skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This seems so obvious to me as someone who uses a computer constantly. Like the example in the article about tying shoelaces, you aren't thinking about your fingers or hands or keys or mouse but the effect that those things are conveying from your thoughts onto the screen. And more than really onto a screen. More onto some other reality that is visualized by a screen.

I'd love to see more research into things like this.
http://www.google.com/search?q=intern+labor+laws is what i'm going off of
Benchmarking HP MSA2000 Storage for Data Warehouses
This is a problem with Fluid's default settings. You can fix it by going to Preferences -> Advanced -> Add a new pattern: flowdock.com

We'll try to document this process a bit better.
I upvoted this because I think this sort of thing can be relevant to understanding a great person. (Gandhi's family life always struck me a classic example, but that's another story.) However, after looking at the Wikipedia page fierarul posted, I see no evidence that Einstein put a child up for adoption. That is, it's known from his letters that there was a daughter, but no one knows what happened to her.
Mistakes Businesses Make Trying to go Green
“A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.”

That is gold!
The second paragraph of the article states that the student interns were paid.
You'd still take it for a spin if the offer presented itself... and you know it.
The "reasoning about performance" is more of a trap for the unwary than a fundamental problem.

Example; you have two threads in a producer/consumer setup. The first thread puts "g x" into the queue. The second thread removes this, and applies "f", and puts the result into a result queue. Then a result-processing thread prints those to the file.

You run this, and notice that it doesn't really take advantage of all cores. It seems to run slower on 2 or 3 cores than it does on 1 core, even though "f" and "g" are of roughly equal complexity and the application of each happens in a different thread! WTF?!?

The problem is, of course, that lazy evaluation "helped you". You never needed "g x" in the first thread, so it wasn't evaluated; the thunk was put in the queue. When you applied "f (g x)" in the second thread, you still didn't need the value of either computation, so it was never evaluated. You just put a thunk in the result queue. Finally, in the result-printing thread, you did need the result -- so all the work to evaluate the result was done there; in a single thread.

You realize this, switch to strict queues, and now your app is 2x faster.

(BTW, I simplified the producer/consumer model a bit. Normally you have one thread feeding work into a queue, n threads reading from that queue, doing work, and putting results into a result queue, and then a final result-aggregator thread. The end result would be the same; all the work would be done in that last thread. Slow!)
nice work guys...interesting to see a different take on the Flow as a team collaboration medium. Also, Love the flow based puns like "Flowser". At Shareflow we call the creator of the flow the "Flowner".

http://zenbe.com/shareflow
Cryptome: PayPal a 'liar, cheat and a thug' (Can I get an AMEN?)
Thought their pricing was interesting, lower than I would have guessed: "Martin Aircraft has built several prototypes so we have a good idea how much they cost to manufacture. Depending on production volume, the initial cost will be about the same as a high-end motorcycle or car. As volume increases this will drop to be similar to a mid-range motorcycle or car."
Strongtalk. Google. Read. Been done.
Many tracing JIT implementations do the compilation in a separate thread from the running VM, only providing the compiled code when it's ready. This reduces the overhead considerably, and should pretty much prevent any pauses in execution (assuming a CPU that can reasonably handle multiple threads).

There is always the risk of unbounded compilation time as you say... or at least compilation time that runs long enough that the compiled code isn't ready in time to be useful, but empirical evidence of tracing has shown it to be a net win (over interpretation) in every implementation I have seen, so this risk must be small or at least manageable.
I'd say they're overcomplicating the problem. Simply install a keylogger in the guts of the keyboard and come back a week later.

If you feel like doing something fancy install a small fsk modulator in the FM band in the keyboard and monitor the typed in stuff remotely, use that to access an image you made of the drive.
If only we had someone in charge of planning the economy, someone like Scott Adams, then things would be great. He could think of all these great investment projects that private investors for some reason aren't willing to fund.

