skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Kant had an interesting reply to Descartes.

He said that the "world of objects in themselves" - i.e. numinal reality, or a reality independent of our perception - must exist in order for us to have experience at all.
The reason? We know that there is a reality because something must persist between each one of our "computations" - our perceptions - in order for us to be able to order our perceptions in time.

We just don't know anything about that reality besides that it exists.

To sum up: We do live in reality at some level. How many layers we are removed from the bottom-most substrate,how many simulations-within-simulations we are in, is something we might not ever know. Kant actually said we can't ever know.
U.S., German auto companies agree on fast charging system
Bouncers using Facebook to verify IDs
Even though he's gone, Naggum is not without his own defenses for his abrasiveness. This one of his is especially applicable to your own comment.

http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3250519673662774@naggum....

(And of course meta-discussion about Naggum was fairly common when he was alive and active, so there are many more defenses and attack-backs.)
What pays for government funding? Taxes on profits.

Besides manufacturing is already cheap. That's the whole reason generic drugs exist. It's easy to copy something someone else has invested 10s of billions in creating in the first place.
Does Apple’s Growing Dependence on China Make It Vulnerable?
He got that from this phrase:

> Does capitalism still make moral sense...

Suggesting that capitalism is immoral.
I think capitalism overall is a good system. Unfortunately, it doesn't work very well with health care due in large part to information asymmetries and moral hazard.
> JSON is better (and XML is crap) it's ridiculous

Except that in JSON, strings need to be surrounded by double quotes. Why impose on human readers a syntactic requirement that only compilers/interpreters need?

From this respect, JSON is in the same mixed bag as XML is.

If you want to go down that slope, be consistent and push YAML instead of JSON.
Why don't you want to copy and paste the universe?
I want to believe in universe is a computer simulation, because that way all because less serious. What disturbs me is that, in history, people usually tried to explain the existence by using the most sophisticated machinery available. and today it is a computer.....are we making a mistake?
New Real Madrid Jersey
Welcome to choose one Soccer Shirts Thailand you like most in our cheap soccer jersey online shop！These Real Madrid Jersey 2013 are the good choices to be a football fans! We are the large soccer jersey supplier that can fulfill all your needs.
I dont't think so, but my avatar does.
I haven't. They look interesting. I'll check them out.
Reminds me of XML literals in .NET.
WxPython: Adding and Removing Widgets Dynamically
The most important thing Facebook has right now is a critical mass of users. You can't really set out to beat that, you have to sneak up on them with a really good product. How about something that unifies all the Bio monitoring devices, or cloud services, or even social networks?
Ask HN: How to security scan your web application?
Just wondering what tools you guys use to perform security checks on your applications?

I'm using skipfish for the security scan. What are you guys using?
Programming is a way of modeling reality and a preference might reflect a bit of your own mind. Then again, people aren't always consistent, so it might not necessarily correlate strongly. Nice remark though!
I actually hated that movie. While the message that 'One should pursue his/her own dream' was neat, the portrayal was bad. It showed that Engineering education in India sucks largely because of orthodox bad teachers who lack vision. It portrayed it is alright to play bad hurtful pranks (though a joke, but unfortunately immaturity is still prevails in college students). The professors were shown in such bad light and without any emotions that even suicides don't make them change their facial expressions. They really took it to the extreme, it was sad because it might have demotivated some people.
At first the hyperbole was somewhat amusing. But as he criticizes xml for being too heavy for what it is frequently used for, so are his diversions into politics and human behaviour. They end up becoming an obstruction to the meat of the text.
Whether they would be developed if industry margins go down is a contentious issue. They seem to do just fine despite the competition from generics.

In general everything related to biology seem to suffer from the problem of high cost . There got to be a lot of inefficiency some where to sustain such high cost. It need not necessarily be human inefficiency. Just like computers moved from being as big and costly as big buildings to being very affordable (raspberry pi) - thanks to the invention of transistor, there must be some kind of bottle neck that can be targeted first to advance the whole field. You can't do that by simply throwing more money at it. You have to create incentives to attack the inefficiencies.
Automated Forex Trading – 4 Basic Rules of Automated Forex Trading
It is a moot question. A simulation is just a name of a thing that is a part of the universe. The current definition covers simple things like thoughts or sentences and some simulations (ex: the Bay Model) are not really distinguishable from the real world. The term simulation may be used to help us think differently about hard-to-get information or help conceptualize some impedance to information but the definition of the term would have to be generalized greatly to apply. In other words, any "discovered" universe-as-simulation (or more more to the point the discovery of the simulation's "operator") would look very unlike any conventional definition of the term "simulation" and would probably just look like "more universe".
Generics are not directly competing with newly-discovered drugs, but they do reduce the funding available for that discovery.
电热毯
Perhaps it is falsifiable. Perhaps there is some object with a fractal property that would be enormously expensive to compute, but that nature can determine without computation. Perhaps such an object could be produced, and it could be shown that its property would be of such near-infinite complexity to rule out us running in a simulation.

