skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your question is unanswerable. By most definitions (see "Defining Persecution" at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1941006 as one example):

> Demonstrating that harm has occurred is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish that the conduct in question amounts to persecution. Rather, the harm
experienced must meet the requisite level of severity.

Things already need to be serious before it can be labeled persecution, which means that any persecution is "safe to acknowledge".

The problem is, "persecution" has a many lay meanings, including "any negative social consequence". Felons, for example, face social negative social consequences even after their sentence is over. Free speech and free association require that some free speech leads to negative social consequences. Someone who stands on the street corner and advocates the return of miscegenation laws will likely get a cold shoulder from others, and may describe themselves as being persecuted for their beliefs. That doesn't mean it fits the sort of persecution described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution . Or at http://z9.io/2005/04/14/debian-sarge-php4-and-apache2-why-do... we see someone saying "Debian Sarge, PHP4 and Apache2.. why do you persecute me?", where "persecute" is not meant in the same way that the Jehovah's Witnesses have been persecuted for not following participating in flag pledges.

If we go with that lay definition of persecution then clearly some forms of persecution are not only acceptable but encouraged. However, that definition is mostly meaningless and unactionable. Just because the local golf club members feel persecuted because they the city law prevents them from getting enough water to keep the grass green doesn't mean they are a persecuted social group, even if others in the town chastise them for wasting water during a drought. Using that very broad definition we can see that extremely few types of persecution end up with death camps. Or for that matter, rarely grow at all.
This is also incorrect. There can be multiple answers, there just should not be dozens, or hundreds. The dozen case is where you start to see that the question isn't a question, but a discussion.
> It was an one-two punch because either one by itself unlikely would have produced the disaster

But that's what I'm saying! Tsunamis can't happen by themselves. They're caused by earthquakes (or volcanic eruptions, nuclear explosions, or other literally earth-shaking events). The odds of a record-breaking earthquake co-occurring with an extreme tsunami approach 100%. Similarly, it's not at all surprising for the coastline to sink in an earthquake.
Maybe you should answer your own question and accept it if you arrive at a conclusion at a later point in time.
Biometrics are fundamentally flawed as they can't be revoked.

I've never understood why people feel they are a good solution, my bank gave me a little card gizmo, I put my code in it generates a cryptographically secure response.

If it's stolen or lost I just ring them up and they invalidate it.
Incorrect. Closed questions (and answers) can be edited even by anonymous users.

Voting is also possible on closed questions and answers.
It's also crucial to civilization that everyone _else_ has these rights, not just you. You can't take internet, roads, and telephones away just because bad guys sometimes use them.

I want my neighbor to have all rights, even if he is doing wrong with them.
I'm not talking about shaming. But I think it's a right thing to penalize people who smokes, at least financially. How else ? It is the same thing for marijuana I believe.

If both the supply and demand are high, but the health effect are bad, it's fair to introduce a tax.

It doesn't have a lot to do with regressive tax policies, which are based either on income or wealth, you can't apply that to tobacco products.

Next time are we going to argue about the tax on heroin once it's legal ? Public health policies are tricky because markets force are involved with addiction forces.
True, in my country (Brazil) the most expensive MacPro costs the same as a HOUSE
He is a person who wrote a lucid description of what many, myself included, see as fundamental issues with Go. Yet he does so without anthropomorphizing it. Reading the first paragraph reveals:

"I like Go. I use it for a number of things (including this blog, at the time of writing). Go is useful. With that said, Go is not a good language. It's not bad; it's just not good."

Since Mr. Gerrand decided to take cheap shots at other languages, I felt it best to present the community with genuine criticisms of the Go language which were _not_ expressed in that style.
I can't find it now, but I'm certain I saw a story about a late-night television infomercial that used "OK Google" to dial a premium long distance number. As I recall, the show was pulled off the air in minutes.
There's a reason why the "News of the World"s of this world stick around. Take a look at the magazine rack at any checkout lane in the US, and you'll see it filled with such trash. Why are these people still around? Because such baity headlines work! It's no secret; they've been doing it for decades. It's not the end of the world; just like newspapers weren't killed by them.
No, genuine desire is the willingness to complete something despite the discomfort. I have a desire for 6 pack abs, not a genuine desire.
Cool. I'd be curious to see the same treatment of other high-end headphones. And all Bose products, which have always seemed egregiously overpriced to me.

Tangentially, it's actually really hard to find good headphone reviews anymore, let alone headphone demo places. Pro music stores (like Guitar Center, Sam Ash, etc) are probably the best bet these days - but they tend not to carry headphones like the high-end Sennheisers that used to be my favorites (HD570 I think?).
I don't understand. His future medical costs will be spread out though society (he won't pay the bill). That isn't my bill to pay, so tax his vice to recoup some of the costs.

