skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In a lot of these cases what's happening is that police "informants" are "infiltrating" groups with no serious means or ambition to carry out an act of terrorism. The informants, who are sometimes convicted criminals, are supplying all the plans, money, and weapons.

In the wake of 9/11 Canada passed the Anti-Terrorism Act. It's basically the Canadian version of the PATRIOT Act. The most controversial provisions of the law were given a 5 year sunset clause. That is, unless a future parliament extended them, they would be automatically repealed.

And wouldn't you know, just before those provisions expired the RCMP busts a huge terror plot in Canada. In this case the police had two moles: Shaikh and Elsohemy. Shaikh supplied the only weapon the so-called terrorists ever had... a single Glock pistol, which he let members of the group fire in the woods in between trips to Tim Hortons for coffee and to use bathroom. Elsohemy supplied the ammonium nitrate, which was stored in a warehouse a few blocks from the RCMP. None of the "terrorists" involved made any effort to obtain anything dangerous themselves. Of course, both informants were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for their services by the government.

In spite of all this drama, the government failed to pass the extensions.

Now we have this alleged railway bombing plot in the news right on time for Bill S-7. What's bill S-7? I'll give you one guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Anti-Terrorism_Act
I get your point but paying more for financial services is very different than paying more for a retail product.

If you pay more, you can buy jeans made in the USA from both Ralph Lauren and Levi. The fabric may be from a Cone Denim factory in China instead of the White Oak Cone Denim factory in the US, but my impression of the denim mills is that it's far from your stereotypical sweatshop.

Further, there are brands that are entirely made in the US from mill to assembly, from the affordable brands like Gusset to high end like Raleigh Denim.
Google retires Meebo Bar.
There are a few new 3D engines: http://wp.me/puh71-9M
This article was written by someone who has no understanding of basic accounting, let alone movie industry or television industry accounting.

For example:
There’s a HUGE amount of upside here. That’s why Garden State grossed $35 million at the box office. Or, put another way: if 350,000 people see this movie in theaters, at $10 a ticket, that’s $3.5 million — 10% of what Garden State made. If Braff gets $2 per ticket, that’s $700,000 right to him. Wow! ↩

There is no way that Braff got $2 a ticket. At $10/ticket, that represents 20% of the top-line grosses (i.e., before expenses and the theater's take), and would represent almost 50% or more of the studio's receipts on the film at today's prices. (When Garden State came out, ticket prices were $2-$3 less, so the alleged $2/ticket amount would be even more obscene. ) Theaters typically receive 1/2 of the ticket amount in the first week or two, and an increasing amount each week thereafter to incentivize theatrical longevity.

Studios then divy up the remainder, taking their share and expenses first out of such earnings. (Actors and directors are generally paid their salaries at the onset of the project and would normally be treated as an expense for the studio to recoup).

Some actors are able to negotiate a portion of the net proceeds, and receive those in the unlikely and rare event that the movie company with which they contracted shows a profit. More preferable, but infinitely more unlikely, is for a star to negotiate a portion of the gross proceeds (i.e., before the Hollywood accounting kicks in). Zach Braff has never been a big enough star to get that sort of arrangement--that's the sort of deal that even Tom Cruise and Will Smith would be hard-pressed to achieve without serious salary concessions--most actors only ever achieve a portion of the gross if they forgo their salary and participate in principal financing.
I've watched the Frontline piece that this article is based on. It's not quite as hysterical, but it does make the case that the high-cost actively managed funds offered by most 401k plans underperform low-cost index funds, which are not available in many 401k plans. So, you're stuck paying the high fees or losing out on the tax-advantages of the 401k.
Hmm. Both Google and my fund options page at Vanguard list the Total Stock Market Index as having a 0.17% expense ratio:

https://www.google.com/finance?q=MUTF:VTSMX

Are we talking about different things?
>as you get a chance you immediately transfer your 401k into a self managed IRA account

Another reason to do this is that you can buy "anything" in your IRA account, including stock market ETFs, leveraged bond fund ETFs (which can be a nice diversification option since you don't pay the full income tax on the dividends that you otherwise would need to outside of a 401(k)/IRA), anything that your brokerage account has access to.

