skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
agreed on those, and it should be noted that record labels do provide similar services to their artists. My post was more about how there is no way around these middlemen.

So if you're doing the app equivalent of pop music (twitter apps, casual games), you're probably fine. But try to do something more ambitious, and they'll crush you (well, close the only channel to the customers, at least)
I really really hope that Jolla takes off. It sounds like for a far too brief while, Maemo was the hacker's dream OS, which is pretty dang cool. It also sounds like the Nokia N9 was the first phone in which the beauty and usability of the device matched its hacker friendliness. That's all I'm waiting on. The thing I don't want to see in mobile is what happened to Linux, where yeah it's great that we have this open OS, but the experience itself is scattershot, questionable, or very very poor. If Jolla can do this -- and since some of the main people that worked on N9 are players here, they might have a shot -- then that's when I'll be paying close attention.
New Android Virus Lands on 100,000 Chinese Smartphones & 9 App Stores
Actually you are correct it's not Zero. It's negative. If your claim were true, no one would clean the crapware off their windows machines. With respect to tv channels extra channels impose poorer usability for the on screen guides, and degrade a simple channel surfing experience.

(Note I'm not claiming the bundling prevents purchase, just that there is an economic opportunity in non-bundled alternatives, such as Windows boxes without crapware, or solving the problem of a clogged experience due to poor bundling such as Netflix's focus on surfacing desirable content.)
Depends. Try denying the holocaust.
Optimal Layout (Application switcher + window manager): http://most-advantageous.com/optimal-layout

I just stumbled into it, I recommend watching the video.
Can you share some examples where you've found it to be a huge pain in the arse to use in production?
Google Extends Its Indoor Maps Selection
This is an excellent point. I so often attribute my disdain to Java itself when, in reality, the issue is the majority of Java engineers.

Java itself can be a beautifully terse language.
You start by assuming you know what morality is and moral is and then launch into an examination of profitable designs that are immoral under your system. This discourse would be far more interesting if you abandoned your preconceptions and ask "What is morality?", "Does morality deeply influence design? how?", "What morality influences good, timeless design?", "Is there some morality at which all (good|bad) design aims?" - If you really want to start a moral design discourse you should start from square one.
"Oh, I see you have an Ashley-Madison profile, would you like to go 'Home', 'Work', 'School', or to your Mistress?"
You can still write x=_|_ in ML, you just have to be subtler about it.
I worked at Amazon in '05/'06, and the perception of frugality was still important then. For example, someone from another group complained to me that they were being forced by higher-ups to remove a set of plastic plants they had recently bought. When it was pointed out that the plants were actually quite cheap (not to mention a sunk cost), the reply was that they "looked expensive."
According to the release notes there, you get compilers that produce 32 and 64 bit executables.
That is true, but the proposition is one that is encoded in the type. There are many derivations of certain proofs. Consider:

map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]

And [a] is shorthand for a recursive type: \forall a . \mu l . (a * l) + ().

And the translation of types to propositions means that the sum type -- either I have () or I have a list, translates to a logical connective of "or". The product type -- I have an a and the rest of the list -- translates to "and" .

The proposition is therefore that, for all a, for all b, if a implies b, then true or (a and list of a) implies true or (b and list of b).

There are several proofs of this proposition, and some of them are useless.

The standard one:

map f [] = []
map f (x:xs) = f x : map f xs

Is what we want.

There's another one, though:

map f [] = []
map f (x:xs) = [f x]

And many others that aren't so useful as the standard one.

Anyway, this has been a long and roundabout way of saying that, while a good type system give you a lot of nice static properties about a program, you simply cannot ignore dynamic semantics and rely on the types. Well-typed programs are correct in that they will not reach a state where evaluation is undefined / get stuck ("I'm supposed to do what? These are Strings, not Ints!"), but they do not imply correctness of the program, even though they do provide a proof of a proposition!
All the con men the author seen in India, they are all jugaads. His post mentions several types of jugaads he saw in India.

