skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The two are not incompatible: I run my own DNS resolver (dnsmasq) which I configured to recurse to Google DNS.

The problem is that any domain lookup requires at least two requests: one to the root servers to find out the domain's nameserver, and one to that nameserver to find out its actual records.

Google has so many users that it's very unlikely that it isn't already in cache, but as a single user of my own resolver, I'd have to pay that penalty for each domain every couple of hours or less (there are some ridiculously low TTLs out there).

Frankly, I think it's worth it.
... instead of receiving housing vouchers and money to buy food/clothing, they could receive dormitory rooms (no TV or XBox), healthy dormitory meals and government issued grey jumpsuits.

I am surprised, and a little disappointed, that there has been no mention yet in these comments of Marshall Brain's story "Robotic Nation". It is a well-reasoned exploration of exactly this issue.

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

From "Robotic Nation"

The January 20, 2003 issue of Time magazine notes the trend:

"Cities have lost patience, concentrating on getting the homeless out of sight. In New York City, where shelter space can't be created fast enough, Mayor Mike Bloomberg has proposed using old cruise ships for housing."

This is not science fiction -- this is today's news. What we are talking about here are massive, government-controlled welfare dormitories keeping everyone who is unemployed "out of sight". ...

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

http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
What I Learned from Shark Tank
Where does this article talk about >1s connect times for websocket? The websocket handshake is a single network round trip (discounting any added by TLS if you are using it) and the initial client message frames can be sent in the same TCP packet as the handshake. A websocket connection should not add any more latency than HTTP(S) connections.
While they may erase "IP information", that doesn't mean they've erased the aggregate data. They could easily take a list of the actual domains and figure out how popular they are in various regions based off of the dns queries again them.
How is a write-back cache possible in an HTTP proxy? I understand write-through caching for PUT requests (The proxy doesn't have to repeat future identical PUTs because PUT is idempotent), but how does the proxy know what the response to the original PUT request is unless it performs the request against the origin server immediately?

Edit: I just noticed that RFC 2616 mandates write-through behavior: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec13.html#sec13...
Haha, well, there's no way that would work anyway unless the postscript error caused X to open a Web browser and search for images of us too.
There's no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_point between the two increments, so the standard allows the compiler to do pretty much anything, even http://catb.org/jargon/html/N/nasal-demons.html. The way I've heard it, these operators were added to take advantage of pre- and post-increment hardware support in the PDP-11 (forty years ago!), and everyone just knew what would happen, but ANSI later wanted compilers to have enough latitude to take advantage of other hardware which behaves differently.
If PATCH does not work there, then you always need to tunnel. You do not know if the client is a K-12 network by User-Agent. If you always need to tunnel, you may as well define the protocol to be "you can use POST with _method now to say PATCH".

My "complaint" (I am not certain why you are using that term, as all I said was that I had a "disappointment" with the article announcing the feature) is that time was spent discussing "does my web server support it" (you can always change your webserver) as opposed to "will my client support it" (which is an interesting and important question).

(Also, it should be noted that Rails doesn't work around the "shitty proxy software": it provides a way to allow the client code to work around it, but it doesn't itself work around it. If there really are networks out there that don't route PATCH--which I didn't even believe in my original post, but was corrected with this K-12 failure--then you, the developer, are going to end up just never using PATCH.)
Could someone care to expand and explain more on this?
The soon-to-be-released data retention policies for the NSF's CISE (basically, the arm of the National Science Foundation that funds all research) will most likely require complete and free access to not only the code for your implementation but also all scripts, input data, and configuration settings required to completely reproduce the experiments.

I can't wait. I've been doing some GPGPU research, and less than 10% of the authors of _published_ papers are willing to release their code or even a binary for benchmark comparisons.
I am all for setting up a minimum wage below the fair price of labor. This way you protect people who are vulnerable, e.g. people with no savings or can't speak the language, while at the same time ensure more people who wants a job can get one.

There are some people who can only be hired with a wage below the minimum:- high school dropouts, immigrants, physically disabled, blind, mentally ill, elderly, long term unemployed. By setting up a minimum wage too high you are ensuring all these people will not get jobs even if they want or need one. To the employers eyes: if you had to pay $7/hr anyway to hire someone, you might as well hire someone who is physically strong, understands english and has graduated high school.

The minimum wage makes people on the lowest tier unemployable. Arguably it does raise wages for workers on the people near the bottom but not quite there. As you can see there is certainly a trade-off to be made.
Yeah, that would be a strong disincentive to frame the CIA, since his goal morphed pretty early on from fixing the world to becoming a god. For a more prudent and altruistic death note user, that particular strategy could have fit well into the automation idea.
Complete data sharing is only a good idea if you wait a significant amount of time before doing so. Scientists are lazy animals and it's much easier to data-mine than do a new experiment, however scientifically speaking data-mining is literally worthless. When it becomes generally accepted it DESTROYS the credibility of entire disciplines see: the latest nutrition of the week fads, Economics, and a host of others.

