skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There are two varieties of bohm interpretation:

one says that there are "hidden variables". what this means is all particles store information, from the start of existence, about all other particles they will ever have anything to do with. how they store this vast amount of information isn't explained. then, they act on the information. then somehow either this information is used by some physical process to follow the SE (Schrodinger Equation), or they don't bother with that and say the SE is sometimes false for some reason or other. notice all the parts where some explanation is left out. that makes it ridiculous to call this a reasonable alternative to MWI. MWI does flesh out details.

the other version -- the pilot wave theory -- says there are special particles that go along one groove of the wave function: our universe. this is a ridiculous attempt to make up some special status for our universe.

GRW is about the wave function randomly collapsing when there's enough information flow we might have to face the prospect of other universe-sized-things. why random? b/c that's better than saying "when we want it to so we can avoid MWI" and better than copenhagen's "when people are watching". how do they try to get away with this? well, mostly universes don't affect each other. so basically any time a universe isn't going to affect ours anymore, a "random" collapse occurs, and it disappears. this doesn't break things too too badly b/c ... it's a bit like saying anything so far away we can't see it, doesn't exist. frustrating to disprove. but still ridiculous.
When Does a Social Network Become a "Publicity Network"?
It's not a voting problem, it's a scaling problem; I believe. Simply put: social news sites don't scale very well.

As communities grow:

1. You and I can't get things on the home page any more. It becomes only for the well connected.

2. Subjects lose focus.

3. It becomes a gold mine for spammers. They'd do anything to game the system if they can get 234,000 visitors from one post [1].

The solution, I believe: Keep communities smaller and focused. If need be, create many small communities.

[1] http://blog.mindvalleylabs.com/marketing/how-to-get-traffic-...
Ug. Not a very good example of design. The letter spacing of the subtitles is so large that you practically have to spell them out.
Here's something more entertaining -- here's a YouTube video lampooning Gore's film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI

Of course, it's not what it seems,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore%27s_Penguin_Army

I like the word that they used -- astroturfing. Apparently DCI sponsored a fake grassroots campaign. -.-
I just experienced this dilemma with the 'Facebook Sucks' post by Dave Winer (heh) that went up on YC news earlier today or last night.

I thought the linked story was pretty lame, but at the same time, I thought it was an interesting conversation. In the end, I didn't vote up the link, but I did participate pretty heavily in the comments.

I would like a way to distinguish between liking the story and thinking that other people should see it. But at the same time, I realize how complicated that would make things.

This question/dilemma actually relates directly to my YC app/idea, so I'm going to be following the comments in this thread pretty closely.
even though WE don't like poll stories or random bush bashing on the front page, a TON of people do like them

Not quite, unfortunately. The problem with voting, as the reddits realized from the very beginning, is that people will vote something up not just because they liked it, but because they want other people to read it. And a site full of what the majority want everyone else to read could be significantly less interesting than one full of what people like themselves.

And with polls there's not even a pretense that they reflect anyone's interest. The voting mechanism is being hacked for another use.
At the same time, monetizing eyeballs requires lots of numbers. I guess the solution then is to make a site that feels like a ton of people are there, but still operates quality-wise as if there's a small community actually controlling the content.
People voting for whatever they want other people to read is basically the same as voting for what they want themselves. I know surveyors occasionally ask questions like "How do you think most people would answer the following question: ___" in order to get an honest answer in cases where people might not want to fess up to some position personally.
Since my YC app deals with this directly, I've been thinking about it a lot. My idea has to do with voting quotes up/down (kinda like Jyte, http://jyte.com ).

In allowing people to vote up/down, I realized that there needed to be a separation between 'Yes this quote is accurate' and 'Yes I think this quote is important', since the two can be exclusive.

In the end I decided to implement a two-step process. The first step is to Agree/Disagree with the quote at hand. Once a user has voted in this way, they have an optional second step to vote for how 'Important' the quote is (important or unimportant).

I have yet to see how it will work out, but I'd love any comments you guys could provide.
I have a hard time voting anything up, mainly because I have no idea what I'm signifying.

I literally have to remind myself go through the news list and comments and vote up every so often -- after I've consumed the material. It's not part of the consumption process for me at all.

There have been a lot of stories on YC that I agreed with, but I thought the linked article was poor. And what about good AskYC questions that have no-so-good conversations? Would you vote up the question because it's good, or ignore it because there's nothing of value there for anybody else?

This is kind of one of those seemingly pointless philosophical conversations that have a great deal of meaning once they turn into solid solutions.
People voting for whatever they want other people to read is basically the same as voting for what they want themselves.

