skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"And if you are really interested in this topic, I suggest you read about the history of copyrights"

Been there, done that. You left a few details out, like how the first copyright law, the Licensing of the Press Act, was passed to enforce censorship, and how the next iteration was passed following heavy lobbying pressure by the printers who had enjoyed the monopoly position they held under the censorship program. The idea that copyright began as a way to pay authors is based on ignoring the Licensing Act and based on ignoring the role that printers played in pushing for the Statute of Anne.

The arguments authors made in favor of copyrights in the 18th century would have amounted to nothing were it not for the business community.

Prior to copyright, you had Shakespeare, you had folk music (which was spread peer to peer), and you had other modes of entertainment. Nobody was wanting for music or comedy. Written entertainment was more limited by the poor literacy rate of the general population than by the lack of written works. The biggest problem facing actors in 16th century England was not the lack of income (despite the easy duplication of a play), but the fact that they were often arrested as vagrants, and the general trouble with having secular theater at a time when religious institutions were fighting to stay relevant (sound familiar?).

Numbers are unfortunately hard to come by. On the other hand, you can find many shelves of centuries-old songs that were recorded by modern singers -- and it is not unreasonable to say that those songs are just a fraction of what people were singing centuries ago (society tends to forget songs, stories, and games over time). I do not think it is wrong to suggest that there were not shortages of music in the 16th century.

"not allowing for the "misunderstood genius" of people, but solely promoting popular content"

Copyright has done little to alleviate that. Misunderstood genius does not pay the rent; only popularity gives artists enough income to make ends meet on royalties alone. Authors, musicians, and actors frequently stick to their "day jobs" just to pay rent.
I'm 100% sure he was being facetious.
It's not really hard / expensive to find a CPA that can do C-corp taxes, at least in Silicon Valley.
The annoying thing about that post is that it derails the conversation. The top post should be analyzing Heroku's response, whether it was sufficient or not. Or how developers can mitigate Heroku's dumb-by-design routing issue.
A great, insightful analysis!

I definitely agree with the point that for hiring, recommendations go a long way in terms of filtering out so many of the "liars" and "deluded" that you discussed. I feel like in any setting, using your network of individuals that have already gained your trust to expand that network is a good and effective way to progress.
> On the Cedar stack, the root cause is the fact that Cedar is optimized for concurrent request routing, while some frameworks, like Rails, are not concurrent in their default configurations.

First of all, Ruby doesn't exactly block on I/O [1], so there's that. Secondly, while Rails 3 has config.threadsafe! turned off, Rails 4 will have it turned on. [2]

1: https://github.com/tenderlove/fibur#synopsis
2: http://tenderlovemaking.com/2012/06/18/removing-config-threa...

EDIT: I just realized non-Rubyists might not get the Fibur joke. Here's the code: https://github.com/tenderlove/fibur/blob/master/lib/fibur.rb...
A quote: "Freezing air blasted in and the cabin pressure plunged after the door in business class came nearly four centimetres ajar, leaving a gaping hole ..."

So. Was it 4 centimeters (1.6 inches) or was it a "gaping hole"? I can't believe someone wrote this without realizing how it sounds.

You're at the grocery store. Two products stand side by side, same contents, same price. One of the containers is identified as holding a quart. But the other is identified as holding a "big, jumbo quart". Which one do you choose?
Therefore, Andreesen Horowitz prefers not to make risky investments.
CPAN is probably the main one when i built a front end to authority labs api all of the heavy lifting (apart from the Callback handler) was done using perl modules
Shane had no place taking home a copy of his work computer. Didn't deserve what happened, but that was just foolish... unless he was an informant.
Computer Engineers and Computer Scientists take essentially the same software design related courses. The difference is that Computer Engineers don't have to write an Operating System, and instead dig deeper into Electrical Engineering. I had to do Software Engineering, software theory, electrical design, hardware/chip design, embedded systems design, web design, all of it.

