skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's an interesting story. There's a great book called spin selling that mentions some study where they tried to look at the effectiveness of closing tactics like the ones you saw.

They found that for reasonably inexpensive purchases (a $300 camera for example), the hard close can work quite well. But for more expensive, complex purchases, like million dollar software contracts, the hard sell is pretty much the worst thing you can do.

For more complex sells, it pays to uncover and explore the true expense associated with a problem and paint a picture of the user continuing with current product (their competitors put them out of business) vs your product (they put their competitors out of business).

Just don't break out the calculator, offer the one time only special deal, or do anything else from the school of 24 hour fitness gym membership sales training unless you want to get kicked out of your prospect's office.
Slightly off-topic: I read somewhere once that Ghandi advised German Jewish Leaders that they should have tried his tactic of non-violence against the Nazis. I think they replied that the British Empire, although wrong, weren't monsters like the Nazis.
Shut up idiot!.
Why isn't there a plugin to Find in Files in the same way Ctrl-P works? Open the best match in buffer as results stream in.
> Even in India, the nature of non violence movement was not completely non violent

It's difficult, if not impossible, for non-violent movements to succeed without the existence of credible threat of violence. Sad, but generally true. This was true of Ghandi and Bhagat Singh's India, as it was for ANC (or MK) and Mandela's South Africa.

The Israelis have little motivation to come to the negotiating table towards a diplomatic solution because the threat of violence against them is not credible enough to act as a deterrent. It is rational for Israel to not show restraint and act in the most aggressive manner possible.
Being under embargo/blockade is not the same as having no state. When the US did the same to Cuba 50 years ago, Cuba didn't magically disappear or become invalid.

Do you know why the US did that to Cuba? They were smuggling missiles in. See a pattern there?
Good thing someone brought the non-aggression principle up. Personally, I don't believe in it. I mean, I think eventually the society becomes smart enough to understand aggression in any circumstances is both costly and immoral. However, I also recognize that it's a long way to go there. I think before we get there, we'd have to rely on some sort of protection and the monopoly which government has to provide it cannot be a good solution. It is inconceivable how people hate monopolies when it comes to things like smartphones, airlines or even shoes, but when it comes to their own protection the monopoly is taken for granted.
So, Hamas is about average for governments that the US supports?
If your strategy is to deliberately hide behind civilians when firing your rockets, when those civilians get hit I don't think the responsibility for it lies with Isarel.
I've taken to using HootSuite as a primary Twitter client primarily as an interface to view various lists. I'm following the Baja 1000 off road race this week and while I'm looking for updates on the race I don't care so much about the web developers and other topics I follow. Next week I'll be back to looking for insight on various development topics and the late tweets on how hard the racers and their crews partied in Ensenada or La Paz don't matter much to me.

HootSuite doesn't have the prettiest interface but it is functional and reasonably fast for a web client so it works for me.
Really great article and very refreshing to read. We recently adjusted the pricing on one of our services http://www.advantly.com to include a lower price monthly package and 2 other value added packages that require annual subscriptions. It has proven to be successful for us and the subscriptions to our annual packages have increased.
So just reading the post I got a little confused (and then i found out he's the creator of App.net and wondered if his passion isn't clouding his best judgement) Firstly the quote: "Given that most of their traffic comes from us, if we build adequate if not superior competitors, I think we ought to be able to match them if not exceed them." - I just wasn't quite sure what this quote meant - I certainly didn't assume it mean't we're going to block them though. Maybe they did block them but shouldn't the correct quote end with "I think we ought to be able to block them"?

He's been using it for a long time to consume news and information. Ok, makes sense. Yet this is apparently objectionable or at the very least damming. I think it's damming because he says he's a consumer not a producer of tweets. Is this news to anyone?

"Admit failure and give up on trying to get normal people to tweet" The balance in twitter's tweet creation and consumption happened organically. Kudos to Twitter for allowing it to happen vs forcing unnatural acts? "You should tweet more!" I don't look too closely but it seems like it's been an open secret for 2 + years that 80% of all tweets come from 5 - 10% of users or whatever.

I guess I wouldn't call it a pivot if Twitter is focusing heavily on the 10% that do 90% of the tweeting vs trying to get the other 90% to tweet more.
It's genuine. Having a bit of fun, because I always liked those online "treasure hunts".

And my guess is that your WTFs relate to the fact that the numbers change on every pageview. That's because it's not an encryption, but more an obfuscation. There is a pattern in the numbers though that, if you figure it out, will lead you to the same solution for a set each time. The answer for the first set is always the reference to the Eiffel tower. The answer to the second set... well... let me know (including how you figured it out -- so I know it's not just a random guess) and the prize money is yours :)
I dont know if he's a troll, or just stupid, or a jew
If you have no control of what enters or leaves your territory, no control over the air above your head or the electromagnetic spectrum, and no international passports, I don't see how you can be a state.