Do you realize that majority of Indian population has no jugaad to provide food for their family. Well we "The Pizza Hut Kings" choose to overlook it and pretend that everything works.
A fair appraisal of fiat money would be the entire history of economic development since the 20th century, and on that standard it looks quite different. The world is far richer today than it was when the gold standard was abandoned.
I don't believe Google's system works poorly. Any organization of that size will have some successes and some failures, but there is a hell of a lot of great software produced there.
According to his website, the police came to arrest him a few days ago, and if he hadn't been out at the time, he would be in jail now. So, this has gone beyond "possible charges". The church is dead serious about charging this man with the crime of letting them know that they were drinking sewage.
And christians all over the world sit on their asses and not saying anything against arresting people for that bullshit.

I guess a sizable portion of these are actually happy about the incident.

I just never see them standing up and saying: I am against this as a christian, this is not what the Christ died for.

Thus I consider all christians to have their small part in being morally responsible for that crap around the world (see also Pussy Riot scandal in Russia where I am from)
I'm genuinely surprised that the word accountant or the world lawyer haven't been mentioned in this discussion. From my perspective the issue isn't that engineering management has issues, it's just that mostly the management that is done is done by people with MBA's and law degrees rather than Ph.D's and Engineering degrees.

The structures of modern companies arise from this - lawyers and accountants have no interest in the groups they manage, because they see them as generic interchangeable machines, rather than levers that they are developing to create and make things. They seek to optimize them, rather than nurture them, and then they seek to leave and do it again. A true engineer would want to build something of value and then use it and use it again.

Most engineers opt out, the good fight is not fought, so - management is as it is.
Of course fixed bid is fantastic for the client, but it can be a really bad deal for the contractor. I work for a consulting company that does a lot of fixed bid work, and we've been absolutely destroyed by some projects where scope got out of hand. I'm not blaming our clients for this, but I what I'm trying to say is that working on a fixed bid basis has its own set of challenges including things like arguing whether feature X is covered by the original scope or not.
> QuickCheck and JUnit have different purposes. QuickCheck is not a unit testing framework.

Indeed. What I meant was that basically:

P(HaskellCodeCorrect|Compile+QC+UnitTest) =~= P(OtherCodeCorrect|Compile+UnitTest)

while the distribution of effort between compilation (if any) and unit tests in other languages are quite different than in Haskell, i.e. skewed towards tests in the former and getting code to compile in the latter case.
You think that pointing out that "holy water" is in fact sewage from a blocked drain is the same thing as claiming that the systematic murder of 6 million people never happened?
These posts are always both inspiring and wrenching for me. I'm mid-career and come from the mold where getting a good fulltime job out of college is what one does. That's simply the way it was, at least in my circles (college, family, etc), and I never considered working for myself. Fast-forward 15 years. Corporate life has actually been pretty decent to me. I've not been jerked around too much, had some opportunity to travel, and have been compensated reasonably well. My wife and I have had a comfortable life so far.

So, what's the problem? LACK OF TIME OFF. I've been stuck behind antiquated US corp vacation policies for a long time, and having had my vacation "reset" due to a job move is weighing on me a lot. 3 weeks total time off (which includes sick leave). I'm almost 40 and have a young family, and more and more I think the current PTO situation is BS. I actually don't mind working in an office 5 days a week, but I would like some more time out of the office.

So it's great to read someone achieving that, but I'm also incredibly jealous. Yes I could "just do it", but that would go against very deep and well-set views of how I need to provide for my family. I'm not able to stomach the risk (and unfamiliarity) at this point. I suspect that it will need to get worse (i.e. my job goes to shit), and that will force my hand and it could get much better.
People keep bringing up Inform 7, I think this is closer to the mark:

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.fonc/317...

http://www.michaelslevinson.com/satevepost.html
I'm confused. In my mind Dave is already a success.

