skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Perhaps it's better to explain that as "the meaning received by some men".

As in, no specific criticism of white men may be intended, but some white men may experience a "call for diversity" as criticism, since they are well known to be the largest individual group in the tech industry.

Not saying that they "should" feel that way, nor that they are right or wrong for feeling that way, just that many do, and here are some possible reasons why.
Americans lost rights to buy marijuana in 1937. Winning it back by voting turned out not that easy in next 70 or so years.

And, btw, if you try to still use you right to own marijuana, you become a felon, which - surprise! - means you lose rights to vote. See how nicely it works out?
I used to think that NASA is exempt by the government from patent royalties when manufacturing equipment for NASA's missions and purposes. But after a little Googling it turns out I am wrong: http://www.cojk.com/nasa-ordered-to-pay-boeing-28-3m-in-pate...

What is more important is that national security can precede legality at times and trying to stop the NSA from using a particular software becomes moot once you consider that an adversary can do the same actions to undermine software. This means the NSA will have justification to ignore any clause of no use an hunt for exploits and may probably comply with a legal clause of no use as a regular user.

On the other hand you shouldn't look at the NSA as the bad guy. Remember that a security/spying agency is controlled by policy. If policies are bad the actor acts badly. Put your energy in fixing policy instead of beating down the NSA. I'm starting to feel sorry for an agency that acts on orders from the government at large.
They may not have photo IDs that satisfy the new rules. If you don't drive, then until recently you likely didn't have a gov't issued photo ID. Perhaps a school or work issued ID, but that isn't sufficient. You used to be able to present things like lease/electric bill to show residence + birth certificate to show citizenship.
Don't they already have IDs?

No. For most people in the US if you don't have a car you don't have a govt ID.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-law...

those least likely to have a government-issued photo ID fall into one of four categories: the elderly, minorities, the poor and young adults aged 18 to 24. The Brennan Center estimates that 18 percent of all seniors and 25 percent of African-Americans don't have picture IDs.
I didn't actually use the specific phrase "on background", but perhaps I should have said "given as background on a different topic" or words to that effect to make myself clearer. I don't think pg was saying that he made his remarks with an understanding that they would not be printed as coming from him; I think he was just saying that he thought he was giving background information for a profile on Jessica Livingston, not answering questions as part of a formal interview on the topic of women startup founders.
> For an ineligible person to register to vote is voter registration fraud, and you do have to prove your eligibility to register.

For fairly weak (and appropriately so) definitions of prove, in most cases. It would be more accurate in most jurisdictions, AFAIK, to say you must assert a set of facts which, if true, would make you eligible to vote in order to register.
It's going to take banks and their regulators many years to understand this "blockchain" you speak of.
Alleged Original iPhone Prototype Pops Up On eBay For $1,499
Please elaborate. How do you do this? I mean, kickstarter's an established brand. It seems like a good idea but how will you develop the marketplace that really will be "better"?

BTW, saw the video on your site, the general idea is really awesome. Wishing you the best of luck!
In John Gruber's words: "I’m sure this will get just as much attention as Valleywag’s misguided hatchet job that started the whole thing, and that everyone on Twitter who excoriated Graham will apologize."
What I am claiming is that the current batch of voter ID schemes are part of an organized vote suppression effort by the American right wing under the pretense of preventing fraud.

I would be willing to believe that the programs were being adopted in good faith if there was any evidence of widespread voter fraud and if the programs included aggressive efforts to ensure that every eligible voter has access to a free ID.
I wasn't asking about which sets of people overlap or not. I was asking what makes ID requirement be identical with suppression - is it ID requirement itself or something else? If it is something else - what exactly it is? Is it where set of people is relevant - it is OK to ask some people to show the papers but not the others? Which people should be exempt and which should not be?
The last time I was hiring, I wished I could easily review resumes without seeing the names, email addresses, physical addresses, school names, or even telephone numbers as I felt that I was bringing in my arbitrary bias.

Telephone numbers? I found that I identified a lot more with area code 206 than 425 or 253, just as I identify a lot more with an @gmail.com address than @hotmail.com or @aol.com.
Even if an ID is free, the documentation required to obtain one may not be free (like a registered birth certificate, for example).

Expired licenses do not work as ID under Texas' new ID law. There was a particularly egregious example of this earlier this year:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/11/03/former-u-s-house-speaker-...
Doesn't matter. By the time they cut through the door, the pilot would already have performed an emergency landing at a nearby airport. You're going to have a hard time cutting through the cockpit door when a SWAT officer is pressing your head against the floor.
Why should one care about themselves more than others? There's nothing intrinsically valuable about the self. Accumulating resources or accomplishments? Sounds pretty pointless to me.
Indeed.

