skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Multithreading or Light-weight processes ?
I personally feel using light-weight processes for intra-application multitasking is far more superior than having concurrently running threads that share the same block of memory.

Light-weight processes are far more secure than threads in the sense they don't share memory and thus avoid a whole host of problems associated with it.

IMO, they are also easier to work with (while programming); I find the message-passing IPC model simpler and more manageable.

Additionally when it comes to parallel computing; even there light-weight processes are a win-win scenario. There's no need for complex algorithms that manage shared memory between CPUs when each CPU can be assigned 1/more L.W.-processes and they all interact by message passing.

I think on a well designed OS, L.W.-procs should be as efficient as threads.

Some applications like Google Chrome already use L.W.-procs (for each tab the user opens a seperate process is launched). It surprises me that a lot more people don't use it already, given its many advantages.

Which model of multitasking do you think is better? (especially in terms of programmer efficiency)
as for the guy's problem with the lack of HTML() in pygtk, there's pywebkitgtk: http://code.google.com/p/pywebkitgtk/
Could be a lot of people who applied to fbfund and were not one of the 25 chosen. The winners were announced this past Tuesday.
There is no good answer to this that encompasses all scenarios. Some times it makes more sense to use threads, some times LW procs.

Things like chrome make an interesting case for using LWP in an environment that usually uses threads, but it still does not necessarily mean it is a better solution.
this is useless.
I like the guy's comments in the margin. "Typical MBA horseshit"
Welcome to the corporate world, my friend.
I guess the applications vary significantly by nature - but it would be interesting to see if the economic climate had caused the general flavour of the applications to change... or at the very least caused the founders to put a different lens on their idea.
I've been turning to Yahoo more often lately. I've noticed that with more complicated, technical searches, Yahoo now seems to give more useful results than Google.

The home page is still annoying, but at least it's avoidable.
Thanks for the feedback. I am trying to fix the problem of the missing videos. As far as search; I will work on that next.
David Friedman is a utilitarian libertarian anarchist, son of the famous Milton Friedman. In "The Machinery of Freedom" he makes his case for an anarchist society. He does not claim that markets are always better without state intervention. His claim is subtly different: that a society without a state is better off than a society with one. He leaves open the possibility that the state might be better at some things than the market, but he argues that the drawbacks of a state outweigh the possible benefits.

David's son, Patri, runs the anarcho-capitalist Seasteading Institute, which aims to create seastead societies on the ocean (think "Water World", without the suck). He believes that seasteads will be more resistant to government monopoly, since a group of people who did not like their government could simply float to a different one.

Given the results so far, other libertarians encourage the Friedmans to breed as much as possible.
Indeed -- having applied I've got to say there is benefit in even just applying. So well done even if you got that far.

This is even aside from the individual questions on the application (which are good questions to ask none-the-less). Going through the process lets you look at your idea and your proposition in a bit more of a structured way. Our ideas didn't change, but certainly our focus and outlook did.
How to Pitch to VCs, How to Pitch to Angels and How to Pitch to Reporters
The one that fits the problem at hand is the best model to use. one's not clearly better for all cases than the other.
You're the first person I've heard to say that most libertarians don't respect CATO. Who do they respect then? I'm not trying to be confrontational, just asking...
And how would you do that? what would make the economy more fault tolerant, specifically?
Router Failure Delays TV Broadcast of Playoffs
The government is currently creating a great deal of moral hazard by bailing out irresponsible lenders and decreasing the amount of perceived risk in the market place. Libertarians are generally opposed to this. When the next crash comes because of this moral hazard, I'm am sure the public will still blame libertarians for it. I still won't think it a fair accusation.

I fail to see how it is analogous to the blind Marxists who deny that every Marxist society was really Marxist. Our economy is evidently mixed. Our government controls the money supply and has an explicitly activist macroeconomic policy. Our financial markets are the most regulated markets in any industry except medicine. The two largest mortgage entities in the United States were formerly government agencies. There are plausible reasons why libertarians can deny that the credit crisis is due to markets that were too free.

A facile comparison based solely on the structure and not the content of the arguments of the libertarians and the Marxists is not fair.
I am hearing this claim more often these days, that the government somehow caused this by 'forcing' lower lending standards, but I don't know of a factual reference. Can you help me out?

The idea of home ownership for minorities probably does appeal to politicians, especially Democrats. But my understanding is that the real engine here was a worldwide glut of capital, creating demand for new sorts of high-yield securities, such as the now famous securitized mortgage pools. Finally, the worst of it only became possible with deregulation, which incents fraud committed by thousands of individual lenders (particularly victimizing low-income people).

