skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> it would be very much in Uber's interest to have a super dark video

Why? As soon as the video came out, the first thing people (correctly) pointed out was that the dynamic range of the dashcam was crap. Besides, everyone knows that self-driving cars are essentially giant self-telemetry collection machines, so one would have to be either extremely short-sighted or incredibly stupid to think they would be able to get away with a "well it was too dark!" lie after the NTSB got on the case and the media caught wind of the shenanigans.

Also, as I said in my linked comment above, the logistics of actually attempting to tamper the video would be borderline comical.

It's much more plausible that the dashcam dynamic range was in fact crap and that the police officers at the scene were smart enough to figure out to just pop off the SD card off the dashcam.
Yes: Joy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_(programming_language)

(Shameless plug for my own implementation: http://joypy.osdn.io/)
> I remember being told it was base 60, which fit comfortably with the pounds/shilling system I did have as a kid

??? Pounds-shillings-pence weren't base 60: there were 20 shillings in a pound & 12 pennies in a shilling. That did happen to work out to 240 pence to the pound, which happens to be 4 × 60, but it wasn't a base-60 system.
You're underestimating the difficulty. Self-driving cars will always be 5 years away.
I had similar situation. I just decided to leave. Transferred my shares to the other party and resigned. That was a such relief. That business never gone any further and I saved myself from all the wasted time and frustration.
Excellent idea! Just rename it political-libc for all the people who want politics mixed in with their C library.
Her husband died over a decade ago - the accounts being in just her name is literally proof of nothing, if they maintained separate finances prior to his death in most cases the assets would all be re-titled in her name.

For all we know her husband inherited $10m before he died, and she blew the difference in Vegas one weekend...

My point is that there is a lot of speculation in this article and not much in the way of facts
> YouTube can ban all homosexual videos from its platform so long as it doesn’t ban unrelated videos from homosexual people?

Yes (at least in states where sexual orientation is a protected class).

> Further are you saying the baker could refuse to sell them the cake they wanted because it had some gay theme ( two girl names I think) so long as they offered to sell them a Superman cake at the same time?

AFAIK this is not a settled issue.

I imagine a reasonable test might boil down to "If you have a policy that you never put names on cakes then you can refuse to write 'Jane and Jill'. But if you will write 'Jack and Jill' when asked, then you also need to write 'Jane and Jill' when asked."

In other words, the store may not have a policy that is functionally indistinguishable from refusing service to a protected class.

Notice that Google banning videos about homosexuality would definitely not be equivalent to banning homosexuals from using its public service.

This gets hairy; e.g., religion is a protected class. Could a Satanist cult compel a cake-making business owner to write down a disavowal of his God (in frosting)? Evaluating hairy edge-cases on a case-by-case basis are why human judges exist.

IANAL.
"Hacker culture" is a myth - not in the sense that it's false, but in the sense that it's a set of stories that people like because of their storytelling power, and its exact historical truth is not particularly relevant. As a myth, it tends towards better remembering things that make better stories, like great men inventing things through sheer force of will. And as a myth, it's a story about our origins, which were no doubt messier than we would like to remember. That our present does not seem as awesome as the myth is an unavoidable effect of myths.

But there a few historically true things that are relevant here: first, that an important part of "hacker culture" unequivocally originated in the Bay Area (Fairchild Semiconductor, Homebrew Computer Club, BSD, etc.), and second, that "consensus" has been an important idea in this culture for a while - an obvious example being the IETF's "rough consensus and running code".
Are you sticking up for yourself by pretending to be a different poster?

*Edit: reworded this
> That's a weird argument to make. Why write them at all, then?

To fire up people who already generally agree (or simply need to know which problem their cult leader wants to direct them against and don't need convincing), not to convince people who have a different pre-existing opinion.
This really is a clickbait title.
Yea but I think people take issue with it improving the place rather than improving the lives of the people that were already there.

Rent control is a band-aid solution to displacement caused by NIMBYism and the surplus of jobs from the tech industry.
Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents.

"blighted parts of the city" are often homes to people and the place where their communities are located. These people see themselves priced out of the place they've lived for years and are forced to start a new life elsewhere when the area they live in is gentrified. This is incredibly stressful and hugely disruptive to these people's lives and it's not unreasonable that they desire some protection for their way of life.

