skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thanks, glad you liked it, I have more examples coming.

There is a library you can install that looks like a web-based charting frontend for R, although I have not had a chance to try it-

http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~jeroen/ggplot2/
It's not free speech, he was enabling stealing girls' pictures and posting for the internet to wank over. Free speech would be speaking out to advocate that, but actually doing that? We don't have complete freedom of action, and quite rightly so.
I often put a wooden spoon across the top of a pot of boiling water just because that's a convenient place to put it. The pot sometimes boils over. I've seen no correlation with the spoon.
I had problems updating from 9.04 to 9.10 -> I remember it messed up my system so bad I had to reinstall it from scratch. After that, i moved to Mint for a while, and then tried Ubuntu again for 11.10 then did the update to 12.04 without any issue. I will try upgrading to 12.10 within the system again this time.
Couldn't you just move the iFrame and not need to have access to its elements?
I mean ... this is one of the funniest comments I've read on HN. I will be diligent in adopting this into my nerd vernacular.
We disagree on this fundamental idea. You and I talk, we agree to pick a random YC user, hunt him down, and pie him at a conference.

We are both 100% wrong and responsible. We each get the maximum sentence for assault.

We enlist the assistance of a friend to drive for us. we don't tell him what we're up to, but it's clear that the activity will be nefarious. he chooses not to call the cops, and he gets a lesser sentence.

He's less responsible, but his being less responsible doesn't reduce our responsibility, just as the two of us conspiring doesn't reduce responsibility to one half on account of the fact that either one of us could have called it off and just eaten the pies for dessert.
I've been a runner for a long time but occasionally I try new forms of exercise / fun. In the not too recent past I joined a rowing club. The dues were cheap and it's a great workout. And I take advantage of hiking if I'm in an area that has mountains.
>Reddit works precisely because they maintain some sort of "net neutrality" ethics, refusing any editorial meddling. Banning a distasteful content provider would break that neutrality; but hiring him would break it just as much.

This is incorrect. They have banned 'distasteful content' and they have banned posts due to pressure from advertisers. Reddit is behaving extremely hypocritical and their PR on this subject is just nonsense. People shouldn't post on subjects on which they don't even have a basic understanding. I don't mean to sound rude, but this post is getting the most votes as of this writing and it's just flat out wrong.
what happens with changes that have impact on the datastore such as adding migrations? Do those get executed when the appropriate branch gets checked out? What happens when two branches create conflicting changes in the datastore?
There is no "right to a reasonable expectation of safety and privacy," in public, though.
You originally wrote:

> Freedom of speech is lagging behind: a company cannot fire you for being black, but can fire you for saying "vile" things online under a pseudonym.

You changed that, likely because you realized that companies have always fired people for saying "vile" things publicly outside of work. Which is why pseudonyms have always existed.

Nothing's changed about freedom of speech. It's just that it's not so easy to hide the vile things you say online as it was, say, 10 years ago.
> Blatant racism on auto joined communities,

I have never seen this on reddit, ever, unless you don't understand sarcasm or can't take a joke.

> sexism as the default,

Really? That's funny, because I'm pretty sure there's a preponderance of Internet White Knights on reddit, and I've never seen sexism that went ignored.

> exploitation of women as often as possible.

That's a gross hyperbole. I don't see how reddit 'exploits' women in any way.

> /r/Jailbait was over the line of sexualising children.

/r/jailbait was sexualizing young adults, many of whom were be perfectly legal in their given jurisdiction, many of whom were going out of their way to be sexualized. The moderation of /r/jailbait was exceedingly strict in preventing the sexualization of children.
Sorry, I can't but the perks are small enough to not be a big deal for the sender but big enough to be useful to me. ;)
>they have banned posts due to pressure from advertisers

Citation please.
Frankly, i'm exactly on the other side with this issue. I'm appalled and, if not scared, at least apprehensive, that Reddit throws freedom of speech under the bus at the sight of trouble. I understand that, from a business point of view, it's the logical thing to do, but i find it morally problematic.

To quote Noam Chomsky:

> Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.
Raganwald, I normally like what you write, but bringing up Lance is nonsensical.

Everyone knows that cycling's been big on doping for years. It can hardly even be called cheating, it's tacitly acknowledged that everyone's on drugs. It's been well established that all of Lance's competitors were doping as well. When your choices are take drugs, or don't compete, is it really cheating?

The real problem in cycling is the moral outrage around doping. Doping isn't cheating, it's the way the game is played. If you want to compete, that's the price of admission.

Nike's a giant publicly traded corporation with an obligation to their shareholders. Their main product is their brand (which is used to sell goods). They did what they needed to do to protect their brand. As far as pretending that they didn't know about Lance, I consider that a white lie. Everyone has known that Lance doped for years. Nike feigning ignorance is a fiction needed to prevent retaliation from moralists with their heads in the sand, a constituency that sadly cannot be ignored.
So you have to look at what sort of speech they protect (sexual photos of children, sexual photos of people without their consent) and what sort of speech they don't protect ("outing" people who take photos of people without their consent).

