skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It confuses me how spending hours and hours of media budget and locking an entire city down is the appropriate response. If I was a terrorist-type, I'd really see an opportunity to hurt the US here.

As I am not a terrorist type, I believe that the best thing to do is - in the inimitable words of the British - Keep Calm and Carry On. Let the evils rage and deal with them calmly and minimize all disruption.

edit: RMS makes a good point IMO: if you want to paralyze a 1 Billion/day economy in the pursuit of 4 people murdered, that doesn't seem fruitful in the context of an accident levelling 1/4 mile around a chemical plant: Perhaps pouring several billion into improving safety and monitoring at chemical plants would significantly improve many more lives.
Look unless a murderer obtains a body count exceeding that of national aggregate cancer deaths, I'm not concerned. It's just basic math.
Even a cut and dried "enemy combatant" has legal protections and can't simply be "disappeared".
Quite honestly your admitted emotional swings suggest that you are the one closer to the animal state. Anyone infected by excess emotion is essentially unsuitable as an analyst or arbiter regardless of how immediately salient the circumstance.

Any policy overly informed by an animalistic emotional driver instead of proceeding from some sort of logical principal can't be taken seriously.

I've noticed Easterners often can't deal with life at an easy pace while remaining comfortable with the minuscule nature of their existence and thus have trouble living relaxed lives.

Every incident like this illustrates it. If a cartel bombed a motor-home in New Mexico or something there'd be none of this brouhaha because Southwesterners live with open horizons under a sea of stars and can take a step back and don't need to feel validated by trying to rouse the whole country to a frenzy.

Plus it would be far removed from the self-centered self-important East Coast rush where the obvious route to increased salience seems to be requiring a different outfit for everything.

Please stop clutching fear and start reaching towards increased animacy.
This doesn't make sense. Cops don't have to read Miranda to you when they arrest you. It's just that anything you say following arrest and prior to Miranda is not admissible in a court of law.
We also have local results:

http://izik.com/?q=seattle%20dumpling%20restaurant
The developers always can degrade the functionality; whether they can is not the point. The point is how long it takes them to, and how much they could be doing for other users with that time. Getting more experienced at making products that work on broken platforms is not a good thing. That is not good experience. That is a symptom of a broken industry and it makes your developers worse, not better. It's like people who say PHP isn't that bad, you just have to learn all of its quirks. Learning its quirks doesn't make you a better programmer, it makes you a programmer who is able to use a specific poorly-designed tool. That experience and knowledge is not portable and is not valuable outside of a specific arena, and is not the kind of experience and knowledge that developers should be working on.

If your customers still use Palm Pilot, you've chosen the wrong market segment. Yes, make something people want, but you're allowed to be selective about who those people are. If you're a hacker, it's very likely because you enjoy creating and working on interesting and fun things. Making websites work in IE6 is not a fun thing. There is enough value waiting to be created that we don't have to waste our talents and energy on this kind of nonsense.
The correct response to all of the above is disaster preparedness (as advocated by Schnier, et.al.), not spending trillions invading countries a half a world away. That wasted opportunity cost was not accidental...

Fundamentally, how should resources be spent? We should try to catch criminals. We should also try to make cars safer, and provide resources to recover from unlikely but devastating events. I disagree with the current spending ratio, which is incredibly skewed towards military and police spending (which is something >40% of the national budget, depending on how you subdivide it), and not as much toward solutions that would be useful in disaster scenarios.
A BI piece claiming the "Reddit hive-mind" essentially did the lions share of work in identifying the bombers [1] rolled across my FB feed an hour ago.

I typically don't put much stock in anything that comes out of Business Insider, nor have I attempted to verify their claims. Certainly grain of salt worthy.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/boston-bombers-martin-richard...
Great to hear! My Boy Scout troops Computer Club was where I wrote my first computer program (yes it was Hello World :-)).
You are correct that intrinsic value is very vague. That wikipedia article, for example, is incorrect if you apply a strict definition of intrinsic value. Since all currency value is essentially subjective, all fiat currencies / digital currencies are devoid of intrinsic value.

The value from satisfying legal requirements is extrinsic.
After attacking the president's legalese regarding hypothetical drone strikes on citizens. Political theatre, the lot of it.
That's not how Logic works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility
Take a deep breath and ask yourself why you responded so emotionally to these terrorist attacks and not the fertilizer explosion.

Is it the loss of life? There was tragic loss of life in both instances.

Is it the presence of a human instigator? Or maybe the presence of evil? Are terrorists somehow a greater threat than fertilizer explosions because they are supposed to be rational, sentient actors? Are they representative of all that is wrong with humanity? Why are they more threatening than any of the myriad dangers lurking around every corner in this world? I genuinely want to know.

