jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
I think, even though it's a bit sad, the assumption that mean people won't be successful, is incorrect.

For the assumption that success is correlated with how kind someone is, there are just too many examples of previous and current startups/CEOs that are/were hugely successful. Actually, my impression is that there are very few of those, who I'd consider genuinely good people that I would really trust.

The thing is, you can be a really good person or you can be an a-hole, you will enter an industry or create a startup that will fit your personality and then it just comes down to IQ and persistence of how successful you will become. This way, a bad/nasty person can create a startup or make money just as much as a really kind person can. In other words, you can create a huge startup either way, the valuations would be the same, irrespective if you are a good person or not.

However, the startups would also be completely different in nature. The nasty startup would be always fighting, receive bad press and its employees would be led by fear. The good startup would be awesome, change an entire industry for the good and its employees don't work for the money, but because they are inspired by its mission and by its CEO.

Both startups would be huge and probably end up having the same valuation, just that their nature is different.

For that reason, as a founder you need to ask yourself what kind of founder you want to be. You can be nasty or you can be kind and awesome. It "doesn't matter" what side you choose, you will be equally successful either way.

However, you need to understand the implications and if you want to be a person that makes people worries or the person that inspires people and creates good in the world.

You can be good or bad, you'll still be successful, however, after you have built the startup, 10 years after you have sold it even, it's the way of how you did it that counts.
The language used in the article had come to quite an elaborate syntax later in the bootstrap cycle ( http://www.meta-alternative.net/pfdoc.pdf ). So, yes, it's a cheating: using a Lisp-like language to bootstrap a compiler for a high level language with a complex parser.
These kinds of domains always rubbed me the wrong way. Not only does it abuse the intent of the TLD, but the dot breaks up the word in an odd place. I just imagine trying to tell someone this domain in person and it feels very awkward. Why not just go with spaceprobedata.com or spaceprobes.org, or one of the other thousands of TLDs they have now?

It seems like this is a symptom of people wanting the shortest possible domain name, similar to people refusing to use a new TLD and instead spending thousands on a .com. It's all strange to me, but maybe I'm just a rule follower who doesn't care about vanity that much.
thank you. I will be going through this book as early as possible.
This is a very interesting post. And you're of course correct, Apple wouldn't take a pro-privacy stance if it was bad for business. They're able to do so because their business model relies primarily on hardware sales.

Your points about Apple's position in the marketplace making it a part of consumer infrastructure, and the argument that Apple above all else wants to disassociate itself from the flack the rest of the tech industry as a whole is getting are also extremely valid.

However, even if Apple's incentives are based entirely on self-interest (it's a corporation, so this is not exactly a groundbreaking revelation) that doesn't mean the end result cannot be in the consumer's best interest as well.

Just as most people here would agree Facebook's business model works against the interests of the consumer, I'd argue Apple's business model is more in line with the best interests of the consumer even if Apple's motivation is 100% selfish and any benefits we get as consumers are secondary.

I don't really see how it matters. The benefits to us as consumers are the same regardless of motivation.
Found via "Better Than Capsules? Geoffrey Hinton's GLOM Idea Represents Part-Whole Hierarchies in Neural Networks.":

https://syncedreview.com/2021/02/26/better-than-capsules-geo...

Given Hinton's track record, the dunking of this paper on social media due to the opening phrase seems unwarranted. If anyone in AI has earned the right to air speculative ideas-in-progress without an implementation and have it taken seriously, Hinton has.
>One of the most significant obstacles for landing on Mars will continue to present problems for our heroic helicopter now that it is safely on the surface. The atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars is only about 1% that of Earth. To put that in perspective, the summit of Mount Everest has only one-third the atmospheric pressure of sea level. While this is thought to be at (or sadly in some cases beyond) the limit of what humans can survive, it is well beyond Earthbound helicopters’ range. If you’ve ever wondered why wealthy explorer-types don’t just cheat and take a helicopter to the summit of Everest, that’s why!

Ummm... actually:

>On June 21, 1972, Jean Boulet of France piloted an Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama helicopter to an absolute altitude record of 40,814 feet (12,440 m).[60] At that extreme altitude, the engine flamed out and Boulet had to land the helicopter by breaking another record: the longest successful autorotation in history.[61] The helicopter was stripped of all unnecessary equipment prior to the flight to minimize weight, and the pilot breathed supplemental oxygen.

