skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"Just a note, recession strictly defined means 2 quarters of decline. If there is 1 quarter of decline, then 1 of gain, then another of decline, there is no recession."

True, but long periods of sluggish growth can be worse than a relatively short recession. Better to get the pain over with quickly than to spread it out over a long period - just ask someone from Japan about the 1990 to ~2004 period of very sluggish growth there. I'd much prefer a 1 or 2 year severe recession than a 14 year epoch of sluggish growth (and it can oscillate as you mention, going from positive GDP to negative and back again and still not be classified as a recession)
Life actually is pretty common I think. The simplest definition of life would be molecules that replicate. An example of an arguably form of life in space can be found at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070814150630.ht...

When you look at the way evolution works, it becomes clear that there is life elsewhere. Let's take a set of atoms. When they're bombarded with energy they react with each other and form compounds. While predictable, there is a slight amount of randomness in this. Eventually, one of these will be able to replicate itself. A simple example is a structure that would interact with other molecules to help them react to produce a duplicate. This is a biological enzyme. The current hypothesis is that early life was just RNA. RNA is a carrier of genetic information, but also can be an enzyme. Common examples are ribosomes, which read the genetic code and make all our proteins from that code, and self-splicing introns. This early RNA was probably able to produce copies of itself. This is life.

We see certain molecules important for life, such as a sugar molecule, as being meaningful and special. However, as far as nature is concerned it's not. Take a deck of cards. If you were to shuffle them up, they appear disordered, but that's only because we don't give that particular order a meaning. It's just as probable to get that particular order as it is to get them Ace, king, queen, jack, etc.

So basically, life will eventually happen given a long enough period of time. It's inevitable. Life flourished on Earth. Given another very similar system, it's highly probable life was also present there at some point.
Well, duh. Facebook is just one website, therefore it's not the future of the web.

But, the concept of newsfeed of highly personalized notifications, based on established relationships with other entities -- this might be around for a long while. Once liberated from an individual website it should suck a lot less.
They didn't customize their applications for different types of hardware, and drivers are made by the manufacturer, so this is a non-point.

Windows et al. were ugly, buggy and crashing due to software problems, not hardware.
Scientist who sparked racism row has black genes
> I think they do it to separate the top 25% from the bottom 75%.

Just because only 1 in 4 people do X doesn't mean those are the TOP 25%.
> For only $49,995, I will guarantee your ycombinator application gets accepted in the next round.

Since that's more than their typical investment anyway, you might want to cut them in on that racket... ;-)
Lightspeed Ventures Summer Grants Program
She's hacked the system. This can only be a good thing if it forces the schools to patch it.
I agree, given enough planets and enough time, we can reasonably expect to find some other life-like system.

Given a sample size of 1 planet (Mars), it seems like wishful thinking, unless you think that life is very likely to develop on any planet that is Mars-like. So if you say "I think 90% of Mars-like planets will develop life", then it makes sense. Hell, even if you only give it a 2% chance, we could poke around some. But I bet even if we assume that Mars and Earth have had similar conditions, it would take many thousands of Earth-like planets (at least) before we find another instance of a life-like system, even optimistically.
Eww.. That's a horrible future for the web.
Edgeio CEO Keith Teare "...our investors pulled the plug WAY too early..."
Old Style Webdesign
Yes, but it has been shown that Earth and Mars have been impacted by comets or meteors, and ejected matter into space which then hit the other planet. Life, or at least molecules that are precursors to life, could easily have hopped a ride on these. If it happened later, say after bacteria had evolved, then bacterial spores could have been transported as well. Those things are really hard to destroy.

As for a planet that is Earth-like (or Mars-like when Mars was similar to Earth), I think it is a 98% chance or higher. I'd be willing to bet that if life was wiped out on Earth, it would occur again in a billion years or so. It just seems like matter in general has the tendency to organize and behave in a way that favors life. It does things randomly, but once something happens that can kind of reproduce, it stays around. A bunch of these accumulate until it starts to resemble a cell.

