skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Interesting....

The reference to that list of covert organizations was to imply the fact that there is a lot of snooping going around into people's activities in real life and that I like the fact that I can hang out with some people online without the need to worry about what other people think my intentions are. Or more directly: I don't like to have to worry about my participation on News.YC being accepted/rejected on criteria other than being voted up or down.

You disagree with me on something? Fine, down vote me or respond, but don't start trying to make predictions on what I might do next. There is nothing friendly about trying to anticipate what my next move might be so that you can identify something "alarming" about what I'm doing. I think the aptly termed "fluff" is harmless, and I've been arguing all along that it contributes to diversity, which is key for idea generation/exchange. Homogenize the community, and it begins to lose value.

I MIGHT submit a series of articles that others think are "fluff", but does this mean that now I go on some sort of "fluff watch list" and need to be monitored, or perhaps "dealt with" because my articles/views/ideas are not in line with the majority members?

Apologies to everybody if I am still coming across as implying some sort of conspiratorial tone (in which case you may down mod me or explain to me where I err in my argument), but I still stand by my conviction that monitoring others to "weed out" certain "alarming trends" is far worse than the pain suffered by "fluff".

I will add that fluff != spam. What others judge to be "fluff" is just that - a judgement call. I'm simply speaking out against judgmental attitudes en masse (or if you prefer the shortened terminology - mobs).

I appreciate the response!!
Sucking in more data counts as opening up?
It doesn't appear to be working out for you, then.
Keep doing something on what you are building and eventually you will have it done.
didn't the yahoo stock climb to about what MS was offering once the news came out? The disgruntled shareholders could have sold their shares then and gotten their 62% premium.
This scenario highlights exactly why I don't buy Google's 'no evil' claim. A public company exists for one and only one reason - to maximize shareholder value. In other words, to increase the wealth of random people that nobody in the company knows.

There is only one reason to take a company public - to make money. An entrepreneur claiming to go public for any other reason is either naive or lying.
Don't be misled by the promise of freedom in academia. It's not like that at all.
Mmm...yeah, I see your point about the 1/year. Hadn't thought about it that way. And

most of the annoying 14-year-olds wouldn't be our friends

That's definitely the case here. :)
I maintain a spreadsheet list of smaller tasks that need doing, vaguely inspired by Getting Things Done. Add a priority column and sort. Then each day, review the list to update priorities, and flag items I intend to complete that day.

Separate list for major features I intend to add. Works the same as the task list, except on a much slower timescale. That one has ended up being much more valuable.

The simple act of collecting this all in one spreadsheet doc has resulted in way more clarity in my thinking and planning. It allows me to bounce between many major areas of work, without losing track.

Best of luck!
I try to maximize productivity and efficiency; if I have a lot of time, I do something I'm less familiar with since I'll probably have to look things up and experiment, without losing state. If I just have a little bit of time, I work on the parts I know I could do in my sleep, so if I get interrupted it's no big deal, I can easily pick up where I left off.

But most importantly, I try never to procrastinate, although I don't always succeed... Good luck!
I wonder why the antitrust division of the DOJ is letting Microsoft buy Yahoo. I don't care either way, but I wonder why there isn't more of this kind of debate on the subject.
Interestingly, I've never really been to Digg or Reddit, so all this "fluff" is foreign to me. The content here has always been good, I hope it stays that way.

