jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
Actually after looking again the fields don't show up at all. I loaded the site in an incognito browser and it's there, but in my main browser it's not. This is a new computer since the time I would have preordered so I'm not sure how you're figuring my email out at that stage.

I'll trust that you have my email address, though there is a reasonable chance that the one I gave you when I pre-ordered no longer works. Regardless, if I get a Wakemate and no email I won't really care.

Edit: Just noticed there is a logout link, which I guess means I'm logged in but again I don't remember doing that. This is all quite clever if you actually have my email address.
I read something about game theory that seemed to prove the best outcomes occur when you assume others act in good faith unless they've demonstrated otherwise in previous encounters.
Jim Clark was 50 when he co-founded Netscape with Marc Andreessen. And he was 37 when he first got in the game and started SGI.

Mark Pincus was 41 when he started Zynga. Mark Cuban was in his late-30s when he started what would become Broadcast.com and Mike Bloomberg was about 40 when he started Bloomberg.

Just a few names/ages off the top of my head, though we could obviously name just as many extraordinary entrepreneurs who proved themselves in their 20s/early 30s.

Age matters little for entrepreneurs, I think. What really does though is the amount of time you have and just how much of it you're willing to put in to make something happen.
Thanks for such a detailed (and intelligent) response to a question that I think most people wouldn't take seriously (although I meant it seriously).

* Airports: How much is it really going to help to build one more runway? What about when another runway is needed, and another after that? The best thing to do is to plan for the airport to take up an enormous amount of space beforehand, and probably, in this case, to build another airport. (NYC already has three, but I only know of two in London off the top of my head.)

* Roads and railways: I think this is the "most difficult" one to deal with. I think it helps to have a more accurate definition of property rights than what most people operate with, which is to say, it's only your property if you actually use it--otherwise nobody is impacting you if they use it, which is the whole point of property. For example, I don't think people should be allowed to "own" large, empty tracts of land. (This would be the common problem with building roads and railways in America.) And if you want to build new roads in a heavily urbanized area, I think that's just a bad idea... I mean, that's never really necessary, unless you want to increase the human density of that particular area (which it self is never really necessary). Also, there are options like building underground and building multi-story highways.

* Infrastructure: The examples you're giving (power plants, waste disposal) are just discrete "points" in the map that don't have to be physically in any one particular place, as long as they're in the general area. Surely someone in a large area will be willing to sell you a plot of land. (If not, just build the infrastructure further out.)

Your point about density of USA vs. UK is a good observation, though I don't think it really changes the principles.

A lot of times American libertarians (I'm not one, FYI) talk about limited government, and their opponents immediately say things like "What about roads? Roads only work if the government builds them, and has eminent domain." I personally don't agree with the latter point of view on roads - but, in general, I don't think it's really an argument worth having. There are more important things to argue about, such as defending property rights in principle. But for a principle to be valid, it has to always be valid. So when I argue about eminent domain, I do so to save property rights, not because I acutally think eminent domain is particularly important compared to so many bigger issues in our culture today.
I don't think it's a client-side in-browser editor:

"Written from scratch with modern OS X 10.6 APIs providing maximum OS integration while avoiding reinvention of the wheel."

Though CSS styling and Node scripting leads me to believe it's using some v8/browser stuff.
Please be considerate of their privacy.
Normal 3G video chat has one disadvantage: the video quality is so bad it makes puppies weep. Most of the time you can't really see who you're talking to unless you already know who it is. It's probably mostly due to bad encoders, and partly lack of bandwidth.
> Without admins or trusted moderators.

> provide it to select users for review

I don't understand, do you have moderators or not?
I'm not dismissing a work breakdown. I'm dismissing the idea that pushing a quick 30 minutes to make people defend themselves is really as fruitful as a lot of people, non-technical managers especially, like to claim. When reality is, we hardly have any data to back this up, and there are many counterarguments against this idea.

A proper work breakdown may cost a lot more than 30 minutes. In any ticketing system, this can be inserted as subtasks which immediately grants an, admittedly superficial, level of transparency into how far the entire thing is done. If you truly want thinking to be done, surely you would agree talking it over for 30 minutes doesn't imply a whole lot of thinking, as much as it implies a whole lot of talking. At that point, just take a step back, chill, tell the developer they need a strong defense and teach them to provide that defense in whatever way suits them best that still makes the point come across.

Software development as a field has made such a knee-jerk reaction against failed projects, it now overemphasizes "security" and "correctness", and tons of red tape, on top of methodologies which inherently should already fix most of the problem. Aren't we supposed to work iteratively so managers can make a proper forecast? Let the actual data speak for itself and don't bind too strongly to the words of the individual. The far majority of people do not work on projects that truly require tight deadlines, yet almost every software company out there is trying to emulate this high-pressure environment without clear insight as to why people join a low-pressure environment to begin with.
Running a production line at full blast for a long time will put extra wear on both machines and people. You might also be tempted to skimp on maintenance to produce more.

