skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think it makes more sense as just another means by which business consumes workers. I know that sounds all profound and over-generalized crypto-Marxist, but if you look back upon history I think you'll see a consumption metaphor where business is basically treating workers as fungible, resisting healthcare benefits and other quality-of-life exchanges. Margins are to be applied to productivity, and the underling's health is not necessarily a primary concern where they can be replaced.
Darpa extinguishes fire with sound.
Wow, what? How do you even spend 9.3 billion pounds? Did they hire a million people for 10K?
Insight: The Dark Knight Rises
Intellectual Ventures shell company again?
ClearDB customers talk about their mission-critical MySQL experience
http://www.mamp.info/en/index.html or indeed http://www.apachefriends.org/en/xampp-macosx.html
What the Hell Does Health Care Have to do With the Olympics?
It's interesting that you use that TED talk to support your view, when the speaker is advocating not leaving security up to the professionals and instead approaching the challenges as a group in a very open fashion (he even mentions openly publishing the DNA of world leaders).
That data point doesn't mean much. Many people who aren't into tech will just lump a whole category of devices together with the most prominent member of the group. I suspect it's impossible to design a tablet-like device with any commercial potential at all that someone won't confuse for an iPad.

For example, I've had someone call my original Eee Transformer an iPad. And here we're talking of a device that's a different color (brown), different texture (smooth vs. crosshatched), different shape (16:10 vs. 4:3), and much thicker. Oh, and of course attached to a keyboard...
The right way would be to not use PHP.
Your bug fix is broken; it makes no sense to place it there. I suggest increasing the number of test inputs to first show the problem.
The about page has a fair amount of detail, but a rough outline:

Basically, they took a web crawler like Heritrix (archive.org) or Scrapy (a handy Python implementation good for prototyping) and just started fetching web pages.

Eventually, they have a database of 350,000 websites, along with two million links between these domains. Any set of web pages within a given domain may have hundreds of hyperlinks to a dozen other domains, but a link from any page in one domain to any page in another domain becomes a relationship between two domain nodes in a graph. Presumably they used something like neo4j.org to store these relationships (cf. jokes about relational databases being bad at storing relationship information).

Then the actual hard part comes in. They link to a high level paper on rendering a visualization of that much information, and then used a similar algorithm to determine placement of each node. The size of each node is presumably the number of links in/out and the color coding is geographic (and probably not considered in this algorithm).

So now they have a database describing all these nodes and relationships, and an algorithm to draw a gigantic image of all of them in 2D space. They used GPU-based parallel processing techniques (probably with NVidia's CUDA language) to crunch all the numbers to generate the final image.

Finally, the image ends up being pretty large at a reasonable zoom. A scaled map of the Earth zoomed a bit above street level would still be about 125 miles on a side. So they use Google Maps API to manage small chunks of the image at various zoom levels. (They also end up rerunning that algorithm a few times to generate smaller images for each zoom step, including one at good old 1024x768).

Pretty neat. Would love to see their writeup.
Obviously I'm exaggerating, but you get the point.

I understand what it is you think is true, and anecdotally it sounds about right, but I'm hoping to get past folklore and guesswork to understand what does or does not work for users.

I've been surprise, when helping ostensibly non-tech people, the number of times I get asked, "OK, but why" when I try to offer a simplified description of what an app is doing.

If something seems to take a long time, and I were to say, "The program needs to connect to Google," I am certain the people I've helped would want to know a bit more.

Maybe details about TCP sessions would be too much; the question is, based on actual research, what is the right amount of detail, and how should it be presented?

Maybe there is no such research; even knowing that would be helpful.
Apple is positioning it (IMO) as a replacement for text messaging on iOS. The fact that it works across devices is the killer feature.
HN Poll: Is Hacker News' New Page More Interesting Than The Frontpage?
The Maps API works with all sorts of custom map types [1]. You can augment or replace the standard Google map tiles.

This map uses a google.maps.ImageMapType [2] along with a custom EuclideanProjection map projection [3] which replaces the standard spherical Mercator ("Google Mercator") projection.

[1] https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/...

[2] https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/...

[3] View source of http://internet-map.net/
Exercise is not an "arbitrary" intervention, because it also has an evidence base.

Starting someone on a course of CBT (whether applied by a skilled practitioner, or self guided[1]) and then pushing them to exercise and to social life improvement, with meds if needed, is an excellent treatment.
Derek Sivers is one of my philosophical role models, as he writes on life from the perspective of someone who already did something "great" (starting a successful business and gaining financial independence). Ironically, one of his most repeated messages is to assume being below average and excite yourself by being over your head. For example, http://sivers.org/beginner , http://sivers.org/below-average , and http://sivers.org/scares-excites-do-it all share the same basic message.

