skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think it's a little hyperbolic to draw military service into the equation - as that is almost universally seen as exceptional.

Now for fire and police work - I would argue the difference is one of necessity - even the most fundamental libertarians would probably agree that sex work is a luxury good or service - not something fundamental for survival or law and order; it is closer to working at a restaurant: providing a convenient, but ultimately redundant service (people can and do buy food and prepare it at home).

We don't expect restaurant workers to risk their life; while we accept that firefighters sometimes do (although, they try very hard not to).

As for the more fundamental aspect; should we allow prostitution - or; is there a difference between other uncomfortable jobs and the sex industry - I suppose I land on the side that the idea that prostitution is OK derives from the fact that we live in a society that's not equal.

It may be puritan of me to say that I'd never (unless circumstances changed significantly for worse, I suppose) consider making a living sucking cocks - and I don't think it's a reasonable expectation. But if we do say that prostitution is just work - I don't see why we'd pay social security to people who refuse sex work?

I just think there's a fundamental difference between say, cleaning floors and having sex for money.
We're in the middle of an election right now and housing is an important issue. However, most promises will make things worse rather than better. For example, the Conservatives' plan to allow thirty year mortgages will do more to increase prices and indebtedness then to lower payments.
> You’re missing the bait part of clickbait.

It's not missing at all. The bait is the phrase "her secret in the freezer".

The article may be high quality but the title is clickbait, plain and simple. Do you believe the author chose that title themselves? Or was it the editors who have marketing-set quotas to reach?

Why do you think the top voted comment in this thread is the explanation of what "her secret in the freezer" is? Why do you think the top replying comment to that is the primary HN mod acknowledging it is clickbait?
This is likely because people argue false equivalence in just about everything in there lives.
Does it matter? Do our bodies absorb the stuff? Millions of years primates have been scrounging in the dirt for food. Crystals, metals and organics have been running through our gut for millenia. I am more concerned with absorbed uncured plastic monomer.
Can anyone explain why DoH was invented? To me it seems like another one of the "let's solve this using web technologies!" Whereas DoT has a great ietf process behind it.
I have. The history of economic models is rife with those that were upset by a voiding of a simple inherent assumption, much as the author of that comic addresses. He provides citations, does he not?
It doesn't seem like it. But, every now and then, reality calls about the extremes of human nature (those very humans we serve through tech and science) are necessary :/
New chip could bridge the gap between classical and quantum computing
I've said this before, but you can't outlaw the maths. There's nothing stopping anyone from rolling their own encryption, using well documented algorithms. You'd need to literally outlaw Wikipedia. Hell, even one-time-pads could still be used by truly motivated bad actors that wanted to communicate securely.
I'm honestly not sure which is worse, the Conservative plan to allow 30 year mortgages or the Liberal plan to have the government loan people money for their downpayments...
> (extended) Church-Turing thesis

I'd take out that parenthesis, it's misleading. The Church-Turing thesis is about computability, whereas the "extended" one is about complexity. They're quite different beasts despite the similar name, and QS would really only be evidence against the extended version.
Wouldn't increased property taxes, combined with increased ability of renter's to pay, cause rents to increase?
> Can you run it? Read its code? Redistribute it verbatim? Make modifications to the code for private use? Redistribute the modifications? Then it's free software.

Your answer proves that GP has a point: Commons Clause (on top of Apache for instance) fits your requirements perfectly, yet it is not "free software" according to FSF/OSI definitions.

There are degrees to freedom, and while FOSS activists would like to paint issues black and white, they really are not. Which freedoms a particular user cares about is not at all given. For myself, I would gladly use Commons Clause software, because if I make money off software then it's only fair that I pay commercial license for it - after all, it's in my interest that the software is actively developed and maintained. And your questions are really all I care about, and this clause conforms to them.

But I think in the end it is up to each user to decide which set of freedoms they care about to the point of not using non-conforming software. The cynic in me would say that most users care only about free (as in beer) - at least judging by Android and plethora of its free-of-cost apps.

EDIT: I am not arguing that Commons Clause & co. should be accepted under the "free license" term - for better or worse, this term has some widely accepted definition that is not compatible with them. Maybe a new term, like "hybrid licenses" is needed? We'll see.
You are assuming that having killed once he is more likely to kill again. Depending on the person this may not be true. A psychopath will likely kill again and so should be locked for good. OTOH someone who was not a psychopath and took this chance to rethink his life choices might be about as harmless as the next guy.

