skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I make myself adhere to my usual daily habits as much as possible. Depression makes it really attractive to lounge around all day. I try to get up and shave, and shower, and dress even if I have nowhere to go. It usually happens more slowly, but I also usually feel a little better afterward. I'm never happy with myself if I forego those daily habits.

I try to sit outside a little bit if I can. There's a lot of evidence at this point that exposure to sunlight in the morning is a good way to help improve your sleep, which is a major component of depression. I never want to sit outside, but I make myself do it anyway.

I try not to be too angry or upset with myself. To some extent, what I'm experiencing is outside of my control. I'm sick, just as if I had the flu. So I try to relax a little. Beating myself up never makes me feel better.

I try to remember something I used to enjoy, and I try to do that thing again, only I try to take it easy. For example, reading: I never have enough time to read anymore. I won't be in the mood for a novel, but maybe one of my old Robert Asprin books would be nice.

I try not to let my diet get too awful, but, like being sick, I give in a little. I can't will myself into making three square meals a day, but I can make one good meal a day and not eat my way through a brand new bag of cookies.

I try to pick one little thing and finish it. Sometimes it's the laundry, sometimes it's the dishes, sometimes it's yard work, sometimes it's the pantry that's been under construction for a bit. I definitely don't pick anything ambitious. I need a victory, so I go and find the smallest, easiest little battle, and I win that one, and then tomorrow I'll look for another one, and keep doing that until I feel better.

If it's really bad, I contact a friend. I don't have many friends, but there is one that I can call whenever I'm in really bad shape, and he'll drop what he's doing and come over and we'll talk and get ice cream and play cards or something. (And I'll drop everything for him too.)

Those are a few of the things I do, anyway. Hope you find something there that helps.
You're still arguing about the details of how zoning should be implemented, not whether it's a fundamental right.
This pretty well sums up my feelings on how children's movies approach profanity. Or in the article, how the musical avoided using the word "belly."

The curse word itself is only offensive because of the meaning, or what it implies. The proof of this: say the word to someone who does not know it (for example, someone who does not speak the language); they won't be offended.

So, when a kids movie says "What the freak!?" or "What the fudge!?" the meaning is the same as "What the fuck!?" Or when a loud noise drowns out the speaker, we know what was said. So, then, why is this okay? Because we didn't hear the sounds? If I carry an airhorn around with me, go up to people and say to them, "You're a fa<HOOOONNNNKKKKK>!" they will be upset (and not just by the loud noise).

I've felt before that I'm just not offended by profanity. But after reading this article, I've had to really reconsider that view. I'm not okay with using "the N-word." When people say it, I cringe. I don't even want to type it, because it is offensive. But when I say "the N-word," I know what word I mean. You know what word I mean. You're probably not offended though, because we're just talking about the word. Using the word "nigger" in a conversation about the evolution of profanity should not offend anyone.

The article talks about how many of the words we consider offensive today are used to slur groups of people. This is why it's not offensive for black people to use the word in place of "buddy." It's not a slur, it is an endearment. From this, I conclude that using any word as a slur is offensive. To slur is to "make damaging or insulting insinuations or allegations about." That action is offensive. It's not the sounds that are offensive.

In closing, I would just like to say that you're all a bunch of <HOOOONNNKKKKKKK>!
Are there any hidden costs? I mean how would you make money?
The article (or the parts I've read so far; it's long and dense) assumes two things:

1) "An AI" should be considered a person. (This one is more subtle; I don't believe the author says it outright.)
2) "An AI", being a person, should be considered the author of its output.

Both of these suppositions are quite debatable, but the article doesn't bother to debate them:

The law as it is currently configured cannot vest
ownership of the copyright in a procedurally generated
work in the work’s author-in-fact, because the work’s
author-in-fact—a generative software program—has no legal
personhood. Intuition and the principle of transitivity
both suggest that the programmer of generative software
is the logical owner of the copyright in the works
generated by his or her software.

Whose intuition? Not mine. My intuition says that Deep Dream is a tool, and that by running the tool, I am the author-in-fact of the work. Or maybe that doesn't require enough human creativity for a court, and if not, fine -- the creators of the images that my instance of Deep Dream sourced to create its nightmare-scape are the authors-in-law. But Deep Dream is not the author, and the programmers of Deep Dream are not the authors.

That's _my_ intuition (possibly quite wrong!). The article would do better to distinguish intuition from fact.
I agree completely; there were a lot of formalities that were neglected - and had they not be neglected, there would be less backlash against the researchers.

