skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The scripting languages are, in much, a reaction to the system level programming languages used at the time of their creation.

A pity Lisp or some other existing neat envirnoments didn't fill that niche. It might have something to do with their community, I guess.
I bet even deliberate false positives like this would make customers feel that a company cares about them.
I read a couple of specialized news blogs written mostly by people out of Hong Kong about things going on in China. It's pretty amazing story involving 1/6th of humanity.

Here's some good blogs if you want to follow along:

http://www.zonaeuropa.com/weblog.htm

http://www.chinahush.com/

http://www.danwei.org/

There are many others. A good movie to watch is "Manufactured Landscapes" if you want to see the dark side of all this.

Also, "Dwelling Narrowness" is a good mainland Chinese drama. Some versions on the Internet are available with fan contributed English subtitles. It does a pretty good job IMHO of talking about a lot of the apolitical transformations that are going on in Chinese society.
Well, it looks like the 9 Things To Hack Before You Die are already posted.
What Killed Aiyana Stanley-Jones?
Make a 1001 X to Y list
I think you can set it to allow "Only Me" to tag yourself in photos. At least, I recall doing that a while back. (Knowing FB, it wouldn't surprise me if it's been changed or broken since then...)
It seems like a pre-meditated attempt at non-standard usage. Sounds kind of like something Samuel L. Jackson might say in righteous anger.
Seeing healthy menu options may result in unhealthy choices
1. The world is full of idiots who ruin the lives of others, both at the micro level of domestic abuse and the macro level of dictatorships, because of this principle.

Self-defense isn't the same as aggression, it's an act of self-preservation which is still very much a principle of civilized society. The author of the article failed to make this distinction clear. When you stand up for yourself or a friend you're sending a clear message that says "I'm not going to take this laying down."

"We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."

-Barrack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech

2. I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems.

The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable.

When you're in a confrontational situation where the other party is about to beat you to a bloody pulp you can't take a time-out to establish a social stigma. Furthermore that wouldn't work. Most bullies are deviant by nature so making something socially unacceptable would just make it more alluring.

3. We live in a civilized society, where intelligence can triumph over brute strength.

But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them.

By the former statement it appears that you exclude violence categorically from the realm of "intelligent things to do." Violence, just like any other human interaction, is a language with its own inflections and subtleties. Without training and practice how do you expect to be fluent or successful in getting your point across?
My only problem with this article is when the author considers the antagonists to be animals. It encourages thinking of the bullies as sub-human, and beyond redemption, and treating them like that encourages them to keep acting like that. People are complicated, life is complicated, and completely dismissing someone as an "animal" and ignoring anything else about them is an arrogant effort to make yourself feel morally superior for taking what is an essentially pragmatic option.

Like I said, that's the only issue I have, and I condone the advice to fight back. I do think that bullies, or at least some individuals who are bullies, have the potential to be talked to. However, I think it's unlikely that they can be talked to by the person they're antagonizing, while they're in the process of antagonizing them. If you're being picked on, you have neither the responsibility, nor the ability, to redeem your tormentor. Concern yourself with your well-being, defend yourself, and leave the redemption to a professional counselor. No one has the obligation to act in the interest of someone who is acting against theirs (although I have deep respect for those who volunteer to do so).

The difference between fighting back as a deterrent, and fighting back as moral superiority, is rather fine, and in the moment of fighting back, probably indistinguishable. But there are downstream effects of thinking of others (and especially of treating them) as less than human, or even as inferior to you. Thinking that the current situation will never change blinds you to ways to change it, and in the long-term, that results in things failing to change.
Literacy may have stolen brain power from other functions
Use Twitter for music discovery
Autopsy of a Pentium III
Size may be less important to others than it is to you. I pocketed a Treo 650 for a year or two and never had any issues with it. I had an iPhone 4 for a few months and consistently found myself wishing it was bigger. I would probably carry around a phone with a 5-inch screen if it had the same DPI as smaller-screened phones and it wasn't too heavy.
That doesn't look like Shanghai
Upload myself.
Ya might want to learn yerself a little history about that song, son...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy_Named_Sue

"The core story of the song was inspired by humorist Jean Shepherd, a close friend of Shel Silverstein, who was often taunted as a child because of his feminine-sounding name."

You might recognize Jean Shepherd as the author of the stories that were turned into the holiday movie A Christmas Story (he also served as narrator in that movie)

Extra Credit: Watch the Scut Farkus beatdown scene again.
Why do we encourage more violence when we can just get schools to tolerate bullying less, and then encourage kids to report the bullying. I mean if they're shoving food in your mouth and throwing things at you they should be expelled.

