skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
He does an awful lot of work to build credibility and then try and use it to spread fud around Snowden. Would there even have been a "Take Back the Fourth" without Snowden? Perhaps next year we will all be at the "Remove the 4th" rally instead.
Not sure it's "everyone." In the US, about 58% of male babies are circumcised, and I'm sure the rate among families who are not recent immigrants is much higher.
You need to hustle and get things done: Will Critchlow, Cofounder at Distilled
Do you? Half of my colleagues who do web development would be utterly unable to tell you what TLB or virtual memory are, probably don't remember Ohm's law, and while they would probably be able to write a sorting function on their own, chances are they'd fail even the most basic exam on data structures and algorithm.

And they can do their job just fine. This isn't 1995, when writing dynamic websites was a pioneer's job. What they do is enough of a commodity that it can be outsourced to college freshmen at the end of the world. People don't need a degree to do that now, just like they didn't need one back then, only for different reasons.

Also, no, doing electrician's work is far more complex than IT support. For one thing, the chances of dying because of doing it improperly are quite disproportionate, and the amount of theoretical knowledge you need in order to be an electrician is not negligible at all. Your average hipster who's proud of the amazingly cool things he's hacking on his Arduino knows a lot less about it than your average electrician, even if the electrician isn't so obnoxious about it.
Remember one thing, it's the thought that counts.

I would recommend either something that is well engineered, but old_skool - like a Remington typewriter.

||

If you are a coder yourself, write your own present. I've seen a Christmas card written in C with the ncurses library.
Yes. But at the same time there are clearly cases where the costs imposed do exceed the cost of enforcement. I don't pretend to know whether that is the case here; I weakly expect that it isn't. Again, my post was a response to a question: "[W]hat possible benefit would prison be here?" Deterrence and prevention of behaviours with harmful externalities is the possible benefit.
This article seems to miss the bigger picture -- why is Lucentis 40x more expensive than Avastin?

The answer is that drugs aren't priced by how much they cost to manufacture a dose -- nor should they be!

Roughly, they're priced by the cost of R&D (a fixed cost) and the benefit to patients (a fixed benefit per patient). So it makes complete sense that Lucentis is more expensive, because the does size is so much smaller. It's still vastly less expensive to get eye treatment with Lucentis than cancer treatment with Avastin, which runs at ~$100,000/year.
Saying controversial things while hiding behind anonymity isn't exactly what I call brave. People are People, meaning not being anonymous has a modulating influence on people's behavior and that is a good thing.

If you doubt this just descend into the comment section of any news article to see the vile stuff people post online because they are anonymous.
I think silicon valley is much closer to the cheesegrater than to quantum physics. Just because the industry is characterized as high tech, doesn't mean that the actual content requires a huge amount of scientific or mathematical knowledge.

As a philosophical point, I agree that the fact that all of society is needed in order to produce our wealth, is a good argument for redistribution. But imagine that somehow this wasn't the case. I think the redistribution would still be justified on the grounds that the imposition on people's rights (paying taxes) is very small compared with the benefits. In fact, forcing people paying taxes is the least restrictive way for the government to implement any policy.
I'm not sure what that distinction might be, and I doubt it would be real anyway. Basically the idea is that everything should be voluntary, which is really hard to disagree with whilst being sane.
If I used my real name, you would probably guess I m uncircumcised, and unlikely to support genital mutilation. Glad I didn't, though, I learned an interesting thing about you and your beliefs.
"The Internship" is less realistic than you'd think.
Britain has an ethnic problem: the English
Neat! Any reason why it only shows five links per page?
Really? Lucentis is injected into the eye by doctors -- it's not something you're taking at home.
I think a degree is needed, but a computer science degree with today's academics is going to be lacking.

You would be better to get a degree in something you enjoy doing and find easy, while on the side build interesting projects on the Internet. Those projects can be used as your portfolio to get a job and you have a degree in something you didnt have to work too hard at. Rather you worked hard at teaching yourself how to design, code and creating cool things on the Internet!

Who cares about age overall, because it's nothing you can control and no doubt you are going to run into a lot of younger douchebags. Those douchebags will one day grow up to be nicer people, as well you'll grow up to the point of not letting other people's negativity affect you/make you lose focus of your goals!

From a 38 year old start-up guy who is still learning! Started my first idea at 31.
It never used to be but it's rapidly getting to be, I use mine out of habit but I'm slowly changing to gibberish. Then again at some point it's changed from a "nickname" to "username" to "your real name".

In the olden days using numbers in a username was considered bad now it's becoming as necessarily as using a mix of characters in a password.
Generating Complex Procedural Terrains Using the GPU (2008)
In theory, yes, MAD and Nash Equilibrium and all that.

