skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If it were just an issue of media hype, that would be a valid explanation for the food pyramid failure.

But it's not just that. It's the fact that a) government experts believed it b) with high confidence that c) isn't justified, and d) are so confident that they plaster it in every classroom with all their authority behind it, and e) no scientific authorities go on record saying the real state of the research in case anyone bothers to get the real story.

You can't blame the media for those parts.
People trust science implicitly 1000 ways every day: when they get in their car, when they check Facebook, when they step into an airplane, when they take some Advil, when they eat a Snickers bar, when they take an antibiotic, when they take Viagra, when they make a phone call, etc.

So the question is not "why don't people trust science," the question is "why do people very selectively mistrust small segments of science?"

A plausible answer is because there are people and organizations who are encouraging them to mistrust those small segments of science--by purposefully feeding bad information into the marketplace of ideas.

I think Adams is making a fundamental error of attribution, blaming good actors (real scientists) for the actions of bad actors. He's basically arguing that unless scientists can stop all bad information from anyone, they can be blamed for the bad information. Doesn't seem fair or sustainable.
Could you describe a little more about what exactly you're looking for in a "community person"?
I don't think the job lost in US translates into outsourced job anymore. Cloud is destroying lot of bespoke app development, as startups are aggregating those bespoke needs of multiple companies into out-of-the-box apps. "There’s an app for that" is the future and worker class will shrink both in US and India/China.

Also, this outsourcing is a one-sided argument. You have to also look at companies like skype, whatsapp single-handedly killing telecom/sms industry, leading to millions of job losses in outsourced destinations. Globalised capitalism does not have winners. Only losers.
Current ethics boards say "no".

It's a debatable point -- a lot of things that ethics boards forbid might be, in some way, reasonable to study in some specific cases.

But you have to draw the line somewhere, and ethics boards (correctly) draw simple lines in a place where they'll forbid a very high percentage of the bad stuff and a small-ish but not very small percentage of the good stuff.

You're going to get errors when you draw simple lines. Ethics boards are conservative about where the lines go. They should be.
Its simple really, within a generation its just as likely they will flip on what is certain and what is uncertain so why is it not safe to wait?

There are a few things we are pretty much past the flip stage on, vaccines are one, smoking is another, but get much beyond that and its up in the air. Welcome to Woody Allen's Sleeper; hell he got it right on the phone company.

Then throw in, who watches the watchers, as in who polices those who claim to know. When you see government and education malfeasance everyday these institutions become even less likely to earn or hold the trust of the public
I don't think anyone is going to run a full node in a browser any time soon, but if they do, IndexedDB.
Odd Photo Choice for Venezuela Promotional Effort
Not really, venus atmosphere is way too thick and heavy. It would takes millions of years. Better would be ice ring on orbit to block sunlight, or bombarding surface with comets.
OpenglES 2 (which is what mobile runs) and WebGL are DirectX 9 equivalent. And on windows at least chrome implements WebGL on top of Directx and not OpenGl substrate https://code.google.com/p/angleproject/

With feature parity latest DirectX can be compared only to desktop OpenGL (although OpenGL ES 3.0 is up and coming)
A Ghost in the device? CVE-2015-0235
Can't Comcast be treated as a comparable carrier under section 251(h)(2) and thus also qualify as an ILEC?
Yes, and the power to drive a car is the power to commit vehicular manslaughter. The question is not whether a driver can use this power to kill. It's whether they are actually using this power to kill.

Needless to say, not evey tax is destructive, just as not every driver is a deadly menace who needs to be gotten of the road a.s.a.p.
I think some of the suggstions here were great.

Don't know if this will ever be read since it seems this post was flagged off the first page or something, but:

> As someone with the authority to make the necessary changes to our office environment,

I'd say that is a bit of a stretch. The older I grow the more I try to point out that I cannot be given responsibility without authority. If you aren't allowed to

* get some kind of silent offices for those who need it

* or agree with people to work remotely

then you don't have "the authority to make the necessary changes to our office environment", do you?

> We don't have the opportunity or space to give everyone their own dedicated office,

That sounds reasonable. Have you considered trying to balance the advantages so that dedicated office doesn't also mean nice view, status, etc etc? E.g. "That end has open floor plan, coffee machine, gets new gear first and has a nice view. The other end looks straight into the industry but has single or double offices."

For some of us the point about an separate office isn't the status, -my last office looked straight into two containers and I was really happy because that meant nobody needed that office.

> and cubicles I'm sure would be a living hell.

There are quite a few ways to do cubicles wrong, yes. For a lot of people I guess they would be a whole lot better than a similarily bad open floor plan.
Perhaps you should talk to/partner with patio11, sounds like a great product and relevant to the same market as Bingo Card Creator!
REPL are way superior as shown in any Xerox PARC OS.
It's kind of weird Microsoft courting developers again. It's like an ex-girlfriend wants to rekindle the relationship.
See http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2495
I have very little sympathy for anyone in this story.

