skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Only if you ignore all witch hunts outside Salem. That would be incredibly US-centric.

Bertrand Guilladot and Louis Debaraz come to mind.

Anyhow, that completely misses the point - that witch trials were based on a presumption of guilt against which no defense could be made. Much like the way certain media sites attack people.
>>Perhaps you experienced the same sort of thing I did where people assumed you wouldn't appreciate their words/actions and elected to avoid you?

Being a black male myself, it saddens me to think that you're probably right in more ways than one....
pg's writing has made a big impact among a lot of people, the majority of whom don't view him as a cult-like leader or personality at all.

It sounds like you disagree with his ideas; what qualifies someone as an intellectual in your book and not a pseudo-intellectual?
Here's a collection of other writings by pg about women: http://sambiddle.kinja.com/paul-graham-writing-about-women-o...

This would be different if there were no context, but there is a lot of context.
Need to wrap the url in strings, having multiple query parameters (&) in the url will cause issues.
Microsoft Was Right To Worry That Govt Snooping Constituted A ‘Advanced Threat’
I'm not tring to be rude at all, but why did you have to mention your age? It's completely irrelevant.
>Are you playing the we never declared war game?

Maybe. The 'declared war game' has several nice properties:

1) It provides a definite start and end to hostilities.
2) Clearly identifies a target.
3) Has relatively clear rules of war, especially with regards to treatment of POWs and civilians.

You don't want to play that game. Ok. So what are we left with?! We have not-really-POWs at Guantanamo. We drone-strike targets in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and apparently Yemen. There is no clarity around who the targets are, why they are targeted, who sentences them to death and what the procedure is, how long this will last, and any other information that would introduce some sort of accountability. Just a few weeks ago, a wedding convoy was mistakenly targeted and 17 innocent people died. Clearly there was some MASSIVE lapse in intelligence. Worse, why is a convoy EVER targeted given that more than likely most convoy-travelers are either innocent or not-deserving of a death sentence even if a known terrorist is among them. So...why did this happen? who was responsible for the 'mishap'? what was done to make sure this doesn't happen again? Who was fired/disciplined/court-marshaled?
No, I recognized that this is a self-preservation tactic and (thought) I implied I wished it weren't needed.

Please read some of the other things I said -- I'm actually on the same side as him.
I can see why you might think that but consider it from pg's pov. It is technically true to describe the incendiary passage in the Information's article as incorrect. pg never said what he is alleged to have said. If the information and implication were the same from what he actually said it would be no harm, no foul.

Given that pg was giving background information, not an interview and that his words were misquoted and stripped of context perhaps you can see why people have decided never to give the Information the benefit of the doubt ever again.

It was marketed as quality journalism but it's just Valleywag with a subscription.
I'm a programmer, not a psychologist. I have, however, some slight familiarity with IATs as a purported measure of unconscious bias; they have never impressed me as being particularly reliable as such, given what seems to be their questionable repeatability, not to mention the ease with which they are manipulated, and the way most of the results so obtained tend to hover just outside the margin of error. I won't even talk about the tendentious nature of the investigations themselves, because experience suggests there's no point in so doing.

You disappoint me, sir. I had such hopes of finding something new and interesting, only to discover that your mere vagueness led me astray.
don't try to talk honestly about the issue of women in tech. why do it? just will bite you in the ass.

just say whatever "they" want you to say (whatever is pc these days) and keep your head down and keep hacking.
It seems a more appropriate title for this would be "In Government We Trust."

Apparently large powerful entities aren't to be trusted, except for when they're called "government."
I think this certainly sheds more light on the value proposition that this site is offering to prospective subscribers.
It was reverence for his reply, which is indeed quite skillful and restrained.
Was this submission's title edited? When did you mention your age?
yeah, but there's still a lot of potential left.
Maybe you would, but now that there's precedent for flying those planes into buildings instead of just demanding money I hope you can at least understand why lots of people would support those measures.
New Year Resolutions Will Fail, Start Setting Goals Instead
The few times I installed bitmessage to see what it looked like it escaped me I could actually broadcast messages à la twitter. Might check out that part of the package in the coming future. Thanks for pointing it out.
> Hilariously sick when men liken themselves to women

Believing men and women are equal is "sick" now? What a strange notion.
Let's not praise Paul Graham just yet, based solely on his response. The Information's founder Jessica Lessin offered comments like: "We reviewed the transcript again and shared it with Paul. We stand behind our excerpting and editing for clarity. We continue to believe that the quote is in its proper context. Thanks for checking in." (http://valleywag.gawker.com/paul-graham-says-women-havent-be...)

More importantly, it's not about some beloved leader besmirched by a drive-by interview. The focus is best on YC's track record — and what it'll do to fix it — not a quote/misquote.
Do you give people who you respect the benefit of the doubt? By that, I mean that if they say something that could be interpreted charitably or uncharitably, do you tend to tentatively assume that they meant it the charitable way?

