skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
From that link:

While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics.

That is the core of my understanding of the term "spin". Every conversation has a frame of reference, a shared context within which it is communicated. Somebody has to frame that context, and I don't see anything wrong with trying to be proactive about framing the context, as long as you do so in a way that is not disingenuous, deceptive, or manipulative. Controlling the narrative is not necessarily "spin" in this sense. It may be just seeking the truth. In fact, I have a hard time finding a better description of integrity in action that doing what you explicitly said you would do. How can you get any more straightforward than that?

The fact that it was said at the start makes all of the difference. It means that anybody who got into a relationship with Amazon knew at the beginning what kind of company they would be from an investment perspective. Amazon was setting out specifically to avoid misleading or deceiving anybody.

Even the kid in your example is not putting a spin on anything. He is being transparent and honest, not disingenuous or deceptive. To work within that analogy, as a parent I would have said that his attitude was unacceptable, because part of a parent's job is to teach and help their child learn how to make responsible choices. I would encourage the child that I think they can excel at both and that I won't accept a cop-out. If they really couldn't do both, then I would tell them I appreciate their honesty and make them drop sports. The same should be true for Amazon. If people really had a problem with Amazon's approach, they should not have bought stock in the first place, after Amazon told them plainly how they were going to operate.

That's exactly the point: the parent knows ahead of time and can make a decision with full and accurate knowledge of the situation. People knew up front that Amazon would continue to invest the profits back into the business. If people still choose to invest, they have no right to claim they were deceived or manipulated, because Amazon was clear from the beginning. How is that "disingenuous, deceptive, or manipulative?"
One of my early jobs (mid-90s) was working for an unnamed but relatively famous (for the time) ISP in Los Angeles where the vast majority of other employees turned out to be Scientologists. They do exist in the tech industry.
But if the database doesn't run on local host, the credentials to connect do it still have to.
Languages with the most curse words in the git commit messages
I'm one.

Feel free to ask me anything you want. With the caveat that I don't participate in uncivil discussions.
The legal justification is that it is the same as police setting up a road block and reading license plate numbers as traffic flows by, or in the case of packet inspection actually doing "drunk driving" stops, which are legal.

Edit: I'm actually wrong here, I looked up the source I originally read this on and realized I misinterpreted it. It's only one possible answer, not the answer: there is no case law, it hasn't been tested yet.
I don't like to say that I'm an agnostic or atheist or anything like that, because why would I? If I don't believe in a god, calling myself an atheist is like calling myself a non-Christian if I'm not a Christian, or a non-Jew if I'm not Jewish. Why would I define myself in contrast to whatever other religious groups there are, when I'm areligious (at least in my case)? It doesn't make sense.

So because I don't believe in an Abrahamic god, I'm still supposed to take a stand/have an opinion on him. Why? Do Christians have an opinion/stance on Vishnu?
It is more like taking photos of the contents of everyone's cars and then using a computer to look for weed.
Source here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152572618920450&se...
Show HN: Install CoreOS on Digital Ocean
I've never understood why people put Scientology in a different bucket than other religions such as Christianity. I wonder why you didn't comment 'The 79 Christians are trolls, right? ...right?'
That's Yucca Flats, a US nuclear test site.

I thought it would be Laos. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1100842.stm for others who think the same. But that's measured in number of bombs per capita. (The US dropped about 2.5 MT on Laos and 7 MT on Vietnam. The Allies dropped about 3.4 MT of bombs during WWII.)

Perhaps it's measured in total explosive power? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Flat there were 827 separate detonations, and if I extracted the data correctly from http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Catalog then there was no more than 72 MT at Yucca Flats.

Novaya Zemlya, site of Soviet nuclear bomb testing, "hosted 224 nuclear detonations with a total explosive energy equivalent to 265 megatons of TNT" says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novaya_Zemlya .

So I don't understand the criteria used to determine that Yucca Flats is "the most bombed place on earth."
We thought solar eclipses and new moons were signs of terrible uncontrollable forces, too, but we know better now.

I don't think that eclipses are in any sense "controllable".
A plain JS fork would be useful.
You can check both
> I use my palm to press the control key

that's the old-school Starcraft way. try mapping caps-lock to control sometime, just to see, it's such wasted real-estate. nothing beats muscle memory and years of practice though.
That seems like a perfectly bland and normal combination. What on Earth makes it seem fascinating?
Right, that's what I'm saying about the bank account. If child pornography really is just bits, then the same should go for your bank account. When you "illegally" increase your bank account it's just bits, right?

Or how about classified information. Is it thought crime to have classified information you aren't allowed to have? "But it's only bits, how can bits be illegal?"
Spiritual atheist. But when I get the time I'm going to start a new religion: Ovumist.

