skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sounds like a lot of whining to me. The author's reaction to this made him lose all credibility with me.

First off, you think you're an expert? Maybe you are, maybe not but even experts aren't always right and just because you think in your infinite expert wisdom that so and so should have a Wikipedia page, the majority of us obviously don't.

Secondly, so sorry the appeals process was so inconvenient for you. So far Wikipedia is doing just fine and your rant doesn't seem to be hurting them much. With all the garbage that people attempt to post on Wikipedia, there's a good reason for all the walls.

In the end this comes off like a know-it-all's childish hissy fit for not getting his way. The world doesn't have to accept your point of view. Your response to this whole thing probably played a large role in you not getting what you wanted.

Next time try to up think about why some of these things are in place, know that you can't jump ahead of someone else in charge just because you think you're better qualified (it's first volunteer, first served on Wikipedia) and just approach the issue with a lot more tact and less childish kicking and screaming next time.

Some people love to talk about ideals like freedom, democracy, fairness, and all that but as soon as it inconveniences them they take the position that somehow those rules are for everyone else and they're somehow special. This guy doesn't fall in with the ideals thing I was talking about but he somehow managed to convince himself that everyone should just see thing his way.

How dare a free, worldwide, not for profit, website with a 99% democratic submission and editing process not bend to your will! The audacity!

Welcome to Wikipedia on the WWW where majority rules (even if you think they're all stupid-heads). I hope Jimmy Wales sends you a personal apology. Now let's all go edit the Wikipedia pages for "Cry Baby", "Brat", and "Temper Tantrum" and cite the author as a living example.
The situation is more like this, IF the Facebook IPO implodes, it'll put the entire startup ecosystem on hyper-cocaine-steroids.
"We" looks like a bunch of Twilio people.

Jeff, it might speed things up to bring on Joe Stump as the next Y! CEO - he's applied in the past so they're already familiar with his style (http://stu.mp/2011/06/dear-yahoo-hire-me-as-your-next-ceo.ht...) He also looks a lot like this Sean McQuillan fellow. An awful lot alike. Weird...

Anyways I'll take 15% of his first year's salary to make the intro, and I'll donate half to Charity: Water. Deal?
Picking the Right Costume Wigs
and dont make it to end the video when you vote :)
You could make a site that informs people of jazz events near users. Then offer discounts or promotions..

There are a lot of models that exist already, but try to form them into something for jazz. (look up a startup called Will Call)
5 if you count the terminal
You did some research and concluded that your idea is promising. But do you trust your idea? If so, build your product, and stick with it, and push it for as long as you can. It may not take off right away, so you need to have a great deal of optimism to keep things moving. Maybe your product will eventually become successful, or maybe it will bring you other profitable opportunities.
So, do you trust your idea, or you need others to convince you to trust it?
My point is that if you don't fully believe in the potential of your product or idea you're gonna have a hard time.
You too can flag this post.
Of course it's a shameless publicity stunt and their only goal is to give water to those in need. Good for them for being creative.
How GitHub uses GitHub to build GitHub (video)
How about being a single parent too. Regardless, all commendable.
It's an encyclopedia. You're not supposed to cite it in anything academic.
Effort intensive as a one-off, maybe.

If you're one of the aforementioned spammers, I assume you just set it up once in pywinauto and then go nuts.
I resisted the edit option of git-add -p for a long time because I was afraid of messing something up with a low level tool... big mistake! So easy to use!
Does anyone in their right mind actually have to be reminded the iPad is the most successful tablet?
The reason is because deletion is one of the single biggest areans for status games.

See, from the outside, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And there's a community there to write an encyclopedia. Sensible, no?

Actually, the community comes first and the encyclopedia is a side-effect. The community functions very politically, and very much like a game as well. The original intention might have been an encyclopedia with the minimum number of rules necessary to make that successful, but ultimately, the rules and red tape turned into the fun part of the game, and the encyclopedia-writing is just the grinding bit.

If all you wanted was a huge encyclopedia unlimited by the constraints of physical book size, you'd have a deletion policy like this: "each statement of fact has to be cited from a reliable source, every article has to be composed entirely of statements of fact, any other content should be deleted". So if there are no reliably-sourced statements of fact about a given subject, you don't get an article about them. If I started a Wikipedia article about my neighbor's cat and wrote a lot of outrageous claims, they would all be deleted and we'd be left with a blank article, which would probably be deleted as a relatively boring matter of procedure.