Being a Computer Engineer myself, and choosing Computer Engineering over Computer Science, I'd say the degree is tougher to earn, and you learn a lot more random things (there are a lot of quality algorithms and design approaches that Electrical Engineers learn, and it's very convenient to have been exposed to them, to have my mind open to the possibilities, and to have them in mind as I work) that give a slight edge everyday. Also, to generalize, Computer Engineers tend to be more versatile, open-ended, jack-of-all-trades types (fits with the Entrepreneurial thing), versus the specializing Computer Scientist. They also tend to keep up with new developments and look for new and different ways to do things. Of course, a crappy Engineer is a crappy Engineer, and many that make it through the Computer Engineering course end up specializing, because they can't handle it all.

I don't think it's a growing trend, though, and my experience had always been similar to that of a designer's: not enough credit/appreciation. Maybe that's changing, I don't know. Also, all these random things I know, and the difference in my approach to problems has always been continually suppressed, watered down, and stomped on by management, and after a few months/years, I realized the only way to make full of my potential, my approach to things, and what I know was to branch out on my own.
Also worth mentioning. Many schools don't have engineering and some engineering schools don't have comp sci.

For example in chemistry companies will teach new hires the engineering or the science depending on which degree they have.
Of course. 0.5.0 was supposed to be, too, until Things Happened. It's all good.
Works great, played around with plan9 on it.
I still don't get it, why should I make something look like markdown when it can be actual markdown. Links work in markdown, you can eve use something like maruku to have html elements (divs, id's etc) in actual markdown.

Markdown is portable, fake markdown isn't.
The biggest + for me with Ember is the community around it. I have felt like I've grown with the community in the past few months as I've learned the framework. The freenode channel is usually active with lots of help available.

It would be unfair for me to compare this experience to Angular though because I haven't been so deeply involved with it.
Referral.
There was an article [0] in the very top of HN two days ago from Brendan Eich why Mozilla won't move to WebKit. TL;DR: 1) it would require enormous amount of work, 2) add-ons compatibility would be in danger, and add-ons are the heart of Firefox.

I also doubt that Microsoft will move after heavily investing in IE9 and IE10 standard compliance (apart from that it wouldn't be MS style).

And basically that's end of "everyone should move" topic. The other top browser apart from Firefox and IE already are Webkit (or will become, as Opera announced).

[0] https://brendaneich.com/2013/02/why-mozilla-matters/
mongo-metrics: metrics tracking and aggregation with MongoDB
Unfortunately when it comes to mobile browsing, with the market share that the webkit based browsers have,h its already a monoculture of sorts.
I made an arch-usb image I carry-around after customising the full thing in qemu and converting qemu-img to usb, still use it in emergency places
Title edited, URL dead.
Amen. I know zilch about ember specifically. But this kind of thing is endemic in the tech world (even more so on the business side of things where people allocate budgets to line items like "docs").

Seriously, if your product is a new API, don't even think about writing reference documentation until you have a 2-page "birds eye view" document that explains your jargon and metaphors to a new user. Without that any reference documentation is going to be useless.
Once upon there was another local search algorithm. It was called GA. The end.
The jobs being done today perhaps.

In practice you see that as automation increases, it just makes the surface area of the market larger. It's hard to see this going forward, but easy to see if you play technology in reverse.

Lets play it in reverse and create jobs by eliminating technology. Lets make vaccuum cleaners illegal. Now more people will be needed to clean carpets in all the office buildings etc... What effects would this have?

1. All the people manufacturing vaccum cleaners would be out of work (minus a small number of jobs)

2. Tons of low skilled labor would now be employed as carpet cleaners (plus a large number of jobs temporarily)

So we declare victory right? Wooo More jobs! Except for...

