skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've often thought about this when including eg. style sheets and JavaScript for Bootstrap (or any other highly popular .css and .js file) in HTML: every time I have to get the URL for the file in question. And I have to trust that this URL is reliable, and continues to be reliable.

It would be a lot easier if I could just specify the SHA-256 hash of the file in question, like so:

<link rel="stylesheet" href_sha256="f0fa7e4b0123ff9618fc51f1e54c0842072605412113a6daaf23758c67952d0c">

instead of the current solution:

<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://netdna.bootstrapcdn.com/bootswatch/3.0.0/flatly/bootstrap.min.css">

Specifying the hash allows the browser to retrieve this file from the quickest source, whether that be the global cache (maybe I visited some other web page that used the same file), or the browser knows a list of CDNs that have the file, and fetches from the fastest one.

It avoids having to specify the source of the file. As a developer, I really don't care where the file comes from -- I don't particularly want it to be sent from netdna.bootstrapcdn.com, but there's not sane standard to specify otherwise.
I think it already has been used to cover up past poor behavior.
That's not true at all in my experience.
Here's the doc page that lists the supported language features: http://pythonhosted.org/hope/lang.html

Compared to numba, it looks like hope adds: (1) support for recursion, (2) automatic simplification of expressions using SymPy and (3) support for arithmetic with array broadcasting (e.g., as used in their Point Spread Function benchmark).
Writing a quick and dirty Mailgun clone in Elixir
I'd bet NASA astronauts will go to Mars in a SpaceX rocket bought with NASA money.
I don't really have a huge problem with "right to be forgotten". I think, as a society, we might eventually discover the down side of having everything anyone (including oneself) posts about everyone permanently archived, linked to their real identities, and searchable forever. This will probably start to happen once those who grew up as kids posting to the internet start wanting respectable jobs or running for office. They'll realize the person they were as a kid is completely different from the person they are as a 50 year old, and not want to be judged by some troll post they wrote 35 years ago.
ok, then pick up one from the street for free, but talk to the folks at which house you are picking it up from. Tell them you are going to have for your kid, etc.

Then, if you are working 7 days a week, getting up at 5:30am, and all that stuff - why the heck you need a sofa for $1,500? Safe and invest this $1,500 in your child's education for Goodness sake! This is what poor Jews have been doing in the US since before-ww2 and look how well it worked for them!

And blunt jokes aside -- I would fill much more fulfilled putting this 1500 to my kids college fund/whatever then buying something I don't really need.

Why are you poor? Because you are stupid. Why are you stupid? Because you are poor.

No one will break the vicious circle for them. They have to do it.
The amount of computers just thrown away should be enough.
People are ignoring the elephant in the room: a lack of intelligence on the part of these people. It's one thing to have a CS degree and figure out the maths of owning vs renting, but quite another to expect a ninth grade dropout to do the same. The idea that all people are capable of making rational choices is a myth.

And yes, stupid people tend to be poor, and poor people tend to be stupid. I live in a country where the vast majority of people were kept uneducated (and I profit handsomely from the educational/intelligence differential between me and them). They would be eaten alive by big business if the government didn't make an effort to protect them-and the givernment knows it is into own interest to protect the poor in the interests of social stability, since there are so many of them.

The way I see it, is that governments in the US have no need to protect the poor from the consequences of their own stupid choices, even if it is ethically the right thing to do.
I live in Manhattan below a previous AirBNB host that was thrown out of our building by management. Her guests flooded my apartment twice, causing thousands of dollars of damage to my property. How do I go about getting reimbursed for these items?
Cydia download iPad Air 2 jailbreak and Cydia download
There are already other open source firmware implementations that can be put on inexpensive off the shelf hardware to do the same thing: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/08/a-port...
One possible takeaway here is that vigorous exercise for 2 to 3 hours, 5 or 6 days per week is a decent strategy.

There's a lot of petty optimization going on in the world of fitness and weight loss ... in reality you don't need a diet or a fitbit or a fashionable caveman lifestyle if you're just outside moving a lot.
>Google has every right to ignore all but the most obviously justified removal requests and only remove results after a court order.

If it wants to sink massive amounts of money, time, risk for other operations, and goodwill from powerful people in order to avoid doing something that won't affect its bottom line in the slightest way to just do.

>They are deliberately taking an axe to the search results in an attempt to make EU privacy protection look like censorship.

No, they're accepting censorship because there's no money in being freedom fighters.
Free speech remains uninfringed as long as Europeans can still reach US search results.
I don't disagree that one is better off buying used furniture (if and when it can be acquired in good condition) if new furniture is too expensive to buy.

