skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And a paper archive was never lost in a fire or flood.
I don't understand. Can you please explain how they are "cannibalizing their core cash-cow"? Can you please explain what they are gambling or betting on? They aren't getting rid of search as we know it. They are just adding additional features. They haven't taken anything away.
I live in a small town and recently made a trip to the big city..

I was absolutely amazed at how many advertising campaigns are based on fear. I had completely forgotten about LifeLock, Life Insurance, Home Security Systems, Health Insurance, Car Alarms ... etc. etc.

Seeing ads that say "Buy this or else..." completely shocked me.

It appears to be quite the norm these days.
Wow, your post is wrong on so many levels.

So for users Google+ is most relevant in social? Not even one link from Facebook or Twitter? Just like Google Local is best for the users when showing 100% Google links. Please do not insult people's intelligence. Google is doing this for a few reasons and plastering more ads is the main one. With Google+ a lote users get to stay on Google+ due to placement not go to our sites.

Just because some criticize Apple and some are now criticizing Google doesn't mean that Google is doing the right thing, considering Apple's success. Apple works perfectly for 99+% of users and APPL never touches that, Google is adding crap and hiding what the users want with dozens of ads (Please don't go into "they're relevant." Yeah, so relevant to your CFO that Google feels the need to show me a full page of them and I need to turn my laptop screen to see what are ads and what is content.) Now imagine if Apple added 2-3 extra tasks to their most basic functions.

Tracking is another beast. Do not poke the government or users in the eye or they will make you cry. A tiny change in the law and there goes half of your revenue. Once they determine you're "evil," everything you do is under scrutiny and that includes ads, tracking, anti-trust and everything. And next time you advertise illegal abortion drugs through Adwords they will just jail your execs and cripple the company.
Ask HN: How did you come to the decision to sell your house?
I bought a house four and a half years ago which, although it was more house (in terms of size) then I needed, it was well with within a respectable percentage of my salary. Fast forward to today and I've put approximately $71K into the house and currently according to zillow / eappraisal I'm between 4K and 10K underwater. I like the location and house but am not so attached to it that I wouldn't sell it. I'm single in my mid thirties with no outstanding debt outside of the house. I believe in honoring your debts but I also want to be pragmatic. I've been unemployed for the last six months and while I could last longer by using my retirement savings I'm not sure it would be a good decision. I keep seeing houses on the market that look equally as nice as mine for $30-50K less and part of me thinks the best strategy at this point would be to sell (short if I have to) this house and re-evaluate my situation a year or two down the road. I looked at renting the entire house out but my mortgage agreement prevents it and while I can rent a room, rentals in my area are so cheap that finding a good renter has been difficult.

Even if I find a job tomorrow I'm unclear as to whether or not keeping the house is the best decision so I'm curious how others have come to the decision to sell their house.
My understanding was that it was extremely limited – if using the web UI, you'd see ads related to the currently visible email.

Am I mistaken in that understanding?
> The big sell of the postal service is that it costs the same amount to send a letter from San Francisco to Los Angeles as it does to send a letter from the bayou in Louisiana to Honolulu, Hawaii. In this, physical mail is the big equalizer.

That's also true of the internet. It doesn't cost anything to email someone who's right next to you or who is across the globe. There is very little demand for mail these days and that's pretty obvious from watching the linked USPS advertisement.
Let's say you expect to grow to 20TB of data. Storing that for one month on S3 costs $2,560 (standard) or $1700 (reduced redundancy). In contrast, a Dell R515 with twelve 2TB drives costs $7,000. In a year that's one-third to one-quarter the price of using S3.

Implementing a tiered storage system yourself is pretty complex. Using this S3 gateway might be simpler, but it's not trivial (e.g. you'll need VMware ESXi just to get started).
Agile Backlogs. Sigh.
For 99% of users, they don't have the ability to evaluate levels of trust, so it should be a binary thing. If an alternative to DNSSEC just put a message up or an icon by the URL bar, sure it wouldn't have blocked NASA, but it wouldn't block anything malicious either.
How would one advertise based on the contents of a repository anyways? Searching for a lot of swearing in the commit messages and recommending anger management?
The USPS ad isn't completely baseless. We just recently did a virus cleanup for someone who opened up what they thought was a ticket confirmation for their boss in their email. Oops. (Their mail service provider apparently doesn't block zip files containing executables.)

