skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's famous for several reasons, which you are surely aware of.

The most obvious is that the suicide of a well-known, brilliant, and promising young activist gets people's attention. It's natural for people to mourn, to some extent, and to wonder what he could have done with the rest of his life had he not ended it. It is a very sad thing.

Also, it brought to a lot of people's attention, including mine, some of the problems with both the CFAA specifically and with the way that federal prosecutors routinely abuse their discretion generally. Orin Kerr discusses both of these points in the second part of the piece you linked to [0]. I'll quote one passage:

On the third question, the issue of who was to blame if the prosecution was too severe, I think it’s important to realize that what happened in the Swartz case happens it lots and lots of federal criminal cases. Yes, the prosecutors tried to force a plea deal by scaring the defendant with arguments that he would be locked away for a long time if he was convicted at trial. Yes, the prosecutors filed a superseding indictment designed to scare Swartz evem more in to pleading guilty (it actually had no effect on the likely sentence, but it’s a powerful scare tactic). Yes, the prosecutors insisted on jail time and a felony conviction as part of a plea. But it is not particularly surprising for federal prosecutors to use those tactics. What’s unusual about the Swartz case is that it involved a highly charismatic defendant with very powerful friends in a position to object to these common practices. That’s not to excuse what happened, but rather to direct the energy that is angry about what happened. If you want to end these tactics, don’t just complain about the Swartz case. Don’t just complain when the defendant happens to be a brilliant guy who went to Stanford and hangs out with Larry Lessig. Instead, complain that this is business as usual in federal criminal cases around the country — mostly with defendants who no one has ever heard of and who get locked up for years without anyone else much caring.

I agree wholeheartedly. But for many of us, it was the Swartz case that brought this issue to our attention in a big way. I think it is natural for us to associate the issue with Swartz even if we agree with Kerr that the problem is hardly confined to this one instance.

As for the CFAA itself, Kerr argues, and I again agree, that the provision triggering felony liability is much too broad. Had the statute been reformed as Kerr suggests, Swartz might not have been looking at a felony charge. I agree that Swartz should have faced some punishment, even if just a misdemeanor conviction and probation. It's really the looming felony conviction that Swartz was unable to swallow, and I am too. It highlights how the federal criminal law has grown into a monster.

If you want another case that shows the same thing and should also be famous, the George Norris felony orchid smuggling case [1] would be a great choice.

[0] http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...

[1] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/07/the-unlikel...
Well, just in g+'s defense, FB can be public too, and G+ posts have the option of being set to private, or friends only.
Reminds me of my POSIX shell configuration management thingy: http://git.uggedal.com/conf
Yup. Incredibly frustrating since I have a business YouTube account and a personal Gmail account.
> Sure You can merge different services under a single "login" system

The thing is, Google already had that. I have a pre-Google+ account that I've never upgraded, and I've always been able to log into everything (aside from Google+ itself) just fine.
I'm personally not really sure there's a difference either, but I wanted to be conservative in what I argued. Even if Clojure is more efficient, the semantics are still identical.
for all its vaunted collective IQ google has an astonishing propensity to make extremely poor decisions (I'm referring to the original strategy of G+ not the corrective and more decision like this one)

I suppose there is no remedy for the ills that can befall any large organization or for the fallacies which drive such poor decision making

there is a cold solace in that for the rest of us
The Peter Thiel stuff that you reference is a good framework for identifying AI-based market opportunities over the next decade or two. But it doesn't have much to say about the existential risks posed by a future intelligence that we could not understand or control.

Have you read the Bostrom book?
No, foods that don't contain anything we need to survive are good for making us live longer is the only conclusion you can draw from this list.
Why the Kitchen Computing Dream of the 80s Never Caught On
For the hackers who broke in and gathered the numbers, large batches of fresh numbers make them the most money. They sell the dumps and the more numbers/the more recent, the more they make. So hitting a big target, gathering a huge collection, and then dumping it all at once is the most profitable. The people who buy the dumps have to worry about cards getting flagged, but not the people selling them, and the hackers dumping the cards don't really care what the people who buy the dumps have to deal with, they just care about getting the most cash they can.

Also since any release at all is highly likely to trigger an investigation, a small dump could be the last, so a big dump is the lowest risk.
> most likely much less

And with that, you lose a great deal of credibility. It goes against your claim to have a great deal of knowledge about this case.

> The deals don't hurt anybody and offer an easy way out

With this, you lose a great deal of reputation you might have as a moral person, since you seem to think that extortionate behavior is acceptable, particularly from those with overwhelming power, such as the USG prosecutors. True, you are in good company, as the US justice system largely agrees with you that they have the right to extort; but that doesn't justify your position so much as emphasize that theirs, and yours, is evil.
Nice tutorial, but I think the code section must have a copy paste view than this text view.
What? Are you just making stories up for some reason?

