skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Illegal immigrants are only about 3% of the total population of the country. The vast majority are Hispanic. This could potentially explain the Hispanic numbers but couldn’t possibly account for the others. 13% of blacks being illegal immigrants isn’t in the ballpark, it’s not even the same sport.
That's common when the financial press is talking about financial companies. Remember their audience.

Edit: I'm mainly thinking of Bloomberg and WSJ. The Economist is better on this one.
If that were true -- and it's not -- online businesses would also be subject to the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

Such lawsuits have been attempted, but AFAIK without success.
> and argue with them about why they're wrong.

Does that actually work?
1) Not every intermediary has exercised their right so it's a strawman argument.

2) Not sure why you bring up the utility argument. It's basically equivalent to traditional newspapers where if I write some incendiary letter to the editor I am not guaranteed that any of them will post it.
> This is diametrically opposed to the First Amendment’s intent.

No, it wasn't.

The assumption at the time was _money_ was the only barrier to distribution. Much like the reasoning behind Citizen's United (as much as I loathe that decision).

And the problem here isn't really the OP, but the fact I find it scary people are happy with the idea that they are comfortable with Visa/Mastercard/Amex being able to deplatform _anyone_ on the internet in the US.

And before you claim that is hyperbole keep in mind:

A) They've cut other companies ability to process credit cards for speech-related reasons.

B) Any registrar or hosting company would cease to exist if they did this. The only real exceptions are Amazon & Google who could realistically defend themselves due to size. And given both are willing to de-platform the same types of people the credit card companies will, it has been a non-issue to date.

So yeah, I'm not comfortable with that. It isn't that I'm a fan of Nazis and Racists. Its this constant attack on free speech isn't "just" about Nazis and Racists. Its about words on the internet that offend people.

https://www.forbes.com/2003/05/01/cz_sl_0501porn.html

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/payment-processors-are...

I'd much prefer a situation where first amendment protections were built into financial processing, domains, etc.
Can you really call a $41M raise a Seed Round?
The Complete Case for Nuclear
Wow lots of AI naysayers here. What kind of person downvotes this kind of comment? Reveal thyself!
It's usually nice to advice as long as you don't insist you're right and as long as the person you advice doesn't follow your advices blindly but just takes your opinion and the observations behind it in consideration. For some people that can't handle advices the right way a misleading (and the chances it's misleading are always high) advice can be very harmful but for others advices from reasonable people that know what they're saying can be a valuable source of information. Anyway, that was me who has told him "my opinion is you should buy this flat now!" to remove his hesitations and it turned out a huge win, I feel like I should also provide a clue when to sell to secure it perhaps.
Banking is an industry with regulatory oversight/law, but that does not mean regulatory law or authority are the "banking police."

Although I said in the above post that JP Morgan should be held accountable to regulatory law... So the disagreement here seems to be with something I never said.
Well, so it finally happened. The Rubicon has been breached.

One of the great things about the Internet, up until recent times, has been the relative neutrality of the infrastructure. No matter who you were, it was fairly easy to set up shop as long as your content was not super illegal. In general, you could count on having your host back you up unless you were incredibly controversial, and it was out of the question that a mainstream US provider would drop your .com name! A US-hosted .com was a "gold standard" you could count on.

The first indication that things were changing was the DMCA. But for all its faults, at least it has a process. This new political "anything goes" trend is going to be awful for anyone not already in the Fortune 500. But I guess that's the point, isn't it?

The useful idiots standing by these actions are going to be shocked, SHOCKED when the political winds shift and their favorite site is suddenly forced off the net by tech oligarchs. Do you really think this won't get turned against left-leaning/anti-war sites the moment we get into a large-scale conflict again? But I guess that's the point, too, isn't it!!

I'm appalled that anyone on the left who remembers the GWB "with us or against us" era of politics would support this kind of politicization of our infrastructure. The left would NEVER have been able to elect Obama without being able to organize on a free and open Internet!

This kind of action is killing what little remains of the open Internet! And all for a petty, temporary victory over a fringe political group! What are you throwing away???
I think you are being naive here if you think that the hate speech on these sites is being countered by a similar amount of positive speech. You also seem to be ignoring the victims of that hate speech and the abuse they have to endure. Maybe the person sending the death threats is better under the current system than if they were quarantined off on some other site, but my sympathy rests much more with the person receiving the death threat.
>if you want me to enumerate all the use cases that aren't criminal I can.

