skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm embarrassed to say that some of my fellow Catholics don't entirely get it. After the attack the Catholic League had a truly stupid editorial of "provocation isn't free speech" flavor.

Religious people will always have a struggle between their notions of the sacred and others' freedom to ignore those notions. Those using their minds will see the necessity of freedom of conscience -- there is no faith without choice -- and accept its implications for speech. But the temptations and ignorances that move people to dictate to others are, I think, common to all religions. Yes, the mainstreams of Christianity and Judaism have gone much further in thinking this through, but we'll always have to guard against this instinct.
Dude, if the same thing happened in an enlightened society, they would be free people right now.
This guy has an amazingly unhelpful point of view. It's literally freedom of speech to cause offence for the purpose of it. He's just exposed MAB's viewpoint as being opposed to freedom of expression, which is a shockingly stupid thing to do here.
> Can you imagine the Linux kernel not being written in C?

No, only because the Linux kernel started as an UNIX clone and C is the UNIX's systems programming language.

Other OS were written in another systems programming languages. Before and after C got invented.

C only became widespread because a few successful startups in the 80's adopted UNIX for their workstation OS.
Everyone has to walk on eggshells around Islam, or risk being labeled racist or "Islamaphobic".
Yesterday the Guardian published the best opinion I've read so far about satire, Charlie Hebdo, the terrorist attacks and our reaction to them. And it's a short comic strip by the cartoonist Joe Sacco: http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/...
Thank you for the excellent example of why hate speech laws are such a terrible idea.
A very good point. I would argue that these cultures are simply expressing these religious instincts in ways that don't look like abrahamic religions, in the same way that football or rock music don't look like abrahamic religions either.

Also, once you blur out the technical theological details, is Confucius not effectively treated as a prophet? (This is a genuine question.)
And even if they were crafted to offend it is our choice to be or not to be offended.

A sane, mature person would just shrug and ignore the newspaper in the future.
I'm nervous about the response that these attacks will conjure from the far right. There have already been a good deal of attempts on the lives of innocent Muslims [1] since the attack on Charlie Hebdo, and I find it very concerning that I have heard none of this from the national/international news media. Would these not as well be considered acts of terrorism? Why not report on them? Doing so would seem to unfairly advance the anti-Islam sentiment in France by effectively silencing the acts of terrorism from non-Muslims.

[1] http://mic.com/articles/108206/how-bad-is-france-s-anti-musl...
Can't you implement/configure something using IAM?
Show HN: Tree.js 1.0.3, a JavaScript library to build and manipulate hookable trees
I thought this would be a color-coded map of the U.S., and wonder if the creator has considered adding that...
What IP rights are you talking about?
NYPD Slowdown Turns into “Broken Windows” Crackdown
> I find such warnings an insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of people's personal responsibility

How so? If an article says "trigger warning: (rape/Mohammed/spiders/flashing lights)", then people who don't want to be exposed to those things (e.g. due to PTSD, religion, phobias, epilepsy - or simply because it upsets them and they don't particularly want to be upset right now) can choose not to read it.

How does it erode someone's personal responsibility to give them the information they need to make that choice?

> where is my warning?

If there's a largish number of people for whom "trigger warning: trigger warnings" would actually make life less stressful, then I'd endorse people including that warning.

I don't think that population is very large. For that matter, I don't think it includes you.
No, there was no time limit
Quarternions are much easier then the typical vector arithmetic, that is used by OpenGL ES.

Linden Scripting Language even provides quarternions conversion with llEuler2Rot, llRot2Euler and llAxisAngle2Rot. See: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Quaternion for an introduction.

So quaternions are useful for 3d games, and games are a hot topic for Lua. But its not required, that complex numbers or quarternions are part of base language. See: http://lua-users.org/wiki/ComplexNumbers - thats easy to implement with Lua prototyping.
And how facts could be offensive or hurtful?
Which may account for the wild variance in reported battery life from different people with the same model of phone.
I also run a local DNS blacklist that benefits everyone on my network, but I rarely update it since I started using the RequestPolicy Firefox extension. It supports the point of view of "Don't fetch resources from third party domains unless I need them." If a page is broken, I can temporarily or permanently add the missing resource for that domain or globally with a simple click. Denial by default is a much better strategy as it provides some real protection against serious threats like XSS, in addition to thwarting tracking and ads.
I totally agree that the free market should set salaries for talented people, but consider the case when a startup is winding down and looking for a soft landing, if the acquirer picks up the top employees and ruins the last bit of hope the company has then the non "rockstar" employees would all be out of jobs and have nothing but a failed company on their resume to show for it.
Also, and I may be biased but it feels like bullying on the part of a bigger company with more capital but without the ability to find equivalent talent without coming in the back door of a smaller company.
Very cool project! Would it be possible to upgrade the screen to a little larger?
Recon 2015 Call for Papers
I haven't read this book, but from the Prologue it sounds somewhat like the idea of metasystem transition from the book "The Phenomenon of Science" by V. Turchin.

