skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"I don't think it's off-base to say that this is an attack on the current state of society - the oft-repeated wail that capitalism and the opportunities it has brought (including technology) has made us all a despicable group of hedonistic thrill seekers."

Why just "capitalism"? I think it's way too broad

Capitalism without civil society (in republican understanding), perhaps. It's still very general

"Let's consider the bottom 55% - the kind of people whose chief pleasures in our Brave New World may be TV, alcohol, taking selfies, incorrect spelling in text messages, Facebook, Instagram, Candy Crush, etc. - they're not massively intellectual."

No, but Postman argues that they used to make more intensive use of their brains in the "print era".

Right now I can't find the full text to copy and paste the relevant excerpt here, but I googled up a summary of his point:

http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm

"Before going into the details of how and why this is, Postman takes us back to the 19th century and uses the
debates between Lincoln and Douglas to illustrate the vast gaping chasm between discourse as it was then and
how it is now. The famous debates between Lincoln and Douglass each lasted three hours long, each devoted to
one issue, and divided between an hour of speech, an hour and a half of response, and a half-hour rebuttal. What
makes this even more striking is that these debates were actually shorter than most normal debates of the time!
Crowds would gather around these two men and listen to them speak at length about one subject, carefully
constructing logical arguments and parsing through each others’ claims in true analytical fashion. The 19th century
mind was habituated to a literary form of oratory, which unlike pictures and film has propositional content—one
can say of it that it is either true or false, which is not the case when it comes to images. Even advertising was
purely literary, designed to appeal to the understanding as opposed to desire."
Nice stance! But isn't this apologetic thinking a pattern applicable on pretty much any order of things? "It can be worse" and "don't ask too much from your high-horse" are not the principles I choose to follow nor recommend to others. I agree that the world (at least in the most part) changed for the better from "back in the day" but I believe that it was thanks to that kind of people that use to sit on high horses trying to make their the view a little nicer. Here's an exercise for you too - try to imagine what kind of world do you want for your future descendants. This exercise will tell you by the way, depending on if you could come up with something better or not, what kind of people you are - the sitting on high-horse looking down kind or the rest.
Can you illustrate this with an example? How about explicit records and a 60 second ttl on A and CNAME to humor me.

If implementing recursion based ALIAS foo.mydomain RRs MUST respect the TTL of bar.otherdomains RRs. With that proviso Im missing what the effective cache lifetime difference is between the two.
It's important to realize that everyone has a different social contract for how quickly they expect responses across different channels. The better advice is to actually have open, honest conversations with those you work with most frequently and those with whom communication is important to define and understand how people are going to perceive those different channels and contracts.

Setting up social contracts for different communication expectations doesn't have to result in everyone having the same guidelines, but does let you know that Alice is okay with texts while Bob really prefers emails to be allow 8hrs+ for replies.
Lambda support for android (with retrolambda backporting tool)
Using a subdomain? What's wrong with "www."? For the apex all you need then is a tiny server that issues a permanent redirect. Why are people so obsessed with getting rid of "www."? The lack of dot causes issues with cookies, makes SSL a lot harder and is currently badly supported by DNS.
AOL Tried to Buy Business Insider for $100M+
I wish there were a way for recipients to define a message routing and format conversion protocol, incentivized by money.

e.g., you can call me at night for $5k. You can call me during "phone hour" for $100. You an call at other times for $250. If your call turns out to be worth my time, I don't bill you; if it was a waste of my time (spam, pointless, etc.), I'll charge up to 100% of that amount.

Senders would get to see a menu of costs for various technologies, and would get to see how I handle them (various guarantees). They may vary based on sender, topic, etc. e.g. I'd be willing to take YC applicant advice emails during a few weeks of the year for 10% of normal price, with a guaranteed response within 12h. I'd charge a lot less for email than for phone, etc.

Part of this would be some kind of ecash system, and the other part would be format conversion; being able to turn phone calls into text messages, read back to the user to verify.
>My understanding is that the physics of imaging satellites is pretty precise, even a few ounces bias on one side can make the whole thing useless.

I am having a hard time thinking about what you might mean by this. I have no doubt that the imaging platform itself must be machined and assembled to high tolerance, but this is a matter of dimensions rather than mass. What kind of problems could be created by adding a little bit of mass? It may change the rigid body dynamics but that should be easily corrected in software. Care to elaborate?
Find what you can influence, and focus your attention
> again, maybe I'm getting old, but to see the pixels on my current screen I have to get my nose almost right up to the display, which I'm never going to do

The point of going to higher and higher resolutions is that eventually, you don't see the pixels. Pixels are an implementation detail, what you're really wanting to see is the image they represent.
Stop In And Learn 1001 Ways To Make Money Online
Better change it to "'; DROP TABLES --;"
Like building the entire system in PHP, then throwing HipHop at it? Seems to work though.
Here's an interesting competitor to Oculus Rift called CastAR that uses a very different solution. It uses a head mounted mini projectors and a retro reflecting surface. It's different from Oculus in the sense that it doesn't block the external world like a head mounted display does. This is an advantage in gaming because you can actually see the gaming controllers. It also allows interesting AR solutions.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/technicalillusions/casta...

