skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Companies can easily workaround the 35 hours week with the "cadre" status that basically nullify the regulated hours constraint, and they do.

I don't know any developer in Paris that do a 35 hours week.
Actually it's even the contrary, French managers have a strong culture of evaluating employees performance based on presence. So you see a lot of peoples doing 10-12 hours a day, or coming back to the office on saturday.
Haha! There's people charging 15-50 an hour? Why?

Take the amount you would like to be paid if you were a full time employee, then double it. Next take that amount and divide it by the number of days you want to work in a year, then divide that by 8 hours. I came up with about $100/hour. (My original number was $100,000).
Imho, '/' should be used to map a specific resource, like a file or a collection of objects in the database.

URL arguments with '?' and '&' should specify a secondary "meta" mapping for things like sorting or filtering, that still acts on basically the same resource.
"Back in 2008, a Russian cosmonaut managed to take a laptop to the ISS that spread the W32.Gammima.AG worm to all the other laptops aboard the station."

Holy crap.
Benchmark is almost all non operators, and is one of the most ballerest of VC funds.

Instinctively I think "should be operators", but when I look at the backgrounds of the VCs I like the best, a lot of them were not operators, or were operators of pretty bullshit businesses in comparison to their VC careers.
Why do you need a single, instant indicator that isn't even reliable? Once again, degree ≠ education.

I did use the word educated in my last sentence, but the point I intended to convey is that instead of asking whether someone is "educated," employers and hyperjudgmental social peers should ask whether they're capable of doing their job and participating in an interesting conversation.
I looked at this the other day. While I think the effort is always good, a library like Sizzle already handles stuff like this and a lot, lot more. Its field tested and battle hardened. Its optimized for the 99% use cases, etc.
It's kinda the same reason that companies don't apologize for wrongdoing. Apologizing is admitting fault, and then they automatically lose the lawsuit.
adverts fascinate me as a study of society

Thats a nice perspective, I might try that. The science of advertising is also interesting - these marketers spent squillions of research dollars on figuring out the most effective technique to transfer an idea/emotion/brand (essentially a meme) to your brain. Those techniques are also applicable to giving a presentation for work and public speaking. I've noticed the most successful people in the workplace are those who can 'sell' their ideas to their colleagues and managers.

But are TV adverts really more "mentally polluting" than a 80s song or a limerick you picked up at a schoolyard?

For the most case I think you're right. There is a subset of more evil adverts which attempt to play on insecurities (body image, gender roles/responsibilities, medical fearmonging). But most advertising is just...transient noise. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by banality.

I have a pet theory that our brains will retain a certain amount of useless 'mental pollution' regardless of what information streams are being thrown at it. Not because we need those little nuggets of useless information, but because they are implicit to the formation and recall of other 'useful' memories and emotions. Memory is a multi-sensory thing, regardless of what part of the memory is 'useful'.

Music is a special case, its ability to trigger episodic memories is very strong[1]. I like to think of it in computer science terms as a hash table[2]. If you spend enough time doing a certain thing whilst listening to the same music, the event is stored against the hash (music). Then in the future, listening to this music will trigger a very strong memory of that time in your life.

I spent many hours as a teenager listening to music whilst playing video games. Now if I listen to these albums, the memories instantly 'come flooding back' as the saying goes.

[1]I believe olfactory triggers are stronger than auditory triggers. Perhaps smell-o-vision advertising is the next big thing.

[2] Not a great analogy - the linking and recall is really bidirectional.
I don't have nearly enough time to keep up on all the latest developments with HTML5, but from what I've read Web Components will be a huge life saver for anyone who works on web front ends. I've been thinking this weekend about how I might take advantage of proper components at $work.

The best I can relate it, is that I can take all the widgets that are used throughout the website and wrap them up into their own CSS and JS. No need for rigorous CSS namespacing, JS modules, etc. It's all packaged up, ready to drop into an HTML page. The most interesting part are the polyfills for the various Web Components, erm components, that are currently being drafted. At the moment, the polyfills have to implement most everything but eventually won't be needed when the specs are finalised and the browsers caught up.
Yeah.. the couple projects I've done with Knockout seemed to be very easy to get your JS and html muddled, and even harder to make modular. It was probably the easiest to get started with, but more complex tasks were really complicated. It really seems to be patterned after XAML in a lot of ways. I do like it's observable models though... not sure if the 2-way binding is worth the level of overhead it introduces though.

Backbone is interesting, and I have yet to use it all in a project, I've used bits and pieces in a couple things so can't comment. It does seem to be the most flexible from those I've talked to about it.

AngularJS just seems like a big undertaking, and not sure I'm willing to do it unless I have to.

