skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Imagine if marsupials, not limited by the size of the birth canals, had produced an intelligent species. Or birds. Especially since birds have the same linear relationships between brain size and neuron count that primates do.
> These reports make no such conclusion - that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack.

They can be used to make a conclusion. We don't need the mandate, and we can think for ourselves, no? In both cases the munitions were reportedly dropped from the air. Once from the airplane, and second time from helicopters.

https://medium.com/@Brian_Whit/opcws-douma-investigation-poi...

Rebel groups don't have airplanes or heliopters, so Khan-Sheikoun attack was most likely made by the Assad regime. Douma can be speculated about somewhat more, but dropping the chlorine containers from the air was not excluded, and was quite likely, based on previous documented droppings of chlorine canisters from helicopters, that used the same mounting technology.

It was also not unprecedentend, dropping chlorine canisters from helicoters by Assad regime was docummneted previously on multiple occasions. The same canisters, and mounting technology for dropping from helicopters. The same goes for Sarin use. (look up other Sarin uses OPCW investigated)

https://www.gppi.net/2019/02/17/the-logic-of-chemical-weapon...

I mean what's so surprising about this? Assad regime has been procuring chemical weapons for decades. They do it just for fun? It's a very expensive hobby.

> Indeed, the Syrian government themselves requested this mission proceed to determine the use of these chemical weapons - why would they do that if they knew they'd used the chemical weapons?

How would I know.

You can obviously kill people and request an inestigation at the same time. There's nothing that prevents that.

It's pointless to speculate on motives. But hey: Because they don't care? Because nothing's gonna happen anyway? Because they were scared of non-cooperation? Because Russia wanted them to? Because it's good optics in the war propaganda - it seems like they have nothing to hide? Calculated risk? (noone's gonna invade them for chlorine use, and they would have had to know that Sarin was not used in Douma, so why not?)

Even if Sarin would have been used, most likely nothing would have happened to them, like many times before. There were several other recent Sarin uses that went unpunished. US is not there for a regime change, and Assad has an upper hand, except for Idlib, and SDF areas. Chemicals are a great weapon for terrorizing civilian population. So why not use them after calculating some risks?

Just look at some WWI documentaries. People/leaders can get completely crazy under a war situation, and justify pretty much anything - even sacrificing almost 30000 soldiers in one day in pointless attacks. It's pointless to speculate on motives now.
I don't see anything wrong with keeping track of how users interact with your site in aggregate. It helps you improve it.
It's probably subconscious.
My biggest complaint with the pattern is that there's no way to easily save the text with the images. If you "download the post", you get the images, but not the text. Even an XML or JSON of the text as a large "blob" would be better than nothing. Heck, for that matter, a flat ASCII file delimited with line breaks would be fine.
Shouldn't a merchant be able to decide for themselves which products they want to carry or not carry on their shelves (both physical and digital)?

Is the alternative that a merchant should be forced to carry a product against their will?
This actually looks like it will be solved pretty soon; Microsoft VR headsets have been using inside-out tracking for a year and a half, the Quest will use it, and a revision to the rift is widely expected to launch soon with inside-out tracking too.

SteamVR tracking might have some advantages if you want lots of tracked objects (that may be outside the headset's field of view) but it seems like good-enough inside out tracking will be widely available this year.
I'd assume that the 10% later on is a relatively larger dollar amount in revenue, no?
Yeah, this is a bit hairy. On the one hand it's dubious information, on the other hand it goes against free speech and Amazon becomes arbiter of what is right and wrong, allowed and disallowed. I don't think this should be Amazon's job.

In this case, one can make the case this is the right decision, but the same decision later on may result in the wrong decision.

Should they go against conspiracy theorists? JFK, whatever.
Right. We don't know. The video isn't wrong but it sure isn't right. Its arguments are speculative only.
UK MPs vote to delay EU departure
Platforms can censor content however they like. Amazon isn’t a government entity and has no responsibility to provide a platform for free speech. Why would they?
I've seen a number of people portraying this censorship (as I had feared) as "proving them right", or making people wonder "what are they hiding?", further fueling the anti-vax fire.

