skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sproutcore doesn't sound much like Smalltalk MVC. In "Applications Programming in Smalltalk-80(TM):
How to use Model-View-Controller (MVC)" by Steve Burbeck, which describes how Smalltalk did it, it says:

In the MVC paradigm the user input, the modeling of the
external world, and the visual feedback to the user are
explicitly separated and handled by three types of object,
each specialized for its task. The view manages the graphical
and/or textual output to the portion of the bitmapped display
that is allocated to its application. The controller interprets
the mouse and keyboard inputs from the user, commanding the model
and/or the view to change as appropriate. Finally, the model
manages the behavior and data of the application domain, responds
to requests for information about its state (usually from the view),
and responds to instructions to change state (usually from the controller).

http://st-www.cs.illinois.edu/users/smarch/st-docs/mvc.html

Looking at the Sproutcore diagram given in the article, it looks like that in Sproutcore input goes to the view, which then decides to pass it to the controller. In Smalltalk it sounds like input goes straight to controllers--views have no idea input happened unless a controller tells them about it.

It's not quite clear to me from the article, but it also looks like maybe the view gets what the information about what to display from the controller (which gets it from the model). In Smalltalk it sounds like the controller would tell the view that the view needs to update, and the view would talk directly to the model to get the data it needs.
Well, it's not PATENTLY ridiculous. There's a fairly extensive literature base to suggest that many of our modern treatments are not efficacious and either make outcomes worse or at the least add side effects. Though I find it unlikely that treatments could be SO bad that the effect of being treated more would be reduced life span.

The article that this article is criticizing may not be objectively seeking truth, as seems to be the case unfortunately, but we shouldn't reject its conclusion as on-face impossible

Some examples:

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damne...

Also you could look at, for psychiatry, Robert Whitaker's book Anatomy of an epidemic.
I agree with both of you, but at the end of the day, you can just delete all the unneeded stuff from the /Developer folder.
My clock says fifty years ago was 1960.

"The Industrial Revolution in Japan occurred during Meiji period." [September 1868 through July 1912]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_period
Not to mention that more than one business can have the same name (if they are registered in different categories), but only one person can own a .com.

Examples:

Live with Regis and Kelly
Windows (or XBox) Live
Live (the band)
BBC Radio 5 Live
Personally, it seems a step too far. I can understand why they felt the need to create official clients for each platform, but this seems like it kills long-term innovation. Now don't get me wrong, I think the official Twitter client on the iPhone is generally very good, but when you see them pushing something like the dickbar I have reasons for concern...
John Doerr, Twitter, And The Rise Of Secondary Private Markets
A UIApplication method (registerForRemoteNotificationTypes:) negotiates with apples servers using device information to obtain a 32-byte push token unique to a given device/app pair. It is likely based on the device's global id (UDID) and the application's appid and certificates. Someone should figure out the exact network handshake.

Any app developer is capable of collecting UDIDs using their released apps (the UDID is constant and visible across all apps). Note, having the UDID does not necessarily mean you can obtain the push token. But you may be able to derive the push token from it and from information contained in the app.

Assuming you could figure out someone's push token, you could to cause a push to show up in the name of the app whose certificate/key you've obtained!
I've thought it made some sense to weight domain keywords considering the number of people I observe using the google search box as an address bar.
That definitely is an upside. However, although the trolling an profanity may have been reduced, it's possible that people don't express controversial opinions they might have, as they are now linked to their facebook network.

-That's part of the reason I don't have a FB account, I don't really want to have conversations with an audience that includes my aunt, my friends, and my coworkers. That just doesn't interest me. For example, there are many opinions and ideas I could quickly share with my childhood friend, that I could only share with my aunt with the inclusion of considerable context, so that I wouldn't be misunderstood. As a result, my conversations would probably by shallow and trivial, so as not to waste time, but then be ultimately uninteresting.

I used MySpace some time ago, but dropped it for similar reasons.
Many years ago, this was effectively the only way to do anything. JSON was created in response to how bad an idea pushing things down and running them through "eval" is, as are the rest of the technologies you are presumably reacting to.

Nobody can stop you and if you're one of the rare handful of people with enough discipline to prevent this from blowing up in your face, go nuts. But please don't go around telling people how wonderful this is without considering the history of why we all don't just do this all time, considering it's actually easier in terms of raw effort than actually using JSON et al properly.
Facebook Expands  Mention Tagging to Comments
/be answers "Why hasn't operator overloading been added to ECMAScript?"
I can't imagine being in one of the top floors of a high-rise with it wobbling around. I'd be paralyzed with fear clinging to the carpet. Mighty respect to the architects and engineers, though.
I'm interested to see how this ends up being resolved (I use Ubuntu, don't like Unity, and Gnome Shell looks to be just as bad) but have only been half-following this drama. This is a really great summary post.

