skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm sure it's been stated already... And well, I'm no Bitcoin fanboy, but didn't the price just go back up to what it was 2 days ago? That hardly sounds like a "crash" to me.
As long as they don't want to leak my e-mail address.
In my opinion while this notation may be easier to learn (I have my doubts about this, but as someone who is familiar with standard notation I'm going to reserve judgement on this), the notation misses a lot of nuances and details that would be necessary to play more difficult pieces.

Some of thing I feel like it fails to capture:

1.key changes- eliminating key signatures makes key changes less obvious which is important to realize as it is important as to how you play the piece.

2. Phrasing- the visual shape of the notation seems very vertical to me, which works for some pieces but would drastically change the way I play certain pieces.

As well the following don't have any example and their current notation would likely conflict with the proposed notation: ornaments, tone of a note(staccato, marcato, slurs, formatta etc), dynamics

I'm intrigued by a new kind of notation for music, however I feel like while this maybe more approachable it won't work for high level performers, and having to learn a new notation if you reach a high enough level kind of renders the notation kind of useless to learn.
Kippt (YC S12), An “Evernote For The Web”, Lures Devs With New API, App Gallery
Simplifying notation doesn't automatically make things better.

Theory: people prefer infix to prefix or suffix notation because it more closely mirrors the Subject-Verb-Object patterns of their native languages.

Corollary: lisp feels awkward because it doesn't map cleanly to native language thinking.

Lojban is mostly SVO as well.
Buying up a bunch of content? Gates already did that decades ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbis

There's no sign of freeing it, though.
Maybe I'm expressing myself in too cryptic of a fashion. I'm simply asserting that while privacy and authentication sometimes overlap, they are not the same thing.

From the parent of my original comment:

Almost every SMTP server out there today requires authentication ... That is the very definition of trying to keep things private.

Do you disagree with me? Do you believe that SMTP authentication contributes to privacy and not authenticity?
"A neighborhood just like our Mid-Market"
If you're choosing between "rewrite this guitar music to transpose so there aren't crazy ledger lines" vs. "rewrite this guitar music into a radical new notation system", I think I'd go with the first choice.

Standard notation for guitar music also suffers from the "where on the fretboard do I play this" problem -- sometimes there are hints (like finger numbers), but often you just have to try a few options and see what's best... which is rough going if you're trying to sightread a piece you don't know yet.

TAB notation, of course, fills in the missing info on suggested finger placement, but omits other essential info (rhythm!), so by itself that's also broken....
How Not to use Google to meet girls
Yup, I think this would be the second step, once the beginner is used to the bare letters on the staff. This introduces extra visual noise, but begins to teach the player what standard notation looks like.

With software, the view can adapt over time as the player becomes more comfortable reading notation. If the sheet music was displayed on a tablet, eventually the little letters could disappear.

This could be a nice set of "training wheels" for beginner pianists.
> "Also, put yourself in the 1935 mindset - was there even auto insurances? were there seat belts? The risk profile people lived with was much different."

Indeed, and that's precisely the start of much industry regulation. Not just taxis, but railways, boats, and all other forms of shared transport. Transportation safety was a Big Deal in the early 20th century, and the market did differentiate itself on that point - but there was also little regulation or oversight to ensure that claims of improved safety were actually real (see the most infamous example in the Titanic).

Mandated seat belts, car insurance, brake mechanisms (e.g., trains), speeds, inspections. All of these were borne out of necessity. The lack of safety in the 1935-life is why we are living with so many regulations today.

Our history seems to go: new technology, a lot of people are killed by new technology, regulation to improve safety of technology.

The "let's deregulate everything!" angle is just winding back the clock. To before the regulations became onerous and excessive, but also to before the regulations saved a lot of lives.
You are empirically wrong. Please, quantify your idea and go backtest it on the stock market.

