skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You tell me how an "angry mob" is different than a boycott or picketing, then I'll let you know if I mean to "form an angry internet mob". I support that people organize and participate in boycotts and pickets. I think they are part of protected free speech in the US. Do you?

As to the Red Scare reference, see my comment in the sibling thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7526405 , which starts:

> "I don't want to do business with a company which has Eich as a CEO" is rather not the same as the Stasi. It's closer to US sentiment during the Red Scare of "I won't do business with any company which employes a member of the Communist Party." (The US still has a number of anti-Communist laws still on the books that I consider reprehensible.)

(I then point out a couple things which I think are even closer.)

Even then, there was several decades of government involvement, from state representatives to Congress and the president. That's not the case here. And without that high-level government involvement, we likely wouldn't have had the Hollywood blacklist and laws to prevent Communists and leftists from being able to work.

As to your consistency point, you propose that the issue is "trying to get [all] Prop. 8 supporters fired". You haven't shown that to be true. It could be limited mostly to non-profit organizations which promote community development and "doing good." (Mozilla.org says "Doing good is part of our code".)

Nor might have you shown it's a universal goal. As Sarah Silverman once said "If we can send a person to the moon, we can send someone with AIDS to the moon, and then someday we can send everybody with AIDS to the moon." Clearly a partial goal is acceptable even if a universal goal isn't.

There are also strategic goals. If I boycotted apartheid South Africa am I inconsistent for not boycotting other countries with deep racial, religious, and caste segregation? Perhaps. Or perhaps I realize that South Africa is a special case where a boycott might work.
Yeah, the business model sucks, indeed: http://bgr.com/2014/03/17/iphone-profit-share-market-share/

The thing you miss is that lot of people buy shit if it's cheap.
This speaks to the humility of said developers. There are plenty of people who would happily take the sudden millions without giving much thought to the morality of the situation.
What about 28 days? :-)
If you want to justify that headline, maybe you should have linked to an article that mentioned some kind of racial debate?
JavaScript is a utterly horrible language. How could you let someone who designed that monstrosity become your CTO much less your CEO?
What if he was once donating to an anti-gun campaign and the NRA advocating its members to replace Firefox as browsers (or vice versa)? This is a witch hunt.
I knew Liberace was gay before I knew what gay was. Just like google could spot cats in videos.
Sigh... just proving that original ideas are almost nonexistent nowadays. I'm about halfway through making my own Bitcoin tipping website. Whatever, I think I'll finish it anyway.
You do it. You're free to become rich yourself and donate half your fortune to the FreeBSD project we all love. Do FreeBSD a favor and make an tarsnap wrapper for businesses who need to pay 1.500 USD monthly to feel secure.
Loving all the downvotes.
Yup, I agree.For now I think pushing to a private github repository and pulling seems to be working for me.
One of the forgotten LinkedIn founders on why he’s not sad he left early
hey I work on anti-spam at FB. Happy to talk sometime. facebook.com/mkjones or @fisherrider on twitter (lol).

You can learn a little about how we think about securing login here: http://vimeo.com/80460475.
Marriages are just contracts, governments should treat them as such. Having a special case is just stupid.
The conservative talking point against gay marriage is that it will somehow undermine "traditional" marriage and the culture at large. It comes from a standpoint of quite literally being afraid of homosexuals and homosexuality.

I think it's fair to assume that Brenden Eich's reasoning shares some of those features. (Or he donated that money cynically for some other reason. I suppose that's a option.)

Either way: He gave money to prevent an entire class of Californians from enjoying their rights. Which is a pretty shitty thing to do.
The (untrue) corollary is that if you don't have money, it must be because you aren't worthy (i.e., aren't working hard, aren't skilled, etc.).

Our not-so-logical brain jumps to strange conclusions and I think there's subconscious tension at play.
Ask HN: Remote meetups
What if there was a way to facilitate meetups but from anywhere?

