skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
An alternative to Show HN
I realize that HN has grown in popularity over the years, and this is a good thing (mostly).

Unfortunately, the high volume of posts means that getting a Show HN post to reach the homepage is difficult/impossible. Frankly, I’m not sure it can be done without asking all your friends to upvote (which I absolutely hate doing).

The feedback you can get through Show HN is so beneficial, though. As such, I hate for anyone (including myself) to miss out on it. So, I created a couple of channels on Chapp for this. Could be that no one even bothers with these, but they might be useful to some of you. :-)

Got something ready to show, post here: http://chapp.is/ShowChapp

Getting ready to launch, post here: http://chapp.is/prelaunch

That’s it!
A social privacy experiment or just plain creepy?
Variable length arrays on the stack are in the C99 standard.

(If you're using Microsoft stuff, you have my condolences.)
That seems very backward. They took the blind ballot and modified it, missing the point entirely!
It's one of the advices I couldn't do anything with. Good thing you could.
Where did you get the idea "Evil Chinese want to steal all your goodies"? I am sitting here on the ground in China with actual experience getting things done, and you are someplace else making some ridiculous hand-waving assertions about the character of 1.4 billion people you've never met, and I am getting downvoted ridiculously. Thank god I don't live in the US: the arrogance, introversion and ignorance is absurd.
A subset of this kind of tricks are usually embedded in the source code of any project of decent size or larger. But that sort of implementation usually comes with big disclaimers that spell out the hacky parts in very loud terms. I'm kind of wary of a library trying to glue new behaviour onto C on a general level. There are inevitably too many corner-cases which break the newly built abstraction. Those corner-cases can be explained away for one specific codebase that already comes with its own set of practices, rules of thumb, and coding patterns that the programmers are already forced to learn. But a library as general as this is easily used liberally, even casually, and without a complete map of the shortcomings and broken corners I can see lots of potential hair-pulling coming right up when things are no longer what they seem they should be.
Just realized that the links don’t work in the text above, so I’ve duplicated them, here:

Launched: http://chapp.is/ShowChapp

Pre-launch: http://chapp.is/prelaunch
Trying to dig into the question: "Why does anyone care what Paul Graham thinks?" I discovered his Wikipedia entry. He wrote a few books on lisp, neat. Claims to have invented baysian spam filters (applied baysian theory to filtering spam?), neat. Helped make a mediocre ecommerce store which he spammed off on Yahoo, ok.

So once again, why does anyone care about what Paul Graham thinks?
>that's the territory of whoever handles their hosting.

Yes. And what does a provider do when a customer is getting hit so hard by a ddos that it is pushing their other customers offline? they blackhole the target at their upstream (usually starting on a per-IP basis, but that will widen as the attacker shifts the target)

So... most likely, the isp said "if this continues, we will need to finish the job and shut you off" - which is what every other ISP is going to do in the case of an attack that is large enough to knock the ISP in question offline.

Check out the legalese on your hosting contract; everyone reserves the right to dump you as a customer in these sorts of cases.
> Translation: if you have no skills yet or have zero ability to market them and win clients, then this is for you.

Using a tool to make something easier does not disqualify people for me. Actually, I'd rather hire someone who uses a hammer to put a nail in the wall over someone who uses his hand "because he can".

> Not to be rude, but you don't sound like someone who has traveled and worked as a lifestyle... What do you think people who travel as digital nomads do?

Most of them work remotely for companies in yet another country and are thus able to happily hack away on their laptops without much interaction with locals. The ones who really worked with locals where doing unskilled jobs (old school work & travel). This is at least the pattern I have observed in 3 years in Africa, Caribbean and South America.
>I never understood the sentiment of valuing babies over all else

Becuase you are a sociopath.
Well, I do not know nothing about Catholic part of Europe, but there was a man named Martin Luther who lived between 1483 and 1546. The whole point (or cover story at least) of European protestant movement (in contrast to the English one) was to make the word of God accessible to the people (i.e. remove the Church monopoly of scripture reading).

Printing press was already invented in 1440 to print all the bibles necessary.
And in general, non wage compensation leads workers to accept (and employers to offer) lower wages.
People who think the "normal" legal system is "fair and honorable" have very clearly never dealt with it. It's many things but neither fair nor honorable are among them.

Arbitration can be good and can be bad. I'm not sure the best way to reduce the bad. It best not come at the expensive of Freedom of Contract.
The article made a sudden shift away from "how consumer behavior has changed" and toward "this is what big companies must do", and I don't think it handled that shift very well.

Should companies abandon frozen food research? There's not really a compelling argument in this piece for why. There are still large parts of the consumer market that rely on frozen and canned foods because they don't lose as much to spoilage. Research into how to mix "frozen" with "... but still pretty healthy" could actually be a huge step forward for some of these big companies.

