skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ask HN: should I take this Product position?
Received an offer from a big brick and mortar retailer that's completely redoing their e-commerce site, I would be the only product manager for e-commerce.

Red flags:

1. Their product workflow is different from what I'm used to- Web Operations and Online Marketing receive metrics that they need to meet, I meet with them to see what ideas they have to meet the goals, go to dev to see what's technically possible,go back to Operations/Marketing to work out a solution, write specs and get the feature made. Marketing/Operations controls timelines (during the interview they asked me if I could push dev on timelines if necessary). At my current place I'm basically the product CEO, I identify ideas (or have ideas given to me from exec team and product director), validate them with customers, then work with dev to get things done- I have final decision authority over any features, so if timelines get tight, I can drop features.

2. I haven't met the dev team that I'll be working with- they've kind of avoided the question every time it's come up- I'm thinking they don't have a dev team put together yet. I have a hard time accepting an offer when I haven't met the team I'll be working with most closely.

I'm just starting out in my product career (have been in my first product role for about a year)- being the sole e-commerce product manager for a well known retailer is an appealing prospect, clearly there is an opportunity for growth- but those 2 red flags are big issues for me.
I never said anything about making it easier.

I was pointing out that it's a worthwhile longterm goal, but one that requires sophisticated software to achieve.
The problem is those lobbying money keep rising up, too. From what I hear Obama plans on raising $1 billion for his re-election campaign. That means in the future other candidates will try to raise a lot more, too, and so on.

This is bad. I think we need to limit how much any single individual or entity can pay for a campaign. Elections shouldn't be decided by who raises the most money, and according to a statistic 98% of those who won elections also had the most money. I really believe that needs to end somehow.

Unlimited donations from single individuals/companies just means that much more power will held by those single individuals and companies, and you can bet that the first thing the politicians will do when they get in office is to pay back thoe money.
My rules are: Does it work? Can I fix it when it breaks?
The company found that despite Android’s overall market share growth and steady absolute growth among Good’s customers, only 35% of all smartphone activations were on Android, compared with iPhone’s 65%.

WP7 and BB had a combined 0% of the enterprise market?
Orinoquia G6600
Team models Jupiter's Trojan asteroids inside a single atom
I can imagine a bank fraud detection system being more suspicious of unusually large transactions if they originate from an unusual phone number or ip address, yes.
I'm sensing quite a bit of schadenfreude here, and no substance. Surely america can use its considerable resources to educate and train its populace to do work that will be in high demand in the 21st century.

Is your point that the "average person" is just too stupid to learn to do these jobs?
> It's a corporation folks, a wildly successful one, but that's it. It's not your buddy, your soulmate, nor your friend.

Who do you think of when someone speaks about Apple? Who defined what it is, really. If he embodies the ideals you appreciate, it really is personal.
320x240/(1024*768)=0.10416666 which is about 10%. So we got ten times more pixel (and another factor 4-8 for more colors). Compared to a thousend times more cycles (and big factor for pipelining, dedicated graphic hardware, etc.). So, I think Op has got a point...
I agree it needs fixing, and that the phone companies should try to fix it. Just not in haste.
I feel like there are many Google supporters here but to be honest Google is steering to a bad direction if you are like me about efficiency and relevancy.

What makes me mad is that we don't have the choice. I don't want all the social bullshit, the +1, why would I even give a crap about that? I don't want to have everything interconnected, I hate the fact that now if I logged in to Gmail I am logged into Youtube.
I don't buy Apple to avoid fully integrated systems, I will not use Google in the future.

It makes me think about CNN who believes they are more relevant when they are reading what shit people say on Twitter "Ze pope is dead LOL". Yeah right, great piece of info here.

But hey, if people like it, they are welcome to it, I just hope there will be good alternatives in the future.
It doesn't matters what one do, but where he is doing it from.
From TFA: "if you want to continue using Gmail, Docs, and so on. You must allow Google to share your data between its services"

Maybe it is actually sensationalist nonsense, but that is what the whole article is kinda about.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this may not be a sustainable trend.
Css3-Facebook-buttons
There were a lot of other tricks to be had:

- Some form of sprites were the rule, not the exception. Albeit very hardware coupled, usually a fixed width and maybe unlimited height. Fixed # of sprites per line as well, or they'd just turn invisible.

- Tile based (character) graphics, so there's a lot of games that aren't bitmapped, but rather character or tile based. So think updating a 40x25 screen (eg) not a 320x200 screen.

- Palette (indirect) based graphics = some tricks for animation here.

- A hardware supported transparent color.

- Direct control of frame buffer pointer = lots of goodness.

- Interrupts based on raster position

- DMA for sound

Sometimes:

- Some control of modulus based scrolling (think starting bitwise horizontal and vertical for up to 8 bits) = easy tile based bit scrolling.

