skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think the emphasis should switch from employers to our citizens. In the US, we have the ability for everybody to be employed - if we required that everything that is sold here be made here. That would instantly improve everyone's quality of life.

But perhaps the biggest advantage is that it would allow us to stop the hiding of profits offshore and using derivatives - literally trillions in profits are being extracted and hidden pre-tax.

I would argue that every country should consider their own citizens first - and only after everyone has gotten to some reasonable standard of living should we consider outsourcing, offshoring, and foreign workers. Ironically, we could do much more for everybody in the world if we first fix the corruption in our own economy.
This is correct, with one addition:

> Well, the theorem states that if there are more than 2 candidates, then there is no voting system that has all 4 properties above in the general case.

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen[0] has demonstrated that, while there is no system that satisfies all four characteristics in the general case, there are systems that either satisfy all four conditions either probabilistically or satisfy all four conditions subject to some very weak assumptions.

The example I've heard him use is of the 2000 election in Florida, with Bush, Gore, and Nader (let's ignore Buchanan for simplicity). While technically there are 3! = 6 possible ways to rank the candidates, in practice, the ranking (Nader, Bush, Gore) is much less likely than (Nader, Gore, Bush) or (Gore, Nader, Bush). If we introduce one minor assumption about the relative frequencies of the rankings, we can prove that instant-runoff voting[1] does always satisfy all four of Arrow's criteria[2].

To use an analogy from computer science, the halting problem is undecidable in the general case, but that doesn't prevent static analysis tools from spotting many infinite loops; it just means it can't spot all infinite loops with 100% accuracy.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[2] A different example: instead of making assumptions about the relative frequencies, we could make assumptions about the number of axes that candidates may have and the way they cluster around them. This realistically depicts both two-party and multiparty elections in most parts of the world, since political positions are not uniformly distributed along n dimensions.
> If anyone manages to make a messaging app that both has strong security and is user friendly and supports features users expect, they will become very rich. Seeing as no one has even proposed a solution in theory, it's most likely unsolvable. I'll bet if you can formulate it clearly enough, you can even prove it so.

Something like Threema?
Maybe its just me, im too old and not famous enough...but Twitter just seems to me to be a celebrity (that includes fame of any kind) circle jerk...and if you're not famous, you dont exist. Its weird. I hated fb towards the end of my usage of it...but at least like the old sitcom 'Cheers', at least sometimes you could go 'where everybody knows your name...'
Thanks. Not present on my iOS app version, but perhaps it was added in the last few months. I've delayed app updates because of the risk of auto-playing video ads.
Isn't this what the Watergate scandal was about?
Awesomely clean Ruby gem for talking to RabbitMQ
Pocket comes to Firefox
projector of empty possibilities
The German government will not offer Snowden asylum, the US government would be too angry at them. Also, with several US military bases in Germany (well, at least one, I don't know the exact number), I am not sure I would come to Germany if I was Mr. Snowden, even if the German government begged him to seek asylum there.
Thanks! I've thought about this already but wasn't sure what to do.

In its original JavaScript implementation, Meteor has Minimongo, as you said. But building such an interface in Java would lose all the convenience, wouldn't it? The advantage of Minimongo is that you can use it just like MongoDB itself, e.g. "myColl.find({ _id: "some-key" })", which is not possible (with that syntax) in Java.

Then you mention Core Data from iOS, which is great as well, but specific to the platform again. Android doesn't have this.

What would be an equivalently widespread (and convenient) solution for Android? Storing it in SQLite? Or deeply nested "Map<String, Object>" instances?
>In a primal sense, trolling online is akin to purposefully challenging a person's worldview through their feelings, using drastic / hyperbolic / inflammatory rhetoric.

No, The definition of trolling is attempting to get a reaction out of people by any means possible. Trolls aren't interested in having an actual conversation, educating, or changing anyone's view, in fact they thrive off of the opposite.
OMFG the premise of TIS-100 sounds amazing! Thanks for making me aware of it.

http://www.zachtronics.com/tis-100/
>authenticates with HMAC to protect against adaptive chosen-ciphertext attacks

Okay...

>TripleSec "macs" with a concatenation of two HMACs: HMAC-SHA-512, and HMAC-SHA3

Why?
Can't you rent a nice apt through Airbnb for $160-200 a night? You can probably negotiate a discount as well, if you're staying for 2 weeks.
Plenty of Fish ran for the first 8 months on the guys home computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_mayoral_election,_20...
This is how I was taught it (or understood I was taught it) - at law school, so it might have been dumbed down.

