skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And you've made a bald statement equivocating between the morality of legality of something.

Would you like a list of examples where extremely illegal actions are clearly and controversially moral, or can you think of historical examples yourself?
Hmm, I happen to know some details of that. It is actually a quite powerful technology with some out-of-box ideas.
Esperanto has some incredibly good aspects to it, though. The biggest, of course, is that learning Esperanto (which is very easy to do) helps tremendously with learning other languages. So it doesn't really matter if you think Esperanto is an incredibly bad idea, Esperanto is an incredibly good idea if you're looking to learn other languages afterwards. It's not just another standard. It's a great learning aid.

"A group of European secondary school students studied Esperanto for one year, then French for three years, and ended up with a significantly better command of French than a control group, who studied French for all four years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Third-language_acquis...
You Should Take More Photos
Financial markets are a way to sell and buy information, the arrangement of a productive forces in the economy. Profit is the result of selling information - arranging productive forces - that increased output. Loss results from decrease.

The difference between a human and a ~80kg pile of basic elements is their arrangement. So unless the two are equivalent to you, you can't claim the arrangement has no value.

So no, nobody is losing. On the contrary, individual profit is only a fraction of the added value to the economy, because the counterparty is doing the exact same thing. Every voluntary trade is done in expectation of profit by both sides. When on average that expectation is more right than wrong, economy grows.
Bill Burr harsh standup sketch about Steve Jobs
Since they were [dead] pretty immediately I'd guess something automatic hit them.

That said, I think they overdramatise the issue. Yes, the naming is unfortunate, but it's not that much of an issue.
> crushing debt payments

Growth helps a lot with that problem.
It doesn't help that drone pilots are treated absolutely miserably by the command. I had a friend who transferred from our electronics tech job (which was extremely laid-back and stress-free most of the time) to work in a UAV command, where the command effectively viewed its pilots as machines to work until failure. "Oh, another one attempted suicide because his wife left him? That's cool, tell the monitor that we need an extra body and we'll replace him when the next boot drop hits. In the meantime, just increase everyone else's hours from 14 hours a day to 16 hours a day. We aren't the FAA, we don't have rest requirements."

Incidentally, air traffic control had this same problem in the 90s until too many people started taking the quick way off the tower.
> You are aware that black minorities and jews in europe never declared war to anyone, and didn't throw thousands of rockets on their neighbours every couple of years, right ?

So there is such a thing as justified abuse? Jews in Europe were abused without just cause, unlike Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories?

> I wonder how long people will tolerate this kind of verbal abuse

What verbal abuse are you talking about?

> since you're unfortunately not the only one to draw those kind of hateful comparisons

Take a moment and think why that happens. Are we all haters who want nothing but to tarnish Israel's good name, or is there some real parallel between horrible political decisions? What will historians say 100 years from now? Will they sound more like me, or more like you?
And here's another from Bloomberg: lack of government spending. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-28/government...
So in this case wasn't a crisis situation (there being a defector with SR secrets) fabricated by the police and a third of a million dollars disappeared? Would this sort of thing count as doing something to overcome resistance? It's not likely that an anonymous person offering to 'help take care of the situation' would have enticed him - he needed a scenario that compelled him and this scenario was fabricated.
Meh, don't worry about it. It sounds like you were polite and professional and didn't try to burn bridges. Just because you're the junior guy doesn't mean you're in the wrong.

If you'd told me you were turning down my position, I'd be happy for you. Partly because I just met you and have nothing (or very little) invested in you, so I just try to be positive and wish everyone the best.

Also because if you'd rather work somewhere else, this wasn't the ideal job for you anyway. I'd be glad you discovered this before being hired, rather than after we'd invested time and effort into you.
Okay - I don't want to say "that's insane". If you have a religious reason for not recycling glass bottles, there's no way to argue about that. None.

But that didn't apply in my social circles. My selection of citizens (say .. more than one, less than two dozen people) were not observant. Some were gay. Some recently immigrated and had more or less about as much idea about Jewish laws as I did.

So while you might present a point for refusing recycling (?), people around me were really mostly complaining about the 'Ewww' part of using a bottle that someone else used. Maybe downed, and used as an ashtray afterwards. Etc. etc..
An indictment is also pre-trial. It is, in fact, about as pre-trial as documents get.
You took a poor example since pi is not known to be a normal number (see eg http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalNumber.html )

This number however is:

0.0 1 10 11 100 101 110 111 1000 ...