I'm totally unsurprised that Shuttleworth's penchant for decision by fiat and Jobsian cargo-cultishness has driven a wedge between his company and others in the FOSS movement. (For example window controls, before windicators were announced: "Yesterday I decided to move window controls to the other side for our LTS. It's for a secret project. DO NOT ASK ME WHAT THE PROJECT IS."). But I'm also unsurprised that disorganization and what also appears to be at least a little ego and maybe even jealousy has warped things on the other side as well.
Video: Well-Designed Buildings Sway, But Stay Standing in Japan Quake
Awesome... can I have a beta invite? :)
I think to be fair to all three, you have to give them six months after they are actually released before we judge them. As is typical in OS Linux community, a very vocal minority is probably speaking up and "hating" all three. I would wager that the majority opinion is much different than what you hear from the vocal minority.
As an end user (and by no means a power user) of Twitter, I have to say that I don't want a consistent user experience. I want the best user experience for how I use Twitter.

Right now that means TweetDeck, but if something better came along, I'd jump to it. It lets me do things I can't do in Twitter's tools (or that I don't easily see how to do).

So from an 'outsider' on this topic: boo!
I'm sorry you didn't find any practical advice in this article. Please allow me to share some of the backstory to this.

When I write my articles for The Startup Foundry, I try to focus on what will help startups succeed. I've gotten some pretty sad emails from startups that think they're failures for not being huge in 6 months or less. I wrote this to make a point that it takes time for most startups.

All the best,
Paul
Yes, I tried Google scholar and couldn't find what I was looking for. Maybe I've just outgrown Google?
>and it's a shame it's not in print any longer

Amazon.ca seems to have it. Just purchased.
What a software entrepreneur learned about how real estate really works
What's the difference between "go private" and a message on Twitter, for example?
You’ve still got mail
This was a result of a Republican amendment to the Clinton-administration increase in the federal minimum wage (around 1992 - 1995. Subtitled "A bill to increase the take-home pay of workers..." or something like that, if I recall correctly. It should be available at http://thomas.loc.gov but the site isn't terribly easy to search.). Another Republican amendment to the same bill decreased the minimum wage for workers who receive tips to $2.XX (I can't remember exactly.)
It's a lot of fun to look into the little unknown games that large, successful, games companies made before they hit the big time.

Blizzard for example had mild success with Rock n' Roll Racing and Lost Vikings prior to Warcraft 2.

Nintendo made lots of arcade games since 1973, many being blatant clones of successful titles, before striking gold with Donkey Kong in 1981. Some of these may have sold fairly well, but the titles are ignored today so they couldn't have been all that good.

Pokemon developer Game Freak seems to have had it pretty rough prior to hitting the big time with Pokemon. The company has existed since 1989 and they put out a number of relatively unknown games before Pokemon in '96. Pokemon wasn't a strong seller at the beginning either.

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Tajiri):
"Pokémon Red and Green took six years to produce, and nearly bankrupted Game Freak in the process; often, there was barely enough money to pay the employees. Five employees quit, and Tajiri did not take a salary, instead living off of his father's income. Investment from Creatures Inc. allowed Game Freak to complete the games, and in return, Creatures received one-third of the franchise rights."
Twitter Drops The Ecosystem Hammer: Don’t Try To Compete With Us On Clients
A libertarian ideal country requires the protection and guarantee of individual rights.
I know, it's totally shocking that hackers care about something other than money or code.
Are you sure? CoD used Quake 3 engine (idtech3), which had iirc only opengl renderer.
Your Product Needs to be 10x Better than the Competition to Win
Harmonix (creators of Guitar Hero, which they sold, and Rock Band) has a similar story. They created a handful of games over a decade or so, all music based, that never really caught on. When they released Guitar Hero and a few karaoke games, they did a little better than breaking even, and with the release of Guitar Hero 2 sales exploded.

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2007/02/dice_harmonix_b/
Surprising: "According to
our data, 90% of active Twitter users use official Twitter apps on a monthly
basis."
Not only is it a kick in the teeth to developers, but the reason Twitter has traction, spread and growth is because of the diversity of tools around Twitter. The user experience is not all in their hands, and isn't it ironic that this comes a week after the "dickbar" incident? Twitter hasn't really proven they can keep the user experience the way it should be. There was a post last week here on HN about how Tweetie used to never crash and the lastest release was awful... Get your act together Twitter or don't be the elephant in the room, or act that way.
Private keys in public domains, priceless.
The key problem is that the desktop community desperately needs one or more architects who can act as a sheepdog and keep the sheep marching in roughly the same direction.