The efficient-market hypothesis does not have an asterisk excluding cryptocurrencies.
Don't have time to read through it (have other papers which I have to get through first!) but here's a draft of their paper that they submitted for the conference.

http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/USEC13/submissions/usec1...
... but was that capitalism "as we know it"?

Though, to be fair, I don't have an answer myself. Many things have changed, many haven't; it depends which bits you care about how much...
I play mainly clarinet (which is written Bb transposed), and the transposition thing is not a problem at all. It's the relative intervals that matter anyways. I don't feel it creates a barrier when communicating with others in the orchestra (we talk about concert pitch anyways), and not having to count five extra staff lines makes up for the small inconvenience.
The author also haves one of the best bios in twitter:

> I connect stuff and copy bits. Sometimes it doesn't work
Finally. I had a similar idea. I wanted to start or have access to a company called Fuck You Pay Me. They would be contract salary negotiators that developers hire to negotiate their salary.
The card pictured on that page[1] looks nothing like the payment cards they introduced, it is just a movie clip. If they want to claim that their implementation is valid they should show the validation for a payment card.

http://rbn_prod.s3.amazonaws.com/blog_images/2013/04/Screen-...
You don't need a tap on smtp.gmail.com to listen to a message leaving smtp.gmail.com
More ways to be AWESOME?? These are fun to read
Because a currency is basically a _convention_ within a _community_. Bitcoin has a _community_, whereas an arbitrarily cryptocurrency launched next week probably wont have, unless a lot of groundwork is done first.
Nice! Welcome to HN!
Is there a hiring season for developers?
What is the best time of the year to apply for developer jobs? Is there a bad time?
Please, for the sake of $DIETY, stop calling it "Tail Call Optimization". It is not an optimization, and the wrong term causes lots of useless discussions and misunderstanding. Call it "Tail Call Elimination", because that's what it is.

With finite memory (that is, in the real world), a program that relies on tail recursion will blow up if TCE is not implemented even though it can run forever with TCE. Thus, it changes actual program results (rather than just runtime speed or amount of memory required), and cannot be considered just an "optimization", since it is functionally required.

And to future-language designers: Please, for the sake of $DIETY2, make the syntax for guaranteed-eliminated-tail-call different than a regular call: It's really a bad idea that a function such as:

def f(x):
...
return 0+f(x-1)

cannot in general be TCEd (adding 0 to a floating point imporper denormal will make it proper), whereas

def f(x):
...
return f(x-1)

can. I suggest "chain y" instead of "return y" so that the compiler can verify that a TCE can indeed happen.
There needs to be at least two things to exchange.

Let's assume that bitcoin is the only way to move money in or out of the country. Let's further assume that a purported arbitrage opportunity arises: The hypothetical Cypriot bitcoin exchange is selling bitcoins for 200EUR, while other exchanges are selling them for 100EUR. So you:

Buy bitcoins on other exchanges for 100EUR each. Sell those bitcoins on the Cypriot bitcoin exchange for 200EUR each. You've now doubled your money.

Except your money is now trapped in Cyprus. You can't get it out directly. The only way to get it out is to use bitcoins. Because you can't move the money directly, the only way to convert your Cypriot euros into bitcoins is to buy them on the local exchange, for 200EUR each. If you do that, then you're back where you started, minus whatever transaction fees you incurred.

For arbitrage to equalize exchange rates across exchanges, you need to be able to move both currencies involved. If you disagree, then please outline your procedure for how you'd make money in the scenario given.
I wonder how easy it is to use while drunk. Do they do usability testing trials for that?
Dan Ariely: What makes us feel good about our work?
It sounds like you are suggesting that fiat currency functions like debt, but I've never understood this claim.
I think the visual reinforcement of note names is a poor idea. When I play piano, I play best when my brain and hands are reading the music spatially. When I start thinking of note names I become much more clumsy and slow, because it's interrupting my spatial thinking. I always recommend that people think about intervals as opposed to note names when learning a piece of music. It encourages various good habits, like being able to identify overarching patterns in the music and play in different keys easily. Intervals also correspond more closely to how your hands have to move. Because of all this I don't think it's helpful in the long run to have the visual reinforcement of each note name. It might be easier for children or beginners at first, but in the end it may be a crutch that prevents the student from "seeing" the music..!
That is your own speculation, not established precedent, and I would argue UPS is now acting as an agent of the government anyway.

