skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I feel like more companies are building their businesses around web crawling and parsing data. There are lots of players in the eCommerce space that monitor pricing, search relevance, and product integrity. Each one of these companies has to build some sort of a templating system for defining crawl jobs, a definition of parsing rules to extract the data, and monitoring system to alert when the underlining HTML of a site has changed from their predefined rules. I'm interested in these aspects. Building a distributed crawler is easier than ever.
I wrote up my system in another thread - I do almost exactly the same thing, except it's $40 a day for me, my wife and 2 kids. The only difference is we actually "pay out" the money each day, and only spend from what we've accumulated from that day and previous days.
Damn, you're right... therefore I have no idea how a simple float quantization algorithm I did could even work.
Solid-State Lidar for Driverless Cars Will Cost $250 or Less
You should read The Vital Question by Nick Lane. It proposes a hypothesis for abiogenesis which requires very specific conditions to come into existence, and explains why other abiogenesis theories probably don't work. It's by scientist who has his own theory to push, and the origin of life is still an unfinished scientific topic, but it has given me an appreciation for why the Drake equation is too optimistic.
Discipline. As a full-time employee, I more than doubled my take-home pay between 2006 and 2015. In that period, my spending didn't go up. Actually, it went down, because I paid off my car.

In the process, I paid off credit cards, student loans, and managed to increase my standard of living.

I remember after a big pay bump (job change), noting that my take-home pay going into my primary checking account was unchanged from what it had been 6 years prior, because, almost without thinking about it, I went from single-digit 401k contribution to maxed out, and doubled the amount that went into my medium-term savings/investment accounts. It just seemed natural; I'll be making more, time to save more. It was essentially a coincidence that the take-home number remained the same.

This is not to say it's so easy for everyone; everyone has different circumstances. My point is more that there are so many people NOT doing this for whom it WOULD be easy.
Full body scans will no longer be optional when travelling to and through America
I ran the $1000 simulation, and then just before running a $100,000 simulation I stopped myself because I'd be distressed if my simulated numbers came up and I didn't actually get the prize.

I'm bad at maths.
he clarifies it in a footnote, http://paulgraham.com/klein.html#f5n
Now You Can Get All Celebrity SnapChat UserName for Free ( Daily Renewed )
I eat at most a half tomato at once in a salad or on a burger. I am not a big fan of tomato based sauces (for pasta/pizza) because they are too acidic for my tastes.
Many astronomical telescopes are exquisitely engineered bits of equipment.

Dobson created very simple, elegant, cheap telescopes. This video is him showing how to build one. He has a bunch of useful hints and tips. And it's just nice to hear him talk about it.

(About 5 minutes into the video you see him banging nails into wood with his tool glass!)
I'll admit to giving little thought to the legibility of my SQL - this is a quick read, with some solid tips.

Do you do anything in particular to make your queries more digestible?
The standard head-in-the-sand HN response to pointing out the disastrous LPR is "old people are retiring".

They don't bother looking into the reality that retirements are being delayed and most underemployment or nonparticipation is within the prime working age demographic.

Point this out, and the response is downvoting. HN emphatically does not want to accept the possibility that the economy is anything but amazing, for reasons I cannot understand.
Not if it doesn't work anymore.
Speak to a professional, not randos on the internet, if it really worries you.

Its current worth is about 5*$30.63 ~= Not much.

So best advice is to sit on it and do nothing... and when you're bored, go to www.investopedia.com and read up about how stock markets work - it will come in useful in future!
My free advice: nothing.
>>I think stupid accountants is too harsh here. If you miss that the I in your bosses email address is really a 1 (do you even look at the email address?) How would you know any better?

Accountants are paid to be extremely detail-oriented. If your accountant can't tell between a 1 and the letter "l", how can you trust him/her to not miss that the amounts he/she is keeping track of and paying don't have extra (or missing) zeroes in them?

edit: not sure why this is controversial. Then again I do have high standards when it comes to hiring people into positions that require paying attention to details.
And a Subway costs $100k.

The resources are mainly non-cash, yes. And the YC cachet (an extremely valuable asset) helps out in the fundraising.
Not a big fan of tomato based sauces, they are too acidic for my tastes generally. At most I eat half a tomato sliced for with a salad or on a burger.
One solution we came up was to encrypt data before it is submitted and let the user have the private key. The private key is never transferred to our servers. (Generated on browser, kept by the user and used on the browser.)
http://www.jotform.com/encrypted-forms/
I feel like PG is missing part of the point.

The problem isn't "wealth inequality". The problem is EXTREME wealth inequality. I'm not super rich (or even non-super rich), but I do well enough that I don't really suffer.

