skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've recently switched to bluetooth in ears (Jaybird Freedom) and it significantly improves my "user-experience" of listening to music on the go.

I don't have to carry my phone with me when I go jogging (smartwatch) and even if I did I could put it in any pocket without having to make sure that the cable is long enough.

Pulling the phone out and using it is also more pleasant without a cable. Another example is me being in the kitchen and listening to music with the phone lying around somewhere 5m away from me.

I know it is currently expensive (the Jaybird Freedom cost $200) but I believe that the general direction Apple is taking here is the right one. Prices for such headphones will go down and battery life will improve. (although battery life is already sufficient for me)

Once you can get something comparable for $50 I believe most people will switch.
The Best Cure for Public Speaking Anxiety – FLIP IT
If you reduced the global population to 50 million people with a common culture, climate change would become much easier to deal with, the standard of living would be much higher, and a single nation-state with no rivals would have no need for nuclear weapons.

It would also involve wiping out or sterilizing 98%-99% of the species, but in terms of stabilizing the population and avoiding the possibility of a boom-bust extinction or nuclear war, that would be a solution both "hateful" and geared towards species longevity. I think it's better to risk extinction than to actually do that, but if one's sole concern is to avoid extinction...

Meanwhile, a european nun who chooses to live and work in Africa is definitely filled with genuine love for humanity, but their social and economic views would probably destroy our species and certainly any hope of technological progress if practiced universally.
It's often hard for indie developers without marketing budgets, but in the same vein the whole gaming market on iOS is doing tremendously well. Here's a high level snapshot of iPhone earning by country, month by month:

https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/993499/16283312/2...

The industry grew a lot - surely driven by the most successful titles, but also for the longer tail of developers. More of the total revenue and earnings are captured by the top 100 publishers -- but still, even compared to 2012 or 2013, the 10000th biggest app is earning more due to the opening of all the new territories.

The game earning model moved from a hits based model, where you launch with lots of hype and reviews and generate a lot of earnings in the initial months to a model where long playing loyal players stick with the game over many months & years and monetize via longer term in app purchases. It's not possible to bring back 2010. We need to be ok with that and learn to engage users over longer timelines.
From what I've heard this is common practice but not commonly understood by first time founders.
How could the creator of markdown be so... unreasonable!?
;_;
Yeah, you've got a point there... And even that might not be enough: Remember the Icon A5 [1] (cool amphibian light sport plane) or the Terrafugia Transition [2] (flying car)?
They've flown, been presented at Oshkosh, even partially certified - but will they ever really (wait for it...) take off?

(BTW, though, the AERO is probably _the_ major European general aviation show.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICON_A5
[2] http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft/transition
In an ideal world, Apple would come up with a replacement analog jack that's not as deep (less depth translates to more battery space without necessarily making the phone thicker or heavier). The jack is ~50 years old, and there are issues with it, so there's space for improvement. Going all digital sounds like a crappy idea, though. The phones have good DACs, and you generally don't get enough crosstalk inside a phone to justify moving the DAC outside the hardware with a dongle/box.
People are missing the point of robots.

Robots have the potential to give us what we've always wanted but could never ethically achieve: slaves. We want capable beings to do our bidding. To serve us, to build for us, to obey us. If we follow some nonsensical robotic social justice, we can lose this.

This type of stipulation is also an example of innovation-hindering regulation, and what a surprise, it's coming from the bureaucratic EU. Social security payable by robot owners. If I'm smarter and use something to compete more efficiently and productively, I'm penalized. Socialism in a nutshell: take from the bright, redistribute to the dim.

"But this time it's different!" We didn't tax the first people to create and operate the drill press, the lathe, or the milling station. Or the sewing machine for that matter.
> Most web pages don't need to be encrypted. Anything with a form should be, but if you're just viewing static content, there's little point.

Some really cool HTML and JS functionality will only work over HTTPS.

What "really cool" HTML feature requires HTTPS? There can be problems with mixed secure/insecure content, but that's more of an offsite content issue.

> Yes, it obscures what content you're viewing, slightly. An observer often could figure that out from the file length.

If you have an attacker than can identify content solely from its length, you have bigger problems than an SSL cert can solve.

An eavesdropper knows the IP address and the length of the content, even if it's encrypted.

> Trying to encrypt everything leads to messes such as Cloudflare's MITM certs which name hundreds of unrelated domains. This is a step backwards.

I do not see the problem. All those domain owners consciously choose to have Cloudflare host their stuff. The cert might be a few KB bigger, but who cares?

