gambiter

The criminal justice system determines if the accused is innocent. The arrest is a separate action.

In fact, if you are convinced that is IS a wrongful arrest, you may legally resist arrest, tell the officer, and he is supposed to let you present evidence of your innocence. However, it doesn't HAVE to be claimed at the time of arrest.

I was curious in OP's case because of the "no charges filed and case rejected for lack of any evidence at all" line. It seems to me, that would be enough reason to claim wrongful arrest and at least get compensation for the bail bond.

I'm curious... in a situation like this, could you sue for wrongful arrest?

> The "forced" you so easily dismiss is entirely the point.

I think it's you that missed my point.

> people choose when (and if) they upgrade, for a variety of complex reasons

If they're running Gentoo, or maybe a small group of other distros, sure. Otherwise, people (on all operating systems) don't really do a lot of choosing at all. If updates are available, they generally run them. The only picking and choosing I've ever seen from the vast majority of people (including technical folks) is if they don't have the bandwidth/time to update a particularly large piece of software at the moment. Of course, they'll update it later when they are able.

> The problem of inspecting the code itself is a separate issue entirely, though at least in the area of Free Software that inspection is possible

Yes, it's possible, but it isn't done in practice, which is why I said it. That's the reason I said it's 'basically the same thing'. Whether you receive updates automatically or choose when to download them, you are still accepting what the distribution method gives you. There are FAR too many software packages out there for the average person to work out the logistics of reading accounts from early adopters of every single point release.

> Now you're simply resorting to either insults (and/or wilful ignorance).

It's not an insult. It's a factual statement. You claimed in your comment that a multi-billion dollar corporation who has a vested interest in keeping the good will of their customers (some of whom are corporate, some government, but the vast majority are consumers who look to them for help) would willfully send compromised software through forced updates in the future. If that isn't a conspiracy theory, I'd love to know what is.

Then, why do warrants exist? For that matter, why have a police force at all? According to your argument, locking up a percentage of the population doesn't make sense, so let's just let everyone do whatever they want, amirite?

> That's what it may be sending today. What about next month after one of the forced automatic updates?

You mean, like this?

# apt-get update && apt-get upgrade

Granted, running that isn't 'forced', but given that OSS users don't _actually_ analyze the code in their software, it's basically the same thing.

There's always a chance of something being slipped in later, no matter what OS you're on. Rampant paranoia and conspiracy theorizing does no one any good.

I really truly don't understand why people this this is an ethical issue at all.

I personally own 12 personal domains, all for various content that I personally put up. Some blogs, some game servers, etc, etc. I don't charge for my content, and I don't advertise. I'm not in it to make money, I'm in it to share things with people, and I do it all out of my own wallet.

Why is there this assumption that all content needs to be subsidized by the readers? I mean, I get it... there's certainly value in compensating content producers for their time, and even allowing them to do it full time... but there is SO much content out there that is basically put up out of the goodness of the creators' hearts. Why can't we keep it that way?

Did you read my comment? Because, I explained this already.

'I can't really explain this through text though, so I'll give you a better explanation when I see you this evening.'

While I'm not explicitly saying I know you in real life in the previous sentence, one could certainly make that inference. And then when someone calls me a liar, all I have to say is, "Listen very carefully, I never said I knew ddingus."

The very nature of an implication is that you aren't explicitly saying something, but rather are phrasing it in a way so that another person would be led into thinking something else. That's what Feynman did.

But that's not entirely true. The fact is we DON'T actually know. There are working theories, but none of them truly explain things, which is another way of saying "we don't know." Instead of saying that, however, his explanation implies that HE knows, but everyone else is essentially too dumb to understand.

So no, it wasn't an entirely factual statement. A factual statement would have admitted that no one, including the leading theorists, actually understands the physical reason for magnetic attraction and repulsion.

I don't really understand all of the comments that are trying to argue with you. I personally agree, he WAS acting like a jerk at that moment. If it was anyone else, people would be very annoyed at the person arguing semantics when the meaning of the question was quite clear. But for some reason, since it's Feynman, people are acting as if he's somehow above reproach. As the interviewer stated, "It's a perfectly reasonable question."

But beyond the semantic argument he is making, I think the even greater issue is the lack of humility he is showing. In the writeup on the site they explain, "Feynman admits that it's actually an excellent question, but one he simply cannot answer in terms that a layperson can understand." But of course, that isn't true. The truth is that he doesn't have an answer, but he's choosing not to admit it.