Gee Scott, I can't believe nobody's thought of that before.

Although, this is eerily similar to what government did do in the mortgage market starting in the mid '90s - funding projects that private investors weren't willing to fund. It did stimulate the housing market for awhile. So maybe Scott is on to something.
In regards to young people, that only works if they have no preexisting conditions. Otherwise loss of group coverage risks long term loss of coverage.
Mainly due to the fact that a 'powered parachute' (e.g. an ultralite) undergoes essentially no mass modal volume delta in airflow when transitioning between powered and unpowered flight.

The controls, and fundamental aeronautical responses to flight inputs, remain the same in both flight regimes and, for the most part, there's a gradual and manageable amount of pilot feedback during the transition.

In fact, this lack of "gradual feedback" was the main reason that power steering took so long to be safety-approved in automobiles. It's also why, in most countries, pure 'drive-by-wire' controls are only allowed in experimental and prototype road vehicles. Despite the obvious ergonomic and cockpit layout virtues of joysticks, steering wheels and worm gears can still work without active power-assists.

The same can be said for a gliding light airplane or helicopter under auto-rotation.

Alas, the same CAN NOT be said for the Martin jetpack when deploying its ballistic parachute. Btw, aside from cost and liability issues, this is one of the reasons emergency ballistic parachutes haven't caught on in small single-engine aircraft.
I wasn't demanding an argument from authority; I was trying to point out that your argument is just an opinion -- you're already arguing from authority.

" I've probably interviewed more than 200 PhD's for various positions over the last 30 years, and a statistically significant number of them were unable to pass a basic set of tests that history has shown to indicate the ability to function in an industrial-style software development environment."

What you're saying is that a "significant" number of PhDs (from a small sample that you have interviewed), have not passed the tests that you put in front of them. That's a long way from the argument that PhDs tend not to thrive in industry.

Ignoring the fact that you're begging the question (are your tests any good?), I would wager that a "significant number" of interviewees with any degree would fail your tests. The question is, do PhDs fail at a higher or lower rate? I very seriously doubt you have enough data to substantiate your claims about the industry-worthiness of people with doctoral degrees.
its something called "Kündigungsschutz". most contracts have these clauses and they are often effective after some kind of trial period (usually 3-6 months, depending on job and experience).
its a measure to support the employee but it works both ways.
Static typing and JIT compiling aren't mutually exclusive, though

Static/Dynamic typing are no longer mutually exclusive either. We need to get past this idea already.

(I mean we as a field, not present company necessarily.)
I think we can both agree that frontscalator makes more sense.
I think the key to this really is "Design your intern projects in advance".

I interned last summer at Siemens Energy, working on internal software. Well, sort of working on internal software. My manager didn't have a project ready for me on my first day, then it took him a few weeks to pull something together. When he did, I was done within two weeks.

I was useful, effective, and efficient on the project I was given. Yet because my project was not designed in advance, I was stuck sitting around in the office for much of the summer and felt like a waste of Siemens' money.
“You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else.”

This one is essential. Goes right along with recent HN discussions on "effort shock" - not understanding how hard things really are, or what it takes to be successful. The "game" that we are shown as kids isn't an accurate representation of real life, and oftentimes we must learn the real rules for ourselves.
If it gets certificated as something more than an experimental aircraft, you should expect to be able to fly it at least by the same rules you fly a helicopter.
Ask YC: To booth or not to booth ?
Hi guys,

We're working on the product for my new startup in the ecommerce space. No it's not another ecommerce site builder :) Our product should be ready in the next 5-6 weeks.

Our question is: should we advertise by having a booth at the Internet Retailer or shop.org conferences? Has anyone done this at these conferences and was it useful?

If not these ones specifically, what have your experiences been with booths at trade conferences or shows in your area of expertise?

Cash is tight as a startup and these don't come cheap so would love to get your thoughts.

