skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
theres an order of magnitudes between 100k and 10M. Plus; 17 years ago 100K was a lot yes. 17 YEARS ago :p
Maybe in 50 years 10M will be okay but the point is moot.

As for time, I know in many companies people "work" many hours which consist of non-work chatter, coffee, etc. I'm talking of actual real work time. You can work 2H and sit 8H, then I'd say 2H work is not enough as the actual work discussions take more than that. Of course some barely even work 1H per week. But they don't get anything done, so its not that they're efficient. It's that they don't work.
I wonder how much building their nuclear weapons cost.
You should (primarily) think like an investor. You are investing your time after all. For example, look at the questions that YC asks during interviews.

And then you have to think a lot more about the team/culture fit since you will spend way more time with the team than any investor.
If Valve discovers that you can get more performance in general out of a Linux rig, my guess is that it won't take long before the entire hardcore gaming community runs Linux.

The entire hardcore gaming community is not going to switch to Linux on the desktop. The hardcore gaming community plays consoles. PCs long ago lost that battle.

Any performance differences between Linux and Windows would be due to drivers, and 3D card manufacturers will improve them. There's nothing inherent to Linux that magically makes it faster at 3D graphics.

Not to mention the fact that Valve's tests have not been reproduced. I suspect this is a political move on Valve's part. They want to stick it to Microsoft because of the Windows store competing with Steam.
And just as a follow up, it's kind of sad because it looks like you put a lot of work in this.

But as someone who writes nothing but Objective-C (well, some C++ too) all day, every day, for a living. I would never ever use this. Mostly because it's obvious that you don't get objective-c and are trying to shoe horn some weird javascript idioms into a place where it doesn't belong.

I hate seeing wasted effort. I understand underscore provides nice functionality in javascript land and would appreciate someone taking the time to bringing similar functionality to objective-c in a way that fits and is natural with it's surrounding code.

As this is, no.
First of all, what do you think you're arguing against? The argument isn't that SpaceX can't do better than existing designs. It isn't that they aren't trying. It isn't that they aren't going around this the right way. It is simply that we do not have data right now to have any real idea how well they actually will do.

It seems we were using a different vocabulary and/or arguing along orthogonal axes. My initial impression of your and ballooney's comments was one of excessive pessimism, presumably to temper what you perceived as excessive optimism.

I'm just an interested layman trying to keep people from giving up on the idea of eventually sending people to Mars, because darn it, I really want to go ;), and I'm willing to accept "extensively simulated and unit tested with a few successful integration/flight tests" as good enough for me.
They are actually trying to shave off milli and nano seconds in their trades being registered compared to the competition, right?
I'd be perfectly happy - so long as you disclosed it up front - for ou to automatically add your own affiliate code to links like that where you can (perhaps with special handling for people who post links with their own affiliate tracking already). If you managed "the community" right, you MIT even be able to start a culture of recommending vendors for which the site has affiliate deals - so users might selectively choose to recommend Sparkfun or Adafruit (where you've got affiliate relationships) over deal extreme or eBay (where you don't)
I found the #1 reason to be incredibly ironic:

> The information model is complicated – and you need to know all of it. As a point of reference, consider Subversion: you have files, a working directory, a repository, versions, branches, and tags. That’s pretty much everything you need to know.

SVN's model is both simpler than stated here, but also much more complex to reason about. First of all, svn doesn't have branches or tags, it just has directories with cheap copy—tags and branches are just directories. The repository itself is also watered down pretty severely because the actual project directory is just nested in there somewhere with no formal locus. This idea of "everything is a directory" sounds simple, but in practice it's a architectural dead-end. The most obvious implication is that merging in svn will always be fraught with peril because a branch isn't a first-class citizen.

I used svn (and cvs before it) for much longer than git, and yet I never felt I had any clue what svn was doing under the hood, and the experiences I had over time instilled a fear of attempting to stray off the well-worn path of the most basic commands.