Tired people are more likely to make mistakes. Less maintained machines are more likely to have issues.

Not saying this is always the case but I've seen this happen in real life. New company takes over, starts skipping maintenance to produce more, machines now start breaking like clockwork. Eventually the machines were so broken they had to be replaced.
All Australian states other than New South Wales have adopted an elimination strategy as well. Here in Western Australia, we recently had a 5 day lockdown due to a single case of community transmission.
"Just" made a bad choice? It's clearly an historically accurate, and _simplifying_ assumption, which you dismiss. The fact that they include a scripting language needn't obligate them to broaden the scope of their project. It's theirs, and they needn't pretend to cater to anyone they don't wish to, especially if it isn't a priority. They can make whatever they want, as can you.
Zuckerberg is a pro, he knows what is good ;-)
I think the biggest rebuttal to this argument is the fact that intelligence exists in the natural world, and yet this is produced by apparent natural processes
Not all of school sucked, and in many ways it sucked less than being at home.

On the other hand, as an adult, there is no way I'd want to go back to school life. That "you'll miss it when you're older" never came true for me. Now I have money, freedom and a satisfying career - and I don't have to ask anyone for permission to go to the toilet.

There are certain things I miss about being young though. Summer holidays, long days where everything was novel, easy friendships, death being so far away I didn't think about it and being able to fall off a tree without spending the next two weeks convalescent.
That's amazing, didn't know that, thanks a lot for sharing! Fitting that it starts today as well :)
Capitalist systems produce pretty much constant criticism of capitalist systems.

The line tends to be more that this sucks but we tried voting in the other lot and that sucked too.
Totally agree with this. My parents were good in some ways but in terms of anything related to academics they were both in the negative. They never helped me with my homework even a single time growing up.. homeschooling with them would have been.. awkward.

Education definitely needs to reform, speaking here in terms of North America, but HN is not a a good sample pool for the general public.

I’m so jealous of people from good families. Like when I hear so and sos parents went to Yale so they did to.. here I am like: my dad sold drugs :/

Don’t all of you go about underestimating your good luck.
Yeah, I get the emotional downvotes, but a mention of what part of this (obviously broad-strokes) story is wrong would be appreciated.
And it does it in the worst way:

if(navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Chrome") != -1 ){ } else { location.replace("https://bestsnip.com/browser_not_supported/"); };

Such user agent sniffing should be strenuously avoided. If there’s a particular feature you need, such as WebM with the VP9 codec, do feature detection instead:

if (!document.createElement('video').canPlayType('video/webm;codecs="vp9"')) {
location.replace("https://bestsnip.com/browser_not_supported/");
}

(For reference, that canPlayType call returns "probably" for me on Firefox and Chrome, and would return an empty string in an environment that didn’t support WebM or the VP9 codec.)
I guess this was based on trading behavior of that time and probably of the time leading up to the great depression.
Its not just that - if a firm needs financing stock price and its trend is of great importance for purpose of setting the interest rate and/or price of equity.

As far as staff goes - Google is well beyond the point where the stock options are the motivation for staff. Google's stock won't grow 100-1000x in next 10 years. It's impossible. Also working for Google today is not a risky activity anymore.

Today one would join Google: a) To experience the googly world and to leverage that experience in the future. b) To work with some of the best and brightest in the world and to use this experience as litmus benchmark for himself. c) To earn a competitive salary without much risk. d) To work on some project that the rest of the world is not aware of or deems to risky of an enterprise. e) To see how Larry & co. organized this miracle and to learn from it.

Google ain't the company it was anymore. It also never was anything like other "like" companies - Larry and Sergey made sure of it. And Larry & Sergey would IMHO rather run it into the ground than to make it another corporate monster like any other.

The pundits of course want to sell the story how Google will magically rise for 30% a year for some arcane reasons. What Larry did was refuse them alibi for such course of events. And this drop in stock price - I attribute to sell off from short term funds that were looking to cash in on Larry's take over - however they didn't analyze it enough to see what is coming.

Also regarding Google's opportunities. Google cannot grow on adsense anymore. If it wants to become an industry figure like IBM it will need to diversify (and that is exactly what it's doing for some time now). Google is not a marketing company. Or at least it doesn't want to be one. It wants to be a tech company - thats why it is betting massive stakes on green energy, robotic cars, artificial intelligence, etc...

Google's intentions seem clear to me - it is trying to become a GE, Bosch or Siemens of 21st century - and focus on quarterly results is not a way to go about it.
>I will say in no uncertain terms: some of the people posting on HN are exhibiting an entitlement mentality. Reading all of the posts reveals this fact.

