skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's a totally fair point. As soon as you're operating as a business and not an employee, you're typically subject to most/all of the same regulations and lack of personal/employee safeguards as any other business, even if you're just a one-man operation. You can risk setting out without knowing the number of a good lawyer and a good accountant, but personally I'd never advise anyone to do that.

The one positive thing I will say on this point is that once you've been through the major formalities the first time (setting up a legal company entity, getting your first contract written and signed, filing a year's worth of whatever tax records you need in your area, any other annual paperwork like the Companies House filing in the UK), it's usually not as bad as it sounds. The first year or so is quite a learning curve, but as long as you're reasonably organised, habitually keep accurate records, and are willing to pay for a modest amount of professional help from people whose job is to stay up-to-date on technicalities and recent changes so you don't have to, the overheads are rarely more than a half-day a month, at least here in the UK. It requires diligence, but not a PhD in rocket science.
>jws guesses that each slot generates 28KWh/day

Again, this is a guess based on a CG rendering on their website. That drawing doesn't constrain Tesla's engineering talent in any way – even without using extra land they could put up solar shade structures over adjacent parking spaces.
Um, UTF-8, a valid unicode encoding, handles strings with a null terminator just fine. Those who throw stones, should not live in glass houses.

Proper unicode support would include things like normalizing strings (Unicode has 4 different normal forms!) and testing for fuzzy equivalence. But last time I checked, the usual library for doing those things, libicu, was bigger than the whole Lua interpreter. So I can see why there isn't a lot of enthusiasm, especially if there isn't a real use case.
> Literally all it takes is a ten minute YouTube video to explain

... and the destruction of a lot of carefully-laid religious indoctrination that claims Humans Are Special and therefore could not possibly be related to animals and plants.

That's it, really: Being able to teach evolution means being able to directly contradict religious dogma. Conversely, if you can't teach evolution, you are hamstrung because you cannot contradict religious dogma on any subject.

So winning the ability to teach evolution will be a victory against religion's hold on education, and religious groups obviously do not want to relinquish that hold. Hence the battle.

> The fact that these kids come communities where most of the parents are really dumb has to be hundreds of times more damaging than not getting a day or two worth of lecture.

We're, as a society, unable to make these kids parents not be dumb, or to give kids new parents who are not dumb. The most we can do is educate them.

> I would bet money that the percentage of born again Christians who have a good understanding of the arguments in favor of evolution is about 10x as high as the percentage of 'science-oriented' folks who have a good understanding of all the philosophical concepts referenced in the wiki article on intelligent design.

This is because the philosophical arguments in favor of ID are not relevant to anyone who isn't in a religious group that favors ID.

Also, I personally doubt most born-again Christians have any real idea of what the evidence in favor of evolution is, given how popular the "If apes turned into man why are there still apes?" argument is.
Um. It's not (note the term "hypothetical"). The site has only been up a couple of months, and who knows if it as well as my projects will be that successful in it. Gittip is paying for my hosting completely however, and it took only a few weeks of the site's existence to do so. The PayPal link couldn't do that in 6 years, and PayPal donations still leave you more beholden than gittip since they aren't anonymous.

Your whole take on this is very odd as it's not clear what exactly you are expecting from gittip or why you care.
The little can that could
Cracking the Primes
> The fact that these kids come communities where most of the parents are really dumb has to be hundreds of times more damaging than not getting a day or two worth of lecture.

I think that's what the debate is actually about. The thing that needs to be "taught" isn't really evolution, it's that their parents/teachers/pastors/authorities can have very basic facts about the world very wrong, and as such kids should learn to think independently. This is why things like evolution and climate change are so threatening.

What's always confused me is that it seems like it would be a lot easier to change religious beliefs to be consistent with facts, instead of the other way around. I don't understand why people are choosing to fight evolution rather than just doing the usual hand-waving magic to explain what science told us, but with a bit of gods and fairies mixed in.
Louis Vuitton Belts On Sale
Whoah, whoah, whoah. Newtonian physics can be easily explained and understood without knowing anything about evolution. The same for basic chemical reactions. The same for mitochondria. And the same for various more complicated topics. Let's not debate the debate well, but let's not get hyperbolic.
I think you should attribute to Wizards. That's how TappedOut does it.
"If you don't teach the basic scientific principles to young students it gets harder and harder to convince them of more complicated topics."

First of all, the vast majority of US students aren't even proficient enough in reading and math to understand science regardless of what the curriculum consists of. Debating what the science curriculum should consist of is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

But the fact that you hear 10x as much about this issue than about the shameful lack of reading ability in students suggests that this debate is as much about ideology as it is about pedagogy. That was kind of my point.

