skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There is a lack of information here to correctly apportion blame between the government and the contractor here. While the general goals are certainly technically achievable, there are 44,000 pages of regulations generated from the affordable care act, in addition to the over 1,000 pages in the law itself. Just to dig through that and pull out everything related to insurance policy offering is going to take some serious time. In addition, each state has unique health care laws and regulations regarding the offer of insurance in that state.

However, the biggest problem I have heard of is simply stupid requirements from the government. Rather than have an open market where an individual insurance customer or any curious person could look at all of the products and prices, they make you verify your identity first. Why would they do this? They were afraid that people would get sticker shock from looking at insurance prices that didn't include the money they would be getting from taxpayers to defray the cost. This lack of trust in us has caused a lack of trust in their system.

It would seem that one thing that independent developers that want to help out could do would be to extract all of the useful data from the site. Gather all of the data about the plans and the pricing, and then make that available in a static searchable, filterable, browsable fashion without having to log in. Then, once people were able to do that, they could then go through the arduous identity verification process to qualify for a subsidy and get one of the plans. If it takes to long to crawl it out of the system, maybe you should file a FOIA request?

Once you get a basic information system up and running, and ad funded, you could then hook it up to connect you to the live site.
There's no way to know what the main chain is if you're only connected to attackers who are relaying blocks from a fork.
Giving up, the guy that didn't and the world's toughest journey
The only real thing that seems "evil" is the requirement for OEMs to not manufacture _any_ devices compatible with non-Google forks. The rest of it seems pretty necessary in order to keep carriers and OEMs in line. A lesson Microsoft learned, and why Windows Phone started off by allowing the user to remove any pre-installed crap.

If Google didn't do any of this, and was totally altruistic, Samsung and others would already have completely screwed things up.

While it's certainly very much to Google's benefit, it also benefits most users because overall, Google has done a far better job than any OEM regarding user experience.
Hervé Falciani: The 'Edward Snowden' of banking
I remember having to write some long code for localStorage that changes binary to 32 bit and then back to binary. Nice!
The insane (From my ruby perspective) source dependency "management" setup was one of the main reasons I have not got into Go properly.

Do you have a link with more information on how they are changing it?
Brian said it better than I could. We can disagree with parts of organizational policy while still being happy with the whole. This is not unique to Google or even to employers. Any large organization will have things you don't like.

Also, I guess what I was really getting at is that I don't think the attitude is that cavalier in any case. People recognize that having to adopt a new API when we close a product sucks. But that is not the only consideration when deciding whether to continue. That's probably about as much as I can say while remaining vague enough to satisfy my conscience on the point of confidentiality.
... actually, I am defending your point that you were 10 last week, 15 this week.
I find Pollock's works legitimately amazing, and I don't really like much modern art.

Modern art is usually full of clever subtexts and messages that aren't apparent to outsiders. Like a really complicated and abstract piece of jazz music.

Ask a knowledgeable modern art fan to decrypt some paintings for you sometime, it's quite interesting.
Where's the calculus?
Ok, I unsubmitted it. If you change your mind just go to /apply and resubmit before the deadline.
I think my favorite one so far was his "art stand" where he was selling his original Banksy stencils for $60 -- I'm assuming these will likely start popping up in auction for quite a bit more.

I would have likely walked by a stand like that and assumed it was a scam. But if you had told me it was real and I could have bought one for $60 bucks, I would have tried to immediately buy them all.

http://instagram.com/p/fa_ndFq-3W/
In the cases I'm thinking of, the patients were labeled paranoid - and ultimately schizophrenic - chiefly because they were angry and believed others were out to harm them. (They did not have hallucinations.)

Their "paranoia" may have had something to do with:
a. being watched 24 hours a day,
b. being chased around by some sociopathic fellow inmates,
c. being subject to the rule of arbitrary and capricious guards,
or perhaps some combination of the 3.

Also, from the prison's perspective, prison is not a nice place, and psychiatric labels and medications are useful for keeping inmates in line.

I should note that blacks in the general population are disproportionately diagnosed with schizophrenia, and it's probably from overdiagnosis due to race-based misunderstandings. Check out http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/768391 and this study http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=11510..., which confirms on a small scale what I've seen anecdotally in the prison context
I think there is some confusion in this paper about laundering vs transferring money.
He may not have had to deal with it at all. He replaced certain components of it with Go code, but none of them may have required real time guarantees.
Have you taken a look at the Scrapy framework for Python?

http://scrapy.org/
Lawsuits against Android and OEMs
Six Weeks to Provision a VM?? #ChangeManagementFail
Side note: I am amazed at how many ways there are to spell "tteokpaekki" (which happens to be one variation I've never seen before).

