skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No. Simply because we already had equality as far as the law was concerned.

Everyone was entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex. Everyone was barred from marrying someone of the same sex. The law applied equally.
as it is a technical nerds forum lets throw in a bit of technology aspect of it - today's ruling lays groundwork for protecting the interests of children which will be "born", or more specifically - created - using something like the DNA mix-up of the 2 same-sex parents (with, at least at the initial stages of the technology, may be throwing into the mix a biologically minimally necessary of bio-material from an opposite sex donor)
I still think picking an initial niche is a good one, but ideally you'd pick one that represents a complex task that is easier to get done in broken-down subsets, and that customers don't have an easy way to get done today.
I could use all the help I can get!
Aficionados :)
Parachutes are not a good idea because of how rockets are built. The parachute would apply too much stress on the structure of the rocket which would reduce its lifespan/potential for reuse.

While it's normal to try to think and find better alternative, let me remind you that going into space is not simple. I always have a strong feeling about people over-simplifying hard problems with clueless alternative.

I feel this shows a lack of understanding and respect to a field you clearly don't understand. Try to take this as a constructive criticism.
Your comment is very thought provoking but I don't agree the culture wouldn't be ruined nor do I agree it's a minor concern. It's already visibly being ruined by the massive influx of rude Chinese tourists.

Cultural enclaves don't say anything about crime like the fact that 19 times out of 20 if you lose your wallet in Japan you'll get it back with all the money in it. It's hard to imagine that would stay true with a much larger percent of non Japanese culture people.
(Edit: Here is a summary of what happens below to save everyone time:

OP: 5 is a positive number.

jr: Correction: 5 is a number.

nm: That's a silly correction. It's more accurate to say it's a positive number, why are you correcting OP?

jr: But positive numbers are numbers!)

No, it is not an important point. It is a silly point that confuses the issue and is more wrong than right.

It is NOT accurate to say that it that the Constitution or Bill of Rights protects individual rights. They DO NOT protect individual rights. Instead, the Constitution provides for democratic self-governance bounded by some enumerated protections designed primarily to protect minorities. The hope was and is that these limited protections in tandem with democratic self-governance provide a system of government that will protect individual rights.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is substantively and substantially different from a document that might enumerate a list of protected individual rights. Ensuring individual rights is the purpose and duty of the entire democratic process, not just the Constitution.

To make the point clearer, there are many items in the UN Declaration of Human Rights that the US recognizes (culturally) as being valid individual rights. E.g. The US provides universal access to education and the culture, on balance, recognizes access to secondary education as a fundamental right. But there is no constitutional prerogative for meeting this or other "rights" -- that's provided for legislatively. Georgia could defund its educational system tomorrow and the US Constitution wouldn't have squat to say about it.

In conclusion, the Constitution (edit)WAS NOT PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO PROTECT(/edit) individual rights. It protects primarily minority rights and provides for a system of governance that we hope will protect all individual rights.

(*edit, alternative wording for the paragraph above because jrs235 is nit-picking.)
My gut tells me to work on the features that alleviates the bigger hair on fire problem for the customer. Usually, startups have less pressing needs for security than large enterprises, but I can actually see how your tech opens up a lot of startups to build quickly in that very lucrative healthcare space that is being thrown up in the air because of the Affordable care act.

You should aim to build only enough to close a sale. IF you build the in-browser features will that ACTUALLY close them? And that calculus should include this: Will it close enough SMBs that it counteracts doing a single integration with an existing system that will close 1 big customer.
It would almost certainly constitute Indecent Exposure, and possible Sexual Assault depending on who witnessed and various pieces of context.
Take this a little further, and you have "iceburg homes":

http://curbed.com/archives/2014/12/11/this-is-what-people-me...
From https://www.aclu.org/bill-rights-brief-history which is SOMETHING about the founding fathers and Bill of Rights:

"Democracy and liberty are often thought to be the same thing, but they are not. Democracy means that people ought to be able to vote for public officials in fair elections, and make most political decisions by majority rule. Liberty, on the other hand, means that even in a democracy, individuals have rights that no majority should be able to take away."

"Liberty, on the other hand, means that even in a democracy, individuals have rights that no majority should be able to take away."

"individuals have rights that no majority should be able to take away."
I just meant to point out that it might have cost a lot less than you think.
We are not talking about just a vector, but rather vectors trained in a specific way along with cosine similarity. You could easily argue that this system can tell you that one words has a different meaning from another word, or that two words have similar meaning. Further, it learned this without these relationships being explicitly stated.

