skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not sure there was a way to introduce auto-save while maintaining the "principle of least surprise". I'm astonished, myself. I figured that, thirty years from now, we'd still be losing changes to periodic crashes of unsaved documents rather than force any customer to alter a decades-old workflow.

The problem with "Duplicate and Save" is that it implies that saving is an action that you can take, rather than something which has already happened. As arrrg said, that's not true: in Lion apps, every document which has a name is always saved. There is no longer a state of "changed but not saved".

Change the label to "Duplicate and Save" and us old folks, trained for thirty years to be constantly seeking and pressing "Save" lest we lose everything, will be complaining that there's no way to "Save" without also "Duplicating". Which would not promote understanding, either.

Don't worry, if you and the OP miss the old world of unsaved documents you can always find some old-school applications that preserve the old behavior. Join us Emacs users in the land of hoary UX paradigms! ;)
That's an answer to the wrong question. I want to keep the changes I'm working on, under a new name, and keep the original untouched. Or maybe I made 5 edits to the original but the 6th edit I want in a new file (happens all the time). It just seems unnecessarily complicated. Having documents automatically save is great but it should require taking away so many other features.
Zilch, skipped 'em. I'm not saying this is the right solution for every case, especially for situations where you want something more application-like, but this wasn't a high priority for me.
It isn't just that the players weren't american, it's the sport as well. When I was in fencing school in the US, the coach had to order the tapes of the fencing bouts of the olympics, because they weren't even shown on TV in the US.
What would you say about a building maintenance team that left 3% of the burnt out/bad light bulbs around? Most of the stuff he's talking about can be monitored and caught before they become a real problem or dealt with as soon as they are discovered. (Projector bulbs have expected lifetime, network printers can tell you when they're out of paper, etc.) To me, it just sounds like they have solid monitoring and procedures in place for preventative maintenance.
Not really. This was clearly a targeted attack, whether he realizes it or not.

A security problem, not a password problem, in other words.
In derivative markets such as futures there are predefined price and volume limits (in the jargon 'limit up' and 'limit down' - ie: max up and down movements.) These limits exist primarily to prevent market manipulation or cornering a market (buying the entire supply of a commodity) but have also been triggered by trading around events such as the Japan earthquake. Doing a quick search it seems that there are plans to trial these controls on equity markets (http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/13/limit-up-lim...)

The problem here though was that while some stocks had dramatic price movements that might have triggered a limit control, more heavily traded stocks were able to absorb the additional volume and the price did not move significantly. Knight were not doing anything outside of normal bands, they were buying normal volumes of stocks close to the current market price and selling close to the current price. What they were doing was illogical in a profit sense because they were buying at a high price and selling at a lower price and thus immediately losing money. I think it would be very difficult for an exchange to trap this kind of problem.

In all the issue of determining 'normal' trading is very difficult as markets tend to be much noisier than you might expect. The majority of trading occurs near the open and closes of major markets (Hong Kong, London, New York) or data releases (eg US Unemployment) so large spikes in volume and price are a regular occurrence. In equities this is even more difficult as smaller stocks will tend to be more volatile and profit reporting season increases this volatility even further. Markets are ruled by fear and greed, and falsely triggering a limit may cause larger issues than it solves.
It's not a bug. It overwrites the file by design.

The old model was revert-by-default. You had to manually save your changes.

The new model is save-by-default. You have to manually revert your changes.

In the "File" -> "Revert To..." menu you have multiple options, such as revert to last saved document and revert to last opened document. These persist even after restarting the application.

I think the new model is far better design.
It's not that easy to see efficiency from the source code even in a low level language like C. It shouldn't really be the job of the programmer to see from the source code if stuff gets efficiently executed. Profilers are for that, and if you really wan't to know what gets executed, you can always read the generated assembly. Code should express the intention, not the implementation of the execution. That is what high level languages are for.
In that case why can jaywalkers be charged with the crime of reckless endangerment in the US without anyone killed, or hurt?

Reckless endangerment in Nevada occurs when someone allegedly "neglects any duty imposed by law in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property." So if a police officer believes that you were deliberately jaywalking in a careless way that could hurt someone else, you may face reckless endangerment charges.

If no death or substantial bodily harm results from an alleged act of reckless endangerment in Nevada, the charge will be a gross misdemeanor carrying up to $2,000 in fines and/or up to one year in jail.

http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/jaywalking.html
Nice. I like the design of your page! Is the highlight/retype effect in your demo part of the plugin?
Why I'm changing my major
The criticism of NBC is tiresome and probably inaccurate. Fact is, the vast, vast majority of US tv watchers, including on both coasts: 1) prefer to watch US athletes, 2) like the biographical segments and 3) like to watch marquee events in prime time. The vocal minority are media and tech elites (and wannabes).
Bubbles are by their nature destined to happen, tulips, tech stocks, condominiums, you name it. The formula is very similar to the Ponzi formula, take a commodity, have its value spike, let people who don't understand why it spiked into the game. Take all their money. Rinse and repeat.

