skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It could be 99% of the voters that supported it. It's still objectively morally wrong, just like Jim Crow laws were.

@jiojk542: it's morally wrong because it denies equal treatment under the law (tax benefits, government benefit benefits, survivor benefits absent a will, etc) to law abiding people. You are the one creating a false equivalency. People that would like to deny same-sex marriage are free to not marry someone of the same sex. Their freedom is not being curtailed. The same is not true the other way around. That wikipedia link is patronizing, unimpressive, and unconvincing. edit: the only "impingement" on the freedom on the anti same-sex marriage side is they must tolerate the presence of people the do not approve of. Such is the burden of a democratic, pluralistic society.

@LordKano - I literally do not understand your point. This is about the civil recognition of a personal relationship. A justice of the peace "marriage" has no religious meaning, nor does a marriage ceremony performed in a church have any civil component absent a marriage license. There are religions that allow same-sex marriage ceremonies. Are they "immoral" religions? Is it a violation of the 1rst amendment (vs the 14th) to not permit the civil recognition of those religious rituals? My point is denying an individual's right (not a privilege) on this is de facto immoral, regardless of your feelings about that individuals choice, if it does not cause demonstrable and direct harm to others.

@NeonVice - A marriage is a religion thing. A civil union is a government thing, which is currently and inconveniently also call "marriage". Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and atheist heterosexual couples can have government marriages even though they may have nothing in common with Christian marriages ideals. Nobody is forcing any church/synagogue/mosque/etc to perform a marriage ceremony of any kind they do not want to.

With those 3 replies, I will waste no more words on this damn topic.
Instead he got targetted by an intollerant lynch mob that felt it had to strong-arm someone with views they didn't agree with

Stop being so dramatic; this was not a lynch mob, it was a bunch of rightly pissed-off people, including many members of the open web community, who were angered that somebody who had been actively trying to strip their civil rights had been promoted to the head of an organisation which explicitly talks about the importance of diversity in the community.

It is really super difficult to reasonably say that objecting to someone's intolerance is in itself intolerance.
Remember that it was passed with the help of a large amount of money from an out-of-state conservative "religious" organization.
Google: Our position on California's No on 8 campaign  (2008)
Sure! Pull Requests are more than welcome.

I'm currently hacking up an epub export feature.
Brendan Eich steps down
Curious about what HN thinks about this...
This sort of misunderstanding is encouraged by using one's limited supply of the customer's time and attention to highlight "picodollars" as opposed to "Considering online backups? You get to choose between a) you can retrieve your backups, b) other people can't retrieve your backups, c) a and b, but only if you won the Putnam."
Eh, while it may be accurate enough to say that to a first approximation Apple is an iOS company now, I don't think that's an unsustainable thing to be by tech standards. They may not need new triumphs to be very profitable for a long time: think of the golden decade or so MS had after '95 mainly from milking its already-existing successes.
No competition?

A life form which evolved in a (relatively) low-energy environment (low temperature, low light level, lower pressure) is more in hell than in a paradise. Earth organism evolved to make the best of available resources on Earth, be it energy or materials; the organism would be teared apart in no-time.

That is, unless it is a highly intelligent and evolved life form with big environment alteration capacities, but then it might already be a problem, just one we aren't aware of.
I think he got what he wanted. He was the CEO of a tech company in San Francisco. If he's the kind of person that is willing to spend his own money to lobby for decreased human rights for a certain group of people that widely exists in his organization and community, he probably picked the wrong job.

A lot of people are saying, "he made one mistake, and now he's paying too high a price." Let me ask you: have you ever mistakenly donated $1000 to anyone? Didn't think so.
In AdWords it's under Tools - Conversions

You have to setup conversion, and insert corresponding javascript into your conversion page.

Than make your AdWords campaigns to focus on conversions instead of clicks.
Mozilla Chief, a Gay-Marriage Foe, Steps Down
> I've previously gone so far as to read some of the compiler implementation

The guys on #rust-internals are super nice and can help you a great deal if you are interested. But tbh, we really need more contributions with respect to documentation. Again #rust-internals can guide you if you are interested in lending a hand.
> I’d had it with the monkey-fighting bureaucracy in this Monday-to-Friday blockchain.
not for me in SF
Thanks you for writing that comment! I'm mostly on the side that disagrees with you, but you've expressed your position beautifully and I can only wish that everyone expressed their positions in the same way. In particular, this seems to be the central point of the whole discussion:

> Getting together to force the dismissal of a person from a position of power based on their views is not automatically bad or good. It is bad or good depending on what the views are.

