skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It frustrates me to find yet another site that is unusable without signing up through Facebook. Not everyone uses Facebook (cough, cough-- me), and some who do don't want to grant access to personal information.

Also, what makes this site any different from simply utilizing one's social graph directly on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ etc? Why would one need your service when he/she could just tell their Facebook friends, "Hey everyone, I'm traveling to Rome this week. Does anyone have friends there I should meet?"

I think if you have a solid answer for this, it may need to be communicated more clearly on your landing page.

On the upside, good job with the site design. That part is pretty solid for a first go.
CoffeScript just adds more complexity into a already complex problem.
Man, you totally said it. Someone with drive and who understands the "30 Freakout" should register the domain name and create a resource where people can learn about this extremely common condition.

Again, excellent point.
On the flip side,a mantra is a very powerful marketing trick.
I strongly disagree. By my interpretation of his stance, you're more than welcome to disagree with copyright as a natural right, but you aren't allowed to use that as justification for theft of copyrighted material which the artists releases for sale.
From a technical aspect, they don't need to. But that's what people expect. John Q Public wants what he wants regardless of what the techies think he wants.
Here's my take:

1. Instead of focusing on the idea, focus on the execution.

2. Pick a niche that has a relatively easy entry, and create something better and/or cheaper. Perfect your execution so that your product becomes the obvious choice in the market.

3. Get into an already proven market instead of trying to prove your idea and chase it.

4. Don't expect you'll be alone in any market, you always have competitors. Wherever there is money, there is a competitor.

5. Stay away from highly competitive markets.

6. Whatever you choose, make sure to answer these questions first: "Who's my audience?", and more importantly "How can I reach them". Because whatever you create, if it's hard to reach your audience then your audience won't know about you. Personally, I'd pick a market where I can reach its audience via online advertising, this way my success is not dependent on the media talking about my product and spreading the word.

7. Stay away from ideas/markets that requires virility. Those markets are very difficult to enter.
Culture: No one ones it. Not even creators.

Copyright: An incentive to produce culture.

The Internet: A bit distribution platform.

Technology: Gave you the ability to sell physical records, then took it away. That was a quick century.
I think the point is more like, "Don't worry so much, you're not the only fool on HN who hasn't yet mustered a billion-dollar exit".

In a community with a notable amount of awesome people, sometimes it starts to feel like everyone else is experiencing nothing but resounding success, which makes your modest successes feel like abject failures. This can be... demoralizing. Remembering the wild successes are the exception, not the rule, is an important piece of perspective.
If you believe that the purpose of the DMCA is to make it so you can sit back and do nothing and all piracy magically stops by Sheer Force of Law, it doesn't work.

If you believe the purpose of the DMCA is to give rights holders a certain amount of power to self-enforce and are willing to concede that it won't all be stopped, it works pretty well.

If your opinion is somewhere in between, adjust as needed.

I think if earbits wanted to clean up his essay a bit he should come out and state clearly and explicitly what his goal for his desired legal regime is. I suspect he's sneaking in an implicit requirement that it be perfect on us, and if you accept that you'll never be satisfied. There is no set of tools that the government can hand the industry to eliminate piracy. Even SOPA isn't draconian enough. On the other hand, once you accept that a certain amount of lossage is inevitable and that we expect rightsholders to only really have to chase down violations on the largest sites and have the tools to catch the vast bulk, the argument that the DMCA is some sort of grossly flawed bill becomes much, much harder to just float by without justification. There's a huge gap in the logic there, which I think is what some people are choking on without quite consciously realizing it.

I suspect that actually filling in that gap will inevitably erode the perceived power of the argument, though. He complains technical people aren't working out how to solve a problem that he can't actually give his true requirements for without losing his audience.
Why the Inventor of Twitter Doesn't Paste the Tweet Button Everywhere
Sean Parker Brings Facebook-Style Skills to New York Social Scene
I like the tone of the books. It makes things interesting and you feel like stuff is getting done. Just wanted to throw that out there since most of the comments are complaining about it. I don't want you, Zed, to get the perception that everyone is sheepish about it.
I used to play WoW at a relatively high level (no server firsts or anything, but end game raiding). I didn't always have the "best" UI add-ons installed and did some things that were considered beginner mistakes (keyboard turning), but I knew what I was doing and I knew the game well so I still performed well.

