skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You are paying for it with your tax money, therefore you are doing it. I'm not okay with selling snake oil, but I think it is wrong to prevent other people from buying it. It's okay to inform them it's a bad idea to buy certain things - it's dictatorship to prevent them from doing so. If you can't convince somebody, it's your problem, not that person's problem. FDA doesn't convince, it just comes and shuts you down or doesn't allow you on the market.

Besides, where is FDA when charlatans sell homeopathic medicine? Show me a little consistency here.
I find it really disheartening to learn that any article with "NSA" in the title is pretty severely penalized by HN's algos. This seems like one of the seminal issues of the decade, for this community in particular.
They may be meaningless to you, but these words are still in active use today -- maybe not in research circles but in the general population -- and do have a specific meaning for many people. The popular use and meaning of these words does shape how people think of themselves, as the author explained. Therefore, it's still a helpful issue to address for a lot of those people.
Yep - my CORS proxy went down - I need another! :(
Sorry for the late response. To clarify, I meant that you shouldn't talk bad about your employer at an interview. If you're starting a blog, you may want to consider writing it under a pseudonym--at least if you do plan to ever try to get employed by another person or company. Employers almost always Google prospective employees these days and online criticism of an employer would probably be ten times worse than speaking bad about that previous employer at an interview. I know people in this situation and it's not good.

And yes, I agree, finding out about previous employers is great. Check out Glassdoor.com. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good for what it is.
Two reasons:

1) I didn't want routes in a text file. This is whiny, I know. Just a personal preference.
2) Go is the only programming language that has held my attention long enough to actually finish a fairly usable framework. Writing a framework is a good exercise in software design, so I felt like I had to use the opportunity.
I really do not understand this Bitcoin promotion in comparison with gold. I think that majority of people do not have gold, never had and never will.
It would reach a much bigger audience if Bitcoin was compared to credit cards and Paypal.
I think Modi seems like a no-nonsense forward thinking anti-corruption development oriented person. Completely unlike any of the rest of India's nepotistic political caste. I hope for India's sake that this guy gets a shot at trying to solve some of those problems.
I'm not saying why they have value. There are many reasons and everyone picks his own favorite one.

I'm saying that if bitcoins are valuable, then there are certain interesting properties of the new global economy that make it different from gold/oil/resource-based economy we have today.
http://www.narendramodi.in/category/testimonials/
2nd place teammates in Salesforce hackathon worked for a portfolio startup
There is huge speculative value in gold as a "store of wealth" and there are reasons why gold was in hands of many and now in the hands of few. Looking from this perspective helps understand why Bitcoin might be valuable in the long run for many people.
> A friend of mine, Steve, noted that gold-backed economy logically evolved into the mess we are now

Here is where you lose me.

Other articles, just like this, fall apart in the same places.

Maybe it is the irony of this statement.

Why is it ironic?

I'm reading your blog post, hosted on Tumblr, on the east coast of the United States, judging on the pings from where I am in Germany. The communications travel over fiber-optic cable in the Atlantic Ocean. This cable was laid by a partnership between commercial telecommunications companies[1]. Tumblr is supported by this "mess" of an economic system, and thus gives you a platform to talk on. Tumblr's hosting provider leverages this "mess" of an economic system to invest in making it's infrastructure better, cheaper and more reliable for Tumblr.

Why is this rhetoric so unaware of history? Why does it carry such a negative outlook on the incredible things that this imperfect economic system has delivered us?

By all means continue questioning, improving or changing the system we have arrived at as a collective humanity. But please, do not pretend everything is a horrible mess that only some minor [crypto-currency, technology] can fix. Admit that what we've done so far has largely been pretty damn good.

Will the new ideas help? Hopefully, likely!

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_communications_ca...
the bitcoin protocol as a p2p open ledger is the interesting idea, and as such it is a valid proposition as a transaction system. Contract signing for example.

The derived value store has not much going for it IMHO. It suffers from a reverse network effect; as the block chain becomes heavier, it becomes clumsier, and a clone -- alt is more and more attractive, and a few simple clicks away. (no lock was a down side argument that was around when google became a home run(vs MS) but has yet to materialize; lately they might be setting themselves up for it to happen tho)

As soon as the expansion of demand(is all this demand really real?) comes to an end, bitcoins are susceptible to become tulip bulbs. You cannot pay any taxes in bitcoins, and this is how prices on everything are indexed in our fiat world.
> the PM said they were going to 'block sites' related to extremeism. This isn't a 'filter', which implies it's something automated that affects all internet activity.