In the end he says, "I really can't do a good job... any job... of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else that you're more familiar with because I don't understand it in terms of anything else that you're more familiar with." That's the closest he comes to actually making a humble statement, yet it's phrased in such a way that it seems like he's blaming the interviewer for not being capable of understanding.

The trajectory of the bullet generally doesn't matter with city ordinances. If you don't have a reason to be using the deadly weapon (self-defense) you generally aren't allowed to use it in a populated area.

I had a neighbor who was shooting his assault rifle into the ground in his back yard (a typical suburban neighborhood). After a few shots, the police were called, and they showed up with an entire SWAT team. Confiscated his weapons and threw him in jail for a couple days. He wasn't waving it around, and wasn't threatening anyone. It was only 3 rounds, actually, but it was enough.

How do you think your computer can understand 'entering an appointment'?

There's a lot more that goes into understanding than JUST speech recognition. First of all, speech recognition by itself isn't exactly trivial, and that's become more and more obvious as we've seen the smallest accent mess with the digital assistants on all the major phones. Yes, technically, Dragon Naturally Speaking existed a decade ago and worked somewhat, but needed a LOT of training, and was dumb as a brick. It doesn't compare.

But beyond that, understanding the meaning of the spoken word is difficult too. Yes, NLTs exist, and they can be very good, but you really need something that a team is administering. They can identify pain points and do regular updates to help... things like an odd band name that is ALWAYS misunderstood, some odd combination of words that confuses a question with a 911 call, etc., otherwise you're just going to end up frustrated.

I should also mention that a digital assistant really needs the power of a full search engine behind it. This allows for auto-correction of mispronounced words, but it also allows near-instant lookups for relevant information. If this was running on your local machine, not only will the processing be slow for some things, it will also be more limited in it's ability to fully process all possible meanings, and it will need to be updated CONSTANTLY.

These companies, by putting the language processing in the cloud, are throwing teams and hardware at the problem, and yet they STILL have embarrassing difficulties when it comes to actually understanding sometimes. Consider that for a moment... hundreds, even thousands of servers running the latest software for processing natural language for multi-millions of people aren't capable of getting your meaning 100% of the time.

Incidentally, I realize that there some open source projects out there that do some rudimentary voice recognition and processing, however they suffer from the same issues addressed above and are MUCH more limited in many many ways. Many of them still make use of cloud-based services for processing the audio, btw. The one advantage, I will say, is that you have to ability to add your own custom commands and actions, which the major systems obviously don't allow.

You realize the 'personal assistant' functionality of today is slightly more complex than just speech recognition, right? Because, it is.

Can you really call a discussion about ingredients which have been studied/discussed for decades a 'fad'?

I think the main point is that there is A LOT of misinformation out there, and people have made up their minds on things without adequate evidence. Anti-vaxxers are (rightly) lambasted for this... IMO, anyone who makes public statements about nutrition without doing adequate research deserves the same.

Articles like this one are important. Even though it still has some opinion sprinkled in, it has a lot of links to evidence, and that is what people really need.

Am I the only one that got tripped up by the wording of the second question? My immediate thought was, "Does that mean five minutes EACH or five minutes TOTAL?"

Without a clear question, my brain refused to give an answer, so I got it wrong. It annoys me that it is presented without enough information and then you're told, "Your intuition is not as good as you think it is."

1 and 3 were fun though.

This is intended as a 'piano tab'. If you can sight read, you already have music. Those of us who don't know how to read music would benefit.

I'll admit I've been out of the field for a long time... I sort of cut ties and haven't read up on the latest tech in probably 15 years. Your point about missiles receiving mid-course updates is very interesting, though. I have a couple of questions...

Has any (unclassified) work been done on rear-mounted weaponry? I mean, if missiles can have modern CPUs and targeting software, can't the countermeasures have those as well? It seems like accurate, rear-mounted, auto-targeting machine guns (or heck, lasers for all I know) could still be an effective countermeasure, especially if you're in the position of trying to outrun one. That is to say, rather than trying to outmaneuver, outrunning would take you on a straight path, which would put the missile on a more-or-less straight path behind you until it hits. It seems like this is the perfect scenario for auto-targeting defensive cannons.

