skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Why should a company respect the laws?

Because there are negative consequences to not obeying - financial, jail, or both.

Because, in the case of a non-dictatorship, there is no good moral basis for not obeying.

Because, fuzzy-headed theorists aside, anarchy doesn't really work that well for a country-sized society.

Because respect for the law in society is really to your benefit. And because you're not going to like it if others ignore/disobey the laws that you like - laws against theft of your stuff, say.

Because, in a country with a functioning, responsive government, you've got lawful means to fight bad laws. Use them. (Those means may include civil disobedience as a last resort. But even then, you still have to respect the law to the extent that you recognize the law's right to put you in jail for disobeying a law that you believe to be wrong.)
Do you disagree with the point?
And yet, for someone who values the freedom of expression, limiting another persons freedom due to something as simple as 'offense' is a slippery slope to limiting their freedom of expression due to someone else taking offense at what they say.

This is why the quote is applicable and your response is lazy.
Are we sure uber has achieved step 4? I would think it is more like:

Step 4: Find a sucker to dump the whole company on before the law catches up and walk off into the sunset.
You're ignoring the history that caused those laws to be on the books in the first place. We had more or less unregulated capitalism up through the industrial revolution, and companies screwed it up. They were disregarding safety, making children work 14 hour days, spreading food borne diseases, adding cocaine to their products, etc.

Relatively few laws are on the books just to f* people over. The vast majority of them were enacted because they addressed real issues.
>Isn't this exactly what you did at BSD? Enabled advocacy organizations to send millions of form-letter to Congress, making real constituent contact get lost in the flood?

Yes. More than a decade ago, I admittedly had a hand in creating this problem, and now I'd love to see it fixed.
It was posted many times before also discussed many times before. You can check with hn.algolia.com

Don't Call Yourself a Programmer
1006 points jambo 4 years ago 270 comments (http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...)

Don't Call Yourself A Programmer, And Other Career Advice (2011)
102 points ColinWright a year ago 45 comments (http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...)

Don't call yourself a programmer (2011)
80 points jrslv 5 months ago 84 comments (http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...)

Don't Call Yourself A Programmer, And Other Career Advice (2011) 8 points Katelyn a year ago 1 comment (http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...)

Don't Call Yourself a Programmer, and Other Career Advice
4 points kenny-log_ins 2 hours ago 1 comment (http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...)

Dont call yourself a programmer (2011)
50 points MindTwister 3 years ago 46 comments (http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/)

edit: better formatting
Yeah, they provide this now, after getting slapped. And even still it has gaps.

The point is, the law has always been: if you drive commercially, you need commercial insurance. This is what keeps most people from driving commercially.
That is fascinating to me, in a train-wreck sort of way.

We had a discussion a few days ago about the ways in which some interfaces (command line in particular) can be user-hostile. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9831429) Vim's Ctrl-S appears to be a function, keyboard-adjacent to several commonly-used functions, whose main effect for many users is "cause the program to fail immediately with no indication of how to fix it." I don't think I could make up a better example of user-hostile design if I tried.
Of course they do - these business are just called “too big to fail” and tend to be involved in shuffling money around.
> It's not that complicated.

I find it fairly complicated. Are you a lawyer? I am not.

Immediately after the portion of the EEOC page you quote, there appears the text:

"Although a plaintiff may prove a claim of discrimination through direct or circumstantial evidence, some courts take the position that if a white person relies on circumstantial evidence to establish a reverse discrimination claim, he or she must meet a heightened standard of proof. The Commission, in contrast, applies the same standard of proof to all race discrimination claims, regardless of the victim’s race or the type of evidence used. In either case, the ultimate burden of persuasion remains always on the plaintiff.

Employers should adopt 'best practices' to reduce the likelihood of discrimination and to address impediments to equal employment opportunity."

Even if you ignore the complexity directly in that section (which courts? what is the heightened standard? why do courts and the EEOC interpret things differently? what are the consequences of that difference?), there are numerous other complexities not covered by the question of "are Caucasian/white people covered?". I was not trying to say that the question of whether white people are covered is simple, but that the question of which discrimination (encompassing much more) is complicated.

For instance, this service is not discriminating in who they employ, only in who they serve. Is that legal? Under what circumstances? Do laws other than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply? How does this law interact with the right of expressive association? (for instance, presumably, the government does not try to force churches to hire non-Christians as ministers or priests and does not try to force the KKK to admit the people they hate based on race or religion - how does that exception work under the Civil rights Act of 1964?) Does Jopwell have fewer than 15 employees, and does that make it exempt from the CRAo1964? I have heard that this law does not apply to members of Congress hiring staffers or to the Supreme Court hiring clerks - is that correct, and if so, under what provision of the law? How does it apply to college admissions? Do any of the following constitute "color" under the law: sunburning, vitiligo, albinism, tattoos, hair color, baldness, eye color?