Many chemical reactions in life would happen on their own in enough time. We use enzymes to make this happen faster. Early life takes a long time to evolve up because it doesn't have these enzymes, so it has to wait for the reaction to just happen.

Consciousness, or what we consider consciousness, is perhaps another story.
> Uh huh... using EC2 for storage sounds like a bad idea, especially since data on EC2 instances isn't persistent...

There are workarounds, involving multiple instances and hoping that not all of them die at the same time... ;-). This is probably EC2's biggest current weakness, since you can't just rely on just one node, meaning it doesn't scale down as well as they claim.

> While I'm sure they meant S3

They probably, correctly, mean EC2.

>, you have to wonder about a company that uses them in their product yet still confuses the two.

EC2 has per-instance (ephemeral) storage and S3 storage. They are designed to work together. S3's pricing includes free data transfer to/from EC2 instances (though the terms, last I checked, are vague about whether this includes per-request charges).
xkcd - Nerd Sniping
Most things in life are simple
This is one I think YC is going to regret passing on. Good job guys.
Off topic, but I've always thought it would be really cool if something like a fungus evolved that fed off solar radiation. This fungus could convert the energy from radiation into matter/molecules for itself to grow. It would then grow off the planet into space and eventually surround that planet's sun, at a safe distance of course. A similar fungus has evolved on Earth that lives inside the Chernobyl reactor and uses the radiation for energy.

The thing is, this fungus would be arguably much more successful than humans.
Oops, when I copied that I didn't notice that they had edited the article. It originally read:

"The coding utilizes Amazon EC2 for storage so running costs are low,"
"... convert the energy from radiation into matter/molecules for itself to grow."

That would have to be one hell of a protein.
"As for a planet that is Earth-like (or Mars-like when Mars was similar to Earth), I think it is a 98% chance or higher."

I suppose this is where we disagree. I put it at well under 1%, even if we were to assume that the panspermia hypothesis is true.

On the other hand, assuming panspermia, there's enough of a chance for life to be on Mars given the fact that its neighbor has life. Finding life on Mars could also lend support to the panspermia hypothesis.
Haha yeah. The Chernobyl one I understand, because it works similar to photosynthesis. I have no idea how the energy to matter conversion could be done in such a way as to not destroy the organism, but it has to be possible somehow. Nature always finds a way.
Good Things Take Time: New Tech Doesn't Go Mainstream Overnight
Building blocks of life formed on Mars - not related to the Mars rover discovery
I don't see how Facebook growing quickly can be a bad thing. Would it be better to grow at a slower rate?
Here is the solution to a simpler infinite network of resistors, if you want a big hint for the one in the cartoon.

http://math.ucsd.edu/~mathclub/games/brainteaser-archive/you...

Mathworld's partial answers to the entire Google aptitude test: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/news/2004-10-13/google/
Going from (possibly faulty) memory, I think that default mysql is closer to tuned mysql in benchmarks. Once upon a time, default Postgresql was really conservative, which hurt it when people didn't tune it before testing it out.
I would love to play poker against that guy. Bluffing should never be random, but should be a calculated move in which you believe that the opponent has missed whatever cards they were hoping for and has a good chance of believing that you have the best hand. To bluff randomly is to throw away money.
Randall Munroe talks xkcd at Google (astounding cameo at 21:30)
I like xkcd, but the recent string of xkcd submissions is a bit excessive.
Ask YC: Can social networks help with global problems
We've put up 4 sites, http://www.helpworldclimate.com is one of them, that are twitter-like but focused on creating communities around these issues. Why these four? Because these are the core ones, and if we worked on these, they would have an impact on health, education, and so on.

They link in to other networks, too, so if anyone is interested in helping with opening up the 'social graph', please get in touch.
Why? It's not like nickb can trade his karma in for money.

