skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One thing you learn in the real world (outside of school I mean) is that there are some really stupid people out there. And I mean really incompetent people. You find them in strange places, places you wouldn't expect. There are very very few such people, and when you run into them, you know they are stupid because EVERYONE thinks they are stupid, and they cause problems for other people in the organization. If you're tuned in, you can recognize them pretty quickly. Interacting with them is worthwhile as a psychological exercise. These are the people who really don't think things through.

There are also moderately competent but not highly competent people, people who are pretty good at one thing, and when they are challenged, they almost make the cut...but not quite. These people are not stupid, but aren't the best of the best either. Sometimes the situation demands the best of the best, but very rarely (exception: never ever hire anyone but the best of the best for a start-up. If you're doing otherwise, you aren't a start-up, you're a company that is pretending to be a start-up). People generally say nice things about these sorts, and nobody holds it against them when they fail to make the highest cut.

Actually stupid people, on the other hand, just generally make a mess of a situation or do zero to negative work. You want to watch out for those types.
Because when people give voluntarily, there's no state involved. People can and do give without any need for the state to intervene. When the state intervenes, it always takes. It can not give anything without forcefully taking it from somebody first.
The functionality of Pinterest is gender-neutral. What makes it "delicious for women", other than that more women (in the US) use it right now?

According to Wikipedia, more men than women use Pinterest in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintrest#Demographics).
In 2006 facebook was already more than 150 people from what i can tell... square pushed through that boundary much more recently -- that's the really painful bit
I am aware that JCS meets in the Pentagon, what is the point you are attempting to make? The fact is no troops are trained, quartered, & mobilized for war in the Pentagon. The Pentagon is a civilian location. In the U.S. civilians run the military (in other words the chiefs answer to their bosses, the secretaries, who answer to their boss the SecDef.)

Tora Bora is where the Taliban trained, mobilized, & quarter troops (even if they were irregulars.) This is the distinction between a military facility & a civilian facility that happens to deal with military affairs.
But if you believe that DRM which "prevents a user from using or accessing something for which he or she has paid for, at any time in the future for any reason, is unethical and legally dubious," why don't you believe the same about nonfree software programs that meet the quoted criteria? Or are you saying proprietary software is okay if and only if its license is not enforced? Actually, the more I think about that the more I think I agree with it.
It's only bad because they are lazy greedy slobs.

It's the easiest problem to solve. Just remove bad categorization.

Open Amazon, click any category. Let's say hdmi cables. What do you see? Probably televisions, screws, microwave ovens, inflatable sex dolls, anything!

They let bad Sellers fill their categories with crap. Now you can't search.

And that's some kind of difficult problem to solve? Give me a break.
No. It is possible to ensure that people don't cheat even with FOSS; signing and encryption make it possible to set up a nice relatively-difficult barrier to cheating.

How would that work? If I have the source code of Starcraft, I can turn on the "Make the whole map visible" variable, and there's nothing whatsoever that encryption can do to prevent that. With closed-source, as far as I know, Blizzard's constant patching makes cheating relatively uncommon on their own servers.
Google Double Standards - Penguin and Negative SEO Proof
Here is proof that Google has double standard when it comes to Google penguin update
You know, I've been teaching my dog a few tricks, and when I do I always think about how smart EVERYONE IS. Man, humans are so smart. If this were a human - really, practically any human that isn't currently comatose, even a baby, I would be done by now.

Smart means smart compared to something. Everyone is very smart - compared to a dog. But when you use the word smart about people, it means smarter than other people. Does that make other people stupid? In actuality, it has to.

When you say "smart people don't think others are stupid" either you are really saying "smart people never know they're smart. They think everone is just as smart as them". (This is a possibility.) Or, you are saying, "Smart people never acknowledge the fact that they're smart. Even thought they know others are not as smart, they never mention this fact."

