skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> but the idea of forcing a company to release an apology in a newspaper comes straight from the 19th century, I have little faith in common law in this case

So you think it is perfectly ok for a company to make very public accusations repeatedly and get away without providing any kind of restitution once their claims are found to be without merit?

Now that would be carte blanche for some seriously nasty mudslinging competitions...

(and this case was not about whether or not Samsung "replicated much of the iPad" but whether or not they violated some very specific design patents)
> It is in the American constitution, sure, but how many others have it?

FYI, it's in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in most countries legislative corpus.

A better way to frame the question would be "what is the speech that is free", which is much more nuanced and interesting (e.g. is hate speech ok? religious blasphemy? stuff putting personal or national security at risk? Gossip? Holocaust denial? Lese majeste?).

But, in every case I can think of, freedom of speech is a right except for cases explicitly forbidden by some law.

So if reddit's defense is "we permit everything unless it's illegal" the case would be the same in most democratic countries and some non democratic ones, just shifting whhere the legal bar is set.

For the curious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country
> many a post on HN convinced me that it's not true, even though it sounds much more obvious than typical dietetary nonsense you'll hear from your random friend.

HN is a place that may be full of people who's brilliant in their field, which unfortunately #1) has nothing to do with fitness #2) it's correlated with being "not exactly fit", so certainly this is not the right place to establish beliefs in the fitness field.
A token cheque to charity would satisfy me. I'm available for a photo op with the CEO where he shakes my hand and presents Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children with a cheque in the amount of $53.28 for all of the jailbait and creepshots ad revenue.

"We don't want the money, no matter how insignificant" would be a fine statement to make :-)
A discussion of the limits & costs of free speech on Reddit
SO the problem is, the definition of overweight has changed to 'anyone that doesn't look good in a bathing suit'?
I wouldn't say The Guardian is really well funded, it's got a trust so profitability isn't a huge concern but if the money runs out they're done for.

The Guardian is pretty far left, but they do try and present a balance at times (not always), and the traditional readership is often reasonable enough to have a discourse and not shout at each other.
Huh? Did anyone's view of Cooper change over this stuff? I can't imagine anyone who had any respect for him before would change their mind over it, and anyone who would be upset about his "journalism" recently would never have had any respect for him in the first place.
TappingStone - User Behavior Predictions as a Service
So, the answer is to take away their money? That seems morally wrong somehow...
It sounds like a lot of the things that SpiderOak (https://spideroak.com/) is doing.
One issue I've also encountered is websites you use languages to indicate countries.

For example, I often appreciate browsing a shop in English (better content, more comments), so I select it from the dropdown, but end up browsing the US or UK shop, whereas I'm in France.

One website that gets it right is Zara: https://www.zara.com/
You select the store (country) and the language independently.
I don't understand this article. Reddit doesn't like some of the stuff that takes place on their site, but overall they value the community's choices over their own likes or dislikes. There's nothing wrong with expressing your own opinion on these things but refusing to act on those opinions out of higher principles. In fact, I'd say that's rather ideal.

I flagged this article because IMO something this dumb doesn't belong on the front page.
The overarching point is lost here: there is no anonymity on the Internet and you should treat each missive as if it is associated with your person.
Absolutely. And I think it’s worth noting that by allowing creepshots, but banning doxxing those who post creepshots, Reddit is expressing the moral preference that it’s okay to harass women and photograph them in compromising positions, but it’s not okay to call someone out on that.

I find that position repugnant, and I’m sickened people keep talking about this situation as if it’s Michael Brutsch who’s the victim here.

Adrian Chen on Twitter: “Why I felt OK outing Violentacrez: Anonymity should be valued mainly to the extent it helps protect powerless from powerful. VA wasn't that.” (https://twitter.com/AdrianChen/status/258703898695593984)
My family used to get Newsweek when I was growing up, but even as a teenager I wasn't very impressed with the quality of the writing.

