skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The fire caused that roof damage.
Ripped directly from a rejection letter I received:

"I think instead of making a more detailed offer, I should consider certain facts.

For starters, you have a family and that'll be the driving force behind all your decisions. Secondly, you will not be able to be here in the program with me. Ideally, I want someone who could be here though not necessary. More importantly, it's the family situation I consider. I've worked developers before with family and the company died largely because of that. I don't want to say that'll happen but I worry.

This other candidate is like me. No responsibilities except {COMPANY NAME}. That makes life less complicated. Based on this - nothing to do with skills - it's best that him and I work together. "

The program was one of the startup accelerators (not YC). He was right that my family would have been the driving force behind all my decisions. He was wrong in thinking that's a bad thing. I can't imagine a bigger motivator than my family. When you have kids, failure just isn't an option.
Ask HN: What do you use for your mailhost?
If you don't apply for credit, it's harder to pull a credit report on you. The public record portion of a credit report is also not comprehensive - they only obtain easily gathered public information (and are usually only interested in bankruptcy and felony findings). For example, my wife's name change is not recorded in her credit report. Hence the small city, and the recommendation to use cash, not debt. The alternate names section typically relies on you obtaining credit under the new name, using the same SSN.

Your SSN is only going to really be used for a very specific set of instances - most frequently job related (and then protected by a number of laws).

There will always be a trail for someone to follow, but as long as you don't have someone with the resources of the government looking for you, the trail will be very hard to follow.
I think you're getting the words, 'Across' and 'Around' mixed up.
Does the NFL have a crime problem?
by your statement you'd almost think people like margaret thatcher, Dilma Rousseff and benazir bhutto never existed.
True. Fallujah, being an example of SWAT team over-reaction
On a nationstate level.

the more direct problem that there is no a preponderance of
ex-soldiers, weapons, and an entire industrial base massively expanded and looking for civilian roles now everyone can see wars winding down and this kind of thing
will be more prevalent.

All the forces mentioned in the article (including "militarisation" are conspiring in a self-reinforcing system)

It's hard to see how to move away ("what you think our boys in blue should not have body armour? APCs?")
While I'm not a fan of Sarbox, I don't think we can simply say that it's going to single-handedly create this two-tiered system. It's not like every private company that would have had access to public capital much earlier would have grown 500x. Microsoft and Facebook are the outliers, not the norm. Not to mention that Sarbox has nothing to do with what defines "accredited". Congress can and has changed that definition at will, including raising the limits necessary under the Obama administration due to Dodd Frank.

That said, Sarbox has had so many unintended consequences and resulted in so much destroyed value that I do believe it should be curtailed in one fashion or another.
Fatal crashes like this are rare enough to make the headlines, but near-accidents, non-fatal accidents and other minor events could be better documented and help improve the overall safety and efficiency.

Given the current low price of high-quality video equipment, and the cost of both safety equipment and investigation, even in minor cases, this sounds actually like a good idea. Footage could be deleted quickly if nothing eventful happens, reducing the costs even further.

It would be much more helpful and less privacy-invasive than the rest of the airport camera circuit, and probably cheaper.
If you take that point of view, than all of this advice about how to dress in a professional environment is irrelevant to most of us.
Without democratic collective purchases, it's precisely the wealthy elites who are most able to afford things. (Virtually by definition.)

What did this 19th century fellow know of efficient public healthcare, roads, the publicly funded research which led to things like computers and the internet? What about cooperatives, a natural way to purchase things which none of the participants could afford individually?

Part of the right wing likes to frame itself as anti-statist. (And are trotted out when anyone proposes funding anything decent, rather than ways to kill and control.) But of course, the "socialists" are the most serious about transcending these violent nation-states. Take the Occupy movements, influenced by "anarchists" (and think what you will about them, but these socialists aren't exactly the biggest supporters of nation-states).

As mentioned, it's hard for people in non-democratic societies to imagine how to rationally team together to allocate funds. In such hierarchical societies, wealthy/powerful elites make such decisions; the rest are supposed to obey their bosses every working day, in their corporate communes. Like indoctrinated cult members, we often have a difficult time imagining how to rationally function and accomplish simple goals as a horizontal team.
Understanding “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.”
Yes, thank you, that was a wise suggestion. When the story appeared there were no details just a "plane off the runway" notice.

I've been banned before, a few times. This can be a curious place.
> If you get to leave to take care of your kid, I should get to leave to take care of my pets.

You can. Suggesting otherwise is a flat out lie.

> especially those who game the benefits system or who play politics.

You mean those that take what's offered to them? So…

You don't take pay? You don't vacation?

I mean, we already know you don't think you can leave.

