skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
they already did that. Wasn't there a story like 6 months ago where a Google Big Wig pretty much said oh thats just a load of crap
Read the story of Mel

http://www.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel.html
This is more of a list of random things that upsets the author. If I were going to write an article about "signs you're a bad essayist", this essay would provide a lot of examples ;)

But mostly I agree. I think later on his emphasis on database-related things is too heavy. Databases are just a library that some programs use; they really have nothing to do with programming in general. Oh, and I like object databases. Guess that makes me a moron who shouldn't be programming.
There is a reason that the common login process has evolved into what it is today.

While I wouldn't want to discourage trying new things, it's definitely worth it to read the other comments on this page and then decide if the convenience you'd be providing on login is more important than the prevented headaches when a user hits an edge case that is no longer covered.

My point is not to tell you "no, don't do it" because your particular site might be different enough from the usual site that this approach could work. Although I guess that is probably unlikely.
Theres a couple ones you missed out on.

Ebay, Amazon, Cragistlist? and with the plethora of dating sites out there, theres a couple that could be considered "main stream"

Finally, as much as I'm not fond of piracy, you'd probably have to put The Pirate Bay in with that lot too.
50 years from now, units of unmanned robots will be able to do a lot of if not all of the winning fighting. We're going to have ground troops in exoskeletons. If Africa isn't stable yet, you could send a mechanized army into an airport before landing your invading force. See Simon Mann's failed run into Equatorial Guinea in 2004 (funded with only $20MM) for a way to impact Africa without an army of deadly robots.

Then, once the UN gains more power as Europe gains more power the world will get a lot more stable. What do we have left to fight for? Water can be distributed to everyone. Food can be distributed to everyone. If we just stopped all the fighting then we could afford to give everyone in the world food.

Do you think humanity is going to take more than a few hundred years to reach practical utopia? I'm very optimistic.
I'd like to add an agreement as well as a counter-point.

It's possible to sell software and chase the dream of a big exit. But, it's a different mindset and a different model, and you cut off some of your possibilities when you choose one or the other. If you build software with the intention of making it profitable within, say, six months, you will make decisions that work counter to making a sale to Google or MS or Yahoo. First thing you'll do that makes a sale to a mass-market consumer Internet company less likely is you'll charge money for your software and thus cut your userbase by an order of magnitude, if not more. Free stuff has tens or hundreds or thousands of times the number of users. I know this to be true because our commercial offering has a little over 1000 paying customers. I know, that's awesome, right? Until you learn that our Open Source software has X million users . I have no clue exactly how many users 12 million verifiable downloads, plus countless downloads from mirrors and other sources, means in real living, breathing, users...but it's certainly more than one million and probably less than 12 million. Makes our 1000 paying customers look like a bad joke. But, when it comes to being acquired by the big guys, 1000 paying customers is nothing...X million users is more interesting to them, by far. And, of course, I should point out that not everyone with a startup has the option of following both paths--we were "lucky" enough to have been working on our Open Source products for the past 10 years or so before deciding to make a business and a commercial product out of it.

But there's more yet to the story. When you have revenue...at least, revenue of a certain level, say, $1 million annually, you are no longer at the mercy of investors or acquirers, and you're more likely to find that you can call the shots in raising money and in being acquired. You may not be acquired by the coolest company in the world, but there are an awful lot of companies out there that would like to acquire a software product that makes $1 million a year, even if it's only serving 1000 paying customers.

I don't think maxklein or I can tell you (the figurative "you" that is applying, or thinking of applying, to YC) what kind of business you ought to build. But being aware of the extremely wide range of possibilities for funding, growing, and making money from your business is absolutely mandatory if you want to come out the other end of the process happy and feeling like you got your time's worth.
Why are geeks often atheist?
A Building in Motion: First Design of its kind
The Dynamic Tower offers infinite design possibilities, as each floor rotates independently at different speeds, resulting in a unique and ever evolving shape that introduces a fourth dimension to architecture, Time.
"For to learn, is to submit to have something done to one; and persuasion comes soonest to those who have least strength to resist it. Hence young men are sooner persuaded than those that are more in years..."

That's Plutarch, complaining about the same thing almost 2,000 years ago.

And get off my lawn!
I think "cofounder" is in the same zone as "wife" in terms of trust required.

Now would be the time to start building the relationship for the next funding cycle. It'll give you time to try out working together and build a prototype to show off. Maybe you'll click immediately, and maybe you'll have a kickass weekend of coding together (remotely together is fine, too...Open Source projects often exist for years with the developers never meeting in person--my co-founder and I had worked together for about five years before meeting) and produce some sort of prototype. Sometimes things Just Work.