You just can't win. Hopefully this is only an initial reaction and will eventually die down.

Personally, I don't know how I feel about normalizing censorship. Freedom of information is a large part of how we reached the peak of our current civilization. How long before this goes too far?

However, any organization that proliferates plagues should be labeled as a terrorist organization. The anti-vax community is like a terrorist organization with "good" intentions, and they're just regular misinformed people all around us. Very tricky situation indeed..
Ah, I don't think I thought of it that way as far as definitions go. Interesting, thanks.
let airbus.controls=Object.assign({},boeing.controls};
airbus.controls.yoke=undefined;
airbus.controls.headings=joystick;
airbus.controls.safety=basic_law;
It's less an operational risk calculation and more an operational cost calculation.

It's entirely possible (and for airlines operating a wide variety of different length routes, entirely necessary) to safely operate a wide variety of airframes, but it does entail paying for a lot more redundancy.
Private, yes. Government, no. Amazon is courageously admitting that ignorance is still ignorance and that they have the right not to comply with ignorance.

Dangerous, anti-science literature was on the top of their own charts, and ignoring that has moral implications. Amazon has decided indulging populist fervor and the "wisdom of crowds" does not rank higher than protecting general welfare where they have an influence.
Is the 737 MAX 8 showing that “We'll fix it in software” can be dangerous?
Lack of mandate doesn't make it impossible to assign blame based on facts in the report. It's just that OPCW wasn't tasked with it. Though you're right that OPCW didn't blame Assad. I was inaccurate, there.
> How many of those HBO titles are more than 5 years old? Because, comparing 45 years of programming to 5 is completely missing the point.

No, having 45 years of exclusive back catalog is a real and concrete competitive advantage.

> GoT was low hanging fruit with great source material.

I'm not sure I agree; I mean, I get why it seems like they in retrospect, but the history of genre fiction jumping from print to film (whether big screen or small) is littered with dozens of corpses of failures of conversions of “great source material” for every even modest success.

> Their library is enough to get people to sign up and binge watch old content, but they need to pay for a lot of 3rd party content and or high volume production like Netflix to keep people paying 15$ a month.

I pay for both HBO Now and Netflix, and I pay of HBO Now largely because it has fairly consistent if low volume high quality new original exclusive content, unlike Netflix's high-volume firehose of stuff I have no interest in that occasionally produces something of value, which even with their supposedly personalized recommendations is still hard to find and identify among the sea of mediocrity.

> In the end streaming needs new content to keep people paying every month.

So did premium TV. HBO is more focussed on providing very high quality to a more focussed audience while Netflix is running a scattershot content approach; the latter probably has less value per customer but can perhaps support a larger customer base; or it's a consciously unsustainable model that only lasts until they figure out what their target audience really is.

EDIT: however, AT&T seems to want to try something closer to the Netflix strategy with HBO, which I think is likely to be a disaster, but possibly one that gets recognized in time to turn around.
Companies are not spending this money because they feel like it. EV drivetrains have a lot going for them. As battery prices drop and infrastructure improves they are only going to get more compelling over time.

In 20 years their could be several suppliers ready to help any car company that survives that long. But, surviving to that point without a high quality EV is going to be difficult.
...okay, I have a very vague memory of this being straight up announced by Google as a new feature back around 2002-2005.

Basically, if I'm remembering right, there was a semi-standard header field in emails that used some sort of hash to identify which email was being replied to. This was how emails were threaded together in other clients, and worked well for the most part.

But there were some situations where it didn't work accurately, leaving some emails un-threaded, so Google created its new conversation view to both flatten the reply tree (so you'd see all emails so far before responding, instead of making the same reply as someone else) and group up emails sent from clients that didn't include the hash.