There is a lot of confusion out there from people who aren't sure what is and isn't safe to open. The knowledge that we take for granted -- .jpg is safe, .vbs is not -- is completely alien to most computer users.

And then there are the scams. And yeah, people still fall for those, too: "But it said it came from my friend! I just thought they had gone on a vacation in France!"

We often get calls from people along the lines of, "I just received this message [..], is it safe to click on it?"

So in the real world, the marketing behind this ad is pretty sound.

On the other hand, we get deliveries all the time and USPS is by far our least favorite. Roughly half of items shipped by USPS are misdelivered at least once before they finally make it to us, if they arrive at all.
> If we know something of your interests (based on G+ and/or search), isn't suggesting more relevant content to you on Youtube (as a purely hypothetical example) a good thing?

Yes (it's certainly convenient), but:

a) People will naturally question your motivations for these changes

and b) they will wonder at the privacy implications

The problem is (especially from the perspective of the tech press) you appear to be primarily motivated by "beating" Facebook, and people are now looking uncomfortably at their personal data juxtapositioned with public search results.

It may be that you held all this data already, and it may be that it's just as siloed off and protected at the back-end as it ever was, but the public is slow to wake up to the implications of the data you already hold. What might have flown below their radar yesterday, they're increasingly worried about today. Naturally the tech community who are better informed and think about these things much earlier are going to be amongst the first to start questioning you.

You're really shoving it in everyone's faces, so don't be surprised that there's some backlash.
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of programming the SID to output a sawtooth waveform and modulate it for extra annoyance, but whatever floats your boat.
Google's search has been dumbed down for the novices and solipsistic
I spent $5k and it failed.
I'ld like to vote wih me feet.

This is not a walled garden thing, it is about putting users in glass houses controled by google.

We need to get out of this trap, and fast. Make these services crowed sourced and open source.
What It's Like to Live in a Universe of Ten Dimensions
Given that most mortgage fraud was done at the employee level (for instance, encouraging people to lie on applications), I'm not sure how giving the employees a greater voice would have an impact at all.
Title 18 U.S.C Section 1030 (the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) makes it a federal offense to exceed your authorized access on, basically, any computer system anywhere. (Does it communicate? It is used in interstate commerce? BAM.)
I want to squeeze these kiwis to make me some social feed vitamins!!
Signing Off: The Slow Death of the Signature in a PIN-Code World
Elected Officials Asked To Return Hollywood Money Following Dodd's Threats
It makes you wonder who dreams up this stuff. The purpose of a pension is to defer a percentage of payroll payments until later, to keep operating capital higher during critical business periods. If you just have the money sitting in the bank doing nothing, you can just pay the employees up front and don't need to worry about having pension plan at all.
Shit Silicon Valley Says
Downvoted for being truculent and inflammatory, and not much else.
Could you give a specific example of a search that you've done on Google that gives you bad results? And that would give you better "unbiased" results on DuckDuckGo? I would like to try and do a side-by-side comparison. Also, what do you mean by "unbiased"? What is the "bias" that Google has? I am trying to find real, concrete examples of all of the complaints in this thead, and I can't really find any.
Sustainably farmed paper (which is practically all of it) is a net gain over not using paper at all. The energy wasted hauling this paper around is a bigger concern environmentally.
It would probably be more accurate to say maximize shareholder value but, that aside, you're reading a bit too much into that statement.

It is, in fact true, that the board of a company incorporated as a for-profit has a fiduciary duty to shareholders which does, yes, translate into trying to make money for them. And there have been (rare) cases that this has come up an issue. It factored into a lawsuit Ebay brought against Craigslist at one point. If Apple's Board of Directors suddenly decides that they're going to donate all of Apple's profits to the Save the Whales Foundation, they would doubtless be sued. (I'm assuming for purposes of argument the BoD would even have the legal authority to do so.)

That said, boards are not required to maximize short-term profit. They can make modest philanthropic contributions. They can do things for their local communities. They can pay their employees well and give them lots of time off. And so forth.

The argument, in the context of fiduciary responsibilities, would be that all these things can contribute to the long-term value of the firm.

If, however, you honestly don't care much about making money and want to give most of your profits back to the local community of whatever, you really shouldn't be incorporating as a for profit.
Just interpret "it costs" as "it costs the user" and use the plain English definition of cost as "asking price, market price, or selling price" and you'll arrive at the original poster's intended meaning.