Before you say "we can't tell one form the other" let me say this: we cannot tell if we never look. Northern European countries have gathered a lot of expertise in this area, the least we can do is look at it, then maybe look to expend our own understanding of psychology.
GPL -> "Free"

MIT or BSD -> "Open"
Your attitude is the difference between a junior developer and an experienced one.
A pretty accurate but damning portrayal of the economy in Canada. I wonder how smaller but more successful economies like Sweden or Israel manage to consistently build great companies?
Like anything else, just do it. You start somewhere, and gain experience.
> Policing the airwaves and internet pipes hardly qualifies as some major abuse of human rights

The leaders of today are not the same as those of tomorrow - sweeping powers to invade anyone's privacy and communications could easily be used for nefarious purposes. I don't trust our current leaders with such powers, much less potentially worse ones.

> Residents of the US are still free to use whatever mathematical algorithm they want to encrypt their comms. Transporting OTP's across physical borders is trivial, and not technically illegally if not mistaken. Strong encryption is open source as you've pointed out. There's no law against using those open source libraries, nor any discussion to try to censor/outlaw them, AFAIK.

Do you really think things will stay this way?

It seems to me that TFA is just the next step on a slow, but steady, march towards an authoritarian nightmare - once they've worn us down some more, there will be serious moves against encryption (it's happened before, and politicians have been bringing it up a lot in the past 10 years or so).
dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21101721
From a pragmatic standpoint, property tax _is_ rent. I make this comparison because the consequences of not paying taxes is the same as not paying rent.

If there is property tax, only the government owns the property and rents it to citizens.
Better value for money, bigger battery, better screen (Samsung), more memory (most devices), more storage, expandable storage, standard interface (all devices), no legal liabilities related to 'hacking' the device, better camera (Samsung, Pixel), more choice in form factor, need I go on?

What did you do with those phones that they 'went sideways'? I have a number of Motorola Defy phones which are between 8 and 9 years old, they still work fine. My daughter left one of those Defy's in her pocket when she put her jeans in the washing machine, it went through a full washing cycle and still worked except for the ear piece which I replaced at a total cost of $0.50 in parts (I bought 10 for $5 including shipping, anyone need a Defy earpiece?). I only ended up buying a newer device (Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 with many of the mentioned advantages) because the Swedish electronic ID supplier stopped supporting Android 4.4. I also have an Ainol Novo Advanced 8 Android tablet from 2010, still works fine albeit with a somewhat limited battery time.

Apple makes slick devices but the slickness comes with a downside: they are among the most vulnerable devices out there, usually ending up in the bottom legion when it comes to ability to survive rough treatment [1]. Repairs end up being extremely expensive due to the enforced single supplier rule - only Apple is 'allowed' to repair the device, iOS contains checks for 'unauthorised' repairs. For the price of a single screen repair on an iPhone X ($279) I can buy a new phone for myself and for my daughter (who has a Xiaomi Redmi 4X), 'other' repairs cost $549 which is enough for new devices for the whole family. In short, Apple is the more expensive choice. If you think they're worth their price you should buy them but that does not negate the fact that you're paying more for a more fragile device with limited repair options.

[1] https://macworld.idg.se/2.1038/1.692054/iphone-x-en-tickande...
Somewhat of a tangent but: a big driver for QC investment is breaking encryption for military purposes. We already have encryption that is not believed to be vulnerable to QC, and there is a ton of crypto R&D to make it faster and more practical (e.g. smaller keys and signatures).

I wonder if that won't kill some QC investment.
>If by egalitarianism you argue "equal pay for equal work", then that implies both unequal pay for unequal work, as well as income inequality for those who work less over those who work more.

The goal was never to pay people the same amount; in fact, such a scheme wasn't even proposed by Karl Marx himself (he argued against the idea that we should all be "paid equally") - I should have actually stated the other case, in which people who don't work more (all factors relating to productivity considered) actually end up earning more than those who do.

I'm of the opinion that the sort of equality which most people seek cannot be found in a system of wage labour and capital - precisely because of them.
Economics as a serious empirical science is a post-World War 2 phenomenon. Ptolemy had better data about the planets in the second century than we had about the economy in the early twentieth century.
Extinct Bird Re-Evolved Itself Back into Existence on Island in Seychelles
Your statement is implying all humans must only focus on the one most pressing moral issue of the time. This is simply an absurd notion.

Why should veterinarians exist? After all, people are still getting sick and dying.

Why devote medical research to the flu? Cancer is much more deadly and still exists.

