skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Alcohol:

• makes people vomit
• makes people fight and argue with each other
• is incredibly easy to take to excess
• physical addiction entirely possible
• damaging to liver + kidneys

Cannabis:

• makes people lazy
• makes people hungry
• makes people generally friendlier
• capable of curing cancer as well as many major diseases
• not physically addictive

So wait, what?
> Yeah well, it might help to always make the first two or three characters unique, then you can be certain it always works without having to check the list. Realism is kept that way.

Unfortunately these two are fundamentally at odds. In real life the call signs are based on carrier (or tail number if no call sign is assigned). In the current iteration, there are two airlines, United (all of the UAL flights) and British Airways (all of the BWA flights), plus the Cessna "airline" that mimics general aviation craft by prefixing the call sign with "N".
This reminds me of the Google APIs client libraries for Go. They're also automatically generated from JSON.

https://github.com/google/google-api-go-client
Ah, the "joy" of loading the assembler from the the cassette tape recorder from one tape, then switching the tape to load the code I work with, then changing it and then saving it on the tape before the run it since it will be lost if it crashes or just enters the loop. Then I've added the NMI hardware which allowed me to break the loop and keep the upper piece of the memory. And like some commenters also mention, that computer also didn't have the "real" keys.

But don't get me started on using the switches to input the single bits over the console on the even older computer.
You can get a very comfortable "nook" for an eight hour flight across the Atlantic by flying First where available. And frankly, for that sort of time window, recline-flat business is is perfectly fine. I can't imagine anyone other than a Zeppelin buff wanting to spend 2 days to make the same trip. There's a market. As with long distance train travel and (basically the one) ocean liner. But it's minimal.
I was really surprised by the article's premise and conclusion. I'm pretty sure the likes of Google and Facebook have extensive datasets that can be mined which provide useful insights. It seems to me that since the definition is so unclear, perhaps we should do away entirely with categorizations like this.

Rather than have homeless shelters for specific categories, why can't we just have homeless shelters for human beings, no questions asked? From a public policy and economic standpoint, $1 spent on a homeless shelter for men is equivalent to one for women. There is a fortune at the bottom of the pyramid [0], and I'm surprised there aren't more entrepreneurs tackling social issues such as these.

[0] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fortune_at_the_Bottom_of_...
I always assumed it's an algorithm, not a conscious human flipping a switch.
While this article is for the most part, technically sound, there are some minor inaccuracies centered around layer two.

Normally, I wouldn't bother nitpicking like this. I'm going to this time, however, because from a security standpoint, many knowledgeable people who otherwise have a good grasp of networking (at least, from layer 3 on up) seem to ignore, neglect, forget about, or simply lack understanding of layer two.

To illustrate:

Switches rely on ARP packets which are easily forged in order to learn which devices are on which ports.

A standard (non-routing) Ethernet switch without a configured IP address will actually have an empty ARP table. An Ethernet switch with dynamic learning enabled inspects the source address field of incoming frames -- another nitpick: at layer two they're "frames", not packets -- and uses its contents to build the table.

Note that the source MAC address in the Ethernet frame is not the same (field) as the sender hardware address within an ARP packet. While the two would ordinarily have the same value, it's possible for them to differ.

(Armed with this information, it's possible to do a "targeted" version of the attack described in this article, as opposed to an all-encompassing attack affecting every host on the same broadcast domain.)

Anyways, as I mentioned earlier, lots of people (especially here on HN) are well aware of attacks at layer 3 and up but layer 2 is often neglected and, while firewalls and proxies may be in place for protection, the network can still be vulnerable to ARP spoofing (as described in this article), VLAN hopping, DHCP starvation, STP & DTP attacks, CAM overflow, etc.

