skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My criticism:

- You don't have a "try here" or "demo" button. Like many people I won't spend the time creating a free account. And I am not interested in watching a video.

- no other criticism (as I haven't tried it).
Sure do: http://www.flickr.com/photos/potatolicious/

Nice pictures :) I wish I could keep up a shoot rate of one a day... Nothing kills the creative eye quite like code all day ;)
> but can I encourage you as strongly as possible not to waste time working with the dead-trees publishing industry to get it out?

What about a hemp publisher? ;)
It's an interesting premise, but I think I disagree with it. I work at a ~300 person web development/engineering company, in exactly the kind of low-walled "bullpen" situation you describe - a large room with ~60 developers, all of whom can be seen if you stand up almost anywhere in the room.

Being a bit of an introvert myself, I was a bit taken aback at first. But after nearly a year there, I think it's been a good influence on my working habits - introverts tend to be the kind of people who send e-mails to their coworkers to explain a problem or question, even if they sit close by, rather than talking to them directly. However, the open layout encourages direct collaboration and communication. With just a glance, I can see that the lead developer is at his desk and not speaking with anyone, which means I'm not likely to interrupt him in the middle of something important if I drop by.
Those fine-grained settings are nice, but Facebook appears to be slowly eliminating them one by one. Originally it was possible to control who saw your work and education info, now it's public only.

By the way, Facebook is the second major entrant in this space (the first being MySpace). It's almost always possible for someone new to take a big chunk of a market, given enough time and resources. See Firefox+Chrome+Safari+Opera vs IE as an example.
Minor correction: assuming it's the same book I'm thinking of, it's "Racing the Beam": http://www.bogost.com/books/video_computer_system.shtml
Keep the effort of distributing posts up - very interesting!
Redis isn't a direct competitor to memcached. The great thing about Redis (disk-backed cache) is actually a liability if you're using it like an L2 cache which is how memcached is intended to be used.

To be clear: in memcached you can effectively set-and-forget keys and never worry about running out of memory. It uses an LRU to figure out what to throw away when memory gets full. In Redis if you want to achieve that behavior you need to expire your keys, which is another round trip every time. That means expire alone is also not enough, because you could set the key successfully but fail to set the expire. That means you need to also keep track of all your keys and periodically do cleanup.

Redis is awesome, but I would definitely not use it to replace memcached except in the cases where I absolutely need the data to survive a reboot and am willing to go through the hassle of manually managing the cleanup of every key.
Genius is primarily a learned skill. Yes, some people have more aptitude than others, but the vast majority, if they apply themselves, will do just fine. It's far more a question of a support structure to instill discipline than it is of innate skill. Those who truly cannot learn and maintain discipline are rare.
Tough to go against those guys in a cash game :)
I still love my Saturday morning cartoons.
Mastered circle breathing yet? My brother-in-law is a dig player. It's just freaky to hear him play a note for minutes on end...
>The drugs scenario you describe is being acted out every day by the way.

Thats why I used it. And it makes those dealers criminals in the US. I didn't mean he was under US jurisdiction when he broke the law, I meant he broke a US law which had effect in the US where the law applies. The US acknowledges that he did not break the local law where he was at the time, but he was one half of an action (or actually I guess millions of actions) that was in violation of US law and took effect under US jurisdiction. I can't remember what it is called, but someone in a reddit or HN discussion a few weeks ago introduced me to the legal concept whereby being a party to such a transaction extends personal jurisdiction to include you. Since he was not breaking UK law he could not be extradited, but once he was on US soil he could be arrested for the crime he committed.

I was discussing at work the other day how I am what I described as an "internet libertarian" so I'm also opposed to all of those laws being enforced against actions on the internet, but I don't dispute the legal right they have to do it.

>it should not be a requirement of a business abroad to even be aware of all the laws and statues of countries where they are not based

Unfortunately, as with laws in most places (I'm not aware of any such places actually), ignorance is not a defense. While it may be taken into account while determining your punishment, it does not absolve you of guilt. The judge in that case specifically addressed, when a request for a lesser sentence was made, her belief that the defendant knew what he was doing was a violation of US law.

>My point of view would be 'absolutely not'.

From your explanation I take it you misread the question, and actually believe that this person should not be arrested (and should be immune). Lets take it to the extreme then, and suppose that I live in a country where hiring contract killers is legal and only the actually murderer can be punished. If I paid for someone in the US to be murdered, the US government should not be able to arrest me when I come to the funeral?

The internet does make it much easier to do business with people all over the world, and that should be taken into account when trying to apply local laws to foreign actors, but saying that a sovereign state should have no right to take action against people who violate their laws (in which part or all of the action takes place or has effect within their territorial jurisdiction) goes way too far.
You're lucky if you encountered many intellectuals as an undergrad.

