skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs

Ah yes, this again. The old, "yes, his personal values seriously conflict with the employer's values[1] but hey, he can still check his opinions at the door when he comes in to work and do a good job!" gambit. My opinion is that this is transparently balderdash. The CEO represents the brand. The CEO's values matter. The CEO's values will out. People don't have firewalls in their heads between personal and professional like that.

1: Mozilla is not just a company. It is "a non-profit organization that promotes openness, innovation and participation"
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla#Values

> schoolyard bully .. internet outrage.

I would like to state that me and others expressing our opinions here in normal language does not constitute bullying, a "lynch mob" and does not compel Mozilla or any other company to do anything. Characterising it as other than free speech is incorrect.
Dibs. I'll start working on it. If anyone wants to help out, message me or email me karan[at]goel.im
Nop. Not a single Law School, Medicine, Computer Science, Civil engineer book in that listing.

It should be organized like an university with all the programs by semester and their respective books.

Btw, I don't care about diplomas, I care about knowledge.
Okay, let's take the facts in question off the table and say that there are absolutely no differences between marriage and domestic partnerships besides the name. At best then, Prop 8 kept us "separate but equal". History has shown that doctrine to be discriminatory and oppressive. There's an inherent inequality in my inability to say that I'm married.
> It has nothing to do both "separate but equal" if the only difference is the legal term used ("marriage" for heterosexual couple, "civil union" for homosexual couple) and not the rights associated with it.

It's the exact same theory: "different legal regimes but the same rights" and "different physical facilities but the same quality".
She's a great artist in her own right.
See: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/GFX/GTK3
I fixed the double free. I must admit that the code was typed as I wrote the blog entry, and is horribly wrong :)
Sorry, but Bullitt's car chase is terribly boring. I don't get why it's so fascinating?
And look, he could of[sic] just apologized and he would have been fine. He didn't.

Would his apology have been reported by the media if he did? I don't recall any discussion of asking for clarification from Mozilla or Eich.
Indeed there is no free lunch and until email end-to-end encryption is widely supported, the unencrypted content is going to be stored somewhere. Pluto has an easily accessible eliminate option that deletes all copies of the email from our servers (and given the way Pluto works, also the recipient's access to the content). You can click “Eliminate all emails” on the top right signed-in home page to eliminate all emails or you can do it on a per-email basis by clicking “Eliminate Completely” in the top left of an email details page. We also support an auto-eliminate setting that eliminates an email from our servers upon unsend or auto-expire.

David Gobaud,
Co-Founder @ Pluto Mail
And personally, I agree with you. I wouldn't support it. It made me think less of Eich. It didn't make we want him to lose a job he was qualified for. I can also still respect the work he does for Mozilla.

I think my point here is that both sides have it wrong. And when we as a society are trying to tackle the issue, hatred and demonizing isn't the right course of action.
You can use Firefox Profile Manager and create a new profile for demonstration purposes. ($ firefox -ProfileManager)
Key word is "about."
How I Fight Procrastination (As a Developer/Designer)
> Eich found it easier to treat millions of people he's never met as second class citizens

You act as if Prop 8 didn't pass by 52.24% of the voting public, or by 7 million people. But no, Eich was dictator of California, enslaving millions of gays. Or whatever.
Not really. Wealth is more accurately described by a power-law distribution.
I have seen it happen and know of several cases where large amounts of valuable data was 'lost' until someones password was cracked.

PS: Escrow services and wills are something that many people don't use. It's the old if I am gone I don't really care mentality.
> people find it easier to heap hatred on someone they've never met, than to act with dignity and respect.

Please explain how criminalizing gay marriage is somehow different from this claim.

Compromise or abstraction away from the root issue to serve some hazy point about moral uncertainty is dishonest.
Wes peep, reporting in. It's always bizarre to see our little liberal arts school pop up on HN.

I also finished my Wesleyan CS degree in 3 years, and it was totally doable (although that was by taking 1.5-2x normal credits most semesters and some careful planning). I considered leaving early, but decided to stay for my senior year so that I could write a thesis and explore some academic areas I'd overlooked in my first three years.
Sounds like the author of this 'article' just wanted to make a thinly veiled plug for the "HyperDex" product.

Blaming all of this on MongoDB is silly. You can do the kind of idiocy displayed by these exchanges even on generic DBs by doing things like not using transactions and/or not waiting for write confirmation.

The root problem is in the (lack of) design and programming of these systems not their data store.
Should we add Human Universals to this list?
Eich was not 'stonewalling', he was following the guidelines that all Mozilla employees adhere to, which include not bringing personal views into the workplace. Stating his PoV on gay marriage (pro OR con) as a representative of Mozilla would have been wholly inappropriate. The thing you say would have proven his virtue would have in fact made him unsuitable to hold his position.

