skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Businesses may share common interests with their vendors or customers but they also almost always share conflicting interests. Unless both parties' interests completely align with each other's, I can't see how a vendor/customer can be considered to have the business's best interests in mind.

The article says Dragon agreed to pay Goldman a flat fee of $5 million. What if Goldman did perform due diligence, reported the issues to Dragon, and caused the deal to get cancelled, would Goldman still get $5 million? I don't think so, but if their agreement says they should and I were in Goldman's shoes, I would find reasons to recommend against the deal, because, to earn $5 million, it seems much easier to just advise against the deal than to assist the transaction and bear the risk of a bad outcome. On the other hand, if Goldman gets nothing (or a fraction of the $5 million fee) in the event that the deal gets cancelled, it would be in Goldman's best interests to see the deal go through and avoid performing any potentially deal-breaking services (e.g. due diligence) not specified in the written agreement.

There are scenarios where vendors or customers do have the business's best interests in mind. One such scenario is when the vendor or customer has very close family relationship with the business owner (e.g. husband-wife, father-son, etc.) These scenarios are uncommon. To be on the safe side, I agree with the sentiment that only you have your own best interests in mind.
Imagine you have two banks, one bank which can get you an acquisition deal worth $100m and the other which can get you an acquisition deal worth $200m.

How much extra is it worth paying the bank that can get you the $200m acquisition deal ?

Banks aren't interchangeable cogs, they vary substantially in what they can offer (using their expertise, contacts and negotiating power) and that's what companies pay for.
To simple put it there was a time when Digg used to be as simple as Reddit, then Kevin Rose got consumed by his own fame of this and that, the kid forgot to focus managing this one and other companies as well (Digg, Pownce, Milk). Did anyone remember Leah Culver? hehehehehe.
Be cautious when reading the "classics" of fields such as physics or philosophy (unless you are interested in the history of the field). Socrates was wrong about a few things and so was Einstein.
"... One thing I will always remember from my college economics class was the professor saying, on day one, that that's how you measure what people want. ..."

I didn't take economics at Uni, but I certainly noticed a corollary of 'desire' for object and payment as a kid. The lack of money required you work out some scheme to make money to buy or your hack your own.
If its just about ux then you should consider that google will put that option as an extra style of search and starve off your users. Either way if it's innovative get it done, if you don't make money you've at least improved the tech that is available out there (from you or google).
"... 'Don't deal with anyone with a X...' What does that mean? ..."

When there's doubt, there is no doubt.
I'm afraid that I'm not too familiar with either active patterns or GADTs at the moment. However, given the understanding that I do have, I think they are both unrelated to the basic dynamic pattern matching that I was talking about.

As far as I can tell, active patterns only affect the constructor. They let a constructor like Even to run an arbitrary function when it's matched. This lets you customize what a constructor actually means, which seems very useful, but is orthogonal to dynamic patterns. Dynamic patterns affect the patterns and not the constructors, where a pattern is the expression that is actually matched. That is, given a function f (Foo a b) the pattern is Foo a b. Active patterns would let me customize how Foo works, but the full pattern (Foo a b) still looks and acts the same.

Given this meaning of "pattern", I think active patterns do not constitute first-class patterns. You can't take a pattern and pass it into a function or make up a pattern of variables that can be any pattern. With first-class patterns, you should be able to take the pattern (Foo a b) and pass it into a function as a pattern. So a function like

match pattern (pattern x̂) = x

would make sense in a system with first-class patterns. Here, a pattern is an argument to a function and then used to match against the next argument. Hopefully this clarifies the particular thing that dynamic patterns add to the language.

GADTs are also unrelated. For one, GADTs only affect the type of a constructor and not its behavior. I did not talk about types in my post at all--everything I talked about would make sense in a dynamically typed language that had pattern matching. It just so happens that dynamically typed languages tend not to have pattern matching like this, so it's associated with statically typed languages.

Also, GADTs, like active patterns, only affect the constructor. They do not change the actual patterns used to match against values (except by restricting possible types of the matched values).

So really both active patterns and GADTs are somewhat orthogonal to dynamic patterns. When I said a code that is generic over the head of the pattern, I meant a function like:

doFoo (a b) = b

where doFoo will match both Foo x and Bar x and Baz x and extract x in every case. This function is generic over the constructor in the sense that it matches regardless of what the constructor actually is--the constructor becomes just another matchable term.

This sort of function, which just uses static patterns, is already something that a GADT cannot do. Dynamic patterns are even more flexible. My match function above lets you take an arbitrary pattern like (Foo a b) and match (Foo a b x) against some value to get x. You're passing a pattern into a function which then uses that pattern to match against its next argument. This feature has nothing to do with the type of the constructor.

