skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Why would it become the only option when other forms keep popping up? Even with very hypothetical 100% penetration of (unblockable) ad blockers, this won't be the case.

Name me one other form of a successful website that does not use one of the following methods of monetization:

ads, donations, currency-exchange or none (free)

Because none of those are recent.

> You must have missed the NY times, the largest german newspaper (BILD) and other large publications switching to paywalls then. Perhaps look around some more before beating dead horses here... Also, your inflammatory language hurts your cause.

Because I'm not talking about organizations that already have millions of customers as a base. They are going to survive regardless of the ad-blocking penetration. Just like Google and Facebook will. What won't survive is anything that isn't enormous.

And you started the inflammatory nonsense by putting words into my mouth.
Can the Swedes turn their savings into some other resource which might not be deflationary, eg. gold?
The software is very simple and doesn't have the ability to log messages like that. I maintain a fork of the ircd freenode uses and that simplicity has actually been a bit of a pain as things grow.
Slack and IRC have two different (but interconnected) use cases. I love IRC, and I haunt a couple servers to chill or to ask an occasional newbie question. I'm pretty comfortable with IRC; it's a part of my culture.

I often find myself needing to establish a line of communication between people who aren't particularly tech-savvy. Slack works excellently for this: I make a new team, fire off some invites, and everyone just understands how it works. I can only imagine that, say, coordinating dev, corporate, and sales over IRC would be like living in the same circle of hell cardinally occupied by people who talk at the theater. If IRC works well for your team (whatever it is), excellent! Don't try to fix something that isn't broken. Slack isn't flawless, but it does have its usecases, and it fills them very nicely.
So microwaves basically have nothing to do with it. Could just as well have said "mattresses".
While I agree, it seems relevant to mention the experience with it anyway because it seems some people's poor experience with GAE might have actually prevented them from trying GCE. At the very least it helps answer why some people use AWS instead of GCE.
Chrome Developer Tools Command Line Interface
Looks like it still requires a signup, but lets you watch a few streams before it blocks you with the signup modal.
Swede here. It is always fascinating to read this kind of rabid BS about the very country you live and operate in - it is as if a completely different society is being described. Whatever brings the clicks, I guess.

This kind of brings me back to Fox News reporting cataclysmic imagery about cars being burnt in my city (Gothenburg) some time back. External "perspectives" are comedic gold, indeed.
Yeah, even if Swedes were hiding away their cash (which most people don't), they certainly wouldn't be hiding it in their microwave...
If livecoding keeps acting like this they are gonna lose whatever foothold they currently have of coding live streaming. With twitch.tv's recent announcment to open up streaming to creatives it is only a matter of time until they capture this audience too.
This whole response reads like it was written in the 90's. Most people don't care if something takes up 10's of MB's of RAM when new PC's are shipping with 16-32GB standard.

Your comparison of what amounts to ASCII art versus Slack's rich-media embedding reads like it is straight out of a Fortran developer's "I'm still relevant" handbook. You even offer up AOL and ICQ as counter examples!

If we're going there, I guess we should simply assign everyone a GUID and be done with it, right?

HMU on ICQ: 110339943
The other difference is that inside information isn't available on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. Traders pay for advantages all the time: Bloomberg terminals, news services, hire better analysts, pay someone to count cars in store parking lots, purchase faster computers or data feeds, but anyone else can do the same. Some players have an advantage, but the playing field itself is relatively level.

With inside information, it's not available to people outside the tipping network at any price. This, more than the mere chance of getting "picked off" by asymmetric information, drives traders out of the market, making it less liquid. If they were just losing because they didn't have good enough analysts, they could always compete and hire more. For the same reason, regulators and exchanges try to keep manipulators out of the market even if they bring a lot of volume. Eventually people will lose confidence in the market itself and leave.
What you're trying to say is that open source works best when there's little or no design work involved and little or no product vision required.

Linux is a canonical example: it's simply a clone, design wise, of a plain old UNIX. The product vision was "copy UNIX". Where the wheels fell off Linux is the moment it got ahead of the UNIX legacy (i.e. modern desktops) and started having to compete with Windows, so suddenly the "copy UNIX" goal was no longer relevant. But Windows was made by Microsoft, or "the great satan" as Stallman memory called it.

So simply switching the goal to "copy Windows" wasn't possible because Windows and UNIX were very different and anyway, lots of people hated Windows. Linux had picked up a lot of semi-technical and technical users who didn't care much about FOSS purity but loved the club feeling that using an obscure OS brought them. The end result was big splits and bizarre, illogical design decisions being made simply because "do it like Windows did" was ideologically unthinkable, even when Windows had basically got it right (or at least, less wrong).
I kinda agree with you, and I think it's unfair you're getting downvoted by fundamentalists.

