skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you haven't seen them, make sure to check out The Onion's TED parodies - Onion Talks:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4NL9i-Fu15hhYGB-d0hmS...

They may be the funniest thing The Onion has ever done.

===================================

Edit: of particular interest to the HN crowd would be their takedown of the "Idea Guy":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY63FF3Q

and the "Social Media Consultant":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK62I-4cuSY
Is "microsubscription" already the term of art in game development circles? Because I'm talking about a quite different funding model.

If the term is already being used to describe low subscription fees I'll need to thinking of something else.

FWIW, the tech I've lodged with the patent examiners could be extended to cover games as well (and I made sure to write a game in as an example). Single payment/funding scheme for web sites, web apps, phone apps etc is possible.

Edit: some googling sees a multitude of definitions (I wonder why I didn't notice this before?). I guess good names are hard to find.
This makes me so sad, as I saw up close the organization of the first TEDx talks in the Middle East and the amazing effect they had on everyone involved. In fact, I gave my own speech at TEDx Dead Sea and was honored to do so, and this kind of stuff really makes me regret the poor image TEDx sometimes earns. That's terrible because I've seen in person and watched online many TEDx talks that were as good or even better than actual TED talks (though by far less famous individuals).
Interesting thought. I'll have to investigate, thanks.
We just had a TEDx event at IIT-Roorkee, and all the speakers, except one, was brilliant. The exception was a horrible talk on "Quantum Holism", which just degenerated into "I think God does things".

Yes, I wish if there was a way to vet speakers before-hand.
That's... huh. I think I'd actually rather it cost money. Then, at least, only rich people would be diluting the brand in this way--besides there being fewer of them, there's at least a small correlation between wealth, free time, and ability to immerse oneself in the liberal arts to the point that one can give interesting TED talks ;)

(Or, to be more cynical in a Robin Hanson-esque fashion, "get off the TED stage, low-status people we don't care to affiliate with!")
I probably won't have the time to watch the talk. What does Sheldrake say?
> It's purely momentum that keeps MS Office entrenched in this area.

First, in the legal sector, anything "cloud" is a total no-go. Handing confidential legal documents over to a third party creates a rats nest of privilege issues.

Second, many businesses don't depend on Word's track changes. There are tools for doing version control and diff-ing on Word documents. We e-mail around diffs (redlines) just like how the Linux kernel was managed back before git. What's missing is a "patch" replacement--hence handing markups to secretaries.

Third, Word compatibility is a huge advantage. Legal documents don't need anything too fancy (that said, Google Docs is extremely primitive so I'm not sure it can even handle everything legal documents need, particularly in the area of footnoting), but at the same time law firms have built up huge bodies of templates and precedent in Word format. Having to round-trip through Google docs to copy some language or a citation from precedent would be a huge pain in the ass. Also, there are lots of little plugins, macros, etc, that we use. Westlaw integration, for example, custom macros for generating boiler-plate, etc.

Fourth, clients all use Word, and they all send redlines around too. You hand Goldman Sachs a Google Doc link, and they'd be like "what is this shit?" Big companies have exactly the same set of things tying them to word. Goldman has worked on a billion different prospectus statements before, and they're all in Word format. So you have to have Word and all those tools around anyway for documents coming in and going out.

Fifth, Google Docs sucks. It's the only Office Suite that's even more awkward and finicky than MS Office, and that's saying a lot. I hate using it for the most basic things--I'd hate to have to use it at work. Word processing has been pretty much downhill since Word Perfect 6.x, but it's really hit a new low with Google Docs.
TED has commented on those before:

http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-c...
I think list1 and list2 are fine names. dflag presumably is a duplicate flag, and like the comments on the site point out, it's not needed. Agreed that sorting the lists would make the concatenation faster.
I just can't get why that has become an issue. What's the difference between male & female founders? Is there any discrimination of the female founders or not? If not, so why is it harder for the women to get funding?
Those are not nearly in the same league. I think that talk fits the purpose of TED perfectly, which is to bring in new ideas, throw fuel into the fire and gently poke the boundaries of mainstream consciousness (props to myself for that one). Even though the aquatic ape story is unlikely to be proven as a theory, it seems to have generated a ton of valuable discussion and scientific research.
Isn't part of the point of TEDx to provider a broader venue of speakers? Keep in mind that almost every major idea in the history of science was at one time considered unlikely quackery. Spiritual and philosophical conjecture have a place where the science of today is unable to even speculate.