However, this doesn't change the fact that vulnerabilities were demonstrated, nor does it change the implication that auto manufacturers are excessively sluggish about security patches on things that can and do kill people on a regular basis. Even an imperfectly-conducted demonstration like this particular case is preferable to such a demonstration not occurring at all.
I don't agree with your conclusion. It seems obvious from reading his story that he does in fact admit that it is his emotions that are causing the pain. The 'nervous system and/or circulatory system' is just the mechanism that he thinks is actually causing the pain in his hands. From my understanding of psychogenic pain, I think it's possible that it is located entirely inside the brain, although we don't really know for sure.

Also, I think "hacking" is a valid term to use here. He is making changes to his thought patterns which then result in reduced pain sensation.
The quoted comment does not contain the concession you seem to think it does. On the contrary, the quoted section of my previous comment simply states that people in their 20s today have it at least as hard as their parents and grandparents. I'm silent (here) on the question of whether it's harder today.

> They're simply choosing not to have families in larger numbers.

This is only meaningfully entailed by the data if you believe that, historically, everyone who had kids "chose" to do so. I don't think that's accurate, especially if we go back past 1970-1980 or so.

Remember that birth control has only been universally legal in the US for barely a half century. And normalized for a far shorter period of time. In fact, I'd argue that in a huge portion of the country, it's still something of a dirty secret in that you wouldn't necessarily want your employer or extended family to know about it (and we've recently had a supreme court case about this...)
It's a bit surprising they didn't implement this long ago. I quit like this google tracking feature, I can see how some people might have privacy concerns but I don't personally care at all.
I do believe in giving employees pretty broad responsibility, but even in area with narrower responsibility you should be able to connect your engineering work to the business metrics it's meeting.

Even if engineers aren't deciding what projects to pursue, they should be able to quantify their work in terms of how well they're implementing those business projects.
You may not like the implication, but it's there. It's a fact. Even when brought in via affirmative action, minorities are consistently weeded out at higher rates than, say, whites or men. No implications needs to be made because the statistics are there for everyone to see. And this is a bad thing, but not like you think.

This is where I mainly take issue with the contemporary SJW/PC types. The fact that some minorities (for the sake of argument let's take white men v black women) are underrepresented in the number of, say, CS graduates is a bad thing, a problem that needs solving. The way to go about this, in my view, is not, and I repeat, not, by just admitting/hiring more black women to universities/companies despite being lower qualified than white men. We could do this, and pat ourselves in the back for a job well done and leave with our outstanding moral fibre confirmed, and be very politically correct. But that changes nothing.

The fact is that to solve this complex issue we need to look into the root causes of the problem that causes black people to perform statistically worse in tests, or women to be less likely to enroll in a CS degree. And that takes a whole hell lot more effort than superficially sweeping the issue under the rug with affirmative action et al. It would be a massive undertaking that would involve shakeups at the core of our society. Naturally the champions of the politically correct aren't so inclined, and prefer to simply sit and be outraged by, and offering as only solution to simply "cheat" until the statistics seem agreeable. And that, I stress, alters none of the core societal problems that caused those twisted statistics in the first place.

I don't know about you, but I would prefer to see these problems rectified and true equality of opportunity be established rather than just shrugging it off and twisting the statistics until they are "good enough".
What's the point of fail2ban (for ssh)? It definitely won't stop you from getting hacked, nor will it provide any useful data.

Especially since any sane bruteforcers iterate over IP addresses instead of passwords to avoid just this.
In NL, you should also consider future betting and implied pot odds, especially when playing deep stacked (say both of your stacks have 200+ big bets)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_odds#Implied_pot_odds
Just hit the arrow.
What actual benefits does changing the port offer?
Taking your description literally, there is no legal way under any reasonable zoning code that a zoning department could issue a variance to allow a prohibited residential use on a property zoned and currently occupied by an office building. The variance is a mechanism for relieving a hardship that runs with the land by allowing limited non-conformity (e.g. setbacks on a non-conforming lot or the continuation of a previously legal but currently non-conforming use).

On the other hand, though local regulations can vary, it is unlikely that tearing down the building would be a prerequisite for a rezoning application. It sounds more like just ordinary planners doing their job and seeing what they can get a developer to do...their job is a bit like a cop trying to get a confession: they're allowed to mislead to maximize results. In fairness, an office building probably puts more money into the city coffers [the term of art is "highest and best use"] than a residential development and thus discouraging downzoning is not unreasonable.

