skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And in 1920 women got the right as well, given the vast amount of history the human race has are you really upset over 50 years? I imagine the fifteenth amendment took a lot of political too and for to get passed. For 50 years women were denied the right to vote over common man, I fully support their right to vote but you are really blowing things out of proportion.
I use DEVONthink Pro Office from www.devontechnologies.com to collect, tag and organize snapshots of web pages (either as webarchive, pdf or instapaperized pdfs), referenced OmniOutliner documents containing more complex notes, ocr'ed screenshots and other research stuff. It is more a conventional or even traditional app than a cloud based service. Imported that .enex file when I left Evernote.
Imagine if Microsoft begins saving users' information using its operating system. As result they got more information on you even than Google or anyone else.
As rule always ignore the headlines and focus on the details. Actually the article contains very little details about the actual research methodology and data.

If poverty reduction in short term is the only objective then I am pretty sure increasing minimum wages will bring some people above the poverty line set at a time before increasing the wages. But whether that reduction ins poverty is sustainable over a decade or so is the important question.
Looks neat.

Search for "cms" does not return "sitecore" anywhere.
What is certain is power didn't change Obama - he's always been that way, and you need to pay attention to people's past before you put faith in them.
Yes they can. This is because we can discuss what higher prices do-invariably they cause market actors to seek substitutes. If you push a $15 minimum wage it stands to reason that there would be demand for any machinery that would allow for cost savings. It would be good for the sectors of the economy that would supply these cost savings technologies. Ultimately marginal workers would get hurt even further once these technologies emerged.
He may be more interested in furthering his career not by making large piles of money, but by being an engineer working on fantastic new products.

I would certainly call that congratulatory worthy.
Actually I'd be surprised if Rap Genius is any good for "song meaning" queries. Will it give you information? Probably. Will that information be accurate? I'm skeptical.

I've done a few spot checks on Poetry Genius, at least, and the annotations have consistently been either wrong or irrelevant, even for works that are well documented (e.g. The Waste Land).

My guess would be that if Rap Genius users aren't getting it right when large bodies of secondary literature are available, they can't be doing very well with pop music lyrics either. I could certainly be wrong, though.
There're already huge discussions on explicit self, FFIs, and speed, so I'm not going to address those. I largely agree with you on both counts - I'm annoyed by them as well, but don't think that my opinion is going to change the Python maintainers'.

However, I'll point out that they're following a very sensible "stop the bleeding" maintenance strategy in targeting Unicode and async first. Whenever you need to upgrade a massive old codebase to a new way of doing things, your first priority needs to be to stop things from getting worse. That means getting everybody onto the new system, either via a shim or (worst case, but true in this case) by fiat, and then cleaning up the older code and introducing new cool stuff that's enabled by the new features.

The big problem with Python 2's Unicode handling was that it made things easy on people who handled only ASCII and then dumped the problem on top of people who wanted to handle Unicode and still rely on libraries from people who didn't know what Unicode was. As a result, the latter people just didn't use Python, because of the pain involved. Guido and the core maintainers (correctly, IMHO) identified this group of people as important to the future of Python, and so they want to make things viable for them even if it's inconvenient for a large section of Python's existing userbase.
Why I will downgrade my broadband
Sure. I know the site needs some more clarity and that's what I'm working on now. The basic idea is a Pinterest-type community where you can build a list of sites on any topic and share lists with others. But each list lets you search each website directly from the same search box (results come up in a new tab, like Kayak).

So what is it good for? Any subject where you want depth or breadth over surface results. So collectors and researchers can build a portal for themselves. And there are some interesting possibilities for specific needs, like a search list for many places to find a cached URL: http://nuggety.com/u/nuggety/cached-webpages or a search list to search any of Google's 190 international websites: http://nuggety.com/u/nuggety/international-google
To be fair, he did list a number of specific warts above.
Amazon's Bezos rescued by Ecuadorian Navy
Very misleading title, economists absolutely do not agree on this point, just read the responses to Card/Kreuger. My view after taking all of this in: there are valid theoretical models that both support and disagree with the view that the minimum wage reduces poverty, and so far the statistics are not clear either way. Given that we don't know, why not support more effective policies for combating poverty such as the negative income tax (Milton Friedman was a proponent of this), or even unconditional income? Those policies would be such a win-win in terms of both reducing poverty and reducing the costly bureaucracy surrounding welfare programs, but unfortunately they don't seem to be politically viable yet.
> PHP actively encourages it.

How so?
"Reducing poverty" is a good reason, which is why minimum-wage advocates talk about it.

