skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Stallman's fanbase can call themselves the Bash Gash Terror Crew.
That's disappointing to hear. Something that's been made clear to me over the past month is that law enforcement actions without true consequences enables further transgressions against the public that they're meant to serve.

It's essentially the question of who polices the police, and their police unions across the country play a huge role in the fallout from cases where police have crossed the line. Administrative leave with pay and eventual reinstatement is not an acceptable form of accountability in the US.

Whether it's a judicial decision or legislative change I don't know, but I'm glad police brutality is getting the attention it deserves (for now).
GitHub has had its ICE controversy for a while now (if not years). Honestly, the leadership should've expected this.
This is superficially true, but very different considerations applied in the two contexts. Loving was a 14th amendment case, while this was a statutory case. In statutory cases the Supreme Court is more deferential to what Congress intended to say, because Congress can easily change the statute if it wants to change the outcome. Moreover, in Loving there was the issue that marriage has long been considered one of the most fundamental rights in the Anglo-American tradition.
This isn't people pushing their own political agenda; this is a consequence of the political stance they took. When a company takes a political stance, they should be held accountable for it.
DIY Perks is a fantastic channel. So much good stuff, so little time to try everything :D
> Justices Clarence Thomas, one of the court’s most ardent conservatives, and Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, have both criticized qualified immunity on separate grounds.

So... why did the Court decline?
Someone else has addressed your other points, but for ECC:

This will not detect an error in computation, only a bit flip in data. The current way to mitigate computation errors is to have two processors to detect an error in computation, or more to do a voting system if mere detection is not good enough. Since you cannot detect a computation error with a single CPU (without overhead somewhere, and thus lower performance), you can’t slow down to fix it.

The ECC systems I have worked with can fix a 1 bit error and detect two or more bit errors. They do this by using an algorithm to convert the original data in to an output that is bigger than the original (e.g. 64 bytes is now 72 bytes). This output data does not make sense until passed through the reversing algorithm. So basically the overhead is zero since the memory controller is running the algorithm in hardware every time anyway, so no slow down.
I’ve used HEY for a few months in private beta, and it took me like a day to get used to things. Not as high of a learning curve as you’d think.
Some political appointees could probably be considered an authority by title and not a subject expert. That might hold true for some ambassadors. I guess it really depends on what exact definition of authority you are using.
I'm using multiple sources — Most of the news are NYTimes archive from printed newspapers and WIRED's WebArchive.
I forgot about Slashdot. That's a nice one. I see they even have an active history from 2000 — https://slashdot.org/archive.pl?op=bytime&keyword=&year=2000...
Introducing+a+Technology+Preview+of+Nginx+Support+for+QUIC+and+HTTP/3
OK, but those are only your opinions, even though you're stating them as if they're facts. Someone coming from a different culture might have a different opinion, of course.
Back in the mid '90s we went through this, primarily with the IDE specification. Master/slave was renamed "Device 0, Device 1" to break the association with slavery.

Perhaps there's some better nomenclature that people will really connect with to prevent this from resurfacing again?
How exactly would Github cause change within ICE? I don't see what power they have to do that.
They are not saying that. Say you have two employees:

* Person A is male and has a wife.
* Person B is female and has a wife.

If you fire person B because of her sexual orientation, you are treating her differently then person A, when the only difference is her sex.

I think the dissent does a good job showing the flaws in that argument, but it's better then you're giving it credit for. The flaw is that you could ask on a hiring form:

Are you [ ] homosexual [ ] heterosexual [ ] other.

If they answer homosexual and you fail to hire them, you don't even know their sex - so you can't possibly be treating men and women differently.
Your boss, an elder, a church and lots of others can be authorities without being experts in the topic at hand.
Yes; government ministers/secretaries come to mind.
"cock" is not a very good example. Gash, as slang, is nowhere near as often used as "cock". Gash's meaning as "a long, deep cut" is, by far, the most used meaning. Whereas "cock", nowadays, the slang term is pretty much the only used meaning. Peach, rod, purse, knob, sheath, pocket, meat, etc. All these words have alternate slang meanings as well. Should we stop using their original meanings? Like I said in another comment, language is all about context. I've only ever heard 'gash' used as slang in the U.K. I would imagine a very large chunk of the English speaking population only know the non-slang meaning.
> there are a number of other characteristics of humans that are currently classified as sexual attractions and not orientations but which some scientists think should be reclassified based on the biological/neurological basis as we better understand the difference between a preference and an orientation.

Could you give some further info please. You're talking distinctions that mean nothing to me. How could sexual attraction not be orientation or preference? It just doesn't make sense.
Power Rows = Extensible Records and Variants
Ask HN: What would be the Hacker News equivalent for tutorials?
Is there a site where I can go and see tutorials discussed and posted all day long?

