skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As a game developer, I'd expect the SU stuff to require considerable cleanup in Maya or Max. That said, I can see its use in concept and design.
Air Max 90 Premium Infrared Ostrich ONLY - $89.99 - SHOP NOW
Most probably they will have a Flash fallback. Didn't try the page in IE6 though..
ربـــــــــوع الهوى R4JOFORUM
The cost of S3 is around 0.1 euro per gigabyte. For the amount that you are currently paying per month, you could serve 200 gigabytes through S3. Of course, that doesn't include storage costs, but those should be negligible for static sites.
To call this foolish is pure hindsight bias.

Winning the lottery doesn't mean it was smart to play.
(To get technical, it was dumb to play ex ante but smart to play ex post. Or, more simply: hindsight is 20-20.)

Though I admit it's fun to play shoulda/woulda/coulda, as I did myself recently: http://messymatters.com/babygoog
I've actually tried to convince a couple of employers in the past to give me more flexible hours when it was obvious that the set hours were irrelevant (e.g. I wasn't greeting guests or waiting for phonecalls or anything). They were adamant that that is just not the way things are done.

Same thing as when you try to convince an employer to let you go home early when you work a little harder and manage to get 8 hours of work done in 6 hours. That's just not the way things are done, so slow down already!
IMO, the most useful page is pretty well hidden (you have to search an empty string): http://sourceforge.net/search/
There's such a thing as too much data. I'm looking for information.

I want to be able to set my trip range and make a list of destinations. I want to be able to set options like "I prefer to travel to Hawaii when there is less rain". I want to travel to Paris when the weather is between 60 and 70 and never below 55 or above 85 regularly. I want to avoid clouds and rain at all cost.

The data will turn geeks on, it won't sell to non-geeks. Shoot for information.
It's their original flash swf interface, emulated in javascript/canvas using the Raphael library
Research Paper Topics | Interesting, Good Research Paper Topic Ideas
Free research paper topics. Interesting, good, controversial, high school topic ideas list. Top research paper topics sample. Example, hot, unique, original, best, great topics
it probably took the team 10x the time to do that this way instead of flash.

it will not work on 100% of the devices. but at least they got some clicks from us that they wouldn't otherway.

Continuing with this rationale: if done in flash, it would have take the team 10x the time to that instead of plain html. or 200x the time if done in a simpler html format, like a wikipedia article.

it would work on 100% of the devices... you would be able to use back/forward buttons, you would be able to translate on google translator and still see the site... wouldn't use all the cpu... it would load instantly for the user (well, it would be loading the rest bellow the fold while the user was reading/looking at the top part)... it would hopefully play well with screenreaders... i would still be able to use the left menu even after increasing font size... but you wouldn't have buttons that jump around.
And if we removed all the oppressive health and safety rules from the heads of the poor landlords, we'd have apartments that someone could afford to live in when they make $1300 a month!
Can you count on Facebook likes?
bottom line is: if the product was good, those kind of sites would not be necessary.

the facts to support that are all the posts here in HN talking about A/B testing on landing pages. What gives more conversions, to good products? flashy shiny things, or to the point information about the advantages and simple call to action?
> Very cool, but I'm not sure creating a site that looks JUST like a flash site is really the right direction... ;)

Don't be silly! everyone wants faster horses! EVERYONE!
Odesk seems to be the consensus for cheap VA's.
Also see http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-virtual-assistant-ser...
First off, the idea that apple is buying a bunch of screens is speculation. It hasn't been confirmed by anyone involved. It is imformed speculation. Apple talked about making an investment in supplier to insure adequate supplies at their last earnings call. So we have a publicly stated motivation.

Now you're attributing another motivation to them, and what are you basing this motive on? The secondary effect of constrained supplies? Aren't you just simply assuming that apple is doing this to keep competition out?

And isn't it obvious that actual competition-- companies that like apple saw the opportunity and spent years working on a tablet- aren't likely to need the same component?

And wouldn't any reduction in availability immediately cause all the non-apple suppliers to boost output?

Trying to corner the market on anything they can make more of is a foolish proposition.
No part of the mindset of a founder requires you to select inferior alternatives out of empathy for the people who provide them.
The USA has the most relaxed hiring regulations in the developed world.
I respect Steve Jobs as much as his fans love him, but I think that if this was announced after he has departed, no one would buy into it.
On this site, the browser "back" button doesn't always behave as expected. Ex: Go there. Click Back. Doesn't go back. Chrome 9.
So we've gone full circle now.

Phase 1: Everyone has a static page, without JS, but with animated gifs, counters and guestbook scripts linked from other sites.

Phase 2: PHP becomes popular, static sites are suddenly 'lame', as everyone wants to show off their server-side skills. For some sites, even the CSS and JS, and images are generated dynamically on the fly.

