skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Simply stating that the Commerce Clause and the Coinage Clause are dead letter law not intended to regulate the exchange of money doesn't make it true. Your interpretation of the law disagrees with more than 200 years of legal consensus on the federal government's power to regulate money exchange within the U.S.--including those of the Founding Fathers themselves.

Counterfeiting has a long and sordid history, and was very much a problem when the Constitution was written. It was, in fact, one of (but not the only) impetuses for the Coinage Clause. See http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Summer07/counterfe.... There are plenty of other sources to support this, though this is the only one I found online in my 30 second search. If you want more sources, you're free to visit a library yourself.
U.S. Intelligence Community Explores More Rigorous Ways to Forecast Events
It's the users fault! App.net was a alternative to twitter, but a paid one. Failed. So users are in no position that they are the product sold to advertisers. They actively decided to be the product.
I don't see why you think it's a dishonest characterization. You don't think the regulation of money exchange is constitutional, I think it is because it's a commercial activity and the commerce clause of the constitution empowers Congress to legislate on such things - it's one of the enumerated powers, as popposed to being inferred by courts. As I'm sure you're aware of the commerce clause the only logical basis I can see for your position is if you don't think money exchange is a commercial activity.

Also ad hominem means something other than what you seem to think it means. That's when you dismiss someone's argument by saying there's something bad about the person making the argument, eg 'ignore what Alice said because she's a communist.'
Comparing our stance against the climate change, with a full-featured genocide is nonsense.

There's a limit to everything. Then again... when individuals with psychopathy imagine others in pain, brain areas necessary for feeling empathy and concern for others fail to become active and be connected to other important regions involved in affective processing and decision-making[1].

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130924174331.ht...
It sounds so simple, and yet it has happened so rarely.
Gates helped make a lot of your "privileged white men" rich by providing a market for compatible software and hardware. He also helped a lot of Asians become rich as well.

In the 1980s, Apple went round Hong Kong, Taiwan and China suing companies for making knockoffs of the Apple II (ie better, faster, more reliable and much cheaper versions of the Apple II). Then along came the PC industry, which welcomed them -- and their innovations -- with open arms.

How do you balance a handful of self-righteous American programmers against the wealth and the millions of jobs generated by Acer, Asus, MSI, Hon Hai, Wistron, Pegatron, Quanta, Compal, Inventec, etc?
Hacker group threatens cyber-attack on World Cup sponsors -source
Not yet but I will now :D
>How would you implement pipe functions in Javascript? And I mean literally using the pipe operator, and not just chained.

>But still, you can do very advanced things.

Why do you think "advanced" means the ability to overload operators? I'd personally define "advanced" to mean something to do with semantics, not syntax.
In either case, it's almost always a good idea to use other peoples' money instead of your own.

I agree. You used to be able to get bank loans on co-investment (i.e. you put up some of the capital). Now they require personal liability. Things have gone to the worse.

You're undermining your ability to have a few failures to learn from if you put all of your personal assets on the line in one venture.

True. But in a time when (a) bank loans were available with co-investment alone (not you're-insane-if-you-take-it personal liability) and (b) people in the middle class actually had money, it was possible to get going while only putting up 5% of the seed money (and getting a larger equity disbursement, because you actually are doing the work on a low salary).

But arguing that somehow we'd be better of if people were risking massive amounts of their personal capital on their startups (vs what we have now where the risk is split between them and others who can afford it) seems wrong.

I agree. My point is that, before the VC era, people didn't have to risk massive amounts of personal capital. A 5% co-investment, and a willingness to work on a lower-than-market salary for a while, was enough to get you in the game.

Even the founders who do have money aren't so dumb as to turn away VCs out of pride of being a "true entrepreneur" if the terms are favorable.

Fair. It's not that all VC is bad or should be turned away. It's that a 6-month permission-seeking process discourages most people who have the entrepreneurial spirit, favoring social climbers.
Doesn't Swift have native interop with ObjC?
So what was new-agey about this interview?
Well, I did link to a review of another long and well-researched book that picks apart Arendt's portrayal. Unless the referred documents are complete fabrications I can't see how Arendt's thesis holds water anymore.
Do you think it would be possible to describe a binary file in such a way that some git extension of sorts could be made to understand the file so that only the minimum delta would have to be saved by git?
Would you have had the courage to desert under threat of getting shot? I'm not sure I would.

I feel quite certain that I couldn't possibly be brainwashed to do a thing like that willingly. But under threat of pain and death I'm not sure I would be capable of standing up to that kind of force. I honestly don't know what I would do.

On the other hand, my conscience would most certainly not be clear in the aftermath.
Just follow the thread.