I guess he's just in a rut. I read a great book called "How High can You Bounce?" It's all about if you've taken a downturn how can you spin it to your advantage so you rebound better off than where you were before the fall. Knowing this is possible is simply the first step.

Think Dave just needs some bounce.
Isn't there an advantage to just being able to intuitively read it, even if there is no advantage when writing?
The universe is a dangerous place. Despite millenia of superstition, science has proven to be the most reliable way to protect ourselves (at least as a species) from the vagaries of nature. We have advanced from making sure we know where our next meal is coming from to being able to predict the consequences of our own massive environmental changes. However, the development of science is not predictable: Marie Curie couldn't tell that radioactivity would help rescue the world from fascism, but she investigated anyway. Understanding our surroundings, in as much detail as possible, helps our survival. It's why curiosity has survived as a human characteristic. Knowing is better than not knowing.
Or sending a racist tweet from the pub after a match. When does he get out? Maybe Europe needs a constitution.
Oh Jesus Christ... Not another one of these posts. Guys, why do you write posts like this knowing the end result?

Someone brings to light an obvious flaw in someone else's country, people from that country feel like it's a direct attack on them and come up with bullshit excuses, the bullshit annoys people and the whole conversation spirals into denials, "I'm not in denial"s, "what about your _____"s, and "that's not the same as ______"s being thrown back and forth.

Person A: Your country is shitty!

Person B: You don't understand us!

Person A: You're in denial.

Person B: What about your country?

Person A: At least we don't _______!

Person B: That's not the same as _______!

This is the worst way to criticize someone's country/behavoir/business. It's all logic, no emotion, and humans do NOT respond well to it.

When criticizing some else's country always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS include an equal list of good and bad otherwise it feels like an attack on that person's homeland. The whole point of criticizing someone is to help them see their flaws (which they've normalized to and are oblivious to) and get better, but they can't get better when they aren't listening to you, and they aren't going to listen to you if they feel you are attacking them, they will attack back.
Great.

Another feature, that might be trickier to implement: like in web browsers, pressing middle button could present a little gizmo that helps scrolling faster (I though about it for five minutes and can't think of a better way to describe that thing).
I read your comment a couple of minutes after you posted it but decided to sit on it a while try and think of the best way to reply - which hasn't come to me yet.

I do think sexuality can be fluid, just the same as a hetero might change what they consider "their type". However if you change from straight to bisexual, were you ever really straight? Same question for gay to straight, or whatever. Maybe everyone is on a bisexual spectrum and some people are just really near one end of it.. but if that's the case, that we're all bi, then the entire discussion is irrelevant, so let's ignore that possibility.

Is it possible that you have always been bisexual and for some reason didn't know it until reading up on history made you realise and accept it, I think yes. Is it possible that you were once genuinely not bisexual, but straight, and that this changed, yes as well. I don't think there's any way for me to know which is the case for you, I'm not sure there is any way for you to know either. Maybe I'm wrong - but hey, even if you think you know, are you necessarily right? I think I was born gay (well technically bisexual, homoromantic, but on the bisexual scale I'm about a 5.9 on the Kinsey scale [1]), but who knows, maybe if I hadn't gone to an all-boys school and experimented with friends when I was 11-13 I would today consider myself straight. For some reason I like to think that isn't the case, and that being gay is an original part of my DNA, but I guess realistically whatever way I ended up wouldn't have been any worse or better.

And finally, how "homosexual", "straight" and "bisexual" are defined changes the answer to your questions. If the fact that you never experienced MSM action, or considered it, or fantasised about it, then I guess you fit the definition of 100% straight, and therefore yes you did change to become bisexual. On the other hand, if there is something in our DNA that defines what genders we can or can't be attracted to, maybe you had homosexuality inside you without knowing it, and other people, even if they experienced the exact same life as you, down to the most minute details, couldn't become bisexual the way you did.

