RyanZAG

No, they certainly get the point. They just don't like it for political reasons. The downvotes are political, not because they don't understand the issues.

Not American and my culture is all about massive childbirth, but this sentiment seems strange to me. How does that solve the problem?

If your panda bears are failing to breed, surely the solution is not to just import grizzly bears and pretend the panda bears never existed there? I guess it's a type of solution to the problem of "lack of bears", but is it really a good thing?

No, you're completely politicizing an issue based on your warped world view. That's just as damaging as fake news.

Here's an article from 2014 discussing fake news: https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2014/08/30/large-the-intern...

Here's an article from 2011 discussing the measures taken against fake news (to little effect) since 2006: https://www.freepress.net/blog/11/12/21/truth-about-fake-new...

Probably not, but why is that so far fetched? They'd just need to be dissolving it with chemicals, backed up by a neural network to identify the sequence (rat's brain, anyone?). That's kind of how smell works in general to begin with.

As for why rats may develop the ability to sequence XX vs XY - if rats with the ability to do so were killed far less than those without, then rats would quickly evolve the ability to do so. This could happen if males were the ones killing rats and not females. Actually, skip the 'probably not' I began with - it's a perfectly likely explanation that may or may not be true based on further study.

What if it's just plain old XX vs XY chromosomes?

Surely it's better for the deaf people to have unlimited free video communication even if it is worse quality? I understand how it would be really bad for you trying to sell the superior service, but it should be about the desires of the deaf people at the end of the day. If they want superior quality that you can sell them, then they can just pay extra for it. Maybe free whatsapp is perfectly fine?

I don't understand. So you have no problem with those donations to foundations run by your political candidates?

Also while you stated that donations to political candidates is illegal, is it illegal to buy adverts for political candidates as a foreigner? I was under the impression it was not, but that adds an interesting twist. Who would be held guilty in this case? Would the USA government try to use extradition treaties to get a foreign national onto USA soil if they bought adverts for a candidate?

I've found that every message surrounding environmentalism from all angles - either for or against - is almost always propaganda. People without some sort of bone in the game have long since dropped out of the ironically toxic discussion. There's just too much money involved in it and no real desire for real discussion. Only zealotry remains.

The winning move is not to play.

So the difference for you is that Russians purchasing adverts is a hostile act, but Russians giving donations to organisations controlled by one of your politicians would not be a hostile act? I have to say I can't begin to understand this line of thinking - I'm guessing it may just be cultural differences though. Both actions are legal under your election laws though, correct?

As a non-American, I haven't understood why this issue is about Russians to start with. Aren't there many countries who donated large sums of money to American politics [1]? Also if Russian adverts are having such a huge effect on American politics, why are Russian adverts different to political adverts bought by non-Russians? Any advert is obviously bought with the intent to swing the election in favor of company purchasing that advert - likely for malicious intent by many.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clint...

I feel it's more a case of functional programming trying to target the wrong segment - albeit out of necessity.

There's two kinds of programs being made. First most common one is the kind you're talking about here: grunt work. It's not about the code, but more about having the code do a straight forward task with very flexible constraints. A web app that talks to a database and does a few simple transformations -- like forum software or a todo app.

The second type is the interesting one: actual difficult code that does something unique and difficult and can take years to write by very experienced developers. Usually the difficult part here is coming up with the correct algorithm and then applying it, often with performance considerations being extremely important as the code is doing a lot of work. An impressive new MMORPG game, a new rendering technique, complex simulations, control code for rockets or advanced batteries.

The big program with functional programming is that it's never been positioned as a solution to the second type. Generally people trying the second type are told to use C, C++ or recently, Rust. Functional programming is marketed as making the first type "better" because trying to market it as being more efficient than C/C++ has not worked as people rely on micro benchmarks for these decisions. But this falls apart with the argument you gave: for the first type, it's better to just hire more junior programmers as there's nothing really difficult involved. And using a functional language makes it extremely difficult to hire junior programmers, because functional languages are aimed at advanced programmers.

It's a massive product-market fit problem.

For profit corporations require that the senior employees they hire for impossibly high paychecks are constantly providing benefits that can be brought up in quarterly board meetings. This means taking an already functional product and making changes to it -- any change -- that can be spun as being a positive improvement worthy of a promotion.

