skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I hope he brings some simple finger-based interaction to Axiotron's offerings. I think there is a sweet spot in combining finger and pen based interfaces.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that the article argues against. Remember that Goedel is speaking within the context of formal systems, so there is relatively little impact to any area outside of the small field of philosophy of mathematics. Anybody who tries to extrapolate beyond those bounds is either mistaken or misled as to what Goedel's incompleteness theorems actually imply. There is a much more thorough and eloquent explanation in the following link. [http://www.ams.org/notices/200604/fea-franzen.pdf]

Hell, even Einstein, who was close friends with Goedel and familiar with the result, was searching for a more fundamental physical theory than quantum mechanics, so clearly he did not believe it was a lost cause.
I think this makes an important point about paying attention to more than just computers in high school.
Browse The Internet Faster
"3) In hindsight, it's easy to say what's, for instance, the shortest way out of a labyrinth. But one needs to go many false routes to find out. Are these useless, ..."

I think the problem of philosophy has not been following some false routes. That is necessary and good as you point out. The problem has been that a lot of talent has been wasted going around in loops.
We built this add-on and would love to have your feedback here or on the Mozilla site. sam
"I'd love to see a graph, for instance."

Tufte in The Visual Display of Quantitative Information points out that the Wall Street Journal is one of the least likely newspapers to display anything in a graph. Indeed, it would be a lot easier for visually minded people like me to check the Journal's arguments if they were displayed in bivariate plots more often.
Take a look at the years since SOX was passed. IPOs have plummeted.
I always like international comparisons as a reality check on discussion of policy in the United States. Are countries without regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley enjoying a boom in entrepreneurial start-ups? Where?
It's actually the deregulation of Washington that's suffocated entrepreneurship. Because there were/are no checks and balances on the large monoliths' ability to kill or absorb rivals, a lot of little entities have suffered. Washington always says it wants to do what is best for "business," but it rarely distinguishes big business from small. . . it doesn't get the correlation between size and efficiency. The hum-hawing about corporate tax rate is pure whine. Let the little companies live long enough to make a profit upon which they have the ability to pay taxes, eh?
I dunno--I started community college with an HP-48 instead of a TI calculator, and reverse polish notation wasn't a problem at all once the friend who'd convinced me to get one explained how the stack was like the way you do arithmetic on paper.
I rather enjoyed the book, but it is largely because I knew what I was getting into. It's a pop science book, written by a person with a philosophical background, and embellished in the Hollywood-esque fashion, pitting the good guy--Goedel, the misunderstood genius--against the bad guy--Wittgenstein and the logical positivists--in a no-holds-barred showdown of ideas that lie at the heart of all truth and mathematics!

Obviously, it's a stretch at times, and there a good deal of rigor lost, but it's a pretty juicy story. If I wanted a biography, I would read one specifically about Goedel, and not one about Incompleteness. If I wanted to learn about the theorems themselves, I would pick up a copy of his paper or one of the many readable expositions of his work. But I wanted a fun read that explained why so many philosophers and nonmathematicians were interested in this rather esoteric bit of mathematics, and I certainly got that from the book.

Nonetheless, if you want a better book by the author, I recommend The Mind-Body Problem over this one.
"Care to elaborate on why it's not an admirable goal?"

It's useless. It's like the cartoon with two academics standing in front a black board filled with equations, and in big letters right in the middle it says "then a miracle occurs."

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php

Having $10B net worth in no way gives you any guidance whatsoever what to work on today, tomorrow, or next week. It is not informative enough. A goal like "make something people want" might guide you in actually making those actionable decisions and give you a better shot at making $10B than having "make $10B" itself as the goal.
SOX hasn't killed the IPO, it's just made the hurdle higher and that's ok. IPOs are about consistent revenue generation - most of the firms of Web 1.0 didn't have it and didn't deserve to IPO.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

1. SOX has killed the IPO; IPOs have plummeted since SOX, due to the ridiculously draconian laws that make compliance expensive and time-consuming. Startups and small companies just can't afford the costs, closing one of the two viable exits for founders and investors.

2. "Raising the bar" for IPOs makes it sound like we're just going to get higher quality. The reality is that most companies can't afford to IPO, and even if they can, they're now hampered by greater costs and the distractions of compliance. If the bar needs to be raised, let the market raise it.