Xkcd is the best comic out there. It doesn't seem like a flaw in the naive implementation of social news that one or two good comics are on the front page of news.yc sometimes.
Looks cool but sample code doesn't work as marked on the page:

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "c:/temp/chart.py", line 6, in <module>
chart.download('hello.png')
AttributeError: 'SimpleLineChart' object has no attribute 'download'

Try 'download_graph' instead.

Still doesn't work for me, but that might be because we have a web proxy in place. Any suggestions? When I paste link into the browser it seems to work.
> People see this issue as black and white, but trying to get A's does not preclude you from doing other things.

I believe that it does. A small number of people, in general, make good use of the extra time afforded by slacking on grades, but we here on yc news probably aren't talking about the average person.

People I know who got straight A's were very one-minded. The huge number of clubs that they were in fools no one. Straight A's is almost a guarantee that the person has expertise in nothing else substantial, from what I've seen.
For the typical student, I'd say they're far better off having something of a social life than chasing after straight A's.
I'd rather slow sustainable growth, than hype filled growth. Facebooks growth is hot air... which at some point will all come pouring out.
I definitely agree with compensation being incidental for most people. Everyone just follows the expected route.
One of the most interesting articles I've ever read on this subject is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_Paradox

Just in case you haven't heard of it, FTA:
"The Fermi paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations."

If you get the chance, check it out. Some of the ideas in there are incredible!
In the real world though, the current Erlang runtime is all we've got, so it's fair to talk about Erlang's startup time being slow.

The runtime has a lot of really good features, too - it's solid, pretty fast, and is very well tested.
What I mean is that a denier is a medieval coin.
Hehe, this is a good joke. I especially like the "Under Construction" animated gif!
>I'm certain there is life places other than Earth,

Any evidence for that?

Edit: this is my pet peeve, and I'm still peeved, so I'll write some more. Nobody has any idea how probable the appearance of life is. Nobody even has an idea how it happened. The only thing we do know about that probability is that it's very low, since we haven't been able to observe life anywhere. Just how low is anyone's guess. It could be 1/(number of particles in the universe * googolplex). Or it could be much lower still.

My other pet peeve is singularity. If you show an 19th century man our world and give him the definition of singularity, he'll tell you it already happened. That's because it's totally meaningless, and essentially amounts to this: "singularity is when technological progress goes so fast, that, like, dude, totally".

There, now I feel better.
Well, perhaps for the "typical" student, sure -- but by most metrics I would say the YC news audience is atypical. If you have a small amount of natural ability coupled with a work ethic, it is not a matter of getting As or having "something of a social life" -- you can have both.
less driving -> more internet usage
Yep I've seen that here. I'll take a closer look - thanks!

BTW, AT&T's website links to a download for WM6 from http://www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/8525/
Not sure why you would use Google Charts if you can include Python libraries - surely there are some that can draw charts?
Teare is considering bidding on the assets of Edgio.

http://venturebeat.com/2007/12/10/edgeio-after-trying-bold-n...
Research on ape laughter illuminates evolution of empathy
Developer platforms: Friendster, Bebo, LinkedIn aren't waiting for Open Social
New "intelligent table" may be an alternative bluetooth
There are ~150 pitches/game x 162 games/season = 24,300 pitches/season in baseball. Shouldn't a fraction of those be enough to establish randomization as a useful strategy?
Just playing devil's advocate here, we're alive, aren't we? So the odds can't be much less than 1/(number of planets in the universe)

As for the singularity, I believe the point is the nature of being a human will change. The 19th century man will fit into our world just fine. A "regular" man might not fit into a world where we're all part cyborgs. You are correct in that it's the same unknowable impenetrable future state for us and the 19th century guy, but the idea is that the nature of change will be different in the next 100 years than it ever has been -- because it deals with what it means to be human.