This project was originally Jeri Ellsworth's research project at Valve but the funding was pulled and these guys are trying to kickstart a new business.

When playing a flight simulator with the Oculus Rift, I had this problem that I could not see the physical controls. I was using a full HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick) controller so regular flying wasn't a problem but when I had to lower the landing gear, I had to peer down my nose under the Rift's head mounted display to see where the button for the landing gear was.

I'm not going to pick any favorites because I've only tried one and not the other but I want both of these projects to succeed! This way we can have competing alternative technologies and whoever prevails will be made better by the competition.
A little subtle, but one additional problem is that the vehicle is being matched to a ticket by the plate number's string. The result is that old tickets are being keyed to whoever currently has that plate number. A proper system would lookup that vehicle's registration_id at the time of the violation and store that as the foreign key.
ECMAScript 6: merging objects via Object.assign()
Why a developer profile will land you a job
I find it hilarious that someone warns of an echo chamber, yet specifies your "opposite" news sources as The Times and New York Times.
The quote you used was from a paper unrelated to abuse in any fashion, the anecdote at the beginning of the article was not relevant to that quote.
I said their chief pleasures 'may' be those things - a list suffixed with 'etc'. My aim was to get the reader to have an idea of the kind of person I was talking about rather than construct an exhaustive but useless and pointless list of their activities.

Yes, those people could do the things you say. But they don't. The point I'm making is that coercing them into behaving differently is not practical nor moral.

I have an IQ in the top 0.001%, am relatively wealthy, relatively well educated, and have a bizarrely diverse skillset. I play Call of Duty and enjoy life's trivialities much more than I paint or talk philosophy.

I agree that society can be fearsome for some in the way you describe, but as I said its reflective of its components, and in order to change the scary bits you have to enforce change on those nearer the top of our curve - and I outright reject the notion that they are more deserving of the pains of coercion owing to their status. Everybody will always suffer in a plan to take one set of ideas and force them upon others. History teaches this lesson over and over again. Present government is teaching it now.

Capitalism - the best word to describe our current societal system - is the antithesis of this. It promotes freedom for everyone to do what the hell they want, not what they 'should' or are told to, and prescribes nothing but subscription to capitalism itself which incidentally is not a system imposed on the world by political leaders, but rather a descriptive term for something humans have been doing (or trying to do against a range of government constraints) for centuries: trading 'stuff' they have for stuff they don't freely and openly.
> Since you won't accept my strategy of building up to the complete question (because it is in fact your formulation which is incomplete, and thus I, like you, will not respond to it),

No, his formulation is complete and inevitably leads to the correct answer 1/3. You are constantly avoiding a complete formulation of the problem by diverting to a muddled discussion of an entirely different problem. This is NOT about Monty Hall.

Or you're trolling. In which case you are doing it masterfully.
"Honda could use this information and market the Civic as "the best" car for eating at McDonald's."

There might be a horror scenario in there somewhere, but this isn't it :-)
That's irrelevant. The point is you've picked two news sources that politically covers a tiny little sliver of the political spectrum, both of them solidly right wing and pro-establishment from a European perspective, as if that somehow has let you avoid the echo chamber.
Is a Java String really immutable?
How is the phone any different to txt in this regard? Both use the same channel and txt has the advantage that it's less invasive.

Txt/bbm/iMessage etc are all much better options than calling someone. For me and most of my friends the phone is the last resort, I hate talking on the phone.
Lenovo is also launching a 28" 4K monitor this April: "Along with the resolution, we have a 5ms response time, 72% color gamut, DisplayPort, mDP, HDMI and MHL connectivity, three USB 3.0 ports and dual 3W speakers. Lenovo is promoting a true 10-bit color, and streaming capabilities via other digital devices." http://www.anandtech.com/show/7635/lenovo-at-ces-2014-thinkv...
Dijkstra's specification for a million dollar computer in 1965 [pdf]
But you didn't just say "all major news outlets", you also said "all websites". Which is to say, all people. If you believe that, why then trust your own assessment of the situation? If you believe you yourself are genuinely interested in knowing the truth as objectively as possible, why could this not apply to others, as well?

Yes, the world is complex, that's why I think "left and right" is too simple a dichotomy. It leaves out more than it covers, and adding a lot of biased sources together doesn't necessarily cancel the bias out, leaving the facts.

