skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're not trying to attract talent at this stage - you and your co-founders are it, and you're there for something bigger than the initial paycheck.

You are mainly focussed on getting a working initial version whilst trying to keep your head above water, and 2k a month goes a long way to keep the bills under control (depending on your lifestyle of course, but aiming for ramen-profitable means keeping your bills low)
I have a few numbers. Almost 1 billion wells have been drilled, and about 100,000 offshore wells.
What's the most fair and effective way to stop these types of law suits? Perhaps these can be filtered through some other group of judges to determine if they have merit?

Even lawyers realize the system is broken.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/philip_howard.html
On the east coast it tends to be true. As others have mentioned it might not hold on the west coast. I just wanted to give a counterexample that shows how shallow the OP's argument is. The reality is that there are many factors which make certain parts of a city more desirable to live in than another. In Australia proximity to the beach is strongly correlated with desirability. In other places the reasons will differ. Whatever the reason, I don't believe for a second this oversimplified fairy tale about the prevailing wind.
I realize that the employees won't normally be as talented as the founders, but I question whether any non-braindead people will work for $24k/yr. That's getting dangerously close to minimum wage.
I see you've shifted your argument. What happened to "Right, just the other guys should be regulated?"

I'm not sure what's not clear about the notion that large risk should be regulated. If a company is capable, due to size or what have you, of harming a large number of people due to malice or incompetence on the part of its corporate governance, then sanity demands it should be regulated.

However, small companies should be regulated as little as possible. I mean, assuming you want a working economy. I'm not sure you do - actually, I'm not sure what you want, but from the standpoint of pattern recognition of your strawman attacks, I'd assume you want to regulate all business as little as possible.

Where I suspect we differ is the degree of "possible".

In my opinion, any business that can destroy hundreds of miles of coastline for other people while still having a banner profit year? Yeah, that should probably be regulated, since the Invisible Hand ain't gonna do it. Look up the Tragedy of the Commons sometime; you might find it instructive. (Or perhaps not. It's hard to tell how honestly you're approaching this.)
At first I thought and typed,
"Yeah, exactly. They could add a safety warning about the health effects of eating the phone or laptop you look at Google Maps on too, but we don't because there is an assumed level of intelligence. I hope that she doesn't just lose, but is also penalized for creating a frivolous suit."

But then I reread the parent's post and now I think what they meant is that a nice feature would be one that displayed a route's level of safety. For example, if the route makes you cross a busy highway it might get a red label while a route that crosses no roads would get a green label.
A Tale of Two CEOs
It's even worse to watch the same 15-second ad for every 90-second video. It's like watching the last half-hour of a movie on broadcast TV in the 70's, only more so.
I think their fear stems from something else entirely. While what you mention is indeed a factor, I think the greatest factor is the fact that on the internet, ROI can be calculated. The metrics are much more precise and I have a feeling that there's been a LOT more money spent on advertising than was ever justified.

I think this is just the effects of greater transparency on the client side. When the client can measure effectiveness, advertising prices plummet. I think the current dismal advertising revenue on the internet is actually what advertising revenue should've been all along.
World Average is 51 http://esa.un.org/unpp/
True for Sydney, false for Brisbane.
In Sydney it's because East means harbour and/or beach.
In Brisbane east is flat industrial wetlands, West is hilly with views/breezes, with the exception of Clayfied/Hamilton/Ascot. However, if you travel further west towards the city fringes, this reverses quite quickly.
I'd say on balance true for Melbourne, but I'm not enough of an expert to say for sure.

Generally I would say that the desirability of certain areas comes down to :
- topography (low, hot bad, hilly, views, breezes good)
- orientation : people (in general) like to live on or near the water, assuming the water is clean. Areas that face into hot sun are less desirable.
- history : sometimes older parts of cities have bigger houses and land, and are more established.
In Canada there's a preliminary hearing of some sort (not sure about the specifics) to see if the case is even justified in being tried. The vast majority of stories like these are all thrown out.
Do you have evidence to support this?
Funny that you say this. Just yesterday my neighbor sprung for an iPhone after slinging around birds on mine for a day.

You're absolutely right on that count.

Your iPhone's home screen has become something of a conversation piece.
This is always assumed as an axiom. It is also wrong. Claims require sufficient evidence to prove them. Period. Labeling a claim as "extraordinary" does not in any way change the standard of proof for said claim.

So far, no one has put forward anything even remotely approaching sufficient proof that Phobos is artificial.
Exactly, that is the kind of feature I am suggesting. After all, good software often compensates for errors made by the user.
There's no shifting here. It's the same topic.

The original subject was that large corporations can't be trusted to regulate themselves. But of course that's exactly what we're doing with the large dot coms. They're minimally regulated, certainly in comparison with the oil industry, which is in fact highly regulated.

