skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There was a case, I can't remember the specifics, of a drug bust where there was more than one person in the house, the person charged did not want the police to come in, but someone else ended up letting them in. The search was contested as unlawful, but I'm not sure how it turned out...

Edit: Here it is, as long as they arrest the disagreeing party and remove them from the home, the Supreme court ruled the arrested party can no longer object to the search, and in that case they don't need a warrant. So I think the racket is they claim exigent circumstances to enter, arrest you, and then perform the search.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-wa...
> extreme science is bad

> it's leary's fault psychedelic research became stunted

could you elaborate?
Obviously everyone has the ability to learn from the start, or it'd be impossible to even learn to learn. But what have I done to improve my learning capabilities? The best kind of learning, practice, by newer considering my own knowledge as lacking for a task, but rather something I'll have to improve I get practice in learning any time I try to solve a new problem.

University does help a lot as well. Even if I definitely don't remember every fact from every course I've studied (although claiming that all is forgotten within 45 minutes would be a major exaggeration), I've been "forced" to learn a lot of different subjects within a limited time frame. In itself this means practice in learning and it also creates a large base on knowledge upon which I more easily can learn new things. Math stands out as the most important in that, as it's something that I find too tedious to learn on my own, but which is the language used in almost all technical subjects.
Are we starting to fall out of love with Silicon Valley?
I don't think the point was to say that it wasn't small, only that it's definitely much larger than a soccer field.
Sure, it'll stay secret. Entirely within the confines of the French government.

Just like the output of the recording devices they installed on Air France planes in business class. Those were never turned over to French companies.
Feedback: "Cambridge" is ambiguous.
Project Sapphire 20th Anniversary
So... are these guys actually going to be able put up a payload and also is there anything really unique about what they're doing? 100kg seems like a pretty small satellite for a $5MM launch, though I must confess my ignorance of such matters for commercial launch systems.
Nimble, Pure and Nutanix are delivering easy to use, high performance storage/compute for a fraction of the cost of EMC and Netapp. This is reason why Netapp is losing clients to Nimble, and EMC is losing to Pure. Cisco should stay on their toes with Nutanix line of Software defined hardware.
This looks interesting, and it may be something I'll use in the future.

Something which I find a little annoying with WordPress development is making admin UIs, to me it always seem repetitive, copy+paste work etc. Would your IDE help with that?
I'm just reciting this from memory but I think spaceX launches are currently $50-100 million per launch. If they can achieve reusable rockets it'll be on the order of a few hundred thousand per launch though.
> It wouldn't be if Google didn't have 95% of the market share.

I thought you didn't need a huge market share to be anticompetitive. Apple didn't have a huge market share in ebooks when it colluded with the publishers.

> but at some point you have to admit that's too much power for one company to have.

I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal?

> Right now Google has the power to effectively remove anyone or any company from the internet. So far we've seen no evidence that they've done anything like this, but if history is any indicator, left unchecked the eventually will.

Why would they expose themselves to such scrutiny? What is it that they can do ten years from now that they can't already do? You don't think their market share could get any larger, do you?
> I see so many job applications that are exactly a laundry list of achievements, and nothing about what the applicant could do for me.

Seems like to me that the unspoken implication by a lot of employers in how they conduct the hiring process is that they would rather assess that themselves. The candidate lists what they "are" (which is often done as the sum of their past) and the employer decides whether they are a person who will fit what they need.
Where did you find that snippet?
Indeed this is a trollish post, actually one of the many on the forum (which is a disclaimer about official statements)

From their website:
Liberland will accept anyone of any background as long they are not Communists, Nazis or other types of extremists.
> a purely libertarian country

… which does not accept citizenship requests from Syrians, Kurds, Arabs, Russians and Chinese …

Not very libertarian in my opinion.

(Source: http://liberland.org/en/forum/?threadID=5510225855311e5b0b0c...)
You have to look at this practically instead of ideologically. Everything is a matter of degree. The potential harm a band can do by being too popular is far less than the potential harm done by effectively controlling the internet.

Certainly you'll agree that their is a market where it is possible for a company to be "too popular", i.e., the government should step in with regulation.

Lets look at a very extreme case. What if one company develops a cure for all forms of cancer, and they won't release the secret (let's assume our hypothetical country has no drug regulations), and they charge $100k for treatment. Is it wrong for the government to step in and regulate?

Google is effectively the gateway to the internet, and whether you choose to use them or not you are beholden to that control. If you want to do business a web presence is an absolute necessity, but if Google decides they don't like you, there is no recourse. I'd say that that ability to do harm rises to the level that we should consider potential regulatory remedies.

