skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If I understand you right, you're saying you support the state punishing people for saying dumb things

I don't. I oppose it strongly[1][2]. I just think the kid is also in the wrong (albeit less so). Sometimes people argue free speech as an excuse to say anything - and while I'd rather live in a world where people have the freedom to say whatever they want, I also think people have a moral obligation to be mindful of the audience they communicate with.

A wedding speech is an example of this. The best man has to strike the balance between embarrassing the groom while still keeping content appropriate for kids and grandparents. So some of the jokes that the groom and friends would laugh at in private might be best censored from the public version.

Granted that example is a really mild scenario that most people wouldn't consider "self-censorship" (if just because it's what most people do in their daily lives without much thought), but it demonstrates how we have a responsibility not to abuse our free speech by now considering the audience we're talking to. And that is where people run into problems.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991208

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991171

> but feel that it shouldn't be too harsh because otherwise people won't say important things.

And this is just another example of how some individuals think they can post all sorts of rude bullshit online because "freedom of speech" gives them the right to behave like pillocks.

Given the number of times I've stated and clarified the point that I'm not trying to ban free speech nor am I justifying the teenagers jail time (which is unjustifiable), you have no excuse to behave that way. But who cares about having a sensible conversation when you can beat your chest like the alpha male you assume to be.

The ironic thing is, when people like yourself make insulting remarks like that, you force others to question whether they can be bothered to expose themselves by giving an honest -if potentially unpopular- opinion. So you're effectively encouraging self-censorship by posting trolling remarks.
How Google Killed My Product
The message they are sending is not:

"think twice before you leak"

but:

"prepare multiple exit strategies before you leak"
The world is too connected.
Lots of local and expensive labor can now be outsourced to el-cheapo locations.
Which means CEO can produce same stuff at less cost, keeping more profit.
It's almost like law of physics - energy flows along the pathways of least resistance.
>> Let's give 92% of all of the income that the rich people make to the poor. How much will there be to go around? Not enough by a long shot. If we taxed the rich at 100% it wouldn't even cover the budget deficit for one year.

This is a bit of a non sequitur. The budget doesn't only go on the poor.
misleading, as in, the minor increase in sea ice is insignificant compared to the massive amount of land ice that has melted.
Fucking gorgeous preso i developed when fundraising for my last startup
http://pitchbook-app.appspot.com/index.html
WHY DO I NEED TO KEEP RETURNING TO THE FRONT PAGE?
This is annoying. I load up some articles in tabs, then while reading them it forces me back to the front page, saying I am trying to get to a link that is expired. WTF?
You might want to leave your cellphone at home for this one:

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/security_expert_all_occupier...
> Well, if enough people agree with the statement it's ok to do xyz as the internet isn't real life (or implicitly agree with by behaving in such a manner), then it seems to me to be a reasonable default position to take. You and I might disagree, but that's just two data points. We probably shouldn't legislate or even feel too smug about our minority taste, as much as it is a minority taste.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But I do appreciate your point :)

> Regarding private conversations, I agree that the internet offers the capability to have private conversations, but I'm arguing that the medium tends toward people having fewer of them nevertheless.

That's a good point. And I think you're right.
Do you know how your Cloud resolves DNS?
They are different but also related.

Programmers that don't know basics about network are very often poor programmers as well. Most programmers must be able to set up build servers, test environments etc that they need. Of cause the sysadmin can do it for them, but in that case they have to wait until he have time, and even then they will get poorer understanding of the system. Also a lot of programmers need to know network basics because their application has a network component. It is also important for a programmer to understand what he need to make a system administration friendly, like easy to install and upgrade, sensible logs when things go wrong etc. They don't need to be able to take over the sysadmin's job the next day, but should understand what the job is about.

Sysadmins on the other hand need to at least be able to script common tasks and write plugins for monitoring software and be able do some customization of the systems. They don't need to be able to, or use the methods for developing large complex system, but I expect a good sysadmin to know programming and scripting in some form.
I'm sorry, I meant the really old style analog clocks with a pendulum. After a while, they will swing in unison.

http://www.math.kyushu-u.ac.jp/eng/pages/laboratory04.html

Technically, they do "talk" to each other: "the two pendulums would exert a force on each other through minute vibrations in the wall". I would argue humans do the same. And not just "the" powerful either, everybody does. Sometimes for fun, sometimes for gain, sometimes just to be social, but hardly ever with a clearly formulated "plan", or meetings in dimly lit rooms. That's just not necessary when you already noticed you're in agreement with someone about crucial things, simply because you're both doing them.