Consciousness of inanimate objects and the universe itself is not as crackpot as it sounds. Of course it is not something scientifically verifiable at this time, but science has negligible understanding of the nature of consciousness, awareness, the illusion (or reality) of free-will, the reason for existence itself, and what might exist outside space-time. Many such fundamental questions are wide open, and neither can they be addressed by current science, nor can wild ideas be discounted. How do we know consciousness is not a property of the universe as a whole if we do not even know what consciousness is or how it arises?

If you suggested that a massive explosion of energy would result in a stable universe that would come to know itself through intelligent, self-aware bundles of molecules, you'd be shouted out of the cosmos, yet that seems to be why we are here discussing such things.

EDIT: After watching the video, I don't agree that all of his "scientific dogmas" are false, nor does he say they are. I do agree that some of them possibly are false and should be questioned, which is all he suggests. What is science worth if it does not allow the questioning of it's own assumptions? What is the use of science applied to realms it is unable to address?

Most emphatically, we do not understand the nature of consciousness, and we do not know that consciousness is not comprised of something more than the matter in our brains. Yet all we know enters, or perhaps exits, through that window of consciousness and perception. Science works from what Sheldrake calls a materialistic view to explain the testable laws of the universe based on our perception. Science does nothing to help us with larger questions of what this all is and why we are in it.

"Morphic resonance" is indeed a "bizarre" idea, but it is also not implausible nor is it untestable. At one time, relativity was a bizarre idea. And is string theory and quantum entanglement really not a bizarre idea? "Morphic resonance" could arise in any number of ways, from a unified dimension of consciousness, to some as yet unknown quantum interaction, to simple electromagnetic field sensitivity, to some yet undiscovered energy field that is impacted by consciousness.

The arrogance of the "scientific" folks to push out alternative ideas they can not disprove is akin to the arrogance of a religious leader. Science is amazing. So are the things science can not yet explain.
Rerun: Making shell scripts even more useful (and a bit cool, again)
>Brewster Kahle at archive.org gives his employees the option to be paid in bitcoin received by the site.

That's pretty cool actually, although personally I wouldn't do it. Hope to see more of that.

>Bitcoin has proven to be an excellent tool for buying low, waiting for a price rise, trading some of the bitcoin for gold, selling some of the gold and buying more bitcoin with the proceeds.

This speaks to Bitcoin's utility as an instrument for speculation, not for storing value. If it was a good store of value you would print out your private key and put it in a safety deposit box, confident that whenever you returned to retrieve it, it would represent approximately the same amount of wealth that it did when you left it.

This is most definitely not the case with Bitcoin at all.
I have been trying to communicate a concept to you, specifically that copyright infringement is not the same as copying a design. I fear that I have failed. Perhaps you can't hear me, and don't want to. Maybe you understand what it is that I am trying to communicate, but lack the tools with which to articulate your dissent. Either way, it appears that you're now simply arguing for the sake of arguing instead of responding to what I'm actually trying to say. As fun as that sounds, I think I'll pass.

At this point, I'd like to refer you to pg's essay on how to disagree[1]. You might want to pay attention to sections 4 and 5 in his hierarchy of dissent.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
I just added one to http://poyo.co .. thanks for the idea!
nice game ...
He says the speed of light fluctuates, but the scientific community simply says its constant by definition.
Why the limitation of 4 characters?