Or perhaps I've just spouted some technobabble. The point is that we are at such an early stage of thinking about such things that they may yet be put on a scientific footing. And if we do find answers to age-old philosophical conundra (the universe-simulation one not being much different to older questions about what we can determine about reality) then any answers that come will come from science, not philosophy.
Indeed.

> Robbery is not just another way of making a living, rape is not just another way of satisfying basic human needs, torture is not just another way of interrogation. And XML is not just another way of writing S-exps.

>| I use XML on a daily basis and think it is a simple and intelligent way to represent data.

> A comment on this statement is by now entirely superfluous.

>| I would like to hear why you think it is so bad, can you be more specific please?

> If you really need more information, search the Net, please.

And condescension is not just another way of disagreement.
pharmaceutical research is an extremely expensive, long term process. it could never get the same kind of funding in a public 'open source'-like setting that it could get in a setting where its treated as IP and is given the opportunity to create economic profits.

society is notoriously bad as innovating when there is no profit motive. the pace of the 'march of science' due to curiosity and dedication to the betterment of mankind is, unfortunately, glacial. thats not to say there isn't somewhere in between, but when we have this discussion, we have to appreciate the role that money plays in innovation--something people at HN might be able to appreciate.
Only if the opposing side is an idiot who can't separate beliefs about separate things from one another. Naggum himself has a great rant on such "one-bit" people: http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3225130472400367@naggum....

But then, if you're knowingly arguing with idiots, it's typically done more for some weird sense of fun than for the purpose of actually trying to change their mind. Even an argument between supposedly smart people (even those aware of Bayes' Theorem) doesn't result in mind changes all that often. Actually changing someone else's mind about something they already have a relatively firm belief on is at least as hard as changing your own mind.
1) Extremely good developer community/support (gems, the #ruby channel on irc.freenode.net, blogs, books, etc.) Just a shit-ton of smart people.

2) Pure command-line interface that works with text files, that makes it work easily with any toolchain. Seems that GNU Smalltalk is the first version which only recently did not require an IDE.

3) All the basic and most useful objects are literals. Enumerators are stupid-easy to use.

4) Much lower learning curve than Smalltalk.

5) Adopts some useful Perlisms into the language mix.

6) A large focus on unit testing, and TDD. And they are very easy to use.
IMHO, the problem with capitalism is that some people want to use it as a complete way to run society, where I believe it is a tool to be used by society. Clearly, as you elude to, socialism is also needed, other wise the military would and should be privatised, along with law enforcement.

I find is odd that capitalist bias countries like to use tax money for huge military commitments, yet go insane at the idea of providing health care for its people.

Capitalism does not make any moral sense what so ever. Its is not supposed to. It is survival of the fittest. It is vicious and heartless. And it is supposed to be. So, socialist type stuff is required to serve other needs.

Of course socialist stuff need capitalist profits to support it, while capitalism needs socialist stuff, like law, to support it.

Broadly, that is how I see it anyway.
It's a gradient, not a binary.

Adding colors to the metaphor adds words with no increase of understanding.
I don't think it's a moot question, in the sense that forcing yourself to think about some of these intangible things is a good exercise in philosophical thought. But I see your point. Probably not wise to spend too much time on a question like this.
Oh, Paras Chopra! He's quite a popular blogger now. Didn't know he had to start off so humbly too :)
I really don't expect to see 1 milion people signed-up, or even 100,000, in the next couple of weeks, but, I think that if people like that idea and are exposed to it, they will sign-up. so it's worth trying, isn't it?

BTW, what do you think of that project?
C# has closures but why do you say it has first class functions? I'm pretty new to C# but I thought all functions still must be members of a class. Yes you can pass delegates to, or return them from, a function but they cannot stand alone. Isn't that true?
I agree with all of that, and that each of those matter, but those things don't make it Lispier than Smalltalk is...
Since I have gone to Ruby and adopted the Religion of Testing First (ok, sometimes Testing In The Middle), I have never missed any sort of type checking whatsoever.

I'm afraid this might come down to a philosophical difference for you.
"Not an obvious win as far as I can tell, wouldn't like to fix an ummatched bracket in a document ending in >>>> rather than e.g. </form><div></body></html>. But your mileage may vary."

HTML would then be an acronym for Lots of Irritating Single Angle Brackets.
I visit websites that will make my CPU max out when I scroll pretty much every other day. If this guide is related to that, then it is definitely worth it.
Your edit does maybe give us some room, independent timing source or otherwise.