I know, from the Hacker News etiquette page, that tutorials are considered not new information, and are, in a sense, selected against. (This isn't a pejorative comment, I'm paraphrasing the Hacker News position here).

I would like to know of a site that basically just posts freshly printed tutorials, where people discuss those tutorials.

I know I could cobble together various subreddits to approximate this, and at the moment, that's what I'm doing. It... does not work well. Lots of non-tutorial content, and not much of an emphasis on tutorials themselves, which is what I'm seeking.

The closest thing I know of might be dev.to, but again, tons of noise.

If anyone has any recommendations for a site like this, I'd appreciate it, and I'd definitely use it.
Police are institutions with standardization, their culture isn't some random construct, it's something that's actively decided on, that's codified in legislation and training.

Criminal culture is not, it's something that emerges way more naturally, usually as a direct response to the culture set by police and punishments established by law.

If, for example, the punishment for certain crimes is so high by default that the criminal would rather die than get a sentence that would equal death, then you have taken any and all motivation from that criminal to look for a more reasonable way out, instead preferring to "go out in a blaze of glory" on their own terms.

That's why this whole "tough on crime" approach mostly leads to an escalation on both ends: Cops treat criminals more harshly, criminals respond by acting more harshly themselves because acting more reasonable wouldn't gain them anything anyway so they might as well completely live out their destructive urges.

This is further reinforced through a prison system that's not aimed at rehabilitation, but generally seen as a form of "revenge", as "punishment" and as such victimizes its inmates, which leads to even more resentment, while leaving them utterly unprepared, and with quite a grudge, when they get released back into society.

Which leads to the outcome that it usually won't take long until they get into trouble again [0] because their time in prison taught them nothing except "might makes right" and how sadistic cruelty is a valid way of interaction with other people when you are the one in a position of power.

[0] https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/may/3/long-term-re...
All you need is one bit: silence -> neutral!, 0 -> buy!, 1 -> sell! Or two: 00 -> neutral!, 01 -> sell!, 02 -> buy!, 11 -> wait!

Plus error correction... When you add error correction and consider the number of missed bits and the need to retransmit / keep transmitting, it's probably not possible to realize a latency win here.
ROFL I'd love to see Rachel Dolezal try to push that angle to SCOTUS.

Strange though that the court has never applied title vii to immigration law/status despite it being one of the most obvious areas of systematic discrimination based on national origin.
I really dislike labeling any recognition of an issue as "cheap".

It was not that long ago that any positive recognition of even gay people existing in modern media outside of farce, recognition by corporations was seen as a HUGE step forward as far as making people or concerns SEEN.

Maybe some CEO's out there are all Snidely Whiplash and putting out all their messaging for free PR, but I'm not going to assume that and I think the recognition is of value.
Yes, but hedge funds have a larger counterparty risk. Their hedge is more likely to not work out, than your insurance is to fail to pay up. (And this aspect of insurance is quite heavily regulated.)
this is brilliant. thank you so much for creating this.

this also has end-to-end encryption built in. I think it should be the default and no hidden in a hard-to-find section.

I wish it would export in the Mermaid format - https://mermaid-js.github.io/mermaid/#/
Yes, for example. Is it sexual discrimination to refuse to hire someone due to them being married to a woman in a state that allows a man or woman to be married to a woman?
Wait, I thought earth was flat?
Wait till they find out their tax dollars fund ICE.
It would be nice if it was possible to write mixed-language Chinese and Japanese here in HN comments. It would also be nice if it was possible to write math here. But neither are possible...
Removing 99% of the spam/threats/exploitation/whoring shouldn't be so easy.

Again, one-size-fits-all is always black and white (ala open garden/closed garden), but communications is the fundamental concern being addressed, not feelings/bias.
sure illegal drugs only affect users. and the user affected by illegal drugs don't loose any notion of right/wrong and can harm other people
Does anyone have a Helm chart to run this in k8s?
> It'd attract extreme negative attention from the rest of the government, and great fear from all paying customers that an internet mob could separate them from their code at any time.

Using Microsoft as your canonical code repository is already a meaningful risk to your business. It's nice that more companies are recognizing this.

They're building nice new features with their ecosystem, too, in traditional Microsoft embrace-extend style.
This is a genuine question. I want to immigrate to USA, but currently there is no easy way to immigrate to USA. On the contrary Canada has a fair immigration system that allowed me to stay, work and eventually be citizen.

Why don't people push for a fair immigration system in USA instead of abolishing ICE? What exactly am I missing here?
Because two is not a majority.
> One side gets de-humanized and shown the door. I'll let you guess which side that is.

The immigrants in ICE detention centers?
Maybe ... by making an explicit enumeration rather than saying something like 'and any other non-elective conditions' or similar language to capture the central idea, it seems that there were specific areas where they saw problematic discrimination and chose to make them illegal.

