skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's sad that you would even think this way.

Privacy is available, right now, for free. The cost, if there is one, is getting all your friends to stop using a single website started run by a sociopath who does not believe in the idea of privacy and start using an open source peer to peer solution that is not controlled by any single person or entity.
narrator was being facetious.
Probably part of the business plan for Forbes. "Watch WSJ, anytime they have a hidden gem, rewrite it and send it out." Forbes did it with the target targeting parents to be article with the New York Times:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targe...
What's distressing about that?
Wherever you want. It's your life, learn what you want to. You don't have to wait for some internet celebrity to tell you what you should or shouldn't be learning.
Your job sounds terrible, and you seem bitter about it. It doesn't have to be like that. I would think long and hard if I were you about figuring out what you can do to find a job you find more satisfactory.
Maybe it's fair to criticize the headline.

But it's silly to criticize people's reading comprehension on the basis that they read the article rather than just the headline.
The data you send through google spends very little time touching their own equipment, so the energy efficiency is of little , if any impact unless it can be spread to a majority of the providers whose equipment my data touches on its was to and from google..
A quick traceroute shows me that there ar 10 router hops in between my Laptop and www.gmail.com. If all the 10 devices are not 'green' , then what net impact does Google's data center being 'green' have?
Amazon does much the same thing with its recommended items, and it's cute. I'm sure it drives sales, and by extension would be (is? Not sure if Amazon sells ads in that context) worth advertising to. But realistically it's got to be a small part of Amazon's revenue. And Amazon's revenue dwarfs Facebooks.

Honestly my intuition says that there isn't that much money in that kind of "buy this, you don't even know you need it" advertising. Consumers generally know what they want already.
It took me a bit to digest what you were saying, but I think I agree.

To my mind, though, the thing that separates successful learners from unsuccessful is persistent constructive dissatisfaction. If you have some difficulty finding contentment—and are never happy to rest on your laurels for too long—then you will be determined to achieve more and more, and learning will happen as a by-product. The longer a plateau becomes, the more likely it is to stay a plateau; and the shorter you can make a plateau, the better for your progress.

Perhaps, as you say, this comes from not keeping track of learning progress. However, I think there is an important other side of it: you do want to keep track of progress toward some other goal, such as making a game. Then it becomes a matter of “I need to learn about networking in order to add multiplayer to my awesome game”. When learning stands between you and your dreams, you quickly learn to learn quickly.
Judge: Ample evidence that Apple "knowingly joined" e-book conspiracy
> Is the source code the software or the compiled binary? What is copyrightable? One or both?

The source code is the creative work, and the compiled binary is a mechanical transformation of the work, and thus both are covered by the same copyright. I don't see how this is mysterious.

> Is an API the source code, the compiled binary, or the running process of the software?

It is none of those. The I in API stands for interface — that is, it's an abstract description of the things a library provides and how you interact with them. The source code, the compiled binary and the running process are concrete implementations, not abstract interfaces.

> Since the Java libraries only value is the Java APIs

What on earth? Are you really saying the only value of the Java standard library is the names and type signatures of the packages and methods, and not the actual functionality they provide? The library could actually not implement any of the methods and it would be just as valuable?

I have to assume you are just very confused about what the word "API" means.
Look up "retargeting". Creepily chasing people around the web is successful for advertisers.
It is, just like MySpace and Friendster before it... In a few years, the next big thing will take over and the cycle will repeat itself.
Science of Avengers
I have to disagree. As engineers we are trained to confront problems. If you are just working around problems then you're not doing good engineering.
Google found a business model that works (keyword advertising) before they went public.

Facebook still does not have a business model that works.

Facebook is surviving on investment, not income.

Mark Zuckerberg is billionaire because of Microsoft's and others' investments, not because Facebook is making billions in income.
Google Launches New Research Tool For Google Documents
A good book helps get past the hurdles of knowing what function to use for what. However, the only real examples in the Ruby books I've read are in Rails books. So that might be part of the cultural issue jamesgeck refers to. Poor docs + book focus on Rails means you can only learn Ruby for the purpose of Rails

I find that confusing as there are plenty of good Ruby books that aren't Rails focused all the way from beginner to advanced. Maybe they're just not promoted properly, though.
The “Build Stuff Then Play A Game” Bundle - Games and Apps For Building Games
Even if 100% of users were at the mercy of carriers and handset makers, that just underscores that 'Google can't "do something about it"'; it doesn't even mean the platform is not "open", as you are mistaking open devices for open software: the platform is, in fact, so open that carriers and handset manufacturers are allowed to make arbitrary modifications and sell closed devices running the result.
Our platform currently tracks Groupon.com which covers US and Canada. Groupon has 47 technically separate sites to make up their full international business.
There's a few National Institute of Health studies that back the calories in vs calories out argument. Keep your calorie intake below your BMR (basal metabolic rate) + what you burn during the day if you want to lose weight. Very simple. You don't have to "balance saturated and unsatured fats", get ten hours of sleep per day, or whatever other ridiculous microoptimisations people come up with.

