skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> These things are weak evidence in favor of christianity

I'm not convinced this is true. Certainly the story of Jesus is evidence, but it's not clear which direction the evidence should push us. Someone making a claim does not always mean our posterior estimate on the claim should increase.

Here's a simple example:

I hand you a small bottle filled with medical-looking pills and a nice label. I ask you, "What's the chance these pills cure malignant melanoma cancer?" You think for a moment, then answer, "Very small. There may be a cure eventually, but I've never seen evidence. I'm not on the cutting edge of research though, so perhaps this is a new breakthrough I haven't heard of. Plausible, but unlikely."

I then say, "Well, let me reassure you by showing you the website I ordered the pills from."

I bring up the website, which shows testimonial after testimonial of people claiming the pills cure malignant melanoma cancer. You then respond (correctly), "I've decreased my estimate. There is still a chance, of course, that the pills work, but I now know these pills are not from a legitimate medical breakthrough I hadn't heard of yet. In fact, this website pattern matches as a scam, so I'm decreasing my posterior to an estimate even lower than my completely uninformed prior."

P(Pills work | testimonials) < P(Pills are a scam | testimonials)

Of course, the testimonials would be positive evidence if the pills had passed clinical trials.

Now, which is bigger:

P(Jesus is the son of God | Jesus said he is the son of God)

or

P(Jesus is was just a guy | Jesus said he is the son of God) ?

Honestly, this is not clear to me at all. But I think once we start taking in all the other evidence related to (but not necessarily in favor of) Christianity things become more clear. Just like the pill's website pattern matched for a scammy website, it seems to me that the evidence related to Christianity pattern matches to the evidence related to other man made religions. So I conclude:

P(Christianity is man-made | evidence) > P(Christianity is correct | evidence)

Hence P(Christianity is correct | evidence) may very well be less than the uniform prior that a particular god exists.

Edit: The above symbols aren't right, as yummy points out below, but the argument and analogy is sound. What we care about is the change in probability of each possibility. If

P(Christianity is man-made | evidence) > P(Christianity is man-made)

then we can conclude that Christianity is less likely due to the evidence.
> If you have to say you're being gracious, you're probably not.

This is the little brother of "You know I am not racist, but..."
Solid troll.
Let's see, you are attacking what is a part of accepted US culture calling car drivers selfish and frivolous while missing the whole point of focus of the protest. You are really not going to sound very nice on TV when you are trying to defend against these protests.

The retort from some single mother of two who has a car because she needs to drop her children at daycare (not on bus line) and then drive to work because "common" people don't have onsite daycare or fancy buses right to the door will be amusing. I will bet the reporter could even find a more sympathetic story. Bonus if the single mother needed to move farther away from her job because of higher rent.

If you think the above is silly and off topic then you are missing the attack vector. Welcome to modern attack politics.
Your computer IP address 199.27.128.109 is listed at
StopForumSpam database so your visit is blocked. You can
unblock yourself by entering the following code:

What the hell? CAPTCHAs just to read pages?
Actually, in the end you have to make sure you don't let yourself get too high on the high or too low on the lows. Those are the ones that make it.
Ubuntu's target audience are actually who think that command harder. Seriously.
This is easier than you think. Most of these kids have no clue what they're actually doing and link their personal identities with the name they use.

I run (as a hobby) some game servers and have handled several DDoS incidents. Out of all of them, I think there's only been one that I couldn't find real-life details for. When this occurs and the perpetrator is a minor, and I can find details for them, I give the parents a friendly call and let them know. Usually this can be easily resolved in a peaceful manner and without any mention, threats or use of legal action.
Honestly, I'm not knocking you down but trying to help you from making trivial mistakes that change people's perception and distract and detract from the important things.

your => you're * 2

rode => ridden

Again, why not get it right, since there's no doubt you can?
It certainly wasn't brilliant content marketing for hot pants.
Even assuming the need, why do you feel the need to lecture your user when she wants to use the term 'Miss' or 'Mrs' to identify herself? I mean, it's one thing to provide neutral options like 'Ms' or '', sure, go ahead... but are you operating a web site or a culture war?
He left his startup which continued on in YC without him.
The French way of cancer treatment
I'm looking to do some job crawling as well, but across more sites then your price tiers offer. Would be interesting to see pricing with a sliding scale of number of sites / frequency. I'm looking to crawl lots of different sites and a relatively low frequency. Compiling all those results in one api would do a long way as well.

