skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Last year refers to 2015,
Jan 1st 2015 = $151
Dec 28 end of year 2015 = $133
Not misleading at all.

>Berkshire Hathaway’s poor performance in 2015 is noticeable due to the huge underperformance relative to the market. But a closer look at the performance of the company over the past three years suggests that this is something that has been going on for some time. Berkshire Hathaway has actually significantly underperformed the market over the past five years, with a return of 61.4% vs. 71.4% for the S&P 500 Growth Index (the index tracks the performance of large-cap U.S. securities with growth characteristics).
http://amigobulls.com/articles/has-berkshire-hathaway-lost-i...

Your Business Insider Chart is a chart of a price index from the day he took over Berkshire, things aren't what they used to be, it was my bad that I did not preface Growth Index, but your conclusion that the first statement was misleading is completely incorrect
Question: do you have C-level employees? What's their role in decision making? How are salaries set? Is the space of "decentralization" circumscribed to labor? I.e. are you just forcing more work on employees and not compensating them for it?
Then it's worthless to say "Babel is spec compliant" when it is just compiler infrastructure and not a compiler. It can be as spec compliant (or not) as you want.
That's the requirement to be an accredited investor, not to register a small business.
Anyone know how to legally assign a corporation over to an autonomous system?
As a late 20s millennial, what if having a quarter life crisis is actually the sanest thing? Why shouldn't we have a crisis? We live on this earth for some 80 years, most of it which we have to spend commuting, in cubicles or doing other chores just for sustenance. Inevitably our body will fail us, we'll be in pain, we'll die, loved ones will die. Nothing we do really matters all that much either. I wouldn't say I'm depressed or overly concerned with these things but they're increasingly in the back of my mind. I'm just saying, maybe thinking about these things is the sane thing to do? Just because people in the past didn't have time to think about it because they were fighting for their lives, does that make it better or right?
In what kind of universe is "you must do actual background checks on drivers" a "ban".
interesting summary here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX_2a_jsGYw
Well, don't take that too far; if there weren't a limiter, the probability for accidental malpractice would be very high indeed (especially since the requester button is often in the hands of a medically-untrained patient).

But it's good to know the limiter can be disabled when that is deemed necessary.
> Such policies include drug testing welfare recipients

States periodically try that, and then give up after about a year or two because it costs far more than it recoups.
In the kind of universe where "ban" means "anything that imposes a requirement on how we do business that we don't like".
It has gotten much better since then. These days the preferred logging API is the Tracelogging API https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/dn...
. No schemas, no XML, no build integration required, no decoding problems.

As for collecting logs, WPR is currently the best tool.

There's a great .NET library for both logging and reading recorded events. http://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.Diagnostics.Tracing....
Maybe it's about whether or not Apple is still a tech company?
In my comment I confirm that you were correct to say that it went down 12% in the 2015 calendar year. Correct, but incredibly misleading.
Especially now Title III campaigns are live and anyone can raise from anyone. See www.wefunder.com for example.
According to Wikipedia[1], Intel set aside "$300m over 3-4 years" to invest in Ultrabooks, so $100m/year. Contrast that to ~$8B they spend on R&D each year[2]. So it was a relatively small bet for them.

I'm not saying tech companies never invest in anything outside of their core products. It's just often those projects are given low internal priority precisely because their (presumed) impact to the bottom line will be small.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrabook
[2] https://ycharts.com/companies/INTC/r_and_d_expense

edit: typos
Good point. Especially for me as I'm not quite up to date with knowlege about all the GPU business (other than they're screamingly fast)

It's still scads faster than my 8 year old laptop that I'm stuck with at the moment.
While they've been profitable in the PC space (laptops/desktops) to call them successful is a bit of stretch. They maintain =<10% of that market category which is hardly continuing success and more like continuing to survive.

Edit 1: Downvoters you realize the Mac (Laptop/Desktop) Division is 9.4% of Net Revenue? Source: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2074014299x0x888...
> Why do most/all Unions in the US end up this way?

I don't know. Do they? Why do most unions elsewhere not end up this way?

Clearly there is something extremely toxic about the US relationship with unions given the kind of opinions we get to hear about them. It would be very interesting to understand exactly how that has come about.

Part of it probably does have its root in the fact that the battle lines between unions and employers in the US were drawn very early, and that the US government never got the level of union-friendly representation that large parts of Europe did that forced employers to the negotiating table and that in many countries established relatively civilized relationships between unions and employers and/or shifted many of the conflicts away from the the unions.

At the same time a lot of protection that may be extremely important to many US unionized workers doesn't matter elsewhere. Being fired in Norway, for example, is difficult, but if/when it happens, the social welfare system also makes it financially far less of a burden - there's much less of a reason for a union to take hardline positions on this in those circumstances than in a situation where the welfare system is as basic as it is in the US.
Actually I think there are a lot of things over the counter that affect you more than marijuana.