Even just the section of the Wikipedia page you link to that discusses employment discrimination includes at least a dozen caveats and extensions, along with multiple SCOTUS cases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title...

Also, as I mentioned, even if a certain type of discrimination may not violate federal law, it might violate state or local law.

These things that I have just said are all aimed at supporting my claim that discrimination law in the US is complicated.
I think it's disingenuous (of Uber, not you) to tout this and -not- note that it's third-party and UI/UM only.
Disgraceful attitude. Uber and its supporters should wake up and realise that they alone do not get to usurp the laws made by democratically elected representatives. This kind of imperialist behaviour is antiquated, disrespectful and selfish. And is even more unacceptable from a company with a long history of childish, petulant behaviour hell bent on disrupting as much as they can.

Whilst I agree that here in Australia our taxi laws need to be improved I am not happy for Uber to just ignore important safety conditions that people have fought for e.g. security cameras.
Well that's obvious but literally breaking every law in every country would be literally impossible.

It's like this guy at work who always says "verbage". It just grinds certain peoples gears when people use words incorectly and shamelessly or ignorantly.

I could care less, irregardless... Oy vey!
Sorry. It's been so long that I don't remember how relevant that book would be today. If pushed, I'd say don't go out of your way to find it. If I still have my copy it's in the garage, in a box that didn't get unpacked from a move a long time ago. But FWIW there are a few positive reviews of it on Amazon.

I am currently re-reading Taleb's Antifragile book[1] and I think it's better the second time thru. But it probably wouldn't be as interesting w/o Fooled By Randomness and The Black Swan for background.

In Antifragile Taleb admires entrepreneurs and risk takers with skin in the game. He abhors bankers and politicians who benefit from the upside and pass the downside on to the taxpayers. But the book isn't for everyone. E.g. there's no chapter of "7 steps to building future wealth". It's more of a philosophy of life book.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragile
> during pluto's formative years?

I believe they're saying that this is not the case since they've seen fewer craters on Pluto than they would have expected, which makes them think these mountains are relatively 'recent' formations (that would have hidden any older craters that were present).
I locked onto the same thing and thought it must be a mistake.
Signing at the Top to Help Prevent Tax Fraud
The thing I always liked about the concept was buttons. These days buttons on a device are out of style but they can make certain tasks easier or more enjoyable. Look at the guy playing the game. Games that try to emulate buttons on screen never work right. Also I kinda liked the chunkiness of it. Easy to hold, doesn't look like you're going to break if you look at it wrong. I'd love to buy a Windows 10 device in this form factor.
I have 8 invites if someone wants one...
If that's how you feel, vote.

Until enough people agree with you and get the law changed, it's the law. You don't get to blatantly disregard it just because you disagree with it.

At the very least don't act surprised when disregarding the law results in punishment. It's kind of like, "Duh, what did you expect?"
I don't understand why you would claim no one who posts in /r/science would ever be capable of producing a post, opinion, or content that could fall under reddits new guidelines for deletiong and/or banning.

Do you believe everyone who touches /r/science cannot, or will not, touch these other subreddits (and vice versa, the people in /r/coontown cannot post in /r/science?).

On what do you base that belief?
Why wouldn't you be able to use your theoretical identity card only where you wanted? I don't show my id when I buy toilet paper, and neither would I to post on reddit.
Ask HN: Would SteveJobs have built out his vision for the ipad before a watch?
Ah! Good point! A complete brainfart on my end. Definitely should've included javascript as an example.
ahh democracy.... mob rule....

Democracy is a terrible way to organize society.
> The Surface itself gets quite hot under the kickstand and doesn't seem to dissipate heat well enough

I believe this is not a concern on the Surface 3 in question. One the Pro model, especially with the higher end processors it definitely is.
Nginx, O'Reilly Book, Guide to High Performance, free preview
How about ascii art?

Actually, this is an interesting topic. Poisoning a dataset. CP would work for private security investigators, and to poison against government investigators you could use leaked classified secrets.

Could you work around this by operating on the files on VPS you don't own, streaming a very low-res ('Basilisk'-proof - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLIT_(short_story) ) remote desktop image.
I am with you 110% that people need to be able to have multiple identities online that are not linkable. That does not mean they should not be able to link multiple accounts to a single identity.

