skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As I understand it, the critical difference is that they'd have to source or make (out of steel, and likely with heat treating) more parts, like the full auto sear, and make an additional cut and hole in the lower receiver. Here are some of them: http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/triggers-parts/sear-par... (There are many, many not so big differences, especially as these have evolved over they years, and then there's the newer M4 carbine variant, which I'm told also has some important general reliability improvements.)

Of course, buying these, especially in large quantities, would likely attract the wrong sorts of attention. One motivation they might have for making their own lower receivers from billets is to stay off the radar; normal AR-15 parts and ubiquitous, seeing as we started using it as a service rifle in 1962-5, and we civilian in the US own probably around 6 million.
Fairy Lights in Femtoseconds: Tangible Holographic Plasma (SIGGRAPH)
If by "sucks" you mean "slow", it's probably because of an inefficient algorithm. Knowing assembly won't make you realize you're doing O(n^2) where you can do O(n).
These days it's hard to justify learning assembly for someone who's not planning to write high performance low level code, and even there, your time might be better spent learning GPU programming or multithreading.
Let's Quit It with the Introvert/Extrovert Nonsense
In the kingdom of the bored, the one-armed bandit is king
We should have, because what we ended up with is the concept of protected classes, which plays favorites with a specific set of personal attributes and is generally a massive injustice and is now normalized.
Can you explain how B2C would work?
Well, full-auto, for which we generically say "M16", has a certain cachet....
How about this: riders pay a reasonable monthly membership fee based on distance; 0-15km daily = $X/month, 15-25km daily = $Y/month, etc. Drivers pay nothing. Payment to the driver works like with Flattr... every month, each rider took m rides totaling n km. Take your cut of the rider's monthly fee and the remainder is divided proportionally across each ride based on some allocation of base amount per ride plus amount per km, and the driver gets paid.

This may avoid disintermediation as the price should be more than fair for the rider that they wouldn't want to have to deal with forking over cash (from what I've read about South Africa, I suspect there's a risk of getting robbed which this prevents). And what happens if a rider is sick or has a day off and they need to pair up with another driver? Additionally, look at what AirBNB has done: offer supplemental insurance to cover unfortunate circumstances. Investigate what it would cost to provide some additional insurance to riders and/or drivers such that if they try to go outside the system, they're not covered. I'm not sure what kind of insurance coverage is mandatory for drivers, but if there's something many drivers routinely avoid (eg: they have collision only, but no liability) there's an opportunity to step in and provide something extra. And/or what some auto clubs have: drivers are covered for so many flat tire repairs, jump starts for dead batteries, etc. Leaving the system cuts both drivers and riders off from this coverage.

Also, look for ways to partner and offer additional benefits. There's probably some underdog gas/petrol chain which would love to be the exclusive provider and could kick back a small percentage of purchases. Ideally it's kicked back to your company via a reward card and is part of your payment to drivers. Rate drivers on vehicle cleanliness and reliability and now there's an incentive to have a clean, well-maintained vehicle... and you can partner with a chain of mechanics and auto detailers and give your members a 25% discount or whatever you can negotiate.

As you're dealing with many low income people, not sure what level of tech you're facing, but you could also provide mobile app notifications or SMS a few minutes before the driver arrives.

Finally, if the local government wants to make ride sharing a priority why not partner with them to subsidize the program on a per-rider basis? This may let you offer a cash incentive to riders for signup and/or get 100% of your fees through this subsidization, allowing you to pass through all of the monthly fees to the driver. With whatever other benefits you offer, there's really NO reason for them to leave the program.
ClamXav just went commercial, no open source version
I wouldn't say he expected any different; I think he just loathes the fact that these "kid's movies" are, as you called them, simple, or better yet, simplistic.

He thinks the movie does a disservice to kids by presenting what is, in his opinion, a distorted and sugar-coated representation of mental life and motivations.

Essentially, he thinks that a good movie would pass to viewers what Malick's Tree of Life does about the inner life of children (feelings of wonder, the need to act out for its own sake, the deception ones does for others and even oneself, etc) in a way that would appeal to kids.

(By the way, this is just what I understood from the review; I haven't seen Inside Out)
Can't speak for 'Jimmy, but here's my interpretation of what he's saying:

The HN crowd typically comes from a very analytical, scientific background. This line of thinking is based on deriving ideas and concepts from one another based on first order logic, empirical evidence, and reproducible experiments. This is a great way to build accurate models of the world, and allows us to build cars, satellites, computers, grow food crops efficiently, and a myriad other wonderful things.

