skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The idea that we should create a ban on private primary and secondary-ed institutions to fix the public system is incomprehensible to me. Should we force people with enough time and effort to devote to quit homeschooling, too? How about those who can afford private tutors? How far do you plan to take this to eliminate any economic advantage? Inciting conflict and anti-governmental feelings is a great way to inspire creative workarounds by the upper class, not creative solutions to a broken shitpile of an educational system. Ask yourself: would you really be inclined to fix something that someone else broke because you were forced to by the government?

The solution to fixing a broken system isn't to prohibit an alternative and force everyone to use it; those with resources will find a way to circumvent any specific ban, as that's significantly easier than solving a systemic failure. Also, why is it their problem? I'm by no means a libertarian, or particularly anti-government at all, but why should individuals with higher socioeconomic status be burdened with repairing a malfunctioning piece of government above and beyond voting and paying taxes?

What the US public educational system needs is to incentivize the most qualified individuals—potentially those who graduated from private secondary schools, even—to join and help fix the system as it currently stands. The vast majority of teachers in US public schools aren't there because the pay and benefits are any good, and I've known several former educators who've since moved on to other careers due to the need for a living wage. If we want to restore the system correctly, it needs to be done by providing impetus for its repair, at which point perhaps those individuals will actually admire it enough to send their own future children there.

The real issue isn't private schools, the wage gap, or any of that, it's the dismal lack of motivation for anyone capable of overhauling the system to do so.
I think that's a problem with an inter-networked world in general. Time and attention is finite, and there are now many sites, apps, and people competing for that attention. What you describe is every as relevant for aspiring YouTubers, bloggers, etc.

I agree that Twitter is included in that overarching problem, but I don't see it as their creation, and I'm not sure what they can do about it. (Facebook is in an easier position, being oriented primarily around family and friends, even though every brand on Earth also has a Facebook page.)
The idea that the prices have skyrocketed seems mostly a result of bad analysis. The price that people actually pay hasn't really increased that much: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/05/22/153316565/the-pric...
The original poster seems to have acknowledged that he broke the curfew law, and also acknowledged that he was treated differently by the police in the other case because of his appearance, and that the police and judges treat poor people and minorities more harshly than they treat him. Is there some other kind of acknowledgement you'd like to see from him? Would you like him not to have been surprised when he saw the criminal justice system treating people badly? Or is there something else you found offensive or annoying about his approach to the situation?
As someone who has done a decent amount of Swing/Android development, I've often wondered: why hasn't iOS historically had decent layout manager support? I've used RelativeLayout for Android and quite frankly I've found very few instances where it didn't do what I wanted: the reduced number of iOS form factors makes it easier to do pixel-perfect layouts (than the thousands of Android devices) but even AutoLayout seems like a poor replica of what the Swing/Android layout manager-style libraries can do. I use it both from the Android XML and from code and it makes life REALLY easy. I've done a lot of work with storyboard/IB recently and it isn't as bad as I used to think, but always wondered about that.
I'm also a big fan of odd time signatures, especially those that change. A great example of this is Dream Theater's "The Dance Of Eternity": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ftRhsvvfBw In ~6 minutes, there are 104 time signature changes, largely between 3/2, 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 6/4, and 7/4.

Another great one is Radiohead's "Pyramid Song": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbKQPqs-cqc It's in (3+3+4+3+3)/16 (depending on how you interpret it), and it's one of the hardest songs to count, as the last note is swung and deceptive. But it's a great composition.
Hm, I see that police in Norway also seem to have the same authority off-duty as while at work (and certain obligation to intervene if they happen upon serious crime, as well as the option to intervene as if they where on duty (as long as they are able to identify themselves as police officers, and are sober)). They are prohibited against taking other jobs (moonlighting) without approval from the police commissioner, however.
> We don’t provide methods for unauthorized access to our products

In other words, "we provide methods for authorized access to our products" - and we'll let you figure out who is "authorized".
> Seriously, we like you.

I don't. I'm not looking for a new job currently. Recruiters aren't any different than Viagra spammers to me (I'm also not looking for Viagra).
Agreed. And updating the terminology would be good. I have a blog post draft written up relating to perhaps using the word "times" and "monies" instead of merely time and money - as the brain is likely to see "time" and "money" as a singular, fixed object, which will not allow the brain to be as fluid when thinking about times and monies - more fixed, means more scarce - more fluid, means variability and more possibility, less pressure.
Apparently not, in many (most?) jurisdictions.
Or better yet, demonstrate that you have done the most basic research into what the real job entails rather than a vague paragraph submitted to you by HR. You know, something silly, like spending 5 minutes on the phone with the manager being recruited for. 10 minutes for extra bonus points.
I'm going to paint with a broad brush here, but usually it seems like emacs/vim (chosen here to represent broad categories of editors) evangalists haven't given a whole lot of time to try out the other side.

