skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For most of my "quick searches", I already have the answer from within the search results listing. It looks like it will go one step further, we are not going to have to leave the results page to have complex answers.

I am not sure if I want to provide all my hard work in a format which will maybe help the search engines a bit, but mainly the spammers a lot as they will be able to automate the creation of content farms even more.

Mixed feelings... all the world data in a well structured format is a wonder but at the same time, what will be the incentives to create such an easy to digest content if the world at the end do not even know you are the one how produced it?

Kind of the old media against new media dilemma but applied to the new media. Interesting.
VirtualBox is a user-level virtualization tool.

It is not as efficient as a system-level one like Xen or KVM.

i.e. Vbox is an application that runs at the same level as say... apache or nginx as opposed to KVM and Xen which work at a lower level by integrating closely with the Linux kernel.

That means that the resources allocated to Vbox are decided upon by the OS, with all the overhead that comes along.

Xen and KVM can run a guest OS with less overhead than Vbox and can decide that a guest OS has 25% of CPU cycles while another has only 10%, which vbox cannot do.

VirtualBox works fine for development environments, but you want something like Xen or KVM for running your servers if not going bare metal.
You're right. I can imagine the press release now.
How to use epoll: A complete example in C
Absolutely wild. Revenue was almost as much in Q1 2011 as it was in all year in 2010 ($645m vs. $713m) with a 20,000% revenue growth since June 200.

They are hoping to raise "close to $1 billion at a valuation of about $20 billion." [1]

And they still aren't turning a profit. (~15% loss Q1 2011 and ~54% loss in 2010) [2]

[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230374530457636...
[2] http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1490281/0001047469110...
I didn't think I had anything to say about this.

But, for unrelated reasons, I just went looking for a link to the hilarious 24-hour webcomic, Blotchmen. And I found lots of pages that link to it, like this MeFi page:

http://www.metafilter.com/76009/Blotchmen-and-other-comics-b...

and MeFi, just like all of the other top hits on Google, is very careful and very virtuous -- rather than reproduce the comic, they send everyone to the original artist's blog so that Kevin Cannon can get full credit for his work:

http://freshmanforlife.com/

... but the blog is down. It displays nothing but a wordpress.com error page, and now I'm really depressed because (a) I won't get to read the comic today and (b) I won't get to send it to my friends and (c) I've got visions of it disappearing forever because, hey, that happens, and if poor Kevin Cannon gets hit by a bus his online presence could just disappear, or maybe he'll pull a _why and have a fit of creative destruction and set all of his work on fire one day and then I will be totally screwed, I will never see his work again...

...except, of course, that his work has probably been copied. I guess, if worst comes to worst, I'll have to look for it on some site like FunnyJunk and hope it's there.

What is the moral of this story? People copy the work of artists rather than linking because they can make money from sleazy ads, and that is not good. But there is another reason to copy: Links suck. They really really suck. They don't just suck in the long term: They suck in real time. (Blotchmen is only three years old.) Links are unreliable on a technical level (blogs break, poorly cached sites fall over with every slight breeze), on a commercial level (licenses change, DRM becomes obsolete, what was once free is now behind a paywall, what was once purchasable is now off the market and the copyright will last until after I'm dead) and legally nebulous (one DMCA takedown notice can remove a link forever, sometimes even if the notice is fraudulent or invalid). There are a hundred things that can go wrong with a link, and one of them usually does, generally within five years or less.
Groupon Files For IPO To Raise $750 Million
Groupon Files $750 Million IPO
Fair enough, I'm only saying that 'like English' isn't some kind of holy grail of understandable code. I like code, I can read code, not every line needs to be turned into a sentence.
Prospectus: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1490281/0001047469110...
LodSys sues 7 small Apple, Android app devs in East TX Apple's letter ignored
Sitemaps was the last big thing they united on. It's been very helpful to have. Years before that, they agreed on meta description tags and robots.txt blocking. The latter helped keep many web sites from being overwhelmed by requests, yet enabled search engines to grow. I think it's a good thing.
Infographic: You're probably paying too much for consumer electronics
Incredibly impressive revenue, but really, $389.6MM loss on $713MM revenue? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't get why it's being hyped up so highly.
Ok now lets see what private schools are paid per student and compare outcomes.
Ok, my question was really as to how they even discover each other but some more perusing of that site shows that they connect to a IRC channel.

I thought there was no centralized point-of-failure?
Simple Bitcoin wallet encrypt&backup script
if they actually wanted people to use this they'd write better documentation.

if I picked 10 web devs off sitepoint and instructed them to add 10 assertions to an HTML page and didn't give them a validator, I'd be amazed if more than 3 got 80% of them right.

i like the taxonomy though, but honestly i think instances are much more interesting than types... rather than saying "George Washington" a :US_President, can't we say "George Washington" is :George_Washington where :George_Washington is his identifier in Freebase?
I agree. $2200 is close to nothing for a company as big as Condé Nast. And it's certainly less than what a lawyer would cost to try to get back one of these domains.
It's not about writing code. It's how you feel when you do.
Interesando...
It's not about coding, it's about the feeling when you do
Read it again, says "could be argued," not that I am in unrelenting agreement with it. I find both obvious as well.