By contrast, humanities thinking is about accepting that things can be approached and analyzed from multiple angles, using a variety of ideas, frameworks, and concepts that might be at odds with one another but all still give us valuable insights into whatever it is we're studying. This is a great way to approach things like art, human emotions, raising children, and a myriad other wonderful things.

Each approach has its place, and being able to use either in daily life is probably a good skill to have. If an algorithm is incorrect, you fix it - trying to argue that an incorrect algorithm holds as much value as a correct one probably isn't going to get you anywhere. On the other hand, there isn't such a thing as a mathematical function to clearly define what love or a beautiful piece of art is - trying to define such a function probably isn't going to get you anywhere.

To tie it back within the context of the original post: the vast majority of critics loved the new Pixar movie, and it seems to be a wonderful movie in the cultural context of 2015. But humanities thinking tells us that there is value in taking the movie apart and criticizing it in the way that the article's author is doing. Not because he's reaching an objective, unique, true conclusion - but because there's inherent value in that process, and in taking a stance opposed to the mainstream consensus. It might give one new ways to think about analyzing movies, or put words on some slight discomfort one had while watching the movie even if one enjoyed it, or heighten one's enjoyment of the movie, or any number of other things.
Writing your own Data Abstraction Layer instead of using an ORM
Trump Refuses to Release Birth Certificate
The concept is awesome - I would definitely check this out when it becomes available in Texas, but navigating through the website is a little confusing. It is hard to figure out where to go, where to sign up, and how everything works. Can the site/software be integrated or customized? There are lots of tennis clubs that could use racketlogger to organize their leagues and fill up empty time slots for their courts. I wonder if you could also partner with gyms and fitness facilities.
The interview is cool, and even inspirational. They needed a faster browser for slower networks, so they did the research, found an appropriate rendering engine and built it. They solved their own unique problem and built a better browser for Nigerian networks.

Osine and Anesi, you guys can ping me, if there's anyway I can help.
The 10 Highest-Paying IT Security Jobs
I made the claim because I actually know people affected by it, and the Doctor said, yes, that's expected. Which was an absolute shocker to both the person involved and family.

And if you bother to do more than cursory research you will find that yes, lithium WILL damage the kidneys, and the damage is irreversible. The only question is how bad will it get, and will you catch it before it causes failure.

Your paper just says the Dr should be on top of things to discontinue treatment before the damage gets too severe. Did you read more than the summary?

"The duration of lithium treatment was found to be positively correlated with mean serum creatinine level"

"We conclude that lithium can be safely prescribed over a protracted period of time, even in elderly populations, but should be monitored closely under specialist supervision, to ensure early identification and management of adverse effects."
WHICH states are considering dropping the formal recognition of marriage entirely? That sounds extremely implausible.
Show HN: Generate command-lines in Python using YAML or JSON files
Well, I do know that, which is why I'm not really all that against it. I'd like to see it happen a different way, but I can't see actually opposing it in any meaningful way, especially when it would inevitably mean allying with the types of people who are actively against it now - there's a lot of hate and negativity in that camp.

The thing about Government power, though - everything seems all nice and cool when it's pointed in a direction that you like, and it makes everything happen real fast and lays the smack down on your ideological opponents. But that power can turn on a dime and get pointed right back at your side, as has happened a great many times in history. Think it can't happen here? I hope it never does, but it does have a nasty tendency to happen in places and to people where they thought it couldn't, where they keep on doing the simple and efficient thing, because that couldn't possibly ever happen to us, right?
Probably not too much. These are just trading losses. The SSE is still up quite a bit for the year.
You can't tell effective kids' stories without dumbing things down.

Isn't that exactly what he disagrees with, though? I think he's looking for a director that can tell a kids' story, and show the shape of the inner mind, without having to dumb things down.

It's a tall order - he says it would require a director of genius - but I think his point is that if a director needs to dumb things down to make a film for kids, (s)he's better off not doing it at all.
> How can you make a claim about what the intention of the clause was ("Actually, that is exactly what it was intended to mean") without claiming that Founder's intent should be taken into account?

It depends on whether the question on the table is, "What did the founders think?" or "Should what the founders thought carry any weight?" The intent is obviously salient to the first question, not necessarily to the second.

> It's clear that the writers intended the clause to be read in the context of militas.

No, it is manifestly unclear. That is the only reason we're arguing about it, because it's unclear.
This is easy:
Race based discrimination is held to a heightened standard.
Sex based discrimination is also.
However, the majority in this case did not hold that this was sex based discrimination (despite arguments that it was).

That would, in fact, have been valid legal reasoning. Holding that it is sex based discrimination and subject to heightened scrutiny under equal protection would be perfectly reasonable.

Instead, they said that the equal protection clause and the substantive due process clause combine in a magical way to give a new right.
Disclaimers: I'm not a lawyer, and I am 100% in favor of gay marriage.