Only if the Bible is basically the same as porn.
I think we all would like it if everyone else were better behaved than we want to be.
Individual recommendations don't fine tune social news, they destroy it. You no longer have a shared resource and the communication becomes very indirect.
Tesla Motors Co-Founder Martin Eberhard Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders Lecture [podcast]
In my opinion, this is as strong AI problem, and only people have strong AI. Therefore, large social sites are always going to need human moderators to have a good signal to noise ratio.
I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that importance is completely independent of agreement. It seems to me that agreement is one of the many variables that play into what's important (along with timeliness, 'interestingness,' widespread appeal, and tons of other things).

I think the quality not scaling is the main issue. Adding another step to the process is just going to make people less interested in contributing their opinion at all.
True; monetization requires big numbers. But why not split them into smaller communities? Rather than one huge home page, have a lot of smaller ones. And, then, allow the user to select the 5 or so that they like to participate in.

Restrictions are sometimes good. Compare Facebook to MySpace. With MySpace it's one huge community; everyone can see everyone. With Facebook, you can only join a small set of networks. You cannot even join San Francisco and Silicon Valley at the same time. True, people hate it, but it keeps the system manageable as it scales.

This is a subject I'm interested in and trying to build a startup to address it.
For a blind person, they basically are.

Why people vote the way they do is an interesting topic, but it won't really affect how the reddits of the world deal with it. A vote is a vote.
I've seen a lot of instances recently where some of the worst design (at least to my _untrained_ eye) is on sites promoting good design.
If you make the magic good enough, the filtering system will only filter out stories that the reader wouldn't read or comment on anyways. So it won't really affect the community.
Do people really know which topics they are interested in? I mean, there's stuff I like, such as astronomy, philosophy, or politics, but would I want to choose a group to limit my discourse there? I like philosophy but I'd hate reading a thesis in the subject. But a little light rationalist vs. subjectivist or philosophy of science reading would be great. Except for those times I'd just like to see pictures of naked famous people. How would these sub-groups come into existence? I just can't see it being topic-based.
I'm also very interested to see how something like that would play out. I'm kinda skeptical of any solution that adds complexity to what the user sees though. I'm guessing the more you ask on their part, less people will make proper use of it and click on all the required things appropriately. Then again perhaps thats what you want, only the serious users doing the clicking... We need experiments...
Edited: A web site doesn't have to cover ALL types of stories. This one doesn't cover politics or astronomy, for example. And, in fact, your point is more of an argument for a multi-community approach. Don't you think? For example, if you have multiple communities to choose from, you can read about marketing in the morning and about programming in the evening. Whatever you like.

Google News is organized this way, and it seems to work.
I find it interesting that only certain source of funding are a source of potential bias.

If he's wrong, there's no point in going into his supposed motives.

BTW - Did I miss the petition signed by a thousand German scientists?
By doing so, you make the UI complex. Only a small percentage of people vote in social news sites as it is, even with the simple one-click up/down.
I'd rather not have to pick my communities. Also, if it's strictly topical, how do you keep communities with heavy interest from getting too big?
Edited:

I think my point was more that people have "favorite" topics, but it's a loose and free-flowing thing, not a rigid structure. Computers are really good at rigid definitions, while people may be amenable to all kinds of fuzziness. Perhaps my group is better defined as "people who like science, astronomy, politics, and startups" -- but that wouldn't be the topics of the articles! The topics of the articles I like could be anything. And over time, I might add or subtract the stuff I like, even without being consciously aware of it. Heck, I'm not even sure I'm able to give you a precise list of topics I'm interested in, much less self-select against a preconceived ontology.
That's a bit generous, I think. Most people aren't smart at all. And even the ones that are don't act objectively and without bias. Ever.

Although I will admit that moderated solutions almost always come out better. See slashdot's complete lack of this problem.
My friend just got hired for a "job" that was an overpayment scam last week.

She was hired, given some work to do, and paid an advance. They then said a customer needed a refund, and they wanted her to wire her advance to Nigeria.
The problem is...now she has a cheque, assumes its some sort of scam, but what if it clears?

Was someone else scammed and she is the middleman? Is it legit?
I agree, systems like digg and alot of other voting sites, don't seem to create alot of invested time for the users.

What I mean is, the data they have the opportunity to collect and use to benefit the individual would make users infinitly more loyal, and reduce the chance of them being overly liberal in their voting habits. The reason being is that they'd CARE. My argument then if I had one to begin with is that users don't care about the system because there's nothing invested in it for them. Yes..Yes..the community..I know, but whats in it for them to make them care.
> I'd rather not have to pick my communities.