Sure you should defend yourself if someone is physically about to harm you but I think most kids being bullied don't do this because they are weaker/outnumbered and it's just going to anger the bullies more. The smart thing to do is to report them because the system shouldn't tolerate them.
- Repair something that isn't meant to be repaired
- Make a disposable consumer product into something more useful and enduring
- Use something old to create something meaningful for someone you love
Honestly, who cares?
You've been extremely lucky. It may well vary by niche, but certainly I've experienced or know someone that's experienced almost everything listed here and more.

Not all recruiters are scum but a lot are. My top warning signs:

Recruiter talks about their honesty or integrity or years of experience. This is a massive red flag. They're lying about their honesty and integrity. Walk away.

Recruiter asks about other people in department, talks up a job, you apply then your more senior colleague gets a call about the same job you supposedly applied for. Of course, the whole thing was just to get the more senior guy's CV. There wasn't even a job.

Threats of legal action for not taking a job.

Non-payment for contract positions where payment has to go through the recruiter (I know of 3 or 4 guys who took the same company to court for non-payment).

Ridiculous unenforceable terms and conditions in a contract ("Contractor will not talk to client about future projects" - so no planning and no delivery then?)

The recruiter is young (early 20s) - they're normally put in a sink or swim environment that encourages this type of behaviour. The guys that have been around for between 5 and 10 years have learnt what works and more importantly, what doesn't. Anyone claiming 20 years in recruiting is probably either psychologically unbalanced or lying. Would you still be hitting the streets in a job like that after 20 years, or would you be management by then?
Dulce et decorum est
> throw a chair through a window.

I think every party involved would prefer if personal conflicts between two high school kids didn't result in unnecessary property damage. Otherwise, I agree. Going "ape-shit", all in, is what will prove the point that you shouldn't be fucked with.
Great, thanks for the tip. I had only looked on amazon.com
A commenter says it's at Changsha:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&...
-initiate new item freeze on your todo list in order to check everything off
Ask HN: Why does Salesforce need such large overhead?
If you look at their financials - http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:CRM&fstype=ii - and click on Annual Data, you will see that for their last fiscal year their SG&A was approximately 80% of their Gross Profit.

Why is that? Is it because they are the first real 'large' cloud computing company, so they have to kinda beat the path to customers and raise their awareness or are they doing something wrong?

Their Cost of Revenue is very low, for a tech company at only 19.75% of Revenues. As opposed to Google's 37.39%, and Apple's 60.62%.

So why on earth is their SG&A so high?

Thoughts, anyone?
Probably more than even themselves.
>Enough people would rather go to a movie theater then get on Bittorrent

True, but i guarantee that Movie theaters would rather get on Bittorrent rather than pay millions of dollars in fees to James Cameron. The only thing stopping them is IP laws.
I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, but I just have to point it out: You're the one engaging in hyperbole and apparent speculation here, while many of the people who say violence does work are citing personal experience in the matter. I honestly don't have enough experience to know who's right and on what specifics (I never even went to public school, much less got bullied there), but the suggestion that shooting up your school is equivalent to defending yourself does not lend a lot of credibility to what you're saying.
He said sentient beings.
Again? Variations of this story have been appearing in the last week, and they all have one thing in common: Precognition proof in the form of experiments with a perfectly valid deviation. Really if you have a 50% chance mathematically to predict the erotic picture, when you get 53% accuracy you call that precognition? Really?
Recaptcha vs OCR
Over-reaction is the only reaction.

If you don't want the other side to escalate, take it there first and do it fast. If you are truly worried about escalation, then by induction, all fights are fights to the death because beating the bully "just enough" will lead to the bully coming back with more firepower. Lather, rinse, repeat until firearms are involved.

So, you over-compensate. You do everything within your power to kill him and hope someone can stop you or they run away. If you don't take shit from anybody, people will stop trying to give it to you.
Actually it seems to me that is exactly what would let the bullies win: see how crazy that kid is? Let's tease him some more and see how crazy he can get.
Yes, the effects of aspirin are "well-established" because the studies involve far larger samples. 100 people being shown 12 erotic images does not put this on the same scale.

1200 images, 636 guessed "correctly", binomial distribution has variance np(1-p) =300, sd = sqrt(300)~17.

So this particular result is just outside 2 standard deviations from the mean. Woop-tee-do, get off my HN front page.

And no, it is 100 people, not 1000: http://www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf
think about four numbers, or words, or pictures of cat tongues flashed in a second. Still think you'd be able to "see" those. You'll for sure see movement but not have time to discern details
Putting your Ubuntu desktop in the cloud
Want to see Twitter + iTunes in action? Here it is
>In fact, offensive speech is pretty much the only kind that needs protecting.

I agree.

Maybe the GP then need use better analogies than what seemed to me equating the discussing rebellious (terroristic) behavior with sexual molestation/pedophilia.

I fully defend free speech, I do not support condoning abuses.

