skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I get that... its a legitimate concern, as I said. However, its no more legitimate than the other 100s of prescription drugs that can cause drowsiness or slowed reaction time. Or driving with the flu, or driving tired.

Thats the point - there are literally 100s of other ways to be just as (if not more) impaired while driving and be completely legal. We don't parade those issues around (namely because the big pharma companies would like people to not realize just how impairing their products are)

The difference is that there is a large enough group opposed to legalization that they make this issue a primary one in their fight against legalization and blow it vastly out of proportion to the actual scale of the problem.
In my opinion a bundler should bundle and nothing else. Transforms should be implemented as externals tools that package assets and whatnot as CommonJS modules. One benefit among others would be the ability to implement the build process as a Makefile. These tools try to do to much at once.
For the nth time, the government doesn't have a monopoly on violence, otherwise there'd be no such thing as the right to self-defense. Even insofar as the state does have coercive powers, it does not follow that all state activity is based on coercion, any more than an individual's legal capacity for violence means that its the locus of their life's activities.
Great idea. What is the best way to get in contact with you?
Show HN: Craytin – OpenGL ES based minimal Painting/Sketching App
I'm very much not "make some friends", I'm much closer to Linus's model by default.

I still remember when Linus and friends couldn't write a VM that worked on a server to save their fucking life and all Linux was good for was running xmms on Linus' desktop, but I was stuck trying to run his garbage in production. What goes around eventually comes around.

And we can either all yell at each other and wind up tuning the fuck out, or we can try to be slightly more civil and realize that everyone is trying to solve hard problem and getting yanked in a dozen different directions. I'm willing to give the GCC compiler team the benefit of the doubt that these bugs were not due to the team being generally incompetent or lazy.
That's true with alcohol, too, though, it effects people differently. .08 was basically just resolving legal ambiguity by picking a reasonable BAC; it's not like at .079 you can operate a car safely but at .08 you're a danger to everyone on the road.

You can actually be arrested for an 'OUI' in some states, an Operating Under the Influence, for when you are clearly impaired, but fall below the legal cutoff for a DUI. This would likely necessitate being the same sort of thing, a legal recognition that you were driving recklessly, and you exhibit the signs of recent marijuana usage (or if we have some way of actually measuring it, then that too).
It's not super clear who this is aimed at. No company that I'd want to work at would be willing to outsource hiring, so at best, I'd be paying for a weak prejudice of a manager becoming mildly positively predisposed towards me and my skills. When we add in the extremely low opinion that most people in the tech industry have for certification, I'm not sure if be paying for anything at all.

This may be different in non software companies that have software hitting needs.
I know plenty of people who are not c-level who easily spend $69+ on shirts. In fact, I would argue that most people on wall street are expected to pay $50+ on shirts. $250+ would be c-level IMHO.

Data point - Brooks Brothers does $750MM in revenue[1]

[1]- http://www.insideview.com/directory/brooks-brothers-inc
When the Bubble Bursts
Most people on HN are in the elite.

I'd suggest trying any of the wealth calculator apps, and figuring out which percentile you're in. And please post here once you've done that. Or, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...

Median household income in the US is $51,000. That's household income, not individual income. That's what a family of four gets. Take away taxes, and you're at 37k. Assume $1000 mortgage, and you're at $25k. Car insurance, gas, etc. brings you down to perhaps $20k. Four cell phones? $19k. Internet, property tax, utilities, etc? $17k. Food? $14k. Health care? Putting kids through school? Retirement savings? Once you add in all the bare necessities, you won't find many people spending $70 on shirts, let alone $150-$200.

To run with your numbers. A $200 basic blouse, times 40 items of clothing purchased per year by your ex, is $8000. Family of 4 brings that up to $32000. Perhaps $24000, if you consider kids clothing costs less, or perhaps more, if you consider it wears out quickly, so you buy a lot of it.

Typically, the biggest expenditures are housing, health care, car, food, and similar. Clothing is waaay down on the list.
This is a common belief among libertarians, but it doesn't reflect how governments actually work. Governments that have to rely on physical force tend to be unstable, very small, or limited in their ability to effect policies.

Most people's decisions whether to follow or disobey laws are more heavily influenced by social pressures and conventions than the fear of imprisonment or physical assault by cops.

Incidentally, what usually happens when you don't pay taxes is you get nasty letters. If you have wages they might be garnished, and if you have assets they may be seized. Employers comply with garnishments and banks comply with seizures mostly for social reasons, not because of a fear that they will be imprisoned or shot for selflessly protecting a deadbeat.
benadryl does. And nyquill. Allegra and claritin can as well (though to a lesser degree). thats not mentioning the 100s of prescription drugs that do. None of them need a roadside test, why does MJ?
"this whole thing sounds creepy."
That is not the intention. Instead of sitting on my ass wondering what I can do, I took an action. Might offend some, might inspire others. I am in for a fight.

