skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"A question (maybe a nitpick) about the word "liberal"--wouldn't it be more "liberal" to be against gun control since less control means more liberty?"

Yes.

Conversely, the political party aligned with corporate and business interests (whichever that may be at the time) is NOT the political party that will champion broad access to means of force.

Whatever (temporary) accident of history it is that the party of corporate power is also the party of "gun rights" is an anomaly and will self-correct quickly.
It turns out, 2013 brought a lot of poorly thought products to market too...
> I guess I'm just not ready for a society always recording everything.

Society already records everything. The only change Glass brings is the first-person perspective and it frees up a hand that normally would be holding a phone.
I remember reading a number of articles from Israeli security that make a mockery of everything the TSA does (which is basically what they, who have to secure airports and other public spaces in Israel against almost daily threats, never do).

The TSA basically exists to make Michael Chertoff and Dick Cheney very, very rich. It would be interesting to see how much they raked in from this, compared with, say, Bo Xilai or Wen Jiabiao.
Starbucks’ Tweet-a-Coffee Campaign Generated $180k in Sales, HUGE L/t Benefits
Your commenting is bad because it implicitly takes not-universally-agreed-upon-statements as truth in backing other opinions. You could have said (in the GGP of this comment) that /pol/ and /r/MensRights were redirecting posters to the forum. Instead you have to go out of your way to say "misogynist groups" and "filth". That's not a good characterization of the influx of posters (if we go by the description you've just given) because the posters at those sites and coming from those sites do not form well-defined groups, and there's no need to call what they wrote "filth". What you're doing is baking hostility into any conversation that would happen with people that might disagree with you. You just did it again in your reply, saying that I should remember something I don't remember despite being active on HN at the time. Now any disagreement I might say about that notion of yours suddenly turns your comment into an attack against mine. You might have accidentally trained yourself into using these awful conversational technique because they result in you having the last word, or because of some other feelings.
LinkedIn, Pinterest more popular than Twitter
Learning Creative Learning: http://learn.media.mit.edu (for as long as they keep the site up anyway)

Introduced me to some new ideas about learning, and solidified some ambiguous thoughts I already had. Much fun.
$41k isn't much, was split between two developers, and most every penny of that came from community donations.

Maybe it's out of hobbyist status, but this is still far far below how much Be spent developing BeOS each year.
The GOP had majorities in both the House and Senate, and the linked article mentions begins by mentioning the unanimous passage of the bill in the Senate. The law in question was the Aviation Security Act. When it passed in the house, 136 Democrats voted against it (partly due to concerns about unionization eligibility), but only 2 Republicans and 1 independent did. So I don't think it's fair to say 'the GOP resisted the creation' of the TSA. As for the administration, transportation secretary Mineta wanted to federalize airport security from the outset.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll425.xml
> being in a social situation with someone who is wearing Glass now means that Google has identified who you are (and the NSA for that matter) and where you are

What? Glass is not always recording, has no facial recognition and is no more invasive than the smartphones everyone already carries.
The Israelis liked to claim that both probably would have been spotted at the multiple checkpoints they put into Ben Gurion Airport. Being as both were so anxious they more or less sweated through the bombs they were carrying.
I suppose here is as good a place as any... but can anyone explain to me why there is an overarching trend of self-describing as an asshole just because you own Glass? It's becoming a connection, especially in the media, that Glass = Asshole and I think it's because much of the early community refers to themselves as "Glassholes".

I own Glass and I am not an asshole (afaik) about it nor do I wish to be perceived as one. I've met a bunch of other Glass users with whom I've brought this up in a similar way to: "Why do you self-deprecatingly call yourself an asshole for wearing Glass?" and as far as I know they stop, but that may just be them not doing it around me.

Do other Glass users feel like they need to call themselves names? Is there something I'm missing/taking out of context? Do people without Glass have an opinion on this?

(An interesting and maybe relevant tidbit is that I was recently told "You make me feel poor" by someone who I was interacting with while wearing Glass)
I don't know you, Matt, and I certainly don't have a beef with Paul Graham - I have much respect for him. But, the specific components of your encomium do not recommend you. More specifically:

> That he started the seed funding movement?

Um, people were doing seed rounds before YC. For like, decades. They weren't blogging about it, because there was no HTTP and HTML and always-on broadband, but crikey, how the hell do you think half of silicon valley started?

> That he was blogging about hacking startups before people even really realised you could hack startups?

I don't even know what this means. Every true startup is fundamentally a hack; it's probing at the boundary of the risk frontier. (I'm not talking about those VC dice rolls on the flavor du jour, manifest as a bunch of brogrammers with zero understanding of the time value of their own risk profile.)

