skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
United business between Edinburgh and Newark means seats that fold down into beds and was entirely worth the US$480 I paid to upgrade my flight home last month.

They also have a monopoly on direct flights to the US from Edinburgh, which is another reason someone might end up on a United flight.
Totally disagree:

"you need to do what's right for you; not me, not the parent, not the world"

Be a selfish self-centered piece of shit for the money...

That is what you just stated.

Sorry - but you MUST have some better vision of the world than "do whats right for your own wallet"

If you don't. in the long term - you are a part (albeit potentially very small) of the reason civilization fails.

I am 1000% against what daeken posted.
> The fundamental promise of any version control system is this: “Once you put your precious source code in here, it’s safe. You can make any changes you like, and you can always get it back. Git breaks this promise”.

Right there. I don't know who made this promise, but it's not what Git is supposed to preserve. Git is distributable is it not?
What I'm confused by is the way this article talks about lower-latency intercity links as valuable for HFT activities. Surely if you're an NY fund you just buy servers in Chicago or wherever. Can anyone explain why these low latency links could be valuable? (Over and above general infrastructure?)
You can solve the majority of such issues by disabling pushes to a remote repository. Assuming all developers collaborate through a central repository, disabling force push there should avoid commits being lost.

In practice however, I've found a force push can be useful. For example, we once had a dev push code to our deployment branch which wasn't in fact ready for production. We could have just reverted all the commits which were added, but this would be messy and make merging again later painful. Instead, just `git reset --hard` to before the merge and force push.

If you understand the implications of rebase and force push, you shouldn't have to worry about losing data.
That seems to be what he's arguing, actually; that you can get hardware speedups if you carefully target very specific things that a parsimonious addition of hardware features can enable.
I am a farmer and I think it is fine. Some of the interfaces I have seen for farm-related software are hilariously bad. The big farms already log all this information (and more) automatically, so it seems that the target market is really smaller hobby farmers where a "fun" interface probably isn't so bad anyway.
Agreed, I hadn't seen this library before.
Have you seen https://github.com/nvie/gitflow/ ?

It's a workflow level abstraction over git operations.
I've been using git for several years on multiple projects with teams of various sizes (admittedly none larger than 10, though I avoid projects of that size for a multitude of reasons) and have loved it a lot. Especially compared to the merge headaches of svn. Or cvs. And mercurial just gets in my way more often than not. git stash I awesome
I agree with almost all of it except for one thing: gotos have pretty much one legitimate use, as C's equiv to finally {} as part of a try {} block, ie, that specific form of cleanup after error management. NASA implies they have no legitimate use.

longjmp banning is also slightly questionable (although I can see why because it is very easy to do wrong). I use it inside of my code as part of an STM implementation (so begin_tx() setjmps[1], abort_tx() longjmps; its faster than manually unwinding with if(tx error) { return; } spam in deep call stacks.)

Using longjmp for this makes writing code much easier (no needing to error check every single tx function call), so less chance for bugs to slip in.

1: The only ugly part of that is begin_tx() is a function macro, which I prefer never to use in code that is executed; I tolerate it in "fancy template-like generator" setups, though.
Rewriting history is probably the best part about git. Yes, it can be dangerous if you're not careful but I've found a clean history is very important.

I regularly use the history as a view of what others on the team have been up to and to find when bugs were introduced. If many people are developing on the same branch, rebasing makes the history so much easier to read than having to parse merge commits and trying to mentally reconstruct the state of the individual developer's code base before the merge.
What if the canard of online piracy is really cynically used as a way to push for tighter copyright controls, not to cut down on piracy, but rather just as an end to itself?

In many fairs, whac-a-mole prints out tickets and if you get enough you redeem for a prize. Here the prize is ever greater degrees of control and ever eroding protections for fair use. Copyright terms forever minus a day with no fair use possible? Maybe that's the real prize they are going after.
Sounds like someone's just discovered how different DVCS are to centralized VCS.

Still, tools like Tower, Smartgit and Github for Windows, especially Tower, make interface to Git less painful.

With time, the interfaces to Git workflows can only improve, whereas what can you do with SVN?

That said, he may have a point about (branch &) merge message management in Git. Perhaps this can be improved closer to git with git extensions, e.g. implementing some sort of ranking and filtration system. Related to that is users should not really have to change the structure of the VCS itself just to filter messages.
He also just uses a shared repository in subversion to do this which he could have easily have done in git with the same amount of effort (of course with all the problems with comes with the svn way).
My bank caps at 12 chars -- silently. I couldn't login until i only typed the first 12 chars.
Let me translate:

3 things I hate about (the culture surrounding) git(hub):

1,3,4,5 - I'm expected to understand the information model.