Could you start with one? And I mean one that is obviously superior to centralized solutions? What are the measures that make blockchain superior in this use case and why a centralized solution can't achieve those measures? Why the tradeoffs in other measures are insignificant? Let's further assume that decentralization itself is not an acceptable measure.
I hate these "business coaching" people. They sell themselves across all channels like spammers, with bait like "You can make a million dollars like I did!" They link everything back to their YouTube or book or whatever, providing no real content. They only make money by hooking people in, so they're effectively MLMs minus the bureaucracy and actual product. The unfortunate new "entrepreneurs" are now short a few grand that they paid for the "lessons", and if they try themselves they're unlikely to succeed. And there's a ton of these "marketing entrepreneurs" out there, just search "how to make a million dollars" on YouTube.
I am not sure restricting the type of the size parameter makes VLAs a good idea if such a constraint is necessary. It seems brittle and too subtle. Will future readers get that this is the reason for the type choice? Aren't you one refactor away from making it effectively unbounded again? (I suppose a typedef and a comment can make the choice seem more explicit.)

Of course whether any of this matters will depend on the specifics of the matter, kernel code being the most conservative by necessity.
Core database engineering is still strong at Oracle.
This is from the Tao Te Ching.
This verses teaches one to be balanced and not to be attached to outcomes because in life there are endless highs and lows.
"Write some text - it'll be here when you get back....
I can promise all this because NoteToMe is an Edsu app. It means I don't have to store your data, you do ...."

The same is true of the text file I've been adding to for decades. After learning the hard way (several times) NEVER to trust someone else's prog/assume they'll be around for more than 6 months. Multiple backups sync'd religiously.

And ... no website needed! Not even a net connection! Just a 'personal computer'!

"You do have to sign up for an Edsu account...."

Whoops ... there it is.
RIP Red Hat.
I know this isn't particularly constructive but, before reading did anyone else think they were making a new mass-market dialect of scheme/lisp to teach people AI programming?
I’m an observant Jew. I’ve never considered posting a comment on here before.

Despite disliking the anti-Semitic speech hosted on sites like gab, silencing them this way puts a bad taste in my mouth.

Yes, their speech is hateful. Yes, these are private entities that are well within their rights to refuse service.

But that’s not the point.

At the moment, a majority agrees this type of speech is unacceptable. But what’s next? Maybe next time it’s speaking against google or anything, for that matter.

The famous saying “first they came for the X..., then the Y..., who was left to speak for me?” Is appropriate here. I don’t condone hate speech, but just words aren’t hurting others. Until that speech becomes action or highly encourages action, it is just words.

Additionally, if the majority destroys the gathering place of the minority, they’ll just go to ground. Burying themselves deeper, re-enforcing their conspiracy theories, and polarizing them more. Our actions will be the catalyst to their radicalization.

We need to think, long and hard, before jumping on this bandwagon.
If that worked, we'd be seeing constant stream of ex-neo-Nazis who were frequenting Gab, turned around by argument, and stopped being neo-Nazis. Because, after all, Gab would be one of the most effective places for "de-radicalization" operation: it's filled with people ready to be logically persuaded!

Well, guess what, it doesn't happen.
> Well there are the fourteenth

The only bit in the 14th that explicitly addresses voting doesn't establish a right to vote. It says that if the states deny the right to vote to some male citizens above a certain age, then their representation in Congress is proportionally reduced. Note that this mechanism implies that the states can, nevertheless, opt into such an arrangement. So, if anything, it establishes that there's no right to vote.

If you're referring to the Equal Protection Clause. It does not explicitly establish a right to vote, either. It has some effects on voting rights - in particular, it was used to restrict poll taxes in state elections (since the 24th only applied to federal elections). However, the relevant court decisions explained that it was not because it infringed on some inherent right to vote that all citizens possess, but rather because it was unduly discriminatory (on the basis of "the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee").

> and fifteenth amendments

That one says you can't deny the right to vote based on race. Similarly, 19th amendment does the same wrt gender, and 26th does the same wrt age for those 18+.

However, none of these establish a right to vote, per se. For example, if a state denies the right to vote on the grounds that are not related to race, they are not in violation of the 15th.

> and the voting rights act of 1965

That one is more of an implementation of the above, although it goes further wrt placing the burden of proof on the states in many cases.

But, in any case, it's just a law, and as such it cannot establish a fundamental right (since Congress can overturn it at any time).

> those have all been significantly weakened by the judiciary

Given that Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections was one of the massive expansions of the right to vote, I don't think that's a reasonable assertion. Courts have given, and courts have taken away. If Constitution were explicit on this subject, we wouldn't have this back-and-forth.

> allow permanent disenfranchisement of convicted felons, which seems explicitly against the text of the fifteenth amendment.

Convicted felons are not a race. Yes, there is a racial disparity when it comes to such laws in practice; but the amendment doesn't prohibit any restrictions that result in a racial disparity - only those that are specifically using race as a basis.

Voting Rights Act, as amended in 1982, is the law that prohibits restrictions on the basis of their results, rather than their intent. But even with VRA, a mere disproportionality is not sufficient to declare a restriction unlawful. And, of course, it's still just a law, and therefore cannot provide any fundamental guarantees like the Constitution does.