"Outing" people leads directly to harassment. It's happened plenty of times in the past to make a fair assumption that it will happen in the future as well. This is the reality of the situation.

The reason you can't allow it at all is there is no good way to enforce that "outing" someone is appropriate or correct in any given instance or that the person being "outed" is the person attached to said Reddit identity at all.

So that rule protects direct harm from being done on users of Reddit.
Reddit (& supporters) like to point out how Reddit supports free speech etc. However reddit doesn't allow some speech that would be legal in USA, namely publishing personal details of reddit users (doxxing). They have already drawn a line and said "This is legal, but we don't want it here".

What about Gawker's free speech?

When people post creepshots (photos of people without their knowledge), we hear that "We can't ban them, because of free speech". When people post personal details of people who take creepshots, suddenly free speech doesn't apply anymore, and it's all about potential personal harm. What about potential personal harm with creepshots?
Private Equity: Helping America Get Its Groove Back
I'd second your assertions. I've met one of Color's employees(in products team) early on and walked away thinking this company is going nowhere. Not sure what apple is gaining by buying this company. Frankly, they'd been better off buying NIK Software. If they are truly buying Color they're out of their minds.
So you have to look at what sort of speech they protect (sexual photos of children, sexual photos of people without their consent) and what sort of speech they don't protect ("outing" people who take photos of people without their consent).

Did you read their justification for this?
That happened to me once too. It was a low-paying summer-job I had while I was in school, but I still felt like sh*t after it had happened since it's never fun to waste your time! #lifeshardlessons
I, personally, can't see a big difference betweent creepshots and the abundance of upskirt/downbluse paparazzi photos that tons of media outlets are happy to show.
>They do not allow publishing of personal information.

Because it can directly kill the community off - it's a self preservation measure.
There are upskirt videos on youtube as well. I remember people trading them on AOL chatrooms, random popular forums, and Usenet before that.

The only way you can stop it is by censoring the Internet, thus human thought. That's going to prove unpopular no matter where you fall politically, but especially bodes unwell here.
Automating email to anyone with email addresses is the easy part, and of course, that can be done.

The hard parts are:

1. Getting email addresses -- for SaaS businesses, it makes sense to ask and get the address -- it's work for most any other business.

2. Getting engagement or other usage information -- these systems usually try to tie the messages to behavior.

It would make sense to make as much of the experience of being a parent manageable via a web site where they would register and engage.

A pre-school is perfect for this because parents think about them all day long and consider it important. It's harder for services that people use, but aren't core to their lives (so aren't going to engage with it).
"Outing" people leads directly to harassment

Agreed. But so does 'trying to take photos of a women's secondary sexual organs without her knowledge or consent' (creepshots). So shouldn't that be banned as well?
What? Freedom of speech does not mean "I have to pay you for the kind of speech you create."

There is no hypocrisy in saying "I don't support what you are saying, but I defend your right to say it."

Now, sure the money they made clouds matters a bit, but that money was content-neutral. They neither encouraged nor discouraged any particular content.
That sense is just as nonsensical. Would you also say that people in the 19th century were "addicted to coal" and "addicted to whale oil" and that people before that were "addicted to wood fires"? Oil is just the latest, most economical energy source in an entire series of sources. In a few years modern-day Luddites will change to "addicted to natural gas" or "addicted to nuclear fission", "addicted to fusion" or whatever the most popular portable energy source is then. Whenever there is more of something (food, energy, comfort, luxury, pr0n) than someone approves of (Puritans, Luddites, environmental extremists, religionists, etc.), they demonize it by saying people are addicted to it. It's called propaganda.
They have banned content which was nearly impossible to properly moderate and could have, from a legal perspective, become a very big problem.
Do a search on google images for "cork products" the range is quite amazing. The umbrella is my favourite - waterproof and fireproof.
Shapeways Opens 'Factory of the Future' in New York City
+1 as well. most of the people with bad habits understands or (refuses to understand) what doing physical activity works out the symptom, not the cause.

unfortunately, it's too easy to speculate on diets sitting on a chair.
>My point is that maintenance becomes simple once you get used to eating less. Eating the amount you used to eat before now seems like a terrible excess (and I wasn't even overweight before).

This honestly surprised me once I started trying to lose weight. I assumed it be a constant war with my will power to not gorge myself. After about two weeks of a very restricted diet, the desire to eat a lot, and often, just kind of drifted away.

