skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Google fascinates me. I think it is possibly the first organization in history that embodies concepts from dystopic fiction. Putting a real face to those dystopic ideas can give us a sense of what a true dystopia looks like (short answer: it looks deceptively nice; the horror reveals itself only on close inspection).

You mention work. As you say, Google does not just want their employees' time. They want their complete identification with the company. In a way, they want their souls.

As for business, Google is a company whose business model is tricking people into sharing as much private information with the company, and then using this information for profit.

One of the most interesting things about Google is their "don't be evil" motto. I want to write a complete literary interpretation of it some other time, but here are the highlights. Obviously, it's a short and catchy motto that is not intended to be taken too seriously, but that does not preclude literary interpretation.

First, let's consider the motto as a whole. It could be a motto for anyone, but how come it's Google's and not mine (or yours)? The reason is that they accept the premise that corporations do often turn out to be "evil" (whatever that means). This is analogous to the reason physicians swear to "do no harm"; they swear it because doctors can easily do harm.

Now let's take the motto apart and analyze it word by word. First, the word "evil". The word assumes such a thing exists and can be recognizable. Second, the word "be". It implies that evil is something you are, not something you do. Lastly, the word "don't". It assumes that you can choose not to "be" "evil", and implies that those who "are" "evil" are so because they chose to be that way.

If a motto can guide a corporation, and if this motto guides Google, we can see why they've become so monstrously terrifying. Evil is not always easily recognizable. Often, it's in the eyes of the beholder. Second, evil is rarely something you are, and almost always something you do. Third, "evil" creeps up on you, and is often the result of the best intentions. People other than James Bond villains don't choose to be evil. Similarly you can't simply choose not to be. To abstain from "evil" you must be vigilant. You must constantly analyze your actions and their consequences separately from your intentions, and listen to other viewpoints.

Going back to dystopias, well known ones, like Orwell's 1984, insist that the masses love their oppressors rather than fear them. This is a crucial point that is largely overlooked when people discuss the NSA surveillance scandal. It is crucial because true power, absolute oppression, cannot exist if its wielder is generally considered suspect.

When I read 1984 many years ago I couldn't understand that. Do people not notice that they're being manipulated and exploited? Can they actually enjoy being exploited? Now we have the answer.
They can't change in a given repo unless you use history-modifying extensions. They do differ between repos. Most modern third-party tools, including Kiln, hide them by default for this reason.
> what about Git's branches and history management is better than Mercurials with the appropriate plugins turned on?

I don't know which it better, but at least different: git has automatic garbage collection for dangling commits (after 30 days or so by default).

With Mercurial, if you want to remove dangling commits, you have to do it by hand. And if they have been pushed, you have to go to the remote repo and manually remove them there too. And everyone else who has pulled them, will need to manually remove them.
Yes, Bloomberg the news outlet has no purpose there if they can't report on what's going on. However, Bloomberg the terminal subscription seller (e.g. nearly all the revenue that Bloomberg makes) can remain in China and continue to make money. The market is too large to ignore, at least for Bloomberg.
On the labor involved in being part of a community.
Purchased from an American company though (IBM). Are there any home grown Chinese brands that are seen as quality?
Same here man.
http://osrc.dfm.io makes me sound good as well, top 2% Objective-c
...or 200 buyers willing to part with $5,000. Exchanges can aggregate orders and don't need a 1:1 match. Stock exchanges do this all the time.
That's really excellent.

Is this website being fed in real-time by the RPi?

What framework/tool are you using to create the UI for your website?
I like that one of the hints is "1 to 6"
I live in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Some of the stories I read at HN appears on "mainstream-media" a day or three later. In most cases, Hacker News makes the local technology news "no-news".

As for the author's opinion, media, by definition, usually cover the exceptional stories, great success or failures, but not the daily challenges each of us is coping with, while struggling to generate more leads or turn a lead into a deal (yep, same letters, reads backwards).

I love stay in sync with the remote Silicon Valley and HN, the stories and the comments help me get that.

