skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I love FFC. I'm a current UCLA film student - Coppola's alma mater. One thing to think about: UCLA has always been the "indy, intellectual" film school. It's our rep, internally and (to an extent) externally. When Coppola left UCLA to work in Hollywood, he was branded a sell-out by his fellow students.

One thing to think about w/ this whole "crush Hollywood" thing is this: most of your favorite movies (assuming you've got a boner for the New Hollywood period like I do) were a result of an aging, out-of-touch entertainment monopoly making desperate, reactionary moves to save itself. The old system didn't work, the people in charge had no idea how to fix it, so they went crazy taking risks on young directors. FFC, Scorsese, Spielberg, Altman, de Palma, Lucas - all the really top-drawer American filmmakers, honestly - were a result of this period of blind desperation.

There would be no Godfather without Hollywood. No Apocalypse Now. (also no Taxi Driver, no Star Wars, no Indiana Jones, no MASH or Nashville) In the absence of Hollywood, you get movies like Youth Without Youth and Tetro - two wonderful oddities, but you'd be hard pressed to make the case for them against Coppola's early masterpieces.

The beautiful and horrible thing about Hollywood is that it's a system designed to throw huge stacks of cash at storytelling problems. It's fucking absurd, because money has never been capable of solving those kinds of problems - practice and gut instinct are what create good stories. But when strong storytellers are placed in an environment which supplies nearly unlimited resources, totally amazing things happen. Yes, we can all point to Heaven's Gate, New York New York, and Coppola's own One From the Heart, but flops like those are the inevitable flip side of the system I've just described: talented people can abuse unlimited resources just like anybody else.

I guess what I'm saying is: I'd be seriously depressed if Hollywood were to vanish. Yeah, it produces a lot of shit, but its high water marks have never really been replicated by any other mode of production.
It's the same topic but it's a different story. The science and engineering indicators report linked in the first paragraph hadn't even been published when the first story was written. Also she provides a link to the previous NYT story you've pointed out directly in her blog post (ctrl-f "As my colleague Christopher Drew wrote in an article in November").

I read this as a "If you liked that article you might want to check out some of this new data" sort of post.
I don't think there's anything particularly unRESTful about using non-URL ids in that case. The critical thing is that the client isn't using out-of-band knowledge (i.e. what the developer read in the API documentation and hardcoded into the client) to construct the query.
You may not be able to control them, but you can influence who YC startups do business with. You screen founders heavily based on perceived intelligence, and probably based somewhat on perceived ethics as well. You probably have some sense, before you fund them, whether founders would be willing to do business with the RIAA or MPAA.

You could be doing something to dissuade YC-funded startups from engaging with Monsanto. I think it's a valid question why you're putting significant effort into fighting the MPAA and RIAA, even banning SOPA supporters from demo day, while you do not take a visible stand regarding Monsanto.

Genetic engineering is outside of YC's core competency, but there are strong parallels between trying to exert tyrannical legal control over digital IP, and trying to exert tyrannical legal control over genetic IP. Unlike copyright infringement which at least requires an infringer, genetic IP spreads itself, and embeds itself into other [public domain] IP that was not originally infringing.

Since you've opened the door by taking a stand regarding the RIAA, MPAA, and draconian copyright laws, you shouldn't be surprised when you get flack for being silent on other issues: Monsanto, companies (including Monsanto) directly involved with the drug war... perhaps even private security contractors which operate in war zones, the private prison industry, big pharma, or environmental polluters.
If you can watch 24/7 you really get the life drama. Not the BS for TV stuff. Even if the influence of the viewers would be huge at least it would be honest. "everyone will have their 15 minutes of fame" Andy Warhol
I'm a pretty massive gamer, and one thing I think bears mention is that game companies show similar signs of customer-contempt as the Hollywood middlemen. This leads me to think that the problem is not the people who are creative, the problem is the middlemen who have found exceptional margins and do not want to let them go.

For signs of game publisher contempt, see safedisc, securom and similar cases in which game performance, reliability and convenience (in other words, the user experience) have been compromised in order to ineffectually impede piracy.

Rather than kill Hollywood, producers of things many do so enjoy, I think startups need to focus on finding ways to allow the creative network of the industry to thrive by reaching people without the need for the collective organizations and legacy businesses who are willing to attack the end-users.

Issues or morality and legality aside, suing your users, interfering with their freedom by legal meddling and otherwise tarnishing their experience is a poor choice for purely pragmatic reasons.

Killing, ever a tempting solution, is not the best answer here.
In their defence they did link to the National Science Board published a lot of information on the topic so it wasn't total link bait.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/
Adjusted for inflation, the top 5 highest grossing films in history were made in 1956, 1982, 1965, 1977, and 1939. Super blockbusters like Avatar are not new phenomena, they're merely par for the course.

