skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sorry I got lazy. I meant, "there isn't centuries of history of men being sexually harassed by women based on and valued almost entirely by their appearance". There are a lot of qualifiers and I get tired of typing them all out. Louis CK puts it pretty well in one of his bits when he's talking about being called a cracker: "Oh no, you're taking me back to the days where I owned land and people". There's a big difference between white racial slurs and slurs regarding other races. White racial slurs invoke our privileged history. Slurs against other races invoke their oppressed history.

The same thing goes for harassment based on appearance. Certainly men can be harassed in this way, but it's nothing like when women are, because the history is totally different.

> Questions as to consent, or mistake of fact regarding consent, are always raised at trial by competent defense.

These are different for men than they are for women. Men have to face the "can men really be raped?" argument, where as women have to face the "was she asking for it?" argument. You can see how men's appearance doesn't factor into this; it's the gender stereotype of men being willing to have sex with anything that's at play. But we agree that both are pretty fucked up.

> I'm just stating legal fact here to debunk your claim, not endorsing anything.

Haha, things are getting a little hot in here I guess. I don't think you're defending rapists or anything :).
This is a fake account = "fifa8a" We know you made this!
I think they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, just different ways to look at things. A good marketer can "invent" a new area of competition where you are the leader.

Thus, one aproach is to tackle this problem at the start, the other is to tackle this problem later on.
Well actually the main sources of venture funds are similar to where wall-street goes for it's investment funds. Institutions (pension funds, state and national level reserve funds etc), wealthy individuals, cash reserves from large companies etc.
That's too bad man. :(
But it wasn't natural competition, we brought the rats there. I guess you can argue that the actions of humans are just as "natural" as any others. However, I think this is a very foolish way of looking at the situation because we act based on intelligence, not instinct.

Competition only "works" when everyone is playing by the same rules. This means that we throw off the equilibrium for the rest of the planet because we play by different rules. In fact, our intelligence is such that I don't even think we're playing the same game any more.
Not the same thing (I'm a guy) but a manager of mine had a great solution to a similar situation.

I once had a coworker that said a lot of gross things: racist stuff, creepy sexual stuff, etc. Went on for a while. I told my manager, without naming the other coworker.

My manager sent a memo to the department reminding them about the fact that there were often guests in our area and that we needed to be careful about jokes and language.

It worked. The coworker didn't feel personally blamed or as if somebody ratted him out, and he did cease with the gross stuff. Everybody won, basically. Or at least nobody lost.

Now obviously that kind of oblique approach won't always work and people may need to be dealt with. The next step would have been for my manager or I to speak to him privately.

You could try something like that. Maybe get an outside speaker to talk to the team, just to give some reminders about specific things to avoid such as staring at womens' chests?
that webpage looks autogenerated
This loophole will definitely not be abused. /s
Blythe Masters, creator of the credit default swap, joins Bitcoin startup
"I'm shocked, shocked, that the pro-nuke astroturfers have expelled so much hot air on this thread obfuscating about cancer rates (they aren't dead yet, and if so you have to name them!),"

I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the nuclear industry.

Just because I've studied physics, know how to do arithmetic, and don't think of radiation the way a caveman might think about evil spirits doesn't make me an "astroturfer".

As for "naming them" the claim was that USS Reagan crew members had died (with the implication that the death rate was significantly higher than normal). If that's the case, you should be able to supply some names, and show that this represents a higher than normal death rate. Keep in mind that the USS Reagan has a crew of almost 6,000 people, and you're going to get a few cancers in that many people no matter what.

You made the claim. Back it up or retract it.

The fact is that not one single civilian casualty has ever resulted from the U.S. nuclear power program. Not. One. That's not the case for any other power source.

Plant workers have been killed, but at a lower rate than with coal, hydro, gas, or even wind and solar (people fall off roofs and towers with the latter two).

Edit: direct quote from the original post:

"Many people on the USS Reagan died and are dying now."