The only other practice that's almost as bad requires three separate errors, working with small sample sizes, not publishing all experiments, and accepting significant statistical noise (P>.01 I am talking to you.)
I specifically thought of SPDY when I used that example; in fact, that's what makes it such a great example: SPDY asked themselves this question, and had a really great answer for it (specifically, that HTTP is used first, and only if the server opts in to using SPDY does it upgrade to a faster protocol, saving that information for later use).

The saddest part here is that I agree with you: I like that Rails decided to do this, and for the very reasons you describe. However, I expressed disappointment that this announcement/article decided to ask "will my web server support this" and didn't bother to ask "will the client be able to route to me with this".

Remember: I myself believed it would work, and even provided multiple reasons in my post for why it would. However, it would have been nice to see these points brought up in the article. If my version of nginx doesn't support it, I'll just upgrade, but if I'm honestly concerned about support, I'm going to care if I can even trust a PATCH to my client code.
This may not happen so much on Facebook or Twitter or any place where your online identity is closely linked to your offline one, but the internet can actually make that kind of "over-sharing" easier. When people are anonymous or pseudonymous online, this can remove the inhibitions that keep them from talking about their innermost thoughts and secrets. The result of this is that, sometimes, groups of anonymous strangers will talk publicly about their feelings and be surprisingly kind to one another.
While I think it's possible to compare language readability I don't think you can simply place them side by side and expect most programmers to fairly compare them. Python is much more "C-like" and as a result I'm able to read it a little better. I don't think that makes it inherently more readable, it just means that I don't know how to read Haskell at all. It's like if you put some English dialect next to German and asked me about the readability of both... I can't speak or read German at all so I really have no idea. If you can speak both Haskell and Python than by all means compare the readability of the two and I would be interested to hear your opinion but I want to make sure we're not judging Haskell because we haven't taken the time to learn it and it happens to be more divergent than whatever language we happen to already know.
RUDP sounds very weird... why would you use it instead of TCP? At a glance, it looks like the only difference is RUDP doesn't enforce packets being received in-order (being a message-based protocol), while TCP does (being a stream-based protocol).
I guess both new LaTeX3 syntax and the Lua part will be hidden if I'm a casual user. So I will indirectly benefit from both, while the package and class authors will hopefully use the new capabilities.

And why not working with a LuaLaTeX3 - the best of both worlds can be used.
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim it's art it's probably BS
It's a very good analysis, thanks.
I donated there several times, and recently on Indiegogo and I have to say Kickstarter UX it's better, felt better (I can't say in details though but it's my feeling).
There are different sections. Most is pragmatic, but the crew areas have a "down" to make the people feel better when they stay there.
'Start your day with producer, not consumer mindset.' > pure gold.

Do an 80/20 analisys of your distractions an loop until a few essentials are reached (mail etc). Than postpone interacting with procrastinators until 1-2 pm (that's when most people are sleepy and least productive). Iterate over each nuance,eat,rest and by 4 pm, you should be back to 'killer mode'. If this kind of routine is achieved, you're one focused and unstoppable behemoth.
wow, I'm glad I posted, that looks to be very useful. Do you need the leg strap, or do you just balance it on your leg?
What about paywithatweet repurposed so you pay for digital goods with some Turking? Categorise 50 images and get your favourite local band's latest MP3. $1.90 to the band, $0.10 to the intermediary as their cut.
Modern Art - A Skeptical View
I don't think it's an exaggeration. It's not so much a compatibility problem, just as it wasn't for Windows, but instead it's a business problem. Google is increasingly unable to get new features to market in a timely fashion. They can side-step this to some degree releasing applications in the Market but long-term it's going to hurt them quite a lot if they can't get features out there.
> what does Google expect to get back from offering a DNS service for free?

The same reason we've been giving since we released it: to make the Internet faster for people.

> They are way beyond being "no evil", so this is hardly a charity for a greater good.

No, it's because when the Internet works better for people they use it more, and we make more money.

> I can't imagine how tempted they are.

More FUD.
I definitely think it would be great to require/expect pseudocode. I'm not sure if it would be better or worse than providing the original code (hey, why not both?), but it would be a very good standard to adopt.
LOL. But that jack-off machine will probably be popular in certain markets.
I disagree. Investment is a two way street. Angels benefit from deal flow as well so making themselves unavailable does seem odd. If they want to invest in early stage ventures but don't have the time there are plenty of other vehicles to put their money in without being bothered
Add a "," if you fail to parse. "... from these people, of the Arab world's way of destroying the Palestinian refugees' lives, by refusing to integrate them."

