skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, and the further China has moved toward an equitable legal system, the more developed its economy has become. Corruption and crime are checks on economic activity, just as Rosenfield's original assertion would suggest.
It's very unlikely that the headline was written by the author of the article, FWIW.
Magenta Ain't A Color
I originally thought twitpic, another site I learned about here, was acquired:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=404647

Both are pretty neat twitter based apps.
Google,msn, yahoo announce duplicate content hint
And that is great. More innovations. The Twitter team is not able to build all the necessary applications to fully take advantage of their system.
Write to a Google Spreadsheet from a Python script
I'm not sure what you mean by "what native applications on the Pre would look like."

If you mean that all applications on the Pre will be indistinguishable from one another -- that they are, in essence, all constrained by the same straight jacket of Ajax "web2.0" functionality -- then you might be right (though this document seems to hint that there's functionality only the blessed "core apps" have access to, so even this might not be true).

If, however, you mean to say that webOS apps will be indistinguishable from the native apps of any other smartphone platform (most notably the iPhone), well, I don't know how you can support that point in light of all the evidence provided in the article (highlighted in this thread). What precisely is so revolutionary about any of what we see here? The lifecycle? Access to GPS and the ability to launch apps? Theme-able widget libraries? An MVC development model?

Dashboard, Yahoo! Widgets, etc. give you lifecycle functionality. Dashboard, at least, lets you make system-level calls and launch apps. YUI, MooTools and ExtJS all provide theme-able tables, buttons and dodads for your web apps. Sproutcore covers MVC and then some. Despite predictions of some, these technologies have not united to overthrow native desktop applications. What makes you think they'll overthrow native smartphone ones?

Palm's clearly making a tradeoff, wooing web developers at the cost of application and toolchain robustness. Personally, I think that's silly (the AppStore and even the Palm Pilot software ecosystem of yore never had trouble finding developers) but maybe I'm wrong? Maybe people don't want more than widgets on their phones and the explosion of web2.0 "ports" to the Pre will secure it a place in smartphone history.

But to stick one's head in the sand and say "my webapp can do anything your objc or java app can because it's revolutionary..." Well, that continues to be untrue.
Just because you don't "extract" any value, to use the MBA term, does not mean you did not deliver it.
I believe most of those are patents filed by US graduate/PhD students of foreign origin working for big corporations either via H1b or using their student visas. These are the individuals we want to keep.

The "dark side" of H1b program is various ethnic sweatshops often filled with mediocre talent unable to find work anywhere else. I have known a person in Boston area who, along with 4 roommates, lived in his "owners" (H1b sponsor) basement where they were looking for contracts for themselves, so the sponsor could sell them later for a percentage. This crowd doesn't file patents.

Another, less evil "H1b business" is what many 3rd grade no-name universities do: they bring people from all over the world using student visas, give them loans, put them through 6-8 month Java crash-course, after which students are supposed to find themselves H1b employment. When they do, they have to pay $10-30K to their "school" while completing their "education" online (the requirement that lets these institutions maintain their legal university status).

I suspect that these shady H1b sponsors take up as much as half of all H1b visas issued to programmers year after year. As I said, big companies rarely bring people from overseas, they like to hire the best foreign graduates from good schools instead, where H1b works as a temporary bridge between a student visa and a green card, and that was the original idea behind it, IIRC.
We process CCs for no additional cost as well, and we're much more streamlined than they are. We use a drop-down menu for Comes With rather than making people type it out. The people who sell games for a living love us because of how streamlined we are.

As for millions of potential buyers, sure... but most buyers start their search from Google. You'd be surprised how many people create an account to buy a $6.99 game and never come back. (Now, our retention efforts suck, but that's a different story.)
Based on what's happening today, I'd say that (1) Symbian will take control of the phone-first-computer-second market and, (2) Windows Mobile will slowly take over the computer-first-phone-second market, (3) Apple's marketshare will mirror its computer marketshare, (4) Android will get squeezed out of the market unless there is an ad-subsidized phone revolution (unlikely), (5) Either Nokia or Microsoft will buy RIM, and (6) price is going to be a much bigger factor in the long-run at the top of the market, and Nokia, Samsung, and Sony-Ericcson have a big advantage there because of its experience building mass-market feature phones.

Look at what is happening today at MWC: Samsung, Sony-Ericcson, and Nokia all announced amazing Symbian-powered devices. HTC and LG both made huge commitments to Windows Mobile, and Windows Mobile got a huge upgrade. Meanwhile, Android was almost absent from the show, and Apple literally didn't even show up.