I really hope that sometime in my lifetime scientists discover some answers, because I think the whole subject is fascinating, and for that matter it's one that I haven't spent nearly as much time reading up on as I would like to have, so perhaps sometime I'll get onto changing that.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale#Table_of_the_scale
You are arguing about a false equivalence. I was responding to the claim about the western "freedom" to offend.
That's really the basis for the "Learn X the hard way" tutorials. There's a number of books that propose to teach a topic quickly/easily, with the shortcut being that you won't have to go through all the exercises. It turns out that's an ineffective teaching style for most computer/science topics. For many of these topics, you really can't short-cut that process of implementing solutions and learning from doing.
"BA’s biggest rival, Virgin Atlantic, also faced complaints over privacy after it was alleged that one of its employees had leaked celebrities’ flight details to a paparazzi agency."

That sounds much worse. What BA is doing - Googling their clients - is, at worst, overzealous.
Zynga's games have become a short-hand for immoral game design. I understand why some people don't like the games, but I'm sad to see this go into popular culture as a truism. It's cheap, it's sloppy, and it's ignorant.

The reality of any game design, Zynga's in particular, is far richer and more nuanced than this meme credits. Specifically, the author makes two sloppy errors:

1. Gamification is used to make something addictive. -- It is a game, it is not gamification. And the goal is to make it fun. Sure, you can call fun addictive if you want to make it sound less... fun. (Now if you applied game mechanics to things that were not games, that would be gamification.)

2. And in turn to part people with their money. Actually, most of any social game's "tricks" are intended to increase the popularity of the game. To spread that game to as many players as possible. Giving people a way to spend money on what is otherwise a completely free game is a separate enterprise entirely.

You can call any of these things immoral, I suppose, but it's not the easy conversation the author wants to have in support of "ennobling", "enriching", and "advancing."
This sounds almost as bad of a user experience as club cards at supermarkets. The way they struggle through my last name to pretend to know me is hilarious.
Intersting. I'd like to see how you'd contrast it with Github's Ryan Tomayko's style: http://tomayko.com/writings/management-style
Besides simple graphics, the original Prince of Persia was developed in 6502 assembly - the source has even been released recently: http://jordanmechner.com/blog/2012/03/prince-of-persia-sourc...
I see that picture ever day in New Delhi (capital of India)
I don't get this with developers. Are pants that uncomfortable? That much of a terrible obligation that you'd forego 25k a year?
What thesis one purports is inconsequential to the freedom of ideas. It stands on its merit or it doesn't. No need for bureaucratic intervention. Down with the idea police.
Honestly I think the more you make stuff "for" kids, the more complexity they have to deal with in addition to learning the programming concepts. With natural language languages, there's an uncanny valley where some of the dialect they are already working, and some doesn't, and it becomes a guessing game.
Very flat structures work better in some places than others, and no approach is perfect for every situation. I've seen situations where engineers take the lead very successfully and some situations where more management has helped, but overall I think the long-term trend is toward fewer managers.
Yeah, of course. I wasn't shocked that they could find my name, only that they would -- that doesn't happen in steerage.
I don't understand why Dave objects to Feedburner in the "2a" point of his post. He seems to be saying that relying on Feedburner as a corporate API can or will burn you if Feedburner changes their policies.

But Feedburner lets you serve your feeds off your own domain (e.g. feeds.mattcutts.com) using a CNAME in DNS. Here's an article from 2007 that talked about how Feedburner made that functionality free after Google bought Feedburner: http://www.mydigitallife.info/how-to-activate-and-use-feedbu...

So if Feedburner ever makes you angry or disappoints you, people are still coming to your domain to get the feeds, and you can just swap Feedburner out with a different system. As far as commercial APIs go, that seems pretty developer-friendly.
Bring Your Own Device (BOYD) changing the essence of cloud
Tuesday Never Comes
I agree. Many "work outside their chosen field" doesn't equate to "Many are flipping burgers." I have a degree in electrical engineering, but I write software for a living. And not the cool stuff I used to do at Caterpillar, but websites and applications. Thing is, I'm good at it and I enjoy it.

