skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
PKZIP was a msdos oriented format (in the pre windows 98 era) and used extensively by millions of people who never saw a tar file. Long before windows 95 shipped, even. If you had a dos PC running 3.3,4.10 or 5.0 it was the near defacto choice.
These moments only happen a couple times a year on HN, but they're worth the wait.
It was a crappy bill to begin with, so my thought is if you are a ham and want to put up good antennas don't buy your property with a HOA.
Is D&D set in a world where the telegraph exists? I've always gotten the impression that insofar as it's linked to our history of technological progression it is set well before that invention, while after the times of e.g. the Caesar cipher.
The python maintainers and the 3.x fans do see this, and know this, and decided to do it. They knew there would be a cost in community, and decided it was worth it. They haven't been oblivious, and they've made several large concessions in 3.4 and 3.5 to increase the ease of migrating. Stop denigrating them.
I'm not arguing against plain C - for example I'll always write blsi as `n & -n` because I trust the compiler to recognize that pattern.

The problem I have is the claim that the compiler knows better than me, or any programmer with even fairly basic knowledge of the underlying hardware. The only reason to write `reverse_actually_fast_c` like that is because you know of the bswap instruction. If there was no bswap instruction on the target you support, this would hardly be the ideal implementation!

Even if you write it indirectly and verbosely, you're still picking out specific assembly instructions. You're giving instructions to a machine.
- It had a table of contents. You can list the contents of a ZIP file, or even extract individual files, without having to decompress the whole thing. (Which was a particularly big deal back in the 90s, when extracting a large archive would take a while.)

- You could update an archive in place. Not incredibly useful, but certainly nifty.

- It had support for multi-disk archives. Again, big deal in the 90s.

Finally, last but not least: it existed in the PC world. Ports of software between UNIX and PC systems were rare back then, and were made more difficult by the fact that the software would have to run in a segmented (16-bit) x86 environment.
Microsoft doing a lot of instruction set translation/emulation lately
What are you even trying to claim is "total bs" here?
iOS seems to be the only thing that uses that particular favicon.

Lots of iPhone users? Or all from the same address? Cos that'd be odd.
That's what intrinsics are for.
This is one of those websites that drives you away immediately just because the styling and layout is so ugly that you conclude whoever is running it is like 20yrs out of date on everything. Stayed for like 4 seconds. That was all I could take.
Would people pay for these benefits if Uber was 20% more expensive than it is now? 50%? 100%?

This is a question worth considering, given that rides are currently subsidized with VC $$$.
Finally, a use-case for Ethereum! /s
(Here I'm focusing on part 2 and the conclusion of the article, not part 1.)

This article suggests that RMS ought to make his own leftist beliefs an explicit part of the free software movement. As the author is aware, RMS has generally tried not to do this, recognizing that free software advocates can have a wide range of beliefs about other issues, even if a plurality of people in the movement are hold leftist views. In general, RMS has stood for the effort of trying to find common cause around specific issues and principles among people who might radically disagree about other things (another example was the League for Programming Freedom, a single-issue campaign against software patents that actively aspired to include people who disagree with RMS about free software!).

It's true that the big-tent concept could fail as a tactical matter if it turns out that the success of one cause really is indispensable to the success of another, which is a big part of what this article is claiming. But I wish the article had engaged a bit more with the fact that RMS does not appear to agree with this analysis and has consistently wanted people with non-leftist views to join the free software movement, including enthusiastic supporters of capitalism and private property. In other words, it's not an oversight or an accident. (To be clear about this, the classic formulation of RMS's free software philosophy calls for not regarding software as private property -- for example, in "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" -- but stakes out no position on regarding, say, financial instruments, airplanes, factories, companies, plots of land, or apartment buildings as private property. Hence many more people could agree with it.)
I just remodeled and used this - http://www.insteon.com

Every plug, light switch, door sensors, HVAC, cameras. Simple iPhone application to control. Single hub controller everything talks to.

This does not have all the bells and whistles that the zwave, zigby, et.al. have but it just works. They do support HomeKit from Apple but not for all devices yet (door sensors).

Same company that did the original X10 stuff for automation in the 80s.

Not unhappy.
Even if she's fake, there are others: http://www.hireawingwoman.com/why.php. Social proof is definitely a thing.
I don't think anyone is disputing that Uber is a great service — it's been a game changer for the consumer.

What's continually being debated, however, is what Uber is as a business enterprise, which is what the article is about.