Tteokbokki, ddeokbokki, topokki, dukboki, ddukbokkie, dduk bok ki, ddukbokkie, dokbokki, dukpokki... it seems endless, almost like "Gaddafi".
IndexedDB is now supported by every browser but Safari (for that you can use a polyfill). Trying to work around localStorage limitations isn't really necessary any more.
I do. Your typical user does not.
> It should also be noted that not all of this money is coming from taxpayers [...] $450 million in fees will be collected from the insurance companies participating in the exchanges

The ACA was upheld in the Supreme Court on the basis that it was a tax. Unlike other taxes, which are paid to the government, you will be paying the tax to an insurance provider. They, in turn, will be using the money to partially fund the exchanges. So technically you're correct, but it's just a redirection of tax dollars.
From another perspective, I read The Hacker's Dictionary fairly early in my education / career as a programmer, and have (at least usually!) used the word "hacker" the way Richard describes.

I've also spent a fair bit of time listening to his lectures and reading his articles, and likewise have (at least usually!) used the terms GNU/Linux and "free software" the way he recommends, because I see where he's coming from and tend to agree.

Does he need clever marketing? I don't know; he didn't for me. What's different about the way I see things?
> Android has arguably won the smartphone wars, but "Android winning" and "Google winning" are not necessarily the same thing.

This is false. Google wins when more people use the Internet. Android is fulfilling its initial goal incredibly well: offer a free and open-source mobile OS to encourage mobile device proliferation.

Android is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
I'm also a bit curious about the protocol part, found this tidbit on their site "The session components are built by re-using components from libjingle, without using or requiring the xmpp/jingle protocol." (http://www.webrtc.org/reference/architecture#TOC-Transport-S...)
If I had to guess, the difference is that you picked this up early on and don't have any other habits to "unlearn".
In case anyone else sees an almost-empty page, it looks like Ghostery ends up blocking all the content. Or should I say, the owner of the website has inextricably and inexplicably tied the basic functionality of their blog to an advertising script (Disqus). Very lame.
Unfortunately, the government won't accept volunteers. It's really too bad, but everything has to be set in stone in a contract, and that means that the people who are already "in" are usually the only ones who can navigate the byzantine contract insanity.
The examples in the introduction are a touch contrived, because if you don't need polymorphism, you shouldn't really be using protocols. In the examples provided, it would be more idiomatic to use normal functions.
"Gee, that's an ugly way to store numbers. Where did this data set come from? What business process generated it, and under what constraints? Can I talk to the guys who own that process?"
I don't understand that conclusion. Don't people place bids based on the perceived value of the keyword? If so, wouldn't everyone need to discount that value by 25% because they are aware of the fraud in order for it to be "baked in"?
Is there an executive summary of the architecture and technologies?

Something like this doesn't need more grandstanding, it's either good architecture with some bugs and scaling issues which are probably solvable or it's crap. Likewise is there some sort of jacked up insurance industry rules engine?
I have had 8 alums review our app for this winters batch and 5 of the 8 brought up our 70/30 split.

These things can be explained, I only hope we get the chance and this 'red flag' does not prevent us from ever getting past stage 1.

For what is is worth I talked to one alum about smoothing out the equity split through the vesting period but he said not to, that during orientation they will warn you against that sort of thing. Curious why.
Contenteditable fails in many ways, but it's still something quite awesome and provides a good basis to build on. I built myself a wiki system because I find the current ones to be a huge pain to edit and I'm using contenteditable as the main tool. No need for separate editing pages, markup languages, or other nonsense - just click edit and make the changes immediately. I agree that contenteditable could have been way better, or in the very least more consistent between browsers.
> Google does everything in-house. The company gets Maps and all of its cloud services basically for free.

This statement is utterly false. In-house does not mean free.
"In an ocean with great waves, whales fly into the air unnoticed, but in a calm pond, even the tiniest minnow makes a ripple."
-confucius

When the iPhone debuted, no doubt Google sensed the impact, and Apple's ability to create an effective closed ecosystem had already been proven with iTunes. I believe that Google wanted to undermine the market long enough to understand it. True enough, "android winning" was not the same as "Google winning," but it did mean everyone else "losing." I believe that for Google, Android started as a strategy in search of a goal. It was a smokescreen to prevent Apple from taking a dominant position by default. As the data poured in, they began to understand how to leverage it, and the Nexus line became an expression of such understanding, working to establish more control, and hopefully emerge from the smokescreen they had created.
Right now I cannot. This is more of a generalization I've found over the past year or so (+/- ~6mos). Typically when it deals with work Im more interested in just finding an answer and move on to the next best resource. I guess this is true when Im at home and the results end up being more spam/ad based, e.g. finding a plumber with a good reputation.