Why dont we then use the analogy of say "Stalin's guide to torturing political dissidents through the use of mutilation, torture and death" as opposed to "standing up against a government which you feel is oppressive" as a starting point.

If my logic is flawed, I humbly hope to be educated. But I DO feel there need be a line drawn with respect to what could be legal.

I am not saying we should limit free speech, I am saying we need to identify that which is illegal from that which is objectionable.

For example, is it not illegal for one to make mortal threats, implied or otherwise against the president of the US?

It is still speech, and could be said without ever truly being a threat to his person (e.g. on teh internet) -- but illegal nonetheless.

Therefore, I submit that writing about the desire or actions of sexual abuse of children should be illegal.

We protect out (dear) leaders to such a degree, what about our (dear) offspring?

Whats odd, is that the least able to defend themselves (the children) have the greatest need.

The president of the US has hundreds of millions of dollars on personal security detail, as well as the weight of the entire US military behind his defense so I would say has less-so of a need to be protected from threatening speech online or otherwise. e.g. those that would threaten the president are far less likely to be able to carry it out as those who have easy access to be able to harm kids.

---

[EDIT: disclaimer, I have not read the books in question, nor do I intend too. If that keeps me more ignorant so be it - but I will not seek out the contents of such material...]
If they embrace the non 360 owning community, it doesn't sound like they will be losing money ( http://bit.ly/aEUq3p ). That being said though I don't think that as a person in the tech community that you do not have some inkling about what the UX of this device entails as MS has developed it (re "I have no idea what Microsoft's Xbox software or user experience is like"). As it has been plastered from Alpha to Oprah.
Is anyone else tired of Techcrunch always sounding the death knoll for Yahoo? I don't think they've had anything positive to say about Yahoo for years.
Several years ago, the WebKit folks added support for web fonts (TrueType fonts, in particular). It seemed harmless enough.

They didn't talk to the core OS X people, who assumed that fonts would largely be trusted entities. The file format for TTF is quite complex, in reality, and allows for a wide variety of attack. At that time, there were dozens of easily exploitable vulnerabilities in how OS X handled TTF fonts.

Most of these have been fixed by now, however. I would assume the Mozilla foundation would have the foresight to avoid a repeat of such situations, and all rendering code would have been fully fuzzed.
I know a couple of people who work there. Salesforce is bound to be modeled after Oracle, from whence founder Benioff came. (It's also where he made all his connections, benefitting from a lifelong friendship with Larry Ellison.) IIRC Oracle has a similar pattern of big internal expenditure.

4000 employees: that's the number I just dug up using the internets. That right there is a lot of overhead for a company that should be taking a more can-do, shoestring approach.

In summary: they waste because they feel they can. Salesforce is a big name, and so they're partying like it will never end.
I wish they would this kind of analysis on all papers, not just the exciting or unexpected ones.
That once-off might really demand physical defense, though. It doesn't always come as a gradual build-up.

But I definitely agree that counseling proper discretion is critical. I think most "good kids" understand where the lines are. The metaphorical kid in my head is reluctant to use force even with the "green light". For a kid who might be more inclined to "brawl", a different tact may well be warranted.
Really excited about this, looking forward to seeing what other applications are integrated in the future. Recommending new artists and people to follow based on my music taste would be great too.
Illumination
I agree that Manufacture Landscapes is an incredibly fascinating documentary, I recommend it to anyone interested in seeing where their consumer goods come from and inevitably end up. And thanks for the links! I'm currently checking them out.
Some of this is hacking in a technical sense, some of this is hacking in terms of modifying your life to get it to be what you want it to be, or to grow yourself.

19 - Harness Zero Point Energy

20 - Publish a paper in a journal

21 - Present at a conference

22 - Hack food, make something new

23 - Modify your body (with something cool like magnets)

24 - Do something legally/morally questionable and get away with it, just enough to make you rethink boundaries but not enough to hurt someone.

25 - Modify your brain chemistry in an expansive way

26 - Build a great group of friends

27 - Put your projects down and spend some time with your family

28 - Learn assembly language

29 - Code an old school demo

30 - Write a cool program on an 8-bit computer

31 - Travel to another continent with a completely different culture and immerse yourself in it.

32 - Learn how to crack (i.e. break into) applications

33 - Learn how to crack (i.e. break copyright and write keygens) software
The "love the bully" approach actually worked for me on one occasion. But you know, if it hadn't worked, I wouldn't feel bad about slugging him back.
easier to keep count: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AsoY_yr0BJCVdFhNVi1...

go ahead and add stuff, let me know if permissions are set incorrectly.
"Until the threat stops". Perfect words. That will work its way into my new and improved speech.
One could also wonder why only Yahoo's negative press gets voted up on HN.
“Yahoo! is always evaluating expenses to align with the company’s financial goals. However, a 20% reduction in Yahoo’s workforce across the board is misleading and inaccurate.”

