jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
Though I'm reluctant to play the Zune card, I've been impressed at the support Microsoft has continued to give even the first generation devices released in 2006. That my wife's Zune will continue to get software updates wile my original iPhone is now frozen in time is a little sad - as is the fact that her Zune does wifi sync and FM radio.

OSX Snow Leopard only supports Intel processors (2006), Leopard only supports G4s @ > 867mhz (unless you hack around). I've installed Win7 on computers from 2001 with no hassle, and with improved performance over Windows XP (let alone Vista)

I really do like my iPhone, but it definitely feels like the software shortcomings have been forced by Apple - sort of like how my phone's hardware is perfectly capable of MMS, but official software won't allow it. My phone records video quite nicely with Cycorder, but I'd have to purchase a third party app that functions at a fraction of Cycorder's quality if I stuck with official updates. And now I don't even get to try the new OS unless I upgrade.

It's still a very capable device though, and I'm more than capable of deciding not to upgrade my phone hardware until my current phone hardware ceases to function as designed.
Oh, shit. Guess I am in trouble now. Posted this about a week ago in an unrelated copyright violation: http://codercofounder.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/product-manag...
I've had a hard time making up my mind with generics vs interface in go, but i think now that any compelling argument should be made using real world problem from a real world project.

Nobody is coding the sum of a list of integers for all the various integer types. People more likely use custom types anyway, and only have to create operations on those custom types ( except maybe for go language designers themselves). So there's always a suspicion that somehow there should be a way to code something clean using interfaces only.
Jealousy, for the most part.

Now that I've stopped using it I find that I'm in a better, more stable mood throughout the day. Not being reminded of my inferiority means I find I can concentrate better on self-improvement i.e. the things I should be doing if I want to be as successful as these people I'm so jealous of.
PUT and PATCH on track? I'm going to have to look into that. I had no idea progress was being made there, and i thought PUT and DELETE were basically dead.. atleast, in hopes of browsers being able to use them.
Err, seems like your splitting hairs: "If you're looking for an hourly rate or a salary before funding, you've missed the point." insinuates exactly that. I for one don't see "very much" being offered here.

Edit: ...do you?
No you're not missing anything, but its worth noting that people are willing to risk death for financial reward. For example: colonists.
How are you getting 1:10 LOC ratio over C++? My Python code would be at most 3 times more dense than C++. C++ has some very expressive high level constructs (template tricks mostly), please do not put it into the same bin with Java. And even Java gets less verbose with annotations.
When an XMPP solution that's as easy to use as Skype comes out I'll be all for this. As it stands, even Google's video chat is much more difficult for end-users to install and use.

I used to use Ekiga for video chat and it was much shoddier than Skype, constantly dropping calls, refusing to release the audio or video device so that we couldn't call back, and other serious bugs. Skype "just works".

I really hope that someone comes up with a decent free software competitor, but it doesn't really exist at this point. The fastest way to solve this problem would be for Skype to become free software.
http://code.google.com/p/pywebkitgtk/
Tell that to "flammable" and "inflammable": http://www.write101.com/W.Tips215.htm
(The evocative pair here being "reversible" and "irreversible")

Technically, when talking about language, throw all your rules and logic out the window. :)
Most software companies end up having at least one person who prototypes or produces proof of concepts. Some have entire teams that prototype (at the behest of the technical pre-sales guys).

The ability to rapidly prototype ideas is extremely valuable. For many early stage founders, a proof of concept is more valuable than a well engineered core product. The PoC gets them the funding, or the first customers.

For most people who have an idea, the PoC should come first, as suggested by the OP. I will agree that there are very few people that can write a PoC with production worthy code. They are real superstars.

Many engineers will knock together PoC before starting to write the main product. When I start out doing that, it's disposable. You throw it away.

Thanks for this guys. I really need to do a PoC so I can recruit some buddies to my idea.
Looks like Nuxt/Vue sitting on S3 with CloudFront as CDN. Presumably with some script on the backend to update the list of Tweets on S3.

/vaguely informed guessing
Maybe you could start a gofundme
Entertain me then, why do you need to look at it?
You’re free to use a system that has orders of propositions, and I’m sure there are interesting things to be said about systems with such orders. (The set theory of NFU seems rather appealing, and stratified formulas seem somewhat analogous.)

(And yes, if you restrict what a system can do, it is possible to produce a system which can, in a sense, prove its own consistency. Dan Willard produced one such system. It has subtraction and division as fundamental rather than addition and multiplication.)

However, a theory is not required to have orders of propositions (Or, perhaps you might prefer saying this as “A theory can have all of its propositions be if the same order”?).

