skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I became an organ donor shortly after turning 18. I was upgrading my driver's license to one that would let me drive a big rig [not that I ever did, at the time it was just a written test]. Being an organ donor had never even crossed my radar. It was a collision with mortality because the people I knew never talked about death as a part of life.

I'm certainly capable of making up a slippery slope argument where people are being off'd for their organs. It just doesn't seem like people willing to do that would be detoured very far by someone's lack of organ donor status and even if nobody but organ donors were to be off'd prematurely, it's probably low down on the likely reasons I'll get off'd for someone else's benefit.

I figure I'm much more likely to die waiting for an organ than to be off'd for mine even well into the gray zone of organ harvesting.
Yes - in the beginning.

If you look here https://github.com/erlang/otp/releases you'll see that - even on Jessie - 17.1 is unfortunately way behind.
Docily: A Documentation Solution Directly Linked to Your Codebase
> Total spending on clinical trials is estimated to be about $25 billion. Not chump change, but easily fundable, and ridiculously easy to offset with the cost savings in terms of Medicare.

You're assuming that the government is as good at choosing research directions, choosing which entities to bring to trial, and running the trials as private industry. My bet would be that this is not true.

> Also, it's wrong to suggest that the costs are borne by the "private sector" when all of that private sector money is coming from monopoly rents handed to them by the government.

A lot of new drugs come from start up pharma companies, who are exclusively funded by investors, not the government. They don't see much, if any money from the government until they bring a drug to market. Established companies may use a mixture of funding sources to offset their development costs.

Also, the notion that drug companies are purely profiting from the government is absurd. You're completely forgetting about private insurance company spending and the ex-US market, which account for enormous amounts of money.
Atleast some of them have that skill. I remember a friend at school, who used to be very depressed because one of her parents passed away. This was early in her childhood, but the effect was still there in college. She often had mood swings and except those who were very close to her, no one understood her. Then she was reading a few self-help books. I dunno if it was the books, or something within her but by the fourth year, she was out of her depression without any outside help and had a lot of friends and enjoyed life in general. She also volunteered for a few responsibilities in college. But do note that this was very gradual and happened over a two years. I can only imagine the kind of journey she would have had.
Chinese market regulator website popup to tell on people who “sell maliciously”
Feynman, on working on the bomb:

"With regard to moral questions, I do have something I would like to say about it. The original reason to start the project, which was that the Germans were a danger, started me off on a process of action which was to try to develop this first system at Princeton and then at Los Alamos, to try to make the bomb work. All kinds of attempts were made to redesign it to make it a worse bomb and so on. It was a project on which we all worked very, very hard, all co-operating together. And with any project like that you continue to work trying to get success, having decided to do it. But what I did—immorally I would say—was to not remember the reason that I said I was doing it, so that when the reason changed, because Germany was defeated, not the singlest thought came to my mind at all about that, that that meant now that I have to reconsider why I am continuing to do this. I simply didn't think, okay?"

(from "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out", transcript here: http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/servlet/DCARead?standardNo=0738...)

This is extremely idealistic, but we need a way for engineers and scientists to feel accountable for the outcomes of their work, and to straight out refuse working on such projects. And the people who do work on such systems should be held accountable in some deep way. We have reached a developmental stage where building tools and techniques in the active goal of harming human lives has become morally unacceptable. Engaging in civil disobedience if you are working on such projects is the only acceptable outcome; Snowden should be remembered as the first of many, not as an exception.

(yes, there are many counterpoints to my argument, but starting debates is more interesting than spewing out platitudes. I'm interested in reading the replies)
Question: why did someone build this drive if theory predicts it won't work? Were they just tinkering or did they have an alternative theory from which they could deduce it might work?
I should obviously not get so caught up in reading that I miss my train stop, but I often do (or I get on the wrong train).

Consider, for a programmer, the obviousness of not using hardcoded values. But we do all the time, as a placeholder while we finish a bigger picture thing. We fully intend to fix it later, but we don't, until it bites us in the ass. That's just one example. Most programmers I know do things they know they shouldn't do, all the time, because it gets them through that particular moment.
Just think: if everybody posted article snippets with no commentary, we could crowdsource the entire article being redundantly posted piecemeal to HN and nobody would need to click through to the article at all.
I've been playing a game that fits this description all week: Rocket League. It's soccer with rocket powered acrobatic race cars and it's super fun!
Wouldn't it be feasible to build an autonomous weapon that doesn't target people, to fight the autonomous weapons that do target people? I would assume at that point whichever AI has better hardware and better algorithms would win, right?
Of interest to the HN crowd -- When APJ Kalam was president he advocated for the use of Open Source Software[1]. He was one the very few intellectual leaders India has seen.