Once you start to try to define aspects of cognition explicitly, things very quickly get ambiguous. Also, these conversations usually go along the lines of:

1. State a definition.

2. See that computer matches.

3. Decide it's wrong after all and try to change it so that computer can't match it.

4. Repeat until we find a definition that excludes computer.

I think it's a fascinating topic, but the above pattern is fairly disappointing.
I've been using the HTTP-based skype pidgin client. It seems to mostly work - the only show stopper is that file transfer requests fail silently. I had someone trying to send me a file. I had no idea. It was a little awkward.
BBC publishes links “forgotten” by search engines
An interesting experiment to try is to say "girls"/"ladies" instead of "guys" for non-gender-specific uses, and see how weird it feels.
That's a polyamorous (group) marriage, not a polygamist one (at least as per my definition of those somewhat amorphous terms)

That said all of the legal agreements become far more complicated and likely null and void if one person drops out or is added. I think an argument could be made, but with the complication you're basically saying polymarriages would be like corporations, with their associated complexity.

Polygamy as practiced now is a "bring more childbearing women" into the flock type thing, which is by nature non-equitable. I doubt most folks in a polygamous marriage (by choice) would want to get involved in a polyamorous marriage and as such, I think you can't legally support a non-equal union of that sort.
Backyard Tent Renting for $899/Month Sums Up Everything Wrong with the Bay Area
I don't. I'm in support of gay marriage. You were giving me reasons why the state/society shouldn't allow sibling marriage.
Poll: Docker new documentation opinion
New docs at https://docs.docker.com/... do we like it?
I am indifferent.
I prefer the old docs.
I don't know how they do it, but I have run several Lisp production systems. I use CCL, which has a really fast compiler. So I just load the code from source. The deployment process then becomes: git pull, quit and restart Lisp. (The ccl-init file loads the code.)
Ask HN: What were you doing when you were 20?
Turning 20 in September.
Of course, that was the reasoning behind it. RAM was expensive and allocating all the RAM on an Unix box to one process was 'unpopular'. Especially when there were more than one time-shared user on the machine.
One of the plaintiffs is Dennis Reynolds. "The Gang Finds Poop in the Bar"
Answer is simple: ES6
This Online School for Developers Pays Teachers Millions of Dollars
I don't really have anything I can show you directly, but here's what I do:

I recreate the view directory structure in the assets folder, but only for views where I need a complex (angular) UI. So I might have a file in assets/javascripts/users/show.js because the users#show view is more complicated than I want to do in rails.

If that asset file exists, I have a helper automatically load it into the head section of the view layout when the users#show action is hit. The helper itself is only a few lines of some obscure rails code that looks up the name of the controller, action, etc and looks up the files in the assets directory. If you match the view directory structure to the assets directory structure, it stays very organized and is all done by convention.

In the show.js file, I will create an entire mini angular app (one file). The show.html.erb view will just contain angular markup (and maybe some erb). It's that simple. If Angular needs some instance variables from rails, I just pass them in to js with a couple lines in a <script> tag at the beginning of the view.

If I need a custom directive, I put the templates for those in public/templates (there may be a better place for these, depending on what you're doing - for my use case, this was fine).

There are some downsides - you have to separately compile each js file. I suppose you could do them all together, but I like keeping them separate. But largely, you can lay angular on top of rails in a very unintrusive manner this way. It probably doesn't work for every situation - you have to keep your angular apps small or it gets complicated again. But it really lets you enhance the UI of a rails app without a lot of technical debt. Code reuse can be a challenge (organizing bits that are shared is kinda wonky), but often the angular apps are small and simple enough that this isn't really a problem. Repeat yourself a little. It won't kill you.

An example of where I've used it is to load a chart and some daily/weekly/monthly selectable data that is sortable by columns, by date, with pagination, search fields, etc. I make the data available via rails as JSON, and just have the angular app pull it all in for the user to manipulate.

Another would be a form that creates a query interface similar to the one used by google analytics to create custom segments.

There may be better ways to do all this, but this approach has served me well. It's a little rough, and I'm sure it could be improved. As always, YMMV.
Right, I just didn't expect anyone would compare to that since RH has been not really usable for quite some time (unlike Windows XP). (Usable in the sense of getting any recent application versions to install, not to mention getting security patches). Is there really someone actually running RH 6 from the year 2000?

(I was actually thinking that if the comment were referring to RH prior to RHEL, we were talking of a version that was still using a.out binary format, but that was not so, I was off by some three years, it came in RH3).
> Doesn't make a lot of sense for us to subsidize people to do something which they are supposedly doing because they want to.

Sure it does. Long-term couples tend to take care of each other's health and wellbeing. Marriage is a way of recognising that long-term care relationship.

In countries with any kind of government funded or subsidised health system (or even a private health system based on insurance), those benefits of being married are costs that would otherwise be borne by the rest of society.

