skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If only I could write web documents in yaml + python.

I do agree, and I hope people aren't downvoting you like crazy, because the only reason html/css/js exist is because it is entrenched. Same reason people use C and C++. They both took a market you can't easily shift away from (by both being effectively an ABI) and are now indisputable.

Fuzzy XML with a curly braces C style semicolon delimitered design language? A programming language with no standard library besides a math module, so your website ends up being 3mB of JS libraries and 100kB of actual document?

Though I wouldn't say mobile apps are absolutely a "blessing". The Android XML + Java morass is barely a step above html + javascript, and I'd argue it has even less productivity. I end up getting the most freaky bugs in layouts trying to get them working on multiple devices and waste so much time on that blasted syntax.
>Today, now more than before, it is illegal to modify a device you have bought with your own money.

To be fair, when someone buys a locked phone, they are really buying it with a combination of their own money and the carrier's money.
If you're writing thousands of policies, of course statistically you're going to profit because not all of them will claim before it has paid for itself. Once you pay the first claim, you've already collected 999 premiums at least once. But if you self-insure, you're only writing one policy, which puts all the risk back into it.
Pope's sudden resignation sends shockwaves through Church
Found this at StackOverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4011123/is-there-an-api-f...

Does anyone have experience with any of them?
Another version from limpsum.com: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=la&tl...
BootstrapPress: Twitter Bootstrap Plugin for WordPress
> They're such high risk, that no actuary will quote them a reasonable price.

That makes sense. There is such a high chance of the insurer losing out on flood insurance money, that no one would want to buy flood insurance.

> Private insurers are unapologetic about this: The prevailing thought is, when nature strikes, the government must bail people out.
> ...the "free market" doesn't work properly when it comes to flood plains...

Let me get this straight. The author states that the free market fails when it comes to flood insurance, but in the next breath states why government is the problem. Private insurers can't possibly compete with a free service provided by taxation. If the government wasn't guaranteed to bail people out, then they would probably buy flood insurance in droves (or leave because, like the author said, it's expensive to live in a high-risk area like a flood plain), therefore driving the cost down. All of this could happen without government intervention. Furthermore, so many people have moved there because government intervention prevented the price system could not reflect the high risk of floods.

I really don't see how to author can blame the free market for the lack of flood insurance when it is the government mucking up the price system.
Congrats to all the named companies! Keep pushing!
> Investing in yourself only works on average.

No, not true. On average, you are much better off investing the insurance payments than paying for insurance. If this were not true, insurance companies would be reluctant to offer you a policy. But notice that insurance companies are always willing to write a policy -- which, by its very existence, must benefit them on average.

> Most people don't wish to gamble ...

But buying insurance is as much a gamble as not buying insurance. The difference is the number of players who are gambling with you.

Obviously if you cannot afford to lose the insured item, that's different. My advice is for possessions the loss of which doesn't cripple your life.

> The home owners are willing to pay a slight premium towards the operating expenses of the insurance company.

My point is that the owner would be way ahead by investing the insurance payments rather than handing them over to an insurance company.
Interesting. I'd love to see Firebooks in the future along with Chromebooks. It would be nice to have two cloud-based operating systems for the desktop out there.
#2 is a fallacy, which is what the original author had said. Look at all the people buying mansions on the coast of Florida that then get wiped out by hurricanes. Humans are very bad at gauging long-term risk.
I'd love to have some way to add more interests after the fact, because I immediately realized I wanted to add one more thing after I hit submit. Maybe just even resubmit the form with the same email. Or enter your email and it'll bring up a profile. Something like that.
One question that no one asks: why do we insist on paying for healthcare with insurance in the first place? Imagine a world where everyone paid for health expenses out of pocket, where there was competition and price transparency for all procedures which means much lower prices (instead of prices being driven up by government-subsidized plans), and most importantly, doctors had to answer to us as consumers instead of insurance companies?
But then ask the same to those people of their own national governments, or political structure. Many don't understand how their own country works.

Should we abolish or get rid of national governments? Why are you holding the EU to a different standard?
Athlon 64 (K8 core) was a fairly conservative extension of the original Athlon design (K7 core). Very similar, except widened to 64-bits, deeper buffers in a few places, and with the memory controller brought on board.

See: http://www.realworldtech.com/looking-forward-2002/3/
I fail to see how one is going to master any branch of mathematics if arithmetic is a major obstacle.
Any decent designer who knows CSS could fix that calendar in a couple hours. Those minor UX details are easily fixable, the bigger picture is you're getting a usable calendar for free.
The points I got from this were:

1) People enjoy living in flood plains;
2) People who live in flood plains can't afford flood insurance;
3) Therefore, it's everyone else's job to compensate them for the cost of flood damage.