Because it's not just agricultural and economic policy, it's also consumer lifestyles that aren't necessarily compatible with a "buy everything fresh 3x per week" approach. Some people have trouble getting to the store that often. Some rely on lunch foods that can be prepared in 3 minutes with the microwave at work. Some rely on foods that can go for a long time without spoiling. While a lot of consumers have shifted away from prepared foods, there are still a lot who have reasons not to yet.
Ah yep, yeah I've heard about the profitable business of extorting torrenters. Germans just use American torrent boxes and VPNs.
>Is the list of ingredients containing substances you don't recognize?

This is a bit of a bogus argument. If you had to break down meat into its component chemicals, nobody would understand it then either. We just have a guideline that requires man-made things to list the components which leads to the false argument that seeing lower level chemicals in something means it's bad.
> Anyone have any advice on raising enough on the seed round to match your needs without having to create an absurd valuation that will crunch you in A?

Grow extremely quickly by doing everything else right? There's really no shortcut or trick, that's just what it takes.

To raise <$1 million and be ready for a Series A is just brutally difficult. For example, my brother just raised his A and he said investors were looking for a $1.5 million run rate and 3-4x YOY growth. So in ~18 months with ~5 people you'd have to build product, make that many sales and still have compounding growth.

That's set up to find the companies that are doing extremely well. It will happen, but that's not something you can really brute force (it didn't happen to my company, even though we're on a very promising trajectory).

Now, say you raise a $2m seed extension. That gives you an additional ~18 months to hit those same metrics, while hiring a couple more people. That's just so much more doable. Especially considering most first-time founders (myself included) spend the first six months making mistakes around building the right team. (One way to help make it to a series A on your seed is to have all the people you want/need ready to be plugged in.)

I think either the Series A expectations will come down slightly or "seed prime" rounds will become the norm, as they already are becoming. Not many are ready to go to the NBA after playing in High School. Simple as that.
I'll also observe that 50 years is multiple generations (~2).

I think that people are prone to being frustrated and complaining about not seeing enough progress in a short subset of their own working life, which I assume was RyanZAG's point.
A look at Bitcoin non-standard outputs
Presumably, you're talking about this article: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/02/freedom-from-fr...
"3. Subcutaneous fat, more is better"

Why, and to what extent?
Well, most of it was 74S series for the faster logic. 74F was not available at the time the machine was designed. The disk was a Fujitsu 80 Megabyte wonder. Who knew you could possibly make them that large in such a small rack sized unit. Here's one for you: Who made the CORE memory for that machine?
Organic is bullshit from the perspective that it is just a luxury product that does not scale and therefore is completely unsustainable as a way of eating for the world population.
> you are a sociopath

Personal attacks are not allowed on HN. We ban accounts that do this.

This isn't the first time you've broken the site guidelines by being uncivil. Please read the rules and follow them from now on:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
Yes, thank you for the link. :)
Seems to be needed given how people handle prescription drugs.

Way too many people ignore doctors orders and stop taking their prescription drugs once they "feel well" and then they keep it around in case they or someone they know "feels ill".
the accessing is just slower

While there are some cases where this is an issue (writes that cross 4KB page boundaries), this generally isn't true for any x86/x64 processor made in the last decade. There may be legitimate portability reasons for avoiding unaligned access, but performance on x86 is probably not a good reason.
I also thought the fact that the author was suggesting moving the factories instead of working to fix the problem was pretty non-sensical.
Ahh, I get it, he seems to have written a dialect of Lisp that powers hacker news and contributed to ycombinator.
Another really good alternative (in my opinion) would be if they made a replacement watch strap which has a round indentation for holding this disc in the center of the closed strap, so it would be tucked on the underside of your wrist.
My experience suggests that the inefficiencies of the unions exist to protect the interests of the unions.

Where the workers are also helped, that seems almost incidental in practice.
This is sort of self-evidently true; the purpose of a capitalist firm is to achieve a monopoly (in exactly the sense used in antitrust law, that is, to achieve a market within which they exercise pricing power) and extract rents from it for the capitalists the firm serves. Unions are a mechanism by which labor does much the same thing, limiting the ability of capital to retain rents even if firms achieve a mechanism to extract them.

So, sure, from the point of view of capitalists, the existence of unions is an inhibition to the realization of capital yields.
Everything I said is true. Everything you said is a tangent regarding numbers.
read history boys at 18 or even younger can be generals and nowadays they're still treated like toddlers, our parenting method is wrong in my opinion, the key is that we babysit them too much for too long.
If they can be grown at such a massive scale, why do they need to be subsidized? Wouldn't they get grown anyway? Why not subsidize broccoli and quinoa instead?

(Yes I know the question is naive but I still hope for a smart answer.)
> Generally speaking, the inefficiencies of unions exist to protect the interests of the workers, who generate wealth for the company but more often than not do not have an equity stake in the business.