The trick, as always, is trying to be skeptical and check your data. Not always easy.
I couldn't possibly disagree more.

Technology has and continues to advance at ridiculous pace. Many software developments are dependent on hardware. Until the hardware exists no one can even try to solve the problem. I don't want a company which has first access to hardware to automatically get all the software patents that derive from it.

Google is hard at work on their glasses. Lots of companies are. The hardware isn't there yet. We're getting there though. Eventually someone is going to have hardware that enables all kinds of cool things to be done that have never been done before. Our culture / society / economy doesn't need to compound their reward of being first with a 20 year exclusive.
> This one point is supposed to suggest that the rest of the comment would also be cheap? However you carve it, it will be quite expensive, once you throw in trained scouts, administration for scouts and moved families, foreign bureaucracy, domestic bureaucracy...

I'm not denying that there will be expenses. Obviously, some detailed calculations would have to be done and a cost-benefit analysis performed. However, my intuition tells me that it will be worth it when China starts to dominate. Moreover, the cost of living is low in India, so it would be a lot cheaper than training athletes in the US.

> So? The spirit of the games is supposed to be participation, not grinding other people's face in how awesome you are. Be the bigger person and say 'congratulations'.

Oh please, those are just empty words you tell kids. No one really believes that, least of all the American or Chinese teams.

> Tossing them away like trash into a now-foreign culture because they don't run fast enough for you is pretty heavy mistreatment.

First of all, I already gave you a solution to that problem. And no matter how you look at it, these are children that would otherwise end up physically and mentally deformed, and often illiterate. Any cultural issues pale in comparison to those very real problems.

> "We'll let you in if you do our work for us" does indeed seem to be the modern US opinion on immigration, yes.

And there's nothing wrong with doing that. One of the reasons that the US doesn't have the demographic timebomb faced by the rest of the developed world is that we encourage large-scale immigration

> Or you can fight back by not spending shitloads of money to chase shiny baubles.

That would be entirely antithetical to the spirit of the modern Olympics, so that's a non sequitur.

> But in the end, so what if the Chinese game the system by heavy investment?

Regardless of their methods, they will be lauded. It would be remiss of us not to do everything legal and ethical in our power to fight back.

> All you do by purchasing athletes from other countries is dirty your own hands and making people think the same of you.

Once again, we wouldn't be "purchasing" them. They wouldn't be slaves or indentured servants. I don't understand how this would be a bad thing. These children would be given a chance at a vastly better life. It's not like they would be deprived of something because of our actions.

> Worse, even - 'the US had to import its talent to stay ahead of China's native talent'.

Except that is what the US is all about - we are a nation of immigrants. While the rest of world might scoff at our short history and lack of ethnic homogeneity, we take great pride in that fact.
I read the nanex article. Regardless whether it is true or not, the general trend is towards development of more sophisticated load testing programs.

The most benign ones were developed for use in IT systems. E.g. Apache bench. While these can cause disruptions if aimed at production services, this does not necessarily threaten the health of an entire enterprise.

However, the trend is that all software sectors are starting to adopt this particular technique of testing software with not sufficient regard to what happens if it is released into live systems.

For example, we have chaos monkey, from Netflix, which randomly shutdown services in a cloud based system.

What would happen if software which simulated meltdown at a nuclear facility was accidentally bundled into the build system by a tired operator? Or some one does the same with flight software?

The main software running trading platforms would presumably be supervised by another program to ensure that bad algorithms do not lose e company too much money. However there was no such tool for the component that generated the test data.

To me, it sounds like the supervision should be done at a higher level, e.g. A wrapper around existing APIs. All software running against live systems must call into the wrapper.

Secondly, test software should conduct some kind of verification. E.g. Check for evidence that it is testing against a Test system. This might be the presence of a nonexistent company, et c.

I am more than happy to compile any other ideas you may have so that the IT industry is able to build more fail safes into software.

We are starting to see some of these fail safes in practice. E.g. When you try to send out an email to everyone in the organization, email software may warn you if you are sure you want to do that. The problem is we haven't thought enough about these scenarios that we don't adequately address them.

Incidentally, over in Australia, the Commonwealth Bank suffered a major downtime when it's outsourcer HP accidentally pushed out system wide updates instead of doing this to select machines as originally intended.
No, that's not necessarily what /tmp is for.

Consider a browser cache. /tmp is not guaranteed to be preserved between program invocations[1]. /var/tmp [2] might be a better place. /var/cache [3] is intended for exactly this kind of thing.