Eat 500 calories below your MBR + burn rate and you lose one pound per week.

You can do it while eating garbage food (fast food, heavily processed food products) or you could do it while eating a totally vegan diet. It doesn't matter for weight loss.
But doesn't that still fulfil the request of anything that good hackers would find interesting?
With all the domain blocking going on, it isn't surprising to see alternative DNS roots show up. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) you will really have to be a geek to find a .geek domain.
Google Research Tool In Google Docs - It Searches While You Type
It is true that the most important thing is a good design, which will hopefully get you good performance with minimal and maintainable code.

However, in my experience, there are almost always additional optimizations that can be done after you have implemented your basic design. Things like "this part could make smarter choices with a more complicated heuristic", "we could use a faster datastructure here, though it requires a lot of bookkeeping", or "We could cut a lot of computation here with an ugly hack that cuts through the abstraction".

Of course, more code makes it harder to change the structure of the program, so it's the classic trade-off of maintainability versus optimization.

A good example of this, besides databases, is CPUs.
Modern CPUs use loads of silicon on complex optimization tricks; out-of-order execution, register renaming, prefetchers, cache snooping. And all that "bloat" is actually making it faster. You can't make a super-fast CPU by removing all the cruft to get a minimal design. (Or rather, you can make it faster for certain cases, but it would be slower at doing almost anything useful.)
Couldn't agree more. I remember when AOL chat rooms were the end-all. IRC was the place to be. Compuserve, Lycos and Alta Vista were kings in their own right. Netscape was the only browser. Friendster was doing something no one had done before. It's simple technological progression - we seek the latest and the greatest. And that will certainly come with regard to social. Facebook will always be around, just like Yahoo! is - but the "next big thing" is right around the corner. Good luck to those seeking it.
"Prove the rule" is a colloquialism that means "test the rule". The exception ends up disproving or clarifying the rule, not verifying it. It doesn't mean prove like passing that test.
I doubt anyone is actually claiming that programming is the only field in which you can create; that's a pretty thin strawman argument. But programming IS the highest leverage means of creation invented, however.

I say this as a programmer, photographer, woodworker, electronics hacker, and musician. Nothing else comes close to programming in how much you can create with so little.

In fact, programming can help you with ALL of the other hobbies I occasionally indulge in. Being able to write music doesn't make me a better photographer.

And you really are creating from nothing; you could create an app at your local library if you had some kind of programming skill but no access to a computer of your own. If I lost everything but still had access to libraries, I would still be able to do programming work.

Only in digital photography are you "creating from nothing"; every other hobby I have requires you to use up consumables, and every one of those hobbies have involved investments in equipment greater than what I spent on my latest laptop.

I couldn't create anything interesting with pencil and paper myself, and I would also suggest that it would take FAR more skill in drawing to begin to make a living using pencil and paper than it would skill in, say, web development, to make a living creating web pages.

I KNOW web developers who are barely "programmers" compared to what I know about programming who do a good job and make a good living working on web sites for people. That kind of range of skill can only exist because of the extreme leverage you get from knowing anything at all about programming.

Yes, programming IS different.
>For most things to appear on BT or elsewhere, someone has to buy them first, too. Your argument, therefore, is invalid.

The fundamental difference is that BT assumes you make a copy. Everyone who gets a copy has that copy forever, essentially gaining all the benefits of purchase. At a library, however, you get it for 3 weeks and then you bring it back. It's protected by the doctrine of first sale which says that I can do what I wish with the physical thing that I own, include lending it or reselling it. Digital copies are not "lent" they are copied and never need to be returned.

>Allow me to laugh, because the last people who benefit by this system are content creators. If you seriously believe copyright is, was or will be for creators, you're in for a bad surprise if you ever take a look at the history of what probably was the most harmful idea mankind ever allowed to happen.

This argument... is patently untrue. If I publish a book, everyone who buys a copy puts money in my pocket. Everyone who downloads it without buying it gets all the benefits of my work without compensating me. To make the argument your making is unfair to all the people who make their living producing content.