I don't necessarily support forcing them to make their algorithm public, but I would support some kind of government audit.
Am I missing something? Google search is "just" a very sophisticated algorithm to ranks the pages on internet matching some criteria. If Google doesn't disclose its algorithm and doesn't want to pay the fine ("up to 10% of total global revenue of a search engine business" according to the article), what could France do? Bane Google from the country? Although it would be possible, it would result in a massive loss of productivity for the whole country, since French would have to switch to admittedly inferiors search engines.

I say that as a French expat using duckduckgo as his main search engine.
In theory, but for an early country it's a long shot. With many races, you'd have to handle many different cultures and give out some of that freedom in exchange for equality.
All I can say is that I am moving everything I can to cloud object storage from my Netapp because of 2 cents vs. $2 for GB of storage.
Also Netapp wouldn't be my third chios on the next purchase of storage
SpaceX lists the launch of a Falcon 9 to be $61M. But they can put 13,150 kg into LEO. Rocketlab's is much smaller, only sending 100 kg into LEO. So a Falcon 9 is ~12x more expensive, but delivers more than 125x payload to orbit. Plus you can send stuff into GEO with a Falcon 9, but Rocketlab doesn't have a chance with one their size.

So Rocketlab comes out sounding like a worse deal in the cost/payload ratio, but if Rocketlab can deliver on their launch frequencies then they can capture the market of smaller companies having to buy a secondary spot on a large rocket, and then wait for the whims of the other people to be ready to launch. The smaller company can fork over $5M and have the #1 priority and only payload on the rocket.

SpaceX source: http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
Electron here is advertising 125kg to low-earth orbit for $4.9M.

SpaceX Falcon 9 is the only current offering, with 13,150kg to LEO for $62M; it's a major difference in capability.

SpaceX Falcon 1 (no longer offered) was demonstrating 185kg up to a claimed 670kg to LEO for (contract numbers vary) between $7M to $11M USD.
> It's convenient to think our work is so sophisticated, and that lawmakers are simpletons. But that's a naive view.

I don't think anybody is suggesting they are simpletons. Unfortunately, French lawmakers are fairly tech-illiterate on average (as demonstrated by the recent vote for the mass surveillance law).

That said, I kind of agree with you. Investigating Google is one thing, asking for them to spill their trade secrets is another.
The question at the end was always there.
"Clients dial into [any] circuit server in order to interact with the entire system. All [circuit] servers are equal citizens in every respect and, in particular, any one can be used as a choice for dial-in."

This sounds like it will cause exciting behavior under a network partition...
They are liberals not libertarians.
I was thinking "ergo" was like, I have hands, "ergo" I have a keyboard. And now I feel silly.
What we're seeing here is another case of a technology outgrowing traditional values. Perhaps democracy should be replaced for the sake of the internet.
Apart from all the other points raised, this reads a lot like a list of "I know all these unpatched zero-day exploits in the enemy's engineering".
Show HN: Free Business Logo Design
Cleversafe seems to be eating NetApp's lunch.
Interesting to read this right after this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9399307
While it raises a few valid points, this essay is pretty bad
overall. Apart from distorting the history of SSRIs (one can't meaningfully tell the story of the rise of SSRIs without talking about the prior successes and drawbacks of tricyclic antidepressants and MAO inhibitors), it pushes a false narrative characteristic of politically-motivated drug-bashers: there is a single "physical theory" of depression, centered on two or three molecules, that was advanced through commercially-motivated distortion of science and later debunked. The basic monoamine hypothesis has been known to be faulty for decades, nearly as long as monoamine reuptake inhibitors have been in widespread use; the psychiatric research community has long since been studying other possibilities.