Finally, this is used (somehow) as an argument for universal healthcare. This logic seems faulty.
That's the correct conclusion.

Now one has to ask why someone who didn't make the mistake of living in a flood plain has to pay for those who choose to continue to take that risk.

This attitude is all about destroying the notion of personal responsibility. Let everyone else bail me out.
Linkedin goes Facebook and screws its users
+1 for egghead.io every video tutorial should be this way
Yes, but in most cases private insurance companies do not charge high rates for flood insurance, they simply refuse to provide flood insurance. The issue for them is that floods tend to affect EVERYONE in an area (or no one at all) and so the losses due to claims cannot be averaged over a large customer base and thereby kept consistent from year to year. This creates a kind of risk that wise insurance companies will not be willing to take on.

That is not to say that there is NO price: as an extreme case, an insurance company would be willing to sell a policy for flood insurance for an annual price of the full replacement price of the property. (Because they'd be guaranteed a zero or positive return in the first year.) But that's not what we traditionally mean by "insurance", which involves the concept of sharing risk over a broad pool so that each member pays for the average cost rather than risking having a high cost.
Pretty sure the only real solution to this is going to be getting a congressman to support an amendment to the bill which would allow for cases where people would have the option of unlocking their phone. The other huge hurdle would be to have the carriers on board so they would be responsible for unlocking the phone.
Because I was unaware and looked it up:

Spear phishing is a specifically targeted phishing attack that appear to come from a legitimate source... often one of authority within the targeted organization.[1]

1. http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/spear-phishi...
I signed, and for the first time ever clicked on a facebook icon embedded in a web page. Maybe it'll at least help the conversation along.
Titanium – a Clojure graph library built on top of Titan
Sure, there's loads of ways an experiment can be flawed. But also, it might not be flawed. If you're got a good experiment that shows correlation, then it has to be one of the 3 results above.
Parser Combinators are a great example of the advantages of functional programming for this sort of work.
Counting stool legs
below is an example of what is done and what to do diff. this is about science but you can extrapolate to the other subjects.

teachers like Tyler DeWitt are vastly underrepresented in the school system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVwWN0kjbms&list=FLj3EXpr...
Adobe Issues Emergency Patch For Flash Player
This is a ridiculous argument. Insurance works because not everyone's house burns down. Only some people's do. The people whose houses don't burn down pay for those whose houses do. investing to repay for your house should it burn down only works if you know you're not going to have your house burn down for 30 years. What if your house burns down the day after you buy it? if you had insurance, you'd be fine. If you put that initial $500 (or whatever) in an investment, you have.... $500.
This makes me wonder if there is a market for patent troll insurance. Pay a small monthly fee and get legal protection or money to hire your own counsel in the event of a lawsuit. It seems to be a pain point that small startups worry about, since it can be pretty deadly to a busines, even if they are innocent.
I think you need to first state what you're trying to accomplish.

Is lower prices an end unto itself? if so, I doubt that you will get it from the "free market." It's too inefficient. When you slip and break your leg, you can't take your time shopping around for the lowest price care. You can't buy a lung transplant when it's cheap, save it, and use it when you need it.

Some people simply want people to pay their own way for ideological reasons. I can understand that without agreeing with it.
Not a circumvention, since triple-clicking requires double-clicking.
Right, as did QNX, i believe.
No doubt that carriers are behind Motorola's actions, even going back to 2005. It is easy to imagine AT&T requiring that manufacturers prosecute end-users who unlock phones to the full extent of the law, as a condition for certifying a device on their network. This new dictum from the Library of Congress[1] actually extends the law and most likely the obligations of device manufacturers.

During the days of the Bell monopoly, consumers faced similar restrictions on what they could connect to the network... I'm not that old, but I remember being stunned as a kid when I saw what could be accomplished simply by connecting my computer to the phone network.

At a time when the nation needs new engines of economic growth, it's a real shame to see communications policy that continues to protect the entrenched incumbents while shying away from promoting innovation.

P.S. There is also a White House petition to appoint Susan Crawford as chair of the FCC and she seems to be very in touch with these issues.

[1] http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-25/unlocking-phone-...
Former Salesforce And Buddy Media Executives Raise $3M Nomi
Wow- I have to say I disagree. For serious debug work I go to firebug. Chrome seems clunky- and I can never find what I'm looking for. Maybe depends on what you're used to.
Nothing encourages me to close a tab faster than a slideshow-style presentation.

