skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'd be very surprised if any government could survive without holding secrets. Lets take something innocuous--medical records. Surely you'd have to keep those secret. And surely a foreign power would want to access those secrets as well, for blackmail if nothing else.

But even if a government tried holding no secrets, it would be at an information disadvantage compared to more secretive rivals. For instance, most people are unsatisfied with the notion of abandoning their own privacy (which is a personal form of holding secrets) as a defense against government invasions of privacy, yet this is the same solution you propose that governments attempt against rival governments.
Call with Flask creator Armin Ronacher [video]
>Yes, Obama said he would do this in his own campaign trail, but it was unclear probably to him what he was up against exactly and how difficult it would have been to resist it alone

Sounds like an Obamapology to me. Been hearing alot of those lately.
tl;dr Obama did lie. But every one else lies in the same way for the same reason so he probably didn't think much of it, and neither did anyone else.

Politicians openly game the system. They poll, then they change the message based on the poll, then they win. Then they do whatever they want since the platform on which they ran was a total fiction.

In truth, the only platform that really matters is the party platform. A career politician ignores that at his great peril, as they risk losing the support of an incredibly efficient, effective political machine.

And this is nothing new. The new thing is that, in an effort to feel sophisticated, more mainstream Americans are pushing aside the initial feelings of disgust. They tell themselves the story I've told above, and they tell themselves that that feeling of disgust is naive. It would be like being disgusted by gravity - totally pointless. The same thing occurs in the private sector, when bank leaders commit fraud and walk away. The fraud is explained away "well, he was just acting in his own interest" and the walking away is explained away "well, powerful people look out for each other."

The simple truth is that we need to stop pushing aside that feeling of disgust. It's there for a reason. We have an in-built sense of fairness that our government, and our business leaders, ignore at their great peril.
Some tips for writing proper emails
Reminds me of http://8tracks.com/ -- you should definitely add SoundCloud support. Also you should let people make their own playlists/vote on playlists/etc.

Cool idea. I'm not sure how you could monetize it, though.
I'm not an American, you know. What do you consider untrue or unreasonable about my comment above?
If they can compel them to do anything they like, does the technicality of ownership really matter?

I used to trust Google but I don't trust any government, sure as hell not the most megalomaniacal and power hungry one on the entire planet. By extension the rational perspective to take in light of recent revelations is to treat all entities subject to US law as if they were the US government proper. A people who are not permitted to dissent from their government are effectively indistinguishable from it.

Concerning stuff.
... "running entirely in-memory instead of on disk." ...
Yeah one can see where problems might be. Why not just use the heap instead and have shards data + code and shard them that way? but then it won't be (R)DBMS would it.
At least it will be stored for posterity.
Not to be off-topic but because you asked...

Because the only other real options for P/VP in 2008 and 2012 were even scarier to me each time, and I live in a swing state. I also wasn't wowed by the third party candidates (but have voted for third party candidates before).
(Regarding Marginal Revolution, it is a worthwhile addition to anybody's regular blog reading list, and perfectly safe. When the FBI storm your house and search your computer it will be no more incriminating than this computer hacking site that you seem to be posting comments on.)

Your parting characterisation of the article is fairly accurate, but I have to stand in opposition to your disagreement with it. One should be afraid! So many laws so easily broken mean that one's liberty depends on inconsistent detection as much as it does good behaviour. I'm sure many look upon this as a way to give your friendly local police force a certain amount of flexibility when it comes to cracking skulls, but I for one see it in a more menacing light. I would prefer not to have to rely on the capriciousness of law enforcement.

There's a good talk video on YouTube along these lines, about how one should never talk to the police. Here's a transcript: http://bitmote.com/index.php?post/2011/12/13/Why-You-Should-... TL;DR - nothing good will ever come of talking to the police unnecessarily, because if you do, they'll almost certainly be able to find something to get you with.
> I'm not sure most Americans care.

And of those that do care, a majority feel that he committed treason and needs to be brought to justice.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/17/cnn-poll-maj...
The Bat
Working at home, about to file about a month's worth of receipts into Quickbooks. I've been putting it off for weeks.
Google is a legal entity that is effectively recognized as a person under the USG, not the other way around. Many cities are also incorperated. Are those cities not legally apart and under the influence of the USG since they are incorperated?
Yes (except I am not speaking, I'm whispering).

I never implied that posters and commentators were doing web design while using this site; I started with a comment on the dissonance of reading a statement refuting the web as a textual medium on a site that is effectively only a textual medium.
I'm working at home. Got client deadlines to meet!
>According to the article, he gave them an exclusive interview 10 days ago that they are finally publishing now.

