skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
To be fair, Express is a web framework. Go's net/http package is a little lower level than that.

Still, this is possible if you make up for the lack of a framework by writing some code yourself. I'd use (and I do use) gorilla/context[1] to allow me to pass data in the request context between middleware layers (i.e. CSRF middleware passes the token along).

You could write a couple of little helpers using gorilla/context (SetUser/GetUser, or more generically, SetString/GetString) and SetUser(username, r) in your middleware. The helpers (see the context docs!) just wrap a type assertion on the Get side, and set a map value on the Set side.

// Compatible with http.HandlerFunc
func auth(h http.HandlerFunc) http.HandlerFunc {
return func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
SetUser(r, "dave")
h.ServeHTTP(w, r)
}
}

// Routes
r.HandleFunc("/admin", use(adminHandler, auth)
http.Handle("/", r)

// Allows you to chain your middleware rather than wrapping functions
func use(h http.HandlerFunc, middleware ...func(http.HandlerFunc) http.HandlerFunc) http.HandlerFunc {
for _, m := range middleware {
h = m(h)
}

return h
}

You can mod this to work with http.Handler if you want: replace HandlerFunc and then write r.Handle("/admin", use(http.HandlerFunc(adminHandler), auth) instead.

[1]: http://www.gorillatoolkit.org/pkg/context
"because the people on trial said so" does not really constitute evidence.

(not that they are in any real way on trial mind, they got to vet and prepare for every question before hand.)
I rarely use airbnb because it's so hard to find non-couch-surfing situations. And I think you are clearly understating the ingenuity and improvements that airbnb has brought to the industry.
Being a dick to people on Hacker News is never necessary. If anything it's counterproductive. People used to get downvoted into nothing just for posting a lmgtfy link.
The big trick is to respect the people you live with, to have empathy for them, and most importantly to realize that in the long-term you are going to be a lot better off if you adopt a policy of "I'll fix this as soon as I find an issue". That works especially because it keeps things from building to a point where they get to be an issue.

And if an incompatibility is found/uncovered in this regard, the deal/relationship should be broken off (either the non-respecting/dysfunctional roommate is asked to leave, or the functional one chooses to leave). That's the only solution for Tragedy of the Commons, and roommates are one of the few cases where something can actually be done about Tragedy of the Commons.

While it's often considered "fair" to split everything equally, I've found it useful to, for example, have one person's name on the lease and it's their place and can kick anyone out (if the landlord/lease is agreeable to that, depends on income and the rental market, really). For the same reasons outlined elsetimes on HN about how to split stock and voting rights between founders -- it's useful to have one place where the buck stops so as not to get bogged down in not being able to break a tie. If there's only one person's name on the lease, things are a lot easier (and often faster) to deal with when the relationship goes sour, for whatever reason.
Instead, the state-supported rich and powerful can claim we live in a "free market economy" that just happens to have trillions of state-sponsored investment, for them.

Corporatism (the current system) is neither socialism nor capitalism. It's designed to give a well-connected elite the best of both systems and the rest of society the worst of both. It's like suburbia, which delivers the best of both worlds (urban and rural) for the rich and the worst of both to the poor.

The truth is that the elite of our society do not meaningfully compete. They serve on each others' corporate boards, arrange jobs for one another in event of adverse circumstances, and have generally set up their own private welfare system (see: EIR gigs). The competition rhetoric exists because they intend for us to compete-- against each other, thus ignoring them.
Slavery is only shocking now

This is utter bullshit. There have people making political stands against slavery for centuries. In the US, there were laws being brought in in 1777, right after independence. In England, there was a 16th century case where a slave brought from Russia would not be recognised under English law. Slavery in France was prohibited early in the 14th century.

Slavery has a long tradition of people opposing it. Even 'thousands of years before that', there were societies where slavery was explicitly forbidden. The Achaemenid Empire (500-300BC) banned slavery due to its Zoroastrian religion.
Alternatively, NATO provides legal and moral support to the centuries old concept of buffer states - the US provides military support to stop the spread of communism, which is left unchecked would have reached the US isolated in a hostile world.

As a European (with a keen interest in history) I'm not ungrateful for US aid, but to suggest that aid was entirely selfless is incorrect. (You may wish to draw parallels with the French support that made the American revolution a success, a similar situation...)
I haven't gotten around to writing much here, but this is my SO profile which has my real name and the school I attend: http://stackoverflow.com/users/903589/wes
Think of it as a free cloud backup.
Sociological studies bla, bla - TL;DR: You are more civil when people recognize you. You are more likely to act in the "interest of the group" when you sign stuff with your real name. At least that's the state of the research to my best knowledge.
You are clearly the type of person who describes the ignorance of another person as a way to obviate all meaningful dialog.