The recognition of this fact is also the source of rent control (whether rent control is the right mechanism to prevent these hardships is another conversation). Without societal protections landlords wield a huge amount of power over tenants, raising rent by exorbitant amounts is no different than eviction for most families. In a desire to protect their own communities and livelihoods many residents vote for such policies.
Agreed, this seemed like one of those “totally obvious” needs that only became apparent once I saw their solution. Simple yet effective. I can imagine in the future “eye contact and guess intent” will feel inferior to an explicit, unambiguous status message.

The tidbit on interpreting human gesture (eg construction worker flagging traffic) was interesting, too. I could see that easing people’s minds with regard to autonomous vehicles.
It does have enough users -- it just depends on which network you want to generate an effect. I'm able to have discussions on writing, on mathematics, on coding, on politics, and on society on Masto. It's not a ghost town.
Yeah, agreed. It'd be nice if a manager let their reports set the frequency of the 1:1s, or at least encouraged them to cancel or cut them short if they don't have much to discuss. (Obviously canceling to the point where you don't get to chat for months isn't great, but there's a happy medium somewhere.) But many of the managers I know seem to value the ritual (or perhaps the "look at me, I'm doing useful work!" aspect) of the 1:1 so much that it would reflect poorly on the employee at review time if they skipped even rarely.
GoDaddy also has a right to free expression, which they exercised. Forcing them to broadcast Spencer isn’t compatible with freedom of expression either. At some point absolutes fail and you have to accept the individual’s/entity’s right to choose.
Organized religion is a human endeavor and it should be taken as such. However, if we put aside the politics and consider it strictly from the view of someone who is trying to figure out the world, I don't see why it is necessary to throw out the baby with its bathwater.

The fact that many different religions try to tackle the same questions makes the possibility that a particular one has THE answers seem unlikely. However, the fact they all gravitate towards the same kinds of answers is something that should not be easily dismissed if we want to move the discussion forward. To me, it seems that some sort of spiritual element is always gonna have to be in play; that is, if we want to have any chance of answering those questions in a manner that is not only true in the scientific sense but also in a way that satisfies the restlessness which had inspired the search of the answers in the first place. I must add, that the need to satisfy the restlessness, of course, should not be taken as an excuse for accepting sub-par resolutions.

>For most of the past several thousand years, politely wording these sentiments could end in your death. Even now, a failure to at least pay lip service to Christian theology leaves you largely ineligible for public office, and may limit other opportunities. So yes, there is a chip on their shoulder, many people have a negative opinion about them no matter how tactful they are.

This has genuinely changed my view on this matter, thank you for bringing it up. Reading or listening to eloquent people discuss the topics, it's been easy for me to get hypnotized by their elegant arguments (even the ones I don't agree with) and to forget the human that has crafted them. Growing up in a country where militant religious attitudes (or strong religious attitudes at all, really) are basically non-existent, I didn't really think about the point that those people might have actually been slighted by religion in some way.
Rent Incentives
> Any slack present in the string winding can cause the string to go out of tune easily if you loosen the string to the correct tension.

You can get around that by using harmonics. Because you play harmonics without pushing all the way down, you can achieve a more precise tune.

The strongest harmonic is achieved when you gently place your finger on the string directly over the metal fret. A harmonic can only be achieved when you do not press the string all the way down into the fret.

The harmonic on the 7th fret of one string is the same note as the harmonic on the 5th fret on the next higher string. This is true for all consecutive string pairs other than (G, B).

You can tune using these pairs of harmonics to tune more precisely than pressing all the way down.

You will need to tune the (G, B) pair without harmonics.
I considered that before I replied, but then it has to be contrasted with the fact that the guy claims to be suffering for a year.

Since people end relationships in much less time if things aren't going well, I was instinctively expecting the op to care more.
Pretty sure that's just an asshole thing, not a "local quirk." It's like saying not using your turn signal is a funny quirk of BMW drivers, or going 55 in a 70 in the left lane in a Prius.
I get that you're incredibly cynical about this process (and probably any government process), but I really don't see it as dire as you do. I don't think any further discussion will be productive, though, since we seem to be operating under some vastly different base assumptions about human behavior.
I enjoyed it.

I spend a lot of time listening to people ramble in meetings or troubleshooting, where I wish they understood the subject matter enough to explain it as if talking to a six year old.
The wealth-ification of a neighborhood isn't per se bad. It would be fantastic if people living in a neighborhood became wealthier through some set of circumstances (economic recovery etc).

What you typically see is long-time neighborhood residents being displaced by wealthier newcomers. In a poor neighborhood, this means that people who are already vulnerable, especially those that are renting also have to cope with a whole new set of problems -- landlords who desperately want to evict them, cost-of-living increases, increased pressure from law enforcement.