When sites share an SSL cert, and you can break into one of the sharing sites, there's a way to impersonate others. Cloudflare customers for their lower tiers of "security" often don't realize this. The customer doesn't pick which sites share certs; that's up to Cloudflare.[1]

[1] http://john-nagle.github.io/certscan/whoamitalkingto04.pdf
I don't remember much from my biology class but I seem to remember nearly all life utilizes some ATP cycle. Plants get it from the sun, animals from food, etc. I'm curious to know if this electic life is still ATP based and just utilizes free electrons to create it.
Maybe, maybe not.

There's quoting everywhere. EVERYWHERE. Doing it wrong is the source of some extremely damaging exploits (SQL injection, shell command injection, XSS, ...).

Fixing From and >From is but a drop in the bucket.
It's strange that, to some, this is somehow a controversial statement.

For a conference to say "we couldn't find enough subject-matter-qualified women", one of the following must be true:

* The least qualified speaker on their roster is still more qualified than literally every woman currently living, or

* Something about their conference failed to attract (or worse, repelled) half the population of the planet.

The first is statistically extremely unlikely. The second is more likely, and represents a problem with the conference rather than the pool of potential speakers.

Unfortunately, telling people "the problem is with your conference and not with the pool of speakers" is a controversial statement despite being painfully obvious.

This is without getting into the "faux diversity" insult which implies that there is something about women as a class which naturally makes them less qualified (since, obviously, conferences select purely on qualifications and just coincidentally end up heavily or often entirely male) -- if you didn't believe women are inherently less qualified, you wouldn't think that having women speak was necessarily a relaxing of qualifications or only done for "diversity".

Here's another true-but-sadly-controversial statement: if you believe what you're saying, then the kind of tech conferences you'd likely run are actually affirmative action for people who look and think like you. And I bet you wouldn't want anyone saying you only got in because they give preferential treatment to people like you, right?
Thanks for taking the time to share this. I was aware of the community build - I believe it was discussed in some depths on Scalawags a while ago? - and find it to be an amazing initiative. Can't think of a better way to minimise the issues that Dotty might cause, and I'm in awe of the amount of work it must represent.

What I fear in that moment down the line where one feature goes over the arbitrary threshold you set yourself for community breakage, but is just too great to pass up on. Since the threshold is arbitrary anyway, it's fine to adjust it a bit... and a bit more later...

Not saying it will happen, and it would be dishonest of me not to say that I don't think you could possibly do more than you're already doing to prevent this kind of issue.
I hear this myth perpetuated incessantly. (That there's no more middle ground in the app store, only the Clash of Clans and Candy Crushes and the rest with no downloads). People paint the picture that it's the top 0.1% and everyone else with an unsustainable business.

The truth is there's plenty of us in the middle still. My two person iOS dev studio has pulled in 6 figures a year for the past 4 years. The problem is not that there's no middle ground, it's that the everyone used to get guaranteed downloads, and with the removal of new releases and the never ending flood of apps, 90% of apps will get just about zero downloads after launch nowadays.

But there's still plenty of room for small studios like us who know their target audience and what works on the app store to make a sustainable business. So I'd say top 0.1% for the insane successes that can support hundreds of employees, but for a small studio, just getting in the top 5% can work.

If you're curious about numbers, check thinkgaming.com, to see that the top 200 grossing game is still pulling ~$10K a day on iPhone in the US alone. When you add all countries, tablets, and Android devices, you start to see you don't need a top 10 or even top 100 grossing app to make some serious cash.

So while it has gotten a lot tougher in the app store and it's increasingly difficult for newcomers with no experience to hit it big, there's still very much a thriving middle ground between the insane successes and the utter failures. I suspect that it's not well known is due to the fact that those in similar positions to us don't want to dish out the valuable knowledge they've acquired through years of experience that could only increase the competition.
Do you say the same thing about copies of a program (and their corresponding hardware)?
I know this really isn't the place for this, but since sytse and other Gitlabbers frequent these threads it'd be nice to get a response. I've had an open issue on Gitlab for four months now that basically makes it unusable for me:

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/support-forum/issues/548
1Password TOTP https://blog.agilebits.com/2015/01/26/totp-for-1password-use... is great, we use it extensively at GitLab https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/a2885089...
Why? From Apples standpoint it means developers are continuing to keep iOS popular.