The Fermi Paradox, Drake Equation, and the quest for life is one of my pet subjects. I like it because it is pseudo-science -- and I mean that in a good way. We simply have no means of actually performing experiments, since our knowledge of life consists of just one example for a brief period of time. I am tempted to think that life is just about everywhere in the universe, but heck if I know. If there is life everywhere, then where is everybody?
In other news: U.S. Dictionary sells four copies this year. Beats projections by 33%
Google Chart API: Simple caching with PHP
>we're alive, aren't we? So the odds can't be much less than 1/(number of planets in the universe)

That argument takes for granted that the probability space comprises only the things in our observable universe. In other words, it claims that there doesn't exist anything that we don't already know about. That's a false premise.

re: singularity. I think we are already part-cyborgs. For all practical purposes, Internet is a part of me--it's a sense organ. Ask yourself, what would you rather lose: your sense of hearing, or the technologies of the last 100 years? For me, it's the former, any day of the week. What it means to be human changes continuously, and has been changing since before we were officially human. Now it's changing faster than ever before, but it changed faster than ever before at almost every point in human history.
What I've Learned from Sales, Part II: Wanna Bet?
Trade: Free version of Vista Ultimate  Cost: a slice of your soul
Mobile Linux group releases first specification
Processing:  Programming language for images, animation and interaction
"In other words, it claims that there doesn't exist anything that we don't already know about." -- that's not a false premise, that's the basis for science. I can only deal with things I can observe. If you put 4 black balls and one white ball into a bag and ask me the chances of drawing a white ball, it's 1/5. If you then say, "hey -- but I really put 9 black balls in there. Your math is wrong" that's not much in the way of an argument. We measure and calculate those things we can observe.

Yes, one could speculate on non-observable things. But that's a game that has no end.

We are conceptually part cyborgs. I think there will be a line that is crossed, perhaps in our lifetime, where the average person will be physically part cyborg. No matter how you measure it, that's a change of a different nature than simple discovery and invention. I think you are muddling the point a bit.

One of the reasons the Fermi Paradox and Drake Equation are so interesting to me is that they rely on speculation. While I think the minimum is 1/(number of planets), who knows what that number is? And for all the other terms in the Drake Equation, you're just pulling numbers out of the air. It's as much a religion as science. Fascinating stuff, both from a science angle and as an observation of human nature.
Levitated  | Computational graphics using Flash
The comparison shopping sector is a madly crowded one. What you have is an interesting innovation, but it depends how you're going to get users and steal market share from the other gazillion comparison sites out there.
Vote for the best Photographs from the selection available!
SEX - Not really but still worth looking at...
"Words break if you push them too far" -PG

I think we are at that point now--at least I am, when I try to reason using the terms of our previous discussion. (I just realized that this is an excellent copout when you lose an argument about abstract things! Still, I don't think that's the case here). Let's approach this from a different direction.

Is it within the scope of the theory of probability, and its accepted models in physics, to deal with cases where the observer is determining the probability of existence of a property that only he possesses? I think the answer is "no", though I'd really like to know the view of someone more knowledgeable than me.

But this means I was wrong in my original post, when I claimed that the probability was possibly very small. It made no sense to talk of probability at all.

I wish I had the mathematical chops to formalize all of this. Oh well, I'm still young.

P.S.: re: singularity. I think what I'm doing is exposing the muddle that is already there. To me, being a cyborg physically doesn't seem very remarkable. (By the way, doesn't the word "cyborg" already mean "part-robot"? "Part" in "part-cyborg" is redundant). It wouldn't even be the biggest change to ever occur in humanity. Perhaps forfeiture of individuality would fit the bill, but I don't think even the most ardent singularity nuts are very excited about that.
An article with some random people with random credentials making claims without giving any reasons. Completely useless for forming an opinion, so I don't understand why this got modded up.
I would love to play poker against you
This article is crap. It is poorly argued, poorly written and it is full of typos.

It is a series of empty statements:

1. Growth: Yes, it will plateau. So what? The question is revenues, not users.

2. Not for Sale: Every company maintains that illusion with their public persona. An IPO is hugely distracting for everyone involved. You don't burn that bridge until you need to cross it.