I'd also love to see something that can do some intelligent fuzzy matching. Giving it a page and telling it to find content that matches some rules. For example finding a link that matches an email regex or text that matches a phone number regex.
I can tell you that you're comfortably in the middle of my screen not on the corner. So you have third party proof.
Too true. The first two times I reached six, I was shortly thereafter knocked down to one or two by collisions.
The first version of Google, Facebook, YouTube and more
A custom photo viewer, inspired by Facebook Paper
So to tie this back to my original question - why are we asking women to put information on a form that has no use other than to let us know if she might be a potential mate?

If you make a new form, limit salutations to Dr., Mr., Ms.

Why do you ask people what their titles are at all? Dr., Mr., Ms. Why do you need them?

If your customer wants Mrs. & Miss, push back. Up to you to decide how far and how hard, but make an effort.

Given that you do ask such silly questions, who are you to push back against the title someone wants? If a woman, say my mother, older than the both of us, wants to be known as Mrs., who are you to push back on that? Is your push back a step for gender equality, or you just being even more self-absorbed and clueless in your questions than before?

Would you push back against a person that wants to identify with a different pronoun? Or a different gender? Then why are you pushing back against that person's choice of a title?

Do you verify the titles? If not, what's the skin off your nose?
Probably not. CloudFlare only makes sense for websites because they can cache content, resulting in a more responsive website and better user experience. Games can't be cached, so whatever protections they can offer will come at a downside of having to use CloudFlare servers instead of servers designed to host games.

Also, DDoS isn't a big deal for most games. (MMOs, yes, but not most games.) If a gameserver is DDoSed, then a few dozen or a few hundred people are going to be unhappy. Whereas if a website is DDoSed, then tens of thousands of people will be unhappy at a minimum. Since most games aren't really affected by DDoS, it doesn't make much business sense for CloudFlare to try to offer gameserver protection. The market probably isn't big enough to warrant diverting CloudFlare time and resources.
Great, another meaningless blog trying to gather views with nonsense gender equality bullshit. Is there an easier subject on internet nowadays to stir something up?

There goes my circlejerker karma.
"If you make a new form, limit salutations to Dr., Mr., Ms."

I've never understood why people with MDs or PhDs feel the need to be addressed as "Dr." wherever they go. Distinguishing between "Dr." and "Mr." or "Dr." and "Ms." seems at least as weird as distinguishing between "Mrs." and "Ms.".

And once you concede that people with those degrees deserve to be called by their preferred salutation, why not add all the other possible honorifics, like, "Senator", "Rabbi", "The Right Honourable", etc.?

Maybe the right approach is to just provide a text box that the user can fill in with their preferred salutation, or leave blank.

It's interesting how much cultural baggage goes into creating something as simple as a data entry form.
Why do you consider any of those links to constitute "debunking" of the original linked post? Most of the points therein seem entirely compatible with the current claim

Most notably, the link on "climate models" says "Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean." and goes on to discuss hindcasting. But the argument here is about forecasting - how well the models did after predictions based on them were first published. How successfully do they turn out to reproduce temperatures since 2000? Not nearly as well as since 1900. Bringing up 1900 in this context seems like a red herring.

Further note: There's a difference between disagreeing and debunking. It can be assumed that skepticalscience will disagree with this sort of sentiment, but that doesn't make them correct to do so.
I reject the notion that asking (or not asking) for marital status affects gender equality, in our industry or in society, in any meaningful way.
>In a way this is just a restatement of Occam's Razor, but I like it because it clarifies why Occam's Razor is a good idea. It's not because simpler solutions are actually more likely to be true; they usually aren't. It's because it's almost always easier to improve a simple solution by adding complexity, than it is to improve a complicated solution by digging out a simple solution buried within it.

While the second part of that is an interesting observation, the first part is simply false. It basically comes down to prior probabilities and conjunctions. Every bit of new information implied by a hypothesis is another "and". It is a simple fact that P(X) ≥ P(X and Y), so the more conjunctions your hypothesis implies (the more complex it is) the lower its prior probability.
I'm getting "TypeError: Cannot call method 'set' of undefined" when trying to save...
I read the following Wikipedia article and wound up fascinated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms.

It claims that the use of /mɪz/ (Ms. in spelling, but the S clearly pronounced as /z/) was proposed as "close parallel to the practice long universal in many bucolic regions" of slurring the pronunciation of "missus" and "miss" as a single entity. Never thought of it that way, but my first reaction to reading this article is that we already have such a title, "Ms.", with the S pronounced as Z.
> "Occam's razor ... dictates that we declare this to be not true"

Note that Occam's razor does not actually have the authority to dictate anything. Occam's razor is a useful heuristic -- like frames of reference, you may treat it (or various similar heuristics) as true, but may also treat it as not true.