Maybe the very fact that these types of terrorist attacks are so infrequent is what scares us the most. They are met with such a media circus that it's very hard for us not to react in a visceral way.

Or perhaps the scariest part about them is that it represents a breakdown in what we consider decent. The more normal the terrorist or mass-shooter ends up being the more scared we tend to be. By all accounts, these kids were popular, intelligent, handsome young men. And yet within a very short span of time they were radicalized and capable of committing these attacks. That scares us to our core, even though its frequency is so small it should be considered mathematically insignificant.

We desperately want our terrorists to be caricatures of every evil villain we've ever seen. That makes it easier to deal with. Of course they would blow people up, they're evil! The truth is, these types of events, although caused by humans, are no more explainable than tornadoes, lightning strikes, hurricanes, earthquakes, or any other natural disaster we have no control over. Fertilizer plant explosions, on the other hand, we feel like we can prevent, and so they are not accompanied by emotion, fear, and vengeance. But trying to prevent the radicalization of every single youth on the planet is no different than trying to hold a tsunami at bay with a bucket.

RMS is not being a sociopath, he's analyzing an emotional situation in an unemotional way. It doesn't mean he's dangerous, or an asshole, or incapable of relating to other human beings. It means he's logical and not prone to lapses in judgement due to heightened emotional responses.
++plus for this.

I definitely agree that you should see a specialist. Please don't be reluctant about it.

The tests that are done to determine whether someone has these disorders are non-trivial and are accurate.

At your age, you decide what kind of treatment is best. You can definitely start with diet and move on to medication.
Is Carmen Ortiz fit to lead prosecution of boston bomber
This is the same Carmen Ortiz who's harsh prosecution of Aaron Schwartz may have contributed to his suicide.

this association is hardly brought up in the news. But I felt it was important to point it out here.

I for one would like to see someone else leading such an important case. I believe she has already shown her judgment to be questionable and this case is too important and precedent setting to leave to anyone but the best.

As evidence: they are already waiving his Miranda rights which is a huge deal.
I hope this guy survives, only reason why? So he can go to trial, and then face his victims. They deserve to see justice done with the death penalty.
They don't even know what it is yet. I wouldn't put that much faith in such surveys. When people say "yes" they might have a specific image of how that device would work in their heads. And if it doesn't work like that they won't buy it.
The FBI had already identified the suspects at that point. The practice of presenting an image - possibly of poor quality - to the public and asking for information to help apprehend the suspect is pretty old and standard police practice. Yes, Reddit makes it easier for the public to respond - but there's nothing fundamentally revolutionary here.
> Crick, Hodgkin and Huxley were all physicists

This recollection is incorrect across the board.

Crick had only a bachelors in physics (which does not a physicist make), and his postgraduate training was in medical research. Huxley, an autodidact, had his background in medicine. I'm not sure about Hodgkin but I suspect he was also not a physicist.
I was inspired to read more about him (I just knew him as "the best lawyer if you're ever facing anything non-tech and interesting"). Amazing.
None of this matters in the present case, because they have ample evidence to convict if he never says another word.

This discussion is all about future cases.
"The 100 car accidents a day are not planned and for the most part are unavoidable."

I'd suggest that many of those 100 car deaths per day are completely avoidable. So many of them are majorly attributable to drivers not giving a damn - mostly impatience and incompetence, but a lot of just nor caring about other road users (I got run into by a guy who was leaning over the back of his seat and yelling at his children, while not noticing the traffic in front of him (and in front of me) had stopped.)

Society, as a whole, does itself a great disservice by allowing the use of language like "car accident" - the truth is it's _rarely_ an "accident", it's almost always "somebody fucked up".
I'm willing to have an open mind about this, but I think some sort of explanation on what samuru is hoping to achieve in distinction from other search engines would be helpful.
It's interesting that you wrote that in reply to bane but not me, when a couple of your points specifically call out things that I wrote. Why is that?

Is it because I made the same point without emotion, and he's just a little more wrapped up in it? (Not being snarky, genuinely curious.)
I think it's related to this post about Liquid Helium: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5579336
It only seems weird if you think of Miranda (and various other procedural protections) as a "gotcha" to hinder police efforts, instead of what it is: a way to keep people ignorant of their 5th amendment rights from incriminating themselves. That's the alpha and the omega of Miranda. It's not a search and seizure protection at all, which is why evidence obtained as a result of a Miranda-less interrogation is nonetheless admissible.

Unfortunately, too many people conceive of the 4th and 5th amendment protections entirely as roadblocks to hinder police for the sake of hindering the police, instead of the targeted checks on police behavior that they are. In doing so they read important parts of the amendments (e.g. "unreasonable" or precisely what a protection applies to, or precisely what sorts of activity a protection prohibits) completely out of the text of the Constitution.
I don't work at a fertilizer plant. I do go out in public.