3. Respect Users: Why, exactly, does that lead to failure? Microsoft users don't expect respect. Apple users crave flagellation from the great Steve. Facebook doesn't even pretend to "not be evil".

4. Lawsuit: Name a company with >250 people that doesn't have a lawsuit. Money attracts lawyers.

5. Useless: That's what much of the web IS. For much of the world it is a giant distraction.

I use YC to keep stuff like this from wasting my time!
Why do people like to laugh at others failures? Edgeio Bids Start At $250,000
Oh, that"s classic.
Uh oh. I'm toast.
Has anybody beta tested FriendFeed? It looks like the kind of news feed neilk describes.
AppJet (YC co) Makes Simple Web Apps A Breeze
Tech Bubble Video - Hilarious!
Do parameters belong in a URL path?
Meet the New Problem... Same as the old Problem
I was going to write something similar over the holidays :P
The Skinny On Building A Rocking Startup
Penthouse Buys Group of Social-Networking Sites
Okay, I think it's working now. I'm guessing you're waiting for the network effects to build up, so I can get many many more price selections as other users shop on the web.

Useful product for my holiday shopping needs though. Once it worked, I got it.
Bill Me Later Is Getting Big Now
New Startup: Make Your Own Ringtones
Mahalo Goes Social
It worries me somewhat. There were no xkcd comics before. Now we have some comics. That was the way of reddit as I remember it...
Yeah - if he is such a great coder - why does his software suck?
The man behind the Commodore 64
It's like Hot or Not for Websites
The title pretty much says it all. For better or worse this is both a great resource and massive time-waster for web designers.
Would you say that "Dog breeds, genetically, does not exist?"

Whatever you mean by that, it is pretty clear that it makes sense to talk about Caucasian race (or terriers) and use that concept, even if the manifested features vary.
You are making assumptions about the number of life forms in the universe. Let's say there are 100 billion stars per galaxy and a 100 billion galaxy that will last for 100 billion years. At this point we think life could be on 1 to 3 locations in our solar system. But we know nothing about the total numbers. I expect there is some form of life around 3 - 5 million stars in the milky way and life at 10 ^ 15 stars in the universe. I could be a lot higher or lower than that but life is a fairly simple chemical reaction so it seems odd to think it's going to be rare.

Now who knows how many civilizations are out there but there is no reason to expect to see signs of life in the next galaxy or on the other side of ours. The best way to think of this is how far away do you think we could detect life on earth?
Black genes? WTF?

I hope that before DNA analysis becomes mainstream, the public gets a good education about how genes aren't binary flags for what race you are.
The earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Life showed up within the first 1/2 billion years right around the time it cooled off enough for life to be possible. But let's say it's 50 / 50 every 500 million years (I think it's a lot higher than that.) well that's 99.8% after 4.5 billion years.

Note: If that seems high it's about the same as 1 chance in 1000 per million years for any form of life to show up.
This is great...thanks for the link!
Hmm. I was close :-P
FreeMyFriends: Enabling the open social web
We're working on enabling the open social web, but trying to minimize the work an end user has to do. Our service http://freemyfriends.com allows users to automatically rebuild their social graphs on any site. Thoughts?
FreeMyFriends: Enabling the open social web
I can't remember where I read this, but P.T. Barnum had a struggling museum in New York. Despite all of his clever tricks, he couldn't get the foot traffic he needed to keep the museum afloat.

He ended up putting signs all over New York announcing a free concert in front of the museum. He knew that being the summer time, lots of people wouldn't be able to resist the combination of free music played outdoors on a warm summer night.

The night of the concert, there were hundreds of people milling around the front of the museum. He had the musicians set up on the balcony and start playing. P.T. Barnum had purposefully hired the worst musicians he could find and after a few minutes of truly awful music, people started leaving. The vast majority however, having nothing else to do, decided to buy a ticket and go see what was inside the museum.

I love that story.