Also, it's perfectly normal for people to "conspire" to do something without any of them even reflecting on what they're doing individually, much less as a group. It's possible to work in unison towards a common goal without even being consciously aware of that. Kinda like a flock of birds, or pendulum clocks :P
Wow, the amount of bullshit in this comment is mind blowing.

So only a hardcore developer who can setup mutt in 2 minutes, customizes Emacs in his sleep, write code in Assembler needs cryptography? Anyone who wants an easier UI to handle crypto doesn't deserve to use it, right? The rest of the people are just riding the bandwagon because they think it's cool and don't really have any secrets?

You go so far as to call all of them stupid.

Just who in the world do you think you are?
Warren Buffet is a noted advocate for higher taxes, and very few people have more to lose from higher taxes than he does.
In my understanding of the word capital gains are a subset of income.
Ridiculous by whom? It wouldn't surprise me if we spied on our allies citizens and then sold the intelligence to our allies so they didn't have to.

I mean, we have in the past warned allies that one of their citizens was planning an attack. It should have been obvious that meant we were monitoring their citizens.
"In the words of Tammy Thomas, whose similar story is told in my new book, “The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America,” these people do what they’re supposed to do. They have to navigate this heartless economy by themselves. And they keep sinking and sinking."

What the fuck?

The country I grew up in didn't tell people what to do. People were encouraged to figure out what needed doing. Then they went and did it.

I think we do a great disservice to the poor to focus on jobs as some ends to themselves. They are not. Jobs are the result of innovation and entrepreneurship. Not everybody has to be an entrepreneur, but you need enough of them to keep things mixed up constantly for everybody else. There is no "play by the rules". That's bullshit. You either live your own dream or somebody else's. There is no middle ground. You don't just "create jobs" for people who "follow the rules". This is not a maternal society. This is organized chaos, where the chaos is creatively destroying things that don't work and replacing them with new things as humanity moves along.

God, I hate this navel-gazing pulp.
Caricature of Rand herself, not her followers.
So should the Stanleys get paid more? Let's say the CEO makes $15 million leading 10,000 workers. Let's just pay the CEO zero and divide up the money. We can give each worker a $1500 yearly raise. Sure, that'll change things. What CEO who has proven his value at leading the large organization would work for nothing? There's a scarcity of CEO skills and an abundance of lower skilled labor. Supply and demand are unbreakable laws of nature. If I am at a pure mountain stream, why would I pay a guy standing next to me $5 for a cup of water from that same stream? If I'm in the desert, I would have no problem paying $20 for that same cup.

Interestingly, many folks asking other people to get paid less or contribute more have no problem consuming other people's hard work for free -- specifically folks that have no problem with software piracy, for instance. Under some theories, the CEO is getting rich "off the work of others," yet hypocritically, people seem to have no problem pirating music and software -- which is effectively getting "rich" off of someone else's work.
Hope it passes. Edward is almost like a refugee (Palestinian or Syrian) - forced to leave his country, can't go back home, and no other country will accept him. Perhaps he should head for and remain on a vessel in International Waters?
"NSA does not object to any lawful, peaceful protest."

But we will be monitoring those that organise and participate, and attach nice little red flags next to their names.

"NSA and its employees work diligently and lawfully every day, around the clock, to protect the nation and its people."

I disagree with only one word of the above sentence.
Its a little distorted to me at least, that the very people we employ would take a perspective of granting concent to its employers.
You don't get given the oil money, the whole idea is to invest it for when the oil runs out.
The idea of a fixed income replacing welfare has been around a long while (I posited it in my role-playing setting -- ForeScene: The Flawed Utopia back in 1986 after reading somewhere that it would be cheaper to simply pay everyone a salary than run the welfare system). Today, I think it only really makes sense if there are controls on reproduction and immigration (my setting had controls on both).
It isn't an incorrect caricature if "a lot of her advocates are purely self-interested idiots".

Does not follow... The fact that a lot of Christians are raving fundamentalists who reject science and logic, is not a reflection on Christ... likewise, that a lot of self-described Randians may be "purely self-interested idiots" is no reflection on Rand. Rand can't control what the people who come after her and claim association with her name do, any more than Jesus can. Substitute any other famous/influential character from history for Rand or Jesus in the above, and the point remains the same.
> Nobody ever offers his own money, though.

A lot of people offer their money. Most countries have social security systems, which were voted in by people who stand to lose money over them. If I give a homeless guy $10,000, that won't stop all the other homeless guys from causing me all the problems that they cause (like not buying enough stuff to provide me with a better job, or clogging up the local emergency ward because they got pneumonia). But if I conspire (with a few fellow voters) to give $10,000 to all the homeless guys, then the problem is partially solved.

And it's not like all these countries with social security nets are forcing rich people to pay for it. It's no secret that the truly rich often don't pay taxes.
The money Nissan spent on legal fees may have been better spent buying his business outright.