It's far more critical in the Desktop world than in the Linux kernel because in the kernel, there is enough development in the kernel that there is strong incentive to develop in the upstream sources, and not behind distribution-specific source trees. In addition, the Linux kernel releases on a regular 3 month cycle. So even if we don't have formal design documents, it's a lot easier for collaboration between key kernel subsystem developers, because our patches have to come together and _work_ every three months when we push out a release. (In practice, they had better mostly work by the end of the two week merge window, or there will be hell to pay, and Linus, as the great benevolent dictator, will yell at people, and Make a Decision --- which will usually involve reverting the change which broke things functionally.)

In contrast, the Desktop world has a much harder problem, because (a) not everything lives in one source tree, (b) the kernel largely doesn't have a UI, and there are objective measures of "does it work", and "did the benchmark results go up or down", that either don't exist or aren't as important in the UI world. Questions of whether a UI is "good" or "better" than some other UI choice is a question which can't be easily answered objectively. And that, more than any thing else, is probably why we have three major design centers for desktop development: GNOME, KDE, and Canonical.

One of the things that worries me is that all too often, people look at the way things are done in the Linux kernel, and assume that it will port over to their project. In most cases, the Linux kernel is a much larger and more complex project, and things which we do in the Linux kernel world probably aren't needed in other projects. But in the Desktop world, I think the reverse problem is true. It's a much larger and more complicated ecosystem than what we have in the Linux kernel, and so decisions such as allowing the major subsystem developers to negotiate major technical changes organically and informally might work for Linux, but not in the desktop world. (For example, in the storage stack, there are less than a half-dozen people I would need to consult with in order to come consensus about some change to accomodate PCI-attached flash, and we have multiple opportunities a year to get together and work things out). Hence in the desktop world, hiring a full-time architect who did nothing else but talk to the different stakeholders and try to come to consensus on a common vision is probably something which is necessary, even though we haven't found the need to have someone in that role in the Linux development community.
How? As a stupidity filter?
i think he meant government.
It's the old casino analogy: When you're betting on a platform you don't own, the house always wins.

I don't know much about Twitter politics, but we've got:

- Developer hostility this week

- User hostility last week, with the dickbar

So maybe this is just how it goes now that Costolo is in charge. "Fuck the loyalists, we're here to make some money. Getting sick of these third party tools charging coin for our damn API while we get nothing."

If so, the question becomes: who creates more value on Twitter? Is it the old guard, who use it as a communications and community medium? Or is it the mainstream, following celebrities and talking about sandwiches they're eating, eyeballs to be sold to the highest bidder?

(edit: My hunch is that, too late, the Pareto principle will be discovered hard at work: 20% or less of Twitter users actually generate 80% of the value. I just can't see it as a bland, empty consumption tool. There's surely peril in optimizing toward that.)

It sounds to me like Twitter wants to round up its user-cattle and drive them on down to monetization gulch. Anyone who gets in the way of this is going to be flattened.
On one hand, I agree in terms of providing a consistent user experience.

On the other hand, I disagree and think people should be able to build whatever experience they want.
Fon is still alive? Looks like 99% of all German FON APs are gone but still listed on their website…

Maybe they are Big in Japan.
This just got some more coverage
TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/11/twitter-ecosystem-guideline...
TheNextWeb: http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2011/03/11/twitter-tells-devel...
Share your website design to help others get started with theirs
Aside from the problem of outright extortion, even the savviest financiers can underestimate low-probability risks (as the recent mortgage debacle shows).

While savvy investors may indeed underestimate low-probability risks, I take issue with any claim the mortgage bubble showed this. The sad end of that bubble was an extremely high probability event.

The main thing the debacle showed was the willingness of many people to believe fallacious arguments which made reference to claims about low probability events. Even there, the willingness of investors to believe that standard "this time it's different" line has been shown over and over again.
Well... kind of. There is a whole lot of shit like this:

705.1 General. Each portion of a building separated by one or more fire walls that comply with the
provisions of this section shall be considered a separate building. The extent and location of such fire walls shall
provide a complete separation. Where a fire wall also separates groups that are required to be separated by a fire
barrier wall, the most restrictive requirements of each separation shall apply. Fire walls located on property lines
shall also comply with Section 503.2. Such fire walls (party walls) shall be constructed without openings. (from the 2000 ICC building codes)

It is specifying a specific arrangement of firewalls. What if I can make buildings even safer with nothing resembling firewalls? It's not nearly as clear cut or simple as "building must be able to withstand x forces".

Plus it's not as though housing contractors actually build experimental buildings in earthquake test facilities to see if they comply. What they do is screw a bunch of prefabricated pieces together. All of which are accepted by the inspectors as following the codes. The result is a monoculture which is highly reluctant to accept new ideas. Remember that building boards consist of people from the construction industries, they people who make and use these materials.