I hope this cleared things up for you. However, it's almost 4 in the morning and I'm not entirely coherent. If you're still confused, or if I made some glaring errors, feel free to email me about this when I'm more awake :P.
"It may not be showing up in PayPal’s numbers yet. Indeed, by the time you start to see these things on the balance sheet, the damage is irreversible. The question is whether it can still be reversed now."
So much Win in that small paragraph alone. So, the numbers are good, put you are not convinced... because why? Ah yes, the damage is irreversible - let's see how we can reverse the irreversible then, shall we? Mind, blown.
Anonymous Hack Hands WikiLeaks 2 Million Syrian Emails
How DNSChanger Malware Works?
And once again, by your proposed model to fund science. How are we even going to know there's a comet hurling towards earth ?
Gazing out there for neat stuff in the cosmos isn't even a problem in the first place, so it's completely useless by your metric.

>>move the comet out of the way, or destroy it, or in the worst case, prepare an "ark" so that humans can survive"

Those are screenwriting scenarios

>>answering important questions about geology and previous extinction level events. Let's figure out precisely how bad it will be.

The answers to those questions have allowed governments to, in as far as is realistically possible, have scenarios and structures in place, for actual world-wide calamity events.

>>Try reading.

You make some highly unorthodox points. There's nothing wrong with that in itself; in fact, it's welcomed.
But when people respond to those points and indicate they have no merit (like how research scientists are in it for their own enrichment), being rude and dismissive is not going to convince anyone you're right; quite the contrary.
Your "data object" versus "actor" argument is intersting. Does that mean an object model should mimic certain properties of the real world that aren't even part of the system, like the knowledge that agents can act whereas contracts can not?

There are clearly conflicting goals here. It could be that you need polymorphism along one hierarchy but that would make the design look very unnatural in the eyes someone who knows the problem domain.

In my experience, OO models tend to diverge greatly from the real world over time, because after all we're not modelling the world, we're modelling a solution to a problem and we shouldn't fight the tendency for the language of the solution domain to dominate the language of the problem domain.

Sometimes this can mitigated by having interfaces on different levels of abstraction, but that often leads to bloated and slow systems.
Hackers Steal Keyless BMW in 3 Minutes
Steve Ballmer – “It’s not been a lost decade for me”
Trying to get it to recognise a keyboard! Seriously i've tried 3.
There is no 1080p support on AppleTV before v3 (which isn't jailbroken yet) - a major deal-breaker for me, for a home media player.
> You misunderstood what I said. My point was that if a
> computer controlled car's computer fails it can be made to
> fail-safe. Shut down and coast to a stop. The same cant be
> said for planes.

Just because you are at ground-level you are not safe if you lose control of the vehicle.

> The point being that once a bug is found and eliminated it
> wont reoccur.

We already have a software industry and we know that this doesn't happen: bugs do not occur only once and then get eliminated forever. There are people making a living writing books about mistakes that people repeat over and over in software.
Using CSS Sprites to Optimize your Website for Retina Displays
New Jersey Remodeling Contractors
New Jersey Remodeling Contractors information and ideas from Pangione Developers Inc. A Bergen County New Jersey remodeling contractors offering the most competitive NJ Home Addition and NJ Add a Level prices. Click the link for more information.
Lease of agricultural land in Moldova
Ten tips in the war for talent
"A lot of the online services you probably use are free. Gmail is free. Facebook is free. Yahoo News and NPR are free"

Are these services really free? We may not pay cash to use these services but we certainly are paying something.
Cleaners E9 Hackney Marshes. Cleaning Services Hackney Marshes Hackney
Professional identity
ACI Broking caters to all business, domestic, and specialty insurance needs, which can be tailored to suit your needs.
I think your statements about lack of libraries for PHP would have been correct about 4 years ago - maybe even as late as 2010 (pre namespacing in PHP). But as of date, I don't think they hold up. The Bundle concept implemented by Symfony2 - and being adopted by others, has really caused a boom in solid high end libraries that can easily be integrated with any project. ( check out: http://knpbundles.com/ )
I hope that deployment of SPDY with smaller sites (and the problems that appear with that) might help kill the CA extortion scheme in favor of something decentralized (convergence.io is one experiment in that direction).

Every mass hoster (incl. those $9/mo PHP hosts) is affected eventually...
> Doctors get really peeved at people who research online and self-diagnose

Good doctors encourage patients to understand their condition. Let's not conflate that with exasperation over people who have a week old cough that they've decided is lung cancer because they've spent too much time on wrongdiagnosis.com.
Yahoo says it has fixed hacker problem with 'immediate action'
But what about the AK802 Android 4.0 micro-pc network player with 1.5ghz Cortex A8, 1GB RAM, 4GB flash, HDMI for less than $70 ?
Its the size of s thumb drive, so you could make a keychain out of it. XBMC for Android should make this playable out of the box (no root necessary).