edit: I'm really confused about the downvote, what is wrong with pointing out a work in a similar vein?
I find "stupid extremes" in the realm of culture much easier to tolerate than those trying to control our behavior through violence. What you label "deliberate dick", most freedom loving people would label defiance.
You can probably assume they are in contact with the leading experts in the field. From the letter:

The initial version of this document was drafted by
Stuart Russell, Daniel Dewey & Max Tegmark, with major
input from Janos Kramar & Richard Mallah, and reflects
valuable feedback from Anthony Aguirre, Erik
Brynjolfsson, Ryan Calo, Tom Dietterich, Dileep George,
Bill Hibbard, Demis Hassabis, Eric Horvitz, Leslie Pack
Kaelbling, James Manyika, Luke Muehlhauser, Michael
Osborne, David Parkes, Heather Roff Perkins, Francesca
Rossi, Bart Selman, Murray Shanahan, and many others.
> Every other faith (and other large group of people) seems to have accepted it however.

This is obviously false. In England the film "Life of Brian" faced multiple bans from local councils on being shown at cinemas. Glasgow had a 30 year ban that ended in 2009. The comedian Stewart Lee faced legal action and a vicious campaign after his opera "Jerry Springer: the musical"; Jewish groups (rightly) decry Holocaust denying cartoons or cartoons comparing treatment of Palestinians to anything that happened in Nazi Germany; Sikhs in Birmingham (UK) violently protested a play, causing it to be stopped.

Life of Brian: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west...

Stewart Lee: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N9EUe8jNr6o

Sikh protest stops play: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1
Editors all over the western world exercise more caution when it comes to satire about islam than about christianity and in my opinion it borders a form of racism of low expectations.

Then again, who wants to be the next Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Jyllands-Posten, or Charlie Hebdo. It's not like they stand to gain much from running the risk.
What are the costs of trigger warnings, compared to the benefits? It seems like a blatantly worthwhile tradeoff to me.
A handful of HN users with >= 500 karma didn't like either:

- The fact that I don't embrace the concept of trigger warnings.

- The fact that I responded in agreement to another comment.

- The fact that I suggested the warning could have been placed in response to a fear of retaliation.

- Me. Just, in general.

- All of the above.

But since none of the downvoters had enough gumption to actually say what they didn't like about my comment, we'll never know. :)

My pet theory for what motivates these squads of downvoters is a mix of laziness and cowardice.
> why can't we respect each other's religion

If your religion falls apart because of a silly cartoon written by "some guy"...

> faggots

Not the word you meant.
I just want to point out that Gail Goodman talk is amazing.
How about a tax on AI that goes towards unemployment benefits of some kind?
I'm not saying western Christianity in general is violent! Certainly Breivik is a lone extremist with absolutely no support by any mainstream church. But it doesn't change the fact that he was a christian and what he considered christian values (in his own eccentric interpretation) is part of what he believed he fought for. That makes him a christian terrorist, unless you apply some kind of "no true scotscman" filter, which could just as well be used to argue that no muslim terrorists are actually muslim terrorists.

Another example would be the IRA.
I understand what you're saying and you make good points but I still do not think removing a loop as a language feature is necessarily an interesting goal. Generally speaking this discussion tends to revolve around reducing verbosity or doing more with less (so, generalizing multiple language features into a single one). I'm just not sure if that's the most interesting discussion to have. The goal and primary focus should be clean, readable, maintainable code. If I buy a more maintainable and more easy to share codebase with a few extra lines of code or a more verbose expression of a loop that's a trade I'd always make (note; I'm not claiming that's necessarily a trade you need to make for every case in every language).
Just plain nightmare
>if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them

You were just asking an earnest question. What's actually stupid is the downvote feature itself. Upvotes can help promote good content and flags can call attention to inappropriate or problematic content. Likewise, comments can be used to express disagreement.

So, what's the purpose of downvotes? Are we in preschool?
>Surely those faggots need to be condemned/punished/killed/whatever

This is exactly what is wrong with people that hold your point of view. You privledge religion as something sacred and then go on to be homophobic and encourage the use of violence as a form of punishment.

This is a common theme from people the defend religion and it's pedestal.

If you want to claim that views are views you need to put everything on the same playing field, this includes opening religions up to the same discourse we levy at other things.
I find it interesting that European stadiums feel the need to separate home vs. away fans.
I agree. People need to understand that when almost every terrorist attack and almost every ongoing war, slaughter, massacre, etc., has "radical Islam" on one side of it, it's difficult to see that those elements represent only a tiny fraction of Muslims.