The impossibility is the impossibility of ensuring rational (transitive) outcomes amongst ranked preferences and adhering to a set of fair and democratic norms.

A rational transitive outcomes is one in which votes result in option A being preferred over option B and option B being preferred over option C, such that A is preferred over C (eg, A > B > C). Option A is known as the Condorcet winner.

But there may be cases where the vote yields no Condorcet winner (eg, A > B > C > A). This is illustrated by the following table:

Preferences
Voter 1	Choc	Vanil	Strwb
Voter 2	Vanil	Strwb	Choc
Voter 3	Strwb	Choc	Vanil

Two voters prefer C over V and two prefer V over S, but two also prefer S over C.

To ensure transitivity, we can introduce voting rules, but it is impossible to introduce rules that do not violate the fair and democratic norms (referred to as the pre-specified criteria in the Wikipedia article: unrestricted domain, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency, and independence of irrelevant alternatives).
The Shift to a New Data Architecture
Regardless of how long ago the law was passed, it intuitively makes sense that it's illegal to publicly disclose national security secrets.

This talk of the history of the Espionage Act feels like a lot of hand waving. You make it sound like the government cherrypicked and misapplied some old law in order to stymie Snowden's defense. I don't believe there ever was (nor ever will be) a scenario where leaking national security documents to the press is protected as whistleblowing. This is not specific to the Espionage Act, I don't think "yes I did it, but it was for the greater good of society" is typically a valid defense argument in any criminal case.

(And it's offtopic but I disagree with your characterization of the Lavabit case. Lavabit wasn't on trial; they were served with a valid wiretap order that was signed by a regular non-secret non-FISA court judge and based on reasonable evidence. That's how it's supposed to work. I wish all national security cases were pursued that way.)
Pros and Cons of buying my now passive co-founder out vs. just diluting them?
My partner worked with me off and on my business for the last 5 years and has a small percentage of the shares. Now my partner is minimally involved, while I am continuing to hustle, run operations, and try new things. Though we are making some revenue, no one has invested in us nor have I successfully found a successful pivot. My partner has mentioned once I shoot the moon in some way, they might come on board. But honestly, I don't really want them to if I do shoot me the moon.

I want to keep working on the project and I feel like in time, that may require me to pivot or bring in new partners. I feel like having less passive share holders will make future decisions easier. But on the other side, buying them out might be a bit cost prohibitive.

Should I buy my partner out? or should I just dilute them? Pros & Cons?
In this case, it does.
Because of idiots like Jenny McCarthy who advocate things like not using Vaccines for one.
By trying to make the analogy, they kinda were.
Show HN: Learn Responsive Web Design and Development with HTML5 and CSS3
>>Additionally, it's possible that a fix would make the game run significantly slower.

Why?
WHAT STARTUPS SHOULD KNow ABOUT SEO: 4 KEY TAKEAWAYS
My first and extremely successful online course. It's currently one of the top 25 courses among all 25,000+ courses on Udemy. Over 2100 super happy students already stated learning to build beautiful responsive websites with this course, and our very active community is getting bigger and bigger every day.
The belief that ideas can be judged in a vacuum is a very different thing than ideas actually being judged in a vacuum.

Ideas are not judged in a vacuum - humans are rubbish at doing that. We allow various factors to influence how we evaluate ideas, even when those factors have nothing to do with the idea itself. Race and gender being very obvious ones.

Example: In a meeting, a woman comes up with an idea. Everyone ignores her. Thirty seconds later, a man says the exact same thing, and suddenly everyone is in awe about how amazing this idea is.

And yes, that does happen. A lot.

However, most of us believe that we aren't doing this. We believe that we're evaluating ideas on merit alone, and are therefore completely blind to the fact that we're not. Humans are rubbish at being objective, but very good at fooling ourselves into believing that we are.

The only way to approach evaluating ideas on merit is to be aware of one's own biases, one's own point of view, various power imbalances, systemic discrimination, and all that stuff. Once you're aware of what you're actually doing, you can try to factor that into how you evaluate ideas.
Lived in Japan for 8 years and have worked part time in cafes .. The training I got was to leave the money in the tray until you confer the change to the customer. It prevents things like "hang on! I gave you 5000 not 1000!" - the money paid stays in plain sight until the transaction is complete. Shop staff almost never put the money away before you get your change.
Playing chicken with a Tesla Model S
I don't think he's a traitor but I do think he should stand trial. I think a lot of people probably feel that way.
Modern Silicon Valley is where the company's founders are the first thing a prospective customer sees on the product page.
How does Quadratic Voting fare in meeting these criteria?

