skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Any information you consume about a human being is going to be an over-simplification. What's really important is making sure that you're staying critical of the sources of this information.

I also think that you're missing the broader implication of your parent post: Steve didn't wake up every morning with the intent of embodying some kind of persona -- he just was. Sure, he may have done well to have some training by an HR expert on how to communicate more effectively, but he was just managing a company the way that 1) he knew how and 2) in a way that brought Apple success.

What I admire about Steve's Apple is that it was able to maintain a very clear vision and point of view despite growing exponentially. Look at huge corporations like IBM, HP, Microsoft, etc. What are there goals? Go to IBM's website and try to piece together a vision out of 80000 disparate research projects. HP makes...computers? printers? calculators? fax machines? cameras? Microsoft is a maker of operating systems, but are infamous for their spaghetti-style auxiliary product lines (throw it on the wall and see what sticks). These are three well-respected companies, and I don't know what the hell any of the 3 are about. Apple, by contrast? They're about delivering sleek computing products that are accessible and easy to use. Ask anyone on the street what Apple's mission is and they'd be able to give you some variation on good-looking products that are easy to use.
Should I be worried?

Depends; you'll probably not want to share this point with strangers. Since we've been repeatedly traumatized as a nation over the fears of 'terrorism' by war-hawks and sensationalist media outlets, many Americans expect a similar level of emotional reactionism from their compatriots. And when they don't get it from you, they turn on you quickly. I don't think it's healthy, but I guess it's understandable from all the mental abuse we've received as a nation since 9/11.

RMS is out there on a lot of things, and he's very blunt with his opinions, but his emotional detachment does serve him well sometimes. The first step of healing from that mental disease we have now is step back a bit and realize the problem. We are addicted to fear.
once again Stall man says something that is a bit insensitive, a little bit crazy, but very, very true.
I honestly don't think any sane person could, in good faith, come to that conclusion after reading this. His point is that we don't do things like walk around in Hazmat suits to avoid diseases because that would be completely absurd, so why isn't it more absurd to shut down an entire major city for hours over a threat that is orders of magnitude less dangerous?
Right so that shows that what Keynesians actually advocate is theft. They go about it the easy way, printing money instead of taking it directly.
oh wait, they don't - because they are illegal and highly regulated.

OR, it could be because they're expensive, ineffective, don't last, and hurt accuracy. Or because most murders are not planned out in advance, in excruciating detail, by criminal masterminds (or even the crooks in episodes of Columbo). Somebody who finds out their spouse is cheating on them and decides to kill them in a fit of rage isn't going to care about a silencer.

Likewise, gang on gang crime over drug deals doesn't seem to involve a lot of stealthy, hit-man style assassination stuff. Those guys don't need silencers.

And the people who do want one and want to avoid your regulations? Well, they just build their own, no license, background check, or anything else needed.
The death of a police officer is no more tragic, necessarily, than the death of anyone else. However, an attacker who is brazen enough and well-prepared enough to attack and kill a police officer is more of a threat to the public. Ordinary citizens are generally not as well armed, armored, or trained as police officers, nor are they in near constant contact with police dispatch. Someone capable of and willing to kill police is someone who just doesn't care anymore and is willing and able to kill almost anyone.
Most people can claim not to serve on any company boards.
Aren't you arguing against prescriptivism and not linguists (as in people with a background in Linguistics)? My background is Linguistics, Computer Science and NLP. From what I was taught, and what seems to be the norm, is linguists tend to do descriptive linguistics. You learn from your data and change the rules and methods accordingly, not the other way around. Anyway, interesting read.

I am curious about one thing. Are you just handling white spaced words, or do you handle lexical items as well such like polywords (inside out), phrasal verbs (put up with, beat up), idioms, etc.?
I have to drive to work, lunch and home every single day, I have to deal with an ongoing terrorist attack almost never.
GA doesn't show full URL referrers, IPs, or any of that.
Ordinary citizens are generally not as well armed

Not sure how accurate that statement is in America.
Worth reading:

title: Consequences of Filing a False DMCA Takedown Request

http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/internet-law/consequences-of-fi...
I mean look at all the silencers people have to get away with murder - oh wait, they don't - because they are illegal and highly regulated.

