skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Right now, I'm happily playing and frollicing, carefree. If World problems are my fault, it's Hell.

When solving one problem, there's usually a tradeoff. If it's any comfort, a painless solution seems impossible--there's always some unpleasantness. We are human, too, and don't have perfect will-power.

God says...
C:\Text\QUIX.TXT

aid Sancho, "and your worship chooses to give in
to these--I don't know if I may call them absurdities--at every turn,
there's nothing for it but to obey and bow the head, bearing in mind the
proverb, 'Do as thy master bids thee, and sit down to table with him;'
but for all that, for the sake of easing my conscience, I warn your
worship that it is my opinion this bark is no enchanted one, but belongs
to some of the fishermen of the river, for they catch the best shad in
the world here."

As Sancho

----

shard

Olympics we joyful, weren't they.

Chuck Swindol's book, Wisdom for the Way is really good. "When one worry goes out the door, we usher in another." I guess, distracting yourself from worries is best if you can't do anything about them.

God's table means this is a joyful time.

What can we praise God for? Pandas? BBC did a story on threatened polar bears. Bears are God's favorite. Not my problem. The waving bear videos are funny. Lets praise God. Bears and honey is delightful. I think it's fascinating that they don't look athletic, at all! Climb trees, though. You kinda have to stop your listing of things about bears and say "Yep, that's bears." They're bears. They're not as smart as humans, but they're good bears and that's okay, not that there's anything wrong with that.

God says...
C:\Text\BIBLE.TXT

r there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.

27:35 And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to
God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to
eat.

27:36 Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took some meat.

27:37 And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and
sixteen souls.

27:38 And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, and
cast out the wheat into the sea.

27:39 And when it was day, they knew not
Oscars 2013 : grosses surprises à l’horizon 
Oscars 2013 : qui parmi Daniel Day-Lewis, Denzel Washington, Hugh Jackman, Bradley Cooper et Joaquin Phoenix sera sacré meilleur acteur ? La meilleure actrice pourrait être Emmanuelle Riva (Amour).
If it's a rare case, why don't we optimize for the common case and have some special treatment for the outlying?
You have a valid point there, my friend :) But, for office, I personally don't use my iPad because of the touch screen usability, especially when it comes to copying and pasting stuff. I (personally) feel I'm more productive on a PC than on an iPad.

But actually, I'm sorry, by PC I meant both the Laptops and the Desktops combined only. No way I'm arguing in favor of just desktops alone...Laptops vs Desktops is a separate argument that I'll save for the rainy day ;)
> There's a scale between 100% direct democracy and 100% dictatorship/plutocracy. I think most of the current republics are significantly closer to the latter than the first, as besides voting once every 4 years in most countries, there isn't much the population can do to help shape political decisions (other than protests and media scandals, but those don't really have much to do with direct democracy).

This is by design. Bodies politic which begin as "100% direct democracy" tend to transform themselves into "100% dictatorship" with alarming regularity.

That this is a common historical pattern was already old hat in Plato's time.
This is so true. I took time off to travel around the world the last whole year but due to online projects bought a phone card in each country with 3g connectivity. At one point I had to turn off boxcar and other push notifications. Back when I used to work full time, I enjoyed reading a text/email in the elevator, it gave me that feeling of being productive.

However, while climbing a volcano or looking at a beautiful lake, suddenly everything shifted into a new perspective. It took that for me to realize that I don't need to be wired all the time. That I don't need to answer an email. That I don't need to dance to other people's conveniences. My life and moments should be my own, and I should still be productive when I sit down to work.

The answer I found was that due to the constant nature of today's communication (mobile, email, sms, skype, google hangouts, etc.) people will tend to encroach on your personal space as long as you let them, this isn't ill intentioned, but it just happens. You may be able to deal with this if it's just 1-2 people, but if there are more then you're going to get stuck answering emails/texts/etc. all day and night.

Now I found that the new Do not disturb feature on iOS 6 really helps me get some rest. I know that I don't want to see any notifications, see any bright screens, etc. at night. I still want to be reachable by phone call in case something happens but push notifications can wait.

Life is better.
Apple is far more analogous to say, BMW than an apparel company - both companies produce highly refined products which elicit loyalty in their customer base and great resale values.