So, again, what actual precedent exists to support rayiner's contention?
This won't work - Apple no longer allows access to the unique device ID. You can generate your own random ID and register it with a server, of course, but this ID will not persist between apps.

More commonly this is done by IP tracking.

- Device taps on button/ad in app A to download app B.

- URL is specially encoded to identify app A.

- Server registers some unique information about the device.

- Server redirects to app B's app store page.

- User downloads app B.

- User launches app B, which reports back to Server. Server recognizes device and is able to associate this install event with the original tap from app A. App A's servers are contacted to this effect.

The trick here is that the uniqueness of the device here is pretty limited and temporary. If the user downloads app B, then does not launch it, their IP address will soon change (cellular networks and the such). It's not a foolproof system.
Seems counter-intuitive to me, but I'm interested to know who the target audience is for this? People who want to learn guitar for fun but think learning to read sheet music is too hard (I have never understood this), or do you expect that the big music institutions will adopt this? It doesn't really solve a problem for them (Although it might solve a problem for hobbyists).
Could you explain why that technique is only viable for row-based replication?

It looks really useful and I don't quite understand enough about the replication process to see why you couldn't rely on this for mixed replication as well.
Unemployed Black Woman Pretends to be White, Job Offers Suddenly Skyrocket
Dark Lightning Zaps Airline Passengers
This is going to piss a lot of people off. Can't wait to see what happens.
Embracing slow time
Needs internal rhyme. Like http://www.b-rhymes.com/

Something so key for rap is rhyming more than just one syllable.

http://rapgenius.com/posts/1669-The-rapper-s-flow-encycloped...
It's pretty clear the person(s) who created this is/are not (a) very proficient musician(s).

The current notation has been in use for hundreds of years because it works. The notes are large, bold, and easy to recognize and also easy to write. Memorizing GBDFA, EGBDF, ACEG, and FACE is not that difficult.

This new notation has many egregious flaws. Removing the key signature is one of them. Not only does the key signature allow for instant recognition of the pitch and tones used and a general idea of what the piece should sound like, but it also makes writing sheets that much easier for arrangers and composers.

Second, who thought it was a good idea to replace the accidental signs with squiggly marks? A huge step down in usability, I'm afraid. Maybe in sevenths and chords with very close note spacing, but unless you're playing Death Waltz, it is not a problem (usually).

Also, the Consumer Reports-esque notes are also distracting and don't serve any purpose. If I saw what is an "E" on this note, I would play it for 4 beats -- that is, assuming that this is in x/4 time. It's more confusing for longtime music readers than musicians, but it would still throw off many, I'd guess. At any rate, however, if you can't memorize the staff lines and spaces, you aren't a musician. Period.

The uselessness of this notation is compounded by the fact that practically no instructor will be willing to give up a notation that has been in use their entire life, and also for centuries.

Do I see this being successful? Maybe, in small circles (no pun intended). But the harsh truth is that the current notation is easier to write, easier to read, and more efficient.

Case closed.
SEEKING FREELANCER. London or remote.

Searching for web data scraping expert with Ruby knowledge.

3-6 Month Project + on-going maintenance afterwards.

Great Pay! Contact mediabuyguy@gmail.com
I saw a preemptive counter-mutiny once that ended badly...

One person was leader of a newly formed team, and a kind of star programmer (that actually delivered). That person started to bypass the most direct boss, and talk directly to the CEO, frequently.