Would someone with experience in the area comment on the merits of "marriages of convenience" in the cofounding of startups?

It's happened, but nobody is going to recommend you start a business with a total stranger. But, if the choice is "start working with a stranger today to find out if we click as a team, or wait indefinitely until I know someone well enough to start a company with them" the answer is, obviously, try working together. If it works, great! If it doesn't, you're out a couple of months, and you've found out that this person isn't right for you. Make sure you establish some ground rules when code begins showing up, so you can divide or give up on the spoils and move on without animosity, but otherwise, digging in and working is the only way to know if you'll work well with someone.

You'll never know until you try, and if you can build a working demo and get along great, having a "wrong" answer to that one question will not prevent you from getting into YC.
What a awesome design:
Each floor rotates independently at different speeds, resulting in a unique and ever evolving shape that introduces a fourth dimension to architecture, Time.
Building has got wind turbines, self sustainable power source.
Yes. And I'd also like a pony, and Christmas twice a year.
National College Search
Our college database includes thousands of online and campus schools and learning centers
Oddly, the sample screenshot of the terminal session on that page is a GIF.
> Stallman is suggesting that software should be free because people shouldn't have to pay for it,

No.
Tied into the recent Meyer-Briggs poll I'd also posit that the prototypical geek personality, INTJ, also tends towards Things Needing To Be Right. Meaning, many people simply don't find a need to break down systems of belief and settle on a solid, well constructed belief structure. Geeks like binary stuff. Religion is true or false. The Christian geeks that I do know seem to confirm this by being rather taken with systematic theology.
Sound Machines Direct | Marpac SleepMate 980 | White Noise Machine
White Noise Machines and Sound Machines to help you sleep. Light Therapy Products to help cure the winter blues. The SleepMate 980 by Marpac is the most popular white noise machine on the market
Stallman is suggesting that software should be free because people shouldn't have to pay for it, and so that anyone can modify it.

Can you cite a source? For reference, what the FSF actually says about selling software is here - http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/selling.html
I expect this is a significant factor in the productivity advantage of small companies/startups.
Jobsite/Jobserve are just shopping lists of skills. Even our own ads, by the time they've made it from us (actual technical people) through whatever means to actual ads (on the web/in the press), are like that. It's how things are done in the industry, at least for the kind of company that hires people its people don't already know (i.e. above a certain size).
I haven't tried it yet - too chicken to give someone all my info - but my friend Andrea is addicted.
Pie charts? I frikkin love pie charts!

Love it.
New Take on Signing NDAs: Charge 'Em
"Systematic theology"? That sounds like a lot of effort to dance around the fact that Christians worship a magical Jewish zombie who is all that stands between them and hell.
Heh, 900 MHz as in the European GSM frequency band as opposed to the American 850 MHz. The processor is always an ARM at 400 MHz.
This kind of variety is the signature of reasons people offer when they're avoiding something out of fear or laziness.

Heh, there is no fear or laziness here. I am a 32-year-old who grew up with Pascal, learned FORTRAN in college, wasted a few years working in Java, and have done Python for a few years. All the time I am moving up the scale towards more powerful languages. I started learning LISP this year, and so long as I stay within the LISP runtime I'm a happy bunny. At the boundary between LISP and the outside world, tho', I keep hitting obstacles that Python breezes through without a pause.

The lack of libraries is a significant problem, certainly to anyone who wants to use LISP in an existing environment, no matter how motivated they are to do so, given the constraints that a good-enough language already exists and the expectation that integrating the code with everything else is essentially a solved problem.
My guess? The guy took a full-screen screenshot, opened it up in Preview in Auto Size mode, and was surprised that it looked fuzzy when shrunk to fit on his display.
Yes, because humans change as fast a computer technologies , right? I think that next week they will be putting out Lungs 2.0

Come on, if you are a doctor you can always be a doctor, in a couple weeks you can get up-to-date with the discoveries made in your field in the last 10 years.
Spluh, it's because they're smart.
Are all Google's algorhitm open for use by anyone?

I mean PageRank and this for example. Do they patent just so noone else can steal it or I have to license PageRank from Google in order to use it?
I keep running into people who think that a table is a class, a row is an object, and a foreign key relationship is inheritance.