However, one of python's main design goals is readability. That's why it does not have the i++ operator in preference to i = i + 1, for example. No switch keyword either. +=, etc managed to squeeze in though.

More specifically, one of the forms has a thousand years+ of algebra notation behind it, the other does not. I made no statement over whether pro programmers would find it confusing, but on the readability count, analogues to mathematics win.
Can we call it a bubble yet?

Those of us who were around in the early 2000s recognize this game. Brand new ventures filing for IPOs based on 'amazing potential' and even more amazing valuations.

This is all going to come crashing down soon. The question is whether it happens before or after Bitcoins. :)
Call me when there's a commission of current leaders.

Besides, the US is leveraging this situation very well in selling its darling industry to both sides of the war: small arms.
"There are plenty of possible explanations for what we find in nature. And just because we haven't figured things out doesn't mean supernatural forces are responsible."

I'm sure I don't need to point out on HN that this is a tautology. If we haven't figured something out, it doesn't imply anything at all.

We may only infer (in scientific terms) that a supernatural explanation is necessary when it can be shown that a natural explanation is impossible (by the law of the excluded middle).

I knew an atheist (dead now) who believed that a friend of his had levitated in full view of approximately 50 people at his father's funeral (the father of the guy who levitated). He believed that it was not a trick pulled by either his friend or any of the attendees at the funeral but that science would eventually explain this in a perfectly naturalistic way.

I also know a Christian who says he saw an amputee grow a new leg instantaneously when some friends of his prayed for the guy. He does not believe this was a trick pulled by either the friends of his or the amputee. He believes it was a supernatural miracle.

I do not believe either story on their say so. Either could in theory be lying to me. And I have no direct evidence to support their stories.

However, if I had had the experience of the atheist, then absent any evidence of a trick or circumstances which might suggest an alternative explanation, I would have supposed a supernatural explanation. And similarly if I had the experience of the Christian. However, I guess that the atheist would suppose a naturalistic explanation in both cases (I cannot ask him, as he is dead). In either case we have a predilection which is likely to influence our conclusion.

I don't think science enters into the picture in either case. Science is a process by which we discover the laws of nature and apply them. Science does not care what I believe. Its conclusions will be the same regardless of what I believe. Whether or nor science changes your beliefs may depend on how well you understand science, but it may also depend on your beliefs and the experiences you have had.

One should never eschew good science because of a commitment to either a religious or an atheistic perspective. All knowledge is subject to review and revision. What we believe however, is personal. And the two should not interfere.
Open Letter (Email) to Bill Gates
I'm just another programmer geek (started w/ a commodore 64 / Atari 800 - I had both) I saw on CNN online/video a program/story about african human rights violations, etc. and thought about you. As you know, Steve Balmer's days are numbered. I like Steve Balmer. He is as good as any CEO could be. (Listen.. I'm relatively old school, I was in my mid/early (22... 23) twenties at the Microsoft had its high point: when Win 95 was released) ..

If this were in Roman times, you would realize we have a MOB MENTALITY going on right now. People (stock holders/pundits) want to have someone's head on a stick. I don't actually agree.. I just think the 'market' is so fluid, anyone (see .. Nokia et al) could be seen as being behind the curve.

Make no mistake.. the media/pundits in general are putting you in this 'box'. The BOX is not one you want to be in right now as a company and as the majority stock holder who wants to use his wealth to help people.
I think a certain amount of "horses for courses" caution is called for here. Some skills seem much more suited to learning by doing than others. Even within a particular field of endeavor, some skills seem more suited to learning by doing than others. Didn't various militaries converge on the practice of sending people to school to become artillerists and celestial navigators even as they continued to honor learning by doing in other specialties? If you want to rise in politics or design user interfaces, it may work pretty well to learn by doing, while studying only as the need arises: as far as I know, there isn't that much formal knowledge that's foundational for that kind of work. There's still lots of valuable stuff to read and learn from, but it doesn't seem foundational: trying to read a UI book without studying the prerequisites doesn't seem to be nearly as confusing as e.g. trying to read a physics or engineering book without studying the prerequisites. And math-y stuff beyond the usual public education level seems foundational in a fair number of specialties, not just physics and engineering. If you want to price portfolios of derivative securities or write software that recognizes faces, a couple of years spent on math and/or on related fundamentals of software (algorithms and data structures, various other programming skills) may be a good way to start.