And now we're here.
> HBO titles are more than 5 years old?

5 years since their first season or since they discontinued content? If the former, why does that matter? 4 of those 7 are still all actively creating content/seasons...

> GoT was low hanging fruit with great source material. Recently HBO’s actual original content has been lacking.

So because GoT came from a book, it's not "truly original"? The Wire is arguably sourced from Simon's "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets" and several books/dissertations on crime in inner cities. Not sure what your real point is there....regardless of whether it's "truly original" (whatever that means) doesn't matter as long as people show up to pay.

> In the end streaming needs new content to keep people paying every month.

Again, 4 of those 7 shows have new content. You don't necessarily need a variety of content to do so. In fact, I would argue Netflix dilutes it's original content by having too much of it. Paradox of choice and all...

I think the scarier thing is HBO has no clear "anchor" going forward. Sopranos, The Wire, and GoT have all been that, but GoT is on its way out.
I don't recall why but I think MH370 recorder was also sent to France. Probably to avoid conflict of interests ?
> also slack is theme-able.

But no dark theme options, so not theme-able in any useful way.
That is available in some parts of the US as well (I have friend who get 2 hour delivery). I live "in the middle of nowhere", I can get to a big store in half an hour, but we the town is no big enough that anybody has got the fast delivery model down yet.
I think it is allowed, it is private company anyway. This is not a free speech debate. Amazon can choose not to sell something and it is entirely their rights to not offer service to certain people, as a sellers' platform.
Facebooks data deals are under criminal investigation
Instituting advertising is guaranteed to reach your existing user base right away; those who hate ads will see them right away and quit right away.

Removing advertising doesn't have the same kind of immediate effect because the "audience" for it is people who haven't even heard of your app yet, and have no idea whether you're ad-free or not. (Here I'm discounting the possibility that there's a bunch of people waiting, hoping you eliminate ads so they can finally join.)

So the effects of removing ads probably have a much longer lag-time, governed to a significant degree by the usual mechanisms and rates of user acquisition.

Edit: you can also argue that the pre-existing users of an ad-free app have to some degree self-selected based on a hatred of ads, and that in a more general sample, the proportion for whom ads are a deal-breaker might be lower than 1 in 10.
Should Freud's books be pulled too for being unscientific?
I forgot why there are no parachutes on planes ? weight ?

I'd pay a premium to have my own emergency wingsuit..
I don't agree with all of David Siegel's views, but I first came across the concept of having a set of things you own always passively for sale (what he calls 'passive commerce') in his vision for pillar: "https://youtu.be/2VdICMlvo68?t=230"
(from https://medium.com/@pullnews/announcing-the-pillar-project-1... )

As someone who wants a more waste-free society and already keeps a running list of craigslist items for sale, ebay/cl watchlists, etc. I'd be open to innovation in this space.
Sailfish OS is still alive. The company, Jolla, doesn't sell physical phones anymore. But, it is possible to purchase a ready compiled Sailfish OS (Europe only) or to compile it yourself [1]. The OS can be installed on existing hardware, such as Sony Xperia X or Gemini PDA. There are also unofficial community ports for other devices [2]. I have a 5 years old Jolla phone with Sailfish OS and I'm still getting official OS updates. :)

