skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Isn't that what the first two strikes do?

Clearly not. Prison does not work, for most definitions of 'work'.

If you want to stop people re-offending there are cheaper and easier ways.

Prison is used because of weird financial incentives and because it's politically advantageous to say that you're locking criminals up.

> We threatened them with a fucking lifetime in jail, and that still did nothing to stop them committing crimes?

Most people pay no attention to the law when making choices about the way they live their lives. I do not steal. The reason I do not steal is because that's how I was raised, not because it's illegal and carries a potential jail sentence. Punishments might make someone pay attention to the methods used - murderers still kill, but they make an attempt to destroy evidence.

Have you heard about the guy who committed 2 crimes, and was then wrongly arrested and convicted for a 3rd, and sent away for life? All appeals failed. He escaped from jail, gathered evidence, and cleared his name. That 3rd conviction was quashed.

Unfortunately, escaping from prison is a crime, and so he was arrested and convicted of that, and returned to jail for the rest of his life.
if you've never bought anything from target, then you're definitely not in the set of "right people" for this program. it goes without saying that the key to success here is logistical optimization, and big-box stores are the easiest place to start.
So I guess that's the open part.
Here's a demo http://www.chris-granger.com/lighttable/ (2 clicks from the linked page)
You'd have to ask for different domain names for every DNS server, while when they're recursive you can ask every machine for the same name, one chosen for particularly large result.
Nah, there's plenty of Go hating going around, so that kind of balances it.
From what I learned of math, all mathematical algorithms are eventually refactored until they are "trivial". Trivial is a mathematician's favorite word.
My use of "bad" and "good" about your relative judgments of Microsoft, Apple, and Google could be "purple" and "shiny" for all it matters.

The point is you seem to treat Google as more benign and non-commercial. That's not credible based on many pieces of evidence, including their public company performance scrutiny by Wall Street. I admire Google for some things they do, and believe they do not over-optimize their share price, but they cannot ignore it, either. Also, they are a house divided, with many conflicting agendas not directly related to business goals.

> How much does Google spend on Firefox's search deal?

That's not something I can comment on, per our contract stipulated by Google, but the rumors are online and if you believe them, they show a commercial partnership, nothing more.

Numerate folks have estimated the value and cost of various search deals, see e.g. Jeremy Wagstaff of Reuters. I won't comment, except to say that Mozilla was underpaid for a long time, something we chose early on in order to avoid being greedy and triggering a bad reaction from search partners.

> What do you see as Google's commercial motive with Chrome?

Lots of motives, some mixed. It's complex, and the "make the web better" motive is still there and all to the good. Some shift away from standardization toward "works in Chrome/CWS" -- and not due to anything I did -- is evident lately, and disturbing. At the limit, it's Microsoft-y.

Again, if Google as a whole were to standardize early and often, just to take one example as we've done with the missing device and sensor APIs for mobile via Firefox OS (with Samsung patching WebKit for Tizen to match), we'd have a better web, faster. Some of the delays there can be blamed on Android, but not all.

> The interesting thing is that if asm.js has sufficient adoption, the 'web' part of the equation may very well not matter at all.

No, for Emscripten/ASM.js, you still need a C or C++ runtime, not just libc/stdio/stdlib stuff but various graphics, audio, and other APIs.

> In fact, you're the one that decided to ignore what Google has been doing and invest in asm.js to begin with, so divesting any claim in the role of asm.js's possible ascendency is a bit of a stretch.

Here you show your bias. I didn't "ignore" what Google has been doing, I estimated it as too costly to risk.

Now you tell me why the shoe isn't on the other foot. Why did Google "ignore" what we've been doing to advance JS for the last two years, and move all its Aarhus talent onto Dart, at some cost to V8? And at the cost of Epic, a "sale" we won that Google could have, had it only invested a bit more in JS.

You really do have a pro-Google, anti-Mozilla animus -- good/bad or purple/shiny, I don't care.

/be
I beg to differ with this common, and very subjective point of view. "Expensive" is subjective value judgement in this case. A kid is way less expensive than maintaining a supercar or maybe even a run of the mill Porsche... Breastfed babies are significantly less expensive and healthier to their formula fed counterparts. Much of the expensive things are discretionary spending, $200 car seat vs a hand me down or 2nd hand $20 car seat. If you're thinking expensive as in the amount of time that a child needs, then you might have a point, but then again, you could argue that blogging, giving back to the community etc etc are "expensive" since you could be making money during that time. As far as college goes, that again is discretionary spending. I worked my butt off and have tons of debt, and my parents shelled out $0 towards my college eduction. So a blanket "kids are expensive" statement is too generals and often spoken by people who haven't had a kid (or had one and went crazy buying expensive stuff for the kid). To me, they're a very effective time/money investment as are the community & non-pofit stuff I'm involved in. The Porsche, not so much...
Skype-Desktop-API testing tool
You can debug web workers in Chrome's normal debugger. It has a separate debugger instance for each worker.
Mathematics are reasoned to be "a law of nature," and "abstract ideas," and so they are explicitly excluded as unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101.