Uber is interesting in that they're a facilitator of a commodity in which they're not all that crucial to the equation. They're the eBay or Google Search equivalent of transportation, where they give users and workers access to a common marketplace (not quite a market, since the workers are not able to set prices; I'm sure there's a proper economic term for what it really is) and the real work is done by the drivers. But they're not a monopoly, and that marketplace exists at the whim of the customer, who might not have the brand loyalty to stick around.
There are significant differences between Uber and FB. Two very important ones:

1) Moat - barriers for entry in the ride-"sharing" space are low. See Austin for example.

2) Economies of scale - the costs for FB to add each incremental user got increasingly cheaper due to cost savings at scale. Not so much for Uber.
Depends on how you answer that question: Do we have so many people working in corporations (often in Dilbert jobs) as a result of people being smart or people being stupid?

Note that this is not about the actual intelligence of people, but about the intelligence of the entire process that is much larger than individuals, into which the IQ of individuals goes as just one variable. The larger process has its own logic, just like the constructions of insects are system outcomes. The situation we have is the result of such a process.

Personally, I think the process has spoken - the outcome is what it is for a reason. Assuming "individual human incompetence" when looking at large-scale and long-term outcomes IMHO would be wrong. So I think we have people seeking safety in large established organisations for very good reasons - whatever they may be when you ask them.

Note that answers from people may not be useful: What would a bee or an ant be able to even see about the organization they are in, the grander outcomes? Asking individuals leaves out the big picture that they inevitably are to small to even notice. So just like in marketing talking to people only takes you so far I'd say it is the same here: Looking at individual experiences, no matter how many, IMHO is too limited. There is a larger (to us mostly invisible) system at work here.
Could you licence your product to them? Or get some sort of equity? I'm just thinking that any given number as a fixed sell cost basically deprives you of the ongoing potential of your creation. I guess if you were smart and sold your product for, say, $100K you could invest the money and make residual income off it that way. But still. What if your idea becomes something huge. Like if someone had bought Facebook from Zuckerberg back in the day for $10K. Just a thought.

But $10K does sound really low. If it's something they value, unless it's something they can replicate easily, it seems like that's just a low ball, an invitation to negotiate.
Who even describes themselves like that? Gotta be a scam right?
I once attended a talk by a man who developed software for autonomous submarines that balanced immediate short term needs analogous to breathing with higher order missions like searching for mines. It was called hafscript (hierarchical autonomous framework). The author still seems to be active online.

http://samuelsmith.org/projects/publications/
This might only be sort of related to what you're talking about, but reansomware as a service already exists. You delivery a premade executable and get a cut cut of the profits. You could install it in systems where you have physical access like your work or at a friends house or systems that you have remotely compromised.
Agreed. I use Insteon also. No issues. Like that you do not need the hub.
I'm saying that literally no where do we say that people should "tip each other for being nice", nor do we have some sort of reward system based on that. That is entirely a thing invented by clickbait headlines.

From the medium article I linked:

>Most of you know you can tip posts, comments, and communities on Imzy. It was important to us that we include our payments platform in some way from day one, and this was the simplest way to do it. You can give any community, post, or comment a reward for great content that you really appreciate. But that is just the tiniest little seed of what’s to come.

That is what got misconstrued into "tipping people for being nice."

To use something you might be familiar with, reddit has reddit gold. It gives some minor perks, and you can gift it to other people. Reddit calls this "gilding". People gild some pretty ridiculous and even awful content all the time. The idea that we would institute a tipping system (which in some ways could be seen as analogous to gilding, except with real money) and just magically everyone would use it for "being nice" simply doesn't make sense, and would have been a pretty odd idea on our part.

A lot of times folks want to tip content creators and others. We wanted to give them a way to do this. We have a bunch of other stuff planned for the payment system in the future, as outlined in that Medium piece.

Hopefully this clarifies some.
Really? I don't.

Companies aren't blindly paying FB billions of dollars for ads without verifying they actually deliver a return... Clearly it's working, that's the reason so many companies pay for them.

Sure, they could probably get better at managing "click farming, bots, etc", but despite these things, advertising on FB has proven incredibly valuable and there's no clear indicator that'll change soon. If anything it'll just grow more valuable across a larger user base, hence their lofty P/E ratio (implying growth).
Don't forget the whole dodging regulations thing. This aspect of the "sharing" economy I find the most disgusting.

Ethics goes out of the window in the pursuit of profit.
There is a DOI at the bottom of the page.
Okay so not just in SF then - says that company is in NY and Boston, expanding to DC.
You absolutely hit on all points. Great Firewall of China sound sane in comparision.
Also the design of that site is hilarious.
This is exactly the problem the researchers are trying to avoid.
Your comment reminded me of an essay George Scialabba wrote a couple years ago, "The Endlessly Examined Life" [1], where the author gathered over 40 years of mental health records from his therapists (mostly seeking treatment for depression and anxiety), unable to draw a real conclusion

>I am as puzzled and frustrated by the above records, and by the rest of my psychiatric file, as any casual reader could be. So much earnest effort, so much expert knowledge, so little success. The world’s most common disease is still this opaque.