This second possibility is probably closer to the truth. When I'm trying to get my dog to realize it can step over its own leash when it's tangled in it, it doesn't help me to think about how much smarter I am and how I never get tangled in anything.

I think smart people know very well that they're smart. Sometimes they just have better things to worry about than pointing this out. (Sometimes they don't. Linus Torvalds was quoted here calling someone a moron a few days ago. Obviusly, he's still a smart guy.)
pls read it
>As someone who has done research in the field, I can tell you - this is the future of search, and the key to true AI.

Having done research in this field doesn't qualify you to have authoritative opinions on search or AI. I don't necessarily disagree with you on search, but I don't see why a dataset would be the key to AI. AI is a function, not a dataset.
My stack level got too deep reading your comment.
Replace those power-sucking lightbulbs with something a hell of a lot better
There's no excuse like that for Amazon.

Ideally, you would click electronics category. Apple. IPod. Order by price. You didn't select category iPod accessories, so you shouldn't see them there

But some slob at Amazon sacrificed search by adding related crap
Bootcamp Perth
Find good local bootcamp in Perth and its surrounding places. These bootcamps are very effective to stay healthy.
Careful not to misunderstand the syntax. The linked article confusingly has this example:

input:checked ~ #main > #findMe

… described thusly: “With the tilde character on #container input:checked would be able to target #findMe …”

Please note the tilde has nothing to do with #findMe. The tilde only relates the input element and #main, which are in-order siblings. (Adjacent in-order siblings, in fact, so + would have worked just as well as ~ in this example.)

Please also note that ~ does not select siblings; it selects following siblings.

<i>italic</i> <a href="#">link</a> <b>bold</b>

With the above HTML, the following selectors are NOT equivalent:

i ~ b {
/* this will match the bold tag above */
}
b ~ i {
/* this will NOT match any elements in this example */
}
and no, you don't need to get them here - just get them in general, since you're wasting a ton of electricity with those incandescents
Sometimes people appear to me unskilled, sometimes they appear unknowledgeable, sometimes they're thinking in twisted ways that they picked up from their environment, sometimes they're falling prey to cognitive biases, sometimes they're making one of a hundred other mistakes I happen to recognize.

And sometimes, so far as I can tell, they're stupid. Sorry.

Original article's error: The fact that a conclusion sounds nice does not save it from being patently false.
That was an awkard conclusion on "Active Development". The total number of issues and pull requests on LESS dwarfs that of SASS, so a larger number of open/pending ones is natural. Some more numbers:

Watchers:
SASS: 1022
LESS: 5480

Forks:
SASS: 138
LESS: 731

Total issues:
SASS: 390
LESS: 809

Total pull requests:
SASS: 62
LESS: 199

That's a clear win for LESS in my book.
I honestly think, as benign as it sounds, this is the most pertinent comment.

First off, I don't think that a teacher's performance eval should be entirely rooted in state tests, nor do I believe that the current method of testing is by any means perfect, but I think value-added measurement is a decent measure of how teachers are performing and how much knowledge students have gained.

What we're looking at here is an extreme case where that value added measure has no more meaning and the actual evaluation has no statistical meaning (the students performance was already top notch, they were probably more likely to score a little worse.)

What SHOULD have happened is that they should have been evaluated using a more rigorous / advanced curriculum that was aligned to what the teacher was teaching (ie, high school algebra). The system is not perfect, but it's not terrible--they just need to evaluate the system, adjust, and iterate, something many here are plenty familiar with.

(Disclosure: I teach at a charter school)
Hehe, this is friggin' awesome. The only thing I could think of that who's the first one to go all Deus Ex about this!
The assumption that every possible value from 0 to 99 is equally likely doesn't seem like the best idea. In a country where the cost of items usually ends in .99, .97, or the like, and the sales tax is added after the fact (and usually from 0-10%), is it still the best choice? The post (and cited paper) don't seem to mention this.

That said, I don't know where you'd acquire these sorts of statistics.
Let me help you out with this part "Is it worth $1.5B?"