Algorithms are established to be mathematics under Case Law, particularly Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197; and Flook, 437 U.S. at 585, 198 USPQ at 195.

Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-178; establishes that if the patent is for a particular application of an abstract idea, but not for the abstract idea itself, it may be patentable.
Google's promise is almost an exact copy of what Red Hat did in 2004 - see 'Our Promise' from http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
> 1) How is this a problem?

I touched on this in a peer comment, but it ties your hands in terms of doing rather normal things that would make for a better model API.

> 2) I don't get this. Your model is tied to a context manager, even if they are mutable, you don't need to merge context throughout your base unless you want to.

Using an immutable model makes concurrency far, far easier (among other things).

> 3) They are not thread safe, the same way UIView isn't thread safe. Why would multiple managed context become out of sync unless you allow it? It's not difficult to deal with. Create a context in the queue you are in. Merge it when you're done.

Like I said in reply to your other comment -- The difference is that the 'model' is what binds all of your code together. The constraints of Core Data therefor introduce tightly bound constraints on all your code.

> 4) You can use Core Data without persistent store and make it fully in memory and everything will work fine. You can even separate your memory context with multiple context managers. Separating your creates and your deletes and etc.

I think you're confusing what I mean by in-memory model and on-disk model.

The way one defines and represents on-disk storage is very different than in-memory storage: the data is persistent, it must remain accessible over time, the model must be versioned, and changes to the actual model definition must be applied as migrations between versions.

In-memory models, however, live only for the lifetime of a particular run of that application, may be modified freely, require no versioning, and require no migrations other than code refactoring.

By tightly binding these things together, Core Data creates the worst of both worlds: all the complexity and downsides of on-disk models with almost none of the flexibility and simplicity of in-memory models.

> 5) Fud. Write a wrapper, use existing wrappers.

That involves quite a bit more work than defining a simple class. Tools such as mogenerator are big, complicated, and a hassle. The point of Core Data is to save effort, but it generates more work and complexity.

> 6) Agree.

Well, at least we agree about something :)
Yes, I guess. But there are of course (subjectively speaking) "primary drawbacks" too, such as becoming responsible for your own sales.

I would not function very well if I had the responsibility to do my own sales. Instead, my "strategy" is to do my very best as an employed contractor, which seems to be working out pretty well in terms of client choice influence.
I'm fine with the democratization of the VM as long as they are standards-based (and compliant). If you look at the comparison of web framework performance benchmarks, they tend to group around their VM even when compared cross-VM, or comparing frameworks built on top of other frameworks which share a base VM (e.g. vert.x is about as capable as servlet in the Java VM world; ExpressJS is about as capable as Node.js (framework) in the Google V8 world).

It seems to me that the VM is very important. One of JavaScript's latest, greatest triumphs has been its standardization. I care much more about -- for example -- Backbone.js's impact on code organization/standardization within an application than I do about its capability as a framework.

I hope that ECMAScript 6 -- while it brings awesome new functionality to the language -- will also bring with it more backwards compatibility and standardization that these frameworks currently provide (in a somewhat fragmented, yet digestible way).

And I hope the same for the democratization of the VM.
Greylisting is what makes the biggest difference for us too.
There are surprisingly few people on Earth who are first-rate VM hackers, so the bus factor for anything in that domain tends to be low.
Here is a longer, more recent, (more obscure), article: http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2012summer/article7.html
It really worries me, especially as it's not just differently structured distros like arch that are out in the cold, but debian, which Ubunutu is derived from.
Since the founding of the nation, the US Navy has played a different role than most imperial navies played. It rarely interferes in the trade between any other two nations, and has focused on international commerce being relatively safe and unfettered.

It's a more productive role, but it also means that American businesses have to be able to compete on their own merits, rather than being able to rely on exclusive access to markets.

Creating the conditions where businesses are free to thrive is a little different than being responsible for their success, though.
Google's same day shipping
"The Language of the System" - Rich Hickey
Photon 3D Scanner
Well, this is how our system works. There is nothing stopping me from filing suit against you for posting this comment because it hurt my feelings. Then the judge throws it out because there's no basis in the law for my claim.
The history of snake-oil salesmen is well documented. http://www.authentichistory.com/1898-1913/2-progressivism/8-...
Were there any acquisition offers during that hockey-stick phase?
Show HN: Bluenote, a notes, task and password manager for Mac
No mention of Ask.fm? Seemed like the European clone had been picking up a lot of steam lately. (see http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/27/ask-fm-claims-its-overtaken...)
We aim to do Postgres testing soon. As you can imagine, the feedback from this has been awesome. Looking forward to seeing Django on Postgres.
Faster/Better/Cheaper is a great mantra - but is it actually achievable?
Amazing real-time rendering of a face by Activision R&D
We never left 1971.
Good thing all source code is just very convenient mathematical notation describing an algorithm... This to me is the most fundamental reason software patents are insane.
Ah, nevermind. I totally misread your comment. Not deleting my comment for the link to the Paredit video.