See my other comment about Kant: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3932514
My worst practical problem with XML is that it is kryptonite to doing conflict resolution in version control systems. I've eased my pain with one such document by translating the document elements to a directory full of files, each of which has the name of its unique identifier attribute and the contents of which looks something like

=== attributes ===
a=b
=== contained elements ===
id_1234
id_4567
=== associated text ===
This is the text associated
with this element

Those one-line tags which are syntactically distinct from attributes or identifiers serve as anchors for the diff program to "do the right thing". For this application, I can omit whitespace text elements, and there is at most one #text element per containing element, so I can conflate them. Were there more than one, I could generate id's for the contained text elements.

Are there better ways of doing this? Tools?
if you need techcrunch, you're doing something wrong.
"Yes, it's a rant. Why? Because probably the author is tired of explaining the same things over and over to the XML defenders"

If one is tired of talking, one's best option is to shut up.
Your group (3) is just his group (1) stated differently.
Maybe that's because Macs don't generally deal with pieces of garbage. Whether that's tools, or users.
pharmaceutical companies are granted a monopoly on their IP (as everyone else is) because of the extensive, expensive, long term research required to develop the IP. manufacturing costs are almost trivial compared to the costs of R&D--that is to say, there isn't much improvement to be made there.

retail costs can go down, as they do in the rest of the world when governments set price controls, but if every country on earth set a low price on pharmaceuticals, you would begin to worry that these companies would no longer have an incentive to innovate, which is potentially as or more dangerous than the status quo insofar as newer treatments would be less likely to occur in our lifetime.
Radiolab: Talking to Machines (May 2011)
Thanks for the clear breakdown.
As somebody who's lived in the UK all their life, I can honestly say I'm flabbergasted every time I read something about the US healthcare system. It's like how Japanese cities don't have street names (http://sivers.org/jadr), that completely astonished me too. It's just so outside of the reality I've known all my life, it makes no sense.

(Granted, the US system is still better than that of third-world countries like India. At least you might get some assistance.)
Mobile games' slow journey into the hearts of the hardcore
I had left before they were willing to performance test the application. But I heard that after they launched that it was awful.

The Oracle optimizer quits optimizing after the first ~7 joins so we had to do manual optimization after that. Almost every query was at least 7 joins. The guy running the DBA group was following the Data Model Resource Book to a "T", which I think is appropriate for an OLAP database, but is not cool for OLTP.
How is this innovative? It's an Apple Mail clone with only super basic functionality.
This really shouldn't be news. The complaint seems to be that XML is no good for anything that isn't document/text heavy (i.e. doesn't fit in with the intent of SGML).

If you weren't already thinking this in 2002 then you probably weren't paying attention.
"Except that in JSON, strings need to be surrounded by double quotes"

This is a funny limitation, since JSON came from Javascript and {a:1} is perfectly legal in Javascript

"Why impose on human readers a syntactic requirement that only compilers/interpreters need?"

Well, for human readers this can be bad, but <> can be bothersome as well.

YAML could be a better choice (or something similar to JSON but with better syntax)
If we go to one language, I'd prefer to take the GWT approach which uses Java on the client and the server.
I think the best way can be to convert the source to html using LaTeX2HTML and then convert the html files to txt using

cat foo.html | w3m -dump -T text/html > foo.txt

(w3m a text based web browser)
Not me. It boils down to the meaning of universe - if you define it as everything, nothing outside it exists, as there's no outside, in particular there can't be any machine, that simulates the universe, otherwise we wouldn't call it universe. If you define universe as computable subset of everything we have access to, it might be possible to simulate that universe, using computing machine if this machine had access to enough resources outside that universe to hold its state.
Yes, yes, yes. Have people try it out.

Some of them won't like it, of course. They could be the wrong audience, or the wrong end of the right audience. You should only quit when a) you are sure no significant audience for your product exists, and b) your many discussions with customers haven't led you to discover an audience that you can pivot to serve.
"I have never heard of Glancee before today. Going to their announcement page tells me nothing about what exactly did, or do now, except a generic blurb about bringing people together."

I absolutely hate reading TechCrunch. This is how much I hate reading TechCrunch: I actually read Hacker News through my own customized filter site (http://hacker-newspaper.gilesb.com/), and one of the biggest benefits is that I hard-coded a TechCrunch ban (along with several other sites I don't ever want to read).

However, I have to say, this logic is completely sound. I hit this Glancee blog link and was left wondering A) what on earth these people even do and B) why people on HN are talking about it in the first place. For once, I wish I'd seen the TechCrunch link!
Blizzard's Diablo III On Linux?
I suspect the trick comes down to where you draw the line between simple and clever.
Unfortunately, I lose interest in this rant amongst all the inane references to other things in the world.