Google Search is already where it should be. Yet Google Search employs thousands of incredibly expensive engineers. Something has to be done, and that "something" is rarely going to be good, and almost guaranteed to be something nobody actually wanted.

They want to slowly sell off their stock so as not to affect the price too much. If they sold nothing, they'd make no money off bitcoin and eventually when they did want to sell, the effect would be so huge as to crash the entire currency. So to maximize their return from their bitcoins, they need to constantly sell off bitcoins. Not too much to affect the price too badly, but not so little that they aren't cashing in appropriately on their investment.

Most of SO's operations are something I would not like to fund. I'd be happy to donate for their core service, but that's really only 10% or less of their headcount. Who funds the other 90% and why would they want to?

SO is too big to go for a Wikipedia style model unless they strip off just the core SO part and relevant engineers and make only that part donation based. And I'd guess the other 90% would end up in layoffs anyway.

CockroachDB supports the PostgreSQL wire protocol, but does it support JSONB and GIN indexes?

I don't know why either, but it seems almost impossible to do it by mistake? Which leaves doing it on purpose the more likely, but why he would do it on purpose is a mystery. As you say, it's bizarre.

Is it really the crowd becoming intelligent or stupid, or just that we are agreeing or disagreeing with the crowd and conflating that with the intelligence of the crowd?

As a quick test to try and determine this: try to think of occasions where you thought of a crowd as intelligent: did you agree or disagree with the crowd? Now try to think of occasions where you thought of a crowd as stupid: did you agree or disagree with the crowd?

If these questions are highly correlated, then you may not be measuring the intelligence of the crowd as much as you think you are. That we think of crowds in these two extremes is also a hint.

Might have wrote it that way to be deliberately confusing.

Where's the source for these numbers? Did the polls have similar number of respondents? If these were online polls, was one poll shared on certain internet groups and not the other?

Also the two statements are not the same thing. 'Right to vote' and 'Allowed to vote' are different. A useful follow up poll would be to gauge the percentage of people who believed that 16 year olds have a right to vote, but should also not be allowed to vote. I believe that number may be significant. You can think of it in terms of death row criminals: there is an argument that they have a right to life, but also that the victims have a right to justice. Which right is more important is not something everyone agrees on. That type of logic applies to the questions of voting too.

How much connection does it have to making the removal of adsense spam pages from Google's index a priority? I have a feeling it lowers that priority significantly, and if those pages were hurting Google's bottom line, it would be priority #1 for the company to remove them.

The conference itself doesn't have anything to do with "full stack programmers", so you can probably ignore the incorrect title change?

I don't understand how that applies to a minor political disagreement on which governmental level a police department should operate on.

Maybe I misunderstood this article as I'm not American, but I really couldn't see how this had anything to do with 'intellectual curiosity'. Can you explain it?

This post should get a reward for how relevant it is to HN.

Removed in 3..2..

That's correct. What this ranking is about is "world's most valuable passport for an individual who wishes to live and work in multiple countries around the world".

Still a valuable ranking, but it's a very specific one for a very specific type of person.

There's lots of talented writers doing high school essays - all the best writers that you have read wrote high school essays too.

Most supermarkets in other countries seem to manage deliveries and online ordering pretty well.

For example, all supermarkets in South Africa provide online ordering and delivery. Sometimes without even a delivery charge.

When you're building a 'tower', what is more important? The strange new hammers and screwdrivers you're using, or the architecture, algorithms and data structures?

Of course they can afford it. They choose not to.

$30 mil over 5 years is almost rounding error for UCSF.

Here's the public budget for UCSF : https://www.ucsf.edu/about/ucsf-budget

EDIT: With $1.3B of their income coming from government money, it seems pretty sleezy to turn around and send some of that income out of the country, especially when you have the slogan: "UC San Francisco is a thriving contributor to the local economy"

2 screens of 4k is not 8k though.

Add a down vote button so people can down vote the trolls. You'd see an enormous uptake in regular people using the service if every reply wasn't some random insult with a picture attachment of something disgusting.

Twitter is easily the most negative place on the internet, and that's including madness like the Something Awful forums or 4chan. A downvote option would hopefully push the constant arguments out of sight too.

> Thunderbird doesn't make money. Pocket makes money.

That's not the case anymore with this merger though, right? Pocket will now cease to make actual money.