My father in law was denied an ID when he moved to a different state. He is a US citizen of Pakistani origin, and the DMV staff refused to issue him a drivers' license because they were convinced that the was not a US citizen. He showed them his US passport. They claimed it was fake. He showed them his drivers license from his home state. They rejected it. He showed them his veterans card identifying him as a retired US Air Force officer. They laughed.
Apple's lost founder: Jobs, Woz and Wayne
Look at it from the other side. Even with the lax security before, about 999,999,999,999 per billion people were deterred. That is a stupendously high success rate. We cannot make spacecraft with that high a quality level.

> If it takes a day of preparation, we'd see perhaps a dozen per day.

Nope. People are deterred by socialization and innate biology. I could take a gasoline bomb to a nearby school or church and kill hundreds of people within the week, for little expense and a good chance of getting off scot free. So could most people. It is not difficulty or risk that prevent mass killings.
glitter <nailpolish> !
Playing an unfortunate devil's advocate, all this ludicrous surveillance state gadgetry seems to be less of an attempt to be the United Stasi of America and more of a ridiculous over the top reaction in fear of being accused of going soft on terror.

I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, but I acknowledge that if a 2nd 9/11 level event were to occur after the government relented and imposed reasonable limitations on data collection that the party out of power at the time could easily scream bloody murder and take all 3 branches of government in a single election cycle. I'd previously only expected this from the party of Kang, but Obama's stance on drones and NSA surveillance has revealed the party of Kodos is no better.

Which is to say I think the surveillance state is a symptom more than the disease. America has lost all sense of perspective.

~30,000 automotive deaths (of which ~10,000 resulted from drunk driving) annually.

~11,000 gun deaths.

~6,000 deaths from falling off ladders.

~3,000 people died on 9/11.

Ergo we should ban ladders, guns, alcohol, and cars: it's the only way to be sure, no?
Ever used professional cutting gear? There is no carry on bag I've ever seen that would fit the smallest petrol powered gear I've used. The blade alone is 300mm http://www.hirepool.co.nz/equipment-hire/s1/1/s3/61/FetchGro...
However electric gear is smaller. If you can find a power point and a decent extension lead, run it to the pilot's door, avoid someone unplugging it, don't blow a fuse, don't get it too smokey to breath (bring respirator or get a passenger to assist by pouring water on the door - avoid the water/electrics issue as that can be dangerous. 1 minute of cutting can make so much dust/smoke you can't see your hand in front of your face). You'll be through that door in under an hour!
Hey I think your intentions are in a good place but I think you're placing the onus on the wrong party. @ericabiz is very open, transparent and direct about what she has seen and heard. It sounds like she's quite talented and had a choice available to her in the marketplace. Based on her market research she went with what she believed to be the better option for her situation. It's possible that she may have decided to go against her instincts and research and go with YCombinator anyway but it's odd to argue that she should have taken the risk and done it over her preferred solution. These are very big decisions involving where you live in the short term and how your life turns out in the long run. The onus really is on YC to address the perceived or real notion in the marketplace (that it's not female founder friendly) to continue to attract the best startups. That is, if there is an onus on any party here it's not on the buyer but rather the seller to address these issues. If these notions are false and unfounded it won't be too hard to clear them up. If they're based on something that does have a grain of truth then go tackle that. (Female founders focus FTW!) I just think it's unfair that you have a somewhat lecturing tone in your comments. It's a little bit of shooting the messenger.
> you become a felon, which - surprise! - means you lose rights to vote

Fortunately not in all states. Some allow you to vote, some allow you to vote after you're released or your sentence (including probation or just incarceration) is complete. [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#Unite...
>What is the motivation of twister over bitmessage + namecoin.

Bitmessage is to mail what twister is to twitter ?
I can't find the whitepaper anywhere! Am I missing it?

EDIT: it's under "Development" at the menu (I thought it was just a dropdown!)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7152
It was a school project. We were the only team to use new technologies. Everyone else used Java or C# (with one group using PHP). Go seemed cool. Dart (which we used for the frontend) also seemed cool.
Basic ATMs found in gas stations and liquor stores are different. All the ATMs in big banks have a safe at the bottom that houses the case made of 1/4 inch or so steel plates.
The outcry is from the left because these laws are always by the right in order to make it more difficult for demographics that vote left to vote. They come from a long line of laws in a similar vein, such as literacy tests full of trick questions, etc.. The general idea is just to make it tough enough to vote that poor people can't.
Update from the Madeline Island Ferry Line
I feel like this point can't be overstated.

It's so simple, but so correct.
Users have to opt in to sharing click events with Bing for features like suggested sites ("if they have Internet Explorer equipped with certain features"), and that's what they track. IMO, if users give permission, it's fair game for MS to use that data -- that's still more of an option than what most of the Internet gives users.