There's only one commercially-available Android phone, being subsidized by only one major operator (AFAICT). I can't find any evidence that it is gaining any momentum; in fact, the evidence seems to show that Symbian has gained a lot of momentum at its expense. Besides that, Symbian just seems technologically superior. Nokia just announced a Symbian-powered phone with a one-MONTH standby time. The G1 cannot even last through a single day. If you've programmed for both, you can see why: everything about Symbian's design revolves around a relentless desire to conserve resources. Android's main contribution might end up being the open-sourcing of Symbian.

The iPhone gained a lot of mindshare but soon it will be one out of many similar devices. Feature-for-feature, every single other manufacturer has them beat, hands down. The iPhone's only advantage is in ease-of-use. That's a big advantage now, and the iPhone will continue to thrive as long as its competitors provide sub-par user experiences. But, once the other vendors get their acts together, the iPhone won't have any advantage whatsoever. The same applies to Mac OS X on the desktop as well.

Samsung, Nokia, and Sony-Ericsson are close to having application binary compatibility across their smartphones. And, Nokia has started moving Symbian down market into midrange phones. If they can all agree to build compatible phones and if S60 replaces Series 40, Symbian will have an absolutely massive market share.

I think Windows Mobile will succeed in the corporate world if they can build enough tools into the platform to make building mobile enterprise applications as easy as they've made enterprise development on the desktop. At some point I think Microsoft's leverage in the corporate IT world will cause a lot of problems for Blackberry.
Free government grant agencies
Want to get a few free grant secrets? Go to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance if you want to find out about all the different grants that are available to citizens of the United States and its territories.
Symbian is a pain in the neck to program for, but you can do anything you want on it, and it has (and will have) a huge marketshare. iPhone and Android are a walk in the park but they both have severe limitations (especially the iPhone). The iPhone is the easiest one to deploy to (thanks to the App Store). I don't have any experience with WinMo. So far, Symbian is my favorite.
California Struggles to Close a Projected $41 Billion Deficit
Mark Zuckerberg's blog post on the TOS change: http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130
Not the kind of stuff I'm interested in shopping for, but seems like it might appeal to some. I'd think it might work for a lot of product categories where people have strong views and like to exchange them. For shoppers on a quest for a particular item, your competition is probably the reviews on Amazon.

I'd recommend larger, higher-resolution pictures behind the thumbnails, or perhaps at the individual article level.
Samsung Releases Solar Powered Phone
There will always be a market for custom-built sites. But for folks like local candidates and your dentist, they can really use something off-the-rack and affordable.

For example, most of the local candidates I've seen get volunteers to build their sites for free...and get what they pay for. Very few can afford the $10K it takes to get a decent site custom-built.

Have you thought about picking a vertical, creating an amazingly excellent site to serve it, then selling that site a thousand times with different skins? I used to do custom Web devt. too, and the sell-do cycle drove me nuts.
Upon reviewing the Facebook ToS as posted today,

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/terms.php

I see it continues to include the phrase "subject only to your privacy settings" as Facebook asserts what it can do with your content. Now I wonder if that is as much of a problem as Facebook asserting it will not respect your privacy settings at all (which would be very worrisome indeed).

I see my reply below asking about this was read for the literal meaning of the too-brief words, rather than for my intended implication. My bad, for not being more clear. What I was trying to introduce to the learned discussion here is the idea that Facebook says, even after its revision to its ToS, that it will respect your privacy settings. So, if you have used the Facebook features to set your privacy setting so that only friends, or only a subset of friends, see most of your submitted content (as I did immediately upon signing up for Facebook), is this ToS change really that much of a worry? If you know how to set your Facebook privacy settings, and like the effect of those settings, the only people who have access to your submitted content are the same people to whom you have already shown it, right?
article is old

no, they stopped the aging process of the article too.
You're driving away new submissions by asking for a login or registration at that stage. At this point you can't afford any barriers between the submitter and getting their item up on the list.

I suppose you could include the login/registration info on the submission page, but I'd allow anonymous submission.
I don't know about that domain name - too much like bulimia.
That is, until Twitter cuts down again the number of requests you can make through their API.
Except that the other HN story linked to the source on Consumerist, while this one links to "Mashable" which is an article regurgitating the Consumerist story.
The mathematica home edition is now priced at $300 which makes it more affordabe:

http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematicahomeedition/qa.ht...
A single box can handle a lot of traffic. A well tuned web server should be able to handle enough web pages that your making about 1$ / second in peek times from advertising. That much revenue should let you double your number of servers each month should you need to. EX: In 2007 Slashdot used 16 web servers with 2 Xeon 2.66Ghz processors, 2GB of RAM, and 2x80GB IDE hard drives. (http://meta.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/18/1641203) today that's cheep.

