skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're really just saying the same thing as the preceding comment did, and your argument really is aesthetic. Real e2e apps don't care who's routing them or how they're being routed; they have a service model ("I need reliable delivery" or "I need real-time out-of-order"), and take care of the details themselves.

This is exactly the dispute that killed multicast. The purists demand all-sources Deering multicast, the pragmatists think they can at least make it work with single-source, and the rest of the world just goes and builds apps that actually work using TCP and app-layer multicast. We should learn from that. Instead of asking everyone to forklift out their routers to switch in an expirimental protocol, we should embrace the constraints that we have and make stuff work regardless. Skype works even with double-sided NAT.

So, yes, I definitely have built apps that route packets, and yes, I already did bring up the example of FTP, and yes, it's a bad example: it's the worst protocol in common use, and we're not really surprised that NAT causes problems with it. What's another common protocol that requires middleboxes to alter payloads? Note that the whole web works without that requirement.

The reality is, it's just silly to assume that the future of the Internet is going to be controlled by apps that will only be able to rendesvouz using IANA-assigned IP addresses. The future is multicast, peer-to-peer, and presence-based, and it's going to come not from standards groups but from app developers. My AIM screen name is already 100x more valuable than my IP address, and Google is already 1000x more valuable than my domain name. Why exactly am I supposed to be psyched about "16:c4:d2:bc:23:71:85:a2:a6:17:7a:56:09:b5:e5:15"?
It sounds like you're asking these questions because you're stuck inside the scripting language box. There's a much greater range of choice open to you than Perl/Python/Ruby on the one hand, and C/C++/maybe-Java on the other.

For example, Common Lisp implementations often compile functions as they're entered at the interactive prompt. From your perspective, you see an "interpreter" that runs code on the order of 100 times faster than it should. I'm told popular OCaml and Haskell implementations work this way too.

If you're interested in portability, there are efficient Scheme compilers that target ANSI C, which gives you portability, good integration into just about any environment, and access to lots and lots of library code. My favorite of these is Chicken Scheme, which you can read about at http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org.
Far better you look at the behavioral competencies that will make a good sales person - start from there.

Try Googleing BBI (Behavioral Based Interviews)
It doesn't seem like it would be very hard for Craigslist to win the fight against auto-bot posting. Some of the more sophisticated captchas are pretty hard to crack, and they could just make people do different random things instead of just captcha every time.
The phrase "remote procedure call considered harmful" does not appear on Google. You must be talking about "A Critique of the Remote Procedure Call Paradigm", which I tracked down (http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/publications/euteco-1988.pdf) and have now read. It's a good paper, and remarkably early for the insights it contains, six years before the more famous "Note on Distributed Computing". Since most of the work done on RPC was done after this paper, including all the time Vinoski spent on CORBA, I wonder what he'd say about it now (as compared to what he'd have said about it then). I'm glad to have read it and thank you for the reference.

To say that Vinoski's words were "cribbed almost verbatim" from this paper is beyond even gross exaggeration. I think you should be less cavalier about flinging accusatory phrases. The quote obviously isn't original, but it still is absolutely the clearest explanation of the core insight that I've seen. Vinoski sums it up in one marvelous paragraph; that is a very different thing from a 10-page technical article, even if the content were identical, which it isn't.

As for "you really should have read this by now", sure. I really should have read Proust by now too.
72 Ideas? This is the internet. I don't read anything with a number like that preceding a list.
It's pretty much perfect. What the hell is mobissimo?
What gender should I ... ?
Good question, makes one think on which side one actually stands...
Well, if trying to destroy my life means saying bad stuff about me on Twitter and Flickr, who cares? If they're capable of anything, including real world violence, then banning their Twitter account isn't going to make much difference in the real world. That's why I'd report any actual threats.

But just people calling me names? I can't find any compelling reason to even care.
MicroHoo: corporate penis envy?
JS interpreter is a negligible charge if the program running does not consume too much resources.