It's been a while since I've had the chance to read them 'head to head', but The Economist pretty much blows it out of the water.
His name is Jack, not @Jack. The question was not posed to him in the context of his specific business, but rather the entire software industry. And his bizarre reaction to it was to spew idiocy at the entire software industry, not just his specific business.
This is so very true. You really can't win this one. Even if you're 100% not biased, your clients most definitely will be.

You can put all the flags up, disputed or not. Then you have people mad at you for putting up the disputed ones whom they view as being an insult. You can remove the disputed ones, and people will accuse of wanting oppression and being anti-freedom. Even when you avoid this problem, you have the problem of people not wanting to see a particular flag anywhere, dispute or no dispute.
Just bought punypic.com with it. Thought it was a cool name. No idea what to do with it (except the usual image hosting service)
I'd call those legal decisions rather than moral ones. Reddit banned those subreddits because they were worried about their liability exposure, not any moral issue.
Disrupted sleep may predict Alzheimer’s
Did you know this about AUTO_INCREMENT?
It would seem as if YC is now focusing on selling shovels in the gold rush ...
I don't think it's changed, I'm not commenting on that, merely saying most people don't realize they are, or are seeing an obese person. People think Obese = rolls of fat when in fact you can be pretty fit looking with clothes on.

I'm pretty sure a BMI of 30+ is still not the healthiest. Just not as obvious as a person with a 40+ BMI (morbidly obese)
For those not in the industry, Jeremiah Grossman is a highly respected researcher who does a lot of work in this space.

This is a more useful technical resource to understand how your privacy is being compromised: http://blog.whitehatsec.com/i-know-series-summary-and-guidan...
Moon-forming impact theory rescued
So where should the line be?

Should the people advocating for legalization of marijuana lose their community? Should /r/atheism be silenced for being offensive? Should MensRights be removed? Should MyLittlePony be banned for being vaguely creepy?

I don't agree in the slightest with the CreepShots subreddit and what it stands for but blatantly offensive subreddits might be doing a service as lightning rods for censorship advocates. If those firewalls fall we may find ourselves fighting for subreddits that might actually have some value even if some people don't agree with the views that are bred there.
Whenever I see reference to bitcoin mining botnets, I wonder if this couldn't be implemented on a legitimate level. Call it "mineware", and the way it works is that you get a piece of software for free, but while it runs, it mines bitcoins for the developer.

This would be particularly well suited for professional graphics software. There you have customers with high end hardware, but that hardware is sitting idle for a large chunk of the time. The mining could be tuned to conservatively curb its CPU/GPU usage when other processes needed it. The end result is that you fully utilize a resource you have in order to get software for free.

The biggest problem, of course, is that this kind of breaks down if more than one developer does it.
Firstly, it's not that "Reddit is a bastion of some fairly horrible groups", but that humanity happens to contain some fairly horrible groups. Reddit is just software. The same groups would otherwise use vBulletin, Usenet, or whatever other forum software to band together. You're conveniently forgetting that the same software + website are host to /r/fitness, /r/mensrights, /r/GetMotivated, and other very positive groups.

Basically, reddit is the early-21st century's Usenet. That's all there is to it.

Why not generalize a bit further and say, "The Internet is a bastion of some fairly horrible groups"?
You can be amoral, by not basing your actions on moral considerations. That's what's expected of judges, cops etc.: they (ought to only) consider whether you broke the law, not whether you're a good person.

Reddit banned jailbait because it was bound to host a lot of illegal material, not because it was disgusting.

> You don't get to provide material support for a site and at the same time say "we're not responsible for it".

I understand their position as "we materially support everything that interest some people and doesn't break the law, irrespective of our personal opinion about it". It means sometimes supporting stuff they might sometimes find personally appalling, just as a lawyer sometimes has to try and get out of jail a person he personally despises.