In practice, people and government are irrational and make mistakes (most notably in 1983 when we almost destroyed the world due to a false alarm) -- and the cost of policing this theoretical balance of power costs a hell of a lot of resources that could be better spent doing more productive things.
Alternatively, why do mobile devices ever allow pinch zoom to be disabled? It's such a useful accessibility feature for anyone with less-than-perfect eyesight.
What complete and utter rubbish.

Simon Hibbs
> I think you misread the comment you're replying to.

I think you misread mine, because you're inserting the word "all" where I never placed it.

> People are not entitled to ignore all externalities that cause discomfort to others.

I agree with this. The man being vilified in this thread almost certainly does, too.

> For example, creating toxic pollution that spreads to people around you and forcing them to pay the cost of cleanup is not OK

I agree.

> but you're suggesting it is?

Not at all.

I was responding to a post that vilified people who ignored externalities that cause discomfort for other people. I responded by explaining that everyone ignores externalities that cause others discomfort. Every action (or inaction) negatively and positively affects other people, and you can't be paralyzed by that.

If you've ever been in a monogamous relationship, you've created externalities that caused discomfort in your romantic rivals. You made a judgement call, and decided to do it anyway.

Everything is a judgement call. The man in the article made one. We're not arguing principles here; we're arguing where to draw the line.

> And the part about not paying for public goods that you use, you seem to have misread as "not using public goods that you don't pay for".

I don't understand why you feel I misread it that way.

I was responding to a post that vilified people who felt they shouldn't be forced to pay for things that benefited them.

If I plant attractive flowers in my front yard, it would be nakedly evil for me to force the family across from me to help pay for them, even though their lives are improved by the flowers.

If I give someone genuinely useful advice, I shouldn't be allowed to say, "Ha! You're benefiting for free! Pay up."
Free VPN Service
I believe you could. The path I'd recommend is learn programming, get experience that you can put on your resume (such as developing an online tool or doing a startup), then go from there.

Good luck!
The number of tests is not what bothers me. The number of times we have had accidents is what does. Thankfully, none has ever resulted in accidental detonation- but this involved a lot of luck.

Eric Schlosser's book Command and Control, which just came out this year is a pretty comprehensive treatment of every accident the US has ever had, from decades of filing Freedom of Information reports. I'm halfway through it right now, it's pretty chilling.

Book: http://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illu...

NYT review: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/books/review/command-and-c...
Putting aside the fact that aviationweek.com is little more than an instrument of the US military propaganda machinery, this was a pretty interesting read.

The control systems on these aircraft need to be extremely robust and reliable, and they incorporate advanced autopiloting, "return home" capability, etc. I bet it'd be a fun project to work on one of these drones' controllers and avionics, though it likely wouldn't involve much hacking. For the control systems for these and other aircraft, thoroughly-tested, deliberate, plain code is the order of the day.

Easy to inspect, stay away from corner-cases where behaviour is ill-defined, etc.
My guess is those who want to see Snowden put in jail for life are victims of lifelong conditioning as, whether you agree with him or not, he's clearly someone who has been prodded by his conscience to defend what one would think is a Western value (the freedom not to be spied on in an open society). Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history knows a state with an unchecked domestic surveillance apparatus will end up dysfunctional and corrupt. What most people don't understand is how much power surveillance capabilities grant to whoever has access to the information.
Most customers don't look just for available candidates but for ones that also match the required skill set. Just looking for some available "backend developer" wont work.
Bigger nukes increase the area of total destruction but they also increase the area of partial destruction. Furthermore, the area of total destruction is still not going to be big enough to cover an entire metropolitan area unless you're talking about something along the lines of Tsar Bomba. The point remains that civil defense procedures like "duck and cover" would save many lives.
Involving the courts is by design. Because Congress decided to create this right, and because it's messy, and because creating rules around "messy" is a Hard Problem ... let's involve the courts! As evidence that this was intentional, see "fair use" - no one thinks they're allowed to make a fair use decision without filing a lawsuit.

Point: I get why the courts are involved. But I'm right there with you that the whole system gets used as an oppressive instrument.
So you're saying that if the government is passing the boundaries of legality and morality, people should just keep their heads down and not say anything?

Frankly, I'm disgusted by you "American" attitude towards this. I've seen more non-Americans who support Snowden than Americans, which is really very depressing. Because those are supposed to be your American values, of freedom, privacy and basic human rights. But it's like after 9/11 you've all been brainwashed to believe those aren't very important, and what matters most is "national security" at all costs.

Do you really think most of that spying is done to catch terrorists? How naive, are you, really? Is the spying on every single European to catch the terrorists? The spying on EU and Latina American countries to catch terrorists?