Studies do show that, on average, antidepressants barely outperform placebo. However, this is because the effects of antidepressants are correlated to symptom severity, so averaging the entire population together shows virtually no difference. This certainly supports less widespread use of antidepressants than has been common in recent decades, but not that antidepressants are useless. It's not like the evidence generally shows that psychotherapy is much better, either. It's prescribed so much less not out of some ideological antipathy for introspection and hard work, but because it's not generally any more effective, costs far more, has much worse compliance, and is less readily available (especially in smaller cities and rural areas) than generic drugs. The dirty little secret of psychiatry isn't that SSRIs don't work; it's that everything sort of works, but any single thing doesn't work very well for most patients, and there's no validated model that predicts which treatment is likely to work for which patient.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with studying depression is that the diagnosis of depressive disorders is tremendously unreliable. Virtually all of their symptoms overlap with "sickness behavior", which is triggered by dozens (if not hundreds) of different physiological diseases. Implicit in the diagnosis of a mood disorder (actually explicit in the DSM, but people are rarely told this) is that those diseases have been ruled out as the underlying cause. In practice, this rarely happens. Doctors will do some perfunctory screening for things like hypothyroid and hypogonadal disorders, but those screening tests have very poor sensitivity and only cover a handful of common causes of depressive symptoms. If you're lucky, you might get an actual formal screening for neurological disorders. Initial screening for sleep disorders is mostly done with crappy questionnaire scales that disproportionately focus on superficial aspects of stereotypical presentation ("Do you snore?"). In a nutshell, being diagnosed with a depressive disorder has little inherent meaning beyond your GP/PCP running out of ideas or patience. In turn, any given study population of "people with depressive disorders" is unlikely to actually be homogeneous in the origins of its depressive symptoms.
In France most of google users does not even know there is an alternative to Google, most of people I met in France that are not under 30 or working in a web related area just does not get it clear what is the difference between a web browser and Google. They launch it, write what they are looking for in the address bar and they just get a google search result which they think is a feature from their browser to enter the web. IMHO that's why there were only 30 congressmen from the existing 577 that came to vote for the last law regarding internet trafic monitoring https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9386820
When Google measures itself against other search engines it is primarily interested in measuring search quality and not market share.

Google has put a lot of effort into creating test query suites and other systems that can be used to evaluate search results and works to make sure that in each region and language it can out perform competitors. I don't know how effective the measurement is but I can tell you that Google takes providing the best search results seriously.
People are not using Google because it's the best one but mainly because it's the default homepage screen. People generally have no idea what Google is, for them, Google is just "the internet". Some people are even confused/lost when they drastically change the homepage during events.
simple and clear! what's next?
> Thinking of (for instance) Google search and Google maps as two entirely separate products ignores the value of being able to search for an address in the former and automatically embed a map from the latter.

It's also useful to open a link from Word. Do you see any reason why Microsoft should make it possible to open it in anything else than IE?

The way the game works is that you can get away with vertical integration and anti-competitive behaviour as long as you are not in a situation of monopoly. Then the rules change.
it seems that it provides value. I will sign up
I don't understand one thing. Why would HR trust a person who says "I can do X"? Everyone can say that. But not everyone can say "I did X". Is hiring really predicated upon the naivete of those doing it?
I don't. But I interpret posting something here as a request for comments and this was the obvious one for me because there is no clear indication that this is just a fun project.

The only thing I sometimes worry about - and this is a quite good example - is if it is really a good idea to have all the weekend fun projects in the public. You want to know if there are some interesting new databases or libraries for something? Search for it and you get an ever increasing list of results with 99 % useless weekend hacks. I am not sure how it will turn out in the long run but there might be some real danger of polluting the internet with evermore useless stuff and bad code.
That was a troll post (see other comments in this thread).
Hey I'd really like an invite!

[hello (at) arthurcolle.com] if you have any more :)
That's what we use for our web team! It's definitely still around.
1. When signing in with Bitbucket, it tries to add ssh keys to r/w access all my repos.

2. Emails with dots not accepted by your sign up form

3. Drag and drop not working in firefox

4. I created Ubuntu 14 droplet with DigitalOcean, and inserted your "connect new servers" command there. Got result:

Run agent on stack
Error response from daemon: no such id: lb
time="2015-04-18T16:33:03-04:00" level=fatal msg="Error: failed to remove one or more containers"

When I'm trying to "run" my server into your app, I'm getting message "Available server instance not found"
SO, yes, probably.. anyway it is hot topic
The Chances of Another Chernobyl Before 2050? 50%, Say Safety Specialists
It can't possibly be illegal for search to be biased. Search is synonym for bias. Ranking is the definition of bias!

It's like when people claim "discrimination" is illegal, when the definition of discriminating is to recognize a difference or to tell apart. Discrimination is not illegal, discrimination based on a protected class is illegal.

Likewise for anti-trust, what's illegal is if they are abusing their dominant market position in search to suppress competition. Can promoting your own product, in and of itself, be anti-competitive? It seems like stretch. Just like Microsoft installing a browser (an absolutely necessary component of any modern OS) in and of itself is not anti-competitive. I think a company has to go much, much further to warrant this level of scrutiny.

Is Google actively blocking me from accessing superior content? And if they did, what's stopping people from abandoning Google? In the Windows OS case, there literally was no realistic alternative at the time. So people had a gun to their head, and there were APIs which only the IE team could access keeping the competition at bay. Google Search is a very different beast.