There are so many things that could solve this guy's problems.

1. He could buy a bike.

2. He could move closer to work.

3. He could buy a crappy car.

4. He could move to just about any city other than Detroit. I guarantee he could find a labor-based job making $8-10 an hour that wouldn't require him to walk 20 miles every day, if he was just willing to move.

The fact of the matter is that this guy has been deliberately choosing to live this way for more than ten years straight, even though he has numerous ways of getting out of his situation.

On top of that, the guy is apparently "picky" about who he will ride with, refusing help from co-workers who would otherwise give him rides, because he likes to be "independent".

The whole story is mind-boggling, sure, but if there's one thing I know, it's that this guy doesn't need our pity or our donations.
I do see a kind of anti-induction thing going on, similar to what happens on stock markets. In the case of science, when people trust research, we have all kind of assholes[0] flocking to it and using it to push their agenda, up until people don't trust science anymore. Come to think of it, this applies to all kinds of things people trust.

The problem seems to be, people don't care about being lied to. Politicians spew bullshit all the time, there's hardly a true fact you can find in a newspaper, and yet everyone just goes "meh". There should be back-pressure. Journalists should lose their jobs over lying to people, and that includes all that nonsense science reporting that is killing trust in life-saving research. But no one seems to care.

[0] - I honestly believe abusing people's trust in something is one of the most dickish move you can pull.
There's a thought error in here: "the economy", as an unmovable construct, does not really exist. As an example, a good shirt does not cost thousands of dollars anymore, because we have automated weaving looms and a whole textile industry. We're not poorer from it, though, because we shifted from weaving shirts to doing construction work or working in finance.

If we can automate simple manual labor, people will shift to different tasks; the non-beneficial changes is that now the energy needed for that task is consumed directly by the machine, and also the investment that has been done to get the machine there in the first place. Beyond that, people who did simple tasks before may perform tasks that require conscience or risk-awareness (for example, machines injuring or killing humans cannot be fired or fined, so someone has to be responsible), that require empathy and human attention; or people will resort to being burglars or robbers or revolutionaries or salesmen.
Could you link to your elsewhere. I'm keen to learn more of the P6 history, good and bad
This is my post. If you want a preview of the rest, watch this talk I gave at Airbnb http://j.mp/1ALSWXn
>It is essentially giving up and saying we are going to live with Internet access being run by monopolies like the power company. It puts us back to the Bell System in 1982, and that makes me sad.

What do you think we have now? A robust ecosystem of carriers?

Also, your post sounds a lot like you don't want Title II because you'll have to comply with regulations and you don't like the current system because instead of complying with regulations you found a loop hole and then the ISPs found a loop hole to throttle you. This whole post sounds like why it's bad for you and provides no reason why it would be bad for the vast majority of people.
I have to say yes!

I was born in Portugual, so Portuguese and Spanish was all I heard growing up. But then I went into a german school and picked up German and English. Later I picked up French and finally Dutch.

My wife has a pretty similar language history so it's quite fun to speak our own version of Esperanto to our daughter and see what language she'll pick up first!

Workwise, I would be miles behind where I am right now if I hadn't picked up English at an early age. I've read somewhere that people who reason in a non-native language are able to maintain a more rational (less emotional) train of thought and that certainly seems to be the case with me, but if for no other reason, I suggest you should pick up a second language because it will increase your potential earnings! (see the economist's article below).

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2014/03/language-stu...
I enjoy Keynes on this in 1930 -- http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf -- remembering, of course, that unforeseen economic shocks make predicting the course of implementation nearly impossible. In his case, it was WW2.
Agreed. But this takes two steps:

Step 1) Increase taxes on income above a certain level, create a floor that eliminates poverty (hunger, homelessness, etc). Continue to incentivize progress so that we continue on the path currently forged by science and technology (I don't believe this crowd requires me to expound on this)

Step 2) Use renewable energy and technology to provide "what we need and some of what we want, at no personal cost" to everyone.

