skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Is it time for feature requests? It'd be great to get integration with common management tools (e.g. Github Issues, Trello), so that the list can automatically be imported for a given milestone.
The rule works best where there's an established range and some testing behind it (e.g.: not when you're proving new ground). Hence the Feynman gear-selection rule.

Zero should be a valid number (there are many systems with no gears, also describable as gears with no teeth). But once you decide that you need a gear, it's got to have some teeth, or some number of eyes, etc.

Also, wouldn't a fish with no eyes be a fsh?
If they show that they take this screw-up seriously, then they could still come out looking pretty good.
You seem to be ignoring the very important word "not". What you're quoting is the exact opposite of what you think you're quoting - the broadcaster must NOT broadcast an election ad during that 3-day period.
That's the point, the government is completely clueless how to make good choices on the market. All this kind of government intervention in specific areas is the root of bubbles.
Facebook will launch a new ad platform for websites and apps I guess. In your website and your app, Facebook knows who is using it(thanks to their Graph API and iOS SDK). That is a huge opportunity.
There's a difference between 'The site may go down and 'This person I don't know will overreact and accuse us of terrorism'. Why don't we discuss the reality of the situation rather than some bizarre scenario you've concocted?
TrueCrypt is good and quite common.
Maybe it just shows that they gave advertising too much of a free hand? "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission." and all that.
Show an example please.
I used plural "publishers" and it happens to be that many publishers are commercial. I know JSTOR is not one of them.
Don't worry about being intimidated - there's nothing inherently complex that'll stop you from intellectually appreciating the subject - there are quite a few abstractions and moving parts, but treat those like an API - "pages have margins and text blocks, and text blocks have leadings and..." The more important part is the intuition (or "taste in design") that lets you combine those parts together - and Bringhurst aims to give you his view on how things should work by specifically prescribing style. That gets you over the initial hurdle in figuring out what works for you.
Misleading, especially the headline. The case doesn't directly concern the admissibility or implications of 5th amendment refusal to testify; that's settled law, as of Griffin v. California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griffin_v._California).

This case asks if 5th amendment rights only attach once a suspect has been arrested. If the Court finds that the 5th amendment (and, by extension, the Miranda rule) applies to pre-arrest interviews, then the Griffin rule applies, and such silences are inadmissable.
I agree with you, but the case isn't that simple. If he simply refused to speak, that would be one thing. The problem is that he was talking and then decided to stop right when an incriminating question was asked. The question isn't whether his silence can be used as evidence as guilt ... but whether his decision to stop talking at that specific moment can be.

It's always a good idea to keep your mouth shut when dealing with the cops, from beginning to end, not just when you find out they're gunning for you.
I believe the difference is with the words involved?
Fair! I wish you'd had spoken your mind earlier in the process. But maybe this will lead to microinvestments without such a ...downside
Very early in my career, early enough that I could fully appreciate its relevance for another few decades, I stumbled across a copy of Arthur Boch's Murphey's Law and other reasons things go wrong. The fundamental truth of the astute, or more often, pained, observations of engineers continues to impress me.

The 26th anniversary edition was released (or escaped) in 2003.

http://www.amazon.com/Murphys-Law-26th-Anniversary-Edition/d...
A Keynesian stimulus hardly works. It's been tried many, many times, with always the same results: close to none, or ending up in worse situation in the mid-term, by modifying the market incentives and removing cash that would be invested somewhere else by private entities. It is not about not liking one's government, this kind of government intervention is opposed to democracy and free market.
Note also: they don't have to read you your rights unless you're already under arrest and they want to question you.

http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=115
This might be too extreme, but what about forcing the prosecution to put some skin in the game where it comes to predicting the eventual outcome of the case?

In civil matters parties have the option of making a "Calderbank Offer", in which they put forth a reasonable resolution for the dispute by mutual agreement. If the other side does not accept that offer, but does not get a better outcome than the offer made, they are punished with costs consequences (for tying up court resources, forcing the other party through expensive litigation etc).

In a criminal trial, perhaps the prosecution should be required to go on record stating the sentence they will be asking the court for. In the event that the actual sentence varies significantly from the sentence threatened by the prosecution, a discounting procedure could be applied (for every 10% the prosecutor overstates the likely sentence, the accused receives a 5% reduction in their sentence).

ie. if a prosecutor proposes a 4 month custodial sentence for accessing academic journal articles, and a judge imposes 2 months, the accused would be entitled to a 50% discount, and serve only 1 month. If the prosecutor proposes 35 years, the accused serves no time.
Ahh, but the goal isn't to achieve justice, at least not for all the participants. A prosecutor's goal is to get convictions and/or pleas, if possible at minimum cost.

