skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No it is not. Even Steve Jobs obsessed over such details while he was Apple CEO like the shade of yellow in an icon mentioned by parent[1].

[1] Icon Ambulance: https://plus.google.com/+VicGundotra/posts/gcSStkKxXTw
Here is the curriculum vitae of Dr. Kimmo Kiljunen.
http://www.secretariagrulacuip.org/web/attachments/article/6...
Forget the ISBN, search on Kampuchea Inquiry Commission, 1980
- 82.
$6 bucks on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/086232209X/ref=tmm_pa...
I really don't want this to come across as sarcastic or mean, I'm genuinely curious.

What you say is true of the retelling of any event at all. But I feel as if this kind of "two sides" post comes up particularly often on posts about women suffering discrimination. I wonder if that is just my own personal biases showing through, or this is a common pattern.
There will always be people who commit crimes. However, people under the influence tend to do act slightly less professional than others, and as such, professional work place tend to have a ban against it. Drinking on the job is the firing offense in most place, and for a good reason.

A few conferences ago, I walk passed a drunk woman who turned around and hit me out of the blue. I could attribute that to conference culture, or I could attribute this to a woman who was so drunk she could barely stand and was talking to herself. If this had been at the work place, I would react very different, as in this case I just continued walking.

Bars and free alcohol is not something I associate with a place of professionalism. I am not sure why so many people try to combine the two, which is why I ask.
I think for an open source project git itself has some nice features that are severely lacking in hg. Since I switched to git I never looked back and handling of pull requests has become a breeze. In hg times I actually shuffled around with mq and manually applied patches because managing other people's remotes in light of named branches was a nightmare.
I suspect if you actually speak to a scientist, you'll find they really do not ignore the complexity of their subjects. However, the public starts at such a base level, that it's impossible to even engage at the limits of their research. And the honesty of the scientists with regards to their understood complexity often times does them more harm then good. Their carefully chosen, complex-laden words are glossed over in news headlines that extinguish the nuance.

Ask a genetic researcher if "GMOs can harm humans" and the answer will likely be, "Probably not". But this actually means - "I can conceive of nothing but the most fantastic route for that to happen. And even if it did it would have to happen by a route currently unknown or at the edge of our entire field." When in reality the public clings to really strange notions that truly are scientifically incorrect.

You can make the argument that being correct for the wrong reasons has its advantages, but in real life no single action ever taken is without risk. It is precisely the scientist who has dedicated her career to her work that understands (and even thrives in) its complexity.
Well, I hope your aims are sincere... I am getting a little annoyed with these digital nomad 'startups' that just want to make money off of other digital nomads, like they're any other market segment to fit a product to. "The Digital Nomad Space." Sucks where it's heading. Like the recent poster doing a similar thing as you but more pricey with a REIT investment group potentially backing him (he's also promoting you, so I don't know, maybe you, him, the nomad list guy are all working together... not that it really matters)... or the "nomad year" venture where you throw down a ton of money to have everything planned out for you (kind of the opposite of being digital nomad IMO), or that IMO unjustifiable digital nomad 'insider' forum where you have to pay simply to chat with other digital nomads. I'm not a cheap person, I just want to keep SV profiteering out of digital nomad land. There are some main culprits, individuals, that come to mind (nobody I'm going to name)... but oh well, what can you really expect?

On the bright side, there's a huge opportunity for someone to sweep through all of this and just offer free concierge services for digital nomads. I met someone working on this, I imagine there are others. That will ultimately take the day when someone gets that formula right. Something more of the spirit of couch surfing.

I'm ranting. Anyways, if you can manage cheap rates at really cool pads, in a way that's better than just splitting an AirBnB with other nomads, then that is something pretty cool.
There are many well-known reasons for (US-based) anti-elitism/anti-intellectualism: religious/religion-influenced cultural beliefs, poor education, mass media failures, insular cultural groups that invent alternate explanations for things, and plain old ignorance. There's also Agnotology - "culturally induced ignorance", which is important to understand (and deal with) in the context of this topic.

There is, however, another reason, which may be less obvious than the above. It applies to people who do, in fact, know better, but maintain laughable/ignorant/ridiculous positions about issues regardless. Let's call them "Future Policy Fearers." There was a brilliant comment on Less Wrong (http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ph/youre_entitled_to_arguments_but_...) that sums this view up perfectly (this particular example uses climate change/AGW, but it could be about Creationism/Evolution or a hundred other things):

"It becomes a signaling game, in which each choice of belief will be understood as exactly how you would communicate a particular choice of political move, and the costs of making the wrong political move feel very high. So the belief decisions and the political actions become tangled up.
Roughly, people have no way of saying:

'I believe that in terms of pure decision theory, the predicted AGW damage and costs of further investigation and costs of delay are high enough that mitigation attempts should start now. But I don't want to give up my {economic privileges / substantive national sovereignty / chance to get the standard of living of past carbon-emitting nations} without a fight, because I don't want groups in the future like {scientists / profit-hating hippie tree-huggers / freedom-hating U.N. environmental bureaucrats / greedy unfair first-world hypocrites} to think I'll just roll over when they try to impose concessions on me, in the name of premises that will feel psychologically as though they might just as well have been made up. In that future situation, it will be important for me to be able to credibly threaten outrage at being forced into such concessions. But as long as nobody else is going to take me for their fool, the sacrifices needed to prevent AGW are fine with me; we could start today.'