If you operate a network, don't forget about layer two! Hopefully you are using managed network switches, in which case, DHCP snooping (also mentioned in the article), dynamic ARP inspection, port security, and many others are your friends.
We must free ourselves of the state, by building a toy version, just over here.
I know that variable names in Python's AST can be any string, so for instance you could declare and use a variable named "+a-b$ $$?", even though that's not valid Python code. That's pretty minor, though, so I'm curious if there's anything more significant.
Mit Vier Schritten Konvertieren Sie MKV in MP4 Auf Mac OS X
> I'm not even sure why you are bringing up DRM. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Well, technically, choosing cassette tapes as a medium over CDs, because tapes are harder to copy than CDs would be deploying "Analog Rights Management", rather than "Digital Rights Management". What they have in common, is that both DRMed distribution channels, and "ARMed" (like VHS, cassette tape) are an inferior product to the alternatives (such as CDs, non-DRMed laser disks/DVD etc).

The sub-thread was started with a comment to the effect that labels were choosing tapes over CDs, because CDs were to easy to rip (and hence were pirated). I think the point is relevant.

We can of course disagree on whether or not an industry (small or large) that needs to cripple its products in order for people to be willing to pay for it, is a sound one (no pun intended) or not.
Wealth may have driven the rise of today’s religions
Does he know of anyone in the tightly-regulated airline industry who would be crazy enough to build a completely new airframe and engine around a currently-experimental precooler?
It depends on the goals of the doctor. If the doctor aspires to a massive volume of fixed-rate, "easy" procedures (look at cataract surgeons benefiting from the advances in that field while insurance and Medicare reimbursement rates remained constant [and high]). I'm not knocking those docs; they provided real and tangible benefits for millions of patients with cataracts and I don't begrudge them their money. It's just super amusing to me to walk down the multi-million dollar warbird parking area and have half the owners be eye doctors.

As for aspiring to have a reputation for efficacy in difficult cases and assuming that you'll be able to charge more due to market forces? I don't see that playing out in any Western medicine economy. IMO, you can't build a functional ecosystem around the very few patients who are self-paying and willing to pay large sums for better care.

Very wealthy individuals and pro sports teams are the only customers I can see for that. The overwhelming majority of people (far in excess of 99%) are going to have two hurdles to procure your expensive services. First, they have to find and select you. Second, they have to convince their insurance provider to pay your rate, instead of the "going rate". That seems uphill, probably steeply so.
I did not intend to set up a straw man. You are correct, however, that no one is arguing that we can't. Rather, they are arguing that we shouldn't. I don't agree with that position. Remember, early motor cars were nothing more than an expensive hobby, and one that was heavily criticized because of the noise and danger. Early aviation was also nothing more than an expensive hobby. Because there were people who wanted to push forward despite there being no obvious return on investment is why we have the developments we do in these and other fields. I and many others feel similarly about human space exploration. We feel that there is intrinsic value in it that is not readily captured in the ROI calculations. I grant that we are talking about a different order of magnitude in required resources, but I don't feel that qualitatively changes the argument.

I could also make some more technical arguments around the value of having a human on site to repair or refit instruments, to react to unexpected developments, and so on, but that is outside the scope of the argument I was trying to make.
It was a great achievement to send humans to the moon, but I don't really see the point in going again. Or in sending humans to Mars. It won't be a place where people can live. No matter what happens to Earth, there will still be areas on it (or in it) that are more habitable to life than anywhere else in the solar system (and beyond). We could spend more time exploring the inside of Earth (and maybe creating small colonies there) than on the moon or mars.
I know (at levels varying from 'friend' to 'acquaintance', so the field is more like 100-200 than your 25; but these are all people I have at least conversed with multiple times) two trans men and at least seven trans women (off the top of my head.) These are all people who are, at a minimum, currently taking prescribed hormones corresponding to their self-identified gender.

