skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
How could it be consensual between all adults? The marriage "license" in polygamy is between man and women, yet by secondary effects the women are fully entangled with one another. Yet if you watch any show on polygamy you'll see that a guy will keep adding new, younger wives while holding their current wives hostage (due to their lack of another option in terms of housing, money, etc). It's absurd to think that any thinking person would get in on the wife side of the polygamy pact when in the end they have their equality divided by X wives.

Smart folks have said that the reason homosexual marriage even became a thought was because of the transformation of marriage from a bond of ownership of man over woman to a shared partnership. A polygamous arrangement (as per the mormon church, not the polyamorous relationships of the hippies, etc) ends up with a hierarchy of power with one man controlling multiple wives, with the power to divorce, ruin, etc the others if they don't allow him to wed again.

I think an argument for polyamorous marriage could be made, but polygamy is essentially a raw deal for whoever isn't the hub of the marriage wheel (one man in the case of traditional mormonism, islam, etc.).
The problem is the religious nut case part, which often leads to the reality being very different from your rosy hypothetical. In real life, polygamous relationships often involve older men with young, often underage, women who have been coerced into the relationship and are often sexually abused. I have nothing against polygamous relationships among fully fledged consenting adults. But that doesn't seem to be what most polygamous relationships are.

I could be wrong. I haven't done extensive research into this. If you want to convince me, show me the data.
Asana has great UX and is simply fantastic for shared task lists and projects among various people. Plus, it runs only $21/month (billed yearly) for total 5 friends/family. (If they went IPO, I'd snap up their arms off.)
The Civil Rights Act was not a prerequisite for interracial marriage. It was decided in Loving v. Virginia. (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395)

A constitutional amendment was necessary for women's suffrage because the constitution already spoke on the issue
Proposing a Standardized Vocabulary for Startups
When I as a child, I was struck by a car while riding my bicycle. I was riding against traffic, and the car that struck me as making a right-hand turn from a side street. They were looking left at oncoming traffic, and not to the right, where I happened to be at that moment.

It's ingrained in drivers to pay attention to the source of traffic in such cases, a sort of optimization tree for their merging decision. If you're traveling against traffic, you're an outlier not considered in others' equations, and you're at risk of injury.
>normally the value of a house climb [sic] faster than inflation

It would be more accurate to say "in a healthy, growing economy, the value of a house climbs faster than inflation."

It is not a foregone conclusion that home prices must rise faster than inflation. Like any prospective investor, you must look at the individual factors affecting the property you want to buy before making a decision. Overall, the "home prices rise faster than inflation" trope is incredibly harmful because uninformed investors use it as a heuristic justification for making major life decisions and massive purchases.

Even if home prices did always outpace inflation, it still might not be a good investment. If there are other investment vehicles with a higher yield over the investment period, your money would be better spent there.
Call it what you like. I'll call it the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
I found that specific Sonar issue to be bogus. In addition to breakpoints, sometimes the 's' has is meaningful name that ties the function call with the return value.
Where can I send donations to the political party that proposes a license to breed?
Awesome stuff. Articles like this are what we Lispers/Schemers need to show that our languages can be used for "real work"(tm).
Thank you for pointing that out but I still maintain it's irrelevant. People that will pass on genetic issues to their children are not banned from getting married nor banned from having children. On top of which as science progresses it's likely all those issues can be fixed. In other words, it's not a valid reason to deny siblings getting married.
Other than the many great answers here I will frequently start by doing cleanups of the codebase.

I'll start reading the files using any of the strategies mentioned here and looking for things I can cleanup. Formatting, Simple Refactors, Normalizing Names.

These are all things that are comparatively easy to do and safe but force you to reason about the code you are reading. Asking yourself what you can refactor or fix the naming for is a deent forcing function for actually understanding the code.
The god you worship sounds like a real douche bag.
Yes, I agree, but the 14th amendment requires some kind of asymmetry in order to have effect. To violate equal-protection, something has to be unequal.
Thanks you for the link!
I agree with you. An example of how bad things can get, we can look at ISIS. people governing a with religious rules will never go any good, mostly because religious rules were created a very long time ago for a completely different world.
It is going to be difficult for someone in another country to navigate Indonesia's infrastructure better than a local. It would probably be helpful if you described the possible options from your end.

