skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
At the time of reading your comment it is light gray. I am not sure why people are downvoting you... _method is a pretty important part of the rails routing and solves a lot of the proxy/server problems that people are mentioning.

In fact, I would argue that things like put/patch/_method are what make Rails so great. Rails makes a lot of strong opinions (put, whoops no, patch!), but then at then end of the day always gives you a way (_method) to deal with any issues where their opinions may not work in your current architecture. This pattern appears throughout the framework and is one of the reasons I really enjoy Rails.
Here you go http://nico.kunz.fm/projects/httpstatus-ajax/
I knew Kevin wouldn't invest in something like Rejection Therapy. I didn't expect any Dragon to "get it" [1], but he was the salivating pitbull in the room I had to watch out for anyway.

He preoccupied a majority of my concerns. I was right to.

And as to your other point, the Bible verse "what profiteth a man if he gains the whole world yet loses his own soul" comes to mind. There is hope for everyone though.

[1] Heck, my own flesh and blood parents were baffled by the concept for the longest time.
Ask HN: Good initial offer for 4-letter .com nonsense domain?
There was a thread on HN recently about strategies for buying a domain name. Here's an excerpt from the first comment of a blog post on a subject( http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/04/finding-and-buying-a-domain-name.html#comment-193649096):

--------------------------

Here's how you get their attention and get the ball rolling...

Rule #1: You must start out by making an offer in your initial email.

Rule #2: This offer must be high enough to get their attention and make them at least THINK.

NOTE: Rule #2's amount will depend on how great the domain is.

The two magic price points I have found that work the best (they depend on how valuable the domain is) is either $1,000 or $2,500.

If it's a great domain then $5K-$10K is usually the starting point. These amounts are enough to get anyone's attention. I've bought many $100K+ value domains for $15K-$20K by starting with a $5K or $7K offer.

By starting with at least something that gets their attention they will take you seriously. This is the first step or you have no chance to make a deal.

In most cases for decent 2 words domains, the $1K to $2.5K opener works best.

--------------------------

^ This is by someone who had a lot of experience buying and selling domain names, talking about the initial e-mail you send to the domain holder. I have a domain name in mind that I'd like to buy; it's a four-letter nonsense word, but easy to pronounce and spell (2 soft consonants, 2 vowels, not nec in that order). My question: is this a "great domain" for which $5k - $10k should be the starting point, or is it more akin to one of those "decent 2 word domains" for which you could start with $1k to $2.5k?
Nice work. I had the idea to do something like this a few months back and never followed through on it. Yours is 100 times better than mine would ever have been, so now I'm glad I never got to it.
Clarification: Coke is made with leaves from the coca plant (Erythroxylum coca), not cocoa (Theobroma cacao). Despite differing only by one letter, they're not closely related.
Android Apps Cost More Than iOS Apps According To A Study
I attended Stuyvesant in 1973-76, which I learn from this article was
the era of the highest black enrollment. I have a few quibbles: the
article states that admission was solely by test score. In fact, one of
my best (black) friends at Stuyvesant sheepishly told me that he
scored somewhat below the cutoff but was admitted as part of a
program to admit students from “disadvantaged” backgrounds with lower
scores. He was sheepish because he knew that I knew that he was in
fact quite wealthy and was from a privileged background. His
father was a famous radio personality. But the system treated him as
a member of a “disadvantaged” group because of his complexion.

The article says “Students take the exam in October of their eighth-grade
year”. Many students who will wind up at Stuyvesant never go
to eighth grade. Like me, they are placed in an accelerated
junior high program that consists of seventh and ninth grades only.
Also, the article refers repeatedly to “middle school”. The first
time I heard this term was after I moved away from New York.

The article refers to “free preparatory programs”. Never heard of
them, nor any other type of test preparation or practice. The test
resembles an SAT. If you know English and your junior high math, it’s
not that difficult to get in to Stuyvesant, frankly. I know this
because I was not very good at taking tests, and was somewhat
surprised that I got in.

A bigger obstacle is the desire to go there. Most American students
don’t want to face a year each of physics, biology, and chemistry,
math up to (and optionally including) calculus, and much more,
including economics, metal shop, and drafting. It might not sound
like much to the Germans and Japanese, but it does not resemble the
typical American highschool curriculum. I was shocked to meet people
in college whose mathematical knowledge seemed to stop at what I had
learned in 10th grade and who had never heard of mitochondria. All
this, and the nerd stigma, was what kept my siblings, for example,
from taking the test and settling for our abysmal neighborhood
school. Note that most of Stuyvesant’s population consists of the
offspring of immigrants, who seem to appreciate the importance of
education.
The article suggests there are people actively promoting living alone. I find myself questioning motive.

