skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well, stop charging for their content _or_ stop trying to get in google results.

The second one would destroy their business as much as the first though, yeah.

But yes, trying to get paywalled results high in google results is mistreating users (or, rather, mistreating the public at large; most of those people weren't their users (yet, they hope!)).

So is trying to trick people into thinking the results are paywalled when they are not. That's mistreating em too.

Yes, they had a business model that required them to a) get on google results so people would click and visit them, and then b) make those people pay (or _think_ they had to pay) to see what they clicked to see.

Yeah, they didn't arrive at this out of a desire to be evil or mistreat users, they were just people trying to figure out how to make a business like everyone else, sure. But what they ended up with, at one point, was a business that required mistreating the public. shrug.
Being immortal and having a high quality of life for as long as we are alive are not mutually exclusive. In fact, don't we have longer lives and better quality of life than our ancestors already? This would just be taking it one step further. Also, having a population that never dies has many more benefits than consequences. The amount of knowledge and experience that will not be wasted because of death is extremely valuable. Also, who says people will be giving birth to children as often as they are currently doing when they don't fear dying. Already in most developed nations the rate of population growth is plateauing. Also, don't forget we have an entire universe at our fingertips. I'm sure when we have 200 year old aerospace engineers and physicists we will be able to get to colonize other planets much faster.
WHOIS for (unused) Love.com
Like with anything else, the question isn't whether the rich will be able to afford it, the question is how much progress can we make in making it cheap, how quickly, to get it to how many people?

It is a moral imperative to make sure that short-sighted class warfare does not cut off the nose to spite the face by destroying this work under the guise of egalitarianism, because we can not turn on a dime and immediately grant it to everyone on day one. Yes, the rich will get it first. We need to ensure that market mechanisms remain functional and that they end up subsidizing the research the rest of us need. If we build gates and walls, they'll just end up captured in a heartbeat. Don't let them be built.

(Once the market has chewed on it and made it as cheap as possible, consider subsidizing it or something, but for the love of Life itself, don't break the market and destroy the research before it even happens. Seemingly suboptimal situations may need to be relatively briefly tolerated to make sure this happens at all.)
Hmm... ok. Walk into your local Verizon store, pick up any random phone being offered on contract and ask the following questions:

1) How much of this phone's price is being subsidized?

2) What percentage of my monthly bill is going towards payment on the device subsidy and thus:

3) how many months of service will it take to pay off the phone.

Actually I'd also welcome any online sources for such information for a such information from Verizon or AT&T (the holders of vast majority of mobile phone contracts in the US)
Does someone who pays EE for the answer to their question get what they were paying for? Yes. My point would be: how is EE charging for content any different than someone else charging for content? The great evil they seemed to commit was ranking highly in Google while following Google's guidelines, and then hiding the content below the fold.
The article states about unitarity and locality that "both are suspect". I'm happy for locality to be suspect, but in what sense is unitarity suspect? Surely only in the sense that it is apparently a consequence of more fundamental things. And when you think about it, that's philosophically amazing, that probabilities summing to one may have an underlying (timeless?) explanation. Or maybe I should infer that there has been some exaggeration!?
Not surprised in the least that Page referenced Bill Marris for "bringing this idea to life." Marris has been pivotal in taking Google beyond its traditional role with this and Google Ventures. He has recognized and successfully utilized Google's resources to push Google to its full potential and reshape what Google stands for. Very excited to see what happens with Calico and Marris' next achievements.
yup. valid cncerns, good comments. bring on some more michael tellinger -ism, then we can have a bit more peace of mind about the aubrey de gray -ism, when it's not part of that capitalist, corporatist, monopolist-wannabe paradigm. could be great tho. (love the comment: rising tide floats all boats)
Oh yeah, then why didn't they shut-down Gmail like the folks at Lavabit did? Instead of doing the right thing, Google let themselves become compromised in secret - only for us to find out after someone was willing to put their life on the line to leak this information.
On Interdisciplinary Collaboration and "Latent Personas"
Wasn't that kind of supposed to be the point of Android though? Granted some work is involved with getting Android onto various hardware, but one of the reasons cyanogen exists is because the OEMs started going way to far with their android customization.
The toolchain (uCluibc development) I am using is explained here
http://opencores.org/or1k/OpenRISC_GNU_tool_chain

My scripts for the toolchain are published here: https://github.com/s-macke/jor1k-toolchain-builder

Unfortunately the scripts are broken but show the overall complexity to build the linux image.

The ethernet device in jor1k is a dummy right now but the kernel is already prepared to work with this device.
So everything I have to do is implementing the correct device which is defined here:
https://github.com/openrisc/or1ksim/blob/or32-master/periphe...