Unfortunately, it can be far more useful for an administrator in a multi-user setup to want user-specific caches in home directories. That way, you get all of the infrastructure for managing user data for free, like quotas.

Also note: if you're considering putting data into /tmp or /var/tmp, please honor the TMPDIR environment variable, if it is set[4].

[1]: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#TMPTEMPORARYFIL...

[2]: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#VARTMPTEMPORARY...

[3]: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#VARCACHEAPPLICA...

[4]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_...
Actually, double-click was invented at Apple in 1980 or 1981, some ten years after the WIMP paradigm was invented at Xerox, and 18 years after Ivan Sutherland invented a sort of graphical user interface for Sketchpad, which Alan Kay credits as "the invention of the GUI".

See http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s..., in the comments: "I remember when Larry was doing that testing. One of the things he tested was the three-button mouse, which is what Xerox had used. He found out that inexperienced computer users (the market that Lisa was aimed at, believe it or not) got too confused -- they couldn't remember what each of the buttons did. Same problem with a two-button mouse. So the one-button mouse was born. Of course, that meant that we needed double-click and triple-click, but that's another story..."

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s... shows screenshots of the UI that had the first double-click interface, in 1980 or 1981.
I don't mind some internal backup-copy (including undo/redo state) being made of what's currently on the screen so that it can recover from a crash, but actually modifying the file I loaded from when I never told it to save is just bad, bad, bad.
Gray text on white - please don't do it.
The really entertaining part is when they don't catch them. Every clause is negotiable - don't leave it to your lawyers alone to negotiate.
My biggest problem is that Apple is not explaining these changes.

With the original Save/Save As, the concept was easy to understand after someone took 30 sec to explain it to you. You knew exactly what was happening.

But with Apple's new changes, Apple has made autosave and versions the new paradigm (awesome), but they've done a terrible job at explaining how to do anything but that.

How do I edit something and then save that edit as a new document without affecting the original? If I copy a file, does the whole version history get copied too? What if I send it to someone? What if I want to delete the version history period? What if I want to "duplicate" a file but not save it anywhere, because I just want to mess around with changes for a while?

I've been using Lion since it came out, and I don't really know the correct answers to any of those questions.
Wayne Rosing has [1] a company that put telescopes out into places with good viewing conditions, a camera sensor, and an internet connection. Scheduling time on his 'mini' telescopes was pretty easy at one time.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Cumbres_Observatory_Global_...
Almost certainly not. And it would destroy signups rendering the service completely useless.
That is a good paper. Thanks for the pointer!
I am making what I would consider educated guess on the scale of the organization and the impact of the changes.

WHAT?! You're making a guess based on what? THERE WERE NO DETAILS. It's impossible for that to be an educated guess.
Machine Learning: The Basics [video]
One of these companies needs to put their weight into getting OEMs to pre-install Linux.

Imagine if you had to install the OS onto a Playstation or Xbox before you could play a game? No wonder nobody makes money on Linux.

Notice that nobody has a problem with Linux on their phone, because it comes pre-installed. If Valve can strong arm a few OEMs to preinstall Linux on desktops and laptops (against strong MS opposition), they stand to make a lot of money and simultaneously establish the fabled "year of the Linux desktop".

That there are very few preinstalled Linux options is the reason it hasn't taken off commercially. It's the reason Linux drivers are a huge problem. It is why "grandma" can't use Linux. And it's why John Carmack can't make money.
It should be noted that Google Docs also has no Save As. It does have "Make a Copy".
You're doing good stuff, although sometimes we have trouble keeping up with the demands from developers; any thoughts on adding "monetization" links? (Guess we could do this in our GitHub readme too...)

By the way, how are you determining license type? What exactly are you scraping on GitHub to determine this?
http://www.cocoacontrols.com/platforms/ios/controls/openspri...
He's a writer for Gizmodo who was already widely disliked. That's why so many people are posting such mean comments.
Perhaps one way to mitigate this is by wrapping the calls to another system such that all trading is supervised.

Another technique is to provide API keys in the wrapper so that test programs will not have the keys to a live system.

The real problem is that the risk of these test systems have not been sufficiently identified or recognized. We are all too busy creating mock systems instead of devoting sufficient oversight to the development of test software.
Have you actually tried to use IndexedDB in Chrome? It's on an outdated spec draft from around a year ago.
No, but the android mobileorg does do ssh/scp, so you can have a "dumb" version of git support.

