skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Silly boy. You started with a centralized model, and with trying to set up a contract for ongoing service in another country, and you wonder why you failed at anonymity?

1) Choose a suitable pseudonym. Heinlein, Orson Scott Card, or Orwell references in the pseudonym get you extra cool points.

2) Generate a gpg key pair and publish the public key.

3) Write stuff. Sign said stuff with your private key.

4) Using Tor, free wifi four towns away, a small computer stashed in a coffee shop set to log in when you aren't there, or whatever methods make you feel safe, post the signed material to several dozen file sharing, pastebin, or other suitably public sites in several different countries.

5) If anybody cares about what you've written, it won't die there. It'll get passed on from person to person long after anybody gets it taken down from anywhere you originally posted.
Not really. You can talk in English with any dutch citizen, but without being able to read our books, watch our tv, hear us talk, you dont really get a clue.

What you get is a not a first hand view, but a 2nd hand view, from the worst observer possibe.

Im pretty sure, that language is key to any culture. And because of that Americans, even when they travel, will have less understanding of the culture, than the natives have of the states, simply because we can actually read your constitution, watch your daily show, know your founders and the culture that shspes your idenity.

Want to learn about the world? Dont travel! Learn a language.
James. You can easily turn it off thru menu bar icon when not using it.

In our tests it results on ~10-20% additional drain. We hope to make utility high enough so that it doesn't matter.
Divorcing ability to pay doesn't necessarily have to mean nobody pays.

We are already beginning to see the early stages of such a system. All freemium services are in essence an example of such a system and therefore by extension most startups.

Gmail satisfies the demand of millions of customers for an email service but doesn't ask them to pay. This doesn't mean gmail doesn't make gains.

Currently, the primary funder of such services are ad and brand agencies.

What if we lived in a world where any individual could basically play the role that ad/brand agencies play in supporting freemium services today?
اجابة امتحان علم النفس والاجتماع 2012
اجابة امتحان علم النفس والاجتماع 2012
اجابة امتحان علم النفس والاجتماع 2012
Great idea. :-)
Rare to find actively religious young people on the West Coast (at least Bay Area / Portland)
My friends (co-workers, I don't really have many other technically minded friends) are pretty much equally split between Django and Rails. They collaborate between ruby and python camps. I shall give it a go! Thanks!
Yes, I'm so glad I have 1000 mbps line so that I can play games at > 200ms ping and watch stuttering movies. It isn't wrong to say that the internet is faster in the US as long as so many sites/services are hosted in the US.
> Americans have the optimism and energy of youth, but they're also comparatively unsophisticated.

Aside from the obvious ambiguities of what defines sophistication of a culture: It feels like you're begging the question to me. "Americans are unsophisticated because they're a young culture so they're unsophisticated..."

Moreover I think suggesting that an entire culture is full of optimism and youth because it's only 300 some-odd years old strikes me quite sweeping. The modern nation state is barely as old, and it's not as if Americans don't have some cultural heritage that goes back much further than that.
Maybe Python? I understand Emacs is more than an editor, and maybe better suited to this type of integration.
If you ever implement it please let me know. I see the use cases of Flutter, but 99% of the time it is significantly easier to just hit the play/pause button (f8) on my Macbook.
This is not criticism, but I'd just like to point out that the farther you get from the raw realities of the efficiency of C-style code you increase the probability of code becoming bloated with constructs and "rigging" under the hood that's there just to make things convenient to a programmer. At one point or another there is no escaping the reality that pointers will end-up as addresses in a register used to make an indirect call or "MOV" of some sort and that other data types will similarly land on registers or various memory areas as they are passed to and from functions. I got my start writing machine code (not assembler, but entering raw hex codes into hexadecimal keypads) and that caused me to always be very aware of where I am just being lazy and loading things-up with code just to make my life easier. Granted, sometimes this is justified.

Today's coding tools (editors and IDE's with code completion and "live" API reference) make it harder to screw some of this up. I tend to always go for simple, fast and efficient. But that's my preference.
That's a pretty high percentage. Link?
ArchBang Review  | LAS | s20e05
We will NEVER be visited by extra terrestrial life. The amount of luck required is too great. It's extremely unrealistic and foolish.

1) We need to come to the realization that it is and always will be impossible to travel at the speed of light or anywhere near the speed of light. Doing so would cause radiation particles, micro particles, space dust, and other little things floating around to hit the the crew and ship at extreme speeds and rip the ship apart. A bullet fired from a high powered rifle is only going 1,200 mph and can rip through metal. So imaging your space ship getting pummeled by particles at 670,616,629 mph and the faster you go the more particles you got bombarded with. There are no metals or materials that can sustain this type of damage because these radiation particles are SMALLER than x-ray particles so they'll pass through absolutely everything. And nothing can filter out or block this astronomical amount of radiation that will pummel the crew. We can wish and hope but it's a problem that is out of our control.