But nothing has been done right now. It is not my main priority right now because it would need a server script. And github does not allow this. And there could be a lot of security issues as well if I would add this to a demo.
Yeah, this is the stupidest argument ever. The only good thing about Experts Exchange was that it encouraged Joel Spolsky and Jeff Atwood to make Stack Overflow.
What can they do to stop you if your phone is capable of installing a recovery?
I really didn't care much about the google spamming if by some magic they managed to get me right answers. The only problem with EE is that I couldn't get anything from their spam, only links to pay for the answer.

SO solved this problem by making it free. You could ask questions for free as well. I don't know if SO tries to game google, but their answers are pretty close to the top results most of the time. I don't mind, because they are usually relevant.
CoffeeScript doesn't have to eliminate JavaScript to be useful. Just having a better notation for passing anonymous functions as parameters makes such a huge difference on code clarity that I think it's worthwhile.
They're just looking for customers to stick around longer. It's a morbid reality, but if death could be prolonged so they could find new ways to advertise and find new products for the elderly that have prolonged their life, then that would make sense. They could potentially be creating a whole new market.

It could take 20-30 years for their research and development to catch on, but I'd imagine some of Google's biggest followers/clients are in their 20's, 30's, 40's.

They wouldn't have launched this company if there was no "end-game" or no ultimate goal, and retaining customers indefinitely seems like the ultimate goal for any company.
"Mistreating" is pretty strong language, don't you think? In the worst case, someone thought they were going to get an answer, and they didn't...IMO that deserves a shrug, not a public campaign to take them down. I do appreciate your thoughtful comment.
> Because CoffeeScript is all well and good but I really don't see how it is useful, except from maybe speeding up your development a little

You have a weird concept of "useful" if "speeding up your development" isn't a part of it :-)
Google has a history of opening up its research. I doubt the medical community would accept a "google" vaccine without overwhelming consensus.
Art inspired by nature
EE isn't the only company to have faced this conundrum (either you give away the content for free, in which case it shows up in search results and you get lots of search traffic, or you put it behind a paywall, in which case it doesn't show up in search results and you get no search traffic).

In fact, pretty much any company whose primary asset is content faces a version of this problem.

My take on it? This falls into the category of "3. Come up with a totally new business model":

I've often thought that it would be useful to have a search engine that indexes paid content and then allows users to filter it out.

So, suppose you're searching for the answer to a particularly difficult programming question.

You might start out with the filter on: "Only show me free results."

And then if your search turns up nothing, you might turn the filter off, and maybe you'd discover that for a couple of bucks, you can get access to the answer to your question.

So maybe EE, or some other enterprising company, could build a search engine that fits their monetization model, rather than relying on a bunch of search engines that don't.
> But seriously, the fact that the first thing they do is start a corporation to control the science is not exactly comforting to me.

How else would they do it?
Very likely your employer. Check your contract.
Almost identical to my behavior a few years back. Changed a lot since but still too much on the 'computed behavior' side of things.

2 cents analysis on things: with objects I can try fail and try again with no fear of hurting (both ways) or trying again, and most things I learn is relatively stable, with people everything is very informal, random, ad-hoc, arbitrary, absurd. It's hard to keep in mind the small but valuable beauty of relating to someone, it's often under a fat layer of "fakery" but it seems they all click, admit and understand it while I drown under this accidental complexity.
But what about generation warfare?

Imagine having to live in a world where all the positions of power are permanently occupied by people from the generation of your great-grandparents.
To be clear, they were charging to access answers written by people who weren't employees that wanted to help others.
EE users added this value, and its highly questionable that they would have done so if they had known that their expertise would be locked behind a paywall.
Why do you think that? Would you find it amazing that a group of volunteers could do a better job of developing <app or site> than huge companies like Microsoft or Hewlett-Packard?
> "exposes itself in search results"

'exposes itself' is a great euphemism for gaming the system in order to get a search engine ranking that it couldn't earn on its merits. I remember the first time I ran across EE, it was about fifteen seconds before the time I blocked EE in my google search results.
Depending on when you visited, you'd probably need to scroll to the bottom of the page to get the answer and/or visit the cached version of the page. Annoying, yes. Worthy of scorn? That's up for debate.

SO ate EE's lunch on the SEO front, to be sure. And I agree with Google that SO offers better experience for searchers, so I'm glad they're winning that battle.
Two good referenced articles:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-among-i...

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-in-othe...

As far as what they're consuming - sugar, processed oils and processed grains are the most widespread aspects of the industrialized diet, and therefore the best suspects. Try finding a processed "food" product without either sugar or an industrialized oil.

