skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
FWIW, Elisp is much nicer than JavaScript. It could stand to gain some features like static scoping and threading, but the "library" is so useful it's easy to ignore the linguistic flaws.

I'm sure an emacs-in-JavaScript would also have a good library, but let's face it... Lisp is very enjoyable to use. There may be more JavaScript programmers than Lisp programmers... but the same could be said for PHP, and I don't think anyone wants a PHPmacs :)
Bringing designers of all stripes together in RI to drink and cross pollinate
Yep, Consolas is a very beautiful and functional typeface. Note: on Linux use a patched Cairo for better LCD subpixel rendering, set to sight hinting--it looks MUCH better than the default (cairo-lcd in Arch Linux AUR, Ubuntu comes with a tweaked version by default, afaik)
A specific example of the power of one’s network
No, I'm taking a quote you posted on someone else's blog in an attempt to promote web2py. I'm not turning this into a personal thing; you are.
This is why I balk at public companies sporting mottos like "Don't be evil". All public companies have one and only one motto, "Maximize shareholder value". If you can carry out additional objectives, that's great, but no motto will trump profit.
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder
Tellingly, though, they're now based in London! But, yes, South Africa can provide some counterexamples.
Also, plenty of startups die before ever incorporating. For example, some hackers crank out a prototype, never get traction, then bail - all without any paper trail.
Great post since live video is the next big "wave"
Surely the path towards becoming technologically advanced also requires cooperation in addition to competition. These two processes tend to hold one another in balance nicely and yield results. I don't see any clear evidence that suggests one or the other of those two processes will "win out" long term. But if anything it seems humans have become more cooperative over time in step with our technological advancement.

Assuming "competition" and ONLY the negative consequences of the competitive process somehow trump all else, in particular cooperation, is depressing, counterproductive and inconsistent with what I've seen in my own life.
I was really excited about Twitter (and some similar apps with lots of buzz) and signed up, used the friend importer against all the supported apps I had an account with and...

Nothing.

FriendFeed? Same deal. Most of the people I've found have been from the public timeline or from HN. Only a few early adopter types that I know from work are starting to show up on Twitter and most of them never post--probably just checking it out.

I tell people "it's like asynchronous instant messaging with programmability and succinctness rules." I guess I'm not selling it right because that doesn't get much rise out of most people. FriendFeed is easier to explain, but a vast majority of people I know aren't at the complexity stage that makes it valuable. I'm not really there either, yet.
Basic but great info
But you said in another comment here that you are an elisp developer... of course you are going to think it's nicer.

I'm not married to the javascript idea, I just suggested that because it's already used for a ton of other things in the browser, so it'd make sense to make the browser-as-editor extensible in javascript.

If we really want to make it from the ground up, it'd be nice if we could replace javascript with something like Scheme[1] (or Arc ;) as the de-facto client-side scripting-language in the browser.

My issue with doing it in elisp is that it's yet another special purpose language to use, and the web already requires three or four of them to get anything done as it is. I'm not scared of learning it, but if I am going to dream of pie-in-the-sky, I might as well dream of a world where one language gets things done on the web.

[1] I would suggest Lisp here, but honestly I got started with Scheme, and for some reason (purely aesthetic), CL just seems so ugly to me.
(proggit crosspost: http://reddit.com/info/6hd0k/comments/c03uonk)

Hm, I think my IANAL reflex didn't trigger strongly enough when I was writing my original comment. But I still believe it's a Good Idea to play safe until broader legal fallout is definitively ruled out one way or another. After all, once the genie escapes the bottle it's not going back in no matter what the consequences turn out to be.

> to the extent that reading the Symbolics source causes IP issues, you're just as screwed if you read it legally.

Very likely, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. Partly because - well, if there is a plausible impression that Project Foo's shiny new VM is based on their study of other people's old code that they gleefully pirated all over the intertubes, then they're practically begging a judge to put together some interpretation of the law under which to hammer them. Ask Corley what being technically in the right guarantees you under those circumstances.
#10 Try to add all the features that your competitor have instead of releasing something flimsy quickly.
it is not a product, just a prototype.
Does a similar page exist for Comp Sci?
Not even friends - classmates. I agree.
:(

Here I was hoping he didn't do it...

I hope it doesn't reflect poorly on the open source community. Next thing you know they will be calling us murderers.
These two classes are for public stock offerings. YC companies might choose this type once they go public. Broadly, stock in YC companies is either common like the shares for the founders, employee options, or they're preferred, which is often what investors own. There are specific benefits to preferred stock - different depending on the terms of the deal.

Control in a startup is largely determined by percentage ownership and and the composition of the board.
> Here I was hoping he didn't do it...