I think that is what grellas means by "trust".
>During war

What war?!

>That seems to be all anyone is talking about when it comes to drones.

Just a few weeks ago, a wedding convoy was mistakenly targeted and 17 innocent people died. Why is a convoy EVER targeted given that more than likely most convoy-travelers are either innocent or not-deserving of a death sentence even if a known terrorist is among them. That's what I meant. Furthermore, where is the accountability?! Who was disciplined for this MASSIVE intelligence failure?!
PG: ”Hacking is getting a lot cooler now. But I think it is probably better for picking people up at parties if you can say you’re a painter.”

At a party, I say I used to be a painter, but gave it up because I can paint utter shit and still get recognition for it. When you code utter shit, nothing matters unless that shit works.

Most people don't understand either profession. Nowadays I just say - "I'm still a practising artist, but I only practise the black arts." Then I try and explain recursion to them.
why are we still listening to arrington again?
> What war are we in currently?!

The one initiated by the 9/11 attacks and declared by Congress via Pub.L. 107-40 (September 14, 2011)
It said something like "I'm 17 and I made this app:"
The difficulty of getting an ID is a reason not to require the ID for voting.

If you want to make getting an ID easier, good for you. I don't believe for a moment you will succeed, because IDs are used for things other than voting, where their requirements may actually be necessary.

The set of necessary requirements for voting may overlap with, but is not identical to the set of necessary requirements for state ID. Unless and until they are identical, requiring the ID for voting is a violation of rights.

This will be my last reply to you, because if you still don't understand, you're either never going to, or you already understand all too well and are deliberately derailing.
Thanks for the advice; only 2000 for "pro"? Wow! Where can I pay?
This is a EXCELLENT move by Y Combinator. This should settle the issue. This gives the females more ammunition to compete in the real world. Thank you Paul Graham.
Why do we keep excusing people from having a basic mechanism to prove who they say they are?

Given that bored teenagers in search of beer can easily forge IDs, what makes you think current photo ID cards are an effective certificate for proving identity?

If you cannot handle getting and maintaining an ID maybe one ought not be able to vote because you're just not responsible enough to handle it.

See, this notion right here? This is literally unamerican. Americans get to vote. It doesn't matter if you think they're lazy or smell bad or if they don't demonstrate responsibility to your satisfaction: you don't get to decide which citizens can vote. A lot of people have died so that Americans can vote without your approval.
> The hard drive can be extracted and read apart from the machine. Same for your phone/SD cards/external disks, etc.

Perhaps, but in this case we can assume encryption works. They can't expect you to unencrypt the drive if you don't have a power source. And really, they have less leverage to bully you into needing to operate the computer for security reasons, especially if you can show there's no way the computer can operate during flight.
There are two definitions. The first describes one who believes himself to be both intelligent and thoughtful, but fails to recognize his deficiency in at least one of those two habits. The second describes one who is both intelligent and thoughtful, from the perspective of one who fails to recognize his deficiency in at least one of those two traits.

Determining which definition is in use, in a given case, is not always straightforward.
This piece should have to be written. I think the same goes for the essay Foreign Accents. I'm not a women, but I am a "foreigner", and it's completely obvious in both cases what pg actually said. That is, unless you have a thing for being Offended or you are looking for excuses.

It's sad that pg feels he has to waste time doing these type of clarifications. Especially since he's not even holding any controversial opinions in either case, but is merely observing what he has seen at YC.

I wish more people would be harder on the trolls with nothing but superficial criticism. Ignore them, and if they gain traction, despise them, the same way you despise spammers.

There's an asymmetry here. The trolls lose nothing on their vitrolic rants. For them it's a win either way, since at worst case they get some page views, whereas pg has to spend time dealing with bullshit. It would be more just if these trolls were punished, and pg weren't made to feel like he has to respond like this.
The headlines I've seen on their Twitter feed are very compelling topics that I haven't seen covered anywhere else, e.g. news on what Scott Forstall has been doing since he left Apple. I haven't subscribed so I haven't read them so I can't vouch for the quality.
If you add up all the entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) you'll notice they account for more than 60% of the federal budget. Not sure this leaves a 'vast majority' to fund wars.
Can you post an example command to repro so I can look into it more closely? Thanks!
"bait" car - sorry for the pedantry but sometimes it's all I have :O
You mean like the cult-like reverence for the pseudo-intellectual issues commentary on Twitter and Medium? The people who have less than a decade in the industry but are experts on compensation, ocracies, power dynamics, and psychology? The ones who work at Silicon Valley startups and lecture the entire industry about how things work, then surround themselves with like-minded people to have strength in numbers?