http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/
Every time I see reports about US surveillance, I'm
amazed how so many people seem to think that the US government can spy on anyone they like as long as they're not Americans. Are non-Americans denied their basic human rights or what?
No, it's just bog-standard espionage, something that everyone knows everybody does and everyone tries to prevent others from doing it on them (AKA. counterintelligence). If you go and start breaking things, then it can be considered an act of war.
> This was and still is a perfectly legal loophole

no it isn't, EO12333 disallows the intelligence community from asking someone else to do something that they cannot do
Show HN: Bassmanager your personal private fishing log online
Lots of interesting stuff in this article.

As a tech guy who went to a game programming school, my personal theory about why technical people get hung up on engine development (the old "I'm making my own game and have spent the last year writing my own engine") is quite simple - it's just an easier problem space.

Writing an engine has a defined, knowable set of steps that you can answer with if asked "What do I need to do to write a game engine?".

On the other hand, how do you answer the question "How do I make a good game?".

So people get stuck writing engines because it's interesting and because they can feel like they're making progress on something.
GNU Smalltalk actually allows me to use a good development environment. Other Smalltalks apparently don't.
Ditto, and my bank doesn't even have branches. Last time I stepped into a physical bank to do actual banking was somewhere around dickity 06.
I'm pretty sure privacy is not considered a basic human right. For that matter, neither is freedom from water boarding, so YMMV.
Macro and micro is relative. A monolith is a kitchen sink and expensive. Take a look at the API space for successful SaaS products especially when they are oriented in business software. It's hard to pivot a monolith or even monetize when it ignores the ecosystem it exists in. When it communicates well with other micro services it has natural discovery as a solution to a problem that the customer is looking for. Trello, Harvest, Basecamp, Pivotal, and tons more are all successful because they communicate well outside of their problem space and solve for the problem in their own scope. I do agree that you shouldn't be over aggresive on abstractions off the start but you should also consider the players in your space and ask if a segment of you application is solving something of value to others or if your recreating a service that your shouldn't compete with but cooperate with.
Looks interesting. This answers a lot of questions about primary data, but I'm interested to know how continuous queries [1] are handled.

If they're stored like any other data, the "inserts are far more likely than updates" assumption doesn't really make sense. For example, what if you have a continuous query grouped by year?

PS. "challenges" is mis-spelled in the last sentence.

1. http://influxdb.com/docs/v0.8/api/continuous_queries.html
> Why?

Because most of the time it's celebrity endoresment - appeal to authority, without having authority. Why should I trust George Clooney's opinion on coffee let alone what he thinks about Darfur?
Here is a 2009 report in the first session of the 111th Congress on Chinese Propaganda targeting the United States.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/china/09_04_30_infl_ops....

America propagandizes China, China propagandizes America, China propagandizes China and America propagandizes America. Or, if you perfer, each country performs "Influence Operations", "Strategic Communications", "Psychological Operations".
There is a simple explanation in the introduction:

In short, the theorem states that no rank-order voting system can be
designed that always satisfies these three "fairness" criteria:

1. If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the
group prefers X over Y.
2. If every voter's preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then
the group's preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged
(even if voters' preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and
Z, or Z and W change).
3. There is no "dictator": no single voter possesses the power to
always determine the group's preference.

A "rank-order voting system" is one in which all voters order the possible choices, from most preferred to least preferred. The idea is that based on everyone's votes, and some set of rules on how to evaluate those votes, you can come up with a decision for the entire group that respects those preferences, in some way that is considered fair.

All of these requirements listed above seem like fairly simple requirements for a voting system to have; if there's unanimous agreement about the ordering of two of the choices, then the voting system should order them that way. If a voter changes preferences about one choice C (maybe changing between them being ranked above or below D, or above or below one of A or B), without changing their ordering between choices A and B, that shouldn't affect the outcome of the A/B ordering that the voting system gives you. And finally, there is not dictator; no single voter is able to always determine the group ordering unilaterally.

The first requirement seems pretty obvious; if everyone is unanimous that we should pick one option over another, then the group should pick that option.

The second is a little trickier; but it basically states that there shouldn't be able to be "spoiler"; someone whose ordering in people's preferences affects the ordering of to other choices. Think about, say, the 2000 election, with Bush and Gore and a couple of third party candidates; now, that used just single choices per voter rather than a ranking, but imagine it used a ranking. So let's say Bush and Gore are fairly close, but 51% of voters prefer Gore over Bush. Their preferences for other candidates should not affect the fact that Gore wins over Bush. If I rank candidates Nader > Gore > Bush, that should not change the Gore/Bush result compared to if I ranked the candidates Gore > Bush > Nader.