But the real reason minimum-wage advocates want to increase the minimum wage is to increase the pay of union members, who's pay is indexed to the minimum wage.

That's the voting block that matters to politicians, not the near poor, who barely vote and certainly don't have the time (or skills) for political activity (unlike the unions).
If you're on Linux and don't want to bother installing a VGA font, there's no need. Do Ctrl+Alt+F6 (or lower) to switch to a terminal and run it there, then do Ctrl+Alt+F7 to switch back later.

Also, if someone can tell me how to make Windows not make the emulator segfault on my machine, that'd be great.

EDIT: Oh, it works fine in a graphical terminal. I'm guessing SDL failing to init on a text terminal broke everything.

EDIT 2: ALL THIS, PLUS REVERSI! You can even play Reversi!
I think you completely missed the point. Just because an example was a LISP millionaire, doesn't mean you aren't a hacker because you aren't a LISP millionaire.

Your post comes off as if someone said you don't belong, just because they tried to take some of the most famous examples that many people would classify as hackers.

It's like if I showed you a picture of a Ferrari as an example of a car and you said, "oh, I guess my Ford doesn't count as a car, I better just walk from now one".
Just curious - are you going to build something that will waste other people's time like you wasted yours?
The people who wrote the Constitution drew the line at "specific suspicion."

Amendment IV http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.

That's where I would draw the line.
> this is in some ways a problem of the market-capitalist system.

That depends on what you mean by "market-capitalist" system. In this particular case, the entire college textbook industry is made possible in part due to the government's enforcement of copyright laws, which isn't something I would consider to be part of a market-capitalist system.
I like the explicit self. It makes the language much simpler, clearer and less "magic".
Oh, I realize that their margins are enormous. But I can't buy anything of similar quality for $5, so I guess for me, it costs what Apple charges.
My understanding is that many in NY are "gotten" by the additional charges, such as having paraphernalia on them, or merely exposing it or the paraphernalia when the cop asks about it which makes it no longer concealed.
The common "problem" that Bing and Google could both potentially be upset with RapGenius is the there is no accountability to the site owners. The search engine's job is to serve results that people want to see. In general, you can absolutely count on them to make decisions that they think will benefit their total relevance in aggregate, even if it hurts a particular subset of queries.

But that's not really so much of a product problem as a problem with the problem itself. In other words, it's not really clear that a better product will fix that, because the incentives will probably always point to doing this rather than not.
A few years ago, my law school classmate turned down a lengthy severance to avoid signing one of these after a bitter termination. Instead, he took a job in the building's coffee shop. He'd see people he used to see all the time, and when they'd ask what happened, he'd tell them all about the horrible way he was treated by the firm, etc.

The firm ended up giving him a bunch more money to shut up and quit the barrista job.
> I've on multiple occasions been on a UK street, witnessed a very strong smell of weed with police officers walking along near me, and had them do nothing.

Whether or not you get busted depends on the personal opinions of the police officer.
Then stop calling it a wage gap, and start talking about why men are not becoming child care workers and library assistants. When you set the tone of the discussion around income and the n cents on the dollar crap you invite this sort of criticism.
> For starters, we built the entire Bing stack from scratch. No OSS. No common platforms like the JVM. Nothing like that. We started from nothing, and invented the server infrastructure, the data pipeline, the runtime that would support the site, the ML tools, everything. The fact that the site runs at all is a small miracle, but the site does not "just" run: the most remarkable thing by far is that the quality of our tooling is quite incredible, generally an order of magnitude better than the OSS equivalents. For example, the largest deployment of an OSS NoSQL datastore seems to be a few thousand nodes. The small NoSQL cluster backing our MapReduce implementation is stably deployed on a cluster an order of magnitude larger than this. This is something you only really see at companies like Amazon, Google, or MS.

You lost me here. Not building on OSS seems like setting yourself up or failure from the start, particularly when you are fighting a manpower war, which is where OSS is beating every proprietary entity. OSS already powers Google and Amazon and OSS db's will scale to billions of nodes, not a few thousand.
The minimum wage is ultimately always zero; employers can simply choose to not hire you if they think your productivity is not enough to justify paying you the minimum.

As an Australian who spent a couple of years in Asia (where minimum wages are much lower than Australia's $16/hour), one of the most stinking things I noticed was how much easier it was to find work there. I have 'unskilled' Australian friends who have spent months looking for work, without luck, whereas in Singapore for instance it seemed rare for somebody to take more than a week or two to find work.