IIRC, BMW has been around for decades and still gets their customers to open their wallets in a big way, and still looks cool.
So why not save the reader some effort by putting the TL;DR at the top?
Agreed. Aside from assisting in removing bias from the reader, working your way through to the conclusion allows it to remain a mystery to the reader, allowing them to enjoy being walked through the process of discovery, rather than just giving them an answer, then doing a "here's how we got there", which (in some cases) becomes less interesting once the answer is known.

To respond to Fusiongyro's point that this is a narrow view I point out that generally in writing style should change with context. In some cases the author of the article is exactly right about summing things up in the first sentence, in others johnfn is.

TLDR: Whether to use tldr depends on what experience you're looking to give your readers, what you're writing about, and who you're writing for.
I totally agree on the retrospective. Without taking the time to review what you've done, it's harder to stay motivated and measure your progress. Set aside time on the calendar to do this because it's also a very good time to review your goals. Remember, tasks should move you closer to your goals!
Agree, I will probably use it.
The cold is always tough on the homeless, but we have a fair amount of shelters so the people on the streets usually don't want to be in them or can't abide by the rules. It is extremely easy to get help if you're homeless in the SFBA, there's no good reason to be on the street. Every once in a while the local news does a story about the homeless, and many things become immediately clear.
Suggest to HN: a website to highlight unjust/immoral laws
In light of recent events, unjust laws and relative morality, I have an idea for a website basically called 'felonies I've committed.'

The site is anonymous, (e.g. no social logins), with a linked .onion copy available for the very cautious.

The page shows a number of simple questions like 'have you ever downloaded a movie from a friend or torrent site', 'accidentally or knowingly taken marijuana over the Canadian border,' etc., with inclusion of the number of times or volume when applicable. The questions are written to be easily understandable and with the loosest reasonable interpretation possible.

On submission you get a report saying something like "based on your answers you could be charged with 80 years in jail and/or 100k in fines." The report would itemize the charges based on answers and include links to the federal laws and the ability to comment on each question/law.

This is purely as an exercise to show people how ridiculous many laws are, demonstrate the gravity of breaking them and create some dialog.
Perhaps not, but we should remove vindictive individuals who are charged with meting out justice. Ortiz is one of those individuals. And we do this so they can do no more harm.
They want you to take a plea bargain. No, scratch that. They need you to take a plea bargain. The court system would grind to a halt if everyone refused to deal and demanded a jury trial.

So they charge you with as much as they can get away with. You can end up with dozens of counts as the result of one act. The purpose is to give themselves a strong hand when it comes to the deal.

The prosecutor has already pretty much decided what he (or she) thinks is fair. So you take the deal and get what the prosecutor decided, or you run the risk of what is essentially a life sentence if you get convicted on every count. Probably wouldn't actually happen if you went to trial. Probably. But it might. So you take the deal and the government doesn't go through the expense of giving you a fair trial.
People like Orin Kerr are part of the problem. Anyone associated with the DoJ can't see that the DoJ is the problem, not the Aaron Swartzes of the world.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

-Upton Sinclair
>Like what, exactly?...

Threading / Multicore processing. This is the 800 pound gorilla sitting in all programming language camps.

>Moose is cool and all, but it basically just brings Perl up to the same level of functionality that other languages like Python and Ruby

Nope... Moose brings Perl up to the CLOS (Lisp) level of OO which is beyond what you get with Python & Ruby.
for me the wget thing doesn't work. i get some aliases, but not those i have been adding to my list.
Another aspect of this is that it is short-term adaptive.

It may not be good for you in the long term to handle a constant stream of information and get little sleep. But it certainly is expected in many jobs and for general "getting ahead" in life.

So I don't think stopping is simply an individual decision. It would have to be something like a society-wide decision.

"I’ve made a conscious decision to live a life that is not driven by someone else’s priority." Good for the author to willing and able to do that. Some others may indeed not be but other-others may not be able.
There's some in Australia who do. UWA telephones & writes to me every year for donations to their Alumni fund - this year they even invited past students to a cocktail party called "A Celebration Of Giving". I don't donate anymore but did once in the past, specifically because the funds went towards scholarships.
You say that "She simply failed to recognise when she stepped outside the bounds where her values are recognised - this is not all that dissimilar from Aaron Swartz." The difference, of course, is that Aaron Swartz merely published documents, she was trying to send him to prison for almost the rest of his natural life.

