skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hey Folks

We've been cranking on a new project that we're calling Handshake to help companies, especially smaller tech companies, do a better job hiring.

We're still in development right now, but we wanted to get the conversation going with people that we think would benefit from this kind of service. With all of the entrepreneurs and business owners on HN, I'd love to hear what pain points their organizations face when it comes to hiring people.

Handshake comes out of our experience growing an engineering team. Our problems were a lack of formal process that led to disorganization on our part when figuring out things like : Who will review incoming resumes? Who will interview this candidate? What'd we think of them? All the while, of course, coordinating this with our team and getting back to people who applied in a timely way.

If you're like us, you set up an email alias (hiring@mycompany.com) and had people send you resumes that blast out to a few people on the team. Great start, of course, but you also know that once you have more than one or two people on the email thread it gets tough to have a conversation about or with candidates. Quickly, reviewing these emails becomes a bottle neck in your hiring process, creating context switches throughout the day for your team, lowering productivity. Handshake sits transparently between that email inbox and your team, centralizing all incoming resumes and conversations associated with a job post and giving your company a sane workflow that to help you collaborate on your hiring decisions.

Please sign up for our mailing list if you think your company can benefit from having a tool like Handshake. We'll be sure to reach out to you so you can give the app a trial run once we get closer to release and make sure that we're providing the value you need to help you make great hiring decisions.

http://handshakecentral.com

Thanks everyone!
Your product already exists in the form of http://tinyletter.com/ - owned by mailchimp.
You have a very strong point. Also, excellence can't be conjured into being just by throwing money at people and hoping they have the talent to do something useful for it. (Look at the VC-funded world; if the VCs could find a thousand people like me instead of the hucksters who currently run the show, they would. But it's just fundamentally hard to find great people.) The risks and especially the search costs involved in an excellence-based strategy are high and might be intolerable from an executive standpoint.

The good news is that what I said above is almost certainly right for a single actor. When you have this legacy oligopoly that has been treating some X as a commodity-- cutting costs, letting quality fall to the most manageable level (usually mediocrity)-- then, as that oligopoly loses hold due to technological change, a single player that takes an excellence strategy will have a good chance of making a big win, because the costs of excellence are not that much higher (a lot of the best shows, e.g. The Wire, started with no-name but talented actors) and the revenue potential is 10-100x (as with programming).

The bad news is that there may be a game-theoretic limit on the rewards of excellence. The fact that it works for one or a few players (e.g. AMC, HBO) might not mean that it scales. It might be that 5 players on an excellence-strategy dilute the benefits but pay the same costs. If that's the case, then this phenomenon is no better or worse than the 20th-century market's reward for branding. (While we associate the corporate-- McDonalds hamburgers, Hershey chocolate, Starbucks coffee-- withe mediocrity the truth is that most of these products were in the upper-middle tier of quality when introduced. They decline in relative terms because cheap, available, upper-middle-tier products kill everything below them and leave themselves at the bottom.) It may not be, at least specifically to TV, that an excellence strategy works for more than a small number of players (who'd become a new oligopoly).

However, I'm optimistic because the trend for software and technology is that the rewards for excellence strategies are nearly limitless (the scarcity of excellent people and ideas, not the "room" for them, is the limiting factor) and everything, including TV, is becoming a lot more technological over time.
"A dog of the NSA!"
Seeing as this is software as a service and not open source, whats up with the name? Why does it matter that you are using redis? I see you mention it in the "modern proven technologies" section, but that's not a selling point(to me anyway).
Keep in mind that many iOS users are as tied to the Google ecosystem. My email, calendar, and contacts are all Google-synced. Most decent calendar apps tend to use Google as well; ditto for mail apps like Mailbox. Many of the Google apps (like Maps) make it too easy to login, which the features it adds.
Again these are his personal views as well (similar to Paul's). I think if you take a cross section of all the smartphone users though, there will be a lot many who use Google's services vs. Apple's. So not sure what Marco would suggest to those - should they give Android a try based on Paul's article then? Though I am an Android user, I think this debate is broader than whether you use Google services or not.
I agree, and I don't run chrome with the flag for day-to-day browsing. I'd still like to know what that reason is though and how come Firefox doesn't have the same issue.
I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic.
There are multiple problems with that approach though. Serious problems.

with as many talented screenwriters as there are, there have to be good scripts that go unoptioned.

Sure, but can you spot them? Are you capable of spotting a right script which would make a good profitable movie? Or do you know someone who can? Check out http://blcklst.com/

Cast talented character and stage actors instead of big name (big $$) star talent

Stage acting and film acting are two different disciplines. Vastly different in technique and experience needed. Another point here is that 'big star' talent brings marketing power to the table as well, something you haven't touched upon on at all. Marketing is big part of the game. That's why usually in 'smaller' productions you get a lead or co-star 'big name' with rest of the cast relatively unknown. Not everyone unknown. Not to mention casting is a difficult job in itself. You may find an actor that suits role perfectly, but all of the cast has to function together on screen as well.