My mother, though, she's got a ton of debt, working a 35k/yr job without benefits, and no real retirement plan. Thanks to Obamacare she can buy insurance, but it has such a high deductible that it doesn't really do anything. She has no home, and can't even rent because most places refuse her if she has more then 5k in debt REGARDLESS of cosigner. And we know that she's so much better off than some others: She has food, isn't crippled by medical issues (yet), no one else to care for, and I'm providing a roof.

When you go from an extreme different between the top 1% and the bottom 10%, then have a few decades where that 1% has vast, rapid growth and the bottom 10% has things stay steady or get worse, THAT's your problem.

To say that wiping out inequality will stifle innovation...well, that's not really the discussion at hand. Wiping out EXTREME inequality shouldn't have that effect, because it didn't have that effect historically. The difference between the top and the bottom can still be quite pronounced. If/When we achieve that we will still have some people complaining that they can't get their kids the latest $1k/ea toy fad, but that's an entirely different problem I'm willing to tolerate.

PG goes on to say that financiers aren't the problem he's talking about...but that is the problem that many others are talking about. PG's original essay seemed quite defensive, and this one does too. He's trying to convince others that he's right, but not noticing that he seems to be talking about the impact of an entirely different discussion.
Every problem noted in this article also exists in Enhanced IP. It still requires all software and hardware layers to be redesigned.

Every potential alternative to IPV6 is pointless. IPV6 is already implemented by every network vendor, and every modern operating system. Most consumer ISPs have already implemented it. All remaining ISPs, including Enterprise providers, are in the middle of implementing it.

No alternative protocol, including Enhanced IP, is going to be implemented. Ever.
I was going to ask this very question. Seems like the appropriate way would be to say 250 million. I mean you wouldn't say I got a quarter hundred dollars or quarter thousand...
4A. Buying a $2 lottery ticket is faster.
SETI Director Seth Shostak on Our Sudden Openness to the Idea of Alien Life
A company should do what it can to make a return for its shareholders. If it finds that its original mission is failing, what's wrong with switching to something else that they've found, maybe by accident, is highly profitable?

If the shareholders don't like it, they can sell their shares and try investing in another crappy internet portal that burns money. Shareholders have no right to complain about their companies' actions AFAIC; if you don't like the way the company is run, sell your shares. You're not the owner of the company when you own 1-millionth or whatever of it. The only people who have a right to push for a change in the corporate direction are the members of the board of directors. Everyone else is nothing more than in investor, basically just a gambler.
Especially in 6-inch phones like in this case, the cameras could definately be closer to te center than in smaller phones, even with a respectable battery inside. Either by placing the battery on a side a la iphone 6(s) or making it more squarish. The 5.5-inch OnePlus Two managed to place the camera quite nice, and the 3300 mAh battery sits relaxed away from any edge of the chassis...
How Vanguard Won with Investors
Yeah exactly, all the data is provided from Google Places API. I had hopes of somehow tying in other API's (facebook, yelp, etc.) to get more data (mainly reviews) for the different gyms. But, configuring the database for that was over my head at the time.

I think the idea of having an in house database that users could add information (type of gym, type of equipment, etc.) could be very powerful.

Your project seems to be heading down that route. I would love to help contribute!!
I don't think AirBnB was ever even slightly nuts. VRBO had been around forever and couch surfing already existed.
5 shares? Probably nothing, just let it ride. You'd probably drop $150 on a dinner or two.

If you had 5000 shares I'd probably say the same thing -- this was already priced into the stock and almost all of the value in the stock is the Alibaba holding.

If the stock is up from when you bought it, maybe I'd say take some profit off the table, but honestly a sale of Yahoo's web business would probably increase the value, but who knows.

I personally don't invest in tech stocks because they're too volatile. :)
I don't think Google would benefit from a YC-style approach. Google can afford to buy the winners because they have mountains of cash. They also can only invest the time in companies that have significant upside because the numbers they need to move the meter are so significant. YC is a different animal altogether. They use relatively small sums of money in hopes they will find a lottery ticket.
Yeah, definitely send that kid out as soon as they can walk. They have equal rights, and you should not live for them. Throw your elderly mother off into the streets too. Don't even bother walking her to the nursing home, that's her own problem. You do not live for her and it was certainly her problem she lived for you when you yourself were a kid. It's about balance as an adult.
How I fixed Node.js
A stock's current price already reflects all public available information including its future value. You're assuming that "the average wall street trader" knows less thus causing the stock's price to not be accurate. Would love to hear a counter argument to that.
Antihypoxiant
This is where things get complex. High rent isn't a natural state of nature—it's the result of building policies that prohibit housing. Austin Texas has roughly as many people as SF/Oak, but housing is plentiful and cheap, even close to the down town. Why? When the population increases, they build more housing.
Fabric.js is canvas-based, so it's a slightly different beast (although between being used in t-shirt designer tools, and having svg<->canvas conversion, the ultimate result is the same).
Fun little tool. Could maybe find it handy.

