TingPing’s blog
This brings up an interesting insight that it's not realistic to treat "people as people". A lot of people have trouble interacting with the opposite sex. Or even with someone outside their friend circle. In an Asian village, people might freeze on meeting someone black or white.

They're not really assholes, but they get confused on how to act and may overcompensate. Is it appropriate to smile at a coworker of the opposite sex? Or to instant message them about work late at night? This can result in a lot of strange reactions.