skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Holy crap, that blew up. Sorry, I posted this over morning espresso and then went to work and didn't look again until now. jpmattia, I'm just replying to your post, but it really applies to all the replies.

I'll be 100% honest here, and I don't know the finest of the details. I worked through a local realtor I've used for everything I've ever done, a local financial advisor, and my lawyer. User user5994461 is expressing the same fear I had in that I was afraid of doing something illegal. I've always kept a chunk of cash on hand equal to what I would owe just in case someone came after me.

At some point the service provider got confusing. I actually paid two different providers in one month in a panic about missing a payment. You cannot believe the paperwork I got. One of them was like "Uh, we don't know what to do with this," and the other took the money, but then that's when the issue of who owned the loan came up.

So as we were starting to sort out actually who to pay, and who actually was getting the money, that's when I stopped paying. At the time it didn't seem so much like stopping payment but instead of just not paying until we sorted it out.

The actual sale of the house was to a Korean family who wanted to house for their children who were going to go to college in our town. The realtor handled the sale, the lawyer checked everything out, and the only loose end was I accidentally left the gas in my name and bought the students a years worth of gas ($1000).

I do know that after they sale we were still trying to resolve what I owed and to who on the original mortgage. I guess technically that is still going on.

My subject take away from this was, "this is an avalanche of paperwork." We wanted to sell the house. Under the circumstance, we did whatever it took to sell it even if we didn't know who I owed the money to.

Also, up until this event, I didn't have a lawyer, or a realtor, or a financial advisor. When there is six figures, it's a big boys game, and you pay to play.

Edit for typo.
Can we sand someone to double check it?

Joking aside, wow, why can't we send someone to double check it 60 years later.
What are the rules about datasets I upload to this free service? Do Google now own them?
...which turns out to be limited data anyway.

It's so pervasive that I automatically ignore any mention of "unlimited" regarding bandwidth or total volume of data. These "unlimited" plans are more like "first X amount of data per month at Y speed; Z speed thereafter", but of course that's not catchy enough for marketing...
Almost 100% of my open source contributions have been done on company time. The company makes money in some other way and we use an open source project so working on the project is not competing with the main business. That's how a ton of open source software gets written and it's why the Apache license is so popular.

The hard path has been to found a company with the business model of money directly off an open source project. That's doesn't seem to work out in most cases, and the gates the companies put up to charge money piss everyone off.
When I worked in insurance, I was told that most companies train their people "to look for a reason to deny." No, it's probably not benign.
Why is that allowed and fine? I read this clause to explicitly prohibit that behavior.
Redis core is still Open Source, but anything licensed with this "Commons Clause" abomination is definitely not Open Source. Of course you may choose to disagree, but like it or not, the defacto definition of what it means to be Open Source is the OSI Open Source Definition[1] which says, in part:

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.

<snip>

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

<snip>

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

If you distribute software under a license that violates those terms, you may try to call it Open Source, but the fact is, the community at large is going to call you on your bullshit.

Personally I'm not a Free Software zealot who denies that closed source, proprietary software has a place in the world. But I go back to what I said before: if you're going to distribute proprietary software, you should just call it what it is and not try to hide behind a thin veneer of "open" by creating some mishmash of license terms that is "almost, but not quite Open Source".

[1]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
We evolved in small groups of people (around 100 people or so). Conspiracies are much more feasible at that scale. It’s basically your standard political intrigue and backstabbing. So that, IMO, is the genesis of conspiratorial thinking. Then I think people have a very hard time thinking about large scale systems, so they revert to explaining the difficult to understand with conspiracy.
"But even basic control theory – what you'd need to actually stabilize a dynamic system as complex as a helicopter – fills a textbook or two, and the field is still evolving."

I am not that good at math, but I feel like if I was trying to solve that problem, it should be as simple as finding someone smart and saying "use a Kalman filter"...

In one sense I can't say it's "simple" or "basic" because I can't do it, but I'm under the impression that it is a manageable solved problem that can be summarized in four words. Is that wrong?
That headline makes about as much sense one that says “art proves science” or “objective facts prove subjective points”.
Now we have moved the goalposts from banning people to giving blue checks. I'm not even sure what stance you are arguing anymore. One more time, Twitter is not the government.

