skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah towards attacking Israel is part of their defence strategy?

Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah is absolutely part of their defense strategy, so is antagonism towards Israel, not that I agree with it, but it's worth noting that Israel has been regularly threatening to "bomb Lebanon back into the stone age" and attacking Iranians in Syria, so Israel is clearly an antagonizing force as well.

Also see my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19045148 for the broader context.

> they want nukes so they can point them at Turkey, Saudi, Israel, Europe and further embolden themselves

There's no particular reason to think that if they wanted nukes, they'd do so for any other reason, than as a deterrent against an invasion, similarly to the reasons North Korea develops them.

> The only reason that trade is possibly going to happen - is because of the belief that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons.

It is not just a 'belief' as you call it, it has been verified regularly by the International Atomic Agency and Iran is in compliance with the deal. The U.S. is not.
I have a very hard time understanding why do people cut corners and do not follow safety instructions to the T. They're there for a reason, so why ignore them? Same thing why I'll never understand why people bitch about OSHA. They exist to save your limbs/life, why on earth would you ever berate them for that? It's literally the best thing workers have to protect them, because their employers would value money over safety a lot more if OSHA didn't exist.
Cringe huh...
Really it seems like Ireland and Spain are the most interested parties when it comes to negotiating with post-EU Britain. And if you look at UK land borders it should be obvious why that is.

This is what's most frustrating about Brexiters complaining about the "unreasonable" offer by the EU. It's not "the EU" imposing those terms, it's the interested parties.
Little Vehicles (including E-Scooters) Can Help Heal Car-Centric Cities
as an immigrant who got an MS degree in US and worked on H1b visa, what you say is quite a simplification of what it takes to move to a different country, get a master's degree and survive long enough to get a H1b visa.

A tiny chunk of them may do this, by going to so shady US universities. But that's a very small %age
Technology, culture, society, and ourselves -- they all change. I have children born over a period of 12 years. What was appropriate and worked for my oldest may not fit or work with my youngest. And that's just one decade. The space between my teen years and my youngest child's teen years is closer to four decades. What was appropriate and worked for me just isn't even possible for my kids.

You'll understand better when you have kids. I hope.
You may be right that it is common to dismiss arguments that invoke Gödel's theorem. I've been guilty of this myself. However, just like with quantum mechanics the reason is that there are just so many people who invoke Gödel's theorem without understanding it as a technical result.

I'm not talking about "pseudointellectuals" in this case, unlike with quantum mechanics. I'm talking about actual working mathematicians who use oblique references to Gödel to, e.g., dismiss formal methods or constructive logic as worthless.

This is extremely annoying, since Gödel's theorem's, as the article rightfully points out, are precise statements about formal systems. There's nothing mysterious about any of it. When someone invokes Gödel you can usually take it to mean "I don't want to engage with this topic further" and not as a serious argument.

> This is the man who "proved" God's existence with modal logic,

I'm pretty sure that was a joke. The final assumption he makes in this proof is logically equivalent to "god exists".
No it didn't, but hey clickbait's fun, right?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19033334
Arguably, yes; strong personal revulsion to things outside the culture are often an element of a strong culture; its a component of what might be termed a cultural immune response.
If this is your motivation then you will want the car to always default to saving the driver over pedestrian. To do otherwise would discourage adoption.

Not sure i'm so comfortable with this; it will result in a number of people killed who never accepted this risk and might have been safe. In order to save a number of people who accepted risk in the first place.
I have always wondered who is clicking on ads. Do not look further. Kids and.... babies!!! I have seen so many parents and nannies letting babies hours per day on youtube. It is scary.
Can confirm. I tried deactivating and then cutting down but that just never works. Deleting is the way to go.

Old friends you want to connect with? There’s always email and a phone number. People actually reach out to me outside of that awful service to say “Hey Foo is in town” or “We’re having a reunion for Bar”.

Just delete it, notify people first, save the images you want, and torch it. Everything incremental just allows you joining it again later which Facebook is more than happy to facilitate.
Still, it’s a diplomatic move that would have been inconceivable (IMHO) under Obama or Bush..
Not all parents were OK with blocking the phone line with a modem when they have just watched a movie were a curious teenager almost started WW III by accidentally hacking into the Pentagon (speaking from experience).
And you agree with policies of other two parties?