Good luck.
The bar is not necessarily as low as you think. At companies like Amazon you have to get approval for even the simplest personal projects, which could take months if you're unlucky.
I probably won't say anything new here. Last five years, I do the following in order to get my foot wet with new project (some projects I worked with contains more than two millions lines of code):

1. Just make sure I can build project;

2. Play around with services/application (just run, send some requests, get response);

3. Pick up simplest case (for example, some request/response);

4. Find breakpoints (for debugging) somewhere connected with this simplest case (for example, which stopped somewhere when I send request) and setup them in debugger. Usually, I find place where to put breakpoint by just searching keyword associated with my request;

5. Play around with these breakpoints while performing simplest case (for example, sending request) and try to find out call graph;

6. Try to change code and see what happens;

After I do this stuff several days/weeks, I become more and more familiar with the project.
Police in Paris seize Uber vehicles
Usually interstate commerce taxes are called "use tax", not "sales tax".
You will notice that the 10th Amendment mentions both states and people, which implies that the people can have rights that the states cannot abridge. The 14th Amendment made this explicit.
What "social insanity" is it to recognize and legalize a completely natural phenomenon? Or are you going to tell me that all those ducks and bonobos are sinners too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

And, if you're a fan of beating people over the head with that book that tells you to primarily love others (e.g. turn the other cheek, see the beam in your own eye, etc.), here's a good money quote (Matthew 19:11-12)

"Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”"
Agreed. The value I would see is when I know how the other guys are doing and most importantly, help me decide where I should play.

I believe CBInsights and Mattermark provide a service like that but they are marketed towards VCs and investors as opposed to individual app developers.
What's the difference between a "civil union" and a secular marriage? It seems like the separation you wish for is already here, effectively. You can get a religious marriage without a government-recognized marriage, or you can get a government-marriage without a religious marriage. If you want, you can do both. Looks to me like the only difference is the name.
Agreed. The "slippery slope" arguments always seemed weak to me, yet it didn't take long for polygamy comments to pop up here. So seems like they weren't that weak after all...
We prefix all our custom headers with `X-Ark-` (for auth tokens, request IDs for logging and such), so in this case it's `X-Ark-Compliment`.

Also, another thing we do to propagate joy in engineering culture is make heavy use of Phabricator macros in the code review process. It adds a lot of humor to the situation to have somebody draw attention to a bug in your code by pointing it out with an epic skateboard accident: http://giphy.com/gifs/fail-SMwheKIMDwA00
Marriage is not primarily a religious institution. Many non-religious people get married, and see no incongruity in it.
He did not say "mindf dash dash k." He said "mindf em dash k."
There was almost no difference between government and religion when marriage originated, so it makes little sense to argue who invented it. Was Moses a political or religious leader? Were pharaohs political rulers or gods? Etc. What is very clear is that, in our society, civil and religious marriage are two different things that share a common name, and that one should have no influence over the other.
As a swimmer, I was much faster underwater with fins than above water, up to a distance where I needed to breathe more than once a lap (~ 100 yards).
My impression is that OP wants the current rights from marriage to be part of civil unions instead, not for said rights to be eradicated outright. The former sounds like a more reasonable position and would address your (and the parent commenter's) concerns.
sorry but, doku has no faq about how to withdraw from international payment

EDIT:it doesn't support digital goods
Could it be though that productivity increases can only take us so far if consumption is (realistically) finite? This quote from near the end of the article is telling, because you can't boost growth forever; there are limits.

"Third, the developed world in particular has a productivity problem; it needs productivity enhancements to offset its deteriorating demographics and boost growth."
The Communist Party of China

"In November 2013, following the Third Plenum of the 18th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, China announced the decision to relax the one-child policy. Under the new policy, families can have two children if one parent is an only child.[90] This will mainly apply to urban couples, since there are very few rural only children due to long-standing exceptions to the policy for rural couples.[91]"
The Curse of the Pixar Universe
We've been using Duo Security for two factor ssh auth[0] for a number of years. Its quite easy to setup and gives you push notifications to your phone. Its awesome.