Maybe truly radical elements are in fact the tiniest sliver, but I'd appreciate some leeway for those struggling to understand how that sliver is so intimately involved in just about every major violence and armed conflict across the world.
Charlie Hebdo and the hypocrisy of pencils
According to Paul Graham, a polite but short refusal: http://paulgraham.com/corpdev.html . Well, unless you know you're ready to sell.
...Piping wget into bash? Really?

NO.

(I mean, at least it's HTTPS, but still.)
I found it quite moving that the theme of the cover was forgiveness. Fighting extremist hate with more hate has a best case of only shifting which people suffer because it, and a worse case that is truly horrible to contemplate.

I know saying you forgive your attackers will almost certainly not make the world a better place. But there were so many reactions that could have added to the fire. It's very hopeful to see people struggling to break the cycle even in the face of such loss.
> Like we all believe that racism is bad, and racist comments/opinions should be discouraged, then why can't we respect each other's religion?

Racism is bad, because you can't choose your race. You can choose your religion (or, in general, what you believe in). I think adults who believe in the existence of unicorns are insane. If you don't find that wrong/offensive, I don't see why the same reasoning couldn't be applied to people who believe in the existence of a god.
Try linkedin.
Or maybe it is. What makes you uncritically accept those restrictions as not violating free speech? Just because the countries that impose them happen to claim they support free speech?
It's not the 80s anymore, there area many cases where there are much better alternatives to C.

But it's still a language you need for certain things, like responsiveness or real time applications. Like linus torvalds said it, C is like a more comprehensive assembly generator than anything else.

Having such a language allows you to change every little boring details to do exactly what you want. It has its use, and it's surely not intended to be mainstream as of today. But there are many cases where C comes back as a constant common denominator.

It's sure that it's kinda shitty that there's nothing really better than a language designed in the 70s, but I guess you could either blame language designers for not making anything better. There also are business/political issues and preferences for certain things that comes into play.

All in all, C just seems to be pretty good when you want to have code that works well with systems. Maybe there's just inertia as to where computer development is headed, which might be heavy related to C.

All I wish, is someday to be able to learn some more "virtuous" language like haskell, scheme, or smalltalk.
I agree with you partially. But Apple has taken its own interests into consideration. Apple is not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts - They take a fat cut out of each sale.

Have you seen the Debian repositories or the Ubuntu Software center. They have a great selection of software, are easy to use, while at the same time not taking away your freedom or resorting to Orwellian tyranny.
Fair enough, but I would say the former still holds.

You have no right not to be offended, it just doesn't exist.
Perhaps it's nostalgia for the C64 generation?
First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam.

But, if I were to take the liberty to express my own opinion, I would say honestly, I think both parties were at wrong here. First that their have been many instances in the life of our prophet, when he faced not just harsh but inhuman treatment, specially in his hometown of Mecca. Yet he never lifted a finger or even wished for those people to get hurt (there is specific mention of this in Islam). It is against the moral of our religion to engage in such "eye for an eye" notions. Yet people (like the 4 suspects) who are not aware of their own religion and the finer lines tend to do these things when agitated or pushed in a corner.

On the other hand, Religion is a personal affair. People are serious about it, be it any religion. People live and die by the religion, it is the very guide of majority of the people in this world. And if someone portrays something so closely associated to people, it is a kin to playing with their feelings. And that is where things start to get ugly, and such mishaps happen.

Satire is accepted in Islam, as evident from the semi-fictional writings about Mullah Nasruddin.

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

But the level of Satire in question here, was perhaps too much. Besides the additional fact, that impersonation/impersonification of Prophet Muhammad is highly condemned in Islam. Even if we are to write a play on factual things about him, it is prohibited to have someone portray him (even for a good/just reason). To say that in other words, to Muslims, a graphical satire is acceptable on anyone except the prophets, which includes Moses, Jesus, Abraham, etc. Yet, if someone does want to amuse himself or exercise his liberty knowing that it is something that hurts us, we simply have to ignore him. Things should not go further than that.

People in the west have indeed respected this, as seen in the movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074896/

Let us understand each others liberties as well as sensitivities, so that by standing firm together, we will all make a better society, both in France and the World.
Are you saying that those Muslims who are driven into these violent deeds by literally interpreting their holy writings are in fact not Muslims? Logically they'd be the biggest Muslims of all.

If you identify as a Muslim you identify as a supporter of those same oppressive texts that these Terrorists support.

It's hard to respect a religion that to all outsiders seems so completely insane.
True, which is why I went to to explain that I don't think all extremism would go away - just religious extremism.

I just think it's harder to incite organised extreme violence without some highly charged agenda and removing religion goes a long way to making our world a better place.
It seems reasonable to assume that Apple, being a competent design house, did some research and listed "x hours of battery life for function y" on their market requirements docs. I guess I don't understand how meeting their design goals is a profound observation.