I guess most people (myself included) found news.ycombinator.com through the Paul Graham essays and the YCombinator program. As a result, I'm not too worried about fluff; I think those who read PG essays won't be inclined to post garbage, and karma helps as well to encourage good content. Keep up the awesome work here guys!
what "easy" means anw?
there are other challenges in a succesful social network or any other web service. Most web services technically can be leveraged to "easy" for a good hacker, but thats not the point.
Japan testing satellite for very high-speed internet
Eh... I would debate quite a lot of what he said. This is a very field-oriented problem. For instance, in Psychology, the majority of graduate degrees go into counseling. Of the more research oriented people left, there is a vast array of fields available; Neuropsych, Cognitive Psych, Industrial Organizational, and so on. These are fields with public and private sector demand... If you're good, and you publish it is quite possible to land in a tenure track position is 2-3 years. The biological sciences, which my ex went into, are likewise diverse with high (unless you study ichthyology) demand. Finally, know that all academia, like startups, is a dice game. Brilliant is less than half the battle. Being right often counts for nothing. Hardworking, with force of will and personality, and in the right place at the right time (which is not always luck) play an awfully big part of every success. Even when you get in, you can easily end up the flunky of someone with similar credentials, but more success. But hey, that's life, right?
What's the ONE THING that MOST differentiates you from everyone else?

THAT's what you should focus on.

You can do later, delegate, or outsource the stuff others can do to the others who can do them.
From the government's (and the country's) perspective it makes sense to keep the imbalance between PhD's trained and PhDs hired because graduate students that don't go into academia go into industry. A lot of great companies have come out of disgruntled grad students.

I think the thing we need to figure out is how to deal with the period after a Masters and before a PhD. This is the period where you start doing real research and you learn to work on your own. This period is what makes grad school such valuable training. This is also the period in your life where you are still young and hungry to make an impact. Unfortunately, it's almost easier to stay in school and finish your degree, but once you finish it you're 30 and the hunger and energy are gone. Also, you've already put so much time into a PhD that it's too late to turn back from a career in academia.

Maybe we should redefine the Masters to include some research work.
Added it to my list. Looks like a lot of fun. Thanks!
"I became a scientist in order to have the freedom to work on problems which interest me."

I thought a more reasonable path to this would be to join a startup or three, get rich and then spend the rest of your life getting a PhD, working on interesting problems, etc. No? ;)
It is PPP. US is, per capita, about nine times richer than lebanon and about a hundred times as rich as Senegal, not in dollar terms, but in real terms. In dollar terms, the difference is larger still.
Oh, I'm focusing on that, but there's just me, so no outsourcing or delegating, and stuff like web-design, marketing and billing needs to be done too.
"you're 30 and the hunger and energy is gone."

If anything you know a lot more in your domain of expertise and are in a better position to start a co. Plus you're hungrier -- grad students make very little money. A formula for startup success.

"Maybe we should redefine the Masters to include some research work."

Actually the Masters does in fact include research work. At least mine did.
The importance of visual programming
I read the new york times article. I get the feeling that it draws too much attention to the personal, emotional relationships of Hardy, Ramanujan and others and dilutes the genius each one of them were. It definitely would be a good read once you are through with the brief introduction into their professional lives.

I myself being too obsessed with mathematics loved this biography of Ramanujan - The Man Who Knew Infinity: A Life of the Genius Ramanujan. ISBN:0671750615
Dear Dell, I want to buy a laptop without paying the Microsoft tax
If I get hired to make sandwiches, and I do a really slow job, I get fired, I don't get sued. If the shareholders are worried about spur of the moment things that are damaging to the company, they should grant themselves referendum powers, so that, e.g. here they could have blocked the board.
Since one out of ten fail, that wouldn't be the best strategy.
what goes up comes down
Geek Chic Gallery: Costumes of WonderCon
>[... in contrast] a lawyer [begins working] at 25 and makes partner at 31

A very low percentage make partner, lower than the tenure percentage.
I agree with you that it does draw a lot of attention to the personal, emotional relationships of Hardy, Ramanujan, Littlewood, and so on. But, for someone who has already read and loved "A Mathematician's Apology" and studied math in college, reading about these personalities can be quite fascinating. Of course, since this is a novel, it's hard to say what is surmise, what is fact, and what is invented. I never was able to find much biographical material on Hardy (I was only able to find 2 pictures of him (this was in the 80s before Google)).