And, maybe the bigger problem is you don't see why companies would want to do this. How it makes the company better as a whole to provide for this.
The cost is trivial in proportion to the benefit (and pretty trivial in absolute terms; for a few thousand you could have a high resolution image shooting at a high frame rate). Most car journeys don't involve an accident either, it's just that there's so many of them.
> being constantly alert

A good or a retarded dad? I am not sure. What trouble a 0-4 month old baby could get into if you put him in a place where he could not fall?
Becoming more cynical, I'm convinced most laws are vetted by the powerful to ensure their interests are preserved.

Why should we think Sarbox is any different?
Yes, but that's like saying Perl got there first before Python or Ruby. GorillaScript, CoffeeScript, TypeScript, etc. all basically use Javascript as a platform, and there should be room for all of them in the long run. (Or, at least room to let the market sort out which ones they like the best).

BTW, this got me thinking: are the Javascript envine vendors (V8, etc.) doing anything to make it easier to write languages like GorillaScript or CoffeeScript? Or is it all up to the language designers?
I used to naively assume that intelligence implied rationality. An old work colleague taught me differently.

My old work friend was really intelligent. He had been considering a PhD in philosophy and had problems to stop talking about Wittgenstein.

On one hand, this guy had a large interest -- and deep studies -- on the subjects of language meaning, epistemology, logic, the scientific method, etc.

On the other hand, he believed in conspiracy theories like being a 9/11 truther, etc.

I tried to discuss this contradiction with him, but probably tried to reason on a too low level. I argued that there is an infinite number of conspiracy theories that would satisfy the available facts. It might have worked better to simply ask: "What does your philosophy studies say about conspiracy theories based on hand picked facts?"

Such a sad, sad waste of a good brain.
"oh and you're filming it!"

Yeah seems like a legit reason for excitement.
Actually, we know a great deal about weight gain in the micro sense that is explained by insulin. Jeez, point after point you've made are answered in that Taube youtube link in this thread. You could have your answers if you just clicked the link, opened your mind, and thought about what the guy said.

At the end of the day, here's what I know from going on and off low-carb eating for the last ten years.

I eat carbs, I crave carbs, I binge eat, I gain lots of weight. Contrarily: I stop eating carbs, I lose the cravings, I eat moderately, salads even look satisfying, I lose weight.

Oh, for those of you who are fans of the Security Now podcast, Steve Gibson went into geeky detail in his switch to a low carb diet: https://www.grc.com/health/lowcarb-podcasts.htm
> Hey, just because I don't have a kid, doesn't mean I shouldn't get time off - why punish me for that. Not fair. I'll take my time off to work on my own projects.

Go ahead? Who is stopping you?

In fact, if you aren't doing this, you are a worse entrepreneur by far. It's been proven, time and time again, that you need to take time off. You need to step away. You need to leave work.

If you aren't doing this, you're the one dragging the work quality of everyone else around you.
I guess you could argue that the advent of quantum computing is making everything old, like McEliece, new again. But I disagree with your premise. This book was written at a time when elliptic curves were more useful as a factoring method than as a cryptographic design tool.

Modern concepts, algorithms, and constructions that a designer might not have at their disposal if they rely on Menezes:

* Elliptic curve cryptography, which is supplanting RSA (and Rabin) and conventional DH, both of which are looking increasingly sketchy in 2013.

* Secure RSA padding for encryption (OAEP) and signatures (PSS), or, really, any discussions of the problems that motivate those formats --- Menezes does point out that you don't want to use low-public-exponent RSA with repeated messages, but a modern take on RSA would say that you don't ever want to send repeated messages at all.

* Counter mode, which is presented briefly as a small tweak to OFB mode with no description of its pitfalls; CTR is the second-most popular mode used today and increasingly the first choice of new systems.

* Modern bulk encryption --- XEX, XTS, &c.

* Encrypt-then-MAC (Menezes presents the opposite); in fact, modern crypto is at pains to ensure that encryption and integrity are co-specified and interoperate safely; a designer could be forgiven for reading Menezes and not including explicit integrity checks at all.

* The authenticated encryption modes CCM, GCM, EAX, and OCB.

* Modern CSPRNGs, including entropy collection and management and handling the cold-start problem.

* Any discussion of side channel attacks (in fact, Menezes predates Vaudenay and Bleichenbachers block cipher and RSA [respectively] error side channels so doesn't even discuss padding oracles).

It's not true that robust cryptography appreciates maturity. The ~twenty years since Menezes wrote HOAC haven't just been spent inventing whizz-bang new toys, but also in finding new ways to break the old toys. You're not always OK if you eschew the new stuff for the "mature" stuff; some of the mature tools are perilous to work with now.

That's an annoying thing about working with crypto (and a fun thing about breaking it) --- designers have to know what parts of the literature they need to adopt, like safe RSA padding schemes, and what parts they need to hold off on, like homomorphic encryption.