Based on http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable... for a raw potato, the 17 nutrients involved total 363% daily value per 284 calories, so normalizing by dividing by 2.84 and 17 gets a final score of 7.5. Potato is not a powerhouse. Oh and I neglected to factor in bioavailability which would make that number even smaller.

All those nutrients you mention 'count', but there's only a large supply of potassium, C, and B6. Three out of seventeen is a pretty bad score.
I would say that it's not in wide, generic usage, but rather in wide, implicitly-specific usage.

That is, "generic usage" refers to things like people using "a kleenex" to refer to any facial tissue or "a xerox" to refer to any mimeograph. However, when people say "JavaScript", they always mean the exact same JavaScript: the one Oracle owns.

(It could be argued that they mean ECMAscript—but that's a bit like saying that people who say "pass me a coke" when what they have available are cans of no-name generic cola (with trade-dress explicitly reminiscent of Coca-Cola's, no less) are actually thinking they want any generic cola, rather than that they want a Coca-Cola and that the can you have to offer is merely an adequate stand-in.
I don't think the comments about JS are out of date at all. I use NoScript and it breaks a shocking number of pages that are serving essentially static content that shouldn't require Javascript.
I am not advocating neutrality. I am advocating avoiding snares.

Policy change is fundamentally dependant on the organization of the people. It is that organization that makes it a political reality.

A Presidents ability is constrained by this dynamic and it is a good thing! It keeps power in check.

The people enable absolute justice not the President. They are the arbitrators of liberty.

Whether you agree with the institutions actions or not there is a greater balance to be struck.

* edit
I am concerned I did not address your point on vapid responses enough.

I just think it is a constant political liability and it would be better off if every senator, party, legislator ..etc could reply to the question. Then the people could get behind an idea to make it a political reality.

* edit 2
Also checked out Org For Action. I would guess that perhaps it is a different audience and it is not using the Presidential position? I do see your point. Perhaps it is simply different chains of command and therefore policy?
His "small print": 80% with us, 20% against us

His title + soundbytes: 100% against us

Only one of these will matter in the eyes of the public.
One way a new FOSS platform can become more usable is by attracting new contributors. If a new platform is talked about, it will attract new contributors. Ergo by being talked about, a new platform becomes more usable.
"Public Domain" has a very specific legal meaning -- of which does not apply to this situation.
What do you mean by demographics? If you mean age, sure, 10 year olds or 60 year olds show lower crimerates than 25 year olds. But you linked specifically to an article that discusses various ethnic migrants. So again, you seem to be saying that ethnicity matters in crime.

And to this point, we all agree, there is a correlation. But what most of us don't agree with, but it almost seems as if you're implying it, is that there's something inherent about the ethnicity that makes one prone to crime. As if there's a genetic predisposition to theft, violence, rape, murder.

So you've left at least me curious as to what you're really saying.
Fake Identity Generator
It's technically correct but not idiomatic.

Technically correct because by the definition that Wikipedia gives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain), non-enforcement of a trademark could lead to forfeit of the rights on that trademark, and that is one of the options mentioned in the definition.

But not idiomatic because the term is much more commonly used in copyright, rather than trademark, where it has a very specific legal meaning. A copyrighted work enters the public domain when the copyright expires (or in old cases, if the owner failed to renew the copyright).
A simple algorithm for trending topics
The book that won this year's Hugo, Nebula and Arthur C Clark award, Ancillary Justice, has a pretty not-glum view of AI. Also Kim Stanley Robinson's AI in 2312 is also not glum. The AI in both these books are pretty cool actually. I'd even go so far to say that the AI in Verner Vinge's Rainbows End is also pretty cool.
I build a similar library that does exactly this and have used it internally for a couple of years. The approach complements ansible quite nicely. For simple setups it is easier to read and modify. It is also less learning curve for the other developers.
>> "I have a business YouTube account and a personal Gmail account."

This was Google's biggest mistake. They either didn't realise or didn't care that a huge number of users have multiple Google accounts and very good reasons for it. G+ works well if you have one account for everything. If you have 2 or more than that you're screwed.
This reminds me pangrams... total fun! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangram
Npm 2.0.0
Alibaba Surges 38 Percent in Market Debut
I think this is a really good answer to the question of "What do you do when [Google | Facebook | Microsoft] enter this space?"

Just because they're big and have scale of users doesn't mean that a) they can create a product that people want to use, b) failing that are able to force them to use this product.

Though it was a defeat against Facebook, this is a good sign for smaller companies: the behemoths aren't invincible.
> The deals don't hurt anybody and offer an easy way out.

