skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"If you used a PC in the late ’90s, you were quite familiar with the frequent crashes, lockups, and reboots that were common on MS-DOS, Windows 3.x, and Windows 9x. The DOS-based PC ecosystem was a house of cards built on an ancient patchwork of code that ran on endless variations of hardware."

House of cards literally and figuratively -- I have fond memories of fighting with QEMM386 and PROTOCOL.INI/NET.CFG and IRQs to get both my network card _and_ sound card working at the same time, only to then have to then get that all to work with Windows!
Maybe, but I would rather live in a society that has full respect for people than full respect for private property.
Debt is senior to equity.
Full Stream Ahead
Exactly this. Choosing to remove politics from your life is an acknowledgement that very little good comes of it.

It comes down to “Control what you can control.”

So much of politics comes down to trying to control other people, whether it be their thoughts, actions, view points, money or rights. It’s an unhealthy topic that tends to leave everyone involved angry.

Choosing to ignore it is an acknowledgement that you don’t want the anger and that the benefit of your anger is rarely, if ever, worth it.
It's not super obvious from the README, but I did throw a few examples together here:

https://ridgecss.com/examples.html

There's also the original inspiration for them here:

https://almonk.github.io/pylon/

They are essentially swiftui-ish helpers to lay things out with even spacing vertically (vstack) or horizontally (hstack)
This goes way too far in limiting freedom IMO. It makes sense to not let people discriminate on things that are immutable (like skin color), but it's crazy to not let discrimination happen on things that are a choice.

Just like I can decide not to let people not wearing shoes or shirts into my business, why shouldn't I be able to deny entry to a neo-Nazi? What if I'm losing black customers because I have racists regularly visiting my store?
'All lies': how the US military covered up gunning down two journalists in Iraq
No reasonable conception of ethics is anything but consequentialist. Do you intend the word as a criticism? Do you have some alternate, deontological, view?
> is that someone else will realize there is now an under-served market, and create a business to fulfill that need.

That is a childishly simplistic understanding of how free markets work. There is no way a retail business would be established to service the needs of 2% of the population who are wheelchair users for example, when they could easily make their stores considerably more efficient by making the aisles a little narrower.
The state, county, and local govs are a part of the US government. The supremacy clause sees to that.
For a lot of them, no. Also, even if they only want to make money, they will have different opinions about how different company strategies will succeed, and be interested in different time frames.
Nice work! If I can offer a suggestion, I think it might help to list everybody who is on record as supporting the bill. In addition to many House Democrats, at least one Republican has also signed on: https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1270859758061436929
A hallmark of current America, unfortunately.
Politics is the process of making a decision, so my point is that decision-making is inherently political.

Your comment — and subtle trailing insult — is not constructive and non-sequitur.
Quote: "What I’ve learned from her is that keeping technology from ICE actively harms those vulnerable populations,” he wrote."

Let's assume Microsoft in general, and GitHub in particular will get their way and severe ties with ICE. Guess what's going to happen next?

a- Suddenly ICE is going to become a nice entity and everything going to be peachy

or

b- Chinese will supply the software instead, or worse, is going to be internally made by government, meaning NSA will have another wet dream come true
You are lucky that you can ignore politics.

As a minority, who has repeatedly faced discrimination; at various jobs, airports, in restaurants, and at social events, I cannot ignore it.

Also I believe it is a moral obligation to stand up for weak. So even if you are privileged enough to be not affected by politics, you should participate in it for your weaker friends and family.
> So who decides? Do companies now need a chief political officer?

Companies make "political" decisions every single day, in literally everything they do. Just as Apple and Nike make the _decision_ to employ the questionable overseas labour practices, providing services to them is also a _decision_. The whole point of the corporate executive branch is to make decisions for the company, it's the difference between McDonalds and a bunch of random stores making hamburgers. You can't hand-wave your way out of accountability with statements like this whenever you start having to face hard decisions like this.
There is almost no such thing as standard contracts in b2b and especially business-to-government segments. You'd best believe that ICE has a special contract that it negotiated with GitHub/MS, and it would not be out of the ordinary for the terms to have been influenced by political favors at some level of the negotiation.
Reporting them is the opposite of "for your own protection": they'll turn their harassment on you!
I think you are misunderstanding my argument.
My argument is you (and github employees) should feel free to raise that about the Chinese Government vis a vis the Uyghurs too.

If we agree that there are any circumstances where a company is ethically required to refuse selling it's software to a national government, then we can look at the particulars of any specific instance and decide if we think that's such a case, but we don't need to argue about whether it's appropraite to "to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity," becuase we've all agreed that there are at least some circumstances where it is.