If you are left holding the bag, and they have to generate 1.5B in sales over their lifetime from this money to make it a worthwhile investment, then no: pinterest will never accrue 1.5B in revenue over its lifetime.

If you are not left holding the bag and this bubble keeps inflating, yes. It's easy to see how Pinterest can raise money at an even higher valuation with just a little more "spectacular" growth. (It's not really spectacular. More like a fad.)
Numbers for thought

Playing a thought game, let us say the money is supposed to last 18 months till the next round (with a higher valuation!?) Let us also assume engineers cost a flat rate of 100,000 per year.

120,000,000 dollars
/ 1.5 years (18 months)
/ 100,000 per engineer per year
= 800 engineers for 18 months
or 400 for 3 years

Pinterest:
31 employees http://pinterest.com/about/team/
2.9 million DAU (Daily active users)
11.4 million MAU (Monthly active users) http://www.appdata.com/apps/facebook/274266067164-pinterest

Instagram:
13 employees
2.0 million DAU
16.8 million MAU http://www.appdata.com/apps/facebook/124024574287414-instagr...

They must envision hyper growth continuing ~14% a month (to see 10x increase over 18 months).
If anyone in the existence of the Internet was best suited to experiment with sorting, it would be amazon. A 1% improvement for amazon pays for a department of engineers.

A department of engineers that can experiment with advanced search.

In the article's example, 'ipod', I think amazon's strategy is clear. They are sorting lowest to highest of what they think you might mean by 'ipod'. Does the user mean 'ipod [touch]'? 'ipod [nano]'? Or maybe 'ipod [accessory]'?

If they did the 'proper' substring based search to create a set which was then ordered by price you would only see ipod accessories for the first 100 pages. Which would be prefect if 100% of people who searched 'ipod' only wanted accessories. Which is not the case.

So amazon is 'cheating' to show users what want to increase sales, even if it drives us engineers up the wall.

Patio11 would be proud.
Interesting, though I would like to caution you regarding your assumption that it may go viral. In the world of business - assumptions are very dangerous.

Let me give you an example of what goes viral. I recently came across an app for calling a cab using a smart phone. They advertised it very cleverly. They said, think about you are stuck on the road at an unknown location. It is 2:00 AM in the morning and there's no one around! With our app, you can call a cab with a single click without knowing a thing about your location. All you have to do is click the button, stay put and a cab will be there promptly.

Now, I travel a lot so I realized that this could be really nice and handy. So, I immediately downloaded the app. I spoke with my wife and guess what? She downloaded it as well as she thought this could come in handy for her as well. My wife is more social than I am so she posted this newly found app on FB and within no time, most of her friends had downloaded this app as well.

The important thing I am trying to convey about virility to you is that it has to have two key ingredients - utility and the sense of urgency. If you can effectively communicate those two ingredients - your app will go viral. Otherwise, it’s a rat race so before you develop it a whole lot - test out the concept and its virility!
>> (as far as I understand Pinterest does not yet have revenue)

They use a service which scans all links on the site and where possible converts them to affiliate links (they don;t change affiliate links users have set). So if someone pins an Amazon product and another user clicks through and buys that Pinterest is getting a cut. So Pinterest is already making money. I have no idea how much but it seems like it could provide a decent revenue stream.
If your "carousel" uses fade transitions, then it is not "rotating".

I don't think there is an accepted universal term. I try to stick to what it is actually doing...if it fades, it's a fader. If it slides it's a slider.
淘宝女装
I went looking, and found an experiment someone did a couple years ago, where he wrote a trivial "echo data over a socket" server and found that pretty much everything held up okay.

http://oddments.org/scalestack-vs-node-vs-twisted-vs-eventle...