>The record was broken on March 23, 2002 by Fred North. North achieved an altitude of 42,500 feet (12,954 m) in a Eurocopter AS350 B2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record

Also: Mount Everest AS350 B3 landing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXNXSvnCtKA
I don't know how accurate their readings are, but it's (like you say) not the frequency that is unique, however the exact shape and intervals of the PQRST points within a single ECG period is.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocardiography
This is so slick it makes compiling look cool. This might help me with the ladies.
Seriously, if this is half as good as it looks, I'll giving TypeScript a farewell.
No, it started with The Phil Silvers show, in 1955.
One of the less obvious things is that the fact you're using a VPN may be leaked on a TCP session by the MTU/MSS values.
As I mentioned above, I find it harder to get paid to work in indie movies than I did a few years ago, notwithstanding the economic recession. Small-budget projects without famous actors are increasingly hard to finance because revenue projections are so unreliable. Private film investment was always a high-risk venture - people put money into for some social cachet but with a measurable probability of breaking even or making a profit (which was estimated based on a slate of similarly situated films). As that probability falls towards zero, so does the willingness of investors to take risks on it.

I don't want to name-drop, but I could point you to a film with multiple award (including Oscar) nominations that failed to break even and which led to investors dropping out from future projects - but which are hugely popular on file-sharing sites, with many thousands of seeders & leechers over a year after release despite the availability of the film on Netflix.

And please don't bring up 'Hollywood accounting.' This is based on personal acquaintance with executive producers at a large production company who personally lost millions of dollars, not some dentist in Pomona who wasn't able to buy a new Mercedes. That made it a lot more difficult for the director to place the next project - which I also anticipate will be Oscar-nominated - and required working with a much lower budget. That film is dying even more horribly at the box office (because there was no marketing budget worth speaking of) but it's one of the hottest torrents. Explain that to me, how a film can't get a wide release and therefore deserves to fail even though there are over 4000 people downloading it according to a popular tracker.

So while people at the top end of Hollywood obviously have things way better than people making no-budget films (sub $1 million) and don't have to worry about day-to-day costs of living, yes, there are people losing really substantial amounts of money and extremely high-quality directors that are having trouble raising money to make films despite their work being among the most popular movie torrents.
Sure sure. Sorry for the negativity but I'm super unimpressed by the whole wakemate saga. I really wanted one but being led around like this is too much for me. I won't be buying anything from this company.
"The introverts would prefer a quiet working space (and they're usually the best workers)"

Uh what? I'm an extreme introvert but don't see any reason to believe introverts are usually the best workers. I am not even that convinced that introverts would prefer a quiet working space any more than extroverts do. After all, just because someone is extroverted doesn't mean they have an easier time concentrating in a noisy environment.
It's a one-time fee.

//cofounder @ mixpanel
Good catch Max. I'd initially assumed it was $17 one-time from the headline, but given that the normal cost of this plan is $150/month $17/month seems more likely.

Noah's on HN though, perhaps he can clarify?
Parody and commenting about something and humor and so forth is protected as fair use even under our horrendously fucked up "intellectual property" system.

Now, I think Facebook has the right to block whatever links they want to block on their own website. It's their website and they should do what they want that they feel is in their own self-interest.

Casting this as Lamebook doing something that violates Facebook's trademark is incorrect without any actual evidence that they are indeed violating Facebook's trademark.

Merely having a name that rhymes with Facebook isn't enough to call that a violation of Facebook's trademark.
Bug! We're on it.
To your point about incoming mail with attachments > 1mb. The limit is actually 10mb, so you should have no problem mailing photos from smart phones.

http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/mail/overview.h...
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/mail/overview.htm...
Be serious. The amount of people that use the iPad in meetings in negligible compared to the amount that use it laying in their bed every evening, where the orientation switch was very useful.
You might want to remove that email address, opens it for abuse, it's possible they're not verifying and trusting secrecy with the email.
I don't know. Normally I agree but it gives this slideshow a certain charm in this case. Probably because it told more of a story than a slideshow.

Other than near the end, I thought it actually did a good job of emphasizing it's point. It just lacked that big revelatory surprise at the end to give it that bang.
Half-arsed theory with nothing to back it up. And nothing to do with 'hacker news' at all.
Have you seen how degrees are used in the workplace? If you have then not caring about the material and only on your GPA and getting a degree is a very rational choice. Cheating only makes rational sense when a few letters and numbers are vastly more important than the knowledge that is supposed to be conferred by the degree.

In most large businesses knowing how to make pretty graphs that trend upwards infinitely is far more important than anything taught in business school.
Seconds? No.

Minutes? Well, yes.

In interviews, my tentative conclusion after two minutes is _usually_ the same as after 60 minutes. (I spend the following 58 minutes trying to disprove my hypothesis, of course.)
Most of "Show HN" posts are also plain ads and promotion.

I think most HN users are ok with self-promotion as long as its from the "in-crowd" or YC funded.