Besides, supporting freedom of speech forces to support questionable expressions: speeches which don't offend anyone don't need to be protected.
Did poor people 100 years ago have the same problem? I doubt it. But today, poor people in America are fatter than rich people. Fat poor people? There's something strange going on here...
"But be careful where you draw the line. In the 50s, a reddit about interracial marriage might have been considered harmful and in some places illegal."

And that's the point. What is and isn't acceptable is fluid and subjective. Reddit says "If it's not illegal, it's OK. Talk to your lawmaker if you don't like it." Which is the same stance search engines take as well.

Reddit doesn't have to be, and I don't think should be, an arbiter of legality, let alone taste. People are complaining at the wrong people, just because they're closest.
>I remember people trading [upskirts] on . . . Usenet before that.

Not arguing with you, just curious. What year was this approximately? And which group?
The website flags these as "vector" - they are gorgeous and I'm wondering if the actual SVG versions are available?

If you want one particular flag (instead of many for language purposes), I think these are very fine.
tl;dr: most feedback on twitter ads assume it is intent driven (i.e. google adwords), when in most cases it is not.

IMO, it's the root of many social companies struggle to monetize with ads. We've been spoiled the last while because we knew what people were looking for, and could promote directly against that. In some ways, social ads are a step backwards from this.
I'd say you prejudice is wrong. Their are quite a few conservatives using online media since the main stream is viewed with much disdain. It is much like talk radio is dominated by conservatives and independent media outlets have followed onto alternate delivery methods.

As an aside, Newsweek is generally regarded as liberal despite one or two cover stories in the last couple of years. The "put Jesus on the cover" does seem to work sales wise, but has become a little bit of a joke.
Creating assemblies on the fly with C#
Does anyone have any information on how this could be done? Does this require high tech broadcasting equipment to intercept the transmissions (government sponsored?) or is it something that anyone could do?
Navigating to /500.html is another good way. Most people do not remove it and most other frameworks/people do not create it in the first place.
To be fair, the human body is pretty good at limiting calorie depletion when caloric intake decreases. When you cut calories, your body automatically scales back how much you are using.

Of course, this is why any good diet needs to be coupled with an exercise program.

Even better, increase your caloric intake, switch to a high-protein diet and start lifting some heavy weights. Muscle creation is metabolically expensive, and muscle maintenance uses a lot of calories. Furthermore, even though muscle is heavier than fat (omg you may gain weight!) it looks a lot slimmer and more fit.

Moral of the story: lift weights, eat protein, get fit, lose "mirror" pounds (even if you actually put more mass on)
The problem isn't The Guardian or The Daily Mail, it's that people read them and use them to prop up their very narrow worldviews. Either group could trivially shift their paper of choice to the other (or one of the more moderate alternatives) -- it's not an issue of availablity.

While The Guardian isn't for profit, they still rely on the market to provide money for them, either through buying the paper or donating to the trust. The fact that the BBC which can (and sometimes does) shut it self away from any money raising concerns is more centric than the Guardian suggests that the ownership model doesn't inform the editorial much.
In unrelated news, the EU forced persian TV channels off these transponders a few days ago, citing the "targeted" sanctions intended to prevent Iran from drifting further afield.
All arguments went along the line: the body is a very complex mechanism and assuming that cutting down on calories will result in weight loss is an oversimplification; also that not all calories are equal.

Example discussion I pulled out of google:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=710399
Apple Java update removes Java from OS X
>Imagine we institutionalized it-

But we aren't, so this entire hypothetical is out on its arse. Let's deal with the reality instead of a reduction to the absurd.

>They know its happening. They know its supported by the hosting organization.

How? Honest curious question, how many people know these pictures have been taken and are up on some random internet site?
I love the phrase "pretty extreme lefty" :-). I think that's been a difference in British journalism compared to the US. There are so many papers in the UK, that they have each staked out their own niche readership. The Guardian serves left leaning readers. The Daily Mail for the right, etc.