And the last is pretty trivially desirable; generally a democracy wants to democratically make a choice, in which everyone's vote has the same weight in affecting the final outcome.

The fact that these conditions are impossible to achieve together is fairly profound, and means that almost any voting system will have serious flaws under certain circumstances.
Windows Phone has this feature built-in though. My Facebook and Twitter timelines are mixed in a single column. You could add LinkedIn too.
>If one prefers A over B when comparing just A and B, then one should also prefer A over B when an additional option C is offered

That assumption seems fishy to me if in a real life application, in particular because we assume offering new choices can't fundamentally change the agent/voter's preferences isn't exactly true to life. I'll give a real life, but slightly historically oversimplified example:

Say I am a poor serf living in pre-revolution Russia about a century ago. I am usually offered the following two choices:

A. serve the bourgeois royal family and live off of their scraps

B. die like a dog

Then, one day, Lenin (or similar revolutionary) comes along and offers me:

C. fight for glorious USSR communism

In real life, I would think the offered choice of C would absolutely change my preferences for A and B.

Granted this doesn't invalidate the Arrow paradox in any way, I'm just saying the paradox isn't true to life because one of its core tenants doesn't quite hold.
So if you get caught in the target country spying on them, you'll get prosecuted and then go to jail or get executed. If you don't, or if you spy remotely (SIGINT), you won't. Simple as that. Espionage is older than nation states and is legalized in countries doing the spying - that's why you have official intelligence agencies.
Reusability Trap
The part where it explains inductance!

/s
But the analogy doesn't break down. The value is in owning the medium. This is exactly why entities like comcast don't want to become dumb pipes. yes it is better for everyone if they do, but in their shorter term interest, it's much better to own the high value stuff.
don't you waste a lot of battery going through a vpn though on your cell phone? I'd love to hear more about this setup.
I'm going to be visiting some friends in Beirut in August, and I'm so looking forward to tasting this amazing city, about which I've heard so much.

Any specific recommendations?
Twitter kills Sunlight Foundation site that tracked politicians' deleted tweets
Twitter's conversation handling has improved a lot lately.
Melbourne: most liveable city turns to technology
Microsoft to add Toronto, Quebec City to its cloud datacenter list
> More likely a few years after his return, when public attention has waned, he would die due to an unfortunate accident of some sort, perhaps a hit and run or the like.

Why wouldn't that be just as likely to happen to him while in exile once public attention has waned?
Sure. I do prefer the latter terms, though—because using "propaganda" in both contexts makes it seem like it would be the same information being sewn domestically and abroad. Whereas what China wants America to think (and what America wants China to think) are very different things—and pursued in very different ways by very different parts of government—than what each country wants their own citizens to think.
The GFS cell used back in 2004 for staging Borg binaries to production was /gfs/seven/, for the same reason :-)
Please see the reference to Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers and the associated Supreme Court case where document leaking was protected by whistleblowing. You can also look at the COINTELPRO leaks.

The Espionage Act has been used a total of 8 times, multiple times during the Obama Administration.

(You can disagree but Lavabit had suite that it effectively was not allowed to bring. This is point I made above - Lavabit was trying to mount a legal defense against the destruction of its business in this case; it was not able to.)
A question for those in the know - as a programmer, I've seen a lot of democratization of the game engine side of game programming over the last few years. The price of entry to AAA-level technology has fallen so massively that now anyone can download UDK and start having a go.

I'm interested to hear of what's happened, democratization-wise, on the art and music side of game development. This is the bit that I find people don't immediately grasp. While engine technology has gotten cheaper, making assets for those engines is only getting more expensive.

So I'm interested from those who are in the art field, have asset tools become more 'democratic'? Or to put another way, are art tools moving to make art asset creation less expensive in the same way that engine tools have made the programming side less expensive?

One area I can think of off the top of my head is texturing and shaders - texture-painting tools and physically-based shaders that allow less-skilled artists (and programmer-artists) to still get aesthetically good looking results, without having to become experts in UV mapping or writing shaders.

Is there something similar for model and animation creation, etc? Is this even possible to do without making games that look 'cookie-cutter'? (My gut feeling on that last question is that it should be).
Lattice looks interesting, looking forward to checking it out more
I haven't seen any examples of apps that broke because of the kubernetes network model - can you point me at them? I want to understand.