Not just a few, but "many".

Whatever, dude.
Simple but sensible.
A quick google search gave this page : https://www.cloudflare.com/ips

I think this is what you want.
Ever hear, "don't shit where you eat?"

If you can't get laid at a bar with any degree of regularity, assume your skills are shit and that any sexual interactions at work will turn to shit.

I don't care, tho. I'm a man, I don't turn that off just because I get paid to work at your shitty startup.

I'd rather be fired for having a sex drive than getting paid to be some no-balls eunuch.
Design-driven furniture development at its finest.

On a related note, looks like Ikea Hackers had a recent redesign:
http://www.ikeahackers.net/
This Kid has talent.  Cool story
What is Bill Nguyen the founder of the failed Startup Color doing in 2015?
>If someone in a relationship goes to their corporate HR manager for relationship assistance,

frequent practice back in USSR. To the HR of the factory/institution, to the local Party committee, etc... :)
They don't sound anything alike

I don't know about that.

My 3.5yo daughter has a 4.5yo male best friend. When they're running about squealing, it's pretty hard to tell their squeals apart.
Sexual harassment investigations interrupting business?! We don't have time for that! /s
Why would he take her at her word?

To have diversity we have to have more than the white-knight (that takes all accusations made by females at face value).

I've often glanced and looked downwards when talking to someone (or standing close to someone) for a few seconds at a time - just like 100% of us that don't continually stare people in the eyes like a crazy person.

I'm sure that a "lady" that reports that people are always stating at her breasts is either misinterpreting that downward looking action for something it's really not, or is dressing specifically to show off her goods - which will meet with the other person's eyes inadvertently for a second or two.
Looking at the referenced strawman:

* Why is `delete` such a problem?
* Closed objects (under "Dynamic Restrictions") seem like a really heavy change from current common JS usage. You basically can't use objects as a hash. This would break a ton of code. ES6 Weak Maps seem like an odd replacement. Especially because they are weak, that's semantically totally different than an object.
* Not being able to add properties to Arrays I assume will cause quite a bit of problem, as that pattern is common. Or maybe subclassing Array will work fine?
* Under Functions they seem to be disallowing traditional class definitions, so you can only use ES6 classes. So you can't write ES5 that is also StrongScript :(
* Under Classes, it sounds like you can't call methods of this? I guess this is so you can't call methods on an object that is not entirely initialized. This will break a lot of code, or at least most classes I've written. I'd rather see all the possible instance attributes get pre-filled with undefined.
* Both this proposal and ES6 seem to dislike non-method properties on prototypes. Why?
* Disallowing `for in` is also annoying.

I like the concept, but I'm not excited by the proposal.
> it is simply true that wearing a low cut top to the office is not suitable attire.

I would tend to agree, but I believe there are many that would consider that comment "blaming the victim", or in other words, any comment at all about a female's appearance is discriminatory.
I don't see anything uncertain or controversial about it. You appear to disagree, but I have a hard time seeing why. I gave you a couple of places where you might find the stuff I'm talking about.
It is unfortunate that when talking to females, this
puts your eyes in the region of their chest, and there
have been instances where I've found myself with my eyes
locked on someone's chest and it's really not the intent.

I get it. This was totally me in high school. Probably in college and beyond a bit, too.

But there are objects in the room besides her eyes and her breasts. Make eye contact, look at something else, eye contact, etc.

Honestly, if all else fails, watch how other people do it. Find a guy who has found a happy medium between "intense and unbroken constant eye contact" and "staring at breasts" and just copy that. I'm not even being sarcastic.