So we have a CEO that like the "victim", and a person between CEO and "victim" that want to get rid of the "victim" because he is a potential threat.

Then "victim" has some health issues, and start to code much slower... the "boss" attempts to fire him, but CEO rescue him.

Then "boss" awaits for CEO go some months later to a meeting, asks "victim" to show his finished project (the deadline was still next week, but "boss" claimed he could review now), declares it as failed, and fire him in a very public way, forcing him to exit the building with all of his stuff immediately and leave all his credentials and keys behind. Also "boss" stealthly sets up some e-mail filter, so "victim" cannot mail the CEO.

Other employees realized what happened, and most of them quit (Even several ones that had nothing to do with the "victim")

"boss" gambled, he was the favourite of CEO, and he knew that a public firing could not be undone by the CEO, because the CEO would not do anything that looked like a public punishment... Indeed, CEO did nothing, except watch his ship almost sink (it did not sunk, they could hire another team after about a year and a half...)
If they can provide steady dealflow, 15% is fine by me...
They mention transactions so I would assume they are using InnoDB in which case you have to have a primary key, if you don't define one InnoDB will either use the first unique not null column it finds or failing that, create one using the internal 6 byte rowID. They could have used a composite primary key on (project_id, backer_id) but that can create other problems such as blowing up the size of your secondary indexes (primary index is included in all secondary indexes in innoDB). So I doubt they were too worried about the storage space compared to other options and probably already had a unique ID column for every row.

If I had to guess, they wanted this column so they could use it to get the number of the backers on any project very quickly. InnoDB's COUNT() performance historically is pretty terrible, especially with large tables, I'm guessing they were trying to avoid that, in addition to being able to provide the project owners with a 'backer ID' that is more human digestible.

That said, the count could be handled with a trigger and there is a trick using LAST_INSERT_ID(expr) for generating the sequence:

Create a column somewhere to hold the sequence value, for example in a backer_sequence_id column in the project table then:

UPDATE project SET backer_sequence_id=LAST_INSERT_ID(backer_sequence_id+1) WHERE id = ?;
SELECT LAST_INSERT_ID(); <----returns the sequence ID that was created

It does lock the row in the project table if this is inside a larger transaction but that shouldn't be too hard to avoid. LAST_INSERT_ID is handled per client, so its multi-connection safe. The above works inside a trigger also so the client code wouldn't need to think about it.
It's just a pun. >_>

And I regret nothing.
Interesting!

They should look at adding rendering support to http://www.lilypond.org, which is basically TeX for music rendering.

If they had that, all the music in http://www.mutopiaproject.org would be rendered in their format for free.
I think there's a big difference between demonstrating that something is not viable in the long term, and some company killing off a business because it suits their particular business goals and they have the money to do it.

Consumer habits, laws and lots of other things can and are changed by businesses, and it's naive to think that all or even most of these changes are inevitable or for the better just because they happen.

I think it's to simplistic to ask whether a certain company is being evil or not. The discussion about what is evil and not isn't very relevant to someone who just lost their business because some algorithm tripped inside Google and nobody inside Google can help. It would be better if Google committed itself to more concrete promises about how to treat their customers and what not to do, and had independent audits to keep them honest. But as long as they are as dominant as they are, they'll never have to.
I believe that argument is that the current system is difficult to learn. But I personally feel this notation gives up way to much in order to try and be easier to learn. (which I still don't think is not a good enough reason to create a new notation since if you are putting the time and effort to learn how to play an instrument I think you are likely ok with taking some time to learn the notation)
Wow that article is terrible on iPad. The styles just. Keep. Adjusting.
Because not everyone is able to hit the same Cost of Production, or wants to put down the upfront investment in equipment, or has the technical know how, etc. If the cost of production was the price ceiling why would anyone start producing? They'd just break even at best.