[1] http://www.cnet.com/news/india-leader-advocates-open-source/
Mixpanel Announces Codeless Mobile Analytics
Ask HN: I'm stuck on the Microsoft stack – help?
I recently moved to a new position where we're using the Microsoft stack - specifically .NET 4.5, SQL Server (w/ SSIS, SSRS), C#, and Entity Framework. I come from the open source world and am having a hard time finding valuable learning resources.

My company has a training budget and I've gone to a few classes, but I feel like there has to be more I can do in-between on my down time.

Where did you go (or what did you read) to learn the Microsoft stack?
A visionary, gentleman and brilliant scientist who saw youth as an important part of the country's future. Dr. Kalam was an inspiration. It is a great loss.

Edit: It is only fitting that he spent his last minutes with students.
R.I.P Sir!!!
> Great. Then what? Everyone currently making over $1m a year will cut their salary to $1m.

Do wealthy individuals in other countries with a heavier tax burden (Europe, Scandinavia to be specific) do this? Would be nice to see evidence of this behavior before outright dismissing raising taxes.
You are wrong. The world isn't as simplistic as you suggest. Just because something works in Australia or in some Scandinavian countries doesn't mean it would work in the US.
may his soul rest in peace
Cps soup
Well, until you have any tasks other than bundling assets, and need a task runner again.
I would say this is not about terrorism per se, but rather that, as you mentioned, we rely on an ever more complex and fragile infrastructure.

In medieval time, the only network you could seriously sabotage was probably water, by poisoning a well or a stream. In the XIXth century, it was the railroad. In the later XXth, it would have been the electricity grid, and today, it is increasingly the information network.

And even if we rely on additional layers, you can still sabotage the more primitive network, e.g. the Mosul Dam in Irak.
"when you raise the minimum wage, prices increase"

You state that as if it's a fact when it is not. Prices may increase for some goods/services. But many goods/services prices are not set by the costs involved but by what the market will bear. The other option is that profit margins will narrow. Or, as is more typical, a combination of both.
It's funny because, yes the app modal is super annoying but equally annoying is Techcrunch asking me for permission for push notifications. Another modal that steals focus as soon as you load the page.

Why in the hell would I want push notifications from Techcrunch?
> It's only Google's fault to the extent that they naively believed everyone else would be responsible and neglected to have this license require updates, unlocking after dropping support, etc.

Otherwise known as "entirely their fault". It was very evident that this would be the case, as it was always the case before. Left to their own devices, OEMs and carriers will not approve updates because they simply don't care and have zero motivation to.

It happened with Treos, Nokias, and BlackBerries. It didn't happen with Apple because they used their clout to strongarm carriers into playing by their rules, and they are the OEM.

Google deliberately went buddy-buddy with the carriers to saturate the market as much as possible in response to the iPhone, and the concessions they made to do so are part of the reason Android devices still have this problem.

There was absolutely no reason to assume that anyone would "be responsible" if left to their own devices. It was not naivete, it was a calculated tradeoff to grant carrier control over user security, to give carriers a reason to promote Android over iOS. Google did a lot of things right with Android, this was not one of them.
But it's a phone, so forward the number and take it on your phone, or switch it to a mobile line. Yes this is very much a "because I want to" answer, but I think looking for reasons to work from home is the wrong way to think of this issue. We shouldn't have to and it should be the default, because I (and I'm sure many others) can't think of a single reason I need to be in the office to get my job done and still be in contact. I think the 8-12 hour workday is societal conditioning that's going to take a very long time to break.
The reality of what comes next is probably closer to a land-based version of the drone, with explicit human-in-the-loop decisionmaking about who to target/kill, but avoiding risk of human life through remote operation.

How does this scenario unfold?
Possibly? Anything past a few years out in tech is hard to predict. I wouldn't outright dismiss the idea, but its a crapshoot what machine intelligence is/isn't going to be able to do.

I'm an educated, practical tech professional and machine intelligence worries me more than any other technology out there (except possibly a virus paired with CRISPR CAS 9 for targeted, precise genome modification driven through a species' population).
>1920 &times 1080, 25 Hz frame rate, _Interlaced_

WHAT THE F? this isnt nineties.
I mean inlining it opaquely. The optimizer won't alter the injected machine code. (Either because it already ran, or because it manipulates something other than machine code, or because the injected opcodes are marked as untouchable.)