3. IPOs are not about consistent revenue generation: they're about raising capital. There's absolutely no reason why a growth business like Facebook that is not profitable shouldn't be able to IPO. If the market likes their odds of succeeding in the long run, their IPO will be a success. If not, it won't. In your model, someone apparently gets to decide who "deserves" to IPO. This kind of thing has never worked and almost always has the opposite effect of that desired.
Using Git to manage a web site
I would love to, if WSJ provided the aforementioned graph.
I think it is appalling that entrepreneurs agree with SOX regulations. Nowadays, only companies making at least $500M annually can afford an IPO. Very few companies will ever be this big. This is destroying the incentive for capital investment.
PS3s Help Astrophysicists Solve Black Hole Mystery
yeah, it would be if the behavior were consistent. i would definitely not potentially ruin such a good site as reddit just because there's a weird week.
2008 wasn't economically "disastrous" until the very end. Up until October, it wasn't too dissimilar from 2007.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/securities/2008/02/januarys... : "January [2008] was a slow month for IPOs, with only five that raised a total of $892 million. This compares with ten in January 2007 that raised a total of $2.25 billion." I quickly googled, and there's probably more to look at here, since either 5 of the 6 IPOs did it in January, or there's different counting methodology in action here. Still, it's down even in months that weren't bad. It's not just statistical gaming, even if that's in play. Asking what changed is still fair.
i think most entrepreneurs in SV do not think of regulations when starting a company. for example, there aren't any tax laws to my knowledge that makes me go, "ah gotta take care of that before i can code."

of course, there will be an impact if a company wants to IPO, but that comes much later on. However, even in that case, it's more about revenue/income generation.

i'm interested in seeing what's going to be the liquidation route for startups now since the M&A market is quiet now.
Also, how is this subterfuge? The argument is that Washington is killing Silicon Valley's innovation machine through higher taxes and regulation. What did you think the article was about from the title?
Entrepreneurs don't care about it because they're still getting rich. They either sell out to a large public company and take their millions, or they keep the company private and cash their dividend checks for millions.

The people really hurt by SOX are:

1.) Early startup employees. These people don't get rich unless the company gets really big - like, public-company big. Acquisitions tend to cut their growth potential and fold them into a larger corporation just as they're hitting their stride. And if the company just stays private, they never see liquidity on their stock options, and might as well not have them (in fact, many companies that intend to stay private just don't give out equity, because it complicates financial reporting). They're screwed either way.

2.) Customers. Because exits are smaller, capital costs are lower, and it's very difficult to convince someone to join your startup, recent startups tend to be less ambitious. That's why there're all these complaints about "frivolous" Web2.0 companies. Building an ambitious company, like another Google, after SOX would require convincing investors that the company can get big enough to justify the SOX reporting costs, convincing employees that it'll succeed in that, and then actually executing on that while shunning acquisition offers. It's much easier just to pick off the low-hanging fruit.

3.) The investing public. They're shut out of investing in promising growth companies. Instead, they have to put money into large existing companies, which blow shareholder wealth on overpriced acquisitions. The managers get rich, the entrepreneurs get rich, the retail shareholders get screwed.

It's telling that in Web1.0, most people dreamed about joining a successful startup. In Web2.0, most people dream about starting a successful startup. The incentives are not there for people to sign onto an existing company.
IPO's are for large profitable companies who want to add liquidity. There is a huge pool of companies and people that invest billions in companies without an IPO, but there is a lot of laws setup to protect small investors. Anyway, there is a lot of overhead to going public, but if you want liquidity without selling then you need transparency or some company's are going to do huge scams.

PS: There are IM clients that large companies can use so clearly some of what he said was BS.
Need QuickBooks Pro? Staples' one-day sale price is $0 after rebate (Windows only, alas)
Which rests on the grossly-unphysical "Axiom of Choice". That doesn't disprove cousin_it's point. Though it's still an interesting link, if that's why you're posting it.
Landfill-Bound Garlic Salt is De-Icing Roads in Iowa
What I Want from Google for Christmas
So any book that contains the word "fuck" is banned? There goes pretty much every Michael Crichton book.
In a single paragraph, this article claims that options in start-ups aren't worth anything, and then claims that without start-ups being able to hand out options they can't attract the people they need. Are options highly valuable or worthless? It can't have it both ways.
I'm willing to buy the argument that SOX is bad for startups. It's easy to knock things, though, and harder to suggest something better. His only suggestion is to lower capital gains taxes. I think there's also an argument that if you can't trust companies' books at all, that creates problems as well.

Wikipedia has some useful information, as useful, see the 'Criticism' and 'Praise' sections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act#Criticism

My guess is that it's one of those technical things where reworking it to keep what's good about it (making the CEO and CFO sign off on stuff sounds sensible), and dumping some of the bad bits is the best course of action.

