mattraibert

Hover the top nav. Under "CI Runners" it's says:

macOS Runners Apple Silicon and Intel support

Here's an alternate write up: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/02/science/sparrow-bird-song...

It even has audio clips of the two melodies.

A 2x4 is cut to 2" by 4" wet and shrinks when it is dried. I'm no huge fan, but this is not an issue with the imperial system.

Here is a working link that contains all the the info parent cites:

http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/WSJ.com%20Au...

Also, this is the _actual_ audience not their _target_ audience.

It's true that it indicates quality, but I suspect it also indicates the exceptional wealth of WSJ's readership.

In case you're curious, this is often called rubber-hose cryptanalysis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis

Maybe a bit off topic but reading this brought me back to the early nineties when I first got a copy of SimAnt. The instruction manual was filled with information about ants. I remember staying up all night reading about these amazing creatures!

Actually, looks like you could leave pinging on and Heroku will just force "exhausted" free dynos to sleep after 18 hours:

"During the beta period you’ll only get an informational email. In the future, we will force exhausted apps to sleep until they have been idle for at least six hours of the past twenty-four hours." -https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/dyno-types#dyno-sleepi...

> the cant-shout-fire-in-a-crowded-theater chestnut.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater has been protected speech since 1969:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time....

> In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

Speaking of fare-evasion, try viewing the article in private-browsing/incognito mode.

There are days when I could write this comment.

But what you describe does not sound like an honest or clear assessment of the world. It sounds more like depression. Which is real and serious and treatable.

The world is often tragic. It <em>is</em> wrong to live comfortably and be willfully ignorant to tragedy, but it is not wrong to take care of yourself and make yourself whole. So, yes, seek something meaningful to make the world better, and start by taking care of yourself.

>the famous adage of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...

> In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).

The real Hacker News in this article is how you've hacked the NYTimes to promote HireArt. I'd love to hear more about how you did it.

I appreciate this comment. You're taking a real risk in articulating your point of view on a very complicated issue. And it's helpful that your point of view is shared by many people in our community. I'm not going to explicitly address your question, but rather I'm going to try to explain what I think privilege means.

As a disclaimer, I'm a programmer, and neither a feminist thinker nor a writer. I'm writing this as an ally. I also have quite a bit of privilege myself. So forgive me (and call me out) if don't make sense or sound ignorant or condescending.

I think you're saying that when someone says, "you have male-privilege," you hear "life must be easy for you." Privilege doesn't mean that you don't also suffer from other forms oppression or discrimination, and it definitely doesn't mean that you have it easy. You mention that you are discriminated against because you are "fat and ugly." It sounds like you've suffered from very real oppression -- every bit as legitimate as the OP's story.

I feel that part of the misunderstanding comes from the difference between the common and jargon meanings. In this context, "privilege" is a jargon word coming from feminist and social justice philosophy.

In common speech, if I say someone is privileged, the implication is that this person is well-off in some way. I imagine a person with money and political influence -- someone who has benefited wildly from their privilege. But in the jargon, it refers to "a set of opportunities, benefits and advantages that some people get and others don’t." (definition quoted from the blog post linked below) Someone recently told me the story of a black stock-trader who noticed he was being passed up for job promotions. When he investigated, he found that his white colleagues were playing golf together -- and becoming friends -- at an all-white country club. The bosses were not intentionally promoting white employees, but, because of the racist policies of an unrelated institution, the white traders got the privilege to build these friendships with their superiors.

I found this blog post really helpful. It gives a very non-judgemental and helpful introduction to privilege: https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/37/

Here's an excerpt:

"Having privilege isn’t something you can usually change, but that’s okay, because it’s not something you should be ashamed of, or feel bad about. Being told you have privilege, or that you’re privileged, isn’t an insult. It’s a reminder! The key to privilege isn’t worrying about having it, or trying to deny it, or apologize for it, or get rid of it. It’s just paying attention to it, and knowing what it means for you and the people around you. Having privilege is like having big feet. No one hates you for having big feet! They just want you to remember to be careful where you walk."

I hope this helps.

This seems like a non-sequitur. The gp's criticism was that the article doesn't cite any evidence for the model, which he does.

Besides, he doesn't "fudge" V. He shows evidence: that violent crime decreased over the relevant period and argues that less violent crime implies lower average tendency to violence (V).

I read it that way at first too. But if you read a little further, the article centers on providing evidence for the model. Specifically he shows evidence that a a state with higher G has linearly higher D (which is exactly what the model states).

I think leaving breadcrumbs for yourself can be a great way to reduce friction. The challenge for me has been when I wake up and I find that I've left myself a bunch of breadcrumbs for several different tasks.

This article got me thinking about places in my life where there's friction. My computer stands out as a huge source of friction. I already try to close unnecessary windows/tabs, but after reading this, I realized that, because I use it for so many different habits, my desktop fails as a friction free starting point for work.

So I've identified a few ways I use my computer and I'm setting up a user account for each one:

  * coding in Ruby
  * coding in Java for work
  * blogs and email (and hacker news)
  * personal and household maintenance

This way I can tune each desktop to the appropriate kind of work. I can eliminate clutter in the dock. I can leave the appropriate windows open without it distracting me when it's time to do something else.

If it goes well, I'll try to write it up in a blog post.

It might help if you would explain how you think this juror indicates to you that the jury was well informed. When I read this I definitely do not see what you see. Here, I'll break down what I see when I read this:

He begins by saying that 'interchangeable' is most important element to determining prior art: "more importantly, it had to be interchangeable". Then he moves on to explain that "the key [to determining if something is interchangeable] was that the hardware was different ... and more modern software could not be loaded ... and run without error." In other words, if the code doesn't run on the old hardware, then it's not interchangeable and therefore not prior art.

Then, in one of the paragraphs that you brought in, he indicates that he's summarizing and repeat ("the 40,000 foot-level"). He says that the "methodology" was different. Here he uses "method" or "methodology" to mean code. You can see this in this quote from elsewhere in the interview: "when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same" and this one: "you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work". So again, he's saying that if you can't load the new code on the old machine, you don't have prior art.

It appears to me, from your quote and from the article, that he believes that running new code on an old device is "the key" to determining prior art. Is this the informed position you're talking about?

Actually your "side" never cited a source. Again, looking at your comment history, I see you telling a lot of vague stories and criticizing other people's sources, but you never provide a single source of your own. In your entire history, you reference exactly two distinct urls neither of which has any salary or benefits information at all.

Multiple times in this thread and others, you link to a list of large government contracting companies: http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2011....

And then, a long time ago, you linked to a dice posting in order to ridicule it:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3072172

> 5 years experience with SQL Server 2008

> http://seeker.dice.com/jobsearch/servlet/JobSearch?op=302...

If your job is as bad as you seem to imply, then I certainly hope you heed people's advice and find another. But I'm beginning to suspect that you're being intentionally misleading for some other purpose.