Murderers rarely use such things

A silencer is cheap and trivial to manufacture from common materials.

I think you overestimate the deterrence of an additional felony charge. "Q. What are you in for? A. Murder... and an unlicensed weapon accessory."
There might be some level of expectation of getting hit by lightning during a lightning storm at the Boston Marathon.
You can read his political notes and get a pretty good grasp.

But to use a metaphor, it's possible to find a bug without knowing what the patch is.
Thanks for posting this! I skimmed through the paper and it seems like this is geared towards users who are completely blind (or at least those with poorer visual acuity than myself). Still, fascinating work. Best of luck to you and your team--this has a lot of potential to help people.
I think it's an odd coincidence this happens immediately following my comment six days ago:

> Law enforcement agencies are being lambasted time and again (whether it's valid criticism or not is irrelevant), and they continue to ignore claims of how ineffectual they are. Someone needs to stand up and say "We are here for you and we support you" otherwise it stands to reason that there are dangerous undertones forming.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5544924

It's exactly what that younger gentleman demonstrated -- the police will go above and beyond for you, even to the point of actively impeding normal functions of society.
Here is an archived version of the Google Cached version:
http://archive.is/5WWjb

and here is a screenshot of it:
http://i.imgur.com/bn2152S.jpg
In which case they should get fired. That's totally unacceptable behavior. If middle management is more concerned about saving face than delivering honest reports, it's their problem.
There is recourse against truly false claims made in bad faith, but it's not the penalty of perjury part. All you swear under penalty of perjury is that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of some copyright allegedly infringed (i.e. you're not filing a claim about someone else's work).

Here's the actual recourse created by the bill:

> (f) MISREPRESENTATIONS- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section-- (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:6:./temp/~c105aLN...:
I'm torn. I absolutely understand what you are saying and I agree but the problem is that this whole sequence of events cannot be separated from the larger cultural and historical sequence. The saddest thing is absolutely the loss of life but there is a huge part of me that is almost as greatly saddened by the fact that as advanced as we are as a species that we still act like complete and utter idiots when we get together in large enough groups.
> Like NaN, it can be hard to track down where things went wrong.

Unlike NaN, you have the freedom to not use it when you don't want it.
"Terrorism" means more than just doing very bad things. Terrorism is violence against innocent people in order to further a cause.

Both Adam Lanza and the Beslan terrorists[1] killed lots of kids. But only the Beslan killers were terrorists. They hoped to further the goal of Chechen independence from Russia. Lanza was just a homicidal maniac.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis
The promise of Multipath TCP is that you don't have to change the applications or the network middleboxes - if the OS on your end and the remote end are both configured to use Multipath TCP, it'll used.

SCTP requires either recompiling applications or using a TCP/SCTP proxy, and it doesn't solve the middlebox or discoverability problems. There's room for both solutions.
I don't think it's on copyright grounds, I think it's on circumvention grounds.
We've been looking at moving FAR away and the sorts of things I want to know is information about the part of town the property is in... crime rates, demographics, etc.
Please don't interject facts into this discussion! This is Hacker News, where we should just say what we THINK might be correct, or should be correct, without having any actual knowledge of the subject. That's what real hackers do, right?

BTW it's worth pointing out that some countries like Finland do not regulate silencers/sound suppressors on the grounds that they reduce noise pollution and benefit public health by reducing the risk of hearing damage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland#Related...
I was able to get active customers immediately (not many, but a few). This was due to the work I did pre-launch to gather interest.

I also had a private beta before launch and the beta users converted across.

I don't think this question is really going to help you though, as it varies for everyone and is not an indicator of how well you're going to do. You're probably best wondering/asking how do you get more customers. That's what is relevant now. Not how you compare to other unrelated businesses in different industries.
Why was it necessary for so many people to be hiding in their houses? I certainly have never seen an entire city shut down and hiding at home because a couple of murders were out there.
I thought it was really odd that they told people they could go about their business after completing the Watertown search without finding him.

You find it really odd we don't live in a police state?
> On the other hand, if they had simply expanded the search area block by block without lifting the stay-indoors request, then they probably would have found him quickly with less risk to Watertown residents.