So, in practice, there's no universal constitutional right to vote for citizens in the United States on the federal level. There's a patchwork of protections, but even when taken in combination, it does not amount to such a right.
The .ai tld belongs to the country of Anguilla, not godaddy. They can switch registrars without switching the domain itself.
Generally they settle those cases but judges think it’s likely enough for them to be places of accommodation to proceed. A website acts as if the ADA doesn’t apply at their peril.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_the_Bli....

https://www.adatitleiii.com/2012/10/netflix-settles-massachu...
I went to IBM(India) interview sometime in 2011, after leaving GlusterFS (Red Hat). Interview went well, during final call with management. I was asked to stop working on Open Source during weekends or off-hours even though the IBM project and my Open Source work has nothing in common.

I said, "I thought, IBM support Open Source right?" his response, "Yes, but that's another team"

I decided to call-off the interview after that.
The FSF doesn't want to get caught up in a dispute, and thus requires explicit disclaimers of work-for-hire interest from employers https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
Good work man ! Really love this, will try it out. This looks really fun. Thanks for sharing.
As @benchaney said you have to choose an appropriate guard. But the issues with VLAs are many

* the code is bigger, and people say is meaningfully slower

* super easy to accidentally blow the stack - in kernel land that is probably going to end in a panic

* using vLAs used to disable stack canaries for those frames, not sure if it still does

For a lot of cases where you are truly going to need variable length you’re unlikely to be penalised heavily by a heap allocation due to the relative cost of the operations.
John E. Hopcroft:  “An Introduction to AI and Deep Learning”
IBM had power and if anyone remembers it was also part of cell architecture team along with sony and Toshiba. I worked with yellow dog linux the official linux distro for sony ps3 . IBM at that point was still pushing for Red hat instead of investing in yellow dog which was powerpc centric. Red hat fedora later dropped support for powerpc. So in all IBM hardware failed and now it is trying to go is way?
Uninflatable store of value.
Gobble went through various iterations/pivots in their seven years of existence. One of the iteration was an Etsy for food - which didn't work.

As you said, they are currently operating on the Ikea for food model.
How to Implement Has Many Association in Sequelize
Sounds really clever, but also has the potential to be really opaque and confusing. On the other hand, the trick in the article is quite verbose.

Can be tricky balancing terseness with readability.
> Could you provide an example

Did you look at the linked tweets?
> Individuals are not allowed to opt out of commercial food safety in most advanced economies.

Since 2011, Finland (and now also some other countries) has twice a year a special "restaurant day" food festival, when anyone is allowed to run a pop-up restaurant for one day, and serve food cooked at home.
Because it's not server-less.

There is still a server running the code, you just don't control it.

Claiming "it just means I don't have to worry about it" means that classic shared web hosting with shockingly outdated versions of php and perl are "serverless" too.
Not..really.

Gab has denounced violence from the beginning. Twitter STILL has many more instances of ISIS accounts, Muslim brotherhood members, and people like Louis Farrakhan..who regularly call people of the Jewish faith 'termites'.

Why no de-platforming??? Where is the outrage????

It really makes no sense to me why one crazy person person having an account on Gab means that they have to be de-platformed by so many providers.

The only logical conclusion is political bias. Gab is known for allowing conservative/right-leaning view points and this is one more way for people on the Left to ban them.

I also find it a little ironic that so many people on HN are pushing corporate rights for not doing business with anyone for almost any reason. Yet, if it was a Christian baker not baking a gay wedding-themed cake, it should somehow be illegal.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well.
vancouver is completely different. the government is intentionally depressing prices.
This is a financial paper championing it’s core audience.

For example it makes no mention of the harm caused 10 years ago in 2008, and the causal link between bank behavior and the final disaster.

Instead it is painted as an unrighteous limit to the banks natural path, using hidden tools to curb their growth.

Wsj, Bloomberg etc would assume that profitable growth at any cost is good (except of course at the cost of bad PR).

Regulations and limitations are bad and simply evil barriers to firms manifest destiny.

Don’t put much stock in it.
Perhaps you're right, maybe WSL can do all the job nicely so maybe there is little if any point in developing cygwin. I have never tried it to be honest. I just prefer Windows 7 and loosely-integrated solutions - a 3rd-party Linux in a box feels better than a Microsoft Linux in the Windows kernel (yet just using a VM doesn't feel great for performance reasons and beacuse of not rally seamless file system integration).
Are we talking about Chicago?

I frequently see people from about 20-40s riding on the sidewalk. It's rare to see an under 12 or a senior citizen riding on the sidewalk. Although I did get told "fuck you" by a middle age guy when I pointed to where the road was. (He and his wife were riding on the sidewalk).

