skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Interest rates are the price of capital

I think that's inaccurate. The price of the capital is its cost of opportunity. Interest rates are the price of debt.
Employees never have 2000 hours worth of labor at risk; they (usually) get paid twice a month, so they only ever have about 80-100 hours worth of wages at risk at any given moment.

If their employment ends, they no longer have the income they used to, but they have 40 more hours a week to use. Most will try to find another employer that will give them money for their time, some will start their own business, and others will retire and use the extra time for leisure.

Investing your time in earning wages is one of the least risky investments you can make; on the other hand, returns on investment tend to be inversely correlated with risk.
Good catch! There was a small bug that I just fixed. Appreciate it!
I'm not sure that's true; KO is mostly data binds too, and doesn't impose much of any structure on your application.

Since it would make no apparent sense to use both KO and Rivet, the original question seems germane.

Is the answer then "because Rivets does less"?
The mix of human and computer pilots is inevitable. There has to be a manual override option. Otherwise, the cars simply won't sell, no matter how ultra steadfast and safe the technology is.
I see facebook's mission is to be the one universal ID system, superseding passports issued by governments. To achieve that, personal profiles must be correct and accurate. Being a job search site is a calculated step in that direction, not a desperate search for a business model.
Darpa Will Develope Gigapiksel Camera Project
It is, but you can also fly line-of-sight for the part of your journey that is between airports, shortening the distance, instead of following roads.
I get more false positives than false negatives. But when I switched to out Outlook 2007 for half a year (got my hands on free Office 2007 launch kit) That was the first thing I noticed. Outlook, at least for me, had amazing spam control right out of the box. Everything else was dreadful but the spam control was amazing. Then again, I tend to have email addresses from almost 10 years ago when I was 15.

Maybe its because I'm using a portable version of Thunderbird. Although it shouldn't matter.
Dark Matter Filament Found
Yes, but the entertainment industry changed vastly since his first sitcom, both in trends and in distribution. It's not merely a matter of "you win some you lose some" now, but a new world of "this is how I can make things happen, without a major studio behind me"
I picked up the tip from an IKEA employee of using (industrial) Velcro. That's what they use at the store to keep things from flopping about. Works a trick.
Structural fixes are indeed better, but Chestertonian distributism has a slight difference from what you've been talking about: it prefers to actually minimize the size of enterprises and assign ownership to families. It's very British, in that way.

It does, however, seem to actually work, which is far more than we can say for state-socialism.
It comes from the same people trying to distract us.

Steven Keen has shown that there is no public debt crisis. The real issue is a drop in private debt (the international credit crisis) which means a drop in consumption, which leads to recession, which leads to less lending, which leads to a drop in private debt......
chain is amazing.
So? They're unarmed. It's about as dangerous as a TV helicopter videoing you driving.
Online sexism is going nowhere until people start asking >why< other have such hateful thoughts and feelings rather than just serving up the usual diatribe foo-fa-raw of nerds versus angry women.
> Cool folding prop (but scary - if it doesn't unfold properly, it could make quite a mess).

Hard to tell from the video alone, but the rotor look just like my RC helicopter's: blades attached to the hub by one gudgeon pin each. If that's the case, centrifugal force alone is enough to align them perfectly †; no solenoid nor manual action needed ever. If that's the case, there's virtually no way those could fail, except for total disintegration. Pretty standard construction for small, two-bladed helis.

Way cooler is that they can get away without flybar -- perhaps autogyros don't ever need one?

† there's some forward-backward play of the blade as it changes attack angle and relative airspeed during rotation, but that's another matter.
The Fantastic Machine That Found the Higgs Boson
Chestertonian distributism is something I like to push too.

But I don't think it is the only model and I think that as we get more distributive systems working side-by-side we will see interesting network effects come into play.

For example, Chestertonian distributism places a large emphasis on guilds. But there isn't a reason why for-profit corporations owned in significant part by their employees can't function like guilds. Again, a business like WL Gore strikes me as very distributist in how it works on the ground. For example WL Gore is largely owned these days by the employees and the employees have tremendous freedom to work where they feel they add value. The organization provides mentoring for employees etc.
You're missing the point - there's strong evidence that your brain is composed of multiple bits, all working in concert.

If, in the future, you get a brain injury and are treated with a prosthetic thalamus implanted with micro-robots, are you still you?

Extend that to treatment for memory loss, old age or other sorts of brain damage - are you still you? If it gets to the point where your whole brain is replaced, are you still you?
Bogus title; should be "The Drone Zone". The bit about tracking a civilian SUV wasn't even the lede.
Finally I could use officially supported 'Canvas' to design workflows, before that I had to use the celery-tasktree package.
Yep- one interesting tidbit in the article is that, of the 3800 folks who hit the list since '92, only 27% showed up more than once. This seems to indicate than many of them won on one big bet... Quite possible not a capital bet either.

