skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You know, Volvo Cars and Albedo accept no liability or responsibility for any individual or individual's accident or injury by any road user or other object whilst wearing Lifepaint. Nor do they accept liability for any damage to property caused directly or indirectly by the paint and what's more, that it is transferable.

Furthermore, Volvo say that cycle safety is the cyclist's responsibility. There's more: Lifepaint is one of the many products that can aid visibility but cannot prevent accidents caused by the individual or other road users.
OP should have written: "The same reason that the Civil Rights act had to be UPHELD in the courts".
> 5. We're now sure that everybody in France knows about Uber!

I'd be curious how this is being spun by the various local news services in France. It wouldn't be that hard to spin this to make Uber look bad. Consider a headline like "Uber spawned another violent outburst today", and similar spin on the details; it'd be easy to obscure who is actually responsible for the violence.
A good but unfortunately temporary decision for the working people of France. Good on them.
Why the Bitcoin Blockchain Beats Out Competitors
I would say that the best tools to get people to pay you back are crowbar and pliers.

Seriously though:

https://www.splitwise.com
Beyond YAY!'s, the state is saying it will 'let' you love someone of the same sex.

Can someone sense the creepiness in this? It tells you how/who/why you should love.

It still doesn't include certain groups and it could revoke such 'rights' in other circumstances.
12 years olds marrying each other is not paedophilia.
I think this quote was meant to be taken as a bit sarcastic, in an "I'll eat my hat" kind of way. Uber recently poached a bunch of the top people from CMU's robotics department and has announced plans to lease a 53,000 square foot facility. They have no plans to wait for Tesla.
I wish they had an underwater sprint in the olympics. It would be great to really test how fast people can go in water.
Gay people finally earned the right to have their relationships meddled with by the government. Let's see if they remain "gay" (happy). Watch the parades dwindle!
Immoral? Yes. Unfair? Laws will sometimes be unfair. Citizen's rights trump consumer demands.
What's your take on Logrus? It seems like it would cover your major concerns, and it's widely recommended.

https://github.com/Sirupsen/logrus
"In almost every European country, restrictions on firing workers have made employers very reluctant about hiring in the first place. "

We need to remember this. The unintended consequences of having unions run every industry in the country.
Accidents often aren't. When you see the guy weaving though traffic down the highway, changing lanes every few seconds and accelerating and breaking seemingly at random. He will tell you of all the 'accidents' he has had. He's lying. If it's preventable and you choose not to, it's intentional.
I'm really happy about this.

Not just because I'm a lesbian (I'm happily single, so no marriage for me regardless), but because it's a fundamental right that shouldn't be denied to anyone. It really warms my heart that everyone can finally marry the people they love.
I'm not saying you're doing this, but this line of thinking is very often employed to minimize the damage done by discriminatory decision-making under the guise of "waiting for the perfect solution". Fixing what hurts people now is better than telling them to wait for something that will in all likelihood never actually come.
The staying under water thing is according to the the article about 30-40 years old. That to me is extremely new. After all we've been swimming for thousands of years.
Howdy!
How would you suggest marketing a new service to a hard-to-reach audience?

Brief overview: I would like to market local, weekend yoga retreats to professionals in the oil and gas, energy, and finance industries. No long absences from work or family, and no long-distance travel. The startup is set up in Houston, but can operate in any city in the USA. Lots of different marketing and advertising methods are being tried (online groups, directories, online forums, linkedin, etc.), but I am pretty much throwing things to the wall and seeing what sticks. Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks!

startup: bodyhugs: hug your body with movement and care

website: http://www.bodyhugs.org/

local health and wellness retreats in the USA
nice, playing with it now
Hi Kevin and Sam,

We are about to finish building a table reservation system (think OpenTable or SeatMe but on steroids). Although it's a "Me Too" product, we will offer features that our competitors can't or won't, e.g. bigger API control for restaurants, various hooks to extend the service such as food delivery, pre-paid reservations, and ticketing for tables to name a few. Essentially, we will offer an iPhone/iPad app for restaurants to manage their reservations/orders, while their guests can use an iPhone-app/Android-app/Search-Engine/Restaurant's-Website to make those reservations.

I have a question about a launch/pricing strategy:

- Is it sane to do a freemium model for our product? For example, restaurants would be able download our Manager app in App Store for free but it would have limited offline features. If restaurants want to accept online orders, then they must get that feature via in-app purchase. If restaurant wants to incorporate discount cards, then it's a different in-app purchase. This logic applies to all different features.