- Blitter (with boolean ops) - maybe.

- Planar graphics.

Still, we're lazy today. Lots o layers in between us the hardware.
...est ist das Opium des Volkes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
Fit guy gains weight and becomes fit again on purpose
The salary listings in http://angel.co/jobs are a decent way to get an impression of the amount of money people are paid in the business. It's quite high by my standards.
Close, but not truly the same. In interactive mode, darcs hands you every change it can find and asks you what to do with it (including reverting the change). So, if i added a file using `touch`, deleted one using `rm` (but not `git rm`), added a debug statement to a file and a change in another, the workflow would be the following:

* Add file foo: Ynr? Y
* Remove file bar: Ynr? n
* Add debug statement? r #revert, I don't need it anyways
* Add change xyz? n # I want this in another commit

Its a real handy way to iterate over _all_ changes in your repos that it finds. I used it heavily to review all my changes before committing them as multiple patches.
Microsoft Research has some papers on this, for example:

Where’s the Beef? Why FPGAs Are So Fast -- http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/70636/tr-2008-130.pdf

BLAS Comparison on FPGA, CPU and GPU -- http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/130834/ISVLSI_FINAL.pdf

"Results show that FPGAs offer comparable performance as well as 2.7 to 293 times better energy efﬁciency for the test cases that we implemented on all three platforms."

Here's a talk about compiling legacy C/C++ code to FPGAs. With a couple of modifications to the code they claim 100x-300x performance/watt improvement in various benchmarks.

slides: http://msrvideo.vo.msecnd.net/rmcvideos/103696/dl/103696.pdf

video: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?id=103...

For example they have a Black Scholes simulation that runs 30x faster and uses 6W of power instead of 68W. That's >300x power efficiency.
They'd never do it.
Is the customer paying for the solution or the code? What are there expectations? Why type of license is attached to the project you created? if any.
EU reforms data protection rules, introduces the "right to be forgotten"
> no official apple store. no apple billboards, tv ads, etc. apple marketing is non-existent

These are FAR from being the only means of apple marketing YOU are being exposed to. I think even in the States while the iPod was catching on, apple was never very heavy on billboards or tv spots. They never had to rely on those channels alone to reach people.

(And hello, fellow Austrian!)
I've been working remotely for the past 2.5 yrs, and our Team is globally distributed (Chennai, US East Coast, and I am in Hawai'i)... Multiple time-zones, multiple languages, no issues.

I do not understand why so many companies are still stuck in the "stone ages" (perhaps "factory ages" is more apropos) when it comes to sitting everyone down in the same physical location. Communication is relatively simple nowadays, so you can still "see" the person if need be (e.g., Skype). Our Team has been successful with email and a few tele-conferences. I recently traveled to one of our regional offices (unfortunately most ppl in the company still work at these), and sat in some cubicle wondering "aren't we more civilized than this?"

End rant. If you want good ppl, then PLEASE consider hiring remote workers.
This is just a linkbait title. "XXX compared to YYY Apple product" is a guaranteed click. Too bad they don't actually compare XXX to YYY...
It is not the phone that sends these headers. It is the internet gateway or proxy at the carrier that inserts it.
Do you get to choose which cause you are donating to? Either way, you would basically need to have that organization directly debit the donor's account. Sounds tricky.
I wouldn't say either of these statements are true. This is a DVCS doing what it should do: the source is easily distributed across multiple platforms. That's not a white flag, that's just embracing the technology. Remember that Google is supposed to want what is best for the web, it builds products to support that goal, but that philosophy doesn't preclude using other products (for example, Google is on Twitter).

Google Code is not going away, certainly. And I don't think Google has any real interest in GitHub: it's a product that would require such a large amount of retooling to work on Google's architecture that it would be cheaper to clone missing features into Google Code.
I assume that means you don't have a problem with people who bash both, then? That is: I don't follow sports, and I also don't really care what operating system you prefer. (Though I think the OS one is a bit more rational, since it has a direct impact on your life.)

I mean, I do understand getting excited about superior products. And I understand the validation of being proven right in the end.

But I think there are two things wrong with that storyline:

1. "The definition of an Apple fanboy is anyone who switched before you." When Apple was the underdog, the argument was, "oh, most people just don't get good quality and good design." Now it seems to have changed to "people get good quality and good design. Why don't you get that?"

2. Apple products now are different from Apple products even ten years ago. I went the DOS/Windows route because I was a gamer, and never really had a good reason to switch. The product design was better, but the kit really was significantly more expensive until recently. Apple of today constructs higher quality, better-designed products at lower price points than competitors so it's a different value proposition than it was in 2002.