2) We need to stop falsely and foolishing assuming that there are aliens far out in the universe that can see us (2012) through a telescope. If you look at the earth right now (2012) from 65 million light years away, to the extra terrestrial, they are just now seeing light from 65 million years ago reach them. So to them there is no intelligent life on earth yet. It won't be another 65 million years until they are finally able to see us humans. By that time WE or THEY will be extinct. Because WE have the same problems THEY have. The vast majority of planets or uninhabitable and we can't travel fast enough to reach a planet, nor evolve or adapt to the bacteria on that planet fast enough to actually live on it.

3) We will most certainly never be able to "move homes" to another planet because the bacteria and organisms on it would be hostile to the point where we can't even safely evolve around it. We can live on Earth because for millions of years our ancesters have built up immunities to all the nasty viruses and plagues and flus that have come and gone. If an extra terrestrial landed here on earth they would not be able to interact with us in ANY way without wearing a bio-suit. They can't breathe our air or drink our water. And you think they're going to travel millions of years to get to a planet they can't even vacation on or enjoy or interact with in any way.

4) Extra terrestrial life that is more advanced than us has no reason to go on a suicide mission to come see us (a bunch of war-mongering primitive hairless baboons)

To any potential aliens who are living millions of years away, we haven't even evolved yet. By the time they see us, we will be gone. By the time they travel millions of light years to finally reach us, both of our species will be dead. Us from extinction and them from getting blasted by radiation. Also, if they are more advanced than us why the hell would they want to come all this way to see us?! That would be like us traveling millions of years on a suicide mission to go see a planet of lemurs.
Windows 8 also provides a consistent set of APIs across all languages supported: JScript, C#, C++ and VB.NET. There's nothing you can do in C# that you can't do in JScript on Windows 8, with the possible exception of DirectX.
I saw your TV. It was dubbed Simpsons and porn at night. It was great!

I don't think my mediocre-to-decent French helped me appreciate France any more, but if you say so.
Based on your description here, you would do well to use either one. Just based of my experience, I'd go with Bottle, and when/if you hit the limit of its functionality, you can pretty much seamlessly convert between the two.

Flask is great, and offers you so much more flexibility, but there's just something about the simplicity of Bottle that draws me back to it whenever I need to make a simple web app.
Really curious: what problem are you solving besides "pausing music when you have many windows open" that would justify saying it is high utility?

Pausing music is a moot point if you use a Mac and iTunes. Speech recognition built into the os can do this.

"can't reach" is such a first world problem that building an application for it is laughable.

Am I missing something?
The United States is one of the most dominant manufacturers in the world, $2+ trillion dollars every year and continues to grow. Until the last year or two, no other country was even close. Most economists predict that over the next ten years manufacturing will be a major growth area as China's competitiveness in this area declines.

Do not make the mistake of conflating manufacturing jobs with manufacturing. US manufacturing is almost entirely high-end and very automated, not the kind of thing you can do with minimum wage labor.

The United States will never employ millions of workers making cheap clothing. However, it will employee thousands of highly paid engineers to design the machines that make cheap clothing.
I'm going to disagree that any sort of centralized decision making and vision is a good thing. I noticed this talk doesn't discuss org size. It's assumed in the tech world that growth is a good thing. It's better to limit orgs to one team in size rather than to have your team's vision dictated to you by someone who thinks they are the inner circle of the company. Teams should grow up, not out. A startup should only grow larger if it has the integrity to have fully fire-walled teams without the power cabal trying to micromanage and dictate vision to every project in the company.

Management types developed the term "siloing" and cast it as a bad thing, which is natural given that a manager's goals are to increase their power and influence over larger and larger groups of people. Silos, small visionary teams, and independent decision making, like regime change or independence, are one of those things that make sense for the innovator stuck in an authoritarian organization but that big org functionaries like architects don't want to hear about. If your software startup is large enough to have an architect, it is too large in my opinion.

As for segregating decision making and "implementation", this is the biggest mistake that can be made. Implementation, or execution, should be done in the context of full decision making authority. Otherwise, the organization is going to get beat by a <5 person team that is making major decisions on the battlefield and not in some big shot architecture meeting to be handed down.
>However, this is the basic intuition behind these types of laws that you need to understand, otherwise I fear none of this will make any sense to you.

This is also exactly why those types of laws are wrong. They're done by politicians and not by economists, and politicians are relegated to using the same faulty intuitive reasoning that you did.