I also have a suspicion that perhaps lack of regulations wasn't the biggest problem, but lack of regulatory enforcement with some teeth to it.
totally the opposite! i can't think of one region that has benefited more from the Fed's policy of moving us to a bubble-based economy. the economic model of silicon valley in the last two decades has been predicated on transferring massive amounts of wealth from speculators to equity holders. normally this is a get-rich-slowly model. the Fed turned it into a get-rich-in-two-years model.
Although it does lead to a mathematically uninteresting paradox: if you let A be the axioms of set theory and you add an axiom P which states that A proves x and not x, (i.e. set theory is inconsistent) then A' = A and P is still consistent.
The End of Democracy | uncov
Three Myths About Porn
The financial turmoil has also hurt carmakers by driving up the value of the Japanese yen, which has risen some 25 percent since summer.

Without the dramatic change in the value of the yen Toyota would still have made a profit. What's interesting is seeing how much faster they are responding to a single missed year than GM is to there approaching bankruptcy.

PS: The the parent company is still posting a $560 million profit so they are a long way from real trouble.
'Free-mium,' self-funded models set to gain traction
Easier than that - http://www.reddit.com/r/all

That's how I usually view.
I remember never taking any homework home from any class, I just finished it all in study hall. And still had time to write Basic programs on the school computers, during the school day (not all of it in computer class).

Reading some of these comments, I suspect that the amount of homework has gone up, and that is the reason for much of the frustration. Not just that there is busy work, but the sheer quantity of busy work.

My kids are going to a Catholic elementary school, and a parent who transferred to their school from the public school said that the amount of homework is much less in the Catholic school, and her kids actually like school now. Frankly, I find the idea of lots of homework in elementary school bullshit. I don't believe elementary kids really benefit from multiple hours of homework every night, and believe that it could lead to burnout by middle school. My son in 1st grade gets homework, but it seems more to get him comfortable with the idea, rather than to consume 2 more hours that he could spend doing other things, including reading things that personally interest him.

That puts a lot of the complaints here in a different perspective for me. If there is so much homework that it doesn't leave time for Perl hacking, that's a big fail on the part of the school system.
Please don't downmod me without telling me why you've done so. Do you disagree with my points? Which ones? Are you pro-deregulation? If so, please provide some example about why you think big companies getting bigger by absorbing their competitors is good for entrepreneurship.

Perhaps you have something against me personally? For that, I have no remedy, but to tweet for help: http://twitter.com/indiejade/status/1072506322
why is that guy dressed as Zorro?
SOX hasn't killed the IPO, it's just made the hurdle higher and that's ok.

Actually it has. It introduced a qualitative change in liability for corporate executives. Selling now has way, way less downside. The reason that's not "ok" is that a higher hurdle doesn't merely cause companies to wait before IPOing. They get bought instead. Result: no new public companies.
Job != Board of advisers.
TC is 1 week behind on announcing crunchies nominees
Analogy with human languages isn't ideal, because they have almost all grown up organically, whereas programming languages are, to a large extent, designed. The reason that every language doesn't use the Latin alphabet is, amongst others, geographic -- so many others grew up in isolation from the West, they'd never come across that alphabet before. The same isn't really true of programming languages.
Because the people who designed them didn't agree on what was the best solution for the problem. And the people who use the various languages don't agree, either. Do you really think that you could sit down with a Lisp fanatic and a Java fanatic and get them to decide on a single syntax that they'd each rather use than their own favourite? They'd each prefer to do it their own way.
"I thought that writing assignments would gradually get longer, but my final essay senior year was half the length of my 7th grade science report on the human body, so I was clearly mistaken."

I remember my college freshman year class where every writing assignment could not exceed a single page. The professor's explanation: "You have spent several years learning how to put more things into your writing. Now you will learn to take things out." It was a very important lesson in writing concisely.

Not that this reflects your case, but it reminded me of this and thought I'd share.
"This was really Godel's point: mathematics is not identical with formalism. They stand and fall separately. This is not to say that mathematics could never collapse for any reason, only that it would take a lot more than finding a paradox at the center of ZFC to make it happen."

That's significant because another great mathematician David Hilbert challenged mathematicians to come up with a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics. This was a great hope at one time that was shattered by Godel. Most people don't really talk about this old program anymore (except as a historical curiosity) because there is utterly no hope in it at all. The other implications that people try to draw from Godel's work is probably a consequence of the fact that his work sounds like it says so much more than it actually does when it's translated into normal English (and out of math-speak).
Samsung L400V WHITE PINK Unlocked 
Vodafone customers looking for a decent-looking 3G music-playback capable device, here’s something for you. It’s the Samsung’s colorful clamshell - L400v, which measures 91×46x22 mm and weighs 89 grams.
I think physics would be very happy to come up with a theory of "almost everything", like set theory is for mathematics. That would be a huge step forward, and would be completely unaffected by Godel's theorem.