Thanks PG and the other guys for putting this site together and maintaining this site for us, entrepreneurs all over the world!
I know Fastmail read HN, so I'm just going to use this as an opportunity (again) to say: please support push notifications on iOS! I know it's Apple's fault, and they should support IDLE, but that's not the point. The point is that thanks to Gmail no longer supporting push for non-business email accounts on iOS, there's now a gap in the market, and I really really want to be able to use Fastmail to fill that gap. But I won't be renewing my subscription if they can't support push...
Silver was demonetised in 20th century relative to gold, though it was used as a store of value. It can happen with gold too.

http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/silver-a-brief-history-of-d...
There seems to be a common fallacy that is propagated by media that bitcoin is untraceable. A visit to blockchain.info pretty easily dispels this myth. Bitcoin is anonymous (in the same way that cash is) but it is not untraceable. If money being exchanged to/from bitcoin is coupled with the same money transfer regulations as standard currency it ends up being more traceable than standard currency because there is a log of all transactions. This is likely why there won't be much resistance to bitcoin from regulators as long as they can control the endpoints.
Gold and silver were a currency and they weren't backed by government.
You obviously haven't bothered to read the article then.

What really is the point of putting in the effort of commenting on something, when you cannot be arsed to put in the effort to comprehend it in the first place.
This is purely a response to the title.

There is a popular line of thought that goes something like this:

1. Owing to politics ("ethical considerations"), working with human stem cells is, at best, quite difficult.

2. That doesn't apply to nonhumans.

3. If the technology appears, people will start to wonder why rich people can get (hypothetically) anti-aging treatments and limb regeneration for their dogs, but the same processes aren't available to humans.

4. Politics loses, technology wins.

That example is quite specific (and suppositional), but I'd say the principle is sound.

Another example might be the Japanese suppression of guns. Technology won out. (Yes, it took a while. I'm comfortable with that.)
Encrypted paper wallets, probably. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Securing_your_wallet#Paper_Wallet...
That's awesome, thanks.

By any chance, do you also know of a way to exclude jQuery event wrappers from inspection in the "events" part ? Like in this screenshot : http://imgur.com/UaHTrth

This feature is pretty useless due to the fact that libraries wrap event callbacks.
Qualcomm's Toq smartwatch coming December 2nd for $349.99
> Much of his time has been spent dealing with "haters" from the encryption community.

Hahaha! Oh wow! Let's see what "haters" means:

> One of the main criticisms [...] is that [...] it doesn't allow individuals to connect their own trusted servers [...] ("even though controlling the network is currently the only thing you can do to keep from being spied on," says Sunde)

I would say a controlled network creates a single point of failure and a narrow target for espionage (e.g. Lavabit).

> and that there are no plans to release the source code

Security through obscurity? Who wants audits from the community, when you can just call them haters, right?

> Sunde sees these critics as elitist. "We want to give decent encryption to everyone -- not just tech people. But the tech people are the ones who are really upset that they can't connect their own server. We decided quite early on to stop listening to them."

Who's the hater here? Is closed source/optional personal network really going to hinder massive adoption outside of tech circles? Does it matter at all?
> mining Bitcoins essentially boils down to solving hard math problems

Nitpick: it boils down to solving the same ridiculously simple math problem billions of times with a different parameter until by pure blind chance you get the right result.
Of course blame should never fall on Snowden

Why not? I'm not wanting to make the case that it should necessarily, but the idea that some blame shouldn't fall on him if international catastrophe comes from his actions doesn't seem obviously justified. If his actions seem to lead to peace and transparency, I'd expect history to give him some of the credit.
I'm giving you a hypothetical situation where Canada started up an exchange for Fords and offered the currency on the exchange for $0. What would happen? It would float toward the price that the market would bear, which would look like a thousands of percent increase.

The reason the Euro started off there is because, like an IPO, they thought that because an entire federation of countries was backing it, they could offer it initially for a price higher than $0, just like Facebook thought that because millions of people knew what Facebook was they could offer their shares for a higher price than $0. In all likelihood Canada would offer it for a price higher than $0, and the market would probably bear that price.

BitCoin couldn't do that because it wasn't introduced by a federation or a nation. Satoshi couldn't just go to an exchange and offer BitCoins for $600 because nobody had heard of BitCoin and people were skeptical. So it had to make the journey from $0 to $600 on its own.

But now that it has earned the faith of the people who use it, what makes it different from a national currency being offered that price? Not much.

" A currency is defined by liquidity and there just aren't many things you can currently exchange for a bitcoin. "

There are more and more things you can exchange a BitCoin for every single day. And if you're a vendor, don't you want to accept BitCoins? If someone wanted to give me a BitCoin in exchange for something worth say, $550, I would accept it because a BitCoin is worth about that much on the exchange and there's a high chance that it will be worth more tomorrow. It might not make a whole lot of sense to spend BitCoins right now but for the very same reason it makes all the sense in the world to accept them. Vendors have every incentive to accept BitCoins at the moment, which means there will be more and more of them, which means BitCoin's utility as a currency will only go up. Network effects.
Google looks into white space broadband to bring Internet to rural areas
Yeah - my point is that this password hint is basically telling you that the user uses the same password for other things.
I really don't understand why HN tolerates these political articles.