Plea bargaining is a system that leads the state to extort guilty pleas out of innocent people. If you think it doesn't hurt anybody, quite frankly you have no idea what you're talking about.

If you'd like to learn more, here's a well-known paper on the subject:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
I swap between a couple of different youtube "accounts" on my phone.

Is that what you want?
For most of a story it probably does not matter if an intelligence (artifical or not) is hostile or alien. Just the ending is different.

JARVIS is a sidekick AI. A story where the AI is the main character is either unrealistic (because the AI is too human) or lacks identification (because an AI is not human-like). The first is ok for Hollywood et al. The latter makes for bad stories and I know no examples.
Sorry but, are you at all familiar with Rushton? He's been blatantly called a racist by just about everyone and his work has been academically criticized left and right for a lack of unbiased scientific rigor. In your own words, to use his work as evidence is to me, an absurd display of intellectual dishonesty.
You can do range queries on sorted sets.
I replied to your top-level comment, but I'll just emphasize here, that Kerr himself does not agree with your assessment that "there really doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the law here".

He also doesn't agree with your opinion that there's nothing wrong with the way prosecutors use plea bargaining.

He does argue that Aaron knowingly broke the law and should have faced some consequences, but probably not felony charges.

Really, you should read Kerr more carefully before linking to him.
IIRC what was innovative about G+ was the circle thingy. Can't elaborate though because I never used any of the social networks intensively yet.
I'm not sure that this particular example can ever use some_string outside the if without hitting a type error, but I see what you mean.

That seems like a reasonable case to raise a type error. That defines the cases quite neatly: if it's temporary on both branches then it can work, and if it has different lifetimes then the values can't be merged and should be rejected. If the programmer really meant for this to work then they need to copy the global, and copies should be written explicitly.
I think it gets to the fact that if enough people need to use private property, it is started to be considered as "common" and private property rights get eroded to the point that it can not be considered private anymore. Like "too big to fail", "too big to be controlled by anybody but the government" is a popular thing. Now, the nominal ownership may be or not be private, but with enough regulation the difference would be only in profit sharing arrangements and not in actual control over the property.

So when the parent post says "doomed to fail", it's not because there's something inherently faulty in private property. It's because people can't tolerate the perceived absence of control over such big things.
This submission broke the HN guidelines, which say to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait.

We missed this one because of the "occasional evening off" bug.

(Submitted title was "Foods most strongly associated with reducing chronic disease risk".)
> I'm all too familiar with racists

You must be familiar with Rushton then, the author of the study he cited. I'd be hard pressed to name a more blatant racist than Rushton in academia... I really can't take that study seriously.
Yup, the Oculus Config Util, which owners of DK1 can download, includes a calibration function. You hold the Oculus DK1 in place and rotate it around in every which way until the software is happy.
I think it will need to get rather bad, before people will act. Before that any tools made would be used.
There are plenty of people that do use ssh for the bulk of their work. In that scenario, these sorts of optimizations are quite useful.
It would be nice if NN advocates focused on improving competition in the ISP space instead of using this as a reason to give the FCC control over yet another communication medium. Mesh networks and more ISP choice would "enforce" net neutrality via consumer signals instead of the "just make it happen" solution being proposed.
"I've actually read papers by psychologists who seem genuinely unaware that quite severe anxiety disorder can present without any significant depression."

That's incredible to me. Since this is mostly my condition.
It usually isn't presented as A.I., but otherness appears in movies (and books).

An example that jumps to mind is the sphere from Sphere. And it could be an intelligence, the viewer is left simply not knowing.
Wow. You claim to know a lot about the case, but you don't even realize that JSTOR holds scientific papers, not court documents.

Swartz had previously downloaded court documents from a service called PACER. An FBI investigation was opened, but closed with no charges being filed; he was not prosecuted for that.
Amongst many other trademarks. The one that irritates me is that we really really wanted to call the browser "Webrunner" and at the last moment of trademark clearance we heard that Taligent (the Apple/IBM thing) had already gotten it. I still have the jacket where we had the stitching done [1]. So we ended up calling it HotJava. Sigh.

[1] https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChuckMcManis/posts/hdvbvWCvbuY
On my iPhone I couldn't see anythjng really. That is one not mobile friendly side
Oculus announces new virtual reality headset prototype, Crescent Bay
Walter Miller was a firm Catholic, and thus was opposed to the idea of suicide or euthanasia.

* SPOILER *

Later, as the priest lay dying himself, again the moral argument was raised; but this time (with the reader identifying more closely with the protagonist) Miller wrote eloquently about the importance of 'natural' death.