Think $15-20 million budgets

$20m range falls in small production range, so that checks out. Productions are not spending happy, remember that when you see those vertigo inducing budgets. They have thought through their spending well.

The idea is to have a deep catalog that quitely does well, instead of trying for massive blockbusters that can be $200m losses if they bomb.

Why not both? That's what studios do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tent-pole_(entertainment) Otherwise you'd better have deep pockets in order to churn out multiple films and 'hope' some of them will rake in cash. That's because most of the films on smaller budgets aren't profitable at all. It's a numbers game in your proposal then, more risky than tent pole approach. What you propose would be a YC for films, where budgets aren't $10k because they can't be for various reasons and production time isn't two months, but two years.
Crashes Firefox 23 on Debian Jessie here. Chromium on the same machine copes fine.
The version of FXOS that's presently shipping has a lot of rough edges. The B2G 26 branch includes all of the changes made between Firefox 18 and Firefox 26, many of which are performance related. Notably, JS performance is going to shoot up (new Spidermonkey goodness), SVG performance is going to get a boost (better hardware acceleration, better caching), and lots of general optimizations are going to land.

I'd like to think of the current FXOS builds as the Android 1.6 of the product, and the forthcoming versions as the Android 2.2/2.3s of the product.
Same coin, different side.
Hyperloop Faces Technical Hurdles
Resources for Startup Engineering Students
Push notification services never guarantee delivery.
We're currently in the stage of the Internet where we can choose our feudal masters[1]. Want Google? Fine. Prefer Apple. No problem. Microsoft? Why not. For me, the issue is that people are becoming more entrenched as time progresses. The cost of preparing to switch can be relatively low - pay $8/year for your own domain and it's possible to keep using the same systems you choose today.

Yet if the technological elite (as represented by HN) is unwilling to do this, what chance do the rest have? [2]

[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/12/feudal_sec.ht...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5537383
A lot of people are Children of The Church of Google. They're happy with a 100% data tithing to Google. That's Google's entire business: get data from users then make money from it for the furtherment of Google itself, not the users.

A lot of people are Children of The Church of Apple. They're happy with letting Apple carry buckets of data across devices, but the buckets of data remain in the person's control. That's Apple's entire business model: help people do what they need to do and don't encroach into lives needlessly.
Dropping a Mountain
If multiple elements of the same tag exist, a proper
array of elements is returned otherwise an Element is
returned.

STAHP. Please don't make the type of the return value dependent on runtime state. This is exactly why jQuery created its own array-like wrapper (which subclasses Array, fwiw).
Does anybody know how do we get the top languages now? E.g. “Foobar is the #42 language on GitHub”.
The Future of Programming in Node.js
What about a $40 round trip ticket implies that those of us in LA County or the Bay Area are rich?
It's pretty hard to get VC funding if you're homeless. But I agree, why do they contract AIDS for food stamps when they could just found bootstrapped SaaS lifestyle businesses? The poor are so fucking lazy.
Sure, use it as part of your negotiation up-front, keeping in mind that 2% of $0 is still $0. If things go incredibly well, with a ton of luck, maybe you'll get something. Maybe it's part of your compensation, but it's a pretty useless part: you can't spend it for many years (usually at least 4, assuming you can sell after they all vest), and it's not guaranteed. You get the percentage of the scraps--after the VCs have taken their cut, and the founders have taken theirs. Call it compensation if you want, and certainly it's good to have some skin in the game, but there's no good reason to really follow it that closely after you've signed on with the company.

Once they're in your employment contract, forget them. Stick them in a file cabinet someplace marked +4 years and see where things go. In that time, there will (probably) be more rounds of funding, which will dilute your shares. Things will change: valuations, personnel, perhaps executives. Don't waste time re-calculating your options all the time, it's an exercise in futility.
Tell a judge "rule this way, because it's moral" and he'll tell you to get out of his court. (Modulo cronyism and the possibility that a judge is prejudiced and/or crooked).

Having an argument based on law is much harder to argue against than someone's personal set of moral values.

Looking into cultures where "legal" things are decided with a moral system (e.g., most theocracies) I see a lot worse stuff going on. I'm not trying to minimize the nasty and disgusting surveillance system the US has in place, I'm just saying that rule by morality is a double-edge sword.
Is The Kernel paying their writers yet? They seem to have had a few good articles recently, perhaps they have.
Yes, the data is on your computer. I use Google for calendar, email, and contacts. Guess what? That data is also on my desktop if cloud syncing goes kaput. If you only use your phone and your cloud service of choice (whether Google or iCloud), then yes, you're in a world of hurt, but the scenario you described is pretty common amongst Google users as well.
> I object to a huge, creepy advertising company having that much access to me and my data, I think it’s unwise to use many proprietary, hard-to-replace services in such important roles, and I think it’s downright foolish to tie that much of your data and functionality into proprietary services run by one company in one account...