Yes, it's important, but the fact that people are spending so much time worrying about optimizing something that's largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things says a lot about them.
The problem is, in the case you propose, Tesla would be creating installations in urban environments. This type of "development" kills their credibility on "green" or environmentalism, etc. Is this kind of thing better than hydropower?
Unimportant Musings on the Hitachi Quartz Slivers
Back ten, there wasn't a good scientific explanation for evolution. Now there is. Back then, believing in creationism, didn't mean rejecting science. These days, If you still believe in creationism, it means that you reject science.
After reading this, I can only say one thing: you're living in fantasyland. This is the real world, not some libertarian utopia. And regarding your last point, what about pedophiles? Rapists? Should we just surround them with love and forgiveness?
I don't know... I'd think that as long as you're not using private api's its all good! :)
Can you name one that's tried either of them and stuck with it?
Are you comparing charging stats unironically and saying it's a dealbreaker if it's not just as good as the incumbent in this category? It's really not that terrible to stop for 30 minutes after 3 hours of driving. Long road trips just went from wildly impractical to almost convenient, assuming the chargers are well distributed.

You could compare the 0-60 times of the Civic and say it's unacceptable that it takes the Civic twice as long to get to 60 mph, or that it only seats a measly 5 people, uncomfortably at that, or that it only has one trunk.
"most of the complexity burden of the web is purely gratuitous"

To think that some people are actualy getting paid to make submitting and retrieving data using web overly complicated and annoying is one of those things I try not to think about. The standards idea clearly is not working if it is being interpreted as a mandate for needless complexity to keep web developers entertained. Instead we hear web developers complain that standards are being ignored because some browser will not support their desired gratuitious complexity. I would say they've lost the plot but I'm not sure there ever was a sane plot to begin with.
Understanding Local Machine Zone Lockdown [2011]
So the correct and responsible thing for Google to do now would be to patent the shit out of this and then sue back into the stone age anybody that implements anything even vaguely similar, right?

I mean, the social fabric depends on companies protecting their innovations, right?
> believe in both God and science.

You're using the word 'believe' in two different ways here, I hope.

'Belief' in science means 'I have seen the evidence and it convinces me' or else you don't know how science works.

'Belief' in God means 'I believe because it is absurd' or similar; that's how religion works.

I really hate how the same word can have two completely opposite meanings like that.
O(1) means constant time.
Redis sets are interesting, because there are a few possible implementations under the hood, but the typical case winds up implementing it as a hash table. Hash tables have constant time lookup.

Think of it this way (this isn't literally what happens, but it's close).

1) Take the url you're looking for. Run it through a hash function. This takes an (amortized) constant amount of time.

2) Now you have an index to check. (the return value from the hash function). So index into your actual table, and check to see what's stored there. If there's a value stored there, then the url is a member of the set. This also takes a constant amount of time.

Does this help?
They already support ChargePoint on all their cars.

As for making Supercharger compatible with the SAE J1772, somehow I doubt Tesla wants a plug-in Prius lazily charging its battery for hours while a fast-charge compatible vehicle waits its turn.
... or the kid's parents believe in creation but don't fit some ignoramus stereotype, and the kid comes to believe that the creation reveals the glory of a Creator (eg. Psalm 19), and accordingly this fosters curiosity about the way things work, and the kid becomes a scientist.
Evolution vs Creationism is just a symptom of a deeper issue. It just happens to be the most easily and directly attackable symptom which is why it gets the most attention. The underlying issue (religious fundamentalism that rejects science) is far scarier and leads to crap like this: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-09-19/news/33957266_1_m...
This is a list of famous thinkers/scientists who were also christians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_s...
You appear to be arguing that local cultural factors when growing up are not responsible for the vast majority of differences in individual cultural behaviour when compared to genetic differences. From this it would seem safe to assume that you believe that a lot of cultural behaviour is not learned, but is encoded within the genome as some form of cultural predestination, which is then presumably expressed at the neuronal level while growing up. This would seem to fly in the face of pretty much all studies into brain plasticity and childhood development, and also makes no sense given the range of genetic diversity of the population we are discussing, which is one that contains well over a billion people.
Tanker antigrounded using Google Maps?
Yesterday morning tanker Kyeema Spirit has antigrounded in the Baltic sea. Looking at its AIS position http://imgur.com/A4FCO one can suspect that it may have tried to follow "Helsinki Tallinn Viking line route" on Google maps. This "route" is total fiction - waters near Aegna island have less than 0.5 meters depth. BTW, the same route is also on Apple maps, so they may have even used new iOs 6 Maps.
> Newtonian physics can be easily explained and understood without knowing anything about evolution.

