skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Location history has been available for at least two years on Android, but without many of the bells and whistles described here such as location-delete and photo location-marking. But recording where I am at every waking -- and sleeping, for that matter -- moment and storing it in google's cloud for it to be analyzed, correlated with my search history, sold to advertisers, and possibly hacked or subpoenaed seems shamelessly intrusive and voyeuristic. So no, I am not signing up for this. If I forget where I parked I'll just walk around in concentric circles of increasing radius while repeatedly activating my remote until my car chirps its presence. Small price to pay for maintaining the last vestige of privacy I think I have.
I agree with yours & the parent argument very much. I feel like the Watch could usher in Security/Identity features, that no other consumer device is capable of.

Imagine not having to carry your Company ID card, your credit/debit/loyalty/gym card or any home/car/locker keys or your insurance/drivers license whatsoever for the rest of your life.

This combine with tracking your health, could be its USP.

As the hardware evolves (in 2 years - where its hopefully independent of your Phone), all you need is your watch to go to the gym, or take your dog for a walk.

Iteration/Execution is key, of course. As long as Apple realizes its more important to fix bugs & not keep adding broken features to more broken features (like Apple Music & iTunes 12.2 - which have been horrible IMHO) they should have enough of a user base to make the Watch a household product like the Phone.
I added it to my wishlist based on this recommendation:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8513339

Jason Kincaid's book is really really good

- nikcub
My estimates come from some personal and professional experience (including being a former employee of a state highway patrol, mostly tasked with - among other things - processing traffic collision reports and dealing with phone calls from those involved; not a fun job, that was). Admittedly, probably not as much as a semi truck driver, but contrary to popular belief I'm not entirely inexperienced here :)

The reporter mentions that this was uphill. Semis generally have a hard time going uphill at an appreciable speed (as I know full well being stuck behind them regularly on the mountain pass highways that connect my town to the rest of the world; lines and lines of trucks at less than 45 MPH with their flashers on); more weight leads to a harder time fighting against gravity. The uphill slope should make it easier for the truck to slow down.

If the reporter had made an abrupt stop (i.e. if the researchers slammed his brakes or something), then yeah, I'd be more concerned. That wasn't the case, though. Rather, it was a gradual deceleration according to the article. Cars can actually coast quite a distance, even uphill, when they start at 70MPH; I know this firsthand from my own SUV running out of gas once on a busy interstate, and on an uphill no less. Even with the uphill, there was enough momentum for me to put on my flashers, merge right from the fast lane, and eventually coast into the next offramp a quarter-mile away. No shoulder, either.

Now, this isn't to say that it couldn't've been safer, nor do I disagree that more safety precautions should've been implemented. For one, the researchers could've - at the very least - told the reporter "hey, if our attack comes at a really bad time and you feel like you're about to die, turn the car off and on again and you'll regain control". However, even with the described scenario as-is, risk of life is quite slim. We're not talking about a driver slamming his brakes and going from 70 to 0 in seconds; we're talking about the equivalent of an engine stall, and thus a rather gradual slowdown - graudal enough for even semis, let alone smaller vehicles, to react to.

> I wonder if your opinions about this would be different

They probably would, yes. Slightly, though; ultimately, one injurious pileup is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands that might actually be prevented by demonstrating precisely why proper security measures on Internet-connected heavy machinery are worth taking seriously. Not that I think the possibility of the former should be dismissed (indeed, I agree that the researchers could've done things more safely while still getting the attention of auto makers), but said possibility needs to be weighed against the possibility of the latter, with the recognition that any demonstration - ideally a totally safe one, but even one with some degree of risk - is necessary to push auto manufacturers toward taking security seriously.
If you're talking about nuclear power, it was our sloppy implementation, obscene cost overruns (WPPSS[1] anyone?) utter disregard of storage and disposal, and a small handful of spectacular disasters that was demonized. You know, nuclear power as practiced.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Northwest
It's always seemed strange how salary/pay is a "private" thing in American culture. In NZ, AU and UK it's something that could be brought up at a party (if talking about work), and no one would think it was rude.

Is this because people feel judged about how much they make in the US? (At least, more so than other countries?)
Great project! Seems like one could scrape the data from Wikipedia. I entered a few rivers by just copying data out of the Wikipedia side bars for them. Any reason that wasn't done?
>Why do you immediately think anybody would "look lost" in general?

Being in a new place, looking around at the architecture, etc. That seems a pretty reasonable explanation. Why the automatic assumption of racism?
Seeing all costal cities catastrophically wiped out (and permanently under water) in my lifetime is hard to fathom, no matter how much I appreciate the science.