I'm not suggesting those man-years are necessarily best spent at school. I notice that most of the valuable formal foundational knowledge tends to be open to self-study if you're motivated enough, and I have run into people who'd learned a lot of them for themselves before they got out of high school. (E.g., my freshman roommate at college.:-) But I am suggesting that in school or not, some of those man-years are best spent before you need to rely on the knowledge: learn a lot of what you need to know about spherical trigonometry and log tables or gunpowder mixes and metal fatigue before you need it, not as you need it.
Didn't Reddit drop down to one developer sometime recently? If "something big" is coming -- involving 285 domain names -- I would hate to be that one developer.
> If you or B or C want to initiate force against me, that's where I have a problem.

And of course, taking back their TV would be force.

> You'd be a violent asshole for trying to shoot me and my family for our stuff, and I'd be heroic for protecting my family from a violent asshole.

Exactly. Which is why I'd wait for you to leave your house for the day and break in, change the locks, and wait for you to use force on me, making me heroic.

> Choose to live at peace in the present.

I choose to live at peace in the next present. This one is all camped out.

> All I need to do is justify the position that you shouldn't do more violence and engage in more theft against whatever faction I was born into

It doesn't matter what faction you were born into, if you buy a TV that was stolen - even if before you were born, you're a thief.

You're hiding behind the defense that violence is bad (unwarranted violence is...) and as such, because taking TVs involves violence, that the TV must stay with you. That the violence in question would be directed at those enjoying already violently stolen property lessens the impact of the second round of violence, in the eyes of the observers. After it happened you'd be B, and history. Nobody would care.

> The fact that you think your thievery is justified by your philosophy is irrelevant.
>> You can't come up with anything that justifies the current distribution of stuff
> Nor do I need to.

If you want to enjoy the property with a good conscience, you do.

Without the secondary market in stolen TVs you represent there wouldn't have been a profit in stealing the TV originally.

Your attitude would seem less self-serving if there wasn't an almost certainty that your government is complicit in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, at least at level where you or I would be an accomplice under law, despite these wars being fairly obviously just a resource grab, not security related as they were originally justified. (And if not these injustices, then countless others.)

In other words, the mechanisms of your day-to-day life are busily creating more Bs and Cs all the time. And yet you have the arrogance to dictate that you're the end of the line. If your definition of ownership involved who could do the most good with a resource there would be an measure with which to determine your rights, but if you simply measure ownership as possession, if I take things away from you I own them as truly as you do. I was merely pre-defending myself (A') against the thieves of A.

As you have been unable to suggest any mechanism for ownership that doesn't come down to opposing violence, and your imagined rights as a non-combatant to have the violence happen to others, I'm going to say again that you've failed to make the case for private ownership of resources.
It is more complex than it used to be, but too complex? Our tools have finally matured to solve some of the worst problems with Ruby development (ie. monkey patching, namespace conflicts, forking to fix bugs, gem development, etc). It's definitely worth the effort.

You did an excellent job on your guide, but a lot of it looks more complex than it actually is. This guide is more than just Rails, you also walk through installing RVM & Ruby. Setting up a Ruby environment from scratch is somewhat complex. But once you understand RVM, getting started with Rails 3.1 is actually quite easy (but it's always a little more complex in the .beta and .rc releases).

Thanks for sharing this!
Hope you're right. We haven't tried to raise yet so I wouldn't necessarily know directly. I've spoken to many entreprenuers who have a hard time with it, so they may be less than stellar or you might be a rock star. I'll probably find out for myself sooner or later.
The funny part is that your parents probably wont understand the comprehension either. Even if they were likely to, I prefer to leave things the way they are when the only reason to change it is "now my kid brother can do it!"
How did you find it? I can't. It looks like http://api.jquery.com/browser/ only works up to version 1.3
Did the 2000 bubble come with revenue numbers like these recent IPOs?
It's merely more familiar to the average person. I'm not against the first form and use it a lot. See my comment to llamda below for more details.
If this really is a technology play it makes little sense to start with the restaurant, because the restaurants requires much more capital ( physical buildings, marketing and promotions, staff, cost of goods, concept, branding.. etc) than building the software and trying to partner up with existing chains or small to local restaurants.
Sounds like someone at CN found a new domain registration toy...
> "And they still aren't turning a profit."

That part just boggles my mind. How can you go from revenue of 30M to 713M in a single year and not have wound up with any profit? Their revenue has grown so fast that I simply cannot imagine being able to greenlight enough spending [1] to get rid of it all in such a short amount of time.

[1] intelligent spends that is; frivolous waste notwithstanding.
EDWARD The Vehicle of the Future
The difference is that Groupon is generating revenue near billions, whereas in 2000 companies were IPO'ing without any significant revenue or traction.
Heroku in the Celreeee with Djangossss ...
"What's wrong with women studies? One of the fascinating benefits of college is that you will bump into people with completely different world view from yours. Some of them will tell you at the university cafe why women studies is more likely to impact the world than your tech startup."

