skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Don't hardware manufacturers test their systems for many weeks for MTBF estimates and the like? For something that is supposed to be running for years at a time, how did this escape their QA process before shipping?
Introducing the BBC micro:bit
Musk, Page, and Gates are masters of real-world politics; otherwise they would never be in the positions they've held. In fact, if they were at all inclined to private dreamlands, they would not have done what they have, so far. Admittedly, I don't know any of them personally, but those top-end executives I have known make "rhetorical snake charmers" and understatement.

On the other hand, none of Bush, Obama, Clinton or Trump are stupid (although I have no evidence that Bush is especially sharp). And none of them are any more evil (or more good, for that matter) than any of your apparently favored three.

There is no solution to this; politics is how humans make large-scale and not-so-large-scale social decisions. Get used to it.

Personally, I think I'll pass on China as an example. I'm a bit too constitutionally unwilling to give up my crabby individuality.
> I find that contradictory. I gave an opinion. I don't understand why that makes me the subject.

It's a presumptuous paternalistic position, not just an opinion. That's what makes you the subject. You in one fell swoop and with zero credibility claim to be the arbiter of what can be discussed here, what should be taken off the homepage, what the author should do about his brand image and so on. I fail to see any of your advice backed up by either reason or fact.

> "We?"

If you read back to your first comment you'll see that you used 'we' in just the same way. I just used yours for inspiration, it's funny to see you offended now.

For reference:

> "So how about we take this off the front page"

"We?"

How about we don't.

> An instructor's goal to teach his students and be able to pay his bills.

He's doing just fine in that respect, but who are you to tell him what his goals should be? I'm sure there are people on udemy who make courses just for the fun of it.

Also, you're ... a verb there.
While it doesn't change the point of your comment, I saw a different ironic thing: how can people even think they can sell videos on-line and capture most of the viewers?

It's like The First and Only Iron Law of the Internet: if you post it, it will be copied and it will be distributed free. I understand that movie studios or record labels may be doing stuff the way they were always doing stuff, but an individual, especially a tech-minded one, expecting to earn money on selling videos in XXI century? Seriously? I mean, you can have any business model you like, but the real world is not obliged to comply.

So that's practical point - you don't get to set up a permanent passive income for yourself just because you publish a series of videos. Some people like to believe that (I've been personally convincing one such person recently to stop thinking along these lines and instead treat educational videos as a loss leader, and use those to sell webinars and/or personal tutoring instead). But I have also a general point to make:

In general, for some reason people imagine that just because they make something and start to sell it, they get to have full control over its life cycle. They don't, they never did. If you make a new widget, it'll get cloned by your competition. If you try to prevent it with $RANDOM_LEGAL_QUIRK, the Chinese will clone it anyway and good luck chasing them down. It's how it was since the dawn of time. And it's good, that's how stuff is supposed to work - this way new things join the shared wealth of humanity.

You're not entitled to capture all value from what you make. You get to only capture some. Expecting more is just plain, textbook greed.

And as a society, we should be nice enough to ensure you're capturing enough value for yourself.
I think I detect sarcasm? That seems like a fairly reasonable rate.
They definitely are selling off of their fame (or notoriety) here. I could go out to the main street today and say "Hi all! I'm selling nothing for $5!" and I'd get nothing because I'm not Cards Against Humanity.

They must be living the Millenialist dream, get money for literally (not figuratively at all) doing nothing but asking for it.
I'm fairly sure Russell had heard of William Randolph Hearst.
It is not "worth" the loss of privacy for the sake of preventing the small number of deaths.

Perhaps it has been a worthwhile endeavor from the perspective of the people whose jobs depend on the security apparatus.
Pretty good from what I've seen. I've been using one for the last year. One notable thing is that if you're using more than one monitor, you might have issues if they have different resolution (it's unlikely you can do 2x 4K monitors). It's rather tedious to get X + your WM to run two different DPI on the two screens. I ended up having to run two X servers for two monitors, which has its own limitation.
> how can people even think they can sell videos on-line and capture most of the viewers?