I now feel super lethargic if I eat a big meal. I prefer eating a couple small meals through out the day. "Eat not to dullness," and whatnot. Your average fast food meal is now a pretty big amount of food for me -- I used to eat the stuff twice a day, and still want more.
>I think people are being a bit rough on the reddit crew, the decisions they have to make aren't clear or obvious.

They used to be, and that's one of the things that made the community great. The decision was always this: If it's illegal or spam, it's not allowed. If it's not illegal or spam, it's allowed.

That was a refreshingly transparent way to run a community, and had they stuck to that principle, their decisions would have continued to be simple and obvious. But as soon as they started to feel some media backlash, they turned their back on the idea of transparency and instead opened Pandora's Box of vague policies and case-by-case judgment calls.

I sympathize with those who say that r/jailbait was "over the line", but reddit's decision to ban it was the Wrong Call.
For simple get queries like a search the utf param is visible in the url, so it can be ugly. There are ways round this of course, but as Rails is inserting it automatically, it would make sense if they only did it for the one browser which requires it.
Can anyone confirm that more than a negligible sum was earned on such subreddits?

Part of my problem with the post is the insinuation that reddit is a gross money hungry corporation when the reality seems quite different.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9clji/where_did_m...

I should add that this is not direct pressure from their advertisers, but from their parent company, Condé Nast. I'm sure that Sears is and advertiser for at least some Condé Nast properties, so it's effectively the same, though with an extra level of indirection.
This may seem strange, but I have to recommend the baroque trilogy by Neal Stephenson. It made me imagine how scifi would have looked like in the 1600s.
Thank you very much for the links. Is my understanding correct?

Essentially, a fractal tree is a B-Tree (or perhaps a B+Tree?) with buffers on each branch (per child). Operations get added to these buffers and when one becomes full, the operations get passed to the corresponding child node. Operations are applied when they reach the node that is responsible for the data concerned.
Thread pools require tuning. That means you can get it wrong, or what was right on one platform is later wrong on another. In any case, you have to burn human resources making it right.

Again, why is it a bad idea to use threads? Your OS doesn't feel any pain, its quite willing to support 100's of threads. While async i/o is cool, if the i/o context of each thread is quite different then again you're 'manually' handling context when fielding async, which can be worse in terms of hardware caches etc. associated with the thread that fields the async call.
>What about potential personal harm with creepshots?

And what might that be? An upskirt picture absent any other context (a face, a name, a location, a timestamp) might as well be anonymous. I understand that the subject of that image might be rightly scandalized were they to find out, but if they don't?

Is someone really harmed by someone else getting off to an image of their body absent their knowledge of this?
Compare reddit to a webhost, and this debate is actually similar to the one we had 10-15 years ago.

Someone makes a website dedicated to hosting creepy but legal photos. Is the webhost, even though it makes (shudder) money from hosting the material, responsible for it, or for what consequences the author might face for publishing it? I'm pretty sure that debate ended with a pretty resounding no last time around, and I'm not sure why reddit is much different.
I'm working on matchist (http://matchist.com), a service for freelance developers that provides them with quality clients and projects, and gets them paid on time, every time.
http://realtruth.org/

There are a few others, but that site is a huge network for Christians.
Good question. I don't know if those signs are free, but I suspect that as branding and advertising, they're cheap and high-profile.
If there are things that harm people, they should get banned.

Draw a clear line. 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.

Wherever you draw it, remember the right is going to use it to say any subreddit about gays is actually about pedophiles.

And mob justice against people who violate your social norms goes both ways. In many countries that serves to further victimize victims of oppression, e.g. http://feministing.com/2012/10/18/well-you-did-dare-to-speak...
Then all notes are passive by nature of not being face to face, and they should just be called "aggressive notes." Except many of these aren't aggressive in that they're not deliberately hostile or vengeful, just plain directives that some readers take as personal attacks for some reason.
1. How long ago was this? 'Becoming a problem' implies that it is a new-ish thing, and an observation from 5 years ago isn't really current.

2. Are you sure you don't mean "hard to find 1 morbidly obese person everyday? You do realize that a BMI of 30 or greater is obese, right? And In non-tight and non-revealing clothes, you probably aren't even going to be able to tell a person with a BMI of 30-35 is obese. But they are according to studies like the linked article refers to.

For instance, this guy is obese (BMI of 30.7): http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/511-220.html

And this guy is overweight (BMI of 26.2): http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/603-210.html
Interview with creator of Nginx, Igor Sysoev
Hacking an Election: New vulnerabilities in voting systems and voter databases
> Reddit is and should remain amoral

You realize that this is impossible, right? Reddit cannot be amoral, it makes moral decisions all over the place.

Why did they ban the jailbait subreddit? They made a moral decision to ban it. Why don't they allow doxing people? They made a moral decision to ban it. They make many other moral decisions in the breach; it's just easier to see their decisions when you look at what they don't allow rather than what they do.