"I'm sorry for being a cynic and for pre-judging, but not much in this industry has encouraged idealism when it comes to women in tech."
You are stating your opinion and I respect it. Don't be sorry.

"Are you offering a supportive tweet?"
I tweet a lot: @jdorfman

"Delete "harping". In fact, delete the whole line. The word connotes the tediousness of women complaining about all the sexist shit they deal with in Silicon Valley; it sounds like you don't really get where women are coming from (which begs the question again: why are you doing this?)."
I Open Sourced this for a reason. I am hardly ever right, this is how I learn about issues that I can't understand from one point of view.

"Please try to make this more substantive. I would like to support anything that supports gender equality and inclusiveness, but this is so vague that I don't know what you stand for, what you offer, or what my own support would entail."
It isn't up to me, it is in the communities hands now. Fork it, make it better & promote diversity.
I wouldn't look to 1933 white people to define racism. Yes, the Merriam-Webster definition stinks. Go with the US Civil Rights Commission's definition. They are more researched and sensitive to the issue.
Here is the Civil Rights Commission's definition again:

"Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally."

In case you think I'm making a non sequitur again, the power component comes from the word "subordinates."
Antibiotics and other medication can destroy your hearing. Common anti anxiety medications effect your sense of balance to the point falling.

I don't agree with the GP however. There are significant differences in effect between the strains of MJ that it isn't rational to make statements like the GP.

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/tc/medicines-that-cause...
http://www.drugs.com/clonazepam.html
Trying to understand that title involved double takes and several extra seconds.

A magnificent Stroop effect for the post-2013 era!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effect
The Future of Docker
Honestly I would go for the "man impaled on spike" idea. If they sacrifice like that to the gods in the future then they deserve what's coming to them.

Combine that with things that we have deep evolved fears of: Snakes, spiders, scorpions and others and I can't see why they would enter a site containing statues of all things associated with death. Sure, an Indiana Jones or a couple of hundred would die, but as long as the shielding is thin enough to inflict a quick death I doubt many would try to copy them.
Author here. Wow, I completely didn't expect this to hit HN this early. I did a talk at FUDCON Beijing 2014 (slides: http://go-talks.appspot.com/github.com/xiaq/elvish-fudcon201...) and warned that "this might eat your ~, so don't post this on HN yet". My original plan was to only post this HN when it's usable, and by "usable" I mean I use it as my login shell on my laptop. (My login shell is still /bin/zsh for now.) But apparently someone else just came across it on the Internet and I should have put up this warning in the README. :)

I'm on the go now, and will come back to add more details and try to respond to questions here.
@cbeach What are you doing besides leaving useless comments? Fork it, make it better, "prove me wrong".
Great article. Despite the comments decrying this 'one question' as unfair, I think we can all agree that having a real passion for programming is the single most important thing in making it from nooblet to competent and confident developer.
Isn't the goal of public policy to balance the interests of all of the involved constituents? Public health is about taking effective measures to keep the population as a whole healthy, and part of that is finding effective ways to reduce those bad things.

In that context, you're getting slapped because you're ignoring the fetid mess that the US drug policy has caused, and that our current drug policy is not being very effective for public health or public spending:
(a) It's horribly racially biased:
https://www.aclu.org/billions-dollars-wasted-racially-biased...

(b) It's incredible expensive (ibid), to the tune of billions of dollars per year in paying for enforcement, incarceration, and lost productivity;

(c) It doesn't obviously reduce use rates!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448346/

You don't have to be a fan of drug use to appreciate this mess. I'm not - speaking personally, I'm about as negative about the issue as one can get, for drugs, alcohol, and tobacco all together. But that's not the point. Barring some actually worthwhile, cost-effective, and fair method of enforcement, which nobody in the US has stumbled upon yet, we need to stop pissing away money putting nearly 1% of our population in jail [1] where not only do we burden them forever with a criminal conviction, we introduce them to a lot of real criminals and set them on the path to real crime.

Putting someone in jail in NYC for a year costs $167,000 [2]. Surely we could do some more effective prevention and education with that money. Or take it and try to reduce alcohol DUI fatalities or tobacco use, both of which are currently more deadly than pot use.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/nyregion/citys-annual-cost...
Based only on the abstract (the text is behind a paywall), it appears the first paper only discusses "the drivers' risk of being killed in a fatal crash", and not overall crash incidents, which is the point of your first sentence.

In addition, the abstract's conclusion starts "Although overall, drugs contribute to crash risk regardless of the presence of alcohol, such a contribution is much lower than that by alcohol." (Emphasis mine.) This seems to contradict your statement that there is not an increased risk with marijuana use. (The NYT article seems to confuse the two when it talks about "risk of a fatal accident" in one paragraph then "risk of a crash" in the second.)