In aggregate, prices tend towards a supply-demand equilibrium that maximizes profits globally. This is constructed through the price mechanism. If a company sells product X in country A for $300 and country B for $100, and someone goes to country B and buys some X and brings it back to country A, assuming zero transportation costs, the price in country B will increase and the price in country A will decrease. This will continue until the prices equalize in both countries.

Now, demand in country B will decrease and in country A it will increase. The key here is the proportional change. Assuming supply and demand curves that are perfectly linear, the company will now sell 3/2 as much volume at $200 in country A than it did at $300 if volumes sold are the same. It'll sell half as much in country B due to the price doubling. If both markets sold the same volume, the net effect is that we now have 1.5x200+.5x00=400 instead of 1x100+1x300=400.

That is, the total revenue doesn't change and the company makes the same profit. The volume also stays constant. This still isn't the total reality, but it's a much more apt description than your calculation.

Importantly, parallel importation promotes price efficiency this way and increases competition. If governments want the poor to have access to a good, they can subsidize poor people purchasing it for personal use. They shouldn't ban parallel importation.

A key analogy here is that by your logic, we should also make it illegal to do parallel importation between the many states of the USA. In reality, all you're doing is restricting price efficiency.

What I've described above are "the basic economic laws" that override your "basic intuition". There are more subtleties, of course, but in aggregate and with market efficiency, reality tends toward the case described.
I had looked at Bottle for a similar reason some time ago. Looking into using Bottle and Highcharts for a first experiment. Maybe Google Charts as well.
SEEKING WORK - Remote

Hungry (LITERALLY AND FIGURATIVELY :P) iOS & Rails developer, looking for consistent and on-going work. If needed, I am able to pick up new things very quickly.

Portfolio: http://safetyscissors.co

Github: http://github.com/safetyscissors

Bitbucket: Available on request.

Email: jason@safetyscissors.co
I would have thought using a false claim to denigrate something would be a reason for down-voting.
A lot of people do speak English. Some probably, even though not from UK, on a native level. Yet still, coming to Europe and demanding people to speak English is not the way to go. I don't say that you have to be proficient in all european languages but at least an attempt of communication is a sign of respect. I've seen situations when english-speakers were following a strategy based just on shouting louder in their own language. Certainly not the way to experience the cultures and augment your worldview.
Funny - when looking at a codebase for the first time, I do almost exactly the same thing as described by Mr Seibel: I start rewriting it. I rename functions or methods that I think have poorly chosen names, I rename the names of fields, variables or parameters for the same reason, I refactor, restructure, and reformat the code to look like I think it should look, and so on.
Is it clear yet, that "intellectual property" is not property at all? Rather, it is a government sanctioned monopoly on ideas that are not scarce like physical property.
Are you asking how could they have made money or what cool things would they have done? I dont care about the making money part, the cool things they could have done being the Internet's message bus:

- Really good search, and access to the entire message archive, instead of hiding their archives in order to monetize it
- Better lists/circles with more granular control over private/public messaging and groups
- Better conversation ability, for example ability to make a list of users you want to have discussion with and have an easy way for everyone to follow the threads, ability to make it read only to the general public, so everyone can read but spammers can't ruin it, or take it private to everyone on the list.
- Video/audio chat/hangouts might be on some people's list, I'm not sure it belongs in the core message service
- Creative ways to make the message service the definitive breaking news medium. It already is but you kind of need ways to rein in the bogus news
- Curation & moderation, methods to elevate interesting messages, though this moderation should be an option and easily disabled to avoid groupthink
- Karma, though again it should be optional
- Better support for real-time streams for topical hash tags like conferences, spam killing being the main issue. Clients can do a lot of this but spam killing benefits from support from the message service.
- Openly embracing and facilitating academic research on their firehose, archives and social networks

This list could go on all night, buts just a few of my favorites.
Careful, I don't think this is a "Apple patented executable code" situation. It looks more like the process is to build instructions to help concurrency, not just generalize program execution and compilation.

When the titles of most patents are taken in isolation, link bait is usually the result.
It doesn't support fenced code blocks (from GFM). That's kinda inconvenient. Uhm... it actually does, but the preview does not.

E.g.:

```ruby
def foo
puts 'bar'
end
```

This results in a `pre>code.ruby` block as it should, but it does not apply any code highlighting nor does it work in the preview.

I really like the idea (I always wanted some private markdown wiki I can conveniently access from anywhere without having to set it up and maintain it myself), but without history/diff its usefulness is somewhat hindered.