As far as battery life goes, the one feature I'm jealous of on Samsung phones is the extended battery life mode. Do they still do that? Anyone know if it's on other Android phones? I'm happy to compromise with a sleeker phone, a la Apple, if I can get some extra battery life while traveling.
Why I Use Bash
It's an empty page with a slogan, a signup field and an empty blog. There isn't even enough text to give feedback on. It doesn't give me confidence to submit my email address.
"- that is why" would have been better than ", that is why".
The story of the Mormons is a lot easier to make fun of though, and they are drop in the ocean compared to Islam (the second biggest religion in the world). Even so would you put that play on in Salt Lake City? I doubt there would be massacres but I expect there would be some form of defacement or attempts at suppression by fundamentalists.

And it's not just Islamic religion that would cause this, exactly what you described happened when North Korea threatened "The Interview".
Trey Parker and Matt Stone have actually said basically what you just said.

In episode "201" (S14E06) all the celebrities South Park has parodied over the years collectively sued South Park town for making fun of them. The town would be ruined by the lawsuit, and beg for the celebs to drop the lawsuit. They agree to drop the lawsuit for just one thing - if the city could give them Muhammed.

The celebs had developed a machine that would extract the magic goo that makes it impossible to mock Muhammed from him. Eventually they get Muhammed and extract the magic goo. Tom Cruise eats it, but is shocked to discover that people can still make fun of him.

Comedy Central, ironically, totally beeped out the speech that followed (but thankfully it leaked Jan last year):

Kyle:
That's because there is no goo, Mr. Cruise. You see, I learned something today. Throughout this whole ordeal, we've all wanted to show things that we weren't allowed to show, but it wasn't because of some magic goo. It was because of the magical power of threatening people with violence. That's obviously the only true power. If there's anything we've all learned, it's that terrorizing people works.

Jesus:
That's right. Don't you see, gingers, if you don't want to be made fun of anymore, all you need are guns and bombs to get people to stop.

Santa:
That's right, friends. All you need to do is instill fear and be willing to hurt people and you can get whatever you want. The only true power is violence.

South Park was right as always.

All their Muhammad episodes should be watched, in this order:

1. S05E04 (Super Best Friends). It's the only uncensored episode with Muhammad, and ironically he's a pretty cool guy. Only on torrents, Comedy Central has tried to erase it from history.

2. S10E03 (Cartoon Wars Part I)

3. S10E04 (Cartoon Wars Part II)

4. S14E05 (200)

5. S14E06 (201). Comedy Central actually bleeped all mentions of the name Muhammad in this episode plus the speech above. Watch the censored version first before you torrent the real version - the censorship is downright tragicomical.
> real satire

"Real" satire of Islamic culture has been performed for decades. For the most part, you don't have to include the image of Mohammed for every statement you want to make of Islam.

However, I do agree that you should be allowed to do so without fear of violent reprisal. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in at the moment. It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue.
Not directly related to Charlie Hebdo, but related to the Guardian and their "offending" people - they've always been at the top of the list in the UK for being willing to use swear words rather than filtering them out, considering their audience mature enough to see "fuck" without being scared.

There was a good piece in the Guardian about their own use of swear words within the last week which I read on my mobile and can't find (I'm pretty sure it was a column in some section, Culture or G2 or something - it wasn't an official statement), but they had a great example of how every other newspaper reported on the John Terry racism case (football/soccer in the UK) by quoting him as saying "F@@@@@g black c@@t" or equivalent, ironically leaving unfiltered the one word that actually offended the player he said it to.

Like I said, I can't find the piece from the last week, but here's a 2010 article showing how much more willing the Guardian is to risk offense when it comes to swear words: http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2010/apr...

Like I said, a bit off-topic but I think interesting in the discussion of the Guardian's warning of offending people.
Why does the bar need raised? It's not a competition to see who can piss off religious people the most. The point of the cartoons is to convey a message. Just take a look at the new Charlie Hebdo cover for example. They could have acted in revenge and really, really mocked Islam - and it sounds like that's what you would have done. Instead they created something quite beautiful while still exercising their right to free speech and expression even as radicals tried to stomp them out. It's not a competition to be most offensive. It's trying to convey your message in the best way possible without fear of reprisal compromising that.
> You can choose your religion

I don't know... can you? It's not like picking your favourite bread in the super market, from a religious persons POV they may of:

- Been brought up in the environment

- External pressures from relatives/society

- In some cases institutionalised to their religion

- Felt some strong emotional connection to the religion

- Experienced some kind of religious experience that binds them to their religion

I don't believe in God, but I think saying people are just picking and choosing isn't fair or accurate and shows perhaps a lack of understanding about the subject matter