skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A bit offtopic, but what's your (or the field's) take on buying/bribing/bullying voters?

Even if 10 000 poor person just needs to amass 10K USD, a sufficiently brazen party can just organize for 10 000 other easily mobilized people to vote against the other poor folk. (A common theme around the smaller villages here is the election day free meals, or course the place in full party colors to remind the people who to thank for.) Or is this not so common/significant in practice?)
There are so many laws and regulations, some contradictory, that at any given moment you are guaranteed to be in violation of some of them.
If it makes you feel any better, you can read some of his other stuff and see that he's arguing that such a class is on its way to bring created if not already here, and that he's against it.
Yes, a peaceful, static protest by simply facing the other way while uniformed but off the clock - at a funeral for a colleague - is totally the basis of a new Nazi state and the tens of millions of deaths it caused.
This creates a problem for a lot of progressives, since attacking public sector unions is a big no no. Like, a super duper colossal no no. I see it floated around every once in a while on some mainstream American lefty blogs, and it always gets shot down.
Roslyn ships v1.0-rc2 with "Go-Live" license
> I can't but find people who expect an uniform carriage of justice, across all wealth levels, across all demographics and in all instances of law-breaking, to be nothing short of deranged.

To be honest, the US is particularly bad in that regard.
He got a ton of flack for that, mostly from doctors and epidemiologists;

http://healthblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/mark-cuban-is-wrong...
Nothing. In US, people have "too much" respect for military and police. This respect has turned into an almost fanatical devotion. Say anything against these professionals and you will be branded as anti-national. Even the President cannot criticize the police. Unless US citizens realize that policemen are just professionals performing their jobs and not selfless angels, the police in US will always stay above the law.
Yes¹.

I don't think I've ever heard of using the word mutex, namely, for synchronizing access to data over a network. Mutex kind of implies that there's the synchronization primitive and there's the data, and both can be touched separately but it's just an agreement that we touch the mutex first. However, network protocols usually just transfer updates to/from the data and then let the server do the synchronization and access pairing for each connection.

I don't think it would make sense at all to run a "mutex service" on one server and asking clients to grab that mutex before accessing another "data service" which would obviously allow any data updates by anyone without any synchronization at all.

¹ or just multiple tasks, in general. Even a single-core machine needs mutexed access to shared data because several tasks could try to concurrently use that memory location and the scheduler could switch tasks at a critical point. However, if strictly limited to single-core, and the system allows to, you can just disable interrupts while you're manipulating the data.
My point is that most of the runtime errors that the OP had to suffer through would have been caught at compile time with a statically typed language (STL).

No interviewer will ever ding you for writing code that doesn't quite compile yet, because it's just part of the process of writing code in an STL.

However, with a DTL, every time you run your program and it crashes, the interviewer mentally takes away points. Which is not really fair since it's how DTL's work, but it's a reality: a runtime crash is much more damning than a program that doesn't compile.

Stepping back, I think the simple fact that the company this person went to interview with recently switched from Ruby to Clojure would have already been a huge red flag to me.
No, those people have guns. It's usually against the people in your community that had nothing to do with it.
Obstructing traffic.

It's like 2/3 of the way through the article.
Unions negotiate higher/equal wages by arguing that all workers in the union are fungible, i.e. equally competent, and use quantifiable metrics and standards to argue for pay levels. That's why top talents' earnings are lowered by unions.

Your example is not comparable with professional jobs like software development as actors are not paid by the hour. An actors' guild would be more comparable to an executives' guild, while a programmers' guild would be comaprable to a doctors' guild.
God Wrote in Lisp [music video]
As an aside, Risky Business podcast is a fantastic podcast if you're interested in infosec. I've been listening to it for over five years, and can't recommend it enough, both for the quality of the content, and for the laughs they have. It comes out weekly on Fridays (Australia time). I've met Pat at some conferences and had a beer with him - he's a great guy, both on and off the podcast. Highly recommended! The website is http://risky.biz

/plug
> Scoring the politicians based on their support for the constitution and especially human rights, plus encouraging the vote, could fix this after just an election cycle or two.

