skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
agree.
Also the time spent on researching about getting the best, is orders of magnitude more than the time lost worrying about a 'reasonably good' item.
this is extemely cool :) I didn't know about emscripten, I just found many nice projects on that link so here it is again: https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki
The Post-Apocalypse Survival Machine Nerd Farm
Or what happens when people take a TED talk seriously and end up on a DIY commune
I wouldn't say it's necessarily an overall societal drain. While I'm not a fan of seeing ads, there IS value added when you get to use an app for free under condition the ad is served to you. And it stops most people from pirating the software.

Consider if Photoshop had ads. Yes it's a ridiculous concept but hear me out. For most people, a Photoshop license is not priced in such a way for them to get it. Not everyone can get the student license. But what if you had an ad-supported version to allow you to use it? For people to try it out and open their doors to image editing, that would be a great experience. The alternative being pirating or using smaller programs or ones without the same industry-vetting.
Who's saying there's a difference? That there isn't is the point.

In fact, if there is a difference, it's that operating systems are far more integrated into both my personal and professional lives, both in terms of time and functional integration. The last thing I want is for the rest of my life to be as whored out and substance-free as television.
Like try it but I don't use Twitter.
Well the same is true for the android.

Matter of fact, pushing ads in your face is the only reason Google funds android. They don't even want you to pay them. The SOLE reason for it's existence is for you to click their ads.
Although for those thy don't have the same time and drive to find the very best, they can find something that is very good right away.
Surprise ≠ dismay.
maybe you do if you're close to falling asleep.
Singer from Aerosmith. He has a HUGE mouth.
All DC comics available as ebooks
With Heroku, they give you their user id so you can tell EC2 to only allow connections from the heroku servers. It limits it a bit more than other PaaS, but it is still not pretty secure.

See https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/external-services for details...
I also think it's a consumer's responsibility to seek out the best and do a little research. It sends the wrong signals to competitors if consumers do not do that.
Of course I don't know what the terms were, but if you're in a position to decide to take on (more?) VC or sell to Google I'm inclined to say going with the latter is the better choice.

If you're a great visionary you'll have another chance not too far down the road to show the world again. If your good fortune hitched a ride with lady luck to some extent, then shamelessly cashing out your personal bubble is also a smart thing to do.
In a sense that's true, but Bell's inequalities show that there is something qualitatively different about quantum mechanical randomness. Bar some technicalities, they show that there isn't some hidden internal state that determines what outcome we experience, unlike with elections and baseball (assuming QM effects don't play a significant role in those). In this sense, QM is "truly random".

That said, even though there is good experimental evidence for this, it is not 100% certain that the world actually works this way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bells_theorem
Don't sweat it. Keep building. Your service matters more.
Quick question, how often do things escape from hack week and into the product line?
The usability experts were right: changes we made to increase conversion by 50%
It's obvious, no 20/20 hindsight required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCARS#PADD
that was what I was going to say. Tons of competitors already..
That's funny, because I was thinking the exact opposite. Consumerism is about novelty: you buy a thing, then get bored of it, so you dump it in your garage to make room for the next new thing. Buying the best is the opposite of this, because you buy it once.
Urgh. Asking about the best flatware doesn't really move me -- why else would anyone buy expensive flatware -- but the best ramen? It's a manifestation of this generation's way of living. Not through appreciation of food, art, music, but through acquisition of it. This is why people are so obsessed with instagramming their michelin-hatted dinners. Why people say that they've "done" Asia or Europe. Why people own limited edition vinyl records and have NO RECORD PLAYER. Disgusting.
ActiveResource is dead, long live ActiveResource
Silver's model does seem unjustifiably complicated. For a simple model that managed to predict the electoral college see
http://election.princeton.edu
Anything that uses electricity to take hydrogen out of water will use more electricity than it produces.
I've moved to paying for content. In fact, at one point I shut off all content I wasn't directly paying for. A few things happened:

• The S/N got astonishingly better.

• The time spent on it was much lower.

• What I got out of it was more nuanced, and impacted me more deeply.

Now, a few other things happened: I missed some things, some of which was good (well-reasoned debates on HN, for example), some of which was the equivalent of junk food (tech news updates), but still not without some utility and applicability.

I also decided some of my subscription content really wasn't worth it, because it started to feel an awful lot closer to the ad supported stuff I'd just detox'd off of, than the higher quality stuff I was paying for.

I also missed some really, really good 'blogs from people who are respected industry figures, and run the 'blog more to make sure they stay respected industry figures, than to directly profit from them. Those are back in the (much reduced) fray.

