And this is why we're still decades away from having mortgages denominated in bitcoin. :P

Did our ancestors imagine they were giving the Federal government the right to ban speech?

OF COURSE THEY DID. That's why several of the prominent political ones went to extra lengths in an attempt protect us from it, with their early amendments to the Constitution.

Yeah, I don't think it's ridiculously unreasonable that a site meant to host software projects has a requirement that hosted projects actually be software projects.

But it doesn't. "Meet the projects that prove GitHub is a collaboration tool for all stripes". Well, all stripes except for collaborative satire against the wrong group of people.

Well. Github's Terms of Service clearly identifies that "We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and Accounts containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable". I assume they used that discretion to find it either "offensive" or "otherwise objectionable". And clearly Github is well within their legal rights to take down this content.

But it does illustrate the limits of Github's commitment to freedom and openness: if it offends Github's staff, or if Github thinks it offends people who could get them in some level of trouble, they'll take down your content. So, you can still use Github as a platform to effect change in the world, but only insofar as Github&co agree with you.

It seems it was also too hot for Hacker News to discuss.

That's funny, I thought the remedy to unwanted speech is complaining a bunch and getting its hosting provider to shut it down.

Geez. You could buy an Aruba AP-93 Instant for that price, and it comes with a cone-antenna built in.

If you really wanted to build a high-speed rail system in a hurry and not deal with land issues, you'd piggyback on the right-of-way of (and possibly even steal some lanes from) a convenient interstate highway. (Not that this is zero-side-effect, of course.)

Except cost (and profitability, if you're a Republican and think it should be less subsidized than the roads).

A 29-hour coast-to-coast bullet train isn't competing with roads. It's competing with 5-hour coast-to-coast air travel. The unpleasantness and other limitations and subsidies of air travel notwithstanding, a bullet train which takes ~6x as long will also need to have a price-per-trip that's at least somewhat competitive with coast-to-coast air travel for most people to bother considering it.

Notably, the extant US passenger rail system is not very competitive with air travel on most routes outside of the Boston-Washington corridor.

Legally it's Menlo Park, but that's just because of the gerrymandering. If you'd asked me, I'd say Facebook HQ is in East Palo Alto, a high-crime/low-income area that most people in the area know only by its IKEA. Between the safety and the paucity of relevant local stores/services/etc, it's not exactly the number one place you'd choose to live. (That said, if you're over there, try some Jamaican food at Back-a-yard.)

They've also got Fremont nearbyish (across the bridge) - it's reasonably affordable for the area, but it's all sprawling-suburbs and is very quiet. Palo Alto is the next town over the freeway; if you don't mind fighting rush-hour traffic for half an hour to go a few miles, it's probably the most interesting place to live. Menlo Park proper has limited housing stocks. Atherton is even worse (it's a series of sprawling mansions, though a pleasant drive).

If living near work keeps some employees sane, these apartments will be a godsend. Of course, the real question is "why did facebook put its headquarters in the armpit of the Bay?"

I'm in Brooklyn now. Subway to work. :D

Here you go.

"This is a pure case of upstarts rather than entrenched interests with political connections in California finding a way to make a profit and the state can't allow that."

Adjusted that FTFY of yours for you. (Because there are a few notable non-corporate examples from time to time.)

I'll tell you WTF. The primary party injured by the trades and the coverup? The owners of the company stock, investors, retirement funds, etc - people who are being misled by company executives. The people who end up paying this fine? The same people, the owners of the stock. That doesn't sound a little "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" of a premise to you at all?

Besides which, I'm calling for being dubious of the regulators in addition to banks, not instead of the banks. :P

JP Morgan Chase lost about $7.2 billion dollars trading bonds (with its own private money, mind you, not depositors' money or anything). Then the feds decided this was bad and that they should fine them an extra $800 million. Even the Brits are dubious, suspecting that it's really because Chase has been publicly complaining about the feds and wondering when exactly it became a crime to lose money...

So if you want a laugh, sure, you can choose the popular-screed opinion du jour where banks are the bad guys. But I'd say, why limit your targets like that? We can be cynical about banks and regulators!! :P