[1] https://sailfishos.org/wiki/Sailfish_X_Build_and_Flash

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailfish_OS#Community_enthusia...
easy, skype became garbage.
I am in the same boat. Feel free to reach out at ideavalid@icloud.com if you want to work on something together.
And how do you propose we do that?
Create 3D County Maps Using Density as Z-Axis
This is a great experiment, and shows the value of getting solid data to back up a theory.
Yeah... no. Your stance is ridiculous. People have already gamed sites like Yelp, Facebook, Twitter, and Google Play with fake reviews. The App Store also probably is flooded with tons of fake reviews. I'd rather trust my payment information to a company that has already demonstrated that they're incredibly thoughtful with my security regarding payments rather than trusting some giant unknown and just hoping for the best.
They never found MH370.
I think we are on a very dangerous path if we are giving private institutions vast censorship power they have through their dominant market position. Where will the censorship stop? And if this gets more acceptable they will censor mainly for their own purposes and not for the general good.
Most likely based on what? There's zero evidence for that.
This is not ethical.. but here is a work-around. On Android devices, install the (free-and no ads) 'NoRoot Firewall'. Then it takes some minutes to get used to it, but you ONLY 'Allow' connections that the game needs to operate (e.g. everything that goes to port 443 is an indicator, or everything to/from Akamai, AWS, Azure, Cloudfront), and 'Block' everything that goes to port 80 (which usually is AdJust, doubleclick etc.)

It takes some trial and error, but eventually (in 1-2 minutes) you will be able to have blocked out all the ads by simply not allowing connection to download the 'ad content'.

Yes, the developer made free game and expects to be paid (via ads)

No, the developer and his/her/their ad partners don't have the right to violate your privacy when you (or your kid) play a game.
Embraer and Bombardier only compete with the very bottom end of Boeing/Airbus' product range anyway. In that respect, even the Russian and Chinese manufacturers that rarely sell outside their home country's sphere of influence are more credible competitors.
Ads.txt Manager
I'd be very surprised if Boeing have their assets structured in such a way that a massive liability in one area could take out the entire business.

At a very minimum they will have Boeing spares and maintenance ltd. Probably one in each country they operate in.
Your question would be better directed to Amazon's buyers, as it's their store and they get to decide what they do and do not sell.
I actually don't really block ads, I block tracking and by-default scripting (I whitelist pages), plus enforced https. That gets rid of almost all of the ads. If they can't give me ads without these things, their problem.
I was about to say, then that is a definition you have made for yourself. My understanding of the word malice is to mean "desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another" as Webster defines the word.

But I discovered there is a second, legal context for the word which means "intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse" so I guess in the law, "malice" is just another word for "deliberate."

I still think the first definition is what most people are familiar with, and that unless you think the engineers deliberately designed the rudder control system to behave in this way, knowing it would cause crashes and fatalities, the company having a bias after the fact to not blame themselves does not rise to that standard.
I'd say there's a fine line between "free speech" and "dangerous medical advice". Looking at a paragraph from the article:

>“Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism” recommends that autistic children drink and bathe in chlorine dioxide, a compound often referred to as “Miracle Mineral Solution.” In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration described it as “a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment” that “can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and symptoms of severe dehydration.”

That's dangerous, plain and simple. I have no problem with a merchant on Amazon that sells rat droppings in a jar, provided they make it very clear what they're selling: rat droppings in a jar. If they start claiming that consuming rat droppings will cure lymphoma, however, then we've got a problem.
I get paid for haskell and I don't use category theory. No one in my team does and neither do a significant share of the people in the industry.

I don't know what outsiders think about us, but 90% of the value derives from the simple things : constructing simple datatypes easily, a world-class type checker and some great libs that require little knowledge to be used, like Servant or Aeson.

Sure, there are fancier things if you want to go beyond that, but you can be productive with the bare minimum of Haskell, as Elm shows.
I’d risk permanent brain damage over lice.
If it's not moral for one person to do it, then is it moral for all people to do it collectively? The outcome is the same either way (an old man voluntarily dies and his children/grandchildren are significantly richer as a result); why would it matter who made that outcome possible?

So, then:

> Is it moral to let a multi-billionaire buy someone's life?

In the scenario you've now posited - i.e. one in which society is allowed to buy someone's life - it is moral for a member of said society to buy someone's life. Why would it not be?
Why should I trust Amazon's assessment of whether or not those books constituted "ignorance"?