Meanwhile, people are spending more time using computers or playing games, and that necessarily takes away from time and money spent watching tv or movies. More so, Hollywood no longer has a lock on the video entertainment people watch. More people have watched "charlie bit my finger" on youtube than have watched any show on broadcast tv currently. But more than that there are new, highly popular forms of video entertainment being produced which have very little to do with Hollywood. And many of these people are already making a living off of these works.

Imagine what will happen in the coming years when video production and hosting is even more ubiquitous and cheap and more people can opt to self-produce and self-distribute and take the lion's share of the revenues (from ads, direct sales, merch, live events, etc.)

Sooner than we realize the old power structures will fall away as more and more artists decide to keep control and profit for their works in their own hands.
One word reason: math
Website Usability 101 For SEO Professionals
...And so we are...we are students in this school called Life :-)
You examine the situation and determine what makes the most sense. Do you want the client to repeat the request if it's not sure whether it succeeded or not? If so, use PUT; otherwise use POST.

This isn't complicated stuff.
I've been doing this instead of satellite TV. $8/month for HD comedy, news and educational stuff (H+, CNN, YT). I think downloading will dominate the future more than streaming. It's just a better experience, you can skip forward ads and you can download off peak hours.

Of course, capturing the RTMP data violates the user agreements but it should be fair to store the incoming data to play it back later.
Art is not putting 2 objects together. It's a conscious effort to understand and express the world around you. While Mozart's 6 year old compositions may have been entertaining, it was 20 years of musical development that allowed him to write his late piano sonatas (which may have taken him only 20 minutes to compose). That is not just craftmanship: composers who do not 'make it' often become the craftsmen by working as transposers and editors.
Fair, but just like the twitter dude who founded banksimple, it's a hell of a lot easier for them to say, "Hey, you guys should be focused on making the world a better place instead of making bank" after, well, having made their own money. He/bank simple dude aren't choosing between having lots of disposable income and working on a startup that matters, whatever his definition of matter may be.

Yet I fear that our industry is squandering its opportunity and its talent. In
companies large and small, great minds are devoting their lives to endeavors that,
even if wildly successful, fail to do great things.

That quote is a little hard to stomach from someone who presumably will never again worry about making rent or paying for a college education for a child, etc. The rise of the lean startup -- what Ries, Blank, and even people like patio11 talk about -- is much more likely to do very well for the founders than being an employee at a change the world company. So I kind of feel like the employees / potential employees are being sold a line of crap by people who want them to make decisions contrary to their own financial interests.
The role of technology is not to dictate creative ideas to artists, rather it has to be a vehicle through which artists create. BTW i don't think cinema as a whole is in a crisis, au contraire there are always beautiful stories told in movies everywhere, china, europe, indie US movies, and cinema is not gonna die when hollywood dies. So yes, entrepreneurs will suggest and create new technologies, try new things without feeling much guilt about not being idealistic.
I really don't see how that would work. Do the actors get phone calls every day? "User1232 has proposed a rewrite of scene 22. We need you back in to see how it comes out on film. Oh, User3423 will be directing it".

While there's plenty of space for innovation, I'd be deeply wary of applying too many programming models to artistic endeavors. A lot succeed precisely because they are the work of one single person with a vision. As a director I might be horrified if some hack could take my work of art, play fart noises over it, and make money from it.
PG - When you say kill Hollywood, who are you talking about exactly? I assume you mean the middlemen of Hollywood - people who add zero value to the entertainment industry. If so, I completely agree.

Startups need to offer content creators a better/cheaper/easier way to distribute their content. Distribution is where startups can really succeed. When I say distribution, what I mean is the method by which people consume content. The problem is the middlemen control the true content creators.

The biggest problem is quality. Youtube is a dead simple way to distribute content but the problem is you'll never see anything on Youtube that rivals the quality of something on NBC, HBO, CBS etc. I believe Netflix has the right idea by funding their own high-quality content to distribute on their own "network." However, Netflix may just end up becoming another NBC, HBO, Warner Bros. over time.

As I mentioned before, the best was to achieve the goal of killing the middleman is by providing high-quality content creators a way to get funding and distribute their work to large audiences without giving up the rights to their work. Additionally, there are plenty of ways to increase margin by using technology to get viewers more involved with the content. We've only just begun to scratch the surface of interactive entertainment.

I've been thinking about this stuff for a while and it's a difficult, complex issue. I'd love to chat with anyone who has thoughts about this, feel free to email me or respond here (email in profile).
I don't think video games are a full substitute for TV or movies. They are completely different experiences - one is purely passive, and the other is active and participatory.

There are lots of game fans that would claim that this distinction is what makes games superior, but for a lot of people I think that's what turns them off. The passivity is a virtue in many places.
It interesting to see how narrow the responses are here, what may be the standard entertainment in 20 years time might be something that unlike anything mainstream today.

