skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My impression of Rand Paul is that he has personal views which conflict with many Americans and that he believes that it's not his right to impose those views, this differs significantly from Hillary who is a long time advocate of actively denying marriage to gays and lesbians through acts like DOMA.

As far as private prisons I think his views on sentencing are much more relevant. I think people being sentenced to less time and those who have non-violent offence being released are more important than whether the prison is owned and operated by the gov't.

As far as popularity he's the only Republican that outpolls Clinton in many swing states. (Not sure if you were insinuating that he's only popular on the internet)

He's a huge advocate of fixing urban poverty by not removing working parents from their home to serve lengthy sentences for non-violence offences.
Twitter's Evolving Plans to Make Money from Its Data Stream
What's the value of your honor and respect?

I realize that sounds pretty dismissive, that isn't what I'm getting at. I'm asking a serious question about why you are framing the discussion in that way.
Information Security for (non-IT) Professionals (Journalists, Doctors, Lawyers)
No bitcoin paincoin? I'd have a few cents or a dollar to research and and develop if it was a button without a singular centreal payment pain point. Reality is their strings are tied.
Ah yes. Grand conclusions drawn from 20 data points. Economic science wins again.
Well, nobody has ever said that 1/0 will get you infinity, because it won't. Interpreted directly, it's an illegal operation, and there is no result because the computation is impossible. Sure enough, the gamma function doesn't exist at nonpositive integers.

But wait! If you interpret 1/0 in a limit sense... there is no result, because there's no constraint that the neighborhood of 0 is entirely positive or entirely negative (obviously, the neighborhood of 1 is entirely positive). You'd only get an answer of "infinity" if you were limiting a function like "1 / 0^2".

Sure enough, we see that the gamma function has no limit at the nonpositive integers, always approaching positive infinity from one side and negative infinity from the other side. So the factorial of a negative integer doesn't exist. What point are you trying to make?
Actually, the Establishment clause does not make it clear, and in fact, only prevented the US Congress (not the states) from establishing an official religion. It wasn't until the supreme court Incorporated the establishment clause in 1947 that states were prevented from establishing an official state religion. In fact, at least six states had official religions at the time of the founding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause#Incorporat...

The second paragraph in the Incorporation clause discusses my points above.
"I understand that you disagree with everything my candidate has ever voted on or stated he believes, but he is still a good candidate for your vote because as President he won't do anything."

Please don't use the term "American Dream" from now on. I'm not trying to be mean/sarcastic, but that term is too... it's dead. It's dead of any real meaning, and it makes candidates and their supporters sound like parodies of themselves.
I don't agree with profit. How do you ship asteroids to the surface without burning up in the atmosphere?
A lot of people talk like humans are made to serve the economy, not the other way around.

If "the efficiency of the economy" really demands that an increasing number of people be unable to support themselves, that would mean that it's time to tear down the existing economy and replace it with something that works properly. is that what you want?
Your [1] begins in 2005. Expand that to maximum range, and it will turn out that we're at about average.

I think one of the expected outcomes of ACA was that people who could afford to retire, but were too constrained to buy their own health insurance, would leave the workforce.
again, search & display need to be separated out.

If you don't have proof - you can just make assertions that something is "so" and let it be.
Purchasing power of USD: http://goldsilverworldscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads...
It wasn't immediately clear-- I assumed (2) when looking at the project and wasn't sure what was going on. Thanks for the clarification.
It's impossible to eliminate all bugs, no matter what you do. Psychological design will eliminate some bugs but not all. Static type system will eliminate some bugs, but not all. The best you can do is try to eliminate as many bugs as possible, by doing multiple things that give the best returns, given the bugs you're targeting.
I think you are talking about xiaowuc1, who is on top of scoreboard and having solved first problem's small data input in 1.4 mins.

FYI, he gave a Quora answer about his view on Competitive Programming http://qr.ae/dx4m6

"Especially in the United States, there's little glory to be had in doing programming contests. I've invested thousands of hours into them, solving problem after problem, writing line of code after line of code, for what? My peers, meanwhile, are off doing amazing things: some are doing ground-breaking research with professors, others are finding new passions that they only could have discovered at Stanford... the list goes on. I'll be retiring from competitive programming after World Finals this year, in part because I want to live a more normal life."

That's in 2013, and he is still participating in this year's contest, so I guess he is still in love with it :p

Anyway, I did my first code jam last year and also got my ego shattered when looking at the scoreboard. I passed the online qualification round though, but decided to stop since I think it's nonsense trying to complete with thousands of competitive programmers to get to top 1000 when I never practiced as much as them. I used to be like them when I did math contests in high school, so I know what it feels. It's not about your IQ or anything like that, it's just about practice, practice, practice.