Mike Cernovich is outwardly racist and has a blue check, what's your point? Are you applying a double standard?
Whoa cool. There's a couple of webdev languages I never heard before on it. This seems like a great site to play with it and learn.
As a low-cost option, maybe Google Forms? You could define it as a survey, defining your "process" and "signoff" fields. The results can be automatically recorded into a "Google Sheets" document, for easy reporting and analysis.
The Founder's Dilemmas,
Venture Deals,
Startup CEO
> The dirty little secret is that an awful lot of women reinforce the male dominant status quo.

See also the white female Trump vote dynamic, when they could have elected a white woman.

But I say that somewhat facetiously because there's nothing special about that. A similar dynamic exists anywhere identities, privilege, disadvantage, and circumstance don't neatly align.

When the white woman vote is brought up, I often say, "I bet there's a pretty stark divide between white women married to white men versus all other white women".

Identity can't be deconstructed in neat little linear slices. And bias isn't just something oppressors do to the opposed -- it's systemic and universal. We're mostly all in this together, even though we gain from or suffer the consequences in different ways.
I can't discuss "God" because there's no objective argument I can hold about Him.

But I can discuss religion and I can point when religious people behave in a stupid way.

Again, this is not about God, it is about religion. Some religions (e.g. Catholicism) have learned the hard way how to show respect for reason. Many others seem to not have done that.
I personally favor thin books that present what really matters after having digested it first. Not that there's no place for thick books on my shelves (CLRS among others). I find HaskellWiki/Hoogle better serve the use case that the Haskell Book seems to target.
Meh, I don't know what to make of this. I don't think equal proportion of gender talking is a meaningful goal, and the more I think about it the less sense it makes to me.

I think about it and start to ask should all shows need to be gender-balanced? Should then The View need to be 50% male? Oprah? Should we strive for an equal proportion of races in all shows? What about non-Americans, should they be represented proportionally?
> If you want to license your software under a proprietary license, just license it under a proprietary license.

It's not that simple. I'm about to come out with a 3d-printed product that will sell in a similar market to 3d printers. My product is begging to be open-source hardware since anyone with a 3d-printer can create a large part of it and I'd be ecstatic (and richer) if the product developed a community of followers.

However, MakerBot did this and it was a mistake. Clones quickly came out of china at half the price. MakerBot ended the open-source and developed newer products. My outfit is not big enough to do something like this.

So I have considered using a commons-based license. Makers can play with my product without others undercutting my prices.
Video Tuesday: Robot Film Festival Highlights
This is how you know the parent is an engineer.
Well, there are plenty of cults. So the concept of "religion being used for evil" shouldn't be alien to anybody. I think it is fair to say that some religious ideas are harmful (ie: getting together to drink cyanide, aka the Jim Jones cult / Peoples Temple)

And even for the Biblical literalists: they only have to look into the Bible to see the many examples of Pagan religions, from the Golden Calf, to Pharaoh / Exodus, and more, to understand that false gods exist. So surely, they should understand the importance of "getting religion correct".

So I think it is fair to call out certain religious doctrines to be "unhelpful", or even "evil", depending on the case. But I wouldn't generalize much further than that.
I agree this paper doesn’t seem to present any issues. I can’t speak to whether it is useful, though.

As for your questions, I will put forth a theory that really isn’t all that crazy, or esoteric, but might help.

If religion, despite it’s means, has, over time (hundreds, thousands of years) encouraged adherence to social structures beneficial to survival and psychologically healthy livelihoods, shouldn’t that basis alone justify it’s prevalence?

If the only reason to deny this is the lucid awareness we ourselves experience, I cannot agree we are adhering to the dialectical approach we celebrate in the scientific method.

In this theory, religion serves a benefit to the ends of survival, giving these beliefs an evolutionary origin wildly entangled with the emergence of cognition and self-identity.

If this is the case, how do we reconcile that with science? Seems easier to me than any other way. Of course, these are our ancestors. This stuff is surely not simple.

This alone just begs for more questions that I think are classically best handled by humanities, but if I’m not mistaken this begs of multidisciplinary introspection. Granted, much of the humanities doesn’t take theology seriously these days but that’s a fairly recent issue. If you’re interested, there’s nobody stopping you from diving in.

Carl Jung is a useful place to start in terms of these natural cognitive mappings. Coincidentally Freud was actually a link between Jung and modern psychology these links are not much acknowledged these days. It’s all both very hand wavy and contentious depending who you ask. Anyhow, with Jung you don’t need to agree with his conclusions but he defines a map that can at least give an idea of what we could be working with and it leans heavily on mythology and imagination. It introduces some foundational stuff on how these unstable symbolic mappings could have assisted the transition into the lucid awareness that eventually became modern science. If you’ve never ‘gone here’ before, I will warn you: it’s big and deep.

