There's a difference between "knowing" something and then experiencing it.
Knowing that rent and taxes are high is one thing, but balancing the books really brings it home.
211 karma · joined June 2, 2012
I use it if I set noprocast to a weirdly high number.
(http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=DanBC)
I welcome email - corrections, updates, information, requests to slow down, etc.
dan.bealecocks@googlemail.com
Knowing that rent and taxes are high is one thing, but balancing the books really brings it home.
...and some weirdness means they don't spend that money on roads, so the road surfaces are lousy. Maybe I've been spoiled by our great road surfaces in UK.
It's baffling to me to see this described as censorship. The content is still there. People can still get the content, they just need to say that they want to get the content. Sometimes they need to prove their age. (In the UK we have some legally mandated minimum ages; when a cinema says '15' it means you're not allowed in if you're under 15.)
As I've said, there's a problem with the filter being opt-out rather than opt-in; and there's a problem with the filter being too broad and blocking things that it shouldn't.
The comment you're replying to is suggesting teams with two members: Computer A and Human A VS Computer B and Human B.
Thanks for the link to the Blondie24 book!
The Internet Watch Foundation provides a list of sites that are involved in images of child sexual abuse. While they're an industry group, they are a bit more serious about their mission than other filter providers.
(http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf)
I guess they were formed to avoid the need for legally mandated filters.
Many people are not interested in funding hardware projects at all - hardware just has a lousy reputation.
But having a hardware incubator means you concentrate expertise in all the stuff that's traditionally thought to be hard about hardware. Things like suppliers and distribution and stock control and sub-contracting etc etc.
One of the problems with the Kickstarter model is that companies were offering product in exchange for funding.
They should have been offering stickers and mentions on a "Thank You" page, or tours of the factories, or some such. That would have created better expectations in the minds of funders.
Or they could have offered vouchers - "Pay $X, we give you a voucher that entitles you to one free widget if we go into production".
The current "challenges" question is not being answered as well as it could by several projects. It feels a bit like the "What are your weaknesses" interview question, where people are dodging the real answer and giving feel good sound bites. I have a lot more trust in the projects who make a solid attempt at answering that question fully.
It's a fascinating true story.
A similar device could easily be built for chess computers. Especially since hardware now is much more powerful, and much smaller, and battery technology (while still being lousy) is much better.
What kind of chess computing could you get from, for example, Raspberry Pi? What software would run at reasonable speed on it?
I mentioned before the weirdly broken system they use for this too - 1.2.3.9; 1.2.3.11; etc are all annoying IPs to use.
I too am on an "unlimited" account. Unlimited being the normal definition of "has limits" - they'll insert interstitial warnings about fair use limits and they'll stop flash working.
Bot One just plays the odds.
Bot Two just plays the odd, but has a small chance of bluffing - it has a poor hand but plays as if it has a great hand.
I'd be interested to see the results after several thousand hands. And if people could tell the bots apart from people.
This is, obviously, nothing like AI. But sometimes trivial tricks are powerful. Look at the early discussions about ELIZA for an example.
I don't play poker, but my friend tells me that it's fun to play in tournaments because it's not just odds. You get people who have terrible poker faces, who are easy to read. That same friend also plays (and makes a little bit of money) from online poker. I have no idea how the psychology works there.
You get a huge interstitial page telling you that the site is being blocked and telling you what you need to do to have it turned off.
I agree that the block should be off by default. Sellers could ask the customer if they wanted the block turned on when the phone is bought. I agree that the blocks are too broad.
T-Mobile didn't ask for any ID. I guess I'm pretty obviously over 18. They did ask for my name and address.
(http://liliputing.com/2012/06/74-mk802-android-4-0-mini-pc-f...)
Dell probably have good deals with their suppliers, and are hoping on volume, and so could bring the cost down to something where $50 makes sense.
Google's customers are advertisers. They get personal support, with real people. It is the advertisers that need to be reassured about Google's services; who need to be convinced that Google do not tolerate any kind of extra ad clicking. (Not saying that's what happened here!!)
It is incredibly annoying that quality original content gets removed while the blurry cat clips get reposted all over youtube. And the blurry reposts prove that YouTube will continue to make money for Google even if they take down original content.
> You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
We also tend not to have "loopholes" - someone not getting the correct caution will have to go through years of expensive law . Their case isn't won just because of a missing warning. (I think; I am not a lawyer.)
It's a shame. Right to silence may have started here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#England_and_Wa...)
But is being attacked here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...)
I agree.
It's a shame. Sometimes they have great content. I'd be happy to pay for that content. I even post links to that content in various places. But the sleazy way they submit posts everwhere, and this, and etc, all make me much less likely to pay them anything.
They get a few wins too.
Everyone knows about algorithm, right?