As long as enough papers survive that there is a diversity of viewpoints, things will be fine. (That's certainly not a given, however.)
> I understand their position as "we materially support everything that interest some people and doesn't break the law, irrespective of our personal opinion about it"

That is a morality! That's a moral decision.

What I'm disagreeing with is the notion you proposed that reddit could be "amoral". Every decision you make has a moral component; keeping /r/creepshots alive is one of them.
I suppose much of this can be chalked up to "growing pains" but this thread reveals a seemingly strong current of discontent among reddit's userbase. On the one hand they have a business to run can't totally alienate their advertisers (in the /r/jailbait hubbub "the heat got too hot" as one commenter put it). On the other hand their most valuable asset is their user/moduser-base who are ostensibly very committed to "free speech" and they can't alienate them too much.

So they are against limiting free speech, with the exception of /r/jailbait, /r/creepshot (and its clones), banning links to user dox, banning links to articles about the controversy about violentacrez (that makes reddit look bad), banning links to gawker (or letting the mods do it for them). But /r/beatingwomen (a subreddit celebrating the physical abuse of women) remains.

It's certainly a rock and a hard place for reddit. Much of the broader discussion about the pros, cons, and limits of "free speech" is getting recreated here.
Some people just don't understand the meaning of freedom. This post reminds me of religious types who demand that YouTube take down videos that they deem offensive.
What does this comment even mean? MongoHQ was one of something like 60 companies in its batch. YC doesn't control Trinity; Trinity is one of the older VC's in the valley.
Doping in cycling is cheating. Not everyone does (or did) it--see Christophe Bassons [1] as the canonical example--and in any case the most sophisticated doping regimens were only available to a few of the best-financed riders and teams. Hardly a level playing field [2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Bassons
[2] http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/
This very much depends on what the threads are doing. Like some others have mentioned, threads are sometimes an abstraction of context and sometimes a CPU. THere is no pat answer -- unless you're doing only one kind of thing -- if you're all IO bound or all CPU bound, the answer is obvious, otherwise...

I worked on a platform that could have 200+ threads running through it, but in areas of the code where it mattered, only NCPU+epsilon threads were allowed to do intense CPU-bound work. Doing this, as you might expect, improves performance substantially when the system is loaded, while at the same time allowing one to use threads as an abstraction of context in the non-CPU bound areas of the code.
Chasing the Next API Cycle
Eh, I would say that in some ways the analogy to an addiction makes sense for oil. The point is to illustrate a bad cycle that we have. Oil is our cheapest portable energy solution, so we use it in most of our existing technology that needs lots of portable energy. That has a negative impact on research into new portable energy solutions because it is unlikely that any can be backwards compatible with old technology. As a result, oil continues to be the cheapest portable energy solution even as it gets more and more expensive. The analogy isn't perfect, of course, but no analogy is.

What makes no sense to me whatsoever is to try to extend this analogy to sugar.
Some context would be useful here. The post was in relation to a URL exploit on a Sears site, and I can see the justification for a company taking issue with a partner of theirs posting how to exploit their site.

This isn't just "Advertiser gets a post banned they don't like", this is "Advertiser asks partner to pull down an exploit". Framing it as the former makes it sound like a capricious, moralizing decision.
Documentary about math education to premiere in Oregon this weekend
Title should be YC S11.
I'm giving Unity another shot these days and it's still frustrating me. I still find it significantly less convenient than the old Gnome 2 was, and that's after tweaking some of the more annoying offenders (simple Alt press bringing up a huge window).

For example, the "expose" feature shows a bunch of windows and lets you browse between them with the arrows. However, the lowered the contrast between them so much that I really have no idea which window I'm currently selecting.

Similarly, multiple windows barely show which is in focus due to this weird fetish for near 0 contrast.

Also, I'm still missing my task list, wanting to know what I've been using to remind me where I stand in each desktop. The little arrows are much less helpful.