But what fun is that, when we can have a concept like "notability"? Ah! Suddenly, instead of all that boring shit about citing facts and removing uncited content, and just keeping whatever reliable information we have about something, we can have a massive PvE game where you get to find articles about subjects you don't care about and declare "this isn't notable!", and then you can lawyer a "consensus" of other players into agreeing with you. Or if another player disagrees, suddenly you have a massive PvP battle! Fun! Well, at least for a certain type of person who enjoys lawyering and gets off on will-to-power stuff that motivates one to try and delete articles from an encyclopedia, which is exactly the type of person that gravitates towards the project. And--believe it or not--these kinds of highly-social games, and one's success in them on Wikipedia, are a major factor in getting elected "administrator", at which point your duties now entail judging these lawyering games and actually deleting the articles!
You're wrong. If Wikipedia didn't have spthese standards then every idiot including myself would be creating pages that are just spam. You know how much I wish I could put my little no-name company on Wikipedia? A lot! But I can't and I'm glad I can't. These standards are why Wikipedia is so well respected.

Now, we all know a Wikipedia page doesn't have the weight of other sources and can be crap at times but so far it's a total class act and it has a lot to do with these policies.

I'm sure you know that Wikipedia has to constantly police itself for large companies trying to mess with competitor's pages and how there are armies of political operatives out there trying to rewrite history through Wikipedia. This is why even experts like the OP are so scrutinized.
Shop and Earn at the Same Time
This may be something you could perhaps use a video broadcasting service and see how much reach you can get.
Machine learning on client side
Great stuff, but I'm just too addicted to Magit on Emacs. It's a great luxury to never have to switch out of your editor.
Shooting Gun for PS3 MOVE Motion Control Shooting Games
Attracted to play shooting games? Want to buy PS3 gun? There is Shooting gun for PS3 move motion control shooting games offered here, this PS3 move gun can make shooting games more actual and excited.
How-To: Set up iTunes Match
The bill doesn't appear to "eliminate overtime" but "eliminate the requirement to pay overtime rates for overtime work." In which case there is no change since pretty much everybody already earned too much to qualify for overtime pay anyway.

As if the US govt would pass a law protecting workers. It is to laugh.
Carrier IQ Retracts Their C&D, Apologizes to Researcher
Tassimo Coffee Maker Descaling
>Is it really unfriendly or just a resource-management issue; it may be better not be perfect but can satisfy a large audience.

It's both. HN is unfriendly to new users who are used to the kind of interactions that predominate elsewhere. It is in many ways a close reddit analogue, and yet even veteran redditors will find themselves downvoted to oblivion here. I certainly did, when I first signed up.

Like HN, Wikipedia requires getting used to. There is a "Wikipedia Way", which is very different from how people interact on other parts of the Internet. It can seem bureaucratic and neurotic, and it is, but it keeps things running relatively smoothly for the regulars, which is the important part. The people who take the time to learn the ropes are the ones who end up ensuring that the content is useful and informative. Yes, some people will be put off by the fact that only reliable secondary sources can be considered when determining the notability of a subject, but the restriction is there for a reason: it keeps the crap out.

None of this means that Wikipedia is not open. If you waltzed into the Linux dev channel and insisted that something be done a certain way, you'd be banned. Linux is similarly complex, and there is a "Linux Way" of doing things. Take the time to learn that way and contribute, and you'll be welcomed. Insist they're wrong and write blog posts about how wrong they are, and you'll be ignored.
I think the problem people have with Google's control over the search results is that they (perhaps mistakenly) expect Google to be an impartial facilitator for accessing the world's information. It could be argued that organic placement of piratical content in autocomplete and instant searches is a desired outcome, as it shows the average person what's "out there" on the web. Removing actually-popular searches from the autocomplete and instant results is, in a way, lying about reality. People may be thinking, "If they're lying about this, what else aren't they telling us?"

From my perspective, if those of us arguing for things like shorter copyright terms are to have any success convincing the broader public (whose access to information is largely through the media conglomerates), maybe having those people accidentally stumble upon torrent sites when they search for their favorite movie or pop idol is a good thing.

Not because we want them to pirate the content, but because we want them to know that technology provides another way -- that there is a conceivable, technically possible existence that doesn't depend on a controlled feed of entertainment from the existing media players. If only they could experience the digital utopia that could be created if not for the impossibility of negotiating licenses, they might be willing to support a reform of copyright that is in the best long-term interests of society as a whole, both creators and customers.
their only goal is to give water to those in need.

No. dotben's point is that they have an auxiliary goal of promoting wepay (their company), which is perhaps far more of a driving factor than their support of Charity:Water.
This article looks nearly content-free to me:

> It’s true that there was little diversity in the racial sense but what struck me most was the lack of diversity of backgrounds, attitudes, and personality types.

