skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
2007
High school acquaintance: Join us on facebook!
Me: What for? So you can treat me like shit like you did in high school?

2008
Cousin: Join us on facebook, so you can stay in touch.
Me: Why don't you just tell me what's happening like you always have?
Then we can shoot the shit and laugh and talk and gossip, just us two, like we always have?

2009
Neighbor: Why don't you join our community group on facebook so you can see what's going on?
Me: I'll just pay my dues and spend my time on what's really important to me.

2010
Work associate: Why don't you work at facebook? Everywhere else is lame.
Me: Because lots of other places are doing cool stuff that really matters.

2011
Friend: I can't believe you're still not on facebook. Everyone is!
Me: Your 2 sentences contradict each other.

2012
Me: Why didn't you invite me to your wedding?
Fraternity brother: Because you're not on facebook.
Me: Lame. And classless.

2013
Sister-in-law: Your business cannot succeed unless it has a presence on facebook.
Me: Really? I just had my best year ever.

2014
Local business: See what we're up to on facebook.
Me: I just go somewhere with their own website.

2015
Me: Why didn't you answer my emails?
Friend: Why didn't you just message me?
Me: What's that?

2016
Work friend: How do you manage to get so damn much work done?
Me: Because I'm not spending hours every day on facebook on my phone.
I'm too busy building stuff.

2017
Business guru: A following on facebook is not nearly as effective as a good email list.
There's too much noise for the signal.
Me: You don't say?

2018
Almost everyone: What have we done?!?
facebook is ruining everything!
Our privacy is gone! How do we get off?
Me: I get off every day. The old fashioned way.
Spotify tried to reinvent the IPO. But two quarters later, things look  normal?
i also disable ipv6 on my servers for abuse purposes, it is to easy to get iv6 addresses
Previous discussion from 9 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17546207 (162 comments)

(sorry, didn't saw that discussion)
Hey glad you like them! There are some more on my personal account you can browse from here[0]. Feel free to reuse/modify, all MIT.

[0]: http://wavepot.com/stagas
The genetically 'unhealthy' will flock for insurance which will increase premia and discourage the genetically 'healthy' from doing so.
You cannot run a commercially viable life insurance in a situation where there isn't 'ultimate good faith'.
One way or another testing will become compulsory for insurance.
The issue is that a lot of people look at humans and say "This kind of behavior requires and proves free will", which would mean that exhibiting human-like behavior without free will ought to be impossible.
Yes, and the person you reply to is saying that this is obvious (from my understanding). I think you have just argued for something you already agree on.
You can do that by building it with only the modules you want: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/README.md

There's also an official slim build without ajax and effect modules.
As I understand it there's pretty firm evidence that both Jesus and Buddha existed and arguably they both had some pretty cool ideas...
As well as the crucial point lostlogin raises, the Allies were assuming the Abwehr were rather better at espionage and reconnaissance than they turned out to be. Some was discovered via SIGINT from Bletchley and some not until the fall of Berlin.

Just as well as one of the British officers (Strangeways) was making the southern deception rather difficult by disagreeing with everything.

The Allies had to assume the Germans had a working spy network in the UK, turns out they had none and we caught or turned the lot. Those agents (including Pujol), the extensive continental networks and Ultra meant they could spread disinformation effectively and check to see if the bait was taken, repeatedly.

It could have been a lot more difficult if Hitler had listened to his High Command a little more.
The whole free will debate always falls flat on its face because the distinction between free will and free choice is never made. You may not have free will, but you have natural tendencies that you gravitate towards. However, these can only be expressed if you have the choice to do so.

There is a joke that I think captures this philosophy of Compatibalism quite well: A reporter asks a citizen in Pyongyang to comment about life in North Korea. The citizen answers "Well, I can't complain".
In my experience, on-prem installations have to be manually upgraded by someone at the company. I haven't come across many auto-updating appliances. As a result you will likely end up having to keep supporting even very old versions of the software which can become a nightmare. You can of course tell clients that you won't support anything but the latest few versions to force them to upgrade.
Criminal drug prohibition belongs to a whole category of policy ideas that don't work and cause tremendous harm and yet are tried over and over and over again for ideological reasons.