If people cared about this.
I'm confused. Why would a trial have a public defender and a high priced defense attorney? Did you mean prosecutor?
> Your dislike for an interview question that tests knowledge of number theory

"Number theory" is a bit exaggerated. This is a warm up question to see if the candidate is able to decompose number 530 into digits five, three and zero. If you can't do this in a few minutes, you're probably out of the running from the get go.
pas on vote buying, linear vote buying is bad according to the same theory that predicts QV is good. The only equilibrium under linear vote buying is that the single most intense (or wealthiest) individual has her way at everyone else's expense. This intuition seems to underly much of the discussion here, but only applies when vote buying is linear. The logic, as cwp pointed out, is Tullock's. So while QV is much better than 1-person-1-vote, linear vote buying is worse than either.
Even in the places where the police don't have guns, like London.
This is interesting in itself, but is it the next logical version of "the suit is back!" as described in Graham's PR article? http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
Not happening without a lot more public attention and scrutiny. Public sector unions are core elements of the Democratic Party coalition, and no Democrat can win a primary without their support. Republicans don't depend on them, but find they're more trouble than they're worth.

And questioning their powers and motives are all on the list of badthinks that must not be spoken.
In scala:

def happy(n: Int) = n.toString.map(_.asDigit).map(Math.pow(_, 2)).sum.toInt

def find_happiness(n: Int, seen: List[Int]): Boolean = {
if (happy(n) == 1) true
else if (seen.contains(happy(n))) false
else find_happiness(happy(n), seen :+ happy(n))
}

I think OP's answer is wrong
>>> Even if you can afford it, you've got to ask for it.

This. A thousand times.

So many people in the valley just lose track of time, or they put their health on the back burner for just one more month, or miss that yearly physical, and then suddenly it catches up with them.

Saying he was a proponent of work life balance does not mean his job was a walk in the park either. You're in one of the most competitive markets, with a successful startup. I can easily see why executives at his lever would start to cut corners on their health.

It's too bad really. He sounds like one of the guys you would really root for to be successful. At the very least, I'm glad he was able to achieve some of his dreams - something a large portion of the population never get a chance at.

If anything it should remind everybody. Take a break, call your family and tell them you love them, hug your kids and tell them you love them. You never know man, you just never know when your time is going to be up.
It could be an opportunity to force streamlining of laws. The bigger issue in my mind is that most social change involves breaking some laws. A lot of those changes have been for the better.
The thresholds are lower than you think.

In "Why Civil Resistance Works" Erica Chenoweth calls it the 3.5% rule - basically that there's a really low threshold for change.

Here's a WaPo article summarizing it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05... . She has a book on it with a much more thorough study from Columbia press here: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780...

In "The Rebel's Dilemma", Mark Lichbach outlined how if 5% or more have sustained civil disobedience, it has always led to successful downfall and complete regime change of government - not that we need that here.

In more modest proposals, you have things like the Human Rights Campaign (the largest gay-advocacy group) boasting a 1.5 million membership - about 0.4% of the country. They are making dramatic gains for being such a small percent.

In the 1960s, the most powerful civil rights group in the south, the SCLC, had around 250,000 members which was equally, about 0.5%.
It could be ratio AND over 2% of active users voting for (or some such measure).
I love using Seaborn for my plots, I find myself referring to the color palettes for other data visualizations too! I wish there were more of a variety, but thanks to those who have contributed to the project.
Nigerians Arrested for Laundering €2.5M Through Online Scam
If the laws are voted in democratically, then there would be little need to break laws, just vote to amend or void them. Of course, beware the curse of the tyranny of the majority.
The only way to 'fix' Content ID is to kill it. It isn't necessary; it only helps a few gigantic media companies, and they already have effective ways of getting relief by sending automated takedowns.
That's BS. Coding isn't some kind of magical incantation, in spite of the jokes in SICP. Anyone that can understand basic algebra can learn to code.
Michael Hausenblas Joins Mesosphere – Mesosphere
The 1st doesn't protect from firing when you trash your employer in public. It protects your trashing, not employment :)
Here's a quote from Wisconsin's Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights[0]:

If a law enforcement officer is under investigation and is subjected to interrogation for any reason which could lead to disciplinary action, demotion, dismissal or criminal charges, the interrogation shall comply with the following requirements...

That sounds broad enough to cover "Criminal Investigations".

This might just be just Wisconsin though; the law might be different where that commenter lives.