For many engineers this stuff doesn't always come naturally but on the flip side it's all pretty learnable.
That won't be a problem in SoundScript though, because any code which tries to access a property which might be missing is unsound, so it won't "compile" (or rather, it won't pass the type checker).
Inflammation is linked to depression http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/288715.php

14 Foods That Fight Inflammation
http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20705881,00.html
it's also implicitly anti-penguin; in it's 10-year history it has not funded a single one
As well as parents and dog owners.
They don't always hire for everything at once. Why is it so absurd that a startup might hire for a different position a few months down the line? And why is changing a "no" to a "yes" unlikely? Do interviewers never change their mind afterwards?

Personally, I'm not outraged because I "should be." I'm mildly annoyed at the person in question, and I'm outraged at all the people coming out of the woodwork to defend him.
In spite of being here several times a day, every day, I somehow completely missed this discussion. For anyone else in my situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849
Lordy. I am so sorry your "scream like a little girl" remark is getting so much negative notice from people.

This "sexism in language" derail is totally irrelevant to the topic and I don't think it does anything to help actual sexism in STEM or anything like that.
That's a little too, um, "magical" a version of how standards get made.

In truth it's a pay-to-play sausage-making fest, with incumbents privileged against newcomers -- but at least with the Web, some 10M growing to 20M developers are the ultimate sued-to-woo power.

I'm not yet worried about Google cramming this down other browser vendors' throats. MS and Apple will only come on board when it's in a state where Mozilla is on board too, I predict. This may not happen, so don't count on anything. Do use and report usability and other bugs.
They only barely mention it, but I think they expect you do to `foo = 'foo' in obj ? obj.foo : undefined` instead of `foo = obj.foo`
I think that's why this issue will never go away. There are a lot of men that would very much like to be looked at, but unfortunately it seems the genders are wired so fundamentally differently that this problem will always be with us, likely forever, and the best we can do is try to get people to behave "acceptably", often against their natural impulses.

I'd be curious to read if a genuinely honest study has been done in variances internationally - do women in Asian or Latin countries feel as bad when men look at them? Serious question.
This presentation makes me want to punch the next person I see
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1v38H64XQBNT1p2XzFGWWhCR1k...

"let is the new var". No it's fucking not! "let" promotes procedural block scoped code. Moves people away from thinking properly about flow in their code. "var" has it's places, "let" can be a good addition is SOME circumstances. And calling code with "var" in it as insane, is itself insane.
(frozen) Elsa the Goat Gets killed , will cri everytim
This is just so depressing.
Thiel's addition makes YC into a monopoly of sorts. Which is inline with Thiel's philosophy.

I wonder how much of that thinking was involved in the decision making on both sides.
its not just that we brought the rats there, its that rats are so well adapted to being transported by people that they spread with us and succeed in diverse habitats.

keeping that island rat free is going to be a constant battle, because rats are so good at spreading by using our transportation as a vector.

like i say, i'm in two minds... i do think its incredibly sad to wipe out a species by introducing another like this. we lose something really special and unique. i just can't give equal weight to the argument because its so flooby dooby and driven by emotion rather than sensiblity.

also, i don't think we play by different rules... we classically out compete every other species in almost every habitat. we are the pinnacle of evolution today. the fallout of our actions are nature in action, despite the temptation to treat humans with some special place of privilege in the natural order of things... that being said, our alturism is part of that success, and is ultimately the source for the feeling argument.
BGP's clients are mostly routers though, and routers are typically managed by professional admins who monitor for such failures.
Link to previous discussion(s)? Having a difficult time understanding it in layman's terms.
That worked so well for people behind the Iron Curtain.
Ask HN: What are the most useful chrome's flags tunable items?
In other words, which flags item you tuned,and for what ? Have any recommend for tuning chrome ?
I have a PhD in philosophy (with a dissertation on symbolic logic). When I was interviewing in the US, I was told repeatedly that it would impossible for me to get an H1B visa for an IT job because my degree is not in science or engineering. BorderScore doesn't seem to take this sort of thing into account, unless I'm missing something.
Rust would have needed to do `Foo::[Bar]` anyway in order to deal with the ambiguity surrounding the `[]` operator, as explained in a comment upthread (using `()` instead for indexing is not as simple of a substitution as it seems).