Also, AFAIK Hotmail (or live or outlook or whatever it's called now) does not, and never has, targeted ads based on keywords in the email. I'm not that big on privacy so I still use Gmail but at least MS is not being hypocritical in that respect.

Bing search, on the other hand, does all the sorts of tracking and mining Google (and Facebook etc.) does, but so far the Scroogled campaign hasn't said anything about search.
Interesting. Rather than a coin resulting from the block chain you get the right to inject advertising. I'm not sure that will work as well (but partly just because it doesn't inspire me to mine), but it's an interesting avenue.
There is no age limit for going to college either, but I have seen many people feel reluctant to begin/return to college later in life, for many reasons - they think they won't fit in with other students and hence will miss out on shared experiences, they think it's "too late" to get any use out of the degree by the time they finish, they think other people will think they are slow/stupid for being in college at their age, they think that colleges might not want to admit older people, they aren't sure if they can afford to support their family while being in college (not a concern for the traditional student), etc. I think that most of these fears are unfounded, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. One way to reassure them is often to give them specific examples of 'x went back to college to be a doctor when he was 33, and has had a long and successful career since then that totally let him pay off his student loans even though they were so huge!' or 'z did a degree in Mathematics in her 40s, and she said sure nobody invited her to keggers, but she was able to find partners for her group projects easily'. Are any of the older previous alumni open to being known as 'the guy who did YC in his 30s', or to being contacted by prospective entrants, to provide similar success stories?
Well, just spot checking Wisconsin (because that is the first state to come up when I googled 'election day voter registration' requires a valid driver's license for same day registration.

So, no, not exactly like that.
A password manager. I personally use 1Password. Life before it was painful and insecure.
As a liberal what pisses me off about the libertarian "big government" line is how it conflates the out of control militarized police state with, for example, school lunches for poor kids. Can't you tell the difference? Can't we have one without the other?
Don't want your laptop tampered with? Use a [detrerrent]

Seems fine...actually. All security tools are only deterrents to varying degrees.
There's a movement to get journalists to do this for some time. I remembered this interview with public radio's On The Media from 2007 on this very subject.

http://www.onthemedia.org/story/129436-just-email-me/transcr...
That's just an excuse. Why are you more worried that a female coworker will misunderstand you than a male one?
BTW, it was just announced that Ruby will use SemVer starting from Ruby 2.1.0.

https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/12/21/semantic-versio...
We know that voter id requirements are based in voter suppression because those requirements are targeted to preventing an attack that is economically infeasible and they don't even effectively mitigate the attack.

Look at my other comments in this thread for the details, but in brief, the cost of using voter impersonation fraud is extremely high, the probability that authorities will detect it is also high, and the penalties for breaking the law in this way are very serious. What's more, bypassing the ID requirement is trivial for criminals, in the same way that bored teenagers can purchase alcohol whenever they want because forging ID cards is easy.

Note also that IDs are actually not required for flying in the US. Flying without an ID is annoying and time consuming, but definitely doable (I've done it).
Can I ask you to go one deeper there? Do you think age is more critical here than sex? Would you rather be a 25 year old female applying or a 38 year old male?
>>the random high-security selection.

a.k.a. the "sir we assure you that this is a completely random check" racial/gender/economic profiling
This is like an engineering urban legend. I've seen it on here before but the circumstances were different. Last time this was posted it was a Japanese soap factory instead of a toothpaste factory.
He admits to lifestyle creep as his income increased. It's not what you make, it's what you spend. That's the best personal finance advice I ever received, but very unintuitive for most people unfortunately.
It's possible to have security without having what amounts to a sexual assault
> you would use byte strings and you would never have to call encode or touch UTF-8 before passing the byte string to a TCP socket.

I'll start by adding that it's also incredibly annoying to declare each string to be a byte string, if this wasn't clear from my original rant.

Additionally, your advice is broken. Take a look at this example, with the shelve module (from standard library).

s=shelve.open('/tmp/a')

s[b'key']=1

Results in:

AttributeError: 'bytes' object has no attribute 'encode'

So in this case, my byte string can't be used as a key here, apparently. Of course, a string is expected, and this isn't really a string. My use case was trying to use a binary representation of a hash as the key here. What's more natural than that. Could easily do that in Python 2. Not so easy now.

I can find endless examples for this, so your advice about "just using byte strings" is invalid. Conversions are inevitable. And this annoys me.

> What you're saying about Unicode scares me.

Yeah, I know full well what you're scared of. If I'm designing everything from scratch, using Unicode properly is easy. This, however, is not the case when implementing existing protocols, or reading file formats that don't use Unicode. That's where things begin being annoying when your strings are no longer strings.
Show HN: Best Sh*t Of 2013: Tools, Resources and Services
By usual I mean what our application was tuned for.