Presumably this unfathomability is why people still invest millions of dollars in affected real estate every day.
I grant that 10 ft is scary. But look at Holland. Dikes everywhere. At the same time we can look to using nature to help us by making [dams](http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059998611).

Dikes are far less troubling that geo-engineering. They are probably about the same cost too.
An EPIC New View of Earth
That kind of argument is generally considered to be 'poisoning the well' -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
They're literally saying civilization itself is at stake.

"It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization."

Whatever has happened in the past, this calls for all possible steps to be taken ASAP.
> "An AI", being a person, should be considered the author of its output.

I guess "copyright holder" is a better term.

I can think of Music records, or Hollywood companies, which are not human but are definitely "persons" that hold tons of copyrighted material, and even some of those created that material.

I can't see why not a program that creates digital works couldn't hold the copyright of its output
The new standards and API support are the same that would have been added to IE12. It doesn't matter that Edge came along.
> I imagine that once the majority of "non-black" use of the "n-word" is no longer primarily racist, the stigma against "non-blacks" using the word will quickly diminish.

I imagine that happened sometime in the 90s, with the rise of mainstream rap. The stigma didn't seem to diminish.
If it was GPL, he should find someone to fund a lawsuit.
Exploring Different Types of Programming
Yet any action towards this end consumes an unfortunately finite amount of physical resources, money, and human concern. There are opportunity costs to be weighed for every course, and what if it is cheaper to build dikes and levees than enact the kind of sweeping social and economic change necessary to even dent such a prediction? Perhaps that time and money is better spent providing clean drinking water, combating prolific diseases, or eradicating slavery? These questions of balance are quickly forgotten with such breathless Cassandras begging for attention and scaring the people who are too quick to delegate reasoning.
God, I wish I could listen to Siracusa talk about Tech more than those 1:30 hours, that he does every week.
I do not think the trick can not be repeated, it is in fact, the other way around.

For the AI to be infallible, it needs to have a network of tricks and arguments and each one of them had to be created for a very particular person, even if later it can be repeated on others.

It is like Christianity. There's not a simple belief that everyone accepts and that's it. There's only the façade of simplicity, but in reality it is anything but simple.

There's a network of related explanations and rationalizations that has been expanding for centuries, and every time someone appears who will not accept the network of arguments, a new argument or explanation has to be added to account for that person.

For example, if Christianity had not need to deal with Gnosticism, or with Arianism, then the network of beliefs and explanations would have been a noticeable different one.
Agreed. That was pretty good. A dash of bash with 3 teaspoons of butter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs#Subvolumes_and_snapshots
Just because some people are treated differently due to their skin colour doesn't automatically make this incident one of those situations.

Also, please don't engage in personal attacks.
It's better understood as a technology for separating the public from tax dollars, than for producing energy.
That is very cool. I love how closely the formal math relates to the actual code needed/involved.
Science isn't about popularity or fame. Either the data supports his conclusions or it doesn't.
Nobody is denying. The question is rather whether this incident is racism, and there isn't really any evidence of that apart from speculation.
Empathize? Perhaps. But in Carlin's defense, the point he's making doesn't require empathy; it demands attention and consideration.
During the Vietnam war the US began to look into the unexpected underperformance of its pilots in air-to-air combat. They weren't exactly losing but they weren't doing nearly as well as they were expected to, and there was a litany of mistakes being made again and again that were hurting combat performance, all of which came to light in the "Ault Report". A lot of research went into studying what was happening and why and ultimately a new theory of aerial combat fundamentals came out of that research.

The main difference that was causing problems for American pilots was that the planes they were fighting against were more maneuverable. It turns out that greater maneuverability naturally led to a faster and more responsive cadence in combat, leading to MiG pilots gaining the upper hand in encounters.

The two theories that came out of this study were Energy-Maneuverability Theory and the idea of the "OODA loop". As it happens, OODA loop theory is generally applicable in many situations outside of aerial combat.

OODA is an initialism standing for: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. It is the fundamental event processing loop for "doing stuff" in almost any situation. The faster one's OODA loop the faster one can respond to changing situations, which translates into huge practical advantages. And the amazing thing is that this is somewhat independent of maneuverability.

OODA loop theory should be well understood by anyone in the tech industry. It's a critical element for the competitive advantages of small startups over big, entrenched competitors. And it's the reason why agile methodologies are so often advantageous.

"Speed" is a crude substitute for understanding the value of feedback-based iteration and the competitive advantage of tighter OODA loop cycles.