Jobs only started experimenting with weird diets after he became an adult. Also, while industrialized crap is likely the primary culprit, other things contribute - sedentary lifestyle and lacking basic necessary nutrients (Jobs experimental diets are like nothing I've ever heard of any non-industrial tribe or society eat).
Used Cyanogen since my old G1 ran it. It was a better experience than the stock android. Several android phones later, it started to be hit or miss. Really depended on what phone you had, and how supported it was.

My question is this, is Cyanogen, or any ROM really going to be relevant moving forward?

With all the changes to Android, moving towards one single API choke point (with Google Play). Aren't OS updates going to be less important? I'm thinking daily or more frequent ROM updates will get you very little in the future.
Personal finance just got beautiful. Made for iOS7
People were searching google for answers to their questions. EE hijacked the results with pages that hid the answers.
That's how they were dicks. They intentionally wasted our time. Far from "evil," but annoying enough to nourish resentment against EE.
I joined Stack Overflow about 4.5 years ago and I was one of the top 10 all time users on Stack Overflow for a couple years or so, so I have seen my fair share of SO/EE arguments on the web. What's interesting is that not a single time I'd seen EE defended by anyone but its current or former employees.

Also, the blog post mentions "I think their public, negative campaign against Experts Exchange was excessive, mean-spirited, and at the very least immature and silly. Admittedly, it worked – they’ve achieved their goal, and “death to EE” became the rallying cry."
I don't really get this. Aside some joke-like mentions in the podcast or blog entries, Stack Overflow did not really do anything to harm EE specifically. They were just a better QnA platform and much closer to what users wanted. No one rallied against EE just to kill EE; whatever was done was to build a better QnA system and that succeeded. Experts Exchange is just something users don't want and it never reacted to the presence of Stack Overflow and Stack Overflow eventually ate their lunch in its entirety. Stack Overflow's mission was to become the wikipedia of programming questions, which meant EE-like sites would eventually die should SO becomes successful, but EE was never a specific target of a tactic or anything beyond joke-like verbal attacks. It was, however, a good model of "how not to do things"; something you'd learn from.
Good luck with that!

I had a nitpick with the marketing blurb:

> I’ve put together this step-by-step guide that will help you through creating your very own first web app (think Facebook or Twitter), from start to finish.

Is the example of Facebook/Twitter the best one to use for a beginning guide? Those are full-fledged enterprise/billion-dollar services...it'd be like saying, "Learn how to create your very first computing device (think iPad or Sony VAIO)"

It sounds like you're aiming for a true web newbie (i.e. not a backend programmer who hasn't done much on the front end), and so I think you'll have your hands full just explaining even the HTML/CSS and file structure part, nevermind any server ops (beyond uploading flat files, but even that...), basic back end architecture, and AJAX.
Sorry, I didn't intend to play semantic games here. I don't think anyone has disagreed that they gamed search results. I meant only to call out the difference between sites that explicitly don't end up in search results (because they don't want to) versus those that actively try to get indexed.

Hacker News requires a log in, but generally, HN links and discussions don't show up in search results, this is, if I understand correctly, intentional. So my statement was based on the idea that people on HN hate signing up for sites that require login, but which also end up in search results they find, which is why it's OK for HN to require a sign up for discussion, but not for Experts-Exchange.
Let me put it another way. I can understand why a CEO might choose that, but as a user (especially as a user trying to find an answer, or a noob programmer trying to understand something better) all I would ever get was, "Hah! We've got answers .... and you've gotta pay."

My reaction was the same reaction we have when Google tries to foist G+ real-names on Youtube accounts, or when I see Quora's hidden results: "Oh, screw you!" It's not logical, but it's the feeling I (and I'm sure others) feel.

Quora is actually good, in that at least the first answer (usually very good) is usually visible, but as a user it's easy to see why I would want to use StackExchange rather than Experts' Exchange. I see all the answers, and am free to lurk. As a student, I would have been able to learn a lot about best-practices, or why X doesn't work with Y, where before I was stuck in ignorance due to not being able to justify the $ on a membership.

The main reason I turned to Wikipedia and Stack Overflow is not because they rank well on Google, but because they are free sources of information. Moreover, they don't constantly pester me to sign up, log in, or pay them anything. (I actually have an account at SO, but haven't posted anything: I don't feel like an expert on anything enough to write an answer that would actually earn points.)
Amazing news for this team. Really excited to see what they build.
> no amount of raw dollars can compensate for that ability

I'll play the devil's advocate here: Wouldn't the raw dollar amount it costs to work a day compensate for that?
One thing I wish the article pointed out was that Stack Exchange isn't profitable whereas Experts Exchange is (this was true earlier this year; SE may be profitable now). In general, it's difficult for a bootstrapped company selling a service to compete with VC-funded free services, and choices have to be made.
This is a great first step. But realistically they can only move so fast with FDA regulation increasing your iteration cycle time on therapies to 10 years. Our biomedical regulatory regime is extremely risk averse.