Paredit would be a step in that direction: http://emacsrocks.com/e14.html

I also recall editors of old having that functionality (Zmacs?).
This, and learning to touch type helped a lot. And on top of that all kind of shortcuts different programs use become more logic, such as the [-key for changing the brush size in Photoshop, cmd+[ for indenting in textmate...
Not much has changed. I'm currently working to open source an implementation I worked on that's compliant with the finalized version of the spec. The most up-to-date implementation I've seen in the open is https://github.com/hiidef/oauth2app, which implements draft 16.
Assuming the sending server does that. Maybe it takes a few hours. Maybe it doesn't. Small businesses can be a mess, and you can't say "well, your customers suck" when the client complains about how greylisting is working for him.
Value Chains
I've had this exact same experience before - you build a neat core product that gets a decent core following, but then your team isn't sure where to go next. The first thing that always happens is that everyone has ideas for new features to bolt on that they've seen elsewhere.

The discussion quickly moves from 'How do we make this better?' to 'How do we implement this feature?'. Engineering logic kicks in - this is a great challenge! We need to show how well our design works - during the design phase, we kept in X and Y which we can now leverage to complete this new feature!

Once you've moved from thinking out what the customer wants to use to 'how do I make this thing work? should I cut a corner?', then you have already lost the customer's attention.

The article has a great take away and I agree with it completely. Don't add features until you understand how and why the customer is going to use those features, and most importantly, if the customer will pay (or increase retention) for that feature.
Automatically Generate Ember Models From Rails Serializers
Cartoon Easter Allergies
Oh this is awesome! Very nice performance for a mobile CPU.

Pull request, maybe? :)
I'm pretty sure we're getting a grossly over simplified description of both the patent and the ruling.
Well... to be fair...

the Vert.x example, as configured, blocks massively as well waiting for mongodb queries.
I wasn't thinking about the LucidChart per say. I was wondering how an Web based-app could be intergrated into Excel such that a user was prompted to login and then import user specific data directly into a Excel spreadsheet range using an REST API.
Building a browser extension? Be careful not to XSS the whole internet
Just FYI, they linked to that very page (and [1] [2]) in the post when talking about precedent to this move.

[1] http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/7473.wss

[2] http://openinventionnetwork.com/
Dear Internet friends,
It's a pretty serious problem with how we benchmark though.

EDIT: when looking up what I vaguely remembered I somehow managed to come across a similar article that was published just today[1], even though I was referring to an older one[2] which was about microstuttering (basically: a high standard deviation in frame rate). The point still stands - in fact it applies to both cases in somewhat different ways.

To give an example: Crossfire and SLI graphics card setups a few years ago[1]. It turned out that while both gave a similar performance increase in average framerates. Then was it discovered that one of them had a significantly lower minimum framerate than the other. A high minimum framerate is probably more important in shooters than peak performance, but that's not what we've been testing all of these years, is it? That's exactly the problem highlighted in the article by Zed.

I know this is a gaming example, but I'm sure that in user perception of the performance this matters just as much for the responsiveness of webpages.

[1] http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-benchmarki...
[2] http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-stutter-c...
AML - The markup language designed for the blind
I've read about this a bit for mods on DSLRs for taking older Canon's and allowing them to record video. If the DSLR isn't designed for recording video the sensor isn't designed for continuous light exposure which will heat up an ruin the sensor. I don't know the differences but I'd imagine using one of the newer DSLRs that have video recording capability as a webcam would be fine.
#1 was a huge deal for me. I only use a cloud IDE for web development, and the ability to edit something no matter where I am or what computer I'm using in an environment I'm used to is simply awesome. It's had such an impact on me that I'm moving everything I do to cloud services; the value of not just having my data everywhere but the tools I'm used to everywhere is very significant.
I'm interested in knowing why this is the case. Can you point me to any resources with the technical reason why this happens?
I agree with parts of your comment, except for two extremely erroneous phrases. «My head is absolutely full of information.» and «...Vim is like truck nutz for programmers...»

- If your head is absolutely full, do yourself a favour and stop working in IT. Go do something else. There is now other way to put it.

- Go watch someone proficient in vim at work. You'll lose that image of truck nutz you have.