The people who make the decisions on whether your buildings are unelected boards who have investments in the status quo. They can force you to spend 100s of thousands in engineering fees to convince them that your design is safe enough for you to live in.
It is surprisingly common on Quora: the wording, or the relation with the perceived promises of the service is indeed problematic. So far, the majority of people who left after (their answer) being labeled Not helpful have come back within a week.
It seems they are going to be doing what they did in the case of Three Mile Island: vent steam. That steam should not be significantly radioactive.
consistency and ecosystem opportunities

couldn't he just write "you're fucked, we're the boss" without all this corporate BS speech?
Well, sure, any given treatment could be a net negative. That's perfectly reasonable.

However, saying that the net sum of all treatment is a net negative is indeed patently ridiculous. The guy who wrote it probably has pretty good health insurance, too, just saying.
"My understanding of GNOME is this: GNOME does not have technical leadership – it hasn’t had clear technical leadership since, as I understand it, the creation of the GNOME Foundation (at which point, by design, the board was given a mandate to build and define GNOME, and then soon afterwards removed that mandate from itself). The foundation does not now dictate any vision or direction for GNOME."

This is a huge problem, as I see it. Even in OSS, where you have very capable people, someone needs to provide direction. I'm reminded of a military story, which I will paraphrase.

Single most important thing in warfare is to have a known objective. That way if the person in charge is killed, as is the second in charge, the troops still know they need to take that hill or everyone dies.

I take the same approach to software and it has worked my entire career. If Gnome doesn't have a stated vision/objective, it is no wonder it looks like chaos to someone outside!

Someone from Gnome _should_ step-up and provide some leadership, some technical direction, some market direction or some general foresight that things are going in the right direction. I hope the author is wrong and there is someone already doing this, but if not...
Did you guys remove the 'party' mode easter egg?
It definitely sounds hostile, but I can see where they're coming from. They want to encourage more creative uses of their API, rather than just flooding the market with hundreds of mostly subpar client apps. They've basically reached critical mass as far as third party clients go. Any additional clients are not going to increase their user base anymore. What they really need is more use cases for the Twitter stream. I don't particularly agree with this strategy of leaving a lot of developers feeling like they just got slapped across the face, but it will be interesting to see where the API goes now.
A Consistent User Experience. I believe I've heard that somewhere before... http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserEx...
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Dickbar and the backlash it received contributed to this. For instance, the iOS official app is the best Twitter client so far despite shoving promoted trends down our throats. One could come up with a better client with no dickbar and everyone would be flocking there. By discouraging new clients, they are discouraging our ability to turn off dickbar.
MGive Mobile Donations Provider
Living in North Carolina, the biggest threat seems to be hurricanes, tornadoes associated with thunderstorms (or hurricanes), and flooding (associated with thunderstorms or hurricanes).

We get wildfires here, but they don't tend to be as large and fast moving as the ones out on the west coast. Heat waves can happen, but they don't really seem to be a huge threat here.

In theory earthquakes can happen here, but they're almost unheard of. Tsunamis striking the east coast of the United States are also incredibly rare, and I don't think we have any real volcanic threat here. Famine doesn't seem to be a worry, barring some external trigger. Avalanches are not an issue to most of the state, and what we call a "blizzard" here is a "dusting" to people in the north-east.
Google Admob turns to Adsense to fill mobile Appads
Using Mental Ray's mib_cie_d node
First you claim, apparently the book was an act of love, which it clearly isn't. It is as scathing as the C++ FQA. The book has a dozen authors from respected institutions and you claim to know people who contributed to the book personally but the only apparent alternative OSes you think they could have used are Windows and OS 9. I don't have too much data right now, but it certainly looks like you are making "facts" up as you go along.
When companies started releasing awesome APIs for free, we kinda wondered "what's the catch?". Years later, we're finding out.

The hype surrounding free APIs without formal agreements is the biggest farce in the Valley. We are now in that phase of the cycle where this will become more and more apparent as these companies with awesome APIs get serious about making money(and the free API impeding their revenue plans).

Free APIs--especially the powerful ones--should be seen as "cute things" with little purpose beyond experimental side projects. If you ACTUALLY want to build a company off someone's API, get a formal agreement with that company especially if that company insists you don't need one.

So much has changed since the 90s when access to APIs meant paying huge $. And yet, so little has really changed.
An easy API to generate topical tags for any page
Sounds to me like your answer should have been entered as a comment. At least on stackexchange sites (sorry, don't use Quora, but I notice there is a comment option) I like to leave comments that are not going to be directly answering the question. Looks like in Quora there you can't vote up a 'comment' though, pitty.