When pressing winkey, it waits something like a whole second before it shows me the unity-bar's numbering, and without those, the keyboard is useless. I use the keyboard to work faster, not slower, but Unity is slowing me down here as well.

These are just the criticisms off the top of my head, but overall it's been a pretty annoying week or so with Unity.
That's the main attraction of The Economist to me.
It also depends on the foodstuff and ratio of that food to the volume of water as well. Pot diameter plays a role too, a wider pot provides more room for each bubble and less chance to "climb" one another, plus a wider surface requires more volume of foam to breach the top of the pot.

I'm no chemist, but my observations from cooking and homebrewing, pasta and wort boil over worse than plain water because dissolved starches/sugars/proteins allow the bubbles to have greater surface tension and hold together better. If you cook with more water but the same quantity of food, the bubbles have less surface tension and you can probably avoid the boil over scenario altogether.

For this particular life tip, I would expect a starch-laden foam from cooking pasta to leave a residue on the spoon as the bubbles popped that would eventually let it boil over still. It will buy you some additional time before a mess is made of your stove though.
AOL Reimagines The Email Experience With A Twitter, Pinterest, Gmail Mashup
> Apple happened to enter the market first

They didn't even do that. They entered a market that was created well over a decade ago but that was reduced to a tiny niche because limitations in the early models had scared companies off from trying to make them consumer devices any more.

They deserve a lot of credit for getting the timing right and putting together a very polished consumer product far superior to the extremely niche competitors that were left in that market, but the idea was old already when the tablet market started taking off for a short lived fad last time, around '99.

(in the interest of disclosure: I worked on a tablet in '99 until early 2000; it was fun. Definitively not something comparable to the iPad, but I still wish we'd have pulled it off - company kept trying a few years after I left, but getting funding for a decent sized production run turned out to be a far bigger challenge than actually designing the thing)
anyone can do it, for some values of "anyone" that includes having a good power source, some rf equipment and a few books. mostly the problem involves defending the equipment when people unhappy about said behavior arrive.
From Apple's perspective it's a loss but if you're going to lose, having a judge publicly critique your competitors product is a pretty great way to do it.

Someone said it'll be interesting to see what Samsung's lawyers let Apple get away with but I'm not sure how they can object to Apple quoting what the judge actually said in his judgement.
"Creating a space for people who are acting unethically..."

But where is the line? Is /r/atheism a space for acting unethically because they know certain people will be deeply offended? /r/trees for advocating, even glorifying, an illegal activity?
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/cork-soakers/28...

Incase you don't want to read the script.
Yeah, Xfce is great. I don't know why more people who keep bitching about Unity and Gnome 3 don't just switch to Xfce. It's a solid DE that doesn't pull the rug out from under you on a whim because the devs decided they wanted to copy Apple.
Password Security Considerations
That would spoil the joke.

˙ɔıuoɹı sı ʇɹoddns ǝpoɔıun ou s,ǝɹǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʇ ǝʇɐɔıpuı oʇ ʇı buısn os 'ɹǝʇɔɐɹɐɥɔ ǝpoɔıun ɐ ɟןǝsʇı uı sı ssoɹɔ ʇɐɥʇ
This comment is an excellent summary of my problems with reddit. I spend way, way more time than I should arguing with people who think that "it's just a joke" is a defense of anything. Or with people who treat the pointing out of sexism as worse than sexism. If you don't think /r/CreepShots was exploitative of women, we have very different opinions on this subject. And finally, you defend /r/jailbait, going as far as to blame the people in the photos.

I hope people upvote you just because you provided such a concise summary of every bad argument used to defend reddit.
"Most people are just making excuses for not wanting to practice self-control or educate themselves."

This is true, but not a very useful thing to say. Trivial observations of others' moral failings are often a way for us to feel better about ourselves and our choices, but such statements are not solving the problem.
Analysis maps global migration of scientists