What if we paid workers meaningful amounts of equity? Would that perhaps reduce the need for unions bc the labor/capital divide starts to get blurred and then workers are able to share in the wealth they generate for companies?
I'm from the US, and I don't have any confidence in the quality of products made in the USA. It was always a running joke with my dad that something must have been made in the USA if it failed catastrophically or in dangerous ways almost immediately after purchase (because my family had a run of buying hilariously bad/dangerous products that happened to be made in the USA).

I avoided American made cars, and chose Japanese manufactured cars, for most of my life because of my personal bias and mistrust of American car quality. I've recently, in the past few years, begun to accept that Ford makes a decent vehicle (and have owned a motorhome built on a Ford chassis, and now own a big Ford diesel pickup truck, and have been quite satisfied with both). But, even now, I don't think I would give a "home team" advantage to American products. I definitely don't assume they're higher quality on that basis. I still prefer American products if I'm choosing between Chinese and American made, but mostly because I have a reasonable expectation that the American made product had some human rights protections for the workers making the product. There are well-made American products, but it's rarely a mass-produced consumer good.
PG is basically the reason why this site exists - HN started out as a marketing forum attached to YC. Regardless of what you think of his wider internet celebrity, he is an ('the'?) HN celebrity.
Yeah, pg_repack works great. I've never had an issue with it.
Perhaps that's why so many people appear to be addicted to aspirin, one every morning.
Absolutely reprehensible.

Dismantle all protection for labor, keep oppressing them, and you will eventually force a destruction of the very canvas of economic stability against which you want to tap this "potential energy".
> Sure, but humans care more about the median value than the expected value. See also the St. Petersburg paradox. Expected value is infinite, but general consensus is that it's irrational to pay more than a couple of dollars to play the game.

Not sure I agree with that. Simple thought experiment: would you prefer "$100" or "51% chance at $0, 49% chance at $1000"? I strongly suspect you'd prefer the latter, even though the median for that scenario is $0. My argument isn't that every startup might be the next Uber and that as a result you should take whatever stock you can get; it's that on average, startups increase in value (otherwise both startups and venture capital would quickly die), so stock has a positive EV. Not in the "99.9% chance it's $0, .1% chance it's Uber" sense, but in the 50% chance 0, 40% chance 2x, 10% chance 10x sense (which is pretty reasonable, especially if you work for 5 or 10 startups during your career).

> How should I judge the exit multiple? Especially for a late-stage company, isn't it generally reasonable to estimate it as 1x?

VCs are generally looking for 3x-4x returns on average, and they'll never invest in a startup if the expected value isn't at least 3x-4x based on some estimated probability distribution. So the expected exit multiple is usually at least 3x or so.

The later stage you go, the more predictable and narrow the exit distribution becomes. For example, pre-product, a VC might be investing on the 2% chance that something will go up 200x. Post-launch but pre-revenue, a VC might be looking for a 5% chance of a 60x. Series A or B, it might be more like 40% chance that the VC at least gets their money back and 30% chance they'll make 10x. Growth stage, it might be more like 60% chance the VC doesn't lose any money, 30% chance it's a 5x. In all of these cases, expected value might be 2x-4x, but variance drops off drastically as a company matures. (Seed VCs are usually aiming for more like 4x-5x for their funds, while a late stage VC is aiming for 3x, so the lower variance is compensated by lower expected returns.)
> [...] he is suggesting is that startups could fix the inefficiencies in the market that unions have created. The problem is that fixing these inefficiencies would primarily benefit people like PG[...]

And perhaps the customers of the industry?

Edit: My point is that, assuming there are inefficiencies created by unions in a given market (as the parent does), then correcting those inefficiencies would be a positive externality for the market at large, i.e., it would benefit more than just the specific company or investors.
> It's a major selling point to me that AWS employs some more sophisticated countermeasures to attacks like these.

There are very good clean pipe services available; the major limitation is that the clean pipe provider must have enough capacity to absorb any attack... something that can be quite difficult unless you are someone like L3.

However, the good clean pipe services are all very expensive. (I don't mean the "http only" service like cloudflare; that is a very different sort of thing.) - this is because of that aforementioned limitation; you need a lot of headroom in your bandwidth to run a clean pipe service.

But yeah, amazon charges a lot more for bandwidth than you'd expect to pay direct from a transit provider at small-ISP scale, so I would hope that they have enough capacity and technology to filter fairly large attacks.
>you may very well be judged by someone who literally believes that a man in the sky exists and affects things on Earth that pertain to your case.

Being that judges are elected, there is a very high chance that the same will happen in the normal court system. It just won't show up directly in the records that religion was the reason for deciding one way or another.
They can be grown at scale because they are subsidized. Other products suffer at scale because farmers' economic incentives are heavily skewed towards growing the subsidized crops. They carry high opportunity costs.