2 - The CLI is inconsistent.

6,7,8,9,10 - I'm expected to work harder so that life is easier for the maintainer.
fwiw, I do like seeing a variety of libraries - they occasionally come to the same kind behavior through different techniques. It's a fun way to get a deeper knowledge of the language.
One thing that stood out for me was the vehement "no" to goto. That's a little too harsh, one thinks?
"If the power of Git is sophisticated branching and merging, then its weakness is the complexity of simple tasks."

The power of Git is its distributed nature and the fact that you can maintain local commits. When you have a single remote repository that everyone commits to, then sure, it's really easy to do things (have fun maintaining the ACL and merging any changes contributed by anyone outside the committer list via patch). If you think "it's really easy to branch" is the primary reason to use Git, you're using it wrong.
Knight has different programs running. It was handling >10% of all NYSE, so it must have been running a lot of servers. When the berserk algorithm wanted to buy or sell a stock where Knight was the only "market-maker", another Knight server would usually intercept the order after it had been posted on the exchange. Here's one way it might have happened: http://www.nanex.net/aqck2/3525.html
> I prefer USEABLE history than trashy commits.

Yeah the other day I got into an extended debate about rebasing with another dev who just didn't get this. He maintained that it should not be possible to modify history because it all may be relevant later. I rebutted with a question: do you want a commit every time you type a character in your text editor? Version control is just another tool for code craftsmanship. You should strive to make your commits as atomic and well-described as humanly possible. git-add -i and git-rebase -i are tools that allow you to approach a more perfect history.
And that is exactly how all great companies start (by flying under the radar until it is too late for the incumbents).
"The other big issue highlighted by the Honan case is that it is way too easy for bad guys to wipe your Apple devices. In retrospect, it really seems like there should be more between having your laptop, phone, and tablet wiped than a single password. At the very least, a security question, but ideally something like a credit card number (compared against a stored hash), confirmation SMS to a pre-registered backup phone (spouse's phone, friend's phone, relative's phone, etc) or a confirmation robo-call to a work phone number."

That depends a lot on what kind of threats you're trying to protect yourself against. I suspect there's a lot of people for whom the correct response to a misplaced phone/laptop is "remote wipe immediately - if it turns up in the back seat of my car I'll just restore from backup - if was left in a plane/taxi/competitors-office/deacon I want everything o. It wiped _right now_!"

I bet if pg lost a laptop with emails/documents about current and prospective YC deals or exits, he'd rather not have to wait till a office hours robo-call gave him a remote-wipe-PIN.

It didn't work out for @mat, but I think "good backups and easy remote wipe" is a better default than "making remote wipe harder just in case your backups don't exist."
Something that might interest you re: Australian agriculture -

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2012/s3511968.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2012/s3501665.htm

there's been keen interest in computers and software in agriculture for a good 30 odd years that I'm aware of, the first thought that crosses my mind when reading about your software is it's apparent dependence on the internet and regular cell towers.

I'm nor sure how widespread good Internet is across the US farming areas, in Australia nothing is taken for granted in most farming regions - telephone, power, cell phone coverage, gas supplies, etc are all more or less present in many places but all are subject to accidental cut out from a few hours, to a few days, to sometimes a few weeks.

There's always been a strong interest in solutions that continue to function when connections to the rest of the world are lost for a bit.
If Steve were here, he'd say "Just Save Your Files Differently."
EU laws give you some protection. Still, this is why I don’t use it for backups myself. Their technology is quite good though, it uses similar snapshot based model that Tarsnap does and has very small footprint, considering. Hopefully they will be able opensource it at some point.
You don't need a school to learn the basics of selling. You already have the knowledge, what you need to expand on is your confidence and structure. Structure is easy. You are a hacker, thus design comes to you naturally. In sales, design applies to the steps needed to find and move prospects from one point to another. Something like: prospect sees your first ad after searching for a product like yours, prospect visits site, subscribes to mailing list in exchange for free report, receives three different emails that try and clos the sale, if nothing is sold then receives a link with a video brochure, etc., until the sale is closed. It is just hacking, and I even code my own marketing campaigns in code. You should try it out.

Now, confidence. That you only get by selling something every day. No matter what the outcome, you go out and sell.
Awesome stuff! Been wanting this for a while.
In the comments on the blog, Jared added the following:

"If you can still use the Chrome UI during the slowdown, there is a built in Task Manager, under the Tools menu, that shows you all of the above stats and the page title."
> Patents were never intended to grant monopolies over a given problem.

