skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not the main focus of the article but, I wonder how many people in tech had their parents as their first tech teachers. My mother was the one who first introduced me to computers and the internet. She taught me how to make a webpage when I was 10 using notepad :) (1995). I always thought she would have done great as a programer or web designer but she preferred to work do arts, mainly sculpting. A somewhat related field ;p
See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/chinese-philanthro... for another example - a Chinese philanthropist who donated his entire fortune (more than $1 Billion) to charity.

A quote from him "If my children are competent, they don’t need my money, Mr. Yu explained. If they’re not, leaving them a lot of money is only doing them harm."
On-die DRAM cache is a solved problem (though IBM probably owns the patent). DRAM itself is not that power intensive that it would present a problem for the CPU TDP.
That's pretty cool, I wonder if there will be a day where we won't need heart donors and an artificial heart could do the job.
Poppycock. People that want the rich to be more involved in philanthropy are not necessarily doing so just to get a "warm and fuzzy feeling because they had a part in it" or some such nonsense. Simply wanting rich people to, say, I don't know, help people doesn't mean that the "wanter" actually believes he has a part in the philanthropy. The idea that just selling beverages and storing up billions of dollars helps people more than selling beverages and giving some of those billions away to actually help people is naive. Your analogy doesn't seem to make much sense here.

Now, maybe it is not fair to expect billionaires to "give their money away" or maybe it is but either way it is not necessarily selfish to want them to.
Ask HN: How do you maintain a good balance between a high and low-tech life?
I feel like I spend too much time online, because there are so many things around the house, etc. that I don't get done, and I cannot afford to pay someone to do (nor would I necessarily want to). At the same time, I feel like my lifestyle is very low tech compared to other developers (I'm just not as interested in technology or development in the same way), and I feel guilty about not doing my best to be better in my (current) profession. I feel like there is no such thing as a good balance for me between the two, as I would always feel guilty about one or the other.

Have you found a balance between your tech life and your life "outside of tech" (or offline, or whatever) that you are content with? If so, what is your balance? How did you come to it?
Neurosurgeons use MRI-guided lasers to 'cook' brain tumors
Aakrosh watch full movie online free
The same - my CPU was about only about 50% saturated on the pv command (if the disk was twice as fast, I guess the CPU would become the bottleneck)
"The public is outraged by the country’s wealthiest ducking out on the Gates-buffet event"

What differences can these companies make, and more importantly why do they have to make them? There has to be a reason why you think these companies need to do something and I'm going to go with wanting other people to do what you think is right. So when other people do right, you feel right which leads to you needing other people to do right in order to feel right (if you didn't need too this would all be a non-issue) which makes you just as selfish as the people that don't want to spend the money in the first place.
That would be a meta-habit… does this also apply to meta-habits?
That said, I do use emacs a lot. It wasn't all fiction.

Well, that's the important part, right?
Stock IPOs: Emerging Markets Top Developed Nations for Share Offerings
Is Donald Graham (Washington Post chairman / Facebook board member) related to Paul Graham?
Whatever Happened to the Twins Who Sued Facebook?
Millionaires on Unemployment? There Must Be a Better Way
Documents Suggest CitiMortgage and Wells Fargo Also Commit Foreclosure Fraud
I just skimmed the article and saw Lessig say he thought the three UConnect people didn't deserve anything and that they were being ridiculous along with our system that is awarding them money.

The UConnect guys were led on for two months. Then they see Zuckerberg release thefacebook.com with the main feature they had - exclusivity because of college. I don't see how that doesn't warrant something in the range of 1% of Facebook. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think any of the UConnect guys would've done anything with UConnect on their own, but in these circumstances they do seem to deserve the settlement.
I remember once telling an HR person at M$FT when interviewing for an internship ( 12 years ago ) that "I don't like to be micromanaged." I've since learned to be less forthright in my job interviews.
Why do people want these companies to participate in philanthropy? Because they think it is the right thing to do. So when companies engage in activities that the public believes are right, the public is happy aka, warm and fuzzy.

We can go back and forth on what is right and what is not. The issue I see, is that what you are asking in wanting companies to engage in philanthropy, is to have the companies live at your behalf. To have them do what you think is right, whether or not they feel it is right. The public is trying to make the rich slaves to the public's ideals and I think that is the problem.
Google almost always rolls back anti-patterns once it's clear people aren't fond of them.

Facebook unveils roughly 8 anti-patterns with every re-do and rolls back the most egregious 4. The result is Facebook get significantly worse with every iteration.