Yeah, I'm sure some divisions will lay off 21% and some 19%, so there!

Responding to rumors with statements like the above is worse than refusing to respond at all.
I never approved of "picking a fight with bullies". I approve of defending yourself if a fight has found you, and you have a choice of either fighting or accepting the bullying.

Naming your kid a name to MAKE SURE he gets bullied in order for him to grow up tough sounds insane to me... regardless of the great Johnny Cash song
1) Knocking every single article in a publication because you have something against the magazine is a huge cognitive bias. You should be ashamed. Learn to evaluate each article on its own merits rather painting everything with the same prejudiced brush.

2) New Scientist is a long-standing, respectable magazine. Their explicit goal is to popularise science, and they do that rather well. Sure, reading a New Scientist article about quantum physics is no substitute for doing a physics degree, but for those who don't have the ability, desire or opportunity to do so, at least it gives them a glimpse of something fascinating. You may find it's not useful to you, but you can't argue that it's not a great publication for a fair number of above-average intelligence people out there.

3) If you are going to attack an article, do so in an intelligent manner. What you wrote there is the magazine-targeted equivalent of a lame ad-hominem. "Omg, X is such a loser, his articles should never make the front page of HN."
Note we now have html (non-js) & lite versions at http://duckduckgo.com/html & http://duckduckgo.com/lite
The article says 1,000 people. That is still relatively small, but your dismissal is less persuasive when you are incorrect by an order of magnitude.
Output Mandelbrot. Make it interactive.

Enter a hacker/code competition.

Predict the outcome of a sporting event.
cause an additional security policy to be put in place on your high schools network
He's not said to possess a reality distortion field for nothing...
I did that. In an Oxford college, to boot.
I was never small, but I was overweight. Not the fattest kid in school, but bullies are rather indiscriminate morons.

The 3rd or 4th day of high school, I got into a fight. It was a proper fist fight, we went to the ground and a teacher separated us. We got pardoned because ours was the first fight of the school year - I'm not sure why they pardoned us, maybe it was because we were friends and covered each others asses or maybe it was naivety but the fight happened in front of like 50 kids.

What happened? We both got a 'reputation' because everybody knew about our fight, no bullies targeted us - but we were both complete and utter nerds.

It took another couple of years before anyone targeted me for bullying, but by this time I was in a strong group of friends. We had a lot of camaraderie when it came to anyone insulting our group. We fought with each other, got into actual fist fights, but there was hell would anyone outside our group start a fight. The guy was a jockish type bully, utterly moronic (he'd failed everything for basically 3 years) and more importantly had cronies. He targeted me, but him and 2 others weren't a match for 12 kids, 4 of which (myself included) were the base of our winning tug-of-war team (5 years in a row total domination) even though we were the lightest team in the school. To put it simply, we kicked the crap out of them - no one went too far we just put them to the ground and kept them there.

What happened? I didn't get bullied again in highschool. We did, however, all get dragged into the headmasters's office with all the deputy-heads of the school because they thought we were a gang. Interestingly, none of us got a suspension, or even a detention for that. We silenced the bullies, I don't think one of them got in a fight for the rest of the year.

I was never a bully, I never called anyone names. The few times I had been in a fight outside of bullying, I never threw a punch. I got 1 kid suspended for a week and given an expulsion warning, because I didn't throw a punch back.

I would personally be okay if my kid responded to a bully with his fist. But I agree, hell-hath-no-fury like a pissed off dad if I found out my kid was a bully.
For me the reason to not fight dirty is also that it gives the enemy the license to also fight dirty. When I was a kid, there was some unwritten honor code to not punch each other in the balls. Or maybe not honor, just fear of reciprocal actions. I think it made a lot of sense.

It all depends on the context of course. If somebody would try to do me serious harm, of course I would kick his balls. If it is just about domination, might not be such a good idea. Even more so with scarier stuff (knives, hard objects) - this could become dangerous really fast.
I just found the apparent thought that he was going to be the sole decider of the name amusing.
Only true if there is no one easier left to pick on. This is never the case.
I agree and can confirm the effectiveness of this approach. My dad saw me being bullied in kindergarten. Rather than stopping the bullying himself, he taught me how to do a choke-hold.

The next day he had to pick me up earlier as I was accused of violent behavior - for choking the bully until he turned blue.

This lesson, learned so early, helped me a lot in later school life as I was that overweight small kid with thick glasses. And every time someone tried to bully me, I simply slammed my elbow in their nuts.

Kids can be mean monsters, they can be worse than any grown up. They have no idea how much harm they are causing.

Defending yourself against predators is a very important lesson in life.
Not true, Yahoo's release of S4 was voted up tons just last week: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1870029
$50 Iceberg Water From Greenland
It's not even close to Shanghai.