My point is that nobody can really blame individuals, who are protecting their ass, for participating on evil.

We probably both agree there is something wrong with overblown prison system. But we would hardly blame prison guard for participating. Also we would probably agree to punish prison guard who helps prisoner to escape.

Also some innocent civilians died in last Intifada, but nobody is demanding head of soldiers who killed those civilians.
Interesting - if I was an advertising executive of say, Nivea Facial Cream for Men, I would be putting this report out on every PR wire I could.

"Live longer, cut your balls off. Alternatively use our moisturiser and look like you will live longer"

Tl;dr castration might help you live longer, if your life is anything like 13th Century China.
Ha! Who's coping the trend now? I'm sure they are done bragging about their comfortable size and all!
I'd say JavaScript-style chaining is more (or atleast as) readable as that.

E.g. numbers.where().select();
Bludgeon? I hope not. I try not to be personally critical.

It's true that "middlebrow" is pejorative. We should find a neutral term. I'm thinking "generic dismissal", but if anyone has a suggestion I'd like to hear it.

> without having to actually address their arguments

I think there's a misunderstanding here that goes back to the nature of generic dismissals. "Addressing arguments" does not always raise the signal/noise level.

That particular comment's argument was that there is no value in getting people to use a free product. That claim isn't just generic, it's trivially false: if a product had no value, no one would use it. The trouble with generic dismissals is that "addressing their arguments" usually makes the discussion worse, not better. "Free products can too have value" isn't headed anywhere substantive or on-topic.

Moreover, once a discussion has gone completely generic—the semantic heat death of internet threads—any such response will produce several more such replies. Why? Because everybody has an opinion about the generic thing. This is how low-substance discussions proliferate.

By contrast, we can't all have an opinion about agricultural software, because we're mostly aware that we know squat about it. Had that comment read (say), "I've worked in the farm space and we've found that it's easy to get farmers to adopt new software but hard to get them to pay for it, so 15% of the market doesn't mean much," that might or might not have been a good comment, or a true one, but it wouldn't have been a generic dismissal. That's why programminggeek's follow-up comment was much better.
Did some digging, luckily you are now obligated as a German soldier to disobey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_obedience_in_the_Bu... "He must not obey if the order violates others' human dignity, international law or consists of a crime (including a misdemeanor)"
Well not back then of course.
Actually, no. No first-year CS students should know about ELF. They should know about:

1. basic data structures (variables, arrays, simple binary trees)

2. static control flow (sequential execution and control structures)

3. dynamic control flow (the call stack and how exception handling works (in C: setjmp()/longjmp()))

4. basic program structuring and hygiene (functions, named constants, picking good names)

Focusing on that instead of the details of machine-level knowledge is what separates CS from IT; we need both, so we should not try to make our CS programs bad copies of our IT programs.
I'm not talking about my specific social circle, I'm talking about general trends.

With regards to Facebook Messenger, take a look at its one-star rating on the Apple Store, or the dozens and dozens of blog posts and tech articles complaining about it, or the comments on any of those articles. It's not hard data, but it's pretty clear there's significant negative buzz.

With the newsfeed, I'm just talking about Facebook's general behavior of only showing you a small percentage of what people actually post, not the separate app.

As for the Zynga thing, like you say, "most people just disable them" - what do you think that says about people's preferences for Zynga? To be fair, those games may largely be a fad that has passed, but that doesn't change the fact that for a while they were massively popular and fully exploited by numerous companies.

As for Twitter and how it's useful: You got it in one. :P*

*unless you're a celebrity, a CEO, or a PR person
I must correct you: The NSDAP did reach 43% at the 1933 (March) election. You could argue, that at this point the NS-regime had already taken over the power. But the NSDAP did also reach 1932 (first election) more than 37% and was the biggest single party in the Reichstag. Also you must count in the other right-wing parties that supported Hitler. With this in mind, you could rightfully say that the right-wing movement (together with Hitler) was popular in big parts of the German population of this time.

Of course, Hitler only could seize power, because the other parties where in controversy and the whole country political unstable. But you also have to keep in mind, that huge parts of the population where no friends of Democracy and wanted to have the Kaiser back.

Also: As much I know, even in those time, it was not possible for the population to directly elect the chancellor. The chancellor was "appointed" by the president. The precondition was, that he had a sufficient support in the Reichstag. That was the case in 1933, because other parties allied with the NSDAP. That is rather similar, how today the government is formed. In Germany, seldom one party can rule the country alone, even today when we have very much less parties in the Bundestag.
Oô
It's quite normal for the rich in the UK - as opposed to the merely middle class - to hire a personal cook to live on or near the premises and work full-time.