P.S. Raw speed is not a substitute for good design, thoughtful engineering, or keeping technical debt under control. It is quite possible to speed yourself right into a wall where you lose agility because of excessive technical debt. Also consider the relative merits of building on good foundations, increasing value exponentially over time versus constantly tearing down and rebuilding disposable structures. Don't confuse busy work with craftsmanship, value doesn't scale linearly with effort.
Say no to end to end tests
Given that narratives form the backbone of history, literature, justice, religion, science, and virtually every field of human study one could imagine - as well as one's internal conceptions of the past, present, future, and one's place within the world - wouldn't 'narrative hacking' then be close to the ultimate hack?
I don't think the OP is denying that people "could" be responding to her based on a stereotype. I think it's more about giving people the benefit of the doubt rather than automatically assuming they are racist.
Lisp Tutorial
It's interesting, no doubt. I should read everything with healthy skepticism, but really my initial gut reaction of "yeah right" was a little eye opening - if even I had a negative reaction to the assertions, I can't imagine what people who are skeptics of human-created climate change at all must think.
Both are cities...
Deaths from nuclear power:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_...

Deaths from coal mining:
http://www.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp
I don't think anyone is saying that we can completely eliminate the gut reactions we collectively have -- but it's precisely because they are so pervasive that it's important to talk about them and be aware of their existence and implications so that we can take actions to reduce and mitigate them.
It could in some situations, yes. This was not one of those situations.

We're talking about someone coasting uphill with absolutely no braking whatsoever. There's plenty of reaction time in such situations (as I happen to know firsthand, as was the case when my SUV ran out of gas and I had to coast a quarter-mile over a hill to get to the next offramp while merging from the fast lane to the far right at 70MPH). Even for semis, the reporter's car wouldn't mean having to slam on the brakes. Not to mention that the uphill helps with stopping.

The story would be different if the researchers slammed the car's brakes. If that were the case, then yes, death would be possible. That wasn't the case.

No intellectual dishonesty here. Just thorough examination of the situation as described by the author of the article.
Your not understanding something isn't necessarily a sign that it is incorrect. It's not necessarily a sign that you're being trolled either. Obviously a position that one does not understand is probably a suboptimal starting point for developing a coherent counter-argument due to the risk that one's comment be seen as constructing a strawman.

One of the things I've learned on HN is that, just asking someone to clarify their idea before responding is surprisingly useful. It disarms the troll because it breaks the pattern. It allows an earnest person to attempt to clarify their thoughts or will be ignored by someone with low interest in further discussion. It's also a good way for me to express genuine curiosity.

Accusing me of trolling you for a third time on this page and focusing on "any offense" rather than your behavior isn't an apology...even ignoring the comparison to a schizophrenic individual. Other than the delete link, there isn't an HN appropriate way to express the sort of sentiments you're interested in expressing.
Great idea. Where do you get the cost of a medical procedure? Any resistance from medical providers for providing 'quotes'?
Monetary concerns aside, I like seeing "by spiritplumber" on my work, even when I'm giving it out.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generat...
Being a fundamental right doesn't mean limitless. Free speech is a fundamental right, yet you will get into trouble when you yell fire in a theater. And of course property right is a fundamental right, we just sacrifice some the of the property right in the form of zoning laws to achieve other goals, similar to our other rights. When somebody asked us to sacrifice our rights without enough reason, it is a violation of the rights.
Because when they convince the world out of their own greed that authors shouldn't protect the users rights, and that the users (not creators) of MIT/BSD/Apache licensed software are free to subsume it without giving back, they hurt everyone.

If they steal the software and use it in a proprietary product, they only damage themselves.

Convincing everyone to not use the (L)GPL does more damage than just violating a license.
That was my first reaction as well. It seems that with all the downvotes, that's not something we should be really worried about.
Google knows where you’ve been, and Your Timeline for Maps shows you
Agreed. That's the only reason we're not on Kubernetes right now. It really dramatically increases the amount of infrastructure we need to run when we're forced to run three Kubernetes clusters to run a single MongoDB replica set. But I love everything else Kubernetes is doing and so I'm very anxious to see that be addressed.
I don't mind static ads, and Click to Flash seems to take care off all the ads that would bother me. The sites I visit are pretty typical of HN, SO, etc... so I'm not necessarily running into bad site designs too often.
Here's a real case: The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed, a book released in 1984. The prose and poetry was written by Racter, a computer program written by William Chamberlain. The illustrations were done by Joan Hall, and the introduction to the book was written by William Chamberlain.

So it's clear that Joan Hall owns the copyright to the illustrations, and William Chamberlain the introduction. But what of the rest of the book?
I would advise not to iterate based off a single customer. Despite being a customer, I think there is still too great a chance that she isn't in the startup's target market. This goes 10x if the customer isn't a paying customer.