Let take 2016 elections for example, your choices were; Hillary, responsible for a failed country right now and rigged primaries or Trump, the less said about him is better. If enough people voted for a different party, that would keep these two main parties in sort of a check as well, knowing they can't get away with whatever they want.
Maybe it's been up here before, but I feel that article is worth thread of it's own.
I think there are ways to monetize. Duck duck go manages to do it, so why not? A company like this was never supposed to be the most valuable company in the world.
I wasn't able to read the entire story because WSJ wants me to subscribe, but it starts saying they can use the information as long as it doesn't unfairly discriminate. I wonder what that means? The fact that it reduces the pool size at all seems like a negative.
Yeah but look at our totals. It’s very low. Per capita it is bad. We are wasteful and an oil producing country but our population is spread out and we have a colder climate. Check out the breakdown and you’ll see transportation is the offender.
It would be interesting to see a study on general social media beyond facebook, such as reddit, instagram, hacker news, etc. I can waste hours on non-facebook social media. It's nice for those times I'm tired and just want to kick back and not think too hard. I'm fairly certain it lowers my attention span but I wonder if there are other negative effects.
So it was fantastic, right up until the point that it wasn't? That's the whole point. Most people feel a need for Facebook for some reason or other.
The morally right thing do, if you did not already, is to delete Facebook.

I pity you if fb is running your life.

Heck why do I have a smartphone?

:;)/-&@&)($&!
In fairness, plants satisfy different design criteria: they're also edible and self-replicate.
Any wallet that keeps on paying, regardless of its age, is a whale. The fact that facebook calls them whales is basically a convenient way to not have to question how the HELL five year olds have spending habits to begin with. Because I can guarantee you that's not because Facebook enables them. You know, what with the whole "5 year olds don't have jobs or bank accounts" and the like.
Rust-numext: A fast large number and hash manipulation library
Yes, I have overreacted and read a bit more than what was written. I stand by my point, but the reality is more nuanced than how I portrayed.
The ultra incendiary stuff is really just playing to the human propensity to want a witch hunt. Mob rule. Squash what we don't understand and thus fear because our lizard brains are becoming more conditioned to govern our thought processes instead of our adult brain that can reason and think critically. Playing to our emotional brain just feeds this constant cycle of emotion.

Eventually we'll all wake up from our slumber and realize how we've been manipulated for so long, but until then it's just going to be witch hunt after witch hunt.

There's only so long we can succumb to this before we all begin to wonder what the fuck we're doing allowing the media to continually manipulate our own sense of well-being in order to keep the sentiment in favour of their stakeholders.

It's pretty sick, honestly, but eventually we will all wise up to it - it's inevitable. Let's just hope it's before we destroy our humanity.
> How do we solve this?

I don't know, but it seems absolutely absurd that Facebook or anyone else gives someone a hard time about refunding thousands of dollars of virtual goods. Especially when you consider Nordstrom's or Costco's return policies for physical goods!

I understand that you need to make a balance between easy refunds and running a business, but the COGS for a virtual good after development cost must be a fraction of a penny. Forcing parents to shell out thousands for their kids' actions in an online game is an insane policy. One would hope "the market will correct it", but maybe it does take legislation.
15 doesn’t actually make it better though. There aren’t a lot of valid excuses for micro transactions in a “free” game that can build up to $6500.

It’s an exploitive practice, and while it should be legal to part a fool with his money, it doesn’t mean the company doing it is good or shouldn’t be shamed.
This is why we need to start including a tariff with labor or environmental regulations. The point of those regulations is that we as a nation are accepting a decrease in economic efficiency for a (hopeful) net gain in general quality of life; if companies are allowed to just offshore their shit to some place that doesn't care without compensating in some other way than you're stuck the economic disadvantage without the accompanying benefit.
The biggest problem isn't about the time it took to fix the bug, whether it was a little harder such as iOS, or easier as it is on the backend. It is that Apple, refuse to listen to anything until the media broke the story, and then they go into damage control.

How many times have we heard security researcher or developers cant be bothered with communicating with Apple's blackhole anymore and decide to publish their finding on twitter?

This isn't the first time, and if nothing has changed this surely won't be the last.
As the one who posted the link, I should explain that given twitter threads have no title, I simply copied the first line of the first tweet as the title. I see your point, though.
I agree, but they can't even get unskilled labor into the pool at that price.
Real Madrid Girona vs. Real Madrid: Momento Cumbre
https://simplyevents.io/real-madrid-vs-girona-vivo-online-directo-via-directv-sportss

https://simplyevents.io/real-madrid-vs-girona-vivo-online-directo-via-directv-sports-hd

https://simplyevents.io/real-madrid-vs-girona-vivo-online-directo-via-directv-sports-live

https://simplyevents.io/4k-Real-Madrid-vs-Girona-En-VIVO-ONLINEs

https://simplyevents.io/gratis-Real-Madrid-vs-Girona-En-VIVO-ONLINEs

https://simplyevents.io/4k-Real-Madrid-vs-Girona-En-VIVO-ONLINE

https://simplyevents.io/Real-Madrid-vs-Girona-En-VIVO
There is still a huge difference between 5 and 15. I am not saying the 15yo "got what they deserved" by any means, I'm just saying that it doesn't help anyone to pretend that they are developmentally identical. Laws may be descrete but morality is surely continuous.
If it is in fact the case that only some redex models of `letrec` and `set!` were fixed, then it is indeed misleading that the release notes say "Racket's implementation" of them was fixed.