Treating things as a function call when optimizing is actually a really good way to preserve volatile memory accesses even in something as complex as a C compiler.
Excellent reporting on the total Chinese loss of control by the SCMP's George Chen:

BREAKING: Shareholders of 9 listed firms incl. Southwest Sec (600369) under CSRC investigation for illegally selling stocks -company filings

— George Chen (@george_chen) July 27, 2015

China Securities Regulatory Commission urges everyone to report illegal trade and you can report malicious sellers at http://t.co/xNGiLniBLq

— George Chen (@george_chen) July 27, 2015

China Securities Regulatory Commission says to continue to monitor market activities and will forward case to police for arrest if necessary

— George Chen (@george_chen) July 27, 2015

CSRC spokesman: Can't rule out possibilities some investors are still "selling stocks maliciously"; regulator will continue to investigate

— George Chen (@george_chen) July 27, 2015

CSRC spokesman: we welcome all parties in society to provide clues about, report those who conduct malicious selloff. Hotline +8610 88060082

— George Chen (@george_chen) July 27, 2015

CSRC spokesman: China's state agency for margin finance has not "quit market" and will continue to increase stock holdings "at proper time"

— George Chen (@george_chen) July 27, 2015

Remember Mao's Cultural Revolution? Now there is Cultural Revolution in Chinese stock market: welcome everyone to report each other! Insane!

— George Chen (@george_chen) July 27, 2015

My view: China stock market crisis now proved to be more than market crisis but crisis in governance - show how incompetent, insecure gov is

— George Chen (@george_chen) July 27, 2015
Arch has 18.0 - better indeed, but you need to keep an eye on GitHub to find out which is the actual latest version :|
The size of the country does not matter for microeconomic effects.
"The only way for human adversaries to fight autonomous weapons would be with brute, lethal force"

No it's not. You could use EMP. You could use signal jamming. Neither are lethal, both have the potential to be effective against autonomous weapons.
Nope, it doesn't. TBL wrote WorldWideWeb along with the rest of the early web stack at CERN, and from the start it included a graphical browser which used the NeXT textclass (a richtext class), which could open anything the NeXT systems could open, which included styles, movies, postscript and sounds.

The Web has literally never been about VT100 text document displays. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. That was gopher.

I'm really serious. I swear you young people sometimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldWideWeb

Here, email him yourself and ask away timbl [ a t ] w3.org
> But it's hard to imagine a human defeating a bot in a shootout

In a fair fight? Sure. But until these bots have strong human-strength AI, enemies will always be able to come up with dirty tricks.
First, yes, you are paranoid. Second, there is no demand, because people aren't as paranoid as you and nobody else considers the #1 use to emergencies past 1999. I can't imagine convincing most around me to give up their Samsung or iPhone for a hardened-panic-mode phone without apps.

It is better to reinforce good habits than have a panic button. Teenagers were terrible drivers before texting and they will be when holograms or whatever come next. Danger-mode apps exist, I think, but they aren't widely used because I don't think they're useful.

Perhaps someone with law enforcement background can speak more intelligently about it, but my gut would be that good practices are better. (e.g., making sure you know when someone is leaving / walking out the door so you know when to expect them, etc)
Hmm, can you explain how this opens up new phishing vectors?. Sure, you could dress the reset page up like a promotion with an iframe and try and get the mark to enter a 'coupon code' or something, but that isn't going to work without the reset token. Password resets by email are already vulnerable to carefully timed phishing.
Brazil is also an alternate universe where Orkut was extremely popular: http://mashable.com/2012/01/17/facebook-beats-orkut-brazil/
From a couple years back: http://idontwantyourfuckingapp.tumblr.com
Good oratory but why start at gun? What about swords, arrows and spears?

Science by itself is neutral. The proportion of evil scientists to all scientists is about the same as evil humans to all humans.
False. (Brazilian here)
Then why not raise it to $100/h, so everyone can live a comfortable life?
Apple Pay:TfL – users will face penalty charges if battery runs out on the Tube
I am kind of worried about pushing early concerns for something that doesn't exist yet. I don't remember in history someone saying "Thanks we are able to forecast this!" but I do remember a lot of stupid regulations. Like the one in the US forcing railroads to pay someone with a red flag to walk in front of the train.
This kid is going to cost you sleep. In fact, it's going to start three months before it's born. Your wife is going to find it much more awkward to roll over in the night. It's going to become a procedure, one you won't be able to sleep through.

This kid is going to cost you most (not all, but more than half) of your leisure time.

This kid is going to be worth all of that. Don't focus on how much leisure time you're losing (though you will, and it will be painful). I regret being so tied up in things I wanted to do, and not giving as much time and attention to my children as I should have. Don't do that.

I gained a shirt size, just from picking my daughter up over and over. My wife thought that suddenly the way she did the laundry was shrinking my shirts.

If you can, one of the most loving things you can do for your wife is hire someone to clean your house. She's got a lot more that she has to handle now; taking that load off of her can be a great help.
Once my boss asked me if it would be possible to put code in our product that detects if it has been pirated, and if so, formats the hard drive.

I told him that it was a very bad idea for a number of reasons. Primarily I didn't want to have that code in my product because eventually it's going to run in the wrong case. If it's not in there, it won't ever run.