Most of the recent ones though, I've solved with NoScript and only browsing Facebook in a dedicated browser. (I really need to make something a little more robust; effectively a Facebook app running on a Webkit core that opens all external links in Firefox. That would sandbox the social graph, and let me read links out of Facebook normally.)
Facebook is just kind of a shitty website. There's not much to making a graceful exit -- I gave all my friends advance warning that I was deleting my account, and then did so. For the vast majority of people, anyone you want to talk to has ways of doing so outside of FB.
I don't know much about Karma points, but it seems that you could technically spam an old post and get 1,000 karma points in a couple of minutes, so I don't really think its worth much.

But what I like about HN is that you can read every single user's comments that they've posted and use that to vet how good of a user they really are.
Why run separate instances on the same box?
Ok, at this point I'm starting to wonder what the point of this article was. Is it that China doesn't let people engage in philanthropy or that rich people are not engaging in philanthropy? Because the way the article came across to me was that the rich were not engaging in philanthropy.
No, it won't. If you maintain the same sub-replacement fertility rate, you'll end up with a stable inverted population pyramid, albeit a constantly shrinking one. Every generation will have too few workers to support too many retirees.
I strongly suggest that you locate a retargetting company that operates purely on a Cost Per Acquisiton (CPA) model. There are enough high quality firms out there that use this model that it makes no sense what so ever to pay a flat fee. However you must watch out for view through conversions. I recommend you hit this article:

http://www.adoperationsonline.com/2010/02/25/retargeting-exp...
It doesn't sound like something I'd usually read, which is exactly why I just put a 'hold' on it at my local public library branch. Gotta experiment sometimes. Thanks for the suggestion.
Adidas Gives Up On iAds Because Steve Jobs Is Too Much Of A Control Freak
The author's remark on how it's impossible to become rich in China without being corrupt is extremely ignorant.
Gas Will Be $5/Gallon, Consumer Spending Is Dead, And Housing Will Fall 20% More
Those lines actually come directly from Zuckerberg's original blog. The voiceover as he works is exactly the text he wrote as he originally worked on hacking into the various houses' facebooks.
Paying users to spam facebook will not work in the long term.
trade creates wealth... there are a lot of arguments that philanthropy may in fact do more harm than good.
How is "medals per capita" a useful metric? A 10x bigger country isn't entitled to send 10x as many athletes, and it's probably impossible to field a team that's 10x as likely to win as the average national Olympic team. Also, that measure puts Saint Kitts and Nevis at #7 in the world for having won a single gold medal—ever.
Another reason for having children other than just because that's the default is that if you manage to make it to old age, the ones most likely to take care of you are your children. This reason tends to not be as forceful when a social safety net is in place. Another use for children is as a cheap workforce for a family business. Child labor laws tend to discourage this, and there aren't as many family businesses anyway.
Be glad you missed out on 1998-2000.
Sorry for getting to this late! http://elationemr.com/
I don't know how this is relevant. Maybe helping people really destroys their lives. That's fine. The point is, people do not only want others to help people because they are selfish and want to take credit for what the rich do in terms of philanthropy.
Of course they can communicate with each other, they're extensions, not web pages.

Firefox extensions are Javascript CSS and XUL so I don't think that's obvious. I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that they might be sand boxed and have no awareness of each other. Is it one instance of the toolbar per "page-opened" event? Is it one instance per window? What I was describing was a way to stay under the limit without having centralized state-aware rate-limiting code. If that's possible, then yeah sure, do it that way.

It's obvious the limiting is rate based, otherwise this would never have happened, so if it is rate based then the toolbar could pace itself to below that rate.

It's not obvious to me. I think the issue is that the OP opens 50 tabs simultaneously after a crash and each window opens a connection to google without a rate limit of any kind. My idea was a way to do it without a centralized state.
Their intentions are are right, but execution is all wrong.

Besides the "pay-to-play" aspect, most entrepreneurs will chafe at the tight leash they are under if they are accepted into the program.

A bio-tech firm is going will definitely need more time than the typical Internet startup to gain traction.

The relationship between angel and entrepreneur should be more advisory than adversarial
The unlived life is not worth examining... ;)
Key quote:
"This is not about the revenue streams Facebook has; it’s about the revenue streams they’re about to have."

Everyone who's been defending Facebook's $33B valuation is projecting the success of some yet-to-be-developed or nascent product at Facebook. Projecting growth based on past earnings and current growth rate is one thing. But imagining hypothetical revenue streams of yet-to-be validated products is batshit crazy. It doesn't matter how obvious or inevitable people think it may be or what the trends are. There's no track record with any of these if-they-wanted-to-they-could-do-this-tomorrow-and-make-billions products.

"Facebook Credits are poised to be this generation’s American Express"

Am I the only one that thinks Facebook isn't as omnipotent and in total control of its user-base as people like to think? Everyone is making these projections about users just falling inline with Facebook's potential revenue models, but they forget the shitstorm that was Beacon. Clearly, Beacon was a direct grab at a sustainable business model and it violated many of their user's trust. Facebook may act like its a benevolent dictatorship, but there's always been an element of democratic decision-making at the behest of angry users. And those concessions always occur at the boundary between potential profitability and privacy.

