skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I completely agree. As a high-school student, I was completely turned off by the quality of books that I was reading ('textbooks that conform to the curriculum set by the education board'). It was only when I started reading the masters (in this case Resnick Halliday for physics, Thomas & Finney for calculus) that I really started to like math and physics and chose to major in engineering
> 17 USC 117 refers to software that you already have a licence for

No, it refers to software that you own a copy of. Termination of a copyright license does not terminate your ownership of copies that you already have, if they were made lawfully and distributed to you lawfully.

A good quick and dirty test to see if you need a copyright license in order to legally do something is to ask yourself what the copyright owner would allege in his pleadings if he were to sue you.
More silly, macho, "real programmer" nonsense. It's like saying that the best way to learn calculus is to pick up a calculus book in first grade and read it over and over until it all becomes clear. Yeah, that's the express lane to mastery.

If you want to master something, sequentially master its prerequisites and methodically work your way up. If you do that, then a lot of the ideas of the masters will have begun occurring to you before you even read their works, and you will be the sort of person they were writing for.
Oh that's just ridiculous. I mean there's a point of "jumping the shark" here even though I hate that phrase. I mean come on, it's not that great. It's arguable that this whole attitude about Github is massively pretentious and overblown. I don't think we can compare Github to the development of agriculture, pasteurization, classical mechanics, etc.
In Age of Twitter, NBC Rewrites Olympic Playbook
Digg Sold to the Company Betaworks
>Honestly, I cannot think of a good reason to delete any article at all, unless it's obviously fraudulent...

I find this opinion extremely ironic. The whole point of wikipedia was to be an encyclopedia, including all of the baggage that word carries. We don't need another raw dump of information--that's what the internet is for. Wikipedia has a special place in the mind of the world; having an article there gives your cause an air of legitimacy that simply being on the internet doesn't have anymore. And this is exactly why people want their pet causes plastered all over it.

If Wikipedia were just another dump of information, no one would care to have their information on it. That is what is ironic about this argument. The only reason people care to be on wikipedia is precisely because of the "deletionists" and editors who work to keep articles on the site notable. Without them, wikipedia simply wouldn't matter.
What questions should you be asking before you decide to work at a startup?
Having an impact
Python & Java: A Side-by-Side Comparison
I think that point was made in the article--they wore kilts, not pants, before Europeans.
The funny part about this is that most software that the generally public deals with regularly is not on Github anyway and even the ones that are existed just fine for many years before Github so it's not as if there is some contingenct on Github or something.
There’s an ongoing debate about whether startups should focus on harder problems.

Is there a really a debate or am I missing something? This is honestly the first thing I have seen supporting not solving a problem.

Really I think there is a place for both. He mentions avoiding the problem of search, which happened to be the foundation of a particularly successful company.
Oh, I disagree. It looks ok in toy examples (something that is true of many languages' macro facility) but all the calls to CONS and LIST and APPEND and whatever else you need quickly become unwieldy. They obscure the structure of the expression you're trying to build. This is exactly the problem that backquote-comma-splice (on top of s-exprs) solves. And I suppose we need to throw in single-quote too.

It's interesting, though, that this is a usability question rather than a technical one, i.e. you can build the same expressions without that notation, just not as easily. But that's what's great about that Whitehead piece I linked to: he shows how fundamental this is. It seems like a surface matter but isn't, because it influences what other things one can use one's limited mental capacity to do. It makes subsequent thoughts possible that wouldn't otherwise be. (Edit: this is why programmers who talk about how language doesn't matter are deeply wrong. And also why programming languages have surrounding cultures. But I go off topic again.)

By the way, your macro example is off, since there's nothing to cause X to be evaluated; it's forever embalmed in that outer QUOTE.
How I started:
- Called up past employers and let them know what I was up to. Asked if they "needed any help"
- Reached out to local startups and asked if they "needed any help"
- Trolled craigslist for projects, built POCs quickly, then responded to the ad with a link to the proof of concept.

My first three clients were an ex employer, 2 local startups (reaching out to startups), and a real estate company (craigslist)
Latest Crew Blasts off For International Space Station
How the Tough Get Going: Silicon Valley Travel Tips
My experience with the search quality are quite similar. While I like the idea and personally would even accept some 5 sec+ delays if the results were at least equal to Google, they are not. Even for relatively simple queries: For example if I search Journal of Brand Management the right url is not even on the whole first page, while at Google it is exactly the first result ( www.palgrave-journals.com/bm ).

Maybe you could add some special "dissatisfying results" button or something like that where we just can enter the keyphrase and a short line what Google did better. Or I wouldn't even mind activating some track-me option occasionally if it would help you guys improve your results. Just let us know how we can help making DDG better.
There are a lot of people of below-normal intelligence out there. Keep in mind that by definition 50% of the world has an IQ below 100 - that's a very, very large chunk of our work force that simply cannot pull off, say, programming, data science, or the myriad of technical jobs that are now in-demand.