I don't understand the libertarian stance either. They are against concentration and misuse of power (big business and government), which I can relate to, to an extent. But at the same time, they seem unwilling to help or even compromise with the other people who are getting screwed (which is often a majority). Specifically, they don't want to support poor in any way, and are often against democracy.

Now I sympathize with the cause, but why should I (politically, economically) help/support person (a libertarian) that is unwilling to help/support me? It doesn't make any sense, in fact it sounds as a fishy proposition, where I am gonna get screwed (though at least I appreciate the honesty).

I'd be happy to hear from libertarians how is this supposed to work - why should I support you? Is your system going to help me when I am in trouble and how? (Or don't forget to downvote me as a signal that you don't want to have a tough but mature discussion about your precious beliefs.)
Wow, that is insidious. Does it work that way empirically, or is this conjecture?
If you don't want to use Slack for open source projects because it's closed-source, fine. That's a reasonable argument.

If you don't want to use Slack for open source projects because Slack is in fact pretty bad at those workloads, fine. I agree! I think Slack does a pretty bad job at any group application where most of the people communicating don't already know each other.

Where you go off the rails is in suggesting that IRC is competitive with Slack. IRC is awful. It's a medium dominated by 7-bit clients with tiny message limits that provides virtually no useful metadata and no works-by-default history or search --- both things that virtually every open source IRC support channel b a d l y needs.

IRC does exactly one thing better than Slack: it's easier to join a new IRC channel than it is to join a new Slack project. The rest of IRC's "features" are red herrings, many of them more harmful than helpful.

Surely by now someone has built a Slack-like, perhaps with decent IRC support, that big open source projects can champion as a Slack- and IRC alternative.

It will be much easier to keep open source projects from trying to fit their square pegs into Slack's round aperture when people give up on promoting IRC.
Study: Sleep interruptions worse for mood than overall reduced amount of sleep
Shell scripting.
I did not realize how powerful it is until I only started with it.
...and this is the unspoken truth of advertising. There is no reason for advertisers to reach that majority who cannot or will not pay for whatever is being advertised. However the publishers resent ad blockers because they reduce the pool and that's a bad thing in a world where cost-per-impression is common, or even cost-per-click where inadvertent clicks can make money.

At the bottom of it all though, there need to be enough people who actually do follow through on the call to action in order for the ads to be profitable. In casino parlance these are the "whales" who make all the freeloaders at the buffet worthwhile. In the 1990s the "whales" of the Internet were AOL users, they had that sweet combination of impulsive action and disposable income that advertisers love. I don't know who their target market is today, but it's not me.
Until security experts stop recommending ad blockers as a first line of defense against malware, I consider it the obligation of content providers to fix the system.
Your company puts private information on a server that has a 6667/tcp sitting out on the Internet?

I'm guessing it does not, and setting this server up was considerably more irritating than just spawning off another t1.micro and apt installing IRC onto it.
Some other commenters have correctly pointed out that (1) my comment doesn't address whether the liquidity costs outweigh the benefits of extra information, and (2) why insider is different to outsiders doing research.

I do implicitly address these issues in my comment, when I compare public information with insider information. Noise traders are the goose that lays the golden eggs[0]. They irrationally trade randomly in a stock, masking the trades of informed traders. They make a trading loss on average, and these losses provide the profits of informed traders, which gives those traders the incentive for price discovery.

Although the simplest noise trader models can't capture this (as all information takes the same form) [1], public information is much less costly to the noise traders. So for example, noise traders lose a lot more if a company's earnings are leaked to a few individuals, than if these earnings are made public, because in the latter case the market maker can distinguish information from the the noise trader's trades.

So (and again, a model is really needed to confirm this) public information is cheaper in terms of its impact on liquidity, than insider information. One thing I'm not certain of is whether many insiders competing to trade on the same information would be as good as public information.

[0] See the seminal work of Kyle (1985), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1913210 and also the review article http://scholar.harvard.edu/shleifer/files/noise_trader_appro...

[1] Giving the market maker access to a meaningful information set would resolve this issue.
Hmm, looks like you're right. It's interesting that the effect is so intensive.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=probability
Yes. My first verdict: outlawing files and having VC land come up with a replacement product with better UX. Then HTTP.
What on earth is this? Is this something like a joke?
But Buzzfeed et all will survive, since their content is already ads itself (see "native advertising").