Unless you're the one who did the work, I'd rather trust the release notes than your unsourced assertion.

That said, just because a bug was fixed in an important function shouldn't be an indictment against the language. Racket is stable and productive, and formal modeling can reveal all kinds of corner cases which may not have been exposed in typical use, and may not have security implications. Maybe it was edge-case performance, maybe garbage collection, the release notes simply don't say.

I'd rather use a language whose authors improve their tools to discover and fix issues than one where this doesn't happen.
Great point! This reminds of of the film concept of "show, dont tell" but applied to prose instead of a visual medium
Ask HN: Backup and Restore Plans
We've been debating at work what level of backing up is safe, and at what point is it overkill.

We run our own hardware and use VMWare to logically slice and dice that up. Our software runs in containers on vanilla CentOS VMs. The containers are orchestrated with k8s. Our databases use full replication with hot stand-bys and we take full dumps twice daily. Really nothing fancy or complicated.

I am under the impression that maintaining our normal code, docker configs, k8s configs, ansible playbooks (to setup the docker and k8s daemons and insert ssh keys, etc) in git repos, and routine database snap shots is enough. However I have a coworker advocating for full VM snap shots as well to aid in recoveries.

Are VM snap shots overkill, or am I being too reliant on, and idealistic about, our ability to maintain good automation?
> It's like saying, not every former Google developer is awesome. It might be true, but the bar to get a job there is so high that the person is very likely to be awesome.

It's not a high bar, but the right shape. There is a difference.
I use a pomodoro-method timer addon that blocks a certain list of websites when it's ticking.
I mean, and to pull the CIA analogy further... you could easily argue that any country you name has done (or is actively doing) equally or more evil acts, or will. Running away from problems allows bad actors to go unchallenged.
Which, unfortunately, doesn't mean anything. Someone can have a full time job at 15 on this planet, earn a living wage, have a bank account, and for all intents and purposes be financially independent. A five year old pretty universally cannot.
Well in the UK, you may not advertise junk food to children. A tabloid aimed at adults could contain that ad for your lollipop. A comic, kid's magazine or website, or TV channel or kid's time slots may not.

From my now very vague memory of childhood TV, most ads for toys and games came in the evening news and soaps slots. When the adults were around too. Junk food was still OK, so kid's tv ads were for comics, and sweets, and sugar, oops I mean cereal: Sugar Puffs, Ricicles, Frosties etc.

I think it's a big mistake our regs on advertising toys to children have faded over the years. It's been shown time and again kids 12 and under can't understand commercial intent by ad industry research. So the real age may be higher.
It's called "fraud", and it is illegal in most if not all countries
Ask HN: Best interview language: Java, Python, C++?
Like many, I want to get better at technical interviews to move my career forward. At this point, it seems to me I need to get good at one of the 'typical' languages: Java, Python, and C++. If I'm honest, I'm only barely proficient in these (my background is niche).

If I want to optimize my time and energy, which programming language do you recommend spending time mastering for the purpose of technical interviews?
Lando is ready for the masses with RC2 release
How do you know that they're not using undocumented people? That also says nothing of the price increase as the pool of documented farm labor dries up.
Hacker News Progresswive Web App in ReactPWA Framework
I think the right comparison is instagram, not smartphones.
The point stands though; we use our binocular vision to assemble a 3D representation of the world through neural networks. Why not skip some of the middle steps if we can design a system which already gets an accurate distance field as input?
> Kid asks parent if she's allowed to buy 10$ worth of gaming stuff

So, stop right here. The solution is for parents to take a look at what their kids are playing and refuse to let them play F2P stuff. Mine aren't allowed anywhere near F2P games for the very reasons you outlined.

If you let them play F2P games, you know that inevitably the "pay" part is going to rear its ugly head repeatedly, even with perfectly-implemented controls that prevent the kid from taking your credit card for a ride. Every damn day they're going to ask you to buy that stupid in-game currency. Just say no before it ever starts. Otherwise, good luck.
The financial gain of whistle-blowing something like this is pretty comparable to the societal value of whistle-blowing something like this. One random Facebook employee (of unknown rank and seniority) called a kid a whale; that doesn't matter in the slightest beyond its impact on an existing story. We can't incentivize people to run to the media with every chat log that looks bad out of context.
That doesn't change the fact that they are, in fact, a whale; a user that is spending large amounts on the game. The same term could be used in a sentence that doesn't come across as morally bankrupt.

> This is a 5 yr old... that's a whale. Of course we're going to refund him, he has no concept of the money he spent.