And honestly developers, individual and companies, are peer pressure driven. As long as others make it a popular platform, they'll develop for it.
I was looking for a proper English way to say this, but exactly; the long tail in the Appstore is nearly unrecoverable in the Appstore. And even outside it; I ran a review service (one that actually make enough to live on) for apps years ago and most (all on some sites) reviews are bought so they are skewed towards deep pockets. It stinks and I'm sorry I ever even did that.
Pretty sure the author will end up buying an iPhone 7 headphone jack or not.
At first I thought they were talking about the game, EVE Online. And then the example on the page reference "moons per planet", which confirmed to me they were talking about that space game.
From what I understand, it is rather obscured then "encrypted". I'm not sure about Assembly but most higher level languages leave function and variable names in the binary. There are many programs that rename the variables and function to something random so you will have a hard time what each function does. Mojang did that for their Minecraft game but developers soon found out what each method does and strated renaming them back to something useful – this is how Mod or Plugins are available.

If apple did that with their kernel, then I'd say it is pretty bad security practice. A dedicated "hacker" can always understand what each function does with good confidence, it is just a pain in the neck and most volunteers don't wanna put up with that (while a state sponsored team may very well do that).

Security through obscurity is always bad and only scares away people who could help while leaving many true bad actors with just more, painful work. If apple did indeed just obscured their kernel, I think apple did that intentionally to have people besides the FBI/NSA look at their code (they have been more and more concerned with security in recent years).
I prefer not to give that many personal details out on HN. If you're curious, please feel free to email me via the address in my profile. I'm happy to chat!
heh, that's actually what I kind of do now with a couple of devices. Then I ban that vlan from the internet. I'm speaking more in general though: Too many IoT devices require cloud access to work properly. I don't want to put a hacky solution together, I'd rather things would out of the box. I don't like the idea of having to be defensive against my own equipment.
You don't need to "open up" your internal network (the ownership validation can happen via DNS), but the hostname would be public through Certificate Transparency.

Generally, if you're relying on your internal hostnames being secret (which is a terrible idea anyway), you should consider using an internal CA, because there's a good chance all public CAs will start logging every single certificate they issue to public logs, and that would include all the domains the certificate is valid for¹. Better yet, don't treat your hostnames as secrets.

¹ I think there has been some discussions about allowing CAs to censor DNS labels after the TLD+1 level for Certificate Transparency. Not sure if that's going to happen, I'm not a fan. This would still require that your CA supports this mechanism, something I don't think Let's Encrypt would do.
Why the hell are these docx and xlsx files? What kind of macro malware b.s. did he put in them? No way am I reading anything that's not plain 7bit ASCII from that website.
Assuming passenger trains of course. I think a freight hijacking is far more likely. The danger posed by a hijacked freight are evident from the huge numbers of lives lost from exploding petroleum trains over the past few decades.
I don't see what good being pro-human would do in this scenario - either those in the (future) developing world drown as global sea levels rise and traditional agriculture flounders under new climatic conditions (and in greater numbers), or they're unable to do so due to a lack of resources that enable food transit etc. Where does this illusion that we can just infinitely increase the world's population through reliance on technology come from? It's clearly untrue today, much less 50 years in the future.
The principal reason devices need to be connected is so that business can hold your devices ransom and charge you money to use them.

Turn on lights with a phone? No need for Internet.

Open doors with a fingerprint? No need for Internet.

An auto-adjusting energy-saving thermostat? No need for Internet.

A fridge that knows the milk is low? No need for Internet.

Charge people money to use their toaster? You need the Internet for that.
I don't know.

But e.g. the possibilities for "parametric" parallel computing solutions (via FPGAs and other configurable HW) have not even been scratched (too many people trying to do either nothing of just conventional stuff).

Some of the FPGA modules (like the BEE3) will slip into a Blades slot, etc.

Similarly, there is nothing to prevent new SW from being done in non-dependent ways (meaning the initial dependencies to hook up into the current world can be organized to be gradually removeable, and the new stuff need not have the same kind of crippling dependencies).

For example, a lot can be done -- especially in a learning curve -- if e.g. a subset of Javascript in a browser (etc) can really be treated as a "fast enough piece of hardware" (of not great design) -- and just "not touch it with human hands". (This is awful in a way, but it's really a question of "really not writing 'machine code' ").

Part of this is to admit to the box, but not accept that the box is inescapable.
Ask HN: What is your favorite Open-Source text keyword extractor?
I've been using https://github.com/lvsh/keywordfinder but it's pretty naive in a lot of cases.

Would really appreciate any help getting pointed towards a more mature/robust/quality solution.
Congrats to the 3scale team!

