skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Part of the allure of Snapchat seems to be that people are much more willing to share the human, "FML" style moments when they don't have to worry about them being there permanently. Some people still use it as a "look at all these cool things I do" platform, but then, that tells you as much about those people as it does about the communication channel.

Some of my favorite Facebook friends are the ones who post stuff like "there goes my 'no more Taco Bell' resolution, bring on 2018!" on, say, January 10.
I deactivated my facebook account and deleted my whatsapp account a little over a month ago and with the amount of free time i got, I decided against the use of instagram as well.

This article makes me feel not so antisocial anymore, thank you! :D
I know they've got a version in the Windows Store, which is either a non-Java implementation, or massively optimized compared the the original version of the game.

I've never looked to see if there were payable add-ons for it, because I don't roll that way, but it wouldn't have surprised me to find some already available.
I have a 36T NAS (26T usable raidz2), built using the Norco 4224 chassis. The backplane / drive trays that it comes with aren't 100% reliable, so I would recommend trying to get a SuperMicro chassis instead. I keep mine in the attic to keep the noise down.

Mine runs fine on an old Q6600 with 4G of RAM. I'm not trying to do anything silly, like enabling dedupe, so it's not a problem. I'm running ZFS on Linux, again, not a problem with that amount of RAM despite ZoL having a less than ideal caching situation in the kernel.

I do my backups with Crashplan. Not only do I back up the NAS with Crashplan, but I back up my various PCs and laptops to my NAS, for faster restores should I need it. Crashplan supports peer backup, which works well.

I tuned my recordsize by copying a representative sample of files to different ZFS filesystems with different settings, and comparing du output. The empirical calculation seemed easier.

I've used my NAS for a various things; video / photo archive, VM backing store (serving up zvols as iSCSI endpoints), working space for a variety of side-projects. More than anything else, it gets rid of the idea that storage space is in any way scarce, and removes the requirement to delete things (very often, anyway; I built up several years worth of motorcycle commute headcam videos at one point). My pool wanders between 40 and 70% utilization.
That's actually a fairly common setup, known as a LackRack [0], although this one seems to be a different size/model, but maybe that's my eyes playing tricks on me.

Edit: actually now that I look back at it I'm almost positive this is the deeper lack "coffee table".

[0] https://wiki.eth0.nl/index.php/LackRack
There are molecules that cause prions to "refold" back into the healthy form. The problem is that so far every such known molecule is highly toxic, e.g. guanidinium chloride.
It's hilarious to me people engage in blaming the victim over this.

At a particular moment it's $800 and voluntary.
At the very next moment passenger is subject to forced removal.

This makes no sense. And I also see nothing in the contract of carriage that permits it.

The airline can deny boarding, but this person is physically inside the airplane having used his boarding pass for the purpose for which it exists: to facilitate boarding the plane. He is boarded. He was not in any way denied boarding. Rescinding that status is not listed at all in the contract of service.

Second, this is deeply uncivilized. The airline invited violence for a civil, non-criminal dispute resulting from their own planning negligence, and their own unwillingness to provide monetary compensation that anyone on board thought was reasonable.

And the police have liability here as well for agreeing to become violently involved in what is ultimately a monetary dispute.

Shame, shame, shame.
The simple fact of the matter is that the boss, "Kyle" is a self-inflated egoist accustomed to having his predilections and whims taken as the truth according to God.

Kyle can go stick it where the sun don't shine, and his "competent" staff will entirely consist of
1) sycophantic liars who just want to please him in exchange for some of his money
2) his aforementioned much vaunted "people who want to hustle for a living", damaging his worthless brand even further with their ham-handed pushy attempts to pawn off substandard products/services upon easy marks

The fact of the matter is: you reap what you sow:
If you treat people like crap and if you attempt to extract clients money with egoistic hot-headed Jerry-Springer-style "workplace productivity cultures" of chair-swinging neanderthal Archie Bunkerism, you WILL lose. End of story.

This CEO is just wasting everyones time and money while stroking his little ego stick, eh?

But then the publication would be playing for a specific kind of hot-headed knee-jerk pseudo "conservative" to begin with, eh?

This has zero to do with conservatism, as any decently sensitive and competent interviewer can confirm appropriateness of any given candidate for a given work culture, all without ANY of the rancor created in this "article".

This self-aggrandizing human turd will instead achieve the net effect of attracting some unhinged personalities... and to say that it's possible to both conform with "Kyles" desired demonstrated personality traits AND be a needy team-sabotaging entitled spoiled brat goes without saying... witness our current POTUS... but I digress.