If you sell (all or some of) a company you started, that income is technically counted as capital gains as far as the IRS is concerned.
The Crushing Cost of Health Care
Except that's not dreaming so big, IMHO. And experience.
WW3 ITS HERE AS BRITS GO IN SYRIA,RUSSIA CHINA US ALSO HAVE TROOPS IN
That's some great feedback! Thanks.
Yeah, my logic was that he didn't have/use those resources while building Microsoft. I was trying to divide billionaires into those who built up their wealth without relying much on other resources, vs. those who took existing wealth and grew it.
"extremely connected people who have lots of Proprety (sic) and little Energy/talent."

It takes energy and talent to maintain connections. Money also helps [1]. With the exception of perhaps some outliers having a connection does little other than give you an audience and the ear of the person who might be able to do something for you. And in order to maintain that connection you have to be in their face and provide some benefit to them that is tangible. In general. [2].

Let's take an example. You did a favor for Paul Graham in college but haven't spoken to him since then. You will probably get his ear, he will listen to you, but how much more is that connection going to do for you without some other compelling value to Paul to help you (vs. what he has to give up to help you if he needs to get a favor off of someone else). "Paul sign my petition" (ok). "Paul get my son into YC" (hmm.)

Connections can also be made with energy. I've done multiple free consulting freebies for various people on the net. Ranging from nobodies to very well respected VC's. The VC's are now connections and in fact have taken the lead (w/o being asked I might mention) in referring paid work to me. I put energy into making that connection [3] and I also have to expend energy to keep in front of these people. If I don't, in 5 years the help I gave them will mean little.

Conclusion: Don't generalize with "connections" the way people do with "got lucky". Luck and connections are important and yes they are essential. But they also take energy to maintain as well. (Once again I'm not talking about connections that you might have because your father is super important or you're a Kennedy but achievable connections that are attainable to anyone with energy and talent.)

[1] (note all the charity events that allow you to mingle with connected people (say the Obama fundraiser recently in NY with Sarah Jessica Parker which was 40k to attend).

[2] (Remembering in college where my father had a connection to someone who had something to do with an Ivy League college. I met with that person who very clearly gave me the idea that my father wasn't important enough to him to do anything to get me into the particular school.)

[3] I contacted the VC's with offers of gratis help which they accepted, thanked me for, and at least one wrote an unsolicited testimonial.
I'll add: If the posts are pressure treated lumber, you don't want to breathe the dust if/when you saw them. Better to avoid pressure-treated -- but depending upon where you shop, you might end up with it if you don't know better.
Well, they do have different goals. Rivets wants to be a small plugin that works with any framework while knockout is also designed to bring structure to the party.
For me it's like comparing an engine with a car.

One big upside to knockout is that the lib is a little under 3KB minified while knockout is 40KB minified.

I prefer having smaller libraries that are really good at what they do.
Anyone have some good modern scifi recommendations? I've read some Stephenson and Gibson. Looking for more though.
> Users want something new if their current software isn't meeting their needs for whatever reason.

What if their need is for something new and shiny?

Have you never heard people say they tried Chrome because it was new and shiny (even the word implies shininess)? Or how about how people want to buy the latest iPad or iPhone, it isn't because the old one isn't "meeting their needs" in some boring sense. They want something new and different.

> Whenever I hear users ask for change it's because there's a feature they wish they had or a bug that's annoying them

That is a very simplistic view of users. Users are human beings - they want conflicting things, both for things to work and be predictable, and for things to be new and interesting.

The right tradeoff is the hard part, not absolute black-and-white principles of "users never want change" or "users always want something new and shiny".
That sounds good, I think freemium is the way to go. When I first found face.com I thought to myself that I would have no problem paying for their service. I am definitely interested in your project. And I think developing in the open will be hugely helpful.

For my purposes though the REST API is what's more useful since my problem is not connectivity or bandwidth but processing power. Right now my software is running on a Raspberry Pi which can just barely run motion for capturing the pictures, I would need a real computer to run a full OpenCV install. That is why the face.com API suited my needs so well.

Are you planning on offering facial recognition along with the face detection or just focusing on face detection for now?
its easy to look at code out of context ... was the coder under duress, was he being asked to do a million things at the same time. Was he being paid enough to care ... i'm not making apologies, I think one of the worst things that can happen to a coder is you lower your own personal quality bar; but its easy to do if in the wrong set of context. I always recommend quitting before getting to that point.