However, if you are a businessperson offering to rent furniture, and if you believe that there are non-predatory reasons to rent out such furniture, then shouldn't you be targeting such rental purposes? If renting to own is the problem, then perhaps you shouldn't offer rent-to-own. Or, if a credit check is enough to rule out customers who are unlikely to pay, perhaps there should be a credit check. I am sure, in your case, you would have been able to pass such a check. I simply do not believe that a renter can benefit from usurious rentals and be absolved of moral burden because the renter 'should have known better'.
Did you read the article? "As part of that, there was a new reservation system on certain nights of the week for a $27 permit...left the park open for drop-in play 96 percent of the time".

So 96% of the time, the park is open to everyone and 4% of the time the park can be reserved for a price which is equal to 2.5 hours of work at the local minimum wage.

One could easily argue that the people showing an unreasonable entitlement are the ones who think they should get to use the park in the tiny sliver of time where someone else has paid the city to reserve it for an organized game.
I hope not. I already find it annoying enough when people decide to shut down a conversation by bringing up Godwin's Law.
Abstracting away Loneliness
“The Daily Show” destroys Sam Brownback’s failed conservative experiment
Yes, of course there is going to be more, people usually work for those companies and get discounts. Vandalism, aggression, nope.
World’s thinnest piezoelectricity generator
Your rationality could save the world, if only you added some pragmatism to it. Here's some things you have not considered:

* religion (the poor are more likely to be religious, most religions frown upon birth control)
* abusive relationships (I've seen women go from comfortable living in their on home to being on welfare because after X years, their partners are abusive)
* addictions
* medical bills
* onset of mental illness
It's finally here: an alternative to Wikipedia that has absolute truths
As already mentioned, you can run a relay. You can also only allow exits out of certain ports. So if you only wanted people to use your exit node for IRC, you can specify that in your exit rules.
> Are you claiming that taking risk is a form of work?

Yes, because you have to decide what risk to take.

> it'd take a lot to convince me that buying shares of an S&P500 ETF is a form of work that I should be taxed on

It would take a lot to convince me that you should pay a lower tax rate than I do on the money you make, just because the work you do is trading the stock market. (Essentially all my income is ordinary income.)

You may have a theory that says that your expected return from buying ETFs right now is higher than your expected return from buying T-bills. But if so, you had to do some work to develop that theory. In the absence of that work, the best predictor you have of the future value of the ETF is its present value.

> There is a shockingly large body of evidence that excess returns, for the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time, are the spoils of luck

Fine. I have even less problem with taxing luck than I do with taxing work.

> In cases where people really are working for returns, I completely agree with you. This is income and should be taxed--as income. But in cases where someone is investing their own savings, they really are just trading a certain present value for an uncertain future value.

Making money consistently in the market takes work. If you don't believe me, ask a trader.

But again, I don't care about the distinction between luck and work. I don't care what your effective hourly rate is. Taxation is based on the amount of income, not on the amount of work it took to obtain it.

Let me make that concrete. I have a side business, with a partner, that brings in a mid-five-figure annual amount that we split roughly equally. (It's a support contract for a product we used to work on, sold to one of the last people in the world using that product; the company we worked for that produced the product is defunct.) In recent years I have needed to spend about 10 hours a year on this business.

I wouldn't call it life-changing, but it's a nice little piece of change and I feel very lucky to have it. But the IRS doesn't tax me at a lower rate just because luck was involved or because my effective hourly rate is so astronomical.

There is a big difference, of course, between this business and trading: I have no money invested in it that I could lose. But this points up what the real question here is: how much do we want to subsidize risk-taking as opposed to other kinds of productive activity? And I don't see why, at the moment, we would want to subsidize it at all. Our economy is already over-financialized, and this shows no sign of changing soon. I'm sure there are some macroeconomic circumstances in which incentivizing risk-taking would make sense, but the present day is not one of them.
First off, let me say that I'm always happy to see people thinking about the robustness of scientific data. It's a thing we do not do well at all, at present, and should be much more urgent, given its importance to the enterprise. However, this work has a number of small problems and mostly seems like rehashing (no pun intended) well-trodden ground.

Like so many similar works, this fails to cite the magnet: URI scheme (see, for starters, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme) of which trusty URLs and the cited niURI scheme both seem to be small subsets. Introduced in 2002, these already defined a way of stably identifying an immutable object and providing one (or more!) suggestions for retrieval, which the present paper calls "authorities" but are likely better viewed as caches; one cache may be authoritative, but that's optional. The "modules" defined are probably better encoded as MIME types (and could be integrated into a magnet URI as "x.mime=.../..." attributes; the draft standard does not have a field for MIME type, sadly), rather than introducing yet another namespace for describing document types.