Phase 3: Improvements to JavaScript make it possible to replace server side HTML, image and style generation with the same on the client side.

Phase 4 == 1: You don't need Javascript, simply re-generate the HTML and re-publish it on the site using a script. Sites integrate externals widgets, but somewhat less clunky than before by using JS tricks instead of iFrames.

We're back to the 90's :)
Better customer service. Small companies usually make it possible to get to speak to a real (and knowledgeable) person quickly in case of a problem. They really value their customers because they have a problem when they leave.

Try doing that with juggernauts such as Google or Amazon.
From the arty: During this time, the talks with Microsoft nearly broke down, according to a person familiar with the matter. The main issue: Nokia executives believed Microsoft was treating Nokia as it would any potential handset partner, while Nokia was making a "bet-the-company" decision on a software partner, this person said.

This makes sense to me, and what I would have expected to see from the deal is some real commitment preventing MS from screwing Nokia if they don't like the direction the cooperation is going. Nokia has bet the company on this deal, Microsoft could axe a loss-making division if they felt they had to cut costs.
Big Brand Corps don't sell direct. They sell a brand. Selling a brand means doing this thing called "branding", which usually involves multimedia (video, sound and graphic effects).
Isn't this already possible? There are plenty of day laborers who wait in the morning at "The Corner", and people with jobs for the day come pick them up. They work when they are able, and when there is a job for them. Regardless of whether or not this is legal, the market for this already exists, and it frankly isn't that great for employees. The benefit of a steady job -- or more accurately, a steady stream of income -- is that you can plan around it.

Also, I fail to see how regulation has prevented this from happening. Do you have any evidence you could point to? Lots of businesses have a big payroll of part-timers who only work a few hours a week. Speaking from personal experience, when I used to work these kinds of jobs many of my coworkers (myself included) had extremely flexible "work when you can" schedules. Lots of transient employees, too. For some industries this works, but for most non-minimum wage jobs frankly I don't see what the incentive for an employer to do this would be.
I specifically focused on the standard of living of the poorest %20.

"income inequality" presumes that everyone should make the same amount of money. This is silly, and the only way to achieve it is to have absolutely everyone be poor.

The overall total wealth of the country, and the standard of living of the lowest %20 goes up more when you allow for capitalism.

There are no excesses in unregulated capitalism that I've seen because there is no unregulated capitalist country. The extensive "documentation" you refer to, that I have seen have been essentially easily refuted propaganda.

I do not doubt that there are a lot of people who wish to see society absolutely controlled, such that nobody is richer than them. But in doing so, they make everyone poorer.
> it probably took the team 10x the time to do that this way instead of flash.

If so, that's only due to the maturity of the tools out there. Imagine creating this in Keynote and being able to export to HTML5.
Apple's Subscription Rules draw scrutiny from federal antitrust regulators
And should probably go to the right of the Search button as "All Projects" or "Most Popular"
I think I understand what you're asking for. Some things you need to learn through experience and whether you can afford to spend any money on utilities, but if you're comfortable working in English check out url: http://github.com/plans

If you read/write/speak a non-English language or character set you may want to try and find similar tools in your native language.

Generally speaking a development process can be exactly as you describe, but what you want to achieve in order to be professional varies widely. I had a point of sale vendor working with a customer (I was fixing their performance problems) and the developer was "source code controlling" with copy and paste on their personal work station. If I paid that person money to MAKE something, I would have had them shot. Except they are in Canada and shooting people is probably frowned upon.

So here is my advice:

1. Look at how you're working right now, strip out all but the essential steps that you can write on a piece of paper

2. Grade the list with how much time you spend each week on each step in the process

3. Keep working on that list for a few days or a week even, logging the time you spend - note also if you lose progress or work due to error, or how many times you do something where an automatic solution may help

4. Use the list above to determine, based on where you can probably save time with utilities and tools, or come back to ask HN more specific questions

For a one or two person shops, I'd be storing my source code online at github or similar source code repository. As for what you need to do for yourself, start abstracting what you're writing in script as an "architecture". Try keeping a high level document describing the workflow you're automating and what the purpose is.

From there, break down into component parts, how you think about it and how others may need to work with it.

The easiest way to act professional is learn how and what to comment in your scripting. What is apparent to you right now, won't be in a year when you need to back and chance something, or even better, when you start collaborating with other developers.

Being professional means that you invest in the time it takes to collaborate with others. Despite posting this on a site called "HackerNews", I'm SO not a hacker, and I would generally pitch a fit at hacker behavior. But then I've witnessed and personally experienced the pain and limitation of hacking, in lisp, pain, oh pain.

As to automated testing, don't worry about it until you're finding yourself testing more than coding. If you can't get a cheap hand, or friend or family member, or (chuckle) a customer to test the product, don't worry about getting a tool.
It drove me away.
Besides the horrible readability of the site now, my main method of news surfing (middle clicking on anything that looks interesting, and then going through each of the tabs one by one) no longer works on gawker sites.