It could be something completely new or something that's incredibly niche right now (for example machines which induce lucid dreaming - what happens when they become reliable and cheap?).
GetTexty.com: Simple mass texting - Node.js, Socket.io, Stripe, Mongo, Twillio
We are on a micro startup kick right now experimenting with dead simple MVPs. GetTexty.com was built on a custom rolled Node.js framework we call Gin (more to come later). Text messaging is not glamorous, but playing with all the new tech is. ;-) Would love some feedback.
How To Track U.S. Congress Members’ Tweets
Cool thanks :) I was trying to consolidate some of the stuff I'd learned building the extension for http://attachments.me into a simple example.
I think this article would have been far more useful if it had included raw numbers in addition to percentages, especially as it cites data from the past compared to today.

I suspect that as more people go to college with the idea of ensuring that they'll make more money later, rather than to learn or due to a passion in a given field, the percentage of people who are successful at college will decline.

Plus, it has to be noted that for people with an engineering passion and mindset (who like math, breaking a large problem into smaller components, take pride in solving technical problems, and so on), college has become a less attractive option in recent years. While I don't think people with a natural engineering passion eschewing college to work in programming or startups is shifting the numbers dramatically, it's certainly something to think about.
Of course we have to be pragmatic about these things - if you have a business that will live or die based on the success or failure of its API then you have to make your decision based on that - but there are times that it makes sense to push the boundaries of what developers are comfortable with, yes? Otherwise how do we expect things to progress?
Passionate artists will still pursue art for the joy of creating and sharing their art with others. This is how it has always been.

Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of the popular artists from the last 20 years began their entertainment careers to get "rich and famous". These people didn't do it for the love of the art, and looking at the decline in quality of the music industry since the 70s I think we can all see how that worked out.

With any luck, taking the "rockstar" incentive out of the music industry means we get less music being made, but of an overall higher quality. You know, because the people who still pursue it are actually artists.
This is most awesome, however this RFS as it stands now only addresses the demand side of the equation. It should also address the talent side of the equation. People need to create startups that allow talent to reach their audience better, cheaper and faster.

Louis C.K. had to do a lot of work to perform his experiment. Why is there no startup equivalent of "Comedy Central" + "HBO Comedy Hour"? If I were a comedian, how do I go from performing standup in a club, to selling that comedy to as many people as possible with as little effort on my part. Were I a comedian, I want to build an audience and make a living telling jokes.

This goes for all other forms of talent. Actors, writers, costume designers, etc.

Hollywood's talent power is in its Rolodex. How do you take that power out of their hand and eliminate the power brokers?

What are some talented actors that are already embracing the internet and possibly willing "invest" in startups using their talent? Ashton Kutcher, maybe? How about Will Ferrell?

Also, how do we allow people to easily transition from passive to active and back again? Currently there isn't an easy way to go from the Internet to my TV and back again. How can I go from a link in my Facebook or Twitter feed to sitting on my couch watching a movie in one click? How do I share from my TV to my friends? How do I organize hanging out together with my friends at my house or apartment to watch a TV show or game? As great as products like Google Hangouts are, nothing beats the social experience of enjoy a piece of media together.
"Why Create a Chrome Extension?

It's a great way to integrate seamlessly with a third-party site like Gmail.
It in turn solves the "other site" problem, i.e., your customers don't want to go to yet another website.
The Chrome Web Store is a wonderful source of traffic.
All your friends are doing it.

"

i find the readme scary. it encourages closing the web.

the rest's good - but - the intention's bad.
Your parents spent their time learning technology.

The people in congress spent their time learning to be politicians. It wasn't until the last 15 years that you had to use a computer to do everything, so if you learned how to do what you do now more than 15 years ago, you didn't need a computer, so you probably don't know how they operate.
Might you consider directly funding artistic startups?

It would make sense for each movie or television show to be a corporation mostly owned by its founders (the author, director and major actors). The model looks a lot like conventional VC, except for the shape of the exit.

It's not clear if long-form video can be made on YC-like funding. If not, maybe start with music, which clearly can.
Well the next big step in entertainment must involve something like brain-computer-interfaces that induce whole-senses experiences. But storytelling won't go away. Games will not replace movies or theater or books, it's a different genre. People like stories, they crave for stories, even little kids love stories; stories move people; it's what art is about.
I have a nice story, too.

Just the other day my Macbook died; "green light of death", i.e. it's not charging and not turning on anymore (presumably the battery is dead).

On the harddrive of said Macbook I have ~$300 worth of purchased iTunes movies that I cannot access anymore. I had never bothered to back them up because I was under the naive assumption I could just re-download them when needed. A service that I took for granted not only because I do it with their apps and music all the time, but also because most of their movies were more expensive than the equivalent DVD.

