skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
About 1 month ago I switched from google to bing. There different queries that use the to measure 'better'.

For simple queries 'strncmp', 'giraffe', 'sound transit schedule' ...
Google, Bing and Samuru perform pretty well. But Samuru is extremely slow.

For more complex queries like, 'seattle dumpling restaurant that is famous in singapore' or 'how to zip a list in ruby'. I find that Google always comes out on top, bing lacks the previous search history to personalize my searches and often thinks I mean (zip as in zipfile)... But samuru gave me relevant results for all three which is rather surprising.

Another type is one for people/social related searches... Bing's facebook/twitter/linkedin/yelp integration actually makes it better than google because the 'snapshot' bar it has is super helpful. However Samuru results are on par with Google and Bing results here (minus the snapshot bar).

Overall I was skeptical but other than it being unbearable slow (Google spoilt us with speed), Samuru does have very good search results for what I assume is not a mutlibillion dollar product.
Yes, but... if the question on the survey was "Do you support background checks for gun purchases?" you might, indeed, get a 90% "yes" score. But, that question would be bogus vis-a-vis the recent proposal, since background checks are already required for the majority of gun purchases. To get a meaningful response, the question would need to be "do you support even stricter background check rules than are currently in place?" and you'd really need a way to eliminate answers from people who don't know what the current rules are.

So quoting that 90% number might be technically accurate for some specific question on some specific poll, but I'd question whether or not it actually reflects public sentiment on this issue, from people who actually have an informed opinion on the issue.
I'm more concerned that Lindsey Graham and John McCain are hoping to declare this kid an "Enemy Combatant"
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin
I don't understand. Is this spam? There is no context or accompanying article for the claim. I searched my name and the results weren't nearly as good. One data point, sure, but first impression is everything.

Edit for context: original title read: "This search engine is better than google."
It was low stress when there were 8 startups. With several hundred, it's a lot more work. PG says it's now pretty similar to Viaweb.
No, simply because it is the right thing to do. However, this case is in a gray area because Dzhokhar apparently was unconscious when taken into custody.
The point may be that the personification of some religions/ideologies can reasonably be considered as morally a significantly better person than "average", like Jesus or Buddha, whereas other religions/ideologies, like Islam, have a morally reprehensible personification.

The point seems to be that in neither case does the "average" follower become any better or worse, but the extremists of those religions are significantly different. In every case the extremists become closer to the idealized figures from the ideology, so Christians are prone to self sacrifice, Buddhists are prone to an ascetic, isolated life, and Muslims are prone to violence if this happens.

Not sure about how it causes mono-culture. It seems to me at the beginning of the 20th century, every region on earth was a mono-culture, no matter it's ideology.
As long as you remember you still have those rights, it doesn't really matter?
You are talking about judging intent, he (and Bruce Schneier) is talking about measuring a reaction. Those are two different things.

The reason why you think that they are sociopaths is because you are conflating both of them.

Their point is precisely that they shouldn't be conflated. Your point seems to be that not conflating them is what characterises them as sociopaths.
Those are true points. I just wanted to point out that there isn't necessarily unanimous support for increased gun-control amongst LEOs. And regarding the FOP, I don't have a citation handy, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that a lot of the rank and file police officers differ with their leadership on gun control issues.
By this logic why even try to apprehend the terrorists at all? The death toll was a rounding error in the number of fatal car accidents during the same time period. Since we're not going to do anything differently in response to the fatal car accidents, why should we spend any effort at all trying to stop those responsible for the bombings?
Project Lancet: Surgical Precision JIT Compilers
Why is it extremely insulting?
"My take is that people want to short circuit the justice system and I find it appalling that such a tendency is even remotely commonplace."

Agreed. The whole point of treating suspects with respect is because they are just that: suspects! Not everyone who is arrested is guilty, even if it's the military or FBI doing the arresting, and even if we need to "speed things along".

These are scary times we live in when this not only happens, but is accepted by society. People should be outraged.
Thank you.

RMS, like any intelligent sentient being is capable of thinking complex thoughts and making good points.

But I rail against his thoughtlessness. His constant...sociopathy...it's why he's ineffective in getting his views across, why he treats people like automatons (well documented) and why he's plain and simply put, "not a good person".

I never put it in these terms before, I just always felt "skeeved out" by his writings. Logically, he makes lots of sense, but personally he's as connectable as the sidewalk in front of my house. Sociopathy is the perfect term.

