skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
But you have to remember. This is one group of people(taxi drivers), not allowing another group of people(Uber drivers) not to earn a living driving cars.

There is no free lunch. If you introduce regulation to protect a group of people, another group of people loses out.
I'm going to disagree with you there.

Idiomatic code is so called, because people familiar with the language can quickly read it. It makes reading code a much lighter task.

Frameworks are a different thing. Frameworks build around its host language, but normally are meant to use in a specific way. In its own idiomatic way.
> I'm literally only in London now for the money.

Me too, but isn't it true for many people in top metropolies? People live there because it's great for their careers, not because they're nice places.
Pretty cool. Had a tough time getting it to work in Chrome with "right-click-to-play-flash", but finally got it running by whitelisting your domain. Just clicking the "run all plugins this time" didn't work.

Edit: The light-bulb icon didn't make much sense at first (fullscreen mode), looks like it's for toggling the sidebar in non-fullscreen-mode only. Maybe hide it in fullscreen?
10 years from now.

HN Headline: Polygamy upheld by supreme court

Comment:

While this is excellent news for my polygamous friends, I see no progress on [insert new deviation here].

---

So what do you all think will be the next big thing?
Hyperlapse cross-platform mobile development with Visual C++ and Xamarin
They file with different statuses on the different tax forms.

If there were a constitutional right to easy income tax filing, we'd be in violation for a long time now :-p
Get out of there.

Your mental health is far more important than some empty promise that "things will get better".

Hint: they're not going to get better, because the problems you have are orthogonal to how the business operates. As long as they can remain profitable, they'll wring every last drop of productivity they can from you and replace you as needed.

They might not state it as such, they might not even know they're doing it--but the fact that "things will get better" date is a fiscal year should hint where their priorities lie.

Get out--you don't owe them anything.
You are kidding, right? It is backbreaking dirty work.
At $30,000 each, that's 15 billion in cost. That's a lot of money to raise for depreciating assets.
I've said this before but it strikes me as under appreciated that Uber's main enterprise value is their network of drivers and their logistical expertise in managing and coordinating that network. Once self-driving cars become mainstream, wouldn't that start to erode the value of Uber's critical dominance in this area? A generation from now if I'm choosing between self-driving fleets of cabs from Uber, Lyft, Google, Facebook+Ford, and some Tesla joint venture, wouldn't prices suffer significant downward pressures? The best operators can still make a nice profit but nothing like the monopolistic profits Microsoft, Google, and Facebook extracted from OS, search, and social which seems to be required for a sustained multi hundred billion dollar valuation.
Marriage is a legally-binding contract. Since it is in the domain of public law, allowing religious beliefs to support or interfere with it would, in essence, allow the religion to be intertwined with the state itself. So, in my humble opinion, separation of church and state alone would require it to be legal for all people. In addition, just as states can't pass a law to allow for racial segregation of contracts, they can't pass a law to allow for class-based segregation of contracts.

Of course, I am far from a lawyer, and this is a pure layman's point of view.
So it actually kind of highlight the words so they can be detected more easily?
Prediction: Uber goes the way of webvan, personal mobility is served by Google vehicles with Fedex/UPS/USPS owning the lion's share of freight self driving vehicles.

If you don't think Fedex and UPS have logistics and fleet management down to a science, I highly recommend you research their capabilities.
John Rollwagen, a colleague for many years, tells the story of a French scientist who visited Cray's home in Chippewa Falls. Asked what were the secrets of his success, Cray said "Well, we have elves here, and they help me". Cray subsequently showed his visitor a tunnel he had built under his house, explaining that when he reached an impasse in his computer design, he would retire to the tunnel to dig. "While I'm digging in the tunnel, the elves will often come to me with solutions to my problem", he said. [1]

[1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/PCW/cray.htm
Not that I necessarily disagree with legalizing polygamy, but I think there is one non-bigoted answer: logistics. Our financial system in general, and our tax system in particular, has N=1 or N=2 hard-coded into it. There are other practical considerations as well. Suppose, for example, you have an N=5 marriage and three of them want to break away and take the kids. Resolving situations like that would be much more complicated than what we have now, and what we have now is already plenty complicated.
If that's how the equal protection clause works, why was it necessary to pass the Civil Rights Act as a law or Woman's Sufferage as an amendment? Based on the state of civil rights at the time, it's clear that the founding fathers did not intend the constitution to provide universal equality for all peoples.

I agree with this decision, but not because I think it's justifiable under the constitution. I see it as acceptable because I believe one of the unspoken roles of the Supreme Court is to be a group of 9 people who are a bit more wise than the average American.
Yes, but why this minority? Why not allow 12 year olds to marry as a consititutional right? Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry? I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I'm really asking.