A lot of wild interferences can be drawn from that fact, but isn't it just a common courtesy for a journalist or reporter to afford some control to a source providing information that can't be obtained elsewhere? "Off the record" and embargoed information are two widely accepted practices that exemplify giving publishing discretion to a source.
Oof. We're moving quickly out of whistleblower territory and into actual espionage.
A majority of Americans feel that he is guilty of treason:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/17/cnn-poll-maj...
I'm not sure how are you counting the death, but according to Wikipedia [1] since 2001 there are between 8 and 54 death of South Korean in incidents against North Korea.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involv...
Even with your "charitable reading" it means that he is willing to betray his own set of values

Right. I think this is critically important- and rather than attribute it to Obama being a liar, I suspect the reality is far more interesting/complicated. What would cause a person to betray their values? Certainly, the moment you are elected President you are privy to a lot more classified intelligence information than you are as a private citizen.

Something tells me we won't find out until an autobiography decades from now (if we do at all), but we'll see.
Reward based crowdfunding will become a payments/distribution mechanism for an already engaged audience rather than a free source of money for people with an idea and no way to execute on it.
I interviewed with one of the big Internet companies not too long ago and found the process pretty refreshing and quite unlike what I'd so often read about.

It opened up with a sort of multi-faceted FizzBuzz followed by long "behavioral" discussion like one of the references refers to [0].

The audition process doesn't make any sense to me. It's essentially a short duration temp-to-hire. Great people tend to be employed or at least not idle, unemployed people are looking for jobs, not 1 week gigs.

0: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-b...
So where are the Republicans when you need them, to shout down this new government regulation?
Show the % of change, and if the title is changed for each change
First off, good write up, I'm sure others will find it useful.

To your specific issue, I thought it was good programming etiquette to never modify an object you're iterating over, regardless of how the language handles such a thing. Were my instructors too strict? Is this a common idiom in other environments?
The Complexity of Communal Membership
Nothing at all. People in tech have this need to bring up how Reagan is the devil. It's very odd because it was a sitting duck presidency, if there ever was one. Hardly a Senate majority for some of the time, no house majority at any point.
Awesome, very nice interface! One thing I've been looking for for a while is last.fm support (while watching youtube videos). Any chance that could be possible?
Pairing is a common practice at companies that pair, and not a common practice at those that do not. Pairing is stil not a widely adopted practice industry-wide.

People who were taught to manage using industrial revolution management practices look ta pairing a producing half the output as could be produced by two people at two machines working in parallel.
Holder says he did not mislead Congress over reporter leak probe
Cool shit! You're missing a '>' on your </footer tag.
...but at the expense of basically everything that makes gmail useful. No search, spam filtering, filtering, google now, etc. If you want that, just use IMAP in thunderbird with PGP today.
If you had a point you were trying to make, it was lost in the absurd hyperbole.
They transmit on very specific frequencies, but they could have wide-band receivers on board, listening to whatever is interesting to the operators (filtering has to be applied because the downlink is limited).
I expect all governments to respect human rights. Article 12:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

To get somewhere as a species we need to leave behind this 'ends justifies the means' BS and start living by the principles we have all agreed to are absolute.
In Influence: Science and Practice, Robert Cialdini makes the compelling case that (non-legally-binding) petitions have a primary effect on the people signing the petition, not the explicit targets of the petition. Signing your name to a statement evokes consistency bias effects, which cause you to commit to those statements.

So they are still a useful tool for effecting change; just not for the reasons people might assume.
Regarding column layouts, great place to start is css box-sizing property
So, you are satisfied with providing one bit of information every four years? Do you think a Democracy can be sustained with this level of input?
This is funny because they've adopted the same interviewing style that large bureaucratic organizations have been using for at least a decade, even for technical positions. I went through a behavioral interview at Boeing, and then another at a large federal agency (engineering job). Technical aptitude is usually clobbered by the inability to work with people.
About what even? Haha.
If Brazilians can create a 1 million strong protest over a 0.1$ bus fare increase, I'd hope Americans from the "land of the free, home of the brave" would be able to do the same over the revealing of a massive spying apparatus that's used against Americans and completely infringing on the 4th amendment.

But even more importantly it's infringing on their human rights that should guarantee that they don't have to live in fear in a surveillance state and they have the right to anonymous speech or being able to have confidential conversations with people, without having to think that everything they say is being recorded by the government, and if if they even say the "wrong words" they may end up on certain "lists" that are monitored more heavily.
You can't bar moonlighting in a work agreement in the US.
I think this person misses the point of technical interview.
Technical interview is to assert the candidate actually has the skills and experience claimed in the resume.