Others include things like (to be equal opportunity and criticize both left-wing and right-wing ones) abstinence based sexual education, rent control and price controls generally, extreme trade protectionism, military driven attempts to re-make foreign societies, full scale command economies, legislating religious and social customs, etc.
Classically over-engineered solution to non-existent problem.

Just let the user choose when to update FFS. This isn't rocket science. Yes, some of them will never update, but guess what your forced-update bullshit is leading people to do? That's right, disable the update mechanism and never update.

Please Microsoft, for the love of all that is decent just stop intentionally sucking so damned hard.
OmbuCast Episode 1 – Performance improvements using derailed_benchmarks
We like compression. That's our main requirement. We may not like hard coded constants in our physical theories but thats only because we'd prefer a single constant that uncompresses to all six. Or a single law about laws that uncompresses to the entire theory. Constructor theory [1]

We also like symmetry but symmetry is just a way to identify attack surfaces for compression.

[1] https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_deutsch-constructor-...
macro evolution it is then
Data Protection Laws of the World
a) Penrose' claim is about something completely different, namely the non-algorithmic computational abilities of the brain by quantum-gravity effects

b) intuition is irrelevant - this is a proof of the physics of free-will, it doesn't matter how 'plausible' it sounds. Quantum mechanics isn't intuitive either - why should it be ?
Intel was pretty successful in an earlier generation at pitching Celeron as the "value product line" brand.
> P.S I'm not sure IE11 supports classList. Source: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Element/cla....

It provides basic support for classlist, add/remove/toggle exist and work as you'd expect. It does not have complete supports of all bits of the API:

* it doesn't support the second argument to toggle so you have to use a conditional/ternary with add/remove

* it doesn't support passing multiple classes to add/remove

* it doesn't support replace
Learning compilers by implementing a JSON editor made of Vue.js components
I usually add:
const qs = (selector) => [...document.querySelectorAll(selector)]

so that I can tread my results as a normal array.
>We still do that today. Imo we will still do that 10,000 years from now...

If we continue to glibly shrug our shoulders at the premise that mass destruction is just what we do, and if we keep pretending we have no choice in the matter, then the chance of us lasting 10,000 more years is somewhere near zero.
sensor fusion combines multiple sensors with different characteristics such as:

- GPS; widespread, low accuracy

- INS; always available, high short-term accuracy, terrible long-term accuracy

- terrain-matching: large-scale corrections.

The different characteristics allow one sensor to correct another to a degree to produce an overall stable position.
Will this be available to normal Google users?
Yes, absolutely. The only significant difference is that it isn't a plugin.
How to turn down request from prospective employer for current employer's code?
They pretty much have to come up with a better explanation.
It is noticeable for a scientist or for anybody interested, but for a creationist a slightly different mote or bird will never be a proof of speciation: it is anyway very similar to the original species, and it will be explained away by saying that is was already there or something similar.

As mentioned, a more radical event should happen to convince these people (so radical as to be impossible).
Discussion on the blog post to which this is a follow-up:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17525858
Isn't the answer really, "no, because WASM doesn't allow you to do anything you couldn't already do with JavaScript"? I don't think anyone would complain about Applets or Flash if the only way they could interact with the web page was through the DOM.

WASM enables nothing. It just makes a particular subset of JavaScript slightly faster.

EDIT: I'm not talking about Canvas. That isn't part of WASM.
That's manual iteration even if it's done via HoF.

Many of jQuery's operations implicitly apply to the entire nodeset regardless of the nodeset's arity.
The free will equivalent of that rock solid excuse also exist: "Because I wanted to".

The the incentives are identical and the consequences are identical, why can't we hold one of the scenarios responsible?