These people used to be called 'house keepers'. Some of them offer other domestic services and may be called 'butlers.'

That aside - there are some useful reality checks in the piece.

Back around 2000 I had a conversation with someone who was trying to launch a pickup-your-goods service for online shoppers. He said that out of everyone he'd talked to, I was the only person who told him it was a losing idea with no commercial prospects. (It sank without trace not long after the first dotcom bust. After about a decade of unstoppable brand building, Amazon eventually reinvented something not unlike it.)

It's interesting that he had the same experience of alleged market research and comments from prospective customers that gave him totally worthless and misleading information.
I don't think there's a way for any of us in our present society to do anything that isn't in some way "tied up with consumption", it's the sea we swim in.

What about doing something old-school like getting together with friends and playing music (folk or traditional) or telling stories around a campfire?

Co-created, shared, cultural experience without "consumption".
It doesn't have to be at your house. It can be at a dedicated location which does scale.
The sad thing is, when societies, that helped to defend against the dark sides of humanity, erode so much. ;(
Stunning. We want to portray evil as exceptional, different from us in obvious perceivable ways, but it is not.
As a one person web design/development studio, it's charts like this and threads like this that keep me off git. I've played with it, used it on a project but the fact that I am always reading about the messes people get in with git...I really don't have time to deal with versioning messes.
You do realize that Hamas uses the infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc...) for their attacks? It's safer for the IDF to shoot a rocket then perform a land operation.
Misogynistic gamebros drove these two women out of gaming
Scalable Game Design
I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be a MIT-environment-specific issue.

E.g. Juniper support wasn't aware of it because they assumed no one would try to use stateless configuration in what would generally be a managed environment using dhcpv6.
This article exhibits the sort of passion that someone needs in order to become "really good" at something.

Maybe 90% or even 99% of designers would only be interested in taking a regulator, connecting input, output and ground, and perhaps some adding bypass caps, and stopping right there. Good enough to make it work in most situations.

But that final 1% are the really good engineers. They want to truly understand or grok what all the components of the circuit are doing. That's what lets them achieve so much more than the typical engineer.

From what I've seen (but I haven't really studied his designs in detail) Steve Wozniak was (is?) the epitome of a great design engineer. His designs were magical for their time. The article also mentions Bob Widlar, who was also truly one of the greats.
One problem with cooking lessons is that a lot of cooking requires practice for you to be any good. And it's practice in mundane drudgery like chopping things to a uniform size, quickly.

Meanwhile you are five times as slow as an experienced cook, and the food doesn't come out as good. That's really frustrating, and not something one or two lessons can fix. You just have to chop your hundred onions.
The claim made in this new book is that Eichmann was far more intelligent than he let on, and that he essentially fooled everyone by telling them what they wanted to hear. Evidence is provided in the form of his writings about the moral philosophy of Kant, and previously-mislabeled transcripts from postwar interviews conducted in Argentina by a fellow member of a sort of Nazi book club they were running. Basically all this evidence was out there, it was just misclassified or mislabeled and so no one had connected the dots.
10 hot Internet of things startups to watch
OK, but you could also just run "dpkg-reconfigure ca-certificates" or use Keychain Access to mark undesirable authorities "Do Not Trust".
OP here. This is an off an on weekend project. People can suggest the best place to stay in any city. I've posted it once before, but was hoping for a bit more of response this time around. Looking for any feedback, advice, and improvements.
I am reading thru this and it is a good, recommended read however I am getting slightly annoyed with academic attitude of the author. Like batman in the cartoon I want to slap him but not for "sloppy market research". But for using the term "market research" at all.

(This is essientially the first and maybe the second point reiterated.)

Suppose you were a cook with your own restaurant. How do you figure out what works and what doesn't?

Do you go and do market research, have questionaries, focus groups, do statistics, user-driven cooking or whatever?

Surely not. You create dishes, put the new ones in the menu as today's special. Then you figure out whether people like them or not.

How do you figure that out? Do you ask them? Of course you don't because you know that if you ask "did you enjoy your dinner?" People will just be polite and tell you "yes - it was excellent - thank you very much". No. You look at whether they finished their plates or send it back half-full. Whether you get any sales. Whether they come back for more.

Even my mother knows this. When she cooks cookies, she doesn't ask me "do you like them?" Because she knows I will just say "yes - they are the best cookies in the world, mum". She asks me if I want another. And if I stay the night, she looks at whether I get up at 3 am to roam the kitchen for more of them cookies.

This is basic human behaviour but somehow lost in the academics of business administration.

