skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Depends on the application, but I could see some mixture of: 1) familiarity; 2) simplicity; and 3) minimal memory usage. Browsing the source code briefly, it really does look like it's an interpreter, with C structs representing Variables, Expressions, and so on.
aha! We've been waiting at least one full day before some mighty pundit starts claiming that Ping would be the future of this or that.. Next step: How Ping is about to kill this or that (this one is likely to come from Wired).
Please, don't just down-vote if you don't agree with his comment.
6 types of software engineers: identification, care and feeding
The sad thing about android fragmentation is also that to clueless customers trying to figure out which phone to buy it will seem like "vanilla" android will seem more boring and "added features" from the manufacturer will seem like you're getting "more".

Most consumers will never know the difference between buying an android 1.6 phone vs 2.2, so the only thing they can appreciate is something that has some magical "more" features.

This is the sad truth about consumers.
Extraordinary claims require bullet proof evidence, I don't see that here, just a bunch of pretty pictures that could be a whole pile of other things than 'reproducing particles'.

And if they do, they might simply be extremophiles, see above. Something isn't 'normal earth life' because you say so, something isn't earth life because you show it to reproduce (not because you say so) and because you prove that after you've conclusively proven that it indeed does reproduce does not contain any of our normal DNA, which should be fairly trivial.

Then you make samples available for each and every lab in the world that wants a slice of they pie by reproducing your results.

Research in isolation tends to produce un-reproducible results, the guy that did the original research is heavily involved in this effort so it does not count as any confirmation of the earlier claims.

Remember: Pons, Fleischmann, Percival Lowell, Hwang Woo-suk and many many others.
Any idea why TC have a 'twttr' style logo at the moment?

http://techcrunch.com/2006/07/15/is-twttr-interesting/
Are those pesky PC stickers on their way out?
It's as though there's a sort of threshold of computer-ness, above which the general public become blithering idiots. Apple's removal of as many controls as possible make these items friendlier; but when they have been around as long as washing machines and toasters, I bet we'll find that this article applies to them as well.
I agree, though I see no harm in waiting a bit. Going to Mars soon feels like an attempt to build a billion dollar supercomputer in 1979. Technology useful for space missions moves slower than computers alone, but I can't help but think that in just 50 years we'd be far more prepared if we diverted today's Mars cash into robotic space exploration and, particularly, space mining research.
If you do not trust management, they can act to detriment of investors even without dividends. All they have to do is pay themselves market wages, for the right value of "market", rather than investing in growth. Or they can run company like it was Japanese, where it exists to buy perks for employees off their own taxable income. (The four star chef is for recruiting! Honest!)

This is a two way street, since investors have an incentive to push for swinging for the fences even when a bunt would be life changing for the founders. Consider a two man team who hits a million in sales, but seems to stall out (say, ran out of channel, but has good ongoing relationships with customers). Pivot and risk company to hit ten million, which would justify exit, or continue executing and make two families rich with little risk? Not hard to see dynamic.
I thought the linked article covered that point fairly well?
> You can't be upset with her for fiercely going after a story that seems plausible.

Maybe not, but I can be upset with her methods. Going after a plausible story is not an excuse for being an asshole.
No user that owns an iPad complains about the lack of a front-facing camera. Also, no user that has used an iPad for a week or so considers it to be equivalent to an iPhone.

Those aren't things you can explain — you have to experience using the iPad for several days to understand. It really is a different device from everything we are used to.
Hey mate, do you have Skype (IM) or AIM?
AFAIK no programs are allowed which interpret code.
First results from GHC's new parallel, per-core heaps garbage collector
I guess you meant to say that they have low time preference.
Fake antivirus software using ransom threats
Be psychological about it. Make it cool and forbidden, so they will brag to their friends that they have it.

At first, make it something they are not allowed to have. But let them freely get it so they can brag to their peers that they have it.

Make some little very simple thing they have to do to make it work once they get it. Like a simple jailbreak type of thing, but it is a secret that only they know and can tell their friends about. Pepper the web with how to do this "thing" beforehand. Maybe a secret serial number that has been leaked to the net or something like that.

If possible, figure out a way they can share the info that they have it jail broken easily with their contact list automatically as soon as it is jail broken without their intervention.
I agree with the author, but there is one point he seems to have overlooked; brand. If you create a brand identity consisting of easy to use and, actually, useful products. Then this issue becomes your selling point. It's all about perception and designing your products for something as fluid as human perception is like trying to wrestle with water. Instead, if you hire just the right PR then you can put that water into a nice, little container.

However, consumer products aside there are some cases where a complex, but not complicated, solution is better than the simple solution. For example, city planners have this eternal tendency to build flyovers whenever and wherever they can, but the flyovers themselves can't handle the increasing loads after a certain period of time. So, then what?