Pretty cool.
That could be a useful solution (and the one I would probably choose as well), but what if you primarily need polymorphism along the property type hierarchy because the sale of a home is so different from the sale of a mall?

Also, you get the objection that contracts don't sign themselves. I remember very well that in the early 90s, OO models were promoted as a means for business people to talk to software designers. It never worked out that way.

The real world knows processes. Processes are not some appendage of any of the objects involved. So why not model a process as a function?

sell_property(contract, property, buyer, seller, agent)
Watermelon Bombe Molded Sherbet Recipe
> The claim you could inject arbitrary code from JS into your memory and make it executable from user space (not talking of the cross platform issue (BSD,linux, windows, MACOSX) would just be the end of JS.

> How can you even accept the claim that it can be doable.

Isn't exactly this how most/all heap spray js exploits work?

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concept of this bug, even though the "poc" presented here is bogus.
Working for a small business (as well as trying to target small businesses myself), I think this is all great advice.

I would add that you can't underestimate the non-traditional forms of marketing. Pick a sub-segment of your business. If you sell widgits, chances are some people specialize in dark green widgits from France. Find out if there is a French Dark Green Widgit Trade Journal, and see what their rates are. Find out if there is any specialized software which these people use, and see if you can talk to those vendors about advertising. In my experience, unless you're doing extremely specific Ad-Words targeting, most of the usual online "wisdom" is completely useless when it comes to targeting small businesses (which is tragic, since they're such a huge market).

I'm not sure official sales people are going to work, given that they're having trouble getting initial traction. I would think this would be more effective once they've gained some momentum.
Those lying eyes? Research disputes claim they reveal deception
MMO Asteroids - no april fool this time
Hey Nielsen, we don't care who's paying you, windowsphone will NEVER be the third ecosystem.
The underlying PLoS ONE paper:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...
The stock swap thing seems to be common in M&A

It's done on the buyer's side, the seller company's partners get buyer's stock instead.

It's not "your baby for theirs", it's more complicated
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/no-cos...

No mobile apps, no conventional desktop apps, no command line apps... looks pretty "evaluaty" to me. Also: "private developers will have to pay $49 a year, corporations $99 a year."

So, on the one hand we have (from Apple):

Xcode (free or $5.00, depending on what kind of mood Apple is in that week)
Developer program with store access: $99/year
Code-sigining certificate: included.

From Microsoft we have:
Non-crippled Visual Studio: $499
Developer program with store access: $49-$99/year
Code-signing certificates: must be purchased separately from a third party.

What a bargain!
How to come up with business ideas for your Startup
That's great.. Looking forward to it..
Horrifying story. I hope Goldman gets held liable for that billion in damages.

At the same time I think that there are some important lessons here. The big one that comes to my mind is always have an exit strategy. For example, if I am able to make my business take off great. If it gets acquired and I end up not liking the new bosses, great, I can quit. But what can I take with me? What do I do after that?

I am fortunate in this area to have a lot of people who, while not aware of the whole situation can still nonetheless provide some help with that question. And I am grateful to those who have pushed a greater open source angle here.

And of course we can find how many missed opportunities there were to notice that this deal was bad on everyone's side. But the question for the rest of us not involved in litigation is what we take away from it.

I take away from it:

1) Be very careful about M&A. If something doesn't look right, it probably isn't.

2) Always have an exit strategy.
I would tend towards this solution as well, but does it meet the "looks natural" criteria? Contracts that sign themselves?

I think many classes we invent are nothing more than processes in disguise and we could just as well model them as functions.

A simpler example. Should the BankAccount class have a transferTo(BankAccount other) method to transfer money into another account? What if there are different account types and the exact process depends on the types of both accounts?

Of course it's possible to do it that way, but is it really the cleanest way to imagine this? I don't think so.
There's a built APK up on Miniand: https://www.miniand.com/forums/forums/1/topics/136
Maybe they hired whoever does the Fox News info graphics.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/12/12/today-in-dishonest-f...
There can be reasons to take part-stock deals. For example part-stock deals also ensure that the acquired are invested in the purchaser. In essence by trading stocks they are buying something more valuable, your loyalty. The question is, how much do you want to give it. If my business were buying your business, I'd go for a part-stock deal just because it keeps your wealth tied in part to my firm's performance. This is what is being purchased that's so valuable: power. But this is usually a good thing for all involved because it ties everyone together financially and prevents the acquired from calling it quits and running off to do something that undercuts the acquirer.