It doesn't have to be most, it just has to be enough.

You'd be surprised at how many people are willing to simply pay for what they consume.

So what if it will be copied, as long as the fraction that is willing to pay is large enough it might be a very profitable venture.
I want minimal abstraction.

The fewer times you have to look something up to understand the code, the better.

I have no #define functions. I have no enums. I have no typedefs.

I put graphics in source code. You don't have resource files -- it all goes in source code.

You don't need to jump around to different source files.

God says...
penalize spaded hubbub's sidling theist's whit fortified groupings Negros sponsor's countrywoman Lodz Angelina dogmata nonsmokers superpowers stanches Castro retook instructor's entropy's funniness's squad's strangulated Liz's shortcake's feta's Mamie's Parthia's hotel chintz's dogmatism's abets dodo's Reva's savagest purveys bullfight Nora woozier Moravian botch blink's thunderclap nontransferable reproof cheeriness's farthing Aquarius's tool psychic averred skyjackers confuted Odell's drowsed noisiness's supplementing slide's pounded droves Brahma's catholicity bookstores Ndjamena's culling popularization's Coleridge scrolls fogy's invaluable portliest withers clothier's ruminating frailer Tswana's emancipate decaf's compliant contribute Songhua's testamentary Foosball's twin's sensual databases grannie's thunderhead's loathing's jonquils earthed prejudiced Claudette downplays malingerer's sell sides Estonian syllabified
Ask HN: Using a rented apartment for office space?
I'm a bootstrapped founder of a five-person startup; we've been growing well but we're still extremely lean. We lucked into a sweetheart deal for office space a while ago, which we recently found out will run out over the summer.

For a variety of reasons, physical office space is non-negotiable but market rates (in Boston) are high. To cut costs, we're considering looking at getting an apartment and housing our startup in there, in addition to probably a founder living there.

Does anyone have experience with this? We've checked with local laws, and it seems ok as long as the lease doesn't prohibit it, but would love to hear other's experiences.
That's more protocol than anything. The IR used day-to-day was designed for consumer products in the 70s and 80s, so by necessity was a very simple protocol. There's no physical limitation for higher bandwidth IR.
Yes, exactly. But those who understand it don't usually complain about getting their videos copied - they seek ways to monetize it in some way. After all, they have proof the market is there; maybe not as wealthy and as willing to pay as they expected.
A response to ESR
If you've never seen it in action, then you have no idea what you're talking about. There's enough good kids to prevent bullies from taking over, and in fact the bullies even learn a lesson from inclusionary activities based on the buddy bench.
Perhaps, but if it was a known safe space then maybe you would feel different.
Don't worry, they still have a safe spot on the buddy bench in my town.
"We've always been here" is true, in that even in countries that enjoy relatively good justice systems have people who fall through the cracks ... and people with power at every level for whom the theoretical good functioning of the justice system is a terrible nuisance.

"We've always been here" is also false in the sense that, of course, things used to be quite a lot worse everywhere, and that the current rule of law in many countries today would be considered utopian by the people who died in worse periods of human history.

Which point of view is more beneficial for society to embrace?

Hands down, I think it's "truth and justice propaganda was BS." It's in society's best interests to watch everyone with power like a hawk.
Beamforming. The other articles I've seen on using the visible spectrum for communications mostly discuss sending to a mostly stationary object. It's not great for general purpose, but as a wiring replacement, can be rather useful.
Very informative writup about a platform I had only heard of before.

Some comments on book publishers:

> A book publisher will happily give you better margins
>

No. If, an author makes 5% royalties on their book sales they're really lucky! Mainstream publishers must make a cut, so they'll only fork out a tiny percentage of the profits, which is a tiny percentage of the wholesale price, which is 45% of the list price (standard wholesale discount).

