skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've always wondered if https://xkcd.com/941/ actually works and if anyone has done it yet
Singularity Podcast: Chomsky, Minsky, Kaku and More
the rationale is clear. We are cattle, and should feel blessed when the government's Big Boy decisions do not harm us.
Wait, what ?

If you have a rural vacation house (for instance) in Denmark, and you are off the grid and ... perhaps have some solar arrays ... you would have to pay tax on the power generated ? And possibly fines ?

Am I misunderstanding what you wrote ?
Interesting that the Apple Watch has twice the power of the Cray 2 - http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/194367/does-the-app...
It is still incredible what she managed to do ...
But, AIUI, those cameras aren't networked together. They're all owned by different people. TV shows like Torchwood that show some agency tracking someone across the city using CCTV are showing something that can't possibly happen in real life, because there is no one centralized authority (or even handful of authorities) that have access to most of those cameras. Not to mention the cameras themselves are just video, and not particularly stellar quality at that.

Of course, I could be wrong, maybe someone in London really can track someone across town using the CCTV cameras, but the above is what I understand from what other people have explained in the past.
The CPU C-States Power Saving Modes
Yes, the same one. I don't have to agree with him or Ms Pao. But I cannot agree with popular putsches approach to policy. As Mr Schaubler recently said, there are rules, meaning there are processes.

But we have seen this play out many many times. Someone is accused --accused, not proven.. and the slightest whiff the company drops the person like a bad contagion. And, so now people expect this from companies. Complain enough and have someone fired. Someone said something crass while drunk 'aha!' fire them, behavior unbecoming. As if these people, unlike us, are not human and can't err. We're scared to see our ugliness in others. Oh the terrible reminder of our frailties! OMG, they were caught in a sting operation and had a rendezvous in a bathroom with a stranger! [Do the private sex lives of executives really matter? Oh but public perception, gasp!]

I don't think companies and organizations should manage by popular opinion. No one will be willing to make bold choices for fear of upsetting some base of people.

If an officers' views are contrary to the official org position, or behavior was egregious or against the law, then sure. If the organizational action simply coincides with popular opinion, then fine --but don't take action _just_ because of popular opinion --that's, to me, not right and gives away control to the whims of the moment.
> Suffice it to say that I am familiar with the concept

Cool

> again, what do you mean by "deserving"? What do the poor deserve that (in your interpretation) ianferrel claims they do not?

Actually nope not cool. You are clearly not familiar with the concept. This question does not make any sense in terms of the concept...

The concept of the deserving and undeserving poor has nothing to do with what the poor in general deserve or don't deserve. It implies that there are two type of poor people.

1. Deserving poor people (in ianferrel's mind those that make sensible decisions about money)
2. Undeserving poor people (in ianferrel's mind those that make poor decision about money)

I raised this issue because in Victorian England this concept was behind a lot of hand wringing and moralisation and very little actual social improvement. Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it - but those that don't know it can't help but forget it and people like ianferrel are clearly missing a huge swath of social history which would help them gain context for their opinions.
I think it's a matter of prevent: links to facebook, linked-in, and god knows what other service; and possibly save some bandwith, cpu time and ram.
> Renewables are more than capable of substituting the fossil fuel energy generation ecosystem and the nuclear energy generation ecosystem. I think this article makes that point pretty clearly.

The fossil fuel energy system is huge. I don't have the numbers to hand, but AFAIK to stop pumping out carbon we're going to need nuclear as well, ASAP. That all present nuclear is problematic (e.g. insurance, as noted) doesn't change this.
That last statement is unfounded. With the current price of fossil fuels, there is no evidence that renewables pay back after 20 years.
Absolutely true, but it's not being promoted right. While Denmark is building wind farms, we're have also been told to save on electricity continuously for the past 10+ years. Again there's nothing wrong with that, BUT if you save on electricity every year and still see your bill go up, due to additional taxes, and tariffs, your motivation is broken.

Saved 10% on your electricity and having your bill stay the same doesn't make you particular susceptible to future electricity saving campaigns. If you don't do anything, then sure you bill goes up, but at least it does feel like wasted effort.

The majority of an electricity bill in Denmark isn't the power you used, that's actually fairly cheap, it's the myriad of different taxes that raise your bill. It makes it almost impossible to read you bill or reduce your cost by any significant amount. It really isn't a system that promotes energy savings.
Well, gamers are gamers - in games everything is permitted as long as it brings victory. Some of that attitude spills over IRL. We always try to find glitches, exploits, cheats and cheese, imbas and so on. We do so in debates and everywhere else.
No, I would argue that the shitty reactor designs from the 1960s (and 1950s, actually) never endure even normal levels of competence and systemic corruption. Given a long enough time horizon, those bad designs will fail. They are designed to fail.