It's just so delightfully free from rationalization! Where other left-leaning folks pretend to use some abstract rules that apply to both sides equally, and make up bogus "fundamental differences" between positions that outrage the left and positions that outrage the right, you say outright that you're going to use your moral judgment on a case-by-case basis. That might be right or wrong, but at least we can have a sensible discussion about it.

So, even though I believe that forcing Eich to step down was wrong, I urge everyone to upvote the parent :-)
He didn't say or even insinuate that one has a right to be CEO of anything nor that any kind of speech should be banned.
No, it's not unfortunate at all, you idiot.
Anyone who harbours hateful beliefs is not A Nice Person, nor should they be anywhere near a position of leadership.

Since you obviously need assistance with your flawed thinking, you can start by recognising that your argument would hold identical merit and positioning were he a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
> their stated purpose is to safeguard and advance civil rights

Forgive me, where is it stated? I tried the manifesto but it wasn't there: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
I just read this, which Brendan Eich wrote last week, and proved insufficient to keep the job:

https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
I am deeply honored and humbled by the CEO role. I’m also grateful for the messages of support. At the same time, I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. I hope to lay those concerns to rest, first by making a set of commitments to you. More important, I want to lay them to rest by actions and results... I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion...
Well hobbies to Google or not they're still big businesses compared to most (and most are growing). Actually having a lot of small "hobbies" seem quite a good way to diversify. Although they still make most (I think) of their profits from the main search they're clearly still making a lot from all the other things that they do. It's not like they lose money on them all or anything.
If people don't have a right to reasonable private opinions

Define reasonable.

The fact that you can't demonstrates why this argument is baseless. "Reasonableness" is decided by social desires, ultimately, and that's exactly what happened in this case.
"This is a point that is most aggrevating about the narrative that Michael Lewis is pushing about HFT. The people being "hurt" in his hypothesis, are in fact the people who create esoteric forms of finance. The big institutions are upset by HFT because it has cut into their profits, not because it is unfair."

Yes, this was definitely glossed over in the article. But some of those large investors are things like pension funds, which hold ordinary people's savings. I'm not sure to what extent that trickles down though. Also, what about the flash crashes?
Profit share is a poor measure because it's reliant on expenses, and those are notoriously easy to massage - companies do that routinely for tax purposes. Who's to say what's a cost and what's an investment?

If you must, at least attempt to include accumulated value as part of the equation - so that "fake" costs that are actually investments appear as increases in company valuation. Of course, this still looks good for apple :-), but given the volatility of share prices and what that says about how easy it is to determine "value" it should be clear that the one thing these comparisons cant' be is clear.
Seriously? You should try programming JavaScript without an operating system or a browser.
While I disagree with his privately held position on marriage, I wouldn't necessarily imagine that his private views would translate into his public position. Obviously he has been an amazing and competent thought leader in this industry and somehow his personal views haven't seemed to surface in the past. And we can't even speak about his thought process behind his financial support. He didn't use company funds for it. I'm inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt that they can make competent, unbiased and professional decisions, not based on their privately held beliefs. I don't think he would have made it this far if he was just out hating on every homosexual he came across. Let's extend the same professional consideration to people that we ask for ourselves.
The point is that kernel inside VM guest knows nothing about NUMA, so it cannot do any kind of NUMA optimizations hence such optimizations cannot hurt performance as they do not happen at all.
Consumer Safety Notice for Nest Protect
I agree with you, which is why I think that "People reject the labour theory of value, probably correctly in fundamental terms".

Your claim that economic theory "does not promote or justify anything" is clearly wrong, because theories are co-opted as policy, and then have enormous impacts on people's lives. Would you claim that the economic theory contained within communism did not promote or justify particular courses of action in the Soviet Union?

My point was that the marginal and subjective theories of value, taken narrowly, promote structural inequality, by claiming that when a price is accepted it is fair. I don't think that real economists are so dogmatic, but people who cling on to that idea doctrinally, forgetting the caveats that must be applied (i.e. lack of any kind of coercion, perfect information, etc.) can end up saying that equality of value is all that is necessary for fairness.
Any by all accounts the sensors are ultrasound - cost effective, but not a famously high resolution sensing mechanism.

[1] http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nest+Protect+Teardown/20057#s...
This is really interesting to me too. I've been looking at a bunch of technologies to make "jelly bean" sensor nodes (i.e. cheap enough and simple enough that I don't have to think twice about popping one into a project).