Now if you subscribe to the lack of free will idea, you might come to the conclusion that. Okay, it isn't this individual that performed this action, it is the history led up to this point. But in the end nothing has changed. Given that belief you might adjust and realize that hey, maybe we could have prevented this. And we probably could.

But nothing in this reasoning is any different with or without free will. Our societies would most likely be much better if we had good techniques for detecting signs for bad behavior early and encouraging change (no force required), and I'm positive that would be the case both in a free will and in a lack of free will scenario.
But it wasn't just the CIA. I've read that the NSA had intercepts.[0] And regarding the NSA, I tend to trust Bamford. I also gather that NSA staff didn't want to reveal too many specifics, to avoid compromising methods etc, and that their reticence proved counterproductive.

The FBI were reportedly also close to the hijackers.[1] And they also have lots of data on Saudi connections.[2]

Also, there used to be an article on salon.com about a team of Mossad agents that was tracking the 9/11 hijackers. But now I don't find it. As I recall, there were connections to young Mossad agents in the US, who posed as artists, selling their work door-to-door.[3] I've also read that it was rather a rite of passage for young agents. With the US being relatively safe for training.

0) https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/21/missed-calls-nsa-terror...

1) https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129563&page=1

2) https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-fbi-is-keeping-80000-secre...

3) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel...
Not at all. WASM doesn't define a UI component.
I don't think anyone concludes that humans have free will on the basis of their behavior. At least, that's a pretty unusual line of argument.
This is basically where interpretations of quantum mechanics come into play. The maths/experiments alone don't tell you much. There are only a few things we can be sure of, e.g. the particle is not choosing a locally determined, pre-existing value as in classical mechanics. What you believe after that comes down to which "comforting illusion" you are most willing to ditch.
One other big difference is that it's not owned by a single private company. Adobe tried to monetize certain flash 3d features at some point, but was rebuked so they withdrew their plans.
Is this article's title clickbait?
Yeah think of how many Javascript questions on Stackoverflow have jQuery answers
There's two editions of Soccermatics, and his new book Outnumbered.
Every day I discover a new use case crammed into a blockchain with a sledgehammer.
The Iliad and The Odyssey are historically accurate, it is actual history. Heinrich Schliemann proved this with his archaeological excavations.

Star Wars is just a kids story, you really cannot compare the two.
I don't see how "because I wanted to" is an excuse at all. If you shouldn't have, and you needn't have, then it doesn't matter if you wanted to.

I mean, I am just talking about excuses as we ordinarily understand them here. Try using "because I wanted to" as an excuse in your daily life and see how that goes.
If done right fixing the jobs problem should be a net positive for the economy.

I don't think it's malice. I think it's that most political leadership (of both parties) lives in coastal cities that haven't felt the pain to anywhere near the extent of the interior. They also tend to be immersed in aggregate statistics that don't tell the whole story. GDP might be going up but break it down by region, calculate the Gini coefficient, etc. and you see that there are huge problems.
That is definitely interesting. But I look for data of all kinds most of the time. And recoll has saved my life dozens of times. https://www.lesbonscomptes.com/recoll/

I don't like the standard configuration, I prefer the table view and a much smaller font. Play around with the settings.

Best thing: You can have it instructed to use tesseract to OCR all kinds of stuff in the background.

"Recoll will index an MS-Word document stored as an attachment to an e-mail message inside a Thunderbird folder archived in a Zip file (and more...). It will also help you search for it with a friendly and powerful interface, and let you open a copy of a PDF at the right page with two clicks. There is little that will remain hidden on your disk."
Eh, I'd still complain about them; they tended to be terribly poorly written and do a lot of unnecessary work, slowing things down and using too much power. Of course, so do random javascript things.