"Kyle" claims to play hardball, but he is effectively cutting his own legs off and making an ass out of himself. Go Kyle.
> they overdid the marketing of breast meat and had a problem of how to dispose of the thigh meat

Actually, a portion of it is bleached, and used as "white meat" for those frozen shaped chicken products like chicken patties and nuggets...
> The big one is that I'm making much more of a point to spend time with people who actually live near me rather than chatting it up with my friends from college.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/12/the-tail-end.html

"It turns out that when I graduated from high school, I had already used up 93% of my in-person parent time. I’m now enjoying the last 5% of that time. We’re in the tail end.

It’s a similar story with my two sisters. After living in a house with them for 10 and 13 years respectively, I now live across the country from both of them and spend maybe 15 days with each of them a year. Hopefully, that leaves us with about 15% of our total hangout time left.

The same often goes for old friends. In high school, I sat around playing hearts with the same four guys about five days a week. In four years, we probably racked up 700 group hangouts. Now, scattered around the country with totally different lives and schedules, the five of us are in the same room at the same time probably 10 days each decade. The group is in its final 7%.

So what do we do with this information?

Setting aside my secret hope that technological advances will let me live to 700, I see three takeaways here:

1) Living in the same place as the people you love matters. I probably have 10X the time left with the people who live in my city as I do with the people who live somewhere else.

2) Priorities matter. Your remaining face time with any person depends largely on where that person falls on your list of life priorities. Make sure this list is set by you—not by unconscious inertia.

3) Quality time matters. If you’re in your last 10% of time with someone you love, keep that fact in the front of your mind when you’re with them and treat that time as what it actually is: precious."
> What problem was the author trying to solve that they thought the solution was a new language?

It could well be a cultural thing: for some people, "creating a new language" is a serious undertaking, but for others (especially those exposed to Lisp and Scheme), creating a new language is something you might do if you're curious about something. At the end of the day, creating a language just isn't all that hard to give it so much thought.
I think it's the same regardless of the network and is more of a function of how many connections you have: if you have 1000 "friends" odds are most weeks somebody is having an amazing vacation, somebody else is getting a promotion, somebody other is getting engaged, others made a killing on some stock etc. etc.

Of course among those there are also people getting sick, divorced, fired, and so on, but they are not going to necessarily post on social media about it, so your view on what is "normal" becomes more and more skewed and makes you feel worse and worse about what's going on with you, despite the fact that objectively you might be doing just fine.
The arguments against allowing voice calls are not based on the technology but the idea of not wanting to listen to other people's conversations.

> Pai told USA TODAY in a statement. “Taking it off the table permanently will be a victory for Americans across the country who, like me, value a moment of quiet at 30,000 feet.”

> But Pai's predecessor as FCC chairman, Thomas Wheeler, argued that the ban had become obsolete because many airliners basically carry their own cellphone towers for in-flight entertainment.
> how do users that are contributing to the value of the network somehow extract some of that value in real terms?

If users aren't getting any value out of using the service, they won't use it. The fact that they are using it, without any force or coercion, indicates there is sufficient value being extracted from the service by it's users.
i don't have a problem with the test, or the tone of the questions asked.

a company is just a group of people.. surrounding yourself with like minded people is a good thing. Now, don't get me wrong.. i don't want to work with 40 copies of myself. like minded does not mean we have to agree on anything or everything.

What industry does this company serve?

Are you going to have an open carry environment? if so wouldn't you like to know going in?

is it a faith based leadership? does that offend?
True, but one might argue that it's at least a step in the right direction if you're really worried about transmissible prions.
Using `Link: rel=preload` is interesting, but it misses the real opportunity to get the critical resources before the html and window to grow the congestion window early. At best you are in a race condition on the browser's preloader/speculative parser. At worse, you are competing with the html base request with your pushed resources.

The better solution is to push these resources before the HTTP headers and status code from the application framework. The real opportunity is to get the content downloaded early, grow the congestion window ahead of receiving the html, then yielding the socket to the html, and then continue pushing content until the browser starts making it's own http requests. As all things - mileage will vary. Some times this is a large opportunity (eg: User in Australia requesting content from NY; or DR failover). Other times, push opportunity might be negligible (eg: cached html page) On high RTT networks, this does save you the full round trip for the request.

For more details on this check out my talk at Velocity Amsterdam:
https://youtu.be/GjWD1pOkxUk?t=1534
https://speakerdeck.com/colinbendell/promise-of-push

I also built a tool (on top of webpagetest.org) that helps you evaluate the potential for push here:
https://shouldipush.com
Looks like this might be effect related to social apps which are used as a log to brag about your awesome life. Should be less of an issue with Twitter and maybe Snapchat.
How to Make a Plane with DC Motor – Toy Wooden Plane DIY
This app can help you do math homework
Yes, people don't understand that Facebook is performance art. When you're reading what other people post, it's what they want to show you, and may have little or no relevance to their real life.
see, you, wouldn't be a good fit for his company. and he has the right to hire whomever he chooses.
Didn't get the job but I interviewed with FB a couple years ago. Flew me out to the Bay for a day of whiteboarding.