That sounds very much like the the Internet Watch Foundation's filter list, which was originally implemented to block access to child abuse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...)

There has been at least one case of that list accidentally blocking access to Wikipedia after an over-zealous block took out the entire domain instead of a single page, and there's no reason to believe that it couldn't be used to block far more content if the political will were there.
Cameron specifically says "blocking online sites." While he doesn't mention the technical specifics of how that will be done, the traditional way of achieving this in the UK is through the filters originally put in place for blocking websites associated with child abuse.
That was a great way for Time to ensure that not a single vote would be cast for Snowden.
I'm in favor of pretty much anything that can help, but releaseing soot into the atmosphere isn't free, and particulate pollution impacts our health in many other ways, not to mention that the reduction of sunlight has some very well-known effects on plant life.
Is the CTO the only developer which you have on board?
You mean privately controlled, like this ?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/18/cctv_shoplifters/

Hey, they just need to suspect you and you're all over their web site. No need for any actual proof or any inconvenience stuff like an actual conviction.

Many UK retailers already share CCTV between each other and many operate central monitoring hubs for facial recognition of 'undesirables' - people convicted of shoplifting or people the police have asked them to look for.

Here, from guess where, parliament's site, is a paper explaining lots of the UK technology in use in 2002 :

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-175.pdf

Have a look at the part about Newham in London using automatic facial recognition.

Are you serious about not being worried ?
Speaking out against this initiative shows that you are an extremist who should be blocked.
Awesome, by pointing out that the parent comment possibly intended to say "actual" instead of "technical," you've debunked his entire argument. Congratulations, you win the game.
> put some money in a “brain wallet” that has no traces anywhere at all.

Please do not do this.
On the other hand there's an article with "N.S.A." in the title at the top of the front page now.
Your "improved" title, as you admit carries a bunch of implications that are not in any way supported by the text.

Making stuff up only serves Cameron, who can write off genuine opposition as hysterics.
Is your genetic lab certified by the CLIA[1]? 23andme's is and I don't think anybody is arguing that they shouldn't be regulated as a genetics laboratory. It's the FDA's decision to regulate them as a medical device that people think is inappropriate.

[1]http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/CLIA...
The internet was around for 20 years and paper books for centuries. Who needs paper anymore? You can sign contracts with a digital signature in a more secure manner than with a drop of an ink.
Well since Newegg made the money, perhaps TQP was awarded the $45M that Newegg et al made, or TQP was shown to deserve the $45M that Newegg et al made. But you're right, let's be clear: TQP didn't create any wealth here.

EDIT: I'm mixing numbers. Not all of the 45M was from Newegg.
lol 14 stone is considered underweight on this...
Yeah, but they're working on incremental updates, so this should make the "from scratch" part much easier. You can look at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Incremental_dumps and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/xmldatadumps-l/2013-Aug... if you're interested.
That's kind of like JavaScript the good parts eh? Cool.
How does him being a traitor or not affect whether or not his actions influenced the world? The vote isn't for nicest person in world or person I'd most like to have a beer with.
You have access to another browser.

I don't have a facebook account.
Article totally ignores remote work. If you leave out local salary the best criteria would probably be:

* weather

* local people

* how expensive the country is

* connectivity speed

* proximity to good airport
Quiet != introverted. For example, I'm an introvert (need alone time) but I'm not quiet (I was the class clown).
That's true, I didn't mean to imply practicing was worthless. But if you're born small and skinny and grow up to be 5'5" you're probably not going to be an NFL linebacker. That doesn't mean you shouldn't still exercise, just that you might not be suited for some things.
> If she runs again in 2012

2012 was last year.
Never say never.

Build it and they will come worked for me, although only once out of about 20 attempts. It happened to be exactly what a lot of people needed and every day it grew faster than I could keep up with it. The average user would refer 10 or more friends and most users came back daily. It didn't matter how shitty my website was, they always came back, the value I was providing was that good.
yeah, did that. Lost the password too. If I find it I can guarantee those BTC are hitting this market yesterday.
23andMe has two choices:

1) Stop making health claims about their service
2) Produce the evidence required to substantiate their health claims

The FDA has very high standards when it comes to health claims, see the Warning Letter for Cheerios: http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/u...

Fiber can help lower cholesterol. Cheerios have fiber, thus why not make the claim that Cheerios can help lower your cholesterol?

The FDA is not big on "extrapolation". If B causes C and your product A causes B, you can't claim it also causes C.