The holy tract: http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
Mormons do believe that Jesus is God incarnate. Mormon doctrine holds that Jehovah (the name of the God of Israel used in the Old Testament) and Jesus are the same person. See: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/jehovah
You can also be a Christian Atheist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
Stopped shampooing and conditioning hair (they either have chemicals, are expensive or smell terrible).

My showers take 5 minutes. Saves time, water and hydrates your skin.
Love this idea!

I think you should add an intro to procedural graphics chapter that goes over raymarching and other algorithms used to create meshes procedurally.
I highly doubt many large churches have Rails specialists either..
How is that a false dichotomy? I guess there's the implication that there is only religious and non-religious engineers. But isn't that a binary? I'm curious as to what other options there are.
I haven't pressed the escape button in the past few years using vim. Do something like `imap lkj <ESC>` and `vmap lkj <ESC>`. It's way nicer.
How do you deal with all the inconsistencies between science and religion? e.g. evolution vs creationism.
I grew up in a family of catholics, went agnostic, went militant atheist, and then realized the universe is so fucking weird and likely beyond our ability to ever truly comprehend it that "who am I to judge others for believing in ridiculous things?".

Which is to say, I think all religions we have that claim to have any kind of historical meddling from a 'creator' are rather obviously fictional and borderline ridiculous, but I don't have any better answers to "the big questions", so I'm fine letting people believe whatever they like without opposition or debate so long as what they believe doesn't result in the oppression of others.
Respect? Isn't this what unions are for?
Muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet, but not that he is the son of God. Mormons do believe that Jesus is the son of God, which is the defining characteristic of being Christian
So... you're a civil engineer?
The data is clearly not representative. Take a look at number one post in Show HN titled " OneBody Church Directory software I've been hacking on for 7 years". This post has 740 points | 203 comments, clearly very popular (number two has	77 points | 46 comments).

Does it mean atheists are more open responding to polls about spirituality?
Whichever one is most parsimonious is what you should be.
The Unitarian Universalist church is non-creedal and has many atheist members. Many cities also have Ethical Culture Societies, which mostly grew out of the non-religious elements of the Jewish community.
Teapotism doesn't have significant cultural importance. Atheism does. To a lot of people, it really does make a difference whether you actually disbelieve in the god they believe in, or if you are genuinely undecided. It is thus useful to have a word to distinguish between those two states, and perfectly honest (hardly weasely) to use them. Even if its only for social signalling, that's important!
I was working this job (tech writer) at this tech place (little computers) a few months ago (temp). The population was evenly split between christians and potheads. I suppose it says something.
I would contest that. They can be either but not both. They are either not very smart biologists or not very devout creationists. Or more likely just attention seekers.
Classifying Hinduism and Buddhism as "religions" in the Western sense of the word is imprecise and misleading at best.

You can be a Hindu atheist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka

Swami Vivekananda popularized the Ramakrishna school of thought, but they themselves deny to be called Hindus.

Goa deputy Chief Minister considers himself to be a "Christian Hindu": http://www.firstpost.com/politics/india-hindu-nation-im-chri...

Hinduism in not an organized religion like Abrahamic religions. The definition of Hinduism is very fluid in practice.

Similarly one can be a Buddhist atheist as well.

PS: Also please add Sikhism and Jainism to the poll -- two other major Indian religions!
Optimizing a Basic Software Rasterizer
You know what? I think it's a beautiful site. It tugs the emotions the right way, and evokes a certain feel that is probably more effective at getting people to engage and help your Grandpa identify his old photos. It also doubles as a nice showcase of your grandpa's photography.

I'm not sure it would have achieved this effect with a simple static HTML + CSS page.
> and locked it

That's false. We didn't lock anything. We simply made the post not be on the front page.

Edit: I posted a longer reply, but decided it was a bad idea.
I'm objecting to the implication you are either rational or religious.
Thank you very much. I've started working on some 3D and VR stuff on Android and this will help out a lot.
Other - I identify with [insert own name here]. Let me explain...

I dated a woman once who dated a woman just prior to dating me (I'm male). We were having beers with a mutual friend and upon hearing that fact, our mutual friend said "wow, I didn't know you were bisexual Jen" (not her real name). Jen's response..."I'm not bisexual...I'm Jen. I don't believe in labels."

I'm not Atheist, Agnostic, or Lutheran (the religion my parents chose for me). I'm Chad.