So 12% royalties, is really like 4-5% of profits, and if the book is sold with extra discount, we're dropping into the 2-3% range.

> than that AND print you high quality hard cover books
> while bending the world to sell it for you in the process.
>

More no. They'll put the book in a few catalogues, and maybe make a flyer or two. No world bending stuff.
Thanks for that. I really hate the sound of my own voice when I hear a recording back. The only microphone I did not have that with was an AKG that was priced way out of the ballpark and it needed an equally expensive pre-amp to go with it. Nice to see a reasonably affordable ($200 is still quite a bit of money) alternative.
And then you'd be ostracized from the entire school. Yay!
> Eventually their insurance company is probably going to intervene to help rewrite their policies & procedures.

Sadly, that's the entity that actually has the power to force these institutions to stop doing dumb things.
Yeah those stupid fucking fourth graders who dreamed up this concept. Such fucking nonsense they are spouting. What the fuck is wrong with these people? How dare they?
The police officer said he & his superior looked for cameras, but that none were pointed in the right direction. My counsel said that large facilities frequently don't keep the videos for more than a week, but sent a "preservation letter" anyways:

"The goal of the preservation letter is, of course, to remind opponents to preserve evidence, to be sure the evidence doesn’t disappear." - http://www.craigball.com/perfect%20preservation%20letter.pdf
When I had a brief interest in Buddhism, I looked into the local zen center. Which had a convenient list of prices. Quite high prices as I remember.

The Cards Against Humanity people are selling nothingness at a comparative bargain. Could almost be one of those old zen stories:

"Give me 5 dollars and you'll get nothing."

"Ok! 5 bucks right here. Wait! Why are you walking away? Where is it?"

"Your money was always surrounded by nothing. You gave me the money and nothing remained."

At that moment, the mark was enlightened.
Its worth noting that to pull off this exploit against a victim you have to both have a VPN account that is on and using the same server as the victim AND trick the victim into visiting a link on a host that you have connected to that VPN server (with a port forward through to you).

It works because the traffic never exits the given VPN server as an internal route exists. The simplest method to fix this as a VNP provider is simply to use a second IP as the exit only IP and force all traffic from clients to leave by it.
I don't think they're upset so much about the copying as they are that the copiers are re-selling the copies.
Won't happen and thank god too. The hip and trendy crowd have no idea how to do long term support. JavaEE is the farthest from "hip and trendy" but you can fire up a 15 year old WebSphere application on brand new hardware and it'll work better than the day it was written, with full first-party support for every component that was supported from day one.
I've seen production code REXX and JCL code from the 1970s which ran System/360 hardware with actual decades of uptime since the IBM mainframe was 100% redundant (literally every component from the DASD to the RAM and CPUs, which all supported hot-swappability for upgrades and failover, all within a 42U). It boggles my mind at how robustly these systems were designed. I.e., the original 360 code was based on a weird-ass 31-bit architecture. Now z/10's can run in 64 bit mode, 32 bit, 31 bit[1], or 16 bits with full support for every single application written from (theoretically 1964, but I've only seen code from the 70s still running) all the way up to Clojure and Scala if you want it.

Take a look at all those hip Ruby frameworks and look at when Yehuda Katz last made a commit to Merb and you'll figure out why CIOs still buy SAP and pay for Oracle. IBM is lucky not to deal with the 'hip and trendy' demographic- it'd just further damage their already faltering image in the corporate world.