I actually had a good reason for keyboard turning, for those familiar with the game. I was a healer and used Healbot to let me click on player names to cast healing spells. Thus, I preferred to have my mouse free for this and used the keyboard for turning, which was minimal.
If you're comfortable not stealing the products that you don't "feel good paying for" then go right ahead, only pay for the products you feel good paying for. But if you're saying that it's cool to just steal the work and effort of a product that just didn't sit right with you, then you are far in the wrong. No one insists that we can all steal from athletic shoe companies with factory worker human rights issues overseas, and yet somehow every time we think a media company abuses our rights to their content with oh so high pricing, we're just entitled to take their content. The issue of online theft isn't one of personal ethical comfort, and that it is no way to convince lawmakers that the online community is onboard to accept FAIR legislation, or even be civil with a government-free solution.
To answer your questions, despite what some governments say, corporations are not people. We should strive to allow the people to be in control. By definition, proprietary software grants exclusive control to a private group such as a corporation. People who are using the software have essentially no control over it, they don't know if the program has malicious features, and they can't fix them if they are put there by accident.

No external source is in control of your free software. For this reason governments should always use completely free software. As the software is free they don't have to worry about the whims of Linus or anyone else, most governments actually have their own OS forks like Red Flag Linux in the people's republic of China, Red Star OS in the DPRK, Nova in Cuba, Canaima in Venezuela, etc.
microsoft-branded optical mice tend to be of very high quality; besides my (steel) keyboard, it is the only peripheral that I have used for more than 10 years.
While I personally think that's insane -- if you are that specific (not to mention antiquated) with your browser requirements, why don't you just code a native app?

They pretty much have. They are probably using VBScript for event handling and depending on various IE6 behaviors that are no longer supported in current versions of IE and never were available on other browsers. They've written a "native" app for the IE 5/6 platform.
Cheap Nike Free Run 2 Womens Red White off 50%
Cheap Nike Free Run 2 Womens Red White Running Shoes Online Sale,Discount Nike Free Run 2 Mens and Womens Running Shoes.
Kazakhstan Disables the Internet
> This is inherent in the nature of near zero cost replication

If coca-cola sold their recipe rather than selling cans of soda, then I would agree with your paragraph one.

Remember that coca-cola does not pay royalties to many of the inventors of the ideas the bottler uses to bottle soda. Newton's heirs do not own the world.

As for paragraph two, all I can say is that yes: human markets do work that way. My advice to you is to remember that a rational man adjusts to the world, rather than becoming angry that it isn't the way he wants it to be.

As for paragraph three, you're wrong -- we all donate to charities we like, we all give gifts, we all help each other; we read books by great thinkers and are thankful for their gift. When you really like an artist, learning that they need money to recoup their cost of production is much the same as learning what a friend wants for their birthday: you give it as a token of your affection.

edit: you just added paragraph four. Please reread what you wrote. You're not even pretending to understand the subjects you're commenting on any more :(
Why wouldn't it? When it's going around the earth, it's going to be going in the opposite direction from the earth's orbit part of the time. The question is which motion is bigger.
I dont get what you mean...
A blanket ban on third-party cookies or third-party scripts is not enough. You need to be able to specify which third-party domains are trusted. There are lots of decent sites that need to be able to load assets from a different domain in order to be functional, but which also like to load Google Analytics, or set cookies from Omniture (2o7.net). These aren't ads, but are still things I'd like to block.

Many sites also break if you don't load GA, hence the need for surrogate scripts. If you dismiss and don't try to support the secure use of sites that exhibit any of the above behavior, then your browser doesn't have anything to offer users that care about privacy and security. Privacy doesn't have to be the antithesis of compatibility.
Aka "moving goalposts". I know the feeling oh-so-well, for I have inflicted it upon myself all my life.
A shameless plug:

This is a good companion article to that design doc - http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2010/06/30/python-internals-add...
That is ok.
At 30 I was miserable because I hadn't done anything massive either. Then I sold a company for $12M when I was 34, started a company at 35 that is now (three years later) at a $1M monthly run rate and was an advisor to a billion-dollar public company.

It's a marathon, not a sprint. You never know what's coming up just over the next hill.
If you don't know, Fusion Garage is the company we were working with on the Crunchpad:

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

they went off on their own, released the JooJoo and then the Grid10 tablet, and then things ended in a way nobody expected.

There is still an ongoing lawsuit between Techcrunch and Fusion Garage (I have no idea what happens to that now, a lot of money was spent on lawyers and the trial was scheduled for next year)

They have taken fully paid-up pre-orders for the Grid10 tablet, so those customers are out now (this is why Paypal doesn't allow pre-orders). I also feel for some of the employees who were genuinely smart and good people.
> They all (ingeniously) use the sudden-drop detection that prevents hard drive head crashes to double as an accelerometer.

I assume it's really the other way around—a "sudden-drop detector" is nothing more than an accelerometer.
I never meant for my opinion to be taken as fact. I was just trying to illustrate part of my point.