I'd say it took me only a few minutes to get the hang of vim, but several weeks of regular use to really appreciate it. I have never given emacs the same opportunity simply because I've never felt the need to leave vim. But I certainly would do so before I recommended vim over emacs to anyone else.
Clive Unger's Madame X 
On a visit to local art museum, Clive Unger, a failing artist/sculptor, is drawn to Jacob Van Walscappelle's Vase of Flowers. From afar this painting exhibits lavish, vibrant flowers in a vase. But up close, it shows an unsightly view of decaying flowers infested with bugs and flies. This ambiguous facade strikingly parallels with Clive himself. No one, not even his fellow Lady Head Vase enthusiast and antique shop owner, Gloria Glass, would ever fathom Clive's next "artistic" endeavor.
Featuring many newcomers to the film industry as well as seasoned filmmakers, Clive Unger's Madame X merges art and film together in a truly haunting and mesmerizing way.
Actually, that was precisely it. I was in Times Square where there were tons and tons of cops, and not all that many revelers. (It was a really cold night, IIRC.) I heard the comment, looked around, realized they were cops and completely without thinking said, "You can't fucking ask that." Next thing, they asked for ID and as I began to reach for my wallet was thrown up against something by the three officers. It happened really, really quickly--just like being mugged.
I never understood why recruiters aren't upfront about which company it is that they're trying to hire me for, and now I understand the reasons, so thanks.

I still don't like the practice though. My time and energy are valuable, and each correspondence with a recruiter uses a little of both. If recruiters are upfront about company name and details of a role in the first email they send to me, it saves me the time and energy of having to pull that information out of them through additional emails.

I can spend a few seconds (or a few minutes, if the company looks like it might be a good match) looking up the company website and blog, checking out if I like their product and team, etc. If I like what I see (or don't), I can follow up with the recruiter to let them know what I think.

I understand the point that candidates could just bypass the recruiter if they mention the company name, but unless the company is some kind of stealth startup, the candidate is going to have to find out the name of the company anyways, so what's to stop candidates from bypassing a recruiter anyways? (I've had recruiters give me the names of companies in their 2nd email, after I ask for more information, which I always have to do, since they never give enough in the first place :P )

Some candidates may indeed choose to use information like that to bypass the recruiter that reached out to them, but I'm sure that there are many more out there who have more honor than that and would not (me being one of them).

As it stands, I don't bother replying to recruiter emails that only give vague references to companies and roles, instead of explicitly naming them upfront in their initial email. I get these kind of emails all the time, and it's just not worth my time and energy to follow up on any of them. A lot of the time, the companies aren't a good fit anyways.

When looking around for positions at companies, I do so at Careers 2.0[1] and GitHub Jobs[2], and AngelList[3], because I can take my time to do all the research I want on a company and role, and it's far less a hassle than having to work with a recruiter, in my experience.

I get that recruiters have to make money and eat too, and that they've developed these secretive (and in my opinion, a little shady and dishonest) techniques to do so, but as I'm sure it's been stated many times before, those techniques and the recruitment system and culture as a whole are deeply flawed.

It's because of those flaws that web services like Hired[4] and WhiteTruffle[5] exist, to try to replace the jobs of recruiters.

[1]: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/
[2]: https://jobs.github.com/
[3]: https://angel.co/
[4]: https://hired.com/
[5]: https://www.whitetruffle.com
> Surely the comment about hardware variability is moot on the Surface. It's designed by Microsoft..

The Surface has a USB port. And that makes it an uncontrolled environment.

For example, the article complains that Windows is "technically terrible", because "I suddenly started getting an error message about some DLL every time I restarted the Surface (which you sometimes have to do when you get updates, which you get often). "

If you look at the screenshot, the DLL is C:\Windows\System32\LogiLDA.dll. This DLL is written by Logitech. That means he must've plugged in a Logitech device at some point.

If the Wacom driver fails, that can clearly be blamed on Microsoft. The Surface ships with a Wacom digitizer, so it's up to Microsoft to test the drivers thoroughly. But the Surface doesn't ship with a Logitech mouse. If a Logitech driver fails, then there's very little that Microsoft can do about it.

Now, you could certainly argue that Microsoft should've caught this in exhaustive backcompat testing, and put a workaround into Windows. On the other hand, I also have a Logitech device plugged in. When I upgraded from Windows 8 to 8.1, it didn't throw up a LogiLDA error. (I don't even have a LogiLDA.dll file in my System32 directory.)
I like this post for many reasons. One of them is introducing me to the word retrogrouch
For the record, as the giver of said advice: I pretty much completely agree.
What is a large Excel file here? hundreds of Megs? For most files that I encounter, my old Surface RT works great.
I wasn't talking about a general problem with capitalism. I'm saying that this is a unique problem that Twitter as a company has to face, for the reasons the article describes.
The parent post said:

> Most teens I know never check their email. Many of them don't even have email addresses.
>> but in a context that leads the reader to wonder whether you're referring to the belief itself, or to its holder's sincerity in holding it.