Having read half a dozen compelling depression memoirs—Styron, Jamison, Millett, Solomon, Kaysen, McMurtry—I was skeptical, when The Baffler proposed publishing extracts from my file, that there was much more to say. Maybe there isn’t, at least not in that register. But maybe it’s enough just to keep talking.

[1] http://thebaffler.com/salvos/endlessly-examined-life
I would love to be the sucker who made millions (or billions) from Facebook.
One of my favorite approaches in chess: play straight up, but allow your opponent to switch sides with you once (e.g., let them play the endgame from a winning position).
So it begins.

The arrogance and stubbornness of the CPython dev team is starting to face the consequences we all knew were coming. If only they'd at least done unicode right. Gone with assume UTF-8 and kept the indistinction between bytes and unicode, more of us would be onboard.
I imagine it was just a product of UNIX/academia being somewhat isolated from the general public/BBS world. Before GNU/Linux basically nobody using PCs had access to UNIX-like systems, and probably wouldn't have known of tar's existence.

My older sibling exposed me to tar indirectly by granting me access to their university-provided dialup UNIX account where they ran `elm` for email access, and this happened long after I had been using BBSs for years with my PC.

Never saw a tar file in all my years of PC-based BBS usage. GNU/Linux and Freebsd are largely responsible for the general public accessing *NIX-like systems. BBSs (and their file sharing) were a thing before those existed.
I'm not sure what part of my point you didn't understand.
Did you even read the ad? "Smart as fuck" - really? Also which woman says "not too pretty", uh huh yeah
If you want to do any non-specific(ie. I like mechanical keyboards so I'll search for a subreddit on it) then you are stuck with the frontpage and all. That is the reddit people are talking about when they generalize because it is the default experience.
I don't really understand the point of your comment either, you didn't give any examples or give any indications that you have performed any scientific/sociological investigation into safe spaces either. My phrasing of the comment wasn't the best, I admit that, but you made an unsubstantiated claim to what safe spaces are in the comment I replied to, just as unsubstantiated as my claims.

I was actually deliberately vague in the comment. Unfortunately it's usually not a good idea to post examples in forum discussions like this, since it quickly turns into a pointless competition where the part who wastes the least time googling for examples/counter-examples/criticizing the examples the other gave are considered the loser. If I had had posted examples you would probably have clicked them, looked for flaws, wasted time criticising them and googled for examples to make your own point. Then I would have had to do the same with your examples. And so on, until one of us grew tired of it, none the wiser.

I could have posted a lot of links about safe spaces, but in practise I would just do the googling for you. NYT wrote this week about how Trump supporters feel like they need their own safe spaces on college campuses, which is a sad testament to the division and increasing political segregation in America, no matters if its trolling or genuinely felt.
It's ridiculously inexpensive to get similar functionality these days. A few years ago things were too flakey to be on the critical path of my house operations, but at this point the first thing I did in my new house was to go all Z-Wave.

In the absence of a controller they are simply a normal dumb switch or outlet or thermostat.

They're not WiFi connected so they won't be the attack vector for my network, and Z-Wave has a pretty good record for secure mesh networking.

Tied together with my Wink hub, which provides all the scene controls and can bridge protocols and give me remote control and my house has most of what the OP was trying to get out of his house.

Pairing my Echo to my Wink Hub now gives me complete voice control over the house.

I'm not even $1000 into an entire brand new house wired up with Z-Wave switches everywhere, Z-Wave outlets in certain areas, an Ecobee3 thermostat, and some random other things. I've even built a few of my own sensors that I've integrated with my Wink Hub through their API.

I get why things like this used to cost so much. In a commercial setting I'd still go that route, but for my house I'm at least 10x cheaper and it's been every bit as reliable, if not more so, than every big home control setup I've ever seen.
It's not irrelevant -- it's the same story every time, just with a different company.

The "underlying issues" are things Uber management (1) understands better than outsiders looking in; (2) they're actively working to address; and (3) they have vastly-superior metrics to understand their own internal growth rate. They want to stay private precisely for this reason: They don't want to answer whiny questions from people who think they know better.

"Wildly overpriced" is speculative on your part (at best). This isn't a publicly traded stock. It's preferred stock, and valuation is ~1 line item in a contract that probably spans dozens of pages. Those other T&C's matter a lot: liquidation preference, participating preferred, etc. Those newest investors are certainly getting superior liquidation preference, and likely getting guaranteed ROI.
Does it require full internet access to work? That's my biggest gripe with my Nest thermostat: it requires a round-trip through their server just to control the temperature, even when I'm on the same network.
That agnostic system for software that you think is a fantasy already exists, it was created and is managed by the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project, both organizations that Stallman started.