While the quality of the work may be lower than that of minimum-wage work in Australia, it at least provides unskilled individuals with an opportunity to develop the experience, skills and confidence necessary to move onto better jobs, while their Australian counterparts are still sitting around at home feeling dejected at being unable to find work.
down for me too, can't connect
You're misunderstanding money creation:

Classical economist's explanation: bank has 100, lends you 90 so as to keep 10 in reserves. 90 gets spent and part of it lands in the bank. Rinse, repeat.

What actually happens: bank has 10, lends you 100. It gets spent and part of it lands back in the bank. If it's not enough to post proper reserves, bank begs central bank for a buck or two to make things work. Rinse, repeat.

It's not an opinion by the way: it's by the own admittance of the SEC. See Steve Keen's research for more details.
I know.

Was just stating the problem that plagued them in 1976 is still persistent today.

Though on re-reading my previous comment I can see that I was not clear on that.
News Flash: Just HTML/CSS has always been commodity work that got paid 50% of what other developers made (if that). Most old school front end people knew a bit of Javascript also but higher powered devs never did javascript because just a few years ago not much javascript was even needed. The solution to js quirks was to avoid it like the plague so there was a more natural distinction between backend/frontend. Now since there is plenty of real coding to be done in the browser, there is no reason for this new breed of js developers to not do the markup and css as well. And since really this new breed of js devs is just people who were or would have been the backend guys we now refer to them as "full stack" devs.
Try changing your MAC address regularly.
> If Bing were to overtake Google and become the preferred search engine, would anything really be much different?

No one wants that (except Microsoft).

What we want is for Bing or something else to bring more balance to the search market. Today Google is so dominant that people SEO specifically for it, and Google decides what is and isn't ok to do, and can then decimate site's traffic based on that (as we saw with Rockstar in a recent example).

But if there were several successful search engines with no single dominant winner, things would be better. SEO would matter less because you would need to optimize for multiple targets, so you would get away with less tricks (or you need to work much harder to trick everyone, again with the result of less trickery). And no single company could decide the fate of every other company that needs to get traffic through web searches, which is what we have now.
I wrote an opinionated blog post exactly about that saying[1]:

"When each site understands its own data better than Google, its internal search results will surpass Google’s. Google will no doubt continue to provide better global results, but the two-tiered search would decentralize efforts to improve algorithms."

I see it as one of the Achilles' heel of Google. Even if what they are doing seem impossible to copy.

- [1] Letters from the Future: Challenging Google’s Search Engine: http://blog.databigbang.com/letters-from-the-future-challeng...
So does this mean when Google talks about these same topics & uses the same sort of black-and-white framing (while encouraging "feeble minded" spam reporting and so on) we should consider them to be intentionally lying?

If no, please explain.

If yes, an important follow up on that front: how dystopian is it that the company in charge of organizing information requires spreading misinformation to succeed?
Zeckendorf's Theorem
Like Diebold posting photos of the master key on their website? [1]

[1] http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4066#more-4066
Sure, that's why I wouldn't take the risk myself :)
Eh, apology...$21 million dollars... I would say they're about equivalent.
HTC already had that on Windows CE phones (remember those?).
I spend considerable effort learning Python/Ruby/JavaScript (and I use JS from time to time for my work) but anyway even with the effort Java is better for me.
The open source community loses too.

No doubt Apple put a very lucrative offer on the table, but another route could have been for the author to dual-license the code - GPL it so the community benefits, while any improvements he can then push out in his app which he continues to sell.
I'm not misunderstanding the nature of how credit works. I'm well aware that reserves follow loans and not the other way around. That money creation cycle is what leads to the business cycle in my opinion (see Austrian business cycle theory for more). The problem is that it creates a pyramiding of debt that eventually will collapse as inflation gets out of hand and interest rates rise.
"Coke vs Pepsi"

I want to be "A Pepper" but DDG doesn't always give me results ... Any ideas?
I've taken look at it. However, Play especially its Scala version is slow as hell.
But, how many people have access to said private key? Will it ever be leaked, as some pieces of sensitive data have been? You can't trust keys that aren't yours to control, because while we can probably safely assume that NSA has better security than you or I or the companies we work for, it also has much higher capability attackers than most of us ever see in our lifetimes. The value of this particular private key is probably the highest of any known single private key in existence.

And, what about further down the road? 10 years, maybe 20, when this new type of key is predictably breakable with large enough resources? A 1024 bit RSA key is breakable for about $10 million today, according to a study that was linked to in a previous discussion about the state of quantum competing a couple days ago.

There are too many ways this one key could end up compromising potentially millions of locks.
Agreed.