</sarcasm>

Your tactic is so terrible that it renders your argument idle. Seriously, your brain is running, but you are moving no newtons. Please reevaluate your attempt at discussion.

I think you might have an interesting point somewhere in there, but your opening gambit is a shart. Nobody want to stick around for it when you open up insulting everyone who disagrees with you.
If I could sign in with GitHub, absolutely.
What’s wrong with this advertisement?
> As pertaining to capitalism, our stance is that true capitalism hasn't ever really been tried

In some sense, when I hear this argument, I'm reminded by the claim of some Marxists, that you shouldn't conclude that communism doesn't work just becuase it failed in so many countries, after all they didn't implement the communist ideal properly!

As you say, I think neither extreme will ever work well as long as we humans are who we are.

When corporations pour money into politics like they do today, couldn't you say that it's just true capitalism working its way as "intended"? Would this problem become worse or better if we removed campaign funding regulations and?
Fighting the "War on Ignorance"
The author of this article, Andrew Solomon, wrote a book entitled The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression[1] that is based in part on his own struggles with depression.

[1] http://andrewsolomon.com/books/the-noonday-demon/
The second link [2] is very interesting - it breaks down some past USA results by ethnicity.

It also seems the underlying PISA data is a closely guarded secret. No doubt a political tinderbox.

> Why does my second graph have to compare reading scores from 2009 to science scores from 2006 and math scores from 2003?
I would be careful with putting so much emphasis on legality. The fact is that there are so many laws, and some of them are so weird and convoluted, and nobody really understands them all; pretty much everyone does several illegal things every day without even realizing it:

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...

Under these kinds of conditions, if someone in an appropriate branch of government wants to nail you for any reason, they can. Especially now that widespread spying makes it much easier to identify specific transgressions.

So I am not so sure why you would take such a hard line on legality when in fact such a stance is just waiting to come back and bite you (and everyone).

... In fact, now it is the government's position that there are SECRET LAWS that you can be violating but not even know why you are violating them; they can arrest you and not tell you exactly why they arrested you, because the reason is secret. How are you supposed to engage in strictly legal behavior when you don't even know what is legal and what is illegal?
The rule for me is to give the least information required for the interaction to take place.

If someon is considering me for a job, it's reasonable to give my full name.

If someone just wants to chat with my on reddit, they don't need to know my full name.

If someone knows me outside of the internet, but we communicate through the internet, then I don't need to provide my real name.
If you take a peek at history, you will see that we never learn from it and repeat the same mistakes. That's a thing a historian friend of mine says a lot.

What strikes me is this:

when one parent asked, what Snowden's destination was, another said, "Gitmo?" with a smile that indicated that he thought Snowden belongs there.

It's terrifying how people silently consent to putting people in prisons that are above the law and feel smug about it. It shows they truly never bothered taking a lesson from even recent history.
Yes -- we can all pick examples at the extremities that may exemplify how one feels and throw names about in order to convince or deride the fellow human being into a lockstep of some sort.

Yet such men (and women), who stand on the pillars of history, who have helped create the social constructs we find ourselves living by to some degree today, were "selfish pricks" to those who apposed them and died in their wake.
I'd agree. But in this case, the claim from GCHQ etc is that they have acted fully within the law.

The guardian just loves anti-government stories, bashing anyone in power.

Look at the "expenses scandal". The Guardian was all over it! Publishing pointless details of how an MP claimed £5 for a taxi to a restaurant.

The inquiry into the "expenses scandal" cost more to the tax payer than the entire amount of expenses given to MPs! What the hell was the point of that then?!

It would be good if people recognised how biased The Guardian is. It has an agenda, and searches out the stories which will further it.
The established checks and balances failed. There is a very good reason that journalists often have special protection in a free society: when they do their job, they help to bring balance to what might otherwise be unchecked government power.
I used my real name until 1997, when I was posting questions on newsgroups. When dejanews.com came out, I realized that everything I wrote was forever, and since then I've never used my real name, except on linkedin and Facebook. But both of those use one-off email addresses. I really don't think having a permanent internet profile is necessary and is likely more detrimental than beneficial.

I know I'm not anonymous, and I'm sure the NSA can figure out exactly what all my posts are, but at least it makes it hard for regular companies to track me.
It's not productive if it's a facade. The reality is that a nation-state will eventually go for broke and play the card. Just a matter of time and, as stated, irrational players.
> it's certainly possible to complicate things to no end

You're missing the fact that I'm accepting the NAP for the purposes of this discussion. The question isn't whether or not the NAP is valid; it's what the fuck I actually do in real life.

> But what exactly do you think you've accomplished with this message, besides prompting me to refute bullshit distractions?

I offered you a chance to define your terms. A definition is a boundary in meaning where, inside, the term is applied, and outside, the term is not applied. By asking these questions, you learn what the definition is.