[0]: https://www.duosecurity.com/docs/duounix
The Government only got into the Marriage business when they wanted to start denying it.. to interracial couples.
SpaceX CRS-6 Hard Landing – Tracking Cam
What functional difference does it make?
If I'm married and my spouse has a child then I am presumptively that child's parent too. That is, of course, not the only way I can become a child's parent, but it's one way. Polygamy complicates that. If one member of a N-way relationship has a child, do all of the other members become the child's parents

Again, I'm not saying this argument is valid or should carry the day, only that it is defensible and non-bigoted.
Using process namespaces to implement variant symlinks (2014)
It's not easy at all. I mean, if you are filling in the generated scaffolds, it may be easy. But when your coworkers start using all the nasty routing DSL tricks and the myriad of helpers, it stops being easy. Thing is, it's too big and rich for its own good, and let's not speak of the development practices it encourages.
There are some other options:

http://coffeescript.org/#regexes
I think you missed his point. The point is, it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not. It's not bad in either case.
Is it worthwhile to explore Clojure for web-dev seriously or more as a toy?
>In over 15 years of daily commuting (yes, all through the winter, too) I've been hit a half dozen times.

I don't know anything about your situation, but with respect, this seems extremely high to me.

>the only rule I follow is that I am invisible when on two wheels.

The strategy that I take to counter this is to actively make myself visible. Not only with lights but also with my actions.

If there is a tight squeeze coming up, I will take the centre of the lane and proactively block vehicles from passing dangerously if necessary. (The same if there are parked cars that may open their doors)

http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/julie-rand/why-wont-cyclists-take... has more advice on taking a visible position.
Cofounder request
Early stage very promising start up seeks cofounder

#MobileApp #aNewTakeOnConnecting #MakingItSocial #TaskBased

over 6,000 lines of code written

HMU @ nikoanjohnson@gmail.com
I've worked a lot with LispWorks and tuning the gc had the same method of programmatically calling a full GC after every N operations. We also found setting the gc threshold to high amount helped a bunch.

Supposedly they have a concurrent GC in the works but I haven't played with it.
It's the job of the legislature to change the laws, not the courts.
An Update on Eclipse Android Developer Tools
That's what happened. Your problem is that they are using the word marriage. Prior to this, gays could marry in all 50 states. Just not all 50 states would recognize that marriage. And if the government doesn't recognize your marriage, does it really matter what religion or personal tradition you are following? Apparently, it does.

There is nothing religious about this. It's merely the a similar phrase, one that happens to have religious or cultural attachment.

> but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root.

That's because it can't be fixed at the root. The root has already happened, and the only people with a problem with the fix now are people who think this has anything to do with religion, which it does not.
This really has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

It's not gay marriage, it's same-sex marriage. This is a subtle but extremely important distinction.

Gay people have always been allowed to marry. They haven't been allowed to marry the people they want, but a gay man was allowed to marry a gay woman in every state in the union. Similarly, straight people were not allowed to marry other straight people of the same sex.

Marriage is just a matter of straight-up sex discrimination. Bob can marry Jane but Susan can't, because Bob is a man and Susan is a woman. That's clearly discrimination based purely on the sex of the participants (and not the sexual orientation, which is merely the thing that might cause Susan to want to do this, but not relevant to whether it's allowed) and IMO a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

Laws are supposed to be sex blind. If a man can legally do something, a woman should be able to legally do it as well. That was not the case with marriage before this decision.
I think estate planning and inheritance all could have been done before (you can leave your money/assets to whoever). This just ensures your spouse gets it even if you don't have a will.
Interesting. I haven't fully digested the paper, but a few notes for context:

- Most real-world exploits these days are based on use-after-frees, heap buffer overflows, and other heap-related weirdness, rather than stack buffer overflows. It's nice that SafeStack mitigates that attack vector though (but if you disable stack canaries in favor of it, you actually reopen the door to exploit certain types of vulnerabilities...)

- A (the most?) common method to proceed from memory corruption to return-oriented programming is to redirect a virtual method call or other indirect jump to a stack pivot instruction. SafeStack alone does nothing to prevent this, so it doesn't prevent ROP.

- However, the general code-pointer indirection mechanisms described in the paper, of which SafeStack is an important component, could make ROP significantly harder, because you would only be able to jump to the starts of functions. This guarantee is similar to Windows's CFG (although the implementation is different), but SafeStack makes it harder to bypass by finding a pointer into the stack (either on the heap or via gadget).