And $10/month is a tremendous amount. Follow 10 sites and you've spent 1/10 of the average wage in my European country, and more than 1/6 of the minimum wage. It'll only lead to a balkanization of the web, with good sites pricing for wealthy American and northern European visitors, and everyone else being left out.
This is really cool. Honestly I'm surprised they still get 20Mbps after the data goes through multiple relays and a microwave connection. Are microwave links in widespread use for internet communication?
Since when were corporations concerned with moral values? I mean this is Amazon, the company that infamously treats its employees like poorly. FWIW I used to work there and it wasn't as bad as the articles made it out to be, but I would not consider the company to be one that cares about morals or its employees much.
I'm shocked this is a YC-backed startup. It seems standards have fallen substantially.
EsperNet server administrator here. You did not 'nearly break EsperNet' with EiraIRC usage. Our capacity vastly exceeds our load (we could likely run the entire network from a single one of our servers). However, the time our administrative team has to spend differentiating abusive bots from non-abusive ones is finite, which is why we place so many restrictions upon bots.
As far as I know, most of this complexity surrounds setting up the _client_ software, not the server bits (though that, considering availability and so on, is its own bucket of worms) -- you just don't get Any Random User to install Puppet or Chef and pull in a cookbook or recipe or I don't know what they're called and ... well, I guess you get the point.
if you have time, could you please elaborate on what's actually happening? thanks!
They certainly can, which is something the article intentionally ignores.

They could choose to invest into any number of assets instead of holding cash. Open a brokerage account and buy a high quality stock that produces a dividend.
I think it really depends on the product. Determinism has been a big issue with logical logs in many systems, but it’s only a problem if you don’t plan and test for it.

If you’re interested in how VoltDB ensures and tests determinism, check out my talk from StrangeLoop this year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJRj3vJL4wE
Didn't Gupta sit on the board of public corporations and slip Rajaratnam earnings information right after a board meeting? That seems about as clear-cut as it gets. Gupta had a clear duty of confidentiality serving as a high-level executive and the information was obviously material to the share price. You don't get much more material than quarterly earnings.
The design may prove to be not very accessible for anyone with a physical condition that limits their mobility.
This is insanity. This startup should be immediately dropped from YC.
Thanks. I always assumed one could only get such distance with WIMAX
Ask HN: Has anybody looked into alternative, meshnet-like connectivity options?
This year, we've seem some pretty significant steps in the internet becoming more a tool of oppression and consumption than of knowledge and innovation.

Every so often, you'll hear talk of meshnets in some context or another, but has anybody ever erected a practical network across part of a large city like San Francisco?
trolololol

The term "blend mode" is a term of art in the industry, yes. But "mode" is always redundant - lots of properties switch "modes", particularly the ones with keyword values. For example, we could have had "display-mode" rather than "display", but that would definitely have been redundant. The word "blend" isn't used for anything else reasonable in CSS's wheelhouse, so using it by itself would have been fine.

I'm not sure what difference you think you're alluding to between RGB and RGBA. All browsers store colors as RGBA 4-tuples. Are you perhaps under the impression that "RGB" and "RGBA" refer to particular color spaces or something? They don't - nearly all color spaces are alpha-agnostic and can have an alpha value appended to their color definition. (The few exceptions are things like pre-multiplied RGBA, where the RGB components depend on the alpha. But these are rare)

Given that the CSSWG's membership is largely browser implementors, I'm pretty sure we have a handle on what the fuck our graphics stack does.
That's fine, but he makes a valid point about tutorials whose title makes it sound like it's a WebGL tutorial but mostly cover Three.js. It's like finding a tutorial about assembly, and having it be about C.
Slack's benefits over IRC are largely not subjective:

* The ability to directly send files and images to channels is an objective benefit Slack has over IRC, which has even less ability to do that than MIME email (at least MIME lets you post the base64'd file contents of your image, rather than just a clickable link).

* The ability to send long messages or whole source files is an objective benefit Slack has over IRC.

* The ability to, by default and without running a secondary service that can crash or lose connectivity, log and search channels is an objective Benefit Slack has over IRC, which can support that feature only by using bots, and only by tunneling results through privmsgs or forcing users to leave the IRC protocol itself and visit ancillary web sites.

* The ability to edit and delete messages is an objective benefit Slack has over IRC.

There's probably a bunch more. Don't get me wrong: I don't think Slack is amazing; it's good for what it is, but in 2015 it's pretty unremarkable. The issue is that IRC is so. bad.

There are probably still people making fun of poseurs and hipsters who use IRC instead of ICB. The OpenBSD team used to be like that.
In all seriousness I think their founder is still quite immature and possibly has some temper issues, at least judging by these past interactions and now this immature act. You can see this was written hastily, probably in anger - they didn't even spell the name of their own website right here. They don't really seem to care about maintaining the least bit of professionalism.
>Do you believe the same about values? That there is an objective preference ordering all humans should have and those that do not are wrong/bad/broken?