There is a field of “Jungian psychology” but it’s mostly trying to find use in his work and I would recommend going strait to his work. “Man And His Symbols” is approachable enough to start.

I’ve opened a can of worms here, but it’s a fruitful one and very related to your interest because I am afraid these contentions with our own self-identities mark a cognitive recursion we are not seriously contending with.
Most (all?) modern processors have instructions and flags specifically for querying and reacting to integer overflow/carry.

This seems like a situation where dropping to assembly to perform the addition and testing the flag makes sense. GCC has a mechanism for inline assembly where you list the variables you read from, you write to, and registers you modify and the optimizer plays nice with you. You could provide it as a function to use instead of doing the addition in C.
I couldn't find the distribution of religious affiliations in the supplemental material. Did anyone find it?

Surely, if you are going to do a study as such, you need to disclose the numbers on religious affiliations of the participants. It would be fun to see the correlations of analytical ability and affiliation to a particular religion. Or if you want to brush all religions under the same rug, then it doesn't matter.
Yes. Like I wrote, it was something of an experiment.
If this clause comes to Redis Core, will it mean Heroku and others cannot offer me the simple hosted Redis they do today? Thesd cloud providers are exactly what makes Redis attractive to me, dramatically reducing the cost of spinning up new infrastructure for projects.
Like it or not, "open source software" already has a well established meaning. If your license includes restrictions on use then you need to call it by an accepted name for that kind of license, e.g. "source available" or "shared source". Anything else is simply deception.
> Morally you can make the case that I ought to give you one more fire truck but how have you made the case that legally I should give you a non contracted fire truck?

At least in my country, legally speaking there is a case that you should send one of Y's trucks to X, as there is a risk of life.

Various towns requisition each others trucks, operators, and more during the bushfire season. And that requisition may just be a phone call with someone yelling that they need more help at the other end. And that's legally enforceable.
The "do not redis dis" warning label.

Software with this clause is not usable in the real world.

The clause's strictest interpretation prohibits all business use.

Sell” means practicing any or all of the rights granted to you under the License to provide to third parties, for a fee or other consideration (including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software), a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software.

So for instance, if I run, say, a travel agency or a bakery on software with this moronic clause, that's a product or service whose value derives substantially from the functionality of the software.

There seems to be no difference between this and "free for non-commercial use and redistribution".
> I'd imagine the reason a DJI drone's capabilities are so much greater than those of a helicopter carrying passengers is that the former can fall out of the sky every now and then and it's no big deal. The latter has to pass a whole lot of rigorous FAA (or equivalent) testing.

This reminded me of another comment I read recently, and I was actually able to remember where I read it! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17723107

> Hi- I used to work in regulated pharma and I want to be clear: " The core problem is that the FDA-approved devices are optimized not for getting the best result, but for ensuring the manufacturer can't be blamed if something goes wrong" is a misleading statement. The reason everything is regulated is that sometimes things do go wrong, and it's necessary to have root cause attribution so the problem can be remedied and a fix deployed, and, if somebody did something illegal or dumb, they can be sanctioned.

(The quoted part of this comment, itself from a previous comment, is the part I found relevant, but I quoted the whole thing (reply and all) because I found the whole thing interesting.)

I think I can naively say with confidence that aviation and medical certification are very similarly rigorous.

So, it sounds to me that the autohover functionality you describe was perhaps the equivalent of Tesla "Autopilot" (which really amounts to auto-steer). The context of doing rescue lifesaving over sea is indeed very stringent, but at the same time, it's not going to be the end of the world if the helicopter moves around a bit, because it's in the open air. And if the situation is dire - strong crosswinds, or someone in critical condition - the pilot's training probably instructs them not to use it.

In this situation, letting the controls go for 2-3 seconds (as per the other comments here) is going to mean an unrecoverable crash, and perhaps a rotor blade might cut one of the cables and then you have 220kV waving everywhere, hitting other power lines, touching the ground..... no. You just find the best pilots that can hover Really Well™, and pay them metric stupid amounts of money so they don't go anywhere else.

Now I'm wondering if the pilots hold hovering competitions, in the same way people in the military frequently do target practice.
Such as in "dumb is more reasonable than lunatic"?
> You could say that Facebook isn't doing enough to prevent people fuelling attacks but you could also say that the police aren't doing enough either.