In Germany, for example, the prosecutor is primarily obliged to get at the truth. Furthermore, prosecutors have no discretion as to whether to prosecute, any major offense must go to trial, so there is nothing the prosecutor could offer. For the same reason, there is little incentive for the prosecutor, because trials with guilty pleas (which still happen quite frequently) are only somewhat shorter than trials without them. The judge still has to consider all the evidence, of which the guilty plea is just one piece.

On the other hand, procedures are such that trials are dispatched quickly at reasonable cost. There is virtually no room for the procedural/technical shenanigans that drag out litigation in the US and make it so expensive.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
if someone committed a crime that actually deserves 20 years in prison, why should the government settle for only 2 years?

Part of the theory, as I understand it, is supposed to be the question of the strength of the case. E.g., if the prosecution believes the defendant is guilty but is only 50% sure they can secure a guilty verdict, offer a plea for 10 years.

It's just the opposite of why a defendant would take a plea bargain. He has 20 years levied against him, but he is only 20% confident he can win in court, so 10 years might look attractive.
I mean to say, suppose they have to finish a document. Now due to the time factor they are "making-up" something to achieve the deadline. They know they are "intentionally" missing something. Due to the fact they know I will catch the missing thing or "improper" document they say to other peers. "Don't miss it, Steve will catch you". Now this is okay that the document ends up to be expected one. But the mindset of someone will catch me if I miss it -- is this is normal? What if I fail to attend such daily meetings in future. At some point, once they realize, I am no more there to review them they will no longer producing "perfect" ones. Or I am doing lot of baby-sitting that made my team so dump they just follow my lines. Kind of have some thoughts around how to manage such team would be great to hear.
> when that law was written it wasn't obvious how to distinguish in law between authorized and unauthorized access.

I think you have it backwards. Passing the special computer fraud law was what created the problem of not knowing how to distinguish between authorized and unauthorized access, because it made that illegal regardless of whether the "unauthorized access" (whatever that means) was actually in furtherance of any particular malicious act.

It really is a profoundly stupid law. Nobody seems to be able to tell specifically what it means, and any of the plausible readings make a felony out of plenty of things that ought not to be a felony. And even the cases where unauthorized access is in furtherance of something legitimately felonious, the actually malicious thing we want to prohibit will still have to be illegal on its own, since otherwise someone with authorized access could do it and we wouldn't be able to prosecute them.

Laws are complicated because you have to handle the edge cases. And there are (rarely) edge cases in some laws where adding "on a computer" can make a difference, but the way to deal with that is not to have a special computer law with disjoint elements and penalties, it's to make a minor adjustment to the existing non-computer law to take that into account.
Does anyone know what the weird Hebrew (?) writing on those two symbols says? It seems somewhat out of place, along with the crosses, given that Scientology is not a Jewish or Christian sect.
...

sides[i] = dot < -LIGHT_CLIP_EPSILON
? SIDE_BACK
: dot > LIGHT_CLIP_EPSILON
? SIDE_FRONT
: SIDE_ON;

...
If it was easy, it would have been done. The only things in life worth doing are hard.

> The most difficult question here is not what we want to change, but how to change it.

Oh, this one is super simple. The next time you get a parking ticket, speeding ticket, criminal complaint, etc.

Don't check the "guilty" box. Go to court. When the nice prosecutor tells you he'll help you out and waive most of the penalties if you only make a small donation, say "No, thank you. I want a trial." Get your trial. You'll probably lose. And that's fine.

Because if even 10% of us do this ... their entire corrupt system will implode on itself. Assert your rights and the system will revert to the way it was intended to work. No, it's not easy. Yes, it requires personal sacrifice, mostly paid with your time. But it is simple. And it does work.

I haven't pled guilty to any ticket in a very long time.
> The costs to provide this service are not this simple and as cheap as you think.

Exactly. I can't believe bandwidth is jstor's limiting costs.
Saying that the criminal justice system should grind to a halt goes well beyond the radical side of libertarianism.
Yes, we'd all be much better off if the criminal justice system didn't exist.
Controlling flow with Scala Futures
Would you guarantee that for every implementation of every C++ compiler ever? Especially considering that constexpr is already there?

So, I'd rather leave these clues to the compiler/optimizer.
They'll have to do better than the one sentence non-reply they have posted, but I totally agree. All organizations mess up, how they handle it can be instructive.
In 1984, a commission found that federal sentencing was too arbitrary (making us a "nation of men" rather than a "nation of laws") and so mandatory federal sentencing guidelines were enacted by Congress (the supreme court later made them not-quite-mandatory, but the restriction on judges is still pretty great).

However, judicial discretion was an important check against prosecutorial zeal, and the unintended consequence of reducing arbitrariness at the judicial level has been an increase in control at the prosecutorial level. Systemically, prosecutors are incentivized to put people away, as their careers aren't shielded like those of judges. We may be more a "nation of laws" than before 1984, but combined with punishments most people would consider unjust we've drifted toward being a police state.