Furthermore, in a formal system modeling the mathematical properties of a syntactical system (as in, a set of rules describing allowed transformations on some strings), this also does not require having multiple orders of propositions.

And modeling what things are provable in a given formal system, is just that same kind of thing.

So, when describing in a formal system which well-formed-formulas can be derived within that system, it is not necessary (in the sense of “you don’t have to do it.”) to use multiple orders of propositions.

(Of course, in any formal proof of a wff which we interpret as having a meaning, there is perhaps a kind of gap between the string of characters which is provable within the system, and the thing which we interpret it to mean. However, if the system is sound with respect to our interpretation of it, then the things it proves will, under that interpretation of the system, correspond to a meaning which is true.
As such, it is usually safe to elide the distinction between “the string corresponding to this proposition is derivable in this formal system” and “this system proves this proposition” (where “this proposition” is taken to refer to some meaning).

When interpreting statements made in a system “about” that system, there are kind of two levels of interpretation, kinda-sorta. First, when we interpret a proof within the system that some statement(s) is(are) (not) provable in the system, we first have to interpret the string we have derived as corresponding to the meaning of a claim about the system, namely, a claim about what strings can be derived in the system. At that point, we also interpret what those strings that we interpret the first string as referring to, would mean.
This can perhaps sometimes be a little confusing.
Keeping this distinction in mind should make it clear why there is no need for orders of propositions when dealing with a system referring to what it can and can’t prove.)
You are spot on here with this assessment. It would be far cheaper to buy busses for these people back to where they came from to live the lower COL life they can actually survive in.
Not sure I am following you: why shouldn't we use cache?
Thank you (and the sibling) for the explanation, sounds useful!
Are you sure? Which distros ship with Linux lockdown by default? I was under the impression it was a niche security feature.
The problem with that is that it doesn't work. People will buy the cheap broken hardware and then complain that Linux doesn't work. That's basically how it is already.

I'm pretty certain ACPI is supposed to be at least one part of such a "hardware state layer" already, but as far as I know broken implementations are more common than functional ones.
lol i was thinking the same thing

would make for a hilarious music video
Yeah, as a pure anecdote, I got the vaccine and am just now getting over a brutal case of the flu. My doctor said he's been seeing tons of people in the same boat this year. Bummer.
> So it does provide practical protection to use NAT in that you've reduced the set of valid attackers from "anyone on the Internet" to "people with the ability to affect the upstream router in my ISP"

Except it really doesn't because you haven't?

There are two practically relevant circumstances where the statement "NAT provides security" is made:

1. With regards to real-world home routers (which also come with a stateful firewall), in which case the statement is simply false: Adding or removing NAT makes no difference whatsoever for security. This is also the scenario that then is used to argue against IPv6, because IPv6 supposedly lacks this security, when it just doesn't, because the IPv6 router also comes with a stateful firewall, and adding NAT (or disabling IPv6 because of a "lack of NAT") achieves absolutely nothing security-wise, because there is no problem in the first place.

2. By people who falsely believe that NAT does in fact prevent all inbound connections and for that reason fail to configure the necessary firewall rules on more business-oriented routers, so the belief that "NAT provides security" keeps them from actually securing their network, and that in particular in scenarios where it is much more relevant than for your typical home user.

So, it is technically true that NAT could have security-enhancing effects under artificial circumstances. But under all real circumstances, it either just doesn't, or the belief that it has is what causes the configuration to be less secure than it easily could be, if only people didn't have the completely not-understood belief that "NAT provides security".
My first question I couldn't find answered easily is "How does it work", e.g. "How does it maintain the connection?

The answer so far is that it does require you to install ET on the server too, along with the client. And then I searched github for "multiplex" thinking maybe it uses TCP multiplexing. And found a branch named "multiplex". Then I realized the Linux feature I was thinking of is actually called TCP Multipath, searched for it and no go. So I can only say that it _seems_ that it is _not_ using TCP Multipath for maintaining the connection over multiple connection drops.

Would love a more technical "How" here.
I did one too -- https://github.com/edoceo/httpubsub
Egoism frames this in such a way where the second set of "bad" traits are the authentic human traits, namely self-interest. The "good" traits are then secondary, a means to an end. E.g. we are honest and don't steal because the legal and social consequences are not worth it. We see the path to a life where we best get what we want as the one where we cooperate with others. This could explain Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of markets, where everyone acts in their own self-interest, but the whole prospers as a result.
This is an excellent question!

When it comes to a web "interaction" there's a ton of differences depending on the job at-hand. If it's jumping on a Nike drop you're not going to run into those sort of methods where-as if it's scraping hundreds of thousands of SKUs there's a huge chance you will.

