skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Those solution[s] can also be immediately verified by fellow humans, via the informal communication method of 'speech'. The reasoning involved can't be verified by computers.

This isn't a particularly strong argument, as solutions verified via the informal communication method of 'speech' often pass verification without being correct.
So it's the same as in, for example, the United States or Sweden.
I don’t have the tiniest hair of a dog in this race. But, I like the idea of a company trying radical things. It’s very easy to declare radical change. A 14% voluntary acceptance of a severance package (I would be more impressed if it was 6 months) is a sign of actually going for radical, I think.

A company of that size is an interesting proving ground and if this succeeds, good.
I don't know how common it is, but it is done. For example after reading your comment I googled 'surgery videos' and
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/surgeryvideos.html
is the first result. I also know there are surgery recordings on youtube, I had already watched some there before.
Java lock-free concurrent dictionary in 13 lines
And even if the majority had been against PR in general, that would not make it moot: The current voting system is not democratic. It is actively disenfranchising a large proportion of voters. I will never have representation under the current voting system, because my views are not mainstream enough to get a majority in a single seat constituency.

The fiction that someone who gets the majority of a seat will represent all their constituents is just that. And blatantly offensive to many of us who consistently sees our representatives acting against our interests and not care the slightest about the portion of their constituents who are not likely to be possible to sway to vote for them.
I do not find that the article insists strongly enough on the fact that computer-aided verification of proofs is not, in any way, a threat to human creativity in mathematics.

You can just understand proof assistants as an effort to design a language for mathematical proofs, and a procedure to verify them mechanically. (Spelled out like this, it sounds a lot like Hilbert's program -- we have just understood since then that you cannot hope to have a "perfect" proof assistant.) The availability of computers means that you can actually implement the verification process and run it, but if you do not want to involve computers in the process (because you do not "trust" them, or whatever), you could always check such proofs by hand, in principle.

In a sense, a proof designed for a computer assistant is one that can be verified without any intelligence required from the reader.
Output of Dutch solar bike lane exceeds expectations
That's one of the use cases for Extreme Programming.
Uber could soon be the most valuable startup of all time
A salesman should never tell the customer that he can find a better product in next shop
Havn't had any issues with it, seems to be created by bittorrent inc so looks (somewhat) legit.
The problem that I have with lisp macros is that the elegance you gain at the syntax level is effectively a tradeoff with pragmatism when other people read and use the code. Java was developed with parts of C++/C as inspiration and parts of that language were left out. Particularly, operator overloading was left out (which can be viewed as a very restricted example of modifying the language), presumably because it's not an immediate thought when viewing the code that the operator isn't doing what you expect. While it's undeniable that macros make the syntax nice to look at, the same argument that lisp becomes a new language as you write your program means that every separate codebase has a lot more reading to understand because you have to go through all the macros. New releases in most languages introduce new features (and standardize functions, fix bugs, etc), as far as I can see, new releases in lisp enforce a standard (common) base set to decrease the amount of work required in learning new codebases.
The line mentioning using gccgo to make the binaries small intrigued me... it worked! I've only written a couple of small tools in go but the size of the binary always bugged me.
It's just a shame that setting up cross-compilation with gccgo looks a lot more involved vs. gc.
Plan9 utils usually have less options and smaller functionality, but you can easily compose them.

"rc": I like it much more than sh for scripting. It's easier to learn and has less pitfalls.

"cat" has no options at all, it just concatenates.

"du": I like plan's "du" utility, which is easier than "find" ("du" simply lists file names recursively, while "find"... Can anyone list all the options
of the find utility from memory?).

"rm" is a combination of rm and rmdir (directory is removed only if empty, unless you do "rm -r" to delete it recursively. Only two options: "-r" and
"-f"

"tar" is a simple way to do recursive copying instead of cp, scp etc

"sleep" takes seconds only as an argument, but it can be a floating point (no suffixes like in coreutils, e.g. "sleep 1h" or "sleep 3d")

"who" takes no options at all

I'm not really good at plan9 utils, and I still use coreutils much more, but for embedded systems I would prefer to have a tiny number of simple building bricks like "du", "cp", "rm", "tar" etc, and a few smarter commands like awk/sed/grep/rc. I like toybox a lot, but if only that had an rc shell..
There was a lot of FUD put out against it. Since most people don't really understand voting systems, nor their pros and cons, I guess they voted for the devil they knew.
Your representative is not supposed to represent individuals, but communities. By definition this is going to be the majority opionion of everyone in your community. I don't expect my representative to share my views, but I do expect that they will reflect those of my community. If I want to change something I lobby my community not my representative.
This is a common problem in policy making known as the Lucas Critique[1]. But I don't think that it justifies avoiding any change to the voting system

[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_critique
The two biggest political parties in the UK by a country mile will loose power if PR is introduced. So I can't see it happen as they will never back it.

