skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>"we can't listen to any ideas from anyone born before the year 2000 because they were racist"...

Woah, woah, woah.

Where did you get that? No one cares whether de Tocqueville was racist or not. The material point of the post is that ethnic factionalism did not rise in the US in the past few decades, it's been with us from the beginning. De Tocqueville was simply a convenient stylistic means of illustrating this fact, as the original poster implicitly relied on the authority of de Tocqueville in his assertion that ethnic factionalism is new to the US.

You're jumping to a conclusion that no one made man.
Cambly (YC W14) Is Hiring – Build an Android app for live English tutoring
What you seem to be missing is the idea of the rule of law, and perhaps also the idea of only punishing those who are moral responsible.

How many people do you think have moral culpability for this fiasco? Twenty? One hundred? Boeing employs more than 150,000 people. You want them all to lose their jobs based on the actions of 100 people? You want a battalion of rednecks to "mop up" (kill?) 150,000 people for the actions of 100?

If you want to fire a bunch of executives (and maybe some engineers), I'm fine with that. You want some to go to jail? Sure. You want the stockholders to take a bath? Makes sense to me. Destroy the whole company? No, I don't think that's a reasonable response. An emotional one, maybe, but not a reasonable one.
If I was an investor, I would say this is reckless.
What's heavy water?
Not gonna lie, I would rather just pay for google maps.
> You don’t see Google-ers caveat their posts when commenting on an article about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica.

I don't know about comments on Cambridge Analytica or Facebook, but Googlers appear to disclose their employer quite frequently when it's relevant to their comments on HN:

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=1&date...

Disclosure: Googler.
It's always possible to make a semi-plausible argument that money will be made someday. Perhaps that's enough for an angel investor, maybe a VC, but by the time you IPO, you really ought to have demonstrated it. But, not lately.
> I'd like to see some actual examples.

I used Bitcoin to cover a flight a few years back when the only other options were PayPal or using a European bank deposit (0).

More recently I also paid for graduate studies in Bitcoin (1). Granted, it was for an MSc in cryptocurrency but the process was still just so... easy. I did it while in bed here in Canada to a university in Cyprus. It took about five minutes and the school converted the funds to euros right away. When I compare this to waiting 1-2 weeks to move funds from Canada to Europe for previous studies (as well as the ~€100 in fees), I can definitely see a bullish case for crypto, especially for bigger international payments.

0: https://www.airbaltic.com/en/payment-options

1: https://digitalcurrency.unic.ac.cy/admissions/financial-info...
That is not a charitable interpretation of the parent comment, friend.
Self driving cars can not happen quick enough.
There are valid arguments against term limits for judges, too.

I think that the terms don't actually matter much. The real problem with SCOTUS is that it represents extreme concentration of political power in our system that doesn't have any direct checks on it. Then you have stare decisis, which makes it so much harder to overturn decisions - so even indirect checks are limited. That's why its lack of accountability (e.g. term limits) is such a big problem. It's also why it was inevitable for it to become more partisan over time - having a partisan majority on the court is basically the equivalent of having nukes, and once one side starts moving in that direction, the other will inevitably follow. And now we're at the point where many people vote for president solely on the basis of what kind of judges they will appoint - and it's not even an irrational approach.

So I think that it's better to make the court less powerful, such that those appointments are not quite so important. One particular idea that I had is to abandon simple majorities as the way to decide matters on the court, and run it more like a jury - basically, the only way to declare something to be definitely unconstitutional, or definitely constitutional, should be by unanimous decision, or perhaps a strong supermajority (say 7 out of 9?). If a panel of people who are specifically chosen as legal experts cannot agree what the Constitution means with respect to something, I think the most sensible interpretation is that it's ambiguous - but then going with a simple majority would be very wrong.

Instead, if the judges cannot agree, this should automatically trigger a constitutional amendment process. Basically, have them all write opinions explaining why they cannot agree with their opponents on the court, and what changes to the Constitution would be necessary before they can agree. Submit all those changes as proposals for ratification, using the normal process, except that only one can be ratified, and that automatically rejects the other changes. If one of the amendments is ratified, that resolves the issue unambiguously and with an explicit rule for future cases like that. If none get ratified, then the lower court decision stands, but it does not set a precedent - the constitutional question remains open, and can be challenged again.