When a human opens a "conversation" with a website usually it's for a specific action which is a small burst of data, ie: looking at a few products on Amazon. So as long as you can design your bot's "conversation" with said website in the same way you can totally bypass ML detection (and everything else for that matter).

Basically if you think of ALL of the unique variables that are happening back and forth in that conversation it's a finite list. If you can check off each and every one of those you can get past anti-bot measures no-problemo, it's just a matter of budget/time. ML can HELP to identify bot traffic, but if you're sending perfect headers/traffic/browser metrics/CC numbers/shipping addresses (this list gets long) you're still going to squeak by with an acceptable risk score without a problem. The other thing is going raw-HTTP request often bypasses almost all of that crap, way more than one would think! I will often get "fingerprinted" with a very valid browser, then continue my work after treating their site as an API; ie: talking directly to the backend (or rendered HTML page) and no one else.

The #1 thing I'd say where bot classification works is network reputation... so I use services that allow me to proxy-out to VERY reputable networks that are actually business/residential ISP connections. This lets me get past the majority of countermeasures because if they start blocking those sort of IP addresses/ranges they're going to block real users at some point. Unfortunately, highly reputable proxy services do cost money - but for someone who does this professionally it's all about budgeting etc.

To implement these systems well takes a really keen implementation between your front-end and back-end and most companies (even the big ones) don't have the development sophistication to pull it off. Those that do are just more expensive because you'll be bouncing around between 40 different "origins" with unique browser profiles.

Sorry for the essay =)
> The lawsuit is in relation to some Ohio law that says vendors can't sell to insolvent or nearly-insolvent firms, claiming that somehow Facebook should have known ECOT had no money.

Simple solution: If you're buying ad inventory in Ohio, Facebook should ask you to check a box that confirms you're not insolvent.

Had they done that, they'd have a pretty good ass-cover for this kind of lawsuit. "We didn't ask" is not a great defense. "They defrauded us" is a much better one.

Each state has its own laws, much like how each country has its own laws. It's on a multinational company to comply with all of them... Or not do business.
And the kicker I'd like to add to the conversation is, 'who's morals are more moral than the others?'
Microcenter is pretty awesome (has its flaws but it's basically what I always wished Best Buy and the like could be.

It ain't gonna happen but Microcenter doesn't have locations in many areas so I'd love it if they bought up a bunch of the little Radio Shacks and turned them into spinoff/satellite "Nanocenters" or some such. Maybe just stock the small stuff (hobbyist electronics and other things that don't take up a load of space) and rotate in the most popular/in-demand items from their normal stock.

The volume and low margins of their bigger stores would help with costs that would be harder if they were only the smaller shops but it would be a cheaper way to bring computer hardware and other electronics to brick-and-mortar stores that are closer to more customers.

I realize this would probably be a mess and never work due to market changes but it's a nice fantasy.
Your objection to OP is semantics, the gist of his point is true. Asking for one thing and getting unnecessary other crap that eats your time removing is completely against the ethos of OSS. Who cares if it is "offer-installer adware", it is UNREQUESTED, UNWANTED, TIME CONSUMING and TRUST ERRODING.
I'm reminded of HN's own Paul Graham and his essay "How to do what you love"

http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html
Licensing being complex is a feature. It gives Microsoft something easy to wheel and deal on; it also gives OEM salespeople something to hide profit in ("gosh, sorry your enterprise desktops came out $40/seat high, but Microsoft gets all of that" while $35 of that is pure profit for the OEM)
why is stock price the only measure of a company and its CEO? Unless of course you're a share holder.
Nginx - just remap the urls. We run http://carrot.is (not meant to be a plug, just an example) served statically via nginx and the urls are "pretty". You can use a little statement like this in your nginx config:

if ( $uri !~ /index\.html$) { rewrite ^(/.+)\.html$ $scheme://$host$1 permanent; }
I find rather amusing that lispers and schemers differ that much when it comes to lend a hand to people, especially when Scheme is a dialect of Lisp. Do lispers regard the poor schemers in an envious way just because tail-call optimization is part of the Scheme standard? :)

No, seriously. Nowadays, it seems like people sometimes forget what they struggled with when they were learning the ropes of some technology.
> There's no compelling reason why Web Shading Language needs to exist.

I'm pretty sure it basically doesn't . WebGPU is supporting WGSL whose #1 goal is to be "trivially convertible to SPIR-V" (https://www.w3.org/TR/WGSL/#goals). In other words, it's text SPIR-V.
hmmm... Compete.com says that while Digg lost 17%, reddit gains only 2.6%
The point seems to be that if Liu deserved the Nobel peace prize, then surely George Bush deserved it as well.