Tories managed to successfully seem to offer the people the pretend choice with the complete FUD that was the AV referendum, which means any other referendum is not likely for many years.
True, but there's every reason to believe that it would trigger a shift further away from the large parties, making the difference even more staggering.

Tactical voting is a big thing in the UK.
Quote from the KiloBaud article:

"What You Get for $666.66" heh ... really Steve? ... :-)
When is Postgres going to get built in fault tolerant multi-master support in any form?
Complete SEO Checklist 2015
Sure... based on phony valuations at inflated pricing - in which the founder and VC's are in collusion to artificially prop up it's value. Or something. ;)
I live in Tasmania (state of Australia) where we have 5 seats with 5 members each (used to be 7 members per seat). It works pretty well for such a small legislature, because the members of the legislature represent the overall vote fairly well. It has particularly helped the Greens, who in any other system would probably struggle to get a seat at all (indeed in the Australian house of Reps around 10% of the vote gets them 1 out of 150 seats), to have a number of seats in the parliament roughly proportional to their actual support in the electorate. If the UK adopted something similar to Tasmania, they'd end up with perhaps 50 or a hundred electorates electing 6 to 12 members.

Ideally in Tasmania we probably should also be thinking about abolishing our upper house (Legislative Council) and adding more members into the House of Assembly. The LC has ended up with around 70-80% independent members, incumbents almost always win their elections if someone even bothers to challenge them, and public engagement is almost non-existent. The Legislative Council won't be abolished anytime soon however, because the Legislative Council has to vote to change the state constitution and they wouldn't abolish themselves anytime soon.
I just don't see a way to install it (tried in Chrome and Opera). Clicking on "Setup now" button redirects me to http://webflix.me/torque/win/Torque.exe which is a 404 page.
The Yes campaign was somewhat naive and the No campaign played dirty. The new system was apparently going to cost £50m more per election, so they put up loads of posters showing children in incubators and soldiers wearing body armour, saying effectively 'these people will die if AV is introduced':

http://nicktyrone.com/sick-baby-billboard/
A proportional system means that most (if not all) choices are made AFTER the vote by horse-trading between the parties. With decades of experience with proportional systems in Italy, I warmly advise against it.
The article says the plastic is (5) not (1). I'll have to do more research.

In the meantime, look for Compostable K-Cups. They're a solution to this problem, which hasn't been marketed enough for you to be aware of it.
That is true, I don't like when people dire fly translate votes from one system to another since the systems distort the type of parties that even exist, never mind who votes for them.

On the other hand, I think this generally underestimates the improvements possible by shifting to a more proportional system.

I'm interested to see how the conservatives manage to introduce some kind of English devolution while at the same time retaining their inbuilt electoral advantages.

Also any article on reform of the UK electoral system should end with "We have an unelected House of Lords that people have a birthright to sit in, and has Bishops. End this embarrassment now".
In PR, how does the electorate vote out an individual candidate that you don't like? It seems weird that support for a party implies support for all candidates fielded by that party.
The biggest hope in that respect is probably that the rumours of Tory attempts at redrawing boundaries to keep Labour out goes through. They attempted it this period, but where stopped by the Lib Dems. If that happens it may align Labour with the smaller parties in this question.

Couple that with continued huge over-representation of the SNP, which certainly will rub many English voters the wrong way, and maybe.
MeCoffee: a 220/120V Arduino-compatible 1kW controller
You are both right though. 1) Discrimination is real and should be discouraged and may indeed have affected Michael's chances at finding work but ferreting out discrimination and fixing its isn't a great use of an individual job seekers' time when so many other people can use good workers but 2) if the points about his choosiness are true-- and I don't know if they are-- they would probably affect things as well in a way he is refusing to acknowledge. But again, I don't know Michael so I want to move away from that. Because a larger point can be made here: this would be an example of how MANY people have blinders to their own reasons they aren't finding work-- and certainly not only people who blog about their personal problems.

I get this all the time. Every excuse in the book and then I ask: "Did you follow up?" "No." "Did you send a physical letter or make a physical cold call, or even a telephone phone call-- something to break through the noise?" "No." And then I prod them to do those things and they don't. An unfortunate part about the job search is that its a sales process and many people don't require sales skills to do many jobs yet suddenly we expect them to sprout sales skills like wings when suddenly its time to look for work, often when they are at their most vulnerable moment-- the time they NEED that job. It's a cruel farce. But there are ways around it.

