skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Pretty much every SV god has a reputation for being incredible jerks: Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Ellison

So, maybe the rule isn't if you're a jerk you're a genius, but instead, if you're a genius, be a jerk. You just probably aren't a genius.
This is inexcusable, this is madness.

So, you're worried more about a few dead people rather than all those people you never heard of dying in hospitals, in motor accidents, and other cause of death? They are someone's aunts, uncles, sons, daughters, friends, lovers, etc.

Maybe we should connect our emotion to the logic rather than the other way around.
The math problems appear designed to be workable in your head, fitting the 3-answers-per-minute target: divisions come out as whole numbers, and in the last one with the scary occurrence of pi you don't need to use it (it cancels out -- and I like that, with the time constraint you need to be thinking on your feet). I also like that it's not multiple-choice.

(But we're only seeing the first page of each section; I'll bet it gets harder.)
More comments are on the duplicate (now dead) submission [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5579615
Individually, no. But the Miranda process isn't about the individual alone, it's about the whole system of law.

But in this case, certainly they should ensure he doesn't die due to lack of medical attention while they attempt to read him his Miranda rights.
But maybe, just maybe, added regulation doesn't need to hurt the honest business owners

Nobody ever said that we will regulate our way to a perfect society. Nobody said that every business owner is a greedy, evil, soul-sucking bastard

Not overtly, but it seems implied by a lot of the verbiage you hear from people arguing for more regulation and blaming business owners for pretty much everything. (Note: I don't mean just here, now, in this very discussion. I'm generalizing based on other experiences)

But maybe, just maybe, added regulation doesn't need to hurt the honest business owners, and can be used to keep those whose ethics may be a little more sketchy in check.

I would argue that that is an awfully big maybe. Government regulation, however well-meaning, is notorious for having unintended consequences... sometimes even to the point of having an effect totally counter to the original intent.
The Miranda rights are not the right to be read the Miranda recitation, although Miranda did involve that requirement. He actually will not have the right to remain silent. It may mean that his statements are not admissible, but it also means that the interrogators will not leave him alone if he asks for a lawyer or provide a lawyer during questioning. He cannot invoke his Miranda rights even if he knows them.
Yes, the only difference the public safety exception makes is whether the statement is admissible against him.

In this case, it seems pretty unlikely to actually matter.
Yes, he does. The Miranda rights are (and were) always present, they only serve the function of ensuring that the citizens under arrest actually realize they have those rights.
In other words (if I may): Don't give a gun to someone offering to protect you unless you want to see the wrong end of your own gun.
This is no different than "Signature" killings via UAV, nor is it much different than the Telcoms receiving immunity for their participation in the unconstitutional domestic surveillance program.

It's just another example of how far our nation has fallen in a relatively short period of time.
Big fan of pwik. Gnome.org uses it
This is a bullshit comparison.

The public safety exception is a very specific exception. Let's say you're a cop who just caught a guy who has rigged a building with bombs and you ask him where the bombs are and how to disarm them. If he tells you and incriminates himself before being mirandized that's still kosher. That's the public safety exception. Period.

If you ask him "why did you do this", and you haven't mirandized him yet and he confesses right then but recants later, you dun fucked up.
Simple, clear, and grammatically-correct writing will not intimidate non-technical users.
As far as I know, libc++ is at the moment feature complete on OS X. Work still has to be done for other platforms.
No. It may result in statements being inadmissible, but he will continue to be questioned even if he invokes his "rights" or asks for a lawyer.
Plus there's the obvious angle. Accidents are part of life and are random. With any crime there's always the possibility of repeat, or worse, escalation (this was an act of islamic terror, so chance of escalation if this goes unpunished is probably very real).

A society must ensure that crime doesn't pay (because the reason crime is committed in the first place is obviously because it does pay, not necessarily in money, but it does pay). Arrest and punishment is essential for that purpose.
You shouldn't care. Because not reading someone under arrest the Miranda warning is constitutionally irrelevant in and of itself. It only acquires relevance if the government seeks to have the statements admitted at trial.

Discussing the similar case of Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to bomb Times Square, Orin Kerr, a law professor who is an expert on the 4th Amendment wrote:

"Importantly, though, it would not have violated Shahzad’s constitutional rights to not read him his Miranda rights. A lot of people assume that the police are required to read a suspect his rights when he is arrested. That is, they assume that one of a person’s rights is the right to be read their rights. It often happens that way on Law & Order, but that’s not what the law actually requires. Under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), it is lawful for the police to not read a suspect his Miranda rights, interrogate him, and then obtain a statement that would be inadmissible in court. Chavez holds that a person’s constitutional rights are violated only if the prosecution tries to have the statement admitted in court. See id. at 772-73. Indeed, the prosecution is even allowed to admit any physical evidence discovered as a fruit of the statement obtained in violation of Miranda — only the actual statement is excluded. See United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004). So while it may sound weird, it turns out that obtaining a statement outside Miranda but not admitting it in court is lawful."