Instead, I think the paper you want, which is a bit older (from 2012) but not behind a firewall, is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276316/ . It says:

> Experimental studies have shown modest functional impairment, but debate exists over how well these experimental studies translate into real-life driving situations (41). Epidemiologic studies, however, have shown contradictory results (39, 42, 43). ... it is unclear whether marijuana plays a significant role in crash causation.

The paper itself is a meta-analysis. They write:

> Results of this meta-analysis indicate that marijuana use by drivers is associated with a significantly increased risk of crash involvement. Specifically, drivers who test positive for marijuana or self-report using marijuana are more than twice as likely as other drivers to be involved in motor vehicle crashes.

It then very emphatically points out that this conclusion is not strong enough for public policy decisions, and that there are many possible confounding factors.

This conclusion is also mentioned in the NYT link you posted: "Still, it is clear that marijuana use causes deficits that affect driving ability, Dr. Huestis said. She noted that several researchers, working independently of one another, have come up with the same estimate: a twofold increase in the risk of an accident if there is any measurable amount of THC in the bloodstream."

Thus, I think it's enough to suggest that your first line is likely incorrect.
"I took an action. Might offend some, might inspire others"

You took the action of making an empty github repo with no agenda? Armchair activism. Bravo.

"It isn't up to me, it is in the communities hands now"

Perhaps the community could vote whether to fork it, or delete it? What do we reckon guys?

+1 delete.
There is no reliable way to chemically measure intoxication from marijuana. All the tests show is the presence of THC in the system. Hair tests can detect use as far back as 6 months, urine tests for 3 weeks, blood tests for 72 hours (typically used in accident investigations). Saliva tests, having a shorter duration of ~12 hours would be more ideal, but have an effectiveness cutoff of 50ng. The current legal limit in CO and WA is 5ng.

All that said, there's little correlation between the amount of THC in one's system and the level of intoxication. A chronic user (no pun intended) will have a much higher concentration of THC in their system and be affected less by it as compared to say, a tourist coming in and trying it for the first time in 20 years.
I mean in terms of dealing with them a lot. I do agree they are not pleasant.
Wait, who wins here?

Google would presumably stop returning results for Spanish content to avoiding getting charged, resulting in dropped traffic, and less ad dollars.
Legal limits for alcohol are pretty arbitrary. Someone who's driving way over the limit isn't going to get caught unless they're driving dangerously anyway.
> The risk of driving after using marijuana is comparable to the risk of driving after using penicillin, which isn't illegal.

[citation needed]

> Furthermore, the risk is far less than the risk of driving at .08

[citation needed], again

> which is legal in most states.

No, driving at or above BAC 0.08 regardless of impairment is illegal in all 50 states, and in most states driving with any impairment due to alcohol is also illegal (though a lesser offense) even if the BAC is below 0.08.
Yup -- I was taking intro & mid-level CS courses in 1996/7, and they set us up to code in Java (with an IDE called Roaster) as the "wave of the future", and easier to work with than C or C++ (though we used C for some classes).

We were mostly writing applications, applets, and command-line stuff, and my first server-side code was in a long-forgotten CGI-based scripting language, but I seem to recall it wasn't too long after that that ColdFusion was re-written into Java (so that even if you build your site in CF, it was actually executing on Java); that was a pretty strong corporate & technical endorsement.
> Isn't prevention better than cure?

That's oversimplifying; couldn't we drastically reduce the number of automotive deaths by outlawing driving?

Marijuana isn't an absolute evil with no redeeming qualities, and prohibition brings along a bevy of its own problems. So then we're really talking about which method, legalization or prohibition, is better in the aggregate.

When I say that prohibition doesn't work, I'm talking literally; something like a third of people in the US have smoked marijuana, and a sizable percentage (including me, a productive salaried software developer) smoke regularly despite the potential legal ramifications. I've gone on vacation with no connects and found a dealer inside of a day, which is to say that no one who wants to smoke is being stopped by prohibition.

When you take that with all of the bad things that prohibition causes, I don't know how you can rationalize its continuation.
Extensive information on this here:

http://www.wipp.energy.gov/picsprog/articles/wipp%20exhibit%...

and the original call for submissions here (pdf):

http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1992/92138...
Thats a very, frankly, stupid comment. And short sided.

MJ has a HUGE group of people who use it medicinally. My wife can not eat or drink without it, due to chronic nausea to the point that without it, she throws up every 20 minutes. Medicine like Zofram barely help even at max dose, which carries with it other side effects.

Calling everyone who smokes stoners is the equivalent of calling everyone who drinks a glass of wine an alcoholic. I regularly enjoy MJ - and I think it would be short-sided to consider me a stoner, considering im a successful father of 2 with a great salary and a happy family.

