skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So because other people might not be in such a position, I shouldn't use my ability to choose not to support the military?
Sure, but what government are you talking about? I'm fairly sure the USG doesn't 'want to kill brown people'.
No, because tags specify a type for the value, not the key, so you could use

ports:
https:
port: !!str 443

to parse the same as

{
"ports": {
"https": {
"port": "443"
}
}
}

in JSON
Of course what everyone else practises is relatively unimportant but your little pet social project is meaningful. Sure, buddy.

The fact that craftsmanship in this role can be rewarded is a fantastic thing. The people who can do things well can meet the people who want those things done well.
There are good points in that article, but it falls into the common trap: if you're going to do space-based solar, the one thing you probably wouldn't do is make your collecting area out of a load of PV panels. If you want a mahoosive collecting area, the best idea is probably acres of mylar sheets, reflecting onto as small a converter as you can get away with. That fundamentally changes the available sunlight watts per launch kg ratio.

You've just bought yourself a heat dissipation problem, and it does nothing to help with the downlink, but those aren't insurmountable.
Launch HN: Frey (YC S18) – Laundry and Clothing Care Products Tailored for Men
Hey HN! We're Leif, Erin, and Aidan, founders of FREY (https://livefrey.com), a line of awesome laundry and clothing care products tailored towards men (with a sustainable and philanthropic bent).

We started this out of a college apartment without the intention of it ever being a full-time job. We noticed that, although we were buying plenty of men’s shampoos, deodorants, fragrances, etc, we were still buying the same detergent our mom had kept at our house growing up.

A very small kickstarter rolled into a small appearance on Good Morning America, at which point we picked our heads up and realized we may have stumbled on a pretty big opportunity.

The laundry industry is outdated and commodified. There’s a massive ($430B) menswear industry and massive ($130B) laundry industry, and there’s a growing number of U.S. men doing laundry (55 million, up 23% from 2013). The laundry industry still seems to be missing this male demographic (and we feel this is also perpetuating this stereotype that only women do/should be doing laundry, something we want to help break down).

There are striking similarities between this industry and other consumer packaged goods industries that have recently underdone large changes (like mattresses, eyeglasses, razors, contacts, etc), and we hope to bring the same change to laundry.

We focus a lot on giving back as well, both for personal reasons (we always wanted to create a company that made a positive impact) and also because it resonates with our demographic. Our products are safer for the environment, we're a certified B-Corporation (meaning we meet rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency), and have a bunch of other positive initiatives we can talk about if anyone's interested.

We're excited to hear your thoughts on our idea!
It doesn't really help any military to kill non-combatants. The types of tools google was developing were for detecting terrorists in Afghanistan placing road-side bombs. Right now the video tapes from drones above Kabul are only analyzed after an explosion kills people. If project Maven had been finished by google these bombs could have been identified and civilians could be evacuated from the areas.
It is spreading throughout the empire : in NL, I was stopped on the street by the police and asked for my ID while there was no suspicion of any crime. This is illegal in NL.

I refused, was taken in, given a 'Strafbeschikking' which would have given me a criminal record without going through a court.

I knew the law, knew what I was doing, appealed and won.

But they are constantly stretching boundaries ( ID, ANPR, cell data, internet monitoring and on and on and on ).

Scary.
Normally, that would be an opinion "concurring in the judgement" but not in all of the reasoning.

Here

1. He disagrees with literally all of the reasoning. He doesn't want to affirm the judgement because he thinks it's just plain wrong.

2. It's not clear he would agree with the outcome on this record either. He basically says the record isn't well enough developed on any of his points to figure out what should happen, and that the arguments he would make were forfeited.

That suggests he may actually be in the camp of "i think all of the reasoning here is nonsense and wrong, and you forfeited all other arguments, so you lose".

As a result he's dissented and literally written down "for the love of god, the next time someone appeals a case like this, please make the following arguments"
Wow, thanks for the link to Clarity. That looks like something we could get a lot of use out of.

We're currently using Looper[0], but even that is a little too opinionated and visually "heavy" for business apps where productivity and clarity are paramount.

[0] https://themes.getbootstrap.com/product/looper-responsive-ad...
Haha, the irony of it all.

Whether you know that jumping off a bridge will hurt has no impact on whether it will hurt. It's not a question of fault. It's a question of fact.
My reply was much closer to high school debate than a doctoral dissertation.

What you said was clearly not a valid interpretation of the evidence presented.

If it's so trite, why are you chiming in at all?
>I’m less liberal than many, but I’m curious how the conservative movement feels issues like climate change and clean oceans and clean air

Generally, via Pigovian taxes that internalize the externality consistently without creating additional distortions or utilizing arbitrary ad-hoc regulation — ideally in a revenue-neutral way via dividends.