From my experience, it's rare to see a cyclist obey traffic laws. I'm just shocked to see them even use hand signals. (The better explanation for that is that I'm hallucinating it's that rare)
I kind of wonder how many of the people here bemoaning this buyout, also buy into the vc model, where the ultimate 'goal' for most startups is a buyout by a bigger company.
Started there, and that's far worse too. It was government action and none of the objectionable content was actually on the site.
Show HN: Boring – Server Side rendering with JavaScript template strings
The article specifically mentions that these businesses have no W-2 employees, not that they don't utilize any contractors.

> which then opens the ongoing question of when is a contractor a defacto employee?

There are very specific IRS rules about when someone is classified as a W-2 employee vs a contractor; it's not like it's just up to the business. Of course there are gray areas (e.g. the whole "Uber drivers should be employees" debate), and there are many court cases focused on employee classification, but in general, having no W-2 employees whatsoever is a pretty good indication you are a single person business.
Dunno, this article seems pretty much par for the course when it comes to reporting by financial magazines on industry.

Pro business (especially finance), anti regulation, with little respect or care for regulations and no admission of culpability and harm.
Seriously. The profiled business owner in the first paragraph runs a business teaching people how to run a business, and then the author of the article is running the equivalent of a writing business teaching people how to run businesses teaching people how to run businesses.

Hey, I've got my million dollar idea. I'll run a business, teaching people how to write articles, promoting books, about people who run businesses, teaching people how to run businesses.

It's just turtles all the way down.
This is easily the most succinct way of putting it. A site without restrictions or rules will quickly become a site focused on things other sites restrict. We've seen this happen time and time again with places like Gab, 4chan and Voat where without moderation they become festering pits.

It's a careful balancing act every site owner and moderator has to consider because if you're not careful the core concept of a site can quickly change and fill in the gaps your rules or moderation leaves. I've experienced this a few times personally and is why I'm always wary when people complain about censorship when they're banned or kicked off of a platform.
The reason for it to be a federally issued ID is because it has to be 1) free to obtain, for this scheme to not amount to a de facto poll tax, and 2) easy to obtain, to avoid selective suppression of constituencies by e.g. removing offices that issue them in certain areas.

States have been proven by experience to be willing to do both. AFAIK, all states that have implemented some form of voter ID to date collect fees for issuance of any eligible IDs. And there are numerous cases of states closing or moving DMVs and similar agencies, or mucking around with vote schedule, to deliberately suppress some voters (a recent example which is particularly glaring because the state explicitly admitted its motivation: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/).

Thus, the only way to ensure that voter ID would not be discriminatory in practice, is to have feds run the whole thing, in a way that guarantees non-discrimination - which means it has to be free, and it has to be easy to get. If you truly believe that voter ID is necessary for election security, then this is the compromise deal that you'll have to accept for us liberals to be onboard with that (keep in mind that most of us don't believe that there's any real issue to be solved by having voter ID, so any such support would be mainly symbolic in nature - and you'll have show good faith in courting it).
I’m not a huge fan of one person startups. Most of those are lifestyle businesses. I feel like having three cofounders is ideal. That way if two of you disagree about a major decision, the third founder can cast the tie-breaking vote. At the very least, you need two cofounders minimum so you can get a different perspective on problems (provided both of you are not similar in your thinking).
Providing a secure national ID would do much more than just stop most kinds of voter fraud. It would stop identity theft.

Stopping identity theft would reduce the cost of banking, including all kinds of credit, bringing consumer interest rates closer to non-consumer ones. Stopping identity theft would quickly cause the arrest of most fugitives, both immigration-related and otherwise. Stopping identity theft would reduce medical errors; today your treatment can be affected by an identity thief. (the doctors think you have drug-seeking behavior, a genetic condition, a disease, or issues with violence toward hospital staff... and this changes how they treat you)
Show HN: Triangle – Strategy game (iOS)
Show HN: A Rust cli tool to help you launch your favorite website blaze fastly
The 2-year-old ketchup in your fridge... is made of stardust.
No. Compiler can't assume value of switch_step at compile time, so it would have to inline the whole horrid thing every single time.
Yes it really is. There are some people internally that use Fedora, but even they are becoming more rare. Canonical on the otherhand requires their employees use their distro.

I personally run Arch and haven't had issues on any hardware that I've tested, and it has the benefit of staying current with the latest stable kernel and software, so it doesn't have to backport fixes and features.
I have to admit, as much as I enjoy working with TypeScript— this same problem is always on my mind. I find myself continually writing the same tests for type safety that I would in JS. I have to remind myself that, yes the types are safe while writing, but still not quite at runtime. It can lead to pretty fundamental flaws if you’re not careful.
Thanks, this is awesome!