When I'm old, having a partner to look after me means I'm less likely to need to go to hospital or need doctor's visits. I'm less likely to be unhappy, so more likely to be economically productive. If I need to take time off work, or retrain, or whatever, two partners are able to rely on each other for both financial and moral support.

Social conservatives are right in the sense that marriage is for plenty of people a form of social "glue" that holds people together. The state has good reason to want people to be held together like that - because it makes citizens happier, more productive, less likely to need public handouts, more likely to be able to raise children successfully or produce taxable wealth - and so on and so on.

It'd be difficult to measure the economic benefit of marriage to the state, but the actual economic benefit of being married is pretty minimal (estate/inheritance taxes seem like the biggest benefit) compared to the benefit to society and to the state.

Most if not all of those things that marriage does are also applicable to same-sex couples, incidentally.
"Sound" in the sense that the wavelengths are comparable to the audible spectrum.
> the only way to get the Symbols within an Object
> is Object.getOwnPropertySymbols

Also, Reflect.getOwnKeys.
Researchers have shown that machines are inching closer to self-learning, and perhaps even copping a little attitude.

Not at all the reaction I had. There could be some serious AI horsepower underlying the Google experiment, but it wasn't really evident from that transcript.

It looked like output that Eliza could have generated.
Were you ever as competitive (that is, skilled and practiced) in any particular physical sport as you were in chess? I suspect that if you'd put as much of yourself into, say, tennis or soccer, that you'd have felt similarly.

EDIT:

I've been pondering this a bit more, and I want to share my thoughts.

I was thinking about how some of my friends react to losses in mental sports/games versus physical sports/games and their particular histories, as well as my own.

Playing a bit to the idea of dualism of mind and body, some people focus more of their energy on the mind and some on the body. This affects their notion of self. For you, your focus was on chess and the mind, consequently a loss in that game or evidence of your mind not being as honed as your opponents strikes your ego more than a loss on the tennis court might. I have teammates on a rec soccer league who take it very seriously. They spent their youths practicing soccer or another sport at least as much as you spent on chess. A loss on the field, or a near loss, hits them hard because their sense of self is so tied to their physical capabilities. Anything demonstrating that they aren't as good as an opponent hits them harder than it would me. I'm a tad bit more like you (though never seriously competitive in mental games/sports), my particular focus in those years was on acquisition of knowledge and understanding. This is not a directly competitive thing (outside of trivia games like Jeopardy!), but meeting someone who understands a field, that I've studied, far better than I do is both inspiring and a blow to the ego. "I've spent X hours, days, months studying this, and still I'm nowhere near this person's level of understanding and capability."

All this is not meant to say that your view is wrong, but that what each person experiences as a hit to their ego is going to be different, and largely determined by what they put their energy into. Outrun a former sprinter and they'll feel the effects of their age and it'll weigh on their mind. Beat an old and unpracticed chess champion and it'll be the same. But beat the sprinter at chess and they won't care, and the chess champion might even laugh at the suggestion of a footrace assuming they'd lost before it began.
> people who Just Don't Get It
Ah, but you clearly _do_ "Get It" and should have the right to impose your understanding of the universe on the rest of the country? Who gets to decide who "gets it"? Who decides in which situations those not-getting-it-majority-states should be denied their right to self-government and forced to adopt ways they oppose?
What kind of equipment do you propose to use for a mid-air recovery of a fragile rocket stage that's 200ft long and weighs a couple dozen tons?

What kind of liquid do you propose filling the pond with that won't destroy the rocket on impact? Hitting water at high speed is like ramming into concrete, and I don't think other liquids will be much better.

Your ideas sound like, "What SpaceX is doing is far too easy, let's come up with vastly more difficult approaches so they have a proper challenge!"
marriage certainly predates Christianity. Therefore marriage shouldn't be associated with Christianity or Islam or whatever. Marriage is a social construct before being a religious one.
How to increase productivity of the mobile workforce?
You can write C++ template metaprogramming code that will send your compiler into coma, if you're not careful. Code that pushes the boundaries is bound to push through them occasionally.
So they filled movie scripts into a chat bot and then had an incoherent conversation with it - the remarkable part being that the incoherent conversation was about morality. On its own, this seems like a non-story. Is this an effort to push into public awareness the fear that AGI when it eventually arises will be unethical?
Just relax, man. I'm not claiming that I have "the answer." Seeing the landing 1st stage just makes me wonder about all the other possible schemes. (Probably the same thing happened when the Wright Flyer was first seen.)
Google Autenticator can't be bypassed by someone with access to Google's systems. Duo's two factor auth can be bypassed by someone with access to Duo's systems.

For what it's worth, I agree that Duo has better usability, and is probably the better solution in most cases. TOTP is the more paranoid option.
GitHub logo celebrates SCOTUS decision
> Which makes me wonder why this cartel felt a need to make their own AR-15s or M16s (the article didn't mention if these were 3 round burst or full auto, did it)? If they can get their hands on rocket propelled grenades....