But I understand that there may be a self-selection effect where a lot of trans women end up in technical fields, so my sample may well be biased.
Actually, I read the excerpt from a talk once that argued it was extremely unlikely that he actually ingested the LSD. It has some pretty interesting arguments:

https://www.erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindst...
Really happy to see these projects for automatically generated code for based on service descriptions. Minimal code to maintain and near instant updates for service providers. I was thrilled to see Amazonka (https://github.com/brendanhay/amazonka) a little while back. Great to see this done in Go as well!
We cannot say that AI's will not be dangerous just because they will not have human-like behaviour.

I agree, and I'm not making a blanket statement like that. But I think that a lot of the recent hyperbole about AI seems to assume an AGI with "bad intention" or dangerous behavior rooted in some seemingly anthrocentric notion of goals, desires, etc. To the extent that people are saying any of those things, I think they're barking up the tree, since AI - no matter how intelligent - still isn't human.

Now, could an AGI still be dangerous, whether intentionally or by accident? Yes, and I'd guess the "by accident" bit is more likely. I don't think this is an issue that should be ignored, and I don't expect that it will be. But whipping up public hysteria over "unleashing the demon" and "AI could end the world" strikes me as overly reactionary. But that's just me.
The iAPX 432, I think, after some googling to refresh my memory. The "mainframe on a chip". It was definitely a bold attempt.
The Sony Hack and the Yellow Press
Do you have any thoughts on the future (or lack there of) of AMD?

I thought it was very interesting that they won both the Sony Playstation 4 and the XBOX One - in my eyes the first win for their long transition towards "real" on-die GPUs.

I'm thinking that they'll now have the whole game industry making graphic engines that work great on their stack (both major consoles, and on PCs). If they can leverage some of that towards tablet/mobile -- that could be interesting.

So far it seems that Nvidia is winning there, though.

(Obviously, while I have a bit of a crush on AMD as the underdog, and love their push for better open source drivers -- I don't really want to see a new monopoly emerge. But anyway, I'd be curious to hear what you think?)
Human bodies :

* require a constant supply of oxygen. Which is available effectively nowhere except deep inside gravity wells.

* require a constant supply of water. Which is available effectively nowhere. H may be everywhere, but O is nowhere convenient.

* require G-forces to be between 0.8 and 1.2 for long term survival. Can tolerate very brief exposure up to about 4G. This means the vast majority of planets are effectively uninhabitable just for that reason. And harshly limits the maneuvers possible to get there.

* require a sun-like source of radiative energy with a certain minimum intensity (one of the reasons people can't survive on Mars without additional UV exposure)

* require the presence, in small quantities, of half the elements with an atomic number up to 26, and several found further on. H, C, N, O, Na, Mg, Al, S, Cl, K, Ca, Fe, and I. Some of these are not very common, and they may be very hard to find. Not finding them first means it becomes impossible to have kids, increased occurrence of things like cancer, and a few years later it becomes lethal.

* require gravity. Which is massively inconvenient for operating ... well, anything really

* require radiation shielding against solar radiation for long term survival that requires about a hundred kilometers of atmosphere or several inches of metal (if you're to survive long term, for short excursions less isolation can be acceptable, also in Low Earth Orbit (like ISS) you're still partially shielded by the earth)

* require radiation shielding for charged particles that is provided by the earth's magnetic field, but requires metal barriers in outside of those fields

* require the sun's plasma barrier around the solar system to weaken interstellar background radiation to the point that the earth's atmosphere/reasonable thickness metal can actually stop it.

* require to be inside the galaxy, again to weaken certain types of radiation

* require a minimum distance to any supernova explosion of around 50 light years to survive (or yet more shielding)

* require to be in groups of at least 50 for long term survival (or we won't have enough gene variation and die off over time), even though short excursions can use a limited number of people. This is the low end of the estimates.

* require to be in groups of 2-3 people at least even for short term excursions or there will be severe psychological consequences

* require the presence of large masses of bacteria to fulfill certain bodily functions the human body can't actually do itself (best - but not only - example being digestion)

* require the presence of bacteria outside of the body to create compounds that we can't make ourselves. Some of these cannot be stored for any length of time, you need to take bacterial colonies or, better yet, plants + bacterial colonies with you and let them grow.

