skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That certainly wasn't spam, but unfortunately I was in the middle of something else at the time and didn't have time to post the explanation I probably should have included.
Building a Better Kindle (or, Why Buttons Matter)
You’re a computer hobbyist, you mean. You have to have done a whole lot of bargain-hunting to set that build up at that price. The “regular computer user” doesn’t bother with that—they just buy what they can afford at their local shop, which usually means a rather crap laptop.

(Mind you, it doesn’t take any more technical knowledgeability than most users to bargain-hunt like you have; but knowing that the product can be of varying quality at a given price, and caring enough to put in the time to get something of good quality, makes you an exception, in the same way that people who e.g. comparison-shop for quality suits or shoes are an exception. It’s a general mentality that most people don’t subscribe to—neither the “buying the best” of the rich, nor the “economizing” of the poor, but rather the optimizing ROI of the economics-minded. And even an economist will only apply this kind of thinking to cases where they actually believe this thing will affect their life enough that the research time-cost is worth it—i.e. when it’s a hobby of theirs. Economics-minded computer hobbyists are a rather more niche set than “regular computer users!”)
"Rational Blockchain on AIX, fast deployment via Websphere", now that will sell like hot apples. IBM to the moon!
Always wrong, always.

Pick some problem space. Now imagine specifying some tool to work in that problem space. Now imagine all of the unique cases and complex interactions that need to be handled and how the specification needs to take into account all of them. You can't simply rely on "obvious by context" solutions, the specification needs to embody that context, AI won't save you. What you have in the end is a very complex machine, it is code. You can move up and down the abstraction levels from machine/assembly code up to python or SQL up to even higher levels, but it's all just coding. I contend that job will never go away. It may approach problems at progressively higher levels of abstraction but that just makes it more valuable, not less. Today coders are able to automate things that in the 1960s would have seemed like magic, are coders less valuable and in demand today or more?
Facebook, Politics and Orwell's 24/7 Hate
This is going to be big with the crowd that has jumbo jets as a personal airplane.[1]

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-747-8-vip-private-jet-...
Let's say you spend 10c/kwh and your electric bill is 100$/month. That's 33kwh / day. Let's assume you need 1/3 of that to cover the evening, and batteries cost 200$/kwh and last 10 years that's 2,200$ / 120month ~= 18$/month.

That's about the ballpark we are talking about though actual numbers will be different.
Stop communicating silently with your servers. Do it. Ask for each and every call to them unless the communication is already confirmed by users. Make all http* communication go trough http proxy which logs all the traffic in clearly visible form and only than make https. Show the data sent, make google play and framework open source. Enable users to see your hidden syncs (oh yeah those with asterisks infront (you DO know about them, right?) and disable them and keep their settings after updates instead of resetting them. Explain why with microg, the battery and network usage drops for 1/3. And I am not using any of your "services", no maps, no gmail, dns (oh yeah my rom is modified, a lot) nothing. Stop bubbling! Stop corelating order of pages visited to fingerprint users (and I know you are doing this), stop using cell towers to get location even if gps is turned off. Stop giving ISPs your boxes which makes spying on users local on ISP level.

Either you have no clue about what is going on in your company or you are here as a PR guy.

I really hope that GDPR will hit you hard, as far as I am concerned you are far worse than Facebook, more harmfull than Monsanto, you have opened Pandoras box of user tracking and becoase of you now every single company is doing it. And just so you know, by writting this, my karma will fall for at least 10 points as your fanbase (which typically doesnt even understand what I have written) will downvote me a lot. I am telling you this just for you to understand how very pissed off on behaviour of your company some people are. The only thing that is into your favor was actually your biggest mistake - you have mistakenly made android open source which makes it far more feasible to silence it down to the point where it no longer communicates with your domains. This was maybe when you were still having the "don't be evil" attitude, at least as form of PR.
EU Probes Apple's Acquisition of Shazam
I think most of the problems a honey badger solves aren't google-able.
Wow so l33t.
This is how Wired rolls lately, unfortunately. I'm a subscriber and noticed that even innocuous articles frequently attempt a jab at Trump, for example. I really don't understand attempts to politicize all issues, when it's not called for.
Interesting.

I metal detect as a hobby, and often need to determine ownership for places I want to ask permission to search.

In the US, everywhere I've ever checked has ownership information publicly available. Most counties and municipalities have a GIS site of some kind that lets you look up ownership on an interactive map; the most difficult case would be that you'd have to call the assessor's office and ask someone to look up the owner of a given parcel. I may be mistaken, but I believe even in that case they're required to make those data available in electronic form upon request.