I need to read the book on Ramanujan you mentioned, though.
In practice, it's hard to completely change course and take on even more risk once you are finished with your Ph.D. Often it's the dropouts that start companies and the PhDs that join them.

In Physics, a Masters typically means 2 years of coursework and passing some set of exams. Most of us join a research group about 1 year into grad school but it's hard to do real research until your classes are done.
I read a book on Turing by the author .. and well .. I dont recommend it at all. He seems overly obsessed with sexual themes has no understanding of the hacker and scientist mindsets and no understanding of the maths whatsoever. After reading that book, I am not thinking of even looking at this book.
edit : At least they explicitly claim this book is a novel. The one on Turing masquerades as a biography.
I've found that when we are confident, relaxed and grounded in the present moment, prioritisation tends to take care of itself, in as much as 'what's next' becomes quite clear and obvious. So (at least to me) the problem of priorities is really a symptom of the greater issue of how stay relaxed and centred in the natural 'flow' of your project/start-up. This is not so easy, particularly if this is your first start up because, almost by definition, you are working outside of your old comfort zones. But I wrote a little piece* about this that might help.

Also, it can help if you keep a list of low complexity, low priority tasks that you can pick from as your fancy takes you, when your motivation is low or you are just having an off day. You'll be suprised how ticking off these low priority tasks will give you a sense of progress that restores your clarity and motivation to tackle those bigger, more complex milestones. Good luck :)

* http://www.life2point0.com/2006/06/the_little_book.html
I remember reading in Nobel laureate S.Chandrasekhar's biography,that the Royal Society's records on Ramanujam would be made public.It's long past that date.I wonder what happened.
Understood. I guess the point I was trying to make was that if you do your key differentiator well, then the web-design, marketing, and billing will be much easier to do. It's much easier to sell a game breaker than just another thing.

OTOH, there's not much need for billing if you don't have something fantastic to sell.

My experience is that when you really focus on the one big thing all the small things get even smaller once you get around to them. Hope that helps.

EDIT: It just occured to me that pg describes this concept (What's the best thing you could be working on, and why aren't you?) much more eloquently here:

http://paulgraham.com/procrastination.html
Heavy demand for multilingual hackers in global spam market
Those are awesome odds compared to the "standard" way, apparently.
If only one out of ten failed, that would clearly be a great strategy. I think you meant 10% succeed.

Even if that stat is true, it isn't useful. It doesn't mean your chances must be one in ten, and it doesn't mean that the overall rate can't or won't rise in the future.
"Often it's the dropouts that start companies and the PhDs that join them."

I don't agree with your statement. I think we hear more stories of dropouts starting companies because they are rare and make interesting stories.

For instance:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warnock
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_M._Jacobs
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Samueli

.
.
OTOH, if Apple distributes the apps they can set the terms for the market, possibly creating high barriers to entry such as upfront fees or quality standards.
Quartz Composer is pretty neat. Also, Yahoo Pipes seems like the web mashups version of QC, but I've never really tried it.
I haven't read Leavitt’s book on Turing, so I can't comment on it.

I have read "Alan Turing: The Enigma" by Andrew Hodges, which was excellent, both in the biographical details and the mathematical details.
I think it represents what both pg and esr have expressed at some point: that good, or even great hackers, often don't recognize themselves as so until being recognized as such by other good hacker. Karma allows us to get an idea of how we fit on the scale and see what our strengths or weaknesses are. If you make a post / statement and it doesn't get upmodded, you want to know why; was your reasoning to shallow, is there something that contradicts / disproves your view, etc.

That's why there's the effort to keep fluff posts out; it changes it from being "hacker karma" to "interesting karma" at best and "amusing karma" at worst.
SSH has a few flaws, so they created what looks like an even more complex SSL-based command transport? I don't get it.
Since there are a lot more degree holders than dropouts, it's probably mathematically true that there are more PhDs starting companies. I wonder what percentage of dropouts start companies vs. percentage of PhDs.