A more complex, but uncomplicated solution would be to make the traffic lights respond dynamically at a city wide scale with traffic. If you can figure out the volume of cars on a given stretch of road vs. other roads you can then use a routing algorithm to predict the best timing and path to guide the cars. It's more complex than the flyover, but it's cheaper and the leftover money can be then put into making better mass transportation in order to cut down car growth.

Further, you can figure out the volume of traffic by using accelerometers embedded in the road. Any vibration propagating through a solid medium has certain characteristics, which can be accurately predicted by studying solid acoustics. Hence, if you have an array of sensors (they are cheap) you can track the vibrations down to their respective sources. In this scenario accuracy is not an issue, a roundabout number should be good enough.

Powering the sensors isn't much of an issue either and we can put wire them to micro-controllers that crunch some of the data and sends it higher up the chain.

So, at the end we have an entire city that behaves and responds like an organism to the traffic flowing in its veins. It will be just beautiful.

The irony is that its inherent complexity ensures that people won't buy it. After all, who would want to trust solid math?
This is mainly a cultural difference between East and West.

I would say that Western people tend to define a successful product as something that's simple, functional, and easy to use.

In other cultures, the feature list defines whether a product is successful. The more the better.
You're suggesting that there exists an intelligent designer, someone or something that created 'options', as you put it, which then go through the process of natural selection. I, on the other hand, propose that there was no intelligent design, that all the 'options' were created simply through the workings of the laws of nature. Now, somebody might say - but who, then, created these laws, who said that they're going to work the way they do? And that's just the thing - nobody did. It's just the way (our) universe works. No intelligent designer decreed that the speed of light in vacuum will be 299,792,458 metres per second, it's simply one of the laws of physics.
Yep: Skype (paraschopra)
IE8 looks the same.
> it would be interesting to see what the return is on the average tax rate

You won't see it. It's not possible to know how receivers of government action value it without selling them for a price (ie, not being government action).
Posthumous fame: we all want it, always did, always will.
I am a big fan of simplicity, but I recently realized that I was going too far. It is hard to make money by just concentrating on simplicity. Most cash-cows are really complex beasts. See Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Oracle.
If the emphasis of your product is simplicity, chances are you have to compete with free software.
Joel had a presentation on this: there are dozens of simple bug trackers out there, lots of them are free, but still only a few companies make big money in the field, and their products are not the simplest ones.
I still value simplicity, it is just risky if that is the main value proposition of a product.

Also there is simplicity on the user's side and there is simplicity on the engineering side. Sometimes it implies incredibly complex and hard engineering work to enable simplicity on the user's side. Although UX is the king, I've realized that sometimes you have to make compromises even in UX to keep the underlying technology not extremely complex.
Any cook is a blemish on arxiv that diminishes both arxiv and all the rest of the publications on there.

There is the reason why big name publications are very careful not to be associated with cranks, reputable scientists will start to avoid your publication and that is the start of a downward spiral.

Axxiv would do well to increase their barrier to entry to up the quality, the principle is great but the execution so far is less than fantastic. And that's a pity because something like arxiv with a really good reputation is badly needed.

So, very good peer-review of all that's input and fewer rather than more 'publications' of excellent quality, with a very good set of verification criteria for extraordinary claims.
What's new in Click&Clean v.5.4 (Google Docs presentation)
The links for these should read (code.google.com)
Hey David, what I think it's cool about picoC is that you can use it in places where you need to script at "hardware" level, like in robotics, embedded systems, and alike.

Otherwise it is probably better to use Lua for instance, since I bet it is much faster (I just read part of the PicoC implementation and it is a pretty straightforward interpreter, very cool to read but hardly the faster) and safer.
Whether or not there must be, many useful "free" libraries exist that provide more functionality than is built into any commercial CL implementations. At times they can be difficult to install. Quicklisp aims to make it less difficult, even if you paid money for your implementation.
A good way to think about it is via Occam's Razor:
Which states that "Multiplicity should not be posited without necessity"

Thus the pioneering products in any new segment are simple, however as time passes new "necessities" emerge, which means the product "must" be modified to fit those needs. This also assumes a well regulated market with rational buyers (no fanboi's).

Note that this does not means that Simplicity should always be favored or The simplest solution is usually the correct answer, even if there is a single legitimate need which a simple solution cannot address, then the solution must be made complex to address that need effectively.

Evolution of Personal Computer or any non monopoly product is a good example.
That might also be because they do not eat much?
Kevin Gould's book Dishy did something similiar to this with flow chart types diagrams for the recipes.