So again, you're judging some of the people on HN in a very harsh manner based on pure assumptions of your own.

>We are discussing things I have observed that do not happen to fit the extreme case you posted.

I give extreme examples to illustrate the point more clearly.

>But for a value that he admits he was already happy with nevertheless.

Again, he was happy because he thought was getting a good deal. Once he found out he was actually being exploited, of course he was upset!

>The utility of the money he was receiving did not change; he was still able to perform the exact same happiness-increasing things with it, but now he's suddenly unhappy with it. This is entirely irrational.

It's not about utility. He took place in a market transaction by selling his time. He was happy because he liked the arrangement. Then he found out his happiness was based on a lie; he wasn't getting market rate for his "product", far from it. It is not even remotely irrational to suddenly be angry when you find out you were tricked. I'm begging to wonder if you actually know what "rational" means.

>it is happiness that should not be so intricately tied to money.

Fine, and I would say it isn't in this case. Being treated fairly is.

>but if I'm already happy with the price at which I'm selling and find out I could sell for more, my happiness can only decrease if my happiness is intricately tied to money.

But most people are only "happy with the price" when they believe they are getting at or close to market rate. Not being happy anymore when you discover the deception doesn't mean your happiness is "tied intricately to money". Your happiness stemmed from trust and now a betrayal has been discovered. It would be very odd to not be upset.

>How is this not leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness?

I'm not leaving money on the table because I'm getting market rate for what I'm offering. I don't need to get every penny I possibly can, only every penny my offering is worth.

>If it's market value for market value's sake, how is that not money for money's sake?

This is how the free market works. You have to work in your own best interest or you negatively impact others. For example, if you happily donate your time at 10% of the market rate then you've lowered the value of that job and now others may get paid less.

And why is it that you only call out workers? What about Google? They've got billions, surely they could charge less for their advertising? What about CEO's? They make more than they could spend in a lifetime. Why don't you call them out for "wanting money for the sake of money" as if this is the case they're clearly more guilty of it than I am.
I am massive fan of Dropbox and like to see it doing well. I have talked about its virtues on many Quora posts. I have ussually recommended using a Truecrypt volume within the Dropbox folder to guarantee encryption.

Now reading findings like this and the authentication issues exposed in the last few weeks I'm getting quite worried about the security of the whole solution. Going to have to change a lot of my posts to say do not store anything sensitive without Truecrypt: http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2011/04/how-dropbox-sacrifices-u...
Yes, we would all be better off today if it could have been avoided.
He notes:

"This will currently work best on a WebKit browser such as Safari or Chrome. It will also work on Firefox, but I'm not testing it there very often, so it will always be a couple versions behind."
The legality in the US is uncertain. If it were not online, it wouldn't be gambling, so proving that online poker is online gambling in court is not going to be easy.

Geo IP wouldn't have made a difference. You can buy an anonymous VPN account in Europe very easily, defeating the geographical lock. As with anything on the Internet (and in real life), people do what they want to, not what the law prescribes.
The automatic updating is really nice. I'd like to see this around for more events. Also, almost.at was mentioned here a long time ago, and it's another great tool for live events http://almost.at/#wwdc
Not every business needs to be big. If they make a profit on a flaw in the system and eventually leave the world a better place as they gracefully shut down operations, win-win.
> I don't ask for that level of efficiency,

Well, why the crap not? Why is the west so unbelievably bad at handling this epidemic? Why aren't we able to produce our own masks? These things are essential and it was all off-shored to China. Now the west is screwed while life goes on in Asia.
Not surprising. Jezebel is an internet tabloid for social justice warriors.
What's more frustrating is the exact same logic applies to "social distancing." Social distancing will not completely stop people from getting sick. It'll just slow the spread. So, according to the CDC, an imperfect solution for quarantine is totally fine, but when it comes to masks, only n95 or better are worth pursuing.
agar.io has a party mode / private room mode
> The iAPX 432 was long after the 8086, not before.

That's why the article said their flagship processor iAPX 432 is delayed. The 432 started development in 1975 (!) but wasn't shipped until 1981.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_iAPX_432#Description
In parts of Asia a water hose is more common than toilet paper, it's more hygenic as well. I think small portable bidets can be purchased on Amazon.
Similar things have been suggested before as a replacement for SNAP but there are so many edge cases where the household receiving the food has some type of dietary restriction that it becomes difficult to administer. It's easier to give people money (in the form of food stamps) and let them decide for themselves what to buy that best fits their dietary needs. Seeing that soft drinks are the number one item purchased with SNAP benefits, we know many miss the mark but it's still a simpler system that allows more money to go to food instead of paper pushing.
I imagine that a Chinese manufacturer will eventually also play a role, since it's a strategic priority for the PRC to be self sufficient in terms of semi-conductor production.