But all-stock deals? That suggests something is horribly amiss.
Quite staggering when the proportions are corrected in the diagram.
He stores your information on a spreadsheet, but the spreadsheet is in the cloud, so it can't crash.
Kellerräumung
öchten Sie eine Kellerräumung / Kellerräumungen starten?
Unsere Kellerräumung / Kellerräumungen -Firma zeichnet sich in erster Linie durch seine außerordentliche Flexibilität, Sicherheit und Ordentlichkeit was das Kellerräumung / Kellerräumungen anbelangt aus.
Die Bereitschaft, jederzeit zur Kundenberatung sowie zur Besichtigungsvereinbarung für Kellerräumung / Kellerräumungen für unsere Kunden erreichbar zu sein.
In Sweden you can either use bank transfer, invoice (provided by Klarna), and I do not think accepting credit card payments is hard either.

Almost no Swedish businesses who target the Swedish market use Paypal. Paypal is mostly use by Swedish companies when they want to target any country in the world (for example Minecraft).
Yes, it was a pretty informal test, but the results were clear. Before adding the demo option, about 21 people signed up for the free trial each day. After adding the demo option, that dropped to about 16/day, but 30+ people tried the demo each day (including the 16 that signed up). So basically, and extra ~10 people per day tried the product with the demo option.

There's a 30-day period before those people have to decide to pay, so I didn't run a full A/B test during that entire period because we were clearly getting more qualified signups, so I don't perfect data on exactly how big the increase was.
> It's not "your baby for theirs", it's more complicated

How so? Use the baby analogy (as it was indeed Baker's child), what was it in this case in your view?
Which is why, despite its formal awkwardness, we have the option of the indefinite personal pronoun "one":

"If one thinks the the primary problem in payments is technical [one is mastaken]".

Personally I prefer the less formal compromise of "someone" (or "somebody", "anyone", "anybody" etc. with the choice depending on context and meaning):

""If anyone thinks the the primary problem in payments is technical [they are mistaken]".
Umm... Pseudo-code follows

module Book = struct
type t = { sections: Section.t list; ... }
....
get_paragraphs t = map (fun s -> Section.get_paragraphs s) t.sections
.....
end

So it is not that hard to have both FP and DL
Beware The Second System Effect
Indeed, it's a very odd piece. No arguments except opinions ("state is bad", "functions and data shouldn't mix" etc). I fail to see the underlying reasoning for any of his gripes. It just comes of as a frustrated computer scientist / mathematician complaining that his theoretically correct way of making machines do his bidding, is not loved by all.
Clearly the goal here is not to simulate an ecosystem where agents, buyers and sellers happily live together.

However, the idea here is to organize your object model exactly as you would organize a group of employees. Each of these employees has a specific job and a specific set of responsibilities - ideally only one. You can describe the solution to your problem as the result of their interaction. These employees are actor objects.

To interact efficiently, they need to exchange information, in the form of data objects. These data objects don't do anything except hold a piece of information - exactly as you would have two employees exchanging notes or emails.

Most of the time these data objects correspond to the language of your problem domain. The actor objects however may have nothing to do with any "real world" activity, depending on the job you want them to do in the process. So yes, the object model diverge from reality over time because we introduce new actors with specific roles that have no "real world" equivalent. But that's just fine.

The important thing is to keep seeing the distribution of responsibilities among your objects and their interaction as the work of a team of independent experts, not as "things doing stuff".
Psst...they are using ROT13 (but don't tell anybody).
Why? Because if you make them perfectly proportional, the labels are hard to read. ;-)

For example, try actually making sense out of the second diagram on that site. It's far harder to read than the first. You can actually only make sense of it by cross-referencing with the first diagram.
While I don't blame the founders for choosing Goldman, I do think that they should have recognized that paying a flat fee was a bad idea. Incentives matter, and it's easy to see how even the most reputable investment bank would allocate fewer resources to your deal if there is no potential upside to them.
"Lisp has all the visual appeal of oatmeal with fingernail clippings mixed in." - Larry Wall

Considering the general appearance of code for the language he created I'm not sure this quote of his can be taken all that seriously. At worst Perl looks like somebody glued the shift key down and repeatedly head-butted the top row of their keyboard.
wow... you really are obnoxious!
All-stock deals are usually very fishy because it generally illustrates that the buyer, quite simply, does not value their stock that highly (and values the seller's stock way more - so why are they selling?).

This is not a good sign.

Part-stock deals make some sense - to tie people up (vesting/milestones/lock-up) and align them with your interests. However it really should be a mostly cash deal (say 80-20 or 60-40 cash/stock) if it's public liquid stocks in a great company (but they usually do straight cash deals - e.g. Facebook/Google/Apple).

Trading private illiquid stock for private illiquid stock is a big no-no, unless it's a small amount (10-20%) with a high probability of a near-future liquid exit (IPO/public-cash acquisition).
Micro-apartments next for S.F.?
NJ4X 1.6.0: GlobalVariable* MT4 EA methods set for multiple EAs communication