Thanks in advance.
YC @ SXSW, Mon 15th March, 5 - 7pm
I started using it this morning. After my session auto-expired, I can no longer log back in. It seemed useful until that happened, but lack of reliability is a deal-breaker.
you are still loosing 200-50 :-).

I'll guess in the long run the only sound strategy is to be totally random and that will get you only 50% of wins.
Google Opens App Store for Business Software
Dummyimage.com Gets New Features
(Actually Wave was announced and released to beta while we were developing Flowdock so it's was really interesting for us.)

Yeah, it's true that we should differentiate ourselves from Wave as much as possible, but the comment "It's what Google Wave should have been", means that for some people Flowdock is what they expected or wanted from Wave.

The problem I see with Wave is that it's trying to be everything for everyone, which is a really ambitious goal. With Flowdock we just want to provide tools for teams that work constantly and intensively together.
Flash Player: CPU Hog or Hot Tamale? It Depends.
I'm guessing that you are doing something right now since I just get a "500 Internal Server Error" every time I try to go to the flow.
Agreed. Also, powered parachutes and paragliders have been around for a while:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKYCbE7pCHY
From experience I can tell you this won't work. Finding good workers is the hardest thing a company does and any plan based on "we can easily go out and find skilled people" is doomed to failure from the start.

When I first started at my current job they had the idea of hiring one person (me) and then using the money they'd use to hire a second person to outsource using sites like scriptlance. I had to over see these freelancers and it didn't go too well for a few reasons:

1. Most people claim they "have" skills when what they mean is they think they could quickly acquire those skills if you hire them. Which leads to shoddy work.

2. People with no loyalty to you tend to do poorer quality work which again leads to shoddy work.

3. Most unemployed people are the lowest quality workers (the ones who were coasting up until the economy turned). That makes it hard to find the actual good people because the signal-to-noise ratio is so out of whack.
...frankly this guy is completely clueless...

I find what he's saying troubling, too, but you should know he has a pretty good track record when it comes to economic predictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff#Economic_views
I mean half of (real) economic growth because no one gets poorer that way. If we redistributed 50% of all current income, a lot of people would get much poorer. Whereas here, if the current pool (GDP) is $100 and grows by $4 in a year, there will be $102 non-redistributed and $2 distributed evenly. If it grows by 4% ($4.16) the next year to $108.16, then $104.08 is non-redistributed and $4.08 is redistributed.

At 4%, you'll double every 18 years. So after 90 years, the pool is $3200 of which $1650 is not redistributed and $1550 is.

What this gives you is: 1. the nonredistributed pool is growing, so you don't have anyone complaining about income loss. 2. Asymptotically, you get to a society where everyone has at least a 1/2N share of the pie.

Also, as the "share" increases (in absolute terms), the number of people who say "hey, I can live on that - why work?" also goes up, which reduces the size of the pool.

If GDP declines, the basic income would decline and people would have to work again, but I don't think this style of economy would be any more recession-prone than the one we have now.

Honestly, I think the danger of this (people not working) is overstated. Most people would rather work than not work; the reason people hate retail jobs is not that they want to be unproductive, but because everyone treats them like shit at such jobs (because they can, and they can because the people in those jobs are stuck there). If we liberated humanity from the necessity of work, people still would work, but they'd be a lot more creative and self-directed in how they go about it. This would be good for everyone. As for those, who would laze about and not work, they're most likely people who are not very productive anyway.
Well... if you consider IO to be the nuclear waste of functional programming, the IO monad is a way of wrapping up that nuclear waste so tightly that it can't escape until the functional program has logically completed executing. The high-level result (of some IO type) is logically an imperative program that the functional program built using functional composition with placeholders where the IO was supposed to happen.

But while I have to stretch to make this analogy, monads are sufficiently abstract that they could probably be made to fit many strained analogies...
I believe that the law is there to prevent companies from calling ordinary employees "interns" for the sake of getting around minimum wage laws.
Thanks, nice job with Shareflow as well.