That's why I talk about exploding toilets-- a lot of companies just need the work done. Ask any sleazy late-night locksmith if he works on his sales skills. No, he has the tool you need when you are locked out of your apartment at 3am. You want him or not? Fortunately or unfortunately, there are enough exploding toilets out there that job seekers who really want to fix problems don't have to worry too much about navigating the job search as a sale-- they just have to get some attention. But in order to get attention, they need to want to get it and that's often a bigger problem than you know b/c most people don't want to fail or risk looking ridiculous, as if these people they are contacting will even remember them-- and then they create excuses for why they can't and often blame others.

But again, back to the original point: the reason we think is the problem often isn't so trying to deconstruct it is pointless. It's like dating. If someone isn't a match, move on. Someone out there wants you desperately-- but only if you want to help them and can.
Google Addresses Cloud Lock-In Fears
How to best A/B Test your Single Page App (client side)
Its worth drawing a parallel to the Scottish Independence referendum, where David Cameron veto'd the obvious and sensible choice that 85% supported (Devo Max) and gambled the union on a direct in-out choice, which he thought would settle the matter decisively. If Scotland does leave, history will blame him personally.

Similarly, he's in charge of coming up with the EU options, when he wants us to stay in. Hopefully he won't muck that one up too badly.

In short, referendusm are political tools, not necessarily the voice of the nation.
This is a fair point too, at least in as much as job seekers should be screening employers for a variety of things. Not enough job seekers do that. They just say whatever they think will make the employer happy.
You should see what Imgur has done in merging GIFs and WEBM videos. Every GIF has full video controls, including a slider and a play/pause button.

So basically if we just hosted the timelapse on Imgur...
I'm always happy to have a relevant reason to post a Yes, Minister excerpt: http://youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs

The episode is called "A Victory for Democracy".
Depends on the system. In Norway, parties fields lists, but you can strike out the names of candidates you don't like, or add additional names.

The list you vote for determined how many seats that list (party) get in each region, but striking names or adding names of people on other lists alters the order in which seats will get allocated to the people on the lists.

It is not very often used, but when particularly controversial candidates are fielded it sometimes does affect who gets in.
> The cycle path was opened in November as a pilot project for three years and was followed with great interest, also by foreign media.

I'm not following this new very closely. "Open" means that they allow cyclist, pedestrian (and dogs) to use a small 70m pilot segment, or that they have a 70m segment in the middle of nowhere?
> that all individuals pursuing their best interests will usually result in a beneficial situation for society as a whole,

The very next sentence I wrote disagrees.

> Of course there are problems, every system has winners and losers and thats why we have taxation and welfare, to smooth out some of the issues.

The choice of capitalism depends on moral subjectivity, its a necessary part of the discussion. As I said before, capitalism is a type 2 system. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9338441

At the end of the discussion I asked a question that eli_gottlieb didn't get around to answering. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9345477

This was specific to economic democracy but you can replace that with any other alternative system, the question would still apply and be interesting.
To that point, friends of mine have had success with this: http://www.thegrowthlist.com/win-over-30-consulting-offers-i...
Right now, in the UK, we have no say in candidates other than our local constituency. I can't vote out Ed Balls. I don't get a say in the Prime Minister. I can't vote for Julian Huppert. So I don't really see how this is much of an difference in practice.
Voters in Britain do not elect a parliament or a party. They vote locally for a member of parliament - namely - someone to represent all people in the constituency no matter what their party allegiance is, in the House of Commons. Everyone knows who they are and can communicate with that person. Fairness means that the person who gets the most votes, gains that privilege. Example: 3.9 million people voted in this British election to gain one single UK Independence Party (UKIP) MP. Unfair? No - given that, at this election, voters did not give majority votes to a UKIP candidate except in that one instance.

Occasionally people vote for an outstanding personality who does not belong to a party they generally support. This is as it should be.
Sure you could. The baseline idea is exactly the same, you only changed the medium upon which your proof stands.

I am not sure if twitter (or any proprietary social network) is good enough for this specific use-case. The blockchain seems to me, to be more reliable, although more complex. But the procedure (and complexity) can be automated (hidden).
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression redrawing the boundaries wasn't some diabolical plot but rather the boundaries were set independently and intended to equal up consituency sizes? The fact that this doesn't favour Labour should be beside the point?
I am surprised that the Yes campaign didn't suggest saving 10x as much by getting rid of all elections and asking the Queen to come back as an absolute monarch.

I guess we Australian can't be too smug as we voted no in a referendum in 1988 asking if we wanted freedom of religion. Apparently the FUD then was over funding for religious schools.
I wonder - looking at the data they have now - how much of the data stored has never been used by ordinary users. There's got to be a lot of cruft that could be trimmed. In the past people would keep letters they felt were important. Now, with the network it's hard to tell what's important, a user might prune items that other users want to keep or might prune items that later become more important. Is there really enough value in keeping everything.