Also, the halting problem's insolvability is straightforward to see without knowing any of Godel's work. :)
Yes, he makes a good point. Writing good code is hard. I suppose even for him: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://blogs.msdn.com/oldn...

1135 Errors according to w3c. Yes, may not be relevant or important, but I think it's interesting.
Google disguises capitalism as civil rights
Startup Interview: Daily Dump – Make waste useful
Crapify
does levchin really have the midas touch? are slide and yelp ever going to be viable? yelp missed the boat, they should have sold out in 2006 when the hype over "local" was peaking. slide will be indeed likely end up as the king of the widget makers...for all that matters. yelp's site and reviews data will likely get bought for a song within the next three years....slide will slide into irrelevance as the widget market flames out
The things I like about Clojure:

1. It has the simplicity fo Scheme.
2. It has literals for datastructures.
Hashmap: {"BANK" 122323 "TRANSFER" 212001} . That's it, I created one. Oh, here's a vector for you: [1 2 3 4 5].
Veru convenient, not revolutionary by any measure, just very convenient. And it doesn't sacrifice any power for that practicability.
3. It is more functional than common lisp.
4. Access to all the Java libraries. Whatever you want to do, there is a library. And yes the excessive amount of documentation you have to read to just do something simple might frustrate you but it's a lot more effective than re-solving a problem that has been solved a hundred times before.

I think these things together make it an excellent language.
People disagree? I do, but didn't see fit to downmod you for it, or reply. It was a mild disagreement. No mainstream news op is going to not cover this because someone tweeted it out in my opinion.
There is a much more thorough and eloquent explanation in the following link. [http://www.ams.org/notices/200604/fea-franzen.pdf]

Thanks for the link.
Toyota can ride this out. With a larger non-US presence combined with their cash stockpile they shouldn't be too worried about what's happening now.

The real problems would be: a) oil prices re-spike and people start moving away from cars as a form of transportation toward things like trains/busses; b) after this recession, people decide they don't need new cars that often and hang onto their vehicles a lot longer; c) Chinese auto companies enter the world stage.

I don't think the first two will happen since we'll be back to consumerist exuberance in a year or two forgetting the whole "save for a rainy day" thing and I think oil producing countries have realized that stable oil prices are in their interest as nothing drives fervor for alternative energy like high gas prices.
OverTrainer.com update, thanks HN
I thought I would make this post after seeing mixmax's comment in the BreakkUp.com story post. His comment was “Thanks for the feedback. It would be great if other people that got feedback here posted their results.”

Well, I posted here about a site I was working on (overtrainer.com) a few months ago in this post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=297054 looking for some feedback. I was pleasantly surprised at the feedback I had gotten at the time, thanks again to the people that provided comments. I figure I would give an update to how the whole thing is turning out, and some back story for those interested.

When I started OverTrainer.com I was employed full time as an electrical engineer, it was a hobby. I had done several other web apps that either never really made it anywhere or I sold. I wanted to get away from doing sites only for money. So I started overtrainer as an idea I had to log my workouts. The idea was simple: design a workout plan on a PC, then log the results with a phone, or on paper. So I started plugging away at it starting earlier this year. At the time I was completing my masters thesis and working full time so it was only getting a few hours here and there.

Then I left my job and headed back to school to pursue a PhD (this Sept). After thinking things over very hard, I decided this return to school was not in my best interests and I would not be returning next semester. In this time I put a good amount of effort and time into overtrainer as it was enjoyable to work on.

So here I am unemployed but with some cash in the bank. So I have decided to do what any normal person advocates against and what the HN community embraces. I have decided not to get another job and just focus on overtrainer and some other ideas (web and electronics stuff).

So with this I have decided to take the advice I read often on HN and release overtrainer without really feeling its ready. There are a great many features I plan on adding, along with subscription based services that several people have been very interested in. So it will be a full time endeavor for the current time. And I would love to hear what comments people have, I know there are still rough edges so let me know! It is all still beta, but getting it out there should help me understand what is most important to focus on.

Since any links I put here will not be clickable I will follow this post with a link to the site (there are screen casts on the front page too).

I wanted to again thank the community, this site has been one of (if not the most) helpful site I frequent.
OverTrainer.com - http://overtrainer.com
trains/buses thing won't happen...driving is too ingrained in our society
am I misunderstanding something...or is this just a list of new jobs that were reported to them? If so why is there so much surprise that there are more announcements of hiring a CEO or VP and not some low level developer?
I suspect capital gains cuts did help. Founders are influenced by colleagues who've done startups, and what they see is the after-tax returns. And certainly big investors are influenced by tax rates on each class of investment.
JohnMees from High to Low