We still don't know if he did.
right, but raising another sentient being in terrible conditions just to slaughter and eat it might be considered a universal bad.

say an alien civilization comes along and is as far beyond us as we are beyond cows. I think we'd raise some objections if they started eating us, even though it is logically sound.
Steep Decline at 'NYT' While 'WSJ' Gains
How Best to Submit Our (Or Any) Stories to Digg
Facebook app CPM numbers from Inside Facebook
(fn Arc Language Blog): Idioms for programming in Arc
Most developers working on open source software see no problem and love working in open source project. This is because most open source developers work for a large company, such as IBM or Sun. These companies of course use open source software to sell services which pays so much better than selling shrink wrapped software. Must better to push 30 junior consultants through the poor customers door for 2 years than simply selling software.

Look at the Linux commit log, 80-90% of new code comes from corporate open source drones.

However, every independent developer that has been working on a fairly successful open source project for a couple of years will become bitter at times and to some degree. Even Richard Hipp, the creator of SQLite hints about this in the google video where he discuss SQLite.

The reason is simple, after the first fun of working on a new project, there is very little incitement to continue. a) There is no money to be had, donation does not work in the sense of putting salt on your table. b) Selling services does not work, because most users don't need support or if they do, support will already be provided be lots of "open source" consulting companies selling services for your product. c) Most user feedback is rude and usually complaints about missing feature or bugs and d) you are usually alone. Its a myth that most open source project are run by a merry band of altruistic developers. Usually they are run by 1-2 developers for the love of the craft - at first. No wonder these independent developers become bitter if they continue for some reason. And the worst part, if he should dare complain a bit, he only get smug stupid remarks from idiots like yourself who have never contributed a line of code in your whole life.
Regardless of whether he did it or not, this seems like a failure of the justice system - sentencing someone to 25 years in prison for a murder in which there is "no body, no crime scene, no reliable eyewitness and virtually no physical evidence". He must have had an absolutely horrible lawyer.
I worked with Hans and his team a few years back on an experimental ReiserFS-based filesystem for Squid (still the fastest Squid ever, as far as I know), and find the whole thing difficult to believe. He very likely suffers from Aspergers ("suffers" in this case, since it seems to have led to his conviction due to his insistence on taking the stand and deep misunderstanding of human nature and how his behavior would appear to others...it seems to be a beneficial condition for some folks, ordinarily, at least with regard to productivity, but when it comes to a jury they aren't likely to be your peers), or a similar condition, and I always found his famously obstinate behavior more amusing than threatening.

I, of course, have no idea if he committed the crime, but I find his bizarre explanations far more believable than the jury. He really is just that kind of person...a bit paranoid, extremely analytical, and significantly smarter than the vast majority of people. This is true even among extremely smart folks, like those on the Linux kernel mailing list, he's probably among the smartest in the conversation. But he's also lacking in many social skills to the point that his involvement in a discussion usually hurts more than helps--reading his numerous arguments on the LKML is like seeing a warm up for his bizarre performance on the stand.

So, one could make the case that Hans' feeling of superiority, which might be hard to avoid for someone as smart as he is, and his paranoia combined to produce this very result. Perhaps he figured he'd get away with it, because he's so much smarter than everyone else. And perhaps his paranoia convinced him that Nina had plans to steal away with his children and he'd never see them again (there is some evidence that this was actually her plan). Since the average American has a rather deeply ingrained mistrust of really smart people, his particularly ornery and superior attitude certainly didn't help him.

I genuinely like Hans, and think very highly of him as a developer...so I'm not going to spend a lot of time dwelling on the uncomfortable thoughts of whether he committed the crime or not. I'll just hope that if he did, he gets some help for his mental illness while imprisoned (I'm assuming that if he did it, it's due to his paranoia being far worse than is apparent in his public persona), and that he's able to accept responsibility for the act. And, if he didn't do it, I hope that something comes out that exonerates him before he's too old to enjoy a return to freedom.
Well I know Perl pretty well and am not starting to pick up Python. I like Perl so we'll see how I feel about Python. I'll get back with my experiences.
The article states that he refused to let his lawyer act and took charge of proceedings himself many times, so it is not clear how bad the lawyer was.
Ask Hackers, What can I use for MapReduce on Python?
I've been using DRb on Ruby which makes almost trivial to implement a distributed app. But, at least for my programs, Ruby is 3x to 4x slower than Python. What can I use in Python similar to DRb?
His lawyer told him not to take the stand. Instead he testified for 11 days.
My theory has always been that this is Sean Sturgeon's tenth murder. Number nine was Nina. And the plan for number ten was getting Hans convicted of murder and put to death by the state. The ultimate thrill for the serial killer who no longer draws excitement from mere axe murdering and dismemberment.
This isn't really big news; it's nothing but a speed-bump.
I don't understand. It sounds like you think that any murderer who can hide a body and clean a crime scene should be impossible to convict.