That is to say, "one identity per person" is wrong; "one identity per account" is also wrong. Both of these in the sense that they should be permitted if that is what the person desires but should not be expected or (especially) enforced.
If you've worked on projects like this, I'm surprised you'd write such a comment to sabotage such efforts.

You're never going to solve the problem of verifying people's identity without some kind of elaborate system based on public information, or a new public national id number system, and even then you'd never be fully aware that the person is who they say they are.

The problem this solves is real.

I move a lot, and I've gone through exactly what is in the video more times than I remember, in fact, as soon as I saw the video, I sent it to several people because I thought it was such a good idea.

Your representatives don't have any way to know that any of the e-mails they receive or the submissions to their own personal web pages are strictly from their constituents.. so why do you think this is any different?

Or are you suggesting that members of the legislature will read zero e-mails and zero submissions to their website?

If you honestly believe that your legislators don't have the time to deal with the people they represent, then the problem is not a technical one, the problem is that you need more representatives.
I have also started my career in Software Development with a student job for QA where I was manually testing iOS apps while studying marketing. I was 24 when I took this job because I needed money and was good with computers and interested in software anyway. I am almost 28 now, working freelance with a partner, recently incorporated our little agency, developing products on the side and making around 120k$ a year pre-tax. So with some grid and determination it is well possible.
My advise would be to:

- Ignore gatekeepers (The programmers at this first job ridiculed me when I was asking programming questions)

- When possible find a partner / mentor that you can learn form and with and whit whom you can motivate each other

- Keep on learning really hard, don't settle

- Show some fucking passion and good things will happen :)
I'd argue that collecting unique information from your browser does not necessarily make you "the bad guys". Lots of legitimate anti-fraud products used on bank/investment websites collect that information and detect/prevent account takeovers before fraudsters can steal money and identities, for example.

What can make it bad is:

1. What you do with that information.

2. Who or what you share it with.

3. How far your reach extends.

An ad network which can place that code on multiple websites can put itself in a position of power and track devices, and thus browsing habits, of individuals.

However, if you have fingerprinting code only on your own website, and don't share that information with any other people/companies/websites, and use it solely to detect malicious bots, users, and behaviors, then I don't really think it's bad. It's like the difference between a gas station owner pointing a closed circuit camera at the door and someone flying a surveillance drone over a whole state. Both are surveillance, but one kind is much less ethical.
Eprescribing is a powerful source of information
There are a lot of natural things that are bad for you, and a lot of synthetic things that are not bad for you.
And what should browsers prompt users with? "Would you like to use WebRTC?" What would that do to improve security for users?
I wanted so much to be a part of that, but young broke me found other outlets for my desire to argue with people. I see that I can still buy a web forum membership for $100 per year but I can't imagine that it still holds the magic this article describes.
PySide 2 is in the works
your absolute faith in government to protect you is astounding
"Of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average"

They're not saying they're a good company, they're saying they're a great company.
You can create a service, that doesn't mean anyone will use it. And you don't need a license to get arrested and convicted if you do something illegal.

Of course, that requires you to commit a crime first, but it's not like the licenses prevent you from doing so.

And even then, The overwhelming majority of cabbies who killed and maimed passengers and pedestrians in the past five years are back behind the wheel. Of 16 fatal or serious crashes since 2009 examined by The Post, only two of the drivers had their licenses revoked, according to a review based on a Freedom of Information Act request.

http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc...
Prior discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9894532
Tracking, and any other kind of fingerprinting, is opt-in in the EU. The directive does not say "cookie".

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...

"The use of electronic communications networks to store information or to gain access to information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned is provided with clear and comprehensive information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia about the purposes of the processing, and is offered the right to refuse such processing by the data controller."

So acquiring my internal IP address without consent for reasons other than need for establishing a webrtc connection that the user has asked for is against the law.
Wow. So many downvotes. You guys must really hate pluto. Fyi. Definition is from iau. Earth would also fall under same criteria if it was further than neptune...
> No nation state can be truly free

You define that no nation state can be truly free, therefore the US is not truly free. Perfectly logical, but there is more going on in terms of freedom than is dreamt of in your philosophy. There is a huge difference between the US and totalitarianism. You define it to not exist. The problem is your definition.

(Note well: This does not mean that the US is perfect, is as free as it should be, or is the best that there currently is.)
Site is down, here's an Internet Archive mirror: http://web.archive.org/web/20150520140301/http://williamdick...
Your best call would be to just buy one at a place with a generous return policy and live with it for 2 weeks to see if it is a fit. More often then I would liked, a product seemed really appealing but was useless to me because it did not feel quite right and I stopped using it (My E-Reader vs iPad, Cross trainer vs. TV, Desktop vs Laptop)
It is a good goal for sure.

