skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Amazon.com will sell you many great books regardless of gender.
Github.com will let you study quality code regardless of gender.
Codeacademy.com will teach you some fundamentals regardless of gender.
Google.com permits queries for all genders.

Are sexism and discrimination real problems? I think they are. I also think programs like Ladies Learn Code are important and encouraging, but there are no powerful men or fumbling neckbeards preventing women from accessing the knowledge that would empower them as developers.
Re 2. You have not lost any money. You gained money proportional to the money you invested. Your capital gains have not been taxed. What is your point?
Fair points :) I've updated my post to reference the MVP discussion - and the idea about 3D processes hadn't occurred to me. Presumably those films also come through the standard distribution companies though?
You might be interested in this book: http://machineofdeath.net/
Subways.
Dropbox has one protection against that, they have very small public share bandwidth quotas per file. So a single file can be downloaded by a dozen people, but not a hundred.

This makes it very ineffectual for the type of wide-spread piracy other file hosting services are subject to.
Also:

19 USC §1305 (a) Prohibition of importation

All persons are prohibited from importing into the United States from any foreign country any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, or drawing containing any matter advocating or urging treason or insurrection against the United States, or forcible resistance to any law of the United States, or containing any threat to take the life of or inflict bodily harm upon any person in the United States, or any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing, or other representation, figure, or image on or of paper or other material, or any cast, instrument, or other article which is obscene or immoral, or any drug or medicine or any article whatever for causing unlawful abortion, or any lottery ticket, or any printed paper that may be used as a lottery ticket, or any advertisement of any lottery. No such articles whether imported separately or contained in packages with other goods entitled to entry, shall be admitted to entry; and all such articles and, unless it appears to the satisfaction of the appropriate customs officer that the obscene or other prohibited articles contained in the package were inclosed therein without the knowledge or consent of the importer, owner, agent, or consignee, the entire contents of the package in which such articles are contained, shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture as hereinafter provided: Provided, That the drugs hereinbefore mentioned, when imported in bulk and not put up for any of the purposes hereinbefore specified, are excepted from the operation of this subdivision: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, admit the so-called classics or books of recognized and established literary or scientific merit, but may, in his discretion, admit such classics or books only when imported for noncommercial purposes: Provided further, That effective January 1, 1993, this section shall not apply to any lottery ticket, printed paper that may be used as a lottery ticket, or advertisement of any lottery, that is printed in Canada for use in connection with a lottery conducted in the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=...
There is a lot of romance surrounding the movie business. That romance is a lot of the reason there are so many good looking and or talented waiters and waitresses in LA. It may be less visible, but you can be damn sure there are lots of aspiring writers and directors who are attracted by the same romantic notions.

With such a vast oversupply, I would not be surprised if there are plenty of people who are willing to make a movie for the chance to make a Hollywood movie (indeed, a lot of indie shorts and full-length flicks are already attempts at just that).

Or, just look at it through the lens of the tech startup industry. You think people aren't doing small projects on the side, for free, with friends, in the hopes of scoring something bigger?
Flaws in Videoconferencing Systems Put Boardrooms at Risk
My argument was that if an account is repeatedly uploading files that are flagged as infringing, then it becomes hard to argue that the ongoing infringement is not apparent to the service provider. So it's not a direct requirement to close accounts, but an effect of the law nonetheless:

> Under the knowledge standard, a service provider is eligible for the limitation on liability only if it does not have actual knowledge of the infringement, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, or upon gaining such knowledge or awareness, responds expeditiously to take the material down or block access to it.

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

And as the Megaupload indictment showed, these sites are not taking efforts to stay unaware of what their users are doing -- they're looking into their accounts, seeing that the top shared files are DVD rips and commercial software, then rewarding these users instead of removing the content. That's illegal.
That's a pity; it was an interesting writeup of a book I haven't read. And Hare's claim about the high number of corporate sociopaths has been mentioned here before.