It may still have legs if they can put a value not having control over nissan.com.
Thank you for your service, in uniform and in civies.
You may be interested (or incensed) about Matt Besser's "May I Help You, Dumbass?" project, where he got sick of people calling his phone number, which was previously an AOL support line:

http://www.amazon.com/May-Help-You-Dumbass-Explicit/dp/B003V...
That wasn't a thought experiment. It was a bunch of predictions with no supporting evidence.
Lack of evidence for side channels is not good enough. You deserve an encryption system that's carefully constructed to prevent all known forms of leakage.

The usual side channel is timing. Some numeric operations take longer than others depending on the key, and an adversary can measure these to narrow down possible keys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_attack

Javascript engines have complicated numeric type conversion rules, together with single-entry type caches that seem very likely to leak.
Another thing one could try is to give everyone a guaranteed low wage job. This has fewer perverse incentives.

It would also help government budgets - for example, BART trains could be cleaned by some unemployed individual making $10k/year rather than some unionized worker making $75k + benefits (or whatever the exact numbers are).
Sky Deutschland to broadcast adverts directly into train passengers' heads
"Uncaught TypeError: Object [object Object] has no method 'tagsInput' "
Nice link. The same article points out that greater benefits are available in some parts of the US (Massachusetts being cited). The thing in the US isn't so much the lack of such benefits, but the difficulty in obtaining them.
Ask HN: Anyone using a chromebook?
As per the title - anyone using a chromebook with chrubuntu or crouton for dev? What are your impressions? I'm looking for a new machine that will be predominantly an "on the road" laptop - I want something light and quick and I'm trying to decide if a chromebook would fit the bill or if I should just stump up and get a macbook air?
Also known as quadrillions.
US Basic Income Guarantee Network
http://www.usbig.net/index.php
I think sysadmins period are shrinking. Most companies are just signing up to cloud products and using feudal security. The only jobs I've seen locally here advertising for sysadmins required that you had fluency in C/python. Everything else is just a $14/hr desktop tech support position.
"Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us." Tolstoy
Happy 4th of July, fellow Americans.
This. Every time someone gets flamed, you get the same crowd of people going "what an asshole". Except, oh wait, the person got flamed for breaking userspace and not fessing up to it, or providing a false sense of security to people whose lives depend upon it. And in each case, these weren't newbies - they had been warned before and should have known better. It's not just ignorance, it's willful, practically malicious ignorance.

Wake up. This isn't some social media photo-sharing app. This is the literal definition of mission critical software. Being an asshole is the cost to pay to either a) convince incompetent people to stop wasting everyone else's time or b) convince them to become competent.

You know why I don't write and release crypto software? Because I know I'm not qualified to.
Where can you find the fastest growing transit system in the U.S.? Utah...
Brilliant article. There's a great list of current-gen distributed things towards the end, but we still need people who make things to keep making non-centralized usable platforms. Get us out of gmail-istan and fadbook-istan and hn-monsterator-istans. Give us our nerdependence back.
Ok, then how about for primaries [0]? People have to register for those and provide proof in order to vote during those in a way that's not anonymous, right?

But even the process that people would have to go through to even get something like that up and running would be too heavily influenced by the ever printed federal reserve notes flowing into the beltway.

The way people state we can participate in the system just seems so moot when I think about it. Which is probably why I don't vote and because subversion seems to be the only thing working these days that is in the interests of the people and not just what we are told where our interests should lie…

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588
There is no evidence that there is an efficient competitive market for CEOs.
Thanks, looking into it right now :)
I think we are getting this when we embedded youtube / tumblr videos.
This is a really gross attitude, and it's even grosser that you dress it up like some macho rite-of-passage. Call it what it is: A bunch of bitter nerds taking their pent-up anger out on random newbies. It's the fraternity hazing of the tech world, it's bullshit, and it needs to stop. It doesn't need other bitter nerds treating it like it's normal.

Instead of expecting newbies to know they're going to be met with a storm of putrid shit should they speak a syllable out of line, how about we expect our moderators and leaders have some degree of social skill?
I don't like this article; I find it argumentatively weak. I fully agree with the premises and conclusions, but the path it takes to get there is severely lacking. So I'm going to offer a better path.

Critics of the welfare state, like Murray, prefer to talk about choice rather than hardship. Their general argument can be summed up as, "They made poor choices, and are now facing the consequences of those choices." The problem with this perspective isn't the profound lack of empathy, but rather a presumption that there exists a system of perfect information that everyone is tapped into.