Apologies; I should have made the direction of causality clearer in my original comment.
Calls over Skype expose your IP address. In the past it leaked even if you didn't pick up, don't know if it still does.
The history of mankind is a long tapestry of colonization.

If we accept that Homo Sapiens expanded out of Africa, into the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and then across the Bering land bridge into North America, and eventually down into South America, that is all a series of colonization events. As is Polynesian expansion throughout the South Pacific. As is the series of invasions that rocked the Mediterranean world around 1200 BCE, or the expansions of the Celtic culture in Iron Age Europe, or the Classic Greek diaspora, or the migrations of the Goths, Vandals, Huns, Lombards, and others in that era. The colonization of the Yangtze valley and Guangdong by the northern Han Chinese culture. The Slavic migrations into eastern Europe and the Balkans. The migrations of the Turks, Muslim Arabs, and Mongols. The Romans who colonized Celtic Britain, who were colonized by the Saxons, Angles and Jutes, who were colonized by Danes and other Norse, who were colonized by the Franco-Normans. The Irish colonized Scotland, and were in turn colonized in a series of waves by England.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, you have the Bantu expansion[1], which displaced or assimilated other pre-existing cultures.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion
I think you may be underestimating the amount of cognitive dissonance (combined with willful ignorance) that many feverantly religious people are capable of.

I've argued with quite a few who were convinced that that carving out exceptions for Christians (the extremely "liberal" among them will even accept Catholics) when it comes to these sorts of rules is fine because we are a "Christian nation".
How do you think cars are made?

edit: I'm not suggesting you're wrong in saying that the premise of the article is bad, but I'm surprised by your argument between phones and cars.
Please enlighten me, I'm not afraid to be wrong :)

I thought an "Operational Definition" was "a result of the process of operationalization and is used to define something (e.g. a variable, term, or object) in terms of a process (or set of validation tests) needed to determine its existence, duration, and quantity" [1]

I thought this meant a procedure who's results satisfy a set of definition criteria. So if the operational definition is "does the decision making algorithm change stuff?" that's derivative, not circular. It might also be inadequate, but you didn't argue that.

So we can either chose a set of selection criteria for the results of a procedure, or chose a procedure that satisfies the selection criteria, but if neither of those is good enough, how can we operationalize the definition of anything?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition
Facebook uses FlatBuffers on one billion Android devices
witness buzzfeed trying to break into longform journalism.. "just ramble for 4,000 words, people will respect us"
There are people who work, such as the young programmers in SoMa who work 50/60/70+ hour weeks pounding out code for startups, who after rent and such don't have much savings piling up in the bank, nor much of a social life. These are the people who work, who create wealth.

Then there are the parasites - the heirs whose families haven't worked in living memory. The LPs give money to the VCs and whoever else does Series-A type rounds nowadays, who filter it to the CEOs. Unlike the poor 22 year old sap, they have their bets spread. Once a Facebook, or Google, or Oracle gets big enough, they start extracting their profits from the monopoly type situation they created, and from the wealth the workers have been creating.

Labor organizes into unions so that the people doing the work, the workers, get to keep more of the wealth they create, as opposed to the money going off in dividends to these parasitic heirs. The parasites hate organized labor, because it prevents the parasites from expropriating more surplus labor time from people who work and create wealth.
This is a complex issue well outside of my personal areas of expertise, but I would certainly think that workers earning meaningful equity would induce them to act in the best interestes of the company, because their own interests would be better aligned with the company's interests.
Doubt it. Why would I give the customers a better deal when I could just take that money for myself? If I was the kind of guy who wanted to give the customers a better deal, I wouldn't be screwing over my employees.
There is also pgrowlocks[1] that can be usefull.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/pgrowlocks.htm...
Best Google Adsense Alternatives You Should Be Using Right Now
We do seem to be building in a lot of risk to our infrastructure at the moment from network connections to software delivery and introducing many single points of failure. It's good for a company that wants to control how you connect to the Internet, what you consume and to generate revenue from that but it's not great in any situation where those single points of failure...fail. We do need to consider alternative approaches which include peer delivery and mesh networking. We have the technology to do that now.
What is wrong with calling him the way he reflects to be? and honestly, I've seen worse name calling here, if you can call it like that anyway.
I think it illustrates that while the tweet sounds insightful, it's actually nonsense and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Besides, every industry has unions or entities that are similar to unions - even the software/startup industry - so it's basically saying 'startups can work anywhere'. I'm also curious to see how a startup would 'release the potential' held back by bus-drivers' or coal-miners' unions, such that there would cease to be such unions (ie: 'the sclerosis is removed'), without there being the reduction in wages/conditions that the follow-up tweet mentions it's not trying to pursue.