Just pointing out the obvious, I have no feelings towards it one way or another.
We have a product built on app engine, sure we've had our share of challenges but the benefits far outweigh them. To name a few benefits: A developer staff of 1 can focus on the application code and not the infrastructure details. Fast image serving auto-scales all your images to any size, and serves them off the fast servers used by Picasa. Versions can be used for testing multiple branches of code on production servers seamlessly.

#1 Has never been an issue for us
#3 Is incorrect with the new task queue upgrades
#6 We have a full-text system working just fine
#7 Is a benefit when working with a distributed datastore
#8 DB performance after the recent updates has been stunning
#10 So they badly designed their queries and blame app engine?
#11 Is flat out incorrect
#12 What database is immune to failure? Would love to know

App Engine doesn't do everything, and no one is claiming it does. We have a secondary VPS we offload certain image processing tasks for example. But what it does do is extremely powerful from a develop perspective, and the application-centric model, like heroku or engine yard, is where things are headed. I would much rather leave the server and scaling issues to the experts so I can spend time improving my application.
Isn't the whole point of schooling to know what's on the test? I mean if it was important to be able to do something with the knowledge then they'd focus on that instead of endless tests.

If a professor tells you to not do X and you do X you're very clearly not doing what he says, whether that is 'cheating' who knows. A degree is largely a check mark on a check box for a perfect little life of doing what you're told. Now, if people think that having a degree means X then they are free to do that and will reap the consequences.

Honestly, why should the students bother to come up with original work when the professor can't even be bothered to create original tests? Why is it not 'cheating' for the professor to use another persons test?

Obviously, what's on the test was taught in the class, so why not use an abridged format of the information that makes it unnecessary to learn information not relevant to the course? The test is the subset of the information taught that is relevant to the conferrance of a degree. To know more is to waste your time.
You are incorrect. Carrier-provided app stores existed.

Here's a forum post from 2005 asking about the Sprint Store native app on the Treo 650, released a year earlier. As an owner of the phone, I had seen it and used it myself.

http://www.sprintusers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63071
I was describing my degree to a non-techie who replied 'so your basically a hacker'? I said 'well yeah that's what I'm in to' before realising what was going through his head. D'oh.
You could use Function.prototype.bind in a couple ways, or even Array.prototype.map (though sadly you can't really do new Array(n).map, if that was true you could make this a one-liner).

// new Array(n) could just be [] in all examples
//
// using Array.prototype.map
// sadly you can't do new Array(n).map
// because it doesn't iterate over undefined functions
function foo(n) {
for (var ret = new Array(n), i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
ret[i] = i;
}
return ret.map(function(_,n) { return function() { return n; }; });
}

// using Function.prototype.bind in a couple ways
function foo(n) {
function num() { return +this; }
for (var ret = new Array(n), i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
ret[i] = num.bind(i);
}
return ret;
}

function foo(n) {
function num(a) { return a; }
for (var ret = new Array(n), i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
ret[i] = num.bind(null, i); // could bind this to pretty much whatever here
}
return ret;
}
>Function.prototype.bind (but really that's still using a closure, just putting it out of sight),

How is `bind` still using a closure? `bind` just allows users to alter a function's execution context. However, the implementation varies according to the JS engine. Some of them may use a closure internally as a part of the process, but I don't think V8 does.
G+ is underrated. Would be the best social network now (technically) if it was run as stand alone entity without googles name attached.
It isn't clear how this ends, though. Robots are going to enable a lot of anti-social behaviours that were previously limited by personal risk during the execution and the odds of getting caught.

People tend to worry about "robot armies" because we aren't very good at imagining the future, and I'm sure we'll see those. We already are in terms of drones.

But a much bigger issue as costs drop and availability increases is going to be freelancers. This is going to be particularly problematic because robots, like computers, are going to be too useful to limit very much in civilian applications. Any dangerous, unpleasant, ugly job is going to have a robot for that.

Including assassination and robbing banks. Although there will also be robot security guards to counter such activities.

Nor do robots on the battlefield have any of the issues that limited CBN (Chemical/Biological/Nuclear... which is the way I learned it) weapons. None of those are enormously useful in actual combat. Chemical and biological weapons are difficult to control and deploy, and the "Davy Crockett Nuclear Rifle" aside, nuclear weapons are difficult to use for anything other than killing cities, which is rarely a strategically or tactically good thing to do. I'm not saying they're useless, merely that they aren't the be-all-end-all.

Military robots, though, pretty much are. There is every reason to expect that they will be used very widely, just like drones. Once upon a time drones were surveillance only. Now it's routine to weaponize them. Soon enough it'll be routine to send them out on autonomous interdiction missions: the economic temptation is just too high. Why send troops to cut off an area when you can have a 24/7 patrol of small, cheap drones that'll kill anything larger than a rabbit that tries to cross a virtual Maginot Line?