I sure hope you can see the proportional difference between the two acts!
Get the video with youtube-dl, then extract the audio using ffmpeg.

$ youtube-dl -t "www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX-EUye66Bo"
---> will save into Video_Title_Name_YOUTUBEID.flv
$ ffmpeg -i input_video.flv -acodec copy audio_only.aac

http://rg3.github.com/youtube-dl/ http://ffmpeg.org/
As much as I support marijuana legalisation, I'm always puzzled at the righteous anger summoned against the federal government for prosecutions like this---how dare they, when the states have said it's legal! The problem is, that argument is an extremely shady one, with an extremely sketchy past. I currently live in a state (Virginia) where, faced with the Brown v Board ruling in the 60s, many counties just defunded their public schools entirely and funneled the money to "private" academies for white kids, with the state's blessing. The movement was called "Massive Resistance". Several other states across the South had other policies that were not permitted to stand when they conflicted with the federal government.

Don't get me wrong, I think the tide is moving in a different direction here---marijuana legalisation, particularly medical marijuana, is a matter of "when", not "if". But in the meantime, it really shouldn't be a matter for surprise or outrage when the federal government prosecutes on it.
I think it's unnecessary and unhelpful to bash an argument based merely on authority or ad hominem. Kerr brings up a level headed assessment of case law and it will be interesting to read the rebuttals to it. If people truly want to fix the problem here, then they must understand its domain, not simply say "this is not how I want the world to be"
I don't see why you're saying "but". We can put the summary at the top and mark it with TL;DR.
Hi Tim, I'd love to meet for a chat tomorrow. Drop me a line, to alex-at-limitedcraft.com. During the day I'm with Rocket in Mitte (Friedrichstraße).
Apple's shining logo of Sanlitun Apple Store Penetrating thick fog in Beijing
Hey guys, thanks for the feedback. I did the design for the site.

Tonight I'm planning on bumping up the contrast and it seems calibrating my monitor also ;)
People make mistakes. Prosecutors who make mistakes ruin the lives of innocent people. If you ruin the life of an innocent person, then you're part of that broken system.

Just remember this: this is a Prosecutor who went after Aaron Swartz, even though the alleged victim didn't want to press any charges and had dealt with the matter outside of the court system, in a way that was satisfactory to both parties (Swatz and JSTOR).
> I.e., it recites synopses of the charges and then states that the charges are not true because:

It seems a little more nuanced than that. He's not denying the charges so much as he's arguing that they're over-zealous. In his conclusion, he says that what Aaron did was inconsiderate, rather than criminal; that was his intent in standing as a witness.
Interesting idea.

The explainer video is painful, and does most of the things I find painful in videos like that. Slow paced, oddly accented English, very wordy in places, and essentially monotone. No clear promise about what it's going to show you early on -- the first 15 seconds or so made me disinterested. It got better, but normally I'd just skip to something else by then.
Oh so it was a department's bad security. Not surprising

Yes, I know how these things work. Even at MIT it's the same apparently

I wouldn't be surprised if this was an old Windows 2000/2003 server box hosting some static pages (and also it's the same computer the secretary uses)
Maybe it's the EU citizen in me, but I just done understand how this is possible? Isn't it legal in that state? So how can you face jail time?

It almost sounds like there are 2 legal systems and rules if law that operate in one physical area! And something can be legal in one, and illegal in another. But that can't be right, that sounds insane. What's the point of state law then?

Can someone explain this like I'm 5?
The last sentence, while an appeal to emotion in the way it was phrased, actually made a reasonable point. The prosecution of Aaron Swatz should never have been treated like a test case to see exactly how far the prosecution could get away with.

The law should not be made by prosecuting someone to see where the boundaries of legislation lie.
Does it do them at the same time?

I know on the Google keyboard you just slide (click and drag finger) across the keyboard to change languages..
Why Am I So Upset About Aaron Swartz's Suicide?
I wonder if a similar concept could be adopted to run a company.
People usually put themselves in the situation where 'they might not be able' which also coincides with a kind of weird idea of what 'getting ahead' means. Insanely high mortgages, 3 cars, 4 kids, 2 houses, 5 big screen TVs, 8 vacations/year, top management position, high maintenance spouse etc etc. Once you go into that you are indeed stuck and unable to move until you untangle yourself from the financial disaster you have become.