The Bay doesn't have resources for people who find themselves in this position. My old housemate in west Oakland, in her early 30s and well-educated, but with health issues, is being forced from the bay. She grew up in Berkeley and Oakland. This is her home. I'm sad.
Poe was right!

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
I often agree with the sentiment, but not in this case. I actually like it better than the mayo I used to eat.

I cannot wait for their test tube chicken.. (https://www.justforall.com/en-us/stories/clean-meat)
Your comment seems confused in exactly the same way as coldtea's. How are you imagining turning input 20 into output 6 without acting on the input?

If you don't act on the input, you have an identity function, not a constant function. Constant functions must alter their input whenever it doesn't match the constant output. Nobody ever complained that the problem with Procrustes was that he didn't do anything to the guests in his bed.

And in the other direction, I don't understand why you want to characterize "multiply the input by zero" as an action that "doesn't do anything"? In what sense would that be true?
I don't understand your logic. You say that putting LGTB rainbows in a tool is not a political act and then go on to compare it with the civil rights movement, one of the major political storms of its time. Is it political or is it not?

As to political activism in computer tools... there is a time and place for everything (almost?) and I personally disagree that a computer tool is a place for some random political activism.
Just to underscore: Definitely have the comp details + company info included in the _very first contact_ with a potential candidate. Don't make me ask for it, and especially don't try to hide it until I've gone through an interview/phone screen/coffee at your office/whatever.

Don't spam me with jobs that I couldn't possibly be interested in. For instance, I work almost exclusively with open source technologies. There is no world in which I'd be interested in building .NET applications for some soulless corporation, not attending conferences, etc. Also, because this comes up frequently: don't spam people with javascript experience with java positions.
As someone that was not aware of the gag rule before the mailing list thread brought it up, I thought it was an abortion joke, especially with the "we would be required to say this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program". It is in the man page for abort(). The context clues are there, but the wrong ones.

So, on that level, it fails as a joke: if you aren't aware of the policy it's trying to criticize and make people aware of, it reads like a clunky abortion joke, and one that isn't very funny.
And I'd add that a high price hurts Walmart more than Amazon. Amazon's market cap is 3x Walmart's. Amazon has $31 billion in cash and short-term investments; Walmart has about $7 billion. On top of this, presumably Walmart will be investing heavily in expansion.

I think Walmart's stinginess is also an important point here. At this price, plus the additional money they put in, a good ROI gets harder. Bezos has never really cared about short-term ROI, but I wonder if Walmart will be inclined to be impatient or under-invest later because of the high price now.
Stallman is completely right. A patch that removes jokes is not making any technical contribution, it is just trying to deface a political instance taken the authors of the code. This is the opposite of contributing.
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the consensus is that the joke is disagreeable, but that it is not an appropriate joke for the documentation.

I am a staunchly pro-choice, but this joke is out-of-date and out-of-place. I would personally vote for it to go.

I really don't want to see the political divide fragment the GNU/Linux community because people are determined to inject their opinions into code.

If you run a small repo and the development community agrees with political interjections in the software, then go for it. If the community doesn't like it, they can fork it.

But maybe, if the both the developers and the users of a major piece of software found on hundreds of millions of machines think your political joke should go, that's just not a hill worth dying on...
I agree with RMS on this. People need to grow up. It's ok to be offended, but not ok to try and correct everyone just because you are offended. A line needs to be drawn somewhere and this is harmless.
Some people feel that the communities have a right to a place, others feel that whoever ends up owning the place has those rights. I don’t know what the answer is by the way, I’m just calling the perspectives as I see them. Obviously if you feel that residents “own” a neighborhood in some sense, then it’s wrong to price them out. If you feel that whoever puts the money down to own property owns it, then you won’t feel the same way.
> rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner.

Is there an inherent right of way for property owners over renters on the residential moral crossroads? If you’ve grown up in a neighbourhood, raised your own kids in that neighbourhood, spent time in and on the neighbourhood, don’t you deserve some respect? People without the fiscal wherewithal (nor social impetus) to buy, but who spent effort safe guarding their community, organising events for locals, tending to parks, churches; they created the neighbourhood. They added value to every single property. But God forbid they were not raised to “buy”: make way for the Propery Owner!

I find this incongruous with what I’ve seen around me time and time again. People who’ve suffered through the hardest times of an area get pushed out when it does better. They deserved it the most, but got hoodwinked for the newer, flashier wind.