3. People and business who can't afford to employ large numbers of carpet cleaners just rip out the carpets. Over time it becomes the norm just to not have carpets. Only the wealthy have carpets as a status symbol. (minus carpet installers jobs, and carpet cleaning jobs over the long term)

So at the end of this experiment we end up roughly a wash in total job numbers, and we have to walk on cold floors. It's similar to the parable of the broken window.
Considering his "suicide" happened on the last day of work at IME and he was coming home to the US, it would seem the cat was out of the bag on that one.
Amazing photo editor using only CSS filters
China On Track to Exceed Targets, Install 140 GW of Wind Capacity by 2015
If IME has a lucrative partnership with Huawei, then there might be incentive to keep it alive.
"IE6 never had any meaningful competition until Firefox came along, then lo and behold, all browsers started getting a lot better a lot quicker."

You don't think it had anything to do with the introduction of Safari and Webkit, more than a year earlier?

Also, the last version of Internet Explorer for Mac was v5.2, which by 2004 was getting pretty long in the tooth. Many Mac users had already switched from IE to other browsers by the time Firefox was released (let alone when it was halfway decent).
For certain very loosely defined values of 'monoculture.' But yes, I agree: we need even more engines. I'm glad Mozilla is sticking to their guns. I personally installed Aurora today.
As I understand, it has been going on for as long as Python 3 -- which is starting to be used in a few places now. (The difference is that Perl 6 is really, really, really ambitious. Let's see if it ever gets production-ready.)
It does still depends a bit on which direction the 'fork' goes in and whether it remains compatible with upstream's intentions. So a minor feature branch can often be merged back into upstream, but significant changes to the core code may not be accepted upstream.

What I'm trying to say is that while it is much easier than it was to create a branch and merge all or some of the modifications back into master, the concept of a fork, where development diverges because different parties want to do different things with the project, which can't easily coexist in the same codebase, is still relevant.
Currently on my all of my websites, combined, Chrome accounts for 79% of traffic at the moment. It's good they're off IE (not because it's Microsoft, but because it doesn't follow standards), but they're just switching one single pony for another.

In an ideal world the split would be even throughout all major browsers. I feel uneasy seeing Chrome so high. Even makes me a bit melancholic to see Firefox at a measly 17%. (again: for MY websites)
Hehe, The first thing I wrote when I learned programming ( around 1990 ) was a tool called ipxcopy which did the same over IPX protocol that we always used at our Lan Parties.
> It is vague paranoia. You're still just throwing out rhetoric without any concrete reasons. It doesn't harm user freedom, I don't know how to express this any clearer: "THEY'RE ALREADY DISTRIBUTING THROUGH DRM-ENABLED PLUGINS". All this would do is standardize it and allow users to access DRM content from website like hulu/netflix without needing two different private closed-source plugins.

The only way to get DRM to work is to require a closed-source browser. If you implement your DRM in open-source browser code, that code will almost certainly end up patched to produce decrypted/unprotected output and the patch would then be redistributed.

Ultimately, you cannot combine technology that prevents the end user from doing what they want with open-source software that attempts to guarantee such rights.
Or, you can just use VirtualBox to test it? I don't know if they already support it.
Ask HN: why is it faster to delete files from a disc than to write them?
What is to be gained from killing an IME employee on the last day of his employment with IME?
I managed to read it, I didn't understand if it is meant to be sarcastic or not.
Interesting. I did find it pretty fast or I wouldn't have written that. I was using Chrome 24 on Mac OS X 10.8 on a 2010 i5 MacBook Pro, so my computer is definitely not the latest and greatest. I guess there must be some difference between the rendering engine on the Mac and on Linux, but I don't know enough to say what.
for reading files and transferring over the network: the limit is always going to be the IO devices, not an extra context switch and a few extra copies...
It is quite an accusation, but I'm far from a bystander in this issue. I have extensive, documented communication with Heroku engineers over the course of 1.5 years (Feb 2011 - June 2012).

I'm not discussing any sort of cooked up statistical models. I'm discussing the real-world experience I had scaling an application on Heroku.

