skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Found it interesting that even before people apply they need to mention "Only founders can come to interviews if invited or attend batch events if accepted." I can imagine YC has had a ton of problems with everyone wanting to see their speakers. Or maybe Quora decided to bring their whole company to every YC event.
I can already disable flash ads. Good luck disabling HTML 5 ads without browser plugins support.
Eh. I don't think writing a custom stack implementation would be any more difficult and you'd get to scale to the memory of your machine rather than your language's runtime.
Franchise Model Up in Flames
cgrubb's comment puts the US-wide estimate at 0.18%, so actually pretty close.
Amusingly, the description in that link is now inaccurate: "Newly available is the Hellcat, which makes an amazing 707 hp from its supercharged 6.2-liter V-8, making it the most powerful production sedan on earth." (Thanks to the P85D with Ludicrous mode, at 762 hp.)
This should really be "8 reasons to turn down that startup job as your first job" as most of the bullet points are really only geared towards someone in or leaving college. This should be obvious from the website's name but without context it took me a minute before I realized.

That being said the #7 point of "The world needs fixing, not disrupting" seems to lose sight of what disruption really is and conflates it with simply taking advantage of people.

Disruption fixes things. In fact I think one could easily argue that disruption fixes things far more effectively than anything else. Telling someone to go find "real problems to solve" is simply useless. I don't understand the point of trying to make the "service economy" a place "Where entitled white boys figure out how to replicate their private school dorm experience for life".

Sure there are issues in this area with SOME start-ups but going right into calling it a race issue without providing anything useful just screams useless rant.

Just drop #7, rename to 7 reasons and update the HN title to make it more obvious of the target demographic. Just my thoughts.
Snow shut down Atlanta because the city did no preparation on the streets and didn't salt them, so the whole city was covered in an inch of ice. I don't think any car could drive on that as long as it used tires.

There were also (according to local legend) three snowplows for the whole city in the 2000s.
Someone over at r/golang said that it might not be necessary to patch the kernel in OS X 10.11 (El Capitan). Haven't verified it myself though...
This is so on point. Could not have said it better myself.
Lindy effect
As a developer my experience has been the direct opposite. Getting my first job at a startup was a the best decision for me. I think I have more width (rather than depth) of knowledge because of it, (since I worked in wider verity of roles).

Maybe for a designer this is different. Probably the title should point this out?
> but there differences are real.

But those differences aren't the laws of physics. We can change them, and we do change them all the time. The only question is in which direction? Saying "leave things alone" simply means let the existing dynamics continue and is as much of an ideology as "let's figure out what change would be in accordance with our values and do that".

> you would still have a significant inequality of results and power between such groups.

Between what groups? Struggle over power never stops. It's not a problem that can be solved once and for all, and people fight over it all the time. Even the most powerful fight to stay in power and even increase their power. All I'm saying is, find out what your values are and fight for those, rather than believe that the current state of affairs is "natural". It isn't. It is simply a recent snapshot of the situation after all previous struggles. Not fighting for your values is simply yielding to those who do.

> If you would achieve perfect equality of results or power equality - that could only be done through very significant inequality of opportunities for individuals, significantly aiding or hampering them depending on which social groups they belong to. This does not seem acceptable to me at all; the goal is nice, but it definitely doesn't justify such (IMHO horrible) means.

I said nothing of the means, and all of those fears are completely unfounded. Decades of research show us that people are being "aided or hampered them depending on which social groups they belong to" right now. All we want is to people to study and be aware of the state of affairs, and the goal is not to achieve perfect equality among all individuals, but to exactly remove the existing pressures on social groups -- that's all.
Space Mining
At the moment I have a small team, but before that I was CTO of a large team working on real time (soft and hard) defense systems.
Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Evam Sanchar Vishwavidyalaya
That's not even remotely true. Every company has some amount of data on their customers (some more, some less), and the overwhelming majority of them don't abuse that data. The problem is you're treating Apple exactly as you would treat Google or some other company giving away its products for free, which is complete nonsense. Of course the companies giving away their products for free are going to have to monetize the customer data they have in order to make money. But Apple doesn't give away its products for free. It sells them. It's exactly like the millions of other companies in the world that charge money for their products and don't attempt to monetize their customer data.
It is, actually; just maybe not on a timescale you're looking at things on.

Alternatively we could never depreciate it and use it forever, a much worse scenario.
I heard one of the current YC partners speak a couple years ago at a student conference and this person phrased things really well. There was a question from the audience, something like "how do you know when to quit?"