Here's the deal, I get your point. I agree with it. I think the content industry (I make a distinction from the copyright industry because I think copyright, in its intended form is a good thing) is crappy. It continually tries to subvert our rights (our right to the free flow of information, i.e. net neutrality, our right to the public domain, our right to use our content, our right to fair use, etc.). That's bad. But don't walk around trying to say that downloading stuff is not stealing. It is. Don't consume the content if the industry bothers you that much. Buy your music directly from artists, go to the opera, read only public domain books, whatever, hell, even steal it, but don't pretend you're doing the writer or musician a favor.
we are talking about Balmer and his reign, which includes then entire winmo era.
Developers, developers, developers.

OK, Steve, whatever you say.

It's only a matter of time before they lose their business customers.

Then they are really in trouble.
There's no need for a separate architecture to avoid concurrency issues; a simpler solution is to simply use a uniprocessor system. (And be careful with interrupts.)
I was unable to find original source material by the researcher (only finding the abstract for his presentation at http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2012/webprogram/Paper6155.html)

If anyone can find the author's slides or related article, I'd appreciate a link to them.
I don't understand why facebook doesn't charge to have a fan page. I mean this is something that I think that you should absolutely charge for.
Time to make a chrome extension that injects code to override this..
Or otherwise said - Half of Americans make predictions based upon pattern matching.

Based upon the history of the internet industry and especially social networks its a lot riskier to say something will be relevant in 5-10 years than not
I'm not so sure. I will most likely be wrong, but I really think Facebook has dug in too well to be easily displaced. It's integrated itself into so many different tenets (gaming, marketing for other brands, sharing) that I just can't see it being a fad. There was that uh-oh moment when Google+ was opened, but Facebook countered pretty quickly. As long as they keep doing that I think they'll be fine.
Alternate DNS roots have been around for a long time. OpenNIC, in particular, is nearly twelve years old.
I, too, am skeptical of that thesis. However one plausible way of thinking about it may be that because food prices are so low (for certain foods, at least), restaurants can increase portion sizes without incurring a very high penalty. If people are attracted to higher portion sizes, then those restaurants would continue to do so, resulting in fat people. I can think of a couple of reasons that people would like larger portion sizes: a) it improves the value-proposition ($x amount of food for just $y dollars), and b) it is satisfying to feel full.

Your point about the rich is an interesting one. A conceivable explanation for this could be that higher-end restaurants tend to have a different value-proposition than lower-end ones: instead of focusing on quantity, they focus on quality.

Finally, I think the point you bring up about the summary being misleading is a good one. Reporters are generally not known for accuracy when reporting on scientific matters.
Facebook ads would have to be really, really terrible for their claims to be true. According to another Forbes piece, $40M is not even 1% of GM's ad spend per year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccalindland/2012/05/15/gms-f...

And this is where all the young consumers are spending hours per day. And lot of car ads are just about brand awareness; they don't depend on intent, or even clickthroughs. Seems fishy to me.
This list is a nice analysis. However, coming up with a start-up idea is not something that should be forced. If you see a problem or a need for something, pursue a solution if you're passionate about it. If you have no passion and just want a business for the sake of having a business, you will eventually fail. Any successful company has some passionate people behind it. That's my 2 cents.
I think 18+ is a poor demographic group for this kind of survey. Here's my unfounded guess about the actual results:

* 18-39 -- few people think it's a fad.

* 39-60 -- many people think it's a fad.

* 61+ -- most people think it's a fad or don't get it.

Lump all the groups together and you get 45% believing FB is a fad.

I know I'm stereotyping horribly, but I can't see a lot of legitimacy in a survey that clumps everyone together into one big group when the subgroups probably have wildly varying opinions.
The last time I had to deal with this it was a result of links to a site from an email being attached to the user it was sent to (eg example.com/?email=foo@bar.com). It was not a wonderful example, just a quick one. The moral being by caching query strings you risk needing to parse the ones being passed to ensure there in not unnecessary caching.
I have always thought that Facebook's success was tied to their targeting of the next generation of consumers, that is college students, who had not yet made a brand or technology commitment.

In this way, they gather together a core group of users who in turn draw marketshare away from others both within and outside of their generational cohort.

In my family, it certainly worked that way with my sister pulling my mother, father, and eventually myself into using Facebook as the primary way to share family information.
Didn't you know they cook chicago-style steaks on their floor? its one of the perks of working at google! Not to mention the steaks are 100% organic and their automatic troughs operate at 93% efficiency.
The other half think getting in on the IPO is a great idea.

This should be fun to watch.
Point is: free is a marketing tool. Not a revenue model.

Some confuse the two or don't care because the plan is to get (acqui)hired.
This again?