So many are quick to use Google as a benchmark when Google itself was an extraordinary circumstance. It was recently mentioned that Larry and Sergey were willing to part with their company for $750,000.[1] Now, you could argue if Bill Gross never existed, Google would never have be Google because they wouldn't have developed Adwords and have a perpetual license to Overture patents. And Google's advertising is its flagship product, accounting for 97% of its revenue.[2]

Google was a net win for the internet. It helped structure and organize the majority of information available on the net, and combined the best interest of their users (accurate, quality search) with the best interest of businesses (targeted advertising, purchasing intent). They unlocked tremendous wealth on a new platform and reaped the rewards.

Facebook has clearly had a social impact. Just like text-messaging and AOL Instant Messenger did. But the question of if it has unlocked any huge wealth the way Google has is yet to be seen.

[1] http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125091...
[2] http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/29/excite-passed-up-buyi...
Next “great” thing: logging in to our bank account with Facebook.
Yeah, Facebook was a smart idea, and, yeah, it deserves respect.
But its going too far.
I will not conform. I will not become part of this stupid machine.
I still use facebook, but I use it as a means to read articles from Wired, NPR, TED talks, etc.

This was a great article, by the way.
http://xtremenowarnings.com/xtremeno-review-does-xtreme-no-s...
Towards the end, the article inadvertently hints at how Facebook may actually collapse: a death of a thousand papercuts from more focused sites that include social features. However, this may come about in two different forms.

One way is akin to the "wheel of reincarnation" effect where social features centralize, then fragment, and then centralize again. One can easily see this in the lifecycles of most online discussion venues - a focused start, and then a gradual change and dilution of the site's character that hits a tipping point at some critical moment. Facebook has already gone far, far away from the "college facebook replacement" angle it started with, but it hasn't yet hit the landmine that might cause its own self-destruction.

The other way is the emergence of a dominant open system that is pound-for-pound similar in purpose and usability, and simple enough to run that it becomes a commodity. This can take eons of "internet time" to happen. Desktop Linux remains a work-in-progress(but one getting closer and closer to its competition), and Jabber, as a pure instant messaging platform, is still just one of many systems. So if a standard emerges for social networks(and we haven't really settled on one) it will still probably take decades.
But that's not what you said. You made a pretty incendiary charge that those people are selfish and want to take the credit of helping without actually making the money to do it. That's an entirely different story. Also, I think it is a bit much to say people who want the rich to become philantropists are wanting to enslave them. That may be accurate if you make a cartoon of the whole thing and make caricatures of everyone but it is a bit naive. Sure, maybe people should just shut up about telling others what to do with their money but it's hardly comparable to slavery to state that people with obscene wealth should, if they are to be good people, use some of their money to help people. Now, some might argue that actually helping people hurts them - that's fine. But that's not the point I'm making (by the way, that's pretty ridiculous as well!)
Man,

Think your designs will capture the public? Cool!
Then, why not running a beta test on threadless.com?

Put your designs online, see if people are actually liking wearing it. If all goes well, then perhaps you should consider making it all by your own.

If not, then perhaps you would have to understand what was wrong in order to success at the next round.
David Byrne: Don't Forget the Motor City
Options are only more attractive until they go public, which won't be 5 years.

How long did it take before Facebook started sucking post-ipo employees from google?
A crash in the future is very likely, I mean consider the fact that the stock market has risen so much in the last two years - but ask yourself - what has changed? Employment is still low, national productivity has not gone up. If there's an uptick in consumer spending, it's probably mostly because of inflationary pressure by the money-suppliers - not reflecting real productive growth. Borrowing to spend's gotta eventually amortize itself.
Someone mentioned that you need to notify the FAA and such before doing something like this. I think the regulation surrounding this would make it hard for most parents to do even with a simple kit.

On the other hand, I used to love playing with Estes Rockets(http://www.estesrockets.com/) as a kid (Which I still am since I still love those things ;p) . Those don't go far enough to be an issue.
Loved that excerpt. Gotta check it out some time.
FWIW - sounds like they did use an iPhone:

"We used the instatracker app. You can use buddyway as well but we found it unreliable and too complex. A friend lent us her old 3G with a cracked screen."
Ask HN: Good books?
I just finished reading Atlas Shrugged, which I thought was a fantastic book. I'm reading Another Roadside Attraction now on the recommendation of a friend, but I think I want to read some non-fiction next, or at least eye-opening fiction. I'm thinking about some Bertrand Russel, Richard Feynman, or books on philosophy, human behavior, or economics.