Which is all to say: I think if we paid directly for the content we consumed on TV, it could work out OK. And, once the industry realizes its model is unsustainable, everything will cost less to produce, and, hopefully, buy. (Think of sending $5-7 to an artist for their album, as opposed to paying ≥$10-15 to pay a lot of guys whose ability to add value is ever declining.) I'd just as soon watch 2-3 really superb TV shows per week and pay $100-300/year than spend that (or more) for the same stuff, plus a whole lot of noise and bloat. I think we'd come out of the other end better for it, and with more to show.

At the risk of being hastily axiomatic, I could say that everyone's beholden to someone. Or, at least, content creators who want to be paid for their work, are. I'd rather they be primarily beholden to the customer, than to the advertiser, or the political climate and/or government, etc. Any other arrangement, to me, seems too compromised, if for no other reason than because a direct wallet-vote seems to be the most powerful.
Oh yes, I've come to understand that these things are very valuable to her, but it's difficult for me to imagine. She's very cheap, unless it's something she cares very much about. When she's researching those things she's a huge optimizer, and I'm the biggest satisficer you can find. I think optimizers tend to be less happy though. For her engagement ring she spent months researching (wouldn't let me do it) and finally we bought a $7k ring. When she got it she was devastated that the ring didn't make her happier than it did. The good thing is, she's learning; I think she's realizing that optimizing everything doesn't actually lead to happiness.
Compared to enormous costs of the War On Drugs, the cost change would be clearly negative. It is much cheaper to ensure pot is not sold to minors, not distributed in schools, etc. - just as is done with alcohol/tobacco now - that to have dedicated police force, court system and prison system prosecuting marijuana users.

Societal costs of DUI would not change much - people that are careless enough to DUI would DUI anyway, and legal pot does not add much to it - whoever needs pot, knows where to get it even illegally, and obviously if he doesn't care about the law while DUI, he wouldn't also care about the law before, while consuming. So while a minor rise in DUI is possible since people that smoked in home because they were afraid to be arrested may now smoke outside and then drive, I think it won't be very significant. Most people know how to be responsible.

Rehab costs would rise since more people which have dependency problem would turn to rehab now that they aren't branded criminals anymore, but I think it is a good thing, and the cost will be completely covered by the reduction of costs in policing, courts and prisons. Especially that marijuana is a relatively lightly-addictive drug, so rehab would not be as costly as for heavier substances.
So does this mean Apple will now be competing in the medical plaster market or perhaps going back in time to compete with 1920 Rolex watch's or some other swiss watch maker.

Rounding corners is also staple children toy design mentality and common health and safty.

Does this mean non Apple tablet will now have to have sharp pointy edges as from that perspective, this is again another crazy move in the land of common sence. What next, cars now have to have square wheels as Apple obtains patent upon compressed rounded rectangles. I think I'm joking but had I read this upon the Onion I would of laughed, but nowadays the Onion seems too tame in contrast to actualy happening news, worrying times. I'm now off to sharpen the corners upon my old collectiuon of CRT based TV's, utterly pointless but it is the law (sorry joke just had to get out somehow).
Math in spotlight on os x showed me that there is someone in the company who pays attention to how a user uses the system. Not just the math part, but the fact that you can copy the result to the pasteboard with the keyboard shortcut
His response to another comment here is directly counter to your assumptions about him:

The problem is that "the best" is different for everyone. I can post some of the things that are the best to me, but it's also about the journey of finding out what really matters to you.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4755552
Get a copy of Frontier First Encounters - the last part of franchiase:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXKTTB95JlY
I didn't get any sense of being defined by it. It's simply knowing that a particular item you own will fulfill most criteria you find important in an item of that type.

For example, I own a Solo wood burning stove and an Esbit brass alcohol burner. I spent a few days researching them before my purchase, and I take them with me whenever I go on a multi-day hike. I did the same for everything in my pack. So now, if I ever lose my pack (a distinct possibility), I can build up a replacement and order whatever I need in less than an hour because the hard part (research) has already been done. On top of that, I have the peace of mind in knowing that my tools are unlikely to fail me in my time of need.

Of course, I sometimes make bad purchases even after researching, at which point I decide whether to replace it with something else, or accept its deficiencies.

It's not about price or status. Some stuff was expensive. Some stuff was very cheap. Some stuff I bought at the Salvation Army store. Some stuff I built myself because the storebought stuff didn't suit my purposes well enough. The cheapest item I own is a deodorant salt crystal that I bought for 89 cents and will last me for years so long as I don't drop and shatter it.

It's about choosing where your comfort level is with various "things". Sometimes the "best" is actually disposable or will break after a few uses.

I don't buy things very often, but on the rare occasions that I do, I research carefully first. That's not a definition of me; it's just something I do so that I can know where I stand with respect to the tools and items I use. Everything has a purpose that I can cite instantly, and if I can't, I get rid of it.
It is a create your own store product. People would have simply been making a store and then using software to spam their links everywhere. I think sub domains are usually treated as separate domains though?
> It's hard to quantify just how close he was.