It's up to you to decide whether competitive programming is good for your career. For me I'm still doing it occasionally for fun (not really competitive since I just pick problems in areas that I find interesting and do it alone), but since I'm already spend 8 hours a day at work and have a bunch of unfinished side projects in hand and a long list of other things I want to learn, I don't think it's worth spending thousands hours of my time to compete in such contests.

You can also refer to this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9337863 . I think the situation is similar, as doing competitive programming means putting yourself in relative comparison with others. It's just a double edged sword =)
Me thinks the board is moving against marisa (yahoo board trying to change ceo, oh my)

the only change this time, instead of shoping around and turning the company upside down they shopped and put the CEO-to-be as SVP first.
The Establishment Clause prohibits the Federal Congress from establishing a national religion; the 14th Amendment on the other hand has been interpreted to establish a universal standard of morality for the nation as decreed by the Supreme Court. One might say the 14th Amendment and the Establishment clause directly conflict. And the 14th Amendment has won.
You can install Pantheon(the eOS DE) on other distros if you want, though you'll have to put in the time and effort to get it to work and configure it.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pantheon
The two books I've read by Stephenson and really enjoyed. Never really got into the Baroque cycle because it's so long winded, but that should also be good.
(Sorry for the long delay; new accounts are somewhat throttled.)

The article you link to doesn't support your claims. It explicitly states that Gnome 3.14 (which, btw, is only one revision ago, since Gnome uses the old Linux kernel version scheme) would still support ConsoleKit (i.e. a non-systemd codepath). In fact, Gnome 3.16 still supports ConsoleKit, at least in gdm (see the configure-option here [1]).
Can you point out commits where non-systemd support was removed in Gnome 3.14?

And what exactly do you mean by "redirected the systemd calls"? Gnome calls certain methods on certain D-Bus objects; if there is a process on OpenBSD that receives these method calls and acts appropriately, why not call that implementing that particular interface?

I don't want to diminish the amount of work that went into this port. I find it really great that someone is doing all that work. But I don't think that the picture you paint of this is entirely accurate. You assume that the OpenBSD-guys hate systemd. That might be the case (it probably is for a lot of them), but I don't think that this has anything to do with this video. If the video e.g. had shown that they removed any reference to systemd whatsoever from the Gnome code and inserted some sneering comments, I might agree with your conclusion. But it simply shows that they succeded in porting Gnome 3.16 to OpenBSD.

How would this video have had to look, to persuade you of the opposite (i.e. that there were OpenBSD developers that love systemd)?

1. https://git.gnome.org/browse/gdm/tree/configure.ac?id=3.16.0...
Do please show me where he's proposed banning same-sex marriage and not simply stated his personal distaste for it.
I think one should probably be pragmatic. I mean, if you're a republican, you practically need to have someone with these ideals. Otherwise, it'd be impossible to have enough votes.
Chamath Palihapitiya: Cracked the code for making startups grow (2013)
Why stop here then? Why not donate 90% of your income to charity and live in a shanty town?
Does anyone else see a problem that they want you to input all your CC details but does not have HTTPS on by default?
The Sharp X68000 was more successful and powerful than any other machine in the "68000 wars." It came a few years later, but outsold both Atari and Amiga (the number I heard was 15 million units sold). However it sold only in Japan, and really only for games -- despite having higher spec'd multimedia and even having video input that could have made a "video toaster" type app like the Amiga possible. Just shows you how massive the Japanese gaming market was in the 80s/early 90s that that niche machine sold only there could outsell them.
> Just because he supports one or two policies we like, doesn't make him good candidate overall.

Yes, but most likely no candidate will line up with a person's beliefs 100%, so it becomes about choosing the candidate who agrees with you on your highest priority issues. Judging from the number of posts on that make the front page of HN about the surveillance state, I would guess that this issue is one that many people here would vote based on.
> I would contend that the only legitimate exercise of an owner's rights in the context of a corporation are to seek profit through commerce.

Not all extant corporations are made to seek profits. There are nonprofits out there for a variety of charitable causes, social-justice causes, and other activities which often have a nontrivial component to them. I believe the ACLU is a corporation, for instance -- the EFF as well, and Amnesty International. We've seen many of their free-speech activities on this site. What provision shall we make for these activities and organizations in an alternative legal framework?

More generally: if an arbitrary profit-seeking corporation doesn't have first-amendment rights, why do newspapers specifically have them? (Or are we abandoning freedom of the press as well? That'll take some Constitutional doing, naturally.) Assuming that it remains, why should Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation or Bloomberg's Bloomberg have rights that Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway doesn't? And where and how should we go about drawing a line between "press" and "not press" organizations in a complicated world where, for instance, an Internet-technology firm like AOL has bought a major news entity, Time Warner?