I assume that for the second part of your comment, you consider "Regular physical mail" to be letter post, because we will always need packages to be delivered.
This Forbes blog post provides some context regarding the culture of publicly traded companies, earnings guidance and "maximizing shareholder value": http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizi...

This is prevailing practice for publicly traded companies -- I feel like these Benefit and Flexible Purpose Corps are more about allowing companies to be publicly traded without having to play this game through setting social expectations than through real structural differences. (To be taken with a grain of salt as I'm not a lawyer or a financial professional, just someone that's been an individual investor.)
I have been thinking about solutions to this, to get a feeling for how things will work out in the future by itself. Technology allows us to replace manual labour with machines, but it also can create jobs for other things we have been struggling to automate since it's naturally resistant to being industrialised. These are human things, which tends to be the service economy.

To work on real examples: There are tasks around the house that I don't enjoy doing or don't do reliably. Things like laundry, taking the rubbish out, cleaning, paying the bills, going shopping for food or new underwear. I wouldn't mind laundry people coming into my house once a week to pick the laundry up, doing it somewhere else, and bringing it back. I also wouldn't mind if someone would fold and pack my laundry for me nicely. Also, if my underwear or socks get old, drop me an e-mail allowing me to replace it with a provider of my choice. A cleaner is also very handy. It would be nice if someone would note when my handwash soap or toilet paper is running low, and order it for me. It would be nice if the delivery and placing of those things in the correct place was done for me.

Now all of these things I mention can already be done right now by employing serving staff, but this has a few issues. The main is cost, second to that is trust and personal space, and third to that it's perceived as a demeaning job.

Technology allows us to solve a lot of these things. From making sure that the right people can enter the property at the right time, e.g. when you are out, and that they do only what they are supposed to do (e.g. track their time, and movement around the house). It can also give anyone easy instructions on what to do when they enter the house (e.g. a mobile device with a checklist to check on things that need replacement, and even to guide them around the house to where these things are, and knowing what stuff has been delivered and needs unpacking) Other things can be -done better off site with modern industrial methods, e.g. your laundry. Also when replacement shopping has been ordered, it can be brought into your home along with the laundry, instead of you having to wait for a delivery. I can see this stuff potentially becoming a lot cheaper while creating a lot of low skilled jobs, perhaps jobs people can do while studying other things. In the long run a lot of these things will probably also be automated, making these jobs go away again. That in itself is a good thing, since all of us want these jobs to go away. Then humans will just be left to making choices about what they want to consume, or be creative if they want to be creative. We won't be happy but that's a different issue.
As stated before you, this is already a rather well-known practice. What I would like the public debate to be about is how exactly do these people manage to get away with what is essentially fraud and why law enforcement continues to ignore it?

Almost every case I've heard of where an actor or director sued the studio for cooking the books; the studio loses. Why is this not considered a criminal practice? If I were an IRS agent, flying-spaghetti-monster forbid, I think I would make a call to the studio after one of these cases to ask about auditing those cooked books.

Of course, I've heard stories of studios keeping one set of books for the government and another set for people they owe money. Which goes back to that whole fraud thing.

Also, it's not just the movie/tv industry that does this. Just about any major industry that involves a content creator having a relationship with a content distributor you likely see the distributor stealing from the creator.
The CPU & GPU bus is hardly a meaningful bottleneck when dealing with basic UI interactions. 3d games often have less input lag than the background windowing environment because they are optimized for that. The technical problem is simply excessive buffering and a poor interrupt implementation.
With Amazon you could facilitate a DR onto their other platforms.
With your Equallogic example you would need to mirror that data to another device with recovery targets in another location.
Scalar replacement: Automatic stack allocation in the java virtual machine
Use Google? Time to Get Real About Protecting Your Digital Self
Devil's advocate: would Wheaton be speaking out in this way if he were more successful actor?

I don't for a second mean to talk down his accomplishments- he's an author, blogger and even TV personality these days- but now that he doesn't rely on his acting career he can talk out against Hollywood accounting. I would imagine that other middling-successful actors would worry about doing that, as Hollywood could easily refuse to hire them and destroy their career.

I guess what I would like to see is someone like George Clooney, Brad Pitt, etc. speak out about this kind of stuff. They're big enough that I don't think Hollywood could shut them out, and they're also successful enough that I don't think Hollywood accounting affects them so much personally. But they could speak out on behalf of lesser known actors.
How Tal Siach Found The World’s Ugliest Facebook Profile
It's not that the DNSSEC model deprives my mom of the ability to make sensible decisions. It's that it deprives people like you of the opportunity to write programs to express sensible decisions that you are qualified to make.