And the concepts in question were known at the time, but generally not considered "acceptable" by sizable portions of the population. Speculating, of course, but if they had added language about sexual orientation at the time it would likely have met considerable resistance. As it was the original text didn't even include "sex"; that was added as an amendment in committee.

As far as I'm aware there were no attempts to correct the bill in the other direction, by excluding gender identity or sexual orientation explicitly from the list; which I think can be reasonably interpreted to mean that the commonly held view is that those were not included.

At least now, any members of congress who disapprove of this action by the courts is left to decide whether they do accept those protections or not, and hopefully one of the bills explicitly adding that text will move forward so that this decision can be made moot by the legistlature.
You should read the entire ruling:

"Ultimately, the employers are forced to abandon the stat-utory text and precedent altogether and appeal to assump-tions and policy. Most pointedly, they contend that few in1964 would have expected Title VII to apply to discrimina-tion against homosexual and transgender persons. And whatever the text and our precedent indicate, they say, shouldn’t this fact cause us to pause before recognizing liability?

This Court has explained many times over many years that,when the meaning of the statute’s terms is plain, our job isat an end. The people are entitled to rely on the law as written, without fearing that courts might disregard its plain terms based on some extratextual consideration.

And as we have seen, no ambiguity exists about how Title VII’s terms apply to the facts before us. To be sure, the statute’s application in these cases reaches “beyond theprincipal evil” legislators may have intended or expected toaddress.

But “‘the fact that [astatute] has been applied in situations not expressly antic-ipated by Congress’” does not demonstrate ambiguity; in-stead, it simply “‘demonstrates [the] breadth’” of a legisla-tive command."

When reading the opinion, which I strongly recommend, you won't feel like they are somehow reinterpreting words to mean different things. The opinion goes to great lengths to define every single word in Title VII, what it means, its intent, and precedence to build on its reasoning, which is states multiple times is based on a plain reading of the law.
That attention being their work to expand the Mac's software base and its reach with software developers?
The Analog TV doesn't have a framebuffer, and neither do most consoles, until you get into the 3d era.

My understanding is that the timing of the vblank signalling that comes between fields determines weather the next field is an even field or an odd field. If the vblank signalling comes in the middle of the last scanline, the next field is an even field; if the vblank comes aligned with the end of the last scanline, the next field is an odd field.

If you always start vblank signalling in the middle of a scanline, you get all even fields, if you always start vblank signalling at the end of a scanline, you get all odd fields.
(Edit: Removed “people are lazy”, poor choice of words) People feel despair, hence pushing on Github instead of the political process. I’m all for unconventional leverage, but Microsoft is a trillion dollar org and has shareholders; this isn’t some VC funded dual class share startup where the founder has a blank check to do whatever they want.

Edit: Can’t give up on the political process, that’s where the change happens. Continue to apply pressure, your opponents eventually give up or die out.
HGST is under Western Digital.
It think it's pretty naive to expect that GitHub's contract with ICE gives them some kind of inside opportunity to help guide policy within the agency.

On the other hand, employees of ICE, who are actually inside do probably have some (admittedly limited) amount of leverage. It might by that if they are frustrated at losing access to tools that they previously thought worth paying for, they would attempt to exert that leverage for change.
We are going through a very strange and extreme period in US History. Corporations are a huge part of the political landscape. Of course workers who are powerful will demand things of their workplaces.

All corporations are political. By accepting the ICE contract previously it was political. Now by reversing they would be changing sides. They were already in the political fray.
Agreed, playing politics for marketing purposes shouldn't be free.
Living the Top Gun dream, on a budget
In short: this author is endorsing a funding model focused on low initial investment and faster profitability. The benefits key benefits are that this funding model results in more women and minorities getting funding, as well as higher rate of companies surviving (10% vs. 44% [1]). The former is good, but probably isn't sufficient to motivate most investors. The latter doesn't necessarily translate into better returns on investment. Throughout this whole piece I was looking for a comparison on the net return on investment of the traditional VC model and this Indie.vc model. This comparison is never done. A high-risk high-reward investment model may still produce higher rates of returns than a low-risk low-return model.

Right now we're seeing a trend of larger companies taking an ever larger piece of the market share, and the total number of firms decreasing. While encouraging founders to form smaller companies with shorter time to profitability undoubtedly results in more companies surviving 3, 5, and 7 years after founding, that's not what we're optimizing for. An investment strategy with high rates of failure, but producing larger companies with those few successes is still yields the potential for larger overall returns.

1. What does it mean by 10% vs. 44% of companies surviving? Presumably it means that 10% of traditionally funded companies exist X years after founding versus 44% of Indie.vc founded companies. But this is a strange metric to give without specifying how many years we're talking about.
Good to know we can count on the SEC to bust small-time dentists who make $70K on options trades off insider info, and also rubber stamp financial maneuvers which are guaranteed to harm numerous retail investors like this.