See here: https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a2
>> and would be completely fine with another civil contract with the same rights but a different name.

>Because "separate but equal" had such a good run last time around eh?

Do you take the same hardline stance with others who were opposed to gay marriage a few years ago and advocating civil unions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
> I don't think that individual religious views have any place in the creation of laws that will affect people's everyday lives.

How can you keep religious views out of law making? The US as we know it today was founded for religious freedom. Also, religion like Christianity is a way of life. How people interpret the Bible will vary between people, as can be seen with the various denominations of Christianity. How people apply those beliefs to their daily interactions will also vary.

What I'm trying to get at is, how can someone remove religion from their thinking and actions when it is core to who they are. Could you remove science and technology from your decision making?
English is not my mother tongue. When I reached the word boffins I stopped and opened the OSX dictionary which gave the right perspective... Because I instantly related boffins with buffoons which has a totally different meaning and didn't make any sense to call F1 engineers buffoons ?! It's okay if it comes from Archimedes, Francis Bacon and another 10-15 fellas I guess because it's kind of relative... But if I were an F1 engineer, I would had a hard time accepting such a degradative term from anyone else!

ps. Funny how fast all these vivid thoughts crossed my mind in less the 2 seconds.
Your assumption is just incorrect. Computers can already handle numbers millions of bits long. The size of the numbers are only bounded by ram and processing power not at an arbitrary limit.
In that case it sounds like your problem isn't lack of capital, it's that you're undercharging. Probably by a lot; technical people, due to whatever quirk of human psychology, almost always massively undercharge.

Given that elsewhere you say your customers are huge companies, I would suggest increasing your prices by one or two orders of magnitude - hard to be more specific without knowing details - and seeing where that puts you.
Wow impressive! I agree, Wesleyan is really expensive which I understand it to be a function of "communism in action," in which the school's bulk of annual funds is funded by tuition and re-funneled to financial aid. So you as a full-pay student were really subsidizing a financial aid student like me, so thank you for your help, sir.
I really don't care if there's a mindless consensus against the ethically sound perspective, that proves nothing.
He has his past.

If that was truly the case he would have explained this when asked about it. He did not. He quit his job rather than do this.

Prop 8 had 52% of the vote. It is a mainstream opinion.

With ads like this [1] I'm not surprised. His money went to support those, by the way. And you probably meant was.

"ok" to be kneejerk judgmental.

You and everyone else I've asked this question to seem to dance around it. How is this any different than supporting any other kind of anti-equality thing?

* Don't say his views were in the past, they clearly are not, given his post-reveal behavior.

* Don't say this is different unless you can objectively prove a way that this particular right is somehow different from the right of women or blacks to vote.

So which is it? Why is disliking people because they think women are beneath them or think blacks are sub-human any different than this? It's the same xenophobia dressed up in new clothes - that makes it okay now?

it's we need to be more tolerant as a society. We need to treat everybody with respect

And part of which is naming and shaming those that fail this relatively simple task. Being tolerant does not mean accepting intolerance in the same way that being pacifist does not mean accepting war.

He did apologize for hurting people

Which holds about as much water as "sorry you were offended" in my book. The view underpinning the action he (sort of kind of weaselly) apologized for is still there as strong as it ever was. He couldn't even be bothered to give a counter donation.

The problem with online bullying is the target's motive & the truth does not matter

This is where we diverge. I have no problem what-so-ever castigating someone for bad behavior if it's actually proven that they did engage in bad behavior. Mis-aimed outrage is a huge problem with online communities.

However, I see no such mis-aiming here. You've got someone who failed in two big respects - the ability to treat other people with respect in private, and the ability to handle basic CEO duties such as PR and recognizing conflicts of interest.

He was unfit to be CEO and did not deserve that position, with those two things in mind. Maybe that's a value judgement, but that's mine to make.

I want tolerance

Rejecting intolerance is the first step.

However, if I don't like your opinion about something

Again, you're mis-framing Eich's action as if it were a mere opinion or thought that crossed his mind one day, and not something he gave money to support (this in particular: [1]) and gave his job rather than repudiate. That tells me all I need to know about his "personal beliefs" and how he feels about them.

--

[1]: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s...
Couple questions. Have you had any customers? What type of legal docs do you think are best to target?

Are you trying to generate summaries programmatically?
Hacking is easy and doesn't take a very sharp
mind.

Computer science research is harder.

Math research is harder, still.

There are plenty of people well past 50
and, from their research publications, still
quite productive. For them, hacking is
baby talk.

Richard Wagner? Late in his life he finished
his four opera 'The Ring' and wrote 'Parsifal'.
All that work remains crown jewels of all of music
and art.