States license things all the time, and the conditions of their licenses block certain people from doing certain things. Why are the courts blocking the right of states to license this activity (marriage) in this particular case?

Again, I'm personally happy with the outcome. It feels as wrong to me to say the LGBT can't marry as it would to say an interracial couple can't marry. But Scalia asks what the legal reasoning is, not whether it's the right outcome. What's different about this minority or this situation?
Yes. Brands will have some value, but self driving rides are going to get commoditized very rapidly.
It was equivalent to marriage in Sweden which is an important difference, civil partnerships are inconsistent[0] and not necessarily transferrable across borders.

You're right that just listing the dates for same-sex marriage doesn't tell the whole picture, but adding civil partnerships and their details would necessarily expand the comment to something closer to a book.

[0] for instance in France civil unions are quite literally a marriage lite, open to all and very commonly used as a legally recognised engagement by heterosexual couples (>90% of civil unions are heterosexual)
"gay sex is just gross, sorry it just is"

It still is but whatever floats your boat buddy.

Some people are into dog and cat meat and they find it tasty, good for them.
Why shouldn't Tesla take their self-driving cars, make an app and "Uberify" it.
While I personally am a little less casual with language and would avoid saying something like guys or gals or peops. Before we get too exact about language, we have to understand how casual language has been accepted in schools and in society.

People will say things like 'thanks man' thanks buddy --when I don't know them well and not their buddy -I could find it offensive, if I were of the sort; It's not as if they don't know my forename. This is what society has allowed, along with the acceptance infantilization of adult behavior. Moms and dads and other adults wanting to appear hipper and cooler by adopting juvenile language --like guys.

So before you castigate people for their unconscious language choices, (lots of women use 'guys' to include both sexes), understand why.

Moreover, as with many words, they can have multiple meanings depending on context. Let's take sanction. We know the meaning given a context. Same with 'guys', or the pronoun 'you'
I wonder if mountains of government and private debt in both developed nations and emerging markets could be choking out trade and capital expenditures. It also might not help that central banks around the world are in the midst of competitive devaluation, which is nothing less than a currency war.

Incidentally the "wonder years" of global trade cited in the article are 1950-1973, which is closely aligned with the Bretton Woods agreement that linked all currencies indirectly to gold through the US dollar, effectively eliminating floating exchange rates. Same phenomenon occurred with the classical gold standard after the worldwide demonetization of silver in the 1870's through the start of WWI.

http://www.westga.edu/~rbest/finc4521/section1/powerpoint/ch...
This routes-trick is my starting point as well on web apps.

The next place I try to understand is the persistence layer - be it the a database scheme or models working against remote APIs.
Building a mental model of the the data (around which the app surrounds) serves as a map for the rest of the code tour.
Uber only has a lead as long as it has exclusive access to self driving cars. If anyone can buy them, there is zero barrier to entry.
> In brief, their view was that resolving this issue in the courts erodes the democratic process.

Basic human rights should not be subject to the "democratic process".
Legalized polygamy could create a lot interesting legal issues, particularly marriages of convenience. It would challenge a lot of traditional legal structures that assume a union between two people. If there is no restriction on how many people you can marry at once then you can start giving out residence rights via marriage or multiple wealthy individuals can amass large estates via marriage. I am sure there is a lot more.

This is not meant as an argument against legalized polygamy, rather to point out some of the obstacles it faces.
> Can anybody counter Scalia, and say why the issue of gay marriage couldn't wait to be resolved by the states?

Why should the States have the rights to prevent the exercise of a citizens civil rights granted by the US Constitution?

The Constitiution, and the Bill of Rights explicitly, exists because there are things that are just not left up to 'the majority' to come to a democratic decision over. They are rights that were recognized to be inalienable rights. Time and again, courts have had to step in to once again assert that these rights already belong to all citizens because the States have used the democratic process to trample and curtail them even though the highest law of the land already should have put such questions to rest.

The Courts ruling says this. "the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry." Their dicision is not based on new law, it is simply stating that the US Constitution already recognized these rights.

Letting the States decide is letting the States pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they feel like following.
> Can anybody counter Scalia, and say why the issue of gay marriage couldn't wait to be resolved by the states? Why is this class of license inequity different than other classes, where the states' right to license something is not resolved by SCOTUS?

Certainly with all the imagined legal expertise on HN, someone will answer. I have no expertise, but here's a shot at least from a moral point of view and based on some limited legal and political principles:

1) It can't wait because people are suffering now, today. Read Martin Luther King's 'Letter from a Birmingham Jail', where he points out that people who are not suffering always helpfully advise the oppressed to wait until later, 'until a more convenient time'. After I read that, I began to notice that pattern often.