> "But it's not that hard."

It wasn't for you, evidently, and it wasn't really for me either, but for a lot of people it strains at the edge of their ability to comprehend and mentally model, even with practice. That's the point I'm making: we've been born into the portion of the population that can, with some elbow grease, grok it. Not everyone is as fortunate. Even some of the ones who are, lack the educational background - in math, in logic, in whatever - to make that leap.

It took working a wildly different job, with a wildly different demographic, to really comprehend just how wide that gap is.

Even if we could successfully retrain, say, 20% of the industrial work force into knowledge-based jobs, that's still a lot of people out in the cold, and even then - who would pay for the retraining, which for a lot of people would take years? Who will bankroll their education, or even their living costs, while this transition occurs?

There are so many systemic problems with this it's mind-boggling. Suffice it to say, the notion that displaced workers from now-collapsed industries can retrain and reapply elsewhere is dramatically oversimplified. The reality is that the vast majority will never make the leap anywhere else.
My experience with DDG are quite similar. While I like the idea and personally would even accept some 5 sec+ delays the results should be at least neat to Google, but they are not. Even for relatively simple queries: For example if I search Journal of Brand Management the right url is not even on the whole first page, while on Google it is exactly the first listing ( www.palgrave-journals.com/bm ).

Maybe you could add some special "dissatisfying results" button or something like that where we just can enter the keyphrase and a short line what Google did better. Or I wouldn't even mind activating some track-me option occasionally if it would help you guys improve your results. Just let us know how we can help making DDG better.
In my experience I'd guess you aren't dealing with a deficiency of OO, after all Python is an OO language.

I'd bet you are dealing with over-engineering, which is a cultural issue within the Java/J2EE community. And perhaps a lack of closures (I prefer those over list comprehensions, since they are more general) which make java needlessly verbose.
Introducing the Distribution Hacks Blog
I'll add one: Find out who your boss is going to be. Do extensive research if they interview you. Few things will shape your experience more than this.
I highly recommend working for free for 1-2 months.

I've been in SEO for the last 4 years. I do in-house enterprise stuff now, but I had started a consulting gig for a little while a few years ago. I spent 1 month telling everyone and anyone that I was doing free SEO consulting in exchange for a great testimonial (read: Yelp review). Got 8 or 9 free clients. Two insisted on paying me after the work was done, and the rest wrote me fantastic testimonials and sent me referrals for months. Afterwards, your testimonials and Yelp reviews will be the catalyst for more business in the future. My 2 c's.
This doesn't have much to do with his point. He makes no claim that DDG is a flawless product. And even the most flawless product on the planet tends to have (in the grand scheme of things) low conversion rates of the people they are able to bring in.

From the growth graphs that Gabriel has posted, he clearly NOT failed at building a good product. Could it be better? Absolutely.
Your last sentence is probably the most insightful on the thread. We really have no idea what actually happened.
The Skinny on IEs Update Policy
What do Izabel Goulart, Anja Rubik and Angelina Jolie have in common?
1. Could that be because disposable income is going down?

If disposable income goes down, then (all other things being equal) the ratio of household debt to disposable income would go up.
How do those changes interact poorly? A difficult password format requires a change to /etc/login.defs. Software pushes (if I understand what you mean by them) can be handled by the package manager (this would require the most work as you need to set up your own repository, but I imagine that is nessasary on windows as well). Configuring a browser proxy is done in the browser (or system wide). Encrypted /home directorys are the default on Ubuntu, and using TrueCrypt (or similar) fuel HD encryption is possible. Personal firewall is handled by ip tables.

GNU/Linux, by the nature of its userbase, has been forced to tolerate far more severe changes. The same software is used in countless configurations, on countless operating systems, some of which are neither GNU nor Linux. And once you have it set up, you could just make a master image and clone that to your target machines.
Or, you could make a corporate linux distro with all of these requirements built in by default.
f'(x) = lim h->0 (f(x+h)-f(x))/h
I've been watching some talks online recently by Rich Hickey of Clojure fame, and he's a very interesting and convincing speaker. He basically makes the same argument that Armstrong makes here.

I'm not clear, however, how the pro-FP, anti-OO crowd address the Law of Demeter, which is often summarized as "One dot: good. Two dots: bad." The canonical example where the Law of Demeter serves us well comes from some of the original Demeter papers, which I actually read a long time ago when they were current. This canonical example is that of an object to represent a book.

One of the initial selling points of OO was that if you encapsulate the representation of an object from its interface, this ends up giving you a lot more flexibility. For the case of representing a book, pre-Demeter, a typical OO organization would have been to provide a method to give you chapters of the book as Chapter objects, and from there you could get Section objects, from which you could get Paragraph objects, from which you could get Sentence objects, from which you could extract the words as strings.