But STOP overriding scroll. It's annoying. Even if it's to make a "smooth" scroll: don't do it. Atleast detect that I'm using a Mac where it's already butter smooth. Don't override that native scroll with a large javascript scroll.
Actually, I see that I was a bit sloppy in that post wrt. the type annotations and editing, but I'm glad it helped :).
Our Top Articles of 2015
SEEKING WORK - FREELANCE
UX/UI Designer
Location: London, UK, San Francisco, US, remote
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Yes
Skills: UX architecture, UX design, product design, concepts, UI design, visual design, design strategy, product strategy, service design, usability testing, personas, user journeys, rapid prototyping, wireframing

Website: http://merquro.com
LinkedIn: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/vesnaplanko
Dribbble: https://dribbble.com/loremipsum
Github: https://github.com/VesnaPlanko
Blg: https://medium.com/@vesnaplanko

Email: vesna.planko@gmail.com
Matching Site Design to Your Target Demographic
Right. This is a bogus complaint about proof of correctness.

The way you prove halting is to find some integer measure for each loop (like "iterations remaining" or "error being reduced") which decreases on each iteration but does not go negative. If you can't find such a measure, your program is probably broken. (See page 12 of [1], the MEASURE statement, for a system I built 30 years ago which did this.)

The measure has to be an integer, not a real number, to avoid Zeno's paradox type problems. (1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 ...)

On some floating point problems, with algorithms that are supposed to converge, proving termination can be tough. You can always add an iteration counter and limit the number of iterations. Now you can show termination.

Microsoft's Static Driver Verifier is able to prove correctness, in the sense of "not doing anything that will crash the kernel", about 96% of the time. About 4% of the time, it gives up after running for a while. If your kernel driver is anywhere near close to undecidability, there's something seriously wrong with it.

In practice, this is not one of the more difficult areas in program verification.

[1] http://www.animats.com/papers/verifier/verifiermanual.pdf
Whats up with the negative karma here? People don't like the truth? Every day people get business off the ground in the face of serious negative criticism. People telling them they can't do something. Telling them that it isn't going to work. There is no way it would scale etc. Someone who decides that something isn't possible is just one less competitor for me!
"But though the graph has the word "startups" on it, it is not a graph of the number of startups, but of all new businesses."

From what I have seen most of the world* that is not Silicon Valley, does define a startup as simply a new business. Yet whenever an SV person runs into someone understanding the term in the broad sense they don't go, "Sorry, I'm using the word in a more specialized way", they go "Sorry, you're using that word wrong". It seems to occur often enough that I feel like there must be a reason they feel the need to insist on it. Very similar to the word hacker in many ways.

* http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/start%E2%80%93up
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng...
Sonos would be the killer feature for me, but they don't really have a particularly well-documented API to wrap yet.
It'd be even cooler if we built some nuclear-engined robotic spacecraft and sent them to nearby star systems like Alpha Centauri. We really need much faster propulsion to do serious exploring; it took a decade to get New Horizons to Pluto, and that was the fastest spacecraft we've ever launched.
In general, I disagree. In many, many relationships, while the husband earns the money, the women gets final say in what's spent where. While this isn't the rule, it's certainly not uncommon (and popular culture, IE sitcoms, movies, etc pretty much purely reinforce this).

You could say that the scenario where the husband holds tight to the purse strings and the woman only goes along with it because of fear or anxiety that the woman is forced to be infantilized. But I would guess this is sub 10% of marriages in the US.

On a separate note, I think a useful framework for looking at this is to think of the couple as one entity with two parts, rather than as two separate entities. If the entity is split, it's definitely true that the one that can't provide for itself is at a disadvantage, so it takes a lot of trust. But that's also why there are divorce settlements that favor women that gave up working at some point.
I don't mean to be dismissive, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say. My understanding is that we are talking about face-to-face interaction with a clearly frustrated person. Why wouldn't you know they were frustrated?
Python to guile scheme book for free
I didn't want to know about that hashtag. Now that I know, I guess I'll be spending the evening reading Twitter and getting outraged. :(.
It's interesting that you use the phrase 'sell it away'. That's exactly what one should be doing as a business.

I stumbled my way into product-market fit by designing something that was useful to me personally, and finding that actual profitability was in the mainstream--- people who were my exact opposites in terms of tastes but still strained to use my product for themselves because it was the only thing serving a similar need.

Right now they are 98% of my client base and I struggle with the fact that I don't intuitively understand their needs. I don't have a clear vision, and instead have to do user research on a constant basis.

It took me seven years to reach that point. For the first 7 years, I was ramen profitable--certainly nothing to quit a day job about. On year 7, I made a single switch and within 1 year earned 3x the previous years revenue. The 2nd year, I earned 10x the pre-pivot revenue.