In my opinion, if there's one thing to take away from this terrible tragedy, it's that we need a commission to study this systemic effect and recommend ways to make the justice system more just. I can't make myself blame the prosecutors involved when most federal prosecutors are similarly heavy-handed (and, quite possibly, were acting within a reasonable interpretation of the the law).
Petition to remove Carmen Ortiz passes threshold.
The petition to remove Carmen Ortiz just passed the 25,000 mark after just two and a half days.

I'm not dumb, I doubt that this petition will result in the stated goal, but this kind of thing is far too common and this is a good way to make at least a sad internet-era statement about it.

The prosecution may be allowed to presume guilt, fine. But the law should prevent an overzealous prosecutor from rendering moot the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments (not that I'm a constitutional scholar, just applying the "common sense" rule here).

Seizing assets is wrong in 99% of cases, and eliminates the right to mount an effective defense. This is compounded by the common tactic of overloading a public defendant with paperwork, and then using the 6th amendment to force inadequate defense. This is common and morally bankrupt.

"Making an example" of someone is complete garbage. That is not justice, it is cruel and unusual punishment. It seems to more often be used by DA's with political aspirations than for legitimately egregious crimes.

This is why I vote against anyone who lists "tough on crime" as a credential. It's not. "Fair on crime" is a virtue, "tough on crime" is bullying and an abrogation of justice. Citizens should have an expectation that punishments for doing something wrong will suit the offense. Anything otherwise is a violation of the 8th amendment.

If there is doubt over whether or not an action is even a crime, a DA should be using their discretion to NOT prosecute. When the "victims" of a "crime" don't even want to press charges, you have to question the motives of a DA that pursues the case anyway.
We tested an MVP of a very similar service some months back. When we launched http://www.qonversa.com, we had no idea about Branch. So we launched a MVP and tested the hypothesis on a set of Indian users(we are from India). The idea fell flat coz of the exact same problems mentioned by everyone out here. The site's still there & we are thinking of pivoting it or maybe working on something else. Any inputs?
My email was not hacked but the Twitter account was compromised.
every cynic who argues targeting a specific prosecutor won't fix the system is going to eat humble pie when this movement brings about sweaping reform of the justice system
> Technology and business requirements move too fast to worry about writing software that will be around 10 years from now

This is a common belief but I do not think it applies very well in most cases. If you write the last pic sharing thing, maybe you can dismiss worries, but if you build the next Google, entreprise or scientific software, or even something like Github, you should hope your baby to be well and alive in 10 years, and choose your tech stack accordingly. I guess.
Its kind of subjective though. In my schooling, when we moved from basic arithmetic to "word problems" as these were called (i.e which required you to formulate the mathematics yourself), I was completely lost and intensely dreaded the process. It seems a bit silly saying it, but at that time I didn't understand that I had to actually understand what the problem was asking of me. Before then, learning math had been "if you see A, do B" and I would frantically search for "patterns" to similar problems. It took me a long time to realize that the problem itself was telling me how to formulate the solution.

There is an amusing end to this story. When I entered college, I realized that this pattern-finding approach to solve math was used (in vain for the most part) by many of my classmates to try to game exams. It seems that it had worked well for them through high-school, but failed miserably at college.
If failure to answer becomes evidence of guilt, then answering is compulsory, and therefore falls under the 5th amendment.

This. A thousand times, this. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.
While I agree many of our punishments are too harsh, it seems absurd to me that Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people in Norway, only received a sentence of 21 years in prison.

Maybe because I'm American. Are Norwegians ok with this?
JSTOR doesn't have to maximize shareholder value. It is owned by Ithaka, a non-profit whose mission is to help " the academic community use digital technologies to preserve the scholarly record and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways."
http://www.ithaka.org/mission
"and I don't want to spam people just to try the thing out".

Branch is really close to being really useful. They just need to make it for the everyday person the way HN/Reddit is without loosing the "Davos of Social Media" elements.
But would you burn down your office?
I doubt that this petition will result in the stated goal, but this kind of thing is far too common and this seems like a way to make a statement that people are unhappy. I have a concern that online petitions are actually being used as a way to prevent actual protest, but at least the frustration will now require a response. Hopefully about the broader topic of poor prosecutor discretion, or flaws in the justice system. But you have to start somewhere.

The prosecution may be allowed to presume guilt, fine. But the law should prevent an overzealous prosecutor from rendering moot the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments (not that I'm a constitutional scholar, just applying the "common sense" rule here).

Seizing assets is wrong in 99% of cases, and eliminates the right to mount an effective defense. This is compounded by the common tactic of overloading a public defendant with paperwork, and then using the 6th amendment to force inadequate defense. This is common and morally bankrupt.