The whole point of a state is that it has some effective control.
Ok, sure. Let's not argue then. I have a question though (and it's not intended to spark an argument), I'm just curious to know, how and why do you think people become libertarians?
They really aren't. That's kind of the point.
But this is not a de facto recursion limit of the system - the limit is encoded in the program itself, in the macros used to implement the limited recursion.

void f() { f(); } is only limited by the system, and if compiled on a system that automatically expands the stack to fill all available memory, you could in theory keep adding memory, and the system could handle more recursions. The recursion limit is external to the program.

But the linked c-preprocessor programs would have to be explicitly modified by adding more lines of code to achieve the same thing.
Yes, because in Apartheid South Africa, you had black justices on the Supreme Court, just like you have Palestinians Justices on the Israeli Supreme Court. Oh, hold on...
Ask HN: why are some (political in nature) posts censored while others are not?
I recently posted a well written piece about Prop 30 (via Pando Daily) on HN: http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/13/proposition-30-yet-another-way-california-screws-entrepreneurs-over/. It was quickly censored by the mods.

I then looked at the HN guidelines which stated that most "political" articles are considered "off-topic." I considered it to be "on-topic," since it directly affects entrepreneurs and their companies based in CA. But fine, their forum, their rules.

But how is this TC article on Ron Paul any different (which has rec'd 100+ upvotes)? http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/16/ron-pauls-farewell-address-the-internet-can-stop-big-government/
Maybe you will like this https://github.com/vinhnx/Ciapre.tmTheme
Don't confuse classical liberalism with American liberalism.
That's actually true. In fact you can read that on Gandhi's wikiquote page - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mohandas_K._Gandhi [To Every Briton (1940)]

Actually non violence worked for more than one reason. Its also that the British, after world war 2 had no where the resources to control a massive country like India. It was also there purpose was done, and things were getting way out of their control. And it was better to leave honorably.
500 million to a billion is on the same order of magnitude. Seems reasonable to me.
And the famous CommandT plugin for vim inspired from Textmate.
I don't really understand your point about authenticated API's.

It seems like twitters API is just authenticated because they want control over the apps that access use it, and not expressly for user's privacy.

For example, this trends map (http://trendsmap.com/) is presumably based on twitters API, has location data, and is open for anyone to access.
[citation needed]

His motivations are obviously only for us to guess at, but why bother replying at all if not for other people to see it?
Yeah, the problem is that "study it out" is not a valid response, in practical terms, to someone saying your political ideas are stupid. Most people will never bother. Being able to understand this and be "flexible" (read: inconsistent) is what makes a person a good politician.
We build online trading applications with KO (we use it only for the view, we have our own Presentation Model were we have observers which pretend to be KO observables) and we have found it quite helpful.

The components built are FX tiles, trade and order tickets.
Imagine a Hacker News without Dalton Caldwell or 37 Signals.... Mmmmmmmm
Email annoys me when I want to have a real-time conversation with my mother - which is why, when that happens, I use the medium that's intended for that sort of thing.
What I need to know is how are people versioning the settings? For Vim, a simple .vimrc is all I need to take care of. What do people do for Sublime?
It is not enterprise that strikes back, it is the technology that strikes. Cloud, IT are doing good and so are enterprises and startups in same.
That was the second WTF.

I doubt that I'll be able to fully invert your scheme, but I've finally found a little non-stochastic blood in the water. (staying quiet to preserve the fun)
Republicans Repudiate 40 Years of Tougher Copyright Laws
Let me preface this by saying that I'm actually pretty much onboard with a lot of the Libertarian policies that I've heard. Like anything, of course, I think it can be taken too far. So, when you ask for a "very specific example", this is the sort of thing that comes to mind:

- City governments have health inspectors that check local restaurants, and food-product companies to ensure they are using good ingredients, that the equipment is clean, etc. In a libertarian world (at least, certain versions of one) this practice would not exist. Now think what happens when a Monsanto executive realizes that paying the occasional legal suit is cheaper than keeping their packing plants clean and disease-free.
I really enjoyed reading this. I liked the writing style, and the mood of the pictures gave the story a good feeling to it.

Thanks for sharing.
If you find the "s" too much to type... and the "ubl"... and the space...

Voila!

command_not_found_handle() {
[[ -e "$1" ]] && subl "$1"
}
You realise Gaza has a border with Egypt as well, right? You can't blame Israel for keeping that one closed.
> But I suppose they'd just wind up getting sued

You answered your own question. People seem to be under the impression that just because something is accessible with a web browser it no longer falls under copyright and you can use it how you want. This has never been true. Any web site can make a terms of use (and most do) that prohibit you scraping their data.
Firefox OS Simulator as Firefox Addon
Well, what's the alternative to having majorities vote? Since I gather you're a libertarian, let's make a market-based argument.