The term whale is just a description of the user's spending habits on the game and has not moral connotation attached to it.
Politics has always been about the twin pillars of attacking an opponent and their positions, but we've now reached a point where we attack supporters, too. Discourse seems to have gone from "You're wrong" to "You're literally the worst piece of scum for even thinking this way".

Politics has always been dirty business and defaming candidates is not unusual. The trend towards shaming and dehumanizing candidates' supporters is what really bothers me.
For once I'm glad most comments here seem to ignore the article content and instead are responding to the (much more interesting) headline, because the article is really pretty terrible, and very much misses the point of what made/makes the internet "fun".

For anyone who hadn't read: it's a marketing piece for a React-based blogging platform that posits that the reason the "old" internet was fun was because websites didn't sanitize inputs, and that we can somehow bring that back by using a platform with a limited set of sanitized "fun" components...
Though I completely agree with your sentiment, Cal explicitly defines the meaning of Deep Work, and I think it's an important thing society should think about as technology progresses. It helps to have the terminology to describe the state of our lives.

From page 3 of the book, Deep Work:

Professional activities performed in a state of distraction-free concentration that push your cognitive capabilities to their limit. These efforts create new value, improve your skill, and are hard to replicate.

At least read the book before you trash it.
Agreed. Hyperbole is something we all fall victim to sometimes, but it is something we should fight against. Be exact as possible, even if huuuge sounds better.
Stealing the Enemy's Urban Advantage: The Battle of Sadr City
>companies make excess profits on medical gear.

Define excess profits.
How to become a UX designer from Web developer?
...
I keep it around solely because my parents / grandparents use it and it's a means for me to stay in their lives from far away. My social circles have totally dropped it.
Please provide your valuable feedback.
Reply All #135 Robocall: Bang Bang
(In this simple case) The vehicle currently traveling toward a stationary object. It has two possible courses of action (sensical action, perhaps would be better, as it could just continue at full speed, but I'll ignore that), but it can either A) attempt to stop before colliding with the object, or B) it can swerve around the object. Obviously, as stated, two possibilities are that if A the driver has a potential for an increased chance of death or injury and if B a third party has a possible increased chance of death or injury. Now, by shunting to A, that makes a statement of priorities: of all the unknowns, the unknowns about the driver (and passengers) and the states that what might result from A are acceptable to the alternative of B. If this were not so, then we could just as easily say that B is equal and acceptable, in that we can no more guarantee the diminshment of an increase in the potential for injury or death for one or the other party(ies) in either event, therefore, both scenarios are equal, unless they're not. And that most people are unwilling to weight B as as acceptable as A, and, say, flip a coin (or its electronic equivalent), it's clear that a judgement call is being made (based upon values) about what is to be prioritized in the situation (or equivalent situations). [The problem is people then take this specific instance of trolley-like problems and dismiss them as abstract construction, and then dismiss and equivalent problems, regardless of real-world applicability.]

And if the purpose of autonomous vehicles, as is often stated, is to reduce the numbers of deaths (40,100 in 2017 in the US) and injuries related to such scenarios and vehicles, we have to have at least a tacit understanding of that which we are implicitly prioritizing, if nothing else. However, if the point is just to apply an ideology in the form of a technology, until everything in our lives is computerized, and considered in terms of computation, or if (as I've talked about before on here) it's about removing the need for God and Man to make the choice, then avoiding such questions is the very (inherently not so) explicit goal, as that we can neither admit to either wanting to create the black box nor that it is a black box.

The only way to truly not make the decision is to actually not make it, that is, for the motor vehicle to never be traveling in the first place.
Maybe he's on to something. Ban on indoor use of smartphones?
Another "hought leader".... Some people like their cigarettes and vapes, some like their phones.

Nothing wrong with any activity as long as it's done in moderation. If facebook 10 or 15 minutes a day, what's the big deal? Do what you enjoy. Don't listen to academics.
It is scary.

Besides ElsaGate... even when the “programming” isn’t suggestive insanity, it’s still garbage. It’s never high quality well thought out content with a message or positive vision of what children should be seeing - it’s a pig and dog sprite in roughly “animated” cars and replaying the same couple sound effects. The exact polar opposite of say Mr Rogers content.

But hey, free babysitter!!
You raised awareness. (Slightly sarcasm)
I recommend the procrastination setting. I have it set for 10 minutes -- I just need enough of a kick in the seat to stop wasting my time.
> well if you don't know whats going on of course you will not know that two things are related?!

This made me laugh so hard. You're completely right, it's like someone setting up a joke by saying "THIS IS HILARIOUS YOU'RE GONNA LOVE IT" why don't you just get on with it then
If 15 didn't make it better, I feel like the article would have just said 15 instead of lying about it.
On the web app once a week to keep in touch with older relatives. Nothing installed on mobile, no whatsapp/instagram. Loving it.
Live Trading on QuantConnect Now Free for Students