Interestingly Roberto Assagioli makes a case that Maslow's hierarchy of human needs is useful beyond that, not so much in terms of the heirarchy itself so much as the idea that peak experiences (including mystical experiences) are things which are easiest to achieve once certain psychological things are dealt with.

Assagioli is interesting reading. It is as if he throws Freud, Jung, and Dante into a pot, seasons with a touch of Hinduism and Arthurian legend and pulls out out a psychological theory which surprisingly makes sense.
Google has a lot of ways of knowing what I want to find, which definitely has disadvantages; I get presented with the same ads & results even if I try to find other stuff. I get presented with the same article or ad in different searches numerous times to the point I go on to anonymous browsing / ddg.

The good thing; when just searched for something about UIView and later type something "populating a table", it'll give me SO articles (and such) about UITableView which is what I meant but forgot to type add ios/or uitable.

The bad thing; when i'm doing research, it'll give me the same stuff over and over again and I have to page quite far and add / remove query info / play with search tools to get to different things which might not be the most popular or might not be what Google thinks I want.

The awful thing; the ads... I use ad blockers, but when I get ads (gmail / some sites), they are always the same. For Facebook I just think their algorithm is broken or maybe they have none (I only get ads about dating, cheating, stocks all of which I have no interest in nor ever shown), but for Google they show things I am interested in but I already know all of them, have been there, knew most of them before those ads and they cannot possibly sell me anything. If I wanted something from them I would go there without those ads, so why are they targeting me like that? Show me ads I don't know and if I can use it, I would click.

I'm technical, but I hear the same annoyance from others; a friend of mine rents out houses; the search results when he wants to research the competition are usually almost only his own sites (presumably because he visits them a lot?) and ads for his own properties. He is very non technical, so explaining this all to him is not really sinking in.
Churches are the first thing that leapt to my mind. The new pope seems to be headed this way: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pope-on-the-financial-sys...
And religions have done this historically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)
I agree with you. I think it was a mistake to use punctuation, and I like the keywords that you propose.
I enjoy hating on Microsoft as much as the next guy, but as far as I'm concerned Bing is basically as good as Google.

The problem for Microsoft is the same problem that faced Apple. Being "as good as" isn't enough to get people to switch. You have to be 10 times better.

Back when Google launched, it was 10x better than Yahoo. Bing seems to have quickly gotten to 1x, but hasn't moved much further.
I am, but I've never written one. Maybe it's best to start a discussion on the ML?
Tories torch and dump centuries of priceless, irreplaceable archives
Walk it off and resume work
> Can you explain how anyone other than the NSA can take advantage of Dual EC_DRBG?

Dual EC_DRBG is a random number generator. If you use any random number generator long enough without re-seeding, it will eventually cycle (start producing the same sequence of bits again) and a discernable pattern will probably emerge long before that. If you can identify that pattern, then you can predict what will be generated.

To understand this: a really crappy random number generator simply takes the seed and increments it to produce the next random number, wrapping around to 0 when it hits 32 bits. So if I give you the numbers 56, 57, 58, produced by this generator, you can predict the number 59 will be generated next (and the number 55 was generated before). If these numbers were, say, the generated public exponent in an RSA public key, and the private key was generated just before, you could very easily figure out the factors used to generate the private key. Obviously nobody is using such an obvious "random" number generator.

In practice, most DRNG cycles are very large, and it takes many generation cycles for a pattern to emerge. This provides security because even if you get a few randomly generated bits, you won't be able to predict which bits were generated next. Even if you know the cycle, it would take many, many bits to be able to know where you are on the cycle and pick what would happen next.

Bruce Schneier explains much more authoritatively than I can[1] how Dual_EC_DRBG can be broken--that after collecting only 32 bytes of generated bits, you can predict what the generator will generate next.

HOWEVER, what I didn't know before re-reading Schneier's article, is that in order to predict future numbers from the previous 32 bytes, you need to know the proper constants (unknown) which correspond to the constants set forth in the NIST's Dual_EC_DRBG. So only the person generating those constants (in tandem with the unknown constant "key") can break the standard. So when I said that anyone can break the standard, I was wrong. Color me embarrassed.

[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/the_strange_s...
What if you made a search engine that only works on specific sites? For the most part users don't want to search the entire web for every small blog in existence, they want to go to a relatively small number of specific sites.

For example, reddit has a terrible search engine that users often complain about and comments aren't indexed at all. But searching with google often gives subpar results and they don't take into account things like upvotes at all. (I also think sites like reddit are punished by Google's algorithm pretty harshly.)

This might make the problem smaller and more tractable and a place where you could get an advantage over Google.