I think a more interesting compare/contrast would be with regards to project packaging, how to handle modules and even building processes. I know RequireJS/AMD has a big lead here, but is it really worth it over say Browserify, or other patterns. Also as build tools go, is Grunt the best and what other options are there?

I'd love to see how others structure their projects... I tend to have a /client/(less|images|scripts|fonts) set of directories as a source then optimize/merge/push into /pub/(img|js|css|font) directories. I know that Ruby and Python have mature frameworks, but it looks like NodeJS is growing and taking over a lot of these roles, separately from even other server-side frameworks.

My last 3 .Net projects have used Grunt for building client-side tools. I haven't settled on a popular module framework (yet) though... I generally just include the tools I want, and namespace my own code out, which comes out lighter, but less reusable/modular than newer approaches.
this depends on your coding style. If you are used to TDD, so most of the test will be written.
If the issue is with mobile, why not build a MQTT <-> XMPP bridge or just support MQTT as an alternate protocol?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ_Telemetry_Transport
Yeah totally for the purposes of big O theory its super neat. But before you can do big O you need to be able to actually calculate the number of steps a function takes to complete. If your a student trying to figure this out for the first time and you want to divide and conquer a list of 8 elements you do 3 operations, thus you get log_2 8 = 3 or log_2 (n) = # of operations. This is then generalized in big O notation but I think trying to do big O before being able to calculate steps for an example function is putting the cart before horse.
What could I do to correct this ?
I'm confused by this.

His function f(x) is of linear time-complexity (with respect to the value of x). Assume it takes time c1 to print a number, this I will create a function g(x) = c1*x + k, where k is a constant representing the overhead. Then f(x) < g(x) and g(x) element of the set O(x).

I am not sure how that makes his function run in exponential time. Am I misunderstanding something?
This little hack works.

Until a couple years ago I often had trouble falling asleep at night because I always had to ride the rapid stream of thoughts rushing through my head. One night the stream went meta, and I recognized it needed an outlet.

So as an experiment, I bought a stack of legal pads and put them next to my bed. Then over several weeks, I wrote down every thought that came to mind and followed every path, no matter how long it took.

The first few rounds took hours -- I'd usually fall asleep with the pad in hand, and the pads were piling up so I had to go get more -- but gradually things subsided. After several weeks and a pile of legal pads, the waters quieted down and I was able to sleep at night. The spillway worked.

Right about the time I completed this experiment, someone serendipitously asked on Quora, "How can I sleep without my mind thinking of a million things?". Just now when I went back to reference the URL (http://www.quora.com/How-can-I-sleep-without-my-mind-thinkin...) I was reminded of the quote by Charlotte Brontë -- "A ruffled mind makes a restless pillow".

Now I use Evernote as my thought outlet throughout the day, and this magical little hack continues to work - no more racing waters, no more restless pillows.
Surely the n in the OP's example is the size of the input. The input is the phone book (or a given page in one case, etc) and n is the number of entries.
Not saying food stamps rock, but my parent approaches the issue as if I/we have royally decreed the poor should continue to starve in ditches. I felt it appropriate to point out that the USA generally (GENERALLY) doesn't let people starve in ditches.
The function runs in linear time relative to the value of x. However, time complexity refers to the size of the input, not the value. For example, binary search's O(log n) time complexity refers to the number of elements n in a list(n varies with the list's size). x + 1 will always increase the value of x, but not necessarily the size. The size of x is the number of digits in x. f(x) runs once if x=1, ten times if x=10, one hundred times if x=100, etc. So each time x's size increases by 1, f's runtime increases by a factor of 10.

It's a very literal definition of time complexity and it's counterintuitive, but ultimately it does make sense.
There are two types of "awesome idea"
1) a truly awesome idea, which if executed properly will lead to me becoming a billionaire
2) a sucky idea that will make me work on a project for two years for pretty much no financial return.

The problem is that nobody knows the way to tell the difference between the two without actually trying to execute. The GP apparently understands this, that's why he only has a drawful of ideas rather than Google. The GP is right to say that creating type 2 ideas is relatively trivial.

Which is not to say that the "ideas" guy might not have a type 1 idea in his pocket, but nobody (including the ideas guy) can actually tell, and the odds are that he has more of a type 2 idea than a type 1 idea.
The idea behind this project, was to make it as small as possible and as fast as possible. Yes it does indeed lose many features that jQuery (or Sizzle) provide, but if you need something simple and fast, then I don't see why you should include another 50KB file.