On the other other hand, it was getting dark -- the stay-indoors request was lifted an hour from sunset -- and it would have been harder to see the blood without daylight. So maybe they lifted it just in time, or should have lifted it much earlier?
We handle polywords. We had to. Noun adjuncts being one of the worst in terms of how often they show up, and I'll be honest I don't even know what you call Gerunds as Adjectives like "Running shorts" but those are a pain too. But you can kind of find ways to get lists of those. Parts catalogs, shopping sites. People want to buy polyword nouns. There are fewer of the verbs but they are harder to find lists of.

Idioms we haven't addressed much. Fortunately in news they come up less than other things. Sarcasm we deal with in most cases, but not all. There are hints that things are sarcastic, but if they are written like "the Onion" and they don't change tone because they are really a parody rather than sarcasm we can't tell that.

I like to say that if your 5 year old would figure it out we will figure it out. If your 5 year old won't probably we won't either. But this is a huge leap forward since the competition is about the level where your dog would understand.
Perhaps most people might support more background checks in principle, but it's not really close to what people really care about right now: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-thin... Personally I don't support the latest gun legislation because it's not about guns or violence and if it were passed all it would lead to is a round of undeserved self-satisfied back-patting. If people want to get serious on curbing gun violence, maybe they should try their methods in say Chicago first before forcing the whole country to play along. (I know one method that could likely work but it's politically infeasible given the nature of the US's power structure. Are there any methods that can work with the current power structure?)
Linguists get descriptivism drilled into them from day one! If anyone who goes on about what is "right" I would highly doubt they were trained as a linguist.

You could perhaps instead mean "standard" instead of "right" - that they're describing a standard dialect, which doesn't meet reality. That could be true, I'm sure it is in places.

Btw, I'd be interested to know how many parts of speech the CGEL describes. Anyone got easy access?
I think "used" needs be replaced with the word "abused". It's appropriate here.

With no penalty for false DMCA claims, it's a "stop us if you can" mentality.

The real reason may have been the conclusion that "Ciphercloud is NOT doing homomorphic encryption" ?

(but google cache still works)
> What's the maximum reasonable spend to catch a bomber, for an efficient force? $1M? $100k?

The US has a "value of a statistical life"[1] of around $7M, and they had already killed 4 people and injured over a hundred more, so $50M seems like it would be very easily justified.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life
Watch is a small script in Inferno sh to date and print differences in an arbitrary command's output, each time the output of that command changes. (Not an original idea.)

https://github.com/catenate/inferno-cat/blob/master/sh-infer...

You could obviously update it to execute an arbitrary command: e.g. (plot watch.out.new.$pid) instead of diff, whenever a data-generating program generates a different set of data.

https://github.com/catenate/inferno-cat/blob/master/sh-infer...
How many commenters in support of this perspective were in the area and part of all this? As someone who was a short distance from the explosions during the marathon, and the focused area of the manhunt during todays lockdown, I'd expect the answer would be none. And if I'm wrong, I'm shocked at the lack of empathy, or even lack of ability to emulate empathy through simple taste and common sense. This is a really disappointing thing for me to see on HN.
A large percentage of the records listened to on vinyl today are not from the 50s or 60s.
The DMCA notice/counternotice system is only about copyright infringement. They wouldn't get one for the circumvention prohibitions; or if they did, it would be an illegal use of those notices.
But it's worth sacrificing our freedoms in exchange for (only theoretically improved) safety (from causes of death that we are already extremely safe from - statistically speaking).
"Trying to capture as many future histories as possible" (keeping your options open) harmonizes well with Paul Graham's view on procrastination (http://paulgraham.com/procrastination.html) and the tenet of "put off decisions as long as possible".

UPDATE: Evidently several smart people have had this intuition. I just remembered who said, "Never make a decision until you have to" -- it was Randy Pausch in the "The Last Lecture" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo).

And "delay commitment until the last responsible moment" is also an agile principle (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/10/the-last-responsibl...).
> Yes, because it's obviously good for business to have your plant blow sky high

You know how this is - most often poor working practice has no immediate consequence. Perhaps a critical patch is installed a few days late, and the website does not get hacked, no adverse consequences most of the time. At some point someone will run the numbers, and conclude that good safety practice isn't that necessary. That's a recipe for disaster. Most everyone here should be familiar with the Challenger explosion and the runup to it.