Going further, they are designed to fail in the face of "normal accidents"[1] which we can expect to happen. Every single one of the failures will have some kind of unique dramatic human-discerned narrative, just like the two you narrated above, but they will all have their failure in common.

I think we should be in favor of nuclear power in general. I think we should be marching in the streets in protest of the standard model of nuclear plant currently deployed around the world. Like you said, there's 11 more chernobyls out there just waiting for their own "normal accident".

[1] Normal Accidents, Charles Perrow, 1984 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents
CEO of Reddit resigns
Hacking Team Emails Expose Proposed Death Squad Deal
In some countries it gets even more interesting: they pay you to consume power, as they have nowhere to dump it.
Acid compliance just took a whole different meaning in computing.
We also some times just give the excess power to Germany, or pay them to take it. The Danish power grid is funny like that.
I disagree. I believe that the second and third are techniques that also give you a signal as to how strong the product needs to be.

For example, if users buy the more-expensive longer-lasting product, then that's a sign that those users feel they need it. (For example, "ruggedized" laptops sold for military and educational uses.)
This thread is very interesting and I deeply appreciate the comments people are making, including FoS, fear to comment on FoS, etc.

I personally respect freedom of speech, except hate. For example, HN strongly discourages attacking another member personally (eg. calling someone else idiot). I consider this a reasonable limit on freedom of speech, but concepts and opinions should be fully open for discussion (eg. pro/anti evolution etc). If the discussions are respectful, then anything should be allowed.

I believe Political Correctness has done more harm than it does good. It has created an unhealthy focus on skin colour, reproductive organs, etc to the point of lunacy. Many people struggle to look past superficial features and seem to lost the ability to make reasoned judgements. Any criticism of a woman gets you labelled a misogynist, regardless of how incapable she is. This continues to undermine the credibility of women that are truly capable in their own right. I'm currently managing a team of women. They all got there on their own merit. I would not hire a woman for the sake of political correctness or because I was bullied by a feminist journalist (as is quite common these days). The women in my team were not selected based on their gender - they were selected based on their talents and attitudes. They were available and capable.

This whole Ellen Pao incident made me think about the validity of comments on sexism and racism that are floating around the net. Compare the attitudes towards the criticisms of Steve Ballmer vs Ellen Pao. One of these individuals contributed to the significant growth of Microsoft, the other didn't manage to achieve much that stands out. Both developed a bad reputation as leaders. Yet, one of these people is being defended and the other is not. The major difference (other than Ballmer's financial track record for Microsoft) is their genders. Political Correctness has driven the need to blindly defend women, no matter how incompetent they may be. The hope is that this behaviour will help "women's rights". I view it as doing the exact opposite ... "jobs for the girls".

It saddens me that we seem to be more sexist, less tolerant and more willing to defend incompetence an an attempt to promote rights for selected members of society.

On a side note, I dislike the term "women's rights". Is it so hard to represent "people's rights"? I believe one of these reflects a destructive, prejudiced mindset and creates a bad attitude of entitlement and encourages sexism. If society said we'd defend the rights of everyone equally based on merit, the world would be a much better place.
In the vast majority of cases I have no argument. In both cases which have come public and those which have not. The support by both the executive and legislative branches as well as military and intelligence is not only morally abhorrent but both in the grand scheme and in small scales is in practice ineffective. The price, that is, is not worth paying.

But I am also practical. Looking at the big picture in the long term, I recognize that people in power will face very difficult decisions. I recognize that the world is an ugly complicated place and the best leaders making the best decisions will have to take morally reprehensible actions.

If you rally against it, make absolute laws against it, enforce them perfectly with the most terrible punishments – it's still going to happen. People are still going to make those choices.

But if you are capable of even the slightest sympathies to the realities of the world – you might be able to minimize the damages.

Moral absolutes and prohibitions don't work. You don't design bridges and airplanes not to fail, you design them to fail well.

It is not a defensive of horrible acts, but a recognition of the tiniest exceptions. The arts and literature are full of these topics probing questions about ethically wrong actions being the right decision, and they have a point. Rarely, but surely. There's a wide gulf between never and almost.
Airlines have liability caps as well. Your argument is pointless. Liability caps are because of the potential size of the black swan events, not because they are frequent.
To add to an already great answer by @yoloswagins, you may want to read the book "Traction" by Gabriel Weinberg.

It lists 21 ways, or channels, a business can utilize to find customers.

Although the book is primarily targeted for startups, the information therein is really applicable to any business that wants to grow.