Which, sadly, may or may not be what it encounters. There are still some usage patterns that can cause large amount of time being spent doing gc (without Zing).

Latency was greatly reduced, I cannot really say about throughput (except that it was not clearly worse at least).
FWIW, it's starting to do so now: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/12/21/semantic-versio...
And, to make it even more unusual, it's coming from the left, the very people who used to love issuing IDs, numbers, and whose intellectual and ideological predecessors set up most of those schemes.

You're right. "Let me see your papers comrade".
Its very difficult to be refused entry as a citizen. Not impossible, but very difficult.

They can F with you WRT interrogation pretty much as they please until you give up or contact a lawyer, or state a belief in your being intoxicated until you get a lawyer and/or blood test, or mess with your belongings (YOU can enter but not that bottle of tequilla and not (you+the bottle)). Another way to mess with you is dual citizenship type stuff like you've legally become a citizen of Canada but haven't officially renounced US citizenship yet. They can also threaten to arrest you if you persist in trying to gain entry while illegally importing something, like, say, a bottle of tequilla or the clothes on your back. The most effective way to be refused entry as a citizen is to be drunk (aka the whole so-cal/tijuana thing).

I've heard stories from coworkers who used to visit tijuana back when it was safe (or at least, safer). I'd be mildly interested in any story of a citizen actually being denied (as opposed to them screwing around with obnoxious drunks). Or great Tijuana stories, for that matter.
> and could not be removed from the US

Nope. You'd be deported. Probably held in a jail (or jail like) facility until you were placed on a plane/bus.

You would however have full benefit of the constitution, so anything found during an illegal search probably could not be used against you (assuming you can prove that a search took place and that the search was illegal).
I'm not. I'm more worried that people, regardless of gender, will escalate said misunderstanding rather than talk to me about it, which is training I'm receiving from observing these folks on Twitter. I realize now my earlier comments made the unintended implication that I was painting solely women with this brush and that's my bad, and not what I meant. In context with your comment it looks that way but I lament this behavior regardless of gender or creed.
Hidden Gems of San Francisco
Indeed, when you are defending yourself you have no control over timing of the attackers. You are forced to respond whenever your attackers make a move. The more you need to reload the more chances that you won't be able to respond in time. On the other hand, on the attacking side, you can choose your timing freely and the capacity of the magazine is not as important (it's only important when your target turns against you and you become a defender yourself).

Magazine caps are so popular because the goal of "gun control" is to limit the people's ability to defend so much that they will have to rely on the government for protection. It has exactly zero effect on crime as the crime is already illegal and if criminals cared about these laws they would not be criminals in the first place.
It probably wouldn't be too different to this would it? Divvy up your tax bill. Note it's 2010. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spendin...
Ah yes, the old personal ownership of nuclear weapons argument, as if that were the same thing and relevant to this discussion.

Note, in my comment above when I state "an inanimate object", I am referring to a gun. For you to take that statement and expand it to an extreme such as nuclear weapons is rather childish on your part.

Since we've started into childish manner of discussion, are you suggesting then that someone has used a nuclear weapon to commit suicide and therefore we should help prevent suicides by banning all nuclear weapons? Or are you suggesting that the banning of personal ownership of nuclear weapons is justified because too many people can easily commit suicide with them? I'm just trying to understand your stance as it pertains to this discussion.

Now, as for your question. No, I do not see the government restricting access to nuclear weapons as a disgusting abuse of power. To make your argument on a far more sane and realistic point, I do not disagree with the government restricting access to fully automatic weaponry either.

How do I justify what you probably see as a clear hypocrisy? Easy, because it's not. The government is fully within its rights to restrict access to things it deems too dangerous to the nation's people as a whole. If someone can convince me that personal ownership of handguns is a danger to the nation's people as a whole, I would likely change my stance. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

So, do you actually have a comment about my position that it is a disgusting use of power for the government to restrict a person's access to an inanimate object, in this case a gun since you are having troubles following along, because of how another individual may or may not use the same inanimate object on themselves without harm to another person? Or shall we continue with comparing childish extremes?

Because if that's your stance, we really need to take a hard look at the inanimate objects we interact with on a daily basis.

By the way, we today have access to all kinds of things that a hundred years ago people would be shocked we have such easy access to. There is a good chance that personal ownership of nuclear weapons, depending on your definition I suppose, will be a strong possibility sometime in the future. Most likely well beyond our lifespans, which is probably a good thing.

I apologize for my harsh tone here, but this is yet another pet peeve of mine that often comes up needlessly in discussions such as this.
This was covered in the previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6983270 DO may not be using file-based storage because it is slower.