skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your logic focuses on the product; mine the market. By your logic men's make-up should generate as much revenue as women's make-up. It doesn't though, and make-up exists for both men and women.

Existing game companies aren't directly comparable to Zynga precisely because they don't market to women. However, a social gaming environment like Dave & Buster's is comparable, because they target adults in their late 20s/early 30s and families, whose social agenda is driven by women.

Zynga's success comes from the fact that they tapped an underserved market: women who like to socialize through playing games.
I'd very much consider it.
DIGIbux
Because it's already easier without encryption to get people's trust from scratch than it is to impersonate someone else.
"finite number of domain names available"

It has definitely raised prices for a name that would be known in advance to be valuable. No question there. But the increase in number of people registering multiple names has supported a reduction in price.

The actual number of names, (not taking into account putting a dash in one or more places and the fact that there are only a few 1 letter names that aren't blocked and some other stuff) is approx 26 to the 63rd power.

1.3909801171074219559097425909479540384265584214249033... × 10^89

While that's finite it still a huge number of possibilities. (Like ipv6)

I have in my hand an invoice dated 1999 (my earliest domain was '96) and the charge is $70 (for two years). Before that if my memory is correct the price was $100 for two years. Before that the price was 0 (yes 0 when there were so few takers).

It's a little chicken and egg but the fact that a high volume registrar (like godaddy) registers so many domains allows them to make so little per domain. (Actually that's not entirely true they also make money by selling you things you don't need but that's a entire separate subject.)

So the bottom line is this. If you look at the registration activity speculators and non users of domains drive up registration volume greatly. But of the names they register, only a small percentage of those have anyone interested in buying at any price. So in the end the fact that they do what they do drives prices down for everyone.

Edit: Although I agree that's little consolation if they have the domain you want. But there is certainly no guarantee that the name you want wouldn't have been grabbed by someone before you anyway, right? (See woodrich.com below)

For example, the following are all available at a low low price:

woodrichplumbers.com

woodrichpainters.com

woodrichrestaurant.com

But not "woodrich.com" (registered in '96)
Thanks for declaring your patent for continuous gesture recognition. Wouldn't want to confuse that with a normal interaction.
I think what he was getting at is that they are "not as effective" in teaching people how to build web applications. There are people who can learn this way, but for beginners, it is really difficult.

In terms of data, we have tried them all. Not just Treehouse and Codecademy, but the web apps already out on the market (in-browser tutorials, ebooks, screencasts, physical books, etc.). And a lot of the students we have in Code Academy have tried them as well. They told us they wanted something more than just doing these online tutorials by themselves. They wanted a learning environment where they could learn with other people who are passionate about learning web development, get instruction from a professional software developer, and have mentors who can help them with the learning.
Talent is very important. Unfortunately, when you start saying that mere mortals not born with some innate talent for X task are destined to forever be not as good and less successful everyone throws a fit because the reality is that the majority of us just don't have that talent we crave. It implies that those without the talent won't get ahead and that's really upsetting.

I'm still on the fence as to whether to lean on the side this post takes or the original study that it's arguing against but I think this whole discussion has a lot to do with something else entirely. Please try to follow my logic here as I think it's am interesting connection.

The American Dream. The story we're told about America being a meritocracy and if we just work hard enough we'll all make it. This myth is pounded into all US born citizens from the time we're first enrolled in school and maybe earlier. But unfortunately this isn't true. In America, if you work really hard you'll get whatever crumbs your masters decide to give you. Power is inherited and not earned more often than not and it's rare that someone breaks out of the ranks and really shakes up the system.

So when you imply that talent counts more than hard work it shakes you to your core because of the popular belief that you can do anything if you just try hard enough. But what if we're wrong to refute this? What if talent really does matter more? Acknowledging something like this would surely do more to help you overcome that hurdle than trying to disprove it would. It's like the American Dream. Do I bitch about how it isn't fair and try to convince myself it's real or do I accept it and use my newfound understanding to find away around the problem rather than trying to convince myself it doesn't exist.

Again, I'm on the fence here but if I were to play devil's advocate and assume talent matters and practice doesn't, wouldn't that line of thought be more helpful?
THN December Magazine Released  Who We are at The Hacker News?
Social dynamics are definitely a bit off in SF but that is a whole other topic...ha
> How would you consider the American music industry an "external interest" in the USA?

The American music industry isn't American. It's international. When a corporation gets to be the size of, say, Universal, their interests are not bound to a specific country. To me, that makes their interests external to America's interests.