I know of many classmates who got degrees in EE but went to work for a petroleum company, or people with degrees in Mech. Engineering who graduated and started writing code day 1.

I know of none of my classmates who got out and went into counseling or marketing (although I'm sure some exist.)
Well, unless he has a proof that the code works. I think the idea is that, in this case, the types are so polymorphic that they do constitute a proof.
> Yes I could "just do it", but that would go against very deep and well set views of how I need to provide for my family. I'm not able to stomach the risk at this point.

My suggestion: Temporarily cut your family's expenses down to the bone. Food, shelter, telephones, insurance, connectivity, clothing etc.

Save up six months of the pre-cut household burn rate. Put it into another bank account that doesn't have an ATM card. This is your "I have been hit by a car and can't work for an extended period of time" fund.

Save up three months of the post-cut household burn rate. Put that into your normal savings account. This is your "I can't find new freelance projects for a few weeks" fund. If you're financially adventurous (like me), this can be in the form of available balances on credit cards. (I invest the cash in various speculative places, and then have the CCs in the event that I have no work temporarily. That doesn't actually end up happening, though - it's just a feel-good safety blanket.)

Then, do what the article says.

Worst-case, if you find yourself burning through your three-month, you can always pull the rip-cord and go get another wage slave job. At no point do you have less than six months of runway, so you're safe.

PS: Make sure you're always contributing your max $5k/year into your Roth, too. If you're ever really capital-F Fucked you can eat the tax penalties and get to that, too. I think of this as the "lawyer fees to fight the federal indictment" money.
id x = id x
Let me summarize the problems of India in my very limited capacity.
1. India is a very very old civilization. Hence, there are way too many ideologies, religions, castes etc in the way of a focused progressive thinking.
2. India ceased to be offensive long back - history is very clear about what usually happens with a non-offensive civilization - they get captured, robbed, systematically destroyed. It took 600 years to rob India from Moghuls to the British. In this very long process of invasions and slavery, something very critical to human survival broke down completely. We Indians do not care of our own well-being. We are happy with getting away with minimal suffering. We just do not care.
3. As India spent most of the modern time in slavery, India became fatalist - none of our actions are relevant - finally the destiny/wish of God/karma takes over. So, we do not care about our actions. There is no causality.
4. Post independence from the British, India fell into the hands of a very corrupt political system. Please understand this, to survive in power the Governments in India need poor people. How can you govern and control 1.2 billion people? - by keeping them in abject poverty. This is a very simple mechanism (read Orwell's 1984) proven and tested the world over.
5. India has a class of enterpreneurial people. They make money for themselves and help their own. India has no sense of public distribution of wealth or enterpreneurship. An Indian will NOT help a man living in his own street if the other guy is from a different caste/religion/etc.
6. Poverty is the worst form of violence - but India has no plans to eradicate poverty. Politics is usually the tool for the rougue to make quick money and loads of it and as I mentioned earlier, poverty is necessary for the political class to survive.
I have 100 other points - perhaps I will write a blog about it and share with you people.
This article talks about something that hurts me a lot on personal level - trust me, every Indian has tried atleast once to change things around him. Most have failed. Even Gandhi failed miserably - he never got the India he dreamed of.
It's the word "conject" that's obsolete, not "conjecture".
WebSocket is great But not the origin policy
Yeah.. this might be a bit trickier! Anyways, isn't the scrolling good enough with the mouse scroll wheel?
Yes in ML you'd have to eta-expand first:

val id : 'a -> 'a
fun id x = id x
Can anybody tell me what this has that dwm doesn't? A run-time config file I guess, but you don't generally need to reconfigure your wm once you've got it working in a way you're comfortable with.