And also why do I need an account to post a snippet?

Also the wood background makes the text really hard to read.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this talk. Those who are "outraged" should relax.

His main points are about thinking less dogmatically. He is a scientist, and he states the importance of science, he is only exploring the idea of moving beyond the dogma, and he is both qualified and well-spoken enough to earn a listen.

He makes valid points such as how science can't deal with the fact we're conscious. That's true. Science is still in the dark about consciousness. He proposes that our minds extend beyond our brains, which is an exciting and interesting idea worthy of consideration.

He talks casually, not conclusively, about the sensation of being stared at, which many of us are familiar with. He draws parallels with predator-prey relationships in nature.

He says "it may seem astonishing that this is a topic of debate within consciousness studies right now." [the question of "where" the images in our mind actually are]. And he is dead right.

Quite frankly, we need more outside of the box thinking. Don't take tokenadult's click-bait here. This talk is not centered on the speed of light, nor does he take aim at science in general.

If you want your quantum computers and interplanetary space travel to come online, you'll need to open your mind to everything including ideas presented in this talk.

Well done TEDx.
yes, we (scientists and scholars) still rely on the exchange of PDFs to communicate research. This is a pity. The problem is that a scholarly paper in PDF, even when it is on the web, it is essentially a photograph of a (physical, analog) paper. As such, a PDF fails to expose the living, dynamic, interactive nature of research. The baseline motivation for Authorea is to expose such nature: to expose the data underlying plots and images, to allow articles to be forked and cloned, to enable web-native data visualizations, to get version control right, and so on. We are trying to move in this direction!
what an idiotic effort!
His talk is filled with nonsense. In the beginning, I was going along with him ("yes - let's challenge scientific assumptions") but from the point at which he said rats can learn essentially telepathically, I was out. And it just got worse and worse.
Very long, but worth it (I think).

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/1...
..."almost every major idea in the history considered unlikely quackery".

Every major idea?

Perhaps many hypotheses were considered inconceivable. But certainly not quackery.

Scientific ideas tend to me testable. A lot of what this guys suggests is entirely unfalsifiable. He may as well be discussing Pastafarianism.
The talk is about how philosophical materialists have subverted science by using it to push their dogma.
Yup. Its a general rule that government spending supports the lower/middle class (the majority, and therefore most of the economy). The origin of the U.S. middle class was WWII spending. Without gov spending, you get ever-greater inequality as the economy is reduced to a corporate fiefdom run for the benefit of the wealthy minority.
Dude add Buffer's sharing. Awesome app so far. Loving it.
Direct quote from the talk, at 4:20 :

"Dogma 8: your mind is inside your head. All your consciousness is the activity of your brain and nothing more.
Dogma 9: psychic phenomena like telepathy are impossible. Your thoughts and intentions cannot have any effect at a distance because your mind is inside your head. Therefore all the apparent evidence for telepathy and other psychic phenomena is illusory."

Sheldrake says these are science's "dogmas" (there are 10), and that they are all wrong.

Draw your own conclusions.
Did you actually read the article? Founders aren't being judged in the same way, due to their gender.

You see the same thing in academia: give some professional mathematicians some identical papers, but randomly with male or female names on them, and they'll rate the ones with male names more highly than their peers who are given an identical paper with a female name. Unfortunately, both male and female mathematicians bias their judgement in the same way, so simply having more female mathematicians (or investors) goes less far than one might think.
This won't be a popular opinion around here but I've read quite a bit of Sheldrake's works and they strike me as very lucid. He's a scientist to the bone.

However, his findings go against many current scientific theories. This should be an opportunity for intellectual debate. I don't understand why many people think it's heresy to come to different conclusions about how the world works.

The editor of "Nature" actually called for his books to be burned. It's quite disheartening to see how a bit part of current "science" (including some internet mobs) has turned into a new version of the church that condemned Galileo.
Am I the only one who appreciates the non-conformist view, wrong or not, I'm sure much of what has been presented at TED turned out to be wrong in the long run. It's about ideas, and ideas have to come from the fringe.