A presenter gets on a webcam and everyone who wants to attend agrees to get on at the same time, just like what would take place in a physical meetup. The presenter presents and people can ask questions during.

I figure, out of all the local meet ups I attend in my city, it's a shame to miss out on all those that take place far away from me. But what about the concept of a tech, or any kind of meetup, restricts it from happening online?

What do you guys think?
Make no mistake. What happened here is the strongest point one could have against full disclosure and transparency in the electoral system.

What we are seeing here is a person being harshly punished for his campaign donations. Basically for his political opinion (and an opinion that passed with a strong majority in California to boot).

This is enormously destructive for democracy. It's McCarthyism of the highest level. Both the fact and its staunch defence by many in the forums.

Never had the gay community been casted so intolerant before, or not that I know of, at least.
It seems to be hate or disgust whenever it suits you, but in Eich's case, you need assurance.
...not if it was in actual money
How do you know Eich is intolerant? Maybe he is just misguided on an issue that really shouldnt be up to him. No one said tolerate intolerance, but considering the response to Eich, some proportionality is needed.
If you just link some rust code into a C program without #[no_std], once you call anything that makes use of the runtime, it will abort with a lovecraftian error message and a stack trace because it asserts that the runtime exists and has placed some info into thread-local storage. It'll run until then, though!

If you'll only call into rust from a single C-created thread, you could start that thread through a shim that starts up the rust runtime. Rust code can then spawn its own threads in there and all of std might just work.
As one of the people interviewed in the article I feel somewhat compelled to explicate a bit further. I'd be the first to admit that R is good for some things and bad for others. It's full of quirky parts that make coming from any other more standard type of scripting language (e.g. python) make a user want to pull their hair out. However that said, in the world I come from (EEB, ecology and evolutionary biology), it's by far the most popular language. At rOpenSci, we develop tools in R because that is the language our audience works in. I think the mistaken assumption of many commenters is that R users are actual programmers. Most EEB scientists I know don't want to get bogged down in learning multiple languages. They want to learn something that will make doing their science easier. R provides that. For all the credit that SciPy and Numpy deseveredly get, they still are way behind when it comes to certain statistical tasks. For instance there are whole books written doing mixed effects models in R, but you can't get those in python yet (I know statsmodels is coming along but it's nowhere near where lme4 is). Yes, if you're a python programmer you could just call that one R routine from python and go back on your merry way, but that's you, not the average ecology graduate student. Also, MatPlotlib is just not on par with the capabilities of ggplot2 and other R graphing libraries (although there is a ggplot2 port to python that is being developed).

The other important component that I think is missing from the discussion about R's merits is that it's facilitating open science. We're talking about fields that are moving from SAS/ Matlab / JMP, etc...and the creation of totally reproducible documents and experiments with tools like Sweave. Is it going to provide the fastest environment for running regression trees on a dataset with 10 million rows, no. But is it a powerful scripting language with well developed tools for manipulating data (plyr), visualization (ggplot2, lattice), doing GIS (rgdal, sp), getting data from API's (httr, jsonlite, anything rOpenSci does :) ), writing reproducible documents (knitr) and doing complex statistics (lme4, nml4, gam), yes. It allows scientists to learn one language to be able to accomplish 99% of the analytical tasks they want to be able to. I think that's the point of the article. Yes FOSS has been part of science for a long time, yes R is not the best language for many things, but there's a culture at play where it's been adopted and extended by many scientists to accomplish a lot of valuable science, and brought FOSS, openness and reproducibility to a vast number of scientists that probably wouldn't otherwise have adopted those practices.
Social censure is the most powerful way to adjust norms. You're much more likely to listen to a friend calling you out on something than anyone else. And it sends signals to other people with a similar bent, suggesting that certain behavior is no longer acceptable.