Simply hosting and allowing /r/creepshots to exist is a moral decision. Reddit provides them support, legitimacy, a platform, and server space by allowing them to use reddit. This is a moral decision.

You don't get to provide material support for a site and at the same time say "we're not responsible for it". You are, to some extent, responsible, and to deny that is immoral.
We tune the hash iterations to take a reasonably long amount of time on our modern hardware. That said, a dedicated and well funded attack on a single hash could certainly crack it in a relatively short period of time (which is why we protect the hashes as if they were cleartext passwords...)
The hwy exit differs from place to place. In Canada there's an angled edge to indicate which side the exit is on. But I'm guessing that most places have some system that subtly indicates which side, excepting, as you say, older signs
What risk? You are implying there is some risk to having a programmer who is attracted to teenagers. I don't understand what that risk is.
Shame on Shimel: Zenoss Does Not "Dump on Open Source Clouds"
I wrote that headline and actually didn't realize people might think it was an email template for emails to users specifically. Maybe accidental linkbait, but not intended.

Also which images are being loaded to no end? I've never experienced that but it sounds like something I should definitely fix..
I'm actually a bit worried about that to be honest.

At the moment we have the BBC and the Guardian, both completely shielded from having to turn a profit. The BBC is fairly easy for the government to meddle with, the Guardian is pretty extreme lefty.

It's very easy to forget as they have such a great website, but the Guardian is an extremely biased paper. If you have the Daily Mail on the right the Guardian occupies the same spot on the left.

I worry that these non-commercial, but well funded, enterprises are actually not very healthy for the the long-term future of UK journalism.
It still surprises me. I used to eat a chocolate bar and want more, now I'm the guy who eats two blocks and puts it in the fridge. I never thought this to be possible.
Agree, and I'm disappointed that the conversation on HN is still in terms of “free speech”. Do people know what kind of content Violentacrez posted? According to Zeynep Tufekci’s account:

Children focused “jailbait” forums typically
include photos of minors on a beach in splashing around
in bathing suits, a youngster practicing gymnastics,
students in school with the picture taken from a
low-angle, from-the-behind etc. and are peppered with
comments about genitals, looks and rape. The more
adult-oriented “creepshot” forum typically include
non-consensual “upskirt” photos of women’s crotches,
breasts, as well private photographs that were shared
with boyfriends, exes, being circulated for commentary
and leering.

I never visited the communities in question, so if that summary is materially inaccurate, please correct.

If that is accurate, I don’t see how anyone could think the actions of taking such photos, sharing them publicly and encouraging more to be taken, are victimless actions, or are even remotely defensible under the banner of “free speech”. Intimidating and harassing others and sharing recognizable photos without their consent is not “free speech”.

If Reddit wanted to take the moral high ground they would need to realize that while certain content may technically be legal, it should not be encouraged and welcomed by their community.

More in this great (but long) article by Zeynep Tufekci, which I've quoted above: http://technosociology.org/?p=1135
This was for legal matters, not for distastefulness. The same obligations fall on network operators, and wouldn't be cancelled by any net neutrality law.
from what I read, you completely lack basic nutrition knowledge, and this is the real problem, not the failed diets.

I'm absolutely convinced that you would get an adequate fit starting to study very "standard" nutrition books and understanding what you're doing.

"Losing weight" is a concept that must be absolutely removed. Boxers for example lose a couple of kg in a very short time before being weighted for matches.
Does this mean they successfully got a better shape? No.
Study, and you will understand how things work.
But so does 'trying to take photos of a women's secondary sexual organs without her knowledge or consent' (creepshots).

Does it? If the person in question never visited the sub-reddit in question, would they even know the photo existed?
Google Launches A Web Reader For Google Play Magazines
Eh, yeah i guess it almost makes sense. Color spent a lot of time developing a really powerful backend (well i guess, based on what people have published) the front end was almost an after thought for these guys. It would make sense for them to try and sell that back end.

Though if they do sell, the sale will have to be either very quiet, or they'll have to change the name of the company. I think part of the problem people had with Color was it was so obviously not aware of users privacy. I'm sure Apple doesn't want to be involved with that.
Sure they are. They know its happening. They know its supported by the hosting organization.

Imagine we institutionalized it- we'll take pictures of random people, including maybe you, in the bathroom in as embarassing a way as possible, and distribute it only to people you don't know. Ha ha! What a riot! They get a good laugh at your expense, you know its happening but cant do anything about it. Feel safe and confident now?

Its morally reprehensible to violate someones privacy in this way. We all suffer when its enabled by anyone.
Yes, we agree. I don't think anyone else would have looked at the facts and come to a different decision than what reddit did, and I'm sure they did not make the decision easily.
"Got buck naked bit*hes counting corks", (Was what I was expecting after the 1 Euro + images).