Anybody who can sit in Boston the last week, have a cop murdered in cold blood near his office by two men on an active terror event that just murdered and maimed dozens of people a few days before, and upon the conclusion of that event shit out this garbage before the close of the same day is a person so far removed from empathy, from society and from humanity as to be a sociopath.

I've never gone through such a wild swing of elation, joy and exhaustion, then disappointment, sadness and anger in such a short period of time as today. This isn't the kind of frustrating conspiracy nuttery that's so exasperating written by people so lost in their private world as to have lost touch with reality, this is written by a person fully cognizant of their writing and what he's saying, the time in which he's saying it and the tone in which he's saying it.

it should give you pause when dealing with them, that their conscience leads to hypothetical discussions like this.

I'm going to make active strides to remove these people from my life

Amen, and my first step is to leave this thread after this an never return. My next step is to flag any posts here about RMS. Next is to boycott any events where RMS is to be the speaker and actively lobby events who are thinking about hosting him to rethink that decision based on this writing as well as his piss poor treatment of other human beings in the past.

This is inexcusable, this is madness.
That looks really horrible and I am somewhat tempted to write and publish a GreaseMonkey script that does bad things to CipherCloud protected pages...
I really like how their operation cost is only covered by tips instead of a cut from donations like most other charitable organization. Not sure if they are first to do that.

I'd be curious to know what the average tip is.

When I give tips at the restaurant or the car wash, the more I give the better I feel about myself, it's not only a reward for the quality of the service but also the feeling of helping somebody who needs money more than I do. There's a little bit of charity in every tip, at least for me.

In this case the physiology is reversed. I'd rather donate more to the patient and less to the institution. I also have no reference of what a good tip is for Watsi. It would typically be the minimum amount to keep them operating and donate the rest to the patient.

Should they add a suggested tip?
Durex creates vibrating underwear you can control via smartphone apps
It's so obvious I'm not sure how so many people on this thread, OP included, don't understand it: people who are very demanding, expect excellence and nothing else, do not settle for great or even good, do not compromise, etc, etc, are perceived by outsiders and some insiders as "jerks", "assholes" and "hard to work with". But they make amazing achievements.
The odds are higher that a storm will unexpectedly roll in and strike you with lightning than you getting blown up by a terrorist, yes.
>Yet we all support background checks.

Sure do love that anecdotal evidence.
The companies do have scientific strategies; Posit Science, for example, has a bunch of associated studies. They're an integral part of the marketing.

> Luminosity should be fighting alongside those meta-analyses and investors should be demanding proof points in terms of p-values.

How many $$$ is a p-value or meta-analysis worth?

> Fail (scientifically) fast.

That doesn't sound very profitable. How does that put more $$$ into the founders' pockets?
Bostoners should focus on issues they can influence. Once the bombing happened, besides civilian assistance on the scene, donations, and good will, the public should not have any more concern about the incident unless instructed by the police or given ample evidence to suspect someone as guilty.

It doesn't require the concern of all those who have no further interaction with the event. They gave money, they comforted relatives and friends, they let the police go find those responsible, and they move on. You don't linger on a unique incident with nigh impossible odds of something similar happening again that close to any of them with any similarity to this event.

They can care about pollution, chemical threats (that they can influence via money or time), and the overbearing reach of federal authority.

At this point, unless you are giving time or money to the aftermath or contributing to its investment, you are wasting your time and effort having any further thoughts on the matter. It is beyond your hands and influence then. Spend your time on things that matter.

The people of Boston should not wake up tomorrow any less secure in their wellbeing than the day before. Like Stallman said, the likelihood of dying to some asshole terrorist is so slim you can accurately discount the probability and just tell everyone "you won't die to a terrorist". The chances of you meeting one person that is incorrect for is absurdly small.

What Stallman speaks of is what you can take action about. The dinner table discussions should not be "those two brothers in Boston" that were a discontinuity of expectations but of real issues that you can change.
Irrespective of Steve Jobs, Mobile Me was a disaster; I don't see how a delayed launch would have saved what is obviously an ill thought out product. Product Manager, are you listening?
Doesn't work: http://www.samuru.com/?q=porn
Tell that to the minute-men (Minutemen), coincidentally originating in Massachusetts.
It's certain that it's shit. They pull words out of strings and AES encrypt each one with the provided key (deterministically, either no IV, or a constant one). "Hi, Alice" -> <AES "Hi"> + ", " + <AES "Alice"> + ".".

That way a query for strings containing "Alice" (through virtue of symmetry and determinism) can have the expected results, as well as allowing them virtually any storage back end.