I have a post-receive hook that updates the working copy with git checkout. `git push` is all I have to run, so to me it _feels_ like git support :)
The problem of course occurs when the press is affiliated with companies involved in Tier 5.
The commenters are most likely Gizmodo readers who dislike his articles.
I think Loki Software already demonstrated how few Linux users will buy full priced games.
I'm disappointed by your lack of outrage, comrade.
Slightly off topic, but it's widely accepted among physicists that the act of computation expends energy [1]. Thus, there are actually limits to how much the cost of a given computation can be reduced, regardless of how cleverly we build the computer, or what we build it out of (silicon, DNA, fiber optics, whatever) [2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle

[2] If we're willing to use algorithms that don't destroy information, or willing to operate at arbitrarily low temperatures, as I understand it there's no theoretical limit to how small we can make the energy costs, but these restrictions seem highly impractical.
It's so that you can remote wipe your own devices if you lose them, in case you have sensitive data on them. For example, my employer requires that you enable this feature if you want to get your work email on your phone.
I like (as in don't like) how that's the excuse for every counter example. Just like how Martha Stewart only went to jail because she didn't play golf with the right people.
Thanks!

Can you be more specific about monetization links? What form would you like to see this take? We do offer the ability to commercially license your controls via our site (e.g. you could dual-license your control and offer commercial support for a fee).

License type: totally 100% manual right now. When the repo is first added to Cocoa Controls, a field is filled out for specifying which licenses the control is made available under. This information may get out of date as time passes (I've seen many instances where a developer changes from GPL -> MIT or Apache 2.0, e.g.).

I actually asked GitHub to make license a first class piece of repository metadata a few weeks ago, but no clue when or if this will ever be added.
Fine. Except the "recklessness" was given AAA status by ratings agency, making it difficult to properly assess risk.

Risky investments guised as Safe should very well be illegal - it's fraud.
> One of these companies needs to put their weight into getting OEMs to pre-install Linux.

One option would be for Valve to buy an OEM. Many of them are not doing very well and things are only going to get worse with Microsoft Surface.

This would give Valve hardware talent for designing the Steam Box as well. The Steam Box could easily be just a set-top PC running Ubuntu. Game makers will no doubt see the appeal of that, and start porting games to run on the Steam Box, and therefore Linux.
The criticism of NBC is tiresome and probably inaccurate.

And the reason I submitted this isn't because of the lack of coverage. The reason I submitted it is because of the many, many lessons that entrepreneurs can learn from the incident itself.

Here are just some of them highlighted, to help you see why I submitted this:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4339300
Unfuckingbelievable - which einstein inside one infinite loop came up with this gem?
Well, honestly, why should it be necessary?
Interesting... I still feel that this is for the most part merely deferring the free-ing work to when you next allocate an object. It may succeed in getting the "free" cost down to a single instruction--checking a mark bit--but it is still a cost per dead object that a copying GC wouldn't have to pay. (The difference may be, as some say, "academic".) It does have the slight advantage of reducing the maximum pause time due to sweeping down to being proportional to live objects rather than garbage.

Also, what if you want to allocate a large object? You might have to skip over some unmarked cells. Either you'd waste the memory, or you would probably want to put them on a free-list of some sort, in which case you are doing more than just bumping a pointer and checking for a mark. ... I see, it says "equally-sized chunks of memory".

Still, that's a cool idea. As mark-and-sweep goes, anyway. :-} I'm rather more fond of copying garbage collectors--I like the determinism, the fact that (normally) the memory address of each object after a full copying GC will depend only on the structure of the graph of objects, and not on the memory addresses of the objects prior to the GC. (In other words, it destroys the information "what the memory address of each object was before this GC". This implies a somewhat higher inherent cost, to eliminate this entropy. See [1] for musings about the relation of this to thermodynamics.) In particular, whether you have fragmentation issues won't depend on the past history of your program. (You could say that the space lost to fragmentation is fixed at a factor of 2.)

[1] http://www.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/ThermoGC.html
Why Harvard is ruining our youth.
> One of these companies needs to put their weight into getting OEMs to pre-install Linux.

Several OEM's do just that, but nobody is buying.

> Notice that nobody has a problem with Linux on their phone, because it comes pre-installed.

No, nobody has a problem with these because Android has a good UI on top of Linux. Desktop Linux never came close to achieving that goal, hence its repeated failure to break into the mainstream.
The top comment is to the US as the article is to China. No one is saying the systems are equally unfair.

Calm down.
I think on-field in the context of the article meant live vs tape delayed or written about afterward. (It was immediately after complaining about NBC not covering it for Americans).
This effectively makes it a right to own a firearm.

Disagree. If the government _gives_ you something, it's not a right. It's just something they can take away from you when convenient.
Open Road To Publish BlogHer eBook Anthology
I highly doubt this will be fixed in any of the future 10.8.x updates.
Why was the title changed to say "CapsLockScript"? I can't see it ever referred to as that in the actual documentation.
Texas launches online database to monitor prescription drugs
The Importance of Handeling Exceptions with NodeJS