When somebody is saying he or she has 20 years of C++ experience and 150 projects shipped yet he or she does not know what is virtual function - this means he or she lied on the resume. If you had not conducted a technical interview - you'd learned about this much later, at much greater cost. Chances are that somebody who lies on the resume is also good at BSing about "past projects" and "greatest achievements".

FizzBuzz or a general screen test won't help because people have different skills. If you are hiring somebody who writes Perl it's stupid to ask about C++ and vice versa.

Writing a test project - probably the best way to hire recent graduates. Probably the worst way to hire somebody who already has a job and you are desperate to poach, not really good at picking people who have several offers to choose from either.
Foreign governments can't oppress me except by invading my country. Which they might succeed at if my government does not have an effective intelligence network - the government which I depend on to protect me from that.

My own government shouldn't oppress me, and a big part of that is guaranteeing that we maintain appropriate rights and discretion in the surveillance of our own citizens.

This idea that any of this has anything to do with some universal right to privacy is farcical and naive.
> In this environment, why would a top developer, who has their choice among tens of different high-paying interesting jobs, moonlight for a prospective new employer just so they can make sure the relationship's going to work?

I have my doubts that I'm a top developer (I have a long list of things I'd like to understand/do better in order to consider myself in that category), but I've done and would consider doing a paid audition project.

The job I have right now pays market rates, offers good benefits, and involves work for famous clients. It's not a bad gig, and there are enough people who've been there for over five years that it's clearly a good environment for some. On the other hand, I don't find the work itself particularly satisfying. Most of our projects themselves are a bit staid (as projects from established brand clients who feel they have more to lose than gain from risky moves can be), and a lot of what I've ended up doing is production front-end work rather than much problem solving.

This is different from the picture I got during the interviews. That could be as much about my own ability to read what day-to-day life was likely to be like post-hire as anything else, but whether it's uniquely difficult for me or for everybody, I'm left with the same problem -- how do I get a glimpse of what working there is really going to be like?

Seems to me a paid audition is one good answer.

I'd rather do 2-3 months on contract than a 2-3 day project, but I'd rather do the 2-3 days of real work than nothing.

And I think the 2-3 days of real work idea beats another practice that's becoming prevalent: the ~1 day (unpaid!) work sample/code challenge. I don't mind such challenges in and of themselves; a small exercise can be educational and an opportunity to use all the things you've been thinking would be good ideas to fold into a new project. What I dislike is that real feedback seems to be scarce. Even the people who've hired me didn't give me much feedback beyond "it met the requirements and we learned a thing or two from your work." By the time I've invested a workday of focused time in a company, I'd appreciate a "we were hoping to see" or "here's what we liked", and I'm finding I don't get much of that from challenges/exercises. Whatever the flaws of the conventional interview process or the paid real project may be, at least they're both generally more symmetric in terms of investments required and opportunities for evaluation.
Here's the way this works: you go to a judge and certify that you have sufficient evidence to believe a reporter is guilty of a crime -- conspiring to commit treason. (He becomes an "unindicted co-conspirator") Then you tap him and suck up all emails, text messages, and phone calls for anybody he's spoken to.

Then you testify before congress that you had nothing to do with persecuting journalists simply for doing their jobs.

When congress comes knocking to ask if you've lied or not, you simply say but we had no intention of charging him anyway

You get the best of both worlds. You get all the information you need, you shut down the reporter, you put fear into the other reporters, and you get to deny that you're actually prosecuting reporters for doing their jobs.

Gotta love lawyers.
You know what I wouldn't mind seeing first? An unmanned base on the moon to work through the kinks of in-situ fabrication and resource extraction in an extraterrestrial environment. It wouldn't have to be too big and it could even be semi-tele-operated (given a lag time of seconds, rather than minutes or hours) by researchers and technicians on Earth.

If we're talking about sending people to Mars to live for long periods of time, and worrying about whether in doing so we're consigning them to miserable deaths, it seems like spending the money to work out the bugs in a non life-and-death situation might be a prudent idea. We've sent people to orbit the moon, we've landed people on the moon and robots on Mars, but we've never had people spending time on another world without relying entirely upon supplies they brought with them.
I dislike the fact that the value in range over a slice is a copy, rather than an alias, to the slice value.

It seems to me to be strictly less useful than the alternative (aliasing).

And I also don't really buy the argument that "it is a normal assignment and so has to copy", since:

i, v := range s

isn't a normal assignment. It has special rules to do with looping. Having the additional rule that v aliases to the entry seems to me to be a full win (too late to change now I guess).
Online auction
I hope for the same thing, but I suspect that I'm going to be disappointed.
Okay is it just me or does the Defence Minister look like a bobblehead doll in that pic?
And I'm surprised that people think "not being surprised" should equate to "not being appalled".
If your evidence is weak, I think it's better to leak a potentially controversial allegation well in advance of the evidence. Maybe it's conjecture from a bullet point in a PowerPoint slide?
But compare the nature and focus of the lethal attacks. Have we done anything like (and this is just from memory):

Randomly, not as part of a campaign or anything, shelled an island.