Otherwise, great advice.
There are reasons besides differences in smartness and racism that can lead to some people not making it past a difficult weed out class, especially one in a STEM field.

For instance, students from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to have had serious prior exposure to computer science before coming to Stanford, such as through high school computer science classes with well equipped computer labs. Students from much poorer backgrounds might not have had these pre-college opportunities.

This can make their first CS class harder for them--especially when it is a weed out class at a top CS school.

So you might have four kinds of students.

1. Those who had significant CS experience before Stanford, and came to Stanford with the intent of majoring in CS.

2. Those who had significant CS experience before Stanford, but came intending to major in something else, but are taking the intro CS course to see what CS is like.

3. Those without a significant pre-Stanford CS background, but came intending to major in CS.

4. Those without a significant pre-Stasnford CS background, and came intending to major in something else, but are taking the intro CS course to see what it is like.

Those in group #1 will have the best chance of not getting weeded out.

Those in #2 will also have a good chance, because of their background.

#3 is more iffy. Their school background lacks CS, but they intended to be CS majors, so many of them will have self-studied CS to make up for their poor formal education.

#4...these people are going to have a seriously hard time. They are much less likely than the #3 people to have done anything to make up for their high school's inadequacies in CS.

I'd expect the distribution of minorities among these four groups to skew towards #3 and #4, and so I'd expect them to get hit more by the weed out class. This is not because they are not as smart--they are just not as well prepared coming in due to inequalities in pre-college education.

TL;DR: the pipeline problem doesn't start at college.
A lot of the cgroups and namespaces functionality too time to mature and stabilize. User name spaces for instance was only available with 3.8. Cgroups and namespaces still don't play well with each other.

Cgroups was initially added by some folks from Google in 2007. A lot of the early work on Linux containers was done by Daniel Lezcano and Serge Hallyn of the LXC project, supported by IBM. It was initially a kernel patch and userland tools. You can still see it on the IBM website. It was merged in 2.6.32.

Then around 2012 the LXC project started being supported by Ubuntu and Stephane Graber of Ubuntu continued the work with Serge Hallyn. LXC was of course focused on OS containers and they didn't really market themselves.

Around 2013 when LXC was finally becoming usable by end users, Docker who were probably using it in their previous avatar in dotcloud as a PAAS platform, took it as a base, modified the container OS's init to run single apps, removed storage persistence, and built it with aufs layers, and took it to market aggressively.

But if you look beyond the PAAS centric use case, OS containers are simpler to use, offer near seamless migration of VM workloads, more flexibility in storage and networking scenarios and are more easily used with the ecosystem of apps and tools with a normal multi-process OS environment.

The ability to gain the advantages of containers without needing to re engineer how you deploy applications is an incredible value proposition.

LXC is mature, pretty advanced and simpler to use than Docker, but a lot of users and media have got the impression that its 'low level' or difficult to use.

The Docker, PAAS and micro services folks are the only ones really messaging and going out there to gain adoption and there is an unfortunate conflation of containers to Docker and monoculture developing. The 'Open Container Standard' is an example. Shouldn't that be 'Open App Container Standard'?

App containers are a constrained OS environment and add complexity, and the various Docker specific solutions being developed for everything from networking to storage is evidence of the additional complexity. There is obviously a huge devops PAAS case here that people see value in. And the sheer amount of money and engineering deployed means something good has to come out of it. But containers cannot be just about PAAS.

I run Flockport that provides an app store [1] based on OS containers that are as easy to use as Docker hub and extensive documentation [2] on using containers so do give it a look.

https://www/flockport.com/store

https://www.flockport.com/guides
Here's the article in question.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/10/13/jumpers

Another powerful quote: "The guy was in his thirties, lived alone, pretty bare apartment. He’d written a note and left it on his bureau. It said, ‘I’m going to walk to the bridge. If one person smiles at me on the way, I will not jump.’"
$105k is a livable wage in San Francisco, but expect about half of that paycheck to disappear into rent and about a quarter or a third going towards food and whatnot. On the other hand, my salary at this point isn't my main source of income, my stock grants are.

As for the immigration, I can confirm that you need at least a bachelors degree. I went through the H1-B (and GC) process and you can pretty much forget about it if you can't show at least equivalency. The main reason I finished mine and didn't do the exact thing you did (but 6 years ago) was for visa eligibility.

Be careful about saying TN, H1-B and GC in the same sentence. While an H1-B is a dual-intent visa (meaning you can pursue a GC), a TN is not. If you show intent to stay on a TN visa, that can hurt your chances in the future. This should be fine to talk about with your lawyer, but mum's the word when dealing with anyone in an official capacity.
Did Apple Watch Sales Really Exceed Expectations?