This number contains all movies that have and will ever exist. However to specify where a 700mb harry potter movie is in this number, you'll need at least 700mb to represent the index. So in some sense harry potter 'exists' in this number - but in another sense its just a silly encoding method.
Here is exactly what you said, kicking off this long and unproductive subthread:

There was no such thing introduced for the trial. It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn. Maybe it was because of Mark Force's transgressions, or maybe it was just for effect. Regardless, he never got the chance to defend himself against those particular allegations.

By "no such thing", you were referring to the words <<the "murder for hire" evidence>> in the preceding comment.

Let's pick it apart:

1. There was no such thing introduced for the trial. Not only was it introduced for the trial, it was an explicit part of what Ulbricht was indicted for.

2. It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn. It was never withdrawn; he was indicted based on (among other things) the explicitly asserted "overt act" of commissioning a murder. The murder-for-hire scheme wasn't innuendo, but a rebuttable fact introduced not just as evidence but as one of the legs of the case.

3. Maybe it was because of Mark Force's transgressions, or maybe it was just for effect. It may have been either of those things, but if so, it was also actually one of the predicates of the conspiracy charge he was convicted of.

4. Regardless, he never got the chance to defend himself against those particular allegations. Yes, he did; his legal team mounted multiple arguments against the allegation, and did not prevail at trial. Ulbricht's team had not only the opportunity to defend him against the allegation, but the obligation to. Conclusively refuting that allegation would have significantly harmed the prosecution's case, knocking out one of the predicates for the conspiracy charge.

From what I can tell, you made a fairly complicated series of assertions, none of which turned out to be true.
> I'd like to see more evidence that he actually was being convicted of that though

He was not charged for murder itself. During the trial testimony, they were very clear about this (regardless of whatever tptacek may say based on a few random pretrial documents); they worded it so the plots entered in as SR related activity and Bitcoin transactions but that was not part of the charges. From the trial itself: https://www.capa.net/case/2014-cr-00068/page/2159

> Here is the text where he says after redandwhite said I prefer to kill all four, DPR: Hmm, okay, I'll defer to your better judgment. 500,000 has been sent to bitcoin address, transaction number. You look it up on the block chain. There is the payment. The payment was made. How do we know that the payments were made by the defendant? Because they were sent directly from the defendant's bitcoin wallet. That's what Special Agent Yum testified to. Those payments came from addresses that were found on the defendant's laptop, the same wallet we were just discussing earlier, the wallet that was moved to the defendant's local machine right around the same time; in fact, it was moved to the defendant's laptop on April 7 and then on April 8th, he's making the payments. So it was the defendant who made these payments. It was the defendant who was trying to murder five people. Now, to be clear, the defendant has not been charged for these attempted murders here. You're not required to make any findings about them. And the government does not contend that those murders actually occurred. The defendant may have fallen for a big con job, which would only go to show that the Dread Pirate Roberts is not a criminal super-genius that the defendant wants to make him out to be, but what the murder-for-hire exchanges do show is how far the defendant was willing to go to protect his criminal enterprise if users got the idea that their anonymity wasn't safe on Silk Road, that their identities could be leaked en masse, they weren't going to use the site, and the defendant was going to lose business, and he was willing to use violence to stop that from happening.

The Green hits did not come up at all, as far as I know, but I don't think we have all the transcripts yet (the last of them seem to be locked until tomorrow) so maybe the prosecutors managed to work them in tangentially.

However, the hit allegations certainly did affect Forrest in sentencing: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-29/silk-road-...

> Prosecutors said he was more like a drug kingpin, profiting from cyberspace sales of illegal wares, and that he allegedly tried to arrange at least five murders to protect his business. The government said it didn’t believe any were carried out. Forrest said there was “ample and unambiguous evidence” of the plots.
> I am arguing that investments don't magically create value but only the work they support or enable.

Well, that's true in a sense, but discovering new information is valuable. I'm just saying that figuring out which work to support or enable is itself valuable.

I agree, though, that the U.S. undervalues making actual stuff with long term benefits. Ask kids what they want to be when they grow up. How many list jobs in manufacturing, inventing, research, mining, engineering, energy, etc.? Mostly they pick fine careers, but mainly service-heavy careers with low multipliers: teachers, fire fighters, police officers, athletes, entertainers, doctors, etc.
Blame Todd. Todd did this to us.
Flagged because of the fucking awful comments in this thread.

And those comments were very predictable.
In Popular Vote, Your Friends Usually Win
> Now, water in Europe is recycled as well.

Not to the degree that they do in Israel.

> And even IFF that would be true, not using a running tap would save more water.

Agreed.

> What happens to the old/used bottles?

Crush them and put them back in the ground. Energy is more plentiful than water in Israel, it makes little sense to spend precious water to make glass. Are you worried about waste? Of all things glass is hardly a problem, it's impossible for us to run out of it, and it causes no harm if buried.