On the other hand, your typical 401(k) plan only has access to crappy financial products and shitty fund managers. My former employer offered a bare bones 401(k) plan with no employer match. I went through and looked at all ~20 of the funds available. There were 2 passively managed index funds, 17 active managers who had underperformed the market net fees, and 1 who had done decently well, maybe matched the Russell 2000 after fees (it was a mid cap fund). I looked further and found, exactly to my expectations, that every single one of the 17 bad funds were run by inexperienced, most likely young, managers. The one fund that did decently had two guys who had been running it for over a decade.

Not all money managers are bad. Some do actually provide some legitimate values, even after fees. But (a) most of the ones available to you in a 401(k) plan suck really really badly, and (b) even the good ones will break you with fees.

It is probably not that well known, but "The wealthy" combat (b) by negotiating fees that are significantly lower than the starting fee by saying, "I am bringing $N million to your account. What fee can you offer me? I am shopping you vs other banks."
This makes sense why American Express automated prompt keeps telling me that "I can see the number you are calling from matches the number on your record" (or something like that). My first thought was how trivial it is to spoof the system. Apparently, they are more clever than I am.

In an unrelated incident, I was talking to T-Mobile when the phone got cut off. They called me back (which was amazing customer service) until the first thing he said was he needed to authenticate I was me. So I was supposed to give him the last four digits of my social. I tried to reason with him why it was a bad idea but ended up thanking him and telling him that I'd call in at a later time.
I smoked cigarettes for around 15 years. I had a terrible habit of 2 packs a day. I would constantly chain smoke. When I decided to quit, it was honestly pretty easy. I gave up social drinking, which I used to go out on an almost daily basis. My blood pressure is a lot better now, and I used to have a really bad temperament. For all the people who are trying to quit, good luck to you!
>high-cost actively managed funds offered by most 401k plans underperform low-cost index funds

The keywords are "offered by most 401k plans". Within the universe of funds out there, it was utterly shocking to me how bad the funds offered in your typical 401k plan were. I honestly think they just stick random kids 3 years out of college to run them.
Shame the new project name is FuSE- built in confusion with File System in User-Space and a million other things. I can't find the new project in Google at all :/.
Thanks for the feedback!

We'll definitely be iterating on how we rank and present viewpoints to try to reduce bias. We don't want to remove indicators of popularity entirely, though, since that would reduce the utility of the site for readers who are still trying to decide. We do intend, though, to at least provide enough information for users to judge where there may be bias for themselves, and we'll try to eliminate it where we can.
This. The more inflexible the 2nd amendment is, the more likely it will be to be changed at some point in the future. I'm just hoping the Supreme Court comes out with a strict unpopular interpretation of the 2A to speed this up a bit.
> including flight itineraries

Those are not real flight itineraries.