Probably not the definitive results driven answer you wanted but this is my experience and what I share with others when asked.
One of the most immediate (and probably least expensive) improvements we could make to our public school system would be to replace the zero-tolerance policy with adults who are capable of examining situations on a case-by-case basis and applying an appropriate mix of discipline and direction.

Of course, as long as I'm planning utopia here, maybe we could properly fund public schools, wash out teachers and administrators that have no business dealing with kids, improve teacher education, expect students to clean their lunchroom and classrooms as a matter of course so they learn shared responsibility, reduce the influence of parents over grading and discipline, etc. But if anything we're going backwards.
Indeed. Plus, I have never read a convincing response from the Go authors as to why they included null in the type system.
The article's description of what we're to happen if Apple did not have competition is quite accurate and write frightening. Even with the north American market share that Apple has they abuse it where possible.
> Giving it a monetary value defeats the whole purpose of it.

And what if the purpose is the absurdity of its monetary value?

I don't believe that Banksy's goal is to have his work be seen as curios. It's getting us to have these conversations.
> The problem with the new wording is that it encourages over-diagnosis of mental disorders. Instead of requiring a professional to distinguish between disorders and non-disorders (easy), it lumps all together as disorders, and requires professionals to distinguish between those which require treatment and those which don't (hard).

Don't most of them include wording similar to "... and causes problems in the patient's day to day life" after a list of diagnostic criteria?

Thus, Bob drinks 15 cups of coffee per day, and it doesn't bother him doesn't suffer from CID, but Ann who drinks 12 cups of coffee per day, and suffers significantly if she cannot get coffee (or is perhaps routinely overdosing on caffeine) does suffer from CID?
I suppose this is true, so long as you're talking about the physical artifacts that we've created as a society. I think it's importantly less true if you begin to ask questions such as why this particular machine is so powerful, what it's limits are, and how its operation relates to other things.

Perhaps I misspoke in saying that seeking to eliminate the magic is enough. You have to follow more threads than the ones that originally lead you into the wings.
We're building a way for everyone to tell their story! http://cove.im
Technically true, but the proof of work required to add blocks to a fork is the same as the real chain, so anyone wanting to send you fake blocks would need a significant fraction of the computing power of the whole network (in order to generate at least one fake block in a reasonable amount of time), in addition to controlling every node you speak with.

Even if the attacker controlled 10% of the computing power of the network, they would only be able to generate approximately one block every hour and a half or so. After a few blocks that would start to look suspicious, since the average time between blocks is supposed to be 10 minutes.
I feel like a zigzag pattern would work here as well. Keep the monster switching directions. Essentially, the monster is balanced perfectly on the opposite side of the lake from the one you are headed towards.
The previous title was:

Google: "15% of the searches we see everyday we've never seen before."

The linked page does come from Google's "Facts about Google and Competition", but the section "About Search" appears to be interesting for broader reasons.
(Chuckle) Well seeing as how half the tech managers I talk to at private companies haven't ever heard of it, I think he should be given a little bit of a break.
>all America has to do is copy literally any other rich country's health care system

This sounds incredibly smug, and it's not helpful.
Yes I agree.

Android is not about North America. Android is about India, Africa, and China.
Sure you have full permalink support, but why do you have to rely on closure to do pagination ?

My guess: because by relying on in-memory data-structures you can't do what any half assed php forum do, ad hoc queries.
ejdb or solr.
google had a very good reason to move services outside AOSP, to update them without relying on carriers.
they could release billing API v3 w/ 90% compatibility in day 1. this is how they could workaround fragmentation.
as an android dev, i love being able to read framework source code for better design, performance and less bugs. that is all really matters imho.
The transliterations for "Gaddafi" amaze me. There are 115200 possible ways to spell his first and last name in English.
You may be interested in modern concepts of "recovery" - a patient may not be conventionally well, but may consider themselves to be 'recovered'.

The team should help that person achieve meaningful recovery, and not just reach some checklist target of wellness.
Beginning Blogger 101: Finding Your Voice & Starting Up Your Blog
Actually postgres can be a bit of a PITA, but so can mongo. At the risk of sounding reckless, unless the app needs to support high CUD throughput I sometimes opt for sqlite. Doesn't get much easier than that and it's read performance is impressive from what I've seen.

