skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think it would be better to publish the individual structures as standalone files without dependencies.

Then I might use one of them in the future.

But pulling in thousands of lines of code by someone from the internet is nothing I would ever do. Because I cannot review it all to be sure it is not malicious. Reviewing a single file without dependencies is something I might do.
EDIT: The user will not be informed the certificates don't match up. He already knows as it is meant to dissuade user's traffic inspection.

It makes traffic inspection of your own devices hard. If you warn and ask the user, then fine, but I believe it was meant as mandatory.
Was it the printers? I thought it was the church trying to crack down on the publication of the wrong variant of the Bible.

Even if it was the printers, they weren't copyright holders at the time because there was no such thing as copyright before the law was passed.

That aside, it would be the authors that were there copyright holders, not the printers. Copyright has always been about middle-men trying to control the flow of information.

If it has benefitted content creators, it has done so only incidentally--because censorship laws are hard to stomach without a little sweetener.
iPhone X is still very capable and not at all old. Is it the newest? No, but saying a two year old device is useless is disingenuous.
Or search for smurfs.
It was my search for smurfs that bought me this HN thread.
Strange how a search for smurfs, can help you to discover a new forum full of intellectual rocket scientists.
Doctors lost the right to complain about wage fixing when they decided to be a cartel.
Lao Zi called weakness strength thousands of years ago. Maybe there's a useful idea you haven't yet understood.
Scientists prepare to drill for million-year-old ice in Antarctica
My favorite blogs generally post super actionable marketing tactics that you can begin implementing as you read. Also enjoy reading industry insights, observations and trends from folks with high levels of experience.

https://a16z.com/ (specifically Ben Horowitz's posts - he starts off each with a rap lyric)

https://sparktoro.com/blog

https://andrewchen.co/

https://doubleyourfreelancing.com

https://rankz.io/blog

https://contentdistribution.com/guides (mine)
Google news doesn't have ads. There's no money to lose.

The whole concept France is pushing has been ludicrous all along. There's no revenue to share or for Google to lose. It's just a free service. Just free. No ads. No money.

The ads are on the search page. Not the news page.
*for Python
>It has a small active community with many abandoned libraries, no killer app, and painful tooling. I like the language in spite of that, but size of community matters. To your point, as a hosted language you can make up Clojure's deficiencies by using Java libraries, but if you aren't a Java developer (or are a disgruntled Java developer) that isn't a great answer.

All of this is demonstrably false as has already been discussed in the other reply.

>Exactly, and I'd argue Clojure was on a path to yes, but has lost momentum and is leaning toward no.

I don't know how you can argue that seeing how Clojure is used commercially by plenty of companies large and small nowadays. It's already been viable years ago, and its only been getting better every year. My team has been using it for nearly a decade now, and we can't think of a better option on the market today. Clojure is way past the point where it needs to show long term sustainability.
Not at all. But we also have a bad habit of conflating flashy new tools with effective ones.
If supply is already limited, then surely further limiting it by restricting patients to only "in-network" doctors can't be helping anything.
Exactly this. I have seen dozens of highly qualified, kind, intelligent people who wanted to contribute in the US leave in frustration because of asinine immigration rules.
The right to repair must include the right to root.
Like a lot of things, the truth is in the middle, and for awhile the pendulum has swung in the direction of certified experts. The problem with this societal paradigm is that experts are often wrong, there's fads, and corruption. Responses to criticism that label the critics uninformed, unscientific, or defective (eg paranoid) are essentially ad hominem. A system like this will inevitably fail because the experts are shielded from responsibility, when if anything they should be expected to be able to tolerate greater criticism.

This problem cuts across many areas at the moment. Economics isn't the only thing.
Whether software is used for ethical or unethical purposes has nothing to do with the license. There is no possible way to bake subjective ethical usage guidelines into a license and still end up with free software.

Trying to license "good" and "evil" boils down to the same slippery slope that the TOR Project dealt with when they had to reject requests to add censorship mechanisms. "Can't we just censor hate speech?"

Software is a tool. How that tool is used is at the discretion of the user. If a developer is concerned that a project could be used for evil, then he or she should consider whether releasing the software publicly is a morally good choice in the first place.
I think perhaps the physical dimorphism is rather easily explained by the fact women have to carry children. Psychological dimorphism would be somewhat more surprising - after all, both mother and father gain from looking after the children. There's no specific biological machinery required to be a parent after the kid is born.

That all said, I think this is over-individualizing the problem of passing on genes. If you take a dog, and a wolf, superficially they are similar. However, wolves are successful because of their complex social structure. So sexual dimorphism could be really misleading, because it's not the body of the wolf that matters, rather its social network. The sexual dimorphism could be an unimportant, anterior characteristic, a bit like the appendix, or the colour of the fur.