This makes them vulnerable to frequency analysis and known-plaintext attacks, as well as probably not working at all for CJK languages or any other type of value which isn't trivial to split into useful tokens.
I thought witholding Miranda means that anything he says is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law – but it's not like there's a lack of other incriminating evidence so that they would need to use self-incrimination to form a case against him.
I was answering the question as to whether he/she should care. If they don't already care, it's clear they have no regard for anyone else but themselves. I was giving them the selfish reason.
Sir Thomas More: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
@dcurtis: "Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin
How they cannot be compared? The metric here is the rate of death and the probability of incidents. The goal is to reduce suffering in the most impactful way as possible.
Do you think the gun lobby helped to write the second amendment?

I'd also like to point out that the gun industry doesn't really run ads in the same way most industries do. I've never seen a single gun ad outside of a gun magazine.
Yeah, this article and most comments seem pretty ridiculous.
>and according to Neil Young, he listened to vinyl records at home [1] — which shows that he was ignorant of how audio quality works (see [2]).

This is total and utter BS. I know how audio quality works. I've got a CS degree, have take information theory and DSP classes, have even written audio plugin code (VST/AU), and have worked with DAWs and samplers for nearly two decades.

Still, I like vinyl better.

What you said has nothing at all to do with "audio quality" and how it works. It only has to do with audio _fidelity_, at best. Quality and fidelity is not the same thing. And fidelity and human preference towards a sound source is not the same thing either. For example, people prefer (and enjoy more) colored sound over more neutral reproduction all the time.

Not to mention vinyl is also about the cultural experience (connection with the cottage era of the music industry, large cover art, etc), the tactile feel, and even the patina and fragility of the medium (which can even include the crackle). Consumption of art, any art, is not at all about perfect reproduction.

>But I think that when the deaths of people like Dennis Ritchie and John McCarthy in the same month as Steve are ignored, then the world is suffering from a serious case of myopia

Steve Job's work was important to the economy and the consumers at large in a manifest way (ie. building the company with the largest quarterly earnings of all time, for one).

Ritchie's work, no so much and in a much more roundabout way. And McCarthy's work was even more marginal. Those two are important for computer science, and the programming industry, but not for the economy, market, culture etc at large.

>Many of you may say that I'm missing the point; that his ability to convince others of what was important and his "vision" is what made him great. My contention is that he appropriated other people's original ideas, and other people implemented his modifications.

That's the very role of a good CEO.

You probably mistook him to be something like Tesla?
The OP said "It's not every day that people have their legs blown off while enjoying a public social event."

It's an obvious appeal to emotion that doesn't refute the point that terrorist attacks are so infrequent that the average person ought to worry more about, say, slipping and falling in their bath tubs than getting killed by a terrorist.
I'm also concerned that the information (such as a confession) he gives may be rendered inadmissible in the future by the Supreme Court if it ever rules that the public safety exception was improperly applied in this interrogation.
Yes my example was poor; I don't think I got it right, perhaps I forgot the correct form. I guess I just am not sure how this inevitable tyranny manifests in deaths, but I can appreciate the point.
Why would you (or anyone) deliberately try to hurt a company? Just because their tech is not 'on par'? Please think about how it would hurt that company and the employees (and their families!).
Serious question... Have we verified that the reason he hasn't been mirandized yet is anything other than the fact that he's in serious condition and may not yet be able to affirm that he is aware of his rights?
Seriously... You are just too weak to hear some honest opinions.
The Bill of Rights does not say "Applies to citizens of USA". He should be properly Miranda-ized. No ifs, ands, or buts.
I've heard of this "public safety exception" before:

In 1941 Adolf Hitler ordered a directive intended to suppress members of the resistance. It was called Nacht und Nebel ("Night and Fog"). People suspected of "offenses against the Reich" would disappear without any trace.

Who could be considered suspect? "anyone endangering German security" (die deutsche Sicherheit gefährden).
I specifically did not address measurement of the reaction and took active measures not to conflate the two, because I'm quite aware that they are easy to conflate. That's what the bottom of my comment is specifically targeting.

I have some thoughts on the response level, both in the media and law enforcement, but I cannot draw a salient conclusion just yet. The media is an easier target than law enforcement in that regard. I think it's better if I leave that discussion to others like Schneier. My issue is the subtext and, on more than one instance, direct suggestion in Stallman's writing, comparing the two incidents in any way.
Not everyone knows they have these rights. I remember in high school being told repeatedly that I had no rights as a minor. We never actually learned about our constitutional rights; I had to find those out on my own.