Also JS makes the web less "accessible": Think about handicapped people who can't use IE / FF / Safari.

Avoiding Javascript is one's personal choice. Ideally Javascript should not be mandatory for surfing.
1. Google, HN, Gmail

2. My books at home, Google

3. Digg, iChat, HN

4. Google, iChat, Particular Docs for whatever I'm working with (PHP, Rails, Python, GAE, JS, ETC)
1. programming.reddit.com, Slashdot, Hacker News

(Honorable mention: java.net, theserverside.com and freshmeat.net)

2. my personal library, Borders, Barnes & Noble

3. Sluggy Freelance, User Friendly, Dilbert
(Honorable Mention: BOFH )

4. TriJUG Mail List, TriLUG Mail List, saloon.javaranch.com
noscript can allow specific sites. its pretty flexible
I think the downmod was to say that the statement "javascript 's foremost use is for ads" was wrong, since clearly javascript is used for a lot more.
You really are taking board comments seriously today. How long did this take you to write? I'm glad you liked the paper I pointed you at. I stand by my assertion, which is that it's puzzling that practitioners are abuzz about Vinoski's post, which reiterates an ancient sentiment about RPC.
What should I do right now? Should I do some hacking or write "Why not to get on covered on TechCrunch"?
> Perhaps it is just a segmentation factor like gender or age.

Young people are more likely to have a degree, so perhaps asking for a degree is covert ageism.
TC demands to go first, eh? Feh... remind me to not submit anything to TC then. That's just pathetic. Mashable or CenterNetworks or any (and all) of a bazillion other blogs cover the same space to varying degrees anyway.
Have you looked at Calais 2.0 as a data source for your site? It's Reuters venture into the Semantic Web, and its free content complete with tags so you can filter science-related items. (http://www.opencalais.com/)
> There was some quote I heard that if you make enough mistakes and don't repeat them, you will run out of mistakes. It was a bit satirical, but I like the general line of thinking.

There's a quote by some physicist to effect of, "An expert is someone who has made all the mistakes one can make in a chosen field."
You still haven't answered my question - how can I, sitting behind one NAT, receive a connection from my friend behind another NAT, if neither allows direct incoming connections? All your multicast, peer-to-peer, etc. buzzwords don't mean a damn thing if the connection can't be made in the first place.

No matter how you twist around and cloud the issue, the fact is somebody has got to have a public IP to make the rendesvouz work, and if those public IPs are not available to ordinary people who might be entrepreneurs prototyping new kinds of ways to use the internet, then those prototypes will not get off the ground.

Edit: BTW, IPv6 is not an "experimental" protocol as you allude to it.
You'll note I said vastly different, I didn't say there was no difference.
I heard a good phrase the other day: each new surplus creates a shortage. In this case, surplus of cheap movie making tools makes a shortage of viewers.

But actually I think this is just a distribution and filtering problem. The best content isn't getting to the people that would like it most.
There is only one Buddha Dog -- http://www.chowhound.com/topics/419153
It might just be me, but it sounds like you're asking "how much should I sell my car for" without telling us what kind of car you're selling. Ok, ok, maybe that's a bad analogy. Honestly, at this point in my development career when I'm designing a first iteration of a web app, I don't even worry about people with 800x600 rez, or no cookies, or no Javascript. Again, it might just be me, but that's like worrying about scaling to 1 million concurrent users when you're first building your app - not worth the time. Sure, it would be nice, and sure, some gov't agencies (I've worked for one, the Florida Division of Emergency Management) require adhering to some handicapped guidelines. However, you time is valuable. Keep that in mind. You're trying to maximize the total utility to your users, and making 2 complete apps for JS/No JS (a la GMail) isn't maximizing your time. Later, when you have xx,xxx,xxx users - yeah, go for it; you could be turning away thousands of non-JS users. But, let me ask you, do you have 1E8 users? Don't initially spend 20% of your time on 2% of your audience...
An entrepreneur is trying to cover the Earth with Web access.
> I had been working as a developer for 5 years by the time my friends of the same age finished their degrees.