Before that time, if getting ahead is a bit less materialistic (and will coincide more with actually interesting things, not the boring stuff people think it means), anyone can do what the author did/does. And will be happier for it.
For better or worse, he can change the law with an Executive Order that will last the rest of his term.
35 years in prison for getting access to articles in a library ? Human race is yet to evolve. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/farewell-aaron-swartz
I needed to use an MIT website for some research and I wasn't too happy when it was down. As nobody has, I would like to voice my disapproval.
Get Your Shit Together -- Life and Death Planning Made Simple
Federal law overrides State law, just as State law overrides county law, which overrides city or town law.

In this case, one would think the Federal government would have more important laws to enforce.
fschwehn, can you try again. We picked the bug up you were describing.

Also aliases are meant to be public. We may have private aliases in the future.

Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated.
Relevant: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gel...

> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

Journalists are people who know little of anything writing about everything.
That's OK, when someone legislates criminal punishment for being friends with Jews lets try to understand the it's domain instead of resoundingly denying it's attempt to exist.

No this type of behavior just enables judicial bullying more. Instead of taking time to acknowledge the heavy handed and totally ruinous tactics of prosecutors and the law they tout as their sword, lets continue to defend ourselves on it's terms as Kerr begs us to do. No, that just means more meat mangled by 'the system.'

"It is the law so lets try to respect it because it is the law."
I'm looking forward to the second part of this (on prosecutorial discretion) - this is a good analysis.

I feel torn about the trial, and I know I'll get flack for this but what Aaron did was illegal, and I'm sure he knew while he was doing it that it was illegal, or at least in a grey area. At the same time, they were way overly aggressive in prosecuting him.

There's something wrong with the system when someone can have their life destroyed and their resources drained by their choice to exercise civil disobedience in protesting something that is morally wrong.
I wonder if there is anyway to electronically disintermediate the process by which someone wins a government software contract. There much be some way to make discovering contracts easy, quick and cheap and make the process to apply and build those projects super simply. Basically a startup needs to democratize access to these projects so you only need to be only an expert software developer and not a expert government bureaucrat to understand the process to win these contracts.
Anyone associated with the DoJ can't see that the DoJ is the problem

Why? He is precise in what his post is doing: simply making an evaluation of whether the charges stack up with the law on the books. He neither promises nor tries to evaluate the legitimacy of the laws. I think that is perfectly fine and in fact I'd love if more qualified folks shared their specific interpretation of the law with minimal bias in either direction.
it's far from an excuse, I've been very active in other areas related to the launch of the business - I just want to turn as many odds in my favour as possible pre-launch.
I'm pretty sure he meant functionality-wise. As in, same sorts of gestures and such.

Swype is available for everyone, without registration: http://beta.swype.com It may have been that you needed to be approved before. But not anymore.
There are many legal systems that operate in any given area. The federal government has its laws, your state has its laws, and then your county and city have their say too. Very often these laws match pretty well (either the lower jurisdiction implements compatible laws or they just leave it up to the feds), but sometimes there is conflict.

The state and federal line is the brightest, as prosecution of federal crimes goes through different channels than the prosecution of state-level crimes.

There is some debate as to whether federal or state laws should take precedence here, though the argument is kind of academic, as it's obvious the federal government wins in real life. From a constitutional standpoint, there's a decent case for the state's laws superseding the federal, but I mean, the state can't really stop the feds from arresting people for breaking federal law.
But how can I know if it's summory or just first sentence?
Obama has a law degree and has been a civil rights lawyer.

I find it hard to believe he is ignorant of how the system works, nor its abuses.
I never said MIT never changes, I said changes are not in the nature of universities, and I base it on a comment made by a professor in law history in Columbia law school.

A university is an institution that tries to teach young people the wisdom of the old. It has always resisted quick changes. If one need an example, one can take a look on how long time it took to adapt electronic aids in classes outside computer science. An other fact is that universities has previously been a place unique with having access to high amount of books (information). This is no longer unique for universities, but many aspects of universities still work as if the main purpose of a university is easy access to a library.