In any case, I plan to propose a backwards-compatible extension to Rust's grammar post-1.0 which will make `Foo<Bar>` possible.

Finally, I should note that personally I prefer D's syntax for generics, though I'm ambivalent about the particular sigil used (Rust already uses `!` for a fine purpose).
85-90dB seems to be the where the concerns for hearing damage start, if sustained for 8+ hours.

Some useful (official) tables and charts:
https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/standards_more.html
https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/images/fig3.gif

And this has a nice listing of levels/safe listening times:
http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/education/information-cente...
You end up doing a lot of string concatenation even with that, though. It's not quite the same thing as having some kind of literal or combinator based setup.

select(from('tab'), where(and(like('name','Mo%'),not(is('id',NULL)))
> It's seems clear that any content that advances the art is better than a content doesn't advance the art.

Better in what way?

Let's say Movie A is a well loved blockbuster that millions of people see and enjoy. Movie B is a very mixed piece that isn't really enjoyable to watch, but "advances the art" in some key ways. Movie C is an even more well loved blockbuster than movie A, which even more millions of people will see and enjoy, but that was only made because the director was one of the few that really understood Movie B.

The argument, as I understand it, is that Movie B is somehow objectively better than Movie A and Movie C, because it enables Movie C to exist, even though Movie C isn't actually good, because it doesn't advance the art? That doesn't make sense to me. The journey has value only to the extent that the destination is valuable, no? If C is trash, then what was the point of "advancing the art" enough that we could make C? (Conversely, if we're discussing "advancing the art" in a way that isn't required to make anything anyone wants to watch, then we're clearly not discussing finding a global maxima, right?)
i am making assumptions, i could very well be wrong.

the form i had to fill out riddled with questions about arab descent made me skeptical...

it might have been more to do with my past, having a minor criminal record as a child or my loud and public controversial nature... or anything else that they could determine from my UK passport number and other details i provided when I initially applied for an ESTA (you don't normally need a visa as a UK citizen).
Admittedly I'm not unbiased, having done work for KPCB (although I know nothing about this case). However, I am extremely disappointed reading the comments in this thread and in the media. People seem ready to jump to conclusions and crucify having only heard one side of the story, I suppose that makes for great stories in the media, but why not let the court case play out and hear both sides first?
I considered it, but for some reasons I didn't do it:

1. the main closure is useless if the .php file isn't included manually using require(_once)/include(_once) functions ( https://github.com/EmanueleMinotto/crystal/wiki/Tip ) because it returns directly at line 144
2. the autoloader become useless too, because there's Composer that does it very well
3. the PHP world is full of great frameworks, microframeworks, routers and other components, it will become rapidly a common library and not a good library because it doesn't follow development best practices but only a set of rules (defined in the CONTRIBUTING.md file)

Crystal can't be packed in a Composer package, but Composer can be used in a project including crystal.
The app does its best to generate one picture based on the event data and if it can't it will just use a smaller header.
In my experience, it works fairly well for non work events. It is a great way to add some personalization magic very simply.
> For example, when defining a field as int(11) you can just happily insert textual data...

My eyes practically fell out of my head when reading this.
How is it a backhanded compliment? The React team is obviously proud of their work, and used it as a point of reference that they believe they can do better than what is there now too.
That would work at "compile" time, but how do we know whether or not a property is missing at runtime without accessing it? Or resorting to an expensive and minifier-hostile call such as hasOwnProperty? The TypeScript approach won't work here.

Guaranteeing that optional properties have a default value would be one solution, another would be to use ES6 default parameters instead of options objects. But there has to be some sort of value to use at runtime if missing property access always throws.
They ask for a LI profile don't they?
See http://asmjs.org/
What is "procedural block scoped code" and why do you think var as a binding construct (ignoring the initialiser) is control-flow sensitive? It's not.