We can fix the most glaring problem with HTTPS/TLS in userland code by building things like Moxie Marlinspike's Convergence scheme; instead of allowing browser vendors and huge companies like Verisign to entirely own the decision of whose certificates are to be trusted, instead allow interested parties to create and share their own trust policies.

This does not actually change any part of the HTTPS/TLS protocol. The CA certificate validation of TLS is out-of-band; it works based on decisions made by browser vendors.

In the post-Moxie world, my mom doesn't decide whether RapidSSL is a trustworthy verifier for MAIL.GOOGLE.COM; instead, her system is simply configured to rely on a trust community --- perhaps run by volunteers for EFF, or by Google, or someone else.

DNSSEC is brittle and does not allow for this level of expressiveness. Under DNSSEC, in 2010, Ghadafi controls all names under .LY, full stop. You can't implement "trust agility" to get around it: that static brittle trust model is baked into the core of the Internet.

That's a bad thing.
There's an RSS feed http://itunes.apple.com/rss that you can use, but it's slower than straight scraping, which I'd guess many of these sites use.
"If my Linux laptop turned into a Macbook Pro, I'd reformat it and turn it back into a Linux laptop" -- in other words, exactly what I said.

And then you would end up with a rocking Linux macbook. There are bussinesspeople that run windows on their macbooks, just because it's such great hardware.
Much of the quasi-independent USPS's attempt to move in a UPS/FedEx-ish direction was blocked by the government. They actually tried to get to the most profitable segment of the market, fast package delivery between major metropolitan areas, before FedEx or UPS did much in that area, but their 1978 proposal for an "Express Mail Metro" service was blocked by the Postal Regulatory Commission.
From the recipient's perspective, the two are pretty drastically different.

Importing goods from a foreign country involves some rather substantial regulatory burdens along with the more mundane timing/transportation issues associated with the travel distance.

Pulling data off a foreign website is no different for the recipient than it is anywhere else. Even the issues created by the physical distance are relatively minor. This comparison doesn't recognize that difference.
Specialisation is nothing new but I think what both the article and the grandparent really mean is that you have to be above average in your field of specialisation, e.g. being an average professional singer, professional mathematician or professional athlete is not enough.
you and your sibling post reply as though I said "turned into OS X." BUt I didn't. I said "turned into a macbook".

which is the difference between microsoft and apple.
So there are a bunch of employees at my ISP who are fully "authorized" to read my mail. Also a bunch at the recipient's ISP. And probably some scanners in various systems in the middle that might surface my email for purposes of targeted advertising or spam fighting. It's not nearly the same level of protection.
Interesting especially since they have previously won in a previous case with the same patents and they're battling in europe as well.
The big reason callback-based systems are hard (despite the fact that built-in flow control constructs need to be re-implemented) is that functions are no longer composable. That is, if I write a bunch of code that doesn't need to do any I/O, I'll just return a value to the caller. If at any point in the future the spec changes and any function in this call stack needs to do any I/O, all the code that ends up calling this function needs to be refactored to use callbacks.

There really should be language support for this sort of thing (like coroutines) so these sort of cascading changes don't need to happen.
Also, I see way more junk mail in my mail box than I do in my email inbox ...
And even more details in mine:

http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2012/01/the-aws-storage-gateway-i...
Regular physical mail delivery at current prices is unsustainable.

But it was sustainable when bulk mail and junk mail made huge profits for the postal service and subsidized the first-class prices.
Anonymous defaces davidguetta.co
Yeah, as ridiculous as it sounds, this sort of post had a definite time limit. It's not really relevant at this point, aside from historical purposes.
This: “My guess is that at some point the music stops and we find out that there’s not just one less chair but hundreds of thousands of less chairs, and we’ll have thousands of kids who haven’t learned anything because they’re all expecting to learn from each other,” he said."

A lot of people are going to come out of this boom with less useful experience than is commonly assumed.
My cynical opinion is that most voters would rather have their poor neighbors go through an intrusive welfare system than simply receive checks, even if the simpler system would be cheaper.

There’s a perverse sort of transaction going on: you receive welfare in exchange for abasing yourself in front of a bureaucrat, acknowledging that the bureaucrat has the right to decide whether or not you belong to The Deserving Poor, and admitting yourself to be Deserving.