> maybe, just maybe, accidents happen, some of which are damn near unpredictable and unavoidable.

That's the issue of fault-tolerant design. In an ammonium nitrate plant there is a risk of explosion; they quite simply do not belong anywhere near a town.
OK, but Bitcoin allows that to happen; in the original Bitcoin paper, a polynomial time algorithm for doing exactly what you described is presented. Even if we accept that definition of double spending, it is not clear how that is useful for formalizing Bitcoin's security. How can you rule out someone computing a longer block chain, when doing so involves simply duplicating the work done by the rest of the parties in the system? What actually stops someone from doing this?

In other words, under your definition, what does it mean to be secure against double spending?
The penalty for materially misrepresenting a DMCA claim is actual damages plus costs and attorney fees. That's automatic, written into the bill, unlike many other torts/crimes where you need exceptional circumstances to get attorneys fees in addition to the damages.
90% is some BS fake skewed poll run by some organization with an anti gun agenda. It's not possibly accurate. You can make any poll say anything if you word the question skewed enough.
I get his point, it raises an important lesson. But the lock down was fairly voluntarily throughout most of the Boston metro area, perhaps except those areas where active investigations were being conducted. People were outside in Back Bay; I walked by plenty of uniformed officers, none of which asked me to return to my home.
Probably, doing so makes it more likely that anyone the cops find outside is the suspect, while lessening the likelihood that a confrontation will lead to civilian casualties.

Also, no one knew how many other bombs there may have been, so public areas still posed an unknown risk.
maybe in your state.
Note that the EFF is trying to prosecute a case over this clause [1]. IANAL, but it seems to be hard to hold someone responsible for a bad DMCA notice unless they specifically knew that it was bad (rather than merely being sloppy and sending notices without adequately considering fair use). Whether that is the case for this notice could theoretically be found out through discovery.

[1] https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal
The Most Difficult Bug (2012)
You lose the mechanical interaction which has random aspects. It's never quite the same way twice. Digital is the opposite.

You could go out of your way to try to simulate all the mechanical interactions, but why? What is so important about faking something?
If you work on a mac, I have had some luck with ScreenHero http://screenhero.com
The Miranda issue was puzzling to me. Apparently (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforceme...) the public safety exception to the Miranda warning was created in a ruling that clarified that statements obtained from an un-Mirandized suspected in response to questions asked by police in the heat of the moment (e.g. "Where's the gun?") were admissible. The spirit of the exception was that the threat of suppressed evidence shouldn't prevent police from asking a question that any reasonable person would ask in order to ensure their safety in the heat of the moment.

Clearly, if you can plan not to Mirandize a suspect, then the public safety exception cannot apply in the first place, so calling for the public safety exception merely makes a mockery of the law. The concluding sentences of the FBI's explanation of the public safety exception are worth quoting in full:

"When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda."
I Knew a Programmer that Went Completely Insane
I said generally.

Also, even with someone who religiously carries a gun as much as possible it would be unusual for them to carry a full-sized duty pistol and the ammunition that most cops do (stereotypically a Glock 22 w/ a 15 round magazine and 2+ additional magazines, a total of 45 or more rounds). Certainly some folks do but I'd doubt that number is even in the double digits throughout the entire US, excluding off-duty LE and people working security in some capacity. People who carry concealed tend to choose smaller, lighter guns and not quite as many total rounds, because ammunition is heavy (stereotypically a Kahr PM9 w/ an extra magazine, a total of 14 rounds, or maybe a Glock 26 w/ an extra magazine, a total of 20 rounds).
Tin Bull retrospective
Maybe StatsD?
http://codeascraft.etsy.com/2011/02/15/measure-anything-meas...
So you are saying the 27 people killed by a bomber in Iraq today were worth less than the 4 killed in Boston?

My point was this was one person (okay, two brothers originally) what would have happened if it was a team of people who were organized and actually secretive and didn't use twitter or live out in the open?
"As we have discussed, the most logical starting point to address gun violence is the expansion of the background check system. Incomplete or absent background checks create a gaping hole in the wall between firearms and criminals. Loopholes in the background check system give criminals unprecedented opportunity to access firearms. This problem must be remedied quickly."

- National Fraternal Order of Police President Chuck Canterbury, February 16, 2013

http://www.coloradofop.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_...