Newsflash: Countries have always and will always spy on each other. It's human nature.
The actual quote is: "You can't beat politics with new technology all the time."

This is very different from the current HN headline! After all, sometimes technology changes everything so much politics can do little more than try to catch up.

People like to say "you can't solve social problems with technology". It's a statement that's true enough of the time to be common wisdom but not enough to be a natural law. Sometimes technology does help with social problems.

This isn't to say that politics is unimportant. It is still central. But I think dismissing technological solutions out of hand is also shortsighted. I particularly think this of BitCoin, which feels like a monumental change. BitCoin could, ideally, liberate transactions between individuals and significantly reduce barriers for anything from microtransactions to donating to fringe political causes. It certainly won't solve all our problems, it might even solve none, but I think it'll definitely make for a better world.

I really liked Balaji Srinivasan's speech on "Voice and Exit". BitCoin was an example of "exiting" the existing financial system and providing an alternate means of conducting transactions. Viewing it as such, just using and supporting BitCoin is inevitably a political action, limiting the absolute power of the government. To me, this makes BitCoin one of the technologies to really watch for future social change.
العاب تنظيف ومكياج باربي العروسة 2014
العاب تنظيف ومكياج باربي العروسة 2014

العاب, تنظيف ,ومكياج, باربي ,العروسة, 2014

http://www.bnat4games.com/Game-389.html
I don't accuse the article of being socialist. It's not only obvious, but also the article itself points it: "He's actually more of a socialist and would be more likely to vote for the left-wing parties".

So I have a bias because I point at what happened with "community owned banks" in my country?
"A more outlandish theory would be that the rights holders set these guys up to destroy huge volumes of used merchandise."

My first thought when reading the OP was that this is what probably actually just happened
> I remember Youtube back in 2005 when I was a freshman in HS.

To be fair, most will remember being introduced to it in that year. Youtube became a household name in 2005 after the Lazy Sunday video, with much fanfare, was published on the service and it became essentially the defacto place to watch it.

I'm inclined to believe that productions by kids maintained the interest in the service beyond that point, but it was content produced by adults that popularized it in the first place. With possibly the exception of Facebook, I think you could say the same about most social networking services. Twitter only became interesting to the general public after adult celebrities started contributing. Myspace was popularized by adults promoting their musical groups.

> What is Facebook lacking?

A monopoly on photo sharing. Anyone who can take that traffic away increases the risks of taking people away from Facebook completely, and that is a huge risk for them. The insane valuations for these companies (Snapchat, Instagram, etc.) are cheap compared to having everyone leave Facebook for another service.
I think that the @ symbol as a face replacement is not the best aesthetic decision to make. Using a larger person icon like the one used on Mac OS X user accounts icon in the System Preferences is better. Mac OS X uses two people's busts to signify plurality but a single person is better suited here. After that place the white @ symbol on the users chest right below a T-shirt's neckline. This way the significance of it being a personal item is not lost in translation while the @ symbol advertises the purpose of the icon. A person's icon that doesn't show arms is also easier to manifest in a 16x16 pixel icon. Furthermore it would be better to use a gender neutral head outline.

All things considered, good proposal.
Show HN: Two Dollar Causes - $2 Bill Challenge
Yesterday morning I was given a $2 bill along with a challenge – to deploy that $2 in the most impactful and far reaching way possible. From that challenge TWODOLLARCAUSES was born. To that end, I have created an Indiegogo Campaign to raise funds for Philippines Typhoon Disaster Relief. The suggested donation amount is $2. Help me accomplish the donation goal and to complete my challenge.
Mobile Mail Client for collaboration?
Nice photos but it also highlights how claustrophobic London is. I live here and don't like how you can never be really alone outside of your own home.
Why can't I just host my podcast on iTunes?
[video] Linux Secured Integrity, Protection Against Remote Attacks
Chrome's one is a dirty hack, though I admit it works. But ugh, seriously, regexes?
MNOs and Bitcoin could drive an “unbanked” society
WeStore Launches ‘Self storage, by-the-box’, Pulls In Cash From UK Angels
I should add that console.log has its pitfalls - in particular, it will log objects by reference, so if you are doing some manipulation later in a block, the value that may be displayed in the Chrome inspector may reflect a value that was manipulated later on in a block of code.
I'm interested to hear more about the problems with community owned banks. Actually there are a lot of people that are really hoping more of those will solve many problems in the US. So I would like to know specifically why they don't help and turned out so bad in Spain.