When secrets are dirty, they should be exposed - at all costs. Yes, even if it means endangering people's lives. Why? Because people have also given their lives in the past to earn those rights. Their lives shouldn't be wasted because "governments knows best".
No, you're describing me, actually.
I don't use my real name online in most cases. Being pseudoanonymous allows for more free flowing casual conversation[1]. Much like two buddies sitting in a bar allows for different conversational avenues than the same two buddies chatting in a crowded office.

I have no real reason to curate an online identity or reputation and I don't want my online words to be only of a "professional" nature.

Also, I have no trouble being civil. Even if I was inspired to be a jerk, accountability need not be tethered to identity.

1: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/11/the_future_of...
A few years back I moved from an EE background to Computer Science. I found it hard initially to relate building cool shit with learning abstract theory. However, fast forward a few years now, I think I kind of understand where it helps and where it doesn't. I think there are two types of people who get the best value of a computer science education:

1) People who have been programming for years and years. That way, you have enough of these tiny examples of how people have done things. Now at school, a higher layer of abstraction showing how all this stuff is connected comes up and it is amazingly insightful.

2) People who are lucky enough to find the right kind of mentors in school. The kind who will force you to relate the theory to practical examples.

At this point, if you don't have both enough work on the practical examples and on the theory, the only advice I have is to be prepared to work very hard, ask dumb questions and persist at it. Eventually, you will go into industry where it might initially seem as if the stuff you studied didn't have any context. Go back in a few years and re-read your notes, it will help you understand where the connections you subconsciously made in school have helped you.
I use my real name everywhere online. The reasons why are pretty straightforward:

1. It reminds me to be civil and think before I post.

2. It makes it easier for other people reach out to me based on things I've posted (I have a fairly unique name).

Pseudonyms are relatively easy to 'decode'. If I wrote something particularly dumb, offensive, or stupid, and someone wanted to pin that on me, I'm sure they could given enough time and effort.
That's an interesting view - I comprehensively use my real name online, and I don't think it causes me to avoid confrontation or controversy, though it probably does make me consider what I'm saying to a greater degree. Along the lines of "hey, maybe I should think about my opinion of this topic in greater detail, rather than going on a rant," which I might otherwise do.
It was a teaser, but it was reasonably long and a lot of gameplay was shown.
> "The founders intended" isn't a valid line of argument.

Well, it is though. That isn't to suggest that it's the definitive argument or standard to be held to, but it's definitely valid. Justices sitting on the Supreme Court agree, though not all of them. There are definitely competing beliefs, but just saying that isn't valid doesn't invalidate it.

Regardless of whether we agree that it should be the prevailing theory, there are ramifications for its applicability. The House just passed (rather, extended, but same difference) that would, if enacted, ban the manufacture of undetectable firearms. So, we're in a legal morass right now that it is legal for me to manufacture guns at home, and it is legal for me to purchase undetectable firearms, but it is not legal for me to manufacture undetectable firearms at home. What does that mean? Well, presumably, the intent is to prevent me from being able to smuggle home-grown guns onto airplanes. By that metric, if I manufacture a gun that is made of plastic, but that has some metallic (detectable) components, am I in the clear? By the law, yes I am. If, however, those metallic components are detachable, such that I could still effectively smuggle the weapon through TSA screening, does that change the matter?

> This works for you because you want less laws than more.

Who said that I want less laws? I acknowledged in my original diatribe that more individual freedom may not prove to be the most effective outcome, and ultimately, the most effective outcome to win. I don't know what that is. Perhaps it is an application of less laws, perhaps it is an application of more consistent laws, or perhaps it is a more consistent application of law? My biggest gripe, for what it's worth, relates to the latter of those. I believe that the largest problem in our nation relates neither to the relative wealth or dearth of laws, but of their corrupt application. I would wager that many on either the right or left would share this interpretation, whether they know it or not, though I don't know how many would agree on its prioritization.

> They couldn't foresee the consolidation of federal power that came later, which may have justified an easier process to them

This is the statement with which I most disagree. I think that they very gravely foresaw this, and even went so far as to challenge later generations of Americans with the task of preventing it. Hamilton even advocated for this, on matters of efficiency, but ultimately lost out on the argument, though I'd argue that conflict accounts for much of the vagueries of the Constitution that we have now.
> The rich and powerful are fully in favor of a strong, powerful state-run economy that serves their needs. That's why it's done under the rubric of military spending -- "we have to spend trillions of taxpayer dollars on this because we have to defend ourselves" sounds better than "because we need it to produce the Silicon Valley economic miracle."