Oops, link: http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/
The best example I can give would be like the difference between watching a basketball game live vs with an hour delay. You technically are watching the same thing, but they have a very different feel. The physicality of the vinyl is what gives it the variation from playback to playback which is somewhat akin to listening to it 'live'.
Note:I know I promised to swear this thread off, but I'm unbelievably pissed off

rather than being insulting and getting personal, I'll direct you to this part of the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5579814
Just remember, there are some people who literally cannot see the emotional difference that's obvious to most. Call it sociopathy or being "on the spectrum" or what have you, for them its like watching a black and white TV picture of a world in color.

They may care very much about life, see two events one with many deaths, one with few, and a everyone inexplicably spending all of their money fixing the few and seemingly ignoring the obvious cheap fixes for the many.

So because they care (and not because they don't) they reach for their superhero capes and go try to help.
Why would a company (deliberately) try to sell a false sense of security to anyone whose knowledge of cryptography is not 'on par'? Please think about how it might hurt these customers and their employees (and their families!).
I'm not comparing the Nazi party to our own government. I'm simply giving an example of how easily the term "anyone endangering [country name]'s security" can be abused.
If anyone thinks the government will need Dzhokar's confession to establish guilt here they are bonkers.
Because lawmakers are terrified of proper process under our legal system, really says a lot (remember most Senators are lawyers).

I guess all rights can have restrictions in this country except gun ownership.

Several Senators have insisted he should NOT be mirandized a couple days after voting down background-checks for all gun sales. I don't understand how they can not implode from their lack of consistency.
From the front page of the new york times:
"A federal law enforcement official said he would not be read his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-marathon-bombing...
> If it weren't so domain-specific, it would be the holy grail of languages.

That's relatively true of many languages. The reason SQL has been able to be optimized so heavily (and the reason why it's been adopted so broadly) is because it is so domain specific.

More specifically, it is optimized for expression set algebraic operations, and certain kinds of kernels to apply to resultant sets. It is most definitely NOT suited for most array or otherwise metrically-oriented data series, which is why you never see it used in HPC to express timeseries transformations or, say, 3D PDE diffusion simulations. For those applications, people have come up with different kinds of specialized languages which are rooted in an more appropriate data abstraction than merely set operations.
The world would be dull and boring without legendary figures like Steve Jobs.
My understanding of the "enemy combatant" classification is that constitutional protections no longer apply. He can be sent up for extraordinary rendition and effectively, disappeared.
I still don't see how that speaks to my point, which has to do with an expectation of danger in different contexts.

So I suppose this would be a red herring on your part, if we're accusing each other of logical fallacies.
Once he resumed consciousness he has a right to remain silent but the "public safety" exemption that the Supreme Court inserted to the Miranda rule in 1984 was changed even further by Obama in 2011 that allows the government to question a suspect for 48-hours. Is that a greased, slippery, slope or what?

References:

[1] Think Progress - http://goo.gl/DPV6L
[2] Wall Street Journal - http://goo.gl/fEPnO
Richard Stallman made several points in the linked e-mail. The point that I'm concerned with, and made clear that I'm concerned with, is that the Texas plant is the, quote, "bigger danger" than the Boston incidents. He wrote that nearly verbatim; his evidence for that was backed up in the paragraph prior by citing numbers -- specifically, numbers of people dead. That's what I'm attacking, specifically not reaction to, preparation for, or money spent on these heinous events, as I said quite clearly and will continue to say.

My edit specifically applies to the head of your comment.
I went through this myself a couple of years ago. I had managed to make it all the way through school but once I entered professional life, I realized that people actually had conversations that I couldn't keep focused for. Using urgency to complete projects no longer worked with the time frames I was looking at.

The best thing in the world I ever did was go see a psychiatrist to get tested to see if I was ADD. After the test came back positive, he prescribed meds, and after finding one that worked for me, I was simply blown away.

I never knew that you could actually think about one thing at a time before. I never really understood what it was to have a conversation and not be thinking about a billion things. I never, ever, knew what it meant to focus on something. It's entirely changed my world.

Wish you well my friend. At least go get tested. If you decide to take meds or follow some other avenue, it's better to know what you're working with.
Better in the what sense? Its not better in respective to speed of returning the results.
I am not a sociopath. I ask myself if I want to save lives or if I want to feel better.

I get that a motivated attacker is a more alarming threat, but that is because we didn't evolve with chemical plants and car accidents.