(Of course, given the number of people here with 'capitalist' in their job title — venture capitalist — when you mention something unflattering about capitalism, you'll generally get demands to provide evidence beyond what's normal for this site. ;)

In a market economy, one's often punished for being concerned about the costs to others (so-called "externalities"), so even normal people are rewarded for acting sociopathically...
How was Dreamworks anything like what he described? His proposal sounds closer to Asylum or UFO to me.
Slightly different but directly relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holder_v._Humanitarian_Law_Proj...
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf

tl;dr: it's illegal to advise terrorist groups how to peacefully advocate for human rights, because that might make them more legitimate
Almost always when I visit. There are very interesting things that just never make it to the top-stories for one reason or another so I don't want to miss them.
Cara Menggemukan Badan Secara Sehat
Tidak semua orang ini menurunkan berat badan, tetapi ada sebagian dari mereka memiliki tubuh yang kurus, tetntunya mereka ingin badannya berisi, karena terlalu kurus juga membuat penampilan kurang bagus, tonjolan tulang tampak disana sini yang sangat tidak sedap untuk dipandang mata. jika anda ingin menggemukan badan, lakukanlah cara menggemukan badan secara sehat tanpa harus mengkonsumsi obat-obatan terutama mengkonsumsi obat farmasi atau kimia
I would say also, with the YC rfs, I think any startup going down that path would be better of not being anti-hollywood as an official line.
By your description it's both. But exculpating one party and relegating them to gender-biased solutions is not a solution at all.
420 - So-o-o high, man....
I am not sure that the moderation is aggressive* enough to shape the growth that the site is experiencing. I feel like the smartest most insightful people in the community should be being more decisive in their flagging/moderation/conversation. You can non-aggressively tell somebody to not be rude and I don't see that happening...

Perhaps something should be done to alter the direction that the content is moving, too. I personally agree with tptacek that gossipy advocacy/techpolitic issues are now far too important to the site. I enjoyed them a little, too, but I feel like the community is now addicted to them. Honestly I don't want to see anymore gossip pieces from torrentfreak...

* For example, (1) give people limits on how often they can post while their average karma is low, (2) allow people to flag for more reasons (hivemind posts, aggressive posts, bigotry, rudeness), (3) give people a couple of weeks/months to time-out from the site if they get flagged and there turns out to be a problem with their behaviour. I think there is a danger on a site like this of people over-complicating the problem when there are simple things you can try. :)
Oh, thanks. I'll delete this one
I'm a short time poster here, but longtime forum maven, so disregard as needed:

- Not saying this is what's happening here, but people tend to idealize the time they personally first arrived at a new community as being the most interesting, the most respectful, the most entertaining, the best of times.

- Familiarity breeds contempt. The more time you spend communicating with the same people, the less reverentially you view their thoughts.

- Communities evolve, particularly if the thing through which the participants got together evolves. This place is all about innovation.

I'd imagine the traffic's growing:

- When new arrivals show up in sufficient numbers that they overrun the environment in which they'd have been able to properly assimilate in fewer numbers, the environment changes.

- Anthropology 101 teaches us that larger numbers of humans interact with each other differently than smaller numbers. Moderation and forum policies have to evolve with the numbers to maintain civility and intelligent discourse. Still, because larger groups communicate differently than smaller groups, it'll never have the exact same feel, no matter what. It can, however, have the same intellectual value.
Is discrimination the only possible explanation for the empirical lack of women?

If you're sure it is, and you're actually interested in these questions, investigating discrimination in tech when you could be investigating discrimination in higher mathematics is like studying swedish-norwegian racism when you could be studying black-white racism.

You don't need personal experience, just casually google it for a while and report your findings.
SOPA and insane laws are not the answer of course

Insane laws like SOPA and worse are the only possible answer if you want to enforce copyright. Nothing less than full blown constant network surveillance would work.

Supporting copyright as it's defined by law and not supporting laws like SOPA is an oxymoron.
get their hands dirty, in the belief that it heightens the sensual connection to food and softens the formality of fine dining.

I hadn't eaten curry dishes with my hands or known that it was a common practice until my mid twenties. Since that point I have rarely used utensils for those dishes. Here is why:

Some cultures serve three or four different curries with each meal. Eating with your hand gives greater control mixing the flavours together and so improves the experience. I can eat the same four curries as my neighbour but we will both experience different tastes, because our mixing technique is unique.

I have tried eating from the hand of a friend and compared it to my own and the taste difference was stunning. It was like we were eating a different version of the same meal.

Try it out next time you are presented with three or more curries, the only rule is to not dirty your hand above the first knuckle and certainly keep your palm clean. Enjoy.
Oh, I read the "newest" section simply because I don't trust the rankings given by HN members. Or by any crowd, for that matter.
Funding a film like a start-up is a good short term solution. Sure, PG asked for a model for the future, but that isn't going to happen overnight. Something like this actually could.
> The same cognitive dissonance arises when talking about collateral damage of capitalism: "well, that sucks, but capitalism is good, so it's not responsible for those effects."