"mud-slinging from one side upon the other"

You imply that I was uninvolved before Rap Genius's expose. I assure you that is not the case. I've chosen a side in this argument well before Rap Genius went public.
Our application is currently jQuery and vanilla JS managed with require.js. I recently led spikes investigating both Angular and Ember. I landed on Angular.

I found Ember to try too hard to be Rails when JavaScript is not Ruby. If you've got experience with Rails, Ember would probably be familiar enough that bending JavaScript into that model would be okay. But I think Angular is more geared toward the strengths of JavaScript (and away from its weaknesses).

It's also a different kind of framework. Rails is so popular that it's understandable for frameworks to want to follow along that model. But Angular takes a completely different approach, trying to extend HTML. Because of this, Angular apps are incredibly readable. Our UI guy who isn't an engineer was able to look at the HTML and understand exactly what the app was doing.

I also found Angular to be easier to piecewise convert an existing project, since any arbitrary element can be your entire Angular app. This might be possible with Ember, also, but I wasn't able to easily figure out how since the documentation is weaker than Angular's.

The biggest problem I had with Angular and our current infrastructure was using the patterns introduced by require.js since Angular has its own opinions about dependency management.
Show HN: A threaded, TCP, key value store in Haskell
1. Multiple browser engines are the only reason most webdevs code to the standards.

2. If people don't code to the standards, it's much more difficult to make new and better browser engines.

1, expanded: All browsers have quirks, or bug, or specific ways of handling ambiguous situations. IE6 has more than most, but even modern browsers do have their edge cases and unsupported features and whatnot. If there's only one browser, people will code to the quirks, not the browser. Historically, the single largest category of implementation-dependent behavior that people rely on is how an implementation handles erroneous input. That's why malformed HTML is now standardized.

No, not you of course, but all those other web developers. Look, standards are nice, but to many developers (especially hobbyists), and to most suits, it's just a bunch of hot air. And the hard part is, they're right, at least in the short term. Coding to standards costs time, and coding to browsers produces a pixel-perfect functional site.

Multiple, disagreeing browsers are what make standards practical. Coding to standards is a best-practice, low-cost way of dealing with the real problem of divergent browser implementations. If that problem becomes theoretical, but the cost does not, then the sensible path is to code write pages that work in Webkit, standards be damned.

2, expanded: The more that existing code relies in the quirks of one implementation, the harder it is for a new implementation to arise. The surface area of features they have to match is expanded. Furthermore, these new "features" are more constraining to match because they are undesigned, not always consistent, and often closer to the metal.

Not only does this make it harder to write a new engine, it constrains the ways in which new engines can be better. The easiest example is how having to match another implementation's order-of-evaluation can limit the benefits of concurrency.

So the sum of this is that Webkit wins now, it will be incredibly difficult to get anything better than Webkit in the future (note that this applies equally to forks of Webkit--they're still limited in how much they can differ). Not that Webkit's bad or anything, but I think it's myopic to say that we won't ever want anything more.

Servo, of course, is right now the most concrete example of something that we might want in the future, with its promise of a fundamentally concurrent architecture. But even aside from that, the future has a way of surprising us, and I wouldn't like the be stuck with outdated tech in 2018 because webdevs in 2013 got a bee in their bonnet about webkit vs gecko.
So it's not DRM, it's just a way for 3rd parties to plug in their own DRM system.

Sorry, that's worse, not better.
You don't think it had anything to do with the introduction of Safari and Webkit, more than a year earlier?

Safari was utterly irrelevant until the late 2000s, where it only gained relevance through the iOS devices. It did nothing to spur movement. Further from a history perspective, while Safari might have preceded the coining of the Firefox brand, Firefox was an offshoot of the Mozilla Suite (effectively splitting the browser out of the suite) with a history going back to 1998.
Indeed, while having a global request queue is good, the scheduler's one-size-fits-all behavior can sometimes be suboptimal. Thankfully there are several ways in which it can be tuned: https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/adminconsole/pe...
My first thought was "oh no something happened to bunnie" and I felt physically sick as i opened the link.
The 2 Kinds of Leadership: Are You a Steve Jobs or a Jack Welch?
scp?)
I work in finance. The vast majority of what quants do is meaningless work which is only (maybe) useful to their employer. Most of them, if you ask about usefulness of their work, will probably conjure some bs argument about "providing liquidity", "making markets efficient" or "controlling risk".