Why fight for marriage equality in the US? Homosexuals are stoned to death in other countries.

If you're trying to imply some sort of hypocrisy, you've also run afoul of a logical fallacy. Hypocrisy would imply that the individuals granting an orangutan rights are the same people denying immigrants rights. But they almost certainly are not, and you have no evidence that they are. Hypocrisy doesn't apply to groups of uncoordinated individuals.

(Moreover, the rights were granted by a judge in Argentina. No-one's claiming that the US plans to recognize those rights. So I really don't know what your comment is getting at.)
Unfortunately (I am South American) I think you are wrong. Some of the most prolific serial killers have been South Smerican, but serial killers are not such a popular topic on the news here so it's not as widely known.

I would think it's also logical that serial killers tend to focus on women and children because they are generally easier to overpower than another male. There is probably also a sexual component to killing and I would guess that most serial killers tend to be heterosexual, hence why they mostly target women.

For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_numb...
Yes, this is exactly what I meant when I said that you either do what the Government says, or you go down. This is why I do not believe statements of privacy from Apple (such as we keep your data safe, 100% secure, etc.), for example. If they really have no backdoors or any other ways for the Government to access your data, then the Government would go after Apple. If the Government were to request your data, they would hand it over, right? Is this incorrect? If yes, why?
Also because "good" democratic governments that respect human rights and personal freedoms deteriorate to oppressive tyrannies all the time. What's to say that your country won't?

Who'll protect you when they come knocking on your door to talk about that thing you posted about somewhere online, which used to be quite legal and no problem, but now is super illegal for some oppressive reason or another?

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
QC is really only a risk to RSA, DH, and elliptic curve, and maybe to small hashes and key sizes. I'd say if your symmetric stuff is bigger than 128 bit you only have to worry about asymmetric crypto.
This comment says very little; you don't explain what problem people think DoH solves, won't go into detail on why the statement is wrong, nor why not qualifying "safest" makes it not generally true.

At least a comment that attracts downvotes may be useful to someone.
Everyone who rants about economics has moral outrage. What we need is dispassionate judgement, which is considerably harder to come by.
Unless you live up North or on a reservation...
They can see you, but you can't see them.

Not to dispute your very valid point, but the second half isn't as true as you think.
> Anecdotal evidence, but I saw someone a few months ago who had an active Clojure blog, gave talks on Clojure, contributed to multiple interesting projects on GitHub, but was unable to find a job before literally running out of money and going homeless

That's a bit hard to believe.

Surely someone in this situation would settle with taking a job programming in a different language instead of going homeless?

It's also possible they placed unreasonable demands (I notice a lot of people looking for jobs in niche languages often ask to work 100% remotely too).

If you work in a niche language, you need to be ready to compromise in certain areas, such as having to relocate.
One interesting solution to home ownership and rent seeking might be to spread the rent increase revenue around. In BC at least its common to disallow sublets. Whereas in NY its more or less allowed by law. This means as the rent goes up, land owners are the only ones who have the ability to make money.
>folks could but would not want to.

And so they never learned, and so they "can't".

In the same way, I can't use Gentoo or vim or compile either or ski or... :D
I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said. I said that human rights are valuable and animal rights are valuable, and that we should pursue both simultaneously. It's possible to have -- and try to fix -- more than one problem at a time. Pursuing one does not cheapen the other, and one isn't a precondition to the other. They're disjoint sets.
In this case, Mr Fennell watched a man get attacked, did nothing to help the man and even actively participated in the attack, and when the man died, Mr. Fennell protected the presumed killer by refusing to testify. I don't think it's a stretch, ethically or legally, to assign him significant blame for the killing, especially since his refusal to testify deprived his victims of any further justice.

That doesn't mean I agree with the life sentence (I absolutely do not), but twenty-five years doesn't seem wildly disproportionate to me.
They can make it so if they spot you using it (for other than communication with approved banks and retailers and such, maybe), that's instantly something they can charge you with. Then go after a few people who're spotted using it on the Internet by traffic sniffing, meaning the only folks left using it are cranks and actual bad guys.
I agree. Despite it seeming very clickbaity it was actually a very interesting read.
While I don't agree that your argument was high-quality:

Paul Graham:

I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.

It only becomes abuse when people resort to karma bombing: downvoting a lot of comments by one user without reading them in order to subtract maximum karma. Fortunately we now have several levels of software to protect against that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

News Guidelines:

Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Yeah, what I want is JSON with comments and nice multi-line string support. I don't like how much syntactic magic YAML does (I don't need or want the country code for Norway to be parsed as a boolean False value). I still don't know what the exclamation point does (e.g., !Ref).