People late in life are less likely to do hacking
for a variety of reasons, but that their mental
capacity is not up to the challenge is not
among the reasons. What's so difficult about
allocate-free, if-then-else, do-while, call-return,
try-catch, etc.? Trivial.
The cool part of this innovation is that it can directly benefit consumers.

Trick engineering in F1 usually just tricks the regulations or the kinds of physics that only apply to racing prototypes. An example of tricking the regulations would be the double-deck and blown diffusers that were just clever interpretations of the rulebook. Tricking physics is a bit more interesting, a good example would be McLaren's F-Duct which used fancy fluid dynamics to turn a driver's leg into an on/off switch for drag on the rear wing. They basically ran a duct from the front of the car all the way to the wing, with a hole cut into it by the driver's leg. Cover the hole and pressure sucked air through to the wing, smoothing it's profile and reducing drag. Very cool, except I don't know many family sedans that need over 1 ton of downforce at 150mph.

The timing of this innovation in turbocharging couldn't be better. Every manufacturer is trying to gain efficiency with small, turbocharged engines. Small displacement engines are efficient but consumers don't want to trade half their horsepower for 5-10mpg. So companies like Ford and VW are slapping turbos onto these engines and cranking boost levels through the roof. The Fiesta ST runs 21 lbs of boost off the showroom floor. That kind of boost means a lot of heat (the same issue Mercedes' F1 engineers were faced with) so engineers are using every trick in the book to keep temperatures in control (direct injection, temporary overboost, expensive aluminum intercoolers).

What Mercedes' has done isn't so much about the innovative layout, it's that they've made it work without turbo lag. Bring whatever technology they've developed to combat the weight of the turbine shaft to the road and you've made it possible to operate on lower octane fuel while making more power from even smaller displacements.

This is what I like to see from motorsport.
Their money may very well be funding lots of start ups. The wealthy employ lots of people.
For forgiveness you need Truth and Reconciliation. There's a reason that committee was set up.

"Forgiving and being reconciled to our enemies or our loved ones are not about pretending that things are other than they are. It is not about patting one another on the back and turning a blind eye to the wrong. True reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the hurt, the truth. It could even sometimes make things worse. It is a risky undertaking but in the end it is worthwhile, because in the end only an honest confrontation with reality can bring real healing. Superficial reconciliation can bring only superficial healing."

That's Desmond Tutu, another important figure in the struggle against apartheid.

Do you think Eich has owned up to the hurt and abuse he committed? He's not even apologized. You can't have forgiveness if the person you want to forgive isn't even willing to apologize.
Not at all; however I think there is, how shall I say it, "whistling past the graveyard"? "wilful blindness"? when it is expressed as if it is a majority opinion among humans.

It is like the anecdote about the woman living in the cocoon of NYC's Upper East Side, who said after Nixon's landslide win of the presidential election of 1972 "I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him."
This is very cool... but I'm still not going to pay for a subscription. It just does not add enough value for me day to day. Sorry.
I think you're misreading the above post. The point is not to say there is a justifiable argument against gay marriage but to say that not all opponents are like Fred Phelps -- i.e., not all opponents are motivated by pure animus as opposed to ignorance, FUD, or just faulty reasoning.

A big part of that ignorance is many (if not most) gay marriage opponents simply don't believe it's an immutable characteristic and don't fully appreciate how damaging it can be to suppress one's sexual orientation (e.g. don't ask, don't tell). And if you don't believe that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, then a gay marriage ban isn't discrimination against a minority but simply yet another public morality law in line with bans on drugs, polygamy, or public nudity.

That doesn't make the argument any less wrong, but IMHO, intent matters. Ignorance or stupidity don't deserve the same level of condemnation as outright hate.
This is also called Eternal September[1]. And I think the Spiral of silence[2] adds to the problem, as people not only see their own opinion echoed, but also stay away from expressing it if it's not in line with the community.

The only solution to this I've seen so far is making it harder for "ordinary people" to discover the community, as HN tries to do it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence
Exactly. Nobody talks about income mobility. Income mobility in the US is the same as 20 years ago despite increasing inequality.

Income mobility for the poor is highest in the places where the infamous 1% live.

http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/
The token is returned by the auth service when the user logs in. The initial page bootstraps in unauthenticated mode and always has to query the auth service first to figure out if the user is logged in. That's how I've done it in the past.
But I think this is still wrong. Giving marriage any rights at all is respecting a religious practice in the government.

I think we solve the problem not by forcing those who are religious to accept gays, or by forcing gay people to accept a different word for the same rights. I think we solve it by acknowledging that marriage should never have had rights, and forcing anyone who wants the rights currently afforded to marriage, gay or straight, to get a civil union. Or hell, if you don't like civil union, call it a taxed co-habitation rights application.