Choices have consequences. But we rarely see the many possibilities a choice can yield, let alone the probable weightings of each one. Even granted the great presumption that everyone should be perfectly rational, it still depends on perfect information. "She shouldn't have had a child with the wrong guy," says Murray, and Maharidge seems to just accept this. The proper response would have been to dig deeper. Should she have made sure that she couldn't have children first before having sex? Should she have not had sex? How could she verify that that guy was the right guy?

And this still presumes that she had a choice in having sex with him in the first place. But perhaps more to the point, how would she have known each of those things? How would she have discovered that birth control exists? How would she have been afforded sex education and family planning strategies? This isn't a feminism/sexism issue, though I'm veering a little too close to that.

We know things because we learn them. We hear about them through rumor and this is filtered through whatever heuristics and analytical brain software we happen to have available. And yet these pathways for comprehending information and sifting truth are built on trial and error. We learn something; we believe it; we find that a certain part wasn't true after all; we adjust; we move on.

This process happens. We make mistakes. That's how we learn what consequences exist to the choices we make. Yes, we make bad choices, but this is frequently, virtually always, because we could not see with perfect clarity what consequences there would be. That's what experimentation is. Because at the end of the day, we don't really have a choice. We can't change the laws of physics so that a ball we throw into the air doesn't come back down. I might choose to throw the ball up, but I can't choose whether or not it comes back down. The limit of choice is reality, and we do not have a perfect understanding of reality.

By placing the burden of consequences on those who did not know them before making the choice, you ask them to supercede reality. That's something of a stretch in to call a reasonable expectation.

When you talk to hardworking poor people about their lives, you'll find that a common question is, "What could I have done differently? How could I have done better?" And I ask you this: if choice is the final word, why are these questions being asked?
I think the US government has made it very clear that they couldn't care less what you think if you aren't a citizen.
Have you considered Bitcoin for your payments?
Fund my world domination?
And it's not like all these countries with social security nets are forcing rich people to pay for it.

This is very true. America leans more heavily on the rich to pay for government than the rest of the OECD. Only Australia even comes close.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-...
The degree of US's actions for catching Snowden ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5982842 ) despite previous statements of Obama suggesting otherwise is puzzling.

I hope the law gets passed.
I'm growing increasingly concerned about the tone here in HN whenever something is posted about the NSA. This statement on July 4th demonstrations is essentially non-news. Why isn't it more likely that the NSA was getting a ton of media requests for a statement and decided to make it official that they wouldn't make a public objection to the protests? I'd like to see us (the HN community) continue to engage in thoughtful discussions, but the reactions I'm seeing right now are distractions from that. Let's not derail the conversation. Stick to facts where you can, request information where you don't have facts, and make your position known on what we would like to see our government(s) put in place to secure our freedoms and protect us. Let's not muddy the waters any further. Happy 4th.
It's also worth pointing out that social mobility in the US is very low.[1]The single greatest predictor to your future wealth is your parent's wealth, which obviously you had nothing to do with.

1) http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/social-mobi...
Future Java by Oracle - License to Code
This is an interesting book about how to effect change in organizations: http://www.hackingwork.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H07pbDhBgXg

Btw, what are some of those potential improvements that you have identified? :)
I find your description of human lives as 'things that don't work' to be utterly sickening. The mind of an individualist is a scary place.
Not the parent and I don't totally agree with his position, but I can certainly relate.

>(1) You don't like the engineering part of software development, finding it too tedious or something?

I find the engineering of software fascinating. I've found the glacial pace and ceremony of most software development teams I've been exposed to unbearable.

I can't imagine this is intrinsic to software development, more likely a clash of cultures and eras.

For example, during my longest stint in a sysadmin role (~10 years) I supported and migrated between a continuously shifting mix of OS/2, Windows, AIX, Solaris, NetWare and all sorts of Linux speaking SNA, IPX, TCP/IP on EoC, TR etc.

I did this while accommodating and often clashing with internal developers who had been working the same codebase the entire time.

Again, I don't mean to present this as something necessarily true of all development vs administration as a whole, but I've seen it and heard similar experiences related enough to think that it's not uncommon.

>(2) You feel like you're more badass for having to get shit done in a much smaller time frame.

Well, "badass" seems a bit condescending.

When a sysadmin needs to get things done in 20 or 45 minutes, there's a good chance his job depends on it. Though they generally wouldn't choose to put in positions like that, I have found that people who excel in the role are the ones who can stay cool, thrive under intense pressure.
I think the OP is just speaking to the NSA's capability and their activity that has recently come to light.
"Revolution"
The phrasing is that much more confusing because France is a long scale country, so "one thousand trillion" is the valid way to say 10^21. If 1 byte = 1 metadata element (unlikely), that's a zettabyte. Which is probably not what's meant.

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