*Now I understand, what I mean by a 'life for themselves' is be a functioning member of society who pays his debts.
Cigarettes have been promoted through media for a long time. I say it wouldn't hurt if we invert the process for a little while.

You can call this lying. However, it is what advertisers have been doing for ages.
Is the source available for this awweessommme app?
News are corrupted as fuck, internet makes this worse. Rewrites, frequency, amount, lies, anything goes if you can get +1 view
Why would anyone make headphones, of all things, heavier to make them feel high-quality? Comfort (wearing them for hours) is one of my highest priorities and every gram shaved off the headphones adds to comfort. The fact that they estimate the material cost of a 199$ product to 17$ is the icing on the cake, haha. Now I will look down on people who wear these even more.
You're right about inferior goods making a T&D program somewhat regressive (the canonical example is probably carbon). Still, the biggest winner is the non-smoking poor - there's just not as many rich people. Plus the whole point is to reduce bureaucracy - a simple dividend that everyone qualifies for is much lower overhead than pretty much anything else you can do with that tax revenue.

(And hey, I never said I supported it. tmvphil asked for less regressive alternatives to a straight Pigovian tax.)
Mainstream developers often make such a mistake as they chase fads: just don't worry about them. Your focus is a niche with less press anyway. My specialty high assurance systems & security. I like your language because it's safe like ML, extends that to Web stuff, doesn't treat DB's like an afterthought, and integrates whole stack without the mess of mainstream stuff. I'd expect Opa apps to be more robust than average web app. The only thing I didn't like is you porting the backend to Javascript, a step backward in assurance. Hard enough to do an EAL7, JavaCard VM or non-optimizing C compiler. A Javascript implementation might be a PhD's worth of work. Yet, I understand why you did it and it made some sense for your market. I'm sure people wanting more assurance could always modify the backend to target something simpler, right?

Your main competition, that I see, are Ur/Web and the Ocaml/Haskell frameworks. I recommend that you continue doing what you're doing while copying any great things you see in those communities along the way. Especially ways to leverage type system to prevent problems. I think just good marketing, library support, fixing some of what people are griping about, and some major success stories in the media is all you need. Best wishes on your work as it's one of rare few that leans toward a Correct-by-Construction approach to web applications. Need more of those.
The political cost would be too high for the oppressing side. The military will not be homogeneously obedient to repress its own people that much
I'm down, email in 'about' in profile, thanks!
As someone who frequently rewrites, revises, and deletes their online comments, to me the article's changes just look like part of the writing process in a world of realtime publishing. The New York Times did not have a front page story ready within minutes of the news breaking, and unlike CNN, they didn't publish random tweets about the event as news: there's better and worse.

Maybe newspapers need git repositories...with no ability to rebase of course.
This one has been around a long time:

http://www.khelekore.org/rabbit/
As if sitting next to strangers on a plane weren't already uncomfortable enough...

Why not just pack people into tiny shipping tubes?
"I have this solution, what problems can I solve with it?" is not something a human being generally asks.

That is an extremely good and useful question. It is called the bottom up approach. The fact that it might or might not be asked generally, has nothing to do with what we should do the times it is asked.
The real reason they ask for mobile number is to stop spammers creating a ton of accounts.
My point was that the data was not the cause of the genocide. If you look at modern genocides eg. Rwanda a few years ago or Southern Sudan as we speak they are mostly characterised by a lack of internet connectivity or data about people. The places where everyone is on Facebook and G+ are not where they happen. Indeed in the Sudan case if there was a lack of privacy about who exactly had slaughtered who's family I suspect it would make the perpetrators much less likely to do it.
No matter what the subject matter this does seem like a questionable practice.

Why not make a new article if it is that different? Is there a URL shortage at NYT?

Or was it a case of one commit, another commit and yet another commit and then you have a whole new article?
It is not censorship to say that a private entity has the right to choose who gets kicked out of their dinner party.

I keep hoping that somebody will write about the difference between censorship and private parties choosing not to support and/or tolerate certain behaviors. It shouldn't be necessary, but there's a generation of people so incredibly entitled and so incredibly insane that they actually need a primer on reality.
Probably should have just been a second article, though I could understand why they might not want two very similar articles covering a lot of the same ground. I assume only the latter version ran in print. The first version should probably have just stuck around as a web-only piece that links to the newer one. Be interesting to see what the Ombudsman has to say.
It looks to me like they published the original article as breaking news, then changed it to be similar to what is going to, or was printed, in the physical edition of the newspaper.