> I think this is a very broad, gross generalization. Sure, musically-inclined folks will probably still continue to play instruments or write songs as a hobby, even if there weren't a financial incentive.

It is a broad generalization to say that artists are fuelled by financial gain. I love designing and developing digital products and if I didn't work 9-5, I'd be doing it more often and probably with less restrictions, less overhead and less BS. We can't fathom this because it doesn't exist. The method provided is thought to be the only true way to "make it". And that's wrong.

> Let's say we flipped the law and made it illegal to sell music & movies.

You don't need to flip it. All you have to do is align with your peers and create communities that encourage artistic expression. Nothing wrong with people being the distribution network. There are thousands of years of cultural evidence that distribution of art & ideas is abundant when necessary.

> but it's not nearly as simple as "we'll always have art regardless of if there's an industry to support it!"

And yet art existed before the entertainment industry. Really, if Switzerland/Sweden's laws are such a threat to their profits, why haven't they pulled out?
Similarly are distributed computing projects like SETI at Home which (last I knew) were explicitly NOT open sourced because allowing others to see the code would explicitly undermine their trust in the computations done remotely.

I haven't seen RMS address that either; I think his views would be interesting.
Completely agree about starting now... and I have. I'm on my second startup. No one should delay starting because of location alone.
Thanks wes. That version is much better anyway.
View the profile of gianina sanchez
Weight Loss Guide Review
1995, Jeremy Rifkin talked about the End of Work, saying we should plan for how to structure society as it was coming. He was ignored, and now we seem to be living the results of not planning for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work

The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era is a non-fiction book by American economist Jeremy Rifkin, published in 1995 by Putnam Publishing Group.[1]

In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminates tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He traced the devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy, the American middle class continues to shrink and the workplace becomes ever more stressful.

As the market economy and public sector decline, Rifkin predicted the growth of a third sector—voluntary and community-based service organizations—that will create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. To finance this enterprise, he advocated scaling down the military budget, enacting a value added tax on nonessential goods and services and redirecting federal and state funds to provide a "social wage" in lieu of welfare payments to third-sector workers.[1]
What's disingenuous about programming on a site called "Hacker News," and what would be left other than political posts if you took out the startup and programming stuff?
Software only. Determine your need for the number of processors and add that on.

I'm looking at their $2000/mo plan for 100,000 minutes of video. Compare: Modern hardware does HD faster than real time, there are 43,000 minutes in a month. So for a quad core machine, you already have a comfortable margin.
It's good to be a Developer
Look around at open source software, clang vs. gcc, gnome vs. kde vs. xfce, and many others.

I see little evidence that open source leads to a reduction in duplicate effort.
Doesn't really help. The Reddit "culture" infects everything, not just the main subs.

I suppose for example /r/gamedev isn't awful, but really, GameDev.net is much bigger and better. There's little reason to bother with Reddit.
mod parent up!
Great Breakfast Bar Stools
As a 3rd gen Kindle owner, I don't really see how this product/experience could be meaningfully improved until color, full-motion, hybrid reflective/backlit screens (like Pixel Qi and Mirasol) are good and cheap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_Qi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometric_modulator_displ...
I don't buy this argument. Wanting to have a more complete rendering engine for their crawler might have been a factor in designing Chrome, but I can't imagine it was in any way the driving force. The costs of developing a browser that runs well on millions of different computers and configurations are far beyond what it would take to make a really great headless version of WebKit for your crawler.
In addition to the one time pad, you can specify other phone numbers. The system will call these phones and read the code aloud.
Alternately, we as developers can use existing open source software with which to build new software, without having to rewrite things that are already completed and available.
You're absolutely right. On top of that, many schools that are "free" are typically just trying to sell you something else. That's not the case with Mendicant University.

Right now our public facing website has very little useful information because we've grown by word of mouth and one-on-one interactions up until this point, and still manage to fill our courses up without a problem. However, in the long term we do need to do a better job of making it easier for folks to know what we're all about without having to be a friend of a friend of mine.
Very true. For some pretty far is good enough and it's where they're happy and want to be. However there are others who do strive for #1. I'm not talking about just generally as in how everyone wants to be the best but instead what I mean are those special few who need to take over the world and are meant to. Those people need that extra 7% but most of us don't.
Mine would be "google me"
In the basic use case (changes into a central repo), git and svn look similar. Git's power is revealed when you realize how it tracks changes individually -- it's super easy to branch and move changes around. The decentralization isn't just on a team level, it's on a per-developer level.

Let's say you have 3 bugs to fix. In SVN you might work on them 1 at a time (start to finish -- hopefully no blockers!), or descend into madness and try to work on all 3 simultaneously. In git, you'd make 3 branches and work on each separately.