Have you taken Dramamine (the regular drowsy version)? If I take 1 pill I can sort of keep awake but I wouldn't try to drive unless it was an emergency. Taking 2 pills makes me so drowsy that I would not drive safely by any chance.

Those are the recommended dosages by the way, so no need to consume the whole bottle or box of that like with cough syrup. And that's just one of the myriad of different things you can get over the counter that can easily impair your driving.

So yes, I think the analogy is right to a degree (like all analogies). Even though marijuana does definitely change the way you perceive things and thus driving might not be something recommended to do, the GP's point is that a lot of people already drive under the influence of a lot of other substances, some of them potentially much more dangerous than marijuana.

Obviously part of the problem is that different people will react differently to marijuana, so like stated elsewhere in the thread, a regular user (like a functional alcoholic) might be able to drive "ok" and have no accidents but someone that is trying it for the first time, getting a particularly potent batch and then trying to drive is going to increase the chances of an accident greatly.

That doesn't mean I condone being fucked up (with whatever) and driving, but the GP has a point in that we are already living in a world where people are driving and doing other dangerous things while under the influence of "stuff". That also explains partly why driving is so dangerous and why so many people die each year from a driving-related incident.

Edit: So maybe we shouldn't be single-ing out marijuana as "the" bad stuff that causes accidents while behind the wheel and take a more "big-picture" kind of view. One of the reasons why self-driving cars are a good idea.
SDL is written in C, and it has a much more pleasant way of dealing with heterogeneous event types. There is a struct called SDL_Event, which you fill by calling SDL_PollEvent() until there are no more events to read. The struct is a (discriminated) union of all the possible event types. (It even wraps the Win32 API, so it is very directly comparable -- it is returning the same events!)

https://wiki.libsdl.org/SDL_PollEvent
As someone who won't watch it, can you describe it?
I think there are quite a few people who enter into lifelong marriage commitments without realizing that when you say "sickness and health..." Yes, that's what you're signing up for. There may come a time when you're the only person your partner trusts to make those calls.
Yelp is down
Professional sports industries are examples of successful unionization that ordinary people are exposed more or less continuously. The US collegiate athletics industry offers a point of comparison for non-unionized work in the same occupations.
If the app works, then we're talking about the "kind of person" who has a goal, then identifies and uses a tool that works to achieve the goal.
Intel also bet big on Wimax. Which (mostly) ended up going nowhere. That was another multi-billion dollar mistake. And one which cost thousands of jobs at Intel.
It is totally that. :) They are betting on Apple destroying the existing car makers.
Rethinking in React
Selling to existing customers for technical people
If you don't know how to reproduce it then you don't understand what it is attempting to do.

Instead of copying line-by-line think of it as an exercise in dynamic creation. Like playing Jazz.

What sort of algorithms are you attempting to reproduce?
Yeah, the law in the US forbids accessing any information in a way that is either unauthorized or "exceeds authorized access" from any computer protected by federal law (any computer connected to the internet). The existence of a bug bounty program probably puts this issue within the "exceeds authorized access" category, and there have already been spats between security researchers and companies over where exactly the line of demarcation between beneficial research and malicious exploitation lies.

This is not the kind of thing you want to risk having to depend on a jury to justly decide -- juries have an atrocious record with technical subjects, and if you can't afford a world-class lawyer (which, for reference, is going to cost around a million dollars), your chances are even worse.

If the company informs the US Attorney about the case as a scare tactic, there's no guarantee that the attorney will back off when/if the company and the researcher reach an understanding. It's somewhat unlikely that they would, in fact, as "cybercrime prosecution" seems to be a widely-desired bullet point for prosectors' resumes. This is surely the only motive that existed behind the prosecution of Aaron Swartz.

If the plan is to take advantage of bug bounty programs, I believe the wise thing is to conceal your real identity. Anything that could potentially result in a CFAA claim or charge is much safer that way.
The bug bounty authorizes access for the purposes of finding and reporting issues.

The relevant parts of the CFAA are aimed at unauthorized access.
As someone who lives in Colorado, you'd be surprised how many of those people are just "Colorado drivers". I keep asking my mother in law "why are you doing 15 under; you're not even high?" "Oh, it's just so pretty, I wouldn't want to pass everything so quickly". >_<

We also call this "meditating while driving" and "'This isn't my bike!? How do I drive something with 4 wheels?'"
> unsure of how to interpret the circle of competence thing

Can you figure out what apple would be doing 10 years from now. If no then its out of your circle of competence.

Do you know what Coca Cola would be doing 10 years from now, if yes then it is in your circle of competence.
WhatsApp reportedly testing a video call feature
One of the reasons that we started Continuum Analytics was because we felt that the scipy/pydata ecosystem was so powerful and had such an important role to play in the tech landscape, that we could not purely rely on the goodwill contributions from open source hackers on nights & weekends. We wanted to create a sustainable business - and explore sustainable business models - that could embrace open source technology development, while paying actual salaries, and then push forward in important areas with real velocity.