----

This whole exchange reminds me of one of my favorite Asimov essays, The Relativity of Wrong [0]. You can certainly make the argument that the reference frame "the earth goes around the sun" is not true, but it's less not-true than "the sun goes around the earth". "The earth goes around the sun" is a correct assessment of the relative behavior of the bodies in a reference frame which is in a sense arbitrary, while "the sun goes around the earth" is an incorrect assessment of the relative behavior of those bodies under either Euclidian or relativistic reference frames.

[0] http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
read way to wealth by ben franklin
a lot of paper forms leave this as other, with a blank to fill in.
> Scarce resources aren't the cause of starving babies

They aren't? Wait, let's make the claim more specific. Biofuel mandates that had been justified in part based on CO2 concerns have driven up the cost of corn and other grains - crops and farmland is being needlessly diverted from food to fuel. Making grains more expensive has indeed been a cause of starvation in the third world.

Um, here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62609/c-ford-runge-an...
Salutations are abbreviations, though... and you're likely asking for a salutation so that your CSRs and/or salespeople can call people by it, for "enhanced politeness."

But what happens when someone fills in a salutation your CSRs/salespeople don't recognize? Do they hazard a guess at pronouncing it? Screwing up a title seems worse than screwing up a name, in terms of how much respect you've lost with what might be a potential client. (Really, though, I'd guess that they'd just ignore it, look at your gender, and call you "Mr." or "Mrs.", depending.)

On the other hand, the true 100% solution... I'm not even sure. An autocompletion-search based chooser that knows about every salutation that exists around the world, with the abbreviated, expanded, and IPA-pronounciation forms included for each salutation?
Can you define what you mean by a "white-", "gray-" and "black-hat" troll?

The obvious parallel with security hacking doesn't seem to quite work for me if I think of "white-hat trolling" as a kind of human pentesting because humans who know they are being trolled are unlikely to get trolled by definition.
I look for something like this.... Thanks for sharing valuable post...
Climate engineering scares the shit out of me. I think this article is right, we do not fully understand global warming. We know something is happening, we do NOT know exactly what OR why. But we have the fucking hubris to assume that we can make it better (through climate engineering)!? Without even fully understanding the problem.

That said, we can still work on improving the world and cutting down CO2 emissions AND pollution. Global warming or not, no one can argue with the fact that air quality in large cities in US, India, and China is atrocious. Global warming may or may not kill us, but pollution is killing people, now, today. And that pollution is 100% man made, no argument about that.

I personally think we should work on innovation of power production, not conservation of said power. Better battery technology and better solar photovoltaic technology is the future, in my personal opinion.

UPDATE: updated for clarity.
It's not asking for marital status that's at issue; it's selectively asking for it — only from women.
Quick! someone get the wierdos at /. to post this article! As noted in the past, sciebtists can barely predict hurricane tracks. Global climate stuff? Yeah right.
That's a far-fetched reason to include android devices in the category of windows pcs.
HN is awesome. Democracy is fair. Jesus Christ is Lord. Praise be to Allah. Human rights are essential.

The functioning of ideology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

Silicon Valley has its own ideology, and HN is the center of it. Any statement of "...is awesome" is a good candidate for finding the foundations of this ideology. Any good ideology has to encompass a diversity of views to survive. In this case, we see the public prostration of the spat out soul who voluntarily subjects their weakness to the crowd in the name of self-development. Addressing whether this is a good or bad thing would be to enter into the terms of which this particular ideology functions.

Most ideologies typically benefit a certain class of people: clergy, politicians, a bureaucracy, academia, venture capital.
This argument is just hilarious. Yep, there definitely are no more important problems in the entire world than whether women should have a choice in defining their own marital status or not.
You can "aim high" working long days in your 20s, 30s, or 40s. But in your 20s maybe there's other stuff you want to do, like chasing college tail, or not having kids.
Dogecoin has no significant changes. The coinbase value is detirministic, the POW is altered slightly and some other values are changed. Nothing interfacing with it needs alterations, other than things with validate blocks and so forth.
Is a married woman is more likely to take maternity leave than an unmarried one?
Speaking of piles of crap:

"The IPCC's 95% certainty bands it gave for 5 years out have been violated EVERY single time"

Alternatively, you could tell the truth that they've been accurate:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-war...
I don't follow. Why would that be sad?
Hosts that negligently allow (do not implement technical measures to block) packets to be sent from an IP address not routed to the sender.

Ecatel is the big one here. I don't know what it will take for their upstreams to shut them down, but it needs to happen. Do that and many of these reflected attacks will stop.
I kept my surname, and am frequently called Mrs by random shop assistants reading my name off my credit card and noticing my ring. No; that's my mother.

However, having experienced this weird identity/title disconnect a few times now, I know she would also feel like it wasn't her, but somebody else, being addressed if she were forced to be "Ms".