Speaking of caches, the paper's assertion that "any artifact that is available on the web for a sufficiently long time will remain available forever" is extremely worrying; the search engines of the Internet (other than Internet Archive, perhaps) are not altruistic entities out to serve your data forever. Their caches cannot and must not be depended upon by the scientific community; we must host our own data or pay for its archival, as much as that may be painful. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

The trick for deriving self-reference is analogous to how IP packets carry their own checksum; it's an old trick, dating back to at least RFC 791 (section 3.1, heading Header Checksum; earlier RFCs do not seem to ) but almost surely earlier, and probably merits a citation of something. The use of the same technique for Skolemization is cute, providing a nice workaround for RDF's poor handling of existentials.

The performance numbers are worrying; streaming a search-and-replace pass (to transform out self-references) followed by a SHA256 verification through 177GB of data should not take 29 hours, especially given that the data is already sorted. CheckSortedRdf and CheckLargeRdf both exhibit linear time in figure 3, suggesting that the data being verified is already sorted (which would be consistent with earlier assertions that the existing implementation only generates sorted files); a better comparison would be to show CheckLargeRdf on randomized inputs, as all we see now is the overhead of a pre-processing pass that is, essentially, just verifying the sortedness of input.
Not One Artist's Album Has Gone Platinum in 2014
OK, consider this: in the US, police departments routinely publish 'mugshots' of arrestees. If you surf the web without an ad blocker you've surely seen ads along the lines of 'who's been arrested in (your area of residence)? find out NOW' with photographs of people wearing hangdog expressions. These ads are from companies whose business model is charging people hundreds of dollars to have their mugshot removed from their database. Of course there are multiple firms engaged in this activity so that can turn into an ongoing expense, more so for people who happen to be particularly photogenic or distinctive-looking.

Now suppose you are arrested but never charged due to lack of evidence, or released because your arrest was a case of mistaken identity. Is it OK for mugshot republication firms to make lots of money out of you, or at the very least put you to the trouble of having your mugshot removed from police department websites by legal means? If you're poor and don't have the resources or the knowledge to address this situation immediately, is it OK for search engines to cache that information forever?

There's a reason for the legal concept of a 'statute of limitations'; for most criminal actions other than very serious offenses, we have agreed as a society that criminal liability must expire at some point that's more or less proportional to the sentence one might have incurred if caught and convicted. This benefits a few very astute criminals, which is a downside, but an acceptable price to pay for limiting the prosecutorial reach of the state. Why then should we give private actors free rein to commercially exploit the history of people's interactions with law enforcement, to those people's detriment?
2. Objective-C uses the `if ok` pattern a lot because you can send messages to nil. Not that it's a great pattern, but it is quite common there.
I think that many are dumb and ignorant. A ninth grade dropout usually won't make the same choices as a college grad.

The question is, should they be protected from the consequences of their undeniable dumbness and ignorance? I would answer yes.
I would be nice to see businesses focus on trying to help people to a solution rather than feeding their addiction. This business helping them buy material things is just as bad as the corner street drug dealer. They are just dealing legal items instead of illegal ones.

If a business model were to come along that would help teach them how to attain what they want through financially responsible means instead of loan sharking, I believe it would be incredible for the impoverished society.

I have been in this sort of situation and I know the mindset. You can not even understand how to set goals, to figure out how to better your future! You have no idea what to do, and these business prey on that mindset.

However, if you had a business that taught how to save for items you need and want, how to set goals and put away money, it would greatly change these peoples lives!
Rob Pike mentioned variable declaration when asked at GopherCon what he wished he hadn't done in Go

http://youtu.be/u-kkf76TDHE?t=16m10s
Science has known about the different response to cold pasta for many years.

The programme got ten people to try an experiment with reheated pasta. You're right that it's a tiny sample size (and all the other flaws - no randomisation, no blinding, self testing, etc etc) but it's unusual to have such a strong result across every participant and so it should prompt someone to do some proper science on it.

Sadly, tv has a lot of this kind of "we tested this thing on 20 unblinded non randomised poorly controlled volunteers - and now we're saying THIS IS TRUTH".
The problem in this context is that this right is not being used to allow youthful indiscretions to fade from memory, but to suppress speech that may be in the public interest to protect.
Ask HN: What handset do you use and why?
>Google Nexus 5
>ADW Launcher
>kitkat 4.4.4
>TMobile
>350USD New/Unlocked

PROS: cheap, long battery life, great hand feel, first in queue for updates

CONS: n/a
It could be, but there are a frightening number of people out there who earn big incomes but still live beyond their means and aren't able to do the math (or make the changes) needed to fix the problem.
So, uh...how many endings are there?
Turned on cmd-L to see where it's at and I've got several pypy versions and MacTex in there, hundreds of gigs of files. Based on this new information which I so desperately wish apple made me aware of before running, I expect my install to take at least overnight. thanks apple for your consistently declining level of software quality!
It's ironic that the outrage came from Reddit because that site was built on lying to people (in the beginning)

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-reddit-got-huge-tons-of...