Here's the thing that you're forgetting: the targets of (e.g.) hateful rhetoric feel better when bigots are dismissed from polite society. Some bigots may become more radicalized, but many become demoralized or may even think twice about it (see above). However, when fewer people are allowed to propagate bigoted views in society, society overall is a better place. The whole point is to make society more inclusive. I care less about marginalizing people with abhorrent views than marginalizing different ethnicities, lifestyle choices, and genetic predispositions.

"Wait until they die" suggests a bootstrapping problem: why would children of bigots feel any different unless they had a reason to? If you only wait for bigots to die out instead of marginalizing them, bigotry is normalized over generations. You have to interrupt that cycle.
Your script name is tracker.js which is not the best name as adblockers/privacy blockers simply block any names with the word track and many other similar names.
If you name your script something else that is not blocked it would enable it to run, and be valuable to see the errors that users get when they block other js on a page.
Right. There are lots of execution strategies out there that let you choose between paying for priority and accurate pricing. The auction is one, as are stops. My instinct is that as a retail you are almost always better off buying the incredibly cheap liquidity that exists in the current market. I can't prove that though.
Forbes estimates that the average game earns four thousand dollars? That doesn't seem right. I got 32 downloads ($32) for mine.
How much do you know about ASL? I'm going to assume somebody reading this doesn't know anything. I know I'm far from an expert in ASL or in linguistics.

In short, no I can't recommend, but I can suggest what some of the challenges are.

First of all, you have to know ASL has a way to represent english characters and numbers. This lets ASL speakers who know how to read English communicate with people who know how to fingerspell. But it's no more ASL then the alphabet is English.

ASL (and pidgins of English ADL such as SEE and PSE) is a language, and language translation is difficult all on it's own. ASL has some ways to code it to text, but it doesn't strictly have, AFAIK, a written form, which means there isn't a way to serialize it.

There are also ASL conventions that make it difficult to do translation. For example, in ASL I may establish a location, give it a description or a name, and then use it as a shorthand when communicating.

ASL also has a variety ways to communicate what is often communicated by tone or word emphasis. This can be in speed, size of movements, etc.

Also facial movements are important to ASL. They can be modifiers to signs, or signs all on their own. Also signs flow into one another... it's visual calligraphy. Beautiful, but it means that a translation system may need such transitions handled.

So when you read about people converting sign to text, it's generally some method of converting fingerspelling to letters with either a gesture capturing glove, or a vision system. I know there was a MIT project (http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/80082/43496321...) that did sign to text more in depth, and maybe you could reverse engineer it. I can't speak to text to sign, I know of no system other then websites with short gifs/video clips.

I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. I know there are some deaf hackers on here, you might see if they know about something, as I'm not hooked into the ASL/Deaf community.

I am not convinced, even if you have "good enough" text to sign representation of some sort, that you could generate movement. But good luck anyway.
The notion that gay people are lesser and should only get the rights of the majority if allowed by their straight betters sounds like homophobia to me. If we look at equivalent historical limitations on interracial marriage (or earlier, black marriage), you'd have a hard time convincing me they weren't racist.

Before Prop 8, couples could get married. After, only straight couples could get married. The effect of Prop 8 was to actively discriminate against gay people, so if people supporting it meant to do something else, they weren't paying attention. I'd rather that Eich have been a homophobe, because that's something he can get over. And I hope he does.
Welcome to the Era of Politically Correct Web Browsing – Hit and Run : Reason.com
We know that they algorithmically detect flame wars and automatically demote threads that devolve into them. It would be shocking if the Eich threads weren't setting those off.
This person's response seems a bit… asymmetric anyway. Boycotting Girl Scout cookies because of personally-held beliefs about abortions on one hand.

Boycotting Monsanto because of pesticide injuries, gmo, funding opposition to gmo labeling, franken crops, etc. isn't even a matter of opinion.