What are some good books that you've read that are ground breaking, thought provoking, or changed the way you think/look at things?

ps: you can check out my shelf at shelfari.com/herms
diversify your DNA portfolio.
If my understanding is correct, unemployment is unemployment insurance which means that people (are forced) to pay in now so that they can cash out when they become unemployed. It's one thing to call it a tax and sell it as a redistribution package - but that's not how the law was sold to the voting public. If it's a pay-in-to-cash-out scheme, then you're entitled to it. Period. I'm saying this as someone who is currently unemployed and unable to take out unemployment because, well, my previous employer hired me as an 'independent contractor' and didn't pay into my unemployment insurance. I get to do it the old fashioned way, which is to save my money in the bank, and lean on the generosity of family and friends. Of course that's easy for me to say when my employment turnaround time has been fairly low in the past.
I suppose one could make the argument that before a panic, bank accounts are overvalued assets.
Rate my app discover Facebook fallen friends.
Built this Facebook app today to discover who has deleted you! You have to sign in with facebook then check back when you notice your friend count drop.
I argued it was a race--could our culture infect theirs before theirs outpopulated ours?

That sentence kind of implies what you said. I didn't downvote you (I can't because of how HN works) but I'd assume that's the reason why.
How to Avoid Suffering Severe Frustration? | Socyberty
Even if we grant the basic premise of the article (that regulation can't stop bubbles), that still doesn't rule regulation out. After all, it still doesn't prove that the government can't do anything to lessen the impact of a bubble.
China is secular and mostly atheist. Yet they have an over population problem.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&ctype=l&s...
He wrote that techofnow is completely automated, while, I am guessing, techmeme is crowd-sourced or somehow manually edited.

I think that's a good differentiating point.

FWIW, 10 out of 15 stories on the site is, as of now, about mobile technologies. Does techofnow need more diverse sources?
Charity is implicitly a critique of a government's inability to meet its citizens' urgent needs. I'm not surprised that an allegedly communist government doesn't like attention drawn to problems it isn't solving yet should be.
Unfortunately, yup are right about this. However, what I am trying to get at is the value of karma over time. When HN had 50 members, it was much harder to earn 100 karma than it would be today when it has thousands of users. Just like with money as it becomes easier to acquire something it has less value. However your point is all too valid sadly - that because karma is so easily games and has always been - there may be little point to asking such questions.
The Chinese gov probably wants to keep the "Tax-Exempt Foundations" from gaining too much influence. The Chinese are very paranoid about influence in their society. They shut down bloggers who get popular, even if they're just talking about stock tips or dating. They shut down talent shows and professional sports if there's any individual who is becoming too popular. That's why there is comparatively little sports and celebrity culture in China. When the average Chinese person looks out into eternity, the Chinese government wants them to see what the Chinese government wants them to see and not a bunch of celebrities and sports stars, as the average citizens of western nations do.
Downvote the above if you will, but there is truth in those words, if only masked behind palpable bitterness...

...and honestly - I feel the guy.

We humans have a tendency towards the shameless worship of heroes. We seem to need to create legends and demigods and to praise and glorify acts that upon careful examination are little more than the progeny of good fortune and timing. Providence itself isn't worthy of our praise nor our consideration - which makes the ascension of men of 'lesser stuff' a bitter pill to swallow for those few 'in-the-know'.

I think back to first grade, and recall how desperately I wanted to be a scientist/composer/hero/great man/demigod. I had no idea what these things were really, but in my mind, they were the people who knew; and what they didn't know they sought. They were the gatekeepers, arbiters, discoverers, and composers of knowledge, truth, and frankly most of what mattered. A few years later, when asked who/what I wanted to be when I grew up, beyond my father I could think only of Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, et al...

My, how quickly things change. The pursuit of knowledge and beauty for its own sake is an ideal which has perhaps never existed, or existed in so few men as to have practically never done so. But we're waaay past that. A man not too long ago solved Fermat's Last, how many know his name without Wikipedia? What impresses us now? What is deemed worthy of our 'shameless worship"?A man not too long ago solved Poincare's; beyond the story about his rejecting a million dollars, who gave a shit?

No one. We save our shits for the pirates of Silicon Valley these days.

That, if I am ever blessed with a son or daughter, and they are one day asked in their youth who or what they want to become when they grow up, and in turn respond with Gates, Jobs, Zuckerburg, et al, we have all failed. And I, them.
That's what I tried, saw the white hover outline, put the line there, did not connect.
Download Video from Facebook without any Software
"The meaning of it all: thoughts of a citizen-scientist". Probably worth reading more than any academically lionized philosopher.

"From Heaven Lake" is a really good non-fiction book that reads like a fiction.