I haven't used a label for anyone's politics, religion, sexual preference, or other complicated matters since. Thank you Jen. The best part...you get to focus on getting to know someone on a personal level instead of arguing about definitions :)
I suspect that it more a social than a financial issue. Maybe getting that insurance acts as some sort of status signal, showing commitment towards honoring the tradition even if the occasion will most likely never arise.
While mercury poisoning has affected major ecosystems (it's not a good idea to eat fish you catch in the Great Lakes), it's limited to where the chemical actually is. I suspect the problem with radioactive waste is that it's ranged: you don't have to touch the radioactive source to get a fatal case of acute radiation syndrome.
I'm curious what your definition of atheism is. I consider myself an atheist but I don't in absolute terms claim that god(s) don't or can't exist, I simply reject the concept of 'belief' at large. i.e. if you can't provide definitive evidence in support of an idea, it's not fact.
Should put more pressure on the water company. Power too.
Since I seem to have ignited a huge sub-thread on competition, I'd like to clarify my intent. There are varying degrees and kinds of "competition." The competition I had in mind is the kind of competition associated with people pulling all-nighters for the entire weekend, loading up on Red-Bulls, and worrying about the best ways to pitch judges (and manipulate those pitches).

That kind of competition is generally unrepresentative of the "cooperative competition" of the tech industry.
This is not true. The top post is:

"OneBody Church Directory software I've been hacking on for 7 years"

I suspect that many, many HNers, myself included, upvoted because of this: "software I've been hacking on for 7 years" It's great whenever someone shows off their side project, and astonishing when it's a project they've diligently maintained for a generation in web-dev years.
One of the examples I seem to remember was string interpolation of things like:

" @{[ blah() ]} "

I was never an Emacs user, but paired with Emacs users quite often during a 4 year stint at a Perl shop.

In Vim:

my $variable = <<EOF;
STUFF GOES HERE
EOF

Vim highlights everything from "<<EOF" to "EOF" as a string, but technically the string highlighting shouldn't start until the beginning of the next line. In the example above it's not the end of the world, but you can have examples like this:

my $variable = function_call(<<EOF, $blah);
EOF

where ", $blah);" is highlighted as part of the string, when it isn't.

[edit: I tried to replicated this, and I'm not seeing the HEREDOC portion highlighted as a string, but I also notice that Perl 5.20 has removed <<HEREDOC in favour of <<"HEREDOC" or <<'HEREDOC', so maybe that made parsing for syntax-highlighting easier.]

Also in Vim:

"text @{[ callFunction(sub { }) ]} text"

The first '}' encountered terminates the '@{' instead of parsing matching pairs.
Brilliant marketing. He also needs people to engage with the page and empathize with his grandpa. Not sure it would have been as effective at this if it had been a dull, static HTML page.
Has standing been granted? That's been a huge stumbling block for these cases in the past.
Check how it correlates with browser choice? My hypothesis is that people of faith will be less likely to use Firefox since they purged Brendan Eich, while atheists will be more likely to use Apple (Safari) because the instinct toward religion is a strong one...
[please know i'm just kidding here!]
I think by offering a listing fee (maybe refundable if they don't meet their funding goals?) would be a viable/ethical approach here. Flat fees are as fair as it gets. Also, be sure to start with a church that isn't your own; if it doesn't work, it's not like the group of people you see every week (or however often you attend) will look at you any differently.
I would agree with your supposition that atheists are disproportionately interested in taking part in polls about religion - particularly on sites with a palpable anti-religious bias.
The Death March of Mechanical Engineering
There is a famous one, Michael Behe. Not exactly a creationist, but an intelligen design advocate.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

edit:

He has a nice paragraph on his web page:

>>Official Disclaimer

My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.
Not true. I know someone who last I spoke was in graduate level cell biology and did lab work on brains at a top university, yet did not believe in evolution. In fact, I recall her citing her personal awe of the brain etc as evidence of intelligent design.

Don't underestimate humans' abilities to selectively ignore evidence, the immense pressure of their peers, parents, and friends who have similar beliefs, and the underlying fear of death that motivates people to believe in an afterlife (and all the various attached beliefs from there) to allow compartmentalization of beliefs from knowledge.
Just because they wouldn't admit to it does not mean that the condition doesn't exist. And I have met Christians who have stated that they can't prove God one or another but that doesn't stop their belief.
I have wanted more adoption of community centers for a long time, just a place for children and adults to go for support and supplemental education. I could write a very long article about their benefits and reasons, but this probably isn't the appropriate forum to do that. A place where kids can get mentors and adults can get assistance for a wide variety of subjects would be extremely helpful to the community. This kind of place is usually only provided in poorer areas where it is then overcrowded and becomes much less useful.

Many parents assume kids get all the education for life in school. Teachers assume kids get most of their life education at home. This is not true all of the time but I've seen it far too often. The result is a lack of education and guidance for children. Some parents just don't have time for their kids, kids are left to learn on their own or from their environment, which is always less than optimal (yes, always exceptions to everything).