OK, what backgrounds did you see? What attitudes? Which ones were missing? Hard to have a conversation without specifics
Would be great if you could share the outline of the survey (or the survey directly) - I've been having a hard time nailing the right type of questions.
>If Google decided to censor your business would you be happy about it?

The millions of porn webmasters out there don't seem to be complaining too loudly. They're just as legal.
What's with all the hate? The author has a lot of valid points.

1) If it's supposed to be the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", then it should be easy to use. If the "anyone can edit" is marred by insane levels of bureaucracy, making it so that, technically anyone can edit, but realistically, only those who know how to game the system can edit, than the system as a whole is a partial failure.

2) Who are you to judge whether he's an expert? Given that he at least claims to work in the field, that makes him more of an expert than almost all of the wikipedia editors combined. They just know their own bureaucratic guidelines, he actually knows something about the article in discussion. In the interest of journalistic integrity, they should at least attempt to listen to his points.

3) His points about how difficult it is to contest something is completely spot-on. There's no good reason why all the "contest this" or "discuss that" pages are simply huge text pages, other than because no one gave them a proper UI. For new users, it's confusing as heck. Given the status wikipedia has nowadays, and how widely it's used, they simply can't expect every user to know or care about their arcane systems. The system needs a proper UI for these sorts of things, making it easy to (a) file a complaint, (b) find a previously filed complaint, (c) discuss the complaint, and (d) find the resolution. His story about wading through talk pages isn't unusual, and it's kind of shameful for wikipedia that they haven't made it easier to use since their inception.
That's the only worthwhile part. Who cares who happens to be marginally ahead in a fight for scraps?
Firstly, I was not saying businesses do not have to do marketing. All businesses have to (or should) do significant marketing/pr/advertising to reach their market.

However, there's a massive difference between good marketing and deceptive/illegal marketing.

Apple does great marketing. Grifters, scammers and spammers do deceptive marketing.

Second, education is not a niche. Education is a sector, one of the largest in the world. Primary school teachers are a market, and bingo cards is a niche.

Technology is a sector, Web developers are a market and version control is a niche.

Boxing yourself into a niche that's too small with a product that's not particularly attractive makes marketing much more difficult than it needs to be.
Xkcd: money
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

> Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it.

There's the problem. Wikipedia should stop being an encyclopedia and start being Wikipedia.
What's ridiculous about your comment and rorrr's trollish one is that he probably already has (re-)visited them. He writes that he watched 13 lectures of the MIT intro to computer science OCW class. That definitely touches on data structures and algorithms.
Discrimination is not illegal. Discrimination based on certain classifications, some Constitution- or court-defined, some legislature-defined, can be illegal, but isn't always.

These are called suspect classifications[1], and whether any particular discriminatory law or action is illegal depends on the level of scrutiny attached to the classification, the nature of the law or act, and whether there's any actual harm.

Absent procedural errors, the only way to get a federal law tossed is for it to be declared unconstitutional. The US Constitution does not protect people based on their pay or the nature of their job.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification
Everyone is a deletionist about some things. Now, watch people try to delete my post by downvoting it.
which would you recommend for a designer to use as an intro to Git and source control in general? I'm trying to get my partner into git to collaborate with me. Is this client still just as easy when using it on a non github repo? or is its integration with github its main drawcard?
I wish he had more to back up his 10m US iPad sales than "a conservative guess." 40% of all iPad sales being in the US seems a bit much.

Maybe he could extrapolate from the other manufacturers' worldwide sales? So if Samsung sold 192,000 tablets in the US and 500,000 worldwide, his 40% figure might make sense.
It's strange -- when misreporting mischaracterizes an underdog, I feel sympathy towards that underdog. But when someone calls out reporting like this, I find it more offensive than informative.

In theory perhaps I should treat them the same, but the best analogy I can come up for this piece reads is something dramatic and ugly like "this article claims economic conditions in South America are improving, but check out how poor they are compared to the US!"
Show HN: CommonJS module implementation for the browser
I built a really simple CommonJS module implementation for defining/requiring javascript modules in a browser environment that doesn't load scripts asynchronously (or at all, for that matter).

https://github.com/bgrohman/cardboard.js

I originally did this for fun and to learn about CommonJS, but I'm curious to see if anyone else thinks this might be useful.
HTML Dog is absolutely awesome for learning, but just make sure you follow that up with what's different in HTML5. It'll make your life a bit easier. net.tuts+ and webmonkey are great places to get up to date. I've been meaning to try out teamtreehouse.com too, but just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Right now I'm trying to learn Python using Zed Shaw's Learn Python the Hard Way and The New Boston tutorials. I think once I'm comfortable with the language I'm going to try to build something. It seems like the best way to learn how things really work.
I would suggest Wikipedia needs a 'second page' site to host these types of 'less than notable pages' and they be eligible to be promoted to the main site.