I would strongly prefer the two articles be posted in their entirety at different (permanent) URIs, but I'm guessing this has already been debated and decided at the Times in favor of what they did.
"Dangers" seems like a strong word to me. This blog post is strong on technical analysis, but light on substantive analysis. It tells us exactly how many words are common between the first and last piece, but doesn't say whether any factual errors or omissions occurred between the first and last piece. We know that facts and analysis were added, but is that a "danger?"

The undercurrent in the blog post, and I predict an undercurrent here, is that reporting on issues of gender is not appropriate for a story about a tech company. The Times article went from basically a transmission of the official line from Reddit, to a more in-depth story of the background and implications. This is presented, implicitly, as a bad thing. I don't necessarily agree that it is.

The Clinton story had the opposite problem--there were factual inaccuracies in the first version because of the rush to print. I agree that the rush to be first is usually pointless and potentially harmful.
Seems like a reportable issue to me. Margaret Sullivan's page is here:

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/
To each one his own list. I would say: Common Lisp, Smalltalk, Prolog, Haskell and Modula-2.

"...but honestly there is no replacement of JavaScript in today's world. In last 5 years, JavaScript has totally dominated the world".

Really?

One thing is for sure, honestly, with WebAssembly, javascript will be all but dead (ie. legacy) in 5 years.

Everybody will write web pages in any other programming language, and compile to WebAssembly (ie. Ruby on Rails will generate WebAssembly from Ruby sources). No web page after 2016 will be user readable anymore (but those under the AGPL3 license, but how many web sites do you know is licensed under AGPL3?).
One option is to either not show scores for some time after answers are posted (at least to other viewers - maybe the asker could still see answer scores?), and/or to randomize the order in which answers are shown for some period of time. That would at least make it less likely that people read just the first answer, up-vote it, and move on. Each person would see a different "first" answer, at least for some time period. Maybe after an hour or 24 hours, then they become ranked by votes? Just a thought - I haven't actually tried it.
Regarding his statement: "It doesn’t require much of an imagination to see how this information could be abused."
Rogozov answers: Yes it does! In fact, that is the whole point of the blog entry, and it's completely skipped over. Their was a lot of writing, but the whole point of the article was left as an exercise for the reader. Why be so lazy? There needs to be a set of concrete examples of how these information breeches actually hurt real people. Saying, "their privacy has been violated in a pretty drastic manner leading to death, identity theft or embarrassment" isn't specific enough, and as a reader, I don't buy that the Nazis are going to take over in America someday so they can eradicate all the Jews in the employment of the United States government.

Rogozov believes in his main point -- but we need specific examples that people (who actually vote) can relate to this.
> Types should be studied even if it is conclusively proven that humans cannot stand their UX.

I'd like to add that while I agree 100% with this, from the perspective of the industry, abstractions exist to increase code reuse, assist in code maintenance, and help verification: in short they exist to reduce the cost of development, and -- from a non-research perspective -- that is the only metric by which they are judged.

Of course, that is not to say that types shouldn't be studied for pure research, or even that that research might not lead down the line for significant cost reductions.
To be a 'compliant' parser, you generally have to implement the whole spec. The bigger the spec, the more complicated the parser. The less stuff from the spec you use, the less gets tested. What's silly is picking a 'standard' and thinking because you only use a little bit, you're safe.
Sure it is. It's just not freedom of speech.

> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
Wind power generates 140% of Denmark's electricity demand
I think a lesson everyone should have in life is witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media, and seeing how incredibly inaccurate media articles are. Anytime I read an article about a subject I actually have first-hand knowledge of, it reaffirms the lesson.
Finding questions via google marked as a duplicate, which aren't a duplicate, but subtly different is really common - and really annoying.
Didn't see an email...
The other check and balance was also that each state were to have militias. So it wouldn't be just citizens against 1 federally controlled military.
The community of moderators are extremely toxic, heading over to SO's chatrooms gives you a glimpse at the type of people responsible for moderating the content. Hazing new comers when they just have a need to fulfill their curiosity is shut down.

All in all, I've moved onto just reading the documentation and figuring things out occassionaly asking a very narrow question on SO.

If anyone is thinking of disrupting SO's space now is a perfect time. Ironic that people are now searching for stackoverflow alternatives.
Huh, that's actually pretty clever, and would make conversations easier if you're flying with people you know, since you'd be looking at them.

The reason this saves significant amounts of space (which isn't explained adequately in the article) is that the shoulders are generally the widest part of a person, and if you configure the seats so that you don't have shoulder-to-shoulder contact down the entire row, you can fit three seats into a narrower space. It doesn't matter at all if my shoulder overlaps with the legs of the person next to me, because they aren't at the same height level, so our seats can be closer together.