- In practice, interoperation with unprotected OS libraries is likely to seriously compromise the security benefits of the combined scheme, because they will store pointers into the real stack, jump directly to code pointers on the heap, etc. JIT compilers are also likely to be problematic.

- In addition, there are more direct ways for an attacker to work around the protection, such as using as gadgets starts of functions that do some small operation and then proceed to a virtual call on an argument. The larger the application, the more possibilities for bypass there are.

- Still, "harder" is pretty good.

Edit: By the way, the point about function start gadgets makes questionable the paper's claim that "CPI guarantees the impossibility of any control-flow hijack attack based on memory corruptions." Also, if you want to guarantee rsp isn't leaked, it isn't enough to keep all pointers near it out of regular memory: they also have to be kept out of the stack itself, because functions with many (or variable) arguments will read them from the stack - at least, I don't see a claim in the paper about moving them - so subverting an indirect call to go to a function that takes more arguments than actually provided (or just changing a printf format string to have a lot of arguments) will cause whatever data's on the stack to be treated as arguments. Ditto registers that either can be used for arguments or are callee-saved. That means frame pointers have to be disabled or munged, and any cases where LLVM automatically generates temporary pointers for stack stores - which I've seen it do before - have to be addressed.

If you do move non-register arguments to the safe stack then the situation is improved, but you still have to watch out for temporaries left in argument registers.
Yes, I also found this quite confusing. The way this paper was attributed seems quite sloppy. It mentions previous publication at the "NCSU COE People site" and gives a link, but omits mention that this paper was originally presented at the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2013):

http://2013.icse-conferences.org/index.html

These notes shouldn't have been tacked onto the abstract. Instead they should have been clearly separated from the paper itself.

In addition, the PVS Studio team "added a short section" which appears as if it were a modification to the paper, and and it also appears in the augmented table of contents. If one is not reading carefully, or if the section heading has scrolled of the top of the screen, one might be misled into thinking the "added section" was also authored by Johnson et. al. instead of by the PVS Studio team. The "added short section" should also have been published entirely separately.
A proper IDE can go a long way towards understanding a large codebase. It will be able to index everything so you can really quickly jump around the project–being able to jump directly from a method call to its declaration without momentarily context switching to search for where it lives is very valuable.

As you start to add to a project the IDE can also prove valuable in discovering how everything fits together, since it will provide smart and helpful completions with docstrings, method signatures, types etc. This can really help you start writing new code a lot faster.

Also, an IDE will usually also have a decent UI for running the code with a debugger attached, which can be incredibly useful for understanding the changing state of a running program.
Did you read the opinion? Decisions typically contain some rhetorical flair ("fluffy stuff"), but there was plenty of substance to this decision. See e.g. pages 3-5 of the Syllabus. None of this analysis would be relevant to a decision about marijuana, and many of the standards the decision sets forth would fail in the case of marijuana.
Seriously. I have my misgivings with Clojure in comparison to other Lisps, but it's a serious programming language.
It doesn't matter who invented it. It matters what it is. And marriage is fundamentally a government institution. It concerns laws and legally granted privileges. If there's a sacred component, let the churches keep that part, but that's not what the SCOTUS ruled on, and it's not what millions across the country have been demanding for decades.
It's just a bit of a mouthful now.
You realize the data is scarce because the phenomena hasn't been studied, right? You seem to be hung up on the Sister-Wives nonsense and see it as the only viable data point in a truly unanalyzed section of human behavior. The fact of the matter is that I personally know people who are polyarmous and none of them are the creepy Mormon/Branch-Davidian type. Most that I know who are poly are queer (like myself) and far from religious.

If anything, it should be you that should go and create a research program analyzing the nature of poly relationships in humans and the underlying causes, not me. I merely pointed out the reality that our law should consider accommodation for those individuals as it does for others. All you seem to be bringing to the table is scare mongering that depends more on the tiniest of slivers of human society for the proposition that poly relationships should be illegal. Such a proposition is not tenable on it's face nor in its contents thus far. Or in simpler terms: please do your own research because I'm not here to convince you either way (but you seem damn sure to convince me that my poly friends are some evil bad fundies wanting to rape children).

Edit: sorry for the rudeness. I take things personally sometimes.
This music is amazing! Is it from one playlist on soundcloud?