So instead, they say: 'I believe that the case for AGW isn't strong enough. I demand clearer proof.'

If it were possible to negotiate separately about AGW action and about precedents of policy concessions to e.g. scientists' claims, then you might see less decision-theoretic insanity around the AGW action question itself."

This group is just as important when dealing with perceived ignorance as those who are victims of Agnotology. Their actions and positions act as a proxy for a future power struggle, and should be understood as such.
Well, of course I reduced those groups to their most vocal parts. But we do have overwhelming evidence that vaccines don't kill you, GMOs don't kill you, nuclear power is safe and environmentally friendly. Mind you, those don't even require detailed scientific research - just a little common sense, back-of-the-napkin math and realizing that if what those anti-XXX groups are saying were true, we'd see half of the western world being autistic, dying from cancer and giving birth to two-headed mutants.

I agree that arrogance of some scientists is a part of the problem (I'd say caused by communication problems - scientists and non-scientists are often so far apart in their understanding of various subjects that it's very hard for those two groups to communicate with each other).

Also, people saying about "limits of research" are often doing this to support their refusal to accept conclusions. If you can't find any rational argument against a thesis, you can always say that the whole process is wrong and then continue to believe whatever you want to believe. "But there's always a chance, right?".
A little frustrated that both the current top-level comments here seem to reflect someone not reading the article before commenting.
> So yes, anti-vaxxers, anti-GMOs, anti-nuclear, et al. are wrong. Stupidly wrong.

This is actually one of the reasons there's such resistance to science I think. These people are actually expressing a very scientific mentality: that we are not totally certain of the consequences of our influence on a complex system. Yet the response is absolute, which is arguably very unscientific!

Sure, they don't respond to it in the right way, and the discussions are never as nuanced or knowledgable as they should be, but they are fundamentally right about the fact that even science leaves room for doubt and uncertainty. They just don't fully understand why. Yes, we need better science education for the masses, and yes their perspective is fallacious individually, but as you say, it's not their fault. There's a systemic issue here.

Ironically, and perhaps impossibly, we still need to validate this mentality, because it is actually mostly right. We should be doubting science. We should be questioning data presented to us. We should not treat all things that appear equal on the surface as the same without demanding a deeper understanding and evidence. These concepts are correct, the process is correct, and people are being lambasted and called stupid for it. These people are often extremely intelligent for thinking those thoughts, even if their macro scale conclusions are not (even though, at times, they are).

Instead, we should encourage that type of thinking—and guide it. Yes! You're right! We're not 100% certain. But here's why that's okay. Thank you for doubting. Thank you for recognizing uncertainty in the face of complexity. Thank you for being complete in your understanding, because here's all the data. Thank you for trusting us—let's keep working together.

So I agree with you; we need that trust. But what nurtures trust? Is it calling people "stupidly wrong," or is it recognizing their motivations and addressing them with a human understanding? And why aren't we doing that?

I just get the sense that in the face of the truth, we're approaching this problem in a profoundly wrong way, and the societal vitriol and information problem is actually becoming a public health consequence. Really stupid, indeed, but not on the part of an individual: it's the mob that's to blame.
I think what drives these movements at their fundamental and deepest level is a perversion of one of humanity's greatest traits -- our ability to channel metaphysical discontent into long-ranging visionary ambition.

If -- to give one example -- humanity manages to build a self-sustaining settlement on Mars in the next century or so and "make life multi-planetary," this will be powered by the same psychological machinery that drives ISIS. Huge numbers of initial settlers will die. The task of carving out a life in a barren lifeless radiation-soaked desert will demand the same level of fanatical, all-encompassing zeal. It will be, in short, a crusade, only the adversary will be the environment rather than another group of people. It would even have an "apocalyptic" character. I can imagine the settlers' picturing a future blue Mars -- the eschatological promised land -- and resolving that it will be this, or death.

We create because we are not content. Our perpetual discontent is the source of pretty much everything admirable about us. But when we can't create? When no positive avenue is available?