2) We're not a democracy; we are, and this is essential, a constitutional democracy. Democracy is mob rule, or as someone said (Isaac Asimov?), 'democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'. The Contitution, the Bill of Rights in particular, protects minority rights. It's not up to legislatures or the majority to grant or take away those rights. Civil rights are purposely excluded from the democratic process.

3) It's disingenuous to describe an issue of civil rights and the long-time oppression of millions as a dispute over licensing. Was segregation about hotel accommodations? Slavery and women's rights about employment disputes?
Basically. That's how most constitutional arguments work.
He also told him, seemingly apropos of nothing, that "if [his] grandmother had balls, she'd be [his] grandfather." Unfortunately the meaning of this exchange was apparently lost on the journalist.
what a bogus argument. You're saying because 'some modern polygamy situations' are unhealthy, we should hope to keep it illegal?

You're going to freak out when you learn about the divorce rate.
That's much more along the lines of what I think. It's kind of the libertarian dilemma - with Gay Marriage, there's one huge, loud camp of religious homophobic bigots demanding that big daddy Government say that Gay Marriage is an illegal abomination, and another huge, loud group of homosexual-rights activists demanding that big daddy Government say that Gay Marriage is a-ok and governments everywhere are required to perform it. It was never really about marriage or anything - it's about getting the Government to bless your side of the argument with a magical scepter of rightness.

Meanwhile, my/our camp of libertarians saying hey, the Government really shouldn't be in the business of deciding who can be in what sort of relationship with who else or blessing either side of a controversial argument is disappointingly small and quiet and usually ignored.
So being in the first 10% of countries to legalize is "Catching up?" We're number 20 out of 195.
Netflix's original goal, AFAIK, was to provide streaming monthly-subscription video service. Mailing DVDs was a means to build that business when that core still wasn't technically possible.

I doubt Uber's original goal was to outright own (with all the hassle & overhead thereof) a half-million vehicles.
What did your hair do when you saw idiomatic perl?
I think that gay marriage should be legal, but I disagree with this. Beware of the fallacy of analogy! There is no economic incentive for a state not to allow gay marriage, there was an economic incentive for states to keep slaves. Also, it wasn't the supreme court that ended up freeing the slaves...
Maybe, but at least in my case I have been using Linux exclusively as a desktop at several jobs for many years and still I found it to be a buggy experience.

I'm still waiting for the year of linux's desktop. That's not the case with the server though. I really love the linux's server experience more than windows and osx. There is one thing that Linux really got it right and it is the terminal experience.
So the solution is to allow everyone to compete until wages are driven down to 0?
Nothing happens to them. Even today, Catholic clergy won't perform many opposite-sex marriages unless certain conditions are met, like having it in a Catholic church and requiring pre-marriage counseling.
> I think we underestimate the pervasive use of Excel in Fortune enterprise environment.

I'll vouch for that. However, I really wonder whether automated testing is something that needs to be in the hands of people who are more comfortable with Excel and less comfortable with, say, YAML?

Also, I'm not sure if it's the responsiveness of the website being tested that makes this so slow, but it takes a very long time for the tests to complete. Line up a couple hundred tests and you're looking at very long run times. That's going to inhibit adoption for anyone who knows how quickly headless browsers can complete integration tests.
> There is no free lunch. If you introduce regulation to protect a group of people, another group of people loses out.

And the correct way to change that in a modern democracy is to lobby for better laws in parliament and/or found your own party and then win the population’s votes to fix your issue.

Wilfully ignoring existing laws implies a fundamental lack of respect for society and democracy.
Not only is it famous for actually performing HTTP requests, but it is widely considered a seminal example of excellent API design.

You'll see quite a few Python libraries that aspire to emulate this quality of API design, often adopting Requests' tagline: "XXXX for humans"
But that is not the same thing at all. People can (and will) get married with or without cakes. A baker refusing to serve a gay couple is no different from refusing to serve a black couple or a handicapped couple or a fat couple. That's not religion, that's commerce. Religious beliefs do not entitle you to discriminate in matters of commerce.
There is some real news here: Uber (probably) does not believe its autonomous vehicle program will be successful before 2020.
The cost of constructing toilets is also cheaper. The opportunity cost (measured in # of toilets built, or rapes prevented by police, or children who don't starve) remains the same.
And they went from having their business depend on having a physical inventory to a (more) purely software model.

The idea that Uber would thrive in going from "Hey, dude, sign up and you'll be on the road," to "First we're going to place an order for a $40,000 capital investment that is all risk to us if it doesn't pay out" is completely insane.

Not to mention that they will have literally no differentiating feature from any competitor who is interested in making the same investment, so they have no way to support any kind of large profit margin.

And all this assumes that people won't just want to own their own driverless car, which is far from certain.