The good news is - the "minority" you speak of is people like you... the outdated mentality is in the minority now, with the majority of the country FOR legalization - even in traditionally red states like TX.
This question might have been to me - I try only to buy reasonably ethically made clothing, and figure on paying up to a 50% or so premium for it. I buy a lot of Patagonia and Ibex, but dress shirts are a problem (suits would be too, but luckily I don't have to deal with that very often). I do think that new models of manufacturing have the potential to ameliorate some of the ethical problems as well, by shrinking the supply chain back down so that retailers actually have some idea of what's going on in their factories. Everlane is an example of what I'm thinking about, but I didn't love the shirt I ordered from there, and they only have S/M/L sizing.
There are quite a few - I stopped reading after a while, because it wasn't getting anywhere...

Ideally I want a single solution (even if it may require a bit of kludging), rather than integrate solutions. This is a side project, so time is limited :-/
Both education and taxation are higher level activities that fall under "crime and punishment." It's a crime to not pay taxes, or to not send your children to school, and the government punishes you if you commit those crimes.
Think you are right, my assertion is purely anecdotal, but I stand by it based on my many years smoking pot.
I doubt they're taking a loss, and I'd be surprised if they're not making a decent profit. What are the components? A 1080p cell phone screen, some cabling, custom plastic enclosure and straps, an IR webcam, and the PCB+components. That's not much, cost wise.
I would have preferred the page-length banner to be to the right side of the article. I think it's easier to read when the left side is simple, so that you can track to the next line easily.
Disregarding the conflation, I think the key point here is passion.

I want to work with people who have passion for what they do. You don't have to keep doing it when you get home at the end of the day, but if all you're doing this for is a paycheck and you aren't really passionate about what you're doing, I find it impacts the quality of the output and the speed with which you absorb new information.
- I'm sure your intentions are good, but imagine the interpretation of someone for whom most interactions of this nature are bad (or at least unrewarding). Who says you're not some lazy pervert hoping to get lots of women to contact him just so he can hit on them?

Again, I realize that's probably not you, but given that these kinds of people exist, why would someone take a chance, especially considering how little work you've put into proving your intrinsic motivation?

- Thanks for accepting my knee jerk reaction; I expected you to (rightfully) take more offense from it.

- I don't think women in tech care for a tweet (it seems impersonal and empty to me), but I could be wrong. Having your twitter handle certainly allows people to gauge how serious you are on the whole about your views though, so I appreciate your openness with it.

- I'll submit a pull request to that end when I get a chance, thanks.

- You're clearly trying to crowdsource this, but you're not scaffolding enough. Like you said, you're not sitting on your ass wondering what you can do; so what are you doing?
A total ban on driving for 24 hours is scientifically unsound, and would only play into fearmongers' hands who want more legally dubious checkpoints and reasons to do intrusive tests on drivers.
> Isn't prevention better than cure?

Sure, but prohibition isn't prevention.

> People keep saying "prohibition didn't work" but I'm hard pressed to find a conclusive paper on the subject.

Assuming, arguendo, your suggestion that there is no conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of prohibition, then, given the money, lives, etc. that have been expended on prohibition, the absence of conclusive evidence of its effectiveness is, itself, a pretty strong reason not to keep tossing lives and treasure into that pit.
+1 fork
I am really confused here. Why would Google Maps not use GPS at its highest resolution ?
What it won't get you is breadth of experience, operational background, full-stack thinking, or
people who can look at somebody else's work and say "here are the ways in which that
is going to blow up in your face, two years from now". (Anybody care to add to this list?)

This is true - because that's a byproduct of experience and not passion. Experience can be soon on a resume.

Arguably, passion for the work leads one to make more of the years of experience - ensuring it's "10 years of experience" vs " 1 year 10 times".
Fair enough, I felt like bringing up the issue, and I did. What better place to do so than a mildly news worthy point release announcement? That it's survived on the HN front page this long is a complete shock to be honest.

re: language flamewars, interesting, perhaps you've noticed some of the FP heavies laying into Scala here on HN, Reddit and Twitter. I'd say the flaming by an overwhelming majority is coming from the other side of the fence.
No, that sounds like a valid usecase (and/or a horribly slow syntax check -- I'm not familiar with syntactic... does it do some kind of heuristic grammar check?).
One nice thing that this release does that isn't explicitly mentioned in the release notes is fix matches on instances of tagged types. Previously, the pattern match desugarer assumed that all instances of the tagged type were equal, which meant that the first case where one was used would always match.
I'd expect most readers of the Times to think "took you long enough!"

The Times did not say anything here that wasn't known to be true 20 years ago. They just waited until it was a more popular thing to say. The Times would do well do understand why they were unable to write this editorial in 1994. What has changed except popular (uninformed and unscientific) perception?
Sodomy and fornication were illegal and prosecuted, mostly because they spread disease.
Driving stoned is NOT fun. Physics feel all weird. I don't recommend it. It is scary.