Why don't we go back to funding moonshot projects instead, then? Let's see Apollo Program/Human Genome Project-level spending on Next-generation sequencing (protein and RNA included), novel propulsion engines for deep space probes, battery research, materials, etc. If we spent the same money on pressing problems, we could support the science and tech sectors all the while doing incredible societal good.
Models at Nanjing(China) fashion show wearing masks due to crazy smog level
How about when someone doesn't support treating animals well. Or values your apple more than your life? Or decides they have this million tonnes of toxic gunk and decides that instead of paying someone who knows how to deal with it he's just going to dump it all in your lake? Or when someone realises that you value organic produce more, and decides to lie and say that their produce is in fact organic?

What happens when someone realises your house is on top of a nice mineral deposit but can't give you sufficient value to vacate your property and decides to burn it down in the middle of the night?

What happens when one person pays another to kill you? It's a free and voluntary exchange. And you're dead. Everyone is better off, right? Right?
You go outside...?
True but irrelevant, since there is a huge difference between being bankrupted by the medical system itself, and bankrupted because you can't afford not to work (which can happen for many other reasons and is a separate problem to guard oneself against).
It's up to the freelancer to develop a solid pipeline for work.

Downtime isn't uncommon either, it happens, but it's also one of the reasons your rate should be high enough to support your downtime.
I find it chilling that the left still get away with their implicit threats of violence unchallenged.

Can you imagine someone saying that about immigration? They would almost certainly be locked up in the UK.

There is a double standard where saying "X will lead to violence, but I am just warning you, I don't want to see it happen" is allowed for some, but not others.
Your reasoning is wrong, here.

Taxation is zero-sum in dollars.

Trade of dollars and unmodified material goods is also zero sum in those dollars and goods, and can still be positive-sum in utility.

If you have X kg gold, and I have $Y, and you value that X kg gold at less than $Y, while I value that X kg gold a more than $Y, we can make a trade, all be subjectively better off - a non-zero sum transaction - and yet there is no more gold and there is no more dollars.
Something like pinning for S/MIME would be great, too…
Well that was just one example that was recent in mind. I'm sure you can find any number of controversial things in my internet history.
The primes in question = 509, 503 and 3301. 509 and 503 was the width and height of the image. Obviously, you don't get a new prime after multiplying these numbers together though. ;) For those who don't find this immediately obvious, keep in mind the definition of a prime ...

Well, he obviously has misunderstood both TOR and the definition of a darknet. The surface web _is_ just the tip of the iceberg though, but that's because it's defined as the part of the web being indexed by public search engines.

Your private Facebook posts, your Gmail inbox, private Dropbox files, and so on, are all parts of the so called deep web according to this definition. Due to this, it's not a very meaningful concept, and says absolutely nothing about the size of any "human-trafficking rings, black market drug markets and terrorist networks".

PS. I'm the Joel Eriksson that Chris interviewed for the article in question, and for anyone who would like more detailed and less sensationalist information about the Cicada 3301 stuff, feel free to read my writeup at http://www.clevcode.org/cicada-3301/. :)
I'm currently running a survey to better understand perceptions and attitudes towards anonymous online communication. Feel free to contribute -- every response is greatly appreciated.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/onlineanonymity
You are clearly someone who has never even been mugged much less dealt with war and violence in any real sense.

Your post reflects an incredible naivety about what true death and destruction means. A weapon doesn't have to be able to break the planet apart in order for it to be terrifying.

Sure, maybe media depictions of nuclear weapons are sensational, but that is hardly a reason to doubt their destructive power.
Well, so Hiroshima/Nagasaki were 15-20kT weapons. While there was a while were the US and Russia were routinely plopping 5MT+ weapons on strategic platforms, these days its more down to 100-400kT range, so we're already sitting at ~one order of magnitude for most common nuclear device that'll go off near you. Granted, there will be a lot of them, but still.

Ok, so outside of the immediate fireball, the majority of immediate damage is going to be caused by overpressure, which will obey square distance law. So you're 20x weapon will only cause ~4.5x the overpressure at some distance.

So now its civil engineering of modern buildings vs whatever they had at Nagasaki/Hiroshima. I honestly cannot answer this, but I suspect that they could probably sustain twice the overpressure at least. So you're actual lethality (from building collapse) at set distance is only about ~2x despite the ~10x increase in weapon power.

Now, it's all kinda moot cause there's not going to be 'just one nuke'.

For your enjoyment and horror, http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ you can watch how dead you'll be.
The problem is that circumcision isn't a heated controversy, it's not like someone is going to dox you because you made an argument against it.

Here's a few arguments off the top of my head that someone might dox you for:

-Whether or not feminism is the cause of the recent emasculation of men

-Whether or not Israel is committing crimes against humanity in Gaza and against the Palestinians

-Whether or not transexual persons should be medically referred to as their original gender or new gender.

-Whether or not affirmative action should exist.

Pretty much any debate that is emotionally charged has the potential for people to try to screw with your real life over it, circumcision is not one of them.