I read Roberts' dissenting opinion pretty closely, and he discusses Loving several times. His argument doesn't read like a states' right argument at all.

His basic point is that, for better or for worse, the definition of marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman, and that the laws were written with this interpretation in mind. (I agree there, as he provides some good primary sources, and Kennedy's majority opinion acknowledges this fact as well.) We'll call this opposite-sex definition "Marriage" with a capital "M". Roberts also demonstrates that Marriage is a guaranteed right. (The majority agrees there, too.)

In the cases in question, states sought to restrict some people from Marriage, e.g. interracial couples, convicts, etc. These decisions were struck down by the court, because they violated the right to Marriage as it was guaranteed.

The gay marriage issue, however, is different. It does not seek to prevent restrictions on Marriage, but to redefine it to include more people (specifically, opposite genders). Roberts argues that creating rights is not the responsibility of the court, but should instead be handled by the legislative branch.

The majority argues that, even though past litigation and legislation only protected opposite-sex Marriage with a capital "M", it is okay to ignore their intentions if they are harmful or misguided. I think the dissenting justices were wary of doing that, because it goes beyond interpreting the law and wades into writing the law. It's not up to the court to determine what the law should be, only to determine what it is. Otherwise, they're usurping the power of the legislative branch, and thus of we, the people, who elect them.
Scalia's opinion is that, effectively, the courts should be judging based on Scalia's personal opinion of the "legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation". He thinks the culture no longer interprets the constitution in, well, "the right way".

In the previous paragraph he points out how, effectively, any majority-leaning set of judges can just invent new rights to assign to the country and they will be permanent [or at least, until a later court overturns them]. And he's right. But this is not news. Presidents have been trying to assign judges that lean their way on issues since... a long-ass time. The judges are human, moral, and they change their minds about how to interpret the law as the mob's mood changes.

And he's right that the majority simply shoving it's way down the minority's throat is unjust and is going to breed contempt. When the North defeated the South, racial tension didn't just disappear overnight. Those in the South kept a grudge and an ignorance that persists to this day. We may be using the power of the majority to force the removal of the flag, but those people who find that force offensive will not forget it. We didn't convert them, convince them, or make them understand; we held the proverbial Public Relations gun to our leadership's heads.

You ask why the states shouldn't have resolved the issue over time. Should the federal government have allowed some states to continue slavery? We all know it's a crime against humanity now, but what actually makes it a crime? Is it some old english scribbled on some parchment centuries ago? Or is it merely an intangible, unwritten law that reversed itself naturally as society changed over time?

The truth is, human civilizations have been morphing and evolving for thousands of years and they aren't going to stop doing so because some old farts had an idea a couple hundred years ago and we're trying to stick to their idea as hard as we can. Never changing, no matter how hard our society demands it, becomes simple fundamentalism, and our country was not founded on fundamentalism. Our country was founded - no matter how trite this sounds - on the idea of liberty over tyranny. We're always going to lean more towards liberty than tyranny.

We have a pretty good track record so far of not letting the states or federal government erode our liberty just because of the color of our skin, or our gender, or sexual identity, or religion. We protect people, always. But we don't limit people just because we don't like them or are afraid of them. Any time a state is asking to do that, we will eventually push back hard enough that the state will lose.
you nailed it. This is boards of canada!
Greek Prime Minister Calls for Referendum on Bailout Terms
These are due process clause arguments, not equal protection clause arguments.

The majority in fact, found not that either of these provide a sufficient basis, but that they magically combine in some way.

If they had just said "this is sex based discrimination, subject to a heightened standard of equal protection", this would have been sound legal reasoning.
But they didn't.
Imagine 1985 heard 2015 would have AIDS cures, gay marriage and a black president
If you took your DeLorean back in time to 1985, and you told someone, "In the year 2015, we'll have an effective treatment for AIDS, gay marriage will be the law of the land, and a black man will be president," your interlocutor would probably assume that you live in a perfect Star Trek future, where all racism and discrimination have been made obsolete. After all, you even have a portable, handheld supercomputer that can diagnose health issues.
Two things are undoubtedly true: 1) The world CAN change. 2) We still have much to do.
States have existed far longer. "Nation state" refers specifically to a state which coincides with a cultural or ethnic group. If you had to choose a starting point for the idea of the nation state, the Treaty of Westphalia is one of the more reasonable.
The perfect being the enemy of the good is one thing. It's something else when the compromise actually reinforces the root problem. We now have reinforced the idea that government gets to decide who can get married. Wrong direction.
My girlfriend can't use her real name on Facebook that is because she is trying to hide from her crazy father in law and his rapist son, who raped her when she was 3!
This is crazy, she can't feel safe on Facebook because of there stupid real name requirement crap! Now NO accounts can be made without an ID being required to be submitted.
You talk about the EU as if it is one legal jurisdiction. We in fact have 28. In Sweden you can get married either by a government official or by a vicar in the church (but only apparently a vicar of the Church of Sweden).
Codebug + Xdebug, setting a breakpoint and getting a full REPL at that execution point is far more useful to me when I'm in PHP land :)
The Long History of the Fight Against Uber
Photographers, DJs, bakers, florists are not religious organizations, they are for profit businesses. That's the big difference. They are business that are open to the public. The church has religious requirements for some of their ceremonies (such as first communion).
I don't think this is universal as it hasn't applied where I work. Without understanding how promises work they are no easier and it doesn't help that many things exists that do not use the standard .then() and .catch().
Better Routing for Clojure Web Apps
You need a license because there are still some restrictions on marriage:

- Only 1 marriage at a time.

- Must be old enough.

- Must not be too closely related.

- Etc..

The marriage license handles the step of verifying those things. It's mostly a formality.
The _actual_ link should lead to https://cloud.google.com/tools/cloud-repositories/
Radar.
Codebug. Phenomenal Xdebug client.
File locking is still a thing.

The blinking light does precisely what it advertises. That's never really been the issue.

Damage certainly is unlikely if the thing is pulled while mounted. I wouldn't design the UI around that, though.
Kinda makes me feel incompetent.

Just started using ES6 in nodejs and here are people already gunning for ES7. Amazing.
All of the precedent on the issue of "marriage" was made with the understanding that marriage meant a union between a man and a woman. Both the majority and dissenting opinions in today's decision acknowledged this fact.

Loving v. Virginia was struck down because it sought to arbitrarily hinder this right. However, gay marriage is a very different issue, because it seeks to expand the right to more people.
This is so sad. Dying alone is more frightening than death itself. It is articles like this that force me to stop working so hard and spend more time with family.
lol, this reads like the way the world ended up with MongoDB.

There are some things you have to do right from the beginning or you're never going to get them right.
The context that allows a system of laws to operate doesn't just spring forth spontaneously from a vacuum. Rather, it exists because we have a government based on the rule of law.
Compare:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/United_S...

and

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/01/...

The logarithmic graph makes it clear all percentiles grow at exactly the same rate. The linear one tricks you into thinking the top level grows faster even though it doesn't.
Gay Pride: the game - in honor of today's Supreme Court decision
4chan discusses HN
The writers of Humans are ready for the singularity
You're right; I misunderstood the original question.
> the current lack of lithium in our environment is detrimental to us, and not what we evolved for

That's a pretty bold claim.
On the other hand, a non-negligible reason for this confusion is that the standard nomenclature for many psychiatric conditions is simply quite ambiguous. Bipolar? Borderline? The former implies there's two fixed states that are evenly transitioned to and from, where the latter implies... nothing immediately discernible.
Set up your Dev Envt in Under 30 seconds
It's a practical matter.

"Getting married" is very easy and requires almost no expense and only a little bit of time. You don't need to plan at all for a civil marriage, just sign some paperwork. Drafting all the documents you'll need (will, medical directive, etc.) without a marriage takes lots of time and money (lawyer fees). Writing marriage into laws is a way to save families time and money and make everything simple for them.
I think allowing people to submit a link to a demo or portfolio makes a lot of sense, especially since everyone has computers and the internet now. Welcome to the amazing new world of hyperlinked multimedia, hiring people.
I am biased, but my team and I are developing a new platform for the reasons you stated above. Check it out at http://microhero.com/surveys

Any feedback is much appreciated!
I think you misinterpreted the question. It was how does someone handle the situation where no bakers (plural, not just one) will serve them for something like racial reasons. Do they just have to suck it up and go through life not using a baker? What about grocery stores, or mechanics?
Hey, I'm turning 20 in August, good idea on this post.
You don't have a right to someone's labor below a minimum rate set by the government. We call that slavery.
I could see describing it as intentionally trying to almost poison someone. But that's just snark, really.
Ah, I see. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
When you say “No one country in a currency union can endlessly spend money at the cost of the others” then you have to do exactly what you imply, otherwise yes they will keep on spending money. So now it's too late for referendum or whatever.

As a side note, I have friends with the finger on the trigger to sell "everything" hellas and euro related. Enjoy EUR/USD
I'm sure they're using "$now" as a variable placeholder for the example, it's not meant to be read as a literal header. (In PHP variables begin with $.) They're not very clear on that though, so your point is valid.
Show HN: PushdUp User Submitted and Curated News