There will always be some demand for violence (meaning the application or threat of force to cause other autonomous agents to act a certain way), and there will always be suppliers of violence. The question then becomes of market structure: do we want decentralized and competing suppliers of violence in a given geographic area, or a monopoly? Both can be Pareto-efficient, so that provides no guidance.

Having a monopoly supplier, however, gives that supplier an incentive to maximize the net economic value of its customers: this allows it to extract more of that value. Competing suppliers, however, have no such incentive: if one cultivates a client, there's no reason for the others not to swoop in and extract the surplus. It's a race to the economic bottom. If economic well-being and surplus are good, then having a competitive market in violence is bad.

Okay, so we have a monopoly supplier of violence. What then, though? How do we structure it internally? Well, the way it arises will be the way it's structured, regardless of what we might like in an imaginary world. And that will be some group of agents who have to negotiate contracts with each other and with the customers who are exchanging labor in exchange for violence.

What remains is squeezing out the information and liquidity gaps that make every market inefficient. People should have a clear set of rules that they can assume will be okay with the monopoly violence supplier: then they will not miscalculate when they do something thinking it will not cause violent reprisals. That's what we call rule of law.

That says nothing about what the contract is, though: it may be "everyone pays a flat fee," it may be commission based, it may be commission based on a sliding scale. Who should decide that? Well, you ultimately don't want internal factions to splinter off to compete with the original monopoly (after all, we like the monopoly! At least at the margins.) So you've got to set up an corporate structure where no large enough group of customers feel that they could have a better deal with another supplier in the market. Everyone needs equal input.

We've tended to solve that problem with majority vote.
I think it was Thomas Friedman who said this, if the Palestinians resort to terror attacks, Israel will just use that to attack them more. They remain silent, and they will just go on building settlements. Either way they will lose.

Gandhi's non violence movement was successful because he won the PR war by a very heavy margin. Greatest intellectuals of his time were writing essays on him, images of a thin old man, wearing just a homespun cloth marching on streets, giving speeches to keep restraint and never to submit co operate to bend to the British. Combined with his cause for the poor, and fighting against traditional caste based problems in India made him a hero among rural masses. All in all it made the British look very bad to be even putting up a fight against him.

If there is a every a break out of videos or pictures of Palestinians going on mass hunger fasts. Or that of they standing in the line of fire embracing bullets in the face of a F-16 firing on them and they not retaliating back. Things like that can do far more damage than rocket attacks can.

In fact there was some Palestinian guy and a couple of women who fasted in the Israeli jails and got their way some months back. Its surprising who much 'not fighting' can be powerful than 'fighting' provided you get the Press coverage.

Palestine's Gandhi movement can be very dangerous for the Israelis.
Indeed. The inefficiencies are indecent enough to make an economist blush.
I'm not sure what this is saying. If it's talking about things the browser can be made to do my response is "so? that's intentional".

If it's about things that can happen if you embed user (read: attacker) provided content in your page then you have already lost. There's never a time that you can safely embed content from an untrusted source in your page - no blacklist or whitelist based approach to content is going to be safe. The correct approach to user provided content is to parse the content, drop anything you don't understand or recognize exactly. Then escape all of the left over content, and reconstruct at the end.

You could use markdown to do this for you, or you could do it manually if you want you own rules (and/or <>-like syntax).

Filtering content is just not sound and every time I see something that seems to imply that it is, it makes me cry.

(A example of this taken to its extreme is WebGL shader parsing. A correct + "safe" implementation of WebGL must at the very least:
1. parse the shader itself, dropping all comments, etc
2. perform strict semantic analysis on the result of <1> (especially as many GL drivers don't)
3. take the result of <2> and turn that back into text
4. throw the result of <3> at the gl engine

This is necessary to ensure that not only is the shader correct (in the terms of webgl), but also to ensure that no parsing oddities can get through (e.g. something seen as a comment terminator in the driver but not the validator - bugs like this have happened with multiple validators in multiple contexts over the last few decades)
This article misses a few points. I'm not going to cover all of them, but here's my pet issue:

Yes, you can access existing Gmail accounts over Tor. But in my experience, it is damn hard to create them over the anonymizing network. Google wants a mobile phone number, which of course defeats the point. On the other hand, Hotmail had no such requirement last time I attempted this…
I loved how the spokesman turned around the negativity in one swoop. From "Amazon's losing money" to "it's right that Prime Instant Video is an amazing value for customers."
Facebook Denies Suppression and 4 Social Media Stocks See Action
"I was duped" didn't cover it? Had to make it a homework for one of your MBA classes?
This (free) video walkthrough is a terrific resource, and with no disrespect to the OP, is a better resource regarding getting the most out of ST2.
Things like that can do far more damage than rocket attacks can.