That's a true challenge due to how we make decisions. We, generally, don't want to feel that we're missing out on something. We want to get ALL the news. Although, in reality, we don't. By reading this site we're missing out on what's being said on many other interesting web sites, and we're okay with that. However, faced with the question: Do you want ALL the news or SOME news, we tend to choose the first.
IANAL, but I believe he is referring to the downsides of a standard form contract. The courts have put some limitations on such contracts, because one side gets to dictate the terms, and the other side cannot negotiate; he can only sign it or go home.

That said, I'm sure YC is going to make a fair contract. It's in their best interests for the startup to suceed, after all.
Not the best comparison. I don't see why a person would vote something up that they have no interest in personally. Altruism isn't all that common.
I see your point. So how about this: a community for people who like science, and another one for those who like politics, and so on. And, then, you choose to be a member of the science, astronomy, and politics clubs, and I choose to join the science and startups clubs. At least this is what I want to build.
Advise her to contact a lawyer immediately, as well as her bank if she has already deposited the cheque.
So then you've articulated exactly the type of site I'd love to see. I don't want to be asked what to see, I want to know I'm seeing everything I'm interested in seeing. And I don't want to see things I don't want to see. And, as an added bonus, I'd like the appearance of my input meaning something, too.
I didn't say it's a complete solution, otherwise we'd never have disagreements, wars, etc. But, it's the closest we'll get to a solution.

That being said, I think algorithms can be very effective as intelligence amplifiers, allowing us to make higher level decisions and micro manage less.
Well said. I need to think about this hard and deep. Obviously, this is a perfect-world scenario. Let's see how close we can get to it.
As an aside, this is actually true, though the filter we read the Bible through makes it quite boring. There's a reason the Bible is the most important book for understanding Western civilization.
Ad dollars flood Web, but will they go far enough?
Before you change the ranking, are there any specific things you like or dislike thus far? I've noticed a lot of new user accounts lately, so maybe now would be good for a state of the union.
That's pretty naive thinking. Almost as useful as thinking a war in Iraq can stabilize the Middle East.
Seems to me like Slashdot's comment system does two things that might address many of the problems you mention:

- instead of "Up" or "Down", the voting is a bit more granular - "+1 Informative", "-1 Flamebait" etc. The UI isn't MUCH more complicated - instead of a "vote up / vote down" link you have a dropdown.

- Voting points are a limited resource - assigned to "reliable users" randomly and expire after a few days. This makes it a bit harder to get a core of power users who are practically guaranteed to be voted up. As a bonus, the scarcity probably means that people are more likely to use their votes "wisely".

I wonder if something like this has been tried for selecting the front-page stories on a social news site, and how well it would work. As far as I know everyone's following Digg's model.
I'd like to see something like this tried instead of the yes/no button -- pick something with a little more meaning. Then at least the system has more information to present.
Wind power works by creating wind resistance. In order for there to be _less_ air resistance with them installed, they would have to be replacing something that caused even more wind resistance. But, that seems unlikely.
One obvious use is to see a book in a real bookstore, then immediately buy it cheaper online. Maybe you could even use the phone's camera to scan the UPC code. :-)
New apps put the hate in online networking
This article doesn't define scaling. It's clear enough from context, but it should be pointed out that price scaling and performance scaling are different. In fact, once you substitute "reduce $/GB over time" for "scale", the article becomes totally obvious. In other news, All Processors Should Follow Moore's Law (because if you don't, you'll go out of business).
I was quoted $275,000 for a domain last January. It's a very good name in a competitive market (mortgages.)

I say, "Oh? Well, gee, I only had $1000 budgeted."

They said "We're willing to negotiate." They offered it for $100K...then all the way down to $25K. They won't budge from there, though.

[Four months went by]

They contacted me to see if I'm still interested. I ended up paying $1300, but I had to wire the money IMMEDIATELY. Turns out they had an unexpected expense come up. I almost felt bad...

That will NEVER EVER happen if the domain you want is owned by a professional domainer company, though. They won't even usually talk to you, no matter how much cash you have to throw at them. They consider it too 'time-consuming' to even field the offers.

If you want to hear a sob story...I used to own SI.com. I was planning on using it for a Spanish language portal. I sold it for WAAAAAAY too little money. Now, of course, it's Sports Illustrated. It would have made a better Spanish language portal, dammit!
You can look at various services to get a very rough guesstimate at how much traffic the domain gets...Alexa, Comscore, etc. You can also check the number of backlinks, etc. That's basically all the domainers do. Ultimately, you just have to judge what it is worth to you, though. It is rarely worth paying the quoted price.