The reality is that people do it for the money and prefer not to think about deeper matters. Some of the work is also really interesting and cutting-edge. But if you start rationally thinking about your contribution to society, the only answer is that there is none. If you want to do something useful, you leave finance.
Bleh. I want to copy then paste, not create a pasting port then point a copy at it. And it's twice as much typing, too.
> "aren't all grades a fraction"

Not necessarily. The prof could choose to make grades relative by subtracting rather than dividing.

If that was the policy, then someone could've boycotted the boycott by going in and trying to score exactly one point on the exam, possibly after everyone else left. Then everyone else would score a 99.

It would have at least given everyone something to think about afterwards.
Its a shame to have something so ill informed so highly voted, but ignoring the whole fact that there is no 'webkit' and people will still need to deal with these nightmares (hello safari)

This comment I felt gave a good practical example of the more handwavey 'competition is good' argument

"Doing this would mean being forever stuck in single-threaded land for rendering (e.g. nothing like Mozilla's Servo project could ever happen).

People have tried to parallelize WebKit and failed: too entangled, too much code making too many assumptions... Parallelism is one of those things that's just incredibly hard to bolt on after the fact.

So if you want browsers to never really scale well to large number of cores, by all means try to get them to all switch to WebKit."

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5213200
Not to be glib, but... most webdevs code to the standards? News to me. Most webdevs code to their favorite API. And their favorite APIs code to an insane list of quirks. No one but book authors seems to care about standards.
It's not free, but Peep Code has a screencast on it:
https://peepcode.com/products/emberjs

I haven't seen it, but based on the screencasts I have purchased, it's probably worth the $12
>this means I can badly handwave that removing DRM might cost between around £7 to £40.

How do you come to the conclusion that it would cost the BBC anything to remove DRM? If anything it would save them any money they currently spend implementing it and hopelessly attempting to secure it.

The "cost" of not having DRM, if any, is that some content distributors may refuse to license to them without it. The article itself points out that this has demonstrably not occurred in the past, but even if it did, why is that a cost to the television licensee? The money not paid to license that content is still available to license some other content from someone not so irrational on the point of DRM, or to fund new original BBC programming, or (if you're more worried about the cost to the public than providing more content) to use to reduce the price of a television license.

Let me say that again: It costs nothing to remove DRM and it costs something to implement it. It is costing the British television licensee money that could be used to create original programming to instead be used to restrict what they can do with their own devices. Why are they doing this again?
Why isn't our warning banner based on feature detection?
Alternately, we could just shit-can Reaganism. (in the US)

We still have an energy and resource problem, and a decaying commons in the US. Raise tax rates back up to what they were before the 1980s, then use that money, NOT to hand out "for doing nothing", but to pay people to do the very real jobs of maintaining physical infrastructure or (and?) doing research and development into things like materials science, nuclear fusion, medicine/biology, etc. Some things, in some periods of time, work better in the public sector, and some in the private sector. Either extreme of saying everything should be private sector, or that the government should own everything, is foolish. Increasing public sector jobs would also spill over into demand for private sector services.

I suppose this sounds a bit Keynesian, but I'm not saying "borrow the money", just that we tried things Reagan's way for a few decades, and it sucked. Live and learn.

I'm not a big fan of "money for nothing", whether it's being on the dole, or just collecting dividends from grandpa's holdings.

Yes, the nature of advancing technology means the particular jobs will change. I think we are still a few decades, if not more, from AI good enough to decide that it can just get rid of all of us and take care of itself :-)