As for privacy, the most common thing I've seen is that people will create an LLC or a trust that owns the property. In those cases the entity's name is tied to the record and the contact information is that of its registered agent. That's almost always a local attorney. Every time I've called them and asked I've been given the name and contact information of the person behind the entity, but at least in theory the attorney could serve as a proxy. Legal entities can make things complicated, but I don't know of any way to actually completely hide ownership if someone wanted to go through the trouble of tracing the chain of holding entities.
It's better to ban nothing when it comes to speech. Any restrictions at all rapidly escalate into enormous restrictions, hypocrisy and logical contradictions.

Actually by now, I automatically assume anyone who uses the phrase "hate speech" doesn't actually care about violent speech at all, just shutting down people they don't agree with.

Consider that students in America keep arguing that any opinion they don't like is "violence" that makes them feel "unsafe", and of course anyone to the right of Marx is "promoting intolerance and hatred". That's a pretty bad abuse of the word violent, but if you say the only kind of speech that is banned is speech that incites violence then pretty quickly everyone is claiming any ideological enemy is "inciting violence" with whatever justification they can find.

So there had better be really good reasons for such bans. But are there? I am struggling to think of cases where someone stood up and announced "kill those people" and it actually happened, outside of extremist Islamic preachers e.g. the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. That's rare, but also, the moment you say that sort of preaching isn't allowed anymore you run into the question of people's right to practice religion, as there is quite a lot of incitement to violence in basically every ancient holy book.

And then there's the hate speech that doesn't get prosecuted because it's by politically important groups: https://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/twitters_latest_unfunny_tre...

In the end, when I see the apparently small amount of physical world violence definitively and directly caused by speech, vs the huge numbers of people trying to classify things they disagree with as hate speech, I am forced to conclude that the cost/benefit ratio is not worth it and the first amendment has got it right.
Yes, so that many people can invest in the business. And the investors invest in many businesses.
Why not just link the article directly? [1] That KIA subreddit is notorious for being scummy [2]

1. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9kgwnp/porn-on-go...

2. https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/2/16591508/reddit-content-po...
Dropbox silently removes links to all individual plans in its landing page
> And I say fuck Lao-Tzu and what he said

Is this because you don't like him? Don't like that quote? Or do you not like what is being stated? I don't see what is so incendiary from the supplied quote. I actually believe it has quite a bit of merit and did not know who it was attributed to previous to this post. You can learn anything, sure. Maybe university sucks for learning (I don't entirely agree). But do you not think that there are many cases where you don't know how much you don't know about a given topic? In my experience, it is extremely common in this field... just my 2 cents.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/duke-energy-bird-f...

There was foreknowledge on the company's side that it would be an issue, but not expedience in trying to resolve it (hence the notion of it being budgeted as a potential expense). It still took years for anything to happen over the issue. My dad wasn't directly involved in this case (they have many many lawyers), but it was something he was aware of enough to mention at the dinner table, especially after it started getting press coverage. Sort of an "Ugh, the company is in trouble again, why can't they just do the right thing" type of gripe.
We love Bubble too. Certainly believe that visual programming is the future.
Does it damage the ionosphere? According to what definition of "damage"?

I honestly don't know, so if someone can explain how it really is damage, please do so by all means. But despite some popular suppositions to the contrary, "affects" != "damage". I know it affects it, probably from the same article from a week or so back as you, but that doesn't mean it's "damaged".
9.8% is not a safe return, no, which is why the safe return is about 7%. The worst-performing 30-year period averaged around 7%, which is what the 4% withdraw rate is calculated from (accounting for inflation).

Obviously anything can happen, the world could end, whatever; there's no truly 'safe' option. But it's reasonable.
It seemed like both an attempt to associate Assange/Wikileaks with the "alt-right", and an attempt to associate the desire to find out what Facebook has on you with the same.

It felt forced and awkward in the context of the article.
I'm super not sold on this. I've learned so much without any help, even when crippled by illness. I believe the superhuman thing is just a marketing trick to pursue the tech growth.
No Chinese calls, but I have seen robo calls on my phone which come from similar area code (906)370-xxxx
Those happen to be some Bahamas Cruise ones. I wonder how they manage to spoof the number from identical area code.

Edit - grammar
Yes, see the Hodgkin Huxley model [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodgkin%E2%80%93Huxley_model
> this is a matter of whether one chooses to trust NOAA and others

I should mention that this is fairly easy to verify, at least with part of the data. For land temperatures one of the big sources they use is meteorological data gathered at airports (METAR). You know, the same data that pilots use to calculate take off and landing distances, altimeter settings, etc. So a concerned citizen could compare this these data sets and verify part of the NOAA data. Faking this data, at the airports, would cause disasters, unless you had this major conspiracy where you fixed the pilots instruments or every pilot was aware of this faking and used the real numbers. But both seem really silly since GA pilots need this information too, and frequently do hand calculations.