Say you read articles of each "side" about colony collapse disorder -- where on that spectrum do statements of actual beekeepers fit in? Or hey, consider well sourced articles on Wikipedia, say, about skin colors and "races".. not a fun ride for racists. Does that make Wikipedia "leftist"? Or is it rather that reality is "leftist" in that case?

If you go back to the original meaning of the words, right basically means supporting the status quo and special privilege (the king, that is), and left being against it. Since then it has come to mean all sorts of things for all sorts of people.

Is someone who is against abortion and for gay marriage in the US a liberal or a conservative? Are they liberal on gay marriage while being conservative on abortion? If you allow for such granularity, you are back to reading articles by individidual authors -- even a "left-wing" newspaper can publish a "right-wing" article, and none of them will ever publish the perspective of someone who thinks all objects are just delusions of the mind, that there exists nothing but everything, because such a person would not bother to write, and nobody would understand it.

> The Guardian makes a loss, but someone is footing the bill - what does that someone want you to think?

In this case, we can at least find out what the trust wants you to think that they want you to think it: http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/values/ Granted, everybody says that.. But that doesn't mean everybody is lying or deluding themselves about it, and if it does, it includes you and me, too, and we're back at square one.
maybe leave the link to your linkedin page?
I live in the UK, in London actually.

I don't get the choice you get, what I have currently (2Mb/s:d 80Kb/s:u and incredible latency) is the only thing you can buy as a consumer.

leasing a line would cost #1,200 (gbp) a month, which combined with my exorbitant rent would leave me literally penniless.

I would say you're a lucky case.
Thanks! I have answered your question in my own mind many times.

I want to live in a world where there is true freedom. I want a purer form of capitalism with heavy reductions in current government control that inhibits the ability of us all to do things today. I want them to live in a world where the very concept that one person or group of people enforces control over others is both alien and absurd, and certainly not their reality as it is ours.

My solution involves only the absolution of control from those who should never have had in the first place, and enforces nothing on anyone.
An Overview Of Bitcoin Video - How It Works
ISP's took lots of money to build better internets, then told politicians that the current set up is what they asked for.
Similar story from Ireland: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7899171....
Snapchat CEO Reveals Why He Rejected Facebook's $3 Billion Offer
"Faster" is true, but "more awesome" is marketing.
I don't get the part about needing to check your email as in anyway difficult? My iPhone with the gmail app has a very pleasant tone when I get an email in my priority inbox. I don't have to check anything or be compulsive on any way.
Only I found it funny that the article is on a site without a subdomain?
I would go for option (2) but I think I'm less worried about the vertical height and having separate screens on different data works for me so the bezel isn't critical.

At the cost of bezels you could go for option (2) with the screens rotated to portrait.
Seems that 2014 won't be a good year for Go on HN. Same old story as with Node and Mongo. First they ignore you, then they praise you, then they hate you.
> What's wrong with "www."?

People (rightly) expect the url to work without it. I say rightly, because it can, so it should. The www hads no value to the user.
My point is that there is no way to viably change the status quo - the merits of doing so are irrelevant. We should accept this and not spend our time trying to change others, or wishing they were different, but rather channel our own energies into things constructive for our own time on this earth.
Wake me up when US decides to sell it military tech for security and not money. I agree that financial consequences might not be a priority in decision making, but at the end of the day US (or rather the corporations, which can no longer be attributed to just US) are interested in money. I don't think UAE will stop buying stuff just because it is know to be tainted, but they get upper hand in bargaining the price.

Also I don't understand your analogy to staplers fully. If US is a house of staplers and UAE (or any other nation) is not an employee there then the only reason they are not stealing is because they lack the skill.

On an individual level it is relatively easier to make decisions regarding moral issues like stealing but that doesn't work for a group.
They are, you can find them here https://github.com/isaiah/jubilee/wiki/Benchmarks-against-ot...
Well, you'd also have to know how much you gained from spying, to know the score. I bet the wins are much more than the loses.
>> The father says that at least one child is a boy.
>> That eliminates the option of GG. Are you somehow
>> suggesting that the probability distribution of
>> the other options is changed by this?

> Yes. ... Going (invisibly) from 4 possible worlds
> (including GG) to 3 changes the prob dist of the
> remaining 3, by which I mean 2. If Monty must
> guarantee you at least one boy, then there aren't
> really 3 remaining possibilities. The unguaranteed
> can be a boy, or it can be a girl. What is the
> third?

The standard reasoning is that there are two options, but they are not equally likely. Equally likely options are, labelling oder child first, BB, BG, GB. These were equally probable before we gained the extra information, and the standard interpretation is that they remain equally probable after.