I knew a fellow who didn't go to university and was managing a team of 12 developers within his first five years of work. He was richer than the average graduate too.
Yegge has just addressed this, and I think he has a beautiful point: Compiled apps are dead, unfeeling, unable to adjust. Compiled apps are like the ones you buy in a box at the computer store and install on the piece of plastic in front of you. They are completely unable to interact with the user (or other other computer or whatever) beyond their specific implementation at point of compilation. They're just the paper tape with a starting point and an ending point.

OTOH, dynamic languages are designed to interpret conditions as they occur at runtime. Up to this point, we really haven't been able to exploit this powerful capability to its fullest extent, but hardware is now cheap, and massive collections of hardware (like at Google's The Dalles plant) now exist to provide what is essentially a virtual environment that provides units of computing power as needed. Dynamic apps can adapt to take advantage of this. For example, modify an app in the REPL as it's running, or hot swap code in an Erlang app, or send lambdas wherever you want on a network running q/kdb+.

Now take that notion a step further. Why do humans have to initiate any of that day-to-day dynamism? The answer to that question is the future of computing and it's why we have to have interpreted languages for dynamic environments. Compiled apps (and OSes, IMO) are not part of the future. The next frontier after that will involve the hardware itself going dynamic.
An employee who is 2+ years from a bachelor's degree is a long way from finishing while an employee, and therefore there's a high chance they will leave to attend school full-time in the near future. Companies also justify your hire by not paying as much as somebody with a degree out of principle, and therefore always afraid you might find a higher paying job or start college. Finally, a college educated person will likely have debt to pay off, and is likely to stay with the company for 1-5 years after acclimating to a paycheck in the first 3-6 months.
Ask HN: http://www.ycombinator.search.xirium.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?...

Ask PG: http://www.ycombinator.search.xirium.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?...

Ask YC: http://www.ycombinator.search.xirium.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?...
Uh, what? All of the major dynamic languages are compiled, not interpreted. "eval" != "interpreter".
What's Killing Twitter: Twitter Gets Help Digging its Grave
For simple surfing, you're right—javascript should not be mandatory. But if you're expecting to use any kind of interactive application (say, an email client, for example), I think it's fair to assume some sort of JS requirement there.
Actually, I'm not sure if this is true. I recently watched a lecture (that I can't find right now) on something like "How to write a good math paper". In it, the speaker made what I thought was a wonderful observation:

Often, he sees new graduate students reviewing paper submissions to conferences or journals. These students are usually very critical, and their criticism is usually dead on-- the things they complain about are genuine defects of the papers. However, when those same students write papers they do not live up to the standards that they have set!

So, the problem may be more of what Ira Glass hints at-- people who have good taste, but are unable to apply that taste fairly to their own work.
Dvorak is rambling. "To do its job, Google has to maintain up-to-date and redundant copies of the entire Internet on its servers. It's a ridiculous idea." What??? It's ridiculous? Someone forgot to tell Google. By his measure, archive.org ("The Wayback Machine") would be preposterous.

At any rate, for 95% of all targeted Google searches I make, I can find the answer I'm looking for without leaving the search results page. It appears in the search result entry, highlighted by my keywords.