My personal problem with recipe apps generally for the iPhone/iPad is that it's hard to use them when your hands are messy from cooking. Even if you don't have to scroll the screen, then you have to turn off the automatic standby and then I inevitably forget to turn it on again and find myself with zero battery unexpectedly.
Oh, finally. Paras Chopra gets the respect he deserves.

I don't know of any startup founder who works as hard as him.

Mubarak ho Paras gee, but, yar, this is long over due.
Many people do this accidentally, and it's how many connect while away from home. If you want to do it, and don't mind the ramifications, it's not a terribly big deal. Note however that if they are connected to your network, you can have a higher risk of infection, so lock down your Windows boxes. And note that it won't just be your neighbors connecting (it could be their friends, etc.).
Women are better at protecting corporate secrets
I think it is possible to have a complicated product that is made easy to use and has extra features that get 'exposed' over time for your power users to find, preferably just when they need them the first time.

Complexity per-se has nothing to do with it, (over) complex problems fail just as fast as overly simplified products.

The trick is to match what your application is offering to the user in such a way that the context determines what face the application puts on it's capabilities.

Mobile phones fail spectacularly in this respect, often used features are stacked 6 down in unnavigable menu trees, never used (but commercially interesting stuff for the carriers) sits near the top.

There are many examples like that.

But there are (fortunately) also examples to the contrary.
I love that second paragraph, btw.

"Napoleon, good job on those conquests, but dude, get a favicon!" :-P
Ask HN: How to Find Experts?
Where do you go when you need to find an expert in a particular technology? Ideally, people who can do a 1-2 hour consultation over the phone.

We're using a couple new technologies (EventMachine, Cassandra) in our latest project and it'd be worth a lot if someone can double check our assumptions/architecture.
Apple Mac's aren't a success considering their market share.
[Personal opinions are irrelevant]

Your argument is fallacious:
iPod evolved to address the feature issue: so from a single Classic iPod you now have shuffle, nano and touch.
even within each type say iPod nano there has been considerable change. Check out the latest nano and the earlier one, adding touchscreen is same as adding complexity.

It's probably your Apple bias which seems to be at play here.
Not sure, is there actually a cycle in the universe (don't know what the latest theory is).? I suppose if a body in space becomes stardust eventually, so will the whole earth. So either way you end up as stardust.
My diet hack: Do not give a sh*t about peer pressure and drink what you think is best for you.

"Mach dein eigenes Ding, dann klappts auch mit der Nachbarin." - German for "Do your own thing and it will work out with the neighbours girl."
The MiFi doesn't only have an on/off button: it also has an internal webserver that you use to configure it.

But it comes securely preconfigured, so most people can ignore the webserver --- easy, since it's invisible unless you go looking for it --- without suffering any ill effects. It's an example of progressive disclosure, I suppose.
this was my first thought too (and there are plenty of washing machines with a couple of buttons and the rest hidden behind a panel to prove it, I thought).

But this is also addressed in the article, in the addendum part:

"""
One person truly misunderstood because he advocated hiding the extra controls, thus preserving the apparent simplicity. Sorry: it is the apparent complexity that drives the sale.
"""
A bunch of my friends and I have been organising a regular event we call Scotch Guard. It is a time when we come together and bring exotic alcohols to share and sample.

I have noticed my gut has receded slightly since attending these events because I haven't been drinking as much beer, yet still socialising just as much. 'Tis a good hack I say.
The dude pretty much lives on gmail. Get his email and he is always greened out. Always there when I reach out to him, as a friend, must be heaps more responsive to his clients.

He changed his sleeping habits to accommodate .eu and .us time zones :-|

One day you will get offices in London and San Francisco, Paras, and you will sleep when you damn feel like it. I see success in your immediate future.
Shukriya :)
The pattern I've sometimes seen in the CL community (and others) is the notion that "Well, if thing was so great, somebody would probably have created it for me by now." It actually takes individual effort and creativity to make progress - useful things don't just spring up out of nowhere. Someone made SLIME. It took until this century to do it.

People get used to their working environment, and find ways to solve problems even in the absence what, in hindsight, are amazingly useful tools. When you pitch something new to people, they basically have to imagine to some degree how their life will be improved with it. (Will Wright talked about this regarding videogame box design and The Sims. People pick up a box and then have to basically design the game themselves in their head and imagine how much fun, or not, it would be.)

Anyway, I hope Quicklisp will be an easy sell, because I think it works pretty well where everything before it has worked pretty poorly. It won't take a lot of imagination to see that.
Job Description as runnable python UnitTest
I used Ch[1] in a commercial product and I would highly dis-recommend C as a scripting language. Something has to be said for high-level semantics, dynamism and syntax designed for interactive work. I find Lisp, Lua and Groovy to be joy to work with, but C is not an ideal extension/embedded/scripting language. Use something easier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch_interpreter
I'm not trying to come up with any alternative to anything; just pointing out the obvious problems with "mutations" that everyone seems to ignore.