They are usually well crafted spam sent to anyone and everyone, designed to entice personal details like bank accounts, pin numbers and visa card numbers from unexpecting users.
The thing that is really going to collapse our current national system is crypto currency. Once governments can't collect taxes easily, could easily see us going to a Neal Stephenson Diamond Age style post national, lifestyle group based system.
I saw a few (2?) passively managed index tracking funds in my former employer's 401k plan. IIRC their fees were something like 0.15%/year, which is higher than the <0.1%/year fee of the large index tracking funds with market caps greater than $40BB, but still reasonable compared to the actively managed funds that are offered.
Michael, judging from your comments on HN and your blog, you need to give it a rest. Either that or do something substantial to validate yourself. Who are you?
Oh I'm not (I didn't meant to?) calling parent out, I was just trying an explanation.
I feel your pain. I also have this problem.
Spain Has a Tenured Faculty Problem
It would be great to see a bit more information than "free", such as which license the engine/library is under.
Most funds available in your 401k could also be bought in a taxable account with the same fees, but it almost never makes sense to do so because there are so much superior alternatives (ie pretty much anything from Vanguard).
I find your comments to be spectacularly useful. I'm a twenty something machine learning developer with a functional bent and high expectations for rewarding stimulation in VC-land, and you've recapitulated many of my own thoughts and conclusions spectacularly well. Would you mind if I bent your ear about a dilemma over private channels?
How does this differ to the 20+ other 'daily deal' sites in Australia? Is there a particular niche you are targeting?
Show HN: My side project, funding school fees for kids in need.
That info is in the "More Details" section. With that said, do you still think it should go in the main table? Was trying to keep it from being too cluttered.
The soil in Afghanistan extremely alkaline, adding the iron sulfate brings it closer to a neutral pH (good for food crops, bad for things like Opium poppies). The low iron content of the soil also leads to a high occurrence of Iron Deficient Anemia.
URIs are pretty much immutable. My impression is that what the OP suggests is a guaranteed lifetime of the content associated with the URI.

As for this second part, "once it's published it should always remain out there", I'm not very sure it's a good idea. In many cases I'd actually like to be able to say
that a piece of content has expired (the content is not
relevant anymore).
Source image that's used: http://s.cdpn.io/18515/PIA09959-1280x800.jpg It covers four rectangular walls and just shifts the Z closer and closer to you. And meanwhile does an opacity swap to a second set so it can do it infinitely.

Full unminified CSS: http://codepen.io/noahblon/pen/GKflw

Pretty simple.
Do you mean you want it to interact with other elements of your operating system?
> I get bank statements and postpaid mobile bills.

Most such e-mail traffic is just spam, not sent by the banks, but sent by people hoping to trick the recipitent into reading the e-mail, following the link and logging into a false web page set up to act like the bank web site.

Once they have your logon details they will go to the real bank page and transfer out your money.
Indeed! And crazier still, you can have two proteins with substantial structural homology, but with entirely different functions and mechanisms.

When I worked in structural bio, one of my colleagues was studying a protein [complex] that had a prominent structure homologous to a helicase, but no DNA-unwinding activity whatsoever. To this day it's unknown what that structure does.

I'm excited to more progress linking structure to function, even if this is very very difficult.
My first thought was "hope you're good at baking cookies."

>I haven't made a sale yet and I am not sure why.

Is "14 OFFERS SOLD!" BS then? One small thing: the "what's hot" products on the right looked like third party ads. Maybe it's just me.
Didn't Julian Assange suggest this? There was an interview published last week with Eric Schmidt, where this was suggested.

I've since started work on a side project that does this - to be integrated into Fork the Cookbook - since our target audience seems to be very up-in-arms about original recipes.
We wanted to make ours more fun for the buyer and have a 'theme'. All our marketing has been aviation themed, such as "fly in for a great deal".

At this stage we kind of went broad, having a bit of everything to see which products sold more. We are a little limited to what our suppliers have at this stage. But the prices are still cheap
Sure, but this was front page on HN not even 2 months ago.
I don't know what drugs reporters without borders are on but the UK and Australia, both rated worse for freedom of the press than Canada and better tham the US both have crippling libel laws where truth, public interest, and good faith are insufficient defenses against libel. The consequences of libel laws alone on freedom of the press are enormous.
Some perspective on what this means: it's somewhat rare (but not insanely rare) to find new DNA-binding proteins that aren't very similar to something that already exists in another organism.

What this paper is saying is that the researchers found a new gene with little similarity to known DNA-binding proteins, and showed that it's both a DNA-binding protein, and that it binds specific DNA sequences. An implication is that we might not know as much as we think we do about the kinds of proteins that bind to DNA, since we're still finding new stuff. However, for all we know, this protein could work just like one of the known DNA-binding proteins, just using a different protein sequence. That would be weird, but not exceptionally weird.