Or how about Tim Ferris? He sells science with a test/control group of 1 (himself), his science is questionable as well (eg. don't eat sugar/fruit, drink wine...wine is fruit & sugar!).

Doesn't mean there aren't valuable nuggets or interesting ideas.

Are we throwing the baby out with the bath water?

On another note, I suspected that TED was using TEDx events as a vetting process for finding speakers to invite to the big show. For example, you'd think Born to Run author Christopher McDougall would have been a great presenter, but watch his TEDx talk from portland, and you'd barely have any interest in the book, which is surprising because it's a great read. But I also suspect some of the science he writes about is questionable.
This is based on Nikoli's number game called Arukone or Numberlink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numberlink

Here are many more for you to enjoy: http://www.janko.at/Raetsel/Arukone/index.htm
A Vicious Blow to the War on Drugs
"He says the speed of light fluctuates"

He never says this. He says the measurements fluctuate, which means the speed of light itself may (or may not) fluctuate. But we will never know because it's been defined as a constant.
Try keyword search on Firefox:

"a foo" to search on amazon, "g foo" google, "i foo" imdb, "m foo" google maps, "w foo" wikipedia, "u foo" urbandictionary, etc... I have more but they are not public sites.
I believe that's new for this year. 2011 was a total mess as the registration page was just a ColdFusion site run by their event management vendor, and they were clearly used to medical conferences and the like that don't get the same swift response that I/O would get. The registration site served up way more 503 errors than pages.

Last year was better because Google took it in-house, but it was still an F5-fest.
Easy to say; hard to do...
Mini Seedcamp Schedule for 2013
Since Ember 1.0 isn't compatible with Ember x.0 you could save yourself a lot of that work by sticking to semantic versioning and just calling it 'Ember2'

I went through the same thing grandparent post did - a lot of old tutorials. I think it would be a good idea for Ember to make a complete break and to call this 1.0 release something else.
FYI, Aspergers syndrome will no longer be in the mental diagnostic manuel after this May
"Sheldrake says these are science's 'dogmas' (there are 10), and that they are all wrong."

No he doesn't. You're just hearing what you want to hear.
Firefox keyword search is more direct, though you have to define them yourself. See my comment above.
Where's Safari?
Optimize Your Driving
Got to level 9, which had no solution.
Not enough jobs? Raise the minimum income and people will work fewer hours.

Where does this money come from, if GDP and thus gov't revenue is not increasing?
I tried that use case several times, I really dig the vision. It never sticks for me though, I don't get enough value added. Especially for my parents, Path is too complex, and a family whatsapp group serves much of the same function.

I'll keep trying Path once every few months, maybe one day it will stick.
Me, too. Maybe Fabien Sanglard can do a code review of it? I love his blog for that.
I really liked Path. Beautiful app, great mobile experience, but the fact is that I couldn't get into it because none of my friends are on there. I wish they would join, because I much prefer using Path on my phone to facebook. But alas, my friends barely have time for two social networks (Facebook/Twitter (synced, so really one), and a few on Instagram.)
I just completed a major cryptographic project overhauling the security at my company. (Re-doing our password hashing and authentication, and the protocol for all our networking and communications.)

The password hashing was easy: a portable implementation built as a static / shared C library + language bindings linking to OpenSSL's `libcrpyto` for PBKDF2 (with an alternate implementation using CommonCrypto on iOS / OSX).

The encryption and authentication layer for the communications was much tricker. The first draft was an implementation based on industry standards: RSA2048 + AES256. It needed to be portable to iOS in addition the various other platforms supported, and Apple has deprecated OpenSSL on iOS and OSX. Annoyingly, OpenSSL does not ship with darwin-arm support out of the box, so a custom compile was not an easy option either.