> That's been my point this entire time.

Yes, I know, and rather than take the advice of someone with six decades of English writing experience, you chose to defend a questionable word choice as thought it was self-evident.

> You appear to be the only reader who was confused ...

How very scientific. Has it occurred to you that I am also the only reader? In any case, this is easily resolved by polling common usage:

Google: "Sincere belief": 207,000 uses, "Genuine belief": 137,000 uses.

And looking more carefully, one finds that many of the "genuine belief" citations are meant to refer to a belief in something thought to be true. Example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtBCrMLBCPw, in which this remark appears in the comments: "How could a belief that contradicts available information be a genuine belief?"

> and the ones who do spend most of their time attempting to argue that everyone else doesn't know how to effectively communicate.

To the degree that I do this at all, I reserve my efforts for examples in which ... wait for it ... someone clearly doesn't know how to effectively communicate.
I've considered doing this myself.

Do we know what are the reasons for making it beta if Github did expect people to share it like this? What do you gain from being invited as a beta participant?
Great tips in here! Thanks!
As said whiny hipster, I'm actually more prone to agree with you. I had no idea this story would resonate nearly as much as it has--and my driving point was that the NYPD is being set up by their superiors to police by quota. Naturally, said policing ends up being taken out on the backs of those least able to push back.
I should add that this was on the eve of the Super Bowl, and the NFL had set up quite the party in Times Square.
This is why I never understood the argument "but solar is so expensive right now", when it was still very early days for solar investment. If you start pouring the billions of dollars nuclear gets into solar panel research, and bring it to a high enough scale, you eventually start getting not just a real alternative, but potentially a much better alternative to any other energy source.

Once we "fix" the cost of solar panels, then we need to figure out how to store solar energy cheaply and easily, too, and then it can be a source of energy that's not just for day time and sunny seasons, too.
I love the idea of the app too.

I found this odd though:

Shaking the phone stops the filming.

That seems like a bad idea given that police brutality might cause the film to stop when you most need it to be filming.

The one really positive thing I could see coming out of google glass is a shift of power from the police force to the citizens.
Actually 4-bit MCUs (mostly mask-programmed) are still quite popular at the extreme low end, because they're absolutely tiny (<1mm^2 bare die, in COB packaging) and cheap (<$0.01) and good enough for their application; ultracheap 4-function calculators, electric teethbrush, multifunction flashlights, toys, etc.
> I'm just hoping to forestall another goofy HN conspiracy theory; the idea that w00w00 is, like, the Internet's "Skull & Bones".

That's true. The Internet's "Skull & Bones" of black hat, darkside hackers is l0ck.

Apparently their leader made a fortune preparing for the coming deflation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTFuOEOhEE
It's been usable by the average user for a long time now, but first the average user needs to get it. Average users usually need a lot of help to obtain operating systems that are not sold in boxes or that don't come preinstalled. That and the selection of compatible hardware, which has not always been easy. Luckily, most hardware makers are a little better at building compatible computers these days. Worst: average users have a lot to unlearn.

My mom (she's 78) is on Linux since 2006 or so. Moved from Windows to Mac and then to Linux. Never had an issue.

The key is what the user expects. If you approach Linux wanting a seamless transition from Windows, you'll be frustrated. Everything makes sense, but it's different. Your software won't run. If you approach Linux without expecting it to be like Windows, you'll be happy. The average user overestimates how much they know about computing and bring their own baggage. That baggage holds them down. They want to download Nero to burn a CD. They want to download Firefox from the firefox.org website. The whole idea of a package manager is completely alien to the average user (or was, until the advent of the app store).
> They added a 3-hour delay before support sees any email, specifically to prevent threads from becoming chats. Note that phone support is also available; people with time-critical issues are encouraged to call in for immediate help.

Interesting observation (and "solution"). I'd say that model of dividing things is completely wrong, though. When I worked in support, I would much prefer to get everything via email. At the time we had a small user base (small office internal support) -- and this wasn't an issue -- we could educate our users (if needed).