Outside speech questions specifically, if a corporation does not have first-amendment protection to speak as it chooses, does this mean the government ought to be legally compel its choice of speech? (e.g. endorsing specific politicians, policies, etc.) Is it protected from search and seizures by the Fourth Amendment? (Or, hell, from quartering troops by the third?)

These questions may or may not have good answers. Either way, these narrow margins can hardly contain a proper treatment of the matter. I'm just throwing a few monkey wrenches into the problem, as your comment was simple and straightforward, but the consequences of the proposed legal regime are complex and wide-reaching. :P
Yep, it sure does. The magnitude of Gamma(x) grows without bound as x approaches any negative real integer. The negative integers (and the point at infinity) are also the only points where Gamma(x) has a singularity.
The country that assassinates leading politicians doesn't have "other BS"?

When a country isn't democracy, its hard to say that the people like the laws.
For fun you can try out non-integral factorial values. For example, type in (1/2)! into WolframAlpha or Google, and you'll find the answer is the square root of pi over 2.

This is due to the gamma function extension: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhDDpSju3uY
> I don't see how a libertarian would make a good case for the government to force the mother to continue to sustain and provide for it.

So all neglect laws should be removed?

> The libertarian thing to do would be to ban such regulation.

That requires a constitutional amendment. Those are not easy to get passed.
"third-trimester abortions" - Excellent straw man. How about his proposed personhood legislation? https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s583?utm_campaign...
Similarly, there is no way to define floor(n) for integers n maintaining continuity of the floor function, even though floor is a continuous function otherwise. We still define floor(n) = n because the meaning of the floor function is more important than its continuity. And so it is with exponentiation at (0, 0).
This is a sad reminder that the current president, who we were all so hopeful of, has the power to end this B.S. today.
How is social security not a ponzi scheme?

The returns generated depend on finding new investors in the scheme, if current investors pull out the scheme cannot return promised benefits to current investors.

This is pretty much the precise definition of a ponzi scheme and why the scheme faces certain bankruptcy with out a significant rise in births.
Their old developer website also explained some of the new technologies that Elementary OS exposes to applications:

- Contractor (like Android's Intents): https://web.archive.org/web/20130314024115/http://elementary...

- Switchboard (unified, pluggable system settings): https://web.archive.org/web/20130314024137/http://elementary...

- Granite (GTK+ widget collection): https://web.archive.org/web/20130314024129/http://elementary...
So Ron Paul (anti-abortion) is not a libertarian? I think this is news to Ron Paul, all of Ron Paul's congressional staffers and campaign volunteers, r/libertarian, mises.org, reason.com, Cato, Students for Liberty, IHS, FEE, FFF, antiwar.com, every libertarian podcast and radio show, and libertarians everywhere. /s

While pro-choice is the view held by the majority of libertarians, there is a large minority of libertarians that are pro-life and they are accepted as libertarians by almost all libertarians.

If every libertarian who disagreed with the libertarian majority on one or two issues were disqualified from being a libertarian there wouldn't be any libertarians left.
> embedded is an increasingly automated dead-end

as someone who's new in the industry and interested in embedded, what do you mean exactly? who is automating it and making it a dead-end?
Hence you need to provide your good customers/fans etc. the tools & incentive to do the marketing for you.

This I believe is the idea behind Trello Gold etc and the solution we came up for a similar problem[1]

Lots of business try to build a referral rewards program and hope it catches fire. But even there it is quite surprising to find the low visibility of such programs. Came across AirBnB users claiming they had no idea AirBnB had one[2]

[1] The startup we founded, http://carrotleads.com

[2] https://www.airbnb.com/invite
Yes, it's true that the Establishment Clause did not originally apply to the states.

However, since incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment, the majority of precent applies it to the states as well.

(I've written dozens of papers on the Establishment Clause.)
Most contemporary opinion, including the vast majority of applicable precedent, holds that the 14th Amendment made the Establishment Clause applicable to the states.
Compile-type safety for literal strings! Amazing!
Wow. I feel old. I used to run this in old x86 clusters on breadracks in my basement when I was in highschool (1997-2000).

Folklore goes Intel used to use Prime95 for stress testing it was so thorough.
The previous period with a comparable employment-population ratio was before women entered the workforce in large numbers.
> Sure enough, we see that the gamma function has no limit at
> the nonpositive integers, always approaching positive
> infinity from one side and negative infinity from the other side.

On the complex plane, there is more than one side to approach from. And the convention that was used when I learned complex analysis (stereographic projection), is that there is only one value of infinity, which can be approached from many directions. Under this model, the point at infinity is much better-behaved than the points at infinity in real analysis.