Is "search" broken? Maybe, if you mean that Google can't tell me "the best knitting site". But who can? For me, Google is a fulltext search of a billion pages. And that <u>works</u>. <div class="ericcartmanisawesome">yes, I know news.YC doesn't parse the previous underline tag. But, if you're reading this site, you do.</div>
I like how the details of this guy's business are unfolding. Take a look at his profile for some good reading:

http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=youyap

http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=youyap
lonelygirl15
Yes, but we were not directly on the internet. We used proxy and NAT.
TechCrunch didn't exactly have a high bar for technical knowledge before, but Gillmor is definitely lowering the bar. He's the John Dvorak of web 2.0. He's perfect for TC's style of throwing shit up against the wall and not linking (and possibly blocking) anyone that refutes it.
Likely true... but is Facebook is motivated... there is always a price.
Many good candidates could be put off by such test. More importantly, even if they agree to your test and send you some code, you need an engineer's time to evaluate the code sample, and if you're going to invest engineer's time you might as well do a full phone screen. The recruiters are by and large non-technical people. They would love to be able to ask some technical questions which could help them predict whether a candidate would pass the interviews or not. I've been actually asked by a recruiter friend of mine how to do it. But, if you think about it, this is not so easy if you're not a programmer yourself.

You are absolutely right that it would be madness to hire a programmer without having seen him code. The companies are well aware of it and they will surely ask you to write a lot of code during the interviews. But that comes at a much later stage, as it costs them much more money than checking on your resume whether you have a degree or not.

I'm not saying that I like the way things are, but that's just life. If that's of any consolation, in most other industries the requirement of having a degree is much more strict than in case of Software Engineers.
How about you just choose someone based on their talents and not what they have between their legs?
Both. Best to have a language which is initially interpreted and then gets compiled just in time. With JVM as a prime example.
1) Hacker News (addiction as of 3 weeks ago), Facebook, Wikipedia (honorable mention: TechCrunch, TechMeme)

2) Wikipedia, personal library, town library

3) Twitter, AIM, Facebook (honorable mention: Wikipedia)

4) Google, php.net/manual, irc.freenode.net
joelonsoftware has only had, oh, about 200 of these threads. But what the hell: 26 y.o./PHP & C#/2-4 years exp./east coast/$40-50hr.

Question to anyone out west: is the freelance market any better than this? I'd love to move out there this fall. What are you hourly-rate guys getting?
"Perhaps" is a good word. Not to be snarky, just that the result is still in doubt. You have to be large relative to the sites you're aggregating to "drive" traffic.
This came up at the hackers meetup in london last night.

Its a matter of the extra dev time vs reach of audience, which varies from site to site, I would say on average, I assume a reasonable resolution, with js and cookies enabled.

I dont think every person crippling functionality to cater for the maximum possible market is a good thing for the individual sites or the industry in general.

flickr came up as an example, but when flickr launched their 'organizr', you could count a handful of large sites that used heavy js / ajax interfaces, there were also a large number of photo sharing sites, while it wasnt the reason flickr won the photo sharing wars, providing an incredibly powerful and usable tool to let people work with their photos gave them a very good start.

Obviously for some sites (wikipedia) catering for handicapped users provides a huge benefit with very little negative impact on the standard user.

However I dont think a strict requirement, and if your application benefits a lot from scripted interface elements, go for it. If everyone sat and served static text pages. handicapped users will never get to enjoy the benefits of a fully featured scripted interface that will inevitably be created through new demand.

http://ejohn.org/blog/ajax-accessibility/ is also worth a read
The difference is, if companies started using the filters you suggest, then the candidates would soon catch up and everyone would have a programming blog and have read Cliff's notes for "Atlas Shrugged." So it's not, as they say, an evolutionarily stable strategy. That's why no one does it on a larger scale I guess.
Also, more seriously, here is a video highlighting a professional ad service you can use: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
Old but good: http://weblog.raganwald.com/2005/07/why-you-need-degree-to-w...
there is no such as an autodidact really, untraditionally taught perhaps but even if you learn at home and not at a university you still probably read kind of the same books nd you talk to a lot of people on forums.

i guess if two people have the same skills and one is selftaught then that says a lot more about the selftaught person.

i personally have no experience in hiring people but i could imagine a lot of idiots who think they are the shit(but have a horrible lack of understanding for the fundamentals) would apply.

wouldnt most jobs that ask for a degree consider someone who has a really proven trackrecord?

i mean at least for webdevelopment...
Are Human Experts Less Prone to Catastrophic Errors than Machine-Learned Models?
Ok, let's do this. Investors and VCs in Facebook, get your sell buttons ready. Once this IPOs, SELL. All of your stock. Great investment. Then laugh when it tanks.
"It also proves that you are not completely dumb, since few people fail at university."

doesnt add up, what exactly do you mean?
What standards? This is just geek chest-thumping, and has little mathematical justification.