It is hard to do with the final, "chance of winning" numbers, but it is much easier with his share of the vote predictions, and you can check those predictions for all states that way, even the ones where the winner was certain.

Say Nate predicts that candidate A will get 80% of the votes in a particular state, with a margin of error of 2%. Then, after the results are out, if that candidate got 81% of the votes, then it was a good prediction, if they got 90% of the votes, it was a bad prediction.

To quantify that, you want to compare the actual error with the predicted error. There are better ways than this, but I'll make one up on the spot: score = 1 / (actual error percentage points * predicted error percentage points). In the first case, the score would be 1 / (1 * 2) = 0.5. In the second, 1 / (10 * 2) = 0.05. The bigger the score, the better the prediction. (This isn't a great model, since it rates a prediction with a large margin of error which happened to be bang on higher than a roughly right prediction with a narrow predicted error, but this is the general idea.)
Windows 8: Operating Under the Influence
Is it possible to make 100%-width elements ?
> Perfection is meaningless when it comes to material goods. They're always a means to an end.

I think he's well aware of that. While some of the examples were kind of strange and materialistic, there's a lot of truth in the concept that some goods are made better than others. When I use cheap goods, I tend to have a poor experience with it and uncertainty about its ability to do its job[1]. Higher-quality stuff ("the best"), for the most part, doesn't have this problem. I can trust that the stuff I'm using will let me get on with my life without getting in my way. It's like reaching into the toolbox and finding the exact tool you need for the job at hand - rather than fighting with something that's kinda-sorta what you need, you can just do what needs to get done. That time I was fixing the shower head and had the pipe tape I needed on-hand and where I expected it to be: it prevented a five-minute job from turning into a two-hour ordeal. I like that.

You raise a great point though - a lot of this stuff is not necessary at all. But various situations often beyond our control will always be changing our standards of living. I think the real take-away is that if you're going to have stuff to improve your life, make sure you're getting stuff good enough that it's actually an improvement.

[1] All the electronic crap in bathrooms, like paper towel dispensers and automatic flush toilets. When it works, great - but when it doesn't, you're fighting with inanimate objects that try to re-solve problems we solved centuries ago. #firstworldproblem I know, but I could do without the "am I going to have to wave my hand in front of the paper towel dispenser for thirty seconds again?" every time I wash my hands.
I both agree and disagree.

On the one hand I think it's worth specifically "buying for life" [1], eg buying high quality, durable things once and reusing them indefinitely. Reject our throw-away culture and planned obsolescence, be more effecient and less wasteful with natural resources, recognizing that unless you plan to be a full-on monk you will most likely need to buy some things in life.

On the other hand, statements like this strike me as narrow, lacking perspective. After hiking for months across Southeast Asia, I do hope you have more take away than:

>These might seem like stupid things to worry about, but when you have trust in everything you own, you don’t have to worry about anything. It’s liberating and an amazing feeling. My life was markedly better because of it.

No, what is amazing and liberating is transcending having to trust in things at all because you have such relentless resourcefulness, determination, and physical and mental health that it doesn't matter whether you have every thing you need, you can make do without it. You can, as the US Marines put it, improvise, adapt, and overcome [2]. You're not dependent in any way on what you own, and as a result, are not owned by it [3].

So I think there's a bit of yin/yang here. Of the stuff you must buy, buy high quality for the long haul, but don't become so attached and emotionally invested that it ends up owning you.

[1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/

[2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWCYv40Ur1g

[3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPPvkhGZT7Y
Capitalism (video game)
The comment reminded me of some sketches from British comedy legend, Harry Enfield.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVvcD4Czx4Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQXJIi4oCGs
This is why I wouldn't touch SEO as a consultant. They ended up getting sued, despite little chance probably they could fix their issues without massive internal changes to the service. I guess the SEO company overpromised.
You mean my 24 chickens? Yes, you may have them.
Indeed, I do wonder if Hollywood had focused more on filing IP patents instead of complaining about protecting there margins then they would of been better of.

Now if somebody could only patent taking an idea from a movie or TV series and applying in real life. Then put that in the public domain, well, it would be interesting for the public at least with regards to being able to apply common sence with a hint of health and safty. Not like we have square eye's and retro displays were rectangular with rounded corners.
Indeed. Even Mondale got 40% of the vote. The idea of Reagan as a qualitatively different "uniter" and "great communicator" is mostly a myth. The truth of the matter is that 1984 represented the apex of the "southern strategy", the republicans having shorn up the southern white rural vote pioneered by Nixon, but not having lost the middle class of the northeast or west, nor yet dealing with the emergent minority demographics of the modern world.