/be
I've been in meetings and cultures years before where your attitude (which I share) was not the prevailing atmosphere. In those places, I could imagine women feeling like a hen in a fox's den.
Soon You’ll Be Able to Turn Your Brown Eyes Blue for $5,000
Uh, of course I am... now. I wasn't.
I want share my tuned list :

"Disable DirectWrite" --> disable ---> for MacType

"Enable tab audio muting UI control" --> enable --> for easy to aute

"Minimum SSL/TLS version supported" -- > TLS 1.0 --> for security
......
Yeah, I thought I had good news or at least a new personalized welcome system on HN ;-)
Circa 1964 Livermore Data Systems Model A Modem (2009)
The 4-week view is one of the options for the configurable custom view in the Settings panel. I think 4 weeks is the default, but if you've changed it anytime in the past you might see something different. In my most-used Google account I have it configured to two weeks.
> we're just now starting to get to a point where developers are leveraging its power and dynamism in its own right

It's damning that you say it took 20 years for us to "start" to leverage JavaScript's power. Compare to C#, which appeared 15 years ago, or Go which is from 2009, or Swift, which hasn't even celebrated its first birthday yet.

Better comparisons might be Python and Ruby, which are both fully dynamic and have cool metaprogramming facilities like JavaScript does, but they'll both give you hard errors when you type the equivalent of [].lenght. And they give you proper stack traces and error messages, too: none of "undefined is not a function" which took until 2015 to get fixed in Chrome (try it). Working with Node.js will make you fall into despair when you realize that your program crashes, and it has stack traces, but none of the stack frames are in your code because everything has been threaded through callbacks. Python's major implementation has serious problems with concurrency (re: the GIL, global interpreter lock) and it too has dynamic types everywhere but it's still far easier to work with.

What I want is to be able to refactor a JavaScript project without feeling like I'm crossing the river Styx. Where are the call sites for this function... who knows? TypeScript seems to at least give me some of those tools, it's a shame that the tooling isn't really ready--the compiler takes ages to run (timed it at 2.0 seconds on a small project... I might as well be using C++ at those speeds).

And if Google has been using TypeScript as a basis, as they say, then you can keep using JavaScript the way you want and you don't even have to type anything in differently. Just let us add some type checking if we want it.
This cannot seriously be this Nazre's own website -- can it?!
it is true. the analogy i like to use (which is quite belittling to men i guess, and very extreme) is being burned by fire.

if you put your hand in fire, you are the victim, but its still your fault when you get burned. the fire isn't going to go cold whatever your intent behind putting your hand in it.

in the same way men will look at exposed cleavage no matter why you are wearing the low cut top. that's just nature, and blaming men for their natural behaviour is no better than blaming the fire for being hot.

the best defence is to not even go there, don't put your hand in fires and don't show your cleavage... i shouldn't have to disregard such straightforward logic because the person i am talking to is a woman. imo that is demeaning to women...

its a dangerous position to take, but for all of the wrong reasons.

(and of course, men can train themselves to not look, and especially not to stare at boobs - the fire can not train itself to be cold)
I pretty much agree with you 100%, but I hate it when people use Steve Jobs quotes. He was better at this than almost anybody else, the rest of us need some help and some luck.
I got tired of replying with true ES4-is-not-turning-JS-into-Java denials in 2007:

https://brendaneich.com/2007/11/my-media-ajax-keynote/

/be
Vision is a fancier way of saying "dumb luck".
More than happy to give it a whirl. Can you elaborate on what you do with the data that's given? Do you store it permanently, how long do you keep it, who else gets to have it?
I got so sick of Sunrise on Mac, I went back to Calendar.app. It required a lot of up-front configuration (I had to set every calendar I follow to "ignore alerts") but once I got past that I've found it works pretty well. Better than I expected it to, and better than Sunrise does.
We can't just dismiss people (people) and we can't just take them at their word, either.