If you just want to reduce your alarm and comfort you friends. Then focus on dealing with whatever alarms you. But by my standards that's not caring.

'Be appalled by' is cheap and easy. 'react accordingly' is, I'm sorry but that's probably not what you're doing. There are so many people in the world who have demonstrated full intent to kill that if you reacted accordingly you'd become Batman.

If this is just about what we say upsets us as we go about our daily lives, then we can agree to disagree and there's no reason to think worse of each other.
I would hesitate to generalize from what you saw on TV. What you see on TV has a lot to do with where the TV crews are set up and where they're allowed to go, which has to be somewhere safe and not in the way of the people with work to do.
Interesting blog post, though I wish they would give us some meat rather than what's essentially a rant. I do find it a bit amusing that it doesn't perform well in their own system:

>I am the CTO of Stremor, we make TLDR Reader. Sentence objects Sentenceobjects represent information extracted from a single sentence within a document. Attributes and methods available on Sentenceobjects: ∗ text: The raw text of the sentence as a string. ∗ names: A list of all names detected in the sentence.

Yeah, this is similar to picking at Google Translate not translating Google into the same text as they use on their other-language homepages. I'm honestly not complaining, I just found it funny :) To be fair, it does a significantly better job at other blocks of text I've thrown at it. Not great, but surprisingly good - I'll have to prod it more.
He's just not scared enough! This is terror, damnit! Get with the program, stallman.
For people asking "how do we know he wont be read his rights" its because the DA Carmen Ortiz[1] said she wouldn't in the press conference immediately following the suspects capture[2].

1. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-stat...

2. I haven't been able to find video although I saw it live, this site confirms http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/19/boston-bombing-su...
So she got a std, went through three procedures to get rid of the cancer, and you think that's a ton of shit? Try telling someone who is going through chemo if three procedures is a ton of shit. GUARD YOUR IGNORANCE.
Heh, a good catch. :-)
Yes, i'd gladly bend over and lubricate my own orifices for sacrifice to the State™ to tort its own laws in the hopes that in the future it will set a precedent for future generations to cope with more of the same :D

/sarc
> This is no different than "Signature" killings via UAV

Completely disagree.

There's a vast difference between assassinations without trial of both US and foreign nationals vs. not reading a suspect their Miranda rights. Note that the rights themselves are not being stripped away, as is obviously the case with the former.

This doesn't mean either practice is noble or desirable, but it's patently ridiculous to draw false hyperbole-laced equivalencies all over the map.
You know, whatever works. If we agree it's a moral thing to do, the origin of the morality is less important. Philosophy can be debated... in a different thread.
Jesus people. Read about what the "public safety exception" actually is before going all police-state-paranoid.

If the FBI or police try to misuse or abuse the public safety exception to attempt to get Tsarnaev to incriminate himself then they are going to have some fun times in court and get their asses handed to them. I'm skeptical that that's what's happening. I'm also skeptical that he's not been read his rights before being interrogated. Let's keep our heads on straight and avoid operating on incomplete data.
So the logical thing is to ignore mass murderers until their body counts approach deaths from cancer.
Also, it is perfectly acceptable for them to not ever read him the Miranda rights. They just won't be able to use those statements against him in court. Not like they're gonna have trouble convicting him anyways.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/doj-official-no-...

A DOJ official explains why Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzokhar Tsarnaev has not been read his Miranda rights.

"The suspect is en route to the hospital for immediate treatment," the official tells TPM's Sahil Kapur. "But we plan to invoke the public safety exception to Miranda in order to question the suspect extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to gain critical intelligence."

The public safety exception allows law enforcement officials to question suspects briefly in a legally admissable way prior to providing Miranda rights in cases of terrorism or when the public might face imminent threat.
Your sarcasm is duly noted, sir.
I'm not asking to support one platform or one browser or one anything. I'm asking to support the standards. Industries have standards for a reason.

I didn't insult anyone, CEOs or users, so your generalization is a very poor one.

The technical reason for not giving a workable version to IE6 is that it can take as long to make a workable version for IE6 as for all other browsers combined. IE8 is not that bad, but it's similar in principle. If I have to spend 50% of my time on 10% of my users, I'm better off doing twice as much for the other 90%.
Survey Shows Pre-Launch Demand for Apple's iWatch on Par With iPad
Their SEO engine is easy to game
Same industry (web development) different companies.

The one thing which connects them all is a developer just like in the article. Driven to perfection, willing to do whatever is asked of him, and burns the candle at three ends until he finally goes over the edge. I'm talking averaging 70 hours a week for two year straight kind of candle burning. The kind of narcissistic pursuit which is simply impossible to achieve.

I have stories of all five if you want to hear them. Let me know and I'll elaborate.
Social Shopping Network
Okay, so murders in general then. Still a bigger number.