Sure, the State generally won't fight against itself, but I think that he makes a good point though about not just completely giving up. I mean I have given up on politics like a lot of people, but when I was reading that article it made me think that if enough people tried, we _could_ make some improvements and help at least ease the adoption of technologies that solve structural/political problems.

There are a lot of people, especially in the US, that are really looking toward social democracy (socialism) as the light at the end of the tunnel. I think that its unfortunate that there isn't a better perspective for these people on the realities of social democracies in Europe or of the historical context of socialism. However, with such extreme inequality, its hard not to lean in that direction in one's thinking.

I actually think the key problems are over-centralization, which occurs both in capitalistic societies and socialist societies to a high degree, as well as a lack of social and physical science being incorporated into decision making. The communist/socialist ideal especially overcentralizes although it does a better job of incorporating hard science into decision making. In that case the main problem is lack of distribution of decision-making and diversity of solutions which stifles evolution of the system.

The capitalistic ideal especially lacks the input of hard social and physical sciences although it does provide a diverse set of solutions, at least until monopoly takes over. We need to measure human and ecological well-being and incorporate different scientifically motivated attempts to improve those holistic measurements into our various enterprises.

Technology is going to be incredibly powerful in moving away from centralization which should directly impact human well-being and inequality.
Possibly the beef subsidies?
According to the site linked below the price for a big mac meal is cheaper in the US, so they have a more expensive burger but cheaper sides.

http://www.humuch.com/prices/McDonalds-Big-Mac-Meal/______/5...
File: US military bases in Germany.svg
Trivia: their perception rule-based system is called "PRAVDA", which means "The Truth" in Russian.
20% time has not been scrapped.

This is a recurrent rumour that pops up over and over again. It is not true.

There have always been people who felt like they were unable to take it, or it was really 120% time or whatever. I've had a variety of 20% projects for years, and I've never worked 120%.

You have to be able to manage your teams and managers expectations, and if you commit to a deadline and fall behind then you're obviously going to have to "bank" that time. If you are in a team or get yourself into a position where you're constantly committing to unrealistic deadlines that have no slack time in them, of course you'll feel like you can't take 20%. But that's not the companies fault.

20% is a great policy. I don't know what else the company could do to make it easier to take really: managers aren't allowed to deny it to you, and you're allowed to bank it up to a reasonable cap if you have to focus on a main project for a while. At that point it's really up to you and your own time management.
AES cipher internals in Excel
Damn, I'd forgotten how shiny that old logo is. I still love the old ones over the new.
Good luck with the anonymisation. It only has to fail once for catastrophic consequences.

Look back to how we handled HIV/AIDS in the 1980s. Enormous amounts of fear (understandable) and utter disgust-filled loathing (not so much). There were politicians calling for AIDS sufferers to be rounded up and put in quarantine camps but refusing to engage in public health initiatives because they thought that warning people to use condoms and engage in safe sex would "promote" homosexuality.

Up until 2010 in Britain, it was legal for a dentist to refuse to take an HIV+ patient even though the professional association for dentists had told dentists that it was safe to use the same procedures around sterilisation and safety. It also made no sense as it just led to people lying about their HIV status to dentists in order to get access to health services.

I know people who have faced discrimination in work over chronic mental health conditions that they are being treated for. People who have held down other jobs perfectly well, who take less sick leave than people without any health conditions. There is still significant social stigma around mental health conditions: nobody considers you morally suspicious if you have, say, eczema or hay fever, but if you have depression or schizophrenia, some will consider you too "risky" to employ etc.

So, yes, "please make all your medical records public" sounds nice. I've spoken to friends who, thanks to people like Schmidt and others breathlessly promoting this kind of thing at TED talks, think that anyone who wishes to actually exercise their medical privacy to be "irrational". And that medical privacy is a silly idea that we wouldn't choose to have now and that we only have for historical reasons. That the bright sparks of Silicon Valley can't see the importance of medical privacy is really concerning—it shows they've failed to look at the history of discrimination and fear-mongering against people with particular health conditions. Or, worse, it shows they've thought about it and don't give a shit about protecting people from mistreatment by both the state and by other individuals based on their health conditions.
Canva Makes Great Design More Accessible