Most "appraisals" from domain companies aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Everyone massively overestimates the value of 95% of domains...especially if they own the domain in question. Inflation of domain prices is so pervasive and out of control that it is almost humorous. There is a reason that most of the domains in the world are just 'parked' by squatters...MASS PSYCHOSIS.
no need to.
Functional Programming In Industry
"Putting my own experiences aside for the now, the focus of this post is functional programming in industry. As an outsider with an interest in the community I often wonder why it is so small and how the situation can be improved. Everyone keeps going on about how beneficial functional programming is over imperative programming: faster development, shorter code, less bug prone and easier to test to name just a few."
The Declining US Dollar: Google and Non-US Startups are the winners
Jaiku makes good sense in the mobile world where written (thumbed) communication needs to be short. It can offer Google a good user-base from which they can launch other mobices (1). Great for embedding ads, and for the multi-lingual user-base

(1) MOBIle serviCES.. If I'm the first to coin this term, CC Attribution please :P
I'm impressed you were able to do it with just incorporation papers! That would normally just make the squatter see dollar signs.

I've only SEIZED CONTROL of a squatted domain once, and I had to send trademark documentation. [Since most squatters are just speculators they don't bother to register the names as trademarks. If they are redirecting within your industry (and the class you got the trademark in), it is easy to get control of the domain.]
The last time I tried Sedo they had a minimum transaction amount. And just their FEE on that minimum transaction amount was more than I was willing to pay for the actual domain I was interested in! I've never seen anything I would consider a "deal" on Sedo.

I'm assuming they still have that minimum transaction size...?
I've never used GoDaddy's "negotiation" services, but I have used them to "backorder" a domain. If the current owner lets anything lapse, you have a chance of getting the domain. It rarely works out, but I have gotten a few good domains that way. I think they charge around $18 to backorder a domain. There are, of course, other registrars that provide the same service...or you can just build your own script to monitor for changes.
All Technology Came from Sticks
My previous YC app dealt with this and I posted various comments already, but I still like this topic.

An introductory study into conversation theory will tell you how theoretically bad up/down is. It seems to me that the two-step process is still broken though, because "important" is not a well-defined word. The best system I have seen online, which actually does a decent job of utterance categorization, is Slashdot. Based on the Gricean Maxims and you can come up with some core cirteria for any given utterance, and /. actually covers them surprisingly well. Obviously it's still not a perfect implementation, but they have done a good balance between categorization, ease of categorization, and evaluation of categorization. They really need to grow out of the +5 limit though.

While /.'s criterion are good, they don't cover enough ground to become a universal system; it doesn't scale to other cultures. There's a lot more to this I think, but I'm just be rambling again.
Technologies We're Glad Are Dead
The technology is quite old.. seems to be born out of a pre-2001 project called ASSIST ( http://rationale.csail.mit.edu/project_assist.shtml ). Microsoft has a Power Tool for Tablet PC's called Physics Illustrator that does something similar: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/table...
It does seem like a "weighted" voting system defeats the purpose of having a voting system at all. What's the point of asking everyone to give their opinions if the only opinions that will matter are those that conform to the opinions of the editors!?

Of course, in truth I might be quite happy with this system. I've liked what the editors have let through so far (though last few days less so) and I would probably rather read what they suggest than what the "group" suggests.
Yay for mentioning Slashdot!

Slashdot has a good system, but for increased granuarity users actually need to think more about what they're voting, instead of what is possibly a subconscious, wholistic, instantaneous judgment, which seems pretty applicable for Digg. So there's a tradeoff for a system to be "easy to use" rather than "intelligent."

In this sense the UI becomes a bigger challenge than the data processing. See http://x-o-o.com/news.php?sort=new
It's a dictionary-supported rating system with granular voting, in the sense that you can vote 10 or 0.1 if you choose to do so; it also supports weighted voting.

It is much harder to use than digg though so such a system probably will not reach popularity. But I think theory wise it is the best implementation.
If you decentralize you don't need to monetize. (It's good for everyone except entrepreneurs).

I've got plans in the back of my brain for combining linkblogs, the Atom Publishing Protocol and something like http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2006/09/03/MeMeme into a decentralized version of reddit/digg/news.yc, but I already have too many projects on the go.

The really nice thing about the idea is that it allows for a lot more experimentation with the best ways of aggregating and sorting through the massive quantities of URLs that are available. Right now only big players like Reddit and Digg and have big enough data sets to really experiment, and they're naturally reluctant to mess with a formula that's working for them.
One of the Worlds' Foremost Nutritionist says there are Natural Cures They Don't Want You To Know About
Reddit had the same study a while ago, reported by psychology today http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-4...
One of the World's Foremost Metaphysicist's has said if you close your eyes and wish something wasn't true long enough, it won't be.
One of the World's Foremost Dermatologist's has said that any skin problem can be solved with Gold Bond medicated powder.