Obviously this doesn't tell us much; a better comparison would be nice.
For financial discipline it does not matter, government will borrow anyway because it can, and it will print money anyway because it can. Because borrowing and spending is politically easier than not spending. US government does not have any savings - taxpayers are its savings account. And as long as substantial amount of people think that raising taxes is a way to solve the problem of runaway government spending - this savings account will be used and abused endlessly. There's no reason for politically risky cuts if you could just borrow and tax.
The sad fact is US government is addicted to deficit. And no addict was ever cured by giving them access to more of the source of their addiction.
The problem is ambiguity. Overloading, as we programmers say.

Why choose an ambiguous word when a specific one exists?

Keep in mind the point of calling it anything at all is communication, and communication is a lot harder if people don’t hear what you mean.

Call it carousel, and someone either gets it, or asks what a carousel is.

Call it a slider, and half of your audience assumes you meant something else entirely.

(Also, saying a term is not “universal” is pretty much a tautology in the real world, and it is not a valid argument. And a carousel that fades between items is still rotating, just as ads are “in rotation” on the radio even though nothing turns around: yes, rotation is a somewhat ambiguous word, too.)
This does make me wonder what Stallman would say about games where all the executable code is FOSS, but the art assets still have all rights reserved.

Granted, such games are few and far between. (The only ones I can think of at all are some of iD's games, and even those were only opened long after the games' initial release dates.)
For...of in javascript
Mozilla has added support for the ECMAScript 6 "for...of" constructor in Firefox 13.

This looks like a very handy way to iterate over NodeLists.
I wrote up something that actually demonstrates the idea of matching :checked elements to change the state of another element. Think styleable checkboxes!

http://jsfiddle.net/3CUvm/
>But, Pinterest is so new (relatively), we don't really know whether it's just a fad or something to stay

i think we can confidently say that it's a fad. social content aggregators don't last. it's just a fact of the industry. kudos to pinterest for collecting some cash while they're hot, but it's only a matter of time before they go the same way as all their predecessors.
I wrote about this recently too, with some screenshots: http://chir.ag/201203161607
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_n_4?rh=n%3A172282%...

Oh yea?
Nominal interest is different than real interest. Inflation reduces the real size of debt. Inflation was higher in the 80's.
IIRC in the US women drive about 80% of purchases, meaning each female user is worth several times what each male user is worth. In terms of communicating the value of the business to investors, the fact that the userbase is mostly female is arguably the most important aspect of the site.
New ex-Facebook co-founder investment called Jumio
This is a SDK that using your iPhone camera you can grab your CC numbers
I think they stopped using skimlinks a few months ago.
Testing throughout the year and measuring performance based on that seems like a bad idea to me. When I was in school the only important tests were at the end of the year (the tests everyone in the country would take at the same time: GCSE, AS Level, A2 Level etc.). Therefore I only worked hard for them and put little effort into other tests throughout the year as there were no long-term consequences for doing badly. So the only good way to judge a teacher based on performance would be to look at the final exam results and to ignore the results throughout the year.
You should not hire people that you don't trust or that are not exited about the projects.

But if you set expectations and deadlines, you can establish that it doesn't matter when they work or how long it takes - only that they get done with the necessary quality and on time.
It comes from Slide Show.
I agree with your first two paragraphs. The position you advocate in the third would make sense if political affiliation conferred a tangible benefit or our participation in the process affected the outcomes. But neither of those is true, and it undermines your case.

Affiliation is rife with intangible benefits of a vaguely religious character: believing that you're right, believing that you're benefiting the righteous and confounding evil, etc. But there is no 10% discount for Democrats at the Toyota dealership, and Republicans don't get a $1500 tax deduction simply for being Republicans. The only tangible benefit to affiliation is the ability to vote in the primary—a benefit so dubious we all personally know people who affiliated opposite their beliefs just to muck up the process.
Anytime you see something that's relatively easy to solve by a major company but remains unsolved, either you don't realize how hard the problem really is, or the company is profiting from their "oversight". Apple could easily make a 2-disk-drive macbook, but they don't sell that configuration.
I also wondered about the random assumption. The thing that made me question the assumption the most is Benford's law.
I am trying to promulgate a neologism of near-time, like real but a little more relaxed. Like the version of time in the CAP theorem. Soon but not like, soon within a bounds. Soon.