For "hack startups <v.>" to make sense, one would have to infer a new usage of the word "startups", namely, to refer to the pattern-matching herd mentality of tech VC dealmaking and The Great Game of Deal Flow. Partially driven by real opportunity and partially driven by the wealthy exodus from equity markets in a post-HFT world, the modern funding bubble has led to a difficult climate for seed-stage companies, and Paul & YC are merely taking advantage of that impedance mismatch between them and traditional VCs. But to imply that there is some fundamental new structure that Paul discovered with YC is absurd. Incubators & incubation is a decades-old concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_incubator

> Before lean startup existed?

The term "lean startup" started being popularized in 2011 by Eric Ries. This is less than three years ago. There are innumerable things older than this. Actually, there are few truly noteworthy things in the technology space that cannot be described as existing "before lean startup".

> That he's written his own dialect of LISP?

I think many LISPers have done this. Isn't the whole point of LISP to write your own dialect of it for each problem?

Anyways, I just wanted to point out that your list is not very impressive at all, and the fact that they impress you doesn't really reflect well on you.
> If it were me, I'd probably try grabbing a coffee/tea/beer with him outside of the office

That's exactly what I have done before. I mean, I work with Jerry every day, and we would regularly go out for a beer after work to talk.

In asking about it, the response with "stress, and let's keep it behind us."

Maybe it is stress, maybe it's not, and maybe I am doing something that provokes Jerry unknowingly, but in any of these cases, does it give him the right to respond like that? If I am doing something to provoke him, and he's put in a situation that allows for speaking freely, away from other coworkers, and he still can't tell me what it is, is there any way for me to stop doing it?
I'm not here for debate club, Johnonymous. Like I said before, I'm here for the pearl-clutching.
History is littered with counterexamples. If you look at people or companies that have been refered to as "ahead of their time", it is frequently in the context of why they ultimately failed.

Tablet PCs are a case in point -- Microsoft or HP had not abandoned the tablet market. They were iterating and releasing tablets even after the iPad was released. They just didn't make the leap that Apple did to create a tablet that appealed to the masses.

Also, regarding the "riskier to be too late" comment: The book "Copycats" by Oded Shenkar makes the case that it's frequently the imitators that win the market rather than the innovators. This blog post reviews it and cites some interesting statistics from it: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/08/03/down-with-innovation-up...
This is really great. Thanks for posting. Another necessary gmail tool is "Boomerang" http://www.boomeranggmail.com/ which allows you to control what time certain emails will go out. Great for 2am coding sessions where you want to send an email that will end up in someone's inbox at 8:30am but you know that you won't be awake to send it.
The 30C3 video recording release process has started.
Ask HN:Why was Sean Parker so confident about Facebook's success, even though...
When Sean Parker heard about Facebook, why was he so excited and confident in it's success when you had Friendster,HI5,Myspace and Stanford's internal network around. What stood out about Facebook in the face of all these rivals?
Not they, she did. As a private person. Which is not exactly what I've meant, but definitely better than nothing.
I don't think that's right. I'm sure people would be willing to accept, for example, Elon Musk as tech person of the year — because what Musk's companies are doing is actually interesting technically. What Snowden did is copy a bunch of files that contain information which is interesting politically and societally.

The fact that technology is somewhat involved in the story doesn't make it a technical advancement. There was technology involved in Watergate too (e.g. tape recorders), but I don't think anyone looks back at 1972 and sees Carl Bernstein as a good candidate for tech man of the year.
My TracFone is safe :-)
ATMs running Windows XP robbed with infected USB sticks
IMO, this is really important and system application security is not in much better shape than web browser security; you still need to trust a huge number of sources and these sources have known security issues regularly. For that matter, it is probably not that difficult to insert known vulnerable code into some widely used application without it being detected. While there will always need to be some trusted code, it is possible to limit the amount of trusted code and the number of sources that code comes from given better OS security models.

Since hardware and firmware can also be subverted, IMO a new security model should also be able to track and limit what network traffic is intended so that the network traffic actually generated can be (potentially) verified by additional machines on the network and/or by other verifier virtual machines on the same system.
Really any phone is exploited. When you've got a baseband with direct hardware access that the carrier can connect to there isn't really anything short of fully open hardware that is gonna save you.
IIRC Tom Cruise didn't have the laser beams - he was avoiding the laser beams. So the responsibility to set up a defense perimeter with laser beams is yours.
Do you think there are any biases in tech that unfairly advantage women who choose to enter and unfairly disadvantage men who choose to enter?
"It's becoming a connection, especially in the media, that Glass = Asshole and I think it's because much of the early community refers to themselves as "Glassholes"."