After we decided with the name it was quite funny how many 'flow' products were out there :)
We should add this to our i18n software so that they are switched for languages that read right-to-left.
Dan Barber: How I fell in love with a fish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampersand
What is exactly what I expect from the VC (early stage VC).
Find group of talented people, with good idea, then help to position the product on the market using portfolio companies as helpers and his brand for PR. Style everything, and then sell thru the IPO.
When jrockway said the burrito thing, I think he was referring to the Brent Yorgey post about the "monad tutorial fallacy":

http://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuitio...

To summarize: everyone, once they learn Haskell, comes up with their own analogy for "what monads are"... and the analogy, while it makes perfect sense to the person that came up with it, never helps anyone else because everyone gets to monads via a different route.
Are you really going to say you "knew" this rather than perhaps assumed it? The test may not be perfect but it is some sort of proof beyond anecdotal evidence.

Also I'd say down votes are because you made a accusatory statement without any sort of thought behind it.
don't underestimate google. it's probably safe to assume they know exactly what they are doing.
Monads are a hack (http://catb.org/jargon/html/H/hack.html) more in sense 2, not in sense 1.

1. n. Originally, a quick job that produces what is needed, but not well.

2. n. An incredibly good, and perhaps very time-consuming, piece of work that produces exactly what is needed.
This post is just wrong. eCub is not trouble-free. And SIGIL should really be used as fine-tuning.

People would be better off running Windows and using Atlantis, which has a Save as eBook option. It creates ePub easily.

http://www.atlantiswordprocessor.com/en/

And specifically for Mac OS X, there's supposed to be iStudio Bookbuilder from here:

http://www.istudiopublisher.com/index.php/home/home/
Thanks for pointing this out. Apparently making screencasts is not really our strongest asset. We try to make a better one later.
I have the perfect explanation for Monads: Monads are like everything that satisfies the three monad laws. (Of course this only helps mathematicians, if at all. Not mere mortals.)
Aha Moments When Learning Git
We'll never get a black hole this way... :-}
I think your rebuttal is missing a very important point.
Though you may not agree that The Sex Pistols were the best product, there is little doubt that they were the brand that is heavily associated with the genre.

In another start-up comparison, The Sex Pistols weren't the best technical solution, but they got users.
I think transcalator fits together more nicely.

(Edit: or maybe flatscalator)
> Nice article, but Haskell type system is not a logical limit.

Indeed. Though it makes some sense as a figure of speech.
I think this "Linux" is deadrat rather than anything else; every other Linux I know of requires your root password before you are given the shell in "recovery mode".

But of course, you can just boot from a flash drive and do whatever you want to the target system; add accounts, change passwords, whatever. This is why you use full-disk encryption.
In Romanian:

() == paranteze (rotunde); the "rotunde" (round) adjective is optional
[] == paranteze pătrate (squared)
{} == acolade (braces)
What really matters is whether I'm allowed to fly it to work or not.
Rate my startup: MailFinch
I've posted about this project at various times over the past few months and gotten some awesome feedback from you guys.

I've been continually A/B testing my cold calls, buttons, links, paper stock, etc... and, I'm pretty proud of what I've been able to do so far.

I recently renamed the product to MailFinch (previously, it was SnailPad) and would love to get some candid feedback from anyone that will share. :)

www.mailfinch.com
You're right. The special cockpit canopy:

http://www.brewtruck.co.uk/country/tuborg.htm
What fuel does it use?
In British English it's much the same:

() == "round brackets" or usually just "brackets"
[] == "square brackets"
{} == "curly brackets" or "braces"
Careful lying may aid in explaining. [1] The author knows the difference.