Which you certainly realized, fredster_s (in your 4th comment.)
We recently finished a project that both consumed .NET WebServices (SOAP), produced Java WebServices (SOAP), and use REST-based library to provide a communication channel between 2 components.

Generating Java WebService client given .NET XSD/WSDL was a 5 minutes job. Ditto for the other way around: generating an XSD/WSDL from Java to be consumed by other parties was a 5 minute task (how the other party consumed it not of our concern).

OTOH, coming up with a good RESTful interface is proven to be very challenging. Some people coded up their REST interface to be like "/some/url/getInvoice", while others coded up their REST interface to follow Rails a bit more given their background. But sometime this second group that follows Rails convention were wondering how to implement the right REST interface for certain use-cases such as updating a boolean that is part of another bigger domain model object:

- What is the URL will look like?

- What kind of operation?

- What is the parameter?

- What is the return value?
I think computer science is in a pretty good place. My impression is that most work is published at conferences that are generally pretty open about republishing (at least the papers may be hosted on the authors' websites). I'm not sure if any of the big CS journals fall under the Elsevier umbrella or not.
This seems to be pretty regular with violent movies. The scene in fight club where the main character beats up the guy with the blond hair had to be edited, and IMO is much more disturbing in the edited version.
> It would provide huge shortcuts, given how many experiments get essentially repeated over the years.

Isn't that the whole point of insisting on reproducibility? Scientists are supposed to repeat experiments as many times as it takes to convince the rest of the scientific community that their results are valid. Reproducibility, not publication, is the final QA mechanism for science. Shortcuts are sometimes desirable (e.g. if people are dying right now), but they're the exception, not the norm.
Google has a financial incentive to want latency online to be lower. The more people use the internet for things, the more ad money they can make. By offering their own DNS service, they can lower the DNS latency for some people, and goad competing DNS services into becoming faster as well.

I doubt that running Google DNS costs a huge amount of money, so the incentive to Google can be pretty subtle and still be worthwhile.
This is not true. Calculating a log by hand would be the same process every time.

Factoring quadratics is mostly the same every time, while factoring in general is not, and graphing definitely is not.

Graphing, in particular, is a crucial math skill, because it forces you to understand what is actually going on with each function. As a rule, students who have no idea what a graph is going to look like before they press "graph" also don't understand many important underlying fundamentals.

There is no reason middle/high school students should be using graphing calculators on a regular basis. Scientific calculators for things like logs are fine, but beyond that the calculator replaces actual learning.
It makes the field a lot more noisy, yes, but how can empirical studies ever destroy a field? If only we had some data to talk about, or even some papers to talk about. For example, i 'd rather be arguing about some papers that i 've read recently, but, alas, not only are they behind paywalls, they don't even have any meaningful comment boards.
You do realize that the tools have to be created based on some underlying process. If you have an understanding of that process you'll have a better understanding (and appreciation) of that tool. And maybe be able to come up with a better one.
Thanks for your explanation!

By the way, just to clarify because maybe it wasn't really clear, when I said broken I didn't mean at all that the interview process at Google fails at hiring good candidates, I just meant that sometimes it takes literally months and that's too long, and that often people in the meanwhile receive other offers. For many of them it's not possible to say no to another offer just because maybe they will get an offer from Google in two months (and career wise it's not serious to jump around and leave a place after two months unless the position is a lot better).

That's all, and I think it's cool that you interview that way. Maybe I've had a biased opinion given what happened to the people that I directly talked to. Thanks again for clarifying these points.
Good arguments against me claiming all critics of Israel copy and paste from the Zion protocols and that no criticism is possible.

Oh wait, I never said that...

I'm not surprised by your choice of black/white straw man to "argue" against...
Very nice, it looks promising. I can't find any way to view comments, I think the list font could be smaller, and please use a png for the splash image instead of a jpeg. Hacker News is one of the main sites I browse on my phone, so a dedicated app is ideal :)
Sweet, this is awesome. I'll give you some feedback in a week or two after I give it a spin!
Will you open source it?
Did you even read the article? The whole point is that the textbooks are written on an impossibly tight timeline by unqualified and underpaid writers and undergo little to no review, either by the publisher or the school districts buying them.
Yeah, I'll open source it in the coming days.
> But I wonder whether this wave of startup innovation will look like a blip on the radar of normalcy in 50 years' time.

Probably not even a blip really. It's hard to imagine our unborn grandchildren caring about Twitter, Facebook, Dropbox, Heroku etc - and these are the top 0.00something% of startups that actually ended up mattering at all.