Of course, it's not mainstream, but it's definitely not a fantasy. Capitalism isn't the monolithic agency you seem to think it is. There's room for both approaches under the umbrella of capitalism.

Stallman is not opposed to the profit motive. He is perfectly fine with selling software. He just wants you to sell free software.

As it is right now, free software competes with proprietary software in the marketplace. Depending on how you look at it, both approaches can be winning. There is far more free software in use today than there is proprietary software. But of course most of the money is made with proprietary systems.

Stallman is smart and he probably has a better grasp of the realities of the software world than both you or me. He's playing a long game. When he says you should give up your Facebook account, he doesn't really believe you're going to just go and do it. He's giving you a glimpse of a better world, sharing his vision of what could be. This approach has proven extremely successful. He has said that he feels like he's succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He just never thought he would get this far. He never thought his ideas could gain so much traction.
I know at least two people who have a similar issue, including one who can't even wear most jewelry except very pure precious metals because her skin corrodes it (i don't mean the usual "turns your finger green" thing, i mean black and pitting). I've seen the results, it's amazingly weird.
There's a lot of good names based on Monty Python properties, but I like "Cobra", starting at version 2.8. Ignoring the MP stuff and going for something on the snake theme.
It's actually designed to auto-install most necessary prereqs (as pip packages) the first time they're needed, so the only real command line thing needed (if editing the yaml files doesn't count) is the initial pip install.
I don't think most HN user oppose the use intelligence capabilities in various three letter organizations, just that those orgs should be constrained by the rule of law in some meaningful way.
The way I think about it is that general efficiency gains flow to the customer, while my unique efficiency gains are mine. So if it might take the average developer 100 hours to finish something but I can do it in 80, then I should charge as though it took 100.

The problem with hourly billing is it very poorly aligns incentives. It actually discourages efficiency because the easiest way for me to make more money is to take longer.

Also, psychologically, most clients are not comfortable with the vast differences in appropriate pay between developers. Even in the worst case (where scope was poorly defined and/or I estimated poorly), I'm making more now than I ever did with hourly billing.

If you had a monopoly on modern farming, it would absolutely make sense to charge $40 for corn. You'd soak up all the demand (since you're undercutting the $80 hand-harvesters) while still having massive profit margins.

Getting good at scoping is difficult but by no means impossible.
Tim Cook,Larry Page,Sheryl Sandberg and Jeff Bezos Going to Trump’s Tech Summit
I think the average age for a man to live in the 1980's was around 70.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#/media/File%...

Considering his intelligence and age, I'm sure that it was convincing at the time.

These days more people are living into their second century:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/there-are-more-amer...

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/30/472442367/in-one-italian-villa...
Many people don't realize how dangerous small particles can be over many years. Something that doesn't seem dangerous can cause scars on lung tissue with constant exposure to it over many years.

My dad has idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or IPF it's probably from breathing in small particles over the years which causes scarring of lung tissue. Although the idiopathic part means how it occurs is not known for sure. He worked a blue collar job and often breathed in dust from various things.

Lungs are only for air don't mess with your lungs!
1) People said the same about FB wrt Myspace.

2) Even if Uber's CAC doesn't decrease, it could have a vastly-higher CLV to justify the crazy spending to capture market share now. It's a calculated strategic decision -- and it's impossible to say if it's "wrong"; only time will tell.
That's interesting! A1 looks archaic. An interesting startup in this space is https://www.upcounsel.com. They provide document management, calendaring and the such but operate as a marketplace platform. Would absolutely agree that the barriers to entry (compliance etc.) seem to be a big opportunity to offer solutions in the law space. As an interesting note: It looks like UpCounsel serves primarily as a marketplace due to upending the current law firm system which other comments have mentioned as a big barrier to technology adoption in the space. Interesting space nonetheless!
That's the gamble you took when you chose to go all in on Python3. I personally didn't buy the arguments made and chose to stick with Python2. If I migrate anywhere, it would be to a Python2 compatible fork or something like Go.
Yes, a magistrate decides. The times listed already have a set precedent.

What goes into deciding reasonableness usually involves:

* Cost of product vs average income of average household

* Reliability advertised

* Average income of the targeted audience

* Audience reliance upon the product

As a quick example, an iPhone sells for about $1400, which is about 2% of the average income, and is a daily use item.

The device breaking causes disruption to the consumer, and has already cost a somewhat sizeable part of their income.

They're entitled to the time necessary to offset such a purchase, and interest rates and insurance rates are used as the guide here. Both of which use 4.8 years for 2%.