Picture yourself as an ambitious visionary personality in a failed client state like Iraq. What realistically can you do? Labor for your puppet state? Pay protection money to gangsters? You hear tales of torture, then learn some of them are true. If a drone pilot screws up and kills your family, it will be written off as an acceptable loss... assuming it's acknowledged at all. The message you receive from the world is clear. You have no value. Your death is acceptable. You are worthless.

We are not domesticated animals. People are not content to be worthless. You cannot humiliate and grind down human beings without consequence. If no other avenues are available they won't go quietly. They will go mad.

If I were uneducated, had no opportunity, and lived in a hellhole like post-war Iraq, I could easily see being drawn to an apocalyptic death cult. To die to bring about the end times would be far more appealing than the alternatives.

I totally get it. I mean, go look up America's interrogation programs and "rectal feeding." What the hell did we expect to happen?

At this point I don't even know what we can do about it. This same thing happened in post-WWI Germany after the post-war reparations and punitive treaties wrecked the German economy and helped Hitler rise to power. After WWII we got a clue and implemented the Marshal Plan and the result was a peaceful sane Europe that has endured to this day, but we apparently un-learned that historical lesson... either that or we don't think it applies to people who aren't white.
Isn't that tautology? You should only believe in good science. How do I know what's good science? It's easy to believe in it.

It's far more troubling to believe the Earth goes round the Sun when my daily experience of life suggests otherwise.
Inherit 7 Habits of Insanely Successful People
Yes, git-cal excludes merge commits.
For what it's worth, I'm a guy and I know of at least one VC in the NYC area who has a habit of, um, blurring the lines with female founders. Which I've learned about just through casual conversation with friends in the biz who are women. So this news does get out there, even if not through overt channels.
>reuse of patterns and libraries

While this sounds alluring, in practice I think it would mostly be limited to the kind of thing where you check something client-side (like whether a username meets the requirements) and then re-check it server-side because security 101.

Client-side code is about displaying things, turning JSON into buttons and widgets, etc. There is no point having that on server-side. The server does not have a human user clicking buttons and scrolling bars.

Server-side code is about performing calculations and facilitating communication between different clients. If these can be done client-side, then there's no reason to do them server-side in the first place.

>An investment in vanilla JS will pay out in long term

This is true, but a lot of JS investment is not in vanilla, it's in whatever framework is popular that week, and next week that framework will be dropped like bellbottom pants.
Even scientists have been increasingly admitting that confirmation bias is strong. Another problem is funding. If all research was funded by non-profit public interest groups, there might be more trust, but when you're talking about GMO research, for example, a lot of it is done by industry for industry. I'm not saying that all GMOs are bad, but it's also impossible to make a blanket statement that all GMOs are good. Obviously that's not the case.

A GMO could be created to be extremely dangerous, just like a prescription medicine could and has been created which is extremely dangerous. The problem is that we're asked to trust people whose immediate interests do not always align with ours. We've seen prescriptions forced through with inadequate testing, so there's no reason to believe that every GMO is going to be adequately tested. The current atmosphere of hostility seems to be helping that testing happen.

The base problem is that we have a society of people whose interests are aligned against each other and a system meant to encourage that kind of competition.
Shout (YC S14) Disrupting NYC Fashion Week
A list of great curated newsletters about startups and more
Oh, don't get me wrong, I use a Logitech G2 for games. But for day-to-day work I use the Magic Mouse.
As a heads up - on your frontpage you've used 'there' instead of 'their' in the features section.

"about there workout", "there paid packages", "check there progress" etc etc
I only had a quick look at the affected code but it seems an attack would take the following format.

1: Craft a request to trigger a password reset for the admin account.

2: Then predict the token that would be generated and use this to access the reset and change the password.

This would be feasible because the token is predictable if you know the mt seed which is the only random number used in the token generation.

Whilst this is not completely straightforward, anyone with access to the machine (including on the same shared host) could easily find out the seed, and of course there are plenty of other vectors for machines leaking this information.
Added an option to view stats from all branches ( git-cal --all ), but that'll be slower for large repositories
They are selling 68k's too, awesome.
How do you even try to stay afloat? I get 0.

EDIT: Ok, you scroll up. For some reason, it didn't work for me last time I've seen this.

5m02s. But you cannot win in this (not)game. Splendidly done.
There's nothing stopping your hypothetical company from getting FAA permission for a trial, even in an urban area. Yes, it requires one of those "lawyers", and requires you to have more of a plan than just "eh fuck it, light it up," but those are features, not bugs. But nobody's going to be prevented from doing even urban-scale testing if they are actually taking it seriously and involving the communities they wish to experiment within.