For how many people are the above statements both true?

Now, what is more rational to be concerned about?
Github contributions as Conway's Game of Life
Tsarnaev and his brother planted bombs. It is not unreasonable for the FBI to be concerned that they may have left other bombs in place that could detonate later. Or, that there were other people involved that we don't know about. Invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights seems prudent to me.
No, Miranda is very often misinterpreted. It generally means that the person cannot be interrogated. The penalty for violating the rule is that anything said is inadmissible. If, for example, the witness isnt read his Miranda rights but just chooses to say something, that is fair game because he wasnt being interrogated. (Further, this is also a simplification, the full extent of Miranda is complicated, so this is just a perhaps overly broad taste)
Ever seen The Usual Suspects? He's making the Keyser Soze argument: "Then he showed those men of will what will really was."

In other words: these are the lengths we are willing to go to. You can not get away with it.

I'm not arguing for it, but I think that is certainly what it is.
"I'm so tired of this quote."
-rmrfrmrf
I wasn't suggesting an exhaustive search of, say, a 20-100 block area.

I was suggesting a search of a prioritized list -- initially based on visual examination of aerial photographs -- of sheds, boats, and other simple structures in the area.
> The cool thing about this is that it defines it's goal as something general purpose enough to create interesting behaviors in a lot of different situations.

Yep, that is the first thing that stood out to me about both the NES AI and this new paper. Both are defined in ways that are so far removed from the tasks they've been put to that they seem to seek out their own goals relevant to the context.
My mistake; implicit was unique among the world of Startup luminaries and investors.
Kiva does that [https://www.kiva.org].

Kiva is a lending platform focused on micro-finance. All the money you lend directly goes to the borrowers(via its lending partners), and once the lender returns the money, you can recycle the amount to another borrower on the website.

They do have suggested donations to Kiva, usually 10%/15%/20%/self-specify of the loan amount.
Miranda is very complicated. It generally means that the person cannot be interrogated. The penalty for violating the rule is that anything said is inadmissible. That is an important difference. If, for example, the witness isnt read his Miranda rights but just chooses to say something, that is fair game because he wasnt being interrogated. (Further, this is also a simplification, the full extent of Miranda is complicated, so this is just a perhaps overly broad taste)
Oh. You're emotional and you don't want rationality to intrude on that emotion.

Flagged.
I love Girl Scout cookies. Great organization, and this is a great idea!
Being a JS developer must be the pits - you need to run really fast just to keep up.
Parents also assume that their children are safer swimming in their backyard pools than standing several feet from a fertilizer plant, yet swimming pools are orders of magnitude more dangerous. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, exactly. Ignore the statistics because they don't account for the "human experience"? What is the goal here, preventing senseless deaths or preserving the "human experience"?
There's actually a page on Wikipedia that has a list of countries by traffic casualties[1]. If it was truly unavoidable, as the OP mentions, then there would be no significant difference between countries, adjusting for capita/vehicle count.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
They will be questioning him without reading him his Miranda rights and via a loophole it will be admissible is what I've gathered. I think a lot of people are afraid that this an example of us giving up our freedoms out of fear.
How much money does the NRA have? How big is the gun industry? How much money does the mainstream media and the federal government have? Or OFA and Soros, for that matter?

Worth a bit of Googling. Methinks you don't have a good order-of-magnitude estimate of how much money is on each side.
I once had someone pitch me an idea for an app, which coincidentally I had actually built and was selling on the app store. He wasn't willing to pay 99cents for it (but had previously been willing to quit his job to make it hypothetically with me).

It is a weird world.

(for the record I like marco's work)
Exactly. Doing MVP of a search engine is hard, so it is okay to lack on quality of results initially when you launch. On HN probably. Even DDG is trying to only catch-up.

But to keep the engine running, and keep the hacker interested you should tell what distinction samuru is trying to achieve with its search engine.

And perhaps this query http://www.samuru.com/?q=porn should not be blocked by default, rather provide tools for safe search. Heard of the porn cookie guy? Just copy his footsteps, I'd say.
They don't care. They have enough evidence to put him away for life, or to even execute him.
This isn't really a question of a confession as much as it is Holder's DOJ has a long history of expanding the definition of the exemption. If they ask him where he's keeping any bombs, fine, but if they're doing this purely for long-term intelligence reasons above and beyond any clear or present dangers, I'm not sure if I would agree with that usage.
Actually... ridiculously presumptuous.