I really like jQuery, but sometimes its feature-rich architecture is just slow.
Thanks for the tip! Fixed it.
Why wrap it in JSON?
Why is it always the Russians or Chinese? Why isn't there a American or Western European scientist/cosmonaut committing similar mistakes/blunders?
But isn't it really a matter of time before the `prefetch` and `prerender` options get ignored? Some rogue sites are just going to mark all their links with `prerender`. This is almost akin to the `meta keywords` that were abused for a long time, and then all search engines started ignoring it.
I like how the free software community is very loose. Lots of jokes in the documentation. Python and Norwegian Blue parrots, for example. But naming your distro Rebecca Black Linux, might undermine credibility just a tiny bit. (But obviously you aren't hurting anyone, so: nice job on the wayland live cd!)
"Upon the launch of the iPhone 4, Jobs promised that Apple would immediately start working with standards bodies to make the FaceTime protocol an "open standard." As of November 2012, it is not yet known to have been ratified by any standards body, and the extent of work by Apple with regard to this promise is unclear as Apple has not released technical specifications for the service. FaceTime is not currently supported on any non-Apple devices."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime
Quartz not working in my Steam browser makes me less happy. What kind of high tech is qz.com using?
It sounds like an interesting idea. Its outcome really depends on the implementation. I imagine the most difficult challenge will be to get families to trust the service enough to use it.
With 25 years of experience in computer industry, you should be explaining us all how we can estimate the time when a DDoS attack is being done:).

Anyways we are talking here about complexity of the algorithm, and not its actual speed or performance which will depend on a lot of factors. But complexity tells for example how many steps it will take for the algorithm to solve the problem. The algorithm can be used by Humans or super computers, so performance can vary from days to microseconds, but complexity will remain same.
I mean I can't name something that does what XMPP does is because, well, XMPP does .. like .. everything (or at least tries to). As far as a lightweight protocol is concerned, IRC is much better.

I said IRC semi in jest before because it's very old and there really should be something lightweight that ought to take IRC's place in this web 2.0 world of ours.
The headline is unfairly phrased clickbait. Something like "Microsoft support engineers not publicly seen to follow up report of missing browser choice question in Windows 7 SP1" would be more honest; and probably lead to less ad revenue.
the linked document gives a (LIFETIME) earnings gap in STEM for masters vs phd as < 100k. Considering good negotiation skills can create a delta in salary of more than 10k, thats a difference on the order of statistical noise.

You are right, the income element is orthogonal to phd or not. But if one cares about where one lives AND enjoying ones work, more than one cares about teaching at a university somewhere on the planet, they'll be much happier not doing a phd program.

Research is fun, learning is fun, engineering great new tech is fun. A phd is a university teaching certificante, not a magic "i can do good research and build great tech" certificate (though they can be highly correlated.).
Hmm, technically there's nothing in there that helps you find a co-founder, just stuff that might make you look more attractive once you have.
SeshCode: paired programming and live video chat
‘poly’ means many, yes, and ‘nomial’ in this context can stand for ‘terms’ or ‘expressions’ (not really numbers, but maybe formulae as you said). However, ‘polynomial’ does not mean ‘many terms’ when used by mathematicians and, in extension, computer scientists.

A polynomial function, in this context, means a function that is/can be expressed as a sum of powers (usually restricted to a finite number of addends) of its input variables with appropriate prefactors. For example,

f(x) = 1

is a polynomial function, but it certainly does not have many terms (nor numbers). That the finiteness of the sum is an important requirement when it comes to complexity can be seen by the fact that the exponential function can be expressed as an infinite polynomial:

exp(x) = 1 + x + 1/2 x² + 1/6 x³ + …

In other areas, where people are more concerned with nondivergent or differentiable functions, this requirement is often dropped and nearly everything that doesn’t have poles in x is called ‘polynomial’.

Furthermore, you didn’t only get downvoted for misinterpreting polynomial, but also for the strange mixing of theoretical CS, which is concerned with the complexity of algorithms at hand, and real-world effects such as slowdowns due to other programs multitasking, CPU caches etc. etc. which are rarely taken into account when deciding whether a given algorithm is remotely feasible to implement (runs in time, say, n^10 or faster) or just too slow.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that the statement is just fashionable because everything tends to get better? Or do you believe there are better photo sharing experiences? Thanks
Most of the time its not the idea which is very unique or world changing, it the execution of the idea which makes it a success. so yes I have drawer full of ideas, and I see them being executed by other in nice ways and becoming successful, but If I would try to do the same idea, I am sure I won't be successful.
CircuitLab - Draw circuit diagrams and simulate what they do
Other than the unnecessary snark, I don't think we disagree fundamentally. I'm just as annoyed by walled gardens as most people here.

But NIH/control is an unlikely reason for brewing their own protocol. If they simply wanted a wall, they could just disable federation. They've done it before, and it's working for WhatsApp, it's working for Facebook, it's working for Microsoft [1].

G already has a lot of experience with XMPP and it's probably just the engineering reality between what they want to accomplish with Hangouts and what it would take to retrofit XMPP or an existing protocol. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Maybe. But it wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last.