He makes a good point.

Absolute power gets abused absolutely.

Unless the person to whom the power is handed is some kind of Zen master, it's likely they'll use that power for personal agenda.

The groups they like will become elites. The ones they don't will get lined up against walls and shot.

That's just how it is.

Even though Google says, "Don't be evil," they aren't Zen masters.
Calling someone "blind" for being obtuse or oblivious doesn't really seem like the best word choice.
Sculpt Ergonomic Keyboard For Business
I'm not implying they should go get funding. but They COULD move to a less expensive city and get a regular job.

There's a big difference between a poor person and someone who thinks contracting a fatal disease is a better approach than finding a job and actually supporting themselves.

But hey, if someone has resigned themselves to leech off society under any circumstance maybe having them contract a fatal disease willingly is simply natural selection at work.
You are right. That I am using Redis is more to appeal to the HN crowd ;) For the user it does not really matter.

I like the name, it is difficult to find names you like available with .com.
I would argue that you do not have to choose one. In fact, it is probably better if you don't.
How are they not?

Seriously though, "irritating" is a matter of opinion. Explaining why something is irritating is like explaining why something tastes good.
I don't like Google, and don't use their services, but it's in no way that straightforward. Pretty much the entirety of the marginal utility of Google's technology relies on the data their users share with them. It's a symbiotic relationship, not a purely parasitic one.
Indeed. If Google and Dropbox stopped working, a ton of apps on my phone would be broken or significantly impaired.
This is a very interesting article.

A minor quibble - it is very difficult to find a paradigm in which the running time of the proposed algorithm differs from simply choosing the best of the obvious algorithms.

Line at a time takes O( max(w,h) ). Binary searching each row and column separately takes O( min(w,h) log(max(w,h) ). Therefore, implementing both basic algorithms and using the faster one at run-time will run in time O(min(max(w,h), min(w,h)log(max(w,h)).

Which is very close to the proposed run-time - unfortunately so much so that it is very hard to find a sequence of (w,h) for which the proposed algorithm works asymptotically better than simply doing "the obvious thing".

But it is possible! And the lower bounds are nice!
Spin spin spin... where it stops nobody knows.

Same data used in an article yesterday.
http://www.macrumors.com/2013/08/12/apples-app-store-still-n...
It's lame, bring in a whole bunch of heavyweight javascript for some annoying hover effects (the demo page is more than half a MB of JS, with threejs minified being 400K by itself.) There's no way that's a smart business move by any means, when we know that load time is inversely proportionate to sales.
GMail and Google Maps were my go to apps on Android for years (since 2009 in fact). They both suck now. Combine that with the brick-like interactivity of my less than 2 year-old Galaxy Nexus and I'm abandoning Android for iOS as soon as my contract expires despite the fact I actually prefer a lot of Android's look and feel.

To be fair, my Nexus 7 hasn't quite given up the ghost yet, but now that its successor has been released, I'm counting the days until it too becomes as responsive as Karen Ann Quinlan.

And that's a shame because Android's interface has really come a long way in that time. Paul Stamatiou's article showcases some really cool design advances that have happened since Android 4.0.

For me it all comes down to Google seeming to not care one bit about anything except the latest and greatest devices. Yes I know that Android 4.3 is supposed to address that - good luck shipping that one out to all the major carriers.

In closing, the same brickification that hit my Galaxy Nexus this year happened to my original droid in 2011 - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...
Google can't and won't use a technical definition of server. It would be impossible and easy to work around if they iterated out every thing they believe constitutes a "server". The law and language is purposefully vague and is left open to interpretation.

Let's define server as something that is going to be using up enough traffic/bandwidth to get you noticed and degrades service for someone else on your network segment. That could be saturating your connection 24/7 on a network segment that is heavily utilized, or not even an issue if you live in Bumville, Nowhere.

This is something which will never be technically spelled out because it is all about context.
One point I'd like to see discussed is written by Bruce Schneier, it made me look at the subject a bit differently than before:

If the National Security Agency required us to notify it whenever we made a new friend, the nation would rebel. Yet we notify Facebook. If the Federal Bureau of Investigation demanded copies of all our conversations and correspondence, it would be laughed at. Yet we provide copies of our e-mail to Google, Microsoft or whoever our mail host is; we provide copies of our text messages to Verizon, AT&T and Sprint; and we provide copies of other conversations to Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, or whatever other site is hosting them.

The primary business model of the Internet is built on mass surveillance

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/the_publicpriv...