There's nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. It's used all the time. The ambiguity you're having trouble coping with is the reason we have juries and strict rules regarding admissability.
Using the 'Wisdom of Crowds' to Tag URLs
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. although, I suppose I don't really trust the US justice system. I've seen people I know innocent get convicted recently. But his behavior is unfortunately highly suspect.
iWant!
I haven't heard of this bot. But that sounds kind of lame
Regarding your .NET comment, I don't think it's .NET that's the problem. It's Windows that hackers cringe with.
A built-to-flip company is one that redirects investment (and risk management) away from building a business and into product development. A single-laywer law office doesn't do that.

The "breadth" of the company has nothing to do with it. The question is how sustainable the company is as a business. You can trade long-term sustainability for short-term marketability --- Cisco and Google will love you for it, because they don't care about your business infrastructure (they're firing your director of finance as soon as they buy you) and they want your product to be maximally useful.

On the other hand, if you miss the big acquirers and you're a flipper, you die; if you build a business, you get repeated shots at being attractive to them down the road.
About 2: they might simply be capable of aggression or ruthlessness, ie highly elastic. I would argue that is a better description of humans, and more speculatively, a more likely route towards species success.
I think the most interesting thing to watch with this company will be how the licensing and support issues play out.
Once you take the stand, you have no control over how long you will be on the stand. The fifth amendment insures you don't have to testify if it will hurt your case...but if you agree to be questioned, both sides get to ask pretty much all the questions they want within the bounds of the law and the patience of the judge.

But, yes, it's clear that him taking the stand was the worst possible thing he could do and he apparently fought loudly and repeatedly with his lawyer over this decision.
"significantly smarter than the vast majority of people." -- And criminals too. If he really did it (IF), he did a good job hiding the body.
Yes, I've heard good things about Mint. The only reason I've never used it is that there is no 64-bit version.
Given the quality of the NYTimes web site, I am not surprised that they do.
"We still don't know if he did." -- well the us justice system thinks he did it, that's what matters.
I definitely think that's the toughest hurdle for Twitter to overcome: there's not an easy way to explain its value to people who aren't already on it, and none of my friends (that aren't nerds) are using it.
Hans couldn't possibly be a murderer despite the evidence, but you believe some guy killed 8 people with no evidence whatsoever? They might not have found Nina's body, but the supposed other 8 victims don't even have names. It was just a bullshit story to cast some doubt.
The very first thing he did when he took the stand on cross from the DA was to admit that he had lied about a material fact of the case, allowing the jury to be instructed that the rest of his testimony was untrustworthy. He did a pretty spectacularly bad job on the stand.

I'm surprised he went down for murder 1, but there was a pretty damning array of things lined up against him. Aspergers or not, he admittedly ripped up and flooded his car while trying to actively hide it from the police in a storage locker; he claimed a 6-inch(!)-wide blood stain on a bag (not a sleeping bag, but its pouch) in that car was from having sex; and finally, he built his case not on the premise that he didn't kill Nina, but that she was still alive --- a very simple assertion for the DA to knock down.
From what I heard so far the problem seems to be that sites trying to make it more comfortable for users (like giving them actual guidelines) get often warning letters from lawyers. And not many projects want to risk legal battles. At least that's the way here in germany, but I suppose it's not much different in the US.
To be clear: his lawyer was opposed to him taking the stand.
It's guilt beyond a jury's reasonable doubt, not guilt beyond your reasonable doubt.
Just to be clear, I don't actually believe that. I just think it's a cool idea, but I didn't want to log out and make a new account just to post it as a short story.

Speaking of which, isn't it time to add Paul Graham to the programming language creator or serial killer game?
A Social Network Analysis of the American Federal Judiciary
I have to say, his wife looks cute and very normal. He looks weird. No wonder the jury was sympathetic to the prosecutors claim. It is just normal human reaction.
wow surprisingly thats what my first project led me to as well...
If there is no body, how does one know it isn't an elaborate framing?

In this case, one could argue as follows:

Nina disappears, and one or more friends help her get to Russia incognito (go through Mexico, perhaps).

Children go into custody of her parents who take them back to Russia.

Meanwhile, Hans is the first suspect, as is always the case in murder cases where there is a spouse or former spouse with some plausible motive and no good alibi...he is known to be paranoid by anyone that knows him, so begins to behave erratically when police begin to pay attention to him.

