skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I see a couple of issues with programs like this.

First, if this were to take off it would move the industry to impression based pricing wholesale. Reprinted content is already on of the biggest problems today, and with this model there is obvious risk that original creators get nothing as reprinters take everything.

Second, given that we can't have a monopoly on this business, a webmaster is incentivized to join every Contributor-like program there is. We would end up with every website loading hundreds of javascripts for tracking visits from every provider there is, which would massively increase load times on the web.

Third, there are also incentives to game the system by splitting your content over many web sites, using iframes or javascript, each making a call to every possible provider. Similar ad fraud schemes are already a problem today and this will only make them easier.

One easy fix would be to make a system opt-in for the end user on a site-by-site basis. This is similar to how Flattr and Patreon works. I pay to both of them, and will probably not join Contributor, but it will be very exciting to see where Google is taking this.
> It's a retention/bonus plan because there are means to liquidity via secondary markets even pre-IPO. Obviously the liquidity event is the ideal outcome, but there are still many ways for an employee to exit his/her position prior to that point, and the idea is that you ride the valuation curve up so that what is on paper a $20k annual "bonus" becomes a $60k annual bonus, for example.

Most early-stage startup employees can't get liquidity on secondary markets, either because there's no demand for their company's stock or they are subject to transfer restrictions.

When looking at the big picture, proponents of equity as an effective bonus/retention tool will have to explain why most vested options go unexercised.
Can we please stop referring to spins and skins of existing Linux distributions as a whole new OS? There doesn't appear to be much hear that a highschool kid could not do in a few days. Pretty under whelming for an effort of a nation state of 1.3 billion people.
Carrier grade NAT is a disaster for end users, unless you want to do little more than browse the web unreliably.

Multiplayer gaming, peer-to-peer anything really, is an unmitigated shitshow under heavy NAT.

You definitely do not want carrier grade NAT to become entrenched in North America, like it already is in Asia.

And at some point, even if we did want it, we'd run out of numbers for people who want to serve content, and at that point NAT isn't going to do anything for you, and the barrier for entry for new web businesses becomes sky high.
That's an easy decision to make when you stop letting them make the sales pitches, but still take what they offer in exchange for those sales pitches. If you stopped the advertising and didn't view the content they offered in exchange, it would be quieter, calmer and a lot more boring.
Monotasking: Stay Focused by Doing One Thing at a Time
Would love to see a sample page+workflow to guide me through to actually signing up
I can't help noticing that we used to solve this with a universal convention called an office door. If your door was closed, you were asking not to be interrupted unless it was essential. If your door was open, you were available to work with others if they needed you.

I've seen a lot of arguments over the years about the pros and cons of open office spaces, and how generally greater awareness of what's happening and informal, ad-hoc contributions make the team as a whole more productive even if they aren't optimal for team members in isolation. Some of them do seem plausible.

However, I came to the conclusion that a lot of those arguments are unrealistic not long after first going freelance. I was then working at my own office, with my own equipment and software, on my own timescales, and with the ability to simply turn phones and e-mail off when I need to concentrate. It is amazing how much more productive that made me, compared to my previous job in an open plan office. I often do things in a day that I would have expected to take a week or more in the kind of high-distraction, open environments I worked in as an employee.

It's true that you need to communicate effectively if you have some separation, and that means making some changes if you're working remotely most of the time. It's also true that it's useful to get together face-to-face and catch up with colleagues from time to time, particularly if a project is moving rapidly. However, neither of those things requires full-time availability and being permanently subject to interruption. If get-together time is consolidated and planned in advance, I find it's still plenty fast and effective enough for probably 9 things out of 10 that aren't done on-line or with pre-planned calls anyway, and the other time someone just goes to where someone else is at shorter notice if it looks like it will be useful to be in the same place for a while.

So, for productivity, I personally rate having a few days a month set aside for face-to-face time but the rest mostly free of distractions far higher than having a few hours of useful work every day but also getting interrupted by multiple calls and such throughout that time.
Show HN: Latest JavaScript Features
Unfortunately my manager and just about everyone else in the department is in the same boat. There's just a culture of mail overuse here.
Before coming to this site I never realized how shafted employee number 1 gets at most startups.

I've worked with the same CTO as employee #1 at various startups for the last ~10 years. I generally get around 5%. The idea that people would take 1% or less sounds crazy to me. It's just not worth the hours and stress it involves that early on.