What is in fact inappropriate is to argue that a company should never be expected to deny service to a government, no matter what they do.
Fair enough! Though, you do realize that the whole ICE thing has been baking for nearly a year now? The central question I think is: at what point does the employee realize that discussion is more for his/her sake than for the sake of actual change?
Corps don't just get to magically do whatever they want without repercussion. The purpose of corps is to better humanity, and they should certainly fear "the people" if they are are doing the opposite.
How would businesses be more profitable if they exercised the right to refuse service more? You also realize the people who exercise this right the most do it for reasons you likely don't agree with.
That is one of the more well-reasoned and thoroughly explained pieces of corporate communication I’ve read. I wonder if the “Jobs style” has been widely adopted in the corporate world; I feel like I see it more and more often these days.
I tried to resurrect your parent post, but it remains dead. So I'll ask here instead.

> I expected to be downvoted by conservatives, but not this fast.

What makes you think that you were downvoted by conservatives? You probably were downvoted by people who disagreed with you, but I don't see any particular reason to believe that they are conservative. As someone else pointed out downthread, it seems equally likely that you would be downvoted for saying something that could be construed as positive about Trump, or for that matter by someone who felt that you should be downvoted for even mentioning his name. Or maybe you are right. I'd love for downvotes to require some sort of public attribution of reasoning to avoid amplification of misunderstanding.
Files by Name (Minix 3 Filesystem)
The good faith relationship with respect to insurance contracts in common law countries is the letter of the law. The relationship between an insured and insurer is a special relationship and is subject to separate obligations to those which arise out of the contract itself.

The insured has a duty to disclose everything that is or would be material to the insurer, even if that information is known only to the insured.

Fraud is entirely separate.
I have a basic intro at https://endqualifiedimmunity.com and link to more detailed articles at the end of the site.
Thanks for sharing this project. I have a lot of small individual sensors tracking mostly temperature and humidity in every room and outside (including one on my bike), and I'm always wanting to build a "complete" weather station, but lack the basis to build it upon. Yours looks cool.
>As developers we are no longer seeing our actions as “politically neutral” and are starting to understand the power we yield collectively to make positive change to our industry.

The only thing it changes in the industry is who gets a contract.
I agree. This isn't quite an apples-to-apples comparison. But middle-market companies with okay-ish financials can easily get covenant-lite leveraged loans from the gigantic private credit market, for well under LIBOR + 1000 basis points. The current yield-to-maturity on the leveraged load index is 5.64%[1].

3X in 7 years implies a yield-to-maturity of 17%. Why would any company pay more than three times the cost of capital they can get from much larger, more liquid, and established Wall Street financing?

[1] https://us.spindices.com/indices/fixed-income/sp-lsta-us-lev...
The other thing that was always notable about this letter is Jobs's own use of the term "PCs" to refer generically to a form factor (that would include Macs), and not the long-dead trademark for IBM's product line of home computers from the 1980s.
Depends.
You can sell a in money call, and buy 2x out of money calls.
You only lose if the asset's price falls between your sell/buy.

The point is selling isn't bad. Its not managing risk that kills you. And for this poor dude it did.
Facebook's WhatsApp brings digital payment to users in Brazil
Maybe, but they would need to be really long (16 years?). Otherwise every administration will just flip judges "to their side" at the first opportunity, nullifying the court's role as a check on executive/legislative power.
I used to use 'master' and 'read-slave' database nodes. I'm happier with 'writer' and 'read-replica'. I would say this is definitely in context.
It's maximalist unlike most other classless css frameworks, because it also includes a bit of atomic css and alpine.js tags on the examples page.

It really is meant to be used kind of like a bootstrap substitute with less !important and more reactivity coming from alpine.

Full stack developers used to mean "render html on the server and spruce it up with javascript" so that's kind of where I was going with it.
Just pulling some of these randomly out, there's quite a few that are clearly not caused by the police: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/may/13/jail-inmate-di...

> Officers arrested the man for violating a domestic violence no contact order and unlawful possession of a firearm

> the man went into cardiac arrest during processing.

> Correction officers began resuscitation immediately, police said, and the man was transported to the hospital while he still had a pulse. He later died at the hospital.

https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2015/07/10/Physical-...

> Ms. Harris declined to comment through an Allegheny County Jail Health Justice project spokeswoman, but she has said that her son took an anti-seizure medication twice daily and called her from the jail to ask for help getting health care workers there to give him the medication

> He died of acute peritonitis due to colon perforation, and the death was ruled natural.

> Our records indicate that within ten minutes of Mr. Smart’s arrival at medical intake, our staff ordered the medications he said he needed, and he received those medications as prescribed. During an emergency event later that evening, our records show that our staff administered additional treatment to Mr. Smart and that he responded to the medical care provided.