Back to my point, though. Why the intense personal identification with a brand?
Smart Phones - Stupid People [HUMOR]
I'm curious about your experiences with what sounds like a JS maps frontend in an iOS app, versus native Objective-C. Could you elaborate a bit on your decision there?
None of the projects are forked (at least as of now), but thee are quite a few people watching them. That's not really surprising, though, because it seems perfectly valid to watch a project while waiting for the first commit.
"Have you ever seen a 4-year old try an iPad? Such experience was just not thinkable 10 years ago."

Have you seen a 4-year old try a Windows machine?

Honestly, I'm unsure whether people are just grossly underestimating children, or they never bothered giving them the outlet before. My four year old is a master of Windows 7. He has no problem with Vista before, going back to when he was two. He loads the browser, knows his favorite sites, uses YouTube, plays games on CBC Kids, etc. As did my two older children. My one year old hops up on the PC and moves the mouse, clicking on things of interest on the screen.

I just don't get the notion that kids and the iPad are some magical combination. Kids are brilliant, at a very young age, and the only reason the kids and the iPad/phone/pod stories get play is that it plays into the mythology surrounding Apple.
How open or close a business should be?
that will become a Supreme Court ruling, and based on recent trends, lobbying will continue to be Constitutionally legal. If there was a watchdog agency like SEC, that would be a start.
Who's doing the actual lobbying? How are you ensuring accountability that the groups receiving the funds are advocating actively enough, and doing it in a way that you support (e.g. no backroom deals, future consulting jobs for politicians, negative ads)?
United States Postal Service tries to compete with Google using fear
Billionaires don't exist without a state. Nobody toils for years in grad school and invests time and money in a new enterprise without the panoply of legal protections created by the state. Moreover, since the system of property rights enforced by the state is, like any other system of law, completely arbitrary, the specific people that get rich under a certain system owe their wealth to that arbitrary choice.

So the phrase "artificially limited" is a deep distortion of the underlying situation. It's not a matter of more versus less limitation in the legal framework. The income would not exist without all of the limitations that exist on other people in that framework. Rather, we're simply talking about points in a design space: one arbitrary set of choices versus another arbitrary set of choices.
Hey, HN, how about some love for a fellow hacker?
I am trying to make a decision on this and could really use your valuable input:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505475
The Web Development Cycle
Nope, not Frontier. Black Rock Cable.
Hipmunk is Looking to Add Another Engineer
Show HN: Real time sticky notes
Wil Wheaton Says MPAA Accounting Creates More Losses Than Piracy
The problems the OP wants to solve are formally undecidable and reducible to the halting problem.

While this is true in general, our current "solution" to the problem - hire a human programmer, give him the spec, and set him loose - doesn't do any better here. The problems we as an entire field "want to solve" are, in general, formally undecidable and reducible to the halting problem, but we get by anyways because it turns out that you can get a lot of useful work done even without solving the general problem.

I see no reason that a well-designed system couldn't similarly leverage "special cases" that are not undecidable. How efficiently this could be done is another matter, but I think step one in that direction is to accept a pretty major loss of generality - after all, that's how humans get the job done, and for the most part we're still able to turn most of the specs that we're faced with into working code, given enough time.
Cruise ship captain admits 'mistake' in deposition
A few years ago Verizon included an XID variable in the headers (essentially a unique subscriber code), but I'm not sure what the SOP is today.

Granted, there are still several ad-testing companies that store a variety of mobile cookies for tracking impressions, but this is much different from permanent, header-based tracking that used to occur with Verizon and possibly others.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I might have outdated knowledge since I don't really use Apple products a whole lot), but you can use a Mac or iPod/iPad without having your personal data stored with Apple.

Apple and Google are in two different businesses. When Apple has a unified ecosystem, they limit what you can install/do right out of the box (they sell hardware that's tightly integrated with their own software). When Google has a unified ecosystem, they collect more information about you through different services.

Apple makes money from selling stuff. Google makes money from ads. Who has a greater incentive to collect more of your personal information and use it to make money?
"Those engineers got compensated for their work, now Apple wants to be compensated for its work."

For real? We're discussing the company that just announced the largest non-energy profit in history, right? That has $100 billion in the bank? That is almost certain to continue growing that profit for at least a few years to come?

My heart breaks for them. They just want to be compensated.
Do people seriously consider this guy a liberal? He spent most of the 2000s talking about how awesome globalization is and how the free market was gonna fix everything.
This is my first product to release. It is similar of course to Balsamiq, but I'm trying to attract a slightly different user with a richer tool set.

Any feedback HN can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Also HN users can get 40% off of the product if you purchase through this link: http://uiblueprints.com/hackernews.html
http://www.wku.edu/teaching/db/quotes/byqaboutq.php
Ask HN: What do you think about the upcoming conflict with Iran?
Following EU oil embargo on Iran, and its menace of blocking Strait of Hormuz, and knowing that US, France and UK have positioned battleships in the area, that isralian Mossad is suspicious of having murdered top iranian nuclear scientist recently, Ahmud Ahmadineyad recent tour in South America looking for allies, China's interest in keeping iranian oil out of american control, recent warning of Russia to USA not to attack Iran, several oil producers in middle west countries now in control by the US (Afganistan, Iraq, Lybia) I have read in many places that a war is inevitable, and some even point of the possibility of a world scale conflict or WW3.