You are seeing respect for Paul Graham because, as flawed as some of his opinions might be, he also has the experience backing them. Louis CK said this best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXcWeFn-YYM (NSFW in the latter half)

If you're under 40, I'm largely uninterested in your take on the world. That includes my own; I know I still have things to learn and I make a proactive effort to listen more than I talk. I don't always succeed.
This piece should have to be written. I think the same goes for the essay Foreign Accents. I'm not a woman, but I am a "foreigner", and it's completely obvious in both cases what pg actually said. That is, unless you have a thing for being Offended or you are looking for excuses.

It's sad that pg feels he has to waste time doing these type of clarifications. Especially since he's not even holding any controversial opinions in either case, but is merely observing what he has seen at YC. I wish more people would be harder on the trolls with nothing but superficial criticism. Ignore them, and if they gain traction, despise them, the same way you despise spammers.

There's an asymmetry here. The trolls lose nothing on their vitrolic rants. For them it's a win either way, since at worst case they get some page views, whereas pg has to spend time dealing with bullshit. It would be more just if these trolls were punished, and pg weren't made to feel like he has to respond like this.
Fair enough. There is no intrinsic value to anything, everything is pointless, so who gives a fuck?

/conversation
This is really cool. Would be neat if the whole experience could be embedded using an embeddable version of hurl.it, too.
It was also at least partly intended to streamline coordination of all the parties involved. You had various federal organizations under Treasury, DOJ, DOD, FBI, DOT, and others that were all silos. Sounds good on paper, merge them into one overall "DHS" and poof everything runs like a Swiss watch. Of course that never happens in reality. It was just an even bigger bureaucracy that still has a bunch of internal silo organizations.
Yes. The more classical term "liberal," unfortunately, has been steadily eroding into a term used by people who espouse much the opposite of any form of liberation or freer society. Both major political wings amount to funnels for increasing government power and reach. Thus, the nation has learned to largely solve its social issues through docile hope (e.g. deferring to the spending decisions of oligarchical interests and trickle-down economics) and through the torture of imprisonment to settle nonviolent disobedience.

There are people who think that giving a central group the authority to prohibit an entire general population's ability to use guns is justified. They feel it would personally give themselves an increased sense of liberation. I empathize with the wish to see a more peaceful world (a highly subjective idealism). However, from my vantage, putting faith into a heavily centralized form of constraint is not "liberal" in any way that actually respects that word at a human level.
"""Mark Zuckerberg starts programming, starts messing about with computers when he's like 10 or whatever. By the time he's starting Facebook he's a hacker, and so he looks at the world through hacker eyes. That's what causes him to start Facebook. We can't make these women look at the world through hacker eyes and start Facebook because they haven't been hacking for the past 10 years. """

I wonder why pg thinks being a programmer is a prerequisite for looking at the world through hacker eyes. The notion that Zuckerberg could have started Facebook as a non-technical co-founder doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and you could even argue Steve Jobs, while having some technical chops, wasn't the typical uber-hacker-has-been-doing-this-since-age-12 programmer). Or not?
What rubbish, paying for coke is like supporting the Nazi party?

It's basically saying the Jews are to blame for the Nazis being so bad.

If only they stoped being so Jewish there would have been no holocaust.
The NHS has been "facing bankruptcy" for as long as I've been able to read the news. Somehow I never see it actually happen.
I'm going to assume you don't have a lot of familiarity with conducting. It often takes an entire season to rehearse with a group in order to produce music that could accurately be 'judged'. And a conductor is about far more than the music -- how is their rapport with the orchestra? What are they like to work with? What kind of an artistic vision do they have for the group, and how do they communicate that? Ultimately, what kind of a leader are they going to be, along 20-odd different dimensions?

Even with world-class orchestras, where performances are regularly put on with guest conductors after only a few hours of rehearsal time, no permanent conductor would ever be hired on the basis of merely listening to their music. It's a leadership position. (Unlike orchestra players, where it really is more directly about musical proficiency.)
You confuse respect with reverence, and pseudo-intellectualism with lively intellect; I can't imagine why. Incidentally, your malaprop is showing.
Excellent, thank you. I missed that during the holidays.
Well, I guess I'm at fault for assuming that people would follow that I was referring to the object that was the center of the discussion at hand. I should have guessed that someone would take such a simple concept and expand it to every single object in the known universe.

My apologies.
I think the idea is something like "locks keep honest people honest."

If you make clear rules and get people to follow them, and people see that everyone else is following the rules, that makes following the rules normal and rule-breaking an unusual transgression, even without a panopticon.

