skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Those are all valid points. However, I do believe that there are patterns of success and, by definition, patterns are characterized by some sort of repetition. Looking for patterns in someone can increase the odds of finding the right person. I don't deny at all that doing this probably excludes a lot of very qualified people, most importantly it excludes me from my own startup ;-)
I've tried Eclipse, IntelliJ and Netbeans. Visual Studio is the best IDE.
http://developer.netflix.com/docs/Security

They do support OAuth now apparently.
I'm a champ at Soduku but could never solve crosswords in ANY language, and I speak four!
"I have yet to meet a pro-vaccination person who was willing to talk about the actual science."

Either you're lying or not looking.

Here's the scientific argument of interest:

1. Before vaccinations, there existed several diseases that killed millions and maimed millions more on a routine basis.

2. Vaccines have been developed for many of these diseases, and deployed out into the population.

3. These diseases no longer kill millions and maim millions more.

If you find the "pro-vaccination" side a bit uninterested in the question of whether one in a few hundred thousand vaccinations have bad side effects at times, that's because scientifically it is worth how to further mitigate those risks but it isn't even remotely a scientific answer that vaccinations shouldn't take place.

In terms of the costs/benefits analysis of vaccinations, you are up against the deaths of millions on the plus side. You should expect it to be a bit of a challenge to lay out enough cons to win your point! The deaths of millions are hard to miss, if they weren't a great stonking benefit you wouldn't have to be arguing, it would be plainly obvious.

So, for the sake of argument, I will stipulate every pre-existing scientific argument you can show me is true. (Thatm is, you don't get to take advantage of my preemptive agreement to make new ones.) Show me how the scientific costs outweigh the scientific benefits, and given the nature of the benefits bear in mind that I'm demanding to see millions upon millions of bodies a decade and absolutely nothing less. Go for it.

Science isn't about slinging around big words or running lab tests. It's about making hypotheses, testing them, looking for why your hypothesis is wrong, and iterating that process. A pro-vaccination advocate does not need to go into biochemistry or argue about sub-.01% cases to make their point. They simply point at the positive results of vaccination and rest their case. That IS science, in its purest form. Stringing together words and selectively reading studies and biasing the argument until if you squint you might have a point in some cases is the opposite of science. If you're not finding people "scientifically" engaging with you I submit it's because the pro-vaccinators do not have a need to engage in what you think is "science" to prove the point, because they've got real science (and millions upon millions upon millions of non-corpses) on their side.
One was to write a book about programming. Your programs literally have to be exemplary. It was interesting how much work that took.
Well put.

Everyone thinks their idea is great. That and $2 gets you a cup of coffee.

In my own situation as a non-technical founder I have been in a technical holding pattern for exactly the reason you stated. I ask myself "What do I bring to the table"? The answer is that while lot is coming together, I feel that until those key pieces fall into place it would be inappropriate to ask someone who brings solid technical skills to the table to look at my project.

The question everyone, technical or non-technical, should ask themselves regarding any project is "What do I bring to the table?"
There are some very serious arguments to be made to the effect that Apple's iOS platform has created an effective infrastructure for censorship. This is demonstrated most strikingly in my opinion by the adult app purge that sex educator Violet Blue documented (nsfw link: http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/apps_and_men). If you want to understand how censorship can happen, look at what is done with sex.

Given that, I don't see it as hyperbolic or insulting to point out the irony in Apple moving from invoking 1984 to attack competitors to building an architecture unprecedented in its capacity for censorship and control. While I don't know if the Xoom ad is that highbrow, the serious argument has been made by others, and it's clear that Motorola is capitalizing on that line of discussion.
Which should set off some serious scam bells here should it not? Why would they need your login credentials in the first place?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1877771

And are you really claiming that smoking cigarrettes is saving hundreds of thousands of American lives each year?
Wow - this is awesome. I have a lot iPhone apps so this will be real useful to me.

suggestions:

I would change the titles of the buttons:

Isn't "Upload" really "Download icons"?
Isn't "Browse" really "Upload photo"?

progress bar or status message for each action.

Add cancel button just in case.

below the fold explain the steps or add text near the buttons:

Step1. Upload photo

Step2. Download icons

Done.

I am curious what did you use to make this app? php? what did you call to resize? I have been working with iOS so I doing some transforms but I have done nothing like this in other languages.

Very nice.
That book was a great piece. The information was fantastic, I can't believe I left it behind when I moved country, and even more I regret it because I've seen people trying to sell copies for $150 when I bought it for $5 new.
People on HN say all the time, "Just because it isn't for you, doesn't mean there isn't an audience." For example, see the defending comments on the Ze Frank post today.

Many of the apps Marco writes off as "crap" could easily fall into this category. Yes, it is true that the Android market is filled with "Sexy girls" wallpapers, but there certainly appears to be an audience.