Their response: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. And try again. And keep trying. But don't be a damn fool."
Sure. Why not? The only thing really stopping us from having distributed apps (like diaspora) is a way for people to easily install them on always-connected hardware they own.

If there were a well designed open source router with a decent app store with equivalents of all the web apps you use online, I'm sure you could get a lot of people to start sharing their baby pictures using software installed on that.

I'd switch to something like that in a heartbeat if it existed.
I agree with you 100%. You're going along reading a bunch of very reasonable and helpful advice, then BAM, politics, stereotyping, and class warfare! One can observe that most of the "problems" that today's startups are solving are not very interesting or inspiring without resorting to politically charged language and personal attacks (and for the record, I agree that the ideas he lists are silly at best).

Have to give credit, though; he saved it for the end. If that's #1, I don't bother reading the rest and I would guess many others wouldn't either. So that's clever at least.
Because it does nothing that anyone in my organization has ever asked for, nor does it do anything that anyone in any organization I've ever worked for has asked for, in 20 years of working on Linux systems.

I've never heard of any problems it solves other than things described in abstract terms that might make sense to a developer but that makes no sense to Operations/DevOps teams.

Nobody likes learning something new for zero benefit. I keep trying, though. But the more I am forced to learn about it, the more arcane it gets. It's not a learning curve, as far as I can tell. It's a learning wall with no payoff. It makes everything we do more difficult, the commands make no sense, and it brings no tangible benefit. It's change for change's sake. It reminds me of DJB's insistence on making logs in hex "just because".

Just a simple example. Why is it "systemctl list-unit-files"? What the hell are unit files? How is this in any way logical? Why is this an argument and not a flag? Why is it that I can use a systemctl command, and it tells me to use the -l flag to view non-ellipsized output, but then when I use the flag, it gives me an arcane error that tells me nothing about what happened? It's the tip of the iceberg in an endless string of junk that simply doesn't make any sense or work properly.

So, I like to vote against it whenever I can, because supporters like to keep insisting that it's the way of the future, and implying anyone who hates it is a luddite.
That's a horrible idea. What if the aggressive driver is rushing a bleeding passenger to the hospital?
This is great for a deadline. If we have a great product and a lot of feedback from our user in the last week, definitely we will send the application.
Also worth noting that within their stack, they don't chase the newest versions. Until about a year ago, they were running Rails 2.3, when they upgraded to Rails 3.0:

http://shayfrendt.com/posts/upgrading-github-to-rails-3-with...
The only other regular 'tiny content' thing I can think of is ZeroClipboard (which puts an invisible flash movie over a button so you can click 'copy') as Javascript clipboard actions still aren't broadly supported [2].

ZeroClipboard is used by Github and lots of other sites for the little buttons next to repo URLs, etc.

1 - https://github.com/zeroclipboard/zeroclipboard
2 - http://caniuse.com/#search=clipboard
No, although it's better because it one less thing you'll have to worry about later. Once accepted, you can file online for an adjustment of status to B-1 without leaving the US and enjoy that status as soon as you submit -- although it will usually take a few months until your case is processed. You'll usually get 6 months and can reasonably extend for 10 months. Once accepted in YC, one can assume you can reasonably qualify for O-1 or EB-1, but because it takes longer to prepare such application, you best bet is to start with B-1.
More like 8 ways to become another drone.
That's the joke. :)
This article is aimed at designers, and maybe it makes good points for them.

But for developers beginning their careers at a startup, most of these points just don't apply. I cut my teeth at an early startup, and just for example: people taught me how to be a better developer (#2), I went wider rather than deeper (#3), and I had a great mentor (#4).
I'm with you here. After working at a startup for 1.5 years I became a solid full stack developer with the ability to very quickly adapt to the current task.

There's a point about going "wide" instead of "deep" in the article, and I can surely say that working at that startup gave more "wide" than anything else.

And by the way, at the job where I am at the moment, I had to use a severely limited skillset and had to use a couple of same technologies all over the place.
Also relevant: Fuck You, Pay Me by Mike Monteiro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U
I'm honestly confused if we're in disagreement or not.

Let me clarify my position:

I think most people should invest.

And part of that investment should be in the stock market (how big a part depends on their individual age and risk tolerance).

And for most people, the only stocks they should ever buy are ETFs that are passively managed with low fees.

Yes they need to do enough research in as far as to find out that they should only be buying ETFs (and that kind of research does not require any kind of support from their brokerage). But they shouldn't be tempted to do more specific "research" to pick their own stocks because most people who do that are doomed to underperform the market anyways.