Are you referring to the Halo Effect? (http://lesswrong.com/lw/lj/the_halo_effect/)

Edit: I don't think I meant the Halo Effect - there was another kind of bias I read about on lesswrong.com, but I cannot find it.
Actually, the FoxConn workers are making a lot more than their parents, and in fact are sending money home. I don't think you could say that of anybody in US, even a university graduate.

The real problem in US is everything is expensive.
It's not just the quality, but quantity. A lot of articles have no comments, but vote high enough to hit front page on 'classic'. Comments are clumpier. To me it's a signal the article is good enough to skim, but not worth the effort to add detail. Reading the comments prior to the article is/used to be my default because of the added insight.
The issue with paying 99c is not cost, but convenience. What I really want is for movies & music to be tacked onto my existing internet/phone bill like extra call charges.
And here I thought you were talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_(P2P)
I might rephrase Point #3 as "You can't make a minimally viable blockbuster."

The biggest hits that drive the most people into theaters and make the most money are the biggest budget movies that require massive coordination of people and require skillsets that don't scale down to small budgets. You don't build an NFL stadium based on what you learned at a high school stadium, and you don't build a Busch Gardens style theme park based on what you learned doing county fairs.
I personally believe in the exact opposite. Alternative channels exist today and are already used by alternative producers. But the problem, as I understand, is that Hollywood producers are somewhat tied to traditional channels. Because making a movie is so expensive, and today only traditional distribution returns your investment. Then after you spend a few million dollar making a movie, you'll find it a bit risky to try a new unproven distribution model.

It's naive to say that today anyone can make a movie, because cameras are cheaper. The average guy is still far from being able to produce anything remotely near a Hollywood production level. If that was true, if anyone (or any reasonably sized studio) could make a near Hollywood level movie. Then the competition would have killed them already. But that's a point where technology is specially important in fixing. The tools are still not cheap enough, but are getting cheaper. We can make them better.

Distribution is already here. But there's not enough content to distribute. I'd argue that the distribution problem is "reasonably well" solved today. The last piece of the puzzle is to solve content creation. We need to focus on building content, and tools that will democratize content creation. Not distribution.
IANAL

Two points here. First, don't answer specific questions about anything. This means refusing to answer questions about piracy, terrorism, etc.

Second, unless there is evidence you're breaking criminal distribution laws they're not going to care about the MP3s your friend gave you or the copy of Doom you downloaded from a BBS 15 years ago.
Except at two shows a day, that's $60 in a month. Already more than my current cable bill with 200+ channels.

If you count what you watch, or more likely an average US TV viewer watches, per day, that could be ten or fifteen half hour or hour shows. Over the course of a month that's considerably far more than what they are currently paying for cable.

A more viable plan might be for the return of 'soap operas' with advertisers specifically sponsoring TV shows.

* I know soap operas aren't totally dead, but their original funding model is.
This needs more upvotes. Let's stop painting "Hollywood" with a broad brush. What we really mean, when we direct our wrath at "Hollywood," is the studio system. The conglomerates. Etc.

Caught up in that system are some truly creative, kind, brilliant, hard-working people. Take writers, for example. I've spent a good portion of my career working with writers. Screenwriters are some of the coolest, geekiest, smartest, craziest, most endearingly awkward people I've ever known. They're not unlike the engineers I've worked with in other capacities, actually. Writing code and writing fiction are obviously very different trades, but the souls of the crafts are very similar.
I've been here for several years and one of the things that initially drew me here was the way people were respectful, on topic, and focused on the issues in a dispassionate way. If you want passion, there's plenty of it on the internet. The people with self control and an analytical bent are hard to come by and are thusly valued.

Calling pg an ass is crossing the line for this community. Not because he's privileged, though we do owe him a bit of respect for hosting this community in the first place, but because we shouldn't resort to name calling ever. The appropriate response is to dissect his ideas and actions and demonstrate why they would be ineffective in achieving his purpose, or showing why that purpose is wrong. That's the only way you're going to convince anyone. Calling people names won't get your message heard by the person it's directed at, it'll just piss them off.

While I understand your problem with the fluffy padding, it's what allows for a respectful conversation. Look at the rest of the internet, the comment threads there are a terrible shouty mess filled with ignorance, with half the participants yelling into the wind. HN has standards, they're there for a reason, and they aren't respected, then in the immortal words of Chef Ramsay, "I've eaten here! You're going to kill somebody!"

That somebody is this site.

Edit: removed 'you' from next to last sentence to make it more impersonal.
I agree with the entertainment point. For example, I think that video games offer a higher entertainment/dollar value. They are probably a greater long term threat to movies than infringement is.

