skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Congrats to PittPatt! I work for one of their competitors, also from CMU.
> It's not a beautiful tool, it's an over-large conglomeration of functionality that already exists in the shell

Find absolutely is a beautiful tool. It does one and only one thing: apply predicates to the file system.

> du -a . | grep filename

Except that's going to match on the dirname content as well, whereas `find -type f -name filename` will only match the actual file name.

And you're going to get complete junk in the first section of each line which you'll have to cleanup afterwards.

> (the awk is necessary to remove file sizes, you could combine du and awk in a shell function if desired)

Right, whereas if you use `find` it gives exactly what you want (or need)

> Why do you need both "-exec" and "-delete"?

You don't need both, but -delete provides additional clarity and forces depth-first traversal.

> Except that as I've shown above, it's already quite easy to execute a program for every file that matches some criteria

Except your examples are all broken since you're not using `basename`. Turns out it's not that easy, and it soon becomes complete shell-soup.

> and you don't have to learn the dozens of options used in find

They're not actually options, they're predicates.
It's not obvious from the ikiwiki website that you can also do it like this. Cool!

It's always good to have more choices :-).
I used this to file my wife's tax return the other day. The experience was quite good (going by Indian standards). Few things based on my experience.

1) There should be a flowchart explaining the steps. Something like Enter information -> Generate ITR V -> Send it to CPC. I was lost when I was asked to post something somewhere and had to look up the process of e-filing on the net.

2) While entering information each text box/textarea has a information on the relevant field of Form 16. That should link to a pic to sample Form 16 highlighting the field. Somethings were ambiguous.

3) More information on what types of Tax Filings are covered. I had to ask you guys to ask about self employed tax filing (and you guys responded very fast, which was great) because I didn't find a FAQ.

4) Information on when do you have to pay and how much. I was never asked for any payment. Which is good, but I'm still kinda confused how that happened. :)

5) The step where it was submitting the information to the income tax website kept timing out. I guess it was maybe because the endpoint was not responding. I tried it the next day during working hours and it went through. You can maybe automate this by giving users an option to automatically retry.

Few questions I had after using it was.

1) Will you guys add support for digital signatures?
2) Will you also allow someone to apply for a digital signature and get it?
3) What is your business model? Do you charge a fee for each filing?

Overall I'd give you a rating of 4 (on a scale of 5). I wish there were more such utility services in India.
There's one more privacy feature/annoyance with photos on Google Plus. Apparently when I share an album with someone, that person in turn can share that album with other people and can also see who else I've shared it with. Now what's the point of a private album if everyone else can share my album. I like how Facebook solves this problem. You, as the album owner get to choose who sees the album. People who you've set the visibility as true cannot see who else I've shared it with.
> not to mention that it doesn't follow - for short -- for long switch convention

That's because they're not options, they're predicates. A sequence of predicates to be precise (they execute strictly in-order and are short-circuited: the first predicate failure will stop the whole evaluation unless you're using `-or`). They're closer to `test`'s operator than to `grep`'s switches.
Repair All MySQL Databases With Single Command | Hat Linux
It Was Never About The Money, Stupid
> Second does what I expect

Both do what you expect once you understand `-name` and `-delete` are predicates (not switches) and find short-cuts.
Why should Person A be able to see the photos they are tagged in if the photos have never been shared? If I have lots of albums on Picasa and I never share any of them but I tag everyone in them, that's pretty clearly for my benefit and not the benefit of the individuals in the photos. There's no harm to Person A by being tagged in my private album, nor is there really any benefit to Person A by having the photo automatically shared.

I think it's reasonable to share a photo where Person A is tagged only if the photo has been shared. Tagging and sharing are separate actions as far as most people are concerned so there's not a good reason I can see for the UI performing both actions on a tag event.
I disagree. One not-insignificant use-case of Picasa Web Albums was to share photos with selected people only. Face-tagging was just another piece of metadata that could be attached to private or public photos, just like the location geo-tags, captions, timestamps, etc. It never had anything to do with sharing.
In addition to what the person below me said, it's ridiculous that Google offers _no_ form of official support.

So yes, speak for yourself. I appreciate what he's doing as well.
You're welcome!

About TOS & Privacy policy. I couldn't find these after searching. Maybe place it in Footer, FAQ.
Qq斗地主
If you like the Rails approach, but you have a Java background, or are working with people who have done Java before, you could do worse than Groovy on Grails. Grails is an opinionated / convention-over-configuration framework that was inspired by Rails, and Groovy is a dynamic language that runs on the JVM, and has a syntax that is almost a superset of Java. It's a very easy transition for Java folks to Groovy and Grails, but the environment is - in my experience - radically more productive than traditional Java web development environments.

http://www.grails.org

I'm using Groovy and Grails for the stuff I'm working on right now ,and really loving it.
Python is another language not very different from Ruby. Check it out and if you like what you see, below are the python specific answers(IMO and far from complete) to your question.