- Or should we go through a regular sales process, i.e. sign up restaurants one-by-one, charge them via check/credit-card/etc and escape Apple's 30% cut?

Thanks in advance and I hope it will be helpful for other startups that are in a similar position.
I could agree with the federal government stepping in, just not the court.
Cash up front, especially for previous non-payers.
> The idea is to set up an enduring process that will generally converge ...

Could you recommend any books on these issues?

EDIT: Thanks!
> No, I'd expect the government to force you to pay minimum wage. What's the problem with that?

Have you seen any indications that either Uber or taxis are failing to meet minimum wage laws?

Not all "labor laws" are equivalent and useful. Some are bought and paid for by the current set of companies to stifle competition, because it's easier for them to comply than a new company, or because the laws outright ban competition.
Knot DNS 2.0.0
My typical workflow for checking out new open source projects:

- find . -type f

- find . -name \* .ext | wc -l (get an idea of complexity)

- git log (is this thing maintained?)

- find . -name \* .ext | ctags

- find main entry points, depending on platform and language

- vim with NerdTree enabled

- CTRL-], CTRL-T to jump to browse tags in vim

Generally a lot of find, grep and vim gets me started.
It's sounds like how Gerrit works, from a user's POV at least. You can push to a repo that you don't really have write permission to, and it goes into Gerrit. The post-push scripts create a sort of branch-tag thingy from master with your commits on, and so when the Gerrit review passes ("pull request accepted") the change is merged/rebased/cherry-picked onto the latest stuff. If the review is rejected then the temporary branch is dropped and that's that. Since all the reviews items in gerrit are just git references, you can use all the usual git commands on them (pull or fetch it, then merge) if you know the gerrit tag, but since they are strange branchless things they are not pulled down by default in a normal clone.

It's harder to explain than to use actually. Ah! there's a bit of a wrinkle with gerrit in that it uses a local hook to insert an ID into commits, so rebasing or cherry picking knows which commit to reference. But that might be optional, it'd be like cherry-picking a pull request, I think github doesn't close the original in that case? Not sure on that though.
When I was a kid, the kid down the street and I started digging a hole in his backyard. We wanted it to become a tunnel network.

The hole got deep enough for both of us to fit inside, but somehow it became much more difficult to continue digging at that point. Maybe, as the article suggests, we hit a rock, or maybe it was the exertion of lifting shovels full of dirt above our heads.
I pick a function or an outcome and type out the pseudocode stack traces leading to that in notepad.

I include function names and the names of the variables passed as parameters. But, no braces or other syntax. Almost always omit branches/variable decls/error checking. Include all interesting function calls along the path, but omit any branches/function bodies that lead off the desired path. Inline callbacks as function calls with addition notation. If the process has separate steps that aren't a single call/callback tree, start a new tree with the note "then later..."

To do this, I have to start from the line of code that enacts the outcome and determine the backtrace with a combo of debugger stack traces and examining the code for branches/callbacks of interest.

But, when it's complete, I'll have the start-to-finish process of some complicated task in the code --usually on a single screen of text. It's a tremendously better use of my short term memory to scan over that than to constantly bounce around the actual code base.
The point is not that the Founding Fathers were mortal incarnations of the divine. The point is that the law has to have a meaning or else it is literally meaningless. If we use the law like tea leaves and just read in whatever meaning we want, whether or not it's what the law is actually supposed to mean, that puts us in a precarious position. Maybe today "equal protection" means that gays should be allowed to marry, but tomorrow it means that everyone should be equally protected from being hit on by gays. That's not a good footing for our society to be on.
Rights of a minority should not be left to the democratic process.

If the constitution and the its amendments, which protect minority rights (and people's rights in general) aren't the result of a democratic legislative process, what are they a result of?

The question is whether the current constitutional legislation provides these minority rights. The court's role is to interpret existing laws, not add to them because it thinks its the right thing to do. That's the legislature's role.
Riding with traffic doesn't put the outcome in the drivers hands, your still responsible for paying attention to cars behind you and not, for example, pulling out in front of them. Even if it was completely in the drivers hands, I'd would rather they have more time to deal with it. And if nothing else, I'd rather become a hood ornament at 25 mph than at 55 mph
And for writing: https://github.com/google/vim-maktaba
I've heard good things about splitwise...
Now you can suffer like the rest of us. :) I recommend adopting children to lower your tax burden.
Sure, it is the best. I use it to tune my guitar everyday.
I switch between fedora, osx and windows 8.1 on the regular. It's not fixed, and drives me crazy every time I have to wait for the window to open before I can plop down my file.
Not so long ago it was culturally enforced; it was not impossible to date and raise children while unmarried but there were severe social consequences and as a result not many people did.