(Think carefully. Most people will "want" to answer the seemingly-closely-related question "Why do you think these books are 'ignorance'?", but that is not the same question!)
"Boeing blamed the yaw damper…"

What if this MAX thing isn't pitot tube or MCAS software…
The effect of dogfooding is limited though: when you know all the quirks you won't when notice that you constantly work around them.
I'm skeptical that fruitful discussion will ensue here, given that previous threads about this topic have mostly devolved into whether Apple has a monopoly or not. I won't go there.

Instead of debating that, as an American who has seen the US deal with monopolistic stuff (Microsoft) but never watched the EU do similar, how does the EU typically look at things like this? Are there any precedents of similar cases where the EU has either explicitly not taken action, or has intervened? The article mentions that the EU is likely more receptive to the complaint than US courts would be, but (unless I missed it) doesn't really back that up with precedent (perhaps because there isn't any yet?)
The solution is DirecTV Now and, while far from perfect, is under very active development.
> as soon as you leave the world of "quick and dirty prototype".

There's a lot of things though. Want to create a set of charts and graphs of data, especially in a repeatable way? Nothing better than matplotlib.
You mean MH17?? MH370 was never found.
Sounds to me like you're an expert on relational database optimization. That's an extremely valuable specialty. Don't talk yourself down as "not the best coder"! You've been thinking about this problem for seven years.

Don't be too worried about the puzzle interview stuff. Many companies don't use them any more... and if you do want to apply someone that uses them I've heard there are excellent books that could get you fully up to speed in a few weeks.
> Has any judge ordered such material not to be sold?

No, and it is beside the point. What you are asking for is that the government should order Amazon to sell snake oil.
Freud's books aren't currently inflaming a public health crisis. That being said, if Amazon felt as such, they could do it for whatever reason they felt. Or not do it. The point is that if they're not a monopoly, private or public, the argument that populism supercedes their property rights is a very poor one.
In theory yes but if a private institution has a lot of market power like amazon has they can effectively shape the public discourse with their censorship. Which indicates to me that big operations are dangerous for democracy.
So in the past, why did Amazon purchase from the smaller guys, and didn't go straight to the manufacturer ?
As a young person who likes Westworld, this is a great strategy for like 1 month a year. What are they going to do for the 15-ish months of downtime they have between seasons?

Right now they have a limited selection of high quality shows, just enough to keep people hooked for the next great one. If they switch to just pumping out lower-quality, higher-quantity stuff, I suspect people will just cancel -- everyone already has Netflix for that.

HBO seems to think it's the next "Netflix", but if they follow the strategy they've described so far, I suspect they'll be the next "CBS All Access".
It kinda applies, depending.

If you consider the Appstore/iOS ecosystem to be Apple's "land", then sure that 30% is like the tax for having a presence in that land.

That's the classic meaning of "tax".

However, nowadays, in most civilised countries we expect more of "tax". We expect it to not simply flow to whoever holds power over the land (ecosystem), for them to use for profit, projecting power and keeping it. We expect the tax instead to largely be invested in things that benefit the people paying it (users). In fact, the more this happens, instead of going to the rulers, the nicer a place to live (in general).

Now one the one hand Apple is doing a pretty good job with things that benefit the users: they get security and some privacy. On the other hand, as a tax, it's fair to ask whether that 30% is really necessary for these benefits or just for lining Apple's pockets. An additional thing, looking at it pragmatically, whatever Apple's doing to Spotify doesn't seem to be in the user's benefit at all. But then, they don't pay tax. So that points to the 30% being significantly more than the tax required to benefit the users.

It seems to me that Apple should lower this tax to a rate that Spotify is willing to pay and put up with.

Thing is, Apple is not really like a modern government to its users. They are a "if you don't like it, just leave"-ocracy. So when they put up a "public" service (Apple Music), that undercuts commercial services (Spotify), it is NOT in the benefit of the people (users) like a public transport system would be. This is because the undercutting is purely based on the tax-cut, not because it's more efficient to do it as a public service rather than a commercial one.