How did General Mills respond? The simply modified their claims:

3 grams of soluble fiber daily from whole grain oat foods, like Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios, in a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease.
Top 5 WordPress Mobile Theme Plugins You Should Not Ignore
> Ok he reneged, but that's not the point.

The article isn't celebrating peace, it's very negative about Hitler. The cover for that issue shows people being tortured.

Edit: you can read it here.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,...
Bitcoins certainly took a look at gold. You have to 'mine' it and it's limited like gold. It's dividable as well, for easy transactions. Unlike gold you can send them over the world. There is one problem however. They have no intrinsic value. That's why gold became money, everybody around the world wants it (or know they can accept it and swap it for a (local) currency). Right now the only reason people want bitcons is because they think somebody will want them in the future. With gold, people want gold to itself.

Bitcoin is not gold. It's a currency at best. Even fiat currency is backed by the full faith in governement. Bitcoins seem to be valuable because a lot of people are hoarding them instead of using them. Looks like a bubble with people wanting in on the action...
Caution: Slippery slope
> "Our first priority is to keep Americans safe [...]

And herein lies the problem. Their job is not to keep us safe, it's to keep us free.

(I'm aware others in the thread have pointed this out, but less directly).
This is a P2P network. “Nearest” relay has nothing to do with geographic neighborhood.

I made IP whois stats of nodes I am currently connected to and they are: 8x USA (3x NY, 2x Texas, 1x California, 1x Virginia, 1x Georgia), 2x France, 2x China, 2x Russia, 2x Poland, 2x Switzerland, 1x Czech Republic, 1x Germany, 1x Portugal, 1x Sweden, 1x New Zealand, 1x Netherlands.

My transaction will be relayed to these nodes and then one of them will be first to relay it further to blockchain.info - and it's the IP of this lucky relay node what you'll show. Which one will be the first depends most likely on [temporary speed of connection between me and relay nodes + processing speed of relay nodes + temporary speed of connection between relay nodes and blockchain.info nodes] and such combination will make it semi-random. You will detect my transaction as being located in NYC or in Beijing or in Paris or wherever, but it has totally nothing to do with my actual location and calling it approximation is a misunderstanding.

Or I'll use online wallet in which case it will be even less related to my geographic location (it will be semi-random based of nodes connected to my online wallet's server).

What you show is a nice visualization, but it's rather a map of the best-connected nodes and it has nothing to do with geographic location of senders of bitcoin transactions.
23andMe didn't need to make medical statements to get most of the early adopters on board. Lets face it they made a dumb decision to do so.
We demand e-ink version + "DON'T PANIC" in large, friendly letters on the cover.

Thanks. :)
It's not just the 4th that alludes to privacy. The 3rd (quartering soldiers) infers a privacy of home, the 5th could be construed as privacy of personal information (specifically information that could be incriminating).

There's a ton more information here: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightof...
Snowden's kind of a shoe-in then, no? His name has been in headlines constantly for the majority of the year.
English also uses mama (mother), papa (father), ta-ta (goodbye).

Amusingly, Polish uses pa for goodbye (not infrequently doubled up) and tata for father.
The Importance of Observability
If communication can never be anonymous can it ever truly be private?

I don't guess I understand your requirement that "free speech" and "anonymity" be linked. There's always at least two sides to this argument:

1) People have a lot to say as long as their are no repercussions for them

2) The value of what someone says is diminished if they cower in anonymity to say it

These are obviously quite different and very polarized. You/me/anyone isn't going to change this - most people are going to identify strongly with one of these and that's that. It's a Liberal/Conservative, Right-to-life/Right-to-choose type of argument IMO - full of emotion, lots of heated debate, and neither side could ever convince the other to switch sides.

For the non-USA folks here, the 4th amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
- Yes. The certificate chain will be embedded in the client in the next release to mitigate this.

- We haven’t stripped EXIF data from uploaded pictures, although this is on the roadmap. Sensitive fields from user profiles have been stripped from all endpoints. This was done before the news hit TechCrunch.

- We were never saving contact lists, just using to cross reference our user database. In the next update we will compare hashes, not plain text emails.

- No passwords are ever stored in plain text, but they are transmitted over SSL during signup and login. We are considering ways to further obfuscate this, but strengthening SSL goes a long way. Please contact me at jokull@plainvanilla.is if you have comments or questions about our password policy.