But actually I think you're right - skilled white collar jobs will die out before skilled or unskilled "blue collar" jobs do. People always will need a broken car fixed, or a wall in their house repaired. The world doesn't necessarily need brand managers and analysts. Most think-work jobs in offices (which college is preparing you for) are non-essential in the grand scheme of things.
Do you think computing would not have become ubiquitous without Gates? Or that it's likely to have taken significantly longer?
To my uneducated foreigners view it looks as though the United States supreme court is more about pushing the views of the current party in power on a few very narrow minded issues for as long as possible, even if that party were to fall out of favour.

Whereas I think they should be shooting for the best possible configuration they can get.

Having the justices elected directly and only for a limited number of years would hopefully remedy some of that but I realize that opens up other cans of worms.

It's not an easy problem to solve. And as long as polarizing issues like Roe vs Wade and like gay marriage figure so high in the American political consciousness I do not expect this to change.
OK, it sounds like you have more USB devices than I could see in your picture, so the hub is necessary. Still, I think you should at least consider moving your modem and router, especially since it doesn't look like you connect your MacBook via ethernet.
Volunteer Firefighting. It's a great way to get involved with a close knit group of people, a solid motivation to stay fit, and an extremely fun and rewarding experience.
That movie is also motivating for how it was made. It had a budget of 7000, and they managed to make a great film out of such a tiny allowance.
Totally agree. People always seem to forget how simple people are.
It doesn't have to happen with (a lot of) violence. The final denouncement of the Soviet Union was fantastically non-violent compared to what just about everyone expected.

But authoritarian regimes like the PRC's aren't very stable, they have legitimacy problems, succession problems, sooner or latter they tend to "tumble down".

The very fact that the ruling class is spending so much effort keeping a lid on things by continuing to build the Great Firewall of China (with all its collateral damage as we're discussing here), preventing any alternative forms of civil society from getting big (organized religion, Falun Gong ... are there even Chamber's of Commerce that are independent of the government???) tells us important things.

And then there are the looming demographic issues. The One-Child Policy is leading to a nasty 4-2-1 generational aging---4 grandparents have 2 parents who have 1 child ... to support all the parents---and a nasty male to female ratio imbalance. Who's going to support those parents in their old age? Who are those unmatched 10s of millions of men going to marry? What happens if one or neither of those problems get solved?

Energy doesn't seem to be a big problem for the PRC (is the Earth about to run out of coal, uranium, etc.?). Pollution ... well, wealth and the rule of law are what solved it in the developed nations. We'll see how the wealth game continues in the PRC, but I don't see any possibility of a sudden outbreak of the rule of law.
Why don't you make a landing page, publish the first chapter or introduction, then use a pre-order or mailing list sign-up to guage interest?
It's funny: I thought I liked scrolling better, too. But as soon as Instapaper added the option of pagination, I switched and never looked back. Anyway, it's best just to have both.
Computer Software Engineer in list of least stressful careers... WTF?
HN is a huge utility for me. Let's have the gov regulate it. I've tolerated the FB articles so far but this was plain ole fishing.
The only drawback that I think should be mentioned w/ Teamviewer is that it is only free for non-commercial use. As a RDP replacement it is awesome -- a friend and I troubleshoot problems that way sometimes. But it isn't free for those that would use it in a professional capacity.
Agreed. You know, if Jobs would lighten up just a tad, I'd respect him a lot more. He's done great things, but his perception of how far he should impose his views on the world has become distorted.
I have seen this Story here [dead] at least 7 times (with a link from gawker.com). Were they all duplicates? If so, how do find the comments page to the first submission?
Key line:
Gosh, why are you so bitter over a technical issue such as this? Its not about freedom, its about Apple trying to do the right thing for its users. Users, developers and publishers can do whatever they like - they don't have to buy or develop or publish on iPads if they don't want to

I have this theory. You see, Apple (mostly) tends to not engage in the all-too-common tricks to try and con you out of your money. Store staff is typically honest and straight-forward, very little pushing and no hidden fees. Apple Care is probably a better value than most extended warrantees, and at least you know you're going to get Apple's level of customer service. Yes, there are lock-ins, but they've always been a trade-off in order to provide a better experience for their customers (i.e. DRM on iTunes sucks, but it was the only way to get the majors to play ball).

In general, Apple believes that you should give them money only if you believe their products are worth it. I think it's just that we've gotten so used to capitalism being such a hostile activity between producer and consumer that we forget that there was a time when you would've wanted to pay for something. So, it's no wonder that people want to think that Apple is somehow conning them into giving up their freedom or being locked-down unnecessarily.