Who would stand to benefit most? People with a stake in property.
The article assumes it is wrong for the restroom user to discard his paper towel onto the floor. But why? A complete moral analysis would take into account the fact that he is a valuable employee and he doesn't want to pick up germs and thereby risk becoming ill.

Just because his action imposes a small cost on somebody else _who is payed to tidy up_ that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

(Besides, picking up the towels takes a few seconds. Not much more time than picking up one towel, and far less time than cleaning the rest of the restroom.)

It's a false christian morality which says that actions taken on behalf of oneself are always wrong and that actions taken on behalf of others are always right. There's a right use for a paper towel and there are right uses for various people's time. Morality is practical.
is it just me, or should teachers not be permitted to ask for parental permission to watch the film if they feel like its of benefit to the class?
i hope the us education system doesnt just blanket prohibit anything with an r rating u nder Ny circumstances.
And Marks and Spencer?
"I'm sure that most of the times the hiring mechanism is quite compartmented...It's not like the people who interview you are interviewing you for the entire Google."

Absolutely, utterly incorrect. This has all been covered publicly by Peter Norvig[0]. Quoth he, "Another hiring strategy we use is no hiring manager. Whenever you give project managers responsibility for hiring for their own projects they'll take the best candidate in the pool, even if that candidate is sub-standard for the company, because every manager wants some help for their project rather than no help. That's why we do all hiring at the company level, not the project level. First we decide which candidates are above the hiring threshold, and then we decide what projects they can best contribute to."

[0] http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2006/03/hiring-lake-wobeg...
Imagine this from the perspective of an interviewer. Alice is interviewing Eve for a job at FooCorp. Eve rocks the interview. Alice is happy and gives Eve a high-five and some glowing feedback.

Then Bob interviews with Alice. Bob goes belly up. Never before has an interviewee done so poorly. Given the established precedent of providing feedback, what is Alice to do? We have a precedent in play. Would you want your employees telling candidates that they did a rubbish job? If she declines to tell Bob how he did, he'll interpret it as a negative. If she tells Bob that everything was dandy, it will set Bob's expectations.

The only reasonable choice is to bar your employees from providing feedback. Any other course of action is unfair to them.
Apple and the Law of Large Numbers
Since when do reasonable criticism become hate mongering?
They almost certainly won't hurt, but, unless you're otherwise in danger of Vitamin C deficiency, they likely aren't doing you a lot of good, either.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/colds....
San Diego Quickbooks
Advantagebussolutions.com provides Advantage Tax & Accounting Solutions. It is a full-service tax preparation, payroll, advisory and accounting firm located in San Diego, CA. They can help whether you need an accounting solution for your business, tax advice or preparation, or need to respond to a letter you received. For more information please visit: - http://www.advantagebussolutions.com/Our-Services/
New to the Internet? Don't ask. Instead, read.
I'd feel a lot better about Markdown if it had an actual spec apart from a pile of perl regexes and a maintainer that hadn't abandoned it. I still use it because it's the lowest-common-denominator, but I have a hard time feeling good about it.
Is your Boss killing your ideas?
http://www.dwavesys.com/en/products-services.html ?
One point I read is that programming has a low barrier of entry. Everybody can learn and jump ship to do programming, and thus no prestige, claimed the article.

I agree with the first half of the statement and glad about it. Somebody has already mentioned programming is a tool. What's important is what you created and solved with the tools. In fact, I like the nature of no barrier of entry, and thus everybody can learn it, create something, build on top of each others, and thrust innovation. We can then judge programmers by their work, not their seniority and yrs of exp.

Learning how to use a paintbrush well won't give you much success and respect, but painting a Mona Lisa will.
Isn't the clock ticking, whether you take money or not? I don't know many people who can continue working on an idea without seeing progress of some type. You can get demoralized and quit if it's status quo for a long time.
? Sucrose is sucrose. It's its own molecule. The only way you could describe it as 50% fructose 50% glucose is if you also described water as 66% hydrogen and 33% oxygen.
You're being downvoted because your arguments sound like post-hoc rationalizations and you're adopting a very combative, insulting tone. Mainly the second one, to be honest.
Maybe it is, maybe it's not, but I don't think moving from technically incorrect to technically correct is change for change's sake. There's benefits to doing things by spec even if they are not immediately obvious.

I think what you're saying though is that the downsides are. You may be right on that, but I'm going to withhold judgement until I really figure out what this means.
"When StarForce 3.0 was released, it initially provided extremely strong protection - the StarForce 3.0-protected game Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory was uncracked for 424 days.[11][12] It also marked a significant step up in the effort required to reverse engineer it.[13]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarForce
Does this mean it's time to fork?
If you like Shark Tank, check out BBC's Dragon's Den (which the format is based on, and in turn, the BBC's format is based on a Japanese show of the same name).