Real-time needs to be taken within a context. Your realtime is probably way sloppy for like say laser that starts fusion reactions.

If I were baking a pizza, my watchdog could be set to 5 seconds and be ok (provided the thermal inertia of the oven wasn't ridiculous and my heat source wasn't the said laser).

Near-time. The future is in the near.
> As a consistent picture emerges

I've found that the length of time most people take to form a "consistent picture" of someone else is very short. Generally, it is whatever is the shortest length of time required to determine "are they acting in accordance with my desires or not?".

If the person is generally helping to make things happen which you want to have happen, you form a favorable impression of them quickly.

If they are unhelpful, you tend to think negatively of them. There is rarely a deep consideration of who the person actually is, or what might motivate them to behave the way they do.

Of course, if they are not only helpful, but are creating new opportunities, we call them "visionary" or "leaders". Great people.

If their actions are opposed (directly or indirectly) but very obviously to what we think our needs and desires are, we label them "enemy" and push them into that definition.

I'm having a hard time articulating what I want to get across, but it boils down to this: after a while, we stop acting on information that might change our perception of who someone is. We just think of them as "being a certain way" and observe all behavior from there on out as solidifying that definition in our minds.

I think a truly "smart person" is someone who is always staying open to the possibility of people changing radically, however unlikely that may seem.
His manager, Scott 'Scooter' Braun, is Universal Music's first entrepreneur in residence:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3979647
Cheap Web Hosting
Web hosting from just £1.50 a month and FREE domain name. The most affordable hosting solution in the UK. Whether a personal page, a blog or even a web store, you will find the perfect solution right here. One last thing, you get a FREE domain on all packages when you sign up for at least a year!
Check out additional info on:- http://www.aphexhosting.co.uk/
I don't know about 3gpp, but a while back I was working on an OMA-DM implementation and those specs are a nightmare.
Disney Video Launches In Beta with responsive design for all devices
Since requests to mygreatstartup.com go to nginx (and get routed from there to any back-end servers you may have), that depends entirely on how you've got nginx configured.
Would you care to set any kind of specific timeline on your very confident sounding prediction? Put your (reputational) money down?
Optimization Of Your WordPress Site
We've used both Stylus and SASS. I've even contributed a few patches to Stylus. Ultimately, we decided that Stylus is a bit of a failed experiment in syntax/punctuation minimalism; SASS is much nicer to work with.

The key problem is that Stylus doesn't make a clear visible distinction between control structures, mixins, and other meta-level constructs. With Stylus, you can trivially override built-ins and it's very difficult to "go to definition", so to speak. SASS has very obvious symbols which call out the presence of preprocessor stuff. This makes it much easier to visually scan stylesheets and map what you're seeing in the inspector to what you're seeing in the source files.

Simply put, because the gap between CSS and the preprocessor language is so narrow, it makes sense to call out differences. Unlike, say, C and x86, it's too easy to look at Stylus and CSS side by side and be confused by their similarities.
What's a lurk forum?
Pretty cool. I can actually help you out with the design. The assets right now looks like it's taken from premade illustrator file. I can design custom made assets for you and I also have a similar idea that I'd like to discuss about.

I couldn't find a way to contact you so here email me: dylancole101@gmail.com
Setup rails dev environments on any OS with vagrant and the rails cookbook
On what basis could you not have said the exact same thing about Facebook 5 years ago?
How can Google answer that question now?:

Find all blogs of motorcycle journies 50 km nearby my current position.
Where to get a website with Pay Pal integration? | Thoughtfulminds Blog
After starting your website from professional web designers at professional web design company and promoting it, many people will come to visit it
Show HN: real time syntax checking for golang in emacs