I am unconvinced of a lot of the fears around super-AI. I can get behind this initiative though. We have already banned some types of horrible weapons, like flamethrowers and chemical weapons. Hopefully we can manage to ban this one as well.
> The only sensible thing to do is to pass laws that guarantee that the people who implement autonomous weapons are blamed for anyone who is wrongfully killed by them.

This only works if you can ensure that everybody obeys the law. You can't. The primary threat here is not some rogue militia in the US building autonomous weapons; it's a country like Iran or North Korea, that doesn't give a rat's ass about laws, building autonomous weapons.
Brings back memories.. When running SpiderMonkey (interpreter, not JIT) on IA64 it would randomly crash and burn with what looked like GC issues. Values were being collected even though they were still in use. It turned out the mark-and-sweep collector that would scan the registers and stack was working properly, but was not aware that IA64 would not write out all of its registers to the buffer provided to `setjmp()`. You would have to send the processor a `flushrs` instruction to tell it to flush all stacked general registers in the "dirty" partition (not yet written to the backing store) of the register stack to the backing store. After that, you'd need to get the exact pointers to the register backing store and then scan those. Fun times.
Haha thanks man. I was really just venting some childhood bitterness from over 20 years ago when all my friends got Sega Genesis and I felt left out with my abandoned Turbografx-16. Appreciate it though.
Qualcomm's Krait and Apple's Swift/Cyclone are ARM compatible cores designed in-house from the ground-up. Exynos uses IP cores designed licensed from ARM.
I did. That's my criticism of the article: only a small percentage of the article is spent discussing how we can, and are, improving things. Even then, there's an implied mistrust of those improvements: at one point, renewable energy is put in quotes as though it's not really renewable.
Serious question (not flippant): what good does that do? Wal-Mart's CEO makes $35m (I think). They employ 2.1m people. He makes $16.66 per person that he manages (indirectly, of course), per year. His salary is a drop in the bucket of what it costs to employ their workforce for a year. Comparing salaries doesn't showcase anything.

How many of these high-paying CEO jobs are there? Not many! The same is true of sports--there are only so many jobs to go around, and if you're one of the rare people who can do the job, you get paid a LOT of money. Comparing salaries of highest and lowest paid people doesn't really seem useful in any way.
It's an email signature in poor taste, referring to a very old package intentionally named to be in equally poor taste: http://archive.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/sex/

This kind of thing shouldn't be in an email signature at all, but especially not in a mail sent to a widely distributed announcement list.
Covington?
see also http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16964783
Ask HN: How does illegal movie streaming services survive?
Just quick googling "watch movie/series xyz online" will avail many websites on the first page of Google results that streams movies/tv-series for free, smoothly.

With the DMCA and other laws in act, how does this kind of websites still continue to survive? Not only about the DMCA but I am assuming many (almost all) countries will take this as a serious offence on illegally streaming 3rd party contents online without appropriate permission from the content creators. And these online services are not just some small website but websites with millions of hits everyday. Comparing these to mediafire or thepiratebay these are smaller, but these are not just storing illegal contents but also directly streaming them causing millions of dollars in loss for the content creators such as hollywood/bollywood.

Albeit these service operators might use some kind of method to hide themselves, their servers, domains, contents are always visible to everyone and should be easy to take them. Google doesn't remove them from their search results, they get advertising network operating on their website. And they keep operating as just another "paid service" (but with a crappy UI).

How do they survive? What prevents original content creators to stop them?
well, terrible in a "slaughtering children and making large swathes of land deadly for generations" sense, sure. But they sure are cost effective, so if you look at it with the right value system, they're really wonderful.
Also consider that autonomous weapons could upend the global power structure:

For most of human history, military power has been tied to economic power and population size: Those with larger economies and populations have been more powerful. AFAIK, that is why the United States has been the dominant military power since WWII and why China may challenge the U.S. It's also how national governments have maintaind sovereignty, by having far more economic and human resources than any internal competitors (and when that isn't true, such as in poor countries, national governments can be ineffective).

But what if military power depends on the quantity and quality of bots? What stops a smaller or even poorer country from building a robot army? Poor countries have more manufacturing capacity than wealthy ones, AFIAK, and perhaps they need only one innovative, disruputive software developer to make their bot army superior or at least competitive. For example, could tiny Singapore dominate SE Asia or even become a world power? In fact, what stops a sub-national group such as Hezbollah, a Mexican drug cartel, another organized crime group, or even a wealthy individual from building their own army? Without checking the inside of every factory on the planet, will we even know the robot army is being built until it's too late? Will governments be able to protect their citizens from warlords and exercise sovereignty over their own territory? What about poor governments?

It's very speculative -- it remains to be seen, for example, how effective autonomous weapons will be -- but it could be a historic change. Perhaps our hope is that the technology will turn out to be like other weapons, such as airplanes: Anyone can build one, but the single engine prop plane is no threat to what can be built with the Pentagon budget.