The use case for a rocket launcher is a bit different than the use case for a rifle. There is probably some overlap, but there are definitely situations where one is a far better choice than the other.
Facebook Fails to Improve Diversity Despite Rapid Hiring
Indeed, the "wow computers talking seem deep" illusion is quite old.
ELIZA was created between 1964 and 1966.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect
> In conclusion, the Constitution does not protect individual rights. It protects primarily minority rights and provides for a system of governance that we hope will protect all individual rights.

The Constitution protects rights of individuals. It may not protect every agreed upon right. But the rights it protects belong to individuals (originally as drafted, those individuals were wealthy white land owners, not minorities like women or anyone else)!
You know, starting a paragraph by "We've built an esoteric application", would you expect what followed to be a simple bug?

Write an "esoteric" app and you'll start hitting the limits of your platform.
I think the coolest part about that video is how the aerodynamic guidance is very noticeable. Look at the significant angle between the rocket body and the velocity vector (as indicated by the contrail) and you can see how the rocket isn't just falling ballistically but is "flying" towards its intended touchdown point.
I've heard a similar argument about bike helmets.

It seems like there should be a fancier name for this effect.
"Presumably as soon as we keep people out of our technology sites as well. Communities are driven by people, at their core"

Politics just leads to bullying, oppression, and silencing rather than everyone getting together for the love of technology. When politics is involved, people take sides outside of the actual discussions on technology and it just gets in the way.

There are plenty of other forums for these political and personal beliefs.

I've seen really good developers being drummed out and bullied from open source project communities based on nothing more than a political opinion.

Even look at the ex-Mozilla CEO: No matter how much good he did at the company, it didn't matter because of his personal beliefs. It was also a little ironic that so many people that are against the bullying and oppression of people based on their beliefs turned around and did the exact same thing to that CEO.
Being a PAC sounds like the most expensive way to do this. Usually, that's not a good way to do a startup. Also, this sounds so cynical.

I'd start with the true believers. People who believe this is the best way to represent the people. Those people will win races because it will feel like a revolution when you hear them talk about you. It's the best kind of sales people to have.

I'd be very worried about having your kind of people talk about your movement. No one wants to feel like they're voting for a tax mooching puppet.
Many places will refuse to do this, it's the reason that a lot of restaurants have a "X% gratuity for parties larger than Y"

It's annoying, but it's also really annoying to have to break up a bill after the fact, which is why this entire problem exists in the first place. It's definitely not the restaurant's fault that people can't agree on how to pay for things :)
It'd be a Hell of a lot more interesting than the millionth time looking into a bug caused by invalid input into a non-validated form in an ancient CRUD intranet app.
+1 for removal, YAGNI.
(One word
(Clojure))

FTFY
'Yeti' Crab Grows Its Own Food, Lives in Antarctic Spa
I second Scala.

Working with it for over two years and it's great!
How does your port differ from QuakeJS? : http://www.quakejs.com/

The source code is at: https://github.com/inolen/quakejs

It has working networking through WebSockets. Might want to check that out.
How States Are Fighting to Keep Towns from Offering Their Own Broadband
MTV Bump
Wow. Just Wow. I was clearly setting my sights way to low here.
Just like articles on the evils of video games the past couple decades.
Css rainbows
RFC 7568: SSL 3.0 Is Now Officially Deprecated
Turning the Granting of Bail into a Science
I've seen bigger slackers: https://github.com/bos
A Perfect Gentleman's Guide to Dating
I tried one back when the UK still had them.

They are fun - so fun I went up and down a few times. (It was late, and the building was almost empty.)

They feel reliable. You hop on, you go up/down, you hop off.

You don't wait to see if the button you pushed actually did something, you don't try to find a place in a small herd of anxious people with decreased personal space, none of whom are talking, you don't get claustrophobia or any other phobia, and the jump on/off experience adds a frisson of excitement to your day.

And it's hard to get trapped in one. (Not impossible. But certainly hard.)

I suppose contact/proximity sensors at the limb/head-chopping edges would add to the cost, but conventional elevators are hardly 100% safe, so I don't really see the rationale for killing them off.
It was always interesting reading about bitcoin in the news and seeing matrix-esque numbers with proud gold coins embossed with a B on it. There's a wonderful disconnect between media depictions of tech and tech.
May I ask where you received your education pertaining to the Constitution? And just to be certain (as I am currently assuming you are), are you an American?
Apologies for delayed response. Tethering from mobile was choppy and had to get to more stable wifi.

Should we pivot to a different market/model?
Risk Homeostasis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Risk_homeost...