skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Liberals DESTROYED by FACTS and LOGIC, eh?

You won't catch me defending anything so broad as "the left" but your statement that "the right merely questions beliefs with statistics, facts, and law" is laughable. Literally I am laughing at the absurdity of it, that anybody would say such a thing. You needn't look any further than the American right wing's top man, who e.g. routinely uses public social media to broadcast trivially falsifiable statements, dubious and unsourced "statistics", and other total nonsense.

You should seek to expand the boundaries of your model of reality.
"But everyone else does it" is playground morality.
In one (mostly non-canon-ish) novel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Ultimate_Evil , he did take on a guy who was terrifyingly like Epstein; among others.
At some point the price drops low enough for the company to just go private and continue with the same level of CO2 emissions. Unless the income flow from fossil fuel products stops the company will never be forced to shut down.
This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one. This says the government can take the profit you earn from sharing state secrets.
WanderJaunt Closes Series B
It's been longer then that. We had a bit of a false sense of security because subscriber based papers were big for a few decades, but advertisers have always been king
I see apple as:
1. The biggest hypocrite in all of technology with regards to monopolistic tendencies. Unlike Google and Facebook, Apple is loved by the media, so noone calls them out on their shit, bringing me to my second point:

2. While other firms like Google and Facebook have served to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor, between the first and third world, apple has done exactly the opposite.

I, and large portions of the non-western world see Apple as a representation of american power and western influence. And that has had alot alot alot of benefits for Apple but it also made me hate their guts so yeah.
I'll bite. Where is this distinction? With references please.

You keep saying things that are factually and demonstrably untrue: "if you send a letter through USPS standard mail".... but that isn't how mail works. Standard is for commercial packages. You keep saying things that are easy to see are false.

In fact, I provided sources, including a law called the Mail classification (39 U.S.C. 3623), "The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection"

The whole idea from the beginning: The mail types you are talking about were specifically created to protect 4th amendment privacy protections. It was classed in to categories that were overall: individuals communicating = more protections... non-individuals doing non-correspondence stuff = less protections. (correspondence as understood: the exchange of ideas between people via the written word)

In fact, I gave you a reading where the supreme court specifically said I had an expectation of privacy in my correspondence. I'm still waiting for your evidence that backs up your claim... or for that matter any references or outside sources that verify what you say:

> If you send a letter through USPS standard mail, there is no expectation of privacy
I have yet to hear about a realistic plan to remove and replace. Anyone have recommended reading?
How do you reconcile it with the 10th amendment. Due to local effects of emissions it should be within state purview. The case (because this will reach the scotus) will be based the commerce clause, and that is nonsense because it is a critical health issue in smog prone areas.

You can argue abstract about trends in commerce clause based decisions in the 20th century between wickburn and lopez, but my point is you can throw that out the window: there is a plausible argument that allows a conservative decision. Therefore, regardless of precedent, the decision will be made along partisan lines. If a Democratic president is elected in 2020, precedent will be summarily reversed. The conservative movement is completely comfortable with power and exercising it maximally.
If it's a government/media/society approved neural network, then yes they are. Welcome to the new world.
I agree with the general idea, but dislike the WWW. I find it fundamentally poor from the start. I'd rather make the comparison to having one's own node on the Internet.

I rent a server and I rent several DNS names. Unfortunately, neither of these things are protected in a way that would prevent them from being taken from me, but it's not happened yet. Through this, I'm able to host a website, a Gopher hole, a Finger service, my own email, and I'll host FTP, IRC, and other things as I want to. There's not much of a limit. This is nice and freeing. I decide how everything's presented and done; I use my own server software in some instances.

I can agree that having one's own website is an introduction to this manner of freedom, though.
google sheets - I have one sheet with date, # hours, notes - I tally this up every couple weeks or month whatever the billing interval is, copy that number into another sheet that looks like an invoice, print to pdf and send that to my clients via email.

Most of them pay via electronic means into my business account, but I've taken paper checks from usps mail as well. I have a small number of clients - 1-3 at a time at max, I can do this in ~5 minutes per month for all of them.

Google "google sheets invoice template" -- I use an early variant of this one:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TzvUubN-M9q4ATPCuzuK...
The company still earns the same amount of income from selling fossil fuel products.
That is a ridiculous excuse. The US has never claimed that it does not target civilian infrastructure. Snowden made that claim up out of whole cloth to justify his actions.
SSD/HD ratio likely went up. Backing up a laptop ten years ago with 128GB SSD wasn't as hard a job as backing up 1TB SSD, which is now rather cheap.
The Airfield is not part of either city but borders both cities fairly equally. Either name would make sense and choosing Sunnyvale to avoid the mountain reference makes sense too.
I'm completely in favor of fixing it, for that reason.
An attempt to deemphasize Cantonese in Guangdong does not constitute eradication.