That said, how does one go about submitting a "fix" for such a widely deployed software? Like, before submitting, I need to make sure it works on Amiga, VMS, Irix... and then all the current platforms. That is, like, a pretty high barrier... who in the world has all these platforms handy for testing? You submit a patch and someone says that it has a problem on Xenix 2.37.4 -- what do you do?
Or.. Both?
Collary: similarly, switching from social norms to market norms would decrease the motivation of the user base to help each other out. The intrinsic motivation to do a social favour comes with its own rewards - you take that away by switching to monetary payment (even if they could pay an equivalent, fair price).
Almost all of your cons (perhaps with the exceptions of the entry/exit beeps) for open offices are applicable to cafes also.
Reminds me of RealPlayer.
I think this ignores long-term readership. Most uneducated users know how to close the entire tab and hate spam. So you'll keep getting 0.2% of an ever-smaller and more-confused set of users.

In the meantime, the rest of us will learn to write greasemonkey rules for those popovers and the next generation of adblockers will evolve.
I am assuming those gypsy cabs where not connected to a real time database where thousands of users are reviewing the drivers actions where 1 bad review can cost the drivers their ability to book new riders

You that is the difference, technology it replacing government, and that is a good thing.

You do not need the government to know the uber driver is good or not, other uber users will tell you that
> I'm an adult. I can choose my own 'risk vs cost' profile.

How does that work if you are drunk, otherwise incapacitated or raped ?

Pretty sure you are going to begging at that point for more regulation.
You can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Some regulations
generally make the situation safer for everyone.
It's necessary if the NAT device doesn't support hairpinning. Unfortunately, historically many didn't, so users couldn't connect to other users on the same NAT using their public IPs, even with techniques that worked fine for connecting to other identical NAT setups elsewhere.
> Bitcoin is no longer considered a safe way to buy drugs.

And who told you this?
Possession laws are pretty strict and hard to decode. I wouldn't want to be the test case in court. The idea of "poisoning" a dataset is an interesting theoretical. But in practice, I just want to judge the likelihood that the dataset is poisoned by the presence of images. If it is then there's not much I can do with it.
We provide SMS authentication for free. If it will be costly for us, then we will switch to Twitter's free sms authentication solution.

But we have email authentication now and we just not implemented it apps. We also can to do OAuth2 authentication.
Because they know it will take time for the law to catch up with them. In the meantime they profit and get the public to demand their services. There are two ways to get what you want, Ask for permission or ask for forgiveness.
First past the post voting schemes are less than useless, wasting your time voting in American elections is not a way to effect change. If you believe your vote matters I have a shit ton of math I can throw at you to show you how it does not
Privacy is not a boolean. EU-style data protection regulation in the US could substantially improve the situation against private company level privacy threats.
How about let it die a 1000 necessary deaths like digg? I'd vote for that.
NSA has been ahead of the state of art in cryptography, as the past has shown. So perhaps they already have an even more practical attack on RC4 for a long time.
"We have this law that was voted in 40 years ago. I don't really think it applies anymore as we have better methods available to use through technological advances, but casting a vote to remove the law is an expensive, timely process. We should keep following this law."

Plenty of laws go unenforced because they no longer make sense to enforce. Enforcing the letter-of-the-law contrary to popular position is also one way to prohibit progress.

For example, you aren't allowed to remain at a bar in Alaska if you're drunk. I don't drink, but I think enforcing that kind of defeats the purpose of a bar? [0]

[0] http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folioproxy.asp?url=http:/...
Show HN: Wino (wysiwyg in name only)
Articles like this make me think of a long lost period where everyone would listen with baited breath about the technical wisdom of Digg. Digg had a compelling product, and succeeded in spite of profound technical issues and ignorance, but invariably they became "leaders" of technology because of the position of the product (the Digg engineering team had front page after front page on here). Instagram -- and they are hardly alone -- falls in the same camp as Digg to me: This article details the most banal achievements, and would never, in a million years, be on HN if it weren't from a lauded product.

But here it is, in a long line of "Instagram did pretty basic things" articles.

As an aside, I've always carried a chip since Instagram did as so many Valley companies do and waved their hands claiming things weren't possible on Android. Since then I discovered Gallus, which is a vastly superior product than Instagram's offering, and makes none of the same excuses. A single guy did what Instagram wasted so many words claiming impossible.