Why do we trust large dot coms to regulate themselves? Because we think their leadership is somehow more trustworthy? Are they just naturally better people? On what basis do we make that judgement?

If Apple or Amazon or Facebook or Microsoft or Google had malicious, greedy, or incompetent leadership do you not believe they could cause massive harm? Sure, it wouldn't make ugly pictures on tv (or would it? I can imagine ways in which it could), but that doesn't mean the potential damage is any less real. Why do we trust them to regulate themselves?

If you trust present leadership, what about the next generation, those that are just MBAs from the same schools that turned out the leadership of BP, Shell, and Exxon?

So, again, why do we think they shouldn't be regulated?
In Santiago, Chile, the East side is richer. I thought this was an exception to the rule until I realised that in the Southern hemisphere the winds are Easterlies!
Could be because you said the fucking "F" word. Some HNers are really uptight.
Are there any maps that plot mean/median income levels across different regions of large cities?
I have metric anecdotes (that is, anecdotal remembered knowledge that, at some point in the past, I read about people who collected lots of data, analyzed it, and found a correlation.) I don't know whether that counts as an anecdote, as data, or somewhere in-between, though.
Driver Gloves-Mechanics Gloves-Canadian Gloves-Leather Work Gloves
Our driver gloves, mechanics gloves, Canadian gloves, leather work gloves & working garments ideal for durability, comfort and fit. Welding gloves, assembly gloves, cycling, weight lifting, fashion, police &amp; pilot gloves surely meet all working needs
Philip K. Howard: Four ways to fix a broken legal system
A nice start would be actually teaching Computer Science. Computer Science is a branch of mathematics, with both theoretical and applied aspects. This does not mean that learning Java syntax constitutes as "applied". I think it should be expected that CS students pick up languages on their own in order to complete and understand theory-based assignments. Anything else is probably just pandering to people who shouldn't major in CS. This doesn't mean programming projects are entirely out; if they serve to reinforce understanding something like logic programming or pointers, then by all means they're useful. The "open source contribution" and whatnot should be done on your own time, and doesn't belong in the curriculum, period.

Remember, you don't major in Physics to learn which brand of concrete you need to build a bridge. Not teaching a concept because it isn't "used in industry" is a sickening corruption of what academia is supposed to be about.

See my comment here:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1345596
Women. It hurts.
"Funny... I was just having a discussion with my lecturer the other day... He was complaining the university's courses were too `theory` and didn't help students get jobs... especially compared to competing universities. I was telling him the point of university isn't to get students jobs but to teach them how to think. If students wanted a place to teach them so they can get jobs they'd just go to technical colleges. I think he was convinced... hopefully."

Probably not, if you look at magazines like the Communications of the ACM you will see that academia sees their "failure" to churn out programmers for industry as a crisis, and are more concerned with appealing to women, minorities, and people who may not find theoretical CS topics like algorithms and data structures easy or fun enough.

They want to increase their rolls basically, and they saw how switching from CS to learn java style trade schools during the internet boom helped do that.

Now that the market has stabilized a bit, they hate to see rolls dropping, they hate to see CS classes filled only with the right sorts of people (i.e. geeks and nerds for want of a better term) to carry the discipline further, so they want to dumb it down even further, make it more mainstream, get all the cool kids in.

I don't blame them I guess. It is mostly the fault of industry blaming them for not churning out experienced senior software engineers.

Computer Science should stay pure, the right people will always come, even if it won't be the biggest or coolest department at uni it will always have a rich culture.

People have their whole lives to gather experience and become great developers, they can do that on the job. You only have a few years at university so you shouldn't try to use it to become a good developer, you should use it to learn core CS theory and whatever else leading edge topics interest you that may or may not yet be used in industry.

Industry would be better off asking themselves why they don't do a better job training developers themselves, providing great career paths, and even contributing back to academia, cooperating with CS departments writing papers, doing research and taking part in conferences.
http://github.com/macek/google_pacman/blob/master/README

Here you go. Looks like it's okay to play offline yourself or online using their hosted version.
IPhone Headphone Shootout
I think my CS degree was very valuable (regular expressions! hash tables! discrete math! cache cache cache!), although I'd encourage absolutely everybody to pick up two degrees as long as you're there. You might as well get a jump start on domain knowledge.

Weaknesses of a CS degree:

1) At the point of graduating college, it is likely that your experience working with teams in a production-like environment will be minimal. I think I did, hmm, three labs like this? None of them produced anything close to a real software product.

2) Academics don't work like industry. I worked at the university for a bit after graduation and we still didn't use, e.g., source control, testing, etc etc. Pick your favorite best practices test, we would have scored negative. It took me a few years to learn better habits.