A lot of the comments here seem to be focusing on the definition of 'person'. The fact is, 'person' has always been a species-ambiguous term. Anything that exhibits 'personality' is a person, by some definitions.

That said, I get some very strange vibes from the way this article is written, especially give the subtitle that humans may not be superior. Some choice quotes:

>> Orcas, with their big brains, complex social structures, mysterious communications, and mind-boggling sixth sense, by their very existence, challenge the long-standing belief that human beings are the planet’s only intelligent occupants

"by their very existence, challenge the long-standing belief"... really? Why are any of these a true measure of intelligence?

>> Social life for killer whales, as we have seen, is deeper and more omnipresent than it is for humans

This is supposition, at best.

>> If orcas have established empathy as a distinctive evolutionary advantage, it might behoove a human race awash in war and psychopathy to pay attention.

Let's just ignore the way they can turn on one another and fight against other pods. Not to mention the truly brutal ways they hunt other species. So they show what we perceive as empathy. Let's apply that idea across all Orcas as if it were a rule, and then compare it to the worst humans in existence. Great.

>> The ability to experience positive emotions, like love and attachment, would mean that dogs have a level of sentience comparable to that of a human child

This is used as supporting proof, but when read by itself seems more like someone pointing out the obvious flaw of anthropomorphizing the actions of animals.

>> The “social cognition” that arises from this kind of richly shared experience of the world would even lead to a different sense of self than humans experience [...] The communal experience might actually change the boundaries of the self to include several individuals [...] This clearly indicates that dolphins—and particularly killer whales [...] have powerful emotional and empathic connection

So we're jumping from 'could and might' to saying the evidence 'clearly indicates' something?

I'm not trying to be overly negative, this article just strikes me as someone who is trying to twist what we know to suit their own agenda.

> I did the same until I got a safety razor and found some good blades. > Smoothest shave of my life

I have an honest opinion about that... I've done the disposable refills most of my life, but recently was balking at the amount of money I was spending. Did a lot of research, and decided to give a good electric a try. I'm rocking the Braun 790cc. It's actually a great shaver, and in the last year it's cost very little to maintain. Even buying cleaner cartridges and replacement heads periodically, it's MUCH cheaper than disposable blades.

Problem is, the electric DEFINITELY doesn't shave as close. I totally can tell... the few times I've switched it up and used a blade again, the difference is incredible. That said, I am a white guy with very dark, dense stubble. No matter how close I shave, you can still see my beard line. It's Homer Simpson syndrome.

So I'm left thinking in the end that if the electric shaves close enough that I don't look unshaven, it's good enough. Basically, when I get formal in the evening, I just do a quick followup shave with the electric to make sure I'm 'presentable', and I've never had an issue.

You seem to be missing the point. I'm saying there's literally NO application that claims 'unlimited' that doesn't actually have SOME limit. There are always going to be technical limitations. Even if it's unlimited in practice (as in, no customer will ever reach the limit we've set) there is going to be SOME limit.

Marketing materials are designed to show the intended audience how they may use something. Slack was created for use by teams, teams that know each other and that need to collaborate. Within that context, a limit of 10000 users is pretty reasonable because it IS 'unlimited' for their target audience who will never need 10000 accounts.

Again, the sailboat analogy. I was sold on my sailboat being 'seaworthy'. Does that mean it can literally handle anything the sea throws at it? No. It's a label used to show the target audience how they may use it. If I choose to sail into conditions it wasn't designed to handle, it isn't the builder's fault, it's mine.

Heh, I was sort of wrapping all of the negative comments I've seen (HN and otherwise) into a singular reply.

Most 'unlimited' things still have some max. Using a BIGINT for your primary key will get you a max of 18446744073709551615. Should we complain that we can't go higher in any application that uses one of these?

Slack's advertisement for unlimited users was based on their product's design. Their hard limit is perfectly reasonable because the interface wasn't really designed to handle 10k users in the first place.

To complain about this is like buying a sailboat and complaining when you sail it into a hurricane.

> Big online courses, for example, routinely draw 100,000s of students, and might make the same mistake we did (Harvard's CS50 class did).

Why would you think all 100,000 of those students would need access to each other through a collaboration tool like Slack?

This is the question all of the detractors need to ask themselves.

Honestly, when I first heard of the story (word of mouth) I immediately thought she was not understanding how it really worked. I had flashbacks to Metallica resisting streaming because they just didn't understand it. I thought there was no way Apple _actually_ wouldn't pay artists during those three months, so I dismissed it.