The real market share they should be trying to pickup is not the frivolous Web 3.0ish junk. They instead should be pushing out a POWER8 + DB2 + fault-tolerant (i.e., milliseconds failover, not seconds) for under 250k with an ERP attached to it (partner with SAP Business One, 98% of the businesses doing under 250MM in gross per annum don't need more htan that). AIX 7 already has "Cluster-aware" software that does this, they just need to include it by default for up to 4U. THEN, start price gouging. Market it under the name "NEVER/down", partner with PureStorage or one of the new "EMC-killers", and aggressively market it like they did during the Watson hype (tennis ad-buys, advertising at LeMons, etc).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_ESA/390
I've done the home office thing myself and worked out of other people's. Strong, strong recommendation to not have your founder live out of the same office -- it's disruptive both to their personal life (pervasive feeling of lacking privacy and a sense of personal space) and to other people (who constantly feel like they're intruding on someone's space while in their own office).

Landlords/leases and neighbors have a spectrum for how OK they are with this practice, ranging from "No no no no, no no." to "We officially prohibit it but won't raise a stink if you keep foot traffic to a minimum." to "Officially it's OK but unofficially the neighbor across the hall is going to pitch a fit."

I'd consider perhaps using a private room at a coworking space or shared office facility as a bridge to when it is economically rational for you to have your own office. Knowing nothing about Boston but a bit about real estate I'd estimate costs in the ~$2.5k region on a month-to-month lease, and you can probably push that down a bit by e.g. trading down on prestige/convenience of the office address.
Why have an office at all?
Oh, please. There comes a time when even you have to give up the legalistic approach, and just acknowledge plain fact.

The NSA has had dragnet surveillance of most or all of the US internet for some years. If that's not a 4th Amendment violation, then nothing is.

If you want legalistic, narrow (razor thin!) interpretations of all "rights", then they're not really rights, they're just something for lawyers to natter on about. Further, Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American" becomes nothing but parody.
What it costs to produce a barrel of oil
Someone opened a Crossfit gym next to my house a couple of years ago, which is in a mixed residential-commercial neighborhood. The building is closely surrounded by residences. They operated largely outdoors, they woke me and my neighbors up every morning before dawn yelling and throwing stuff outside, and they kept it up until after dark six days a week. A lot of cops hung out there, and the city PD wouldn't enforce the noise ordinance against them. In a way, I spent 16 hours a day 6 days a week at Crossfit, for a couple of years.

It really did seem kind of like a religion or a cult; clearly the owners and the more serious customers had deeply invested their identities in what they were doing, and were seeking approval from one another. I perceived a kind of aloofness or elitism in the way that they valued validation from the in group over the rights and values of their neighbors. I came to recognize many of the customers, some whom were often there 20 or more hours per week. It seemed that one of the core tenets of the religion was that one must always have an audience while working out, if not willing then captive. Cheering, yelling, throwing large objects like tractor tires, and just generally doing everything outdoors, at maximum volume, in a public space, was apparently mandatory.

I worked at home for a couple years next to these guys. I could hear them inside my house all day, which they ran laps around in groups, with the leader shouting commands like a drill Sargent. When I worked in garden they were they there, throwing weights – it was required that all weights be thrown forcefully to the ground, in a dominance display accompanied chimpanzee-like shrieks, never merely set down on the pavement. When I retired to my porch for a cup of coffee, they were there, milling around next to my yard taking about their core workouts and protein shakes.

So it was almost like I lived at Crossfit for a while. In principle, I love the idea of a community gym. Now and then I would see one of the instructors cheering on a chunky middle aged person lifting weights, and that was so great it almost made up for it. Almost.

They moved away last year. My life has become much more pleasant, and I have had several months to reflect on this strange phenomenon. I value health and fitness, and I'm really not just jealous because they were more “swole” then me. For what it's worth, I ran 25 miles and lifted this week, but you probably wouldn't guess by looking at me. I'm not perfect, but I'm pretty much where I want to be with fitness – trying to do my best mostly, and not be nut job about it.

But is it really necessary to serve up personal fitness with a double side-order of external validation and group identity? Good health is it's own reward, and when our self image is so narrowly invested in one aspect of our lives, especially appearances, it's easy to overlook other personal growth opportunities. My neighbors muscles were big enough; I think they should have taken a break to work on their personalities.