There's a reason these rules look so much like radio regulations: because screwing it up hurts everyone, so it behooves us not to screw up. Doing dangerous things requires buy-in from more than just your shareholders. And stop with the "oh, woe is us" stuff. It's shitty rhetoric and it doesn't work.
Because you can't just say "I'm sceptical" and expect to magically arrive to the correct conclusion. You have to know exactly why you're sceptical about something. Being "trained in the methods of science" gives you mental habits of analyzing known facts and conclusions instead of just doubting anything which you don't like.
Mm, seems a bit hyperbolic, like a Wired article.
I definitely do need to start working with a stdlib replacement. I'm planning to move to Jane Street's Core soon.

I'm still pretty new to OCaml so using functors was not immediately obvious. I did plan to transition to functors for user-level configuration modules. But coming to OCaml from (e.g.) C++ has definitely influenced my default modus operandi.

Thanks for the feedback!
That's the thing, though: There's no way to calculate the value of fundamental research. We have lots of examples of breakthrough fundamental research with world-altering consequences, and we have many more examples of projects that went more-or-less nowhere.

If we want the big advances, we have to push the boundaries of what's known, but it's unclear where, exactly, the big breaks will happen. But doing these kind of mega-projects is, I think, basically a good thing, as it gets us out of the day-to-day of publishing easy papers, and into attacking the 'big' problems in new ways.
> Cut 80% of your product’s features

... closes tab
I am sensing Dan Brown just got some material for his next book.
Cartoon: If Web Designers Were Pizza Boys – NOUPE
This is either bad satire or bad advice.
That's exactly the threat full disk encryption is designed for.
What? That's what government does. Government represents people and regulates what people can and cannot do with land, sky, water, oil, gas, each other, themselves, etc. Are you an anarchist?
Low in whose opinion? I always thought MOOCs had fantastically high completion rates for what they are.
Agreed, this seems insanely high. Factor of ten at least. I don't work at those three companies mentioned: maybe I just don't know the sector (and maybe I should move to CA). I'm And at the very least, there's stipulations tied to vesting and grants that aren't considered here. Or a portion of bonus is in the form of equity, which isn't accounted for, either.

Risk-adjusted returns for startup equity aren't even close to accurate ("let's assume that you're one of the lucky few" isn't a good estimation strategy).
I tuned out immediately after reading that caption.

Why does it matter that it's macro film? Why does it matter that it's a Macbook Air? Because the author is all too happy with how tasteful and cool he thinks he is. It shows through in the rest of the article.

I write full stack js, and this guy is making me look bad.
"So it's quite a bit hypocritical to audaciously lie to people and then be surprised that they don't trust anyone anymore."

I often wonder if they had done their research with the original story how it would have turned out. We live in a print and fact check later[1] and I think we suffer for it.

I'm sure an anti-vaxxer upon hearing the number of warnings on each new drugs has their opinion validated[2]. Or hearing there was mercury in some vaccines.

Heck, we go about things just stupidly. Get rid of incandescent light bulbs to save the environment. Hey, what the heck, these new bulbs all have mercury?!? I cannot just throw them away and if they break I have to do what?!? Did the change really help or should we have picked that battle a bit later when LEDs were further along? Don't really know, doubt I will see any good reporting to tell me the answer.

I'm really not sure our journalists are equipped for a world that really needs us to weigh risks.

Celebrity is a big part of it these days too. Why we listen to people who are famous for a sex tape is beyond me. I guess reporters like to meet them. I suppose that explains the WHCA dinner[3].

1) it still amuses me the number of times the NY Times has mixed up the state for South and North Dakota Senators.

2) the real danger is obscuring the real big warnings with all the little crap. Look at the warnings on a Tylenol bottle and then find the one that really matters. Why are we telling everyone all the warnings for prescription drugs? Doctors will do that before prescribing and do a better job of explaining.

3) http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/204881-whit...
One could even say that it reeks of hubris to believe a largely homogenous group of people is fit to police the values and customs of the entire world.
Expected value is a bit of a strange concept to apply to scientific research, as no-one really knows for certain what the full, long-term impact will be. The actual value of many scientific discoveries only becomes apparent years later on.
It's not my intention to be pedantic here but you shouldn't "believe" in science in the first place: science is not a religion that proclaims what is true, at most you can "believe" that some scientific study have enough proofs to demonstrate a theory, at some level. And even then, in my opinion, people should be always open to analyze new hypothesis.

Also, imo this idea of a "consensus" in the "scientific community" is a bit dangerous and could be easily misinterpreted by people who have no affinity to science.
The ridiculous it-acts-like-a-clicked-link-if-you-hover-over-it-because-reasons "kudos" button didn't help matters, either. It sent a strong message (to me, at least) that Svbtle bloggers were more interested in looking hip than in how their blog actually worked, which was a big negative mark for people writing about tech.
Many scientists (including my former advisor DeLiang Wang) are simulating dynamic oscillatory neural networks:

http://web.cse.ohio-state.edu/~dwang/pnl/
Single Machine??...really...would love to know more about the stack..
SEM/SEO Keyword Statistics API