Bonus points if Ghostery blocks the JS required to run it.
Except of course that if person A chooses to be very health-conscious, exercises, eats healthy, and doesn't abuse coffee, sugar, salt, tobacco, and alcohol, and pays more for better food and gym membership that person B who eats fast food, drinks, smokes, and eats kit-kats all day long, then person A gets taxed to pay for person B's surgeries and other treatments. This doesn't seem fair at all. It makes it look like all the people living in the hillside because they didn't want to move to the floodplain have to pay for the guy's house in the flood plain even though they warned him not to build there.

Seems to me that everyone would then say: "well, let's not be healthy, let's not eat well, since the government will pay for all our surgeries and medicine..."

What happened to personal responsibility?
What worthwhile benefit does society receive for underwriting the cost of rebuilding property in flood plains?

I mean, if you build a house where it's likely to be destroyed, it obviously benefits you to make your inland neighbors pay for your house, should it be destroyed. But how does it benefit your inland neighbors? What do they get that is worth the cost of underwriting your risky behavior?
Those mansions have their insurance subsidized by the federal government. The only foolishness is institutional--to the homeowner, the government just buys you a new mansion every few years for below cost. It's a fantastic deal for them.
The only criticism I have of this comparison is that, well, maybe people shouldn't be living in flood plains. Yes, I understand why people want to live near Winnipeg and that there's limited space, but we may reach a certain point where we say "tough, the government won't bail you out for living in an at-risk area". Certainly, in New York State the Governor has announced plans to buy up waterfront land from people wrecked by Sandy to make sure that others don't make the same mistake.

Health isn't the same. We can't say "well, maybe you shouldn't have gotten cancer" to someone who develops it through no fault of their own. We can choose where to live, but we can't (often) choose our health.
Today, now more than before, it is illegal to modify a device you have bought with your own money.

Except that most people these days are renting/leasing/amortizing a phone from a carrier and for that carrier, not buying it.
4D microscopy offers material insights
Sony Admits PS Vita is Currently a Failure
By extension, Clojure can use those same java libraries
Encrypted communication is not very useful if you aren't sure who you are communicating with. Using a self-signed cert greatly increases this uncertainty.
You seem to have an ideological objection to the argument. Maybe you should simply state that you are perfectly okay with a city of people being left in dire straits (heh) when the river overruns its banks or the levees break.

I can understand that, even if I don't agree with it, and that makes a lot more sense than saying my argument is faulty when what you really believe is that a society that takes care of its own is faulty ;-)
They might be, but I bet it takes a long time to port and RPi is a good place to experiment.
Where USB Memory Sticks are Born
Every single company under the sun says that they follow this practice. But the reality is that very few companies actually follow through. Even startups who swear up and down they give their engineers complete control over what they build.
There are situations where a course of action is in both parties best interests.
Really nice piece. Thank you.
Previous discussion (downvoted off the frontpage): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5201324
William Shatner questions Reddit's permissive culture
This is very messy. If a mirror changes, you have to go back through all of your source code and change all of the relevant imports.

Have you run into real-life problems with this or is it more a hypothetical issue?

You can use local package import paths instead if you prefer to manage your dependencies separately (and have several different goroots too with different sets of packages), or use DNS/hosts to manage where your private package server domain points, there are lots of options which don't require specification of a package server in one place.
And obviously we should include risky sexual behavior and unplanned pregnancies on the list of things people should be personally responsible for as well.

And all sorts of sports and outdoors activities that raise risk.

It's only fair.
My money is on someone accusing him of diddling with them when they were a kid.
skills require knowledge; especially the kind of skill involved with the three separate disciplines (administration, networking, and programming) he has already demonstrably become proficient in.

if you don't think there is a metric ton of domain specific knowledge represented in what he's already doing then you may not be as familiar with the topics as you think you are or are not remembering what it took to attain that familiarity.

but i am also privy to other areas of knowledge aqusition that might identify this minor more than i fear i have already
I can really relate myself to this article. I don't think I am as great as the girl in the article. But my mindset is exactly like hers. My friends and teachers keep telling me how smart I am and how much achieved . While I really really appreciate their kind compliment, I found it hard to accept what they say about me. I feel that they may not understand me completely. They don't know all my weaknesses and have not seen how dumb I am at times. I am rarely satisfied with myself because I constantly think about all these people who have achieved more than me. People told me to lower my standards and look at the people who didn't achieve what I have. But lowering my standards make me feel weak and sad, feeling that I can no longer be the person I aspire to be.. So I persist to try harder despite the uncomfortable feelings of not being satisfied. I also start to realize there is no end to this. My goals of past years have been reached but new goals and higher standards have been set along the way. I actually don't like to be this because I can get very frustrated with myself at times. But one again, lowering my standards make feel weak..
This actually makes sense, because the "free market" doesn't work properly when it comes to flood plains. In theory, people would never put their homes on a flood plain if they couldn't get flood insurance. But the market for dwellings is highly irrational.