It's possible that this is a pretty rare find, and that we really do know most of the basic protein structures that bind DNA sequences. But at the same time...there are tons of weird microbes out there whose genes we know nothing about. The world is a big place.

That said, we're still not any closer to making velociraptors.
Google retiring Meebo bar
Casanova, a game development language embedded in F#
Yeah the 14 offers sold is just to make the website not look like a ghost town. Put some activity on it.

That's great feedback on the sidebar thanks.
You might be better off asking someone who has accomplished more than blog posts and hn comments. Sounding like you know what you're talking about and actually knowing it are not always the same. Results are often a better signal of the latter. Just my 2c.
(Just in case my comment sounded parodic because of my self-description, or contrarian because of your call for public bravery, it wasn't meant to be either.)
It's not about reading ability, it's about the way things are written. There's been plenty of research done on how to write notices and warnings etc. that will catch attention, and how to persuade readers to follow the directions. But of course "user interfaces" are often not "designed" by designers at all, much less anyone who's ever studied the research. (Not that most designers study the research, either, but they're more likely to than Joe Programmer.)

Example: Jakob Nielsen publishes research that shows "people on the web don't read." The sample content used to determine this? The list of tourist attractions in North Dakota.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Finally, the vast majority of text on the web around forms etc. is useless, poorly written, obtuse, abstruse. People have been indirectly trained to ignore it. It's not surprising that most users ignore that messages you took the effort to write.
What exactly does that have to do with the erosion of civil liberties in Canada?
I used Inconsolata and thought I would never switch again. Now I am finding myself using Ubuntu Mono. It's not that Inconsolata is bad or something, I guess you will get bored anyhow after one or two years.
This question suggests that the devs in your target company have lost control of developer hiring.
Careful. This sentiment has also been used in the other direction, to suggest that people who inspect software for vulnerabilities, including software they've downloaded and run or purchased on hardware, are themselves epsilon from criminals.
I saw Rhiju Das speak last week (really fantastic talk). He's working on some very cool deterministic ab initio folding approaches. http://www.stanford.edu/~rhiju/research.html
Is there not a way to show more than 10 results? Or am I just dumb? (super awesome idea btw)
Meebo Bar will shutdown on June 6, 2013
As someone who struggles with good color selection, this is amazing. Thanks.
You want both the 7s and Zs slashed? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?
No doubt many scientists are ethical and do good work. Others may
produce reports that are either not honest or not accurate.

I wonder how we could encourage honesty and accuracy - perhaps by getting
funding agencies to increase the rewards for people who show others'
work to have been deeply inaccurate, or worse, fraudulently wrong.

Consider: what were the global costs of Rogoff & Reinhart's error?
How - and how much - will we reward Herndon, Ash, and Pollin for their
diligence in uncovering that inaccuracy?

What would the long-term effects on science be if the revelation
and correction of such inaccuracies were better rewarded, and the
perpetration of any scientific fraud involved more effective penalties?
I don't understand why everyone in this thread keeps missing this. It doesn't matter what soil "most people" have, the place where they have all the IEDs has highly alkaline soil that could actually benefit from this change.
The 2% compounds over time. There is a far greater opportunity cost to losing 2% of earnings in year 1, as that amount reinvested at 7% over a 20 or 30-year period is quite significant.
They're not. That comparison was taken from the Inconsolata-g page and is either outdated or inaccurate. Visit the Inconsolata page to see the actual font (which hasn't changed since 2009, I believe): http://levien.com/type/myfonts/inconsolata.html
No, because the very concept of "before" requires time to exist for it to make sense.
I don't really get how this comment is relevant to marketing a startup to investors.
I've spoken with MOC over private channels, and he's * stunningly* helpful.
Why I won’t buy another subsidized Android phone
This is about halfway through right now and I'm actually getting much more enjoyment out of this course than I originally expected. Really makes you think about how elements from gamification can improve design and customer engagement.
No, the free market didn't. People like Sara Josephine Baker did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Josephine_Baker