I kind of miss the days of the HTML/HTTP-only web.
Performing evals is a core part of the design. Take a look at the additional notes section on this documentation of the .html method.

http://api.jquery.com/html/

>By design, any jQuery constructor or method that accepts an HTML string — jQuery(), .append(), .after(), etc. — can potentially execute code

This makes jQuery less safe in general, but I think the CSP restrictions this puts in place are probably a greater issue for most people. I’ve been involved in retro-fitting strict CSPs into a few projects, and more than once I’ve been thwarted by very minor use of jQuery in a couple of places.
> The fee would be paid at the point of converting your crypto to the 'Credits'(which users would happily pay, they already do when converting to Fiat)

These fees are going to have to be higher than normal conversion fees, if you want to fund the credits operation - someone is going to have to pay for -

Alterations to the PoS software to accept credits
Server infrastructure which can authorise the transactions
Helpdesk staff to help out the shop staff when they get confused/stuck/whatever
Top Deep web websites you should know about
He had been around for a long time and they wanted to get some fresh faces in the building

How is this not an age discrimination lawsuit?
President will look into Twitter "SHADOW BANNING" prominent Republicans
>The Fetch API works in every browser

As long as you're using recent versions. The whole point of jQuery is that you can write some code and be sure that it will run correctly in older versions of the browsers.
I'd still complain. I remember supporting a Java plugin application that was incredibly slow and beyond buggy. Then again, limiting the scope to only what JavaScript could already do could have helped avoid those issues to begin with.
Now when some one asks me why I am not on FB, I will just redirect to this :-). Thanks and I thank myself for having not wasted even a second on any Social NW site, not that I look down on others who do. To each his own, for me staying away helped and I profited!
Alright, I'll give them that. However, I think this will, like it has with the rest of the web, lead to differences in how each browser handles the spec, various browser-specific extensions, etc. In that way, it's actually worse than having one company behind it.
I like Elixir and the community is amazing, especially for such a young language. Particularly the quality of the standard library as well as the more popular open source libraries is really high.

That said, there's one design choice that I simply never understood: the dynamic typing. Bear with me, I'm not trying to start another holy war here, I have an argument. Thing is, Elixir very seldomly uses its dynamic typing. Ruby has method_missing and monkey patching, JavaScript (finally) has Proxies, but Elixir has none of these. In fact, most Elixir code is particularly undynamic in nature.

All Elixir code that I've seen looks more like a non-OO version of typical Java or C# code. Notably, variables and seldomly change type. Function arguments are seldomly "a string or an array" like is common in JavaScript. Structured arguments are typically either used as a dictionary, or as a struct (the Elixir word for object, record, whatever), but not really ever "a little bit of both". Modules always have the same set of functions, the functions always have the same signatures.

Elixir replaces Ruby's monkey patching with macros. They feel a bit similar, but notably macros are entirely compile time. There's nothing dynamic about them.

I feel like if Elixir had unambitious static typing, more akin to C# or TypeScript than to Haskell, it'd have significantly better tool support, code would be much much easier to read and follow, and virtually all code that works now would still, well, Just Work except that you'd need to specify types on function arguments of course.

Of course, there's typespecs, but anyone who's ever tried to use them knows how abysmal the development experience is. Dialyzer error messages are impossible to figure out, often showing errors multiple functions down the stack from where the typing or programming error actually is. The syntax is weird, minimally documented and not integrated with the rest of the language. I'm impressed by how well most bigger libraries are typespec'ed, given how hard it is to get that right.

All that said, I'm well aware that even an "unambitious" type system would be hard to accomplish. Making a dynamically typed language surely must be easier than an ergonomic statically typed one - especially if the underlying VM does not depend on static types. Maybe the simple reason Elixir lacks a good static type system is that it's a lot of work.
They probably would be conscious too if QM randomness is psuedorandomness. It is not known whether Quantum Randomness is special. It could be the result of deterministic pseudorandomness. All randomness might be either complex scenarios with insufficient information or algorithmically random sequences..