> What are the options out there that are a solid alternative to RoR?

First three frameworks that pop up in my head without thinking too much are:

Flask - http://flask.pocoo.org/

Flask is a nice micro-framework for quickly getting up and running with simple web applications. It is easy to understand. But do not get mislead by the word "micro"; it is an amazing piece of software and can be used to build real web applications. Great for building APIs.

Why Flask: Strong architecture design, easy to use, actively developed by amazingly smart people.

Django - http://djangoproject.com/

Django is a high-level Python Web framework that encourages rapid development and clean, pragmatic design. Development with Django is a breeze. Most common backend stuff in web development can be done with a few lines of code. Django is a full stack framework which comes bundled with its own ORM, template language, URL dispatching and lot of middlewares, libraries and utilities.

Why Django: Actually usable autogenerated admin interface, genric views(create stuff with zero code(sorta)) active development, insanely fast development cycles, good design, huge community of very smart and well respected people in python community.

Pyramid - http://pylonsproject.org/projects/pyramid/about

Pyramid is a very general open source Python web framework. While Pyramid does not provide its own ORM, template languages, URL etc. It glues together already developed, high quality and functionally solid python packages for the those tasks. This comes at a cost though. You will actually need to do a bit more setup/coding. This is intentional and not accidental. People tend to choose Pyramid when they want very tight control of application architecture, which one has to trade-off in case of frameworks like Django and Flask.

Why Pyramid: Build the app the way you want and not the way framework wants, strong community, developed by incredibly smart and well respected people in the python community.

PS: Assuming your team members are not new to programming, your concerns about syntax etc. might most likely be misplaced. Most important question here is "Is the team willing to learn and experiment with new things?" If yes, then such concerns will vanish as soon as the your team implements a very simple app as a learning exercise. My favorite code2learn app is a simple private messages system app as found on many social networks. It is simple and easy to understand so any moderately experienced web developer should be able to implement in a day or two.

- God speed.
Furthermore, I'm trying to understand why everyone is saying that he should have backed up all of his data. They must be gigantic Google fanboys.

If Google is going to act like they can hold all of your data easily and effectively, why would a normal user back up their data? Would a normal user even know how? I doubt any of my friends would know where to start, or why they even should. After all, Google operates under the pretense of being a reliable service.

And let's get one thing clear: they ARE a reliable service. Up until they deactivate your account.
I bet Google probably doesn't care all that much. Users are product sold to advertisers.
Cassandra Basic Schema and Ruby Gem
A nice side effect is the civility of discussions. People tend to be much less likely to spam/troll when their real identity is tied to it. Look at the difference in comment quality between YouTube and Facebook for example.
For the most part, I think that Google's crackdown on pseudonyms and anonymity is actually a good thing. In most cases, anonymity online brings out the worst of us—just look at 4chan, littered with mobs of minions proliferating senseless hacking and child pornography[1]. You need but look at the news lately to see the damages of unchecked anonymity: "LulzSec this," "Anonymous that" and so on.

Enforcing real names is a good thing. It means people finally start to take responsibility for their actions, and there is accountability. People behave much better when the threat of embarrassment is in the balance.

I only see one legitimate reason for someone to be allowed a pseudonym: if they are more widely known by that name than their real name. This applies to authors, artists as well as web community members. The solution is easy: allow a nickname field in addition to your real name: [First] "[Nickname]" [Last]. Some already do it. Day9, for example, goes by Sean "day9" Plott online.

Lastly, I realize the hypocrisy of posting to Hacker News without my name visibly attached, so for the record, I am Kenneth Ballenegger from kswizz.com.

[1]: I have browsed thru /b/ many times, and the behavior of people there truly is the worst I've seen ever. I was in the middle of the SF Giants riots last year, and the people setting fire to cars and breaking windows seemed more civil by comparaison.
Don't do this. Ever.

Firstly, you're eating up your margin for error. This seems fine when you're scanning with an iPhone 4 from a galley proof in a brightly lit office, or from your calibrated monitor. It becomes a big problem when users are scanning creased newsprint on a poorly lit train, from a dirty TV at the wrong aspect ratio, or with a crappy cameraphone with a scratched lens.

Secondly, you're pissing away the inherent call to action in a QR code. Many of these more styled QR codes are barely recognisable as such. Either you reduce your scan-through rate because people don't know that your multicoloured blob is actually a QR code, or you have to explicitly state "this is a QR code, you can scan it". I hope I don't have to explain why those are bad design outcomes.