From Wikipedia:
> The word "Algorithm", or "Algorism" in some other writing versions, comes from the name al-Khwārizmī, pronounced in classical Arabic as Al-Khwarithmi. Al-Khwārizmī (Persian: الخوارزمي, c. 780-850) was a Persian mathematician, astronomer, geographer and a scholar in the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, whose name means "the native of Khwarezm", a city that was part of the Greater Iran during his era and now is in modern day Uzbekistan. He wrote a treatise in the Arabic language during the 9th century, which was translated into Latin in the 12th century under the title Algoritmi de numero Indorum. This title means "Algoritmi on the numbers of the Indians", where "Algoritmi" was the translator's Latinization of Al-Khwarizmi's name.
A minor nitpick: In UK law we have the Mental Capacity Act. People must not be seen as lacking capacity to make decisions just because they have a mental health illness. Even someone detained against their will under section of the Mental Health Act can make decisions about their care.
But your point - "People with major depression and suicidal thinking probably lack capacity to make a rational decision about suicide" is true.
I particularly like the clear straightforward wording on your website, which lets people know exactly what they can expect.
This is simplistic and wrong.
Mental illness is a factor in some attempted or completed suicides.
But is mental ill health the only factor? No. There are many things that contribute to someone attempting suicide. Significant factors include debt, relationship breakdown, recent release from a MH hospital, previous attempts at suicide, a relative who completed suicide, etc.
Many people have mental ill health, and not all of them kill themselves. The difference between the people who try suicide and those who don't is not severity of illness, but severity of other pressures.
The current approach is very expensive, and very harmful to individuals and to society.
Someone injecting heroin will do so whether it's legal or not. But, if it's legal, they'll be getting clean heroin, and clean needles, and advice about how to safely inject, and be in contact with people helping them move down to other forms of heroin use.
While heroin is illegal people prostitute or burgle to get money; they re-use needles in unclean conditions; they inject dirty drugs in sub-optimal places; they have little or no contact with harm-reduction workers.
The costs to society are obvious: people spend many years involved in criminal activity to feed a drug habit. Police spend a lot of time tackling that criminal behaviour. People end up with life-threatening illnesses, or permanent maiming or losing limbs from dirty needles and poor injection practices.
Treating this as a public health measure is probably sensible. Having said that, alcohol use in the UK can't really be defined as ok.
> That being said, I have to agree that the best way to get rid of illegal activity is to tax and regulate a product so as to provide a trustworthy, straightforward source.
Probably, but look at the huge quantities of smuggled tobacco in the UK caused by the high tax rate.
See, also, garlic smuggled from Norway (not an EU state) through Sweden (part of the EU, which adds a 9% tax for garlic grown outside the EU.)
That's interesting. Do you have any cites for the numbers of suicides amongst the charged and the imprisoned?
I'm not sure of the US definition of suicide (is it the same across different states?) nor how deaths are recorded, especially for people charged with but not yet tried for a crime.
I mostly agree with the rest of what you say. The US criminal justice system is barbaric and inhumane. It is fantastically expensive. Reform of all of it would do the US a lot of good.
More interesting to HN is, perhaps, how to hack a system that has become locked because of politics. Anyone suggesting drug reform or criminal justice reform or immigration reform is going to face, very early, huge entrenched well-funded campaigns of opposition. "How can change happen?" could be an interesting discussion.
There's a book detailing the rise of hacker culture. There's a bit about hackers 'borrowing' tools from someone. The contempt they showed that man, and his tools, shows that working with people was even then not a skill that all of them had.
Reported rates were lower because of this.
Newspapers understood better their responsibility to be careful about reporting suicide; the Werther effect is real and has killed people.
Children's rights are a relatively recent phenomenon. Bullying used to be seen as character forming or as an unstoppable part of childhood.
The extreme end of bullying is more severe now. And bullies have access to technology which extends the bullying from the school to the bullied person's wider life.
tl;dr yes, there is more awareness, and more reporting, and the bullying is worse, and more children choosing suicide.
I'm not against mechanically recovered meat. But I'd prefer children to get chunks of real meat cooked well than a squirt of slime and salt and flavourings in a crumb coating which is then fried and served with a sugary sauce. (ketchup, bbq, etc.) That combination of fat, salt, and sugar makes food "hyper palatable"[1] and, while much cheaper than "real" food contains little in the way of useful nutrition.
[1] Not my term. It's used to describe food where the balance of salt, sweet, and fat have been carefully balanced, and where the food is very easy to eat, because it's small or soft and easy to chew. See the progression from roast chicken, to deep fried chicken, to deep fried chicken with a salty coating and sauces, to "popcorn chicken" which are small chunks of meat, with a lot of fat-soaked salty coating.