This isn't a complete list by any means. Human bodies will never go very far from Earth.
I would pay $1000 more per ticket to do Australia to Europe in 4 hours.

For businesses that cost would be a no-brainer: landing and being able to actually function, would be amazing.
I don't believe we have a solution to human-vs.-machine question, which is better to go to space. On human side, many times both opponents and proponents of space robotics pointer out that for big exploration programs humans become more economical - as you still can't reproduce human abilities in space with robotics while spending the same resources, if you have big enough goals.

Humans have other advantages too. Majority of people in modern NASA workforce say that they become interested in space when watching human space programs. So far no robotic achievements have psychological impact equal to humans in space. Next, there is eternal "explorational" argument - you don't really "get" space into your domain until you're actually maintain physical presence in it. Unless you at least fly on LEO, you aren't in space. Until you fly to the Moon, you don't "use" it. Etc.

Next, while robotics is advancing with leaps and bounds, human spaceflight doesn't stand still. In 1990-s Dan Goldin, NASA administrator, ordered an evaluation of some options of going back to the Moon. The cheapest was using existing rockets - less than 30 tonns on LEO per launch - and the program was for less than a billion dollars. Note that a bunch of technologies used today in manned spaceflight are vastly superior to those used during Project Apollo.

Getting to orbit becomes cheaper and safer - SpaceX is another evidence to that, but it's not at the end of technical possibilities. When you get spaceflight cheap enough, there is no stop for curious individuals to go to the Moon in person. Same for Mars - at least.

What technologies will be employed for traveling in space - that's another matter. With cheaper and cheaper energy it will progressively make sense to make more and more safe - even if heavier - human spacecrafts. The more infrastructure in space we have - be it LEO stations, fuel depots on orbit, Moon-based fuel production, Mars navigational network etc - the easier it will be to launch both robots and humans. It's hard for me to see why we won't want to go.
I can provide more quotes but i get the sense that nothing will convince you. The ability of citizens to maintain power over the government was a critical piece of how the US constitution was developed.

Hell, just read the opinions from DC v Heller.
What matters most is what you do for free -- John Gorka

What would you do if nobody paid you to do it?
Show HN: Rooms you can't afford
> Notice this is written by Lynn Conway - very accomplished chip designer/electrical engineer/systems engineer

And also an outrageously biased and partisan activist whose claims, when writing on anything but chip design, should be checked with a microscope and then promptly thrown out as cherry-picked or misleading in some way you weren't competent to figure out.
I was very surprised too and just found this:

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-first-thing-to-be-bough...

Apparently the anecdote is from this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Dormouse-Said-Counterculture-Pe...
It's a strange thing that Amazon doesn't have an officially written and supported golang SDK.

Especially since they have bet so heavily on Docker which is built with golang.

I wonder if Amazon don't support golang directly because it's the Google language.
Does anyone know to what extent are the botocore JSON service descriptions similar to Swagger service descriptions? Or are they entirely different?
Synthesizing legal "designer drugs" is safer for the chemist than synthesizing illegal drugs, because they are very unlikely to get arrested, have their lab equipment confiscated, and lose their career. Similarly, taking legal "designer drugs" may be safer for the user than taking illegal drugs, despite the extra risk of serious side effects, not only because there's less risk of getting arrested, having your children taken away, etc., but also because if something goes wrong, you have recourse — you can sue the pharmacy if the drug is contaminated, they can refer you to a legal collection agency if you don't pay them rather than to the Mafia, etc.