Those price points are hard to reach for retail pricing, but are pretty close to the "in bulk" pricing that I've got things down to (once you factor in labour, NRE for solid firmware, etc). If you want a cheap and unreliable setup, you could probably get the node price down to around $5 or $8, but I don't think I'd want to rely on it.
They're not very different but I use lodash instead of underscore. Is this "six of one and half a dozen of the other", or is there good reason to stick with underscore?
Oh really? You'd rather live in a society that gives discrimination a free pass?
This wasn't going to end any other way. If his positions on gay marriage could be contained and isolated from the business then it wouldn't be an issue. Once OKCupid stopped serving those using Firefox, it was that much more clear that either he would have to concede on his political beliefs or that he would be removed.
Donor list wasn't stolen, law requires donors to be made public?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/prop-8-donors-find-...

http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/
C# and VB are open sourced
Is Visual Studio auto-complete significantly different from IntelliJ or Eclipse? There are many great editors an the continium between gedit and Visual Studio, such as Sublime, hell even vim and emacs have autocomplete plugins.
The precedent has already been set that API's aren't patentable... So I think we're good.
That guy in the coffee shop
>Secondly, is marriage really a civil right?

Yes.

>If you say yes, explain why campaigners aren't fighting to allow brother to marry sister, mother to marry son, or polygamous marriages which have a long history in many cultures?

I think those rights should exist and I'd be shocked if there aren't organizations fighting for the legalization of polygamy. The incestuous marriages you mentioned are probably not represented because those practices are on the one hand, taboo, and on the other hand, practiced by such a small minority that they're unable to materialize a voice.
I was pleased to see Knockout.js listed (inappropriately as an MVC framework) on the image, but then there was no mention of it at all in the descriptions section. For a list sluggedly touting itself as the 'complete-list-of-javascript-tools', it really is missing a lot of information.
Well stated. I found that the opinions and actions of the Mozilla employees were what I found the most important in this case.
First, it's not an all-in-one integrated unit, which I was talking about in my upthread discussion. Second, it's "simple" for you, but my use case is not yours: it involves very young children and very old adults who don't want to use or don't know how to use this interface. Third, it relies on a WiFi connection that isn't as reliable as the gigabit Ethernet connection that I wired my house with.

I'm sure your solution works fine for you. But be careful in projecting your use case to everyone's. :)
I mean the Bay Area which is a pocket of about 8 million mostly liberal folks.
It's important in the context of your comment to remember that Mozilla Corporation is owned by the Mozilla Foundation, a 501(c)(3) with a political mission of extending an open internet.

The Mozilla Foundation accepts donations and in turn provides grants to many political (or quasi political) causes, including:

- Creative Commons

- Free Software Foundation

- Open Video Alliance

- Personal Democracy Forum

- Public Knowledge

- Software Freedom Conservancy

Mozilla is not a normal company. It is a politically-motivated, donation-accepting non-profit. IMO, it is completely in line for them to ask the CEO to step down for their political opinions.

References:
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/about/
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/grants/
Yeah. I can already imagine an HN headline 4-5 years from now: "Microsoft’s iron grip on C#: Controlling open source by any means necessary".
This discussion by Jonathan Rauch of the "Ender's Game" boycott seems particularly relevant to this situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFVRRP-J9mI#t=33m57s

tl;dw: The "agree with us, on pain of losing your job" tack may not be a good one for supporters of gay rights to take.
TL;DR: It isn't really a political issue anymore, it has become just intolerance and homophobia.

I think this issue has crossed a threshold. 61% of young Republican leaning Americans (18-29) support marriage equality. The issue has an obvious trajectory and end point, which means it has shifted in public perception from a "political issue" to simple intolerance, like racism or sexism.

There are still organizations in the US that consider "race purity" a political issue, but the vast majority of the country just considers it intolerance and hate.

Just a short time ago (1986) 1/3 of Americans considered interracial relationships "unacceptable"... today, 1/3 of Americans have a family member in an interracial relationship, and the vast majority consider it fine. It doesn't take long for something to shift from a political issue to a non-issue -- and if you are on the wrong side of history, you will called out.

My point being, I consider this no different than ensuring your CEO didn't donate to the KKK or any other hate group. Technically donating to the KKK is political speech, and you have every right to do it -- but you don't have a "right" to be CEO of Mozilla in spite of it.
Ah, but he has a choice to be in that minority. He could work on his empathy, examine his beliefs, and come to the correct conclusion (that two people having equal protection for their sexual preferences will hurt him in no way). All he needed to do to avoid this situation was right wrong beliefs, and publicly acknowledge the same, the same way he previously publicly embraced those beliefs. Those in whose oppression he assisted have no such option, as you cannot, at least according to current science, examine your sexual preferences and change them.
- Should the distribution of work be adjusted? Absolutely!

In the modern world, I unequivocally agree with this statement.