I would expect this to result in more unanimous or supermajority decisions with less extreme and more narrow effects, because the judges would be more likely to try to hammer out a compromise to cross the threshold.
Quora has anti-vaccine answers displayed first for innocent questions
This article is written by the New York Times, I fail to see how it is disinformation by posting articles by one of (if not ) the biggest newspapers in the world. It's not like these are written by some obscure journalistic outfit. Of course that doesn't mean they are correct and accurate and unbiased themselves, but it at least indicates to me that even if HN users are posting holding the viewpoint of the article, at least it is a viewpoint that is held by other reputable parties.
Nextdoor raises $123M at $2.1B Valuation
> One of the things I definitely understand but don't miss is the defensiveness that comes out when someone says they are better off without religious belief.

The "defensiveness" wasn't in response to an expression of personal experience as you claim.

The pull out quote was characterizing a diverse group of people, including scientists, scholars, and former atheists, as somehow oblivious. I think patronizing hand-waving about defensiveness is unfair.
So, is someone who invested in a lot of may-never-be-profitable companies, suddenly needing their money back, whether it's the right time for an IPO or not?
And half of these regular Americans have an IQ below average.
Anyone have experience using the product?
That's a weird situation, I've never seen that happen personally. A good service bus should avoid this.

For example, https://node-ts.github.io/bus/ subscribes it's queue to all message topics that it handles. If, for some reason, a message arrives that no internal handlers exist for, then the message is simply logged and discarded.
> Uber drivers are fighting the wrong fight in this case. They should focus on fighting for a minimum wage that accounts for expenses.

Since they are not employees, they don't get a wage, so minimum wage laws don't apply.

> Case in point, when Uber/Lyft was forced to pay their drivers a minimum wage that accounted for expenses, Uber and Lyft stopped accepting new drivers in New York City. They were force to act according to true supply and demand.

This was the result of the city of New York deciding, on behalf of the taxi lobby, that there were too many Ubers on the street, so they fixed the supply to make the average pay add up to 17$/hour (which is not a minimum wage either).

Real supply of drivers was higher than that, people that wanted to drive at lower price were effectively prohibited from entering the market.
I think this might hint to one of the greater arguments for communism, which is functionally society as religion.

That being said, I don't feel for a second that religion is the only way to fill that hole practically. But it requires a society that both recognizes the need for that social cohesion and institutionalizes that which can maintain it. 2 weeks paid vacation HOA quarter acre with a picket fence and blacked out windows mainstream American culture is definitely not trying to accomplish that.
Will You Have What It Takes? Just in Case Character Development
What if instead our society reeled globalization back in a little, and we lived in smaller, closer, local communities? I live in a rural-ish area, and any time I get on the interstate, especially during the workweek, I can't help but wonder how much those people's lives would be improved if everything was in walking or bicycling distance, how much more time they would have to give to their families or their interests or even their daily needs. Maybe it's not possible for most people due to unfortunate situations society has created. But didn't we do this to ourselves?
I sense that there is an exploitation of human nature at work in this. Fear and outrage get attention, and attention gets revenue. It's amazing the number of times that both liberal and conservative personalities are associated with the world's most horrific events because that triggers outrage and gains clicks, and then turns out to have been fabricated via 'recontexting'.

Outrage drives polarization and polarization drives people apart. Fear drives caution and caution keeps people from getting together.

At this point, the only antidote for loneliness is to be aware of it and develop the courage to introduce yourself to someone you don't know. And then try to start doing that on a regular basis.
Sad state of affairs when terrible, ugly vulnerabilities are mundane.
Oregon State University "Intro to Permaculture"

https://open.oregonstate.edu/courses/permaculture/
> Perfect for things governments hate: illegal stuff like extortion and drugs.

That's true for anything that provides privacy and freedom.
San Francisco crime rate per 100,000 people: 715.00

Phoenix: 760.93

Houston: 1095.23

New Orleans: 1121.41

Stockton CA: 1414.56

Milwaukee: 1597.36

Baltimore: 2027.01

Detroit: 2056.67

St Louis: 2082.29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
Lots of companies sponsor race cars, and Crowdstrike seems to have gotten a co-branding thing out of it (they're now the EDR product for some Formula One teams or something). It's about as reckless or not reckless as any other marketing expense.

Unless you mean the potential for George to meet his fiery doom in an F1 car, in which case, yes, I agree.
Or perhaps people buying real estate in Florida tend to be Republican.
Code Execution Bug in Linux Kernel Puts Every System at Risk
Which is a blatant lie considering they opted to DLC bunch of saftety features.

If you're referring to the AOA indication — they didn't though. Boeing sold the MAX to the FAA and the airlines as being equipped with an "AoA disagree" annunciator on every single one. It turns out that the annunciator didn't work unless you also purchased the AoA gauges (it's unclear to me whether or not there are gauges on the primary flight display or if they're just part of the heads-up display). That little glitch was considered too minor by Boeing to notify the FAA or the airlines.
The German word 'lachs' and the English word 'lox' are pronounced, essentially, identically.
"This is (typical|common|standard)" - is a typical practice to coerce/mislead people to sign one-sided contracts.