Of course, we could eliminate this ridiculous dilemma between the risk of novel side effects with "designer drugs" and the risks of illegality with the better-known recreational drugs, simply by making those drugs legal, although that will increase usage. That also has the additional benefit that it removes much of the stigma and danger from things like hobby chemistry. So far, it seems to be working well in Colorado and the Netherlands.
It also seems like the argument that the US stranded him in Russia always comes up in response as well. His passport was revoked while he was still in Hong Kong[1]. He traveled to Russia using an invalid travel document issued by the same Ecuadorian embassy that Julian Assange is living in[2]. Assange later said in an interview with Rolling Stone that he advised Snowden to go to Russia because it would be safer for him, and stated that the travel document was explicitly to assist him in leaving Hong Kong[3]. It was a little fishy that he was reported to have stayed at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong for several days prior to hopping on the flight as well[4].

Snowden didn't get stuck in Russia because the US stranded him there. The US tried to keep him in a country that had an extradition treaty and Snowden fled, ending up in Russia.

[1] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-source-nsa-leaker-snowdens...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/02/ecuador-rafael-...

[3] http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-told-snowden-to-sta...

[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/report-snowden-stayed-at...
Yeah, I think that trans women might be slightly more prevalent in Silicon Valley than they (we) really should be.
The Pale Blue Dot – Carl Sagan
That's certainly what the title implies, perhaps "Stack Overflow on Emacs" would have been a better title.
> In the US, "States" are sovereign states that gave up some limited amount of sovereignty to join the Union.

That's true of some of the states, such as the original 13 and Texas, but it's not true of most of them. Most states never had any form of sovereignty and were just arbitrarily created divisions of territory.
So what exactly does this do? It's rather unclear.
Already been done: http://www.marinol.com/
And its not uncommon in the trans community to tie "biological causes" with "more valid and real." Ultimately I bet gender dysphoria is indeed a biological issue, but it seems presumptuous to think the science is completely settled on it.
Yeah, in general I think the HN commentariat is not remotely representative of society as a whole. Especially when it comes to the intersection of tech and sexuality.
Show HN: Rooms You Can't Afford
Please someone explain something to me regarding the tech sector and housing. Why is it that the most location independent sector, tech workers, are huddling around certain urban areas? It makes absolutely no sense.

Shouldn't tech workers or even just simply technology savvy people be able to work anywhere that has fast internet? So why is that community not living in the countryside or in small spread out concentrations, instead of everyone having to pile into certain cities?
> Further, and more importantly, the natural world is a state of constant, terrible suffering. Everything that can suffer does.

That is false. I can think of countless examples in my own life where I have encountered wild animals in states that I would describe as happy, peaceful, tranquil and exuberant. Watch any nature documentary and you'll find the same.

Yes, there is suffering in the natural world, but suffering is a fact of existence, both human and animal. Many of us are free from most physical sources of suffering, and I'd wager that every person who reads this comment is well-fed, but we still suffer, mentally and emotionally, and I think it's childish, naive and dangerously utopian to think that we can make all of that go away.

Nature is harsh, but what is happening to the planet right now is the physical manifestation of every ugly and unfortunate characteristic of the human race: greed, recklessness, selfishness and short-sightedness. What we are losing right now is irreplaceable.
"[Almost any city with a real tech presence]'s Home Shortage Could Stifle Startups"

Sama's tweet from about a month ago really resonated with me: "it's so unbelievably frustrating how hard it is to get lots of new housing built in the bay area. this one thing would solve so many probs."

There are so many factors at play here, but it mostly boils down to politics.

As more entrepreneurs start tacking big problems with lots of red tape (i.e. banking, brokerage, medicine, insurance, etc.), I wish more people would look to housing and how to keep costs sane.

PS - email me if you're in the space or have ideas. Real estate entrepreneur here. Would love to hear ideas, give my opinion, or chat about possible solutions.
Hostages Taken at Sydney's Martin Place
>(Aside: The autogenerated spam comments there are also strangely interesting - they sound almost poetic.)

Given the right corpus and parameters, Markov chains can do a surprisingly scary job at producting content that seems profound and/or humorous.