> Kosher ... will stay a bottle of coke ... If you consider Coke kosher .. refilled with the same stuff. I don't see how kosher comes into play here?

Coke is kosher, it's actually one of the very first commercial products that was certified kosher. They had to tell the Rabbi all the secret ingredients. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kasheri...

Anyway the problem is that you don't know what they did with the bottle while they had it. Did they put other products inside it, and now the bottle is not kosher? Probably not, but it's a concern.

You can make the bottle kosher again by boiling it in water, but that costs you more energy.
The prosecution didn't make a very good case for the 5 deaths; a lot of missing information and they were using other drugs and had other health issues.
Charlie Manson never killed anyone either. Nevertheless. I expect Ross to waste away just as Manson has, and that by the time he reaches his "old years" that he requested be left to him, and which have now been denied to him, he'll no longer want to leave anyway. That's if he doesn't commit suicide first. It's an unfortunate sentencing and I hope future leaders will treat their opsec more seriously.
The sellers aren't anonymous, they have identities and buyers select sellers based on their reputations. There is a power law distribution in sales with reputable sellers capturing a large part of the market.
> Either way enough relatives of deceased drug abusers testified at sentencing, and enough heartless chat logs of DPR's were introduced as evidence, to rather eviscerate the idea that Silk Road was completely "victimless".

By that logic relatives of deceased drunk-driving victims should be testifying against bars and liquor store proprietors as well.

I think while most expected this kind of outcome, the comments coming out in support are really a round-about kind of way of expressing various posters underlying opinion about U.S. drug laws and policies as ridiculous, draconian, counter-productive and harmful.
> Why should money be taken from my paycheck to support idle people who could be working? In general it's none of my business how people choose to spend their time, but if they expect me to pay their expenses it becomes my business and I have to ask why they can't go to work like I do.

You mean like retired people drawing a pension?
Natural gas may be a step on the way but it is obviously not a destination.
Maybe the trickle down economics does not work, and we should tax the corporations more (like it used to be) and lift the tax on the lower wage workers? Maybe. The problem is that both parties are in the pocket of the big corporations and the average voter has less influence what is going down than ever. Related study:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-...
Can you explain what Kong does and why you would use it? I'm having a tough time finding anything of substance on the website which talks about why Kong exists
> did they see a cliff of less ODs / deaths in hospitals?

If they didn't, wouldn't necessarily show anything. BMR and Sheep began picking up the drug sales slack immediately, and were around because SR1 had proven the business model worked fantastically well.
> were really mostly complaining about the 'Ewww' part of using a bottle that someone else used.

Do they not eat at a restaurant that washes dishes?

I doubt they actually thought about what they were saying.
You got me there. I do now recall staring at the disassembly of LLVM produced code (LLVM 3.0ish) and seeing pushs/pops.
Here's a link to the original presentation: https://youtu.be/mpbWQbkl8_g?t=2851

Remember L0pht and cDc? This is a project lead by Peiter Zatko aka Mudge. His Wikipedia page is a piece of hacker history.

Also see https://twitter.com/dotMudge/status/604295695751749633
> Cars and guns also hurt people but pretty much anyone can sell those.

The following applies only to the US. Since 1968 you need a license granted by the federal government to sell guns (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/who-can-obtain-federal-firea...). The law allowing you to carry a firearm was passed in 1791. Driver's licenses have been around since 1899. You can't sell a car to someone without one.

When thinking about this issue, I've found the following thought experiments useful:

(1) Should someone who ran a multi-million dollar illegal gun operation get life in prison, even though unlike drugs, the right to own firearms is explicitly protected by the Constitution?

(2) Should someone who ran a multi-million dollar website selling only weed in legal venues (Colorado, etc) be convicted of any crime, never-mind sentenced to life in prison, even though it is against federal law?

Personally I answer (1) as YES and (2) as NO, and place Ulbricht's conduct significantly closer to (1) than to (2).
Provoke Hamas? Really?
An organization that killed hundreds in suicide bombings? That dig tunnels into kindergartens? Says to wipe Israel off the map in the charter...
That terrorist group is evil as they come.
By your logic we shouldn't provoke Isis either.. by merely existing...

Peace needs two sides, the Palestinians don't want peace, if they did there would have been one decades ago... Just look at what the previous prime ministers before the current one offered them, but it's too lucrative to just maintain a stats of war (All their leaders are basically millionaires who steal aid money).

You do realize that they did freeze building of settlements for 7 months as a show of good faith and told the Palestinians to come back to the negation table and they refused?
The indictment is the whole premise of the trial.