Edit: Add "max-width: 100%" to "p img". Code inside paragraphs should be also 18px, not 12px.
I'm surprised they don't attempt to patent Von Neumann architecture, or even the concept of algorithm itself.
The problem with the current system isn't that people act selfishly i.e. in a way that creates most value for themselves.

The problem is that the selfish actions of some actors(the figurative 1%) count for overwhelmingly more than others. And a lot of actors don't have any say at all(those below the poverty line). In such a system, the selfish 'demands' of most other actors don't matter.

Say on HN, there were a few people (type A) that could instantly give 1,000,000 points to any comment or post and everybody else could give only 1(type B). A post could provide value for 100,000 type Bs and yet some other post that type A liked would always rise to the top. If this were true, HN would be a very boring place to be.

The goal should be to empower all actors to act selfishly - perhaps not equally, but atleast in a 'reasonably' proportionate fashion.
Show HN: Command-line git playback
I'm writing this on a computer produced in China, running an operating systeem developed by a Finn, delivered to you via the world wide web which comes from CERN.
I don't think the title is accurate, this seems to apply to parallelizing a particular type of loop, not "executing program code" in general.

But I don't understand the area enough -- what are vectorized loops, and what is Apple doing here? Can someone explain this patent in an easy way?
Have the gesture algorithms changed much at all since the initial HN release? I had to uninstall it as it kept mistaking me touching my face/etc as holding my hand to the camera.
"Their only agenda is the economic advancement of China and the stability of it's government."

I disagree: Their geopolitical agenda includes unification plus securing rights to natural resources under the South China Sea. Hillary and the US Navy have made it clear that the US will not be tolerant of a bully in the South China Sea. Also, stability of the government is not important, only stability of the party.
This is the reason it didn't work for me, Ghostery (Chrome addon) blocks mixpanel.
Setting aside the problems with fingerprinting, how exactly does taking foreigners' fingerprints prevent them from overstaying their visas? You mention the 9/11 hijackers - would taking their fingerprints have prevented 9/11? This is just security theater.
Yeah, and even the Finn moved to the States.
It doesn't.

Glass is designed to project the image at far-focus, so if you have good eyesight or corrective lenses (like me) that allow you to see in the distance, there is no need to re-focus to see the image.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/131877-ive-seen-the-futur...
Patenting instructions to help concurrency is not much better.
Why?!? Play2 is essentially a collection of specialized Akka actors. When you run Play, you get Akka integration for free. Having an architecture where your Play actions send Akka messages to a cluster of computational nodes/actors requires about 3 lines of code and 5 lines of config. Ridiculously scalable.
Looks to me they are patenting event queues? If I don't understand this I can't imagine the government agent that approved this patent did either.
Careful with the title -- this patent is much more specific than the name of the patent implies. There's a human-readable version of the claims in the "Description" section of the patent (past the initial, incomprehensible-unless-you're-a-patent-lawyer "Claims" section).

It looks as though it's a patent on a particular model for implementing a highly parallel CPU, with a focus on making vectorized loops work better. Interesting stuff.
No, not really. Read the "Description" section of the patent.
Winamp 5 Lite 5.6.3.3234 on Downloads App
It's a patent for a specific set of steps to execute vector code in loops in parallel, which means the HN title is needlessly linkbaity. The truth is ridiculous enough.

Your average HN reader would probably 'invent' the same technique if CPU design was their profession and they were tasked with the continuous march of CPU performance.

There wasn't anything in there that didn't seem straight forward enough to me after casually reading Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach five years ago, and I make flash games for a living.

At least in the case of patents on CPUs, though, your average company is well financed enough to fight a lawsuit around this patent, which was the particularly annoying thing about Lodsys.
I only skimmed it, but they seem to be describing a method for performing static compile time hinting coupled with dynamic data dependency analysis at runtime to perform automatic vectorization of loops -- that is to say, using vector instructions that can process more data in 'parallel'.

The novel idea here seems to be the hinting plus data dependency analysis, but I'd need read in more detail to see if there's anything here that's non-obvious.
How is apple keep winning these things it seems like the patent office don't understand the things they are giving away to apple.
I am not an expert in patents or the subject matter, but it seems the patent only covers some encoding of (possibly automatically) vectorized loop. Maybe using LLVM, maybe in Apple's GPU drivers effort. No at all as general as the submission's title claims.

I would like to hear from more knowledgeable people what the invention is and how novel is it really.
But thats not what shapes our culture. To understand a country you have to see how it handles its debates, how it reports its news.

Here's a reasonable question: were you able to notice the quality of the poltical debate? Its nothing special within Europe, but the kind of nonsense that passes for a polticsl debate in the states is quite a contrast.