But really I would just classify this as a #FirstWorldProblem
Come chat with us!

http://darknetplan.org/webchat
Download Watch The Skin I Live in Movie’s Video Online
You should, and we should.

I would question, though, whether that's particular to Wikipedia. You should take everything you read with a colossal grain of salt. Even if it's written in a printed encyclopedia, a textbook, or an article.
Can the Phantom protocol be combined with this somehow?

http://code.google.com/p/phantom/
Lean, mean consuming machine: the Nook Tablet reviewed
I wish I could replace my osx window manager by xmonad =_)
World-Class Mastermind Groups: Five Vital Elements
For now focus on expanding the customer base, first with new customers and later with customers from the competence, investing on hard assets and infraestructure, and limit the number of products and services that are being offered.

Later, when the growth rates start to drop and the average customer internet speed is high enough, look to create competitive advantages thru differentiation in order to increase the perceived value of the service for the customer, so the competence won't steal them from you. For example, offering new services and products related to internet access, like a nation-wide movies and tv streaming service for an additional rate.

Don't forget that the greatest part of the potential value of the business won't come out from the internet access per-se, but rather out of what you can deliver and sell with it.
Or this... this looks like a great resource. Looks like I've got some reading to do.
You are more right than you know; the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide an arena for exclusionary status games among core contributors, and so allowing outsiders to do anything without learning how to follow tons of red tape (and dozens of assorted acronyms) is indeed a failure.

Providing the sum of all human knowledge, for free, to the entire world, however, might be better served by making Wikipedia's software and editing processes more accessible and usable to others.
Expect a call from the SEC shortly... ;-)

On a serious note, how much goes to WePay and how much goes to the charity? I didn't see an obvious answer on the website.
At this point, we're considering all contributions equally.
No, most IT staff work for companies that are flagrantly violating employment law and have been for years. There have been lawsuits, they have been won (or settled favorably to the employees).

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9051
Retiring in the Desert
Slight tangent, but I can't understand why MediaWiki/Wikipedia is so resistant to a standard commenting/discussion system. Discussion pages are still just flat text anyone can edit.

I get the "simple is better" approach, but by now, there should be enough conventions, and there's certainly enough complexity, to warrant at least a basic structured forum.
Everyone should have a wikipedia page. Notability and value of information however should be clear: Turing's page should clearly be different then the page of my teacher in kindergarten. How? I don't know. We can go much finer in granularity. To be successfully usable, developments are needed to cope with the finer grained information (like having ~10M pages of teachers of kindergartens).
That's not the point he's making, please re-read the article. He included the specific reasons he believes Jessica to be notable (with proper references).
This workflow sounds like it could be replaced by creating a feature branch, developing the feature there, then merging the branch back into trunk when the feature is complete. This can be implemented in ordinary SVN, without git or git-svn.
He doesn't even bother to read the original email correctly before going on a rant, he clicks the link that shows him the differences, then acts surprised when he gets a comparison page!

Not to mention that his attitude in the Talk page was reprehensible, I am glad he was not able to contribute to Wikipedia as the last thing it needs is more egotism and arrogance.
We (WePay) charge 3.5% for donations. See https://www.wepay.com/about/fees
I am very surprised confused and disappointed at the parochialism here.
You didn't even read your original email from Wikipedia, but yet you feel that the people who work on the site should obey your whims despite your inability to be in any way polite.

This is not a Wikipedia failure, the failure is on your behalf. You can easily contribute and in fact someone was nice enough to help you in the right direction.

Your response to this person was to arrogantly insult them and complain that they did not do more to help you.

Once again, the failure here is not Wikipedias.
It's not bureaucratic as much you think. There is a system that is very easy to follow.

1. First they missed the delete review that normally waits about 7 days before taking action.
2. Upon discovering that their page was deleted found the archive delete review discussion.
3. Didn't understand what they were looking at and with disregard to the notes posted at the top saying that it's archive and not to edit it, edited it anyways.
4. A bot was triggered to an admin that someone edited a locked discussion and so he happily went to go help and left a message for the user on how to handle things and where to find delete review.
5. The user wanted to send a message to the editor and got confused at another point (the editor's talk page vs their user page).
6. etc etc etc...

It's sad the user is frustrated but lets stop the blame game here. I've been doing vandal patrol on wikipedia for 5 years. It's not some evil hive mind of control or something.
It doesn't sound like you've even tried Spotify or Google music, as google music does not do the same thing as Grooveshark or Spotify.
Reminds me of this (which I built a couple of years ago) - http://zombievirusfund.com/