But looking at past recipients of the prize (e.g. Henry Kissinger, Barack Obama), it does't seem so surprising anymore.
I would really like a service that did the following

1. People can message me in a way that no more difficult than now.

2. That message will be sent to me via whatever communication method is best for me at that moment.

3. This choice of communication method is transparent to the sender of the message.

4. All messages, no matter the communication methods, are accessible online in one place.

5. It should not require me (or anyone I communicate with) to sign up for any services they don't already use.

Use cases:

1. I get an IM, but I'm not at my computer. I want to be notified of the IM (likely on my phone) and be able to reply to it from there. This is transparent to the original sender.

2. I get a text message, and I want to reply, but my reply will be long and I don't feel like typing it out on my phone, so I reply via some service online. The original sender gets a text in reply.

3. I have IM at work, but a friend only has access to email. We communicate back and forth, him via email and me via IM. It is transparent from both sides.

Maybe I am projecting, but it sounds like this is in the ballpark of what Project Titan is going to do. I am sure there are other services that do this (hell, I could write an alpha of it in not that much time), but such is life.

PS I believe that an important distinction between this and Wave is that Wave was trying to replace other communication methods, while this is trying to unify them.
It's not email. The audience question and the answer about jokes from your Mom clarify:

This is person-to-person conversations.

The concept is that all communication between you and one other individual is an ordered sequence, regardless of the channel. This aggregates all channels into one person-to-person timeline.

The biggest issue I see with it is uncertain latency. Email is low latency, SMS medium, and IM high. With the demo today, it's not clear how you can know when to expect someone to respond.

Their example of leaving an IM w/o having to say "brb", and seeing the notification on the phone, is great for the receiver, but not so great for the sender, who doesn't know why latency just went through the roof.
Big loss for Harvard. Matt Welsh is a fantastic teacher.
Pass this bill along to 10 of your closes friends.
This site sums it up pretty concisely:

http://phrogz.net/CSS/WhyTablesAreBadForLayout.html

Not that I agree with him entirely. In particular:

> 6. Once you know CSS, table-based layouts usually take more time to implement.

For a sizable site with layouts reused over multiple pages, yes. For a single page, or a site with differing layouts for each page, in my experience, no. Actually, I'd extend that first sentence of mine into a new reason: with CSS you can specify your layout once, and not have to redo it for every page. Doesn't work with tables.

> 7. Tables are semantically incorrect markup for layout.

My response: So what? (Yes, I know about the problems with screen readers, but that's a different reason, one I happen to agree with.)

And then, on the other hand, there are the things no one wants to say: the advantages tables have over CSS. In particular, it's obvious to me that CSS was not designed with modern layouts in mind. The fact that it works at all is really just an accident: it turned out that you can make columns using floats (how 'bout that?). Yes, using tables for layout is a kind of jury-rig, but to be honest, so is using CSS. And at least tables have a mechanism for producing columns, that was designed with columns in mind.

And then there are the browser rendering inconsistencies. With modern browsers, these problems are fading, but for older ones, the inconsistencies with CSS seem to be much more troublesome than those with tables.
They're not targeting you - they're targeting the demographic that think that Facebook IS the Internet. Most of these people are not that interested in networking with new people, or being introduced to new opportunity. To me, it seems they are most interested in chatting with their friends about the latest gossip, or what's going on the upcoming weekend. I`m sure Facebook backs up this position with adequate data.

Unfortunately, I can only make assumptions but I would love to see some data on how the typical Facebook user tends to use Facebook vs the rest of the Internet; should anyone have any.
You aren't a teenager, are you? The interesting thing here is that if stuff like this takes off, when those teenagers grow up, they will start designing business applications that work like social media, rather than demanding that social media work like business applications.

(Yes, I'm recycling my own damn old ideas: http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/09/we-have-lost-control-of-...)
I don't work for a CC company, but I did work with predictive analytics regarding churn in mobile phone and cable companies a decade ago. It's not hard to back-mine the data to establish certain patterns that happen before major events. That's how we predicted churn at a major provider (rhymes with "Blecks-dell") with 90% accuracy. There's no reason that same logic could apply to a rich data set like CC transactions. The tricky part is defining what "events" you want to detect, then getting a set of data with those events for training on the network.
Here are a couple reasons:

- At one point the design becomes a nightmare to maintain. I've worked on some web apps, where we had pages with 15 levels deep tables in tables in tables ...

- Separating the semantic information in .html from the design in .css. Can help with SEO, screen readers, cashing.