...and of course regardless of relative quality, CD and other digital formats seems to have encouraged producers to move towards some really bad production habits. The end result might be that while the media can reproduce better sound quality, the quality of the sound on a CD might be worse.
Replace "work at a fertilizer plant" with "drive an automobile" or "swim in a pool" or "use a bath tub" or with any other seemingly innocuous activity that's orders of magnitude more likely to kill you than terrorists. What is more rational to be concerned about?
Do I think corporate gun interests influence how the 2a is interpreted? Absolutely.
A thing which I find works well for my ADD is to talk (out loud, yes) to myself when I'm doing something. I think people have a harder time getting distracted from conversations, and there's also a 'rubber duck debugging' effect in that your own thoughts become clearer.

Unfortunately this usually requires you to be in an empty room, which isn't always possible. And this is more of a micro thing, not a macro one.
BlooCoin - Bitcoin Clone Written In Python
Well, that's a different issue than what Bain was attempting to argue, but I'll indulge. You said,

"Our response to deaths should scale exactly proportionally to the number? I shouldn't let the death of a friend upset me disproportionally more than the death of a stranger?"

You're misrepresenting what he said. He never compared the death of a stranger to the death of a loved one. What he said is that it's silly to raise the tragedy the those who lost their lives in Boston to those who lost their lives in Texas this week. All premature death is a tragedy, but I didn't know anyone personally in Boston or Texas. So why should the deaths of those in Boston be more prolific to me than those that died in Texas?

You said,

"But what he said was more along the lines of, 'Let's not be very upset about these deaths, because then they will be used as an excuse for tyranny.'"

What he actually said was,

"Every death or injury is a sad thing, but the fact is that many happen every day, and we should not let these few upset us disproportionally more than the others. Let's make an effort not to get bent out of shape about them, so that we can resist when people try to cite them as an excuse for tyranny."

You can't change the words he used to misrepresent his argument because you didn't appreciate his bluntness. I'll admit, RMS is a very emotionally detached person, but that doesn't allow the opportunity to bend his words so that it makes it easier for you to shame him.
Deaths per day per cause, "sending a message", and "national security". All of these are heuristics, vague approximations, for the thing that we really care about: how do we save lives? Or, given that we will probably not be able to save all of the lives with the resources we have: how do we save as many lives as possible?

Doctors Schneier and Stallman are closer to this than anybody else I've read so far. They have, to some degree, realized that shutting down an entire city to prevent a few deaths is criminally inefficient. They are using this event, which is so obviously wasteful that even the most casual observers are frantically rationalizing away their horror, to hopefully kick people into gear on more efficient ways to save lives: better highway safety, better disaster preparedness, better disease control, better industrial regulation. That's a goal I can get behind.
The public safety exception seems to be for when a Miranda warning would be impractical:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Public_safety_...

I'm not sure if having a reasonable opportunity to read someone their rights, then choosing not to, is in the spirit of the public safety exception. Public danger alone can't be the reason, since the whole reason for criminal law in the first place is to protect the public from danger. Interested if an actual lawyer could clarify.
Incomplete understanding of input or domain is certainly a cause of problems, and I don't know that there is a way the type system can help in the general case.

With regard to databases in particular, though, it is comparatively easy to constrain things so that you don't have that problem, and enlisting the type system there makes sense. There are other areas that have useful approaches as well - consider protocol buffers, for instance.

I prefer to let the type system catch what it can, and use tests for where it can't - often type info can be leveraged to help in the testing, too: I recommend checking out quickcheck if you haven't.
I thought it might be the best way to reply to both posts without having to write two since there's no way to reply to multiple posts. The emotion in the second post was definitely what prompted me to respond, though.
That guy killed innocent people, killed cops, and hurt numerous people. It doesn't matter who is prosecuting the case. It could be Kim Kardashian of all people(heavy sarcasm), and this guy will get the death penalty.
It's not dead, but discoverability is a huge problem. I still make decent money ($5-6k per month) on an app I first released in 2010, but the two additional ones since then are probably not even collectively over $1000 for their lifetime. Unless you're featured, have significant word of mouth, or are on Top Free/Top Paid/Top Grossing, the number of people that actually find your app is small. It takes significant publicity to get enough momentum in sales to where word of mouth even works.

Edit:

This isn't to say I won't make anything else. I have other apps in progress, but I'm going to apply the lessons I've learned to make them work. They are somewhat niche apps, but I've found those work for markets that are accustomed to paying for tools/software. None will be under the $14.99 price point. It's unlikely I'll ever make another one that is -- it's just not worth the effort.
Ritchie's work not so much? Are you joking?!
There's a stigma about the meds in a lot of places, but I still remember how much they helped me through middle school. I literally got math-related work done 10 times faster that way.

Unfortunately the stuff that worked for me (Adderall) is basically just meth, and I can't get a hold of it in Japan on account of it being illegal. I think it's not even very possible to get a hold of ADD-related meds outside of the US (France classifies it as a children's disorder, so after 18 tough luck).
I got decent results for all the searches I tried. For a couple searches I'd say I even got clearly better results than Google.