No, not really. We have cases like this:

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/05/17/201019/non-viol...

and it doesn't seem to change anything.

Also, is there any writer on foreign affairs more ignorant than Thomas Friedman?
I don't know if it's because it's late but omg this is hilarious!
I remember you, and I recognize all those names! Pretty crazy where everyone ended up.
An atrocious effort and a waste of otherwise serviceable sarcasm. Please try again.
Flexbook has all the features that are mentioned by Apple (and same Design). Example:
http://www.rubenswieringa.com/code/as3/flex/Book/
Non-aggression is not no-aggression. To summarize, using my understanding, is that it is unlawful to "aggress" someone until they "aggress" you. Many cultures are based on this concept.

NAP allows for "retaliatory violence" (had aggression but as pointed out below is not the correct usage of the word aggression).

One of the difficulties, as you point out, comes when people don't realize that they are aggressing others. An example being when they attempt to limit who can get married to who (whom?).

Again, there are good intentions behind such aggression (limit the right to use marijuana to protect children) but the results of aggression seem to always lead to more aggression (creation of an illegal drug black market leading to instability in Mexico).
wow, thanks for the edumacation :) obviously didn't know soe of those things, and completely ignored the local domain bits.
Sorry, but it's painfully obvious from your post that you don't actually use twitter, at least not regularly enough to "get it".

- user names are a huge part of what makes Twitter interesting, imho it's not meant to be the type of service with real names

- replies do get grouped as complete conversations, and it's been that way for a while now.

- lists really aren't that hard to use, I don't know what your problem with it is

- and the 140 char thing is your craziest point... 140 chars is exactly what makes twitter so great and so interesting, if the messages were longer it would drastically affect how the service works and feels.

Basically what I'm getting at is that Twitter is already fantastic for users... unfortunately it isn't making them enough money, which is why they're changing so many thing about the service, but let's not pretend they're changing things because the user experience is so bad... if the experience was so bad, they wouldn't have the millions and millions of users that they have now.
There were a bunch of Twitter apologists a while back who went around saying "hey, they just want to communicate with you when your service gets popular so they can support you better, make sure you don't subvert their monetization". But no, it turns out they really do just want you to die and go away.

So I imagine those people who were doing the apologizing are surprised. And as most of the rest of us thought, Twitter has withdrawn from being a platform and is just a business now. Just like any other business, don't bother doing anything with them unless you draw it up in a contract in advance. The independent 3rd party ecosystem for Twitter is dead. But the good news is that the opportunity for a startup that wants to be a true platform in this space is riper than it has been for a while.
When you tackle a certain problem and try to apply a libertarian framework to it, odds are you have to check if it's an implicit monopoly that you're dealing with and go from there.

In your particular example you're dealing with a city government monopoly for health inspection. It's not free and is paid by citizens in the form of taxes. If there was no government and citizens believed it is in their interest to have such an inspection, surely you'd have at least one, but possibly two or more competing with each other and financed by consumers voluntarily. When you have a government, what you have is a monopoly which is, apart from all other evils of monopoly, much more vulnerable to corruption. If a government official is bribed and it is revealed, he may go to jail, but the agency itself stays in business. Which means it has almost no incentive whatsoever to prevent corruption among its employees.

Finally, government doesn't really ask people if they need such an inspection after all and if yes, how thorough the inspectors should be: maybe businesses in this town are exceptionally honest, or maybe, on the other hand, they are exceptionally sloppy. So what you have with a government in place is a monopoly which business operations are based not on the actual demand for its services, but rather on some metrics that government officials came up with, which may or may not be useful.
great idea and approach.

might be worth adding way to have the community mark a tab as complete. the couple i checked other than the tutorial ones weren't finished.. made the experience frustrating. i know its early and coverage will only improve, but that might help smooth out that process.
You probably could have used that piece of evidence to get a real killer deal on that car ;)
Machine Learning for Astronomy with Scikit-learn
I was in china for a month and had a great time eating at local restaurants that weren't monitored by health inspectors.

Most of the developing world does not have health inspectors monitoring restaurants because it's not that important of a thing to do.

The lack of food regulations in China made it possible for lots of amazing restaurants to exist because local people don't worry about regulations. If they want to sell you food, they just do it. Somehow, society manages to exist in this manner and it's actually quite nice.
Written by fellow HNer, me:) Questions, suggestions, and praise are all welcome.