If you hire designers, this is a brilliant litmus test. Anyone who thinks that this is a good idea is incompetent, plain and simple. They will make decisions which are pretty, but will annoy your customers and cost you money.
I only wish I could be suspended!

My profile has been "under review" for over THREE WEEKS, meaning that my profile is invisible to others and I am unable to do anything with my Google+ account, not even make comments, until some notional human within Google looks at it and makes a decision.

The irony is that, if I were suspended, I could least click that link to appeal the decision. As it stands, waiting for a review, I can do nothing.

My "crime"? I had a non-standard character in my old Google profile name, where it was not a problem but which was automatically carried over to my Google+ profile. I changed it as soon as I became aware of the problem but, more than three weeks later, I am still awaiting review, possibly permanently.

How the Hell has Google, a company of supposedly intelligent people, allowed such an obvious and avoidable problem alienate some of their previously enthusiastic users?

If a profile is automatically suspended (or, worse, placed "under review"), it should be automatically reinstated if the offending character is removed, it should not require human intervention, especially as Google have so clearly allocated no humans to the task.
The really nice thing that I personally like about Hyde is the fact that it is very component based. For example, it uses Jinja2 for templating. Which is extremely similar to Django templates. It really is a nice little setup that let's me do some neat things very easily. Very powerful.

Another thing I like is that Hyde will regen only the files needed to be regenerated. You can of course force a full regeneration of the site, but as your site grows (particularly blogs) the slower regeneration gets. This means that for simple things like adding a new post to the site can mean very quick regeneration.

Jekyll is certainly an inspiration, but it seems to be lagging behind in basic functionality of some other more interesting projects.
Open Networking Summit at Stanford this October
This may not have always been the case, but you can untag yourself and once you do that no one else is allowed to retag you.
Only allowing the owner to share an album is a false sense of security. If someone can see your album, they could just as easily download the photos and make them public.

Instead of disallowing it outright, I'd rather they make it clear that you're sharing content with a wider audience. One solution would be to require that the owner approves the share, similar to how tagging is handled.
Yep, apparently the author used a few Unicode characters of his own hoping every single HTML renderer out there would support it. Not clever.
> Google's censorship cooperation with China was fairly
> despicable. And they only started changing after they were
> publicly humiliated by PBS

Interesting, do you know where to find both of these stories (or just the PBS story)?
Google uses facial recognition to automatically blur out faces in Street View. I imagine they have some fun ideas concerning Android as well.
TMTC 66 Josh Berkus (PostgreSQL Core Team)
Yeah, I had a really hard time trying to fit all that into one sentence :)
Amir Khan proves too much for Judah
"Blog" is a verb as well as a noun. In this case it is just the usual rule of "-ing" taking a verb into its present participle (adjective) or gerund (noun) denoting the action or process of the verb.
The snide commentary in this article undermines his arguments. Given how much of an expert he seems to consider himself, I would have expected him to know this. Looking down on others doesn't position you as their superior.

Examples:
"If anyone should realize that, an epistemologist should. If Professor Jones does not, perhaps he doesn't deserve to teach philosophy."

"I shudder to think what a sensitive and intelligent criminologist, jurist, or physicist would take away from a rigorous course in the foundations of knowledge. If he or she has half a brain, they would be rendered permanently uncertain about the validity of their own day-to-day work."

"Perhaps you, Dear Reader—like me—are surprised to learn that a hotbed of scholarly inquiry like UNLV actually has a philosophy department in the first place. But, putting aside any special needs UNLV might have concerning the ontology or metaphysics of college basketball, or the ethical justification for bribery of student athletes, I suppose it makes sense, if only for the sake of curricular completeness."

"But last time I checked, the discipline of philosophy has not said, "Look, Kant got the categorical imperative pretty much right, so let's all just move on, shall we?" in the same way physicists have done with Newton and Einstein."
This is basically taking Stammy's tutorial and making it into a nice packaged framework: http://paulstamatiou.com/how-to-wordpress-to-jekyll

Good show.
72 More Views of the Tower of Babel
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that Google violated the principle of least astonishment here in a way that people are right to be upset about due to privacy concerns... that's what I was agreeing with on my "first hand".

I just don't have any strong emotional reaction to the situation because of my binary view of sharing on the Internet. Any site feature that allows you to share something "to selected people only" is more an illusion of security/privacy than a real thing (you can't control who THEY share it with, etc). Even if you never share the photo with others and have it marked strictly 'private', I still see putting it up online as basically "sharing it with the world" because all of the untrustworthy middlemen you introduce that have access to that data regardless of your public/private settings.