So in the end, the fact that Robinhood lacks a decent research platform shouldn't matter to most regular investors because they should only ever buy specific ETFs anyways.
Amir Najam LLC Seattle, WA, 98105 – YP.com
I thought about exactly that as I was writing the analogy, and I just don't know... :)

I do think, though, that just like with architecture, different components require different care, and those that require absolute correctness are a rather small part. I also think that math (as in architecture) is only a very small part of the solution. It's essential, but it doesn't dictate the path of the project, and in the end most of it is just a lot of knowledge of how people behave (the people who live or work in the building and the people who will run, clean and maintain it).
Ahh...Should have read my own link... They are quite oldschool indeed. Re-branding and restricting the service to games does indeed make sense coming from those days, and Google kind of has an unfair advantage by having so many eyes on it that they can enforce the rules necessary for allowing people to live stream whatever they want.

It's interesting to think about how many different ways video streaming platforms have been shaped into different audiences (private/public, contacts/strangers, content based or not, self[users/mods]/central/third-party moderation). It makes sense for Youtube and Google's reputation that they didn't get into it earlier on, but I still respect Youtube for the culture it has created, even before getting bought by Google. I don't know when it all started, but gameplay video subscriptions are a huge part of their content (I'm sure there are some good sources on this), and with the huge audience, content creators motivated by $$$ really early on.

The urge to share gameplay is something that has existed in everybody long ago. I myself was wishing I had better hardware for recording gameplay back in my early college years and uploaded a video 2006. I had also partaken in some live streaming of gameplay as far back as 2009 on different services.
This is awesome!!! Now no more unwanted stuff while browsing.
Remember though that we're coming from a position where humans sometimes don't drive very well while sober and in daylight, not to mention night, rain, while drunk, tired, etc. We're often selfish or distracted. An automated or augmented car with cameras can see virtually instantly in all directions.

When I'm driving, my rear view is somewhat obstructed by a toddler's car seat in the middle of the back row, my blindspot is further obstructed by a sunblocking mesh on the infant's side. When I check my mirrors or especially the blindspot, I am taking my eyes off the road in front of me.

I think I'd rather a superior robotic driver that stalls in tricky situations than all of us crazy humans making panicked decisions when facing pressure.
Many startups see development as the product, and design as the pretty.
As the top post points out, while obviously a bit of a pity, losing this piece of the puzzle is not going to majorly impact our understanding of history, in fact this 'funny' article may bring about more appreciation of artefacts, maybe some people will register those they know about in response, the net effect could well be a positive !
> there’s not physically enough space for self-driving taxis for everyone

Do you have any sources on this? I agree that space on the roads of major cities is an issue now, but several changes in the future could mitigate these issues significantly:

1) Self driving cars will probably end parking in city centres. Suddenly, a lot of congested roads have ~twice the surface area.

2) Self driving cars may eventually be able to drive within centimetres of one another.

3) No need for a huge bonnet (small electric engine), boot/trunk (rooftop rack storage), pedals, dashboard, etc in an electric automated taxi. A 2-4 person vehicle is now rather compact indeed.

4) Remote/part-time-remote work may mean commutes are avoided, or staggered throughout the day, for the majority of people. There's a lot less peak capacity required, compared to today.
I don't offhand, but that's what the article is referring to when it says:

> And this is what they wanted to remove because they wanted static allocation of procedure activation records.

From what I can tell with a bit of digging, machines/compilers back then didn't even use return stacks for subroutines. Instead, they used self-modifying code (!).

To return from a subroutine call, you'd do something like this:

1. When compiling a subroutine, add a JUMP followed by an address to the end.

2. When you call a subroutine, modify the code to change that address to point back to the callee.

3. Jump to the subroutine.

4. When it's done running, it hits the last JUMP and jumps back to the caller.

With this, you don't need any concept of a call stack at all. But it obviously prohibits recursion since the later call would trash the earlier one's return address.
I might phrase it "...to _find_ believers". You run into a lot fewer problems if you merely search vs trying to convince.
You might consider building on top of something like ShareJS[1]'s JSON OT types rather than reinventing your collaboration substrate :)

[1]: https://github.com/share/sharejs
Los Angeles Police to Launch Largest Body Cam Program in U.S
Thing is, #7 doesn't apply because he's referring to Amazon, and they are far, far away from startup territory. Sure, there are actual startups that have work/life balance issues that are as toxic (or more) as Amazon's, so I suppose it applies to them.

I liked his other reasons, though.
> * According to several experts, there is no reason to think the problems are confined to psychology, and it could be worse in other fields. The researchers chose psychology merely because that is their field of expertise.