Well, needless to say, apple does not allow to re-download purchased movies.

I may still be able to recover that harddrive. But I'm most certainly not buying movies from apple anymore.
Excellent point. I stand corrected. And thanks for the really solid example.
>>> In any sane world she would earn 25% more for that amount of work.

Except in the insane world of salaried corporate jobs, where overtime doesn't apply.
XHR Poster[0] sounds like an extension you'll enjoy. It provides a much more comprehensive testing interface.

[0]http://goo.gl/UFSdZ (links to Chrome extension store)
Google’s 5th “Doodle 4 Google” Contest Opens For K-12 Students
1) is a naive description. Ecosystem implies some sort of balance, where in fact it is a cutthroat competition for the favors handed out by 2).

Because 2) holds the keys, 2) controls the message.

In other words, I would _gladly_ kill #1. #1 is dysfunctional: some sort of willing imprisonment for artists for the sole benefit of #2.
Internet's killer app will be interactive. But the Hollywood killer will be a passive mode of consumption (I still do like just to be entertained)

Add to this the rise of Facebook and I would do the following.

Put a microphone and speaker in the corner of each room of the dorms at MIT or Yale (not cameras note, we know where that will lead). let people talk to their friends, whilst not "using" a device. Let others listen. Vote up conversations. Eventually most people are listening in to the most interesting conversation in College. I would love it to scale so I can spend an evening listening to the most interesting conversation in the world.

Reality TV, Social Media, no longer shouting through to the next room. It's got everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley

100 million weekly views in its prime and there was really nothing to it. Add interactivity and the social network and some interesting subjects..... Boom there goes the dynamite! LOL
IOS-inspired popup box CSS - Brett Terpstra
There's really no need to create a separate URL; it's reasonable for POST requests to contain response bodies.
Oh man that's annoying. I loved Picnik, and recommended it to all my clients as great way for resizing photos.

Does anyone know an alternative?
Have you ever tried to run an FEA tool (say, Solidworks Flow Simulation) or a rendering tool (say, Modo) on a virtual machine? Bad idea.

Yes. VM's have their place. No. They don't solve the underlying problem for all application cases. As applications get more and more advanced and the need for performance increases VM's are simply not a viable option.
For most people, our options in life are:
1) Being stuck in a dead-end, soul-crushing day job
2) Being able to have freedom to do your own gig.

When those are your options, getting that freedom is your first priority. You don't worry about whether you're going to benefit the world in a positive way. You worry about that later.

I would argue you can't even focus in any meaningful way on great things when the thought of being chained to a corporate job for 40+ years is on your mind.
A mass email going out this morning so I could have got on the ball with this and coordinated response with our client management folks would have been a Really Good Thing[tm].

As it was I found out about 4 hours after your first blog post via HN.

We're still hashing out what we're going to do with folks who, last time we instituted a password/process change, wanted a 3-weeks heads-up.

FML.
Humor according to Microsoft
Concurrency primitives in Clojure: Promises and Futures
I count three ads above the fold. I believe the results below those top ads are still search results, just presented in different modalities.
If your original proposal were strictly true, then artists would never perform for the same gender (unless that was who they wanted to attract).
Math-Blind AI Teaches Itself Basic Number Sense
Even if they redirect to a new url, there are still links everywhere using the original url which they probably wouldn't want to break.
Simplicity Is Key To Converting Local Consumers To Customers
Despite what Ray Kurzweil thinks, I don't believe that the rate of growth is maintainable until strong AI is developed, and when that happens, we'll be irrelevant. Prior to strong AI, I think we'll level out a bit.

That's presuming strong AI is possible, of course, which I think it is.
> SOPA brought it to our attention that Hollywood is dying. They must be dying if they're resorting to such tactics. If movies and TV were growing rapidly, that growth would take up all their attention.

I'm not sure this follows. I'm guessing that Hollywood sees piracy and filesharing as vast amounts of unrealized profit for the work they're already doing -- "free money" essentially.

I think it's personal too; look how bent out of shape Scott Rudin got just because David Denby published a review for "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" a week ahead of a previously-agreed-upon embargo: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/dec/05/girl-dragon-tatto...

Hollywood seems to like having control over when and how their material is released, and on this level piracy offends them on a moral level.
So many issues with the internet seem to devolve into the same thing: a fight over who gets to show ads to the naive user.

Eventually Google itself will be showing "too many ads above the fold". Does anyone doubt it?

Gaming the search engine to be numero uno on the SERP is one thing. But proclaming a penalty for websites that have "too many ads"? That seems like it's for users to decide, not Google. Not to mention hypocritical. Can we penalise Google for "too many ads"?
Entrepreneurs Talk Customer Acquisition, Social Media: in New Vid Series