Finally, planning departments are a bit like compilers: using the right or wrong terms to describe something is often the difference between being able to do something by right and flat out denial. Every city seems to have their pitbull real-estate attorney who gets stuff through the planning commission via their craft where out of towners and novices will fail. The public access channel makes them easy to identify.
Not trying to be a skeptic for its own sake, but its worth noting that, buried deep in the article, you can find reference to an "unorthodox publishing practice" -- it hasn't yet been peer reviewed.
Alex Morgan, Christine Sinclair become first women to grace FIFA 16 covers
iptables rules can (trivially) apply to all traffic, or they can be sensitive to connection state.

In the case of cracking, you'd just want to apply a blanket blan: completely black-hole any packet whatsoever coming from that IP to your box. That will freeze all existing connections.

To ban new connections, you'd have a rule that applies to TCP connections in the NEW state, leaving the ESTABLISHED ones alone.
How does it compare to uploading the videos to Google Photos and using auto-awesome?
I agree with you: open source linear regression software trained on open source data creating amusing output when misused doesn't constitute an "individual without rights yet" in my book
Indeed! That's (part of) what I meant by access to medical care. I think that people also tend to not view having a child in your mid 30s as unnecessarily risky, which I think 20,30,40 years ago was a more common belief/concern.

The combination of the ability to choose to wait and the belief that you can wait and still have a family is, I think, a potent one.
Oh, it was a slip of the tongue---I was thinking of this essay [1], and remembered it mentioning Readline and GNU libc, but for some reason thought that Readline was LGPL and libc was GPL (when the opposite is true and indeed makes way more sense).

[1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html
> Even mostly-benign animated sidebar ads are too distracting for me.

My ad-blocker has been honed for the past 20 years I've been using the web. It's in my head. I just don't see banner-shaped animated objects anymore.

That said, I do block Flash for performance reasons, which also results in getting rid of the worst offenders. The day banners start using CSS animations or god forbid WebGL, I'll probably start blocking them outright.
Hey buddy! I won't make any claims against other's opinions here. We all chose what we chose for ourselves.

Depression is the indirect result of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the result of holding conflicting beliefs and feelings inside yourself. That could be "I'm suppose to finish college" and "I want to go live in Thailand and code for a year", for example. When you hold two opposing beliefs, your brain attempts to resolve those beliefs through a series of rationalizations of your feelings. Rationalizations are excuses, but just sound better, as they are intended to resolve the dissonance so you can function somewhat normally emotionally. The more you attempt to avoid resolving these beliefs, the stronger your dissonance will be. All of this results in suffering. A little suffering now, resolving things and stating your real feelings, can help alleviate the symptoms of dissonance and the larger suffering you are experiencing today. Accepting a little ongoing suffering will eventually resolve the dissonance, but a choice will have to be made. BTW, a lot of people are challenged with undestanding how they actually feel emotionally. Celebrate the fact you already know you are sad. It's a helluva thing to be able to do that!

Buddhism, or more specifically the 8-fold path, is essentially a mind recipe for what I describe above. It goes something like this (with my spin on each step after the colons):

1. Right view: understand the problem behind a given dissonance you hold (you may have multiple ones)

2. Right intention: set intent to resolve one of the dissonances

3. Right speech: talk about resolving it to others and don't represent actions or thoughts that attempt to keep the dissonance in place

4. Right action: put the thing you are saying into action. don't just talk about it. do it.

5. Right livelihood: don't let the important parts of your life keep your dissonance in place. jobs and school are livelihoods

6. Right effort: keep plugging at the different dissonance bits you hold inside of you. never stop resolving them.

7. Right mindfulness: learn to meditate, basically. there are a thousand ways to meditate. find one that works for you.

8. Right concentration: don't let your brain fuck with you. you, your consciousness, is in control, not your brain. show it who's boss.

Good luck dude. I have faith you'll be just fine. You are here, after all. That's the first step.
> Do you go up to men and start random conversations? Does that sound like it might be annoying to deal with?

I start conversations with people all the time, yeah. No, it doesn't sound annoying. Funny thing about people, they LOVE to talk about themselves. Try it sometime. Er, not talking about yourself, trying to get to know a stranger. You'll learn a lot.

> approaching women who are strangers, especially in environments where they are trapped or not expecting approaches, is high stakes for both of you, and best attempted very casually if at all, with a strong awareness that any approach may be unwelcome.

a.) Asking if someone is lost is about as "casual" and "low stakes" as you can get in a damn college lecture hall/classroom building. Are you being serious?

b.) If someone feels vulnerable and not expecting "approaches" (whatever the fuck that means) in a college building containing lecture halls, prof. offices, and classrooms, perhaps the problem is with the college or the person, not the "approaches" as you call them.

> Does that sound like an experience the woman just has to deal with because the OP feels entitled to talk to every girl that makes his heart flutter?

When anyone approaches me, I could ask myself "will this man/woman kill me?" Do I let it run my life, no.