Is there a demonstrated positive correlation between the police (what do you mean here—number of police, level of funding, level of civilian support?) and anti-refugee attacks? If not: what's your point?
It's not really the same kind of show. Fresh Air mostly consists of Gross interviewing a single interviewee.
I don't think that it's at all surprising. We do, after all, live in an extremely sexist society. In order to achieve gender balance, staff would need to be sexist, in the sense of favoring underrepresented female voices. And that would be a good thing.
The comment you replied to is (snarkily) saying that as long as a company is "hot" (i.e., it has a lot of users) then investors will keep coming. That's totally reasonable; a product doing well that grows as a function of the number of users using it is a promising investment (especially when those users are paying!). That's not a Ponzi scheme.
The solid state electronics absolutely can and do fail. There's a reason why modern large aircraft typically have three redundant ADIRUs...
confusing, as LTE can range from very low to very high in terms of bandwidth.
Almost like Buzz Lightyear was employed by their marketing. To infinity... and beyond!
I worked on bringing the Commons Clause to life

Why would you intentionally give birth to such an abomination? This adds no value to the world whatsoever and is just going to confuse people and harm the overall Open Source ecosystem. I'd encourage you to retract this whole idea, stuff it in a hole, "salt and burn it" and try to pretend this whole thing never happened.

If you care about putting pressure on Cloud providers vis-a-vis use of F/OSS, there is always the tried and true "AGPL or commercial license" combination. Why not just use that?
It’s fringe in the sense that a large majority of the world's professing Christians don’t subscribe to it. It also seems to me to be a fairly new take on the belief that the Earth is young. Back when I was a fundamentalist Christian we just denied altogether that the Earth even appears to be old. I guess the evidence is so overwhelming that the Earth is old that this idea is starting to take hold.

This reinforces my statement about people looking to rationalize beliefs. I think we all do this. No one can possibly prove all of the statements they believe to be true. Hence a lot of times one engages in a knee jerk reaction to contradictory evidence to seek out whatever plausible explanation one can think of.

People often times argue about what could be true instead of seeking out what is true.
I think the best way to answer this question is to listen to what those who are currently underrepresented have to say about it.
If you read the article, it implies that people like Heroku and others offering hosted Redis is EXACTLY the kind of thing they are trying to prevent with this clause.

To quote: "today’s cloud providers have repeatedly violated this ethos by taking advantage of successful open source projects and repackaging them into competitive, proprietary service offerings. Cloud providers contribute very little (if anything) to those open source projects. Instead, they use their monopolistic nature to derive hundreds of millions dollars in revenues from them. Already, this behavior has damaged open source communities and put some of the companies that support them out of business."
I read that Cuban and buffet are holding lots of cash. But they tell normal people to never try to time the market. Hard to tell what to do.
Maybe each of those women isn’t ‘part of the problem’ so much as constrained by external forces. How many female interviewees are left on the cutting room floor? How many female contributors’ stories are denied for not having mass appeal? If Ira and the other senior leaders set the example that a successful story features mainly men, then his staff will follow that lead.

I can’t count the number of times my male bosses have told me that I need to act like a (white) male in order to get ahead. If I play by their rules, am I part of the problem, or am I the rare woman who’s successful in tech? Sometimes it’s about fighting for change when and where you can, and about playing the long game in cases where you can’t make a difference.
Trying to open a remote PowerShell session into a Windows VM running in Azure is agony. This seems like the most basic, fundamental operation you could imagine for an IaaS platform, particularly when you wrote all the components involved, and it’s nearly impossible.
~40% of americans don't think evolution is real.
Is it though? IMO the progression from a pursuit of passion to the practicality of profession and profit is particularly poignant, and pointful in this place.
So what would be the benefit of running a T3 nano instance over a T2 nano instance? The price is almost the same. Is T3 faster?
Berkowitz's Allocation fund is heavily cash at the moment, too.
Pretty much either "nobody" or "the set of companies who want their projects forked and promoted by somebody else".
For God, Free Will reigns supreme. Most importantly the Free Will to believe in God or not.

So it's absolutely essential that the world look like it could have created itself. Because if there was evidence that God existed then free will is broken, and that is something God will not do.

> and false carbon 14 decay

There's nothing false about it. It's basically a backstory.

Not is God lying to you. If I "save state" in a game, and then load the state later - is that state a lie? No, it's simply how the current conditions are initialized.
And there's the asymmetrical relationship if you're asked for a several hours time commitment before they put any time into you.