Then I realized she was right.

I wouldn't say I'm a Taylor Swift fan (at best, some of her music is fun to listen to with my teenaged niece) but the amount of ire some people have for a pretty person is just astounding. Yes, she's pretty. Yes, she sings about things that tend to be targeted at teens, especially girls. But those points don't change anything.

The letter accurately said, "These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child." I have no idea how many people are behind her persona (I would guess it takes the equivalent of a small town) but I bet some of them had a stake in helping craft the letter. This was a business-to-business correspondence, even if it was written 'as a girl'.

At the worst, she's a logo for a company. At the best, she's actually got a pretty solid sense of business. Either way, she has a right to use her persona to make money.

Except, nearly the entire article is based on speculation. Speculation doesn't raise awareness, it simply makes you think you're informed. In reality, you're just accepting someone else's biased opinions.

> > If doctors and professionals are using BMI blindly

> They aren't.

I see, I misread your original comment. The phrasing just threw me.

> How can the results be skewed if they are straightforward math from the body mass (independently of it being mostly lean or fat)?

That's splitting hairs. I think you knew I meant interpretation.

> this is not a problem with the indicator, nor the . It's a problem with (lack of) honesty.

In fact, it IS a problem with the indicator, because it's being used as basis for large decisions, and it has the backing of the medical industry in spite of it's limitations.

You conveniently skipped over the other issues I mentioned.

> people who really should look at BMI for their job (i.e. doctors an nutrition professionals) are aware of its shortcomings.

You yourself admit that it has shortcomings, but then defend it as what... 'better than nothing'? There are many examples if BMI being used incorrectly by those 'nutrition professionals', so it's hard to see your side of the argument.

> We shouldn't assume other professionals are "dumb"; we shouldn't assume that we are a brilliant bunch, capable of seeing beyond an indicator, while doctors and nutrition professionals use them blindly.

Um... what? If doctors and professionals are using BMI blindly, that absolutely classifies their opinion as 'dumb'.

The fact is, 'boring' or not, the calculations for BMI most definitely give you skewed results because it doesn't consider muscle mass. As has already been pointed out, this classifies athletes as obese very easily.

This isn't just a 'woe is me' from athletes. It could have real-world implications.

1) What happens when they want to get life insurance, the company blindly calculates their BMI based on height/weight, and classifies them as obese? Tada: Higher premiums.

2) What happens when a self-conscious teenage girl who's very fit and active realizes she's 'overweight' without realizing it's muscle mass causing it? Agree or not, this scenario is a real one and could cause her to eat less, thus depriving her body of the nutrition that she needs.

3) While on the subject of kids... blindly following BMI rules and enforcing standards based on them, schools basically assume that every kid of overweight. As a parent with a child who fluctuates between normal and underweight, it baffles me that he's actively encouraged to eat low calorie meals.

The criticism of BMI is there precisely because it doesn't apply in a large portion of cases. The 'obesity epidemic' doesn't excuse it. It's irresponsible from a healthcare standpoint, and these people are being called out.

I hate to show my ignorance, but why the focus on binary trees? I've been programming for decades, but there are plenty of things I've never touched because I just didn't have a need in the particular job. Binary trees are one of those things.

What I mean to say is, I have tended to use existing libraries that might make use of binary trees, but that I have never had to print or modify them. If modification is necessary, it's always through the library. So while I understand the basic concepts, I'm having trouble understanding why it would be a useful interview question.

Do developers at Google and Microsoft actually manipulate binary trees on a daily basis? Like, ALL of them? I can understand that they would be a common thing in the bowels of some code, but surely not all developers in either company would run into them on a regular basis?

The problem is, it's not a full sandbox, because all of the containers are running on the same kernel, and are capable of influencing the others, at least indirectly.

I have trouble with the idea of calling them 'the future'. So far, I haven't seen a REAL reason to use docker in a production environment.

125.1 seconds.

It took me a bit to understand the problem. I'm not sure if it was explained oddly, or if I was just speed reading. Once I figured out the goal, though, I just used patterns to make it work. Horizontal, Vertical, Diagonal to the lower right, Diagonal to the lower left.

I thought personal attacks weren't allowed on HN?

EDIT: And apparently calling you out on it leads to immediate downvotes. Wow, this really is turning into reddit.