In other words I can easily imagine a Kennedy signing a bill and proclaiming "mortgages for all!" but the real force behind such a bill would be on Wall Street.
awesome. I would upmode you more if I could. :) thanks!
My payments have been stable - but nothing to write home about (biggest revenue comes from other networks). The telling sign will be from those who get $5,000+ / month consistently. If traffic is consistent, the change would be:

1) advertisers pulling campaigns (unlikely to happen so quickly)
2) google changes rev share (likely? unlikely?)
Control Basecamp From iGoogle with the Periscope Gadget
I don't think lw-process is a good answer to server-side programming. for desktop programming, multi-process can avoid program fails and provide superior performance. but for server-side, considering the consuming of memory and computing resource, threads and lock-free data structure are the better choice. Well, when needing a robust server-side program, you indeed have to program something like lw-process&thread hybrid.
Why is this laughable?
Your definition of "light-weight process" appears to be the same as a normal process.
What would you like to have datamined, visualized about the forum?
I am currently datamining the posts from september on Hacker News.

What would you guys and girls like to see visualisations of and what kind of statistics are you interested in?
Any suggestions are welcome, I'll see what I'll implement.
if you type this into google you will find sources: government forced lower lending standards
I am not sure why equality === misery. But I am not talking about everyone having the same amount of money- using the word equality did not adequately convey my feelings on this. I am talking about setting a standard for living (we already have explicit and implicit standards) and then actually following the standard.

Depending on the metric you are using we do well. If you are talking about making sure people have the bare essentials, we do pretty well. The "extras" like education are lacking though.
>The guy is plainly a crackpot.

I'm guessing he smokes a lot of weed.
Added to my wishlist. Any other works you'd recommend?

With respect to the seastead societies, which I've heard about, I think it's certainly plausible that they'll "work", given sufficient diversity of available governments, and hence, appropriately homogenous small-scale populations. But in a geopolitlcal landscape ruled by nation-states, I would be truly wary of breaking down powerful liberal democracies like the US into anything resembling these things. It's rather unclear to me how you could mobilize a sufficient defense against nationalist military forces.

I recall reading in my undergrad days about similar small, voluntarily formed communities. (One of them, for instance, eschewed all laws and use of coercion, relying on subtle and not so subtle forms of ostracization to keep people in line.) But it occurred to me that these communities were entirely dependent on having a larger, more powerful neighboring entity around to protect them, and I have to believe these seastead societies are subject to the same dependency.
There are plenty of people who can give harsh criticism, but can't take it. In fact, probably the majority of people are like that.
How to Improve Techmeme: Create a Techmeme Jr.
The same way you do it with computers: avoid central control.
Central control is fragile, non scaleable (and promotes corruption when human beings are involved).
Designing With Vision
If you have a database of who voted for what, I'd love to see what the principle eigenvector of vote propagation looks like.
Funny loading statements to keep users amused
I just realized all it takes for me to switch from google to yahoo permanently is change the control-k search bar on firefox from G to Y!.

That's one low barrier.
It's also interesting to note that this was written by Michael Lewis, author of Liar's Poker.
I don't, I just have all the posts in html-format.
Is it telling that this comment has more points that the article?
http://uncov.com/node/245

http://uncov.com/node/241

http://uncov.com/node/238

Not the usual Uncov-level mockery, but it's a start.
'Om Malik’s “Why Google’s Partners Should Be Worried” ...'

Given that this blog post is just a paste from the mentioned (and unlinked article), you should've posted the original instead.
I would suspect that the number would continue to increase as the reader base here, and the YC effect continues to propagate. However, what I'd be interested in knowing is if the type of start up ideas has changed due to the economic climate; possibly fewer that are CPM based (and I don't mean the one with PIP).
Wikipedia on Herbert Hoover: he didn't fail for lack of bailing
I used to think of him as a straight-up failure that left things a mess until Roosevelt came along and fixed everything. There's more to it that that.

"...Years later, libertarians argued that Hoover's economics were statist. Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible," and of leading "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".

And later:

Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell[27] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."
If you're into these sort of pranks look at these books:

http://www.amazon.com/Nightwork-History-Hacks-Pranks-MIT/dp/...

http://www.bookstore.caltech.edu/caltech/shop_product_detail...
"This is horrifically irresponsible on Michael's part, but that sort of thing is to be expected. Michael, you should be ashamed of yourself."

And Ted should be ashamed of himself for ridiculing and mocking people who's products are better than his own. Karma, bitch.
The Seasteading Institute has thought of all the common criticisms of their approach and tried to answer them. Whether you think they succeed is up to you.