The OP is as "entitled" to talk to someone as you are to judge them for it. Your argument is really, really weak.

Also, I didn't click your link. No context was given besides the word "also."

edit: a word
I think sometimes it is a race issue. Sometimes it is not an issue. And sometimes it is partially a race issue.

The problem is it's impossible to perfectly separate the three scenarios except for in the worst cases. People guess based on their life experiences. So it's not surprise when certain groups are less likely to think it's a race issue.
> With respect to letting the driver in on it, it's pretty clear they withheld most information:

The reporter knew there were going to be attacks in the first place. There was also plenty of reason to believe said attacks could severely impair safety.

> Oh look, another false dilemma.

It's a trilemma; the concept of "do the test 'responsibly'" was already implied, so I merely provided the other outcomes. There's "perfect execution of demonstration" and "no demonstration"; between that is a spectrum of perfection, on which this demonstration happens to lie somewhere near the lower-middle.

I don't disagree that the demo could've been done with more safety precautions, but the desire to do a "live" demonstration like this seems pretty reasonable, and even a demonstration lower on the perfection spectrum is preferable to the bottom end of "nothing at all".
> Though I see that morgante disagrees, so maybe we should explicitly discuss this!

I'd actually love to have a discussion about that, as I think it's an implicit assumption behind a lot of these anti-negotiation threads.

For my part, I do think that negotiation skills correlate with ability to deliver business value. Ability to command high salaries tends to follow from: (a) understanding what businesses actually value, (b) understanding market dynamics, (c) strong storytelling and communication skills, and (d) confidence/risk tolerance. All of these are, to me, valuable skills for software engineers as they help to translate business strategy and market dynamics into functioning software.

(Then again, I come from a place of believing engineers should have broad latitude and that software-driven companies should be more like law firms.)
Debian and Fedora do packaging better than Docker, relatively speaking, but they still have major issues that have lead to "solutions" like Docker, Chef/Omnibus, etc. They install packages globally which doesn't allow for having multiple versions of the same software/library, they don't allow for unprivileged package management so users are at the mercy of the sysadmin, there's no transactional upgrades and rollbacks for package updates gone bad, and builds aren't reproducible (Debian is doing great work to fix this, though), to name the most important issues.

I work on the GNU Guix project, which can do all of these things. Additionally, with Guix, I have access to a configuration management system that can create disk images, VMs, and (in a future release) containers (replace Chef/Puppet/Docker), a tool for quickly creating isolated dev environments without polluting the rest of the system (replaces virtualenv and Vagrant when combined with a VM/container), and more.

I'm convinced that more featureful package managers can and will solve a lot of our software deployment problems, and I'm also convinced that simply layering more tools on top of a shaky foundation isn't going to work well in the long term.
Some time ago I had to address this kind of issue with fonts. Summary: the program generating text on the screen was copyrighted, but the procedural generated shapes (typeface text) was not.
Universities have been spoiled for decades by a large number of computer hobbyists, so they rarely bother to teach students how to program. I grew up programming, born of two programmers, so although the "Intro" was a class where they handed you a book and said "learn this", it was a blow off class for me (and the other hobbyists.) I felt really sorry for everyone else, and watched them leave for majors where they didn't expect you to know 50% of the job coming in, like electrical engineering and economics (as to not waste all of the math classes.)

People who haven't grown up with a computer in the house, or with good AP classes at their HS are at almost an insurmountable disadvantage IMO.
If this is true, it's time to seriously consider geoengineering efforts to halt and reverse the trend.

It's highly irresponsible to automatically take such things off the table when a 10 foot sea-level rise is predicted in 50 years. We need to do everything we can to stop this.
Worth reading. Well written and easy to follow.
It definitely does need fixing, but not by simply admitting/hiring more minorities until the statistics are agreeable (easy) but by actually making those deep structural changes to enable true equality of opportunity for all (much harder).
Show HN: FiveFootShelf – Curated reading lists for great literature
The difference is that white males are rarely a minority in their schools and workplaces. So no, it's not just small expressions or aggressions, there's an overarching social-structural context.
Based on being ten minutes or less from a Wegman's, I'm going to guess Fairfax or Alexandria.
Often those modes don't have the same semantics, which is dangerous for testing.
It's basically a demonstration that sets with the axiom of choice and no other restrictions are wild things.

Of course, if one restricts consideration to "measurable sets" and other objects of standard geometry, the paradox can't happen.
That was junk reporting.

> not predicting a 60 percent drop in the light and heat emitted by the Sun, but a drop in magnetic activity in the Sun. This has only a marginal effect on the Sun’s light/heat output.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_c...