I'm a consumate hoarder, I've got 2 decades of emails saved (but not all emails!) ... even I think perhaps we've gone over the top.

Perhaps it's good for social history. Or maybe in the future for a Black Mirror like reconstruction of people's personalities in an AI.

Doesn't there need to be limits on what we keep?

[Meta: the parents is a valid remark and one that I feel adds to the complexion of the scenario under consideration; perhaps it could have been made better, fleshed out, but still. Wish HN - as a population - would value those that add to the conversation in this way.]
I still gave your thread an upvote because I hope it does take off and get better. I was just a little disappointed to see all recruiting companies.
I'm of the opinion that majority governments are a problem. I would actually go even further than PR in evening out the seats. That is, as a party wins seats, each new seat should require more votes to win. Capturing more than, say, 40% of the seats should be impossible, and the biggest party has to form a minority government.
Why do you believe that you can do that in FPTP? We just had an election the day before yesterday when various party bigwigs getting voted out was acclaimed as an astonishing, once in a century upset, and even then it was fairly localised.
I'm no lawyer but these issues usually fall under "fit"-- which is legal. If there's an email floating around saying, "I think this guy has a mental disorder" and they get sued, yeah there's a case. But it usually never gets that far.
Yeah, what about a man who simply decides everything. No need to worry about anything. He'll probably promise everyone a job and will improve the road network. And some people can go on a free vacation by train which will last until the end of their life.

The ad is quite horrible though, a cheap way to manipulate the viewer by appealing to his emotions.
I'd be nice to be a parasite if you've been eaten up a lot... right about now, this game is getting just so one sided. Even with the stationary parasite you can feed to make a new one, which rarely happens... all there is just every cell is focused on eating each other.

Why can't there be more types of dangers? Like, being big or ginormous for too long would attract viruses, it could be a spawned player who will become one, and you have to divide yourself to smaller cells, so that the infection wouldn't be too quick.
thx for the reply.i grandstander that if one learns a graphics API, it is easy to adapt to another,and OpenGL has NOW all the textbooks and experts online an tutorials... and Vulcan will not have even after an implementation comes out. BUT the time investment to learn OpenGL is huge.. and i don't understand if Vulcan will eventually replace OpenGL or they will coexist; or if Vulcan is more streamlined easier to learn more flexible. If the answer is that the industry will shift to Vulvan because OpenGL will be phased out, then it's maybe better to wait. i just don't want to sink a lot of time in condemned tech.
Don't forget you will need a keyboard, screen, AAAND "two transformers"!
> The blockchain, being independently held and cross-verified at every node of the network, is more reliable in this regard.

Is it? That question is just as open as it is for Twitter, and given the order of magnitude differences in inefficiency of a blockchain versus Twitter there still remains the question of why people would burn electricity just to act as DRM for corporate trademarks.

This is an interesting technical hack in the same way as using Emscripten to run a GameBoy emulator in a Linux running on a toaster perhaps, but no one buys toasters for the purpose of playing GameBoy games.
The New Guy season final (startup vs. big company)
I don't know how valuations could be more or less phony than Uber's. Valuations like these are based on real prices that investors pay for stakes in the company. This high valuation may be impossible to justify, and valuing a company might be an exercise in fantasy to begin with, but the valuation is certainly real.
While I haven't used Angular, I have watched a live demonstration of it and was not impressed. Yes it's very boilerplate heavy and reminds me of some of the clunkier Java frameworks.

I'll keep my suggestion short and simple. Look into ReactJs. If your coworkers are sharp they may be willing to look into it too. It's not just another crappy framework.
"The universities. Both of them."
I think his point is that if someone has cancer and they end up needing to fire them it's going to become an issue for them emotionally. Good, bad or indifferent-- I understand what he's saying, if that is what he is saying.

But Dan's point is well taken: is this what we want to incentivize? A culture of lying and partial disclosure? Now, that doesn't mean 100% disclosure of all things at all times-- people have a right to privacy. But what I think is often lost here is the understanding that when we force everyone to wear masks, we often end up not knowing where the masks end and the real faces begin.
Yes, ability to resell adds value.
I think any attempt to "fix" the boundaries in Scotland to attempt to reduce the number of SNP MPs would create a very strong backlash that would almost certainly lead to a new drive to independence.
Depends on the model of PR you go for, in NZ we have MMP and on the party vote side of things you can't say I vote for this party but not Joe Bloggs.

If you look at the Australian model, you actually can do this. You can either vote above or below the line (forget which is which), with one you vote for the list the party derived, the other you select the party and then rank all of their candidates. In practice thou the majority don't rank and it is sort of irrelevent that you can.

IMHO, even with individual candidates it is more or less the party they represent that decides the winner anyway.