The second thing is that I get the feeling that the author simply haven't explored the huge "product space" between takeaway and ready-to-cook prepackaged ingredients with a recipe at all. How about - this is essientially takeway but you have to heat the curry in your microwave and then add the fresh coriander yourself - the upshot is that it will last a week in your fridge should you not eat it all tonight. Or maybe: It is protein shakes and vitamin pills for a week - no problem - it stays "fresh" for 5 years. Or: It is the latest Jamie Oliver book with ingredients to get you started on the first three dishes.
I happen to live in a country where Nazism is on the rise and everyone might have to eventually pick sides. I hope not, but Greece right now looks very much Germany in 1930 and if things do not change drastically in the next 5 years, I'm not sure how we're gonna void a Nazi regime.

The fact that this guy doesn't feel guilty, makes me sad. To me he is a racist, killer. There are situations in life, where you have to pick-sides. You can't play Switzerland when the whole world around you goes in ruins. At least to me, is not acceptable and says a lot about your character.
b.s.

Google's business model dictates that the search engine is built for ad publishers. Google might have put users in the first priority for 1 million times but what about the next 1 billion times? What about the edge cases? The reasonable conclusion is Google, as a commercial oragnization, will only be responsible to its clients. Google users, you are only a number in its stats chart shown on ad publishers' screens.
I'd really like it if they added D's uniform function call syntax to C++ (http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/uniform-function-call-syntax/2327...). Then this code could be:

auto r = numbers().where([](int x) { return x > 2; }).select([](int x) { return x * x; });

Without the need and potential ambiguity that arises from overloading the pipe operator, you'd just use simple free functions instead and it'd just work.
I am responding here just for context, it is not directed at you. The parent comment is evidently not popular. It has already been pointed out in comments that many did actually martyr themselves rather than follow the orders or be a cog in the system. However what really annoys me is the insincerity of the "holier than thou" position adopted by many here. Yes, some of those who are commenting here would, I think, martyr themselves in such situations, but I doubt if the majority would. I seriously doubt, if even 50% of those commenting here from that patronizing position would do any different, and I am being generous. Its not about just those who have left such comments, I wonder how many among our own peers would take a moral stand in light of the consequences, particularly when I see people grumble and moan self righteously about even petty inconveniences. Again, I know some would, I know one or two people among my peers of whom I have absolutely no doubt that they would sacrifice themselves, and it fills me with a sense of respect for these people that I cannot even begin to describe. I would like to think that even if I dont sacrifice myself I would find a way to squirm out, but that is perhaps wishful thinking, unless you are put in that situation you never know yourself well enough.

Many people were in the same position as Kiriakou, Snowden, Manning, many were fully aware of the wrongs that were going on, how many put up a resistance at a cost to themselves ?

Do I consider John Yoo to have committed worse acts than this guy, well, absolutely, assuming his account is truthful.

A nonignorable artifact is that we turned out to be on the winning side. Had the winners and the world order been different, Wolfowitz and their ilk would have been the new Eichmann's in the then popular narrative.

@tptacek Just to be clear I am not making a case for a moral equivalence, far from it. The only connection is that many people were in a position where they could have mitigated wanton civilian casualties and gross miscarriage of justice, if they chose to adopt certain personal inconveniences. However very few actually did. A sizeable portion of US were dead against the Iraq war, but among them many still continued to fund some of it with taxes, why ? because among other things, not paying taxes would cause considerable inconvenience.

And again this not by any means directed at you. I am not an US citizen but had I been one, I would have paid the taxes anyway and rationalized it away that taxes does good and very little of that is funding the war.
Ad hominem is an attack that discredit the argument by trying to discredit the person writing the message (ie. "You didn't success why should I listen to you"), mostly by attacking the credentials of the person.

An attack on BOTH the writer and the argument, as unnecessary critical or negative as it could be, is not an ad hominem attack, and by no mean make the criticism an invalid one. Especially if the criticism of the writer comes because of the writing (ie. "from what you've done, it seems like you're too inexperienced and naive etc...")

(I'm sorry that this is really off topic ...)
This is a very poorly written hit piece with an obvious bias. This is not HN quality writing.
Very nice, this was more then useful! Thank you for the shear!
Why is your tool different from your competitors? I need some compelling evidence before I sign up.
LOL. I think many people's expectation of what they "need" is actually skewed way high. If I was pulling in a consistent AU$5000 a month from my app business I would be quite content with that (as would my wife!).
Curiously, at least a few cases of killing your own officer are recorded when it's in your own immediate interest.

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

I suppose the soldiers asked to do bad things (like this man) rationalize it away.
Oops ! fat-fingered a downvote. Sorry, hope someone fixes that.
Looks like you can re-use the keys.