Mandarin in Hong Kong as far as I know would've been strictly in addition to, not instead of Cantonese, much like learning English in Quebec.

So again, not assimilation.

> Mao destroyed a lot of cultural relics during the Cultural Revolution.

The relics may have been destroyed, but (most of) the people lived, some still living. Culture doesn't die with the relics, it lives with the people.

> Things that used to be wide spread such as idol worshiping is no longer seen in China

It's certainly less wide spread now, especially in big cities. But it's still common in small towns and villages. Dive deeper next time you visit China.
Whether or not someone is a citizen of a given country is a completely ridiculous and indefensible attribute to use when making a moral determination about whether or not they deserve privacy. The “US citizens” thing is a red herring; everyone deserves privacy.

Remember that countries are fictions.
Loving the irony of having links to Instagram and Twitter in the footer of that post :P
I think you're misunderstanding the problem. Expressing complex rules in a machine-readable format is the least of the issues here. The main problem is that training AIs to optimize certain behaviors within constraints very frequently leads to them accidentally discovering "loopholes" that would never have occurred to a human (as with "box surfing" here). The AI doesn't know it's "cheating"; its behavior may be emergently complex, but its model of our desires is only what we tell it.

A naive and unlikely example would be telling an AI to maximize human happiness and prevent human harm, so it immobilizes everyone and sticks wires into their pleasure centers. Everyone is as happy as it is possible for a human to be, and no one is doing anything remotely dangerous!

The actual dangers will be stranger and harder to predict. I'm not saying we can't find a way to make strong AI safe. I'm just saying that it's a much trickier task than you imply.

https://www.wired.com/story/when-bots-teach-themselves-to-ch...

https://vkrakovna.wordpress.com/2018/04/02/specification-gam...
No doubt. But I'm still worried for the future of the FSF.
_Land_ appreciates. "Real property". Many homes are built on land, and either come with the land itself as a package deal (almost all standalone residential property is like this, in the UK it would be "Freehold") or is offered as a long lease with an inherent interest in the land (more common where multiple homes share footprint, in the UK "Leasehold" or the more modern "Commonhold").

The building doesn't appreciate, if you spend $5000 on home improvements or repairs almost invariably an honest agent will tell you the value of the building was only marginally increased by doing this, because it was never the building value that mattered.

Where people just own the building and NOT the land, "mobile homes" or "manufactured homes" depreciation destroys the value of the home relatively quickly, within a lifetime usually.
The fact we're even entertaining the thought of an electric car (a 4-door sedan!) going sub-7:30 at the Nurburgring is crazy. It wasn't long ago none of this seemed possible.

The Porsche Taycan's 7:42 is a major achievement whether or not Tesla tops it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N%C3%BCrburgring_Nords...
I'm guessing that your not an indie dev :)
Interesting that you're using the same process - threats of suicide - that Stallman has used to get dates.
Basically, think of divesting as an advertisement. Every time a major player does it, the public hears a pro environment message, and leaves thinking climate change is something to act on now, and that green energy is the future. And public perception does have an impact on the future.

Let me emphasize the cynicism of this point. As you said, no individual corporation is going to change here (other than running more advertisements to boost their image), because it’s not like they can stop being a fossil fuel company. There’s no carrot to match the stick.
Look at health outcomes, us has a declining life expectancy, china has almost caught up and will probably overtake soon. Is that just fiscal education?
4 week releases will create 13 versions by year. We will use Firefox 211 in 2030 (if they don't change rules).
You seem irrelevant.
Honest question, why are Universities becoming so expensive? Is because these credits are available? Was estudying a degree cheaper before the credits?
Since this Hacker News, there is actually a glimmer of hope that the NSA guys in TAO and other areas may read these comments.

In that case I would urge them to think about what they are doing, and what Snowden revealed.

SIGINT is important, but showing PowerPoint slides with an image of a virus doing the "happy dance" IS NOT.

That is teenage hacker nonsense, which makes me believe they do not care one iota about what they are doing, outside of that they can.
Google chrome says my connection is not private to your website
If German utilities lost value it means that moving to renewables didn't work, isn't it? Not that the fossil fuel companies lost value. Which I think indeed what happened there, they had to go back and use coal because the whole renewable thing didn't work so well for them and just made everything more expensive without really providing enough energy.
the very fact that you feel the need to use a throwaway account to make this comment is sad
This leaves us at a problem. Legality seems far too poor a standard to judge actions upon outside of court (and sometimes even in court), yet any moral standard is quite subjective to each person. So how do we determine right or wrong? There is a reason this has been an open problem for all of recorded history.
Submitter, or a moderator, please edit the title to re-add the word "How". That's done automatically, but sometimes it's wrong. It's especially so here.