That's a misconceived question in the first place. There are only actual feelings, preferences, etc. that actually-existing human individuals really have. To talk about "more objective" versus "more subjective", you have to talk about how well-informed those feelings and preferences are by someone's experience of the world: the objective, normative preference is the one you would form if you had all relevant experience of the world.

What values are not is subjective in the economic sense, of being both completely particular to each given agent and also arbitrary, unlinked to what sort of person you are or your circumstances. This is why it's often a better idea to inform and educate someone than to merely give them what their misconceived desires currently point towards -- for instance, to hospitalize suicidal people.

>I don't particularly favour capitalism or democracy as systems, but I do prefer them over central planning or dictatorship BECAUSE I believe values and morality to be subjective. Any alternate system should take that into account.

But again, you are completely ignoring both the definitions of the systems you're talking about, and how they actually operate. The questions you're trying to argue about are not fundamentally about "objective values" (a less misconceived idea) versus "subjective values" (a very extremely misconceived idea). They are about how you transmit information about what actually-existing people want or would want, and combine material inputs to give people what they want or would want.

Capitalism, especially of our current kind, is quite bad at giving people what they want, whether it's objective or subjective or naturalistic! This is why you are sitting here resorting to bad meta-ethics and bad history: you cannot justify your system by reference to the broad masses being genuinely satisfied with their lives, so instead you say, "Values are subjective, so capitalism is the only alternative to dictatorship, because Arrow's Impossibility Theorem." Every part of this statement is fractally wrong: there are more political systems than just "democracy" and "dictatorship", there are more economic systems than just capitalism and "central planning"/command-economy, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem demonstrates certain limitations that markets have to follow just like everything else, values are naturalistic, and the masses are mostly quite unhappy with their lives.

Please, learn more history, learn more political science, learn more economics, and learn them honestly. Avoid ethics, actually: it's a crappy field because it's founded on the false assumption that there are actually things called "values", which are either dictated by God, spring fully-formed from the Platonic Form of Reason, or are "subjective" to the point of meaninglessness.
We have variables now <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-variables/> so it's not a mistake that needs a time machine.
> The rural Orcas Island has a lot of hills and obstacles that could disrupt the wireless signals, and it would have been "prohibitively expensive" for DBIUA to install its own towers. As such, many of the radios had to be installed in trees.

Presumably there will be movement of antennae as trees grow. One could monitor the alignment by periodically checking the signal strength between links. I wonder how often things will need to be realigned because the "tower" on which the radios sit changes with time.
I made an account to see how their system worked after thinking about doing a stream myself a few months ago. After I signed up and poked around their platform, I was none too pleased with the features or way their application worked. They emailed me too many times (almost every day) in the first week and I just marked them as spam and went along with my life.

Glad to hear about what's going on here, I will be sure to never stream or give a website with this type of management my business :)
Sounds about right for Fox News. This is the shit they were "reporting" on in my country:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/12/paris-lawsuit-f...
Why should anyone lose money because they've decided to save it for the future, with no inherent risk?

It's one thing to lose it to investments. It's another thing to expect the money to sit without gaining appreciable interest, and effectively losing value because of inflation.

If someone puts 1,000 units of currency into a bank, why should they ever not be able to retrieve that 1,000 units at any reasonable point in the future?
Aside from the fact that if you market it as such, it loses literally billions in valuation. Airbnb cannot become just a middleman for bed and breakfasts because its investors would rather fail at being a replacement for Hilton/Marriott than settling for a small time bed and breakfast purveyor.
Well yeah obviously. The entire point of the scheme is to lower our coal usage by shifting into less economically efficient forms of energy. That strictly implies lower overall economic output.

If fact, any emission-lowering scheme (besides funding new technology) will lower economic output.

But the question at hand is if the sale of assets itself would cause economic output to go down, if the billionaires selling their stock and purchasing land rights would somehow destroy value. And the answer is clearly no.
I also agree that ads aren't the only or best way to make it happen. But they are the existing way. It's well known what tends to happen when structures are eliminated with promises of better tomorrows.
The ICB people thought the same thing about IRC.
Fortran is still relevant. In it's field.
Highlights of hooked: How to build habit forming products
Pangu+9.1+jailbreak+iOS+9.1iOS+Jailbreak+Tools+and+Jailbreak+Guide
Sounds like much of the problem would go away with better labeling and categorization. Some people want the get-to-know-your-host experience, some people want the impersonal experience, and some people might want either one depending on the nature of the trip. The problem arises when you expect one and get the other.