I also suggest growing your brand through developing some sort of Productized Service. If you don't know what that is, Google it up. Essentially you bundle your service as a product, which makes it easier for your customers to purchase from you versus having them ask you for a quote as a consultant.

The benefit is you can then limit the scope of what you offer at a set, fixed price.

Good luck
Also related: How Apple Influenced The Labels To Shut Down My Music Streaming Startup https://medium.com/@492727ZED/steve-jobs-made-warner-music-s...
>But it says absolutely nothing about the practical replacement of fossil fuels and nuclear worldwide, including in nations that aren't nearly as well situated to take advantage of wind energy as Denmark, or which aren't wealthy enough to build and subsidize expensive wind infrastructure.

Wind energy is the cheapest form of energy:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/13/wind-powe...

If you think poorer countries that are too poor to build wind turbines or put up solar panels are instead going to take advantage of nuclear power you are smoking some pretty radioactive shit. The CapEx on a nuclear plant is staggering.

Cheap Chinese solar panels are getting extremely popular in the 3rd world as of the last 18 months, incidentally. Because the capex on a solar panel starts at around $200.

>Why would any industry, no matter how safe, turn down a government-provided liability cap?

They just have to say that it isn't necessary and that it can be taken away. I'm sure the environmental lobby and a few senators looking to score some points with their constituents can take care of the rest.

They are not willing to put their money where their mouth is but you are still willing to believe their protests at how safe their plants are, though. What does that say?

>If the government was willing to put a liability cap on Nerf guns

Except the government didn't put a liability cap on Nerf Guns and Hasbro didn't ask for one.
That's a good definition. But even that approach will fail when those with power define the "place such that those who want to listen, can" to be so small that nobody can find it. An example is the so-called free speech zones at some colleges that are small designated spots far from earshot of the entire campus population.
Denmark isn't currently geared to use electricity from wind mills to recharge electric cars. Well you can fill your battery of cause, but you can't choose to do it at specific times at reduced cost or by wind only. We really do need to get a system in place that can have variable rates.
Friendly reminder that this very website widely supported a campaign to make a black woman leave a board of a tech company. [1] And she actually didn't do anything questionable while being on board, to warrant such an outrage.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069
No. He's in Denmark where he was recently convicted of breaking into a government contractor's system.

I don't think he's actually in solitary anymore, though, but he's still locked up.
I'm being extremist for the sake of argument and consistency. I don't recommend you go out and live a completely transparent life today when the rest of society is not ready. So many things in today's society rely on some expectation of privacy, which currently makes the transition impractical. An example of that is private key cryptography.

Although not very good at it, my purpose here is to bring awareness to the unsustainable nature of privacy, and demonstrate some benefits of transparency. I want people to adopt a long-term outlook and eventually reach these conclusions themselves. I've been thinking about that a lot, playing the devil's advocate for both sides, and I honestly can't see anything good coming from this reliance on privacy. I have some trouble understanding how that's not obvious to more people.

Many people on HN are looking for problems to solve, but have trouble finding them. I've often claimed that problems are some of the easiest things to find, and I'll show you an example here. Privacy is like a band-aid. It doesn't solve the underlying cause of problems. It just makes the problem go away, out of sight out of mind. It quickly became the go-to way to fix non-trivial problems, usually through some kind of law enforcement. Exactly like SOPA/PIPA, patents, copyrights, and censorship in general. I don't know why these things have different names, because they're all exactly the same things. And I mean exactly.

When privacy is hypothetically removed, people come up with a ton of potential problems. Private key encryption is one of them ("people will know your password"). The business opportunity here would be to to allow authentication, prevent fraud, and maybe secure systems without the use of password or secret keys. I said "maybe" because we probably should re-evaluate the concept of private property in the first place (which could reduce our reliance on security, for example).

I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you understand privacy as being intrinsically valuable, then it might look like it. But my argument goes beyond that. My claim is that privacy has no intrinsic value, and is actually evil. I'm not giving up on privacy because it's too hard, I'm actively trying to get rid of it. Even if we had some magic that would lead to perfect security and privacy, I would advocate against it.

Let's make something else clear. I value freedom enormously, and I'm strictly opposed to coercion. Nobody will be forced to be transparent if they decide not to. They can build their houses out of tin if they don't want people to spy on them using thermal vision. You will be allowed to lie if you want. The only difference, is that people will remember that you lied, or didn't cooperate into sharing valuable facts, and that will hurt your reputation. In a future where your reputation is everything, you will have difficulty finding people that will trust you and accept to do business with you. Selfishness, while a totally legal choice, likely won't be rewarded.
> CV age detection should really be a thing, if it isn't already. Maybe there's an opportunity there if it's not already done, or way too hard?