[1] Can anybody find the source of this quote?
Besides the extra weight, what is the difference between a skydiver and someone wearing a jetpack when deploying a parachute?
It is quite common in Thailand at least to have internships that are unpaid. The way the company sees it is that they are spending resources and time making this person more valuable than they would be without the experience. I think that's the mentality over there.
As I always say, I disagree about this. "Monad" is a property, the "is a" in "is a monad" does not mean the same thing as "is a pencil" or "is an airplane". It means the same thing as "red" does in "red apple" or "red cup" or "red piece of paper". If you look at one of those, and say "red is like an apple", you're just wrong... that's why nobody gets what you're talking about. As soon as you realize that "monad" is a property of types like "red" is a property of things in the physical world, then you have the understanding you need to be able to make "monads" make sense to you.

That is all. :)
I presume that views are either "ideology talking points" or "universally agreed-upon facts," right? Case closed!

I have read intro econ textbooks. The notion that taking a dollar from one party and giving it to another party creates wealth is absurd. At best, you can argue that it will debase the currency (if not, why doesn't it work with any commodity? You can say that if we confiscate X amount of wealth, and give it away, it turns into 2X amount of wealth. But if the wealth is denominated in, e.g., gold, or houses, or publishing rights, it doesn't have similar fecundity.)

Thank you for the comic. It ably makes your point. However, we're talking about a social science, which is at least partially influenced by the need for grants, public approval, speaking engagements, etc. You can't just put the Depression in a supercolider and run tests on it. Because of this, it's more analogous to other ideological popularity contests, like English Lit and Scientology. People have spent decades studying both of those, but it hasn't made them great writers or superhumans. Similarly, economists who study lots of Keynesian economics don't end up making awesomely profitable global macro trades--even Keynes was smart enough to invest based on something other than his own philosophy.

Hoover's spending was unprecedented. It was hardly "nothing". Another timeline to consider:

Dawn of time-Present: Governments attempt to control currency, typically lead to inflationary bubbles, followed by busts.

1936: This is somehow declared a Good Thing.
Don't do it. I've been considering the same thing for my startup (MailFinch) for a while now -- it's so tempting, but it's not worth it.

These days, here's what I do to "sponsor" events like these:

1. Give away a door prize. In my case, I give the conference organizer the ability to give away three of my "Freelance" packages for a year -- those are worth $300/each.

2. I tell the conference organizer that I only have budget for stuff that is guaranteed to bring me customers. I tell the organizer that I'll give them an affiliate commission on anyone that signs up through the special link I provide for the conference. (This is a relatively new tactic for me and, so far, only seems to work with the larger conferences...)
"A monad is like a functor, except there is also a 'join' operation."
Reduce credit card debt
Looking for the best debt relief solutions and debt free credit counseling, Visit our website to explore more about unsecured debt consolidation loan and credit card debt settlement companies which would helps you to avoid bankruptcy.
There's three major bodies in EU: the Commission, the Council, and the Parliament.

The European Parliament is directly elected by the people, has 736 members, and each member is part of one of (currently) seven groups usually depending on which group is closest politically to their actual political party in the home country. The biggest groups are the conservatives, the social democrats, liberals, greens and christian democrats.

Then you have the council of ministers which consists of the executive branches of all member states, which makes it sort of elected by the people. The council has legislative power together with the parliament, but no EU-wide executive power, since their actual job is to govern their own countries. They are also responsible for implementing EU directives locally.

Finally you have the European Commission which is the EU-wide executive branch. Each country's executive branch appoints one commissioner each, which makes them twice removed from being elected (and of course criticized for it). They don't have legislative power, but they can suggest legislation for the parliament to vote on. It is this body that is participating in the ACTA negotiations on behalf of the EU member nations, so that each country's executive branch doesn't have to.
I read the article as saying almost exactly that: thunks are sort of like closures, but not entirely. I have the advantage of having a good understanding of both thunks and closures already, but I don't think most reasonable readers would think he's drawing an exact equivalence. Rather he's pointing out a similar concept (code that is run sometime later) that readers may have encountered elsewhere.