See, for example, the Trent Lott-John Breaux group announced this week to push for the Baker-Shultz carbon dividend plan (supported by economists including former CEA chairs Greg Mankiw and Martin Feldstein and Fed chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen).

(It should be noted that the Clean Air Act and the formation of the EPA came under Richard Nixon, of all people.)

[0] Americans for Carbon Dividends (new group, political): http://www.afcd.org

[1] Climate Leadership Council (old group, academic): https://www.clcouncil.org

[2] AFCD Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/carbon-tax-climat...

[3] This year's op-ed on AFCD: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/opinion/climate-change-fe...

[4] Last year's op-ed on CLC (economists): https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-ca...

[5] Last year's op-ed on CLC (politicians): https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-conservative-answer-to-climat...
New Homes Burlington County – New Homes Mercer County
Here’s+How+to+Choose+Life+Insurance+Agents+-+Life+Insurance+Mentors
Physicists Just Found the Last Missing Protons and Neutrons in the Universe
There were patent concerns when they were first released, but AFAIK they were all eventually resolved. The issue really was lack of (perceived) quality. Despite their amazing PSNR scores, wavelets look terrible at low bitrates, in ways that DCT-based codecs do not. JPEG XR has a few more features than JPEG, but not really much better quality [1].

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20160404051240/http://people.moz...
5 Times Child Protective Services Separated Kids from Parents for No Good Reason
>I don't think authoritarian regimes are good at fostering innovation.

The USSR came from far behind and beat us to space. Authoritarian regimes may struggle to allocate food efficiently but they're fine at allocating scientists.
> the fact that if tabs are allowed in source code, people will mix them with spaces, resulting in code that looks bad unless you have the exact same tab width preferences as the author.

Every bit of go code shows you are wrong. If a codebase uses tabs for indentation (which is the only place they should ever be allowed) then it's a mistake to use spaces for indentation. My first ever contribution to a free software project (when I was about 15) used the wrong whitespace for indentation. They made me fix the patch and that is how I learnt about whitespace. The example you've shown is just an example of bad code standards, not tabs being bad.
But that still leaves plenty of deep space destinations that it can launch to, possibly starting with the Europa Clipper.
I see this very much. Friends that are surrounded by dual income couples that are lawyers/doctors/etc get convinced that 300k+ household incomes are "not that much". This while being 97+% percentile for household incomes in the US.
Dude Gets 20 Years in the Slammer for Attempting to Hijack Domain at Gunpoint
Could genetic tests help reunite separated immigrant families? It’s complicated
Safety driver of fatal self-driving Uber crash was watching Hulu during accident
I hate how on target this is
It's the same as ending a statement with "period." As in, "We connect people. Period." said by a Facebook exec to justify their use of dark patterns. It's for emphasis.
As a long time Android developer I find material design to be actually good, esp. since Google offers a lot of it out of the box for us. What I find disappointing is the world jumping on it and then clinging to it as if this is it and that's it. I have noticed a lot of apps have kind of stopped (not universally though) going for new, unique and innovative designs.

Now the desktop browser web apps...
More information is in this article from the 25th anniversary of the Balloonfest:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/09/twenty-five_years_ag...
Art Deco Node.js documentation pre-processor
They also had great chemists and physicists. Many of them were awarded nobel prizes, so you can look it up.
This reminds me of the question - if you feel guilty for doing a terrible thing, is it somehow more forgivable? If it isn't, why are we so horrified when someone does a terrible thing and doesn't feel guilty later?
Proper answer: Sue Twitter for tortious interference of contract. Especially those that had something like a 3-year CONTRACT.
Microsoft wanted to kill of upstart Netscape so they changed the Windows NT license and pricing. NT Workstation became limited by the license to a very small number of clients, regardless of what server software you wanted to run on it.

For more than a handful of clients you were required to purchase a much more expensive server edition which was basically the same, but included IIS, Microsoft's web server. In other words, to legally use Netscape's (or anyone else's) web server on Windows NT, you still had to buy Microsoft's web server.

See also: http://www.landley.net/history/mirror/ms/differences_nt.html
Uber driver was streaming Hulu just before self-driving car crash: police report
The ripple effect doesn't end when I finish the touch though, the app waits for it to complete the animation before doing the thing that I asked. That's the infuriating part.

Another thing that really bothers me: They've got all kinds of iOS-specific stuff in the app - Apple Pay, 3D Touch previews, Touch ID for login. They clearly went to a lot of effort to support stuff that's specific to Apple devices, why didn't they just go the extra mile and actually make it look and feel like an iOS application?

This is one of the big five Canadian banks. Their net income is over $1B every quarter. Surely they can afford to hire an iOS dev to do the app natively.
I'm a fan of his work, yes.
>Stop working and watch your company fall apart, it doesn't really matter and is perhaps the intended function of competitive capitalism.