I do consider vim the wrong tool for the job of editing Java code. Refactoring with Eclipse (in my case) is wonderfully powerful and something impossible to achieve with vim. HTML/CSS/Javascript/XML/most everything else? VIM. Absolutely.

Even with the wonders of Eclipse refactoring tools, I do miss vim many times. VIM is like the command line of text editors: lots of small tools, with incredible combinations.

As for the bravado, everyone knows real programmers program using butterflies: http://xkcd.com/378/
Microsoft releases global database of all patents it owns
They have transgene drought resistant crops that basically are no better than non-transgene versions.

However, if we stop the research now (by attacking the researchers through monsanto or by passing oppressive gmo regulation that forces them out of the industry), we will never develop superior drought resistant crops.

I believe that the precise modification of crops will be critical to responding to the stresses of climate. Classical breeding can only help us so much and the true impact of climate stress is still in the future.
> The point is you seem to treat Google as more benign and non-commercial. That's not credible based on many pieces of evidence, including their public company performance scrutiny by Wall Street. I admire Google for some things they do, and believe they do not over-optimize their share price, but they cannot ignore it, either. Also, they are a house divided, with many conflicting agendas not directly related to business goals.

Absolutely not; I consider Google to be an organization whose commercial interests are ultimately far more aligned with my own than Apple's or Microsoft's. It has nothing to do with being benign or non-commercial -- my interests are in no small part commercial.

> No, for Emscripten/ASM.js, you still need a C or C++ runtime, not just libc/stdio/stdlib stuff but various graphics, audio, and other APIs.

Sure, but we (the systems/games development community) are well equipped to create common runtime libraries, especially on a platform that provides an anemic set of platform standards and components, in which case custom libraries won't suffer from QT or Swing's uncanny valley problem.

> Now you tell me why the shoe isn't on the other foot. Why did Google "ignore" what we've been doing to advance JS for the last two years, and move all its Aarhus talent onto Dart, at some cost to V8?

It seems to me that Google made a rational decision that JavaScript is not a technologically sound foundation upon which to build, and made the first moves to find alternatives.

> You really do have a pro-Google, anti-Mozilla animus -- good/bad or purple/shiny, I don't care.

It's actually an anti-JavaScript animus. The idea that JavaScript ought to be the foundation of the next generation of modern computing platforms runs counter to everything I know about language and runtime design.

It seems to be an entirely market-driven solution, not a technologically-driven one -- but those market circumstances are something you have far more influence over than I do.
Google wants a free, royalty-free codec. What does them using it have anything to do with Chrome or Android?
>the patent in question is absurd to a new extreme //

Not really new nor an extreme. In the past someone claimed they had a patent on arabic numerals that covered use of them in representation of numbers ... the application was refused ...
Knowledge When You Need It: Lynda.com and the Rise of Online Education
Why is it you do not care about the US consuming that much? Do you not care that 96% of the world only has 75% of the world's resources? Are you really so centered on yourself and your culture you literally want us to exploit the rest of humanity?

I don't think it's unfair, just morally despicable.
Unless it's bad weather. Then it will be used as an anecdote to "prove" AGW (as Hurricane Sandy is).
I'm not denying their existence.
I think this is an impressive first step, and I love the flow-through that future owners will be equally bound by the terms. Essentially, it gives a permanent free license to use the patents in any open source projects, which can only be an incentive for businesses to make their code open if they can.

I've often wondered, though, why there isn't a consortium to which all the companies with "defensive" software patents can assign them, on condition that if the company get sued for ANY software patent, the consortium will terminate the license to the plaintiff for ALL the patents it holds. The consortium could make that explicit in the license for software patents they offer (for free) to everyone. Sue someone for a software patent and you lose all rights to these others.

That would kill software patents dead in their tracks, I think. There are many elements of that solution in this one announced by Google, but it would be far more effective if every company who hated software patents but held them anyway collaborated.
How memes are orchestrated by companies for profit – Quartz
Only if you define a "good friendship" as a friendship in which neither party needs the other one at any time. This, however, runs counter to human tendencies: most deep friendships have a history of shared suffering, and helping one another through those times is one of the things that most solidifies the friendship.
Hugs is now defunct (last release in September 2006, doesn't even support the 2010 language standard), so there is no reason that being GHC-only should be a consideration in selecting a Haskell framework. It's the only real option.
With GWT it is possible to pretty much build your UI in HTML and simply inject key components, with event handlers etc., into the DOM structure. You would use an HTMLPanel and add(Widget widget, String id). Few people seem to be aware of this.

I used this approach to build TeamPostgreSQL (demo at http://teampostgresql.herokuapp.com/), where the designer built the entire interface in HTML and I just inject GWT widgets in the right places.
> Why is Google getting into this?

Two reasons I'd suggest: it can, and it wants to. Google is a great story and it's continuing to unfold.