It's tricky to pull off, but how else would you do it?
Why NSA spied on inexplicably unencrypted Windows crash reports
So, I'm going to agree with your first comment: today things are much better than normal, and I apparently skimmed the top-level comments too quickly and didn't give them enough credit. I've taken the parts of what I said that I believe you are correct for pointing out "are in error", modified them, and will go so far as to apologize for not giving today's thread enough consideration.

> I obviously can't speak for anyone but myself but for me the reason not to change has been that there's a critical core of libraries that weren't ported over. Now the list isn't looking too bad and it's probably time to make the switch. It's taken a long time to get to that stage, but was always going to.

However, reading your continuation kind of brings back the bias problem to me (although not in a way that is problematic, as you aren't trying to say the people who aren't upgrading are wrong; but sufficiently that it is interesting to discuss): you are assuming there is some intrinsic value to making the switch to Python 3, and that the strategy is simply to wait for the pain to be sufficiently low that it becomes "time to make the switch", as if that switch were inevitable, and as if this is all going well for everyone.

I would say that instead, the Python 3 community needs to start looking at itself over again with the hard realization that if there are any serious costs involved to using it over an alternative (whether that alternative is Python 2 or some new kid on the block like Scala) it needs to prove that worth: making it slightly purer or slightly simpler or even slightly more consistent is not something that a lot of developers are going to value over the kinds of costs Python 3 has chosen to make part of the tradeoff of switching.
Its not an unrealistic marginal rate for NYC or perhaps even parts of California.[1] This is a case where 'average' is often misleading. When you take a salary...its a take it/leave it package (X net of tax). When you are self-employed, you are always deciding: do I do another X for another Y in return. At that stage, its all about marginal ROI from your time.

[1] Because of the real estate, many of these types of places are not really 'livable', and you see entry level jobs that offer salaries already at or neat the top tax brackets (despite the fact that these people have few/no assets or real 'net worth').
Why does everyone say that no large scale voter fraud ever happened in the US? What about the presidential election of 1960? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...

Even small scale fraud is enough to tip a close election, and I don't think too many people doubt that it does happen.
Goal-post movement detected!

So even if we arbitrarily exclude a perfectly valid psychological technique because it "doesn't impress you", there's still the matter of my third link. Didja click it?

EDIT: The most surprising part of the PNAS study, to me, is that people who agreed with statements like "Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in the United States" were statistically more affected by implicit gender bias.
Growth Hacking or Marketing Strategy?
> "Statistics on the discrimination of Ivy league schools show that (east) Asian face a stacked deck in college applications at "selective" schools[0]. Its plausible that much of this is inferred from ethnic names."

I wonder how a surname like "Lang" would fair. It is either Germanic of Asian, though it seems to be primarily Germanic in practice but seems strongly Asian to people who are not familiar with it[0]. If there is discrimination keyed off of "Asian-ish sounding" names then it might be apparent when looking at these sorts of names.

[0] I know a germanic "Lang". Apparently he gets asked how his family got that name a lot.
Gun ownership contributes to suicide, not because gun owners are more likely to attempt suicide, but because they are more likely to succeed. Men are more likely to commit suicide than women in the US, largely because most men who attempt use guns, while women are more likely to try to overdose.
The web server returns redirect responses to mirrors that wget follows.
I took a small commuter plane from Seattle to Portland and it was the best time flying I've ever had. Free parking at Boeing field, free coffee in a quaint little terminal, walk right onto the plane, enjoy a short flight, and then walk right to the light rail station.

I guess I also need to point out that I didn't die on that trip. Not even once.
> If it is a contributor then people shoot themselves BECAUSE they own the gun.

That is a pretty strict interpretation of the cause of suicide. Of course, nobody kills themselves by sheer virtue of the fact that they own a weapon.

> Owning a gun does not lead you to a suicide risk

That is precisely what those studies suggest. Having a firearm nearby does in fact increase your risk of suicide. Whether or not that is enough to restrict people's rights is a totally separate issue. You argued that guns do not increase suicide risk, which is incorrect.

> There are many guns that are designed for a very specific target and would be incredibly bad to use to kill any living thing.

Fantastic! We should allow those firearms for people to have their fun, and regulate the other types (the ones for killing people) as much as possible.
"Power relationships" is about an influence to not publish a story to begin with.

Need to "kill a story" (including an ability to kill it by paying) is a sign of lost power.

From both sides.
Wait. You can't tell me that the difficulty of getting an ID is a reason not to require the ID for voting right after you told me this is not an argument about what the requirements should be for having a valid ID. If one of your reasons for not requiring ID to vote is that they are difficult to get then you pretty much are required to let people argue they are not difficult to get. Otherwise you have presented an argument which you will not let people attempt to refute. I don't think it works that way.

A state ID isn't much more than a standardized document that says the state has identified you and can vouch for your identity. If one of the requirements to vote is to be identified, it seems reasonable that the state takes care of that identification in a standardized way.