When you take humans, who have an even more complex social structure, and more, one that has been extremely gender dimorphic, then consider the organ that's most obviously affected by social morphisms of all kinds... It sounds like a recipe for bad research. Especially when it's a topic people have an axe to grind about.
Why Kaggle Is Not Inclusive and How to Improve It
Learn Functional Programming by Writing a Scheme in Haskell
Its not like the alternative is better. They have the choice of slowly bleeding to death vs severing the hand. Its not clear which is best.

There are upsides, eg google news will stop being an option for news
this is basically the point of representative democracy!

The EU isn't a democracy or even a representative democracy. Notice how lots of people wrote to their MEPs and nothing happened other than MEPs calling their voters stupid? That's because in the EU all decisions are ultimately made by the Commission. The Commission started this, the Commission made it happen and by treaty the Commission is the only body able to actually propose changes to the law.

The EU Parliament quite literally doesn't fit the dictionary definition of Parliament. There isn't any way voters can change this law by voting, not even if every party was for changing it, because even a majority of MEPs cannot change the law. But changing the law is the entire and sole purpose of politicians, so we can observe that MEPs aren't really politicians.

A group elects someone who’s better at statecraft than the group is

That has never been part of the idea of democracy. What makes you think politicians are so great at statecraft? There are no tests they have to pass, assuming you could even make such a test to begin with. What's the definition of statecraft, even?

There's no evidence politicians are smarter or better than the average voter. That's why anyone can turn up and get votes.

Or, from the people’s perspective: elected representatives engage in awful horse-trading and disrespect their constituency’s opinions, and yet gradually everything gets better “somehow.”

For a whole lot of people in the EU things are either stagnant or getting worse. Look at the dire economic performance of Italy since joining the Eurozone: was growing, since flat.

Things don't get better because people repeatedly elect politicians who are superior to themselves. Things, by and large, get better when governments shrink and stay out of things. The fate of the eastern bloc under Soviet rule and then capitalist democratic rule shows that in action (although, now they are at risk of going backwards thanks to things like Article 13).

There are a lot of things you just can’t get done using direct democracy.

Tell that to the Swiss. Most successful country on the continent, by far.
It's worth calling Google out particularly here, because not only do they do useragent sniffing, they also launch new services that use useragent sniffing to block any browsers that aren't on a compatibility whitelist.

I get it, sometimes sniffing is necessary for some things. But it's embarrassing to see a company of Google's size and caliber so reliant on it, and to see their developers so quickly accept that they're just going to abandon what is one of the cornerstones of good web development.
I tend to agree with OP. I do see some improvements in F#, but a lot of effort porting those back into C#. I'm not sure if there's any pull away from F# for that effort, but there may be.
China has a different, competing development model than us.
The thing that is still being ignored is the configuration mechanism for the DoH resolver.

Currently, the only way to configure it is manual and application-specific; there's no way to configure it for all apps and automatically, like DHCP for the normal, 53/udp DNS. Nobody is going to manually reconfigure their DNS every time they switch network (e.g. home -> office -> customer).
Taking a stance of 'no matter what their views are' seems a bit extreme to me, for example, I would not mind people who condone the killing or expulsion of a given race being 'cancelled'. My concern is primarily with people taking comments that don't reflect a person's current views, willingly disregarding context or simply having views I don't find particularly objectionable.
I mean, those claims are anecdotal at best and more importantly Google controls what people see, which is kind of my point. You can’t validate Google isn’t manipulating results. They have every incentive to manipulate them.

I don’t know the specifics though and there was no link provided. However, in any case I think my point remains - assuming that’s true, why was it the case?
For reference, 6 years ago when I left medical school the average survival for metastatic melanoma patients was 6 months.
Yes, you get the point.
I wonder that about pretty much any case of embezzlement these days. With conventional larceny, a thief can appear clean after fencing the stolen goods, but moving money around other than as cash leaves a paper trail indefinitely. There's no point where you can say, "Now I've escaped with the loot, and everything's done."
I didn't want to imply your last paragraph and I'm certainly one of those willing to pay for journalism. My critique lies solely with publishing houses and companies behind journalists that don't keep up with the times. I don't think it's simple either but if we can agree on that I'd suggest it's not as simple as a general "there's free content now, let's screw journalists over" attitude either. In all honesty I feel like journalism and journalists are almost an afterthought when I look at most of the news I'm offered these days and if that's the case why would I blame anybody to take the free option?

> Is it possible that a sufficient number of people aren’t willing to pay for information if it’s available for free with zero friction, and that is why journalism is having a tough time?