Really...trust me...you don't have to buy an Apple product. No, seriously, you don't! So why don't you take your "freedom" and "open platform" rant and turn it into a why isn't anyone even close to competing on Apple's level missive.
Man, I hate not having the freedom from porn. Thanks, Apple!
I don't pay for radio stations and yet I bet they're regulated.

Arguments that rely on 'it's free' are weak.

Just because much of the web is free, with it's low running costs, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be regulated. News sites are covered by plenty of regulation just because they originally came out of print media.

Although I agree calling it a utility is wrong to try and convince people it should be regulated.

It's only a matter of time before facebook gets thwacked with regulation over here in the EU. Not because it's a utility but because it can cause so much social harm with its desire to make money. The bait and switch going on at facebook should definitely be stopped.
Peace Keepers Seekers | Scribd
Gah! See my above rant, but seriously, how is he imposing his views on you when you are the one with the choice of how to spend your money! This is the sort of complaint I would expect to hear about how the government is spending tax dollars, which you don't get a choice about paying or not.
Her point that Facebook's privacy issues will bring (possibly heavy handed) regulation to social networks doesn't seem far off to me. Senator Chuck Schumer has already written a letter to the FTC requesting that the agency set up "guidelines" for how social networking sites may use personal information. Four senators have also written a "letter of concern" to Facebook over recent privacy gaffes. Legislation is almost certainly currently in the works. If not at the federal level, then at the state level. The end result probably won't be pretty, and has the potential to hurt a lot more than just Facebook. Imagine if a small project like Diaspora had to worry about something similar to HIPAA compliance...
Mobile Safari. That is all...
You borrowed a lot of design from basecamp & co. No necessarily a bad thing though :)
It probably is becoming a witch-hunt, but it's a fire that FB started itself. It collected millions of users, then decided to betray their trust, repeatedly.
Unless something has changed in the intervening year (and I sincerely doubt it), gawker.com is on the HN banlist.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=499044
I realize that it can be irritating to have someone come in and split the difference, but in this case the problem seems to be that programming has some elements of art and some elements of science. So if you get people who passionately want to argue one side or the other, they argue past each other. Is an elephant chiefly long skinny parts (tusks, a trunk) or chiefly big round parts (main body)? I feel like I'm hearing the long skinny and big round people arguing with each other, when the answer is closer to "both." If you're interested in making a piano keyboard, maybe you're interested in tusks; if you're interested in eating (do people eat elephants?), maybe you're interested in the body.

I think that PG in one of his essays said that CS is confusing because it's got a of people under its umbrella: some do mostly math, some are closer to artists, and some are somewhere else (I can't remember his distinctions). So the field has a lot of people saying "this is what it means," all of whom are at least somewhat correct.

What is CS or programming or whatever you want to call this thing that involves making computers do stuff? On some level, the answer drifts towards "whatever you want it to be." But the flame wars are less satisfying that way.
"... vastly over-stating the contributions of this one guy in HN comments ..."

You are right to be cynical but this time I think you missed the mark.

The author gives numerous examples of work "Why" produced. Their merit cannot be taken away. Just as important is the effect "Why" had on the Ruby community and other programmers who I imagine are just as or even bigger cynics. There's John Resig, Zed Shaw and Fábio Akita. I've read their blogs, looked at some of their code. They don't appear sycophantic in their ideas or writing. But I don't know any of these people.

But I do know @DrNic ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/tags/drnic I met him last year at a talk he did on "Scriptable tools" ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3409666921/ Nic is the most cynical begger I've met - talking and interrupting the talk after his, ripping into a greeny with a largely sympathetic audience. Questions and comments both insightful and rudely cynical at the same time. I didn't sense the audience resenting this. It pushed the speaker to clarify his ideas.

So I artfully disagree. "Why" had a tangible positive effect in the core Ruby developer community who by nature are as skeptical as you can be - and then some.
Anyone else a little surprised that Jobs even got into this debate in the first place? Like, shouldn't he have had this already with some employee on the inside?

It seems to suggest that at Apple he has no opportunity to have such debates. Everyone is too scared, it's almost like he's surrounded by yes-men and is therefore astonished at the negative response he's getting. "Why can't people just understand me?" type of thing.

Here's a thought. If no one at Apple is actually standing up to Jobs, and since he seems open to outside input via email, perhaps it's a good idea to let him know how you feel? Maybe he actually doesn't get how much he's turned Apple into the 1984 Big Brother that Apple was supposed to vanquish?
"I would suggest that as an admitted non-fan of Ruby then you are in no position to comment."