Oh, a hotfix came along while you're halfway through a bugfix? In SVN, you cringe: do I manually copy my changes somewhere else and revert? Ugh.

In git, you just make another branch from your clean master, do the hotfix, and pull that change into your bug branches at your leisure. In svn, this branching is theoretically possible, but not used practically -- they are too cumbersome and manual (you need to track what changes went where, and could accidentally apply them twice).

I've written more about it here, if you're interested:

http://betterexplained.com/articles/intro-to-distributed-ver...
And to a significant degree, he and people who used the concepts and structures that he originated have pushed reality in that direction.
Natural Beauty Skin Care Tips
Who's that pg guy? Is he legit?
Sure, automated browser testing is a whole industry, and I think we all know those tools aren't always used for testing sites you control.

Take a look at Selenium and Watir.
Yes. Can't wait to see AirTrafficControl-buntu.
right on- and good luck!
We sure saw a hell of a lot of improvement when we moved a lot of client-side rendering to the server. Before that, Google wasn't indexing any of our content that was rendered in JS.

We know googlebot executes JS. But this could be primarily for things like validating that a site isn't cheating by dynamically hiding search keywords and so on. It is also for generating the page preview.

It's good to see that they're starting to index JS-rendered content too, as seen with the Facebook comments widget, but it does not mean we're free to ignore these issues just yet. As it stands, client-side rendering in general means a huge hit to search ranking and experience (e.g. your search results won't have anything meaningful to say, and will probably use irrelevant text like your static footer/copyright notice as the description).
The creation of art is a basic human impulse. Art of many types would continue to exist and flourish without the "publishers or the industry infrastructure" as we know them today. Far from needing government to underwrite economic inducements to ensure that, it would have to legislatively ban art and have stern policing of such bans to have any hope of eradicating art and artists.
Resspect.
I can throw in my 3 number ICQ id :)
I think it's… "win"
But open source would make cheating far more "assessable". It would be a trivial job to modify the opacity of walls for example - I imagine such a feat would be substantially harder without access to the source code (of course, still possible).

It's easier to trust a "cheating hack" if it comes as a source code patch or the source code is readily available. If I was so inclined to cheat, I certainly would not trust a strange patch/executable from some shadowy figure I knew nothing about.
The Secret Formula to getting More Free MLM Leads for your Business
The hardest thing I find about writing a scraper/miner/api consumer is the HUGE amount of irregular data that you have to check for.

I was attempting to write a crawler for a pretty big dynamic site. It worked, but the code ended up being so messy because of all the weird quirks I had to check for non-stop.
It is true that artistic expression predates copyright. But isn't it the case that, before copyright, full-time artists either had wealthy patrons (Roman Catholic Church, the nobility) or lived in poverty? Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron.

I don't think we want to go back to a world where artists are funded by rich people because in that world, the rich decide what works get created.

Copyright is the only proven way of producing an abundance of art CREATED FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, not for the Church or some nobleman. Just look at how many books and songs we got in the 20. century. Thousands of consumers each paying a small amount is a fundamentally democratic idea.

I think it should be possible for a writer, musician or developer to make money from ACTUAL creative work -- not from concerts, book signings or t-shirts. I don't see why so many people seem to wish for a world in which a hairdresser gets paid for his work, but a composer or software developer gets nothing. Do we really want a system which rewards the creation of tangible products like tables and haircuts, but not the creation of ideas? In the 21. century? Seriously?

To those who ask "why create artificial scarcity?": For the same reason we have environmental regulations. Environmental regulations also create artificial scarcity. We make it artificially expensive to release CO2 into the air or to fish cod out of the sea above a certain limit. Why? Because this is necessary to ensure continued abundance.

Unless someone proposes a better model which enables people to make a living by creating reproducible works, I will remain a (critical) supporter of copyright. In general, I think we should strive to create a system which rewards contributions to our society.
Based entirely on practical experiences (both learning and teaching several subjects), talent does matter at two points:

When you just entered a new field, talent will propel you ahead faster, for a while. (I'd say it's about 5%-10% of the way to mastery, but that's a wild guess).

Then, both talented and untalented people need to work equally hard. Maybe the talented ones get ahead slightly faster, but overall it's a level playing field.

Then, once you approach mastery (let's say at 93%, for arguments sake), talent becomes important again. Without it, you can work as hard as you want, you will not progress, or you will progress very, very slowly. But even if you are talented, that last step takes _insane_ dedication.

I'm not talking about the "mastery" level in the 10,000 hour sense. I'm talking about being at the absolute top of your field. Talent determines the upper limit.