In return I earn about 33-50% less salary than what I probably could elsewhere. So far it's paid off for me. But if I got less than 1% instead I would be worse off for it.
As I understand it, the correct term for that is "structural typing." Duck typing is similar, but applies exclusively to dynamic languages. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing#Structural_type_sy...
You meant subsidizing women's health issues, I think.
Dispatch from Refugee Crisis: Desperate, but Not Defeated
> Whose belly do doctors put fresh-born babies on, their fathers?

I wasn't the one who downvoted you, but I think it's unfortunate that you're citing a social practice to try and establish biological fact and claiming to understand what I "know."

Nothing about a distinctly female presence is necessary for a child's proper development, much less the specific woman that birthed the baby originally. All the major psychological associations that I know of support gay adoption as healthy for children. The biologically necessary thing is a loving parental presence, gender non specific. Formula exists and can be given to children, midwives existed to feed babies before that.
Bargaining power is obvious: unless women are being enslaved or raped (not the norm in the first world), they control who gets to procreate. Wombs are a limited resource, sperm is not. So that gives women bargaining power (limited resources have a price).

The first (option to spend time with children): maybe that just follows from the bargaining power. But if you have been present at the birth of your kids, maybe you can agree that it seems ridiculous to take children away from their mother shortly after birth, after all they have been through. The importance of breast feeding is another aspect, although obviously children can also grow up without that.

It's only feminism that needs to frame mothering as a form of suppression, because otherwise their narrative would fall apart. The reality is that it is usually a privilege (a fair privilege, but still) that women gladly accept. (Yes, women who don't enjoy spending time with their children exist, ask your local feminist for a bunch of anecdotes. They are still a minority).
The world is your casino. But bettors beware–the house always wins
That's exactly my point - you're only remembering your negative experiences as advertising experiences. You're even saying "watching", which leads me to believe that most of your negative experiences have been online or on television.
"Meanwhile, publications like the New York Times still depend on online advertising to continue to exist in the way they do."

Not any more. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist are all paywalled. Those are some of the few remaining newspapers with sizable reporting staffs.

Most other US "newspapers" have a few reporters, but mostly regurgitate wire services and press releases. The "fluff" sections (cars, real estate, food and wine, sports) are outsourced, sometimes to Demand Media, the content-farm company.

Buy a newspaper and mark all the articles that didn't originate as a press release, press conference, national news service, or ad. There will not be many.
Same here. I'd happily pay a monthly subscription to stop seeing ads in the YouTube iPad app.
I disagree with some of your points. We tried writing a big web app in JavaScript, and we were extremely sad to see how hard it is to maintain JavaScript code. I like IDE support as well, and JavaScript provides terrible type inference, clear defined structures and other things needed to get it right. People argue that there is Definitely Typed and other things that provide type interfaces for libraries, but it kinda reminds me of header files in C/C++, because it's not defined with the code. We ended up using Dart because of it's interesting take on Web Development (It doesn't just give us the DOM APIs, it improves them and does the polyfilling and that stuff for us). We have been doing this for multiple years and have had a great success. Also, I have strong opinions about JavaScript, including that it looks like a monkey made it, and that someone literally took all the bad things from other languages and put them together. All in all, it's a matter of preference. I've always gone against the crowd too (I think React is just meh, which is not popular), so there is that.
There is also a cabal of (conservative) women campaigning against women's reproductive rights. This example does not prove your point.
That also depends massively on the used libraries and the structure of the code. A 100kloc c file could build superfast. Whereas multiple c++ totalling about 10kloc that include use use lots of Boost stuff can take ages compared to that.
I didn't say it was "Destroying" the internet, I said 'hurting'. You can be hurt and still "chug" along just fine, forever. Being hurt just keeps you from reaching your full potential.
All of which are going to be mediocre because JavaScript is a very hard language to simply reason about for machines.
VW has already admitted to intentionally installing this software to cheat on the emissions test.
>> In what way is a site showing an ad about children going hungry in America (as Hulu used to play quite often) and him not clicking on it scamming the organization that put the ad out?

It's one 'view' (well page-load, because I'm not going to view it regardless) that's going to get them nowhere that they don't have to pay for.

>> In what way is his blanket rejection of the ad before actually seeing it making helping that organization?

Again, they don't have to pay for me to completely ignore them.

Are you trying to argue that I should watch all advertising that comes my way in case some of it is socially responsible?

I'm not sure who has the more naive view here...
I am aware that memory plays tricks over time, so I am not 100% sure, but I have a distinct memory of sitting at work and getting seriously pissed off at the astounding amount of same, ugly, pink Groupon adverts I've seen in the space of few hours. I recall how ridiculous a lightweight-layout site looked when all available ad boxes got filled with variants of the same animated pink ad at the same time.