Well I didn't say that they were... but I'm not sure I agree with your statement anyway. Do you have any evidence that that isn't what they were intended for?
Imagine a choice among 5 or so options to be made. Choose the "wrong" one and you get nothing. Any of the other 4 and you get at least a few million. But, choose the "right" one and you get $1Bn. There's a guy who already knows which is the "right" one. How much are you willing to pay him for the 10 seconds of work it would take him to tell you which it is?

That's the idea behind high executive compensation. I agree, it very rarely works out quite that way IRL, but lots of people are quite attached to this fantasy.
I have to admit, it confuses the heck out of me. I am always in fear of destroying code because the documentation part is spot-on. I read and reread, and still feel like I am working on a best guess interpretation.
You're making a simple mistake: valuing the worth of something by its impact. But that's not how worth is determined; you need both supply and demand. If providing something has high impact, but that something is very common, then it has low worth, irrespective of how high impact it is. People would die without oxygen and water, but neither of these things are expensive.

The market for CEO compensation is clearly not very efficient. It's a big risk to put someone into the job to see how they do, so there isn't a lot of experimentation; few people get to build up experience. So the supply is very restricted, and this will inflate the price of labour quite a bit. There's not a lot of hard science between how applicable experience in one company or type of company is transferable to another, so even CVs can't be relied upon. And performance and actual value created may take some time to show up; there's a lot of things that a CEO could do that seem to create short-term value at long-term expense.

The biggest reason CEO compensation is so high is because they are in a pyramid peak position where they can skim off a small percentage of a lot of people's productivity and claim it as their own. In effect, it doesn't "cost" a lot for a large corporation to pay its executives a lot of money, compared to all the other costs.

I wonder if we'll ever have virtual economies / simulators developed enough to be able to learn / train / evaluate prospective company leaders in the future.
In todays AMD and Intel Architectures, except the leaves(ie last level PTE's) the rest of the nodes are also cached in the processor, so when a TLB miss occurs if there is contiguity in your access pattern you will take hits in the upper level of page table accesses ie PML4, PDP...
Amazing After Effects CS6 Tutorials to Inspire
A couple thoughts.

First, I am a huge proponent of couple-founded businesses. I think the economic entanglements help stabilize the couple, minimizing chances of a messy divorce. Additionally if you have couples which share the inspiration of the business, that's a powerful thing. I think that the fact that you don't have a hard line between work and home life is a big asset that goes the other way.

I am remembering the story on Dragon and the acquisition gone bad some time ago on HN and remembering that was another couple-founded company.
There are different definitions of "covered" too. I have a bus stop 2 minutes from my home, and next to my work. So I would be considered "covered", right? Only thing it's 20 minute drive and 2 hour bus ride with 2 changes and some of the routes don't operate the whole day, as you pointed out. So if I have choice of spending 4 hours of my life per day in buses and having next to zero mobility (if I need to go somewhere else before or after work I'm out of luck, that may make 2 hours into 3 or 4 hours commute) - against just hopping into a car and be done in 20 minutes, no way I will even consider public transport as an option. It may be fine for a big highly urbanized city (I've always preferred public transport when going to San Francisco, for example) but for something like the rest of Silicon Valley it's not even funny how bad it is.
My issue with git is the defaults. Generally the defaults and behaviour are geared towards large projects. It is absolutely correct in that sense - you don't want hundreds or thousands of contributors messing things up. An additional simple example is that push doesn't send tags.

But generally you want the opposite defaults for small projects/number of users. For example you do want tags pushed by default so every sees them. This places a large learning curve on the small scale projects and users. Remember that most users will be perpetual intermediates.

My analogy is that git is like a sharp knife. In the hands of an expert it can produce art, but in the hands of others we get blood. Some of the responses here are marvelling at the sharpness and what can be done with it, but are missing the point that others end up bloody!
You could try to turn on transparent hugepages:

echo always >/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/defrag

echo always >/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled

For more details see:
http://lwn.net/Articles/423584/
consulting work: plain vanilla implementation (installation), special plug-ins, support, etc.
How does RedHat make money?
We're talking 280 vs 315 FPS (or something like that)

The difference is closer to 10 frames a second: 303.4 vs 315.

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

but that's still better.

True.
My understanding is that Metro tends to sandbox an apps data in a way analogous to that of a mobile OS. I believe the intent is to prevent one Metro app from overwriting another apps data or corrupting the file system.
If they raise gas tax, people will notice immediately and scream. If they just add some new obscure tax they have reasonable chance people won't notice how much it is until that April 15th time, and it will be too late then. Or at least they think so.
Ask HN: What are the drastic changes in Mountain Lion?
My dad always told me that going into business with someone was like getting married. You are talking about deep levels of commitment required to make a business successful, and when things go badly, they can go horribly wrong. When I look at what he's going through when his business partners decided to force him into retirement, I think there is no question that this is right.