I think you've got the causation backwards: people do not perceive Glass users to be assholes because Glass users refer to themselves as such; Glass users refer to themselves as assholes to try to pre-empt the insult.

It's the same visceral social need that drives people to make a joke out of their own awkward behaviors. If you can get people to laugh with you, they aren't laughing at you.
I would like to believe I would be the one trying to stop them. But, frankly, I've never had a loaded weapon pointed at my face. No one knows how they're going to respond with death knowing at their door. It's something you have to experience.
I finally made time for "Functional Programming in Scala" and it was fun.

However, I must add that when I tried to use Scala in the real-world, it was considerably more complicated due to implicits, CanBuildFrom, and other "invisible hands" (not merely synactic sugar, mind you).
And you think others are better? iPhone is probably one of the more "private" ones.
I didn't establish that it has a floor. Did you read and comprehend the entire response I sent last? I think it's pretty clear but I'll repeat it again for you-- my point is that Bitcoin has as legitimate a floor as any of the other entities commonly considered 'stores of value' and thus, from consistency, Bitcoin should be considered a store of value as well.

I understand that you do not think that those other entities have floors either (and I, having a sufficient imagination, tend to agree with that). However, in that case, the term 'store of value' is non-sensical since, given a sufficient imagination, no entities can ever satisfy the 'floor' requirement.
Customer friendly attitude to pricing. Good stuff.
Yes! I already wear glasses that are very expensive, surely I'd be able to use GG without looking too extravagant.
I was only responding to the following, which says nothing about smaller planes:

"Recently a senior New Labour politician who was responsible for bringing in TSA style checks in the UK wise-cracked about how those that complained should be offered two lines at the airport, one with the body scanners, sniffer dogs, robocops etc. and another - to a different flight - where you could just walk straight on. He wondered which flight would be chosen to go on by those complaining types."
"I’m already getting anonymous emails saying this is just the tip of the iceberg, with more accusations."

https://twitter.com/ryanlawler/status/417875291873095680
I have also flown on a commercial flight w/o going through security. It was an incredible experience and I didn't worry for a moment about the intentions of the other passengers. I hope we come to our senses and say goodbye to the TSA.
I guess I'm not surprised. 100% discussion about whether Haiku deserves to exist, zero discussion about the post. Can anyone talk about the significance of the removal of the hard processor limit?
Am I missing something here? Is there a single case of a female founder with very compelling business/tech that was rejected by ycombinator, whose rejection was at least somewhat widely controversial?

Or, are we talking solely about the lack of females accepted, and explicitly disallowing discussion of what they brought to the table?

I honestly don't know, but if there's a controversy with no specific examples, at least for me, it's pretty hard to take seriously.
If (as claimed) the NSA has hacked the major BIOS/firmware as well as encryption, is there such as thing as "fully open hardware" and would it help?
That subreddit is full of examples of people who indeed express the views listed above (and those views are often expressed in much more hateful and bullying terms than would be appropriate here).

You called Tohhou's post a conspiracy theory, clearly implying that he's wrong; he gave pages upon pages of evidence that he's right. What more do you want?
Digital Ocean's official response to the recent security concerns
This is from a very old version of iOS (2007). We don't know if this is still true.

Regardless, I can say for a fact that there are exploits for all cell phone platforms. iOS exploits are by far the hardest to find. An iOS remote execution 0day will easily fetch $250k. I've seen one go for $600k. For an Android remote exec 0day, you're looking at closer to $50k.

Even if the NSA doesn't have these on hand, they can certainly purchase them.
Honestly, I don't really care. The NSA can read whatever they want of mine. I've heard the arguments about how you should care, even if you don't have anything to hide. And I find them persuasive on one level and simultaneously unengaging on another. By contrast, the parallels to fascist Italy and Nazi Germany and living in a turnkey fascist state are most unpersuasive.

The one argument against what I've written that has been made that I think is worthy of highlighting is that there are people around the world who are risking their lives under totalitarian regimes. People's smug responses and ad hominem detract from this important point, which could be helpful to others outside of HN in better understanding the issue.

Your downvotes will not persuade me or anyone else with my views. They do demonstrate that some are committed partisans on this issue. I appreciate some of the clear, unemotional arguments that have been made, however.
Yes, you are missing the hostility that wearing Glass engenders in other people.
Simple shouldn't be stupid,it should be smart. Why not recaptcha for example? Less code Better work
Your PS3 most likely has a more competant video card than your other devices.
All cell phone OSs are compromised to some degree. If Apple's claims about their crypto were auditable, I would say that iOS is the best from a security standpoint.
There are a lot of people in the world who see every action that others take as some kind of personal statement on the world, instead of just seeing those choices as people doing things for themselves out of natural interest.