I'm pretty sure (let's say ~80%) that it was before I started hearing the bad press about Groupon. I recall being initially biased against them because of ads, and then slowly learning more reasons to not participate.
The IOT argument is specious and betrays a lack of understanding the challenges in connecting devices; specifically, the choice of controlling language begins at a lower level of the stack. New languages will arise, but they will be statically typed and speak protocols like LonWorks. Don't confuse hobbyist kits that are well suited to JS for actual, useful-in-production programming stacks for IOT.
They say so here at 13:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=292&v=0R3mMUsHFvU

I said so in a comment half an hour ago, but it immediately got downvoted to oblivion. Meanwhile the comment seems to slowly recover.

Nowhere on their website they say so. I would be really pissed if I bought a printer for thousands of dollars, unpack it and then realize I cannot use it. Letting it use my internet connection and being dependant on the services of a company to use it would not be an option for me.
That does seem to assume that someone has their door either always open or always closed, which obviously isn't necessarily true.
Long, long ago, in a college town far away, I was arrested in my own home, without a warrant, for possession of marijuana. The case was thrown out by a judge due to various evidence problems, stemming from not getting a warrant.

There are a limited number of circumstances under which it is legal for police to enter and search a home without a warrant. As my lawyer casually knocked down the others, the prosecutor finally landed on "danger to the officers". The cop on the witness stand helpfully piped up, "In a drug case, there's always danger to the officers!" The judge glared at him, and said "You just told me you were outside for fifteen minutes, and they didn't even know you were there! You were not in danger!"

That was pretty much the end of the case.
This starts with the blanket statement that you should always use javascript when starting a new web project and then follows up with two examples of using javascript in non-web environments.

While I agree that Javascript has matured a lot, and it has its place in the backend, I strongly disagree that it should always be used. We need to give thought about why we're using it and make it a conscious choice. It can be that its a single language on the frontend and backend. It can be the abundance of developers. It can be it's evented nature. But blindly making a choice without thought leads to a cargo cult mentality.

Additionally, there is no replacement to backend code. We may one day have good enough abstractions to allow us to mostly forget about the backend, but it will still be there. Bugs will arise where we need to understand how it works, and there will always be some sort of API (whether hidden or not) that we need to be mindful of. The web is a client-server system, and we can't forget that.
>"all suffer from more interruption the more knowledgable they get, and the more valuable they become to the company. "

Well, in that case they're valuable for the knowledge they provide for their coworkers, rather than the work they produce. Being a bit in this situation, I'm leaning more and more into letting my boss know that this is something I need to do full-time, and simply not get any work done because of it. I think it's a huge boost to the team having someone knowledgeable to guide and mentor them.

However, I doubt it'd fly so well with the bean-counters.
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/onaccident.html
Every issue you mentioned apart from the terrible fumes are problems that already exist in one's home with cooking in your own home, and people, seeing the convenience of cooking in their homes, have adapted to it. Regarding fumes actually, the smell from my neighbor's cooking isn't always to my liking either, but, perhaps, burnt plastic might be worse and equally undesirable to all people.
Organizations keep those secrets by rationalizing that their behavior is not illegal at all. "This might be against the spirit of the law, but hey, here is this clever loophole that we found." This way, what could have been a perfectly whistle-blowable secret is just a dirty little implementation detail that won't be shared because the people involved are not particularly proud of it. What makes this pattern so powerful is that its persuasiveness does not correlate much with the legal quality of the rationalization: as long as the rationalization is not routinely tested in court, people will happily believe just about anything if it makes their job easier. Doubly so in a corporate environment where optimism is rewarded and pessimism is punished.

Nonetheless it has been very much knowable, for years if not decades, that some level of benchmark-gaming is happening in the car industry. But that's an inconvenient truth to anyone who is living a car centric life, so even people outside of the car industry proper were likely to not make much of it when a car engineer had a spell of loose lips. I am convinced that it is neither a coincidence nor a conspiracy that only a study initiated by a quite car-critical organization could break that wall of motivated disinterest.