Finally all the API management startup companies have been acquired! (APIphany, Layer7, Mashery, Strongloop, 3Scale...)
We're not working on that as far as I know. But you'll find the format pretty familiar. See http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/ci/quick_start/README.html and http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/ci/yaml/README.html
Nice to see Caddy getting some dough.
Thanks.

That's an increasingly important group, but I don't think of people who pre-order as investors. Even though those people provide the capital to build your business, they are customers, not investors, and should be thought about differently.
Yes, I think if we could get rid of this notion we can probably move in interesting directions. Another way to look at it: if we take any object with sufficient complexity in the universe, how could it interact with other object of sufficient complexity? If we look at humans, as first order augmentation devices for other humans, it's notable that the difference between levels of complexity of their internal state is much higher than the level of complexity of input at any sufficiently small time frame (whatever measurement you decide to take). Basically, the whole state is encoded internally, by means of successive undifirentiated input. In that sense, for example - neural networks don't work with data as such, the data presupposes an internal structure that is absent in an input from the standpoint of the network itself. It is it's job to covert that to something we can reasonably call "data". Moreover, this knowledge is encoded in it's internal state, essentially being the "interpreter" bundled in. Another angle that I like to think from is this: TRIZ has a concept of an ideal device, something performing it's function with minumum overhead required, best that the function be performed by itself, in absence of any device. If we imagine the computer (in a very generic sence) to be such a device, it stands to reason that ideally it will require minimum, or even no input. Obviously it means that we don't need to encode meaning or interpretation into it through directed formal input. The only way for it to happen is for a computer to have a sufficiently complex internal state, capable of converting directed, or even self acquired input to whatever we can eventually call "data". This logic could possibly be applied to some minimimal object - we could look for a unit capable of performing a specific function on a defined range of inputs, building the meaning from it's internal state. The second task then, would be to find a way to compose those object, provided they have no common internal state, and to build systems in which combination of those states would render a larger possible field of operation. Third interesting question would be: how can we build up the internal state of another object, provided we would want to feed it the input requiring interpretation further down the line, building up from whatever minimum we already have.
>> "I'd be more than happy to postpone this question until the robots ask to be recognized as persons"

Using that logic, no human should have rights unless they're able to express it; clearly flawed logic.

>> "They are not 'persons' in any way that I recognize (but that may change, we are simply too far away from that to spend time on this right now)."

Assuming no "human like" AI exist already is problematic. What if I told you that (insert advanced research lab) had AI that's behavior was identical to that of any random child you might met. Do you believe they deserve to know about the world, or should they be kept from the world? Do you believe the world has the right to know about them, or is it okay to keep their existence a secret? Should the artificial child the same rights as any child?
This New Contouring Trend Will Empower You to Love Yourself
If they need a panic inducing tragedy to pass legislation it's not legislation worth passing.
Going even deeper, from one moment to another - how do you know that you're you? After all, you're not _exactly_ the same, since each moment brings new experiences, ever so slightly changing your memories. Quantum entanglement, perhaps? If not, aren't we a collection of particles with a certain probability distribution that we're able to influence ourselves?

(Maybe this whole discussion is less interesting to Buddhists trained in not-self thinking. :)
"I can prove it mathematically!"
Seems like only a tiny crazy subset of humans will ever want to give up the freedoms of having a meat body and being able to move it in a pleasant atmosphere. After all, what's there to do in interstellar space? The idea of turning ourselves into space probes is a dystopian, inhuman proposition.
I would rather see the Fun Propulsion Labs make SceneKit and SpriteKit like tooling from Android than the pile of random libraries that they have placed in their Github.

One watches WWDC and Build game related talks, they talk about how to make games on their platforms. One watches Google IO and it is all about Play Store and Firebase integration.
but you don't know that the person yesterday was you and not some other person that you were cloned from.

The parent did not say anything about this and neither did I. Of course you cannot know whether you are a clone or not. My point is that if a clone is made of you and you are killed, you will be dead, you won't be the clone.
Is this a post about the merits of the 3.5 mm audio jack and the pitfalls of a digital audio jack or vice versa? It kind of seems like you're saying "technology sucks when it breaks and nothing works perfectly" (bluetooth failed, USB audio is choppy, 3.5 mm jack is susceptible to breaking and there is only the 1 on your laptop.)
Sorry about this. I see that GitLab team members worked on the issue and considered it closed but that the problem persists. I've asked our support lead Jose to look into it.
It's not about that game though :p