For what it's worth: I like Menezes a lot as a resource for practicing attacks. Menezes also does a much better job on theory than even _Practical Cryptography_ (which is a great book, and probably the only crypto book most people should own). It's a good book. Just be careful working from it.

(I'm not trying to call you out; I just think this is a fun thing to talk about.)
I didn't find it to be a good user experience. The GUI is OK, but when I talk about UX, I'm talking about more than that. I'm talking about what it feels like to visit the product's site for the first time with no clue what it is.

Go to the GPG Tools homepage. It's kind of a mess of links, without a dead-obvious path for the absolute beginner. Should I click "Quickstart tutorial" or "introduction?" Or should I just download the installer, which is my first step for 90% of applications? And the experience doesn't get less confusing when you get past the home page. If anything, it gets more so.

GPG Tools strikes me as a project that is by hackers, for hackers. Nothing wrong with that. But it's very different from what I envision. I want a UX that holds my hand. It should be like a teacher, patiently guiding me through everything I need to know to use GPG.

Fortunately, the mental model for how GPG works isn't actually that complicated. I think most people can understand, for example, what key signing is, if it's explained well.

Apologies to the maintainers of the GPG Tools. Their work is admirable and greatly exceeds the whole lot of nothing I've contributed. I'm hoping this will be interpreted as constructive criticism.

> However, it's still a minor pain to use for web-based email.

I don't see this problem being solved without something implemented in native code. See:

http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/

There have been proposals to add a crypto API to browsers, where such API would be implemented in native code. I.e. you could call the API from JS, but the algorithms would all run in native code. I don't know if any of these proposals will go anywhere.

Conceivably, one could also just up and write C modules for popular browsers. But then you'd have to get those accepted by the browser makers.

Either of these solutions is beyond the scope of what I envision, at least for now.
Now it makes sense. Where is this demo page linking to the playground?
To the OP just curious -- are you a licensed pilot? Not to question you since you did say this was just speculation but just wondering. It's pretty well informed.
"The mechanism of death from such doses (1.2% of body weight, or 0.84 kg for a 70 kg human) is unknown, but may be more mechanical than chemical. The LD50 in humans remains unknown, given lack of any accidental or intentional poisoning death data."

That seems an awfully low threshold for "strong enough to kill".
There is a funny podcast (accidental tech podcast) episode where Marco and Casey discuss how they had to explain to the phone camera operator how important it is to shoot landscape, all whilst going round the Nuremberg ring.
Wow. You really don't get it.

And you've never been a co-founder of any real startup, have you? I mean, I can't imagine anyone who has raised money and hired people and had gone that route to really pose this type of question, especially in this context.

You should take a step back, leave the office, and think about why so many people are telling you that you are flat out wrong.
Aspartame, the artificial sweetener in many diet soda products, is a controversial topic. For many years it was thought that it may cause insulin spikes or even increase the risk of cancer. But studies have shown that the folk-lore links between aspartame and cancer have been unmerited.

The most convincing argument to avoid aspartame has been a behavioral reason. Sweets beget sweets. By enjoying an artificially-sweet diet soda it will be easier to choose a conventional sweet treat if you wander back into the kitchen.

Also, as anyone who has abstained from sweets can attest, after a few days the idea of sweet candies just don't sound appealing.
Nice! Let's all do that.

>Imagine if an American said he was going across the "world" from New York to California.

Imagine if they did it too. It would be quite mind expanding for people to see that not everybody lives like they do in California or Iowa or New York or Texas.

TV can only get you that far -- you have to experience it too. There are people in New York that are more provincial (in relation to the ways of the world) than people in Idaho, and vice versa.
You received a rejection letter that basically lists illegal reasons (in most states I'm aware of) for rejecting you. You were lucky not to get that job, as the boss is clueless about the legal responsibilities of hiring supervisors. You have a basis for a lawsuit there, if you need the money or want to make a point. If you are not litigious (I am not litigious either, so I respect anyone's decision to decline to exercise legal rights), you at least there have tangible evidence that there is some better employer in the world whom you would be better off working for. Good luck in your career. Good on you to think about your family responsibilities while participating in the competitive world of work.
Did you attend the Restore the 4th protests on July 4th? That's the main movement right now to fight back.
While I don't think the conclusion ("don't talk to the police") is necessarily wrong, I don't think the logic is valid at all, much less "straightforward".
The US does not have and never has had recurring terrorist events, which is what is needed to inflict the kind of dread you are talking about as a first-order effect. To the extent Americans fear terrorism, it is self-inflicted fear, stemming from media hype and PR for security theatre. The same amount of hype could have us ripping out bathtubs, or being screened for hammer purchases.
That's what gets lost in this, in my opinion. Certainly there is a big upside that is missed out on, the article makes a good point. But at the same time, SOX burdens companies to have to meet very strict reporting policies, which ultimately is good for the average investor(s) (in my opinion). Not to beat a dead horse, but how did Enron work out for the average Joe/Jane?
Is it naive to say that any change in terms of discrimination will have to come from within? What are effective ways we can improve the situation, globally? The imperial solution is right out, it causes a lot of harm and probably flat out does not work. Think global act local, and work on getting rid of discrimination of women and others in our own societies? Lean on governments to legislate societal change or at least stop legislating the status quo? Cut economic ties to punish discrimination, or increase them in the hope that this will, somehow, lead to a globalization of our attitude?