You can do a similar series of questions for defining, say, a banana. You might do that by pointing to a series of objects and asking, "Is this a banana?" That's all I'm doing: I'm pointing at a series of situations and asking, "Is this force? Is this initiation?"

> Coercion requires an intent, a choice, and an action.

Like this. This is important. Nothing in the Non-Aggression Principle points this out.

Which categories of intents, choices, and actions may be combined to constitute coercion, which constitutes force? As our understanding of neuroscience develops, how might we gain nuance into understanding what constitutes coercion?

I know the complexity of reality is scary, but unfortunately, I am doomed to live in reality, which is sorta complex and infinitely various.

> Questions related to property and force.

Yeah, I clearly failed to frame the latter three sets as well as I did the first.

This is a question about the definition of violence. For instance, let's say you're carrying a glass sculpture that you like. While arguing with you, I knock it from your hand and it shatters. That obviously constitutes initiation, but does that constitute force? I didn't hurt you, nor did I coerce you, but that nevertheless seems like aggression.

With questions like "If you own" or "If you covet", my intent was to give you a clear place where you could have a fairly simple "no", but still actually have room to say "yes" if that's what you believed.

>> Is it force to develop your property's uses?

> What do you even mean?

This is a reference to Locke's definition of property. If someone cultivates the land and produces value from it, then they own it. If you gain ownership, and then someone else cultivates and produces value, is that force?
Kevin Kelly's book: Cool Tools.
You might also want to add in Ray Dalio. See 'how the economic machine works' and his research pdf.

It's a more nuanced view than the 'we're all going to die' and 'debt doesn't matter' viewpoints*. That said, there clearly are huge risks with having such unproductive debt.

Just don't expect things to ever change. There were debt jubilees in the bible.
Yes. 1099 your ass and don't you dare ask for 1.5x OT while paying $8.50/hr and doing 50-60 hour weeks.

Or 'unpaid internships'. You can argue the experience, but the law is the law.
Silicon Valley started in the 1950s when there was a lot of government involvement. It didn't become the private sector's innovation center until the 1980s or so, and even then, government played a massive but unaccredited role. Defense contractors rarely innovate-- at least, not intentionally-- but the competition against them for top talent requires startups to compete on interesting work, autonomy, et cetera, which makes better startups. Silicon Valley's era of innovation (ca. 1957-2001) existed in a time (now sadly ended) during which labor had unprecedented leverage. To support Simon's thesis, you don't get innovation if labor or capital has all the cards; you need a balance between the two.
Agreed. I think most humans are deeply and innately scared of change, the unknown, and the Other with a capital O.

I do hope that eventually, over a few hundred years, the human race has mixed enough so that we all sort of have the same skin color and appearance. Is that plausible genetically? It's be interesting. Although I'm sure people would find other minor things to quibble about ("those blue eyed people are taking our jobs!")
Considering that a single frame can require potentially hundreds of gigs of data at professional studios, the bottleneck with using AWS as a renderfarm isn't in provisioning instances but rather is in just sheer bandwidth.
Some of the state sites were launched successfully.

It would appear the Federal site project was poorly managed.

This is not a failure of ideology, and it's definitely not limited to the public sector.
Why Bitcoin's Growth is Normal
If you're bland enough or rich enough that nothing you ever do online could be held against you, no. Otherwise yes.
I use my real name. But then, I'm an analyst, blogger and columnist, so I'm going to get flamed one way or the other. :)

There is one or the other forum at which I post anonymously, and participate in the vitriol of anonymous political discussions. I make no effort to conceal my real identity, however. If I'm ever found out, I'll claim that I'm not the one who started the intemperate excess.

(Yes, that phrase is redundant -- it deserves to be.)
I think it's time we stopped forcing immigration on people who don't want it.

The British really like migration, we travel and work around the world in great numbers and consider it normal that we are allowed to do so. In fact there are more British working abroad than there are immigrants working in the UK so blocking immigration is one of the stupidest things the UK could possibly do, as the resulting visa tit-for-tat would see a lot of people with excellent experience abroad returning home. The people who want to see restrictions imposed on immigration so that British jobs go to the British might be quite upset by the amount of British people coming back to the country to look for work.
I have to argue against that. Many people want to make themselves heard and become known for their opinions, so they attach their real name to their work.
>Aren't "implementation side effects" leading to a mismatch between a user's expected behavior and the actual behavior a bug? Where's the line? :)

It is kind of funny that a forum like this, with this layout, and that "implementation side effect", written in a similar style in PHP would be utterly lambasted here.
If there are good cops(or in this case NSA personnel), why don't they protect us from the bad ones?

Although Snowden may be included in the former category.
No, the attitude I hear in the Deep South is: If you are successful, you can afford professional services and your spouse doesn't need to work, if not, you are a loser and not a good enough Christian. Work harder! (And send my kids to St Thomas for spring break while you enjoy your stay-cation.)