"Making an example" of someone is complete garbage. That is not justice, it is cruel and unusual punishment. It seems to more often be used by DA's with political aspirations than for legitimately egregious crimes.

This is why I vote against anyone who lists "tough on crime" as a credential. It's not. "Fair on crime" is a virtue, "tough on crime" is bullying and an abrogation of justice. Citizens should have an expectation that punishments for doing something wrong will suit the offense. Anything otherwise is a violation of the 8th amendment.

If there is doubt over whether or not an action is even a crime, a DA should be using their discretion to NOT prosecute. When the "victims" of a "crime" don't even want to press charges, you have to question the motives of a DA that pursues the case anyway.
Well, at least it was clearly mentioned that it was a sponsored article. There are so many times that articles are "bought" by advertisers or other parties while the contents pretend to be legit (not specific to The Atlantic, I am talking about the press in general).
LED Orb 2.0
I thought it was an interesting point and it reminded me of something. I've worked on an iOS project with a really ugly web API. I could improve the project internally quite a bit by making a native iOS API that I would talk to, which would hide lots (but not all) of the uglyness of the web API.

So I guess if one deals with ugly interfaces it may be wise to wrap the ugly interface in a cleaner one. As an added benefit, the project is decoupled more from the ugly interface, perhaps permitting to replace it with something better in the future.
They switch to IPv6 a while ago. That's one.

Two - the idea to use 5.x/8 came through me and it dates back to a dot-bubble era managed VPN company I worked for, called eTunnels. These addresses are used for routing inside of virtual networks, which is a separate routing domain, disconnected from the Internet. While this does create a routing ambiguity at the VPN client that wants to talk to the Internet address of 5.x.x.x, it doesn't mean these addresses "leak" to the Internet and somehow disrupt general network flow to/from 5.x.x.x.
>>but you should be aware that India and other South Asian countries consistently rank among the worst on Earth in international humanitarian organizations' analyses of women's rights.

Not denying. You are very correct.

But I guess not all form of oppression include hitting, beating and other forms of violence.

Leaving a women all alone to herself and asking her to earn a million dollars more than a man merely to survive is nothing short of a slow torture in itself. Something against which you cannot scream, complain, whine or even expect others to show sympathy about. In the name of freedom this is just bonded labor of a different kind.

Freedom(or a illusion?) is of no use when you tell a woman she can do whatever she likes in the time left after a 15 hour work schedule, tending to kids and other needs of her dependents.

Coming to India's problem with violence against women. It looks big also because of the mere population scale you are looking at. Although I agree with you as a society we have a long way to go when it comes to protecting women.
What browser does this? I've never run in to it.
Khwarizmi was a great guy. But it will be nice to cite his influences as well - like he introduced Indian Numerals (Which the world wrongly calls Arabic Numerals).His work in Algebra is based on previous work from Indian and Greek sources. Surely that doesn't make him father of Algebra. However, his other controbutions are stupendous and one of the first treatise in Math worth recollecting. Persian history has indeed contributed many great things to the world (And please don't use it interchangeably with Arab or Arabic).
Not necessarily. The old article ITSELF is public domain, the work, so to speak. The file you downloaded might have a new copyright because someone worked really hard to create it. Check the license and everything before jumping to conclusions.
Lying to federal investigators is usually a crime of some sort. Whether lying can really be Constitutionally prohibited (and if so, when, and what the rationale is) is an interestingly thorny area of first-amendment law. Some laws against lying are very old; for example, libel is a special case of lying. And in the commercial sphere, laws against false advertising have been upheld. But the dividing line is not that clear. Eugene Volokh had a series of posts on the subject, spurred by a U.S. law (later overturned) that made it illegal to lie about having received a military decoration: http://www.volokh.com/category/freespeech/knowingly-false-st...
what the article fails to mention is that BIFs can mess with your timing -- a BIF call costs one reduction, no matter how long it takes. I'd say that this is comparable in seriousness as the array-operation example, since BIF calls are probably more common.

edit: none the less, I like erlang, it is a brilliant tool for a small but important class of problems. When comparing erlang to akka recently, I found that erlang, indeed does a quite good job in delivering predictable performance (all on a very limited benchmark), while akka is less reliable in that regard. However, I did construct a very simple network topology that was as similar in both cases as possible, so that excluded features like routers in akka.

Akka's performance on average tends to be better, though (roughly same for pure message passing, the more work you add, the more Akka tends to outrun erlang.)

So, it's, as always, a tradeoff.

edit #2:
I regard erlang's scheduler to be one of the advantages erlang has: allowing all threads to progress at the same time is amazing. If you compare this with task based parallelism, backed by a thread pool of size N: only N threads are able to 'make progress', while in erlang, every process gets a fair share. That's really, really, cool.