[1] Remember that FBChat, Lync etc are internally proprietary, but they do expose XMPP gateways. Intentionally preventing federation is shitty, but dropping XMPP at the core is not.
Personally, in the past, an open office speeds up the rate at which I begun to dislike my co-workers, which lead to a dislike of my employment, and hence reduced how long I would stay in a job.

That image in the article of the women (could be men) all lined up like battery hens looks like my worst office night mare. You almost couldn't stretch your arms/wings with out assaulting your co-workers. Its considered bad form for animals to just exist like that, why is it OK for humans engaged in work?
The poll is not about consulting, but your regular income expressed in a hourly rate.
What Every Hipster Should Know About Functional Programming (video)
Because you are reading American/Western European news.
That you hear of anyway.
problem is when u start adding features, u may again end-up with equal performances...Jquery community also takes care of performance but before that compatibility is first preference..
Isn't fewer surprises almost by definition more predictable?
Handouts and two video lectures that accompany this tutorial:

http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs294a/handouts.html
Sure you have to hit security again, but most airports have a bag recheck counter after customs, you just drop it off after you pass the customs checkpoint. Security isn't much of a problem at seatac.
What's important is not to stop at comparing salaries. Compare total costs of living. Healthcare, housing, commuting, taxes, insurance. Compare (real) options for work or education or you and your family.
OP's example accepts a parameter, and that parameter is the input size, not any of the input values. In fact, in the example, there are no input values, the function is just doing busy work -- although, I suppose it's also possible to say that i (0,1,2,3,...,n) are the values, since that's what he's printing. However, as you said, the individual input values are irrelevant to the complexity.

Consider this slightly modified function:

f(string[] phonebook, int phonebookSize) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < phonebookSize; ++i)
printf(phonebook[i]);
}

Here it's clear that phonebookSize (n) is the input size, not an input value -- however the function is essentially the same otherwise.

EDIT: Sorry, I understand now. You are saying that the way he's defined his function is what determines the input size. Since it accepts one integer, the complexity could be described as O(2^n) (where n is the size of the integer in bits, or digits, or whatever). I had made the assumption that my updated function is what OP's intention was.
Let’s just hope it is not a multi-seat OS.
It's the difference between a function taking a list and a function taking a number.

A list's size depends on the number of elements in the list. Adding an element to a list increases the size of the list.

A number's size depends on the number of digits required to express the number. Number++ will always increase the numbers value, but not necessarily the number's size. anonymouz's point is that we should describe f(x)'s runtime in terms of the size of x, not the value of x. While I agree that the natural interpretation is to use x's value when x is a number, and x's size is going to be fixed anyway, f(x) is exponential in relation to x's size and linear in relation to x's value.

Put another way: 4 and 5 have different values, but the same size: we're expressing both with 1 digit. 4 and 10 have different values and different sizes, as we require 2 digits to express 10 and only 1 to express 4. Of course we'd probably be dealing with binary, but it's the same idea.

It's really a question of semantics/how you interpret OP's example and the natural interpretation leads to the function being O(n). However anonymouz makes an interesting point that I hadn't considered before.
I completely agree with you. The few-constraints-and-unstructured-environment is one of the main reason I'm doing a PhD. I wrote about it two years ago [1] while I was questioning myself about PhD vs. startup.

[1] http://shebang.ws/startup-or-research.html
The value n often stands for the input size measured in bits, but not always. As long as you make it clear what n means, there is nothing wrong with using O-notation for that n. O-notation is just a way to denote a set of functions. This notation is also commonly used in mathematics and physics, where it doesn't even have anything to do with algorithms.
Ask HN: leaving a company in silicon valley.
Hey HN, i 'd appreciate some advice.

Right out of college, I was offered a software job at a certain silicon valley company. I was wowed by the salary, perks, and benefits so i eagerly accepted. I've been working here for under a year now, when I was approached by recruiters at another silicon valley company. I'm fairly content working where I currently am, and my coworkers are great people. But I've always wanted to work at the second company and I know they'll offer more compensation to boot.

The problem is, I don't want to leave the first company because I feel obligated to finish my current projects. But i wonder: Is there ever a good time to leave a company? I feel conflicted as this is the first fulltime job I've had out of college...
Scenes from an undisclosed European country:

- Beggar (native) with a cardboard with "I'm hungry" written on it. Couple of girls pass him, offer him a sandwich, he declines.

- Lots of native beggars asking for money (they are usually overweight)

- Several immigrant beggars, these ones really look like they're in need of help

Bottom line: the natives usually have some form of welfare so their objective is to get money for drinks.
It's actually the same statement after all just with and without the actual math. But yes, it's very easy to see it from this.
How To Use Multiple PHP Versions With ISPConfig 3 (Ubuntu 13.04)