Don't do that. Kudos to you for reading the contract and questioning it's validity.
> In the published estimates below, studies have utilised a methodology termed the 'linear no-threshold model'

The numbers already round to 0 when compared to pretty much any other industrial process we undertake. Then on top of that the model used is the LNT. That model needs extraordinary evidence to support its wild assumptions. I haven't been able to find a source for that evidence yet.

LNT is a paranoid model. Under the LNT, building with granite is killing people through increased radiation. The airplane industry has probably killed more people with radiation under the LNT model than Chernobyl has. We have yet to picket airports for their radiation risk.

The unproovable deaths from Chernobyl may as well be ignored. We don't count that sort of statistical hypothesizing for any other anything that is comparable to building a power plant.
So you're angry that the virtual money you got as a handout, from a system in early development, was lost four years later after you failed to act on an upgrade announced months in advance. Sounds fair.
They were also on retainer for many republicans. They are an American cybersecurity company.
> But to suggest that ethnic factionalism in the US is new is just to ignore the history of the United States.

Nothing of what I said suggests that ethnic factionalism be new, but only that it be of sufficiently different character. I do still stand by that. Both those on the right and those on the left have each convinced the other that those from different ethnic groups are inherently incapable of joining the American enterprise. While I believe certain groups were marginalized in the past, I believe this was due to what were perceived as temporary and fixable conditions. There was still an underlying belief held by at least one major party that... with sufficient education / propaganda / indoctrination... any man or woman could be 'converted' to the in-group of 'American'. I think there is no longer any political party that actually stands for this kind of integration. The left sees this sort of integration as immoral. The right sees this sort of integration as impossible.

Religion or shared philosophy does -- in my opinion -- play a significant role in relieving racism. For example, in my opinion, this is why Catholics are the group most likely to marry a person of another race, even if they are more likely to marry Catholics -- the Church has continued to convert people from many disparate communities, despite the modern day injunction against doing so.
Show HN: Google Places X Instagram -Michelin Starred Restaurants in the Bay Area
I am not seeing enough calls for Boeing's CEO to resign. Boeing put profits ahead of safety; now the company's reputation is in tatters, and the company will likely will end up buying back all the 737 MAXs. The CEO needs to go.
I just don't play competitively anymore. Online co-op can still be lots of fun, and even competitive in some ways (showing off along the lines of, "look what I can do!"), but it takes off the vicious edge that produces all that toxicity. Although you still get griefers.
> since at least 1940

According to the article, since The Glasgow Herald article in 1895. It turns out that Father Christmas isn't real either, but some things people really don't want to interrogate.
"If friendship has a basis it is this: that a person may desire the company of someone for whom he has no specific purpose" - Roger Scruton
How exactly does globalization play a role here? Limousine services are one of the least affected services you can imagine, you can't outsource virtually all of that labor, perhaps with the exception of customer service.

To answer your question: A "rural life" in a "tight-knit community" would be a horror scenario for me. To each their own.
What about people that don't work? As far as I understand the seniors card (I'm not aware of restriction) gives free travel around London, are seniors making a substantial number of unnecessary trips during peak times or will they naturally choose to avoid it?
Clearly, people are living there to pursue their careers. Many can't stand it for long and leave after a few years. I know some of these people.

There is no excuse for a city with the per-capita wealth of San Francisco to suck as bad as it does, and "overzealous law enforcement" is not even on the list of problems the place actually has.

When a basic level of order is not being maintained, hand-wringing about a hypothetical police state falls flat with members of the public, some of whom are thinking fuck it, moving to Singapore sounds nice right about now.
...because they are a billion dollar tech startup, whose end product/widget is security. Why shouldn't it be here? ...Because it's not about Uber-for-X? Or chat? or food Delivery? ... But everything they do is every HN buzzword: ML/AI/BigData/ES/JSON/CLOUD.

They are extreme users of tech and ingesting/processing more data in real-time than most of us can fathom.
Doctors and decision fatigue
Water with the deuterium isotope of hydrogen, instead of the common isotope of hydrogen.
>They offered a rate, people were capable of consenting to the terms while accounting for expenses

See, on party here has a lot more data on said expenses, and all the incentives in the world to be misleading about them.

The existing demand was not "true" under the reasonable assumption that nobody wants to work for less than minimum wage after expenses.
You also have a former UK ambassador saying "the DNC wasn't hacked. I was part of the process of exfiltrating the files from the DNC".