The BBC version seems a lot less "Hollywood", and admittedly a lot fewer deals are made. However the interaction tends to be a little more business orientated and the conclusions more valuable.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14962674

I can provide many more: this "bug" is a field of science that many, many papers have addressed: I'm being downvoted because few people here are mature enough to do their own research and instead prefer a "cool, wacky, zeitgeist" take on it.

Trust me: about 100 years of biology has been done on this "bug". The OP piece is a joke.
> It sounds like post-hoc rationalizing to apply this logic to humans.

With the complexity of human social interactions, it would bewildering were it not the case that there are at least some small instances of genetic advantage being conferred to population groups based on the existence of non-reproductive members.

The concrete case where I've heard this considered is (strict) homosexuality. Logically, in so far as there's a genetic component to such, one would expect homosexuality to be eliminated from the gene-pool over time. One of the guesses as to why that has not happened is that homosexuality may confer some social benefit which increases the overall survival and reproductive capacity of the genetic group to which the homosexual members belong. (There are other plausible explanations as well, but it's not incredibly far fetched to believe that such could be the case.)
Well, thanks for this. But you do realise I was just playing.
Ten years seems about right. Peter Norvig wrote a wonderful article, "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years" -- http://norvig.com/21-days.html -- which is a reaction to people who claim that you can "Learn X in 21 Days".

Another well-known rule of thumb is that it takes 10000 hours of practice to become good at something (e.g., programming, playing a musical instrument, etc.).
Sort of, but not nearly as much as after taking pro or semi-pro money.
Yes but then it's on your terms and schedule, not somebody else's.
Then maybe another level of discussion is how come so many HN readers (and I've said this in my other posts, so apologies for sounding like a broken record) who fancy themselves rational and unbiased all of the sudden exhibit such a strong irrational response. Where does that come from? Is it brainwashing? What is going on? In other words I agree with you that topic might be toxic and that it bring out bad people, but I am interested in why does it bring out "the bad" in good people? Why not just say "meh, don't want to participate" and/or "don't know enough to form an opinion" and move on...
2 years isn't enough time to learn how to program. Then again, I'm not really sure you can reliably make programmers with a substantial degree of success. In my undergrad CS program, we had 300 freshman at the start, and I graduated with 29 others at the end. For people with a CS undergrad, an MS program is quite good. They shore up on depth and theory that they didn't get while working on their programming chops in undergrad.

Sadly, if you can't already program, you can get a master's in CS (because it's focused on depth and theory instead of programming), it's just completely useless. I have no idea what one can do with a MS-CS, if they can't program. It's honestly a little heartbreaking for me, that people to spend 2 years of their lives wasting it on that.

With all that said, I haven't found any degree (at least from any school I've interviewed applicants for) to be a reliable signal for programming. Even if they went to a really good school, there's a good chance that they spent all their time learning network protocols and low-level mechanisms, and will happily write up a sliding-window implementation for me, but will stare at me blankly when I ask for a simple recursive algorithm. It's just tough to find people that spent time studying and practicing general-purpose computer science.
As it provides exec and a HTTP client, it more or less is. Here's an example, with code to make loading a multi-module library feasible: http://myblog.rsynnott.com/2012/02/fun-with-python-for-ios.h...
The concern isn't simply that there will be Rails programmers in K-12 that don't know how to override an HTTP method. The concern is that when K-12 users are using Rails 4 apps (that may or may not be K-12 specific) they may fail in bizarre ways that are hard to troubleshoot.
This really doesn't seem like he was saying at all. If you read the article, he actually doesn't have a problem with people throwing things on the ground, and is quite antagonistic towards the posted messages telling people to do otherwise. The only thing the article assumes is that it is desirable to have a bathroom that isn't persistently littered with paper towel on the floor. Is that something you disagree with?

The solution provided was to adapt to what users were already doing, suggesting that the management, who implied the action of discarding paper towels on the ground was bad, was wrong, and that it was the management which had to change. He was not suggesting that the behavior of the paper towel litter-ers had to change.

Especially the part about "false christian morality" is kind of weird. It's like you scanned through until you found one thing you think some philosophy you have applies to, so that you can comment on it, but you didn't understand or follow through with the rest of the article.
The singularity is near says this, but it seems that the rate of Moore's Law has been pretty constant (cost version: x2 performance/price every 18 months). When Ray extends this back to discrete transistors, vacuum tubes, relays, and mechanics, there's a case for an acceleration in rate - but not within silicon.