3) You tend to do a lot of stuff which has little relationship to what you'll be doing for the rest of your life. If I were dictator for life of the CS department, I'd have kids exposed to web programming very freaking early, because it is much more likely they'll end up doing that than fat Java client apps (what we actually did in school).

4) There are a lot of soft skills that go into engineering that some schools give short shrift to. I will defend this one to the death: the most important skill for an engineer is oral/written communication, and their ability to actually produce stuff is a distant second. We had one class on technical writing.
One thing missing is a separate programming degree. The current CS curriculum at the schools I've seriously looked at has become a muddled bunch of courses that cover many basic CS topics at a very shallow level, trying to teach good programming practices along with some theory. This trend should be reversed in a CS degree - a lighter emphasis on actual programming and a heavier emphasis on mathematical analysis, proofs, etc. There is plenty of this kind of thing that has real-world applicability only tangential to programming. Even the grad-level AI courses at the University I'm attending downplay the role of math. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but I believe that it is at the expense of the real potential of teaching people CS at the undergraduate level. IS degrees sometimes fill the role of a "programming" degree but the variety there is pretty broad.
I'd love to see ARM compete more directly with x86. Ever since AMD stopped really being able to compete with Intel on tech, x86 has been in need of more healthy competition (even if, to Intel's credit, it hasn't been resting on its laurels).

Anything that makes our chips faster, more power-efficient, and cheaper is very welcome.

I wonder if combining ARM with GPGPU could help it push into x86 platforms...
Sun rises in the East.
The author is right. Apple is trying to lock everyone into native apps and by doing so, selling more iPhones, iMacs, iPads, etc. But the web, and Google, is going to pass them by because Apple is not going to be able to change its business model fast enough to meet these demands, a lesson that many companies have failed to heed when planting their stakes in the ground.

In round one, Apple lost to Microsoft because they took the position that the hardware, not software, made the market.

In round two, Apple is again playing the same cards; the hardware sets the rules and the software feeds the hardware.

They'll lose out again ... to Google.
Sidebar: I smiled when you described Bill Buxton as "wish he was my uncle," because amongst friends I call Paul Graham, Tim OReilly, and Kathy Sierra, "Uncle Paul," "Uncle Tim," And "Cousin Kathy."

It started because I was getting slightly made fun of for quoting them so often... like I knew them. So I kinda upped the joke ante by saying stuff like, "Uncle Paul always says ______."
Cool Blue Free Wordpress Themes  
Cool Blue is free WordPress theme, which ported from a Styleshout template. It’s more or less a pretty standard blog design with a bunch of widgetized areas (mostly in the footer), threaded comments support, and post thumbnail integration, among other things.
Math, science, and programming.
Industry might say that CS should concentrate on churning out experienced software engineers, but they are just avoiding the responsibility for training themselves.

If you read CACM academia thinks CS is missing students. They want to dumb it down to get more people in, especially less geeks and nerds, and more women and minorities. They are looking at ways of dumbing it down and making it appeal more to the masses.

I think in general CS is missing industry contribution. I would like to see more commercial enterprises writing papers, submitting at conferences, doing research, and training graduates to become developers.

Some CS programs seem to have buckled under pressure and turned into learn-java trade schools. These places are missing computer science. Some try to simulate the working environment and focus too much on working on larger projects in teams because that is what industry wants, but we have our whole life to do that and uni can't teach that well anyway, you need real experience for that.

But in general, I think most CS programs, especially after year one are pretty good, and teach what they should be teaching.

I like them to teach the classic core CS disciplines, theory, algorithms and data structures, AI, databases, software engineering, graphics, and they should focus more on leading edge stuff that is perhaps not so well used in industry but provides interesting scope for further research. I think they should deliberately use languages, paradigms, and tools that are not (yet) mainstream in industry.
6. Automated website optimizer

The problem here isn't learning best content for user segments. A lot of applications already do that. In fact, AdSense and other ad targeting systems are manifestations of this idea.