PS: Twitter's cost's have far more to do with SMS traffic and staff than hosting their website.
I understand your argument, and from a technical aspect it makes sense.

But guess what? An overwhelming majority of people on Facebook aren't concerned with data mining activities, there are families on Facebook. People who connect with loved ones overseas, who don't want their photos and family memories saved on the Internet for the sake of technical operation.

Really. Look at it from their perspective: they do-not-care about code and crunching processes. To them, this is akin to a gov't wiretapping phones in the name of national preservation.
The Periodic Table of the Elements, Standard Form
What defines a "successful exit"?

When our current business started growing rapidly/accidentally, we sold our previous business simply because we didn't have time to do both. We sold it for enough to pay off our SBA loan and take home a little extra money.
So why not do it? Why not give Harvard’s George Church the money he says could be used to resurrect a Neanderthal from DNA?

I’m bracing for a long list of objections from the world’s self-appointed keepers of bioethics

Good. Brace yourself, Mr. Tierney.

First, let's do a little googling. Find, for example, this article: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/baby/clon_silver.html

It's perfectly clear that if cloning works in every other mammal in which it's been tried, it will work in human beings. But at the moment, there is a pretty high frequency of birth defects in these other animals. There are a large number of cloned calves that are born too big and have health problems. As long as that frequency of birth defects is high, and we can't control it, then it would be unethical to use this technology to try to bring about the birth of a child.

OK. So let's pretend you could find a human carrier to gestate your transgenic Neanderthal baby for you.

And let's pretend that in course of trying figuring out how to bring a Neanderthal baby to term, 50% abort spontaneously in the third trimester.

Let's pretend that in the course of trying to get a Neanderthal baby to the age of 18, 50% die of various congenital malformations.

Let's pretend that a Neanderthal is at least as self aware as a homo sapiens with Down Syndrome.

Now, let's spend your $30 million elsewhere, please.

God, what a trollish article. But it worked on me.

This is the kind of article that actually scares people and gets them confused about something relatively innocuous, like stem cells. I have flipped the bozo bit on this guy. And if George Church is really in favor of this idea, I'll flip the bozo bit on him, too.
Server-to-server means you set up your IM server, and I set up my IM server, and... drumroll please... they can actually talk to each other.

Remember when Prodigy users couldn't mail Compuserve users, or AOL users couldn't mail Usenet users? That's where IM is right now, held back by the fact that it consists of nothing but a series of closed gardens.

XMPP makes it work like email. Your JID looks like an email (and can also end up being an email identifier), and the servers know how to route amongst one another.

If you can't see how this might be a nice feature, it is only because you've become too used to the status quo to see.

Identity comes from the fact that your JID is now generally accessible from anywhere in the world, and thus your JID can be used as your identity, just as your email address can, and, like I said, they can even be exactly the same.

Further, since XMPP was designed to work this way from day one, it means that all other XMPP services work across servers this way. Presence subscriptions are correctly handled, one server can host conferences and people from other servers can participate, etc.
Keith Stanovich (mentioned in the submitted post) has a new book _What Intelligence Tests Miss_ out

http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psycholog...

that I am reading right now. The book is an excellent discussion of the distinction between intelligence and rationality. One can score quite high on IQ tests without being particularly rational.
I agree - I got great value for a $350 logo contest.

The two designers whose logos I liked the best participate in many contests at once and win about 10% of the ones they enter. They must look at the prize money and divide by 10 for their expected payout and then know how much time to put into each contest.
The points made above are the common ones when relating to these sorts of issues. What is often missing (it seems to me) is any points relating to scale.

How old the company is. What are there chances of success? Have they taken investors? If so, wouldn't there be a valuation of some sort?

I know that these are not easy questions to answer. But none of those above questions really allow you to equate a salary to this job. Maybe another question is appropriate: "If this was a salary only job, how much would I be paid?" I guess you value that in equity somehow. multiply by something to account for the risk. Employees are at more risk then investors.

Actually it's very interesting reading the reactions on this thread. (a) We have hostility to the very concept. Seems that just considering it is a sign of disrespect. (b) We have a lot of accusatory questions relating to the respect & prestige of the position. Even questions of equity seem like a proxy to respect. 'Why am I not a founder?'