[0] http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/1979/79Stat0164.pdf
This would be a really cool illustration if you could solve the closed loop transfer function, and display the locations of the closed loop zeros and poles.
> I find these outbursts of genuine surprise and bewilderment amusing, in the best possible way.
> What I'm about to suggest is not meant to remedy or suggest alternate remedies to the workings of the criminal justice system as it currently operates.
> I'm merely expressing amusement at the colossal unfamiliarity of most of the generally law-abiding public ( Black, White, Hispanic or otherwise ) at how poorly our system works, even with the best intentions of the law makers and policy wonks.
> I can't but find people who expect an uniform carriage of justice, across all wealth levels, across all demographics and in all instances of law-breaking, to be nothing short of deranged.

tbh, I'm German and while we have our own issues with police, conduct like this is next to unheard of.

I have thought of the police tactics shown in e.g. NCIS (shouting at people until they confess, tricking them into confessions, ...) as typical Hollywood exaggerations, but apparently I was blatantly wrong.
Its more like they want to codify it explicitly because the implicit understanding wasnt benefiting them enough.

The rich and famous, the politicians, and the police/military already have elevated status and treatment within most societies even if it is not officially written, and this goes back to the earliest human establishments.
What about 'privatizing' a police force, with the correct incentives (not perverse incentives, as we see in the correctional sector)? I can see the bad aspects of this, as well the good ones.

One of the main issues, in poor neighborhoods is the government of these places invest very little in them and typically the only governmental presence is the police, which is the last line of governmental assertion (via show of force), and provide little else to get the community going strong. That is to say, there is little put into resources for 'community building', yes, some people in those communities are less cooperative than people of more affluent communities --by cooperative I mean working together to improve and build on their vision.

In these cases, one can hardly fault the police for complaining that they feel the brunt of the frustration of a population while politicians politick and like Janus, speak from two mouths and their only policy to address issues is to send in the police to stabilize a place instead of engaging the community and establishing enhancement programs.
That's not right. In fact, I learned a great deal from this exchange, did some reading and referenced more folks who feel the same as you. Up vote from me - I appreciate it.
Does that mean we need some method to trigger the vote?

Do we always have a daily vote in your profile?

Does a certain set of users have access to this (karma?)
It's so sad when people die suddenly. SurveyMonkey itself hasn't even updated their team page [1]. I wonder what happened? Heart attack? I feel for Sheryl Sandberg...she seems like an exceptionally decent and grounded person, which in my experience is rare among obscenely wealthy people.

[1] https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/aboutus/management/
If the laws are voted in democratically, then there would be little need to break laws, just vote to amend of void them. Of course, beware the curse of the tyranny of the majority.

Which is it? Your two sentences stand diametrically opposed to each other. The history of civil rights in the US suggests that your first sentence is absurd, and your second dead on.
Maybe it's not such a bad idea. Someone has to do the no-fun work of sales, promotion, taxes, etc., might be nice to have a bunch of MBAs around to do that. Could also ask for 40% equity or so.
Is there a short sketch of an intuition for why quadratic works better than linear?
Baixar Megacubo v11.0.0 – Download oficial e atualizado
Glad you learned, and thank you.
if the other compiler doesn't happen to have a great AST story, then this approach looks difficult.
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-D58-00026-Intellimouse-Optic...

This was the best mouse I've used in my computing life.

I miss the symmetrical layout with large forward/back buttons.
Ping.gg, the world's most simple monitoring service
Conservatives also have a problem. It's called the law and order voter. Taking the side of a crook/thug/punk over the brave men and women of law enforcement is not good politics with that voting block.
"Take the glove off and the boxer can either wreck his hand, or punch differently"

That is a change in behavior to avoid risking injury to the hand and face! Can we agree on that?

You are arguing that overall injury is increased by using gloves because of the greater frequency and magnitude of punches, despite less severe injury per punch. But that is precisely the no seat belts argument too.

Gloves reduce the risk of injury to the hand and disfiguration of the face, just as seat belts reducing bodily injury in an accident. The argument then goes, seat belts encourage us to drive faster and increase the overall number of accidents, which in the end cause a greater amount of injury. That is the parallel with gloved punching. If we didn't have seat belts, we'd drive slower, because you'd get so messed up if you had an accident. That is the parallel with OP's no-gloves argument.