Especially as time goes on. Eventually everybody will have grown up playing video games.

But the real competitor in my mind is television. With reduced costs for special effects, television has pretty much all the same tools as movies. Although on average television shows are not as compelling as movies, I think that the problem is currently cultural (an example of the limitations of television is that in many shows (not all) main characters will not be killed, despite constantly going into dangerous situations, the negative aspect is that it makes shows predictable).

I've derived more enjoyment from television than movies for years now. My question is, can technology assist in producing television at a lower cost?

But I just want to point out the distribution problem... It really isn't one, because if all people were truly adverse to seeing movies on a computer screen then infringement wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
I haven't heard about it before either. I thought the same thing when I saw this.
I'm not sure how I feel about all this spec work that is appearing in writing communities. It's one thing in fields like design or development where the IP could potentially be reused. With work like this that takes months to create, you risk never being able to use this work again once you post it up.
Unless you're traveling to or from a location that won't have a connection or won't have enough bandwidth to support your needs. See the example in the article about the film maker.
No, it's a pretty lousy deal. The upside is there's at least a chance your script will get picked, versus Hollywood where there is virtually no chance. So it's a "shitty deal vs no deal" situation.
Jutil: A suite of tools to poke at JSON from the shell
Information-theoretic lower bounds are neat. Here's an even simpler example. In the decision tree model of computation (where decision nodes have constant degree), consider the problem of finding the value corresponding to a key in a dictionary with n elements. Each leaf is labeled by a value, and in the general case where all values are distinct there are n leaves. So, the tree must have at least one path of length Omega(log n). Note that this is true even when the key space is a contiguous interval like [0..n], where it's just an array indexing problem. That's why the RAM model of computation is strictly more powerful than the decision tree model.

> log(n!) ~ n * log (n)

Random aside: while this is usually proven with Stirling's approximation, there is a much simpler proof. For the upper bound, n! <= n^n because 1 <= n, ..., n <= n. For the lower bound, n! >= (n/2)^(n/2) because you can drop the first n/2 terms without increasing the product and estimate the last n/2 terms as being >= n/2. That gives the double inequality (n/2)^(n/2) <= n! <= n^n. Take logs and you get (n/2) log(n/2) <= log(n!) <= n log(n). What makes this proof tick is that while (n/2)^(n/2) is a really shitty lower bound on n!, the shittiness evaporates once you take logs.
Microsoft is now the owner of ‘clicktohump.com’
I'm not an expert on this, but judging from the discussion above based on the EFF guide, it sounds like hidden partitions aren't recommended. The consensus seems to be that they may have ways of detecting hidden partitions and may ask you if you have any, placing you in a situation where you have to decide whether or not to lie to them. If you do, you could get busted for lying. If you don't lie, then it's the same as having full-disk encryption except it's slightly more suspicious and you'll be in the situation where you're not obliged to tell them the password, but they will take it into consideration in deciding whether or not to let you into the US.

I don't know how long you're planning to stay in the States, but it might be wise to bring an empty laptop and certainly not an external HD if it's for a short visit.
And you're going to hold that against them a century later? It also sounds like the patents they were "pirating" were owned by an illegal cartel. As then as today, one man's pirate is another's freedom fighter.
I go to /newest and upvote almost any story that on first glance looks both programming-related and hacker-interesting.

Sometimes I upvote startup news/blog postings if they talk about technical details in business (SEO, marketing, language/library/design choices).

I flag stuff that looks like complete junk.

Ignore the rest.
===== Why It Happens Theory #1 - "Community Size Syndrome" ====
I am guilty of this. And I think I know why I/we do it. When a topic comes up, and you feel your voice isn't/won't be heard, it tends to make you over-emote, yell, and stomp though the place to get more attention / vent frustration.

Think about it. It wasn't like this when Hacker News was smaller, because when HN was smaller there were less people, less comments, and everyone had a voice that could be heard. Now that the place is bigger your "voice" is easily lost, your comment ends up at the bottom, you feel like your opinion won't matter. This stresses you out and pisses you off so you go and piggyback off of someone else's comment near the top and just vent.

We see this in political ralleys, demonstrations, protests. When humans feel they are NOT being listened to, they get loud and angry.
Why do we show any empathy towards animals? You can't kill and eat something you empathise with. Empathy towards humans makes sense but I don't see the evolutionary advantage of treasuring all life.

That said, I can't even kill spiders. It doesn't make any sense but I've an unavoidable feeling of guilt if I don't release them outside unharmed. Yet I have no problem eating meat. My empathy is irrational.