Both transitions are going to be terribly painful.
I would imagine that UPS/FEDEX, like airline carriers, play with futures to stabilize their fuel costs. As such, they are likely not reaping much in the way of immediately benefits from the recent and unexpected price drop.
The type of shenanigans you have suggested as a means of increasing expenses are what tax practitioners call "tax evasion schemes"

There's a distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion, and most of what companies do to (very successfully) avoid paying tax is tax avoidance (i.e. perfectly legal).
I agree. But you are forgetting another exploitation - of the worker, which back in the day was the norm. Perhaps still is, depends on how you look at it.
So sad. Such a young guy. And from a selfish point of view, we'll never get another Dead Fantasy ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAsq3HkYbUs). Created some pretty great fan service back in the day.
Yea, but that is only part of the story. This fiasco ended up being so bad it used to be one of my favorite topics. "Microsoft Munchkins" and DR-DOS are two of the reasons why.
Thera eruption was probably taller when it hit Crete.
The idea that "work" is somehow good and noble is outdated, and serves only to trap workers into undesirable situations for the profit of the capitalist class. Work isn't noble, it's just something we do so that we can do other stuff (and eat).

So preserving work in the face of massive changes in the economy would be an incredibly unfortunate thing to do. Why not simply allocate social resources such that people who are not needed for work simply don't have to work? Allow them to have food, and shelter, and healthcare, and let them explore whatever it is that brings them happiness, without having to worry about spending their days performing some menial task because someone has decided that they must "work" for their meals.
Former BlackBerry developer relations chief lands at Microsoft's VC arm
> The source was the fact that dynamically allocated memory in C is not bounds checked.

When you say "bounds-checked", what are you talking about? To me, it means that "x[somenumber]" make the program abort if somenumber is out of range. However, as you can see, the reads and writes were never out of range. As I see it, the issue is that uninitialized memory is being read. This is not "unsafe", cause it will never crash your program. I don't know the exact definition of "undefined behaviour", but since we are using a custom allocator, even if reading from freshly malloc'ed memory is undefined, it may not be in this case.

Rust doesn't let you get uninitialized memory without using "unsafe", so to construct a program with the issue, he had to reuse the buffer. I think it's a lot less likely to happen with Rust, since it is visible to anyone that it is the same buffer.

> If he had ignored the custom allocator and used the defaults in both languages (e.g. malloc in C, whatever it is in Rust)

How do you know the default allocator isn't using memory that was previously used for the private key? And why do you think the default allocator wasn't used in the Rust code?

PS: Taint analysis also has a much better chance of working in Rust, since we are not working with libraries, but standard language constructs. In C, your taint analysis would have to taint every byte straight from malloc.
I would also argue that the general public often wants easy fixes and shortcuts.

The basics of nutrition and health are well-known and easy to understand. You can see them in action on The Biggest Loser in prime time on ABC. It's this: eat the basic food groups in moderation, and get enough exercise and sleep. That's it. Every contestant on that show improves their health markedly by following that simple formula.

So I would argue that a lot of people don't want just good nutrition; they want nutrition so good that it can make up for failings in other areas of health. That's a MUCH taller order, and no surprise when it fails.
Grab a Copy of Google Maps Pro for Free
Why should I be disgusted that a man is getting paid a sum he and his employer agree is fair?
There is a real problem with lack of choice, slow build out, etc... You are clearly affected, and want action, but what makes you think this is going to help? Net neutrality is great, but it isn't going to speed things up, it isn't going to increase competition. Arguably, it will slow them down as companies invest less in infrastructure because they perceive it as less profitable.
First of all, you need to define working class. It's used in many different ways for different purposes. The traditional definition of 'working class' has always included white collar jobs, though. Programmers are not new to the idea of being employed for wages.

"What life is like" for programmers is not significantly different than for workers in most other industries. Their lives vary, their salaries vary. Often managers and other administrative jobs will make higher salaries for less work. As with any household in America it is common to require multiple people to work to afford the financial upkeep of a family. You get paid just enough to afford to live where you do; your employer isn't trying to make you rich, it's trying to make itself rich.

How are they different than workers in other industries if they have bosses and don't own their own companies? They get cheap accoutrements to hide long hours, monotonous work and lack of benefits. Mostly this is because managers/execs still think programming is special.

Will the high salaries last? That's almost the same thing as asking if the industry will last. All markets have highs and lows, and right now we're in a high. Eventually there will be a low. This seems like basic economics.

http://www.economist.com/node/12411838

If your question was 'Are programmers the new blue collar workers', the answer is: not yet. We still have a romantic ideal of programmers as special or creative or inventive. Many are already without an alternate skill with which to market themselves, and in 20 years time when the "digital factories" move farther offshore, we'll see the next big bust in the US economy, and 20 years after that all of us will start manufacturing goods for the Chinese.
I wish the article had expanded more on the idea of removing a lot of the atmosphere. I wonder if an asteroid could be sent in such a way that it tears through the atmosphere and rips a lot out into space. The rock would pass through and back out into space.
A lot of commentors are mentioning that this is just a specific case of effect typing. Haskell and monads have been brought up as an example of effects typing, but I'd like to present another example that more closely resemble familiar static type systems.