Although the learning curve was steep, and the CLI quite confusing, the git information model is actually much easier to grok because the primitives make more sense. After 6 months using git, I had a firmer grasp of the internals than I did after 10 years of cvs and svn. The idiosyncrasies of the UI don't really bother me because they are just superficial flaws that are easily memorized or looked up. The fact that I have the confidence to slice and dice commits to any history I can envision, with or without a network connection and remote repo, and do so with the reasonable confidence that I will never lose anything (reflog) make git the best VCS I can imagine.
> It's dangerous. What if you had pressed Cmd + S before you did Save As

Then I press Cmd-Z a few times and save again. It's really not so bad. And in this supposed glorious brave new world of auto-versioning, the old version is still available right? So even if I totally forgot it still wasn't "dangerous", at least any more than the new behavior is so.
Nothing against learning new things, but why defend user interfaces or workflows that are needlessly complex or unintuitive? DCVS is certainly a significant advance over centralized VCS, but that doesn't mean Git couldn't be made significantly more accessible. More readable documentation alone would have made learning git a great deal easier for me.
I'm pretty sure we already have this. This looks like its already been done by Squarespace.
That is not the case, at least not with TextEdit ... when you choose Duplicate you get two files with the same contents.

You can then save the duplicate as you wish, and revert the old one back to when it was opened using File -> Revert -> Last Open.
Rebasing isn't really destructive. Try it: open `gitk --all`, do a rebase -i and squash all the commits together, then switch back to gitk and refresh. You'll see all the old commits still in the database, but the HEAD and master branches point at the new commits. Totally not destructive, but it does take a bit of knowledge to undo the change.

Git maintains what's called a "reflog" to help with this. It's a record of every place that every ref has ever pointed in your repository. Try it: `git reflog master`. You can even see when you did pulls, and what they merged in.

The only truly destructive thing you can do to your git database is `git gc`.
Hit File -> Duplicate ... save the new copy as a different file name, in the original File -> Revert -> Last Opened. Now your Duplicate contains all of the new stuff, and your old file contains all of the old stuff.

Duplicate and Revert Original should be an option, unfortunately it isn't.
I disagree with the very first thing you said. git has far more concepts that it just throws out at you than svn. I don't think it's fair to say they've equivalent. Even as a fairly long-time user who is quite comfortable with git, it is sometimes overwhelming. With svn, I basically had to know what a revision was, and maybe a branch, and that's about it. To use git effectively, I have to know about commits (and their graph-y nature), remotes, the concepts of pushing and pulling, rebasing vs merging, and if I'm reading the documentation, I am rapidly going to begin running into concepts like "refs". Of course the rabbit hole keeps going deeper, but a lot of that stuff you won't really need to know.

Personally I know what all these things are, and again I'm quite comfortable with them at this point, but there was absolutely a learning curve, and I'm reminded of it every time I start explaining something to a more novice coworker.

Also, for the record I like git a lot. But it's not immune from criticism.
It would only take a week to properly learn git. Most people spend a lot more time to learn a programming language or an operating system.

I consider git to be almost like a programming language.

The information model is not complex, it's actually quite simple if you really understand it.

* blob: roughly a file (without a name)

* tree: roughly a dir (maps names to blobs and trees)

* commit: tree + parent commit(s) + meta data (author, commit msg, etc).

If you grok this core data model, a lot of things will make much more sense.

http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Internals-Git-Objects

I don't know if anyone shares my experience, but I actually found svn rather mysterious and difficult to understand. I never actually saw the point to it at all, so I never bothered using it (unless it was mandated by some authority).

It's only when I understood git that I really understood what version control is supposed to be about.

So, I think people who try to "dumb it down" by giving tutorials that ignore the data model and focus only on the usage are not doing anyone a favor.

Git should be treated like a new programming language or a new operating system. Spend a few days reading (or watching youtube videos) about how it works and why it was designed this way.

Yes, you really have to understand how it works. But it's precisely the fact that you can do so, that make git the best version control system out there in my opinion.
Aren't you more likely to cut yourself with a dull knife though?</strained-analogy>
Flamer Analysis: Framework Reconstruction
I think VCs prefer not to fund couples for the same reason they prefer not to fund single founders - it's a question of control. With two or more co-founders, nobody has a controlling stake, and VCs can play one cofounder against the other, if needed, and thus push through their agenda. With a single founder, or a couple, they lose that dynamics.
Often I don't know that I'm going to want to save as a new version until half way through. I some times open the original intending to make minor, non-destructive, changes, then end up making bigger changes and think "hmm, I'd better save as a different file in case I need the old one later".