Haven't had an actual FB account in 4 or 5 years. I'm sure they were aware but to their credit no one ever asked me about it.
I can certainly agree with the study abstract and most posts here, but would add a twist: social media use is depressing, but falling out of touch with faraway friends is even more depressing. I've been on and off FB over the years, and what I've found is that the only thing worse than being on FB is not being on FB. There are many people I'd just never talk to if I didn't use FB, and I do think the connection is something I'd miss -- with some of them.

It's even worse when you're struggling through serious financial problems and/or a divorce, or some event like that. Nobody really wants to be your friend, and nobody wants to hear about it.

Online:

(a) One is more likely to find others in the same boat sooner or later, although those people are also more likely to have turned into embittered cranks/ideologues. But at least it's someone.

Divorce IRL is a very lonely experience; just when you are most psychologically vulnerable and could really use a friend, you become radioactive. Double if you're a bootstrapped entrepreneur, since your already existing problems have just leapt from "minor-league brush fire" to "apocalyptic conflagration seen from low orbit".

(b) While, one's not going to post much about these types of issues on social media in general, it allows you to keep conforming with your wider circle. You can keep on riding this carousel of wide-eyed, facile, optimistic communication on trivial or theoretical topics. It's much harder IRL, where it's harder to conceal that actually, real talk, things are really, really shitty.
All things equal.

Specie A (with this disease) stop cannibalizing after seeing the outcome, better chance of survival.

Specie B (without this disease) eat themselves to the last person... Lower chance of survival as a specie.

Nature "cares" by generating lots of options, then let the fittest to survive. So while nature doesn't intend or plan for a specie to survive, the outcome is no different from if it did. I believe the OP means "care" in this sense.
I have never been on FaceTwit. Never missed it. (either of them) I've occasionally wondered if I should. Its amusing to read both about and from people (here in comments) being happier without it.

There was a point I worried that one or both of them would become a mandatory authentication mechanism for other sites.
How do you deal with the fact that couples tend to announce things like "We're having a baby" or "We're engaged" or "I'm moving to Utah" on facebook as their primary mode of informing social circles of these kinds of events?
I feel the 'social media is bad for you' thing, but for different reasons.

I mean, I don't really understand the 'feeling inadequate because of my cousin's baby pictures' thing. I mean, I am happy for them, but that isn't the life I want, so I don't feel bad that I don't have it. Alternately, I could be less jealous than most people, but let's run with the more realistic first reason.

For me, the problem with social media is a fundamental lack of self control; I get into 'someone is wrong on the internet' discussions, and for me, those are the 'addictive but not pleasant' aspects of social media. For me, a conversation is not fun if we aren't arguing in good faith ; if we can't acknowledge one another's good points and rhetorical flourishes, it is just not fun, and I end up feeling frustrated and rejected. The unhealthy part is that I feel the discussion is unfinished, and walking away takes a tremendous act of will, and even then, my mind keeps coming back to the conversation.

I hope it is just a matter of practice; I mostly have left other mediums with these sorts of unfufilling conversations, or at least learned to restrain myself from participating in the most obviously unproductive conversations.

I think the big difference with social media is largely cultural; lots of people are there who lack a background in early internet culture or academic culture, and our shared vocabulary doesn't run much past "you are wrong " and there isn't the social pressure to be civil like we have here, or to be smart, like there was in the heyday of kuro5hin.
Regardless of how likely this would be to move forward, I have to say that I can't imagine a user-owned Twitter being much of a good thing. I'm pretty sure it would just devolve further into a platform for crap-flinging.
Για το προβάδισμα πρόκρισης Γιουβέντους – Μπαρτσελόνα
Thank you for the info. I had made some obvious guesses (the servers part) but could not have figured out that youtubers were so expensive or the profit so great.

I've seen that a well known server pays €20 an hour to developers. Mods use to work for free. Kids thinks that the server is "a community" so they're not very demanding.
Time to put together a study on the relationship between HN use and well-being!
Of old age I mean.

It's like with everything. Most people simply do what they always did, most never reinvent themselves.
Man dragged from United Airlines plane in overbooked flight row
My answer was implicit is the final comment. The purpose of those elements is not re-use. It's clarity. The re-use happens in the Sass (or other preprecessor) code. Somewhere in your Sass, you define "basket" as a "pull-left; row; col-xs-4" or even higher level constructs which you plan to re-use... that's up to you.