But, I find this to be a fascinating question when applied to less recent periods throughout history. Would we be where we were today if the ancient Greeks didn't have a ruling class and a slave class? If the Europeans didn't have the same 1500 years later? It's largely been the working (I use this term quite loosely: consent is not implied) class that has enabled (a small number of) the leisure class to make the majority of societal and technological progress. How true is this today? I'm willing to bet those making technological and societal progress are now largely in the working class.

Sorry my comment is inconclusive; it's something I've been long meaning to investigate further.
Even net negative jobs can bring enough money to someone to be worth keeping alive, so no, money payed for the job is not a measure if the job is bullshit or not, it's just a measure that someone finds it profitable.
CEO of Firefox maker Mozilla steps down
'

The site's security certificate is not trusted!

You attempted to reach cointipping.com, but the server presented a certificate issued by an entity that is not trusted by your computer's operating system. This may mean that the server has generated its own security credentials, which Chrome cannot rely on for identity information, or an attacker may be trying to intercept your communications.

'

Could you please fix this? Or a Chrome bug? I got this When I try to visit cointipping.com
I wonder what the impact of this is for Resharper, Jetbrains .Net refactoring tool, and their Nitra effort?
He has horns and cow spots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

Sexual orientation does not equal race. Scientists have never isolated a gay gene. There are no definitive causes of homosexuality. His opinion of homosexuality as a choice is as scientifically valid as your belief that it's innate. Why is he wrong and you right?
No matter what your feelings are about religion, this is a great thing for humanity in general. The preservation of ancient manuscripts only makes us richer.
Have no fear asking newbie questions on the IRC, we were all there once :). #rust also has a reputation for being quite friendly and welcoming to new folks.
Sun open sourcing Java SE was the best thing that happened to the software industry in the last 10 years, at least. I don't care about Sun's motivation for doing it, but OpenJDK is here to say and Oracle cannot take that back, even if they wanted to. That's the power of open-source released under a strong license and the JVM is in fact turning into the new POSIX.

Here's to hoping that Microsoft goes beyond the compiler and open-sources the VM and the whole standard library too - .NET and C# always had great potential, it's a pity that Microsoft saw it as a way to sell Windows. And I hope they realize they have a long way to go before they catch up.
The thing is, all this is decidedly not against anybody's rights. He has a right to say and do what he wants, anybody has a right to speak out against him and organise a boycott, and any employer has a right to ensure that a new hire will not negatively affect their image.

Nobody's actually forcing anybody to do anything - nobody's treading on each other's rights, and everybody is acting as suits them. So the question is... what do we do?

Do we suggest that speaking out against people who do things we don't like is wrong? Do we suggest that refusing to associate with people who we feel are attacking us is wrong?
As a Swede I can honestly say that for all intents and purposes Sweden, Norway and Denmark are all the same and we love each other.
> You say political, I say moral.

Do people no longer have the political right to disagree about what falls under the precept of morality though?

How immoral can a corporate officer be before they become ineligible for the position?

I mean, you mentioned racist CEOs, but what about CEOs who oppose affirmative action without actually changing their corporate policies regarding it? You ask one person and you'll hear that banning affirmative action is racist, ask another person and they'll tell you it's just enforcing fairness throughout.

Were that it was so easy to simply reduce things in a tidy bundle by slotting them in the "morals" bucket...
The beautiful thing is that you are free to boycott or speak against OKCupid for this all you want. You could even write your own browser that puts up a nag screen if you go to OKCupid.

Whether or not OKCupid did the right thing here (they certainly got some press out of it), it certainly wasn't bad for the internet as a whole.
If the opinion you're expressing is hateful and akin to calling fellow humans second hand citizens, then yes, you should probably censor that. Really, you should better yourself, but if not, then you probably want to be careful about making such statements in public.

Consider if he had donated to a charity trying to deny marriage rights to non-white people. I don't think you'd see much defense of his position.
I stand corrected. Would love to hear more next time we're in the same room.
> I guess if they consider any other candidates for CEO from California, they'll have to ask them how they voted.

Interesting. The difference between which box you check, and giving money to influence other people to check a certain box. The privacy of the former is a nearly-sacred privilege, while the latter is not allowed to be private. And I do tend to agree with campaign finance disclosure, but the double-standard is interesting. To be consistent, will we have to make all voting records public?

Would there be outrage if there were political questionnaires for employment/promotion like this? If proof of lying was found, would there be more outrage over the lie; or over violating privacy to find out about the lie?
I was a little disturbed to get the email telling me there was a potential problem with the smoke detector at exactly the moment you need it.

I don't envy the engineering challenge at Nest - designing a product that is only really tested when a house is burning down.
I'm sure I wrote what I did on purpose. Thanks for the invite, though!