I think to advance to the world of auto-save, one also needs to much more visibly advance to the world of file versioning where it's really clear to the user whether their changes are ultimately destructive or not.
Here are a handful off the top of my head:

- Are you profitable? If so, for how long?
- How long until you need another round of funding?
- Are you planning on hiring more staff? If so, for what positions?
- How do you gauge promotions/raises?
- Who will my coworkers be?
- What is the office setup like?
- What hours will I be working?
- How much time is spent on maintenance vs. new development?
- Is your code unit tested, and do you have version control?
- Who do I report to?
- Is there a vision for where the company will be in # years?
- Ignoring equity, is my compensation fair?
- How fast is the company growing? What are some recent milestones?
- Is the office located in a place that's easily accessible?
- What will I be working on after my first month here?
- How often do you have meetings?
- How do you manage deadlines?
- How long have you (the interviewer) been at the company?
- What attracted you (the interviewer) to the company?
- Why did you choose the current technology stack you're using?
- Are you having any issues with stack?
- How much of the code is understood by >1 person?

Is this the sort of list you're looking for?
Ask HN: Review this startup idea
This idea popped in my head during work today. I was hoping HN would a) tell me if this is viable and b) let me know if anyone is doing this right now.

I'm a business student going into my senior year of my undergrad degree. I'll be moving to Silicon Valley next year and after having internships all year for startups in NY I'd like to take a swing at things myself. I don't have a tech co-founder so I've been focusing on ideas that would not be insanely expensive to outsource, like the following idea.

I was thinking how my friends have a pretty difficult time shopping for their girl friends for anniversaries and special holidays like Christmas. I also observed how my own girl friend gets really excited over random gifts I give her during circumstances when I'm not in trouble or when it's not a special occasion. Yet guys don't really remember how little things can make their partners that much happier.

Enter a new service. A paid, monthly subscription service where men signup and answer a questionnaire regarding their girlfriends/wives favorite things and tastes. A customer would receive one gift a month matching the inputted data. If he didn't like it he could send it back and not be charged for that month. The gift could even come wrapped for an additional fee. The mailing would include a non-descriptive return address so if their wife/girlfriend found the box it would just look like he purchased something off of Amazon or another retailer.

During the beta phase I'd probably purchase from retailers based on the inputted preferences. And then eventually workout deals with wholesalers when I can purchase on a mass scale.

The key problem this startup would be solving is men's difficulty for shopping for their partners. It would allow men to avoid spending time shopping for random, "just because" gifts. And while they would still shop for their own personal Christmas/anniversary gifts, this service would provide an additional gift for these occasions.

What do you think?
I don't understand. Strictness analysis and automatic un-boxing are "free" optimizations and are directly related to laziness. So you can't talk about one without the other.
The problem is trying to communicate this to management. I was told that standups are non-optional.
An interesting thought experiment! Sort of an outlook shared by concepts such as the not-entirely-true cliche of whatever doesn't kill them makes them stronger. Maybe also the "eternal recurrence" of the ebb and flow of control and anarchy. I think that any prohibition though will always create a black market, so, in converse, a thought could be that to really take the wind out of a pirate's sail would be to allow completely free streaming and copying of everything. After all, isn't it a battle for attention? (The profit would be then in seeing it at the million dollar screen and sound system, etc... no pirated copy could compete because we all don't have such insane setups, and perhaps 3D is in the neighborhood of this)
I disagree that linux is much better than OSX in this regard. Homebrew is really amazing, and while it can't help you configure an entire system, it is pretty compelling.

It does two things very well that ubuntu's apt-get doesn't:

1) consistently has the latest versions of your software
2) handles programming languages very well (that is to say, it makes you use rvm, pip, cpan, etc, instead of packaging _any_ libraries).

Those are not ideal for everybody or every system, but it's a damn fine experience for developers' machines.
Eugene Kaspersky: What Wired Is Not Telling You
Review HN "Who Is Hiring?" and see what resonates with you:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4323597

If the question more is "What startup might be successful?", team is important, fundraising helps a lot and your instincts are frequently correct.
> Keep big backups locally.

housefires.
> Number 1-5 are mostly "I don't want to learn new things"

Git has a lot of wonderful properties, but it has horrible usability. Things like rebasing, remote branch tracking and push/pull, merge conflict resolution, stash management, and reverts are straightforward concepts! Once you grasp the concept of distributed VCS, those things should be a joy to use. But the standard Git CLI and most interfaces to it basically just drop everything on the floor and tell you to sort out the mess yourself as soon as something non-trivial happens.

This learning curve has no reason to be so steep. There need to be clearer explanations, better discoverability, and better interactive modes for all of the things I listed, and more. Telling people to RTFM just misses the point.

This is not to say that the OP makes a particularly coherent point. Just that the overall sentiment has merit.
I thought this was common knowledge.