This is like boycotting Ellen DeGeneres' show because she's gay, vs boycotting Chris Brown albums because he beat Rhianna.
Um, how could his actions not suggest intolerance? He contributed money to a campaign which essentially persecutes a minority. In what universe is that not bigoted? "He didn't mean it" is a ridiculously flimsy defense.
He may have been wrong, but unless I missed something, he wasn't personally abusive. If we can't keep a clear distinction between those two things, civil discussion is impossible.
Yeah, I agree. But is the boycott activism a proportional response? I think we should leave people jobs out of these things.
FireCEO GayFox
The answer is d, all of the above. I saw a few still hanging around 1 Infinite Loop last time I was there (September, but no pics, so it didn't happen), and apparently Dogcow is in a Cupertino garage, according to WWDC 2013's Stump the Experts. Also, Chuck Norris.
>"...manually searching LinkedIn profiles for year graduated, we were able to generate a list of founders for 35 of the 41 start-ups, and to determine an approximate age for the majority of them."

I think there's a statistically significant variance in a graduation date versus a persons actual age. Lot's of people in my CS program were above the age of 25 but if all you're checking is the graduation year then according to this graph, we would all be put into the 20-24 bucket.

Granted, they acknowledge that their data is heavily biased given their small sample size and given the fact that it only charts successful startups.
If you are coming in fast from interplanetary space, you'll either need to aerobrake or burn a good deal of fuel to get yourself into LKO. While aerobraking from interplanetary space to put yourself into a nice orbit is easy enough in KSP, in real life things are much more difficult (just for starters, in KSP your station is probably at 0 degrees inclination unless you went out of your way to put it somewhere else...).

Get FAR, RSS, Deadly Rentry, put your space station somewhere around 50 degrees inclination, then try it with suitably small probe. The Stardust spacecraft was 300kg; the sample return capsule was 46kg and reentered at nearly 13km/s.

Just one full small kerbal RCS tank puts you at 250kg, so you'll need to nearly empty that just for starters...
If we were trying to keep marriage "as it's been", then I would have gotten a dowry, had a couple concubines on the side, and my wives would have been considered my personal property.
If he was against it because of some non-homophobic reason wouldn't he probably have shouted that from the rooftops?

Let's say he was against it because it expanded the institution of marriage (a decent idea, but I wouldn't vote against gay rights because of it). Libertarian with perhaps a misguided set of priorities (equality > smaller government), sure, bigot? No.

So it's probably because of homophobia, because if it was something else, he probably would have made that clear by now.
Really, there are no views you can think of that would qualify someone as being ineligible for a job? What if someone refused to acknowledge women as people? What if someone refused to work with black people? What if someone viewed the holocaust as never having happened?
Oh I was just kidding. I have a background in crypto and I already understand how the system works--It's brilliant.
Actually the easiest way to find life is to just look for DNA (or even better RNA) in the environment of interest. This is basically the way life is found in some of the amazing environments here on earth like the "lost city [0] or far under the earth [1].

Because of the technical simplicity and sensitivity of looking for DNA, any probe sent to any planet or moon would look for DNA first, basically assuming transpermia is true.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_City_(hydrothermal_field)

[1] http://aem.asm.org/content/74/1/143.full
R has its share of issues, but jesus christ SAS is a horror.
Well put. The problem is that on almost every issue, people think their own personal view is "above" the issue somehow (see dopamean's comment at the top of this page for an example). Atheists claim they shouldn't even have to debate religious people because it's so "obvious". Pro-choice people claim they shouldn't even have to debate pro-life people because women's rights are "so obvious". Same thing with gay marriage.

This is simply a horrible and almost completely ineffective way to argue your point. You can't pull the "so obvious" cop-out on any issue that has a clearly decisive split within a country.
Angry birds made millions. If you average it out, you might get thousands. But yeah, knowing the average does not really give you all that much insight.
Some are - some are still very much in growth mode, or on track to be acquired by a larger player for strategic value, both of which can screw with the multiple.
Being against equal rights for gay folks is being a bigot. Sorry.