Do you think war is inevitable?
Do you think that Russia and or China would enter the war, and on which side (probably on the side of Iran??) ?
In that event, what price do you think de oil barrel would hit?
Do you think war itself (not just its consequences) would arrive here (USA and Europe, I'm in Europe)?
Weaponry manufacturers stock is rising...
Blackwater Worldwide is certainly preparing for that...
Privacy Leaks in Mobile Phone Internet Access
More important is a battle of open vs closed, DRM and control encumbered vs free. Both MS and Apple are on the dark side of this, so watching the Apple win isn't something that society will benefit from.
That's utterly chilling. They'd definitely do another snuff job and then put out a cutesy video about how they're making all this mean old complex stuff quirky and easy and fun.
The difference being that being a sports fan is a completely passive activity. Being a Bears fan does not gain one any advantage over being a Packers fan or vice versa.
The thing is: Apple is not your friend. OK, maybe it is dhh's friend, but not Joe Average's friend. As such I just can't see any rational explanation for fawning over Apple. To me it is the equivalent to fawning over the billionaire who buys the playground I used to play in, tears it down and builds apartment buildings in it's place.

Yeah, it's cool that they are so successful, but the bottom line is that my playground is gone. Why should I consider that cool? It is their success, not my success. Or maybe they build a theme park in place of the playground and admit me to play there for a regular fee, if I stick to their rules.

Also, somehow I still don't believe that Apple will continue to be successful without Steve Jobs. Already I heard rumors that the iPad 3 will be thicker again, presumably because they need more LEDs to light the high resolution display. iBook Author doesn't seem to have made many friends, either.
Actually, everyone can be above average if you have multiple scales. Some people could be above average at singing, others at mathematics, others at running.

The unfortunate losers in this situation are the people who are uniformly below average.
I'll tell you what should be a huge wake up call to most congressmen: When I was petitioning my 2 senators on PIPA, I found that their web form for constituents to submit letters were truly terrible. Each one required that I pick a category for my letter. Only one of my two senators even had "Technology" as a category that I could choose for submitting a letter.

One of my senators, Richard Blumenthal, had no category for Technology or the Internet. I had to file my letter under "Other." When a US senator doesn't even have an option for his constituents to talk to him about the Internet, you know they just don't understand technology. The Internet is probably by now the largest conduit through which money flows globally, outside of ForEx. These dinosaurs ignore it at their own peril.
Very neat, though I've noticed that I can get 'perfect's while I can still see the difference... intentional?

Anyway, creepily addicting once you start :D Great job in every way.
This is really awesome. I wonder if the progress will be shared, at some point.

As much as I enjoy writing emacs lisp, scripting in common lisp would have many benefits.
The RAM isn't on the die, it is in a package that gets stacked on top of the SoC package. Still not going to be a simple upgrade though.
I had been considering a site called "Rent A Rep" where you would donate money to a pool tied to an outcome of a vote. So a No vote on SOPA would have a pool. Once the votes were in, the Legislators voting that way would get a cut of the pool. Contribution limits would be at $100 and no companies could take part. With something so enraging as SOPA, the pool could get pretty huge.

Direct monetary democracy.

I dismissed the idea as too cynical and possibly illegal? A promise of monetary compensation for your vote is probably illegal. Monetary compensation with a suggestion of what the vote should be is completely different. The payment is not contingent on the action. I'm not sure that the money pool with no named recipient in advance abstracts that away enough.
There are actually several arguments against these so-called "stakeholder society" initiatives that most people don't consider at the outset. For example:

1. These concepts generally come with weaker governance for company managers, allowing them greater latitude to act inefficiently in general. By contrast with maximizing shareholder value, managers can undertake almost any program under some pretense or justification, ranging from excessive empire building, to justifying sweetheart deals with friends at greater cost citing "environmental" concerns. This doesn't matter for Patagonia because it's family-owned, but this would be a huge problem with making this a widespread practice in the Fortune 500.

2. Widespread use represents a de facto tax on businesses through less efficient operations, but without the control of the political process to direct it. Even if you aren't in favor of governmental interference, it is generally better for organizations that are going to have charitable aims to be directly accountable, whether via the democratic process or the donation process.

3. Returns to shareholders, in light of the returns that go to other stakeholders, are reduced, thus potentially reducing the amount of financing available from capital providers.

So it doesn't really matter if Patagonia does this, but doing it on an economy-wide scale would potentially be a big mistake.