Because I don't view such public/private/partially-shared/etc features as effective security for photos/videos/writings/etc in the first place, when the way they operate changes in some unexpected way I can't work up much rage about it, though (again) I do see why other people may be upset about it.
I actually agree with this.. I tried to think back about the dot.com era (which some people refer to as a bubble. If you think about it, the dot com bubble never burst. It is still alive and if anything, has allowed the amazing platforms we have today to materialize from something. Perhaps the insane growth has somewhat mellowed, but the dot.com era never blew up (destruction blow up, not growth haha). The dot.com era and our current entrepreneurial/start up era are unique, but I still think they play by the similar rules that any business, product or service goes by. They'll be created, experience growth, begin to mature and then possibly (with no regard to adaptation) decline or slowly die out. It's up the people behind the companies how long it takes and how much traction they can establish in each phase, which is where the true entrepreneurial skills shine.

Just a few points that come to mind after this article, not saying they're right or wrong.. but thanks for getting the mind cranking!
I just posted a fun little thought experiment to illustrate why this is actually a thing: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2799908

When you read someone write "as I write this", they mean "simultaneous with the event of this writing in the reference frame that I occupy currently". I mean I doubt anyone conceptualizes it like that, but that's what they mean physically. It just wouldn't make sense any other way.

So what does it mean when someone writes "as I write this, the water is all gone"? That statement is factually false, since in their frame of reference the event in which the water disappears has not yet happened.

Now as I noted in my thought experiment, that statement is true in "a frame of reference which agrees with the theoretical frame of reference of a spaceship we launch today, at the time it arrives at the reservoir". But that's just not what people mean when they say "now".

Commenters on this article, and there are several, aren't saying that because they're mindful of relativity and are using a peculiar implicit reference frame in order to make the point that the water might all be gone by the time our ship gets there. If they were, they would never say "now", because that's nonsensical, and we have a perfectly straightforward way to say that: "It might all be gone by the time our ship gets there." (In fact, isn't "the frame of reference of a spaceship we launch today, at the time it arrives at the reservoir" the same as "the time our ship gets there"?)

They're saying it because they think that there's such a thing as simultaneity. They think conceptually we could travel there instantly. It's just not true.

And it's not not true in the sense that "little g is 10m/s^2" is not true, it's not true in the sense that "The sky is red" is not true. Somebody who says the sky is red misunderstands something fundamental about their universe, and I think that's worth teaching them about.

Now, sure, you could argue that, say, it's stormy out, so it's dangerous to fly, just like it would would be if the sky were red, so practically the statement is ok and I'm just being a pedant. But that would be ridiculous.
Some people are strangers to themselves.
I totally agree. I can't stand people who put random crap in their Facebook names (and actually tend to unfriend them.)

Similarly, I religiously give everybody on my IM buddy list their real name. I would go crazy if everyday I only saw pseudonyms and had no idea who was who.
I think, for theless experienced(read just starting out) developers, understanding a framework like Symfony2 will be the as complicated as any other framework in any other language.

Trust me, I have seen "senior developers" with years of experience doing HTML-PHP spaghetti style coding(and nothing else) going bonkers when asked to do something in a framework as simple as CodeIgniter - let alone more complex systems like Symfony2 or Drupal.
I disagree.

1. I can think of many bubbles that the author has lived through, even if he can't. Oklahoma natural gas in the early 1980s, junk bond credit bubble in the mid 1980s, Japanese stock and property markets in the late 1980s, regionalized housing bubbles in California and Boston in the 1970s and 1980s, etc. There are many other examples, depending on how old he is (Nifty 50 in the late 1960s), etc. And I don't think it's a stretch to call the "mania" for tech stocks in 1999 a bubble. (If that's not, why is housing/credit in the 2000's a bubble?) Ignorance of history is not generally a qualification to opine on it.

2. To take this seriously as comment, he'd need to define the difference between a bubble, a mania, and a phenomenon, at least well enough for someone else to apply it to a situation and arrive at the same classification. Otherwise, this is an article about how he doesn't think there's a bubble, so you shouldn't either.

3. I will do him one better and hazard at least a partial definition of a bubble--a rapid and escalating series of price increases that is driven by a feedback loop of public perception rather than by the fundamental cash flows of the asset. One can quibble with this (it's hardly scientific). If you don't like mine, have a look at Robert Shiller's (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/schillers-list-how-to...).

4. To establish that this is not a bubble, he would need to make it clear why he believes that the cash flows the affected firms will ultimately generate will make their present valuations reasonable. While that may be true in some cases, in general I don't think it's a hard case to make that the tech industry has jumped from cyclical upswing to nascent bubble. Pockets of tech financing--arguably angel financing and some late-stage financing--are, to my eyes, pretty much already there.