The PRC (most probably) has the 'advantage' of a vast spy network in Taiwan, and (likely) in TSMC. Not to mention that salaries in China tend to be higher, leading to a brain-drain TW -> CN.
It's a matter of knowing your audience and knowing your funder's/owner's goals and expected risk-reward trade-off profile.

A "cowboy" mentality may indeed help a start-up edge out competitors. But applying that to an established company can ruin your reputation: you have more to lose by playing fast and loose. Startups by nature are a gamble, but if an established corporation gambles too often they may poke a hole in their dam that they can't patch fast enough.

Venture capitalists usually factor in a high failure rate to startups they invest in. Their plan is that enough will succeed in a big way to counter the high failure rate.

A lot of "fads gone wrong" happen when a technique or technology that works for one situation or size is misapplied to another. Your office printer inventory tracker doesn't need microservices and web-scale databases.

Pilot projects with new technology is often a good thing, but don't bet key organizational functions on such a project (sometimes called line-of-business systems).
My apps on Heroku seem to be running fine, with just a tad more lag than usual.
Out of curiosity, what features would you define as state of the art?
They've had a lot of down time lately, they really need to figure out something as far as contingency plans.
Please tell me that Friday lunches are from 5 Guys ;)
App Rejections (http://apprejections.com/) is one such site, although they don't yet list Pulse.
The Adams Complexity Threshold is the point at which something is so complicated it no longer works.

The Gulf oil spill is probably a case of complexity reaching the threshold. It was literally impossible for anyone to know if the oil rig was safe or not. The engineering was too complex. I'm sure management thought it was safe, or hoped it was safe, or hallucinated that it was safe. It wasn't possible to know for sure.

Disagree. If the oil companies had put together a consortium to research such "worst case" scenarios and develop equipment and procedures to deal with them quickly, then this would have been preventable. (How about an even worse scenario: oil rig blows up, sinks, smashes the blowout preventer. Even Michael Bay can think of that one.) The oil companies could've done this, but chose instead to gamble on what they thought was a "good enough" lower level of safety.

No one can be 100% sure all of the machinery and safety mechanisms and procedures will work, but it is possible to make the likelihood reasonably small and then add an additional fallback position that you are pretty certain will work. The oil companies didn't have a fallback beyond the blowout preventer that they knew would work in a short timeframe.

An unreasonable expectation? Perhaps. Technology companies do this with their data all the time. Of course, protecting data is 1) much cheaper and 2) is protecting an asset and not preventing an unfortunate externality.
beta@chitabox.com
http://status.heroku.com is up and recently updated. There's also http://twitter.com/herokustatus
I've been helping out a friend's office recently and their books are a total mess. Some checks entered against invoices, some not, accounts receivable and accounts payable are totally unorganized, nothing reconciles...

So here's a recommendation - it's probably better to keep all your receipts in a folder system, along with records of your bank statements, and do nothing in software until you're totally committed, or can hire a bookkeeper. You can hand the receipts over to a professional a little later, but handing over a half assed mess in Quickbooks or whatever is much worse IMHO. Just don't wait too long to find that bookkeeper :)

Also, if being generally organized and fastidious is not one of your skills, bookkeeping is probably better handled by someone else, whether you have a great accounting tool or not.
Still not convinced that derivative is the correct way to describe this (assuming that billboebel's comment is accurate). I'd prefer if they called it securitization.

It's possible that the funds offering statement lays out a clear goal, but also provides enough flexibility to employ some fancy engineering techniques. Then they raise funds and put the capital to work. Due to the illiquid nature of the target company, it wouldn't be surprising if the fund assets end up being a mix of synthetics, equity shares and employee stock options.

Regardless, the article doesn't really provide enough information to draw a firm conclusion.
the corollary is that some investors in Apple have profited (certainly in proportion to the significance of their input) from its success to a greater extent than Steve Jobs. I'm willing to bet not all of them were investing capital raised through their own ingenuity in other fields...
I wish that were an option. The mentality here is, "If it ain't (too) broke, don't fix it." Which means people actually get in trouble for doing refactor work that doesn't add new functionality. But you're right--compared to what I could be doing, this isn't a bad gig. I just wish I could be satisfied with "not a bad gig"...
A key takeaway for me is that you can't just take crude metrics, make some inferences and run with them. Jimmy Wales has been running his organization under a wide reaching and completely wrong understanding. That's because he equates number of edits with importance of contribution.

It's a basic psychology 101 concept, but one thats easily missed: don't equate your operationalized variables with the phenomena you are trying to measure.