That said, I'd be much more supportive of the App Store if they simply provided another way to get apps for those who standards aren't 100% congruent with Apple's.
Good luck, from a fellow traveller. Education is hard!
It's not Arc that does that, it's the http server written in it. As you already knew.
I have no reason to not believe you, and I'm very glad that it sounds like you've found something that is working for you. I wrote my original message at about 2 a.m., and re-reading it in the light of day I realize I missed a few qualifiers. Namely, that "western" medicine doesn't have all the answers and that voodoo medicine can work. We trust "western" medicine more, however, because effort has been put into at least trying to understand the underlying mechanisms of both the disease and the treatment. That doesn't mean it always gets it right, but it's better than trying to explain that your CF symptoms are caused by your chi being out of whack.

That's not to say that they are not, in fact, caused by your chi being out of whack. We just really have no real evidence that that is the case, whereas we do have a scientific basis for the present "western" explanation for CF and its' treatments. Anyway, you sound reasonable and I imagine most of what I just wrote is essentially preaching to the choir.

"Modern medicine has it's good points. But a lot of other traditions also have value. I think it is unproductive and a straw-man argument to pit them against each other. I don't see why we can't take from both and build something better than either."

I agree with this. There's a lot of value in traditions and common sense. In reality, medicinal treatments arrived at through modern, scientific processes, and treatments arrived at through tradition are somewhat similar, process-wise. Both are evolutionary processes in which superior treatments are selected over time and inferior treatments fall out of use. I don't want to equivocate, however. In western medicine, the ways in which new treatments are proposed is more evidence-based, and the feedback loop for determining the efficacy of a treatment is much faster.

Anyway, like I said at the beginning, I have no real reason to believe that you're not telling the truth, and as such, I would really encourage you to try to get your message out to the medical community. You may be dismissed by many as "one lone nutcase", but if diet and lifestyle can better treat CF for the population at large it's important that that message get out.
Kronk - The cross-platform http response parser and diff-er
Kronk is a cross-platform Ruby gem that works much like a combination of curl and diff, bundled with basic data parsers (JSON, XML, PLIST).

Kronk also includes a robust data traversing idiom to isolate and compare the returned data so you can look at and/or diff specific data points in the returned data.

Finally, Kronk is highly customizable with support for URI-specific configuration, and custom data parsers.
> So it IS kinda a big deal that they're disrespecting the robots.txt and listing those pages anyway.

Did you RMFC? The robots.txt doesn't match what is indexed. As has been exhaustively pointed out in this thread by more than a few commenters, "Search" != "search". On that very search results page, we see #1 which is:

> OLAC search - Bing

OLAC is an unrelated site, and at one point it apparently linked to "www.bing.com/search" with the anchor text "OLAC search - Bing", which Google faithfully indexed but absolutely did not fetch, as you notice there is no description. What else would "OLAC search" mean? This gives us insight into how Google indexes and that they actually respect robots.txt case-sensitively.

The second URL, m.bing.com/Search/Results.aspx, was indexed and fetched because "Search" != "search".
Give away 1 $5k Date, 10, $1k dates, and 100 $200 dates, and let PR do your thing. Spend the other $5k letting news outlets that you're doing it
That is an excellent idea. Refreshing, and I don't think ever been done before by a dating service. Suddenly, you have people not only admitting to their friends in using online dating, but you've taken away any friction there was towards an account upgrade!

A (free)mium dating site built on the Dropbox model essentially.

Would love to see this in action.
Idea for a Live Streaming Road Trip
They are not disrespecting robots.txt: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2183519

> I have also seen Google listing one of my domains for which I specifically disallowed all spiders [...] Since I'm trying to be anon here, I won't be able to list the search term. Sorry.

Unsubstantiated accusations. If you truly think Google is disregarding robots.txt but you don't want to divulge the original site, you should set up an experiment as Google has. Otherwise we have no way of determining if your accusations are true, and therefore they should not be taken seriously.
As promised:

http://www.longbeard.org/2011/02/05/Montell-Jordan-Has-Nuthi...
Hands down: Taking on projects far beyond your skill level, and getting to the end of them.
This video has Thiel's comments:

http://bigthink.com/series/62#!selected_item=4845

He starts at 8 mins in, and although the whole video is 2 hours long, he makes a bunch of major points in the first 3 to 4 minutes of his talk, after which he answers questions for 3 to 5 minutes.

His central point is that there is a lot of potential value in getting the fixed costs of the search business down, and that he would prefer to invest there, rather than in playing the zero sum game of trying to take away make share in the $25 Bln search business.

Also worth noting: anybody who can lower the fixed costs of search by an order of magnitude is also going to be in a position to make money from businesses that have similar cost structures.
"My experience, and you may be an exception although I doubt it, "

Of course you doubt it because you've been taught that anyone who disagrees with this position is a religious nut.