I think we have yet to see all the consequences of this cultural change.
Claimed societal interest in preventing harm to offspring born from inbreeding.

Does this mean that marriages between same-sex siblings will be permitted?

It's simply the fact that we find the idea of siblings having sex to be icky. Which is the same reason for the prohibition against same-sex marriage.
I never said I want to be in a group marriage, so I don't know why you seem to be suggesting that I should "show, don't tell" anything. I just said I could see it working out for some people. The fact that there exists an entire subculture of queer and pansexual individuals who are in such group relationships seems to me the proof in the pudding that it should be ratified as part of our civil law. And not some horny old man looking to recreate a Turkish harem painting.

I think it would be wise to consider the possibility that maybe the legal institutions involved in marriage aren't up to scratch in terms of what humans can possibly do in terms of romantic and intimate relationships. It's better, in my opinion, to incorporate a method by which we can address these issues by more effective methods (as in don't ban something just because you don't like it. You ban it because it's destructive to the social order.).
As ecstatic as I am about this, I'm disappointed that it had to come from the Supreme Court instead of the American voters. I do believe that gay marriage is an obvious extension of the non-discrimination clause, so it's perfectly appropriate for the Supremes to act on this. I guess I'm just more disappointed in the voters than anything else.
Huudlr's Top 5 Must-Attend Summer Events
> "except for the ridiculously bad command line UI"

This... I welcome that they are improving it a bit on W10 but it's not nearly as good as in Linux. (Cmder does a decent job though)
>Let the state make rules around civil partnerships, and let religions deal with marriage

That's exactly how it works now. One is called civil marriage and one is called religious marriage. The church sets their own rules and the government sets theirs. You can be in one, the other, or both at the same time.

Civil marriage is a legal contract, religious marriage is decided by the church and it is whatever the church says it is. The government lets clergy also officiate civil marriage but it doesn't have to. It does because it makes sense. You wouldn't have to need a civil official and a religious official at your wedding. You wouldn't have to go through two ceremonies, one at the church and one at city hall.

Don't put too much thought in the fact that both contain the word "marriage" in them.

Goodrich vs. Dept of Health (MASS.) (emphasis mine):

"Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society.... The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.... the arguments made... failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."
The only plurals I know are multi-husband communities and everyone involved are happier than clams. Your concern trolling to equate happy relationships with domestic abuse, simply because you don't understand them and think that everyone in a plural relationship is FLDS and lives in Utah, is pretty striking and antiprogressive (which is odd, considering you're attempting the progressive argument against their happiness).

And no, what you're saying is not "well known." You are arguing against certain fundamentalist groups, not plurals. They are not equivalent, despite this thread's clear goal to say otherwise.
I agree.

I've long thought that a solution to the "gay marriage" "problem" would be for states to get out of the marriage business and just allow one adult to specify another adult as the legal party for all the things that a spouse gets under marriage.

Then there's no debate in terms of the state because the state doesn't define marriage at all! But that just exposes how some people WANT marriage to be man+woman to enforce their belief system.
Marriage is not about love. It is about property. The government/state doesn't give two flying ducks about whether two people get married because they love each other, are in love (infatuated) with each other, or just like each other. Love is not required to get married.

Marriage involves determining and transferring property rights (before, during, and after a marriage).

A marriage license and a state recognized marriage is a three party agreement. It's an agreement between the two spouses and the government. It gives consent to the government to arbitrate marital issues and in return the government gives benefits to the individuals getting married.

ADD: Due to a marriage being a three party agreement, state recognized polygamy gets really complicated really fast, especially when multiple states might be involved.
Thanks, but we were evaluating on-premise solutions (as opposed to cloud/SaaS-based options).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_hunting
"The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. "

I can change this paragraph only slightly to come up with an absurdity.

"The fundamental right to vote does not include a right to make a State change its definition of suffrage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of suffrage (to be those related by blood to the historically dominant culture taking part in the political process) that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational."