Addressing some of the other comments; Perl and the Perl community itself is so far removed from macho ... its still one of the kindest, most intelligent and beneficial public communities online .... if someone feels emasculated by just reading someone's code; don't mistake that for the original coder's intent was to emasculate.

Perl is the programming language that I would want with me if the world was coming to an end (asteroids of course) and somehow I could help save it with getting the damn lasers to work to blow up the asteroids ... if it takes a 150 char regex then so be it.
I think we should distinguish between Apple's _restrictions_ (as in App Store policy) and the _constraints of their engineering_ (as in the serviceability of unibody laptops.) I'd venture the latter is weighed against e.g. weight and battery life, not "restricted" out of spite.

Could Apple deliver the specs of a Retina MBP with a replaceable battery?
Looking through the docs, it does look incredible, perhaps the Perfect® language for my tastes.

But the old man in me says it'll never stick.
You're right that people will be reluctant at first to apply within FB's domain for a job posting. But think of it from the company's viewpoint: they'll have the same potential access to the targeted demographic data that advertisers do. They could greatly increase the signal to noise ratio in the job apps they get, all the meanwhile letting applicants apply through email.

And as FB becomes a ubiquitous job board, people will get used to it being a part of their lives, and will adjust their profiles accordingly
The opposite is true: it was penny-foolish and pound-wise. As Glenn pointed out -- the door desks were an expensive and ergonomicaly unsound symbol that told a true story about frugality and the relationship between the company and the employee. Because of the omnipresent symbol of frugality, many cost saving decisions were made that undoubtedly paid for the cost of the door desks many times over.

The less happy side of the symbol: that amazon really didn't care about employees was reinforced in other ways as well. A common refrain from Jeff: if you're not happy here, leave. Life is too short to be unhappy.

In some senses that's a bold answer, and an honest one. But note that the answer was very, very rarely: what can we do to make life better here?

The door desks were also a symbol to us all that if you wanted to work at a place that cared about your health, well-being, and happiness, you might very well want to move on.

But, to be fair, three counterbalancing factors held people there: hard engineering problems, the very real prospect of wealth, and working on a product that was very, very successful. I never heard Bezos give anyone the sugar water speech: he didn't have to. It was obvious that Amazon was changing the world.
Data Scientists the Alexander Flemings of the Future
I don't know about you, but I appreciate that I don't have a garbage collector with coding for mobile apps (Not done any for OSX apps yet). You'll know what I mean if you work with large images (Bitmaps) in Android, then you'd wish you have a better craft at release memory (instead of recycle())
Not all use glue, and It is possible that apple is changing its glue and/or using more.

Most likely both. Maybe they have new glue and glue remover and want to make sure all repairs go through them, because only they have the secret glue remover.

But that would be far fetched maybe?
/speculations
Functions as objects in Python
Investments made by the rich have less social benefit than consumption. Consumption is, after all, the point of it all. Taxing utility and not non-utility is a great way to have a society where assets are employed in the least useful way possible.

Consumption is central because it is information. It is how capitalism works: the choices made by consumers tell capital what to invest in. Unfortunately, inequality causes that relationship to break down and the economy starts making things that maximize utility of those with money instead of general utility. Combine that with the effectiveness of rent-seeking, and you get the current mess where finance trumps everything because it provides the most value to capital, rather than because it contributes the most value.

Tax regimes that most benefit economic growth shore up market failures: externalities, public goods, investment in education, infrastructure and the like. That's not controversial except in the libertarian fringes. However, I believe they also serve equality, so that we can get a little closer to maximizing utility instead of profit (which is, by definition, a sign of a poorly functioning market.)
Glad to see this. In addition to this, I wish there was a project I could contribute to that was focused on keeping Ruby/Pythhon bindings up to date for OpenCV...I mean financially, not in code, as I don't think I'd have much to offer. But even if I wanted to it's not clear how active the current maintainers are in responding to and evaluating pull requests
The point is that a browser that can view the modern web is different than one that can run a 10-year old intranet app. These are very different things. I agree with you that corporations sometimes need both.

Since there are open source browsers, you can just save a very old version of them for intranet apps, if you must. But you can't expect a modern browser to still run your old intranet apps, you will need both a legacy browser and a modern one.

The ESR fits somewhere in the middle. It won't run 10 year-old apps, but it will update very slowly so your IT department does not need to constantly verify it (only once a year). Again, for 10-year-old apps, that won't work - you just need to install a 10-year old browser. If you just run it on intranet apps, security isn't a concern so that's fine.
Ask HN: Whats the best way to distribute custom Android enterprise apps?
Hi,

We have been distributing our custom Android Apps over the air through webservices (apks being stored on S3) after having the user register their device with IMEIs. Downside: Apps need to manually be updated with at least 3 touches.