I think this falls into the category of impossible. It is a hard enough problem for the human eye/brain. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traci_Lords
Complaints Pour in to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
The comparison to cars isn't relevant because cars aren't expected to produce energy. If a wind turbine couldn't cover it's own energy costs, the entire thing would have been a complete loss. It would mean they are just an inefficient way to convert fossil fuels into energy.
Extensive discussion on front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9866755
This is one of the greatest podcasts to nerd out with. There are over a hundred episodes with leading figures throughout different industries describing their hopes and anxieties as regards the future of technology. I've heard many revelatory things in the time I've listened. Enjoy!
It's money that primarily comes irregularly; things like bonuses and the sale of RSUs and third paychecks in a month.
Key Elements for Total Cloud Compliance
Come on, really? Some of those are legit (although manageable if you do things right), but how many web Apps truly need to worry about accommodating terminal based browser users?

Unless Stallman is in your target market that's probably something you don't need to consider for any longer than fifteen seconds.
Student loans might be enabling the tuition explosion, but the need to have at least a masters degree to ensure a middle class lifestyle is driving the tuition explosion.
http://www.pss-1.com/
That is actually a very valid point, even if the article specifically says electricity. Denmark is frequently running 100%+ wind power, that's nothing new. We also almost always burn coal or waste at the same time.

Most house (in the cities) are heated and have hot water provided by either large coal burning power plants, or smaller local gas or waste burning plants.

I believe that the politicians have finally allowed excess wind power to be used to produce heat at local heating plants. Previously they needed to pay a CO2 tax for the power they would consume (even if it came from wind mills), that ruined the business case and the excess power was sold or given away to neighboring countries.
Ask HN: How to be humble?
Hello HN,

I am too arrogant, and I tend to be very quick to judge or dismiss other developers over futile things. I am also very much overconfident about my abilities as a programmer.

Now something good about me is that I truly love Computer Science and software engineering, and I want to get better at it. It is that very passion that is motivating me to change; I have read about how mediocre engineers are overconfident and full of themselves.

I want to excel at software engineering, and I know that I first need to change. My question to the community is the following:

Have you ever felt overconfident (as paradoxal as it may sound)? How do you develop an object, down-to-earth knowledge of what you can or cannot do? How do you learn humility?

I feel like providing some context would help the community. I am a college student, interning at a big tech company. I am somewhat shocked by my immaturity or arrogance.

For example, one of my coworkers is a great engineer, he has been contributing a lot and very positively to the codebase. But I cannot resist looking down on him because his resume sucks, and he has never worked on a major OSS project or went to an elite school.

Yes, this is how stupid and flawed my reasoning is. Me, a not-even-junior engineer, looking down on someone who has over a decade of experience for completely superficial reasons.

Among other things, I tend to overestimate my abilities to solve problems and tend to set unrealistic deadlines. I am also very impatient.

I need your help to get rid of this shitty mentality, and I am not happy with thinking that way. I know it is very narrow-minded and full of elitist bullshit. I need your help HN.
Why does geostationary orbit infer low resolution? Or do you mean "from orbit" in general?
Go was made in China over 2500 years ago at which point it was called yì (弈). Then some guy had to name his programming language Go and make "Go programming" hard to search for.
California homes also use almost 40% less electricity than the U.S. average.
Thank you so much for taking time to write detailed reply.

I feel I have learned a lot changing companies - both technical as well as social skills. I would definitely want to be developing solutions.
I have no problem doing day to day jobs as long as I'm am important part of the business. However, if I feel neglected then I ask questions on what would be the future like and what works are coming. In many occasions owners have no answers.

On top of that I have tried a lot of things now and am pretty sure I want to be a programmer/developer/engineer/whatever whose contribution is valued.
Denmark's Wind Energy Output Just Exceeded National Demand
Actually I think you are right that this particular one uses CSS - but I may have to upgrade to JS if the spammers get past it.
9front, a fork of plan9, includes Mein Kampf in the distribution as a kind of trolling canary.

We only burn the bad books, right?
He is wrong, but so everybody who thinks that wind generated energy by itself is the future.

The electrical grid has some very serious limitations that most of the people are not aware of. For example you cannot recover from a blackout scenario without electricity. Only very few power plants are able to do that, the most common types are nuclear plants.

Another lesser known fact is that any windmill you put in your system requires a fossil based turbine as well to be able to control the surges and dips in the power production.

On the top of that, most of the windmills are not suitable for being placed for human population based on the frequency of sound they produce.

I think the future is clean nuclear power and some renewable sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_start
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBmk7t5K35A
http://oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/wind.html
Show HN - MeteorJS: continuous delivery example