It's actually Chrome's main selling point as far as I'm concerned.
In my opinion you should choose the one you most like, the one where you really believe in the idea.

The most important point in an startup is the team, the idea can be marvelous but without the perfect team... it's just shit
From the perspective of wanting to get paid for your work, you will want to consider the same things that investors do because the company won't be able to pay you if they run out of money. Do they have a product that people will pay money for? That's the key question.

Another is: Will they actually pay you. or does the contract they give you talk about "binding arbitration"? That's a huge red flag of a failing company looking for a way to cheat its employees and is doubly bad for a woman or minority jobseeker since she would not be able to sue them for sexual harassment or racist promotion practices. If you care about the company obeying the law on any matter affecting you, you will want to retain your right to sue them in a court of law.

An employee stock plan might be seen as another sign of poor financial status since companies in poor shape will look to their employees as a last-ditch funding source. However, this conclusion is more coincidental than automatic. Many healthy startups have an employee stock plan and getting into one early can make you rich if the company strikes it big.

You will want to be paid by the hour, rather than a salary, so they cannot work you more than 40 hours a week without paying you overtime.

As for the company culture, you may be able to get a sense of it by simply keeping your eyes open. Is there a dress code or are people in T-shirts? Is everything neat and tidy or do people have toys at their desks? These are things you can see for yourself. As for the core principles, you can simply ask.

You will also want to consider whether you will be happy and productive in the position, and if you can see yourself making a positive contribution to the company and its customers.
You can do standup meetings in lots of different ways. Our standups are maybe 5min max for a team of 6 and they're very worth it.
i had to work on a big corp job once they were using VSS5 in 2007. made me appreciate even CVS.

if you want to have a really simple way of working with git get the github for mac client. at the same time insanely inflexible.

but hey you know what in theory vss5 is quite "simple" as well. i mean how complex can a program be where distributed work is essentially happening by locking files.

I had hoped op would've said something interesting that might've led into 3rd generation DVCS, but this is definitely far from.
> An entirely new history? Doesn't that kind of suck? It would be preferable to have the copy also retain history prior to duplication.

Then the application and the file format should probably have a way of storing older texts by itself, much like Microsoft Word. Although you do lose the data leakage protection. If I make a Duplicate of an image or file I generally want that as my starting point and not have the entire version history copied as well.

> It also means it is non-portable, and you can lose this history when backing things up (unless you only use Time Machine for backups presumably).

Yes, it is non-portable. For those apps where that is an issue there is always the choice of baking it into the file format itself.

As for backing it up, you are able to back-up /.DocumentRevisions-V100/ along with everything else you back-up. This is where auto-save saves the files, and its various versions.

> I'll agree with this. Maybe the middle ground is something similar to OS X's metadata dot-files (i.e. ._.filename).

No, please for the love of all that is holy please do not drop more ._.crap in my directory trees. Some of us still live and breath command line or connect to various non-Mac OS X machines and seeing those files everywhere is extremely annoying.

As for better user education on Versions, I'll agree with that one hundred percent. The functionality is provided free of charge to developers using NSDocument (from reading other peoples threads on this HN thread) and thus does require some help from the program, if they read/write using POSIX they won't get free support for it.
So ... after Duplicate hit Cmd + Z a couple of times and fix the issue. You just solved the problem yourself.
One additional thing you can do is add a "command=..." parameter to your ssh authorized_keys file to limit what can be done with that key. For example, you can set it to run a script which only allows new files to be added to the backup, but not deleted.
Think hard about your appetite for risk. As companies scale up the work and character and risk profile changes, roughly with each order of magnitude of employees. The same company a year and 10 people later may suit you better.
What about a "Facebook Pro" account, that adds extra features (no ads?) on top of the standard basic free account?
There are certainly lots of ways to slice and dice the data. Download my research data and add to it!
The exchanges are correlated so if you're fast enough you may be able to execute on arbitrage, I would assume.
> I rebutted with a question: do you want a commit every time you type a character in your text editor?

I don't get it. I want a commit every time I say I want a commit, not upon arbitrary criteria the software decides for me. And I want that commit to be irrevocably and permanently immutable, because I said I wanted it and because it might be relevant later. What am I missing?
How can I take use of Hacker News？
Hey hackers,
I am not a serious programmer but a designer using Codes sometime.I am interested in Hacker without time I can take to indulge.
How can I use Hacker directly and efficiently to reach home everyday?
Thack you in advance!
Issue #10.

alias commit='git add && git commit && git push'
Not if you have turned on screen lock and encryption.