The good news is we get to enjoy this era when all you need is luck and a mildly interesting spin on crud database operations, solving problems that are not exciting enough to exist in future decades.
Two of the minds behind Skype, Spotify and Wrapp talks about startups
Niklas Zennström, co-founder of Skype and current CEO and Founding Partner of international venture capital firm Atomico, together with Andreas Ehn, former CTO of Spotify and now co-founder of Wrapp, spoke at Stockholm University on February 15, 2012<p>Niklas discussed his journey from company executive to entrepreneur, and from entrepreneur to venture capitalist, and the lessons he has learnt so far. He was joined on stage by Andreas Ehn, former CTO of Spotify and currently co-founder and CTO of Wrapp, the exciting new social gifting service in which Atomico has invested. Niklas and Andreas were interviewed on stage and answered questions from the audience.<p>Stockholm University - Our education and research produce results
www.su.se/english
I never agreed to any terms, I don't see why am I expect to respect them.
from the other side, some friends of mine recently tried to raise 18k and ended up north of 50k.

the majority of the money that was raised came through external linkage, not through kickstarter.
"calculator error" is about 30-50% of the mistakes I see on the SAT.

I end up retraining students to do mental math and only use calculators to confirm a calculation already done mentally or on paper.

I believe this helps them spot possibilities, and understand what the less than straightforward questions are asking them to do.
Habits Are The New Viral: Why Startups Must Be Behavior Experts
How do I know if it's working? I've activated it, clicked a ton of links that interest me and I'm not seeing anything.
I guess if you ever try to fix a problem by throwing money at it, there will always be someone there to intercept it. I think this has helped articulate for me exactly why "throwing money at a problem" is so bad: because it attracts the kind of people who chase after large sums of money, not the kind of people who fix problems.

(People always deride others in debates and arguments for "throwing money at the problem", but they never stop to explain why it is a bad thing. Now I know.)
Apple, Google, RIM Agree to Transparent App Privacy Policies
Looks interesting, I'll try it out. The other HN app on WP7 tends to randomly explode for weeks at a time, so this is greatly appreciated.

Edit: It would be really nice to browse comments, not just the link article. I tend to enjoy the comments more than the original link.
In order to train the classifier, you must click the "more" link and make sure the button above in your omnibox is orange.
Good point. I wonder if there is a way to quantify the sources of contributions and figure out how much is family/friends that would contribute regardless of the UX, and how much is from people that the UX significantly influenced (and would otherwise potentially bounce/not contribute).
I am not an expert on power supply design at all, but to my untrained eye, http://oldcomputers.net/pet2001.html shows a more traditional power supply for the contemporary PET (the blue round thing looks like a huge capacitor; behind it, I think I see a traditional transformer) I googled for TRS-80 internals, too, but could not find them.

So, it _could_ be that having a switching power supply in a personal computer was innovate at the time.
Click the "more" link how often? Is there a way to tell it that I don't agree with one of its suggestions?
I 'm not talking about reproducibility as validation, but about the fact that multiple studies can be combined to discover new regularities. An example from neuroscience: hundreds of labs recording from the brains of genetically similar mice doing very similar tasks under slightly different conditions, but we have no way of looking at the raw recordings in a systematic way.
After reading this I really wonder if what was missing was context and world experience.

"'Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.' -- Albert Einstein" -- from Philip Greenspun's Women In Science: http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science .

I would guess the Apple VP has enough money to never have to worry about money, which probably makes the grad school experience quite different than yours.
That is the reason, you are correct. What I've learned in the past two years is that the web is chock full of blogs that repeat tired old "tips" that are either outdated or just plain wrong and that other blogs that give fresh insights and new tips but wrongly give readers the impression that those tips are gospel (ie set in stone).

The trick is to do your own homework, don't take any advice as absolute, fit everything to your unique circumstances, and always remember that your mileage will vary. I've spent enough time reading a lot of crap and had to learn to be extra judicious the hard way. I take most articles like this as very loose guidelines. It was definitely a great article with good advice but I know better than to just run out and apply it just because the experts said it. Experts contradict each other all the time.
It should only be two times. Two pages of results is enough. And no there is no way you can tell it you don't agree, but that sounds like something I can explore. :)
WikiLeaks begins publishing 5 million emails from Stratfor
On managing my time
Fantastic! I'll do that just as soon as someone gives me an open source Mathematica, ansys, risk modelling packages.

On a serious note, I agree source should be available. But it isn't, because these sorts of specialized packages are very, very hard to write.
Myrtle Beach DJ-Wedding DJ Carolina Entertainment Productions
Carolina Entertainment Productions, LLC is a production company that specializes in major events such as concerts and festivals for local and national acts. Call for a quote today 1-888-602-3455 / 843-602-3455.