I didn't necessarily agree with his point of view while I was reading it, but (like the best science fiction) it became something I thought deeply about for a long time afterwards.
Doesn't apply to petitions prior to the change. That page says "SIGNATURES NEEDED BY FEBRUARY 11, 2013 TO REACH GOAL OF 25,000"

(though it's moot anyways, given the usual responses to these surveys)
Ubuntu gets closer to debut in Meizu MX4 phone
> The deals don't hurt anybody and offer an easy way out.

What is wrong with some of you Americans?

How can you have as a part of justice system a deal where you can say "Ok. Let's pretend that I did this thing and you don't have to actually prove it and you won't try to convince anyone that I did this other more horrid thing you accuse me of. And who cares about the truth?"
Another vote for firefox OS here, I definitely think they're making a better effort than most in this space. The fact that firefox is targeting entry level devices in a serious way is another positive for me. I've been using a ZTE open as my primary device, and although the hardware is absolutely awful, I've managed to get by, mostly just because of a sentimental attachment to firefox.

I agree it's somewhat unlikely to be too successful, but I definitely think they're at least aiming in the right direction.
While I fully agree with your first statement, I don't think the rest follow.

Sergei and Larry (possibly mistakenly) felt like they wanted to rebrand Google as a "social network that manages all information you could ever want," as opposed to a "web search engine that also provides email, messaging, picture sharing, and a bunch of other random stuff." If you look at it that way, rather than forcing everyone into a social network, they were trying to pull everything else they offered underneath their G+ umbrella -- Imagine if FB started out as say, just messaging. Then offered "friending," basically to the extent of LinkedIn - see job info, school, etc. Then offered photo albums. And then one day said "oh all this goes into your facebook profile, we're a social network now." The end product would be the same as what we have today.

Would we would probably all be shoveling the shit onto them too? Probably. But that doesn't inherently make "facebook" a terrible product, or the idea of tying all those services into a single social network "insane," I don't think.

I think from a meeting-room/white-boarding level, what google was trying makes a LOT of sense. It makes Google's offerings more cohesive. That it doesn't happen to be the way YOU as a customer sees or wants to see Google was not considered (and that's their failure). They seemed to just be running on the vision of what the end product would look like, which would be a competitor for Facebook, but with VERY different, several unrivaled sub-offerings. Turns out they forgot that how they get there matters a lot too.

I also think they were on the pathway to innovating further, starting with Hangouts...no other social network where nearly all your friends were gave you multi-way voice+video chat, sharing the same YT video, etc. I think they could have done more, but G+ just sucked so much that it could probably never get any of its labs features off the ground.

I hate G+ as much as the next guy, and especially hate how Google tried to shoehorn such a bad product into every google user's lives. But that doesn't mean their vision was nonsensical. It was probably a bit of tunnel-vision though, and it unfortunately did not take their existing userbase's sensitivities into account. Oh well.
Oculus announces new VR headset prototype: Crescent Bay
Morality is the domain of legislation. Litigation deals with how these things fit into real practice.
While I agree that his talk is a little bit "disconnected", I think that it served its purpose when I am reading some "think big" discussion that is going on here. While his talk doesn't have one clear topic, it does deliver huge and interesting thoughts.
Trusting our data (which btw is not true, that's why we have SSL and other crypto) has nothing to do with it. If somebody would pay your ISP for revealing your data - that would be bribery. However, paying ISP to get favorable business deal, like better channel, is no bribery - no more than hiring a private limo for higher price than riding a bus is a bribery of public transportation system. The business of ISP is to provide connections, and paying them for better connection become bribery only if you consider yourself somehow entitled to be provided these connections and not just entering a contract and paying for service. With all respect to Berners-Lee, I don't see where that entitlement would come from.

>>> In other words, if you need to pay the gate-keeper for equal access to the subscribers then that's bribery because the common-carrier principle holds that no priority should be given to other people's packets over yours

That's a circular argument. You declare that ISP has no rights to provide different levels of service (as if that was some obvious law and not the very point being argued) and then conclude that if they do it, it's bribery. But of course, pre-assuming this makes the whole discussion pointless as you declared the victory for yourself before it begun. However, that declaration is baseless - ISP can have different levels of service and do that regularly - they offer different bandwidths, different channel types, etc., etc. and restricting them from doing so serves to purpose but to satisfy a perverted feeling of "fairness" - maybe I cannot buy the best service but at least nobody else can too!
Oculus Announces Latest Prototype, Crescent Bay
So Alibaba got screwed by its Wall Street helpers and the stock was mispriced? I'm not surprised, they're probably not that familiar with IPOs.
Moon was such a wonderful movie on so many levels.

Side note: there is a really detailed blog about the typography in Moon which was on HN a while back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7236411