Not unlike a spouse who stays with their partner through a tough disease, depression, or poverty, only to be dumped for a more beautiful and opportunistic competitor when the hardship has sailed.

I’m not a staunch anti gentrifier (hell, I gentrify!), but I find using the word “respect” a bridge too far.
The joke is confusing if you're not well-acquainted with US abortion politics, and, if you read the entire email thread, there were actually quite a few people who didn't get the joke properly (you can include myself in that list as another example).

RMS's stance is quite galling here. First, he's making it very adamant that the entire purpose of the joke is political commentary. Second, he's resisting any mechanism to actually make it clear that it is political commentary. Finally, he's effectively trying to use dictatorial powers to make his views go through over the strident objections of the consensus view of the maintainers.
> Mazel said counter surveillance of law enforcement agents is the fastest-growing way that organized criminals are using drones.

Why do I have a feeling this was one of a few rare times the FBI has encountered drones during a raid?

CI/law enforcement people love to exaggerate high-technology threats... just like phone encryption a few years back when they already had workarounds for many years, it only became a problem when it became widespread. The only difference is they want solutions to be cheap and inexpensive so they always have a power edge. The fact obvious solutions exist doesn't matter, they want to be the only ones with that power and they want complete access to that advantage, regardless of the progress of (consumer) technology.

All this translates to me is a) some high paid consultants selling threat solutions b) overblown media headlines or c) scare tactics to regulate technology pre-emptively when it's not really a significant problem.

They should be accepting this as a reality of society and technology and adapt their surveillance tactics against high-value targets. Instead of trying to punish regular people for using the technology, as is typically the case.
There needs to be a digitalocean or heroku for containerization. Currently to start a k8s whatever you need to go through various manual rigamaroles and spend a lot of money, or go through the big lockin providers and spend a lot of money.

For those of us not backed by venture capital and not charging SV ex-googler rates to our clients, we need something to say "we'll host you on this git push containerization thing, it'll be cheap and easy, and we'll expand when the time comes, and that'll be cheap and easy too".
https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-379610.html is interesting :-).

Also, https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1219/for-large-... .
> Just last week I saw someone self-publish some artwork in an area they have an audience and they made $4000 in a day.

Link? I've been wondering about the current economics of (new) art lately.
Yeah, it adds time to the equation :)
I thought people were saying in previous comment threads that Teslas ignore stationary objects because too many false positives from roadside objects that are not in the road. The combination of software and sensors on Teslas is not enough to be able to distinguish stationary objects in the path versus stationary objects not in the path.

Based on the slim evidence of the Chinese accident video and the LA post accident photo, it looks like that's correct -
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4tes8u

https://cdn.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/tesla-c...
Thank you for your support. :-)

It's not obvious in my original comment, but I was speaking somewhat wistfully about the philosophical concept of free speech. As a practical matter, I believe humans will generally continue spitting in the food of people whose ideas they don't like, or whose looks they don't like, or who even just happen to remind them of their asshole exes. Those who will actually live in a principled fashion are rare enough that we note them in history books.
You can (and should) say the exact same thing about sugars as you did about fats. There is a healthy way to eat sugars, fats, and proteins. They are all important and what it usually comes down to is the age old saying "all things in moderation."
In this system there is always somthing to stay positive about. Yay i wrote code that built, or yay i donated to a cause i believe in. I think everyone who is talking about incentives are over thinking it
You can even walk up to the customer service counter and get your rebate amount in cash if you want.

Here, cashing out is the only way they redeem the vouchers unless it's a really high amount (4 figures+), in which case they cut you a company check (that happened to me once in 6+ years).
Let's scale up your example: why should citizens of a country have any special rights over immigrants? One can argue that immigration "restores blighted parts" of the country "to its full potential".

I doubt you'd make that argument, though.
In principal gentrification is fine, in practice its usually a mess. I'm from Brooklyn, which is definitely gentrified by any means. It's nice that property values are up, new businesses are booming, and crime is down -- but there is something to be said about the community which underwent decades of over-policing, redlining and discriminatory practices being booted out all because some property developers thought the neighborhood was "hot".
> the copyright holders for the source code

FWIW from https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist#F...

> The Free Software Foundation (holder of the glibc copyrights) requires copyright assignment for all legally significant changes by a particular author (read not a company). [...]
I still have a tuning fork for tuning by ear. When I started playing, electric tuners were somewhat new and relatively expensive. At this point I've used the fork enough I almost don't need it.