In the end, I ended up picking NaCl, and specifically `libsodium` as a portable implementation. The library, unlike OpenSSL, is beautifully designed and very easy to use, and implements asymmetric crypto functions (based on elliptic curves) which are actually much superior to RSA, providing much greater security for much shorter key length.

Libsodium is highly recommended.
Assuming that human nature and basic demographics haven't changed much since Galileo, the class of people who used to be priests must still be around in roughly the same proportions today. Since they're obviously not priests any more, it's worth asking where they went.
I'm interested in finding out what happens to tcp sessions that were established when routes are withdrawn.
This is the Modem World: The dark side of Google Glass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSiHRNQlQo
Slashdot used to stick random Futurama quotes in their http header. I'm not seeing it anymore.
curl -sI http://slashdot.org
this looks great but both apps are free. once we have the apps how do they make money?
Ember confuses me too. I've worked with many server and desktop MVC frameworks for almost 20 years. I'm familiar with MVC, it plays simple and easy, like rock-paper-scissors.
My problem with Ember is that it seems to be more like "rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock but for us the rock punches through the paper and the scissors cut the rock like butter. And you can play without actually showing your hand". Confusing.
>Only Congress can bind the Executive on such matters.

This is probably the root of your misconceptions. The Executive has enumerated powers, not enumerated limitations.
Did anybody write the President after they heard about Holder's outrageous comments? If not please do.
If Java programmers would only apply the concept of immutability the world be such a better place... Every time I log from within a setter to see who's calling this and when, a little fairy falls from the sky.
Given the average education and intelligence of most Americans, you most certainly do not want a nuclear-capable nation run by direct democracy.

We have legislators for a reason: to act as a brake on the mob, not to echo it.
Poll Everywhere (YC S08) Looking for Frontend, Backend, and DevOps Engineers
The importance of simulating the extremes
After playing in the browser for a good five minutes and deciding to purchase, I was sad there was no Android version. :(
I would definitely recommend going to SXSW for the music instead of the networking, as a vacation.
Have you heard anything about Sheldrake apart from this blog post? For every one of his hypothesis he provides experiments to test and falsify them.

The problem is that he's already condemned for drawing the "wrong" conclusions so every scientist who even goes near his ideas and tries to test them is ostracized.
I'm not arguing his argument was flawless. I'm pointing out that an analogy is not invalid simply because there are differences in the two situations. Thus, "First, it was an F-35." and "Second, the faked CGI jet had a pilot." are irrelevant criticisms. Neither one answers the question that mpyne was asking via his analogy, and which he also explicitly stated at the bottom of his post:

>> "...why people are fixated on drones as opposed to black helicopters[, etc?]"
um, he said, even in the part you actually quoted: "...ALMOST every major idea" - so yeah - ALMOST Every...
Okay, that's where I'm at these days. What is the right way to do persistent key storage?
Very nice photos
Very nice photos
It's pretty easy to test if people can detect being stared at, and yet no one has bothered to set up a clean demonstration. Why not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_staring_effect
There aren't any examples of identical artwork from the two sources that I can see. There are links such as http://cl.ly/image/3Q181w0b1u2K that show substantially different artwork side by side. Do you really mean to tell me you can't see any difference between those? The only substantial similarity in either of those is the placement of the pins of the map. Notable differences:

The clock:

* The FlatUI one has a drop shadow

* The length of both hands is different

* In the Dribbl artwork the hands are all the same size, while the FlatUI one has a "skinny" minute hand and an even skinnier second hand

* The colors are not at all similar

The map:

* The width is different

* The landmasses are completely different

* There is a different number of landmasses

* The colors are, again, quite different

* The Dribbl art is of a map with three folds, with both ends facing downwards so it forms an "M" shape, while the FlatUI one has four folds, with one end facing down and the other facing up

Beyond details inherent in the objects and art style (e.g. clocks are round and have hands), there are more differences than similarities. I would hardly call that "identical."