As a set of equations handed down from On High, yes. As a living field that's part of modern physics and has relevance to becoming a productive member of the society we're trying to build, no.

Science isn't dogma. It's all connected by the spirit of questioning and challenging authority.
The sentiment is because people:

1) Care.

2) Feel they had wool pulled over their eyes unexpectedly.

Let's talk about the wool. MongoDB was marketed initially with stupid little benchmarks (that were later removed as a policy). Those benchmarks were what people saw, showed their bosses, colleagues and decided -- "this is the one". Yes they picked a bad tool should have RTFM, I would normally say but not for MongoDB.

They marketed themselves as a "database" while at the same time shipping with durability turned off. Yes, you can write very fast if you don't acknowledge that data has hit the disk buffers. I wasn't fooled, I saw the throughput rates and thought, something is fishy. But a lot didn't.

Most of all I have no problem with this design decision given that there is a bright red flashing warning on the front page saying what the default settings are and what it could do to your data. There wasn't.

As developers (programmers whatever you want to call it), we feel that perhaps when other developers market things aimed at us, they would be somewhat more honest than say someone selling rejuvenating magnetic bracelets at 4am in the morning on TV. I think that is where the passionate discussion comes from.
Basically all of modern biology is based on evolution. If you don't understand or believe in evolution, then you don't understand biology. I don't think it's ok for kids not to have a basic science education. Additionally, you draw a false equivalence between intelligent design and evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory and intelligent design is a philosophy, usually pushed by religious people.
Tesla never said it's as good as gas, just that it makes long trips possible.
I think perhaps what he means to imply is that the mental gymnastics necessary to deny evolution also, if taken to their logical conclusion and not kept contained to biology, take out pretty much all of physics and chemistry as well.

This said, people in the business of denying evolution are pretty good at containment. It is far from unheard of for people to live "dual lives". There are no rules forcing people to keep their own beliefs self-consistent.
Submissions were opened today! Check it out and submit your snippets here : http://bootsnipp.com/submit
Fair point, attempting to respond to the parent question which was specifically "How it hurts science." My claim is that science is at its heart reasoned debate, and that belief in creationism is a rejection of reasoned debate, so it hurts science's ability to inform.

Typically a counter example in creationism is to question dating methods, but without any reasoning as to how the dating methods are inaccurate (beyond the inaccuracies recognized by the community). Your counter example of animal proteins based on a preference for Veganism is fine, but if I showed you that the vaccination process never came close to an animal protein would you still reject it? And in rejecting it would you reject the entire herd immunity thesis or are you limiting to rejecting a belief in the efficacy of the vaccine on your personal health?

Understanding reasoned debate is critical to understanding science and the process by which it comes to hold its beliefs. If you reject that then you both reject learning something new and the ability of science to be strengthened by your doubts.
devils advocate here...

founding a business requires selling your soul?
Steve Wozniak wants to become Australian
Spammers/scammers use Tor. And they use it in a big way.

One of the issues with total Tor anonymity is that yes, the "bad guys" will almost certainly come. Because they can.

I am not saying that banning Tor outright is the best thing sites like HN would do, but seeing the ratio of regular Tor trafic vs. spammy Tor trafic on much smaller site myself, I can't blame them; almost anything that comes from Tor is spam.

Sad reality.
The other people replying to you are making some good points. Your claim is not right, actually. Reporting that phenomena such as acceleration are different from what is measured would be wrong--that is true. But you cannot claim that scientists who doubt theories such as macroevolution and lean towards some form of creationism are as wrong as that. The reason is that you cannot observe who caused the big bang, how they brought all the universe into being, etc. Physics keeps yielding surprises, and so do other sciences, and our models are constantly adapted. To me, biological theories are fuzzier than some of the others, but I'll admit I have not studied it much. Dr. James Tour mentions the creation versus evolution debate on his website, and while he doesn't feel like either side can make a strong scientific case, he did tell me a few months ago that he doesn't think the leading evolutionary biologists understand the chemistry that they claim led to the formation of life. Dr. Tour isn't the only intelligent person making great strides in the natural sciences who believes that, either. You can believe he and other researchers are wrong to doubt macroevolution, but you should be careful about making strong claims you cannot back up, because they do not promote constructive debate.
Theres something about this story that just doesn't sit right with me. Why would a 17 year old go through so much trouble to harass someone just for the heck of it? The guy had to have done something to the kid. Normal people don't spend hours of their lives to harass a single person for no reason.