Which means for most people, having talent or not only matters at the beginning of the journey. (Because few strive to attain absolute mastery)

Edit: And I just realized that I could've skipped half of my post by just reading the article :)
Not to be harsh, but how many other transcoding services are there? I can think of none.
No. Trevor Eckhart's video showed him capturing and recording the Android event log. This only demonstrates that the CarrierIQ agent running on the phone attached an event listener to keyboard events. While that behavior is consistent with a key logger, it's also consistent with lots of totally harmless software doing totally normal things.
Carrier IQ hit with privacy lawsuits as more security researchers weigh in
HTMAPL: JQuery Plugin with Basic HTML Vocabulary for Maps
The thing I notice is that you weren't using branches with Subversion.

For about 4 years now, I've been doing branch based iterative development. This is a great way for a team of engineers to work together and have a continuous release process.

Meaning, you deploy trunk and do development on 'iterative branches' (ie: you have branches called iteration-0001, iteration-0002, iteration-0003, etc...). All works happens on the iteration branches which are then tested and merged to trunk on a regular basis as part of the release process. If you have work that spans more than one iteration, you make a branch off the current iteration.

Unfortunately, subversion has a very hard time keeping track of development that way. The reason is that if you (and your co-workers) want to work on another branch off of the iteration branches (so you don't hold up a release), then merging changes from the iteration branches into your branch become a nightmare because merge tracking on your branch has no way to know what is happening on the other branches. If you don't do it right, you can end up with a branch that can never be merged back.

The way merge tracking is handled is a central design failure of Subversion. I made a long blog posting about this a while back: http://lookfirst.com/2011/04/subversion-mistake.html

Git handles all of this beautifully.

So, while today, you might not need the extra functionality of git, it is good to have a tool which can support your needs in the future.
> on a directory-tree data structure

Or on a directed acyclic graph of refs; that's the definition that made everything click for me.
Many thanks for this.
pandas, numpy, and scipy all run on Python 3 now
Oh Rob, being a long time /. reader, I know you'd ban someone's account to Hades if they did on /. what your doing here.

Just sayin.
I just released http://www.examcommunity.com about two weeks ago... its a ghost town now... hopefully that will change.. How long did it take for you guys to get some traction?
I can't open the link either. But your link doesn't seem to refer to the same article. Google's cache is from November 30th, and the article was posted today.
Show HN: New Javascript fuzzymatching library for building autocomplete widgets
Because of the pressures it would put on the people most likely to 'take advantage' of it.

Do I sell my kidney or tell my kid he can't go to college?

Do I sell my liver or live in credit card debt for the rest of my life?

Plus, the illegal gaining and trading of organs would spike.
A Couple of Friday week-ending Things...
Yeah, I took that part of the original article (the one this one is citing) to be a dumbed-down explanation of googlebot's new behaviors. That article's audience were SEO people, not "engineers". It's unfortunately misleading enough that we get articles like these once you try to extrapolate from that.
I wish the review (or the accompanying ecosystem review) had considered the freedom/openness of each device. To me that seems like the #1 concern I would have with a reader for content I value over the long run.

It has seemed to me that the Kindle is the device with the most lock-in whereas the Kobo has the least (it uses Adobe's DRM scheme, which at least has a tool which lets you move your content from device to device). I'm less sure about the Nook.

Second, it has never really been completely clear to me what would happen to my content were one of these companies to go out of business. Any thoughts?

Finally, since the review mentions periodicals, I think it would be great to review the periodical retention policies of the devices. I have a friend who has a Kindle and complains bitterly about its periodical retention scheme-- about how it always wants to age out (and remove) old issues of a magazine (which you have to tediously disable issue by issue), and how, once gone, you can never regain access to periodicals you once had. Want to re-read that New Yorker from last year on the upgraded Kindle you just got for Xmas? You can't...

[Posting as a non-ereader owner who keeps trying to figure out which one to get; I have used my phone as a client with Kindle and Kobo stores]
Mine already is.
Obviously the browser can MITM anything. The browser renders the page content for you and translates your input into network traffic.
Duolingo intro video. Learn languages for free combined with social translation
The New Way to Identify Talent: The G Factor
Free “as in free speech” or why I don’t buy Apple’s products
Betcrunch app - Algorithmic betting predictions on the iPhone, iPod and iPad
A Day with the CEO of Kiva, Matt Flannery
Parents Who Want to Play With Their Adolescent Son
I disagree with your argument. To you, they are all of those things. To me, they are great and none of those things. That is all I'm saying.