Actually, voting for Prop 8 does not in any way meet the threshold test of "bigot". To qualify as a bigot, you have to have an "unreasonable" intolerance of others perspectives. Merely taking a good faith position on the opposite side of an(y) issue does not evidence "biggotry". Just the opposite: by proposing that any opposition to your ideas is insensible, you define yourself as a bigot.

Now, step back. Every civil right in the US is codified in law. Every law was wirtten by human beings with mistakes, errors, omissions, and horse-trades. Every law put on the books in the US is at some level "impure" and "ugly".

The types of civil rights involving prop 8 are like the civil rights act of 1965, and the OSHA and Employment laws passed than creat "protected classes". That is to say, these civil rights are voted on by the public. They do not exist in the Constitution. If they did, we would not have to pass laws called "civil rights act of xxx".

The point of all this is that every law needs a debate. Every law needs to be (imperfectly) written. To have votes you need to have opposing views aired to test different options. Just like working in business. YOu cannot be an effective leader if you dis-allow all debate.

But that's what being a bigot is. That's what you are saying you are by proclaiming all people who disagree with you are unreasonable. That is not a teneble position: its logically false. The other side of the issue may be wrong, but only in very rare cases would it ever be "unreasonavle".

Propo 8 may have been wrong, but to assume that each and every single person in the majority of voters who voted it into law was "unreasonable" is absurd. Some? Perhaps, but you could never justfy the inference without specific knowledge (which in this case is not on the public record).

Mozilla's actions today will have a chilling effect on free speech. Make no doubt about it. Every piece of software you use online capable of tracking your political views is now fair game. There is no reason to treat public information as distinct from private information, if your standard is as you've laid it out.
A convenience feature that could have killed you.

I know some engineers who design life critical safety systems for a living, and they all said something like this was going to happen when this product first came out. The example one of them gave was it was like a AED that could also let you recharge your phone, a moderately worthless feature that could only ever cause the failure of critical components.
Eich had the freedom to donate his hard earned money to an anti-gay cause.
LGBT supporters had the freedom to make blog posts and tweets about their opinions on the matter.
Eich had the freedom to stand by his position.
Mozilla had the freedom to designate its CEO.

Why the outrage? The system worked. The only group that had it's freedom threatened was the group of individuals targeted by the prop 8 law. Denizens of the internet could have spared Eich their ire if they were so inclined. Eich could have apologized if he were so inclined. Mozilla could have stuck by Eich if they were so inclined. Everybody acted in their own interest and Eich's resignation is a consequence of that fact.
These are typeface hipsters:

http://www.fastcodesign.com/3028615/the-beautiful-wikipedia-...
https://medium.com/p/1332a0f9eaf0

You may never have thought it in your life, but apparently web users are "design-starved". That must be why Alt-V, Y, N is my very favourite Firefox key combo. Honestly, there's not enough Comic Sans in the world to deal with people like this.
Yup, part of the visual studio team. For others, watch him describe Visual Studio Online to Scott Hanselman on Channel 9.

http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/azure-friday/erich-gamma-intr...

MP4 hotlink: http://media.ch9.ms/ch9/793e/d1b6ebda-d31b-413e-983e-1c698a8...
Good grief. You do far more harm to your position by invoking a practice part of a century-long campaign of terror against a racial minority.

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism. It means the opposite, actually. And we as a society have decided some views are socially unacceptable. Anti-homosexual bigotry has been added to the list, along with pro-slavery or violence against women. Those are topics which are really just not up for debate anymore— we are in theory an egalitarian society, where plurality takes precedence over someone's right to (e.g.) express negative views, esp about minorities.
I don't want that service, I want to buy something without someone else inserting themselves as a middleman.
I don't dispute that ketamine may perhaps have some clinical relevance for humans, but unfortunately it wreaks too much havoc on the kidneys for me to consider it as a viable option for treatment of depression.