Stallman and FSF people keep saying you can make money with free software but it's not realistic. I never said the FSF or Stallmam were opposed to making money either. Secrecy is what keeps proprietary software valuable. If paid software shipped with source you have already lost most of your sales after selling it just once. It would be great to be able to give people the ability to modify the software but that only works if everyone sticks to the honor system. The GPL requires that you be okay with redistribution. How can you make money when you agree to let your work be distributed in any way shape or form for free. I don't give a shit if you give me credit for the work. You can say Mickey Mouse coded it as long as you pay. That's how I see it.

I completely disagree with distribution. I think it's fine for people to distribute mods and patches but not the entire program. That completely undermines the developer.

I think the FSF is fighting for a just cause but the world just isn't ready for it yet. One mistake is to take a position that calls for the eradication of any software that isn't GPL basically. The other mistake is believing people will be honest. If I could trust every user to pay for a copy of my software and only distribute patches and bug fixes then I could happily get on board. But as long as free software means that people can (and "can" usually turns into "will") redistribute my work for free in its entirety and my work gives competitors a huge leg up then I cannot get behind free software as a viable business.

The support, upgrades, and patches business model doesn't lend itself to every program. It makes sense for Red Hat but would it makes sense for, say, TextMate? The world isn't ready. Free software is wonderful for software that costs nothing but not for the majority of businesses selling software.
77% YC STEM vs. 48% TechStars STEM
Ask HN: Is affiliate advertising a viable source of income for a web app?
I keep having ideas for web apps where you couldn't feasibly ask users to pay for the service, but many of these ideas could have affiliate links in product descriptions or book titles etc...

Could anyone with experience in the area comment on wether or not it's worthwhile pursuing an idea which can only really be monetized in this fashion?
Get free wifi on Virgin flights exploiting Chrome Book promo (save $5 - $13)
While I agree that the protection of copyright is a noble pursuit (yes I believe people should be paid for things they create if they request to be paid), the recording industry is going about it in totally the wrong way.

Time and again, people have proven that if there is a SIMPLE EASY alternative, then we will use it. Take a look at Steam, Spotify, Amazon etc. All of these people provide a service that is easy to use, and despite there being a simple way to pirate the content provided on most of those services (and btw, this here is the big secret), MOST PEOPLE DON'T.

Most of the time, if there is a valuable product out there, then consumers have no problem paying for it. Yes, there will still be piracy for a variety of reasons just as there will always be physical theft, e.g. too high a cost, people are too poor etc..., most people support artists and content creators and are willing to pay for their use of those products.

Game manufacturers are starting to catch on, so are software producers with the emergence of app stores (the restrictions on those platforms are another matter entirely and I won't judge them here), but despite the fact that the music industry is older than either of those industries, it is aiming to shut down the only platform in modern society that can push their profits incredibly high if they do it right.

Yes, to do this right (and I am not saying Spotify or ITunes have this down), they would have to invest, A lot, but given how much they are investing in lobbying for SOPA, it is a joke to think they couldn't devote a tiny bit of their über profits to developing a platform that actually works.

P.S. earbitscom - Here is an alternative. One that your site goes some way towards providing.
Learning PHP is how I got into web programming, and for that I'll be eternally grateful. Since starting to explore languages like Ruby and Python however, I've been reluctant to use PHP in situations where others are an option, so I'm really glad to hear things are picking up in PHP's development—it can only mean good things for the development community.
This list seems a bit tired.

There are a couple of things in here that are actual issues, but they seem small in scope, and easy to work around.

As for the is_a changes, I think it's probably for the better, as they say, you have to break some eggs to make an omlette. Also, the article first complains about not having Unit Tests to catch this, and then later complains about it being ignored on release. Ultimately unit tests are great for refactoring, but when code is actually being changed, some sort of process needs to be followed for that (dictatorship, consensus building, anarchy?)

I program in PHP, and we don't depend on too many outside libraries. And for cases where we do, we will simply fix these issues.

It used to be that upgrading PHP was much 'easier' to do, meaning you'd just go out and do it, and would hardly breaking anything (at least in my experience). However lately it seems that the risk is higher. However I welcome this, because it means the language is progressing and we're getting a lot of additional things. For all the projects I've worked on, we make sure the code works with that version of PHP. Unit/integration/regression/selenium/using it on development for awhile/whatever are all valid things to do, if you have issues you fix them and move on.

5.3 was great, excited for 5.4 with traits as well. It's a great time to be writing PHP.
Godwin'd
Let's put that concept to bed straight away.