Sure, there are times where you don't want to be informal and there isn't much of an alternative than Title Surname, but I'd rather see the titles removed altogether. Should we try to make "Miss" and "Mrs" obsolete? Probably, but not by removing the ability for us to choose it on forms.
Presumably someone earlier was being malicious from that IP address. Unfortunate, but slightly reasonable from someone who was being targeted I suppose.
I'm curious, does the setup read and execute every single typed command it recieves, or does it analyze the commands entered within a set time period and simply choose the one that it recieved the most? Which system do you think would work better for such a setup? Is there a system that would work better for such a project?
I agree with robotresearcher. The grammar mistake influenced negatively the way I interpreted your words and my perception of you.
It happens at an unconscious level.
Without errors I would just get the meaning. With the errors, I see them first and get distracted.

The same happened with the article: too well written to be enjoyable.
You could feel the effort in finding clever ways to say simple things.

The fact that you didn't thank him for taking the time to help you, makes me think that for you self improvement is less important than looking smart.
As he said, <I'm not knocking you down but trying to help you from making trivial mistakes that change people's perception and distract and detract from the important things>
That explains it perfectly.
His point is clearly not about pushing back against how someone identifies.

There is simply no male equivalent to "Miss" and "Mrs.", so asking someone to choose between titles is implicitly asking for their relationship status.

I would prefer there were no titles at all, but if you have to use them the only equitable way of doing it is to eliminate "Mrs." and "Miss".

Edit: Actually even better would be to have a text field.
The 25% Discount that Cost Us $12,000
This comment thread is toxic, and it's regrettable that you created it. Look at the replies you've engendered. Quibbling over grammar is not why most people read HN.

Drew Houston writes without capitalization. Would you say the same to him? Ideas are what matter, not apostrophes.
You think that the people who have an opinion on XFCE4 versus Gnome are going to have trouble with one command?
That wasn't a statement of ideology; it was rather more a concise way to say "you reminded me why I come here instead of somewhere else: it is, on average, composed of people like you, and I enjoy the atmosphere this creates. Thank you for being you, and for contributing to making this the kind of place I enjoy."

When you see "community X is awesome" posted within community X, it's mostly a recent convert looking back and realizing that wherever they just came from was a comparatively bad fit for their personality and views.

I hear it a lot, here, from hackers switching from /r/programming to HN. I hear it on LessWrong from people who came from, for example, the atheist community, or the skeptic community, and didn't realize it was possible to talk about those subjects without constant dick-waving and chest-beating regarding their respective out-groups.

Either way, it's almost the opposite reaction to what you're accusing it of being: it's not like joining a cult; it's more like leaving high-school and realizing you can make friends with people because they talk about things you like, and behave in ways that don't annoy you, instead of just putting up with them because they're constantly forced to be around you for six hours a day.
Here's the thing: you're talking about someone's name. If a woman always choose to go by "Mrs", that's her choice, even if you don't like it and even if you believe she was unfairly brainwashed into it.

Making it impossible for people to enter their own names the way they actually use them is anti-user. It's like refusing certain characters or artificially restricting the length.

Names most definitely don't make sense, and trying to force them to make sense in your software is the path to madness.
"If your customer wants Mrs. & Miss, push back. Up to you to decide how far and how hard, but make an effort."

That's ridiculous. There are many women out there who are proud of their marital status. It's a big deal in some parts of the country.

There are better places to fight your war on American traditions than your cart checkout. In fact, I would argue that the carts need more choices. For a good example, check out http://www.bodenusa.com. They offer a big list of salutation options, including awesomeness like "Baroness", "Colonel Sir", "Lady", and "The Honorable". If I ever get a piece of junk mail addressed to "Field Marshal Lord Snell", I'll know who sold my information.
Common sense, etiquette, and those being subjected to the terms seem to have sorted this out a long time ago. Further down in the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms):

The American Heritage Book of English Usage states that: "Using Ms. obviates the need for the guesswork involved in figuring out whether to address someone as Mrs. or Miss: you can’t go wrong with Ms. Whether the woman you are addressing is married or unmarried, has changed her name or not, Ms. is always correct." The Times (UK) states in its style guide that: "Ms is nowadays fully acceptable when a woman wants to be called thus, or when it is not known for certain if she is Mrs or Miss". The Guardian, which restricts its use of honorific titles to leading articles, states in its style guide: "use Ms for women... unless they have expressed a preference for Miss or Mrs".

In business, "Ms." is considered to be the standard default title for women until or unless an individual makes another preference known. The default use of Ms. is championed by a number of etiquette writers, including Judith Martin (a.k.a. "Miss Manners").

Eliminating it completely solves a non-problem and takes preference away from those who would prefer either term.
Building an Audio Visualizer with Leap.js