I think Google does a fairly good job of keeping the "Chinese Wall" between Search and the other groups. I think the key question is whether they somehow have to open up their meta-search capabilities to third parties. For example, the way the calculator, or word definition lookup, or weather, or airfare search, or even Google+, is now integrated into search, this is a coupling which no 3rd party could ever compete with... I don't know a solution. For now I think we don't need a "solution". I want these features, I use them constantly and appreciate them. If DDG or Bing offered better meta-search / charms I would switch and use them. They are literally a keystroke away, there is nothing stopping anyone from using a competitor. Which I why I tend to think the whole thing is a political farce and a tax on Google's success.
Imagine if latency was one of the signals Google used to determine ranking. Now imagine that Googlebot gets a ping of half for an application that uses Google App Engine as opposed to someone who uses a raspberry pie at home. Would you say that the makers and users of Raspberry pie now have grounds to sue Google for ranking them lower?
It's more a party thing, usually (the conservative party has been embroiled in a series of scandals concerning the last presidential elections, and the one before).
I went to a cloud dev summit a year ago and they flat out said on stage that Microsoft and Amazon were under pricing cloud to kill competition. So this is just as expected...
Following a link and opening a directory are distinct enough in most people's minds to not confuse the two. That's why hyperlinks are normally underlined, colored, and give you a different mouse cursor.
What is the problem with accepting Communists and Nazis, a libertarian country should accept and respect any ideology.
"Provide evidence."

For better or for worse, that's what's so frustrating about hiring/interviewing.

I pay my taxes. I drive the speed limit. I never cheated in high school or college. I signed up for the Selective Service. When I see trash on the ground, I pick it up. I keep off the grass.

Yet when talking to a potential employer, I magically become this shifty-eyed drifter, whose every word is suspect.

"Interviewer: But how many years of walnut do you have?
Carpenter: Gosh, I really don't know -- was I supposed to be counting the walnut?" (http://www.jasonbock.net/jb/News/Item/7c334037d1a9437d9fa650...)

The "carpenter" thought he was just doing work. What he didn't realize was that a career in technology means always preparing for when you're next put on trial.

I get it, of course. Programmers are expensive and have a ramp-up time, firing is hard so it pays to be cautious when hiring, etc.

But the net effect, the defaulting to the conclusion that an interviewee is lying or stupid, is toxic.
There's a difference between clicking a link (where "open in default browser" is the obvious behavior, and there's no advantage to forcing any particular browser) and searching for an address (where it makes sense to recognize an address and offer special handling, such as displaying a map, or directions).

Searching for an address is a special case of search. If you search for an address, you're unlikely to get useful results by just searching the web, unless the address happens to be that of a business who lists their address on their site; even then, the result you want from the address is probably a map or directions, rather than the site for the business at that address. So what, precisely, would you suggest Google or another search engine do in that case to continue providing a good user experience? (Answers such as "don't do that" are obviously wrong, as are answers like "go to extra trouble to build a generic search plugin API and make users explicitly select a map provider". Neither of those provides a satisfactory experience for users.)
>I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal?

This really, _really_ depends on your philosophy, the way you view companies. In your opinion are they basically structures by which a larger group of people can collaborate on a shared vision/product, another way to serve the community while making a _little_ money on the side? Or are companies inherently self-serving in your opinion, do they exist only to make money regardless of how good increased usage/sales are for society? Is this structure owned by many people, or are founders the only true, and exclusive, owners of a company (not talking about stock here).

I'm not really good at expressing my view on this, so maybe a personal example is more helpful:

I'm all in favour of google being broken up and/or regulated more as a public utility and less as a private company. The reason is that because of the ubiquitousness of 'google' and it's traces in everything related to tech it is more of a public utility than a privately owned company, and should be regulated and restricted as such.

So to explain that in the previous narrative: I think google's importance to society outweighs the rights of the founders/stock holders in regards to who should decide what direction the company should be going in.

Also if you can forgive the snark, there's something more to point out about that sentence:

>I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal?

>I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because [society decided they are too big]. What did they do? Did they do something [society thinks is wrong]?

Yes, they grew to big.
This - and why do you let unjustified highest incarceration rates go on?
1) Microsoft mandates that PC vendors allow users to disable Secure Boot. In the last rev it's up to the hardware manufacture. Do research before you buy.
2)root is not allowed to be illegal.
3)I've never had this issue but I don't play by the rules.
4)This is two issues a)it will not be less secure it would be the same as having a second key for your front door, or creating a second private key. Just because you have two keys does not mean it's less secure the proof is in the proof (it's math problem). b)government spying/big brother/what have you... I don't know anyone who would like this.
How-To Create Rails has_many Macros in Plain Old Ruby