That is basically what I was driving at in my original post. If you are a PhD candidate 3 years into grad school are you more likely to start a company by dropping out or by staying in school?
Yes i picked up Hodges' book later and I also recommend it.
A group is its own worst enemy...
Sounds like a case for structured procrastination: http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/

I suspect it is best to focus first on the task you most feel like doing.
Although I agree with nearly everything he says in this essay, it's worth pointing out that he has written several other pieces that would make most normal people question his grip on sanity. At the very least, this guy is eccentric. Also, the numbers he cited are from 1999, and are getting a bit dated. NIH post-doc stipends are now roughly $40k/year (including in the most expensive cities, like San Francisco); grad-student stipends are around $25k per year.

Everything else is true, in my experience. If you start a PhD in the physical or biological sciences this year, you'll spend 5-10 years in grad school, barely making ends meet at $25k a year. Then, if you're incredibly lucky (think 95th-percentile lucky), you'll get a stellar paper that will set you up for a post-doc in a superstar lab, which will give you a roughly 50/50 shot at a tenure track position somewhere (don't count on living in a city, or even a place where your significant other can find a job, however, because you're now living at the whims of the academic system.)

Your post-doc will take 3-4 years, and will pay you less than you could have made right out of an undergraduate CS program, in exchange for more risk and longer hours. You'll be expected to work nights and weekends, and in case you lack the drive to do it, there will be some guy from China with a J-1 visa sitting next to you. He's probably living in a boarding house right next to the university with ten other post-docs, and he's willing to work 100-hour weeks for a shot at a job in this country. That's your baseline.

If you're astronomically lucky, you'll get a faculty position -- hopefully not at Podunk U -- where you'll be paid significantly less than that undergrad CS major (who is now probably making over $100k/year, buying a home, getting married, etc.) You'll be competing for grant money in an insanely tight market (the funding rate for NIH research grants is well below 5% now), and evaluated by established faculty who will torpedo your proposals if it helps their own chances. At the end of six years of insane work, you'll get a shot at keeping your job. If you get tenure, you can settle down to a lifetime of below-market wages, while working relaxing 50-60 hour weeks.

Of course, if you choose to leave academia after grad school, the prospects are equally dismal. The rare position that requires research experience is essentially set aside for friends (you hear a lot about "networking" on the science job boards, but little practical advice on how to actually do it), or for people who have been poached from other companies by recruiters. Meanwhile, once you have a PhD, you're untouchable by most employers -- considered too theoretical and expensive for "practical" work. Ultimately, most people with advanced degrees in the sciences spend years teaching courses on contract, or jumping between dead-end, low-paying jobs, hoping to start something that resembles a career.
Money isn't everything
When I started, I read "How to Think Like A Computer Scientist: Learning With Python" Since then the revised edition has had a draft out, " How to Think Like a (Python) Programmer". This series is really good at getting the basics down clearly and quickly (I read through it in under a week). After that, Dive into Python fleshed things out more for me.

http://www.greenteapress.com/thinkpython/
What's Wrong with 19 Year Old Developers
Since the author neglects to mention an example of "a patch-based environment (there are many of these for working with audio)" for audio, I will:

- PD : http://puredata.info/

which is based on (as opposed to "a clone of")