Also, this remains as fantastic an article on PostgreSQL's MVCC nature as it was previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15027870
Whistleblowers do have protections. I was just looking this up the other day- there are proper ways to report this even for matters that deal with classified information. He didn't do that.

https://www.dodig.mil/Components/Administrative-Investigatio...
Divesting only (marginally) increases the cost of capital for firms which seek additional financing through secondary stock offerings. That doesn't apply to most oil companies.
The "How" at the beginning of the title is important: this is clickbait without it.
Citizens United was a group of people who made a film and wanted to release and the government said that couldn't. The created a corporation to make and release the film.

Citizens United has nothing to do with campaign contributions.
> They're breaking the CFAA

CFAA – 18 USC 1030(f) explicitly allows this. Do you want to try again?

> So you think Snowden is a bumbling idiot yet he somehow faked millions of files detailing the NSA's misdeeds?

Who said he faked the files? This is the second time you have put words into my mouth. I have always said that the files are genuine and that Snowden did not understand them because he has the reading level and the technical ability of an elementary school student.

> I hope you're acting independently, it's far too depressing to think that you are a paid troll.

I know people who implemented the systems at the dot coms that send information to the FBI in the PRISM slides. I have laughed at Snowden's ridiculous misinterpretation of those slides for the past six years. It is a source of continuing amusement that there remain some people who should know better that still believe Snowden's interpretation.
esr's solution to this problem is https://gitlab.com/esr/loadsharers
> the vast majority of the benefit ... go towards increasing the bottom line of for-profit companies, not to developers

The problem is in the licensing.

Large companies have become the primary user rather than the real end users and other developers... because the licenses make it possible.
No one is being locked inside a box. The punishment doesn't even directly impact a person, much less lock someone in a box.
Probably signaling.

If you put some effort into looking nice on a photo, people think you care.

On the other hand, they will see you sooner or later anyway, so there is not much gain but time.
I would be more sympathetic if they could point to someone who had done something super cool in the last few years. Yes, 23 and Me was a clever company a long time ago, but lately I've been wondering just what they'll ever do for an encore. How many times can people test their DNA and find a connection to one of the endless 5th cousins that make up my listing?

Or look at her sister, the one who runs YouTube. The user interface hasn't changed in a bazillion years. It may even predate her arrival. The only "innovation" lately is canceling more and more people, not exactly a proud moment of innovation. It's more like the return of fascism.

I could go on. Spanx, another company mentioned in the piece, was a very clever marketing idea but it was founded in 2000, almost two decades ago. And lets face it, the girdle was really an invention from post WWII.

So yeah, let's make the list diverse but let's not populate it with fakes who are from the conference cycle where their only claim to fame is being the token X who codes.
Talk to whoever you were working with on the recruiting side and ask them when you can reapply. Most larger companies have some fixed time, like after six months. If you can get feedback on the rejection that'd be helpful but don't expect it.
Anxiety simulator: Adventures with Anxiety (open source)
Well, if you have a pinch of evidence, please enlighten us.
>Democracy is not perfect but I am sure CCP is much worse.

This is Debate-able. If it's worse, it's not that much worse.

>I don't know how good you know about Chinese government. But I think you made a mistake about the purpose of the investment and building by Chinese gov. The rail network is not "for the public good", at least it's not the major reason. It's for keeping GDP growth rate looks as high as possible otherwise no one/country can buy the over-produced industrial products like concrete and steels after subprime mortgage crisis.

Isn't improving GDP a public good? What's better in your opinion? Bailing out a bank and letting the execs go on a vacation or building rail infrastructure?

But I get what you're saying. I would say for public rails it's both GDP and helping people move across the country. Cities with rail are way more efficient than cities without.
This is a widely held misconception. Humans tend to expand into every niche and use up all available resources. Tragedy of the commons is an almost certainty without some kind of government intervention (social engineering). So we're projected to just keep using more and more and more energy, regardless of where it comes from, or how cheap/renewable it becomes:

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/06/27/1561608044000/Green-t...

http://www.roperld.com/science/energyfuture.htm

On top of that, even if the US and Europe get their acts together, the rest of the world is going to keep speeding faster and faster to catch up to our standard of living and waste at least as much energy as we do.

As it stands today, there is no solution. We're looking at ecological collapse in all areas when approaching human lifetime timescales.

I think that a solution (if there is one) will come from the current gen x generation (too poor), baby boomer generation (too greedy) and greatest generation (too much in denial) dying out and being replaced by younger, hungrier people who can change their minds and adapt when new information is presented.