Besides people buy things for $Y >> $X everyday simply for convenience. You could go buy ingredients and make a sandwich for $X dollars, but instead you go to the food truck and buy one for $Y dollars because it's convenient. It's not like food truck guy is selling his product at cost.
How to keep your bitcoins safe
Have you guys thought about applying this model to f/t roles (i.e. not just contract)? I know contract work may make more sense because of the shorter stints/more business, but perhaps with enough volume, this is something that could work.

I'm a recruiter (used to be an engineer) and recently launched my own firm. This is something I spend a lot of time thinking about, as I find that the incentive structure created by the contingency model where the company is the customer encourages many of the poor behaviors that people associate with recruiting (spamming, cluelessness, bullying, etc.).
There's also the cost of setting it all up, the time in learning the tech involved or hiring those who do. If it cost you $X to produce, why would you sell it to me for less than $X? You'd be losing money on the production side.

The lower bound ought to be at least the cost to the miner that produced the new bitcoin (when they try and sell it or use it in the market).

The upper bound is essentially nonexistent. If I have $3000 to invest in bitcoin, what is the possibility of me getting a decent return on $3000 worth of mining hardware? Vs (based on the recent explosive growth) spend $3000 on BTC directly at $200 a piece and you have 15BTC. If it continues to generally rise in value against the dollar a portion of that can be turned back into USD later and spent on a more worthwhile rig, or just used in the BTC economy itself (to the extent that it exists).
I've come across Synthesia before and it's well-thought learning tool. But its major drawback is that it's only aimed at piano players.

I think Hummingbird's goal is to become an alternate standard of global music notation, based on the fact that it resembles the traditional one (and actually uses it as a base). But Hummingbird also has its flaws (that I mentioned in another comment).
How to win at Kickstarter — Brian Fargo discusses his crowdfunded millions
I once struggled trying to create a notation for tap dancing, so I applaud the attempt and hate to shoot it down, but... My eyesight is pretty poor, even with glasses, and I find this difficult to read. I find traditional sharps and flats easier to scan than the little note prefixes. They're bigger, and look substantially different. Same wrt some of the smaller rhythmic values.

Also, in the first measure, beat 1 of the base clef, it's hard for me to tell whether the bar sign for sixteenth notes applies to the very first note. I have to try to gauge the vertical alignment without the help of the traditional vertical bars extending from each note.

Finally, the mnemonic symbols for each pitch seem superflous to me. Once you've learned the staff they just amount to irrelevant visual adornment, IMHO.

"Easy to learn" might not equate to for "easy to use by trained musicians."
I know. Just want to know if this person has any sort of hardware that would allow use of a tower and/or raspberry pi.
The average US musician knows the C/D/E, and possibly moveable Do/Re/Mi (where Do is the tonic of whatever major key you're singing in).

The fixed Do system isn't even much covered in basic college-level music theory in the US (to my recollection); I doubt most performers will know much about it.

About asking the Portuguese musician to learn 7 English words, and switch from fixed Do to the C/D/E system... well, the problem is not that it's hugely difficult, but that it will seem like a foolish choice to music teachers. Who would teach this new system?

The benefits of the new system have to be huge and obvious if it's going to gain any ground, because the existing system is everywhere.

Tell a teacher that "here's a new system! Only a miniscule fraction of extant sheet music is available for you and your students, you'll have to re-write all of your teaching materials, and you'll have to force your students to learn the American C/D/E system with English-language-only mneumonics!"

It doesn't sound like a winning argument to me.
I totally agree that tests aren't a replacement for thoughtful design, but neither is thoughtful design a replacement for tests.

Thoughtful design can greatly reduce the number of tests you need by reducing the complexity of your software and moving things to compiler-verified declarations. It can also prevent bugs by the sheer virtue of readability.

This is not emphasized in the industry nearly as strongly as it needs to be.
The LinkedIn icons on your about page seem to be wrapping:

http://imgur.com/wuOnXUb - Retina MBP + Mountain Lion + Chrome