Is there a smarter way?
Aside from the things mentioned in the video (offline by default, fully customizable UI, <browser> tag etc) one of the most interesting things about this is the change to application architecture that makes Chrome apps mirror traditional native apps in an important way - the View is no longer the instance.

A challenge for a variety of apps built using the traditional web container is that the view is the instance. This poses challenges for apps that are mostly invisible, like chat apps. The main challenge is sharing live state between running instances. You can attempt to share state between views you open via script but when the user inadvertently launches another instance by clicking a link or typing a view all bets are off.

With this new system, your app has a background page that acts as the app's instance - the entry point and core event receiver, it is effectively ever-present (or can be woken by events) and can manage the app's various views.

I think this is an important and useful development that will allow a new class of apps to be more easily built using web technologies.
Chrome user in Ubuntu, 30ish tabs don't make unresponsive my browser here.
Looks like a pretty nice little alternative to Handlebars/Ember.js for really simple data bindings. I could see myself using this quite often.
But what it comes to is that in the great struggle between Capital and Labor, or Property and Energy, capital is by nature very excludable, while Labor (lacking organization into a guild or union) is not very excludable (workers cannot stop the capitalist from working for himself, even if only temporarily). Capital will thus be valued more on free markets than Labor, in general.

Excellent point. What I wonder is how excludable Capital truly is, though. Is it inherently excludable? Gold is, and electronic money effective is, but land isn't, and social connections definitely aren't.

This actually maps exactly onto left-right politics, outside the United States. In most of the world, the Right represents Property/Capital and the Left represents Labor/Energy, and socioeconomic politics consists of trying to form a workable arrangement between the two.

Great observation. In the U.S., we effectively have two political parties that represent Property. One is just more of a dick about it, and more willing to use cultural wedge issues to move useful idiots against their own interests, but they're both pretty rotten. I think, for what it's worth, that their uselessness is by design; an ineffectual government enables these parties' rich owners to get away with murder.
I'll fully grant you that the learning curve for locations is quite steep and it takes some getting used to, but the order is always logical and it's entirely possible to reason your way through it without needing verbose logs.
How You Should Never Describe Yourself
What's going on with SpamCop?
You seem to be getting at the distinction between possessions and property. Proudhon would be proud.

Possessions are things you own (in the sense of being the exclusive user) because you made them and you're the one who uses them. You make a flint and then a wood carving, these are your possessions.

Property, however, is what we get when you start having exclusive usage rights to things you don't actually use. So a feudal landlord has the property rights to a manor. However, he only actually uses the bit of land occupied by his own castle. So what's the problem? He still "owns" the rest of the land, particularly the productive farmland, and he "rents" it to the peasants who actually work it.

He is engaging in the fundamental economic crime: rentiering, demanding that other people pay him forever to use something without their ever acquiring actual ownership over it. This can only be done because he has a property right over something he never productively uses (in fact, cannot physically make full use of: no one person can farm an entire manor or village worth of land). The creation/acquisition of property titles that can be rentiered upon is the usual historical mode of what Marx termed "primitive accumulation" or "the original accumulation", the first initial step that creates a capitalist class capable of living without working.

Note that we can use this definition to arrive at formulations of other great economic "crimes". Usury, we can now say, is the rentiering of money: the debtor never actually acquires ownership over the investment he borrowed, he just rents it for a while in the hope of generating enough return to make a profit for himself even after paying the "money-rent" of interest.

This, it is worth noting, is why modern capitalism really took off when we started forming joint-stock corporations. (Start-up guys, start reading here!) Equity investment routes around rentiering by actually trading the start-up capital for a share of ownership in the business. Ownership of one thing is exchanged for ownership of the other thing. This is why it's harder for venture capitalists to earn money than for, say, Goldman Sachs to earn money: venture capitalists are trading, Goldman can rentier (in fact, investment bankers in general are rent-seekers on their exclusive professional access to the broader capital markets) and commit usury.
Agreed. 1200/month does not sound like "cheap rent" as the article calls it.
The slides from a talk about it at the London Lua group the other day are here http://www.londonlua.org/scripting_nginx_with_lua/slides.htm... video coming shortly.
Out of all the comments here, only your question on seeding and no answers. It's the only reason I came to the comments!
If there is another Stephenson book you have been thinking about reading, I would recommend diving in. I haven't read all of them, but I've read many, and have yet to be disappointed. Also check out Daniel Suarez if not familiar with him already. HTH.
Canada’s vanishing tech sector
Should be a good opportunity for some new guy to come out with a Face recognition API. I was doing some work and we compared their recognition results with some of the opensource toolkits and also with our own proprietary algo. Face.com's recognition rates were not that extra ordinary. So lets see if someone takes advantage of this opportunity.