Then it's my fault (being a database type) when their code doesn't do what they think it does...
This articles is absolute b.s. Faith and reason go together; they are not diametrically opposed. Perhaps the reason why geeks tend to be atheists is because they simply don't care that much about religion- they have other subjects to consider.
I tried the route of learning programming myself and I can tell you that even if you can learn the basics in no time, it will take far longer to get up to speed with most of the folks on this site in terms of ability.
I took up Rails and am glad I did, but I realised that my skill was severely lacking. I was lucky to somehow find a partner with excellent programming skills and a server to host our baby.
What I suggest is to teach yourself programming in the mean time, while you are waiting for your partner. Don't jump into it for the sake of it or if you're not fully comfortable or sure of the other person.
I'm sure you wouldn't do that with marriage. :)
I am surprised this story didn't get any up votes.

They are invading privacy and nobody comments about it here in Hacker News?
Oakland Raiders Camp Battles: Linebackers
> It might make sense to think that many such geeks simply find something as simple as a creator an overly simplistic explanation for something so elegant.

"Overly simplistic" is nearly the opposite of the problem. We want our first principles to be simple -- the fewer axioms, the better. By contrast, a god is something mind-bogglingly complex, far more complex than the universe itself. That makes it a thoroughly unsatisfactory explanation.
The A-Z of Programming Languages: INTERCAL
Not meaning to start a theological debate here, as really, it's not the place, but how exactly do faith and reason go together?
Or lazy.

Coming late to this game, I'm still surprised by this attitude in CS circles. To me, an atheist has refused to see the problem in defining one simple term: "God". Rejecting one definition (after a half-hearted explication) doesn't solve anything except by ignoring further inquiry.

As a neuroscientist, I know that finite matter gives rise to visions of the infinite. To me, that itself is an awe-inspiring moment for which I have no rational basis. Call it what you will (even delusion) but the challenge is to explain it away when no explanation seems adequate.

Of course, solving for "God" need not be tied to a particular faith. On it's own, it's a personal undertaking where rejecting an understanding in being atheist is certainly one's right. But replace the loaded term "God" with something else, say "Nature" or "Infinite" or "Universe" or even "Matter", and I can't see how one doesn't tumble back to a more humble position.
All Sagan's books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man. An American student wrote to me that she had asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is religion!' But is 'religion' the right word? I don't think so. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg made the point as well as anybody, in Dreams of a Final Theory:

Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.

Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'.

--Dawkins
What annoys me is so-called scientists writing books where they cloak the discussion in pseudo-science. The scientific method requires hypothesis testing. When a scientist says faith involves delusion, they're really degrading science because anyone with "faith" knows it's not an objective reality to be tested. And so they reject science. To me, that explains the backlash against science. Scientists overstepping the bounds of their expertise damage the reputation of science itself.

That all said, reason should absolutely be used to examine faith. If your reason forces you to reject a faith, who's to say you must then reject all faith? Sure, you may decide to at any point. But it need not be the end of inquiry.

One fact that will always blow my mind for which I don't anticipate a fully rational explication: Right now we're all communicating across a tiny rock in the middle of nowhere. Yet we have the rational means (linguistic, mathematic, scientific) to ponder the depth and extent of our own existence. Call me a theist, but I don't see how that's possible based on strictly finite matter. An evolutionary biologist may spin a story, but it doesn't make it so. So too might an ancient book. Use reason to explore and understand the diversity of faith. In the process I can't see how you won't deepen your own understanding of both.

EDIT: If you disagree, say why you disagree even as I don't think I've said anything controversial here. I know some science. I know faith less. This thread is interesting to me exactly because of the seeming prevalence of atheist programmers for which I have no insight into why.
Sports Speakers
Established speaker bureau for motivational keynote speakers and sports speakers. Most respected experts and business keynote speakers in the industry for human resources, leadership development, strategic planning, technology, sales and marketing
Taking the average doesn't get you the best results. I'd recommend reading Luke Wroblewski on form design.
Pantheists do find God in a lump of coal. So too do coal miners and energy conglomerates. :)

Aquinas called God "Pure substance through pure act". It's very hard not to see a definition of matter and energy there and given by a "Saint".

Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?
Why Microsoft will win Yahoo - Jul. 4, 2008
Yo Founders, There’s Gold in Them Clouds
Timer and Timers
What's the purpose of 'enter'? You have 00001010 for that.
Convenient Insurance Quotes from Top National Insurers
Convenient Insurance Quotes, Top National Insurers, Get Online<p>Insurance Quotes for Life, Annuities, Long Term Care Insurance,<p>Disability Insurance, and Competitive Quotes provide valuable options<p>and Excellent Savings; Quotes are followed by service from Friendly<p>Professionals.
I would never forget the moment I became an atheist - it was somewhere in the middle of the 7th grade, and we had a lesson about the emerging empires in Mesopotamia ( The first time history touches organized religion, at least in my school). I was cautiously believing in christ then. Anyway we were discussing the merits of their religion (sovereign chosen by god, underworld or something like that), and it was all clear that their notion of religion was silly and could never be true, yet they passionately believed it. On top of that it was obvious that the ruling class had invented it to serve it's needs (the sovereign was entitled to his position, so was his family and hairs). And then it struck me, what will be different in say 3-4 thousand years into the future, when in some class a child will be learning about christianity, and discussing it's merits. In that exact moment the whole pillar of belief (which my parents were relentlessly building) crumbled like the WTC.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
In rejecting an organized religion, why make a leap to rejecting the entire inquiry? We're already well-into that technological future you imagine. Indeed, we're communicating across the globe at sometimes the speed of light. But the most difficult questions of our humanity still have yet to be answered. I can't see that ever changing save for God incarnate descending (again?). :)

A very influential book for me: A Common Faith by John Dewey - a pragmatic philosopher with a realistic approach and hope.

The real problem, to me, is one of literalism vs. metaphor. I read the Old and New Testaments for insight but not history or science. Some would find that appalling. Others appealing. The choice is mine and ours to believe what we want.
New "Orphaned Works" Copyright Bill Threatens Open Source, GPL
So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?

He doesn't have to be. The argument stands on its own: you can define "God" to be whatever you want, but the definition that you advance approaches tautology.
I wish you luck :)

You are in a highly competitive market since there are so many sites like this; I would be afraid that you cheapen yourself to nothing more than a commodity. My first thought when I click through your site is, "Why would I use this over YouTube?" You have a lot of competitors in the "Anyone can create/share training videos" space so I guess I would need to see something unique before it piqued my interest.

I guess what I don't see is, "What are you doing that makes you different?" Allowing anyone to upload/create training is not new.
Here, here.

Another suggestion: if "Easy login/account creation" is a critical piece to your success, you need a new business model.
I'll admit it does aid piracy but, as a Windows user, I've been told that my version of Windows wasn't Genuine often enough that I don't give a damn. My versions are all bought and paid for but, through software bugs @ MSFT, they get treated sometimes as pirated. When you make me upset, I wish the whole Genuine Advantage thing would go away because it's so invasive and buggy - maybe this will be a means to that end.
Wow - some neat names popped up!
Seconded.

I would add that you should use more than one form of cryptography: one type for sensitive contact information and another for passwords. For internal support you often need to decrypt names, address, email but you don't want that same algorithm for passwords, credit cards, etc.
Geeks aren't religious? I think Emacs would be a good OS if it came with a halfway-decent text editor.
And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? Dawkins is substituting one definition for all definitions. Problem is, his definition is neither necessary nor sufficient. Furthermore, the traditional problem with organized religion is the same: specific, and sometimes powerful, people failing to see that outcome with their own definitions.

Sure, "God" could be whatever you want it to be. But that's exactly the point. It's a personal relationship (or lack thereof) defined by you. And no amount of science can take that away. If anything, the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) deepens my appreciation for the religious perspective.
Simple. Geeks respect and understand the scientific method. Anything that cannot be observed and tested is considered speculation and not fact.

Being an atheist in no mean requires that you remain an atheist forever. Scientists have believed, at many times, in things that we now know are not strictly correct. Once evidence arrives and experiments are performed, scientific consensus changes.
You should really check these out, then...

http://xkcd.com/378/
There are, of course, two definitions of the word 'Faith'. There is faith as in the biblical context, putting stock and basing your life upon a collected series of written works.

Or there is faith, related to a broader range of hopes and beliefs. For instance, I have faith in the resilience of our sciences. I have belief that Einstein was right and that, when we reach a fundamental understanding of the most basic forces of the universe, that general relativity will still hold sway.

But, on a more relevant note, I find Theology absolutely fascinating. Collectively, the vast majority of the planet on which we reside believe in something which is untestable, unknowable and incomprehensible.

They ascribe attribute and act in mannerisms of which, if directed at other areas of focus, are called dementia, yet somehow, when used with heavily weighted terms such as 'God', become somehow acceptable.

Anyway, that's all I will say on the matter, before pg gets on my case about being vastly and shockingly off-topic for here :]
I suspect, atheism itself will become an organized religion several decades from now.
Can You Build A Business On Browser Extensions?