Even the executives where I work don't really comprehend the stresses of a "normal" two income family. They have evolved to live in a disconnected reality.
You've never gotten into an argument with me, then.
"Any fool can sprout eloquent malarkey and think himself smart."

Maybe don't misuse cliches while calling other people fools for doing what you are currently doing.
"But the United States (like every other country in the world) needs some intelligence-gathering capabilities."

But the United States(like every other country of the world) needs control by the people who supposedly controls the country in a democracy.

If all the people is spied, and the people has no way of controlling it, then it is not a democracy anymore.

Remember that absolute power is way more dangerous than terrorists. Terrorist killed 3000 people in 9-11, Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot killed tens of millions after taking control of the State.

Remember Hitler took control of an advanced democratic republic with the excuse of going after terrorism.
Did that cartoonist ever get to court? And how was "The tyranny of silence" censored?
So because there were rumors that Alan Mulally was slated for the role - and now there are rumors he will stay at Ford, there is a stalemate?

I read the article hoping for something informed, something from the inside - a leak even. What this is, is rather boring speculation.

I even find the dismissal of Elop as an option curious given that internal structural changes that were made after the acquisition announcement - the akward positioning in the org chart between he and Julie Larson Green seemed to suggest that one of the two of them may be a strong candidate for the position.

Personally as a shareholder and someone whose consulting practice is very much tied to the fortunes of Microsoft - I would love to see Scott Guthrie in charge. Alas this may not be his time up to the plate. Maybe 5-10 years from now the road will be paved for him. He moves from Azure onto something bigger like Office or Windows - continues his success and the reins are handed over.
I hope you can realize your dream of starting a new live in the utopia of China, Russia, or North Korea...
Yeah, why is that one of the biggest tech companies with fingers in many pies, turning billions a quarter in profits, can't find a new CEO in a couple of days? Anyone can run this kind of company, right? Right?
I came up with numerous jokes today (not William Morgan ;-) but my relative is entirely devoid of a sense of humor.
Absolutely! OP comment sounds a lot like the "I use my real name, because I have nothing to hide" argument.

As long as your viewpoints are completely aligned with the mainstream opinions held in your extended peer group, you have nothing to loose using your real name.

But in all other cases you never know when some HR minion thinks he became a data mining genius because he dug up some comment you made 10 years ago on a random message board,
You don't say. Being a French expat in DK, I found the apathy of the French public in answer to allegations of internal, warrantless surveillance appalling. Apparently, gay marriage is more important. The Danish government has kept mum about the subject, as far as I know, and I haven't heard anything in the Snowden documents concerning DK, but considering how eagerly the Conservatives previously in power went to look for WMDs in Iraq, I fully expect PET to be carrying out the same operations.

Regarding the press and the government, what are their usual working relationship? My impression here is that Danish people are much less cynical about the government than the French are. Combined with a culture of consensus-seeking, this could lead to the press not being as incisive as it could be (though on the other hand, it's apparently possible for politicians to be evicted over scandals that would make the French barely bat an eyelid).
>I know about people who deleted the CA directory from their systems, in my case I prefer to use Certificate Patrol (both in Firefox and Thunderbird) or use self-signed certs and then pgp sign the fingerprint.

How does the latter work? Is that possible with Firefox?
Please use infinite scrolling, nobodies want to click “next” every 10 profiles.
I suppose if you were feeling like annoying the movie industry you could send DMCA takedown notices to anyone who trys to show the film. Especially if they send you takedown notices for showing screen grabs on your blog.
I wish Microsoft would promote someone instead of headhunting externally. I'm sure there are many people who have been there for years who are qualified and care more about MS, its employees, and its customers than some outside person.
It's a complicated and difficult problem to solve. At the same time as we're finding and closing these loopholes, more of these people are infiltrating the highest levels of government and seeking to create more loopholes. Society ceases to function if enough people succeed at violating the social contract.
Nothing was bad about the London conference, quite the contrary.

Was just pointing out the difference in the after party between scala.io Paris and scala eXchange London, not a big deal at all, both of the _conferences_ were great.
Where exactly did I say all games need full blown 3D graphics?

I am just saying that for this kind of games, where the hype/fun/immersion is all about how much fine-grained procedurally generated spatial/life details you can get, to make it all look cartonish style it's a bit simplistic and not up to the capability/deepness/complexity of the ecosystem engine they are proud to market.

To me it's just a bit of riding the trend because indie devs know very well that nowadays cute looking cartoonish indie games are well praised and boosted by mobile app stores whose ratings are driven by casual gamers looking before everything else for cute bleeps and rainbowish color splashes!

Anyway this is just my little opinion and I am sure it is incomplete and does not encompass all the aspects there are to it. Just see it as a starter for a more in-depth conversation, if you wish.

Provided you will take a 360 degrees approach to it :)