I think life is too multi-dimensional to successfully become the Übermensch.
Optimize your apps for the Nexus 7 and Jelly Bean.
This is awesome and Wikipedia is so small!!
Obama, for the Win
You didn't say what your role is. As a developer, I consider 9-5 socializing time and plan on doing development work from 8pm to midnight. This is the best possible arrangement as it is probably better not to even show up at a workplace than do actual coding there. Non-developers have no basis for understanding the work as their jobs are outward focused. Unfortunately non-developers are the ones with all the budgets and hiring authority, so they tend to influence the culture towards what they see as programming: The movie version of 99% socializing and 1% individual work squeezed into a five minute montage.
Bill Gates' Family Tree in HTML5
I don't have a strict definition for library and framework, but I think the distinction comes down to more than just size.

A framework is indeed "just a library," but when one is using a framework one is building on that framework, using that structure to construct some new thing. A library I see as something that is called into for some routine, it's a body of functionalities one can tap into. Your code is-a instance of your chosen framework, and it has-a series of calls out to libraries.
Go scales quite well across multiple cores iff you decompose the problem in a way that's amenable to Go's strategy. Same with Erlang.

No one is making "excuses". It's important to understand these problems. Not understanding concurrency, parallelism, their relationship, and Amdahl's Law is what has Node.js in such trouble right now.
This isn't a problem. W3C is working on the HTML5 standard while WHATWG is working on the "HTML Living Standard" or what you might call HTML-HEAD or HTML6-beta. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/
We are also living in the longest period of peace ever (at least that's what everybody says?), and our everyday consists of first-world-problems, which are far more complex than the problems our ancestors had, and where success is nearly impossible to measure. You want to feel unhappy or inferior? Just go to HN and find somebody who talks of stuff you don't understand (like cryptography). That was far more difficult to find 50 years ago - with our skillset (I assume the average HN reader), we would have been heroes in our local communities - teachers, engineers, perhaps inventors. There was so much low-hanging fruit for people with brains.

We are not suppressed like our hippie parents, but suppressed by our own expectations, which I consider far worse. We no longer play against 10-100 people in our field of expertise (locally), but against millions of people (globally).
I remember feeling this way for much of my high school and college years. I even told my Harvard interviewer that I really hated how everyone always harped on my "potential", like there was some mythical standard I had to live up to. I didn't get in.

When I graduated, I had some minor successes with my independent programming projects. Revamped the software for FictionAlley.org. Wrote a fairly popular Haskell tutorial. Ported Arc to JavaScript. All of these got me attention, but they weren't really things that people used, they were just idle diversions for some niche communities.

It's only in the last couple years that my career took off. We revamped the Google Search page in 2010 - the first successful major visual redesign of websearch in 10 years. Identified authors for a few million pages on the web. Made perhaps a billion people happy for a few moments with various doodles & easter eggs. And helped out with the GFiber launch last week.

What made the difference, I think, was that I stopped caring so much about living up to my potential and started caring more about being a part of important things. Basically all of those world-changing projects that you see in the news are team efforts, which many people contribute to. And we hunt for the individuals behind them because we want to find heroes, but really, there are no heroes. Only groups of people working their asses off to make things happen.

Maybe the secret to reaching your potential is as Randy Pausch said in his Last Lecture: realize that to accomplish anything worthwhile, you'll need help from other people. And then focus on being the type of person that other people want to help.

It also seems to be a lot more fun this way.

(As a side note, it strikes me how awkward the English language is when trying to describe group efforts I've been a part of. I want to use "we" to describe these efforts, because it's inaccurate to say "I redesigned the Google Search page" or "I launched Google Fiber last week" - there were a whole bunch of other people involved too. But at the same time, it's inaccurate to say "we", because there was a different group of people involved for each of those, and I'm really describing my career arc through a variety of these projects.)
According to this: http://habrahabr.ru/post/148351/ they are just using data from Alexa and visualizing it.
Getting things done in LaTeX (or not)
Some are. pgrep and pkill come from Solaris, IIRC.

But a unix program need not be available for every unix under the sun to still be a unix program.
for the record, I too have about 5000 tracks these days.
I had a good friend from high school who was brilliant. We were academic rivals, but he definitely outworked everyone in the entire school. He got into Duke and graduated with a double major in engineering and economics. He got his law degree, and then his Master's in Law, and passed the bar exam in New York and I think CA.

He was working in patent law in NYC for a few years, and then abruptly quit and moved back home. He said he had some ideas on businesses, and it seemed rational. He started venturing into religion, not for the sake of religion, but to explore the concept of morality. He didn't have a Jewish background, but he became very interested in Judaism because of it's views on morality, and I even bought a book on the Talmud at his insistence, so that we could talk about it. We would have pretty elaborate discussions on morality, etc, over email. He was engaged to get married to a lovely girl, and things looked fine.

Then, just before they got married, they abruptly cancelled their wedding. I emailed him, and I asked him "How are things going? Enquiring minds want to know!"