I certainty think the verify part is essential in phrase "trust, but verify". I just want it to be clear that one can trivially verify one of the large components of the data set.

[1] SFO airport data: http://www.wx-now.com/weather/wxcurrent?icao=KSFO
Person.PersonID stutters, you already know that you query on the person table you don't have to repeat it again. Naming it ID is the same consistency
It probably feels very good to type a comment like that while imagining some invisible force gently guiding these newly unemployed people to their new careers. However in reality thousands of people have now lost their income and likely their health insurance, and will have to compete in what in many places is a pretty brutal and not at all healthy job market.

It sucks, and there’s nothing you or I can do about it ... but pretending that this is actually a good thing for anyone but a handful of rich guys who will have made out like bandits on the whole debacle is just fantasy.
Nope. When you enter someone else’s place of business, you have no expectation of privacy.

That's not true at all. When I go to the hardware store to buy a box of nails, I don't have any expectation for the owner to begin following me around for the rest of the day (and in perpetuity thereafter). I also don't expect the hardware store owner to get on the phone with the grocery store owner and ask him what groceries and personal hygiene products I bought.

Also, the comment originally pertained to the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper. Are you suggesting that reading the newspaper at home grants the publisher the right to peer in through my window?

Expectations of privacy have long been enforced by social norms rather than laws. Since technology has granted corporations the means to do an end-run around social norms then we should expect the law to catch up and fill the gaps.

People may not have had a lot of privacy from their neighbours when living in small towns but they could generally count on their community to care about their well being. This is not the case with online businesses of any sort.
What if the data is wrong?
Your criticism is, on the surface of it, very relevant. The superficial hypocrisy of my earlier statement would really serve to hurt my credibility if this were a willfully polarized ideological bubble.

The difference is that an on-topic reply to an on-topic comment on an on-topic post diverges as part of an ultimately topical and natural progression, whereas starting with a polarized and ideological post that has little to do with technology, startups, or spontaneous cleverness only serves as an opportunity to reinforce the poster's ideological outlook as the new normal; that is, to move the Overton window.

I myself have been guilty of this. I told a friend of mine that I'd gotten some traction with a blog post about not getting hired by dropbox, and he asked me to share a really juvenile idea he'd had for protesting the TSA. I did it; the post was poorly received, and the community spanking was enough to remind me of what effective participation in a pseudonymous social news link aggregator looks like.

That being said, neither did I start this conversation, nor was it the sort of ideological shouting that drowns out the interesting stuff. The grandparent has a good anecdote about the poster's experience with retirement planning and raising a lot of children, and it makes a point with which I happen to disagree. I voiced my disagreement without attacking the comment or the person who made it.

Ultimately, I disagree both with your implied disagreement with my original point and with the validity of your rhetorical question, but I don't disagree with the topicality of your attack and therefore I don't think your comment deserves the downvote it has at present.
Enron should have taught people not to keep all their investments in employer stock. My question about this article is he has an $85,000 annual pension with $280k in stock that sank to $110k in value. At 4%, the $280k would return an additional $11,200 per year. That would be reduced to $4,400, a drop of less than 10% of his annual income. For this he has to find a job?
I think part of the ability to succeed is even rooted in how invested you actually are in school. I don't think its great, but people definitely put more effort in when they have some skin in the game...
They're just taking a break from shitting on EBT recipients for buying Doritos.
I find "[Table]ID" to be bit more readable in joins. I.e.

SELECT * FROM table1 INNER JOIN table2 USING (table1_id);

vs

SELECT * FROM table1 INNER JOIN table2 ON (table2.table1_id = table1.id);
Studying comparative literature
The visual image I like is that we're all puppets influenced by the media sources we consume. Each media source is shaped by its business model — and other goals, which gives us a (statistically) biased view of the world (e.g., social feed algorithms and engagement).

See the puppet images we made in this media literacy guide: https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer

(Contributions welcome)

Ideally, we are individually able to realize this — and cut some of these strings.
DDG, in fact, uses Bing. [1][2]

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/duckduckgo/comments/4lgda4/duckduck...

[2] https://www.ghacks.net/2016/07/01/duckduckgo-yahoo-partnersh...
Where'd you get them? I could use an upgrade for that price.
MySQL Document Store CRUD Quick Start
The ones that do not benefit from this do not want it, but there are family businesses that would fail without the cheap workers from other countries, I am not making the point that cheap work is a good thing or a bad thing, just that people are benefiting from this.

Also this workers are working hard jobs in agriculture or constructions, with bad conditions, the citizens would not accept to work this job, for the agriculture obs I am not sure if even with bigger pay the regular citizens would want to work hard physical jobs outside in the bad weather.
Box Jumps the Most in Three Years After VC Says to ‘Go Long’
I want to believe that something like this would work. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't it the case that whatever signing could be performed on data coming from CCDs could also be performed on data coming from a GAN?
>And the post seems extremely proud, and self-congratulatory about it.