And I think a general willingness to parrot establishment rhetoric is part of why they're as big as they are.
Do people have any personal accountability anymore? "The company will protect me" is such a foolish thought process, especially when you're playing with beta features that have risks.

This to me isn't all that different than the guy who crashed his Tesla while watching a movie behind the wheel. Culpability. Assumption of risk. But-for causation. All the usual legal theories apply.
I think you can derive benefit from a belief in God. Like your choice of religion, the characteristics of the God you choose to believe in have an effect on the costs and benefits of your belief.

I think it is laughable when non-believers deny the value of belief, as it just seems so obvious to me. That said, I choose not to believe and gain those benefits because I believe a God, as we normally conceive of, does not exist. I think of belief in God like many other concepts and ideas. Love, for instance, does not seem to exist. It is, in a way, an app you choose to run on your brain, and it comes with certain features and costs. Then again, I work in software, which I also believe does not exist, so I have a bias in that I think things do not have to exist to be powerful.

Edit: I guess I think of belief in God as a sort of 'local maxima', where it has benefits, but I'm holding out for some sort of greater maxima that can be found with a philosophy and belief system without God.
> Take that away and what remains is essentially the family unit and the market forces.

Or what's left of them anyway.

Seems like you left zero-sum tribalism and perpetual consumerist distraction off of your list.
Well, around $200-300K, based on checking prices on Zillow for what sure appear to be spaces in that mobile home park (around Oakland Road in San Jose, ZIP code 95131). I don't think I've ever seen a mobile home listed for a half-million even in this area, although I've seen ones the mid-$300s. (Granted, this is still nuts, given that in Sacramento or Tampa, the other places I've idly priced homes, these would be under $100K.)
> You have rose tinted googles if you think ethnic factionalism has gotten worst.

Nah... as a brown guy, I've seen America go from 'you can be American too' to 'you shouldn't even try' (from the left because it's immoral to want to be 'American' and from the right because it's impossible). I think it's worse.

> slavery was in full swing.

Despite the inhumanity of it, one point of slavery was to convert the perceived-to-be uncivilized slaves to 'civilization'. The means were immoral, but the intent proves my point.
Homeless encampments along California levees may be weakening them
> Walker sent an update Tuesday in the company’s daily newsletter, clarifying that employees were typically only terminated when intentional violations resulted in [..] risks to user privacy

Brilliant framing - that privacy is only compromised if entities other than those authorized by Google get the data. That one might not trust Google itself is never considered.
Interesting. It seems that the machine did have some limited form of branch prediction, but probably the expectation was that FP kernels would be optimized to be mostly branch free, and, as you say, transistors were a premium.
For the uninitiated: Crowdstrike Falcon is basically the highest quality Endpoint Defense and Response product in the market.

They are not fool proof but I would be extremely surprised if any untargeted malware infected a Crowdstrike enabled device.

They are extremely popular in the market,it's pretty awesome the level of protection they give traditional businesses that don't have large security teams who can't readily adopt to attacker techniques.

They've been spreading themselves a bit thin lately trying to to do things a bit outside of their domain. But as someone that finds it very easy to find fault and criticize, I find almost no bad things to say about their offering (aside from the price tag).

Hope going public won't ruin them. Their threat intel is always a page turner too!
Isn't this essentially an argument that companies should deliberately slow their growth before an IPO just to demonstrate to skittish investors (all of whom either shouldn't be picking stocks of any sort, or are themselves professional money managers who can read an S1 and a 10K) that they can be profitable without collapsing?

Profits are good, but inability to switch from growth mode to profit-taking mode is probably not the risk that should keep you from investing in Crowdstrike; the volatility of the market they're in and their exposure to technological changes is a much bigger concern.

Crowdstrike isn't like Uber, where the dial from profitable to unprofitable is essentially the question about the business. They're an enterprise software company and the majority of their money goes to sales. We have something like 30 years of experience in how these kinds of companies operate and what's going to happen with their financial engineering.

I'm not saying Crowdstrike isn't risky. They're crazy risky and I wouldn't invest personally! I'm just saying, it's easy to get companies like this confused with consumer-facing unicorn companies whose valuations are derived in part by subsidizing their customers. Crowdstrike is, if anything, infamous for the opposite thing (they're expensive).
I don't quite understand the connection to globalization or more rural communities. Urban cities, of course, generally offer the best walkability simply because of population density. In my experience in the United States, suburban communities and small towns are most literally unwalkable due to the design of the road network. In rural areas generally it's not feasible to walk simply because your place of work, grocery store, etc. are many miles away.
Identity politics, perhaps. Ethnonationalism, I don't think is an inherent part of it, as is seen in the universal audience of certain major religions, like Islam and Christianity