Dunno about Winnipeg's historical geography, but take a look at old New Orleans maps: people didn't build in the floodplain, for obvious reasons. Once government stepped in with grand assurances of levees ("we'll stop the flooding") and welfare ("if that doesn't work, we'll take care of you"), buyers were blinded to the natural realities. For decades, I'd see annual magazine articles opining "ya know, New Orleans is gonna flood again" - then it did.

It's not that "the free market doesn't work properly when it comes to flood plains", it's that government interference with its promise of what amounts to (and the article advocates) "free insurance" doesn't work properly. People build there because they're lied to: "yeah, sure, if something bad happens we'll confiscate the money you need from others and give it to you". We're now in a time where a whole lot of promises by a whole lot of governments - promises of "free insurance" included - are coming to hit the reality that "socialism fails when you run out of other people's money."

People take risks of natural disasters (floods, tornados, ice, whatever) everywhere. Hurricanes in Florida, blizzards in Canada, tsunami in Indonesia, tornados in Kansas, flooding in Winnipeg... It's up to them to decide what risks they'll take, what potential losses they're willing to accept as tradeoff for what probable benefits, and how they're going to prepare for disaster. Free market takes the very real facts of availability & limitation and disperses it in a fair manner; government intervention all too often distorts these facts, overpromises, underdelivers, and on the whole operates by garnering the support of many by promising to take from few by force.
Because people are risk-averse. People would rather pay a little more for a lot less risk. Paying for healthcare out of pocket is incredibly risky. You never know if you're going to be diagnosed with cancer and have to drop $200,000 a year for treatments that will last the rest of your life.
There is a certain amount of that going on. After Hurricane Hazel in Toronto, the government did buy up a lot of land on the Humber and Don rivers where houses were swept away, they are now parkland.

the trouble is, moving people out of a flood plain within a city is easier than moving an entire city that is a substantial economic entity in its own right.

So I think you're right that where practical, people shouldn't live in flood plains, and perhaps they shouldn't even have a choice in the matter.
You are why universal healthcare is so essential - because most people are really bad at calculating their own risk vs. reward.

Risk: $1000 a year in home insurance that could be used to buy something else.

Reward: the 1 in 1000 chance that your home burns down, you aren't completely boned.

The risk is relatively small. $1000 a year isn't going to change your life. But the safety that it buys you is huge, because it prevents your life from being devastated should something unlucky happen.
>Massachusetts voters ­resoundingly passed the “Right to Repair” ballot question, meaning the new law requiring automakers to provide independent repair shops as well as dealers with easy access to the computer codes needed to diagnose complex car problems will need to be reconciled with compromise legislation passed after the ballots were approved.

Legislators could also decide to reapprove the compromise. The regulations are the first of their kind in the nation.

Under the ballot legislation, automakers are required to make diagnostic and repair infor­mation available to independent shops and dealers through a universal system by 2015. The compromise legislation, passed in July, gives automakers until 2018 to comply with new regulations.

Following that compromise, voters were initially urged to skip Question 1. But in recent weeks, AAA of Southern New England and other supporters began encouraging residents to cast a yes vote to ensure that Massachusetts consumers would have more choice when choosing who repairs their cars.

“We considered telling people to skip the question,” said Arthur Kinsman, a spokesman for the Right to Repair Committee, which backed the original effort to get the issue on Tuesday’s ballot. “The resounding response we got was that people still wanted to vote for this.”

‘’

Still, he recognized that passage of the ballot question creates issues, including what types of vehicles will be regulated by the law, what kind of penalties manufacturers will face if they do not comply, and what the deadline will be.

“We promised the Legislature we would work with them on any reconciliation that may take place,” Kinsman said. Still he said, the margin of victory proves similar bills should be passed in other states.

Opponents of the “Right to Repair” ballot question decried passage of the issue, saying it “creates confusion and uncertainty for automakers, ­repairers, and consumers.”

They say that complying with the new regulation by 2015 would be too onerous for most manufacturers and would probably result in higher sticker prices for cars. On Tuesday night, Daniel Gage, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, one of the industry groups opposing the original Right to Repair bill, said they would ask legislators to reapprove the compromise.

“Automakers continue to support the negotiated Right to Repair compromise — previously agreed to by all parties — that became law prior to the election,” Gage said in a statement.
The most common pain killer...is a killer
The biggest barrier for me is that I am fearful of the executive branch of the government having my directly-given opinions about subjects which may be controversial. How long before some analyst starts saying, "I bet people that care deeply about closing Gitmo, legalizing X, and dismantling Y are more likely to be domestic terrorists!" -- and then I end up on a no-fly list or something.