Let's assume that your interviewers are uniformly exceptionally good, and have a false-negative rate of only 10% (i.e. 90% of all good applicants are accepted).

An interview with a good candidate is therefore a Bernoulli trial, and the outcome of an interview loop can be modeled exactly as a binomial process. If you conduct 5 interviews, the probability of at least one interviewer saying no to a good candidate is 0.41. If you conduct fourteen interviews, the probability of at least one false negative is 0.77, and the probability of at least two false negatives is 0.42. In other words...you've made it twice as likely that you're going to have someone falsely reject a good candidate.

Meanwhile, let's assume that these unrealistically brilliant interviewers are even better at rejecting bad applicants: they each have a false-positive rate of 5% (and therefore, a true negative rate of 95%). If we assume a five-interviewer loop, the chance of a single false positive is 0.23. But bumping the number of interviewers to fourteen raises the chance of a false-positive to 0.51! With fourteen interviewers, the chance that one will say "Hire" to a bad applicant is over 50%!

In other words, with every interviewer you add to a loop, you raise the chances of a false-positive or (even more likely) a false negative decision. If you have normal interviewers (i.e. people who don't have super-human discriminatory ability), the problem is even more pronounced.
Hacker News RSS to rss2pdf.com to scribd.com to Hacker News [flash]
FriendFeed won’t kill Twitter but Twitter might
The Homeless Billionaire
I guess you didn't see the end of the video. More examples of multi-touch performance animation: http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/~tomer/store/papers/multifdemo.mo...
I use noscript to prevent malicious and crappy js. (I've had js that locked my browser) I allow on an as needed basis.
Cloud Computing: So You Don't Have to Stand Still
There are opportunity costs either way. When I was your age (I am now, on one leg), I didn't have my degree. After my father's premature death, I went to work to help support my mother and two brothers. I was working in videotex--this was before the WWW. (You might be amused to know that one of the prototypes I worked with was written in lisp.)

While I was always able to find work, it certainly was more difficult finding employment before I finished my degree. It raised questions--the rhetorical kind (interviewers would raise them but weren't interested in the answers).

Now that I have my Ph.D., it's more difficult again.

The point is that timing matters. I don't have the same choices now--and that's without having a family to support.
I'm honestly asking because I don't know the answer to the following question, though it may sound facetious. Are computing assistants for handicapped people in such a sorry state that:

1. for those that can't see well or at all, that they can't read off the screen using not the underlying HTML source, but the current DOM and layout state to determine a reasonable way to read out the screen?

2. they offer no help for those people that have problems with precise mouse movement?

Quite frankly, the whole accessibility argument appears to be a red herring unless the state of accessibility technology is such that it is crap and is not progressive. Even properly coded Flash (much like "proper" XHTML with CSS layouts) is accessible to screen readers these days and has been for the past couple of versions.

We didn't stop building multi-level buildings to accommodate people in wheelchairs, we just added ramps and elevators. I'm not willing to stop using javascript because of crap accessibility assistants. However, I am perfectly ready and willing to to build the equivalent ramp and elevator into my javascript functionality. There is nothing fundamentally inaccessible about using javascript. If it were such a big problem, Cocoa applications or .NET applications would be inaccessible too. But they aren't (http://developer.apple.com/ue/accessibility/universalaccess....) and in fact often have specifically added the necessary ramps/elevators so that they are accessible.