I'd like to close with a joke: “If a Vegan does Crossfit, which one do they talk about first?”
There is no contract -- no binding agreement saying the donor will give CAH money, and CAH will give them nothing.

But that just means contract law doesn't apply -- it doesn't make it illegal.

So long as there is no misrepresentation on the part of CAH they're in thoroughly legal waters. It's just a donation drive.
Ask HN: What will happen when her majesty Queen Elizabeth II passes away?
It makes no sense to compare PostgreSQL (single node) with Riak, Cassandra etc (multiple nodes). And distributed generally means distributing your data amongst multiple nodes. I don't expect to see a Call Me Maybe test for Chrome even though by your definition it is distributed.
Kissinger?!
Have you looked into Regus thus http://www.regus.com/office-space/boston/?q=boston&top=true? They always have deals for new people.

Most apartments don't like businesses being run out of there. As long as it is not stated in the lease, you should be fine.
My coworkers made me use Mac OS 9
You are spreading some serious lies on this one, wtbob is correct[1] according to the DoJ investigation of the shooting[2]. This is separated from the report[3] on the department's behavior which created a situation where a justified shooting became a firestorm.

Continued use of the Ferguson shooting when there are other, blatant examples (read up on Albuquerque, NM) shows a disregard for the facts of the case. If talking about abuses by a department then Ferguson is a fine example, Officer Wilson is not.

1) "The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition."

2) http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-release...

3) http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-release...
It's right there in your comment. You said "Love the sinner, hate the sin" was not considered an acceptable viewpoint for him to hold.

But even removing that point from my comment the rest stands. You wrote that people were "sick of hearing" about his views on gay marriage. Well all they had to do to stop hearing about it was to stop asking him about it.
Funny--I came here for the same reason. My best guess is that they were trying to solve a deconvolution problem the naive way (by solving a huge linear system). I think the reference to polynomial factorization might have something to do with solving the problem by taking the Z-transform of both sides, and then having to divide the resulting polynomials and invert the transform.
So when the NYT maintains such a page, is it also part of their propaganda?

http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo

And when Newsweek reported on a case that reflects negatively on the US, is it also propaganda?

http://www.newsweek.com/morocco-delays-terrorism-trial-relea...

Not to mention the controversial one it published in 2005:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Quran_desecration_controv...
This is a somewhat new plot development here; I agree I've never before seen someone blatantly selling content like that, charging per piece of content. It used to be that people sold copyrighted content per megabyte, or you paid for faster transfer - and mostly it was sold as data, not as a particular type of work (i.e. you pay to download "a file", not "a course").
Enterprise plans only. I thought "do all of this for free" was implicit in the request to GitHub.
CrossFit’s Dirty Little Secret
It says 2 backers pledged $3,000 or more for:

- Case study on your app and it will be featured on the project's website
- 1 hour remote consulting session to help you get unstuck with the project
- E-mail support within reason

I agree, that is quite impressive! Looks like the author discussed how this managed to come together though, so I probably wouldn't be too excited to follow in his footsteps.
Crossfit's Dirty Little Secret:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10639874
pretty sure you are misreading what I wrote. I am not suggesting one should only be outraged when they are personally wronged. Rather one should only be outraged when they have personal knowledge a wrong actually occurred.

Otherwise, could you give me a single example when it is ok to be outraged about some wrong when you don't know if that wrong even happened? Without an example, to me that is the equivalent of saying guilty until proved innocent, or shot first and ask questions later.
Not much to contribute here as the page's very informative. Elm's record is the best typed record implementation I've encountered so far. It's what I've always wanted for JS object, but typed!
> > For an example,

> What of Yarvin?

It was an example.
I know. And I meant to put all of this into a proper perspective.
This is a good step, but like most statistical data I think it's best presented in a graphical form.

Xkcd's graph comparing sources of radiation is a great example. https://xkcd.com/radiation/