I'm sure many people here will stress the positive effect easy communication can have on the issue; global communication gives people a glimpse into other, less discriminatory regimes, local communication brings together people who might feel isolated otherwise and lets them organise. I suppose the cell phone has done a lot to improve the situation, in its way; even if she had to hide her (male) contacts under female pseudonyms, it offered her a way of communicating in a clandestine manner, that feature not being limited to talking to guys, obviously.
I think you might get a call from a chief pilot for an anomalous approach, whether you salvage it at last minute or go around. If there's a pattern of things not going by the book, would guess you get sent for 'retraining' before you get fired... airline version of big data FTW I guess...
Yeah, I have been using this for a few days, and it is very nice.
No worries. I was confrontational in my post.

Let me clarify: I'm not saying MVP (or pre-profit product) developers should ignore accessibility. I'm saying they shouldn't spend too high a portion of their time worrying about it. If a product fails some measure of accessibility it has a bug which will need to be fixed at some point. Just because it's a bug that you are aware of and it's easier to detect than other bugs doesn't mean that it should stop you from trying to sell the product. A buggy product with some income is more likely to succeed than an apparently bug-free product and no income.

I've worked with blind coworkers in the past and have tried using screen readers myself so I have some appreciation of the challenges. Thank you for the link, it's always good to have a reminder. It sounds like the employer in question and Siebel should have had legal action taken against them. They're both clearly of a size where they can and should be doing better. This is another example of why we need brilliant web developers building businesses that can destroy backwards companies like those.

How do you get on with Hacker News? I just put it through a checker and it appears to be pretty appalling. Would it be better if pg shut down Hacker News completely until the issues it found are resolved?
Ask HN: Is someone looking for a roommate in the bay area?
Preferably close to a Caltrain station.
I don't understand. How does clothing choice have anything to do with respecting your co-workers? I think being judgmental about someone's sense of style is more disrespectful to your co-workers than wearing fitting, popular clothing.
I just read this article and it blew my mind. What type of "special relationship" are they referring to in the decision?
Definitely not intimating that "HN is dying," more pointing out that pure community-based "karma" systems will veer towards popular politics in the given community. Considering the concept that such a transition is universal for any site that doesn't heavily moderate - as politics seem to the #1 sport in the world.
> Sadly, making driving licenses is not too hard

The hard part, I imagine, is testing that's a good-enough fake. Standing in front of the passport agent or getting pulled over are probably the worst possible times to learn your print was an eighth of an inch off in the wrong place.
CUE – ROUTINE – REWARD (THE CRR PRINCIPLE).
> managers are generally better-dressed (ignoring Zuckerberg, the exception to this rule)?

Managers dress better because they have a softer skill set that depends more on perception than hard results. Zuckerberg is a hacker, with a hacker's mindset. That's why he doesn't dress up.
What is a "special relationship" in this context?
If sarbox did indeed cause delayed IPOs to the extent described here, author didn't even try to make a case for it, he just said it is so.
I don't think it's society, especially when it's a society in a country that traditionally values freedom and individuals' rights. What is behind this new culture of fear is politics: fear is great for manipulating the masses, most effective when those who promote it can present themselves as a solution.
Venezuela: Snowden has until Monday to respond to asylum offer
I am six feet tall, constantly 5-10 pounds underweight. I eat as much as I can, always. I scare people with the amount I eat. My usual helping size is generally twice what most people take (which can cause friction if I'm not careful). I never, ever fluctuate in weight beyond the five pound fluctuations.

You lose weight by eating less calories than your body uses. (As a corollary, you almost definitely consume more calories than you think you do. Get a calorie-counting app.)

Obviously this is true on some level but it's truth doesn't seem establish any automatic or definite cause-and-effect relationship between the amount of food a given person eats and their weight gain or loss. Some people may indeed find their consumption determine weight gain or loss. Fine but don't assume your experience will automatically carry to others.

I recall current research has shed light on some complexities of this. Perhaps someone has a link.