But the general rule I've formulated, is don't let the user set the priority level. They'll be wrong. So for email, you might want to triage/prioritize every issue at once (and: eg group requests that have to do with a service being down/unreliable) -- adding a full 3 hours delay on top of every email sounds like the wrong approach for most help desks. If for no other reason than that it seems it would generate an increase in calls -- which are much harder to handle (scale) than email.
no, it isn't

A strong denial: "Absolutely not"

What he wrote (in part):

First, let me be clear that Intel doesn’t participate in the NSA programs
described in recent news reports. Intel does not participate in anyone’s
efforts to decrease security in technology. We don’t provide methods for
unauthorized access to our products….we don’t create back doors.

if it takes you 44 words to say "Absolutely not" my money is on you lying.
The figures I've seen put us as killing more than all previous generations combined. Granted, this is largely due to there being so many people, but the notion that the people so tormented are a smaller fraction of all people alive is scant comfort. Similar figures note that there are more slaves around (yes, in this day and age) than previously.
Assumption: The value of money is the aggregate value of market transactions divided by the product of the available quantity of money and its velocity.

Assumption: The money itself has zero intrinsic value. It is only worth what you can trade for it. Thanks to the previous assumption, that is a fraction of all goods and services on the market.

When you change the size of the money supply from 100 to 102, the 2 new notes increase in value from 0 to 1/102 of everything on the market, and all of the 100 old notes decrease from 1/100 to 1/102 of everything. The guy that prints the new notes gets 2/102 of everything for free. That value is not created; it is taken. Everyone who held any old note has their buying power reduced by 1.96%.

Is it justifiable? Yes. Is it a gross simplification because economics is a dismal, dismal science? Also yes.
What's your issue with Demand Progress? I've never heard of it before so I'm curious.
Waffle.io: Publicize your workflow
> Ah now, here is a real problem! The cost of in-state tuition has sky rocketed. Let's do something about that, rather than say "college is useless".

Except, the author was not saying "college is useless". The author was saying that college has become no more useful at educating a wider population than it was in the 1970s, while costing the federal government and students more.

Part of the reason was the increase of in-state tuition; basically, state colleges shifting the burden to the federal government and student debt. And part of the reason is the rise of for-profit colleges, which are essentially business optimized to extra as much free federal money as possible with no concern for the well-being of their students.

Because these for-profit colleges have no admission standards, they tend to be attended by people from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds who haven't had as much opportunity to get good high school educations and test prep. So while college is still plenty useful for people from better socioeconomic backgrounds, or those from poorer backgrounds who are able to beat the odds and get into a good school that will cover a large portion of their tuition, people who are stuck paying more at state schools or getting tons of debt and crap education at for-profit schools are getting the short end of the stick.

I don't know how you read "college is useless" out of that article. As far as I could tell, it was all about how useful some colleges are, but how expensive or inaccessible they can be.
The main point of the article: that all stock prices are artificial, and so there is no such thing as market manipulation, is wrong.

Stock prices reflect the expected future dividends of a stock given current information. If a person intentionally gives wrong or misleading information to the public, and this results in shift in the stock price, then this could be market manipulation.

The author is correct in stating that it is hard to distinguish a person giving their honest opinion about a stock they own, and market manipulation. However, that doesn't mean that the concept of market manipulation is ill-defined.
Thanks for teaching me that "jackass" is just an animal [1] O_o

Without leo, I would have stupidly increased my use of invective.

[1] http://dict.leo.org/?search=jackasses
Show HN: my gem to modularize Sinatra application
Elementary OS is great! I use it on all of my machines, it's very polished!
Maybe you could ask them to add it? Although now that they've removed it there'd be no numbers

http://www.chromestatus.com/
these work: [reddit thread] http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/yirdc/a_generat... , [2012 article] http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257

"Quality happens only when someone is responsible for it. -- POUL-HENNING KAMP -- Thirteen years ago, Eric Raymond's book The Cathedral and the Bazaar (O'Reilly Media, 2001) redefined our vocabulary and all but promised an end to the waterfall model ..."
This looks like a very readable take on linear algebra - the kind of book that you could leave with a really firm understanding of how all the bits fit together.

It looks theoretical and very deep - not what you need for passing an undergraduate math course. Maybe exactly what you need to pass a graduate level statistics course.
I work on my dev server, CentOS 6.5. Last year I choose Ubuntu 10.04 on my old laptop (Intel Dualcore), but now I still can't decide best linux distro for my laptop, last time I try L/X/K/Ubuntu 13.04, but it make my laptop battery drain faster and really hot (AMD quadcore) and some of those distro can't work properly like has buggy in graphics, I already install the driver too.
Elementary here as well! I just wish they updated a bit faster, I need a newer version of glibc and I can only get it from Ubuntu 13.10.
Here's another interesting comparison of code density, in which x86 (not surprisingly?) came out ahead:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224114307_Code_densi...
I do really like the existence of recruiters (if only because it seems like a good separation of concerns), but my thinking is that if you aren't adding any value to the equation besides the mere knowledge of the name of a company that may or may not be interested in hiring me, then you haven't earned your commission. It should be easier for me to get a job with a company by working with somebody recruiting for that company than by learning the name and going straight to them. Why isn't that the case? Why does it seem like it's actually easier to cut you out than to work with you? (The royal "you".)