Also, people have a natural tendency toward defending themselves after being accused. Being read your rights is a reminder, in the heat of the moment, that no, you don't have to talk and you have the right not to. And your right to remain silent is important even if you're not guilty (maybe especially!). Dont Talk to Police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
People die every day. About 150,000 of them. That's nothing special. What is really going to matter in the long run is how we treat the people who are going to keep living into the future.

I'm much more concerned for the living than I am for the dead.
We should start a collection of these kinds of stories as case studies in why laws allowing any entity to legally compel removal of content are ripe for abuse.

DMCA as a law isn't even that ridiculous or reprehensible; it mostly offers protection for websites that have user-submitted content. And yet here we are.

The damages clause needs to be strengthened if we wish to continue having free speech on the internet.
Yeah, let's just assume he knows all of his rights. Come on! It's on TV all the time and stuff. No reason to even bring them up.

Now where did you buy those pressure cookers, hmm?
As a side note, these guys might not have even been caught if we were not living in 'the panopticon'.
There's also another aspect. The security services has now effectively publicly declared that the chance for a repeat has gone down significantly, at least in the short term. Of course that's a good thing.
Ah, The Right Thing To Do™

I was expecting an invocation of a god or the State™ whims, but an appeal to some kind of morality not mentioned in relation to works just as well.

/sarc
"Please don't promote fear of shadows."

Well shit guys we should have got big balls Stallman out there to apprehend the suspect who was known to be homicidal, heavily armed, and possibly wearing an explosive device.

100 people die in cars everyday. That's such an irrelevant statement I still don't fully understand the point. 100 people die in cars everyday so unless a murderer's body count breaches national aggregate auto fatality statistics we shouldn't worry about it? Stallman appears to be confusing "the appropriate resource allocation to the threat of terrorism in general" with "the appropriate resource allocation to an actual active known terrorist".
Plus, he's a citizen of the USA.
The outrageous thing is that even though this is a very clear-cut case of abuse you are probably right.
Sure. But maybe, just maybe, it might be possible to have an event like this happen and note a flaw in the government's requirement to "promote the general welfare" which can be corrected without unduly infringing on civil rights.

Because no offense, but Dr. Stallman sounds exactly like that dipshit in charge of the NRA who says that you can't change one single little thing about gun control because that would invite a slippery slope to the government disarming all law-abiding citizens.
If you can determine whether someone else's writing is good, it follows that you can determine whether your own writing is good.

Engineering race cars well is distinct from driving race cars well.

If your PE teacher were capable of touching his toes, he would discredit himself by choosing not to.
Ah, yes. I guess stress scales with total size of portfolio vs. just number of companies in current batch, too.
<IANAL>
I don't own or currently have plans to purchase an assault weapon. I do, however observe that a state in which only the established power may have such things is certainly not free (neither liberated nor without cost).
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a US citizen.
We haven't even verified that he hasn't been mirandized yet.

So, no.
You're right in that you have no more information about it than me. I spent some 8 years in such an organization so I probably know a lot more about it. It worked really well. Mixed troops are fairly common in the rest of the world.
"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night.".

Unless they're questioning an unconcious person, there is no gray area.
Be careful, applying your engineering mindset to real life. We cannot quantify the human experience. Let's take one tiny minutiae of both incidents with the strong and clear prior warning that there are countless examples of these points: in general, a parent would expect her child to be safer watching the Boston Marathon than standing several feet from a fertilizer plant. That's an expectation that, while your data might consider it irrational, is part of the human experience and why numbers cannot quantify what we feel.

You just can't apply numbers to being human. It doesn't work, it will never work, it's really disappointing to see people try, and I notice engineers try to do it more than most people I spend time with.
This article is ridiculous. It starts with the assertion "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night." How do we or the author know this, is he assuming this is common practice, has FBI mentioned that they won't read him Miranda?

Second, I was expecting him to mention a case where the police or FBI didn't read the rights to what turned out to be a non-threat/wrong accusation, etc. At least in all the cases mentioned this is not the case, the person presented a clear and present danger.
>but that doesn't mean this isn't a very emotional and trying time for many

Right, because we should totally let the emotionality of a situation determine whether or not we completely overreact to the situation.

>and save your opinions for a more appropriate time.

RMS (and anyone else) is perfectly within his rights to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. There is no "more appropriate time."
In this case you could make the argument that it's the right thing to do because it's (I'm assuming) what you would want done to yourself.
What I'm more curious about is whether or not he still has those rights even if they weren't read to him. I would assume he does no?