Ah. Good old noscript.

http://i.imgur.com/Cb17T.png
Building the next Instagram? I've got the perfect name (and .com) for you
One phone call to a reporter, as part of a price negotiation for a hard to value product ("brand awareness"), is hardly a big stink.
Hack Higher Ed: Paying to learn to Program
Urban Farming: A Geodesic Dome Promises Fish from the Sky
This is the obesity section of the author's website: http://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/category/medicine/obesity/

He links to the slides from that conference: http://sciencehouse.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/aaas122.pdf
>Maybe, but it would have to be mind-blowingly-differentiated. Can't find any proof points of Google doing that in the past, so have to assume it won't happen in the future.

Right, because Android itself doesn't meet that exact specification? A completely free operating system that is enormously huge on hundreds (thousands yet?) of different devices that anyone can build and distribute without royalties? It literally changed how smart phones exist and has put them in the hands of people that would never otherwise own a smartphone.

If you want revolutionary, check out boot to gecko. Even cheaper phones, more transparency, all open standards.
Thanks for the feedback Evin! I like your point about persistent constructive dissatisfaction. I think the distinction that I'm making is that when people get to wrapped up in their progress they get persistent destructive dissatisfaction. That produces frustration, which leads people to stop trying.
People have been putting torrent links in their RSS for years.
Consulting essentials: Managing & Completing Engagements
> If I make a toolbar that, I dunno, provides human-edited translations of Wikipedia articles that's active when you're on Wikipedia.com, and I monetize that by putting ads on the page, and a user downloaded and installed the app (as opposed to me paying to bundle it with another app) that is not malware.

I agree that in that particular case it wouldn't necessarily qualify as malware, if you've made it clear to the user what you're doing. I would certainly call it adware, though.

And as you suggest, if you snuck it in along with some other application where the user didn't necessarily give clear and well-informed consent to install it, then I would absolutely call that malware.
What if surveillance/intelligence is the business model? If Facebook generates $10bil/yr of surveillance value, that justifies a $100bil valuation. A lot more than $10bil/yr is spent on US intel/surveillance, and Facebook is the best intel tool ever created. The Onion's satire on is uncomfortable because it hits home too accurately: http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatic...
That's local as in Local Area Network as in it discovers other peers inside your house. To discover other peers in the same ISP you'll need to wait a few more years for ALTO.
Do you really believe that type of policy could be instituted in the real world? If you were responsible for the decision and it was your kid kidnapped, would you consider her dead? The biological imperative to protect one's offspring is too strong for that (much less the imperative for politicians to CYA).

You may argue that it is a false dichotomy, but I disagree, because the people who will kill to get their compadres released will adjust their tactics until they find the lever that works.
What a terribly obvious misnomer.

1. OEMs deserve 90% of the blame for being slow. CM is proof that OEMs are absurdly slow at updates, almost surely because they put absolutely no priority on supporting old devices. People blame Google because OEMs are greedy and lazy and are more interested in making the next buck than support an already cashed-out device.

2. Building a ROM for a phone is wildly different than adding hardware support to the Linux kernel or bundling drivers. Number one, because that is flat out impossible to do on mobile devices due to reasons that I only understand as "component manufacturers have tight control of software radio components", to the point that it makes it nie impossible for Google to distribute everything to make complete images even for their own Nexus phones.

3. OEMs over customize because they have access to the source code. They can do >= 90% of their customization using stock Android and just change what ships by default, but because they have the source, they tear into it and modify every last piece. If you don't think this would happen if OEMs had source for Windows, you're crazy.
Canon is moving toward full automation in camera production
I think it may be more of a success for advertising companies in most circumstances.
Local Peer Discovery is for LANs
Discount Louis Vuitton Bikinis
Nike Lebron 9 PS Elite Maize for Cheap
Networking for the socially challenged
Best Free Website Monitoring Tools
It's been known for some time that Google tries to interact with content that it thinks is dynamic or retrieved via AJAX. For obvious reasons.
Obat Tradisional Infeksi Saluran Kemih XAMthone Plus
XAMthone Plus™ Obat Tradisional Infeksi Saluran Kemih Merupakan Obat tradisional yang sudah teruji klinis dan telah banyak yang sembuh karena obat ini didalam xamthone plus terdapat kandungan antioksidan yang sangat tinggi sehingga dapat menyembuhkan berbagai penyakit.
"Display ads" are not simply an "old internet business model" they are the foundation of all advertising. So really Facebook lacks a business model the same way the trillion dollar tv and print industries lack business models.

The whole point of Facebook is to get users to spend all their time online there. At that point Facebook's business model can approximate any and all other web companies business models. Facebook's Search will be keyword based and charge Google-like rates per pageview. Facebook's app and content delivery platforms will take Apple/Netflix/Spotify sized cuts.