States are not free to define away your rights, it's that simple.
So, by your logic if I say I think the sky is beautiful today you can respond with "why do you hate jelly beans?" and I have to respect that?
One problem I have with polygamy is that its more common to have one-man-many-woman marriages than one-woman-many-man marriages. This results in a surplus of single males, who are prone to causing trouble.
I thought the "scan and fix errors" is file-system dependent. IIRC, if you're using something ancient and dumb like FAT32, it doesn't show up, but if you use something non-ancient and intelligent like NTFS it does. (I don't know how exfat is handled).

Try pulling out a mounted ext4 drive on Linux, it will also be marked dirty and request fsck.
I agree with this being a fallacy of analogy, but yours is the wrong point. There is absolutely economic reason to prevent gay marriage - lower taxes for married couples, for one thing.
The troubling part is the equivalence between speech and violence. I fundamentally don't believe that information can be violent in any way. It can facilitate violence, surely (the plans to a nuclear bomb come to mind,) but it is never inherently violent because information in itself can do nothing.
In the relatively recent past we saw a lot more of this. For example, Bombingham: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&p...

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan#Later_Klans:_19...

Much like the current situation in France, the police were generally complicit and did very little about the terrorists.
Talking Shop with Bitmatica’s Co-Founder Carl Minden
Furries
I'm not sure how to respond to this. Have you noticed that every complete Bible contains the Old Testament, including the Pentateuch in its entirety? Old Testament law and prophesy is woven deeply in the fabric of the gospels and of Paul's letters.

And while most modern churches have chosen to interpret Paul's prescription for monogomy strictly, some Christian churches and cultures continue to embrace polygamy.
It's not that clear cut. Could a business refuse service because the customer is black? Could a town effectively segregate gays into separate but equal neighborhoods, with separate but equal businesses, churches, schools, etc?
I really like that the Rails team is pretty good at doing regular releases. One noticeable thing though is that ActiveRecord, almost, always has more fixes than the other Action* gems combined, understandable since its the most complicated piece, but I can't help to think of Ernie Millers ActiveRecord talk a few years back. https://youtu.be/yuh9COzp5voA
(A few of the things that he talks about are since then fixed..)
The initial Ubuntu release leaned heavily on Debian -- so I don't think the comparison is entirely unfair. Debian started in 1993, and Debian 1.1 "Buzz" was released in 1996.

Now, I can't really remember when I first came across an usb device -- but I also can't remember them ever causing me trouble in Debian.
Did you know that One fifth of the planet speaks Chinese?. Mandarin Chinese is the mother tongue of over 873 million people, making it the most widely spoken first language in the world, you can find more information through http://preply.com/en/chinese-by-skype
There is a significant number of answers that may interest you on Stackoverflow. Specifically: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/215076/whats-the-best-way...

Two things I do to familiarize with a code base is to look at how the data is stored. Particularly if its using a database with well named tables I can get some rough ideas of how the system works. Then from there I look at other data objects. Data is easier to understand than behavior.

The other is watching the initialization process of the application with a debugger or logger. Along those lines if your lucky (my opinion) and the application uses dependency injection of some sort you can look to see how the components are wired together. Generally there is an underlying framework to how code pieces work together and that generally reveals itself in the initialization process if its not self evident.
You and I are on the same page, I love your idea too. This is my very first project, I'm entirely new to coding, but hopefully eventually I can extend Hyperlax to what you're talking about. Appreciate you checking it out!
What a crappy ruling. Yes the answer they got was right, but they never bothered to rule that sexual orientation is a (partial) suspect class. Now we have to wait for another ruling to get that resolved. Stupid lazy evaluation of courts.
Hi Kevin and Sam,

May be a bit out of your area, but I'm curious about your thoughts. Even though we are in "Silicon" Valley, there has been very little when it comes to new semiconductors investments. I'm the co founder and CEO of REX Computing (http://rexcomputing.com), a new semiconductor startup working on a super energy efficient processor architecture. We've actually raised seed funding, and I'm interested in what you think about the semiconductor space in general (and its future in the valley), plus ideas on how we can thrive as a very low level hardware company in a primarily software world.

Thanks!

Edit: One other thing I should note is that we are also big on software! We're utilizing a lot of open source projects to help build up our compiler and other software tools. Obviously hardware without software to run on it is pretty useless.
>> Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry?
>Claimed societal interest in preventing harm to offspring born from inbreeding.
They can produce offspring without a marriage. Or, if it would be allowed, they could marry and dont produce offspring. Dont see how one is connected to the other.
Its not a question of reasoning. All you need is a lobby big enough and enough time and you are allowed to do whatever you like to do. Marry a 12 year old, marry a pet, marry a car..