Re 40x: a clean combustion combines all the inputs into mostly harmless outputs. Inert gases that have shed all chemically bound energy and won't react much with the molecules that make us alive (unfortunately, we don't know how to perfection that chemical efficiency without sacrificing thermal efficiency). Those mostly harmless gases might still be bad (think CO2), but are not terribly bad as in directly poisonous. In an imperfect combustion, all that stuff can combine into much more reactive and thus dangerous gases. If you set your regulatory threshold sufficiently close to perfection, even a very slight imbalance in the combustion can cause "orders of magnitude beyond threshold". It's the same mathematical principle that makes "many nines" uptime guarantees such a beast: if you fail, you will most probably fail quite hard.
I think part of the author's point is that JS has now achieved so much critical mass, so to speak, that in the not too distant future it's just going to be the programming language. Being a programmer will be synonymous with writing JavaScript. So it doesn't really matter how you feel about JS per se; it's the language all the tooling will be built around, it's the language young programmers will have learned in school, it's the language that the people who cut the checks will assume by default you'll be using. So justifying using anything else will be an increasingly difficult uphill struggle as you fight against all these factors.
previous: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10254721
If viewing contents without viewing ads is damaging to a site, they can block. Or they can provide N free views per X days, and then block. And provide a subscription mechanism.

I think I must have been turned away from a site once or twice, but I really can't remember specifically.

So they don't block. Which means, they get something out of the visit. Exposure, at least. The hope of an eventual subscription, as I subscribe to the NYT digital.

But if they don't block, then they either get something out of those visit, or they're foolish. Either way, I'm not worried about them.

At all.
I'm not sure I understand your point. What does material possession and power (I assume over others) have to do with freedom?

These hackers have power (their ability to obtain government data and subvert its power) and the Chinese government is perhaps wisely channeling it to its foreign adversaries.
Practically all of the advertising on the internet is purchased on per impression basis. It falls into 2 categories:

1) Advertisers paying straight per mille i.e. mr. Proper, Coca-Cola, Lays, etc. Direct outcomes are secondary to them (at best). This is the ovewhelming majority of the display ad spend. Yes, you read that right. The majority of the online ad spend does not care about sales on a website.

2) CPC based ads (ala adwords). Although you are charged per click, this is primarily because it is easier to explain to you. At the end of the day, there are back end calculations in google (the most famous one being called "quality score"), which transform per-click to per-mille. The reason for that is as simple as supply and demand.

This is true for all publishers who sell on CPC. They calculate how much they make per 1000 impressions and calibrate the CPCs towards balanced equilibrium that will extract the most money out of the ad buyers. Publishers deal with visits and they need to know how much they make per visit.

I made my initial comment just to see where crybabies will go with their nonsense and couch expertise. Response as expected...
> Ad blockers are not hurting the internet, ads are hurting the internet.

The internet wouldn't exist without ads, kiddo. At the very least, it wouldn't be recognizable. It wouldn't be something that is ubiquitous to our daily lives.
ReactiveSocket: Reactive Stream semantics over asynchronous binary boundary
"This is not likely to change in the next couple of years while waters still settle. But generally the downsides of using JavaScript are fewer and fewer."

"Give the community time, and they will come up with solutions to most things that are considered impossible today."

Okay, so JavaScript will be better/awesome in the future. I still don't see why my next project should be in JavaScript.

Every time I try to get into full Javascript, I come across so many things that feel half-baked that I decide to wait it out some more and go back to the tried-and-true tools.
> NAT traversal is getting better over time, not worse. (Says data from gaming platforms) You only /really/ need more than one IP if you want to expose more than 65000 different services from a single physical place

There's a big, huge, insurmountable difference between home NAT traversal, with port-forwarding, and Carrier-grade NAT traversal, where fuck you and your ports.
I love when the satire just beats you over the head.
Another great one is zzzeek's mako templating, by far my favorite templating language: http://docs.makotemplates.org/

Anytime I write a web frontend in anything other than Python, I miss it very dearly. But really it's well-suited for any kind of templating work, even code generating—I've seen a few projects use it to generate C code. It's very powerful and doesn't try to dumb itself down because of some dogma about not using logic in templates.
> The real problem is are people growing up in a society where they are being subconsciously funnelled towards a particular choice (to the point where they don't see other options as valid choices due to subconscious biases).

Is this a problem? Is the funneling people into an androgynous role any better than funneling them into traditional gender roles? If anything the current system seems more "natural" in that it's emergent behavior, whereas moving to a genderless society will require top down engineering.

Our society is free enough that regardless of the direction the masses take, people can and will step out of the role most commonly held by other people of their gender. I think we all agree that it's a good thing to have that option.

With that in mind I don't think there's anything "bad" about genders existing in society. People's free will is strong enough to live the life they want regardless of cultural nudging.
Syrian civil war forces first withdrawal from Arctic seed bank
I'm curious how / why you trust the government, which is made up of people with various agendas.