I think we're making good progress and doing great work, but one of the most surprising points of difficulty in this process has been the acrimonious FUD from the community itself. Various individuals seem to have a perspective that open source must only come from "unaligned" individuals, hacking away in poverty to the detriment of their finances and of their families, and that any "corporate" contribution must be treated with suspicion.

The amount of FUD that we've had to deal with w.r.t conda, Anaconda, etc. is shocking and depressing. There are folks that seem to think it's necessary to fork an already BSD-licensed piece of code simply because it comes from a "corporation", but who are happy to code in Sublime Text on their Macbooks and push code into Github.com.

It bothered me a lot more in the first few years, but I've gotten over it and have learned to just roll my eyes, and keep on keeping on. But for those who wonder why it is that such important open source efforts seem to run on fumes from volunteers (OpenSSL, anyone?), I want to make sure that they understand that it's the community itself that sometimes creates this kind of outcome. Open Source is sometimes a ghetto because certain insiders build walls of asceticism.
>except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/transportation-code/transp-sect-...

Trivial to argue that reduced speed is required for safe operation in this case, the research in this very article may be useful in that defense
White House goes big on microbiome research
> but I don't think it's okay to pretend that it's safe to get high and go driving.

I agree, but I also think it's more nuanced than that. Sure, at the extremes you're totally right. Though take a daily smoker who doses themselves with a predictable and regular amount... that person is very likely not impaired, or at least not more impaired than somebody who's behind the wheel while they're tired.

I think the reality is very complicated... and that makes accurate laws really hard to create. It certainly is easier to just say "you can't have any THC in your body while you're driving"... but I don't agree with that and I don't have a better suggestion honestly.
Not sure this qualifies, but I wish Alfred App had deeper command-line integration.
You shouldn't have been downvoted. That is exactly what happened. Kodak dominated film (especially motion picture film) then in the way Windows dominates desktop operating systems now. The profits were just too great and they thought digital was just a distraction.
Facebook trying to hammer out music licenses for Slideshow feature
Java Client SDK for Stateful.co, 0.15 Released
A very big point of UBI is to eliminate exactly the type of regulation because both of personal liberty reasons and, perhaps more importantly, it is a source of administrative inefficiency in the programs.

The development of the political consensus necessary to pass a UBI would be, exactly, a political rejection of the idea that such restrictions are desirable.

Trying to scaremonger against UBI with this as the supposed threat is nonsense, because it is, in effect, defending the status quo in which these kinds of restrictions are already imposed on people against a change which would remove them on the idea that somehow, in the distant future, those type of restrictions might be reimposed.
Interesting read. I'm assuming throughput is a key requirement for the system, but I wonder how much more difficult writing and maintaining the codebase is compared to a "safer" but slower language such as Java, Scala, or Go.
Why Kickstarter Products Fail
As are DNS, NTP, SSH, and DHCP. That's just off the top of my head.
I don't think so, this is totally uncharted legal territory- Nobody will know until the first legal precedents are established (IANAL)
The point is that there was no effort to use meaningful abstractions and a coherent interface at the API level. The art of building a good product is finding the right level of abstraction for your audience, and I don't think 3rd party developers are well served here, although internal Windows performance engineers might be.
Probably around here as he has been seen on HN quite a bit.

Proof : https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cstross
I've seen those before! The bottom set (with the coiled DNA and the mice) are my wife's illustrations. The process is interesting: both the mice and the DNA are 3D models rendered with Lightwave3D. Usually Jen (Scientific American's art director, and the author of the blog) creates a hand-drawn "sketch", then Emily creates the models and a rough "render", and then she and Emily go back and forth for several iterations of revisions.

Perhaps disturbingly to those who might take for granted the accuracy of the illustrations, a lot of time is spent searching the web for reliable references. Sometimes there are pre-existing line drawings from published papers, and sometimes it involves reading the text of the scientist's dissertation and trying to figure out what's actually happening. If anyone has questions on how the graphics are made, ask here and I'll get answers.

Or if you happen to be looking for similar custom scientific illustrations, here's Emily's website: http://cooperhawk.com.
The difference is that running in an unknown/broken state is the default when using error codes. Getting into such a state with exception handling typically requires explicit programmer action, such as the "catch everything and ignore it" pattern.
But it wasn't misleading, rather it was you misreading
For me, the biggest downside of Google shutting down Reader is that from now until eternity every post to Hacker News about a new Google service will be chock full of comments pointing out that it will probably just get closed down.

The actual number of genuinely useful services that Google has shuttered is relatively small.