And clearly YAML is the wrong tool for infra-as-code since CloudFormation has to build a macro system, conditionality, referencing, and a couple different systems for defining and calling functions (templates being one and their implicit functions being another). We also see tools like Troposphere and CDK which are effectively different ways to generate CloudFormation YAML via programming languages (or more precisely programming languages that were designed for humans).

And it's not just limitations inherent to CloudFormation--Helm has long had templates for generating YAML, but those also weren't sufficiently powerful/expressive/ergonomic so Helm3 is supporting Lua as well. And as I understand it, Terraform is constantly adding more and more powerful features into HCL.

So what's the solution? It's pretty simple--we should keep the YAML around, but it should be the intermediate representation (IR), not the human interface. The human interface should be something like a functional language[^1] (or an imperative language that is written in a functional style) that evaluates to that YAML IR layer. The IR is then passed to something like Kubernetes or Terraform or CloudFormation which understand it, but it's not the human interface.

As for the high-level language, something like [Starlark][0] would work well. It's purpose-built for being an evaluated configuration language. However, I would argue that a static type system (at least an optional static type system) is important--it's easy enough to imagine someone extending Starlark with type annotations and building a static type checker (which is much easier for Starlark since it's a subset of Python which is intended to be amenable to static analysis).

This, I think, is the proper direction for infrastructure-as-code tooling.

[^1]: Functional in that it is declarative instead of imperative--not necessarily that the syntax should be as hard to read as OCaml or Haskell. Also, while YAML is also declarative, it doesn't have a notion of evaluation or variables.

[0]: https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/skylark/language.ht...
Subscribers Are Your True Fans
The quotation is from a movie that literally shows people living in a desert like environment, implying they should be given water. It's not my idiotic interpretation, it is what the quotation refers to.

They should move somewhere where they can get water. UN may pay for it or whatever. But to show people in some rotten place and complain that they don't get their human right to water makes no sense.

Also, the point of finding "most idiotic interpretations" is to make it obvious if something makes no sense. You are just not used to logical thinking (here, finding trivial counter examples).
The initial intention (of DevOps) was to eliminate these discrepancies by eliminating Ops department all together. DevOps doesn't necessarily mean devs doing ops, but it means devs and people curios about ops sit together, as one team, as one department, right next to each other. This setup improves practically every aspect of the product development, support, and delivery, as well as collaboration, communication, and response times.

Initial intention aside, it feels that there is a general consensus that VAST majority of the companies that have `devOps` in the job description somewhere are cargo culting and have no clue what they are doing.

If you slap `Dev` prefix to your Ops department your job postings will look "trendy" but nothing else will actually change.

DevOps is a culture, not a team or department.
There is an advanced type system that is becoming more and more mainstream, it's Typescript.
E.g: https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/advanced-types....
(conditional types for example)

Also c++20 with concepts will push the boundaries of what is possible.

But what I'm really looking for and doesn't exist except maybe through libraries, is runtime Dependant types.
I like how mosques from 1200 have mosaics made with what look like 5-way quasisymmetric aperiodic tilings.

But (and I am not clear on how this is possible) it appears that a large enough conglomeration of these tiles can be itself a wholly periodic tile, and is, on the selfsame mosques.
Yes, but it will also be far more common to be actually released at the default (or close). Heck, "real" life sentences in the US are handed out as peanuts...

Also no death penalty.

Plus much much nicer prison terms (very human hotel-like prisons, permission to study, no solitary crap as punishment, very low recidivism rates, prisoners can take leaves -like "vacations" and come back, etc).
I've got 10.11 and no csrutil. It aggravates me to no end that a web browser update can potentially cause so much grief. Disgusting.
Show HN: Learnember- New note-taking and reminder app on Play Store
That does not describe a cartel -- it describes predatory pricing.
The explanation is not wrong.
Landlordism in cities is (correctly) blamed for a worsening of income inequality.

While I agree that landlordism tends to increase income inequality -- especially in the form Vancouver suffers, where protests convince the city to reject the construction of new housing even when the land is already appropriately zoned and the proposed building complies with the approved local development plan -- but it's wrong to refer to a worsening of income inequality.

Income inequality in Canada increased substantially through the 1980s and 1990s, but it peaked around 2004-2007 (depending on exactly which measure you use) and has been steadily declining since then.