In the Monty Hall case you choose a door, and it has probability 1/3 of being right. It remains 1/3 probable after he chooses a door. The other two doors together have probability 2/3 of concealing the car. It remains 2/3 after he has chosen and opened a door. The probabilities of the branches don't change in any of these cases.

Before you are told anything about the children we have four equally likely possibilities: BB, BG, GB, GG. After one is eliminated, why should the others still not be equi-probable?

> A: So now let's take another experiment.
> I tell you I'm going to flip two coins
> until at least one of them is heads. I
> do that. Now I ask you to bet on whether
> or not there is a tail. What do you
> think are fair odds?

And you say:

> I misread A. I agree that it's 1/3 if you
> flip pairs until at least one is heads.

OK. Now B:

> B: Now I hunt among couples with two children
> until I find one that doesn't have two girls,
> and I ask: what are the odds they have two
> boys?

Do you agree that it's 1/3?
Exactly.

And for anyone who struggles to see the pixels on a typical desktop monitor, that's probably because a lot of tricks are used to disguise them. Try turning off anti-aliasing or sub-pixel font rendering and then tell me you can't see the pixels.
Got to watch this so cute
BMW Builds a Self-Driving Car — That Drifts
related thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3900224
Microsoft: Windows Phone outselling iPhones in 24 markets
> Those commands aren't available by default because the culture doesn't encourage that workflow

That's not the reason. The reason is that they want to keep the standard interface to hg minimal. Unfortunately, I cannot find a citation for that right now.

That said, I, too, would appreciate having more standard extensions enabled by default. But direct your disagreement to the idea that hg should have a minimal standard interface instead of making up reasons :)
Anyone thinking about taking this course should be aware that Bruno Latour is not, and has never been, a scientist. He is in the same camp as Derrida, Lacan and Foucault, in that he has a great deal to say about science but very little experience of it.

He is the creator of 'Actor-Network Theory'. I summarize the introductory paragraphs from Wikipedia, to give you a flavor.

Actor–network theory is an approach to social theory and
research, originating in the field of science studies, which treats
objects as part of social networks. It can technically be described
as a "material-semiotic" method. This means that it maps relations
that are simultaneously material (between things) and semiotic
(between concepts). It assumes that many relations are both
material and semiotic.

Broadly speaking, ANT is a constructivist approach in that it
avoids essentialist explanations of events or innovations (e.g.
explaining a successful theory by understanding the combinations
and interactions of elements that make it successful, rather than
saying it is “true” and the others are “false”). However, it is
distinguished from many other STS and sociological network theories
for its distinct material-semiotic approach.
It's not a mesh network, so it doesn't divorce itself from the last mile carriers.
tl;dr chose wrong language for the task.
Aren't they made to be broken?

(Sorry, couldn't help it)
The first appearance of the Joker (Batman #1 1940) was incredibly scary and grim. He's a murderer, killing 3 or 4 people with poison that make them smile, and the general style is quite dark. [1]

Sure, comic books move to a different ground later, and the Joker in particular moved to be more of a harmless clown until the 70s, when "The Joker's five way revenge" (Batman #251 1973) made him back to a scary killer again.

It depends on taste, but to me the idea of someone using a joke cigar that explodes blow away a whole floor is quite brutal. It is brutal because it takes something "funny/harmless" and moves it to actually killing someone.
In one comic he throws a cartoon 10 tons weight to someone. And you can see the blood of the crushed guy on the floor. I find that pretty dark. And I think that the contrast of bright colours, smiles and silly jokes while being a mass murderer is what makes the Joker an special character...

[1] http://comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/27306/JOKER_f...
I have HD 485s, but even at the loosest setting I can't wear them for more than 30 minutes because of the way they feel on the tips of my ears.
If you start a message that way you're likely to irk your recipient. It's very rude to start out with "listen".

And there's nothing about the nature of email that is asynchronous, gmail has blurred the lines between email and chat. An email reaches me just as quickly as iMessage et al

My guidelines are use iMessage/bbm/txt for conversational inquiries where there is a need for back and forth type interaction and email for everything else. There's no difference in their delivery time with gmail.

My daughter thinks of email as just for school stuff. Everything else is over other mediums, mainly iMessage (mainly due to the magic like "..." Indication) or Instagram. Time has changed things. Email is now as instant as instant messaging and IM is now as media rich as email, supporting photos and video etc. the lines between these have blurred mainly due to the smartphone. Once your messaging channel was coupled to the delivery vector, but now my MacBook Pro can receive iMessages and my phone can receive emails. I don't want a unified messaging interface because I can use different ones for different people and don't feel anxious about any of this. If I want to avoid the world for a while I have a mute button.
3D food printers create sweets and chocolates (CES 2014)
Running Docker Natively on OSX