Here's the FAQ:
http://www.seasteading.org/learn-more/faq

Here's the book-length treatment:
http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/commented/paper/index.ht...

By the way, Patri's group has raised $500,000 from Peter Thiel to pursue their ideas. If you live in the bay area, you can attend social meetings of the Seasteading Institute, though I'm not sure what goes on there. Patri has very avant garde facial hair.
While stupid, it's highly relevant. It's worthwhile to read contradicting opinions, even if just to understand why they are wrong. Same reason I have KFPA (a communist radio station in Berkeley) programmed into my car radio.
Ron Paul, Austrian economists, lew rockwell.
It may have been rash to say that people don't respect CATO. However, recently, previous disagreements are now seriously hurting opinions because of the bailout. The main beef with CATO is their connection to neocons and objectivism. Their support for the bailout as a temporary solution matter hasn't helped.
I'm a fan of lightweight processes. I really recommend reading the following:

http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-1....

Threads are a seemingly straightforward adaptation of the dominant sequential model of computation to concurrent systems. Languages require little or no syntactic changes to support threads, and operating systems and architectures have evolved to efficiently support them. Many technologists are pushing for increased use of multithreading in software in order to take advantage of the predicted increases in parallelism in computer architectures. In this paper, I argue that this is not a good idea. Although threads seem to be a small step from sequential computation, in fact, they represent a huge step. They discard the most essential and appealing properties of sequential computation: understandability, predictability, and determinism. Threads, as a model of computation, are wildly nondeterministic, and the job of the programmer becomes one of pruning that nondeterminism. Although many research techniques improve the model by offering more effective pruning, I argue that this is approaching the problem backwards. Rather than pruning nondeterminism, we should build from essentially deterministic, composable components. Nondeterminism should be explicitly and judiciously introduced where needed, rather than removed where not needed. The consequences of this principle are profound. I argue for the development of concurrent coordination languages based on sound, composable formalisms. I believe that such languages will yield much more reliable, and more concurrent programs.
OK, in my worthless opinion, this cancels out some of his bad karma.
Video: kelly pavlik vs bernard hopkins boxing
New Zealand to implement three-strikes law for copyright infringement
Some Of These Layoffs Aren’t Really Layoffs
Other traits are desirable, but I asked about this one here because I thought people might have firsthand experience overcoming problems with it, and also because it's the trait most threatened by quitting Montessori.
"Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent.... One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
Query Apache Log files with SQL
I disagree. I think that email is still extremely important because of how vastly basic-level it is.

I love Facebook's messaging system. I think Twitter is a waste of time, but I think that for what it is it's done perfectly. Neither holds a candle to email, because it's site-specific.

Texting is huge, of course. That's a messaging system that is quite possibly as big as email. But it relies on the same decentralized system as email. It's vulnerable to the same things. This presentation is just as relevant for texts.

Then there's IM, which isn't decentralized (not the popular types, anyway), and which has the exact same productivity problem but amplified.

Either way, I think that the chart in this slide (urgent/important) is the central problem that any sort of inbox, be it email or texting or feed or IM, needs to prepare itself for. And I think that whoever solves it has a pretty huge userbase ripe for the plucking.

But don't bet against decentralized systems, because they take forever to go away (look at how much Panic is getting for Unison, their UseNet client), and don't bet against email until there's a better existing system in place that doesn't rely on walled information.
Scheme continues at my day job
Rejoice with me. A plan to spend lots of money to rewrite a Scheme web front end into Struts has been shelved. I'll continue consing day and night.
Interesting. I don't want to make assumptions, what percentage of people applied in the last week (80%? 65%? 50%?) and the last day (40%? 25%)?

Thanks, PG!
well, i was born in ussr and i've seen it collapsing.
i have to say that the author is full of it. the main sources of troubles in collapsing ussr were, in no particular order:

* dying agriculture sector and massive dependence on imported food (doesn't appear to be a problem in u.s.),

* non-existent property structure: nobody owns anything, so nobody has the incentive to maintain things or use things to turn profit, etc (doesn't appear to be a huge problem in u.s.)

* no preexisting contracts, markets, distribution channels, etc; almost no preexisting social network of business relationships, since all operations were run by the state (not a problem in u.s.)