The point is they are orthogonal issues. Creating re-usable chunks of CSS does not suddenly absolve you of the responsibility to make your HTML readable. You can do either one without the other, but you should be doing both.
What are you talking about? This proposal strikes me as completely ridiculous. If Twitter users want to own part of Twitter, they should just go buy some shares... the stock is currently trading at $14.36
My use case is going to be in a minority, but I find Facebook vital for keeping in touch with friends and especially family back home.

I was thinking about ditching the platform before making a rather abrupt decision to move to the other side of the world for a couple of years. That couple of years has turned in to 5 and counting, and it's really come in to its own.

I've got a fairly heavily curated feed after I stopped following a bunch of people and pages, so I don't really feel like anything is being shoved in my face any more than other places I frequent online.

It works. It's asynchronous so the timezone difference doesn't get in the way, while still being a heap more useful than email. It definitely maintains connections that I'd struggle to keep otherwise. Now, will I keep it once I return home? There's a good question.
As should be apparent from the amount of the royalty, I don't have a significant quantity of readers. They all chose to buy the book via Amazon when it was also available on other [non-DRM] platforms.

I didn't force my readers to do anything. I followed their money to the only platform that paid off.

I have also elected to keep my day job. Offering free downloads wouldn't even be a waste of bandwidth, really--just a waste of server disk space. I don't have interests in both writing and marketing, so it doesn't make much difference to me if I am not making any money because no one knows who I am, rather than not making any money because nobody who knows who I am can figure out how to pay me anything.

Also, the only person who bought the book for whom I can be certain that they actually read it is my Mom, who left the most passive-aggressive 5-star review I have ever seen--simultaneously shilling for it and telling me how I should write the next book.
I have never been on FB. I email occasionally with far away friends. A phone call once in a while.
Yea, that's what the E-fund is for. What percentage of the people declaring medical bankruptcy had health insurance and an E-fund to cover the deductible plus 6 month's expenses?
The growth of industrial robots
Just for some balance but I don't understand the hate for Facebook, I use it fairly often and it's been a positive impact for me. I use it occasionally to connect with people I've just met, see what friends are up to, send messages to meet up and keep in contact with people out of the country. I've connected to people I otherwise wouldn't have through it, got closer to people I know through it and met up with people because of it. I'm completely aware that people only share the best slices of their life on it and it doesn't depress me.

I think if you let Facebook consume your life and it somehow impacts you a lot you need to think about why that is and not blame Facebook. You could get equally obsessed with hackernews comparing yourself to other users and clamouring for upvotes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28093386

> We investigated the associations of Facebook activity and real-world social network activity with self-reported physical health, self-reported mental health, self-reported life satisfaction, and body mass index. Our results showed that overall, the use of Facebook was negatively associated with well-being. For example, a 1-standard-deviation increase in "likes clicked" (clicking "like" on someone else's content), "links clicked" (clicking a link to another site or article), or "status updates" (updating one's own Facebook status) was associated with a decrease of 5%-8% of a standard deviation in self-reported mental health.

So it's not a causal link then? If it's not there's surely many reasons why having low well-being would make you spend more time on social networks (e.g. you'd go out less so have more time to spend on social networks)?
"All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat."
Ah, fair point. Now I see what you were trying to say.

Assuming the server has no way of determining which assets the client has cached (which depending on implementation may not be the case) you're of course correct. However, after step 2 the page has already fully loaded in both cases, so step 3 doesn't really slow anything down.
OT.

Symantec: Why require Javascript? Why not make it optional?

For users who do not use Javascript to read news: https://www.symantec.com/connect/tr/blogs/longhorn-tools-use...
I think airlines should have policies disallowing it, but I don't see how the in-cabin ambience of an airplane is even remotely what the FCC exists to regulate.

I would hate to be in an airplane with people making voice calls, but I don't think it's even remotely the FCC's job (and I'm somewhat dubious it's even properly the government's job) to do it, and, while I'm neither, I'm closer to a socialist than a laissez-faire supporter of unregulated capitalism.
If you use a brokerage like Ameritrade or Robinhood usually they'll just email you your proxy so you can vote on it.
Censorship isn't something I'm in favor of, but I think the idea Berners-Lee has is something different. Any given content has "viral coefficients" that determine how fast it replicates and how likely it is to die out before penetrating.

His idea's to make a social network where toxic content's has lower viral coefficients. Censorship is certainly one path to this goal -- simply kill any objectionable content before it has a chance to spread.

How else could you make a piece of content less likely to spread? Display it less prominently. Warn people that it spreads negativity and they shouldn't propagate it. Automatically identify filter bubbles and occasionally include content with an opposing viewpoint.

The real problem is some/all of these measures may cost you users. How do you lower the viral coefficient of toxic information in your social network without lowering the viral coefficient of your social network itself?
Why use a Maybe type in JavaScript?