Here is a good in depth article by Scott Aaronson on this:
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/quantum-randomness
As someone who develops Rails and Flask apps but recently got into Elixir / Phoenix I haven't had too many issues with CRUD'ish style apps.

My biggest concern is payment processing libraries are waaaaay behind in Elixir. For example, Stripe doesn't have an official Elixir library (but they do for Ruby and Python), so that leaves you with a bunch of community driven packages that are all in various incomplete states.

Likewise PayPal has an official SDK for Ruby and Python but nothing for Elixir and it's very slim pickings on the community side of things here, to the point where I would feel uncomfortable using any of them.

But other than that, things have been good so far. A lot of common CRUD problems are solved, for example with pagination Rails has Kaminari and Elixir has scrivener which took like 2 minutes to set up. You'll find well maintained libraries for a lot of common web dev functionality. Plus, things like Turbolinks works great with Phoenix if you're into that.

Generally speaking you'll end up writing a little more code with Phoenix than with Rails, but I find it much easier to grasp what's happening in Phoenix because there's so much less magic (but not so little that you need to implement a million things yourself).
GPS Block IIIA actually does have a COSPAS SARSAT receiver on it and of course it can transmit on GPS frequencies. Today a Personal Locator Beacons doesn't think about the signals it receives from GPS other than as a source of location, but the intent is that a future COSPAS SARSAT upgrade will let the operators send a return message via GPS if they conclude you need rescuing.
She tried to sell stickers for $60 that "promkte healing and energy rebalance". It was so bad that even NASA had to comment.
The Complete Illustrated Flexbox Tutorial
Apple to require Certificate Transparency logged certs for apps and Safari
You're afraid of the loss of privacy, then immediately suggest block chain as a solution to a related problem.
True. Doesn't make any sense sending things down a gravity well. Unless of course the resources to be mined are too valuable down there.
The JS community currently deals with this by way of "polyfills" I wonder will such an approach be easier or harder with WASM ...
> An individual believing it has free will, will certainly act different to an individual that believes all actions are predetermined.

Just because all actions are predetermined does not mean I don't (or can't) make any choices. It may be not "my" choice, but I for sure experience it as one (thus the "illusion of free will"). I like to believe that everything is predetermined and yet this has no effect on my behavior (except me writing this post right now ;) )

As Sam Harris told in his talk (linked in my other post here): Not making a choice is also a choice.
AFAIK twin studies where babies were adopted suggest that schizophrenia is likely to be genetic in causation to a large degree.

That doesn't rule out the common environment of the womb of course.
That's only because you didn't have canvas in the 90s.
> breaking the Law of Demeter

How so?

You have an instance. You're allowed to call methods or access properties of that instance. You're not supposed to call methods or access properties of properties.

So chaining is just:

$foo.something().somethingelse().blah();

At each point you're getting a new instance and accessing that. You're never reaching inside of a property of that instance.
That doesn’t mean that their ideas weren’t generated by a deterministic machine inside their skulls. GGP doesn’t explain why he thinks these individuals had free will and the rest of us don’t. Seems to me even in “random” yet deterministic systems, you’ll still get “anomalous” behavior that others within the system catagorize as “somehow different” - still doesn’t mean their will is freer than others’.
There's plenty of slow JavaScript-only pages out there ...
One company I worked for was getting a lot of bomb threats so they sent a few of us on a week long course on IEDs. That was probably the most interesting workplace training I’ve done. A different company had Global Leadership Skills training which was probably more in line with what you meant, that really focused on different colloquialisms and how to avoid misunderstandings. They had some examples of expensive mistakes that had been made.
> Wasm has a really strong sandboxing and verification story that others simply did not.

Eh, (P)NaCL had a very strong sandboxing and verification story.

Wasm is, basically, NaCL in a form that Mozilla and the non-googles etc could accept. There are small implementation differences but the details are all non-important. It was all political. If they had accepted NaCL we'd have had what we have with wasm only we'd have had it years ago.