What do you mean by "competitive capitalism"? I'm not aware of such a theory or what that entails.

Capitalism is merely a system of voluntary trade of consenting adults. Nothing more and nothing less.

Also this statement:

>Stop working and watch your company fall apart,

Can also be rephrased, to be just as true:

"Stop working and watch your body fall apart"

The reason it is true is simply because entropy increases with time and the thermodynamic laws appear to hold.

No need to get to societal-level explainations when a simpler (mathematical) explaination is sufficient.
"I work at twitter and wasn’t able to find out immediately"

Sweet, please tell Jack I'm done with Twitter violating my copyright and it's game-on now.
"Secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" is the text of the amendment so my guess is this counts as persons? Didn't get a chance to read the judgement
It's a good article, but I have one big complaint: the terminology of bottum-up and top-down is reversed!

In the context of politics, magister-dixit or top-down has a negative connotation, and democracy or grass-roots or bottom-up has a positive connotation.

In physics we should disregard the political connotation.

Yes historically most new physics were top-down observations, i.e. noticing small (unexplained) deviations, and first modeling the deviation, and then eventually realising the underlying cause. A good example is the discovery that some planet motions: while most did seem to move in perfect circles, one of them had a measurable deviation, and after exhaustively trying to fit "state of the art" mathematics (degree 4 polynomialss or ovals), because Kepler incorrectly thought others would have already tried the simpler conic sections (ellipses for closed orbits). Only after the ovals kept failing did he try the too-obvious-otherwise-it-would-already-have-been-discovered conic sections, and found a very precise match.

Examples of bottom-up physics are the early theories of statistical mechanics like Ludwig Boltzmann's, or the atomistic theory of chemistry: with little experimental evidence, they could derive physically realistic behaviours for large ensembles of particles, and only much later were molecules and atoms discovered. Bottom-up is postulating smaller particles and investigating how they would influennce the behaviour of bigger collections, and then trying to prescribe experiments to prove their predictions.

So when the author of this article talks about bottom-up he is actually describing the return to top-down, explain as you measure deviations, and when he talks about top-down he seems to actually refer to the bottom-up postulates of new physics with hopefully falsifiable tests...

Again, a good article, but its nomenclature of top-down and bottom-up seems reversed to me.
I imagine that someone who wants to prevent use of their work by the military would not be concerned over whether something is technically not open source or not.
The embryology argument doesn't hold water. There is not reason for that nerve to be routed the way it is. In most creatures, it's not an issue, it's a few inches. In giraffes, it's pretty far.

Also, "constraints" seems like kind of a funny excuse when considering a creator who is described as omnipotent.
What level of evidence is enough?

Why can we not accept what the author writes? What motive does he have to tell something other than his best interpretation of the evidence?

I have read and listened to far more from Kuhn than I have of you or the other commenters here on HN. That has lead me to conclude that this is not something he makes lightly or for ulterior motives.
While the technology for cost-effective space solar is almost ready, any way to get it from space to the ground has a few problems:

1) Flux. Direct sunlight isn’t good for you. Even just as heat. If the system is 1kw/m^2, it’s simultaneously a weapon and needs a really large and expensive ground station to make use of.

2) Distances. To get power with 24-hour reliably from space, either you need to be in high orbit (significant compared to diameter of planet), or you need to bounce the power around a lot: again, meaning either highly focused and automatically a super-weapon or massive (~ 1 square kilometre per gigawatt) satellites, but the options have fairly similar minimum total distance and you exchange an inverse-square problem for an exponential-in-number-of-repeaters problem.

If you can solve #2, it makes more sense to leave the panels on the ground. For example, you can just build a wide-ish strip of panels from Nouakchott to Muscat, and similar ones in other deserts, noting that some of them are in daylight at all times, and use the same tech to send the power conveniently around the surface of the Earth without needing space launches.
I believe one additional reason law enforcement don't want to get warrant is because they don't want to leave any paper trail when they track someone as that would expose the terrifying volume of phone they track.
Maybe I'm failing to see your point, but wouldn't removing the requirement for a judge to look at it, no matter how hastily that decision is made, further reduce the barrier to a false search? Or are you saying it pressures the judges into making hastier decisions in larger cases that would not fall under this decision because of the volume of smaller cases?
My own personal theory is that the GDPR was going through and the big players didn't fight too much knowing this was going to come through soon as well. They have the ability to comply, their smaller competitors don't, or at least will have to heavily invest in compliance.
It’s not clear why Lenin felt the need to state this, he obviously didn’t know anything about it, but he did, and so it became the official position of Soviet science. But Stalin was nothing if not pragmatic so...
> What about blaming the companies who decided to depend upon a service that they have no control over?