Even then you can sometimes get away with staying on sqlite for your admin side CRUD and redis for the heavy / concurrent writing from the public facing side (obviously situational).
I don't think it's that android users won't buy anything,I think they just think about purchases more carefully as they're not used to being to pay for everything. Something must have real value to deserve real money.
Well sure, the strategy of "tell people what words should mean" will work for some people like yourself, but clearly has not been enough to have the common use of the words switch over. I don't really know what the solution is, but there seems to be a very hard line in RMS's mind as to what the domain of "hacking" can be. He's extremely clever, a hacker, and a genius in certain areas (the GPL is such an amazing hack) but at the same time keeps banging his head against the wall using failed strategies instead of trying to hack his way to a solution. When was the last time you heard about something RMS did in the way he presented his ideas to be more receptive to others and thought "hey, that is pretty clever and a nice hack." I certainly can't think of anything, but he's clearly capable of doing it.

I think he probably has some personal moral code that prohibits him from trying to hack systems above a certain level of abstraction. Computers and security policies are below it, people's minds, emotions, and opinions are out of reach. In other words, the art of marketing is completely outside it.

YC on the other hand has a much higher bar for what is hackable, including things like getting user growth through clever marketing and viral loops, and keeping your startup solvent by selling breakfast cereal. RMS wouldn't go near these types of things, but they are in line with the hacking ethos.
The idea was to attack fragmentation, which is a huge cost center in the health industry. A smaller individual insurance plan

* Has to pay more for drugs (less bargaining power vs a big plan)

* Has more statistical risk (# people goes with N, stdev in # people with a given illness goes with sqrt(N), so risk/person goes with sqrt(N)/N and larger plans have less risk)

* Has larger legal/consulting overhead

* Forces doctors to incur overhead with nonstandard forms

* Is vulnerable to the bandwagon effect (if, by accident, it happens to favor X group of costly individuals, the costly individuals proceed to pile on and sink the plan)

* Has the ability to discriminate based on fine-grained geographical knowledge and other factors

* Has an under-leveraged customer base (if the plan is "secretly evil" and dumps people who need expensive treatment and 1% of people require expensive treatment, a 100 person plan will have 0 or maybe 1 person being screwed at any given time, while a 10000 person plan will have ~100 people being screwed who are much more able to band together and fight a legal/PR battle)

Previously, small plans were able to flourish because of #6 and #7, incurring #1-5 as costs of doing business. This was bad for everyone except insurance companies. The best way to turn a profit in the insurance industry is to sell insurance priced for a medium-risk person to a low-risk individual(or hi-risk price to a medium-risk person). If you look closely, this kind of "innovation" is actually just restoring the pre-insurance reality of charging sick people a lot and healthy people very little. It defeats the purpose of insurance while increasing costs (#1-5) and letting the people in charge of the purpose-defeating process pocket a hefty cut of the proceeds by fooling people into buying overpriced coverage.

Exchanges are designed to put an end to the tragedy of the commons. The savings from #1-5 can be recouped at the expense of eliminating #6 and #7, which were perverse incentives anyway.

Even if you disagree with my explanations, it is objectively true that employer plans are much more efficient than individual plans (E(payout)/E(cost) is larger). You can then see the ACA exchanges as an attempt to reform individual plans to emulate employer plans. Of course, it remains "cargo cult economics" unless you can figure out why you expect the emulation to close the gap in value, which is what I was doing with the list in the first place. In other words: I have provided 7 possible explanations that I think make sense but there are even more out there which I don't agree with and haven't listed.
Attackers can't control which nodes you connect to. The Satoshi client's node discover behavior is described here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Satoshi_Client_Node_Discovery.

This blog post is pretty bad, and I suspect the author doesn't actually understand how bitcoin works. The part where the author says "the other 45 in the network know your real amount" implies some sort of voting mechanism, which is not how bitcoin works. This Youtube video is a much better explanation of the technical aspects of bitcoin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx9zgZCMqXE
This is a classic "made for regulators" set of pages. The title lets regulators know that it's for them, but the content has to explain Google's business as simply and positively as possible. You'll also notice that when you click through each of the pages, almost every criticism that could be lobbed at Google by a 3rd party is countered in some way.

Also note that the page came about mid-2011, around the same time when Microsoft was beating their "Google is a monopoly" drum.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110826063413/http://www.google....
People will bid as much as they can afford while achieving a positive ROI. If you can't, someone who's earning more dollars per click will, and they'll get the slot instead. If 100 clicks generates $100 in gross profit for the company with the best customer LTV, nobody's going to bid more than $1 per click. That $1 per click already factors in the discount due to fraud. If all the clicks were real, qualified visits, they'd have earned more than $100 per 100 clicks, and would be able bid more than $1 per click. As long as there are enough people participating in the auction, it will naturally account for the quality of the traffic, whatever the reasons behind that quality may be.
Fixed and fixed!

And thanks for pointing out the issue with my server (I'm in the process of replacing it!).