You eat meat? You're an asshole, because you must think we should all be carnivores. You studied computer science and got a good job? You're an asshole because your lifestyle is implying liberal arts is worthless, and that I am worthless because I studied liberal arts. You became a wall street trader? You're an asshole because you're telling me money is everything. You wear Google Glass? You're an asshole because you're saying I should wear technology on my face and I don't want to.

It's incredibly naive and self-centered. To think this way, you have to believe the world revolves around you, because you think everyone else's actions are conscious decisions directed at you or people like you. The idea that some people might actually like Glass in a personal sort of way as a cool technology is beyond them. You're making a statement about them - judging them, by wearing glass. So you're an asshole. It's stupid.
So here is a complete anecdotal suspicion:

I have had the iPhone since the first day of release. I have gone through 16 physical devices over that period (due to me breaking them a lot and going through several employers where I had never purchased my own phone since (well before) it was released). I am currently, for the first time in a long time, on my own personal device; an iPhone 4.

I upgraded it to iOS7 when it was available. The device is a slow POS and I want to stab my eyes out when I use it....

However; there is a behavior that I have only personally noticed recently: (Please tell me if you see the same thing)

Whenever I transition between literally ANY screen, I see a quick BLINK of the screen - in the same anim that you would see when you take a screenshot.

So I am wondering "Is my phone taking a screen cap of EVERY switch/transition I make? WHY"

Now, I know that iOS does do screen caps of things so that when you are switching in various ways that it already has a cache of the last state of that screen in order to thumbnail the previous view... BUT I understood this to be limited to certain circumstances. Currently I am noticing it on pretty much ANY transition.

Even if this is the actual, "Normal", my suspicion is that this fact can be used to entirely rebuild an entire session of activity for a user through their entire interactions. Even if you just grab these screens which are used at a system level - a great deal could be inferred from just these workflow screen caps.
Okay. I knew variables had block-level scope. I've read some of the ISO C standard, but hadn't caught the part where variables have function-level storage. I was wondering because, years ago, I read some disassembled code that did lots of stack allocations in the middle of functions, and not just for the purpose of calling another function.

Can you point to a reference showing that variables have function-level storage? The closest I can find in the C standard draft I'm looking at is 6.2.4.6, which suggests block-level lifetimes for variables: "For such an object that does not have a variable length array type, its lifetime extends from entry into the block with which it is associated until execution of that block ends in
any way."
I don't understand these types of articles. Maybe the Bay Area is just different (I live/work in Chicago). I have had my Glass for about a month, have worn it just about everywhere (office, mall, grocery shopping, walking down the street, at restaurants), and have never gotten a negative reaction from ANYONE.

Nobody has asked me to remove it while in their restaurant, nobody has called me names, snickered, or even frowned (more that Chicagoans already frown by default, that is).

The vast majority of people either pretend way too hard not to notice, or they go one of several versions of "How did you get that awesome/mythical piece of tech?".

I just haven't seen these vicious reactions that everyone keeps writing about.
Why isn't Apple (or some other consumer group) in that market buying up the 0days? I want to see the price of 0days that compromise any longitudinal user information above $10 million.

Idea: 0day markets are legalised [1]. Regulators require companies keep the average price of their 0days above a threshold or attach a warning to their product and marketing materials. This aligns the security interests of consumers with companies while incentivising companies and researchers to build secure products.

[1] A license to the 0day (but not the 0day itself) would be freely traded for a duration after which the company would have the option to (a) buy it at some price or (b) release it to the public, retaining full liability for any consequences (last holder of the license gets a percentage cut of any fines or legal awards).
Kinda late, but I thought that there are typically corrective measures that try to prevent oncogenes from kicking off. The key difference between "accumulated lightning bolts" and the final model chosen is that "accumulated lightning bolts" assumes a more or less fixed rates of lightning bolts, while the final model essentially that the rate of lightning bolts will increase over time, which corresponds well to an interpretation of long-term decay of corrective measures - such as replication error detection systems.

I think the key point is that systems for retaining homeostasis (so second order systems I guess) are themselves subject to degradation.
Did your mom actually inquire to explain the last little details of cell towers topology and design architecture

....

...or you just had no one to talk to at the moment? :)
Actually, this is already built into Semver. 0.. is reserved for development and conveys no stability promises. See point 4 on http://semver.org/.