I call bullshit.
As far as mass market goes I think you're forgetting why we have gas stations in the first place. Gasoline is highly flammable and toxic so it needs to be stored properly and regulated closely. Because it's a special trip most people drive until empty and then stop by the gas station.

But with charging stations every grocery store could have them in the first few rows of parking. They could waive the charing fee if you spend X amount on food (I already get gas waivers from my grocery store). As this type of thing proliferated you wouldn't charge your battery when it was almost empty but rather be continually topping it off. Only on long trips would you consciously time things like stopping for lunch so they give you enough time to charge.
> But 180 chargers, peak, each using 100 kilowatts would use 18 gigawatts.

Hmm, I think you mean 18MW, not 18GW... sure, it's still a huge amount of energy, but your typical data centre can easily consume 10MW or more. And 18 megawatt-hours is equivalent to... just under 500 gallons of gasoline.
Business Tech becomes sexy again
Get that Honda Civic then; I'm going to hold onto my Model S reservation. I have to drive more than 180 miles in a day? Oh no! I'll have to rent a car from Enterprise or Zipcar!

Fueleconomy.gov says it costs $3,550/year to fuel my 2008 Infiniti G37 (at $4.75/gal, premium), and $400/year to fuel my Model S (assuming 15K miles/year). That's a savings of over $15750 over 5 years (assuming the price of petroleum-based fuels doesn't go up, which it will).

The end of oil is near, not just because we're running out, but because we can do better.
We just need to name a drug "DBMS" (preferably something that makes you feel emotionally close, hence "relational DBMS") to complete the pun.
Just so you know, in practice it's considerably more complicated than that.

The main limitation is that carbon dating only works to about 60,000 years (so older figures are never from carbon dating). This is well known.

Less well known is that it only works if the sample has never been soaked in water. This is because the CO2 in water will dissolve into the sample completely overwhelming the original carbon ratios. This probably causes a huge number of errors in the field, unfortunately. Because how many samples have been completely shielded from water for that long?

There are other datings though, but they are less accurate. Usually they are only able to date the rocks near the sample, but not the sample itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Most commonly things are actually dated based on fossil and geological evidence, not any type of direct dating. But there is a bit of circular logic in those types of datings. First the rock is dated, and the sample is assumed to be of the same age. Next when other samples of the same type are found they are assumed to be of the same age as the first. The rock formations are then recorded and the appropriate layer is given an estimated age. Which is then used to date other things. Basically, things older than 60,000 years are dated based on what fits the theory best.
Who do you trust to administer punishment?

What did they do to earn that trust?

The concept that one class of humans is the "punishers" who are teaching the other class(es) underlies most (if not all) fascist/authoritarian/racist ideologies of the last 3 centuries.

Of course you don't see what's wrong with punishing behavior that has been deemed unacceptable by society. Unfortunately, behavior that society is largely OK with (e.g. drug use) is punished nontheless - unfortunately, society can (and has often been) quite wrong about what should be punished (homosexuality, female sexuality, prostitution, sexual "perversion," drug & alcohol use, to name a few).

The fact is that the kid involved in this story didn't do anything "wrong" that could be easily trained out of him. Probably he has a whole set of complicated complexes of problems. For instance, one thing that many people in the US and UK (and other places) seem to suffer from is sexual/touch deprivation. Maybe if the kid were getting laid instead of playing on his laptop he wouldn't have engaged in such weirdo behaviors. I'm just sayin' - legalize drugs and prostitution and 99% of these problems go away.
> Not understanding Evolution effectively locks students out from large swaths of science.

Large in what way?

How much of physics depends on evolution? How about chemistry? How about materials science? I can go on and on.

In fact, much of biology doesn't depend on evolution. (Who do you think did all the work on selective breeding pre-darwin?)

I don't know Knuth's views on evolution, but he is Christian. Can you tell me if he believes in evolution?

As someone else pointed out in this thread, evolution is being used as a tribal signal.

And no, believers in evolution are NOT more rational.
The interesting thing is that people will mainly be charging at home, though, and will never need to visit a charging station - the car will be topped up every morning when you leave for work. So the number of fillups needing to be done at a station should be much lower. But an interesting point otherwise! I'd guess that the marginal cost of the plugs is low enough that it's feasible, though.
wow awesome! I'm getting ready for the RTR prerelease and this will for sure help!
You can always ask for copies of the bill.
> congressman? representative? What is the correct US term?

We have Senators in the Senate and Representatives in the House of Representatives; both can be called Congressmen or Congresswomen, but that term is more usually reserved for Representatives.