I like _why too, but but by telling gdp shut up because he's not a "fan," you're actually making it much easier for him to make his point.
Best part is Job's last comment: By the way, what have you done that’s so great? Do you create anything, or just criticize others work and belittle their motivations?

Creating something of value is hard. It takes dedication, iteration, consistent work, focus, and sacrifice. And to do it again and again? Rare.

Apple - regardless of motivation - has done that under Jobs. The sales show the result. I'd respect him, a doer, above a talker like Gawker any day.
Hello Velocio!
Though it's popular to bash them these days, investment banking firms are an absolutely essential part of our economy.
> Like, shouldn't he have had this already with some employee on the inside?

How is this e-mail chain in any way evidence that Apple has not had internal debate or that no one has the guts to disagree with Steve Jobs?
Without expressing an opinion about the value of Apple products, I would be careful about implying a causation between a product's sales and its value or "greatness".
Sure. I can visit a webpage to see who on Facebook is having rectal surgery surgery today. But I bet each person that used the words "rectal surgery" in their status update didn't really want me to know that -- Facebook took their private information and made it available to me without their consent. This is mostly embarrassing rather than harmful, but I think you get the idea.

(And sure, you can say they consented when they signed up for Facebook and didn't opt out of whatever you're supposed to opt out. Doesn't mean they aren't embarrassed.)
Beagle Bros! I remember them. Ok, lets age ourselves here. I had their "Peeks, Pokes & Pointers" poster for my Apple II+. They made great stuff.
I think so. I like programming, and I work for smaller companies which tend to have reasonable hours. Since the move from waterfall development to agile with releases ever week or two, death marches are a thing of the past. Or have I just had it lucky?
HN should steal Vox's "canned replies". That way, you could just select "I'm a libertarian" from the dropdown, and save yourself the effort of thinking of a clever way to bring that up in every discussion.
I have had a lot of fun blacksmithing (although haven't done it for a while).
It was also lucky that the Ruby community had adopted git so thoroughly; the only reason we still have his works is due to DVCS.
I don't think the analogy's a very good one. If you want a housing analogy, I'd say it's more like architecture than ceiling-fan installation. And architecture has, hundreds of years later, never totally coalesced into a science. There are scientific and engineering sub-parts, but still significant "art" parts as well, and good architects are at least reasonably knowledgeable about both.
I agree with your focus on the legal system. It is indeed shit in China. But when it comes to the solution, I'm not sure I can propose a better path than that already followed by China. That is, a progressive economic reform, a very limited artistic liberation and essentially no political reform. By appearance to westerners, this looks horrible, but then again, look at eastern european countries that did follow a typical western/IMF approach and where they are at today. We have seen quick political reforms and financial deregulations and all the other washington consensus sell points that the west imposed on developing countries and where they lead to.

Back to China, even during the warring states periods, 2 and a half millenia ago, chinese statesmen acknowledged that only through economic ascension can citizens start giving a shit about morals and rights and having been over half of China's provinces, I believe that what the students tried to achieve on Tien'anmen will never work in China's present state. (it's idealistic democracy didn't even work among students on Tien'anmen square that changed hands through essentially mob wars about 3 times a day). The best path to better political and social states for the Chinese is exactly what China is doing right now, that is improving the economic condition for as many as possible.

No, I'm not saying that some's political rights should be sacrificed for a long term gain or that the lesser of 2 evils is good, but I just can't envisage a better way to improve China than what China is doing now. China does have a lot of problems and like it or not, it will not be solved overnight and overthrowing the CCP is definitely not going to improve the lives of ordinary citizens.
Legally, public utilities generally are natural monopolies and are either publicly owned or regulated precisely because of that fact.

To say that any company that has a dominant market share of a product category or service that people depend upon is a public utility would have meant, over the years, that IBM (mainframes), Microsoft (desktop computers), Apple (digital music players), and many other companies should have been or should be treated as targets for regulation. Public utility regulation means setting tariffs that regulate pricing, requiring the regulated companies to file formal applications and to provide justifications for requesting pricing increases, and setting detailed rules and regulations about making sure all customers have reasonable access to the service, etc. These various concepts make perfect sense for a monopoly that provides electricity, water, or some such thing to the public at large; they make no sense whatever outside that context.

I interpret this piece as saying, in effect, that many people use Facebook in their daily lives and that FB is asking for it if it goes about tricking and deceiving its users with respect to the use of their data. That is a fair point, and who knows what the legal ramifications will be if FB continues to abuse the trust of their users. That said, it does not really fit to try to classify FB as some sort of public utility - perhaps rhetorically, for effect, but certainly not legally.
I wish I could vote up your post twice.
I'd say "Well I got you to respond to my bloody e-mail"