I never realized how enslaved I was to gawker (kotaku and lifehacker to be precise) until I stopped reading them. The amount of free time I have now (to waste on HN) is astounding.
Doesn't happen for me for some reason. It keeps on being flash.
At palm, I didn't work on the 3d acceleration bits, but I worked with those that did. This explanation is pretty much spot on. In an environment where you don't already know your textures, 3d acceleration is a very difficult task. That's why only a select number of CSS transforms have been hardware accelerated to date.
(insert unrequested humor)

What? My mother learned rails (really, she's a web developer)!

Doesn't anyone develop on C any more?
I'm no Flash apologist, but there was recently a HN thread about CSS-only drop shadows. Many people on fairly modern laptops reported significant slowdowns when it came to scrolling the page, animations, etc. And that was just with drop shadows.

That Nissan example ran pretty clunkily on my laptop and another desktop I checked in the office.

(That said, gradient transparencies always seem to doom Flash pieces to slow-hell for me.)
We'll need flash until we have a GOOD IDE for those technologies...
Flash is a threat to the openness of the web. I can't reliably watch video, play games, or do anything else requiring Flash on my computer because I run Linux. Requiring you run an OS of Adobe's choosing is antithetical to the basic tenets of the web.
How exactly are Flash and JavaScript different? I don't see the separate niches you envision these technologies occupying for the rest of their existence.

And how can you say JavaScript "will never" kill Flash? Aren't Apple and JavaScript already hurting Flash's market share? Doesn't every major browser release leave less and less that Flash alone can do? Aren't we looking at an example of a major, mainstream brand avoiding Flash for a site? What is going to change over the next few years to reverse these trends?
So where do you park your money these days, if you're no longer in US stocks?
176K is not serious CEO pay, it's a salary of a senior level programmer.
Yes, unabashed, brazen hyperbole to be sure. Good headline though, I thought.

The thing that really struck me the most about this is that as little as 2 years ago there would have been absolutely no chance of deploying a huge brand interactive experience without Flash.

This is the first time I've seen a site that I thought was obviously Flash only to right-click and not see "Zoom in". I was pretty gobsmacked.
4 Reasons Not to Launch a Start-up
Check out this (relevant) site I found this morning - a quick browser 'game' revealing some of the choices that inevitably keep many poor people poor:

http://playspent.org/

You start with $1000 and need to survive the month while trying to get a job, live, eat, etc. A few frustrating choices along the way that might not seem realistic, but may prove insightful for some.
Tell your brother to finish college, enjoy life and and don't worry about what you're doing. Any good luck he may experience now will not serve him later on like a college degree. If you were older, you would understand what I mean by the phenom $90,000 for a year "burger flipper" doing web development in the last tech boom. These things are cyclical.

Help him finish his degree, help him get his own good job and plan a career with good prospects that will serve him in this boom, or any other. I dropped out of high school to program for a living in 1988, so I'm not suggesting he does what I did.

It isn't a competition and since history repeats itself, just like economic cycles, he'll have a chance again. We had a good boom then, in the nineties and again the last couple of years. But at 21, I wouldn't listen to sage advice either.
The world's best flash car site... done in HTML5.
More like 10B/1B. That's a 10x val.
So let's say you know the percentage, like 10%. What would it mean to you? There's nothing that would stop them from diluting it to 0.0000001%.
Same here. smooth on FF 3.5 and Chrome 9.0.9. windows safari 5.0 lagging though
Only because it's more efficient to sell a brand than it is to sell quality.
Undefined Integer Behaviors in Student Code (Part 1)
Too little, too late. Github has won.
Silver lining: I discovered m.gawker.com.
This video might help understand the illusion works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUasuxHZXZo + http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8...
No it's only antithetical to the tenets of Linux users.

edit: Just saying, people who knowingly choose Linux don't expect to use Flash.
One should note that if you pull the site up in IE it still uses flash, which means we still need flash. Unless you're willing to say goodbye to 40% of your customers.
True -- I didn't say flash is completely useless, just that it's losing territory. There is no structural reason why pure browser rendering should be slower, but indeed some tricks are still slow.

Anyway, the quip with rendering performance is only a matter of time. With every browser release, CSS and HTML rendering performance is increased, for example, by leveraging GPU acceleration.

Flash will be beaten soon, I'm sure. And at least that works for every platform, not just the ones on which Adobe decides it's important.
Some linux users. I love Linux but very little of the reason has to do with free software and has everything to do with Linux being the best way for me to do a number of tasks.