His only response was "Who are these enquiring minds that you are asking on behalf of?" We exchanged a few emails after that, he accused me of being immoral, and then I never heard from him again.

I contacted his fiancee, and apparently he was exhibiting signs of paranoid schizophrenia. He had become increasingly paranoid over the last few years, and become more and more disassociated with reality.

After that, he basically disappeared. He was always a bit paranoid about leaving his mark on the Internet, and had multiple fake email addresses, so trying to track him down was basically impossible.

Last year, after many years of no contact, I got a phone call from him, presumably from a number that wasn't his, because he had recently realized that in one of his discussions on his business over 10 years ago, he may have gotten me to agree to terms that would have been personally unfavorable, and he wanted to release me from all obligations from this agreement. I didn't know what he was talking about, but we never did anything more than talk about things, and his "businesses" never amounted to anything except talking. But I agreed to be absolved from those obligations. Then asked how things were with him, and he was extremely vagued, and then hung up on me.

It's very sad, because he was very brilliant, but it's clear he is mentally ill. And there's nothing I can do about it. He has no siblings, and both his parents are dead, so there's no one I can even contact.

It sounds similar to the case of Garzik in that I don't know if the concept of "take care of yourself" is relevant. He probably didn't realize he was mentally ill, if what the original emailer said was true about him being paranoid. It probably would have been something the family would need to pursue, but getting someone evaluated, etc, is hard, and as the emailer said, it would only increase the negative feedback loop for Garzik, since he would suspect everyone was out to get him, so it's a really tough problem to solve.
Because I can shut down my computer, move to another one, and pick up right where I left off. This means even if I leave a process running, it doesn't stop.

tmux is like screen, only it has more features.

Which is really why I asked. What does iTerm2 offer that I can't get from tmux and current terminal? People always refer to iTerms ability to do multiple windows/tabs. For me, this is useless if it's just available client side.

There is an amazing amount of freedom being able to just shut down, move to another computer, and be able to pick up exactly where I left off.
Just a face in a crowd? Scans pick up ID, personal data
Dugg Explaining Quantum Computing | Wavewatching
A round-up of expert explanations on quantum computing for the lay person and why this feat is so darn difficult.
Maybe I am missing something here, but The python version is:
O(N) sequential disk access
O(NlogN) cpu
O(N) RAM

The shell script is the same for disk and cpu, however, it is O(1) of RAM, and therefor can operate on input of size limited to disk, not RAM
In general, task paralellism can model anything data parallelism can and given "a sufficiently smart compiler" you can end up with the same result. This is an informal corollary of Needham's Duality (which is itself informal, so make of it what you will).

Our current hardware tends to offer great data parallelism for homogenous task queues and task parallelism for heterogenous task queues. Given that, we task parallelism needs a lot more consideration from a human. It's also the case that our current implementations of data parallelism tend to focus on shared memory computations, so their scope is a lot more limited than the distributed-system-conflated discipline of task-oriented concurrency, where we're currently having an explosion of engineering.
Other than the fact that RSS and NNTP are both built on TCP, they have virtually nothing in common neither technically, architecturally nor in terms of use case they are trying to solve.

IOW, wat
What is it visualizing? Pages or links? Because if it's links, there's no way that Facebook is so large and Wikipedia is so small.
Sad news: the lost climbers, Gil and Ben, have been found dead. (See OP link for more.)
On Internet Virulence
Oops, you're right, the sed command should be on the second line. Fixed the test inputs and the fix.
Bayes' Theorem trivially flows from,

Mnemonic: P(A ∩ B) = P(A|B)P(B) = P(B|A)P(A)

Visualise the above concept once as Venn Diagrams (aka. frequentist interpretation) and you'll never forget it.
So if Samsung builds ground breaking technology that is so important that it gets included in every smartphone, they can't charge more than 1c per chip. However, if Apple builds trivial "slide to unlock", they can charge $25 per phone and block devices from entering the market? What is the incentive of doing research and developing important wireless technologies if you'll be less rewarded than the company who developed "slide to unlock". Shouldn't important techs get the most rewards? I'm against software patents, but if the law's going to support them at least it should be coherent.
"clinical" depression is meaningless. Literally, it has no meaning. Perhaps you mean "Diagnosed by a real doctor", as opposed to "self diagnosed from a check list"?

But when we look at depression diagnosed by experts we see a variety of forms, and a variety of strengths.

I agree that well meaning people sometimes offer really bad advice.

But advice about developing a healthy lifestyle (being careful with caffeine, alcohol, recreational drugs; eating better; sorting out sleep; getting exercise) and developing a social life are important, because these thing help people with very serious, life threatening, illness. In combination with therapy they can be part of an effective cure for many people. (At least leaving others with several years of recovery). If needed, this advice can be combined with medication. And, if needed, all of this stuff can be started if the patient is in hospital. (At least in England all MH hospitals should have programmes of OT to start social life outside hospital and they should have some kind of exercise stuff, and contacts with local gyms.)