Uber has to say that driverless cars will be wonderful for them, because large amounts of the people who might want to invest in Uber are also convinced that driverless cars will be here in three years.
You can also augment the state to take this into account.

I have a model that says my system does F with Q amount of uncertainty, and my measurements are Z with R uncertainty. But I have to give precise numbers for R, when it is just an imprecise model or SWAG. I can add to my state a parameter for how precise R is, and let the filter estimate it over time. Not always, and it is noisy, but it can be done.

There are other approaches - use a filter bank, each with a different set of assumptions. Run 'em all, and either pick one or blend them, depending on your scenario. 'Depending' being the topic of many a PhD thesis, but again, very doable in practice for many problems.
flash? There should be no flash on the site, it's an HTML5 video. Very strange..., never heard of this issue before. If you can provide more details that'd be great, but no worries if not.

Light bulb actually = "dark mode", it hides everything else on the page. I intentionally left it ambiguous to see if people would curiously click on it :)

Thanks for checking it out!
Because there is no reason for the manufacturer to sell to Uber and Uber has no value proposition if driverless cars become real. If you are the builder of driverless cars why would you want Uber to dominate the market and be in a position to eventually dictate terms to you when you can instead sell at a premium to Uber's desperate competitors or just create your own car agency and laugh all the way to the bank as Uber becomes the next WebVan...
I guess I was going more for "not legalized."
Paris taxi shortage: It's about jobs (2012)
Pretty sure it would be leased. Also aren't depreciating assets "good" for taxes?
I'm American, and all but aren't riots/strikes etc examples of how France's political life enjoys a much higher per-capita rate of material participation than USAns are accustomed to seeing?
Nothing wrong with their orders. Uber is still operating illegally. This is causing public disorder and protests, which is putting lives at risk. I saw a video yesterday where someone dropped a cinder block from a bridge to what they suspect is an Uber car. It seems easier and cheaper to get Uber to comply for now than to stop the protests. The government has to take an action, then have this resolved in the court of law.
> Looking at just the legal aspects, in 1789 (and 1776) we did recognize that 'all men are created equal' and equal protection (and due process might apply too). From those rights flows the idea that a right conferred to some, such as marraige, should not be denied to others.

That language is in the declaration of independence, which has no legal effect. The Constitution explicitly creates a system where all men are not created equal.
Owning the fleet was a basic tenet of mass package shipping from the beginning.

AFAIK, Uber's MO was to organize a massive "bring your own taxi" contracting service.
I totally agree with this. Once the Government became the granter of marriage it moved the whole argument over to the SECULAR realm.
Correct, a huge amount is ground-up bone matter. For some reason though, society is more comfortable with the thought of grandma being incinerated than pulverised in a crusher, even though a cremation involves both, so it's not well known. ;)
12 year olds, and brothers and sisters, are not oppressed minorities facing a long history of brutal discrimination.
"the Civil Rights act had to be passed in the courts"

What?
Exactly, I totally agree. Thanks for the advice!
It's a complicated explanation I suppose, but I would say that among other things, I've seen my colleagues abusing debugging and since debugger is a "single threaded" and sequential approach if you will, they were losing the big picture. I try to understand the code and keep it in my memory so that I could predict the behaviour without the debugger. On a better day this would be a better explanation.
In a word, specialization. Worrying about self driving cars is probably enough of a challenge, but that's my best guess.
The dissenting opinions make that point. While I support gay marriage, the Supreme Court overstepped their authority in this case. The Legislative branch writes laws, not the Judicial. Public opinion on the definition of marriage should change future laws, not past laws.
> It was pointedly prescribed in the old testament.

That's a common misconception. It was described, but not prescribed. The polygamy in the Old Testament is universally portrayed as dysfunctional.
i think soundcloud requires flash for "anti piracy purposes", the page doesn't actually show the let's go button until you load flash.
How Israel defies drought
A peek behind the scenes of OpenSource.com
A self-driving car would not necessarily be great for Uber. What is the taxi service currently providing? A way to order/pay for/sell a cab ride, and vetting so you don't feel uneasy with the driver.

Take out the driver, and anyone could offer their car as a cab. The app to do so could be Uber, but it the bar is lowered considerably if it's purely a way to book a car.
The question is, is that so bad?
> In brief, their view was that resolving this issue in the courts erodes the democratic process.

Sounds like an argument against their existence. They didn't have to take up the case...
There'd still be a lot to differentiate on if you remove the driver - car quality (nicer/bigger/quieter cars), speed of journey (who has the best routing algorithm that uses the most real world sensors to route around problems), the most cars (so your wait is shorter), the most reliable network (plenty of redundant cars waiting if yours breaks down), the best app features, and so on.

Removing the driver won't be the last innovation these companies do.