There's a tendency to stop collecting data once there are publishable findings. There's also a tendency to ignore (find reason to discount) results that aren't reproducible or don't make sense. That's even the case in physics. There's a tendency to debug until you get results that are consistent with prior work.
I really don't think that the prevalence of geniuses or mentally retarded among any social group has any significant effect on the overall distribution of power. You are speaking of people who are, by definition, outliers.

But even more theoretically, I don't see your point, though. History has proven beyond a doubt that society can and does change in rather extreme ways. In terms of changes to the power distribution in society, we are still far from hitting any biological limitations (and when we do, we often find technological solutions to them). So just because there are some biological limitations we should stop way short of them?

And we can take it further. Suppose (this is not the case, but suppose) that some large population is biologically significantly stupider than other groups (they're not idiots, just far from smart), and as a result, that group is constantly subservient to other groups, and has far less power to advance its interests. Don't you think we should actively help them? I mean, people can't fly, yet we've gone to great lengths to overcome that biological barrier through technology. We also go to great lengths (though that depends also on who suffers, but never mind) to overcome physical medical conditions. Shouldn't we also make some effort to fight social problems, or should we say, "let nature run its course" even though we never do that for anything else?

Finally -- and I'll repeat that because it's a relevant historical fact -- for centuries people (men and sometimes women, too) honestly believed -- they were certain, really -- that women are too stupid to be doctors and lawyers (although they put it gently with phrases like, "their wisdom lies elsewhere"). Then they said that regardless of intelligence, no one would put their life in the hands of a woman (or a black) doctor. But guess what? They were wrong and we got used to it. So while this is not a very scientific argument, history shows that -- so far -- if you base your arguments on what you believe are biological limitations or the persistence of social customs, you'd be on the wrong side of history.
You may be right. I wasn't sure.
Hijab Tutorial Pashmina Satin Simple
Show HN: Invoiced, a self-hosted invoicing app with API
Windows Symbolic Link Mitigations
Well, your car will still have only one person – and you won’t get it smaller than the Messerschmitt Kabinenroller I linked above. And even that is more than twice what a person in an overground train takes in space, underground trains are essentially free.

Additionally, in many cities there is already almost no downtown parking.

It’s not like you’re going to turn the laws of physics over.

One of the sources why cars are worse than bikes or busses, from the city of Münster: http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2014/07/Public_Tra...
You're probably oversimplifying the study considerably, but even so, even things that "everyone knows" need to be formally studied. All across science, non-intuitive results happen all the time. In psychology, it's even more common, since biology doesn't play by the relatively clean rules of materials physics.

After all, "everyone knows" that blacks are inferior and only useful as slaves (they even want to be, deep down); "everyone knows" that women are too temperamental to vote sensibly; "everyone knows" that people of that religion over there eat babies and we should destroy them before they destroy us...

For a more recent example, "everyone knows" that young people use condoms more often now, given the higher levels of sex education about pregnancy and STIs they've grown up with - yet regional studies often show significantly decreased levels of condom use. Another one is the assumption that the current crop of young'uns are fantastic with understanding computers due to growing up with them, yet this hasn't been borne out in studies. Turned out that consuming from a device doesn't mean you understand how it works any better.

Such studies are particularly important at ferretting out what's happening with people who aren't society's favourites - we all know what a man is, right? Always looking to get laid, not afraid to get physical, plays sport, drinks beer. Most men are like that, right? Not really; there's actually a huge variety of interests and desires. Studies of 'obvious!' things are just as necessary as fringe things, because sometimes the results are really quite unexpected.
Couldn't agree more, release sh!t products you'll get that response, especially when most are forced to use said products by their respective workplaces. It was a terrible AMA for the IBMers, they could have been more honest, but i don't think that would have swayed the mass of discontent.
That would still mean that a single country, albeit the largest one turns 1.56% of it's population into homeless each year.
Looking at statistics for California as a whole there's no room to account for those homeless people so it doesn't look like they are being dumped beyond the county lines.

So either they all died which would greatly skew the population statistics in the US as a whole, moved out of California (which doesn't seem to be the case since homelessness in adjutant states didn't sky rocket) or the truth is more closer to what was stated than to yours.

(I would concede that perhaps that they might be in Mexico if you really want to explore this further)

Also 9 million residents received "public assistance"? Even if it's over 8 years it's still a huge number considering that the LA county has a population of about 10M, so unless going to school, voting, going to a hospital or being borne counts as "public assistance" I would really like to see exactly how they got to that number since the immigration statistics for that country cannot account for a transfer of so many residents to have 9M requiring actual "public assistance" over any reasonable period of time yet alone 8 years...