Backwards-facing airplane seats are also safer, but aren't standard for other reasons: http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/are-aft-facing-airpl...
If the OP is unauthorized access to a computer system this certainly is. Should these boys go to prison?
Easily the best part of this article is that the interviewee is called Councillor Wood.
My version of "fending off" includes an end goal where you're no longer under attack and don't have to hide out in caves.

Guerrilla campaigns work because they're driving less-committed foreign invaders out through attrition. Our domestic military has nowhere else to withdraw to, and would necessarily have broken free of public opinion (otherwise democracy would put a stop to anything long before sustained conflict).

Don't get me wrong, if any such thing occurs I would much rather have distributed gun ownership than not. Furthermore, the right to bear arms quite obviously covers conventional explosives, armored vehicles, and missiles. To the extent that this might not be good policy, then the second amendment should have been rewritten rather than simply trampled.

On the political front, it frustrates me to see the amount of energy shoehorned into "they're gonna take our guns", which imho causes people to be myopic to the other rights that are being oppressed. I'm not talking about commenters in this thread (who obviously have more than one issue in their head at once), but your less-connected punter who turns on talk radio and has their specific desire for freedom transmuted into support for a different flavor of tyranny.
This article was exactly on point. If you think this is off-base then you've been living in a reddit filter bubble; the dialogue there is skewed toward outright slander and misogyny from the most juvenile perspective.
It shouldn't be significant because GW is all about how bad Earth is in dissipating energy into space (in comparison to black body), rather than how much energy flows through. Nevertheless, let's count: according to Wiki, 2012 World energy consumption is 5.6*10^20J; this means we were producing at an average rate of this/seconds in year/area of Earth, which is 0.034W/m^2. Solar input (and thermal radiation output, since Earth is roughly in an equilibrium) is 340W/m^2, making our input 0.1%, about the same as variations due to solar cycles.
Any airline that had the audacity to implement that seating arrangement would be bankrupt in short order.
Do public sites even host torrents? I thought they just serve numbers into the DHT?
But why not add the new story as a separate analysis piece, as the NYT often does? What did they gain by changing the original?
I think the idea is that new users will find the question and think that the type of question is still welcome on StackOverflow.

There used to be a question about popular programming blogs. To me it looked like a good and popular question, so I asked a similar one - which was then closed, because by then the consensus among the mods had moved on to discourage that kind of question.
This actually looks more comfortable to me. The biggest issue I run into is bumping knees because I'm in a middle seat with two other people 6'+. This completely solves that problem.

Now the fact that you're looking back at other people's faces like the worst elevator manners is a different kind of discomfort...
Could you elaborate on what upset you about the OK Google blob? Assuming you're using Chrome rather than Chromium, the whole thing was a literal non-event (nothing new had happened, nothing changed).
It's pretty clever, unless you realize the people we want to put in those seats are actual humans, who might not be thrilled to be packed like a sardine, staring into the eyes of a stranger for hours at a time.
Swiss military bunkers, blending into the countryside
This pretty much covers it. These factors also radically transformed how the game is actually played, too. Mostly gone are the defensive counter-attackers like Michael Chang due to incredible pace that ground strokes are hit; winners are routinely hit from beyond the baseline. Such a concept was rare just 20 years ago when Chang was world rank 2.

For some beautiful writing on the subject, the ever eloquent David Foster Wallace is someone to look up.
I figured. I was just wondering the downvotes with no clarifications. (I don't care about the votes themselves, but I wanted to know what other people thought)
very useful indeed.
It seems kind of self-defeating to wish that news outlets would avoid mentioning one of the most noteworthy parts of a story because having it in the open may somehow hurt "freedom of speech".
Also the argument is framed backwards.

The question isn't, 'why do I need my privacy'. The question is, 'why do you need to take it'.
I agree. The author does bring up a more general explanation, though, which I have heard before - about right-handers preferring to mount or dismount a horse on the left side, and it being safer to do this on the shoulder rather than the center of the road.
This is interesting, since the piece by Mike Isaac was already very liberally biased.
Overreaction. Is it illegal for me to talk to your phone? To broadcast myself with a megaphone, in a crowd, and yell "Hey Siri, turn on airplane mode"?

Is it illegal for me to unplug your computer? Jerkish, sure, but illegal only, maybe, in very rare circumstances.
I am actually shocked to hear that any Danes have a clothes dryer.

In most of Europe clothes dryers are relatively uncommon (people use clothes lines or for inside use you have drying stands ).

So with the Danish emphasis on energy conservation one would think clothes dryers in Denmark would be an expensive luxury.
Legally responsible? Of course not. Does that mean its a. Good idea to intentionally distract drivers, many of whom will look at and even pick up their phones while driving?
Surprising Things About JavaScript