In other words, the answer probably isn't technology, it's education and movements. We quit using leaded gasoline and CFC refrigerants, so maybe we can quit using coal and single-use plastic, for example. Then it will come time to quit using the heavy hitting stuff like non-recycled automobiles/housing and factory farmed food. But nobody will do that unless the cost is comparable for similar substitutes.

Which is why I think we'll all fail together and accept mundanity in a world where 90+% of species are extinct and all habitable land is under private ownership for exploitation. Basically global authoritarianism under late-stage capitalism.
The specific question being answered was:

> how will that give the non-morally-driven investors higher returns?

Which is why I only quoted the section that applied directly.

The argument doesn't say that "sinful" companies will be forced into bankruptcy, it goes more like this:

1) virtuous boycotting of a company means the stock has to offer higher returns to "sinful" investors so they buy more shares.

2) Higher returns mean that the bar for the expected return of "sinful" capital expenditures by companies will be higher and thus there were be fewer choices by companies to expend capital in "sinful" ways.

I think the second stage of this argument is... weak and conditional. For a company like BP that offers significant dividends, a lower stock price directly correlates to a higher return without costing the company anything. There is only a downside if that company is selling stock to raise capital. Since BP has been buying back stock for years, it seems like this is actually a benefit to BP as well.
Do not just stare, hover over the icons.
It's disrespectful to the first ammendment to conflate it with astroturfing.
Especially in California with the massive brain trust available in Silicon Valley, I’m surprised some enterprising law enforcement officials never thought to form a posse to go after computer criminals. Heck, “Possees for The Safety of the Children” to track down kiddie porn pushers could have been a hell of a vehicle for publicity.
Even in business, empathy goes a long way.
> But he's not a PR. He has never been.

Right, and this time he has finally paid the price. I admire RMS; he's a genius, and he's done a lot with FSF. But I'm tired of his jackassery. If he, in his high profile position, wants to make arguments nitpicking what is rape and what is the age of consent with what is obviously a sensitive subject, then sure. Just don't do a surprised Pikachu when people hate him and want him gone.
This video by Tim Minchin basically sums up my feelings on RMS.

(NSFW: Language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFsZRQL6QdI

I grew up with RMS as one of my heroes, even if a lesser hero and one that I tended to shy away from for his dogmatism. I no longer have any respect for him. His work was good for the FSF but them's the breaks. No more respect.
There's a cuss free mode [0] for kids and educators. The default version [1] is live.

[0]: https://ncase.me/anxiety/?c=1

[1]: https://ncase.me/anxiety/
I love the idea and simplicity, but if you want conversion to paid plans you must make the paid templates previewable before purchase to establish trust in the investment before the user purchases.
Primary reason is that property has a stable value as you said.

There is also another reason. In most jurisdictions a mortgage is a super senior claim. It is senior even to the taxman, which is very rarely the case for private debt.
There is a video floating around of a couple of guys from a US backed Syrian rebel group cutting the head off a 12 year old boy.
> There is no convincing reason I've seen for Go not to have a generational GC

Well, they explored generational GC (after admitting that their uber-ultimate GC that they marketed as future-proof until 2025 could be better): https://blog.golang.org/ismmkeynote

> It isn't that the generational hypothesis isn't true for Go, it's just that the young objects live and die young on the stack. The result is that generational collection is much less effective than you might find in other managed runtime languages.
You might want to look into the story of Harris Fogel. He was a tenured professor who was unceremoniously terminated for seemingly correctable or even unintentional behavior. He's suing.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/04/04/former-photog...

Stallman OTOH didn't even have tenure. The bigger story for me is if repeated complaints of sexual harassment (leg grabbing etc) went nowhere until now. That's unacceptable and I suddenly side with the Twitter mob in that case because if so he's had his due process already. And in that case, not only is he an ass, but he probably drove a lot of women out of the field and that can't be undone.
Short answer: Because they can.

Longer answer, according to the universities: Because modern students demand more than just classes, they also want social services (on-site counseling, bias incident response teams, etc).

Longer answer, according to a cynic: Because universities are more or less guaranteed the money from the federal government, they've grown to spend the money on inflated administration. As costs go up the government allows students to borrow more and more to cover the costs, and universities find ways to jack up their prices to match the money on the table. While the government loaning poor students money to better themselves with an education is a great thing in theory, I think it's what directly lead to the current situation. I don't want to turn this into a long post against capitalism, but I think that the unfettered capitalistic worldview we have here in the US is the root problem.
Yeah except the programs he unveiled are real, the source code has been leaked to the internet, they have billion dollar budgets and thousands of employees.

But yes, surely it's all fake.
Andela is overhauling its outsourcing model in Africa
Well, it's hard for me to say, how good they are at evading taxes, but I'm sure even when evading they pay much more taxes than average Joe (in absolute numbers).
Hunt me also.