And he was a great candidate facing a pretty mediocre one as an incumbent in a growing economy. It was a perfect storm of circumstance, not a unique moment.
What's ultimately important is being happy. "Materialism" is only bad if it causes unhappiness.
> Dustin Curtis's problem here is that he thinks his subjective preferences are objectively true.

And that's exactly what mapgrep did too with "what is ultimately important in life are people". Seriously? Glad for you if you've found that people and building connections is your calling in life but if you try to shove your subjective preference down others' throats you aren't any better in principle than Curtis. FWIW I don't particularly care for either materialism, people or connections (that's nihilistic tendencies for you) but I'm not trying to convince anyone.
I think we are getting closer to understanding here. You're kind of quibbling over the definition of value in your other post - someone can provide a "valuable" service even if it isn't currently being used (by your 'real transactors'). I might sleep better at night knowing that if I want to liquefy my investment in Apple tomorrow, I can do so without having to worry that nobody will be there to take the other side of the trade, that I'll have to pay an enormous spread or be left holding a position I want to be out of. An international corporation can be more confident of planning their cashflows knowing that the FX market will always be liquid, and will be quoting at most 2 ticks wide in the majors 24 hours a day every day. This is the oil of an economy, the freedom to allocate capital when you want, where you want and pay the smallest possible friction costs to do so.

Many things in our economy can be described as a zero-sum game. Society only needs so much of any given good, and at the retailer level you aren't involved in increasing demand.
Two corner stores might get into a price/advertising war, but let's argue that there is still only a fixed amount of product they can sell to a small community. So advertiser's get fat on fees (in our case, exchanges do). So what is the point you ask? Evolution, competition, it can only be good for the consumer. You still haven't disputed that by the way, the consumer wins don't they? How could they possibly have lost? It takes a tin foil hat to think that it isn't better and cheaper to invest now.

" they are not selected by the quality of the service, just ability to rip each other off" - people have a bit of a naive view that there are some sort of magical harlem globetrotter moves you can pull on an order book. The mechanics are dead simple I'm afraid. It isn't chess, not even checkers. You can't even see the other participants, everything is anonymous on the exchanges I've dealt with. Spoofing is illegal, and that is about as clever as it gets. Very little you can do to make your algo better will put it at odds with providing a better quality service.

To prove that, remember the two types of algo. If I write a liquidity provider that doesn't offer a tighter spread than the competition, I will miss out on trade flow and make little or nothing. If I write a liquidity taker that has an opinion that is wrong about the correct value of a security, someone else who is right will smash me. So effectively we are selecting for more liquidity, tighter spreads, and more accurate prices reflecting available information.
Why is it now trendy to publish private mail like this? Is there really that much public benefit to be had?
Which Windows 8 built-in apps have ads?
'Controlversial' Open Source WURFL doesn't support the iPad Mini
> Those forks may be best for Curtis at his dinner.

Yeah, I think that's the point, since he's the author. Or are we still writing middle school essays where we have to explicitly put "I think" in front of every subjective sentence?
They do come with the system, but you can uninstall them.
"Note that state law has no effect on the War on Drugs"

In reality, this is not correct. More and more states enacting these initiatives will have a direct effect on the War on Drugs.
While I try very hard to own a minimum set of possessions, always buying "the best" rings very true for me. Here in The Yukon we have 20+ hours of daylight for activities in the summer, and regularly see -40C/F in the winter.

Quite simply, if you don't buy "The Best" of anything, it will break or fall apart very quickly.

Kia cars last at most 2 winters up here.

Cheap canoes and kayaks won't last one summer.

I bought $200 hiking boots that were destroyed in one month walking to work at -40C

Gore-tex? freezes solid, cracks and is destroyed after -35C

The motto is very simple. Buy it right the first time.
UFC 154: Carlos Condit warns Georges St. Pierre: "I will Spoil the Party"
Yes. Get the CS minor. It means something to a lot of employers, so is worth it for that alone, and you'll probably pick up algorithmic techniques that you might not have thought about.

There will be plenty of time for side projects afterwards. (And I'll bet you'll still find some time to build stuff.)
The 'people with money' could make it happen if they wanted to, but since they have money, they're not too concerned about the government taking things away.

The little guy has more to lose than the big guys, but few people are going to jump through hoops for the little guy.
Not necessarily different shaped mouths, but there are different ways of eating and different ways of using a fork depending on your sex, hand size, culture, daily caloric intake etc.

You can't make "the best fork" unless you also want to enforce your way of eating upon people who are going to use your fork. You can, however, try to make the best fork for the largest group of people and get people to become loyal to your brand. After they become loyal to you, you will feel more and more power to enforce your ways of doing things and as a result your products will get "even better" in their eyes. This is what most companies are trying. But only Apple is exceptionally good at this. Hence, I think this whole article serves the purpose of subconsciously justifying the author's brand loyalty to Apple.