Please remember: the argument isn't "did the government conclusively prove that Ulbricht attempted to commission a murder".

It is: "There was no such thing [here: <<evidence of a murder for hire scheme>>] introduced for the trial" (exact words taken from the comment rooting this subthread and the parent comment that provoked it).

That's not only false, it's pretty much the opposite of what happened: not only was evidence of the murder-for-hire scheme formally introduced at trial, but it was ventured at trial, in a manner that put a part of the prosecution's case on the line for it. Not only did Ulbricht's team have the opportunity to rebut it, but they were obligated to do so in the course of competently representing him.

Edited a bit for clarity.
This biggest issue in California is getting agricultural uses down and splitting off consumer use.

Desalinization works pretty well in California for getting water to people. Not so much for agriculture.

We need to start letting the agricultural water price rise to where it needs to be in order to get the agribusinesses to start growing less water intensive crops.

Note that one of the things that Israel did was digging up water-using orchards.
The jury wasn't involved; juries convict, judges sentence.
Loud on radio comes from boxes, not from a disc.

If you have unremastered CDs of the top 100 selling albums of all time that were built before CDs, they have a lot of air in 'em. "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road", "Hotel California" and the Led Zep catalog all show this.

There's just no good reason to overmodulate a CD. You have a volume control; use it.
What? This is huge! Now all thats missing is Whatsapp. Be a force for all thats good and just in the world and sign the petition: https://www.change.org/p/whatsapp-inc-animated-gif-support
How Rust Achieves Thread Safety
Downvote me all you want. I don't deny Israel's right to exist, but it has clear responsibilities as well under international conventions.
It is a bit surreal to see a news story about an enormous Internet company announcing GIF support in 2015.
I didn't. But I never bought another Sony CD after the rootkit debacle with "My Morning Jacket"'s "Z".
Do you apply this logic to alcohol as well? It's a drug and there are many addicts, so similar to other drugs I don't think it should be sold online. Where do you come down on that? I only ask because many people implicitly omit alcohol when discussing drugs, even though it is one.
ごんばって、ね！
His mistake was shitty opsec - he should not have allowed any third parties into a position where they could extort him. However, after the fact, if you're facing someone threatening to imprison and destroy the lives of many vendors and patients, then what is the lesser evil? The extortionist choose to attempt to endanger people. You can't use the state. What other ethical choice is there?

I'm not saying this is the case for Ross, but it's a possibility, at least for one of the contracts. Using violence to protect innocents is not something bad. It's just unfortunate he created the situation in the first place - instead of an extortionist, he may have confided in a LEO, thus hurting his users. (Which is apparently what happened.)

Anyways, the big lesson is that when your startup has major security requirements, go slow and don't break things. There's no real reason he shouldn't be retired now, enjoying his life while enhancing others. Just technical incompetence.
If you said, "I'm tired of thinking I came up with an potentially patentable product, but I will never know because a person with money filed the patent before me?". I would have more sympathy for your statement.

I know life is not fair. I just don't think the wealthy(meaning corporations mainly), shouldn't be able to file patent after patent just because they have the resources.

I just have a feeling their are wealthy entities scouring the internet, and society looking for original ideas/concepts in order to patent, and rush to market? Some of these entities are probally on HN? Yes, we all subconsciously steal ideas, and maybe even thought? The whole nothing is truly original?(B.F. skinner spent a lot of time thinking about this?).

My point is I know people steal other people's ideas. Can we prove it? Most of the time no--unless you're a Wilkelvoss? Do I have a solution--not really, but I have a suggestion.

I believe every poor American(lives under the federal poverty level) should get one free shot at applying for a patent. It could be tied to the Social Security number? If the patent was porely applied for, or denied; so be it. The poor would have one chance to protect their original invention. Just one! I know the negatives. My biggest concern is their would be too many people flooding the Patent office with their brilliant invention. I don't know how to handle that one, other than they would have to prove they did a thorough patent search before applying.(I don't know how you could verify this, or determine the applicant is compentant enough to even begin a proper search.)

Like I stated earlier, I don't know if a program like this is feasible. I was just kinda taken back a few years ago when
I looked into the fees for a patent/trademark.

If you dissagree with me on this fine, I know it sound crazy.

How about this then. A patent/trademark application would increase in cost after a predetermined number of patents have been applied for? For instance, after the 300th patent, for a company like Apple, the fee for the 301 patent would be high enough to hurt? It just might prevent rounded corners?

(To tired to edit. Sorry, not feeling well.)
Are you saying that Esperanto is harder to learn than English, Chinese, or Spanish?