This is an extremely misleading website and not a reliable source.
The subject in question is not some fuzzy social science: this is a straightforward assessment of reading ability for a given color scheme. You access objective metrics like ability to detect errors, reading speed, accuracy, etc.

Arguing with this is like disputing the fact that high heels make for terrible running shoes. Research in question with be quite similar.
Since the right people might be reading through the comments here -

I've been looking at making a hi-res ceiling projector for a living space. Perhaps not one, but a set of several projectors with an overlap, but the key point is that they need to be placed in a way so not to interfere with the normal flow of life. Nor to be easily shadowed by people walking around, etc. This (likely) mandates placing them around the room perimeter, possibly on the walls at some height. This in turn means that they will be projecting at an angle.

Do I understand correctly that it's not possible in principle to achieve proper focus on the target surface when projecting at an angle like this? That is if I am to project, say, a star field then it's not be possible to have stars close to the projector and far from it to be both in focus at the same time?
As mentioned in the Manfred Berger talk, the tech is supposed to, in theory, get you a 25-50% cost effectiveness advantage. Obviously the market prices don't reflect that, but that explains why they'd do this.
That's why we do tradeoff studies in systems engineering, to avoid that we take important decisions based on emotions or assumptions. Participants can still get emotional, but at least they have the facts and a process which converges to the optimum solution when followed.
It's number 67 in the world, using immigrants per capita. Still, a pretty high rate of foreign-born population.
I am fully behind something like this, and more than happy to pay for an email service that will stop all the "new-age spam".

But! "Want an invite? To get a code, email iwant@hey.com and tell us how you feel"

Seriously? A Gmail trick? By playing this trick, you just destroyed all your credibility.
Do these open source developers:

A) Have a means of identifying which of their users are pedophiles, rapists, and terrorists?
B) Have a means of selectively denying people access to the tools?
C) Have a means of determining which of these users would using their tools to rape, produce child porn, and enact terrorism?

If so, then yes, I would say they're guilty.
I think that even if we ignore the practicality of building it, at that thickness the neutron star material would immediately collapse into a black hole :)
Ghost supports tables via markdown. You can embed SoundCloud and YouTube natively for audio.

As for gifs and comments here's a link to my ghost blog with a gif as well as comments(disqus) https://thoughts.willcipriano.com/weird-python-tricks/

Embedding third party services may go against the values of some Richard Stallman types, for me however it enables me to host behind cloudflare with a $5 a month digital ocean droplet and not have to worry about getting hugged to death. I can live with the tradeoff.
Just wait until PCG exits bankruptcy this week! It'll probably get swarmed by investors trying to "buy the dip", even though the shares are very diluted now
Thank you! That's my goal this week to put together a current list of the co-sponsors on all bills aimed at restricting/ending qualified immunity.
> Yes, but also companies exist literally only to make money.

Companies exist because society, represented by elected governments, considers them a useful concept. Their activity is assumed to be beneficial to society without any explicit requirements to that effect, because they operate in a free market where Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand generally applies.

It is strange how this is always being used to justify any and all morally reprehensible behavior by companies. If you expect people to, on occasion, go above and beyond the minimum required by law, there is no reason to hold companies to a lesser standard.

There are infinite examples where society noticed some less-than-ideal behavior in the pursuit of profits and acted on it, by, for example, legislating environmental, labor, or consumer safety standards.

At the other end of the spectrum, companies do regularly consider ethics in their decisions. This happens so often in fact, most any American CXO would be in jail if the crowd that keeps repeating that any consideration but shareholder value is prohibited by law were right. Google left China at some point for ethical reasons. Apple has invested earlier and more than competitors into environmental improvements. On labor issues, they have often done the right thing where a company like Nike, faced with very similar questions, has not.

Almost tautologically, any publicly known selfless act I could give as an example can be dismissed as still being done solely in the pursuit of money, by being PR exercises. But that just points at how easy it is to get around this fictional requirement to be amoral caricatures of capitalists: do as much good as you want, and call it PR!

Or, in Github’s case, point out how reliant you are on attracting talent. And ditch ICE in the name of recruitment, and, therefore, future profits.
Well also, on pretty much every brokerage, if you get assigned a leg of a spread while your position is ITM then your balance drops through the floor far beyond what your max loss is. But that's just temporary until you close the position fully.

I would hope that isn't what happened here because he could have just closed the other side of the assigned leg and accepted a much more modest loss.

edit: this is where a standard brokerage shines. when this first happened to me i called TDA and they walked me through how to get out of my shitty position. Not sure you can do the same with RH.
> If you disagree with the actions of a family member - is your solution to cut them off immediately without talking to them?