While the short answer might be yes, I'm not sure how to argue against that point without whataboutism. The world, and especially how it's people consume information, changed in the last few decades, I don't see these companies adopting, most of them seem to be fine with a senseless defence of a status quo they would never be able to build up today. Business models come and go, an industry as large as mainstream news media can't get their act together and figure out a model that people are willing to pay for. Instead they cripple innovation by lobbying for legislation like the one discussed in the article.

tl;dr: If news outlets let themselves get killed by the inevitable death of print media I just don't see how that's the people's or the internet's fault. They have enough collective resources to come up with an alternative.
Just curious, what does “immediately visible” mean?
> a multilateral world.

> Obama's foreign policy focused on containment and strength in numbers.

... and enforcing a WTO/Bretton-woods unilateral world by placating China and containing Russia/Iran to keep the BRICS bloc from gaining equal footing.
Less clicks through search for sure. This however may render google news useless, and increase direct traffic instead
Why? Is there any way to be certain these are done in hardware and can’t be caught in a low level system once the device is rooted? It’s a black box, so no way to know until somebody manages to pull it off.
(Devil's advocate) why?
I'm unaware of the Saudi robot but as we are a long way off AI, that would be a thing with no inner life.

This is a sentient creature, and - leaving aside the clear ethical questions that raises - considering our not always entirely inspirational stewardship of the planet and the creatures on it, I question your support for consigning it
all to the cold classification of "property".
Humans will outlive climate change and nuclear war
So do you think the 53 cases they have linked to his confessions are all wrong then?

Bringing closure to the people involved in those deaths is worth being nice to a serial killer.
I share your point of view.
The decision making process as described in the piece is such a timewaster and also very, very common in large cooperations. Mainly because management is highly cautious to make decisions at all. They tend to leave it up to „experts“ so they can shift responsibility just in case. This is also the reason why they love to hire consulting agencies and waste so much money on irrelevant powerpoint slides. The author is simply wrong. MGMT should be courageous, resposible, involved, highly informed and reflective!
Agreed. Look, the glaciers are disappearing, the Amazon rainforest has been lit on fire and almost eradicated by humans, and the climate radically altered. All because humans think they own the world and may do as they like with all of it, unilaterally. They don’t need to think about long term consequences because only their immediate needs matter. They don’t need to take any life into consideration other than themselves. They don’t even need to take humanity beyond their own person into account. It’s solipsism taken to a global, permanent scale because there are people who could unilaterally decide to end all life on earth as we know it through mass destruction.

It’s time to open the blinders.
TFA says just UK...
Pilot project for fingerprints on Belgian ID-cards to start end of 2019
My suggestion is to build it into a battery case. Then you always have the device with you and it's always charged if your phone is, preventing catastrophic dead phone in the desert scenarios.
Bathukamma Telangana State Festival – World Famous Festival
I feel the same way about OP's article. I'm not sure what it's trying to get at. The example it keeps going back to is Nixon getting rid of the draft by using an argument made by an economist to justify it. The author lambasts Nixon for using an economic (i.e. data-based) argument rather than a feelings-based argument ("one that weighed national security, military readiness, and democratic control").

But then later the author rails against how economists are too beholden to their own "bias" and "political" beliefs. So which is it? Are we to utilize evidence to help justify our decisions, or should we base our policy decisions off of our gut? It sounds like the author prefers that we defer our social policy decisions to philosophers, a profession even less beholden to hard evidence to back their conclusions. But bias and political beliefs are simply an extension of personal philosophy, so... you would just end up right back where we started trying to reduce personal preference leaking into hard facts and poisoning the problem-solving process.

It's one thing to say that we shouldn't elevate scientific findings and theories (and in turn their founders) to dogmatic levels. Science is a technique to offer answers to problems; nothing more. The technique and its findings can be incorrect or misused or simply misunderstood, but I don't see how the alternatives proposed are any better. Yes, it would be nice if we (and by extension, our elected officials) could have come to the conclusion about the ill effects of the draft based on an argument like "it's bad to force people to go to war for a cause they might not believe in", but that is an open-ended philosophical question and is why we have a democratic process in the first place. We all get a say in what our values are and how our public policy aligns with those values.

I feel like the author does exactly what he argues against: hand-picks a number of data points (very loose ones in this case), packages them up into some kind of position that backs his worldview that things are not going the way he would prefer, and then uses that to argue a deeper philosophical point rather than just get at the concept that scientific findings can often be abused (maybe because that is a much harder problem to solve than just saying economists suck).