Nim[1], at least at one point (I'm looking at the current manual and can't find it documented), had support for tagging functions with a pragma and the compiler would enforce that functions without the pragma can't call function with the pragma outside of a special block. The compiler interpreted certain pragmas like "impure" and "exception" in a special way, outputting a warning when certain language features were used inside functions marked with the pragma. The language manual shows that the compiler still at least supports these special pragmas. It's possible that it never supported custom pragmas and I'm just misremembering.

Interestingly, the author dismisses promises as not a major improvement and calls async/await and generators at least a half-way solution. It turns out that the are just a simple syntactic transform that isn't powerful enough to express everything that coroutines can. Promises, on the other hand, can. Promises are actually a monad: `.then(...)` is the bind function (`>>=`). This is essentially how the IO monad in Haskell works.

[1]: https://nim-lang.org/
You are correct. Let's just call it "one of the more tolerable things" then. (That lacks the same rhetorical punch, I must admit...)
The funny thing is that having access to many "boring" jobs that you can switch between might actually be interesting.

Running a startup, I find it pretty cool to wear as many hats as I do. Some days we are dealing with contracts, some days it's scouting new office locations and painting, some days we're imaging hundreds of SD cards, or doing customer development, or pitching to investors, or shooting videos.

Seperately, each of these things could be horrible mindless jobs. But together, it's a great experience. But I don't know if that's simply because there's a common end goal.
It means doctors no longer have to wash their hands prior to a trepanning.
I think people are looking at this too drastically. Machines can only replace humans up to a certain point. They're ideal for easily quantifiable and scripted tasks, but past that there needs to be human contact and judgement involved. At worse, we'll just have new jobs for people to maintain these systems, one level of abstraction higher, and even then there will still be legacy systems and people who are slow to adopt.

For this specific example, I haven't been following AI that much, but from the news it doesn't seem to be advancing that far. Sure, we have self-driving cars, but a whole team went into creating them, and before that there were teams involved in image recognition, mapping, navigation, engineering, and more. Natural language processing has advanced pretty far though, I'll give you that. But there's a lot of stuff that happens in between the query "Siri, what's the Weather?" and the response and people will need to be involved in the processes in between.
Judge: illegal for undercover investigators to pose as Internet repairmen
For context, he was the creator of the famous machinima Haloid (Halo + Metroid) back in the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL-mR79GErU

I'll always remember him for his ridiculous work ethic and amazing combination of art and tech (I believe he created his own animation library for RWBY or something like that to give it it's unique cel-shading kind of look)

Many people are mourning together on the Rooster Teeth subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/roosterteeth
It was actually Greeks fighting Nazi collaborators who had changed allegiance and had become britsh friendly. That government was not elected and was flown in from the british hq in cairo. A forced colonial debt.
Liability Concerns for Drone Makers Implementing No-Fly-Zone Restrictions
You can run Direct3D in software, Microsoft even provides a software implementation of DX11 (albeit the subset that works on DX10.1 hardware).

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/gg6...
How can he afford to move?
> And yet the needle moves forward, slowly.

The problem is that it takes giant leaps backwards, too. See the discussion in other comments about margarine, saturated fats, and the links to heart disease. The scientific recommendations that were made promoted the very problem they were trying to address. As others have pointed out, this problem may largely be attributed to misinterpretation and miscommunication (rather than bad science). But since the vast, vast majority of people get their scientific information from schools or media rather than reading papers directly (which isn't a bad thing, since scientific papers are not written for interpretation by non-scientists), that's not a helpful distinction.
Almost certainly. Sun kit was very reliable (there's more to building a server than putting a PC in a rackmount case) and for 5 or 10 years after the dotcom bust, they were competing with their own second-hand kit at fire sale prices, which was still perfectly good for the job it was sold for.
I definitely wasn't surprised, as I've known this principle has been going on for some time. But I, for some reason, thought this could be done somehow with a single device, or something. I never really knew how it happened, just knew that it happened.

So this picture answered that question for me (though I'm sure this isn't the only way it can or is being executed).
Now I want a Wallet Ninja (or the Pocket Monkey mentioned by another commenter) -- though, tbh, I wanted it the second I saw it, before the article talked trash about.

Having read other comments here, I am kind of wondering how one figures out or defines that "one thing" that the business is supposed to focus on and do well. I don't know of any business that survives by doing literally one thing and only one thing well. So you are awesome at your One Thing, but you can't figure out how to take credit cards or secure the premises or keep people from showing up at work drunk or high. Any of those things can destroy a business.

The reason business is hard is because you have to juggle so many things successfully. If that weren't true, we wouldn't have so many articles on how to do this. We would all just be rolling in dough, doing our one thing or whatever.
$100M in funding for robotic companies in January
Beyond the Grunts and Clicks: An Exploration into Doing Things the Hard Way