The design is obvious. It doesn't need any proof. No one even denies it. Even the most hard-core atheists I've come across use the word "design" a lot when talking about the human body or even any biological structure.

They just propose that it can be automated in such a simple way that even the deaf and blind nature can do it. I'm pointing out a fatal flaw in a key element of this supposed automatic mechanism.

"We'll find another way" is not really a good answer; not a very scientific one, anyway.
lp/mm is just a unit of measure for resolution and is directly constrained by the number of pixels. You can't resolve 10 lines with less than 20 pixels and in practice you need more.

The article you quoted compares the same resolution in different sized sensors to show that smaller sensors need to resolve more lp/mm in sensor area to achieve the same file in the end. It shows that for the same MP count a larger sensor is better. What we are discussing is the opposite, for the same sensor size MP count is better. And as far as resolution is concerned that tends to be the case, even if the lens is the biggest bottleneck.

In DSLRs we're getting to a point where resolution is more constrained by camera movement and lens quality than number of pixels but at the same time both those bottlenecks are being addressed with modern lens design and anti-shake techniques. We've come a long way in actual practical resolution from the 2MP/4MP cameras you mentioned.
F5 Friday: Elastic Applications are Enabled by Dynamic Infrastructure
Proposed One-Way Mars Exploration Program "Spirit of the Lone Eagle"
Specials : Nike Shox,Nike Shox Sale,Cheap Nike Shox
You don't fool me. It's turtles all the way down!
UK postal service Royal Mail launches 'intelligent' stamp
Hey, I did it for you. Use it already!
Email without the Inbox
Oh, I've been around long enough to know that HNers don't like that sort of comment. Still, I defy you to come up with a more succinct way to get the point across! Besides, what is life if you don't do something stupid once in a while? :)
> Sorry: it is the apparent complexity that drives the sale.

Maybe that holds true for some applications, but for the most part (in my experience at least) 'hiding' is not synonymous with 'having the right stuff at the right time'.

To make your application appear complex is just going to increase the barrier to entry.

I'm fairly sure the only reason I'm in business and have been for a long time is because the first contact with our application is as simple as you could possibly make it.

That it can do a lot of other stuff is assumed until needed. People sometimes send support mail about very advanced features indicating that the 'power users' are definitely able to find their way. But for 99% of the audience the first level is all they'll ever get to and they're happy there.

If you sell a luxury car, apparently it has to have buttons.

But when you look at those buttons on a 10 year old car you'll see which ones are the ones that got used (because they wore!). As a rules, it's the same buttons that you'll find on a Lada.

But cars are 'conspicuous consumption' for some, so they are not to be compared with a web-app.

Something like 'mint' has enormous functionality but they've made it relatively (as easy as you can make it I guess) easy to get on board because of this exposure trick.

Good software uses context. Over-complex design does not drive sales unless you're trying to send all your competitors down a dead end street.

Microsoft word, that pinnacle of design, is only where it is today because of lock-in, if not for that (users emailing each other word documents) and some pretty ruthless marketing it wouldn't stand a chance.

Text editing is - as someone quoted here - a solved problem, but it seems that there still isn't an easy way to get what you want. Possibly there will never be (because text editing is inherently complex), but that should not discourage those that seek to enhance the user experience with minimalist approaches.

To me the apple audio line of products is a great example of how minimal + gradual exposure is the way to enormous sales, don't forget they weren't the first company to produce an audio player (or a smartphone either).
Don't fool yourself with A/B testing
QuickLisp is the future of Lisp. I knew that after I tried it for ~15 minutes, long before it was announced to the public (I must have been the user #4.)

I am currently testing it with ABCL. Common Lisp on the JVM. I would say about 80% of Common Lisp libraries work on the JVM unchanged, and the rest (CFFI/UFFI stuff) we're patching them manually.

It's pretty sick stuff. It's Lisp, but it can call 100% of Java libraries. I made a quick "breadth-first" conquest of Java libraries and I seem to be able to use everything; J2SE, J2EE, Android and JavaFX. I am still learning Java, but I can safely say that Java apps and libraries are almost 100% usable via Lisp.
It isn't minerals we're running out of. If we, as a species, expect to survive, we're going to have to stay at a population below the carrying capacity of this planet. Failing that (and we are failing badly, a fact barely disguised by petrochemical fertilizers) we need to spread. There's good reason to believe that Mars can be terraformed (imperfectly, since there won't be adequate natural magnetic shielding against radiation). Colonization technologies are what we desperately need to work on. Mining's the easy part once we're there; food and water are a little more difficult to dig for.