* the main issue: it was 3rd or 4th generation of people raised in the world where "business", "profit", "property", etc were all synonyms for "crime". "doing something people want/need" was unthinkable. the only people who dared to think about it were criminals [and that's how we got the country we have now] (and no, i can't imagine that being a problem in u.s.)

so there. if [quite an "if", huh] your empire goes down, i think you'll be okay :) [and some redneck farmers might not even notice much].
Starting with slide 9, the US is compared on "specifics". It points to our energy and transportation infrastructure leading to a bigger crisis for the US.

I think the latter slides are interesting, and energy/transportation is by far our biggest vulnerability, but not necessarily accurate, and even leaning towards trying to scare. My opinion was reinforced by slide 19:

" the Soviet union was much better prepared for economic collapse than the US is". I wasn't there, but I guess because it didn't have as far to fall. The US may have to get used to less - but I believe that a free society eventually leads education and change. Because we are a democracy, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Uncov Marches On
I think the analogy is a little deeper the just a veneer. At least that is the accusation made here.

For one thing, the concept of 'communism' according to Marx is a stateless, classless society. Since communist states were 'states' & ruled by parties which were very similar to a ruling 'class,' I thnk we can call this grounds for appeal.

The problem is underlying. Any political theory that needs to be implemented completely, can't be judged based on its components. This means that unless you have a perfect specimen, you can't draw conclusions about its validity from reality.

To the communist in question, abolishing individual ownership, collective production, land reform, command economy, etc. might fail, but that doesn't disprove communism. It doesn't even disprove those strategies. They are only expected to succeed within a perfectly Marxist state. The fact that a state would have been better off not implementing any of those policies, is no deterrent.

To the libertarian in question, deregulated financial markets, corporate autonomy, free markets, etc. etc. might fail, but that doesn't disprove libertarianism. It doesn't even disprove those strategies. They are only expected to succeed within a perfectly libertarian system.

The question is: would the US/Iceland/UK have been better off under more regulated financial markets? If your answer is 'yes, but...if only they were even more regulated & trade was unrestricted &..,' then the analogy is about as strong as these sorts of analogies can get.
If they could do math, they wouldn't be journalists.
No, I don't think so. I am an economist; I understand the issue. I'm saying that if you start with a government intervention, there's not anything unlibertarian about advocating a further intervention to make things less bad, provided that you oppose the initial intervention.

For instance, libertarians oppose government-created monopolies. But given a government-created monopoly, it's not unlibertarian to support regulating it. The optimal libertarian policy is obviously abolishing said monopoly. The second-best one is regulating it. The third-best is letting it abuse its power.
Besides, financial freedom is only half of libertarianism.
don't make me laugh. you really want to try to map the modern political parties onto the traditional left right political spectrum? forget it, both sides are far to the left.
wrong. the only reason to survive is to mate and ensure offspring survival. if personal survival was maximized by evolution why don't we all live to be 900?
I actually like the competition. I dislike the unconditional fanatics :)
A globe like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLygWkHo9nw
This whole post seems like a feeble attempt at addressing the issue that he makes horrible comments about startups that haven't failed when his has.

Yes, this is the point: to show you that no matter how illogical something can be on the internet, there will still be hype and buzz around it. It's not supposed to make sense.

Seems like that is what his point is now that he is a lower statistic than the people he rants about.
Daniel Lyons: Why Is Jerry Yang Still In Charge?
I got to slide 27 before concluding this to be an elaborate piece of satire.
It's a false dichotomy, I think - they're not the only models around. Cf Erlang's process model - no shared memory, and far less resources per process than either OS processes or threads.
It's not clear that there's a vast business opportunity for RSS readers right now. Or is it a search engine? I can't tell.
Yeah, that was actually his entire point - Soviet Union was well prepared because soviet economy was crap to start with for average citizen, so collpase wasn't much worse and many survival skills acquired under soviet rule came out surprisingly handy in the chaos of the nineties.

I think he is pulling our (collective) leg. :)
the main shock for an average soviet citizen quickly becoming a russian citizen probably wasn't the abrupt drop in the quality of life [though there sure was quite a drop]. it was more about how to live when nobody tells you what to do every minute and when you're on your own.

people who came up with a dead simple idea to 1) borrow some cash, 2) visit europe, buy some Snickers (tm) [i kid you not, it really was Snickers for some reason], 3) sell it in russia from a makeshift tent -- those people were turning hundreds percents of profit, doubling their operations weekly and making huge fortunes [by local standards anyway] in months.

and, well, one in a thousand had the mindset to pull that off. others were living in poverty in spite of the whole world of available opportunities.
I wasn't implying tat you don't understand the issue. Just that I think the article is implying something more shallow then what you seem to have responded to.
Flash paint program
http://www.pixlr.com/