I've known people who are ill enough to require electro convulsive therapy and they said that this other stuff was important to them, but that they needed help to apply it.

And that's the important thing. Saying "I am to ill to do this stuff" is not the same as saying "this stuff would not be helpful to me if I did it". What people need is help to apply this stuff.
That is easy to do for a one-off processing (I did it recently), but in my opinion is a lot more of a pain if you want to do queries on-demand on your web server or mobile app in response to user input. Maybe less importantly, this means that the Census Bureau has written some handy search tools (filter by state, zip code, etc.) so that you don't have to - that was never a really big deal, but still annoying.
Ask HN: What do you think of Apple's new ads?
For the first time I am quite disappointed in what Apple came out with.

Judge for yourself: http://www.apple.com/mac/videos/#tv-ads-mayday
I'm sorry, but I'm tired of seeing this blatantly disingenuous argument parroted everywhere. The fact is that Apple started this mess by ignoring FRAND obligations entirely--standards that make the entire iOS ecosystem possible. Now, I'm totay fine if Apple wants to make the argument that the existing patent system is unreasonable. But what Apple did instead is pure, self-serving hypocrisy.

Apple launched into a rampage trying to sue every other viable competitor out of the market for supposed infringement. In defending themselves from these attacks, Apple's victims are responding aggressively with their FRAND patents and whatever else they have (and even then, they're asking for a tiny fraction of what Apple is). Put simply, if you engage in the kind of anti-competitive and bullying behavior that Apple does, and subsidize your own profit margins on the backs of everyone else, then you shouldn't be surprised when everyone else starts swinging back.
The article is wrong, there's still a huge part missing from the so-called "unified" messaging and Apple needs to step up their game ASAP.

No matter how you configure the "caller ID" option, if a friend iMessages you (i.e. they initiate the convo) to your cell phone number and not email (most common, as if they were texting but it silently switched to iMessage), the message will only be received on your phone.

Apple needs to add an option to allow you to authenticate/verify your phone number as a valid receive address for the desktop ASAP.
My understanding is Microsoft is different. The difference is that RIM, Motorola, and Qualcomm are FRAND agreements for Samsung's patents rather than non-FRAND terms for Samsung licening patents from Microsoft. The first three worry that the documents will expose their trade secrets around how their devices work and what patents they need licenses for. Two different sides of the coin.
Thanks a lot for this tutorial. I am really amazed that Apple has not thought this through properly. Really disappointing. Creating a vibrant set of iOS messaging and sharing channels would really increase their barrier-to-entry.
Jef Raskin was not the "Father of the Macintosh". At least not according to Andy Hertzfeld, who actually worked on the Macintosh.

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=The_Father_of_The...
Well, that's what everybody is hoping for, at least.

The worst-case scenario is that the W3C HTML 5 working group goes wildly astray and writes a horrible standard that nobody implements. Remember HTML 3.0? XHTML 2.0? SMILE 2.0? WS-*?

Standards committees have a tendency to produce 300-page specs where every feature is both optional and vague. The recent OAuth2 rant describes the process perfectly:

http://hueniverse.com/2012/07/oauth-2-0-and-the-road-to-hell...

So the real fear here is that without Ian Hickson, the W3C may loose sight of the ball. Again. But in that case, I imagine the browser vendors will happily ignore them. Again.
London 2012 Ceremonies Explorer
Technically there is still only one "HTML5" standard; the W3C one.

WHATWG are editing the "HTML Living Standard". Unlike the W3C model, there aren't version numbers or set phases that the spec must go through. Instead there is a process of continuous development; fixing bugs as they are found and continually iterating new features in response to the evolving needs of the web. This process is modeled around the way that browsers are actually developed, and should help innovation on the web keep pace with proprietary platforms.

The goal of the W3C version is somewhat different; it is essentially a branch aimed at stabilisation (likely at the expense of accuracy) in order that there is a well defined set of technologies covered by the W3C Patent Policy. It is also governed by a somewhat different (consensus based) decision making policy compared to the WHATWG version (the editor specs what people are willing to implement). History suggests that any differences that arise are most likely to be in things that don't affect UA interoperability but concern the definition of a valid document.

So the net effect of this change is that we will once again have a version of the HTML spec being developed using the system (and at the speed) that gave us HTML5 in the first place.
Also, concurrency provides some performance gains that are not related to parallelism, such as efficient use of the CPU while waiting on I/O.
No wonder the space program has stalled! Your friend's memory has failed him, usenet bears no resemblance to rss in anyway. Usenet was a discussion forum, rss is link syndication.
The latest Olympics pictures on DRIFT
Intel Facebook app : awesome