Note: I use Windows / OS X on the desktop.
Lebedev has good article on the topic: Idea worth minus a million.
http://www.artlebedev.com/mandership/161/
What business did you end up launching?
J&O Fabrics Crafty Customer:Molly Moo and Jessica Too
As our Facebook Fan page keeps growing, more and more of our crafty customers are showing off their cool creations for our J&O Fabric Store family and community to view, share, and comment on.
Sorry if I sound naive about the term 'unlimited' here, but what are the implications of your comments [1]? I see that S3 does not offer a flat-fee, 'unlimited' model at all [2]. In fact, if my math is right 5 bucks only gives you $5/($0.1/GB) = 50GB of data transfer (forgetting about the other costs).

Edit: I didn't see the 'data in' vs. 'data out'. I think it's actually worse: the first 1GB out free, and 33.33GB extra at $0.150/GB. So 5 bucks doesn't quite give you 35GB!

[1] My guess is that with this 'unlimited' you'll never get even close to 50GB of monthly data transfer.

[2] http://aws.amazon.com/s3/#pricing
10X Revenue is roughly the market price for SAAS model companies. The general perspective is that Gross Margin is frequently in excess of 80%; in that world, you can spend marketing and sales dollars with abandon and still make money.

By the way, this is roughly how SalesForce is valued -- they turn a very small profit (100 or so P/E), and roughly an 8 to 10x P/R. I think of those prices as 'sold on the growth vision' but not egregious.
You hired 12 employees within 2 months?!
Part of the catastrophic drop may have been google referrals. I've noticed in the past with old sites if you do a dramatic upgrade on them, google recoils a bit and starts re-indexing. i've seen search referrals take up to six months to completely rebound. The big shocker here is if google hits their homepage, it's met with a big "fuck you". I knew they were doing "shabang" but didn't realize they had zero fallback for no js.
You're right. There will always be an offline component, and a big one. But lots of stuff, including the introductions, the social proof, the transaction, the matching, should move online. Moving it online is more aspirational and directional than absolute.
Ambitious, but it runs very, very poorly on my mbp (chrome).
No YC-er would post such an inflammatory title like this. Hacker News has grown significantly in the past few years so the professional tone has inevitably diminished.
The key misunderstanding of google here was in thinking that google was merely "better algorithmic search" and nothing more. In truth Google's unique advantages come down to competency in three unique areas: state of the art algorithmic search; cutting edge software engineering; and revolutionary data center management.

Google didn't win the search provider war by providing merely better search results. It won by providing better results faster with greater reliability and at lower cost than the competition. Better due to better algorithms and smarter filtering. Faster due to solid software engineering (sharding, map reduce) using distributed computing. Cheaper because the distributed computing aspect was enabled not via traditional beefy and expensive servers managed largely manually by humans but by larger numbers of low cost commodity hardware based systems largely managed via automated processes.

Each of these aspects is a strong asset for any company, but google had all 3. What's more, each of these competencies are complementary and self-reinforcing with the others. State of the art distributed computing systems and revolutionarily cheap clustered computing systems go together like peanut butter and chocolate. What's more, low cost/high performance server infrastructure means that it's possible to dedicate more of the profits towards improving the search algorithms and the software engineering expertise, creating a positive feedback loop that allows google to out-accelerate its competition.

A lot of companies have been able to match google roughly on a few aspects, but no company has been able to clone google's complete triumvirate of core skills to any significant degree.

Many of the strongest companies in the tech field have a similar array of synergistic but unlikely multiple core competencies. Apple has strong engineering and strong aesthetic and design sensibilities. Amazon has strong software and IT engineering abilities and strong logistics management at scale (to the same degree, perhaps even more so, that led walmart to such success).
Are there still content heavy sites? Not to be facetious here but it seems user demand is aligned with smaller and smaller, more and more active bits of content served by web applications. At some point you may have a lot of content, howev it's not so much heavy as it is highly interactive.
I used my back button and it ... worked. Wow.
Right up until the camera panned. Suspension of disbelief shattered, and to what end?
It would have been better phrased as: how many questions per second can watson handle.

And I think the answer is, not a whole lot, maybe even less than 1.
The SiteMeter graph is telling. But the Quantcast graphs, on which this article is hanging its hat, say nothing at all. The author appears to have misinterpreted the graphs without first looking up the concept of "overfitting".
Easy divorce Jacksonville
The most important lesson that can be learned from this is: split test everything.
Because we grew up with HP, Compaq, Gateway, Dell, Alienware, IBM, and a hundred others "just shipping" a truckload of PC models all the time without 2-year marketing cycles. Seemed like every week you would get a new PC magazine showing a bunch of new builds with better specs and lower prices than the previous week that you could order immediately.

This brave new world of embedded devices sucks.
"Flash is the devil in every situation"

Aside from technical issues, I think the above is valid philosophical argument per se due to closed nature of Flash.

From the very beginning, the Web evolved as an open system; no special tools are required for content creation and every browser has equipped with a "view source" feature.