Reality is, I'm a scientist and an athiest. I'm not even taking a position against vaccination.

I'm just pointing out that your side is engaged in a witch hunt based on name calling... not on science.

You failed to provide any science, but you made sicentific claims that are... vague at best, and certainly not supported by any evidence you have provided.
Touch typing.
The top reddit comment is the best lesson he can get from this - "fail fast". He's got the drive to make it happen. Just has to learn to pull the plug on bad ideas faster.
Read, code, read, code, read, code...
WARNING: They say "Don't worry, we don't store your Netflix credentials."

Instead, they send them in plain text over the network!

From wireshark: email=hello&password=hackers&Login=Get+my+Netflix+Instant+Q

PS: no ssl support (https://www.qpicker.com/)
I have a pretty awesome script that uses control-master to allow me to type the password in once and then preform a bunch of actions. The script specifically is for boot strapping ssh authorized keys on boxes that can't be on puppet.

I'd rather use ssh-agent for day to day work but this is a useful trick for scripting.
The wise man (or woman) partners with someone who is skilled at what they do then stays the hell out of the way and lets them do it.
For me it's: learn one little thing every single day (even a really small one).
Show HN: cofoja-like's contracts for Javascript - my Saturday afternoon project.
...I would really encourage you to try to get your message out to the medical community. You may be dismissed by many as "one lone nutcase", but if diet and lifestyle can better treat CF for the population at large it's important that that message get out.

Thanks. I have a website. I don't think the medical community will ever listen to me. But sick people might -- some of them do anyway. I just need to find better ways to convey the information.

Thanks.
$50K is not enough to get a dating site to critical mass for a broad demographic. Most dating sites spend over $50K every day driving traffic. So the question then becomes "How do we leverage this initial $50K to generate enough initial traction to demonstrate a scalable user acquisition model?"

The best way to do that is to focus on a specific untapped niche (dating for hackers/geeks/reddit users?) or a small geographical area you can take over. Once you have a manageable, highly targeted audience, it becomes a lot easier to reach them in a cost-effective way. Then:

1. Seed the site with some profiles to start. You NEED to do this. Everyone does this, and it works. Either work out a data sharing deal with a small niche dating site to cross post some(mostly female) profiles to your site or just make some yourself.

2. Males join many more dating sites than females. Since you already have lots of female profiles, you can start by targeting males in your niche. Male dating traffic is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than female dating traffic.

3. Spend $10K testing _interest targeted_ Facebook Ads. Don't just target all single males- you will get destroyed by better funded competition. Target by specific interests "Like WoW- Meet Gamer Girls!" and optimize for the highest CTR possible until you get cheap clicks. Once your CPC is below $0.30 or so, up your budget and scale.

4. Spend $10K on carefully targeted Plenty of Fish Ads. They have an excellent, powerful self-serve ad system that many dating sites use successfully. Think about it- everyone on POF is interested in online dating, so it's super relevant.

6. Spend $20K doing carefully selected direct media buys on community forums, discussion groups, etc. If I'm targeting WoW players, there are many forums happy to sell banner space at a cheap CPM. Same thing if I'm targeting athletes, fishing enthusiasts, etc. The general thrust is "Meet someone to do X hobby with". You can also do this on AdWords(content network).

7. Deposit the remaining $10K with a reputable affiliate network. If you offer an attractive payout and have high converting landing pages, you can get thousands of affiliates to promote your site on all of the niche traffic sources you don't have time to test. Pay significantly more for female signups to balance out the site. This is where you begin to get consistent growth every day and can presumably raise more money or start monetizing your users.
> Some people in the anti-vax crowd believe in doing things like intentionally exposing children to chicken pox.

Up here in the northern EU, where there's really no discernible anti-vaccination movement, chicken pox isn't usually vaccinated against, since it's a very harmless disease when undergone at the correct age (2-13 or so?). The vaccination obviously exists, and I think it's sometimes recommended for people – particularly women – who have not had the pox in their childhood. I recall having intentionally been sent to play at a friend's house when he had it, and then ensuring my brother also contracted it. The idea isn't particularly revolutionary.

I'm not sure whether your cultural examples really derive from disease avoidance (for example, I don't wear shoes indoors because it's simply not necessary for foot protection), but I suppose they could be – at least in that societies with such customs could have been more likely to make it through epidemics.

I'd also worry about the youngish trend of ultrahygiene. Trying to disinfect everything and using antibiotics willy-nilly is counterproductive, especially for children who can't exercise their immunity by eating dirt every now and then. The best protection against disease is a good immune system.
Interview with Tom Preston-Werner of GitHub
Facebook succeeded because MySpace failed.
What Bing did is very smart! It actually was, but not crediting Google there just makes it look like a cheap shot.