If we had a regime where anyone could voluntarily place any therapy into their own body, we'd move a lot faster. Yes, a few more people would die in testing. But a lot more lives would be saved by the therapies produced.
For example, polio was cured less than 60 years ago. We know much more about the effects of radiation (sunscreen, anyone?) than we did 40 years ago. Genome sequencing is becoming slightly more affordable (than even 10 years ago) due to tech advances; we can predict hereditary disease in some instances (BRCA mutations, etc).

Steve Jobs is actually a terrible example. To quote wikipedia, "Despite his diagnosis, Jobs resisted his doctors' recommendations for medical intervention for nine months,[170] instead consuming a psuedo-medicine diet in an attempt to thwart the disease." Pseudo is Greek for "false." And if you want cancer solved by the time you get it, you probably have to pony up the money before your diagnosis.

I'm not disagreeing that medical advances are relatively slow, but on the scale of human life, Page has probably at least another 40 years of advances left to see. And that's a lot.
It's better than an amateur sex-change...
ages = "#{child} is #{age}" for child, age of yearsOld
Thanks for the really great point - I'll make mention of VC in an edit.
I've been trying to "go backwards" with my note taking and writing in general. I've been using OneNote on my workstation and/or Evernote on my smart phone (HTC One at the moment).

Recently I upgraded my note-taking tools from Moleskine + Sharpie Pen to Midori Traveler's Notebook + Fountain Pen / Blackwing 602 Pencil. I also carry a couple of Field Notes on the go; you just don't know when that next-big-thing-idea will strike you. I make sure to capture it in ink when I catch it!

I found out that I am more inspired to write/take notes when I have better writing tools. Here's my current "system": https://twitter.com/ProductivityBit/status/38016214069634662...
My impression from reading Atwood's writings on the origins of SO was that being Not Experts Exchange was a primary initial goal.
A short list of online articles and references on data journalism
With all that Google knows about you, they might as well have a clone ready when you die!
Google can't extend human life but maybe it can pick the right people who can.

This is similar to iPhone. Steve Jobs didn't make the iPhone possible. What he did was recognize something that many engineers had recognized for a long time and he permitted the resources to flow to the right people. Sure, he introduced some of his own artistic flair. But the combination of radio, UNIX, with a nice API was an idea whose time had come. We just needed a CEO with the balls to let his engineers go for it.

There are many brilliant scientists and engineers that can nearly do magic, and not enough people who know how to discern what visions to fund. Every so often we get blessed with a Steve Jobs or Elon Musk who can send the resources the right way, but for the most part we get Carly Fiorina.
The technology tidal wave we've been riding is going to take us to strange and probably unexpected places if we stay on long enough. What it is going to do to distribution of wealth, is anyone's guess.

On the labour/production side a technology seems to be creating wider income gaps. For the winners it is a lever with which to create more wealth. For others, they are competing with machines and poor countries (enabled by technology to work with rich ones) for work.

On the product consumption side, the gap is pretty small. The cheap netbook that almost anyone in Europe or the US can afford is not much different (in price or performance) from the one used by a billionaire. No matter how rich you are, you can't get a better smartphone than the models you can see in any bus. Even the low end (50-$100) smartphones are getting decent. I expect smartphones to be as ubiquitous as dumb ones soon, that means the gap between rich British & bangladeshi (measured in smartphone wealth) is plummeting.

Who knows what future waves of technology will look like, especially medical technology.

I think the appropriate response is keep an open mind and see where stuff takes us. Don't bind your thinking to past paradigms. Go read the Communist Manifesto. Realize how it is a product of its time, the industrial revolution. It takes a lot of contortion to try understanding the world by that paradigm. For Adam Smith, technological efficiency was about making pins.
I will never be able to convince you that Google was not complicit in the acts the government took that Edward Snowden has exposed, and you will never convince me they were complicit.

There is literally no evidence anyone could provide you, that would make you change your opinion.

And I can't claim that I'm much different, if I'm honest, unless Google execs admit to it. Or unless journalists discover examples of prosecutors admitting evidence in some court, to convict someone, based on data that could only have been acquired with Google being complicit.

You seem to forget that Google pulled out of China, rather than comply. How much money did they leave on the table, there?