Colleges could offer credits for people who help staff and organize these places. Adults who were helped by these community centers could be encouraged to give back if it helped them in life.

Children in need of mentors should be the main area of focus in my opinion. They could call upon these people later in life if needed, almost like another parent (which not all people are fortunate enough to have). The children who were mentored would have a much higher chance of ensuring their mentor was taken care of later in life, when the mentor got old. There's just no downside from what I can tell, it's mostly a funding and organizing problem to solve.

Please don't take this the wrong way but excluding God from these centers would be important. Not everybody accepts that there is some magical being controlling everything, and many people have different gods. All of these people should be equally welcomed into community centers without fear of having God, Jesus, and the sins of the Devil preached to them constantly.
I consider most if not all those consistencies to be manufactured.

Evolution vs Creationism is of course the poster child for this. The simple answer is I wasn't around for either Evolution or Creation whichever one happened so I can't give a definitive ruling either way. I happen to believe that God did some sort of creative act. What form that act took (7 days of creative work? or billions of years of guided evolution?) I can't really say.

Either one is something of a miracle to my mind though. Both appear to be highly unlikely to occur, yet I and your are here having this conversation so one of them had to. I choose to believe God was the motivating force behind whichever one it was.

I have one rule that I follow. My faith must be rational. If an article of faith is disprovable then I don't hold with it. That leaves a lot of room for faith though.
Also in violation of international laws and treaties signed by the US.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5910299/5-ways-obama-may-have-v...
Yes you can as I am one.
there's nothing new about this
Software Engineer. :-)

Which admittedly some engineers don't consider to be true engineering. But given that this is Hacker News I assumed it was an acceptable claim.
I'm a complete Rails noob, can anybody help me understand why after installing this my app shows up without any formatting? http://imgur.com/pQ8wOdG

I did notice that there was a Warning regarding different versions of libxml used for Nekogiri:

$ RAILS_ENV=production rake db:migrate
WARNING: Nokogiri was built against LibXML version 2.8.0, but has dynamically loaded 2.7.8
Other: Jedi Knight
Thanks imsofuture, I didn't even pick up on that. It's plenty obvious that people can be rational in their professional life and still hold magical beliefs. It's not like software engineering has to teach good critical thinking skills.
Except node.js...

Wait you said best practices built in :)
I don't pretend to know the answer to this, but I can share when I've been tempted to do such things in Java.

You know how fairly often when writing OO code you want to have an object that takes a bunch of optional inputs in its constructor? That's trivial in Ruby because you can just stick those in a hash, merge the defaults with that hash and you have your options. In Java that won't work because you don't have syntactic sugar for default arguments and the syntax for creating maps is... complex. So you naturally think you need one place to handle all of the complexity of constructing the object and then you think of the factory pattern and you apply it.

Imagine, though, that some of the objects you use in order to construct the object you now have a factory for also become similarly difficult to construct. You don't want your existing factory to know about the complexity of how to construct those, so one idea would naturally be to offload their construction to something else, which passes them into your original factory. It's not a huge leap to then figure out you can put this in another factory and now you have a factory of factories. Repeat.

I'm sure there are other reasons why, but for me that's the most common one. When I used to write a lot of Java, I used to often have to resist the temptation to do that.

I hope what I wrote makes at least a little bit of sense...
Agree. As much as I'm against religion, I found the software to be neat. The thread seemed to contain the same sentiment by multiple users.
I used to be an atheist until I found this wikipedia article on Aptatheism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
Fundamentalist creationism is not an inescapable consequence of "religion" generally.

Can't speak for zaphar, but I for one have no problem believing that God could've created the world any way he felt like, including by letting evolution happen.

Despite being not merely religious but an actual Bible-believing Christian, I am nevertheless quite willing to accept that a good deal of scriptural text is metaphorical. A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick obviously metaphorical, so the idea that the Biblical creation account might not be intended as an accurate scientific account is Not A Problem.

Regarding other possible inconsistencies, I find that most of the ones people complain about are like evolution- not actually necessary inconsistencies if you think about it. For the rest, I assume that one or the other is either wrong or incomplete, and hold off judgment until either scientific concensus or doctrinal assertion are changed. When it comes to questions of scientific fact, I usually lean in favor of science. When it comes to matters of philosophy or ethics, I lean in favor of religion. And for reference, I don't usually consider sociology or social psychology to be very convincing "science".
That's the problem with surveys like this: the categories are political not philosophical.

It would be better to ask, "Does a deity feature amongst your considerations when making a decision?"

I take it that's what people are mainly interested in anyway.

If this question was asked alongside the others in these questionnaires I think you'd see a high percentage of non-atheist responders agreeing.