If the ruling principle of our financial markets is going to be "caveat emptor" why don't we just disband those portions of the SEC which are supposed to vet securities offerings?
GitHub perhaps, but we are talking Microsoft, and we are talking other corporate powers. One of the things I hear all the time is that corporations influence public policy _too much_. Look at ALEC, look at PACs etc.

Companies _can_ influence policy. Look at Microsoft saying they won't offer facial recognition until laws are passed.
>Aren’t these cases different, the employers ask, given that an employer could refuse to hire a gay or transgender individual without ever learning the applicant’s sex? Sup-pose an employer asked homosexual or transgender appli-cants to tick a box on its application form. The employerthen had someone else redact any information that could beused to discern sex. The resulting applications would dis-close which individuals are homosexual or transgenderwithout revealing whether they also happen to be men or women. Doesn’t that possibility indicate that the employer’s discrimination against homosexual or transgender persons cannot be sex discrimination?

>No, it doesn’t. Even in this example, the individual ap-plicant’s sex still weighs as a factor in the employer’s deci-sion. Change the hypothetical ever so slightly and its flawsbecome apparent. Suppose an employer’s application formoffered a single box to check if the applicant is either black or Catholic. If the employer refuses to hire anyone whochecks that box, would we conclude the employer has com-plied with Title VII, so long as it studiously avoids learning any particular applicant’s race or religion? Of course not: By intentionally setting out a rule that makes hiring turn on race or religion, the employer violates the law, whatever he might know or not know about individual applicants.

This is shockingly bad logic. Their counter examples clearly have the employer learning the applicants race/religion. The fact that the employer uses crude definitons i.e. [Black/Not Black] and [Catholic/Not Catholic] doesn't change that. The employer simply redefined racial/religious groups to suit their particular needs.
VC without huge ROI expectations doesn't work. Like the actual economics don't work. I don't really understand the point of any of this. VCs need massive outsized returns because 99% of the companies they invest in will return $0 to the fund. You need that one company that returns the entire fund (ex: $500m) + some percentage.

Also, from the article "And founders can even buy back the stakes (ranging between 10% and 15%) by hitting certain revenue targets"

10-15% interest on a crazy high-risk loan makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
Quantum Computing as a High School Module [pdf]
> An Engineers' (i. e. A train driver) salary is a function of the amount of power that he uses. So if he is on an uphill run, he makes more money than on a downhill run.

...what? Why? I get the rest of the quirks listed (rewarding service, supporting families, fine), but what possible reason would they have for rewarding energy used? Is it just a bad proxy for distance?
Usually token action is taken ahead of time in the form of donations and community service work instead of hurting bottom-line profit. IMHO this is an irresponsible rookie CEO not knowing that he’ll have to fold to future political movements if he folds to this one.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy, because "authority says X is true doesn't imply X is true". If an expert says "X is true", it's not true because they're an expert, it's true because they provide evidence that shows that X is true.
Some books are capable of making their own niches. Under the current system they become bestsellers and then their authors become well compensated for all their hard work. You can't really have patrons for a market segment that doesn't exist, or doesn't know that they want that content yet.

It's hard to see how under this funding model something as revolutionary as Upton Sinclair's The Jungle or Rachel Carson's Silent Spring would even get published. The research in those took years and there was no demand for such titles on those topics previously.
^ Not sure if it's what you're thinking of, but FreeHand seems to be a big one in this domain: https://www.adobe.com/mena_en/products/freehand/

I've never used it, I've just seen people gush wistfully on the internet. :)
The taxpayer/citizens should influence ICE/government. Not GitHub. Government should serve/fear the people, not corps.

And people wonder why there is a military industrial complex.
If Github has a negligible technical impact on ICE, in what way are they meant to have any significant influence on ICE's policy?
While you are talking about games, it's relevant to remember that Unity had different licenses for their 32 and 64 bits engines just up to a few years ago. I think the free license was 32 bits only, what locked a lot of people in it.
Considering they are the agency also tasked with stopping modern versions of slavery (human trafficking), it does make for some moral arguments.
They're both discriminatory. The question is what are you discriminating against?
I for one, will not miss hertz. They charged me 100$ for a baby seat, without even listing the price. Then, when I confronted them about it, they tried to deny responsibility by saying it was the billing vendor's fault even though they're the ones who received the money.
What a crazy story.

Matt Levine's post about this is great as usual: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-12/if-you...
Wondering how to avoid bifurcation of the discussion. If we can close/delete/merge one of these somehow that'd be nice (feel free to get rid of the one I posted, I don't care), but maybe it won't be necessary? I have no idea.