The free market creates slums. "People are willing to pay for it!" is the phrase that defines the free market. And yes, people are willing to pay to live in slums… when there are no laws, or no enforcement of laws, to protect their interests, because they are powerless, ignorant, undocumented, poor.
I'm not sure I see the relevance.
Brain Computer Interfaces Inch Closer to Mainstream
Makes sense. When you're selling to people looking for top-end outliers, it makes sense to describe what yours is rather than just telling them about the median expectation.
I occasionally read about people's 401K options on the Bogleheads forum [1]. You're right, many of them are shockingly bad. Startups and small companies are especially likely to have poor options.

The solution is for employees to become better educated and demand better plans. This Frontline program does a pretty good job of getting the message out.

[1] http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=1
America, flophouse to the world.
If by 'on there' you mean kicking ass and making bacon!
I got added to a Black Board announcement list for some school. They don't seem to have a way to say 'stop sending this address mail'. I'm cranky, so I emailed the dean of student affairs about it.

He emailed back as if I were a student. I responded pointing out that I had no association with the school. He emailed back asking me to explain further, as there was someone with my name at the school. So I explained that I thought it was probably someone with the same name. At least that ended it.
First, you have to know your value... and probably change jobs. Unfortunately most corporations have HR policies in place that prevent you from rapidly increasing salary unless you are promoted.

Second, you have to be more than a programmer, you need to be someone who can blend roles into project management, business analysis, strategy etc as well as make the people around you better.

Third, you need to in demand skills but maintain versatility. This is hard work. I work a 40 but I practice another 10-20 every week.
Academic science (at least what I have seen in North American research-intensive universities, as it has changed over the past 24 years) is no longer about scientific truth. The system is constructed (partially by design and partially due to circumstance, i.e. such scarce resources) such that scientific truth is no longer the goal. The goal now is self preservation and self promotion. The truth today is that it is no longer good enough to "just" be a good (or even great) scientist. Now you have to sparkle. Now in order to get postdoc funding you have to show how your science is not just great but also how it links up with industry. Now in order to get hired into a tenure track stream you not only need to have published your PhD work in prestigious journals but you must also show evidence to your hiring university of your ability to attract money. Now in order to get tenure you need much more than "just" a solid, respected track record of doing science. You need articles in high-end journals. You need patents. You need links with industry. You need to have been featured in the popular press. You need a track record of attracting money to the university. The more of this you produce, the higher your salary, the more perks you get at your home university.

Lots of people excuse the system by saying something like: well, sure, the system has changed, boo hoo, but after you get tenure you can stop being concerned about all the BS and return to just doing good science.

The thing is, people don't do that. People build a "brand" as a professor-scientist, and as their profile gets higher, so does their salary, so do their perks.

At my university, perversely, the highest-profile scientists, with the highest salaries, (1) teach zero. I mean zero. (2) travel 70% of the time away from home base. (3) supervise grad students by, truthfully, farming out the supervision duties to their postdocs, who by the way, often write the grants for the supervisor as a sort of write-of-passage (sic); (4) are trotted out by the university anytime they need to boast about how good the uni is.

The system has been twisted so that the goal is to get money and the means to that goal is to publish high-profile papers with simple stories in high-profile journals, and the means to THAT is to "do science".

The goal ought to be good science, and the means to that ought to be funding (money). It's backwards.

PS, I speak from experience, I got my PhD in 1999 and I've been tenured since 2006. I'm not a high-flyer (relative to the academic celebrities in my faculty) but I am on the A team, so to speak.

PPS I'm not excusing scientific fraud ... but it's important to understand the context in which it occurs.