If hardware is updated at different rates in different categories, I think it's due to factors specific to that category. Counter-example: the update rate for game consoles is much slower now than it was previously.
Especially since they aren't. GHC Haskell, for example, is essentially syntactic sugar for System FC, not λ-calculus.
I just wish this actually gets implemented.
Yes, it is pretty key to remember Photoshop is not meant for casual home users. It is not MS Paint, and it is priced accordingly.
The problem is that if everyone implements a very large initial congestion window that just causes more network load on networks that can't handle that amount of data all at once.

So it's not "cheating" in terms of your competitors, but it's "cheating" in the sense that either you're basically jumping the queue for your TCP flows or everyone else does the same thing and then things are back to square one, if networks can't deal with it.

An argument that networks now can deal with much larger congestion windows can be made, and Google is making it in the IETF, of course.
Tragic? What's the alternative? Should we ignore mistakes made at the whiteboard because someone was under time pressure?

Sure, most software engineers (aye, even Google software engineers) are not under significant pressure on an average day. We get to work in the morning, we sit down at our desks, we hack on our code with our 30" monitors and customized editors, and we go home. It's a nice job, really.

But there are occasions when engineers are under pressure. There are deadlines. There are revenue-impacting bugs that need to be fixed while millions of dollars are at stake. There are segfaults in some new code you just deployed and the SRE team that's getting paged at 3am is threatening to burn your house down if you don't fix it before the weekend. Time pressure is not utterly foreign to a software engineer's life, and it's not unreasonable to do what we can to see how an engineer will function under such pressure. An engineer who can only properly function sitting at a desk with his 30" monitor filled with vim instances and ample time on his clock is lacking some measure of flexibility and capability that we reasonably expect to find in the best engineers.

No, we don't forget what it's like to be an interview candidate. You're just forgetting what the point of our interviewing is.
The worst case was still when Once: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0907657/ received an R-rating.
I loved working in Minsk for a couple months a few years ago. It was Nov and Dec and already cold, but everyone I met was full of optimism and warmth. The subsequent crackdown has changed the lives of many friends in the software industry, but I'm heartened by posts such as this.
This is one of the weird things about the information economy. So if you make a gizmo in the goods economy, and price it outside of the demand line, they sit on the shelf and you go broke.

Of course in the goods economy you had a cost of making the item, sure there was R&D and advertising Etc. but each good also has some raw materials so you really can't sell them below a certain price or you lose your shirt.

In the information economy you get this weird artifact. Your 'good' gets copied and distributed without remuneration. This appears to be lost sales, but in fact it is simply that your good is priced outside the demand curve for those buyers. What is even stranger is that you can lower your price all the way to zero if you choose because the marginal cost to make a new one is zero. This gives you tremendous pricing leverage in the info economy and people who use it well typically price high for novelty value early, then lower to capture the larger market, and then lower still to pick up the remnant market. The cost of R&D, marketing, etc can be amortized over all of these and if you look at it as an integral value function you can actually make reasonable pricing decisions.

Of course old school media doesn't get the 'info' economy any more than telling a teenager that the 'fair' price is one that someone will pay even if they think it is too high.

Over time these concepts are making themselves known in the mainstream but it does take waaaay more time than it does to innovate so it seems like its not changing at all.
Here in Chile Coke is still made with sugar.
For my honeymoon I went to the US and found that the Coke over there was undrinkable. Since they're using HFCS the drink is much more bitter instead of sweet so I can understand why Pepsi does slightly better in the US.

It made me kind if sad being a long time Coke fan.
After years on HN, I am going to post my first negative response to someone's comment, yours!

The Israeli government's actions in this and many other acts are completely immoral. Your 1) point may have some logical validity in general, but for the good of the Israeli and Palestinian people, the whole world needs to get behind slamming down on the actions of the Israeli government, which also I believe also will hurt their own people in the long run.
This Ford analogy is absolutely misleading and wrong under the context. Wordpress is not a new innovative idea in 2012 here, Wordpress is attempting to change with the time and users have all the rights to share their input.
This is what Windows 8 on the desktop should have looked like
If you merge these 2 aspects: DRM first, free(er) one later, you could get most of the money, and the PR bonus of being DRM free, which, as more people get annoyed by cumbersome DRM, could even give you a 2nd sales bump.

The problem would be to avoid the situation where it's released, and nobody buys it for the first week/month/whatever, and then it's immediately distributable.

The answer might lie in the 'ransom model', which is a bit like kickstarter, except "Once we've made $n million or sold 5M copies, we'll open it up"

You then get that money almost guaranteed (avoiding the simple delayed purchase option), and if done carefully, you might even hit your targets before it's cracked, which if you can do that with any regularity, crackers may just stop bothering (Or they'll take it as even more of a challenge - hard to say)