The Demeter proponents correctly argued that this OO organization of the Book rather defeats the goal of encapsulation, since with this organization you cannot restructure the internals of the Book object without breaking the API. E.g., if you decide to insert Subsections between Sections and Paragraphs, your API for extracting all the sentences of a book will change, and consequently, much of the client code will have to change.

The Demeter folks argued that instead of having to explicitly navigate to sentences, you should just be able to call a method on the Book object directly to get all the sentences. Without special tools, however, this is hard for the implementers of Book, since now they have to write tons of little delegation methods. I take it that people who are serious about following the Law of Demeter do do this, however. In the original Demeter system, Demeter would do this automatically for you. The problem with the original Demeter system is that few people actually ever used it, and it was rather complicated for Demeter to provide this automatic navigation.

So, back to FP: Rich Hickey argues to forgo damned objects and to just let the data be data. So if I follow Hickey's advice, how am I supposed to represent a book? As a vector of vectors of vectors of vectors of strings? If so, then how do I prevent a change in the representation of the Book from breaking client code? If I had followed the Law of Demeter with OO, then everything would be golden.

Sure, with this naive FP approach, I could also provide a zillion functions to fetch different sub-structures out of the book. E.g., I could have a function to return all the sections in a specified chapter, and another to return all of the sentences in the book. This, however, would end up being little different from the OO approach following the Law of Demeter, with the further downside that if you change the representation of the book, you don't know that you haven't broken the client code, because you have no guarantee that the client code isn't accessing the representation directly.

Please advise.
Practically any device (eg, $60 Deal Extreme set top boxes) has some hardware decoding these days (H264 decoding at least). Whether it is used by XMBC is another matter.
https://www.stypi.com/
Facebook: Unify your icons already
Goldman Sachs and the $580 Million Black Hole
Personally, i find the python documentation a little overwhelming, while i found PHP's much clearer and more straightforward, despite learning PHP first. Much easier to figure out something quickly. Its hard to pin down but if i had to i'd say it can be too verbose, there can be too much on a page, and too little white-space. I'd also like to see it more example driven.

Having said this i rarely if ever hear any criticism of the python docs from others.

E: sorry, why was stating my opinion, when sought, deserving of downvoting? If you disagree then say so-- i even stated i thought my opinion was a minority one!
There's a guy named Alan Weiss[1], who is widely regarded as an expert (maybe the expert) on consulting. He has written several very popular books, including Million Dollar Consulting[2] and The Consulting Bible[3]. You may find his work useful. However, note that he would probably not classify what you're talking about (if I understand correctly) as "consulting" at all.

His take is that consultant is someone who shares their knowledge of process and works strategically with the client's decision makers... not someone who is knee deep in doing the work of implementing a project. If you're talking about writing PHP code, you may be more setting yourself up as a one man staffing agency, not as a consultant. I'd suggest reading Weiss, think hard about what you really want to do, and go from there.

[1]: http://www.summitconsulting.com/about-alan/

[2]: http://www.amazon.com/Million-Dollar-Consulting-Alan-Weiss/d...

[3]: http://www.amazon.com/Consulting-Bible-Everything-Seven-Figu...
The alternative is to stop building so many dependencies between your models so you don't need a tool like factory_girl at all! No fixtures, no factories, make only and exactly what you need for each test. If that test setup is getting untenable, that's test pain! Yay! Now refactor your code and fix the pain properly by reducing coupling.

The problem with factory_girl is that it lets you hide this pain instead of fix it, letting you get on with building massively coupled systems that turn into maintenance nightmares.

As a side note your unit tests should never hit the database or any external service. Your unit test suite should finish in at most a few seconds. If it's slower than that you have problems.
Read this http://www.uie.com/articles/three_hund_million_button/

The company was Best Buy. Look at the stats which show that requiring registration essentially never helps. About the only time it would is for (very?) frequent visitors.

You don't need "security" for orders other than making order ids non-guessable. For customer service people can give their order id and other details if necessary (eg zip code, name).
There is an interesting question. Does the advice "read the masters" also applies to teaching?

My teacher at university pointed me to Moore's method named by great american mathematician Robert Lee Moore. Moore selected students without previous knowledge of the subject and let them "invent" the subject - definition, theorems, proofs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lee_Moore#Unusual_teache...