No. Delegation is the cornerstone of civilization. Trying to build everything yourself is a terrible idea.
>Soviet Russia made great leaps in science and technology

Yes, we sent rockets to the moon, but an average Ivan couldn't have proper plumbing in his apartment.

Those great leaps were made in things without real life value.

P.R. China on other hand, can't be bothered with "prestige project." The only thing that can bother a government official here is money. And money undoubtedly have value in everyday life... unlike moon rovers.
Being able to cram this amount in such a small space also helps improve a 'normal' density display as processes improve and fever dead pixels allow for larger displays.

The primary issue with large displays is the failure rates during manufacturing.
That's a pretty extreme leap when virtually no information is available yet. The HN guidelines ask you to "assume good faith" for a reason: people are all too ready to take such charges as givens and then pile more on top of them. It's a behavior that harms the container here, and it's not hard to wait until actual evidence appears.
I'd like to read about first-hand experiences founding startups with equal or unequal equity splits.

30+ year old company, started with equal split (5 ways, 1 founder bought out early).

We are not hugely successful, though I have a nice house in a nice & expensive city because of it. It is my belief the company would not exist if the CEO had gotten control early on. The equal equity was a check & balance on his power. However, there are really two possibilities:

1. The check on his power prevented us from being wildly successful because there was too much consensus needed for risky, but potentially rewarding, decisions.

2. The check on his power prevented him from screwing over everyone else.

On #2. About 7 years after starting, my CEO intimated to me that he made a huge mistake with the initial equity split, and when I asked why, he said he would be cash cowing the business for his own personal gain and he would be much wealthier. Now, he didn't phrase it just like that, but that's what he meant.

The truth is, once you have control of the shares, you can do anything to anyone.

I won't give the name (let's call him Mr. X), but an early investor in the company was serially successful at startups and making a lot of money. Two related facts about him:

* One of X's co-founders once told our CEO that he made almost nothing from the startup that X had made many millions from. His initial stock had been diluted to nothing, because X controlled the majority of shares and the board.

* In the 90s the SEC went after X for dubious sales practices (selling hardware and buying it back under the table to inflate company value... yes, they were public). He paid a large fine and agreed not to be an officer of a corporation for 10 years, but he died before that expired.

After these two events, I started to look at successful people in an entirely different light. Nothing I've learned in the 20 years since has changed the view that 99.9% of successful people, aside from being smart and hard working, are either in the right place at the right time or use ethically dubious methods to get ahead. There are exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare.

Sorry for the rant.
This is the sort of informationless pile-on comment that damages HN regardless of what you're talking about. Please don't post those here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
In that case you're a loss-leader.
Mario Tennis Aces review: Turning tennis into a fighting game
I meant that in all contexts, conservative and progressive are antonyms, not just in colloquial usage.
They could just stop blaming their inaction on awry algorithms. It's frankly pathetic. Then, maybe stop building features no one asked for and instead fix the broken notification system? Lastly, stop lying to their creators and and hiding behind completely vague legalese.

I've been a HEAVY youtube user since around 06/07 and I'd still love to see them knocked off their perch.
Quite a bit of historical and contemporary evidence indicates otherwise. It may not be a goal, but it certainly isn’t a dealbreaker in achieving whatever aims of the time.
co-/contra-variance is a fact about the underlying data structure, not an aberration of the type system. You need to reason about it even in an untyped language.

The number of hours I've spent debugging Python/PHP code written by developers who don't understand co-/contra-variance...
Not a fan of Gorsuch, but I'm positively surprised at that comment, as this has been my thinking since the beginning on this issue, too.

I think it's total BS to think that "users don't have an expectation of privacy" when a company offers a service to hold and process their data. I don't think in any other real-world situation that's similar you wouldn't have an expectation of privacy. It's just the government's twisted logic that's used to justify its mass surveillance actions.

I also agree with Gorsuch's point that the standard should be much higher than "an expectation of privacy". If you have an industry that has "educated" its users to expect constant violations of their privacy and misuse of their data, it doesn't mean that now users should no longer benefit from privacy rights, because the companies and governments are so used to abusing users' data that they might as well be allowed to do it. I don't think that sort of logic makes sense.
Have you read the memo yourself? I don't disagree that the post may be somewhat poorly presented, but it summarizes a large part of the memo in the one sentence it cites. The section "The impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression" on pages 5 and 6 as well as the note on the bottom of page 5 of the memo are exactly what the main post is pointing out.
Studios Remove 'Spyware' from Several Games as Gaming Public Revolts
FH uses the same fairing as the F9, which isn't particularly large.
> saying basically that no scientific truth can be an argument for or against any spiritual claim.

This is an agument for "NOMA" or Non Overlapping Magisteria. While this is true in the abstract pure Deist standpoint, it's not true for most religions or supernatural belief systems. All Abrahamic regions (for example) make specific claims about the nature of reality that is in direct conflict with science.