So if the co-founder relationship is best thought of as a marriage without the sex, why would a founding team that's actually married be at a disadvantage?
What an abortion. Seriously just stop.

Every time I see someone misuse properties like this on Objective-C, I want to hire them to work at my company just so I can fire them. And then I would call them a few days later and apologize for being so rash and convince them to come back and work for me just so I could fire them again once they've settled into their desk.

Nobody wants your shitty javascript syntax mixed in with Objective-C. Nobody but you anyways. This isn't smart, regardless of whatever functionality it provides. You've done all this work to create this awkward, unclear, confusing, cryptic layer of shit that makes no sense when read. If I have to read documentation to understand what is going on, you've failed. This is full of fail.

WTF is A? N? N.I what the fuck is that?

underscorem is better for sure, but it still abuses property syntax in a way that I would reject on any project I saw its use in.

I'm always amazed at how much work people want to put into not having to write proper Objective-C. It doesn't make any sense.

So slow clap for writing some useless crap. Sorry for the vitriol, but this shit is just dumb.
Number 1-5 are mostly "I don't want to learn new things", so I'll ignore them. Do you remember when you learned source control for the first time? I don't, it was too long ago. Just like you have to learn SVN if you've never used source control before, you have to learn Git if you've never used distributed source control before.

* "Unsafe version control", and then gives examples using -f or +<refspec>, both of which advertise their destructive nature. Yes, you can also go in with SVN and obliterate history too, using svnadmin dump and svnadmin load. Git's reflog will have your back when you make mistakes, as long as the mistakes don't get too old.

* "Power for the maintainer, at the expense of the contributor" Yes, most people write code on one branch for a long period of time. Git does this just fine.

* "Burden of VCS maintainance pushed to contributors" First of all, nobody says that contributors have to merge. That is a decision that each project makes. Plenty of projects have the lead developers merging in everyone else's work. Second, the reason this is even an issue is because merging is such a pain in SVN that most people don't want to do it.

* "Git history is a bunch of lies" Again, this is up to the individual project. Some developers like to work on six different things at the same time, and then they go back and rewrite history so that their six changes end up as six commits. The difference with SVN, is that these same developers would simply avoid committing until they're done with all six changes. Some projects expect rebased patches, some prefer proper merges. Worse, the author says that "filtering" should solve this problem, but doesn't propose how such a filter would work.

* Complexity of simple tasks: Let's try not to artificially inflate the complexity of the Git tasks. For example, the Git examples assume no commit access, whereas the SVN examples assume direct commit access. If you don't have commit access to an SVN project, how do you do it? You either use git-svn and mail them a patch, or you use svn and mail them a patch.

A recurring complaint seems to be that "git add" is not the same as "svn add". I don't see why it would be. It's not the same as "ssh-add" or "useradd" either.
> It's basically a chicken and egg problem that needs some established company to make a big bet on Linux to initiate change.

Yes, this. That company may or may not have to take a monetary hit to do so, but I can see it happening at some point.
JavaScript Performance Rundown, 2012
I remember that. I was working in HFT at the time, so I certainly noticed when it happened.

But I decided to try an exercise. I went to google finance and graphed the S&P. From the graph (weekly data points) I can't tell when the flash crash occurred.

It's almost as if the flash "crash" was just a flash in the pan...
Yeah, that was the only way I used Instapaper
I am a little confused. The gas tax is supposed to be a use tax to pay for the roads, not discourage a behavior.
Agree for the most part.. though 20 years and the size of a toaster oven is probably more accurate.
Once you've chosen to use unique passwords everywhere (and you're insane not to these days), you're effectively committing to some form of password storage, so whether or not "hard passwords" are pointless, they're just easier. I just use 1Password to generate strong 16char passwords because it's easier/quicker than "thinking up something random enough and recording it somewhere suitable".

Sure there's the "all eggs in one basket" problem with my 1Password database, but it's got a strong (~25char) pass phrase, and even then there's a class of passwords I store only on my head. My 3 banking passwords, my pgp key pass phrase, my root passwords, and my DNS registrar passwords.

One thing I think people often overlook is that your DNS registrar access credentials trump your email's two factor auth - if I can change your MX records, nothing you've done to secure your email account matters - I'll just get everyone to send your password reset requests to a mail server under my control…
UFC ON FOX 4 - The Return Of Mike Quick Swick - Highlight Reel Fighter
Exactly right. I commit very often when I develop something, and I can have typo commits, test fix commits, really fix it now commits, etc. But nobody really wants to see that when code goes into main project branch - my fellow developers want to see one clean commit that says "fix bug #1234" or "introduce FooBar functionality" and don't care about seeing the tiny details of my process. Rewriting history works wonderful for that.