You explained exactly what's wrong with women's (now called gender) studies: all they can do is talk and react. They don't do. In the sciences (I use that term loosely), there is a boundary of what isn't known. Scientists probe that boundary and make it further by testing and finding out what is and isn't.

Now, what does 'gender studies' do? They sit around in a circle and blab about stuff that affects them. From IU Bloomington, the first campus to offer this type of degree:

"Women’s Studies and Gender Studies offer exciting interdisciplinary courses that concentrate on the position of women and men across many cultures. Courses explore issues related to women and gender across academic disciplines, examining such topics as race and class, business and politics, health, the body, sexuality, developing societies, the arts, academic institutions and knowledge, sports and leisure, law, and the media."
Cited http://www.indiana.edu/~wostgens/

Engineers make stuff. Programmers make stuff. Chemists make stuff. Creators create, and that adds a lot of value to civilisation. What does gender studies add? A whole lot of nothing. We only have their own website to go by.
I just don't understand why anyone would invest in a hot IPO for a company that hasn't even turned a profit yet and had a $389.6 million net loss in 2010! Can someone explain to me the allure of an investment like this?
Facebook calls Ceglia contract a fake
Presumably because, like many a previous startup, revenue growth is fantastic. I agree with the HN consensus though-they have no real way of differentiating themselves from LivingSocial et all, so they will continue to have to pump lots of money into marketing ($208m in Q1!!), sales teams, etc and watch their margins go down over time.
Widespread Outages Reported for Apple's iOS and Mac App Stores and iTunes Store
DNA Logic Gates Calculate a Square Root
This effect will be I treating to watch as the cost to produce goods approaches zero and our economy transitioms away from a scarcity model to something else. I suspect there will be a lot of people fighting that along the way.
It is topical.

There are good, solid reasons to believe that today's monetary and fiscal policy is dangerous and wrong-headed (I say that as a liberal closer to Paul Krugman than Ron Paul but sympathetic to some points made by each).

The trouble is that those seeing the current problems look for pig-in-poke solutions rather than getting a solid understanding of what's happening.

I would strongly recommend a critical reading of Doug Noland's Credit Bubble Bulletin, Paul Krugman's blog and at least a university level text on Money and Banking. Also Charles Mackay's classic Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds also merits a look.

Many people have an emotional reaction to money. This emotional reaction is part of what can make something "money-like" but if one wishes to understand what's going on, one needs to get beyond one's immediate reaction.
I assume there revenue numbers refer to the amount of money collected BEFORE paying merchants. Is that correct?
This is a paid advertisement

What do you suppose this is an advertisement for?
Yup, once it's perfected they will probably roll out to the test locations at McDonalds, and then eventually nationwide. One of the benefits of the McDonalds system is they'll be able to have all their employees fully trained on the new system in 6 months (once all the staff from the existing system turn over)
I seem to recall reading they actually hired people recently, or were in the process of doing so.
Student sells kidney to buy iPad
I'd imagine it has something to do with the 7,000+ employees and incredible amount of advertising spend.
From the article:

'Don’t expect profits anytime soon: Groupon hasn’t turned a net profit in any of its first three years of operations, including a net loss of $389.6 million in 2010. The company said it expects its “operating expenses will increase substantially in the foreseeable future ...“'

Sounds very 1990s dot-com bubble to me ...
How I landed in a well-paying job even though I know nothing
To be fair, it was the NPR Music guest hosts who missed the point, not the Planet Money team (which actually argued that it Jonathan's success was not a fluke).
That's some pretty insane expenses. What are they wasting money on?

EDIT:

1) Ad spend: $200+ million

2) 7000+ employees (at $40K average per employee, that's $280M/year)
because there are far more people who don't care about such trivialities as profitability or sustainability than those who do
Huge revenues are less impressive when coupled with huge losses.
Does the fact that they aren't turning a profit concern people that much? Didn't the Xbox division take years before profitting? I'm not a business guy so I'm genuinely asking this out of curiosity.
Yes. I'm assuming that it reported as the cost of revenue (~58% in Q1 2011).
Apple patents system for iOS devices to prevent image and video capturing
Whether or not it's wrong or right doesn't matter.. what matters is are there consequences? If not, then the guys at AirBnB probably could care less, and are laughing and enjoying cocktails in rooftop bars while the rest of us are toiling away at jobs...

Remember, we only got 1 life to live.. think about it. Arguing right or wrong makes little sense
¿Cómo elegir la empresa de multinivel correcta? | Blog Oficial de Nestor Riba
It's alluring as a trader; less so as an investor. An IPO like this is going to have plenty of trade-able price movement.