Nobody was protecting the interests of artists before the Internet. Nobody. 0.1% got Ozzy-level rich, 0.9% did OK, the rest of the artists were not even allowed to sell their out-of-print back catalog.

READ THIS

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
I’m a huge fan of stuff like this, however it’s not strictly true that features like this are “opt in.” If you write your code alone and in a vacuum, it’s opt-in. However, if you write your code on a team, if you use NPM packages that were compiled from this code, if you use backbone extensions compiled from this code, you’re opted in “by proxy” to the code it produces whenever you find yourself stepping through the code in a debugger or reading the compiled code in a browser environment.

IMO, it could be a win by virtue of producing consistent code for the most common cases. It may seem unfamiliar at first compared to the code you would personally write, but if it becomes a standard and everybody’s code ends up looking much the same, that’s a win overall.

I think this is already true for binding functions to the current ‘this’ and for comprehensions, and we could use a standard ‘pattern’ for the resulting asynchronous code for most common cases.

But I grant that it isn’t purely optional in a world where very few people write their own stack in its entirety.
At the time, IE6 WAS installed on every machine and using it as a platform for internal apps was VASTLY easier than deploying client/server apps that needed a powerbuilder or some such runtime on each desktop.

Almost as easy as CICS. ;-)
The array/sorting things are sometimes just things developers will have to deal with until someone makes new methods and deprecates the old ones.

I used to think that the code base needed to be perfect, no extra cruft, only code that's necessary, switch parameter order just to make things match. However in doing so it adds a tremendous amount of pain and risk. My OCD does't want to handle it, and it's always good to strive to get to that point, but ultimately nothing is perfect, so might as well deal.
I'm not going to argue, but this one thing always bugs me, and it happens all the time:

"You get people like Universal, who yanks down a Youtube video that they have no copyright claim to, simply because they don’t like it and they can. This is suppression of free speech and a violation of the most important right in our country."

Only the government can suppress free speech. If you're talking to someone and I come in and shout over you so nobody can hear you, I'm not limiting your freedom of speech, I'm just being an obnoxious asshole.
Wow, it's cool to see him modifying classes on the fly. He's tweaking RGB value constants and seeing the result instantaneously.
Cars On Finance Slides You Into The Driver’s Seat
Pity the developer didn't include -moz extensions, given the use of -webkit extensions you'd think he doesnt care about anything but Webkit.
And when I don't feel like appreciating it, I should just take them?

Taking a coca-cola can leaves the grocery store with one less can. Until we have Makers, that analogy will always be broken. And when we have Makers, people will probably copy coca-cola cans too.
The best thing you can do for your health is 20 mins of walking a day
Rather than agreeing with everyone else in this thread (I do), let me ask a serious question. Does anyone think Adderall would help? Focus on one idea, that is. I find myself thinking it would.
I was a GTA, and I lived in one of the small compute labs at k-state. Sometimes in my car. Sometimes, I'd go out to fields (deer can be pricks btw) and just sleep under the stars. Or, I'd go up the roof (usually locked, but not always).
You're right, it does. Didn't notice that. That is rather silly.
Your scenario is highly unlikely.

First of all, find my face is opt-in, so person 'C' and person 'D' would have had to explicitly opt-in for this to happen.

Second you can control who can tag you in pictures - so person 'C' and person 'D' would have the opportunity to review the tagged photos before the tags become public.

Third - Find My Face won't create tags automatically. When person 'A' uploads the picture, Find My Face will look for faces in the photo and if it finds a person who has opted in to the feature it will suggest that the person be tagged. So person 'A' will see a prompt of the form 'Is this a picture of <person C>'? Most likely person A's response will be 'I have no idea' and they won't create the tag in the first place. This is especially true since tagging someone in a photo automatically shares the photo with them.
Yes I've been to Yahoo, why do you ask?
Actually, the original wasn't a bad example, because the Pizza Hut Express stores already cook pre-made pizzas by putting them on a slow conveyor that goes through a small oven. Okay, so they turn the cheese pizzas into pepperoni by putting peperoni slices on top, but I'm sure a vending machine could be made that does that much.
That is not for you to choose. If the artist wants you to give as a token of your affection, they can, but for now, you have no right to decide that you need not pay for their work until they've earned your affection. This is in no way a solution. And I have every right to be angry at justifications for theft with claims that theft is the baseline, and benevolence is a product of further appreciation. Theft cannot be the baseline.

People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided. And if say this magical benevolent system is implemented, are you to guarantee that good will can ensure that the money is actually paid? I can't, and based on the justifications for theft I've seen on this forum, I seriously doubt anyone here will actually pay for the all music they take, especially under the anonymity and "I'm special so it doesn't matter when I do this immoral thing" of the internet.