Perhaps someone (maybe Nina, maybe the serial killer friend, maybe someone else) had sprinkled a little blood on the front seat of his car (and in his house and the sleeping bag). He panics when he sees it and rips the seat out and disposes of it. Since he didn't commit the crime in this scenario he wouldn't have even known about the blood in the sleeping bag or the house.

Since producing some blood is pretty trivial, it means that anyone with the means and willingness to disappear could frame anyone for murder.

There is a reason why murder cases without a body or murder weapon pretty rarely result in conviction. And, I suspect, had Hans taken his lawyer's advice and not taken the stand, he would have probably had a much better chance, even with the pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

I'm not saying Hans didn't do it...I don't know. But I know that circumstantial evidence should be viewed with suspicion, when 25 years of someones life is on the line. The jury system is intended to insure that no innocent man is ever convicted, and this principle is even more important than every guilty man being punished.
I don't have any data to back this up, but I imagine in almost every case where someone is convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years in prison, there is actual evidence that a murder occurred.

I don't necessarily have a problem with circumstantial evidence, I just think that this is a very harsh sentence when there is no real evidence that anyone was killed.
Red Hat charges for their Enterprise Linux, but releases it as open source. I forget the names, but there are now 3rd-party Linux distros that basically just redistribute RHEL freely to whoever wants them.

If someone openly pirates your proprietary software, you have legal recourse. If someone openly redistributes your open source software, they are acting within their rights to do so.

In fact, a third party repackager of RHEL even has the option of charging to provide service, at a discount from Red Hat's price, and they can do this perfectly legally.

Short version of the economics: if you can charge for services, you can make money on open source, but only client by client -- you don't become more efficient the more services you sell, unlike with products (especially low-marginal-cost products like software). You have to add employees for each new hour of services you provide. So if you have a potentially popular product, all other things being equal, you have a higher potential for growth if you sell the product rather than the service.

Of course, all other things aren't equal, which is why the desktop software market has been in decline since its heyday in the 90s. Because the marginal cost of each unit you ship is so low, when there's plenty of competition, you tend to see a race to the bottom on price (unless you can convince people to buy your product because it is the standard, as Microsoft has done).

Many enterprise markets are small enough niches that (1) there are a limited number of competitors, and (2) if you give away your product, you may not easily be able to make up the revenue in any other way. On the other hand, if you have technically savvy clients, you may find it worth your while to offer them your source under a non-redistributable license. They still have to buy your product from you, but they can debug against the source, integration test, etc. This isn't free software (obviously), but it may be a happy medium for both you and your clients.

And yes, when the option of selling (or monetizing in some other way) access to your server presents itself, that can be far more profitable than selling a client-side product. That's why World of Warcraft is ridiculously profitable, and it's why Google makes so much money. But it seems clear that this works better for some markets than others.

I say all of this as someone who believes in free software wherever it is practical, but also as someone who makes a living writing software and wants to continue to do so.

And, as Eric Raymond argued over a decade ago, for something like an operating system that is used by large numbers of people, there will be no shortage of free labor to produce an open source product. But people will probably only work on software for managing a multinational mineral extraction business if you pay them. So open source is a great idea for many, many things, but probably not for everything.
"And criminals too."

That's not that hard. Criminals are notoriously really dumb. And lazy.
Open-source got off easy:

"Hora speculated that Reiser might have choked his wife, based on little evidence except that Reiser was a black belt in judo, a martial art where choking is a specialty."

Judo, meaning "gentle way", is apparently the martial art that teaches you how to kill your wife.
yes. But there are still people that believe Elvis is alive. No matter the evidence, some people can't be convinced something has happen, if they don't want to believe in it.
Where do you draw the line?

In this case, 12 people of the jury thought he did it. Since I wasn't in the trial, and didn't see the evidence, I have no recourse but to believe that there was reason enough to convict him. This was not a racially charged situation, so it is hard to argue that the jury was biased, or anything like that.
He's too cute to believably be a serial killer. tlb and rtm on the other hand...especially now that tlb has shaved his head.
there is no evidence that second hand smoke is dangerous, so don't worry about it.
FoundRead Finds a New Home and sends some love to Hacker News
It's an interesting theory, but advanced civilization is built on collaboration, not defection (aggression). Most things that lead to advances in civilization are based on collaboration: science, openness, sharing knowledge, rule of law, free trade, contracts.

I would argue the exact opposite--any species that makes it to the top of the food chain will likely have collaboration ingrained in their nature, and the more advanced, the greater their collaborative nature will be.
"That's not that hard."

I hope you're not speaking from experience; otherwise, I hope you don't know where I live...
>there is no evidence that second hand smoke is dangerous, so don't worry about it.

regardless of what studies may have said or not said, it seems obvious that it is not good.
Twitter: more mainstream than it looks