Don't even get me started on the fact that the author refers to economists as "privileged" and infers that they are a social class which "came to enter policymaking and insinuate themselves into the governing class". As if people in the field of economics are just born into this powerful bubble in society and should shut their mouths because they simply got lucky in life; not that many of them worked hard to get in to their current profession.
> The definition of free software includes the assertion that it must be possible to use the software for any purpose.

Rather, the assertion that the license must not assert any restrictions on use.
Thanks for the explanation. I use a similar method: putting applications on their own 'virtual desktop' to create a similar experience. I run Thunderbird in it's own visual workspace and only see my mail when I deliberately switch to that workspace...and I've turned off all Thunderbird's notifications. It works for me because my machine is not resource constrained to a point leaving most applications running is likely to slow other workloads.

"Virtual Desktops" lets me handle my issues with application clutter the same way for every application...social media like HN get their own visual workspaces too. I use the tiling window manager Xmonad. After the learning curve it became easier to use than my distro's (Ubuntu) virtual desktops interface.

Of course all that required changing the way I work. Then again, I guess switching applications would require changing the way I work too.

Good luck.
I don't know which aspect for the "best" you mean, if you meant best on monetary gain by reading their articles, definitely https://kalzumeus.com (HN user patio11)
The JSON license includes a requirement that "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil"

Thanks, I never knew this and needed a chuckle this morning.
Can the iPhone Replace a $20k Camcorder?
The idea that men and women don't have inherent psychological differences is an extreme one yet framed here in this article as sexism. The language alone is problematic, implying that anyone who finds evidence that they are different is somehow hateful.

The differences between men and women aren't extreme. You can't look at a woman or man and assume they would be good at x, y and z. But there are statistical differences, particularly at the extreme ends of the spectrum.
> Social media platforms based in the U.S. including Facebook and WhatsApp will be forced to share users’ encrypted messages with British police under a new treaty between the two countries, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Gladly, because if you feel that way, then your social policy is just going to hurt people but try to spin it with isolated feel-good examples.

I don’t want to hurt people, so I would happily not endorse or engage with your type of social policy, and will advocate everyone else to do the same.
Nice looking project, especially nice hacking.md write up in docs/.

From a 15 minute look (I haven’t cloned the repo yet) it was built as a blogging platform and more recent changes to extend for more general web sites.

It always makes me happy to see well documented Common Lisp projects.
Curious what this means for other end-to-end encrypted services such as iMessage.
Ridiculously superficial. Get a proper book on trade instead.
London, the 6th most surveilled city of the planet.
https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surv...
I don't buy that gender is harmful at all.

> However, not all opponents of the patriarchy argue that gender itself shouldn't be kept around. In fact, that's quite a niche position.

I mean.. I'd hope so?
> Getting to the core issue: the client did not see the value in the proposed work.

The Op sounds like they were trying to graft more money from the client to me. The email was already stored. A trivial check would have reduced the triviality of the exploitation.

Not to mention that multiple survey results from the same person cannot be assumed to be what the client wanted.
How ClosedWon generated $100k in revenue before building an MVP
The recent Clojure/north conference [1] focused specifically on commercial usage of Clojure with plenty of companies presenting why and how they're using Clojure to solve their business needs.

There are tons of new libraries and tools being built with Clojure every year. Some recent examples are Spectre, Crux, Metabase, Braid, Neanderthal, and many others.

Meanwhile, the tooling around Clojure is far better than vast majority of languages out there. Leiningen is a one stop shop for managing dependencies, testing, building, and packaging the application. Uberjars are effectively containers that you can drop on any system that has a JVM on it and run them. Compare this to the nightmarish tooling of Node, Python, or Ruby.

Furthermore, if you're doing web development then you get a single consistent setup with Clojure/Script, and once again benefit from superior tooling where you can reliably hot load code in the browser, something that simply doesn't work in Js, do code pruning down to function level, and minification including libraries.

There's a good reason that you rarely see companies switch from Clojure to other languages once they start using it.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClJshc6QtMWRqIAwJy85sfA
It seems like the winning move here for public health would be to increase the supply of legal product to drain demand from the black market.
IIRC from the San Bernardino case, that was the case on the shooter's phone (a 5S I think), but since then it has been built in to the "Secure Enclave" chip which is not affected by the vulnerability. But you could flash a fake iOS that logged the user's code and/or directly exfiltrated the data--the user would have no idea that it was not the stock iOS they were giving their code to. It would leave them which a bricked device the next time they rebooted, which could raise suspicions.
Yeah, Vue.js old style is quite nice to work when using ES6 modules! I think the only thing I'd miss is the scoped styles.
The title is editorialized - it's not just Whatsapp, it's all social media platforms.
yep indeed, should have been in the title