- Max / MSP : http://www.cycling74.com/products/maxmsp

PD can do (simple, afaik - I've never used it for that) video as well but where it really shines is in concocting all sorts of bizarre audio constructs.
The Aeron mesh is like sitting on a tennis racket. If you're an overweight executive then you'll definitely avoid moist seat syndrome. However, if you're an underweight geek then its not so good.
I had trouble with the headline. It's a hard concept to convey in fifteen words.
Well spotted, folks. Thankfully the <a rel="nofollow"> handles that problem.
Have any of you read "Meta Math!: The Quest for Omega" by Gregory Chaitin? I just started it and so far its fascinating.
No, no, no. That's distinctly different. You use both hands :)
Thanks for this fascinating article! But my problem is not one of motivation, but one of knowledge. i.e.: I have no idea what the most efficient use of my time is. I just do what I feel like doing, not (necessarily) what gives the best R.O.I.
The antitrust people would start off by looking at the hypothetical merged companies percentage of the relevant market. If the the relevant market is defined as "search," MSFTHOO would create an entity with only a 30% of the market compared to GOOG's 65% (based on numbers from here: http://www.hitwise.com/press-center/hitwiseHS2004/searchengi...).
This is not to say the FTC or DOJ wouldn't sandbag such a deal, but how do you gain monopolisitic market power or anti-competitive effects from a 30% market share? I guess you could keep blowing up the definition of the relevant market until you captured MSFT's entire business but that seems dubious.
I'll start by saying I'm a weird guy.

A long time ago I realized that people mean different things when they say 'priority'. If you only mean the 'value' of a certain task, then that's not a good way to prioritize, IMHO.

I've changed my model to prioritize strictly according to return on investment. I.e., how much value I or the company receives for unit of work.

In my professional project management and in my company, here's the algorithm that I pretty much use for every sort of task prioritization:

(1) I put together a list of items

(2) I put a relative cost (RC or C) associated with each item-- for a task list this tends just to be the hours you predict you'll spend.

(3) I hide those costs and then add some number that represents the relative business value (RBV or BV) of each item. (More on this in a second)

(4) I unhide things and then put another column that just calculates RBV/RC which indicates the return on investment (ROI) for each task.

(5) I then sort it all by ROI and work my way down the list in ROI priority order, always working on the tasks that offer the most ROI, I adjust values and costs (and re-sort) as my needs change, work completes, and as my understanding of each task changes.

The units used to value each assigned task is not really important. It's only important that tasks have a value that makes sense relative to each other.

For example, if I have these tasks:

* Setup tech support email account
* Improve usability for site logon page
* Write a blog article about our recent features

I might then give these costs:

01 hour - Write a blog article about our recent features
01 hour - Setup tech support email account
16 hours - Improve usability for site logon page

Having a tech support email account, I know that's important and I must have it, so it gets a high value. In this case, I'd say "Improving usability" is something we could survive without, but I firmly believe it could increase our revenue.

I might then give these relative business values (I'll just say points):

200 pts - Write a blog article about our recent features
10000 pts - Setup tech support email account
5000 pts - Improve usability for site logon page

When I calculate the ROI and sort them, I get this list that I work from top to bottom:

10000 pts/h - Setup tech support email account
313 pts/h - Improve usability for site logon page
200 pts/h - Write a blog article about our recent features

As long as when I add new tasks, I evaluate them against the other values and costs to ensure they're all relatively correct, the list always sorts to provide the tasks with the 'biggest bang for the buck' at the top.
Good point. My problem is that I find it hard to delegate (or am too stingy to spend money on services). So I've wasted endless hours on fiddling with CSS. Since I'm a very good programmer but a very bad designer, that was probably not efficient. Law of comparative advantage and all that.
From the book Eat That Frog! - 21 Great Ways To Stop Procrastinating And Get More Done in Less Time: Doing something is better than doing nothing. Make a list of five tasks. Order the tasks by strict priority. Work your way through the list, skipping as you get stuck. If your list has more than five items then you're spending too long making lists.
Uberman's Sleep Schedule: Feel Energized on 2 Hours of Sleep a Day.
Everyman Sleep Schedule
I think I'm weird too, because I love the idea. But please tell me you only use this for work.

I don't have Excel, so I'll start writing a Ruby DSL to implement this right away.

*mdemare eyes himself warily*
If the analysis is time consuming/paralyzing, take a guess and proceed. If you literally have no clue, chat with your co-founders. If you're still unsure, grab 10 random target users and give them the list-- as them which thing on the list they'd want you to work on.