Their much bigger sin consists of either long-term neglect, re-launching a new version with half the features missing or as other commenters here have pointed out - launching something that confusingly overlaps with another service.
Yep. For example, there's people so strongly allergic to medicines that normally would be the default choice for curing a variety of diseases, making them unusable for these people.

Then there are even more "fun" special cases of simultaneously occurring diseases where the cure for one makes the other disease more dangerous.

But the point regarding cancer is that it just really ISN'T a single disease. That's like calling rockets, hot-air balloons, airplanes and helicopters the same thing. Sure, they all fly, but the mechanisms for them all are drastically different.

Cancers are the collection of diseases which causes cells to replicate uncontrollably.
Facebook Monitoring Your Reactions to Serve You Ads, Warn Belgian Police
It depends on the size of the bet, .83% of the portfolio isn't substantial in any way (if AAPL went to 0 tomorrow it would barely budge Berkshire's portfolio). In comparison their Wells Fargo stake is 23x the size of Apple's.

http://whalewisdom.com/filer/berkshire-hathaway-inc#/tabhold...
Windows Docker Swarm demo
Mirror-image enzyme copies looking-glass DNA
Hence all the meetings.
Around here, roads that have a maximum speed that fast generally have a minimum speed in the 45MPH range too.
Yea, I wondered the same thing when I want to a crowdfunding workshop a year back. I asked how do you get your money out if the business never sells. Are the companies required to pay dividends? The people running the workshop kept saying it is the same as buying stock in Amazon and Apple. And I was thinking you really are telling me that buying stock in Bob's Tire Shop is the same as buying stock in Apple. GTFO
From what I can recall or determine, I don't think Google's ever really given a product or service less than a year from release to shutdown. But a lot of them get killed between the one and two year marks.
The problem is when new tech is going to be a brutal slug fest like digital photography it's really hard for bloated companies to compete. Intel and Kodak both had decades of brand recognition, but that only goes so far when many competitors keep entering the market.

Consider, Google paid 1 billion for YouTube, that's relatively speaking chump change. Microsoft could have just bought Nintendo vs Dumping 10's of billions on X-Box. Remember, buying means you get revenue from day one to offset that initial investment where R&D takes years and might not pay off. Of course you need to time this when the competitors are still affordable.
> The only mystery to me was why Intel never just sucked it up and made a low-margin x86 chip to compete directly with ARM.

Culture. Some companies are willing to sacrifice today's revenue for tomorrow's growth. Intel isn't.

A low-end, low-power, low-margin x86 system would cut a huge swath thru Intel's margins. The trend of "upgrade to newer! better! faster!" CPUs would be hard-hit.

Even Apple is seeing that now with slowing iPhone sales. The phones are powerful enough that upgrading doesn't get a lot of benefit. So people aren't.
babel-preset-es2015 is as canonical a "default configuration" as you're likely to find.
That's probably two of the bigger reasons. Youtube has no ceremony to watch videos. Its a website with little friction.
I really want to reserve judgement here...I want to wait and see how it actually functions, etc. But reading the description, (and my immediate reflex is to state that) it really looks extraneous, and definitely overlap for what G+ should/could be (or maybe is?). Unless i'm mis-reading, it basically is the definition of a type of social network:
1. Have/find content.
2. Have a desire to share/discuss content with friends, acquaintances.
3. Trigger some function/feature to share on a time line of sorts, so friends, acquaintances can see/interact with said content.

Not to sound so dismissive, (I hate to be critical for someone's hard work) but is that all that this new product is? Basically another (centralized) social network?

I think Google should instead develop an open source, federated protocol for maybe standardizing sharing via decentralized social networks. This would open it up to myriad apps/clients. Oh sure, there are some out there...but having it (the protocol) associated to Google would give it some authority - and by extension attract more devs to its ecosystem; though still keep it open/free. Side benefit, if Google sponsored and supported this federated protocol, they can begin to dive into the decentralized (dare i call it) movement. They could then position themselves to provide search (their original strength) across decentralized nodes, etc. Owners of their own decentralized nodes could choose to "play with Google" or not.

Who knows, maybe Google developing a federated protocol may not be ideal...but anything seems better than what this new product appears to be. (Seriously trying not to judge too soon though. ;-)
Considering alex/letsencrypt-aws is also designed specifically for ELB, I think the comparison to ACM is appropriate.

From what I can tell, the only reasons to use alex/letsencrypt-aws (IAM certificates) instead of AWS Certificate Manager are if you're either 1, provisioning ELBs in a region other than us-east-1 and unable to wait for Amazon to roll out ACM to other regions; or 2, subsequently applying the same certificate to other resources in addition to ELB+CloudFront (e.g., a standalone EC2 instance running nginx or apache).
> Stoned drivers are less dangerous than drunk ones
The growing role of grandparents in raising children and human biology
The Future Is Almost Now