You are right about the Facebook access tokens. The tokens are sent over SSL and we are not breaking any usage guidelines from Facebook. Access tokens can of course be invalidated by the user, or by Facebook. We are open to further enhancing the security of our OAuth flow, but currently it has not been exposed to any security weaknesses.
Gold is needed in health care, electronics, space, physics... The supply is limited, and unlike bitcoin someone can't just rename gold to dolg and start mining the new version.
Bitcoin, at it's current price is not cheaper than gold. I would argue that it's more expensive, considering its limited use.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6524495.stm
It's a fallacy to look at what you can see and not count in opportunity cost and what could have been done if there were no economical disasters created by governments all over the world. We'd probably had flying cars already and free wi-fi everywhere if people were allowed to save money and invest how they like.

During Putin's regime computers got 12 times faster too. Is it thanks to "stability of the economy" that Putin provided?
> The title strongly implies that Cameron stated that filters are already in place. That claim is not supported at all.

Filters are already in place, and have been for at least the last ten years. They're currently maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation under the premise of "won't somebody please think of the children", but repurposing the technology would be trivial, and could quite easily fly under the radar since its all centralised.
> While he doesn't mention the technical specifics of how that was done

He has not claimed any sites have been blocked. Nor is he exactly famed for his technical accuracy. See the discussions about the porn filter, where the entire opt-in/opt-out thing was a massive farce from one end to the other, as they decided to blatantly misrepresent the whole thing as worse than what they'd actually agreed with the ISPs.

In this case he answered a question in prime ministers questions in an non-specific ways that leaves him free to do nothing. Or he could do as the title claims. But as it stands, the title is completely made up.
This is one of the more disheartening polls I've seen. It speaks to a new, disturbing dynamic in our social order where people do not defend their beliefs with any sort of force or passion.

I had no clue so many people shared in my belief that Snowden has done something great. I figured the media had corrupted most of the people into thinking he'd done something deplorable, because no one has been taking to the streets or to the polls or to the anything to demand changes based on his revelations.

Past generations would have, but that's not the case today. We think he's great. We just don't care to actually support him.

Historically, I feel like there was a notion that someone was "too popular to execute." But, even though the vast majority appear to support Snowden so much that they declare him POY, I don't think we'd do a thing if the US raided his home in Russia and put a bullet in him. We'd be mad, and we'd write blog posts about it, and maybe some people would DDoS attack a website or send a bunch of pizzas to John Kerry, but there would be no political turnover. There would be no justice on Snowden's behalf. At best, it would be like Guantanamo, where some new POTUS candidate promises change so we elect him, then does absolutely nothing. And we'd happily just not care.
How ayahuasca can revolutionize psychotherapy
Here's Satoshi's response to the "intrinsic value" problem:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583.msg11405#msg1140...
I guess that implies that Google did not know this before. If you are logged into GMail, are you not logged into Maps at the same time?

Also, I believe you do not have to be logged into Maps on your mobile phone to use it.

Lastly, what are we worried about here? The NSA can figure out how to do a join between all the different databases Google has to uniquely identify you and Google will not ask you for consent on that. What Google is trying to do is combine the info from various services to get better targeted ads. Is that exactly a tragedy or an invasion of privacy? At the end of the day, no matter how they collect it, store it, organize it, or analyze it, you end up voluntarily giving them all the information. Don't want to do that? Sign out of YouTube.
Gold production value is maybe 10-20 times lower than it's speculative value. Just check how much gold is sitting in vaults and not being sent to factories. If it's only demanded for production, then the price would be much-much lower.

Bitcoin has many uses too, not only for reservation demand. It has scripts to protect contracts without expensive court system, blockchain can be used as a secure timestamp service, or a global name registry. It's full of opportunities apart from protecting your wealth.
Generate QR codes with DuckDuckGo
Quoted that for you:

As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose

and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel

If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.

Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.

I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value. But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.

(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)
I don't think it's a natural social cycle, it's the outgrowth of the general mistrust of government that has festered over the last 30-40 years or so. I don't think that our political institutions have dealt with the changes in the media well.

The ideology that inspired the construction of these safety nets is gone for the most part -- we've degraded to bread and circuses. The political machinery on one side focuses on handing out stuff in exchange for votes, and the other side focuses on vilifying "those people". Nobody believes in anything anymore.
The filters do indeed already exist, and have done for some time. They were originally (quietly) implemented by ISPs when the government made it clear that they could cooperate, or they could have it made law and far more expensive to implement. The list of sites to block are currently maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation, with the aim of preventing access to child abuse, but could quite easily be expanded to cover other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...
What happened to innocent until proved guilty?