You won't quote someone without citing their name now would you?

Sadly you are right, they won't be able to push a lawsuit. Not enough grounds for it, however Bing should acknowledge what they did and are doing crediting Google.

If Google hadn't caught them, we would all be thinking Bing did it on its own, which really isn't the case.
Cigarette deaths are FDA's fault?
Nasdaq Acknowledges Security Breach
Personally I've taken great strides every time I've changed job - being forced to learn a new set of skills and new problem domains, plus interacting with different (hopefully more experienced) people have always been very beneficial to me.
Very nice, and just saved me a lot of messing about. Thank you!
Why no mention of standard caching and turning off KeepAlive during an onslaught?
Google has said they do not use clickstream data for ranking from Google toolbar.

They did have variations of their tests. Cutts mentioned this during the bigthink panel. Sometimes they went to Bing first or not, sometimes they clicked on the links and sometimes not, and various other things.
Except that this time it isn't Microsoft themselves crying foul.
"In a written statement, the company said during its normal security screening, it discovered "malware" files installed on a part of its network called Director's Desk..."

One can only imagine how many virtual strippers were dancing on their desktops at that time.
Ask HN: if finance is mint.com, then photo is ...?
Looking for a good domain name that we could eventually (expensively) buy, mint.com-style (mint only bought mint.com after a while, they started with mymint.com). For a photo site, think Flickr but in 2011.

Ideas?
LinkedIn's Race to IPO
How Google Removed The Muzzle On Twitter In Egypt
I understand your point, but an unsweetened offer quickly becomes another tech blog/feed, another e-mail you ignore because it's like every other beta intro.

I believe sweet offers give subscribers a reason to pay attention to the entrepreneurs product, beyond what you'd get at a typical tech blog.

Thanks for your feedback!
Point taken. Will try not to do it again. I think the ability to edit expires after a certain amount of time or something, so I can't edit the title anymore.
Meh. Most people on HN don't get vaccinated for the flu. I definitely don't. I'm not going to hold that against anyone.
You're confusing ideology, eg: "It is moral to force all people to be vaccinated even if the vaccinations kill some percentage of children" with science.

I really don't care what you're demanding to see because your sides position is to assert that "science agrees with our ideology" (without providing any backing and even though science and ideology are really fundamentally different) and then to demand arbitrary proof for the opposition to even be granted the chance to have an opinion.

While your at it, please feel free to prove-- scientifically of course- the claim that people concerned about the safety of vaccines want to "kill children".

You have made no scientific claims or scientific arguments. I think the unfortunate thing is that you do not even realize that you are rejecting science.

You don't get to pick and choose, and you don't get to reject results simply because they disagree with your ideology (which is what you're doing when you make up arbitrary bars to be met, which is positively absurd when you aren't meeting any bars yourself.)

One of the great dishonesties about this debate is that the pro-vaccination side won't even make a specific, defendable, scientific claim and then defend it.

Which makes sense because the entire point of this "debate" is for your partisans to label those who might opt out of vaccines as irrational...

It is nothing more than a witch hunt, and it is extremely offensive for you to wrap yourselves in the realm of science while absolutely refusing to even look at the literature on the subject.
Google's hypothesis was "Does Bing use Google data in its rankings?" That hypothesis was proven (because there was no other way to get those crazy links except for clickstream data showing users going from a google search for those nonsense terms to those sites).

If you want to explore a very different hypothesis, namely "Does Bing single out Google in its weightings of clickstream data?" then I suggest you go here:

http://projectgus.com/files/googlebing/seaport-trace.txt

That's a packet capture of some clickstream data. That should be more than enough to forge as much data as you like. You can then make up a nonsense search term, like "doesb1ngtrustgmorethananyoneelse" that should get zero results, then forge clickstreams going from a google.com search to "yes.com" as well as an equal number of searches for that term going from some other search engine to "no.com" and you can explore the weights as much as you want.

That said, I'd say that the fact that they weight Google highly enough that they'd take their word for it that a clearly irrelevant term should be mapped to some site is strong evidence, I think.

Mind you, I don't think it's "wrong" exactly for Bing to do this. I'm not worried about it destroying search, either. The spammers/SEO types will make it useless soon enough.
So this is why people say ideas are worthless? Because this idea was worthless from day 1. Definitely a worthy learning experience though.
Lot of good things here, but there's 2 I haven't seen:

Learn a new language. In particular, learn one that requires thinking about programming in a different way. Coming from Basic, C, C# and PHP, learning Ruby was a real eye-opener and improved my coding.

Find a mentor. Watching someone code who is better than you at some (or all) aspect(s) is a very quick way to polish your skills. Especially if you can ask questions and have them suggest improvements.
Are Semicolons Necessary in JavaScript?