In the absence of a salary, they are not concerned with receiving a fair substitute for salary. They are concerned with the other issues.
Will do ... maybe we can team up on some projects in the future. (I've got a ton of photo-related apps in the pipeline)
Related link: http://lifehacker.com/5154283/facette-adds-real-organization...

I've been working on this for my Master's Thesis for the past year. With hope, this tool will gain some traction after LifeHacker's post.
Thanks for the feedback. I will have a careful think about anonymous submissions (obviously spam is a big issue). Anonymous voting is definitely on the cards.
Zuckerberg On Who Owns User Data On Facebook: It’s Complicated
Heh, creating a more optimal TOS page being "a drag" is a fairly hilarious hypothetical excuse.
Bringing in someone who doesn't have years of experience is going to bite you later on. (I say this from experience: I was co-founder of a tech company in '99 and I simply didn't have the experience to build the foundation cleanly.)

These folks can come in with half-cocked knowledge and leave you with a trail of misery later on.

Leave the opportunity for hired guns the lead brings in. The lead needs to be experienced.
This article is useless. Magenta is a combination of colors, and is not represented by any single wavelength of light. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Saying magenta doesn't exist is like saying green paint doesn't exist, because it's a combination of blue and yellow (within subtractive primaries).

From wikipedia:
Magenta is a purplish red color evoked by lights with less power in yellowish-green wavelengths than in blue and red wavelengths (complements of magenta have wavelength 500–530 nm).[1] In light experiments, magenta can be produced by removing the lime-green wavelengths from white light. It is an extra-spectral color, meaning it cannot be generated by a single wavelength of light, being a mixture of red and blue wavelengths. The name magenta comes from the dye magenta, commonly called fuchsine, discovered shortly after the 1859 Battle of Magenta near Magenta, Italy.
Aside from that one patent filed by Crazy Horse, it came up 100%. Crazy.
Object recognition by Numenta
"When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created—one in the person's sent messages box and the other in their friend's inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message."

Ok, but that does not mean that Facebook actually has to retain ownership of your information if you leave the site, right? The friend you sent this message to could have ownership of this piece of information - if Facebook wanted to structure it this way. That is actually how email works. It seems like a pretty weakly structured argument.

Maybe the most meaningful and straightforward part of the article: "we're going to make some missteps"
So, magenta : color :: c major chord : note?
Do you think Google is our Big Brother?
"One of the questions about our new terms of use is whether Facebook can use this information forever. When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created--one in the person's sent messages box and the other in their friend's inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message. We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear."

So Zuckerberg's claim is that the change in the ToS just reflects the reality that information is stored with you and with your friends when you share information with your friends. Backing up his statement is that the new ToS

http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf

still refers to "(i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof SUBJECT ONLY TO YOUR PRIVACY SETTINGS" (emphasis added). Maybe this isn't such a big worry after all, although I was alarmed at first by the blog posts announcing this ToS change.
Enjoy having your standard of living averaged with the Third World. The best remedy for Libertarianism is experiencing the consequences personally.
A good Perl library is going to be found by programmers, because (at least in my experience) programmers read docs. Especially when searching for good feature sets.

With software aimed at end users (or businesses, at least business purchases made outside of IT/dev), you can't expect them to come to you, you have to go to them... or have fairly amazing word of mouth.
Furthermore, this kind of statement is a bit vague. What other ways is information duplicated in a way that is reasonable to Facebook? The example they provide would be seen as acceptable to most, but what if general site operations require duplication and retention that is not?
Nate Silver Predicts the Winners of the 2009 Oscars
So I guess technically they should have some kind of a reference count. Once you and all your friends with which you shared a specific image or message or whatever leaves, they should let all rights lapse. That would be the right way to do it, at least.
There are huge ethical problems. Neanderthals are human or near human. It is quite probable that they can talk. They are not sheep. Before we attempt it we need to know if they can be cloned without subtle brain damage. If something goes wrong, you cant just euthanize the failed experiment.

It's an interesting idea, but I dont think we are ready yet, either scientifically or ethically.
Innovation? It's some funny pictures and videos drawn from Twitter, which is itself not that innovative. It's not that great. There's nothing special here.
Be sure to register every conceivable misspelling of your chosen name. Twiddla, for instance, gets maybe 3% of its traffic at twidla.com, and another few percent from Google searches for "Twiddle".

If you can't read your name over the phone without clarification, pick another one.

ps. I'd vote against going with Yunar. Besides having 7 plausible spellings, it just sounds bad.
A single note played on an acoustic instrument is itself (typically) a compound of multiple frequencies, usually (but not in e.g. a church bell) in a more or less harmonic relationship.
I preferred the Watercolor skin they dropped.