The problem is to come up with enough variations. It is a pain-staking and creative task to come up with variations that can perform better. Moreover, even if you come up with enough variations, the amount of traffic needed with such automatic optimization is exorbitant.
Zed, unfortunately or fortunately there are good and bad universities (in terms of CS). If you are in a good university, a lot of professors will teach you lessons which will last a lifetime. You must go check the video lectures on youtube by UC Berkley, MIT and Stanford. They will teach you the most important lesson, time and again, till it becomes a habit for you - its all about the fundamentals. They will teach you that computer science is as much programming as it is applied mathematics (& lot more).
I went to a bad school. Teachers were not confident in their subjects, they could not inspire me and I must confess I wasn't smart enough to inspire myself. 4 years later, now I have taken a break from my work, and I am revisiting my fundamentals with the help of the open course ware available on the net and boy, I sure have missed a lot!
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted - there is a terrible dearth of women both in the field and in academia.
A lot of what they're looking for (ability to lead, build a high performance organization, communicate effectively, etc.) is something that you only get through experience, of course there's always anomalies like Zuck, who beat the odds.
I hate that our nation seems to be developing the following motto-

Your Own Safety: Not Your Responsibility
When I left school my biggest gap was in my practical idea-to-code translation ability. I'm talking about the ability to sit down and write some useful code. I had spent the previous three years thinking about type systems, programming language design, and math, and when faced with the problem of having to make some code that would do some thing, I'd say, "What's the simplest angle from which to look at this problem?" It turns out that a much faster way for me to get well-designed working code was to just stop worrying and implement it badly, and not care about the design -- the best angle is from the inside. I've learned to artificially devalue good design.
I think they are all strengths of a CS degree.

We have our whole lives working in the real world to pick up those things that the University environment can only really introduce us to.

I don't want to waste my CS education on just getting a simulation of what the rest of my life will be like, I want to learn CS especially the things that might be harder to learn via experience in industry.
Just wanted to throw an update over here. The examples in my post are specifically geared towards a basic threaded comment structure, which Disqus is not. Our usage is much more complex than this example, but we are able to handle sorting by dynamic data (which we use in our "Most Popular" sort algorithm).

In other words, recursion still works, and in our tests has proven faster than doing it at the application layer (no matter how you sugar coat it).
Why would this be down voted? Diversity is essential when trying to find solutions to problems and there is a huge lack of diversity in our industry when it comes to women in computing.
The U-Socket Charges USB Devices Without an Adapter
I'm torn. I don't know if you saw the stop sign article but the more signage you put on something, the dumber people act. On the surface it's not a bad idea but then what happens if it's not accurate? Some of the streets in my city (Green Bay, WI) are safe most hours of the day and then you need to avoid them between 4pm and 5pm if you value your life.

It would be a nice feature but it might open them to actual liability for reporting inaccurate safety information.
To elaborate: If text ads are cheaper and demonstrably more effective than multimedia ads, and text ads can be created by literally typing for five seconds and letting the computer pick which line works best, then what does this imply for the careers of the Big Thinkers at the ad agencies?

Here's a scary prospect: most insurance companies could fire everybody they have working in advertising, replace them with one 22 year old English major tasked with writing PPC copy, and make hundreds of millions of dollars.

I don't think we're necessarily overspending on advertising... we're just overspending on ineffective advertising.
Vegas casino develops technique for ablation of the amygdala
Apple’s Second Most Hated Device, And Why You Should Own One (Warts And All)
There's a hilarious comment really worth reading:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/c9iq1/i_am_a_failed_en...
It's not a very nice thing to admit but I wished more people died because of their own stupidity. (And part of me wonders if that would actually be a net benefit or loss)
I had the best of both worlds in a way. I did my entire CS degree in my last year, after sampling a lot of random stuff for 3 years. Also, I had known how to code since age 11, so I didn't need to learn it in college.

I will say, however, that there's a lot of CS ignorance in the industry. Even really paying attention to a weekend course about "two dozen good things to know as a programmer" would put someone ahead of about 1/2 of all the big-company coders out there. As an industry, we could probably reap billions of dollars of increased ability over a 4 year span from adopting this sort of continuing education becoming common. (Doctors have this sort of continuing ed.)

Once, at a company I worked for, there was a project that lost millions because they didn't know you can't translate one context free language into another with only Regular Expresions. (Before I got there.) And I keep on being some kind of guru because lots of corporate coders don't understand that naive Array add operations are O(n^2). (FFS!)

I also think I'm 1 of only 3 in my group who has any inkling of what you need to deal with concurrency.

Arrgh! I need a new job!
The article attempted to spend it's time pushing ARM, and I'm a big fan of ARM.

Yet I couldn't help but come away primarily very impressed by the VIA chip.
Once again the problem is not government regulation -- if the corporation was exposed to the full liability of their actions they would make damn sure that they were insured to cover the damages. The insurance agency would make damn sure that they followed the rules and that appropriate risk mitigation was taking place, and the corporation would follow this since if they tried to sidestep or sneak by then the insurance agency would not cover the risk.

These problems have long been worked out, and yes disasters would still happen, but at least in those cases the victims would be compensated.

Remember the EPA and all sorts regulations on pollution are the government saying it's ok to pollute your land and water by X amount without compensating you. Your property rights are violated by government regulation not protected.
Schama: Are the Guillotines Being Sharpened?