By giving events like these a disproportionate audience, we provide them their precise motivation for having occurred.

By going to disproportionate efforts to prevent them (or capture those who cause them) we create greater cumulative negative effects than the events do directly.

Sorry if being rational doesn't mesh with what the popular emotional reasoning deems appropriate.

What makes these murders so special? Obviously, they were on the news. Why? Because they didn't happen to faceless poor people of color? Because it's a kindergarten or a marathon, where REAL people got hurt?

Edit: Also, could HN not become a forum for this sort of discussion, please?
Morality is such a loaded word, which is why I didn't use it. But yes, another day, another thread.
I've written part of a compiler for Power and never used the shift machine code, maybe it's just the setup I was using, but I use rlwinm[.] all the time.
> We will shut down the entire city and hunt these people down like dogs. At the cost of a $1 Billion/day economy. At the inconvenience to its population.

You're saying this like it's a good thing...
With some videos, a bit of context is helpful, but I don't think it was in this case; the text didn't give us much more info than the title. I think Chris Hadfield's videos with the CSA are pretty well-known by now (I have seen several on HN, Reddit, etc.), so I think people would know what they were getting into without the article if the title had been a bit more specific. Granted, with HN's char limit, that isn't always possible.
It's no "accident" when a drunk driver kills innocent people...
The trap is applying logic to being human, when humans are illogical by our very nature. kiba is doing it, and your poignant extrapolation of that logic demonstrates why we "can't think through this one, we have to feel it," as the film quote goes. She was right in that scene and the observation equally applies here, just with slightly different antagonists for the discussion.

Too many engineering types try to apply logic and data analysis to the human experience and it just doesn't make sense. You can't meaningfully talk about death in numbers unless you are counting deaths.
This article does little more than pointlessly recycle the tired old trope of the "wisdom of crowds". Yes, the Boston police tried to create some sort of ad-hoc Mechanical Turk. With what results? The relevant video came not from a cellphone camera, but from a good old-fashioned department store surveillance camera. There is no mention of who did the analysis that identified suspects on that video; I suspect it was trained professionals and not the crowds. Meanwhile, we know the Reddit threads have resulted in a few false positives that only luckily didn't create a tragedy. I see no magical improvement in police efficiency with all this.

Oh, and the front page of Reddit is still a worse source of news than the front page of the NYT.
I'll grant you that for the most part that's true, but for someone that actually has attention or hyperactivity disorders, telling them to "train the mind to be more focused" is equivalent to telling a depressed person to "train to be more happy". It's good advice, but positive willpower isn't always capable of battling the chemical/receptor imbalances that are the root cause of the issue.
There's no way he is ever going to see sunlight again, even if found not guilty.
Stallman made no mention of that. He only drew a comparison on the severity of what happened in Boston to that of car accidents and the explosion in Texas. To that point I was addressing.
I think RMS raises some good points. The response is out of proportion, just as in the Chris Dorner, Randy Weaver, and Branch Davidian cases. There seems to be a mob mentality looking for a small number of suspects to blame "easily" to explain our societal problems, and then everyone's efforts are directed towards lynching those suspects, as if it will rid the world of evil. It merely kicks the can down the road, without addressing real issues.

Other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5579687
If it isn't too much trouble, try your queries on blekko and let us know what you think.

We actually have a /programming slashtag that is very useful for these kind of queries.

http://blekko.com/ws/?q=how+to+zip+a+list+in+ruby+%2Fruby

http://blekko.com/ws/?q=seattle+dumpling+restaurant+that+is+...

Just for fun... results in tablet-friendly format:

http://izik.com/?q=seattle%20dumpling%20restaurant%20that%20...
As I mentioned in comments, I didn't mark up my "code paste" so it decided the documentation was more important than my comments.

The TLDR version is optimized for news at up to 5000 words. We have some other stuff for Fiction but it isn't public, and a version that is specific to politics.
It will probably be usable from the perspective of a mobile carrier, but really, the hard part is the 'transparent tcp handoff' part. They already know all too well how nice it is to offload traffic to wifi. Two problems exist, and that most carriers don't have the servers or the wifi nets to support it nicely, and that mobile phones doesn't support automatic and transparent handover in a nice way (iOS 5 brought support though, so it is not all bad. Android support is mostly lacking though).

Also, wifi already tend to be so much better that the bulk of the traffic would already go that way if possible without carrier interference.
Oh, and the 25% view "short" is pretty good.
Both set a precedent for violations of Constitutional rights.
Obviously. I feel like his were apt comparisons; it's not obvious to me why intent has a bearing on the math.

However, even if we suppose that intent should differentiate these acts somehow, the reactionary position doesn't seem to hold up.

*Edited to clarify slightly.