The Gamma function is characterized as having poles at the negative integers. That's a very straightforward description, and the behavior is well-understood and relatively easy to deal with. Certainly easier to deal with than the value of e^-x as x->0 (that singularity is essential, rather than a pole).
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the probability that you will become the victim of /any/ crime is that low - rather, I argue that the sort of emotion-arousing crime that almost invariably gets thrown around as an example to argue against ubiquitous encryption (like an abductee being driven around multiple states and raped for weeks) is actually rare.

I would imagine that your typical story of being mugged or having your picket fence demolished (what does it take for a mugging to count as violent crime?) would be far less likely to arouse feelings of "this is so terrible, how can we possibly allow encryption on iPhones if people doing this will get to walk free because of it". If you think that helping some small additional fraction of those 2.3% of households or 13.1% of people a conviction of the perpetrators is a more valuable thing than strong encryption, then it would be more intellectually honest to evoke a typical case in your argument than an extremal one.
You said originally:

> The fact that the Apple Watch can't be relied on to remain useful for even a single 24 hour day...

This statement is false. Apple's 18 hour battery claim clearly supports that, because the vast majority of humans sleep for 6 hours or more.

In your reply you added the word 'continuous' to your earlier statement to create: "...or it can't be relied on to remain useful for a continuous 24 hour period."

That's not what you originally stated, and it's irrelevant anyway because humans don't need 24 hours of continuous use from devices.

Charging a device every night while you sleep requires you to actively think about battery life less than a device that only needs to be on some nights because for those devices you have to think about whether to charge them or not. Of course you can always mitigate this by charging every night.

Therefore, if not having to think about battery life is an important criterion, the Apple watch does live up to the potential of the devices as a class every bit as much as a device with longer battery life.

Of course a device with longer battery life does have advantages - e.g. Going camping away from power for a few days, etc. but this just illustrates the point that longer battery life supports less common use cases, and is without question not a 'fundamental problem'.

Lack of support for uncommon use cases cannot be reasonably said to 'drastically limit realistic utility'.

Like I said, I agree that longer battery life provides an improvement, but it is a marginal one.

Claims like 'extremely short' and 'drastically limited' are exaggerations.
Given that there is a photo of him using a Lenovo laptop, you could be right.
Given the current field of candidates, it's pretty much Rand Paul or More-Of-The-Same. Seriously, Hillary is just Obama-term-three and Jeb... oh Lord, talk about scary.
Here's one source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditche...

My favorite quote from that (showing how intellectually dishonest Paul really is): "The First Amendment says keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."
I'm the kind of guy who would marry another guy. So, I have standing to have an opinion about Gay Marriage.

I don't want the government in marriage AT ALL. Making the laws "more neutral" means getting gender out of the laws. This is a correct first step. Marriage is merely an expression of the right of freedom of association, which all people have. You don't need new laws to make it exist. But you should get rid of laws that violate it.

Alas, most gays and lesbians are more leftist and wanted some sort of recognition form the government.... if they had taken the position of getting government out of marriage completely, they would have found many christians (whose ideas of what their marriages should be are regularly infringed upon by government) as allies.

I'll take Rand Pauls government out of marriage over Bill Clinton (signed DOMA) and the democrats (3/4 of which voted for DOMA) and Obama (he was anti-gay marriage before he was "for" it) anyday.
We've always had and will always have private citizens who have orders-of-magnitude-louder megaphones: big-money bogeymen like Rupert Murdoch could be plenty effective at buying megaphones. Or think of any celebrity Twitter account, from Taylor Swift to Obama himself. And we'd disempower a variety of political activity (ostensibly) backed by the common man if private-sector labor unions couldn't spend money on politics and rich CEOs could.
More options:
- Go solo. At 40 you should be experienced enough to handle up to mid-sized projects, alone and on a reasonable time-frame. Try to pick projects that your clients will actually use, with new features and support contracts you will have steady income for the long-term.
- Go startup. Stop thinking you need to come up with the next über-for-x. There are plenty of opportunities for small sass shops that cater locally and provide sufficient income for a micro successful business. At worst you'll be acquired.
- Go sidetrack. I read someone said every business is a software business. Start a different career/business and you'll be doing the IT needs yourself. That alone is a huge competitive advantage.

These options allow you to continue programming after 40 and you should! It is an urban myth that past 35 programmers are not as good b/c they get tired faster or make more mistakes? The truth is that 20-somethings can put up with very long hours b/c they have the time (mainly due to not having a wife and kids) while 40-somethings have the experience to go right to the answer. That's productive vs efficient. I like to use a soccer analogy: a young defender is good when he's fast because he can outrun the attacker, while an old and slow defender is better because he knows where to stand and wait for the attacker. Experience is gold.
That's true but it's only GOP primary voters they were concerned about.