Once the government has no interest in marriage, no one can stop a gay person for getting married if they'd like to. Just like no one can force a very religious community or church to recognize that marriage.
As long as a more equal distribution of wealth would reduce suffering, we can certainly consider wealth inequality harmful.

One would have to have rather alien values to think that luxuries for a few are preferable to food and health for all.
As far as PR nightmare backlashes go your example is a walk in the park. I thought it went without saying that the sound bite needed to be accurate but I guess not. The donation was made to a politician, not to an issue group. These two are not equivalent. The inaccuracy makes it very easy for OKC to dismiss your response and no semi-decent journalist is going to discuss your inaccurate claim. Your response also suffers from the fact that it does not name OKC or Yagan by name and you are relying on the individual having previous knowledge of the issue.
I think the hard part wasn't coming up with the configuration, it's making it work without inducing immense turbo lag. The software controlling the motor/generator has to be impressively precise considering the forces and timings it is working with.
Earthquake Deflection Takes Tiny Step
Its not just capitalization of the up-front cost, its also the delta in maintenance cost.
>The "Get a Mac" campaign portrayed the PC as a lovable, if incompetent and comic, laughable even, character.

That is totally subjective. Some may have viewed him as "lovable" but others viewed him as "ignorant", "unclassy" and "filthy" similar to how someone could take the "Gmail Man" as "funny", "sarcastic" and simply "nosy".

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMbQCom7VTY
It makes perfect sense that you'd need to pay somebody lots of money to get them to work on an offshore drilling platform:

- You're stuck there with basically nothing to do but work for long periods of time. Can't go visit your girlfriend, etc.

- The work is dangerous, and you could get injured or killed.

- There are probably not too many people who have the necessary skills and experience to do the work safely, which puts the employees at a market advantage. Also, you can't outsource the work by sending the offshore rig to a country where labor is cheaper. It's got to be located on top of the gas field that you own.

I'd guess that whoever posted this article wanted to draw a parallel with Silicon Valley, where CEOs were colluding to drive down costs via an anti-poaching cartel because they thought the cost of labor was "too high".

For reference, A$400,000 is equivalent to US$371,600. There's no inherent reason why average developer salaries couldn't get that high if the combination of supply and demand were right. As long as employees' work brings in more revenue to the company than the cost of the employees, employing them would be profitable for the company (although maybe the poor CEOs might have to downsize to smaller yachts and aircraft since there would be less left over for them).
Yeah, part of the application works that way, but then you still have to write an API, it just lives on a different server.
It's not as if he hasn't had 2 years to get ahead of this and express some kind of understanding of why it offended people. Instead, in his public comments since, he has focused on the fact that Mozilla's name was on the donation roll (an issue the first time around when people didn't understand what was going on, perhaps, but less so this time) and apparently that people in a conservative country think he's just fine and dandy.

There were definitely statements he could have made, personally, in the intervening time that would almost certainly have defused this quite a bit. He did interviews during those two years that focused on this issue several times. I doubt he even had to go so far as to completely recant on it, so much as just express some understanding of how his donation can be seen to have hurt real people, many of whom he now worked with and had to lead.
I am reminded of the history-shaping long seasons in the Pern and Helliconia series of books. Those embed what are ostensibly fantasy stories in a science-fictional universe; the seasons are explained by orbital mechanics.

In both series, high technology from the science fictional context eventually plays a disrupting role in the fantasy world. You don't see a lot of that these days. I would slap my thigh with unrestrainable jollity if GRRM ends ASOIAF that way.
Many CMSes ask you to write your templating code in something which is safe to run on the server, check http://get.harmonyapp.com/ for instance it forces you to use liquid templates. Getsimplesite on the other hand uses plain javascript to write page templates.
This might be the first of many:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7542301

My house was protested today by anti-tech folks
(twitter.com)

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7542362

Anti-Tech Protesters Are Telling Kevin Rose’s Neighbors
That He’s A “Parasite”
(techcrunch.com)

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7542522

Anti-Tech Protesters Are Telling Kevin Rose’s
Neighbors That He’s A “Parasite”
(techcrunch.com)
you can put ACID like transactions on top of NoSQL databases, I did it here, but it took a static analyser to help get the logic right:

https://github.com/tomlarkworthy/firesafe/wiki/Send-Item
In the context of the code presented all mallocs were returned by sbrk. Even if the previous malloc had been "allocated" with size zero, the sbrk called by this function's invocation of malloc will ensure that there are enough bytes of addressable memory to ensure that, although it will be copying data out of earlier allocations, it will not segfault. realloc makes no guarantees of zero-initializing a newly allocated extent.
This is my favorite Wired article from its golden years.
Ten Thousand Statistically Grammar-Average Fake Band Names
How to Build Your Personal Website in Less Than 10 Seconds