Well, yeah. Doing anything successfully at the scale of Wikipedia is worthy of some praise - and I say that as a US midwesterner - a culture not exactly known as the epitome of hubris. :)

You might claim I have Stockholm syndrome or something since I worked with the team that developed this feature, but the discussion you highlight did have valid feedback. The process for respecting community governance and developing consensus is more complicated than any one person could imagine. It is frustrating and imperfect. Folks at the foundation like myself are trying to do better in how we approach, work with, and deploy software changes. I agree too that it took a long time to develop, but that's not on any one single community's shoulders.

For instance, after doing due diligence we approached the English community again earlier this month and the result of that discussion was quite boring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscel...

For a technical example that lead to the time it took, the team looked at how we were generating the previews and saw an opportunity to improve them. Previously we tried to parse a bunch of wikitext with a list as long as my arm of exclusions and edge cases. Then the team figured out a way to return HTML summaries from the source article. Not just something useful for this feature and a huge improvement to how information is rendered (like math formulas). Refactoring the code and implementing a new API endpoint took time.

I hope this doesn't come across as too argumentative, I wanted to provide an alternative perspective from someone who works daily with product teams and communities within the Wikimedia movement.
Why is it not reliable? The much famed "ordinary" user is often portrayed a bumbling incompetent user. For any heavy excel user, or rather any excel user thats ever used formulas, this is a common UI operation. Your CSV suggestion is good, but it can't carry the formatting and other extra info which is the reason people use excel to begin with!
CCleaner Pro 5.42 Crack with Serial Key 2018 Download
I enjoy https://papers.co
i also raised my eyebrows at this. i think "workstation" might have been a better choice of word than "personal computer". but people, especially in the sciences, do actually buy desktop computers with these sorts of specs -- they run like $10k-20k, probably.
I took compilers. It was a lot of work but I think it takes
away a good bit of the magic (and adds some more in) to what makes everyday programming possible. I don't think it was vital but If I was designing a CS degree I would definitely not axe it.
Just so people know, if you do that just wrong it can cause a fire.
It seems that you use HN a lot, and this is a heavily (well) moderated forum. That seems like an implicit endorsement of just the kind of “censorship” you and others are railing against. If HN became oppressively censored, another option would tske its place.
Former 18Fer here. Still doing great things. Still have latitude in compensation and hiring.
You're confusing censorship with no platforming, they are not the same thing.
This?

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0093777/?ref_=m_tttr_qt

Prince of Darkness (1987)
That may be true for some values of “started”, but symbolics.com was registered as early as 1985. Or maybe you meant early 80s?
It's very far off. You would either need seriously over-performing investments or some kind of exit.

I ran the numbers for a simple scenario, assuming a current $150k income:

- With a 5% yearly raise and a 7% investment return, you end up with ~$3.8M at 20 years.

- With a 5% yearly raise and a 20% investment return, you end up with ~$14.5M at 20 years.

That 5% yearly raise would have you earning almost $400k at the end of 20 years too - probably up for debate how likely that is.
Totally unrelated to the continually growing multiple of executive compensation over employees, I'm sure.
My phone has zero reception at my doctor's office. It also runs out of space regularly, since manufacturers decided to screw consumers over by taking out SD card slots. There could be plenty of other reasons.
This feels simple and powerful for a post about UI. The old Kindles had full keyboards!

I really hate this trend to "Do everything with one button." So many devices have one button and different LED flashing patterns. LEDs are seriously cheap, cheap enough you can just add a few more to make the interface not-garbage; where I don't have to memorize a lot of rubbish.

A great example: The Crafty Vaporizer. It has one button you push to turn on, hold to turn off, double tap to use the boost temperate (which can be changed from the mobile app you pair it with. WTF?)

Compare that to the Boundless CF Vaporizer. It's an exact clone except it has multiple LEDs, all labeled, which can indicate temperate and battery life.

One button is stupid. Touch screen instead of hardware buttons for the most common tasks is stupid (I'm looking you Telsa Model S) and removing hardware buttons for simplicity is sometimes a great idea, except when it's a horrible idea, which it more often is.
Lead bullets are actually slowly starting to get banned. California is phasing in a ban on their use in hunting, for instance (see https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/Nonlead-Ammunition), and the Obama Administration's Interior Department issued a ban on their use in federal wildlife refuges. That latter one was later repealed by the Trump Administration (see http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/322058-interior...), but given the hazards lead poses to the environment that's unlikely to be the last word we ever hear on the subject.

Beyond hunting, the military is moving in the same direction; the Army has switched to using lead-free bullets as its standard rifle ammunition (https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2014/5/21/testing-...), for example.