That argument seems plausible on the surface but as we know from seat belts, it has some problems which I've stated earlier.
Why does it make sense to let the HN community decided? Sure HN is a community site but it still embodies Y Combinator and is owned and operated by Y Combinator.
There's a difference between "I think you're stupid because you're asking questions" and "I don't have the time/patience/interest/whatever to answer your questions." I've certainly encountered my share of the latter, but I don't interpret it as an insult to my intelligence.

(Or even worse, there's also "I don't like your questions because my idea won't stand up to close scrutiny." I get that every once in a while too.)
Honestly, I think this is too much work for what's usually an "edge-case". Everyday, we put up with the admins making arbitrary decisions on what flagged discussions get to stay and which get kicked (on top of the algorithm that filters stories). If we hated their decisions/tastemaking, we wouldn't be repeat visitors to HN. It's hard to imagine many situations in which they commemorate someone who a majority of the community aren't aware of.

And for the many people who will pass and not get the official acknowledgement? For anyone to whom being omitted is controversial, their life will have been rich enough that recognition via HN's status bar is likely of little concern to their legacy.
Yes. We know we are behind on conformance.
It's ridiculous that they're allowed to waste so much of our time, taking hours to fill out paperwork with pen and paper as if it's the 20th century. That needs to change. And police officers taking selfies with the people they arrested and boasting about it on social media should be arrested. So fucking unprofessional.
I'm 44. They said the tumor may have been detectable 10 years ago. There is no history of colon cancer in my family, although my father had prostate cancer treated in his fifties. (He's 89 now and still drives have myself to his weekly poker game. Does pretty well at it too, from what I hear.)

Colon cancer can be effectively treated when Caught in it's early stages. During my (first) colonoscopy they found another tumor that got removed in the first of several surgeries, and it had clear margins and required to further treatment.
> Setting the threshold sufficiently high (e.g. 3/4 or 4/5) preserves the implicit intention that the bar not show up every time some schmuck we've heard about kicks the bucket...

When you frame it like that it makes me think the black bar should be done away with altogether.
>If they predicted the crisis, why aren't they rich?

Who says they're not?
Show HN: Search Stackoverflow easily via Chrome
Hahahaha, bullshit. The reason police don't have accountability is because the institution is not designed for you and me. They are created to keep people from robbing the rich.

This has nothing to do with unions.
You'd implement the merkle trees yourself in the application layer. Alternately, you could use hash lists. It'd be somewhat similar to how you'd implement geohashing. Let's say you just take a SHA-X of each row represented as a hex varchar, then do something like "SELECT COUNT(*) GROUP BY SUBSTR(`sha_column`, 0, n)". If there's a count mismatch, then drill down into it by checking the first two chars, the first three chars, etc. Materialize some of these views as needed. It's ugly and tricky to tune.

Merkle trees aren't interesting in the no-repair case, as the changelog is more direct and has no downside.
Add WinRT to that list and you have a set that is somehow reason enough for Visual C++ compiler front-end to stay relevant.
In an ideal world, people would be paid their fair market value compensation for their labor.

In a practical world, collective bargaining provides a front for fairer negotiations such that a compensation that's closer to what a free market would bear is met for the individual.
Neither of your links support your case.

In the first link, the case is about a memo written as part of the employee's role; a uniform is irrelevant (district attorneys don't wear uniforms, and the word 'uniform' is mentioned zero times in the document).

In the second link, the article explicitly states: "Wearing a badge doesn’t forfeit the free speech of the person". It's abundantly clear that these police turning their backs on the mayor at a funeral over a political stoush between the parties are not acting as voices of the government. No reasonable person would even remotely think that the police turning their back on the mayor is 'what the government message is'. Those police are clearly not 'speaking' in an official government capacity (and literally are not speaking at all).

I have no great love for the police, but the correct path forward is a fair view, not a knee-jerk 'fire them all on principle'. This thread is full of knee-jerk hysteria, but the irony is that so many people are calling for an end to multiple people's careers because, while not on duty, the were literally standing still while facing the incorrect direction. Ironic because it's supposedly a reaction against undue application of power, and yet the punishment for facing the wrong way is termination, regardless of whether or not that officer has abused power elsewhere.
Is anybody really surprised by this research? I doubt it. Humans love to form exclusive groups. A suit is nearly non-functional and mostly symbolic: I have a job where I am "important" (and I make money). A uniform on a police officer or a doctor or a firefighter? It helps people to distinguish them from the rest of the crowd. A suit on the other hand is a generic line drawn in the sand between people, I feel.