Randomly torpedoed a naval vessel.

Brought down a civilian airliner as an act of terror.

Attempted to assassinate a country's leader and take out a good fraction of his cabinet with an indiscriminate bomb on foreign soil (foreign to both; and this is a debatable point, we certainly hit with 2,000 pound bombs any place we thought Saddam was during the war in the last decade. These details, including the lack of an all out hot war, are frequently used to label this act as terrorism, plus it wouldn't have made much difference to South Korea vs. taking out someone who'd been the Maximum Leader of a country for around 3 decades).

In the save vein as the above, we might debate their regular landing of commandos (especially given the fairly random violence they then engage in) and perhaps their regular naval skirmishes.

My bottom line is that they're batshit crazy in a way we simply aren't, whatever the bottom line is in those killed and wounded. Generally you can divine a fine grained rational cause and effect from our lethal actions, the DPRKs' only in a much broader way.
I point is I can't think of any single task where a "photographers to DJs to forensic detectives to doctors without borders" (as you mentioned), needs to tug along a workstation to accomplish said task that can't be done by a macbookp pro, or any medium to high end laptop.

As a matter of fact, I have never seen or heard of instance of any tugging around their powerful station to do any special purpose work. Esp, nowadays. That just sounds like a ridiculous thing to do.
yet I find myself not blaming Obama much for this.

That's fine.

Will you blame the next president who does it?
If you've found a superstar, then surely they can skip the process. Otherwise a test drive sounds perfect. It's what you'd do in any other transaction.
There ought to be a DSM classification for this type of disorder.
We need a privacy equivalent of mutually assured destruction. All politicians submit documentation of their most hideous perversions to a central register. If the country is caught spying on another the information is released. It would also encourage people who are not bad to go into politics.
oh my...
fixed.
Let me know what and how much

The parent commenter did let you know what.
Thanks ! I use last.fm for biography, and artist image. What features would you like to see ?
Most of his works were written anonymously using a fairly ridiculous number of different Pseudonyms including Silence Dogood, Poor Richard, ect. What did he have to hide? Might as well have been a terrorist.
> if I remember correctly, because its jet engines were hugely inefficient at low speeds

Yes, turbojet vs turbofan. Turbojet only become efficient over Mach 1.

> the Concorde was the worst offender

No, I the SR 71 was worse, it literally leaked fuel:

"Similarly, the fuselage panels were manufactured to fit only loosely on the ground. Proper alignment was achieved only when the airframe heated up and expanded several inches. Because of this, and the lack of a fuel sealing system that could handle the thermal expansion of the airframe at extreme temperatures, the aircraft would leak JP-7 jet fuel on the runway."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird
Despite not being a US citizen, I fully support this petition since in a capitalistic society it isn´t up to the government to determine the way goods and services are delivered to customers. Government has only a role in policing this process for misuse and fraud.
Just because someone is an expert in the field, doesn't mean what he says is to be trusted. Some are just supporting the status quo and the "government wisdom". Some might even be paid to say what they say or be linked by contracts to such stuff.
Simply electing leaders isn't enough in systems with winner-take-all dynamics. Brazil, Turkey, and Egypt all encapsulate this basic truth.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/21/the_tyranny...
Because people have been known to have their account frozen or hell-banned for disagreeing with some other people. You never know.
Turkish drone shooting heralds a new age of civillian counter-surveillance
Except that downandout is talking about his re-election, not his original election to the presidency. In that case, it's quite obvious he knowingly lied.
We talk a little about how each one of us at Techendo does our hiring. It might offer a bit of insight on what works and what doesn't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHunZeWOrjc
At the very least he can explain why he changed his mind. I get it. I just can't trust him if he doesn't come as clean as he can about his reversal on Gitmo and surveillance and whatnot. I totally understand getting into office, seeing the real data, and saying, "I can't be the one that pulls the plug and causes people to die."

But he owes it to us to at least tell us that.
So are you saying the public is now equated to being the enemy of the state?
It is not at all shallow, but rather quite representative of the thinking of the period in which it was written, and in that light should definitely be considered a valid endeavour.

But, are you not at the very least intrigued by the irony in your expression of political correctness? This is, after all, newthink.
via Boing Boing: http://boingboing.net/2013/06/22/turkish-cops-shoot-a-protes...