I'm not saying we shouldn't do any of this--robots are too useful to not develop. I am saying that the robot apocalypse, when it comes, will look a lot weirder than our 20th century fantasies.
I was aware of the contents of the front page, having skimmed it again today (and read more carefully before, although with little interest for Chromium extensions). I'm only interested in performance characteristics in Firefox, but am unlikely to test this myself before it arrives in AMO.
I have access to my neighbors ring doorbell so I can keep an eye on my home.

It tells me about all the local crime and tries to make me afraid. People report door to door salesmen as suspicious. Get real.

The real crime here is fear mongering presumably to sell more security products.
> Wemo says it encrypts all communication between the app, cloud and device and takes privacy and security "seriously."

Consider
1) the multiple security breaches that pop up every week, usually following quite dumb holes (unprotected elastic search, unencrypted reset commands, etc.). I have 0 trust in how these companies store my data.
2) the relative longevity (lack thereof) of these companies that still function on investors money, which means that best case scenario your device is now a brick, worst case your data now belongs to a company the likes of Google that doesn't care (or are planly hostile) for your privacy.

My wife reaaaally wanted cameras in our house, I took ubiquity and didn't connect it to their "cloud", that's the only thing I somewhat trust
I can’t believe Ars Technica would do this. Do they not realize who their audience is?
This reminds me of Meditations on Moloch. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ (HN thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19756487)
Fortunately many critical infrastructure system and life safety systems have on-site backup energy generation capability, as long as diesel is available. At least in the USA, our internet, payment, and phone systems have all withstood significant medium-term regional power outages.

A major infrastructure cyberattack seems effective either as an opening salvo in a traditional military war or to multiply the chaos after a terrorist attack. Taking out the power grid would worsen traffic congestion and create increased demand on emergency services in the short term, and have major economic impacts and high visibility in the long term.
Just curious if we have any statistics about how much time is saved per consumer?

TBH I don't feel particularly happy about programmers removing retail jobs. Yeah for sure technology advances always remove some people from their jobs, but there are consequences.
> if you look at the lists of reasons to quit fb, most of them are not of individual concern.

Some of the main reasons like privacy and mental health are of individual concern. I'm not arguing against regulation for oil or Facebook, just pointing out that the incentives are very different on an individual level.
If you need fries fried in beer tallow, Popeyes is a national chain that uses beer tallow to fry everything, including the fries.

You'll find they are nothing special.
No offline backups?
It's not stupid. From an academic perspective, sure it works either way. From a business perspective, you have to support the full feature set on a given set of browsers, and you're not going to waste time on a solution that only covers 80% of your required browsers when you can write one codebase that covers all of your browsers.
Dude, he released documents containing information about villages that were cooperating with the U.S. and even information on informants by name.

Don't you remember when Assange was pissed off at a journalist at The Guardian for leaking the password to the cables in his book and thereby revealing the actual names? Assange tried to turn it into a blame game instead of admitting that they hadn't properly redacted the documents.
If only it were as easy as you made that sound.
It seems there's a lack of science based decision making in a lot of bodies of government that have a hand in regulating various drugs.
That's not what the comment I responded to claimed.
Well, the exact numbers on the right-hand side are still unknown:

[girls interest in code] = [interest induced by predispositions] +
[… by unalterable social pressure] +
[… by alterable social pressure] ± chance
> I don't see how you can defend the laws and regulations of an organization where it's much better to commit a crime against humanity than to publicize one and err on the side of too much info.

Abu Ghraib was a war crime, not a crime against humanity.
There's no reason you need to maintain all of that -- do a one-click install someplace like Bluehost, Dreamhost, or ZippyKid and they'll manage everything, and do core WP upgrades as well automatically. There's also WP.com.

All are more expensive than 29/yr though.
I did some of the Advent of Code 2020 challenges in both js and Rust. For one of them, the js solution took minutes to finish, while the same algorithm in rust finished in <200 ms. I could probably have optimized the js solution to remove a bunch of allocations- it must have been the gc-but it was really surprising with the speed-up.
If the trial contract isn't enforceable, why bother canceling?
This isn't about Azure or Ubuntu.

The next 40 years will be filled with special coders adding hooks into everything looking for new monetization channels. Be prepared for this same WTF moment every 5 minutes.
But people should have the right to work peace. It should also be a basic human right not to be constantly monitored.
I think the marketing mistake has been using the same brand name for the unified profile/login as the social stream.
I think Hollywood would do it more like this:

"Set the Command and control server to engineer a virus to backdoor the system return code with a thin client."

"... oh no, not a thin client!"
You're welcome. Drop some contact info here and I'll get in touch.