Now that they have solved the chicken-and-the-egg problem, they're legit.

Point being, lot's of startups over-promise (and exaggerate) in the beginning. It takes time fix bugs and find things. If you waited for a perfect product and were 110% honest you would likely not get any traction.

That's not to say that this guy shouldn't be penalized for lying about where he sourced his products though!
Web design FAIL:

Sorry to interrupt, but this story's code has got itself in a mess.

macros.remember.init@http://correlatedcontents.com/misc/UWWFN/UWWFN.html:73:1507
main@http://correlatedcontents.com/misc/UWWFN/UWWFN.html:93:1733
Interface.init@http://correlatedcontents.com/misc/UWWFN/UWWFN.html:100:2464
Most people don't have the time to move.

If you want to change your body composition, you can do it entirely with the time you already use - eating - without having to do anything else.

I find fixing people's diet habits -- then pushing them into fitness once they have clean eating down pat as a habit, is much better than "just run it off"
I agree with you about ADHD, but we were warned many times in school about the dangers of drugs and teenage pregnancy -- remember those DARE officers? I took those warnings seriously. I feel precisely zero sympathy for people who were warned many times, responded by pointing and laughing at the person warning them, and then got burned.

But even if you do dig yourself into that hole, why would you then go out and buy a $1500 couch combo? I grew up fairly poor (though admittedly not as poor as the scenario you describe), and buying something that expensive would have been considered criminally reckless by my parents. By shopping at going-out-of-business sales and whatnot, you can snag decent new furniture for a tiny fraction of that. By never (and I mean literally never) eating out, out food budget was maybe $100 per month per person. Most people would be shocked at how cheaply you can live, without compromising on the essentials, if you're smart about it.
We live in a legal society that allows anyone to chop off their own hand. I see it as both good and bad in a lot of ways.
Our DeliRoll is used for analytics. It doesn't support random updates, it is append-only.

We use bitmap indexes in a number of places internally.
Agitate browser implementers to add support for magnet: URIs and you can do exactly that without needing to add new attributes to HTML. :)

There's a bug for firefox here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=528148
What's special about the numbers 3 and 30?
This.

Some feel entitled to have something ("I want it, I deserve it, I'm getting it, I don't care about consequences" - yes, I often hear that one). Some think they can afford it but can't ("oh, it's just $30/mo, and I've got $100/mo to spare" - and they do this 6 times). Some fall for fast-talk marketing ("look at this great-looking new $5000 sofa! for just $50/mo you can have it right now!" - no timeframe specified, same thing is $1500 down the street). Some just don't understand finances ("I can't be broke, my credit card still works"). Some are proving something ("I bought it just to convince myself I'm rich enough to" - yup, hear that one too). Some just trust it will work out ("I spend $150/day, my spouse takes care of it" - while he gets second & third job, leveraging finances to the breaking point, as she ignores his pleas to stop). All of it adds up to: you're poor because you're spending $4150 for a $1500 sofa you could have gotten off Craigslist for $100 and which you didn't need anyway. Ignorant, willful or malicious, outgo > income => poverty.

I keep thinking back to a moment of comprehension: I was repairing a poor family's sofa (gratis, because I care even though I'd only met them that day), wondering why it was damaged the way it was, when the tweenagers asked me for a sheet of plastic to cover the window they had just torn the screen out of (and presumably had prior broken the glass) - hit me that they were in the state they were in because they had as a way of life wantonly destroyed what they had.

Yes, some are poor because life dealt them a bad hand; don't conflate them with those who CHOOSE to be poor. And to the currently lead comment: I am empathetic, and continue to assist the poor - but empathy wears thin when people make stupid choices on a regular basis and blame those who merely fulfill their demands & desires.
I think we're conflating two different things here: there's a desire amongst the very poor to spend money on nonessential sources of digital entertainment which isn't necessarily that irrational. You'll find that holds in places where people earn far less than the US minimum wage and would never in their wildest dreams expect to own a sofa, a TV more than 17" across or even a trailer with actual glass in the windows; they're still very proud of their almost-smartphone and spend a lot of time glued to their CRT TV screen.

There are also people with relatively limited education and intelligence and relatively high stress levels binging on furniture every time they walk into the store to make payments on the last item because they're extremely susceptible to the marketing messages that "normal" American families replace their sofas on a regular basis, and deferred payments are easier to keep up with.
> since I presume that most MBP owners, like myself, never experience crashes.

Stop presuming, get facts. OSX Mavericks is known for its crashing problems.

Example: http://venturebeat.com/2013/10/25/apples-new-os-x-mavericks-...
Is there any info on why or what happened?