Google's primary business is surveillance of their users. Selling the results to their customers, advertisers.
1. Cash can be easily found and seized, not only by corrupt governments but by organized crime (If you think there is a difference). Bitcoin is decentralized and based on cryptography - you only need to have internet access and private keys to make transactions.

2. Free trade and industrialization have a much better track record of lifting people out of poverty than handouts. Even Bono agrees. Bitcoin helps free trade and wealth aggregation, especially in countries with unstable currencies (Argentina, Zimbabwe)

3. As explained in (1), Bitcoin is much harder to control than a centralized system. There is no need for centralized exchanges, everybody with a smartphone and internet access can trade Bitcoin. The fact that government don't accept taxes in Bitcoin does not imply that it will not help poor people, it implies that Bitcoin will not help the government if it chooses to criminalize virtual currencies.
So I think there are two points that Paul makes: hardware and services.

On the hardware front: I don't really buy the notion that Android hardware is up to par with Apple. I realize this is an inherently subjective argument: I've played with my friends' Android phones and I just don't like the way they look or feel compared to the iPhone.

On the services front: I think the argument that "Google is an advertising company and that makes them an inherently worse ecosystem" is weak, but I absolutely agree that we're past the point of "this is the best solution for everyone."

Personally -- I don't use any Apple services besides, well, the App Store, despite relying on them 100% for the hardware side (iPad + MBA + iPhone). And I don't use Google to the extent Paul does: I use GMail, Search, and Chrome.

This has the advantage of portability: I don't have to tie myself to a given ecosystem because I'm stuck there. I tie myself to whatever makes my life the easiest.
I don't uinderstand why you got downvotes. It's a fair, albeit somewhat misguided, comment.

Basically, a lot more power will be consumed by downloading an animation and decompressing it, assuming it is shown at comparably high quality (no noticeable compression artefacts).

On current hardware (a.k.a. the last 10 years or something), showing a flat picture or a rotating 3D object consisting of a small amount of vertices has no significant power usage difference.

In fact, there's a fair chance that what you're looking at right now is in fact a 3D-rendered rectangle positioned in front of the camera precisely such that it looks flat and fills the screen (it's a bit different than that, because there's not really a camera but that's just nitpicking), mapped with a texture containing whatever pixels the OS wants you to see.
> For the life of me, I can't understand what you found wrong with that use of "substituting". It's correct. It's clear. It's perhaps less colloquial, but it's hardly inscrutable tech jargon.

It's an issue of standard word meaning, not tech jargon. In the context of what 'muxxa appeared to be saying, his (or her?) use of substituting was exactly backwards.

What 'muxxa said was that caffeine seemed to exacerbate his RSI, and that substituting his morning coffee for tea or water helped. But the conventional use of the verb to substitute is to put or use in the place of another [1].

According to that conventional usage, therefore, 'muxxa was recommending putting his morning coffee in the place of tea or water. That seems to be exactly the opposite of what he was saying in the rest of the paragraph about the adverse effect of caffeine on his RSI.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substitute
Solid read. Doesn't take long to realize this is a lot of what I went through. A young professional would benefit from reading this.
Three Reasons to Break Your “Golden Handcuffs”
The better question the Android community should be asking itself is why it hasn't attracted or developed great writers and evangelists as well as Apple has.

Android has much more global impact than iPhone will ever have [1]. A huge chunk of people in developing countries earn less-per-month than the cost of an iPhone. So who cares if some yeppie evangelist is not using it.

People are going to be coming online for the first time. There’s this vibrant community of young app developers growing in Kenya and Nigeria. - Jimmy Wales.

Macro goes on at length on privacy without realizing that there is no way to tell if iPhone is not sending each bit of data back to government or any other organization for that matter. Open Source nature of Android, AOSP, makes it the most viable option in today's surveillance state.

[1] http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/10/50-android-smartphones-are-...
To me, that means that the total amount transferred is not capped, if that type of transfer is otherwise allowed by the terms of service. Of course, one can interpret that literally and show that it's clearly not true, since you're capped by your maximum transfer speed, but I think in practice the idea is that the ISP will never say "you are transferring too much bandwidth so we are charging more, canceling service, etc."
America shits me to tears

Is this some new turn of phrase I haven't heard before?
LibreOffice Development Howto
That means little. If I was on the same local network as the CDN, would "it loads fast for me" make it load fast for everyone?
Boo at naming libraries by adding .js to otherwise common names. It risks making library building kind of a domain name-like landgrab.
> A far more insidious problem nowadays in terms of imposed structure is the habit people have of making a list (as the OP does) as if this is a substitute from properly structuring their thoughts - to me that's a cop-out and not far above no structure at all.

Good point. I agree with it so much that a while back I made a Chrome extension just to dramatize it: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/buzzfeed-delistica...

People don't realize how much Web content is plodding, soggy "listicles" these days until you make it visually obvious.