I don't think your employer is like "a family member", this analogy is too absurd to counter.

> family, employer, HoA, neighborhood, city council, state/province, and country?

one of these is not like the other.
you get to participate in decision making process via voting in HOA, country ect. Employment is purely transactional like getting coffee from a coffeeshop, you have no say in what kind of beans to pick.
This glitch showing a massively incorrect balance sounds absurd. Is there a logical explanation? Is it a bug?
Pandas code with long lines can look so so ugly. Not a dig towards the original post at all, it's just that the pandas API isn't the most pleasant to work with.
In the movies, when a multi-billion dollar company seeks to destroy a rival, they hire some sort of intimidating "fixer" played by Liam Nielson who hacks their bank accounts to destroy their finacnes, frames them for crimes they didn't commit and murders their pets.

In real life, apparently, a team of six people basically come up with a bunch of ideas that wouldn't be out of place in a prank war between rival college fraternities that's gone a little too far.
>I wouldn't cheer on any company doing that,

You would cheer on Boeing for asking that ICE be more cruel?
Its quite competitive citadel makes money. But Citi bought a company and then sold it. KCG went bust ...

The big money is trading options, etfs, equities,cme futures against each other and against swaps. But for swaps you need an otc desk.
I don't agree with discrimination, and would never seek to engage in that myself.

With that being said, in the private sector, there really is no "right to fair treatment" with exceptions for anything required by law for affirmative action. By forcing fairness (where a business must provide service to someone it doesn't want to), you are simultaneously removing the freedom of association [0].

[0] While not explicitly stated in the US constitution is argued to be a fundamental human right.
One story, 50 hours reading time, and good earning
It’s an email provider costing $99/year.
Companies can start choosing based on what they feel is right, rather than what is just immediately financially beneficial, since there is no such thing as not "wading into these waters". When presented with the option to sell services to ICE or facial recognition to abusive and murderous police departments who do everything they can to avoid accountability, the executives of that company are explicitly making a choice. Are we okay with our software being used to detain and abuse immigrants? Are we okay with our software being used for targeted harassment and state violence against people whom the state has targeted?

The only people who consider that "not taking a stand" are the people who don't suffer as a result of that choice. Thus, as the parent poster said, this is a support of the status quo (or an escalation of it) by privileged people who will never suffer the consequences of that choice. Saying "the abuse of police power and the imprisonment of asylum seekers has nothing to do with me or my company" is saying "I'm okay with all of this because it doesn't affect me directly".

As we've seen with Facebook, trying to "not take a stand" is actually taking a stand, and saying "we won't fact check obvious lies or take down calls for violence by the military against our own citizens" is saying "we're okay with our platform being used to erode democracy and threaten people's lives". We're seeing now that Zuckerberg, then, is completely okay with the effective dissolution of everything that the US claims to stand for, as long as it means that Facebook won't be broken up as a result of their unethical and illegal business practices.

In this way, Facebook isn't "not taking a stand", they're specifically taking a stand against corporate and social accountability. Because of their position in the market that means that they can directly and indirectly affect what news people see, what groups people are recommended, and what politics people have, and they don't want to give up that power, so they'll implicitly support a government which will let them keep it, no matter what the consequences to anyone else.

There's no such thing as not "wading into these waters"; only following your ethics vs. signing another contract and making a few million bucks from it.
My Sun Mountain Four5 golf bag. It seems to work fine.
Yep! It looks like that's exactly what the new version of Teachable Machine is for: https://teachablemachine.withgoogle.com/

I might have misunderstood your comment, but if you've just started learning to code, I'd probably start with simpler tutorials and projects - just to get a handle on the basics. Depending on your background it could take a good 6 months of daily practice to get comfortable with the basics. It took me and my friends at least that long - similar time frame to learning a spoken language like Japanese, say, to a basic level. Learning to code is absolutely worth it though - 6 months is a very cheap price in my opinion. I'd probably start with a tutorial like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPWkPOfnGsw Or the Khan Academy computer science course.
Just food for thought:

If Github backed out, wouldn't someone else fill their spot by using Gitlab? And if so, isn't that transition cost paid for by tax payers?

I'm mostly wondering what's the material impact of Github backing out, outside of optics.
In both cases, you very clearly have some responsibility. In an incredibly straightforward and unambiguous way.

I'm struggling to see how this is intended as a counterexample. Is it because disapproving of homosexuality is wrong? That doesn't at all change the entailment of responsibility by the conjunction of foreknowledge of consequences with uncoerced action.

If you walk out into a public street and fire a pistol around you randomly, you are clearly responsible for any death or injuries thereby caused (given that you were aware of the likely outcomes), even if it is through negligence or indifference rather than deliberate intent.