Kind of ironic that an argument in favor of less verbosity couldn't be more verbose itself.
From Times of India [1]:

"Cipla, which has 23 oncology drugs in its portfolio, has been able to offer the price advantage because of backward integration and reverse engineering, its chairman Y K Hamied told TOI"

I'm not sure what backward integration means, but the part about reverse engineering implies these are not drugs that they spent a large sum on R&D. It makes the moral hazard of capitalism vs compassion less hazardous when you copy someone else's product.

[1] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/C...
Yes. One definition of "everything that exists" is "everything that exists and is connected." We can think of the universe as a directed graph and "everything that exists" as nodes that are reachable from where we're standing. From within a sub-universe, "everything that exists" is a subset of "everything that exists" for someone standing in a containing universe.

(P.S. Yes. Hi Lothar. Small world.)
At prices like that, I might just pick up 2 or 3! But seriously, it'll be interesting to see how in the future their algorithms improve to deal low-information queries like that.
In their shoes I wouldn't name the person publicly. Maybe I misheard or misunderstood something. Maybe it made sense in some broader context that I missed. Maybe their dog or their mom just died.

Or it could be that they're just an asshole, but there will always be assholes. Much better to make everybody aware of asshole behavior patterns. Then they're ready to deal with the situation, which they're much more likely to encounter than the specific idiot.
> but can be used in functional ways.

Every language can be used in functional ways, including Fortran, Cobol and assembly language.

I think the main question is "what is idiomatic in that language?" and in that case, C#, even with LINQ, is still not functional (in the sense that Erlang, Haskell, OCaml and Scheme surely are, and Python sometimes is).

For example, when you use select in c# over a user-defined collection, the enumerator might modify global state. It would be bad practice, but it's not unheard of.

I wouldn't say c# is functional.
"Hey Markus, you forgot to give me the information XYZ in time!"

The most important thing to realize is that this is a test; he is testing whether or not you know how to play this game; whether or not you can be relied upon in the future to work together at this game against common opponents (not necessarily enemies, but roadblocks). In this case, author failed the test, and boss's-boss now knows that he will never be able to count on author to advance a common goal without fear of putting his foot in his mouth.

I'm a straight male so from my personal experience, women also do this in relationships. They will test you relentlessly, just like your backslapping male buddies will give you shit. It's the same exact game, with inverted strategies. In a sexual relationship or good friendship, you're expected to be dominant and talk back to these tests, in a professional relationship, you're supposed to subordinate yourself to organizational superiors.

It's really not that complicated, you just have to use your brains and your balls at the right times. You don't even really need to be a smooth talker or a great politician, it's really just about context.

This kind of thing is inherent in an elite education, and inherent in some peoples' personalities. Most people without an elite education, elite parents, or natural ability are never taught this, and they basically fuck it up at every opportunity possible until they catch on or are explicitly taught this.
Browser Forensic Tool v2.0 - Advanced browser history search engine
This is kind of off-topic, but whenever I see a spate of, "Is RSS dead/dying?" posts, I wish they would focus more of the historical context around the W3C and XML standards and developer/browser maker reaction to that to split from the W3C to focus of HTML/CSS/JS

Are there any other end-user facing specs/apps built on XML beside beside RSS?

It always seemed redundant to me that the most popular RSS reader is Google's which is re-wrapping stripped down XML feeds back into a another HTML/CSS/Javascript presentation layer.

Maybe JSON readers would be more popular to implement.
The War on Drugs - Rep. says man trapped in cell shows problem at DEA
If your goal is to understand the universe around you, wanting to believe something can be a mistake. Similarly, trying to explain the cause of existence can also be a mistake. Use the simplest explanation that fits your observations. I find it helpful to start from solipsism and build from there.
Or JavaScript E4X
I can't get the same result now. I might have just fat fingered it. Really like the site btw!
Is Origami the Future of Tech
Motion Simulation offers 180-degree display gaming cockpit for $18,000
“You lie awake at night worrying about what is that which will disrupt your business model,” he said. “Apple iMessage is a classic example. If you’re using iMessage, you’re not using one of our messaging services, right? That’s disruptive to our messaging revenue stream.”

Dude, go eat a bag of dicks. Seriously. You are, in 2012, STILL making $1,250 dollars per MEGABYTE of text message data. If there's anything that requires "disruption," it's the disgustingly gross excess of the text messaging business model. Long live capitalism and innovation.
This is a cool story, I wonder how long a non-stop trip would take though.
What the hell is going on here? I understand that this might be a legitimate company, but I don't see Google having any need for such a thing, let alone to the point where they'd just surrender their domain name to them.

Does anyone have more information on this?
I'm not selling you an excuse. I'm just saying this certainly played a big part of why he became successful. Stanford has a solid track record for successful start-ups.

In my opinion, applying to YC and hoping to get in versus having staff members on university campus with connections to students who now operate prestigious tech companies and being able to walk the same path they have are 2 entirely different experiences.