I went from being able to feed myself (barely), to being able to buy a house and support a family. Is that a fair trade off, I think it is... but your mileage may vary.

I see the 'don't sell out' motivation from a lot of small business owners in my community. For another example, there is... well was... a small greek chicken joint that operated for 15 years nearby. The owner was 1st generation american, and all he wanted to do was cook his family recipes and share them with the community. Problem is the community changed in the past decade, going from being mostly European-heritage to N. African nationals. His customer base dwindled, and he never changed his stance of doing what he loved.

A month after his restaurant closed, it was replaced with one which served all halal chicken and is now jam packed with more customers than any other business sees. It's success has convinced the owner to expand leftwards into another collapsing business.

Point is... the path to profitability is finding a customer base willing to pay you. It's not important to have a clear vision, if that vision only involves a small number of people.
And when you find yourself hanging on a cross or inhaling a liter or two of water in Gitmo, just remember this -
https://youtu.be/WlBiLNN1NhQ
Hail storms and tornadoes are more likely than where he used to live, I'd suppose?
Oh, the havoc you could wreak with control of the .corn TLD!
Finance provides the value of liquidity - ensuring that those that need money have the opportunity to connect with those that have money to invest.

Startups provide the value of coming up with new quality of life options for society.

Given that financiers have stopped adding real value and instead have introduced new risks, I don't see the two groups as contributing the same way. Thousands of startups that try and fail are still more valuable to society than people creating artificial opportunities to make the rich richer and society to bail out failures.
What is their web app? Something like that would be extremely useful for me.
Rust is more than semi-stable: we take backwards compatibility very seriously. It will not be subject to deep changes from here on out, or at least, those changes will not break existing things.
And it chooses new winning numbers every time so you likely will never win.
Those policies are an example of the wealthy using the government as a tool to extract rent, hence my comment about unilateral disarmament.

While couched in liberal or eco-whatever rhetoric, make no mistake about it: SF's NIMBY policies are there so that urban property owners can extract rent and homeowners can profit off appreciation. NIMBYism of this sort is an example of regulatory capture.
Google Cardboard is a lifesaver for a baby facing a grim diagnosis
Why spin off anything then?
Pebble is kinda unique in that it's 90% of the time within range of a paired smartphone.

ESP8266 gets close, but I haven't worked with it enough to make a formal opinion on it.
The stated intention of the messaging from the "activist" investors is to persuade a majority of shareholders that their vision for the company is better than the current leadership's, thus forcing change at the company.

The effect of the messaging is usually that the company implements some of the changes themselves to avoid being forced or ousted, which also usually leads to short-term stock gains, which is what the activist investor was after in the first place.
You've described their entire day. I'm sure they know it's not them
> trawl HN

No trawling needed. #hnwatch material is posted every day.
Our SEO Programs
The claim that companies hire to prevent competition seems extraordinary. As posited here it's really nothing more than speculation.
Yep. I remember it well, but people seem to think that since these "partnerships" aren't (obviously) taking place, it can't happen again (also, that idlewords piece is great. everyone in tech should read it, and feel at least a little fear).

There's this great segment in eDreams where the founder of Kozmo.com flies to Seattle to announce a partnership with Starbucks, wherein Starbucks gave them a small amount of money, and they committed to paying Starbucks $30 million a year over five years to put their boxes in Starbucks' stores. Kozmo pitched this as an investment (personal aside: lol), and Starbucks announced that this would increase earnings by five cents a share for fiscal 2001 [1]. Kozmo was, of course, dead by early 2001.

It's painful to watch this now, but it really seems like the same things are happening again. The flow of money is just happening in real time, and not being projected forward on a five-year basis and booked as current revenue. (That happens at the unicorn stage instead, where we seem to have made up fun new ways of booking future recurring revenue as present-day revenue growth, and traditional accounting rules do not apply.)

[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB950479618236414189
Much like what happened with lots of German companies, which had to sell off their real estate, then rent it back at higher costs, and then went bankrupt – while the investors had already sold off everything worth from the company.

This concept of US-Investors is known as "Cricket Plague Investor" (Heuschreckeninvestor) in Germany.
The problem you're describing is poverty, not inequality. How much money Larry Page or Bill Gates has doesn't make your mother's life any better or worse. Graham addresses this in the last paragraph:

"Decreasing poverty is not identical with decreasing economic inequality. Some measures for decreasing poverty could well increase economic inequality. For example, if you gave every child in America the same quality of education Bill Gates had, that would surely decrease poverty. [5] But you would then create a lot of new Bill Gateses as well. These kids wouldn't all stop short at middle class. The more ambitious ones would shoot right out the other side."