So great teachers do not "teach masters" but rather teach to "think like masters". If you know how to think, "reading the master" feels more like a dialogue.
Please don't work for free. Offer an awesome discount or accept something instead of money (a computer, a telephone, anything), but don't offer your services for free. Establish, from the very beginning, that your services are valuable.
I completely agree. There's one problem though. Not that many African people there own computers, or even mobile phones. But next year they should start getting pretty usable $50 Android smartphones with the new low-power Cortex A7 and higher-performance versions of Android like JellyBean and later. I here there already is one around $800 that is pretty popular there. So the phones are coming.
I don't have a C2D processor to test this with, but does this work on all browsers or some subset of the popular ones?
Start-up Q&A community enables members put up rewards for a good answer
It would be interesting to integrate with OCR on a deep level, preserving tile correspondence within the image to achieve coherent recognition.

Most real-world OCR, though, deals with single-scale fonts, and this reconstruction technique may have limited applicability.
I'd assume this is correct. Given that most startups end up launching with something, wouldn't it make sense that those that fail do so for reasons outside of their ability to build a product?
> Really I think there is a place for both.

There is, but the sense is that things have shifted out of proportion.
We're working on something like that with Traction Book - http://tractionbook.com/. Would love your feedback!
How about linking to the original work instead of this ripoff blogspam?

http://socialevolutionforum.com/2012/07/10/cultural-evolutio...
True, but what happens once the coal is a pile? Unless said pile is being turned into a giant bonfire it will need further transportation.

This means big machines and their operators. It means trucks, trains, barges, and yet more drivers.

Gas needs storage tanks and pipelines. Ignoring maintenance the entire chain from well head to plant can be automated. A trans-continental coal conveyor belt would look nice on a popular mechanic's cover page but would never compare to what already exists for natural gas.

Granted natural gas' infrastructure is capital intensive. Yet in exchange for this capital you get a transportation network that functions like a classic graph flow problem.
It doesn't add any information to a human eye, but may be very useful preprocessing for algorithms that do not know about the quasi-fractal structure of natural images, and that's most of CV.
CARA MENAMPILKAN FOTO PADA HASIL PENCARIAN GOOGLE
CARA MENAMPILKAN FOTO PADA HASIL PENCARIAN GOOGLE - CARA MENAMPILKAN FOTO di GOOGLE Search Engine Index atau Lebih tepatnya cara menambahkan Gambar Gplus Blog kita pada google
Flying drones getting smaller, smarter, cheaper, and scarier
This page is clearly blog spam. How did it land up on HN?
With V8[0] and Nitro[1] having gone mainstream, it has never been more easier for these kinds of exploits to exist on the Web.

[0] https://developers.google.com/v8/design#mach_code

[1] http://www.webkit.org/blog/214/introducing-squirrelfish-extr...
結婚相談所青山口コミランキング
The standard lisp approach is to define your API first, and write code the meets the API. You define your API in a manner that makes the solution to the problem you're trying to solve obvious. So behind this API, you can change your data representation however you please -- just don't break the API.

As for your specific question, which representation of a book is the simplest solution? That's the one you should be using. Hickey's talk on simplicity really does a good job of explaining this point.
Pantangan makanan penderita penyakit paru paru
pantangan makanan penderita penyakit kanker paru paru sebuah informasi cara menghindari dari penyakit kanker paru paru dan jangan lupa mengkonsumsi obat herbal xamthone plus agar terhindar dari segala macam penyakit
Thanks for the link. I'm now in the process of choosing the direction of my postgraduate studies, and these things quasifractal-related seem rather interesting.
Yes, running Django in pypy gives you enormous speed boosts (I've seen it myself), but that's not what I was talking about.

I was referring to the benchmarks in which they measured Python code in pypy running against pure C code (see some examples below). While I'm not familiar with the benchmarks you're referring to, I doubt anybody implemented all (or even parts) of Django, genshi or html5lib in C.

http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2011/02/pypy-faster-than-c-on-c...
http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2011/08/pypy-is-faster-than-c-a...
He is the father of Erlang, so he did Just use your favorite methodology to get the job done. already.

Why do they have to bad mouth it? Advertising, of the hey come check out my oil, it is so much better than your regular oil verity.
Would an API be defined as "A set of functions that define the available operations common to that set?" If so, would those functions then delegate to progressively more concrete functions that work against data structures to perform their duties? I suppose it's obvious where I'm going here. I don't see how this is any different from just saying the word "Object."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to come off too sarcastic here. I'm actually quite interested in challenging the OO norm that is obviously too easily accepted right now.
If I have a Core 2 Duo, should I be concerned?
Two points about the Little Ice Age:

1) There is no consensus as to whether it was global or just hemispheric and

2) At least in Europe, it was well underway by the 1200's, so the timing with that theory is off.
I'm not smart, can someone give me a rundown of what's going on here?
How is being a consultant different than being a freelance developer? Is it just nominal?
PoC did not work on a Core2Duo L7100
As I understand, the complexity is not much worse than O(A * K), where A is upscaled image area and K is approximate KNN lookup time in a dataset of all tiles for all scales.

The question is, how fast is KNN on such high-dimensional data.