skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What I am quoting was, as is noted at the foot of the page I linked, published in "Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman" and I am pretty confident it was in fact written by him. It strikes me as consistent with his other writings.

The interchange you cite doesn't conflict with this view at all (or if you really think it does, please explain how). First, "selling software" is not the sum total of "commercial software", which is what was being discussed. Second it is not "selling software" that Stallman opposes, first order, but restrictions on freedoms of users to the end of selling software. This should be apparent from the fact that Stallman himself (as is noted in the OP here) sold copies of EMACS back when copying was less trivial. It's certainly the case that triviality of mass copying plus the FSF's "freedom 2" means that it is practically difficult to sell anything but the first copy (because people can simply get a copy elsewhere) but I'd argue that is precisely what Stallman is doing when consulting: selling that first copy.
Ah I see, so if a classified report/email was released that said, "Make this movie, and make sure Assange look bad" then he would have grounds to sue?
Interesting idea. Some notes / comments / questions on the posted code (in no particular order):

* setting up a separate routing namespace for the API would clean up a number of things. In particular, it would make the web-only actions much clearer; calling respond_with with a JSON error payload and then relying on it to render the template (as done in OnionsController#index, for instance) is terribly confusing on a first read.

* does logging in actually set session[:UserKey]? It doesn't appear to, but that would make returning users unable to decrypt their existing onions.

* I really, really hope that isn't your actual session secret in config/initializers/secret_token.rb. More info on why this is bad and how to fix it here: http://blog.phusion.nl/2013/01/04/securing-the-rails-session...

* The encryption code in OnionsController would be better suited in the Onion model, especially since the decryption code is already there.

* the API for adding onions (OnionsController#addOnion) does not encrypt the data before storing it. Is this intentional?

* every action that modifies onions creates a new session. From the way that new_session works, I'm guessing this is to provide "session expiration" that's reset every time a user changes something. Would updating the timestamp on the user's existing Session accomplish the same thing, or have I missed something?

Some more code-review oriented notes:

* Some of your class methods in the models would be clearer as instance methods - for instance, both account_exists and pass_is_good take the hashed username as an argument and find the corresponding Account object. pass_is_good could be an instance method on Account. As another example, the code inside the loop in decrypted_onions_with_key could be an Onion instance method (telling an Onion object to decrypt itself vs. doing it externally).

* the comment character in Ruby is #, not surrounding things in / symbols (which creates a Regexp literal). In most cases (config/routes.rb, for instance) this happens to not cause problems - but it's still not a good habit to get into.

* some style notes: none of these affect the operation of your program, but they will affect how efficiently other developers read your code and work with it.

First, pick a tab setting in your editor of choice and stick with it. The "Ruby standard" is 2 spaces, but if you prefer something else at least be consistent.

Second, check out some of the Ruby style guides regarding naming. CapitalizedCamelCase is makes for somewhat odd-looking database column names.
I actually have been working out regularly, but it seems like I'm building up a tolerance to the psychological benefits.

It would be nice to take a hiatus, but that's not an option for me right now.
Fair enough, I don't know how much effort actually goes into testing recuts of a movie for foreign markets - you're probably right about it being more complicated than I suggest.

Nevertheless, I still believe their primary and overriding goal is making money. If those interests intersect with the interests of the American government in making sure it gets perceived well overseas, so be it, but I don't think major studios are going out of their way to make propaganda consciously.
So, Apple keeps the price of the iPhone high in countries where people pay for access to the cellular network separately from the phone hardware to keep US carriers happy. Is that your assertion?

I still do not get it. It seems to me that US carriers subsidize the phone hardware because US consumers have an irrational unwillingness to pay the full price of the hardware -- or an irrational willingness to pay monthly contractually obligated payments to carriers.

If that is true, then there I see no reason for US carriers to fear the availability of high-end phones at full price -- even if that price is not "artificially" high -- since US consumers have an irrational aversion to paying full price. So why would US carriers pressure manufactures to keep high-end phone prices high (in the US or in other countries)?

ADDED. I agree with you that Apple is able to keep the price of the iPhone a lot higher than their cost to make iPhones. Where I disagree is where you assert that any policy of the US carriers has anything to do with the price of iPhones in non-US countries.
>Doesn't matter, there would be someone else who does hire.

But not as many as there would have been otherwise. It doesn't take a big change in labor surplus to lower wages for everyone.

>Or you thing jobs would dissapear if people dont have a cushy road to business success?

Yes, jobs disappear as it gets harder to fire people. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. That's why you don't want to make it hard to fire people - it's bad for everyone, but it's especially bad for employees.
Comes down to dealflow. Quality angels are sought after, and if they're capable of syndicating a larger round, so much the better.

To quote PG from http://paulgraham.com/fr.html: "The best type of intro is from a well-known investor who has just invested in you. So when you get an investor to commit, ask them to introduce you to other investors they respect."

AL just automates the above behavior.
Some potentially relevant screenshots from the other thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6427599
TIL "heat from radioactive decay contributes about half of Earth’s total heat flux."

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n9/abs/ngeo1205.html

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/07/18/...
Deal flow?
Hearing about companies that don't necessarily have access to the VCs immediate network.
This confuses me because it seems to contradict your original comment, and make exactly the point I was trying to nudge toward. I agree with you that the unsubsidized price does not matter in the United States for example, but one must acknowledge that this is a US-centric view and cannot explain what goes on worldwide. I read somewhere that most iPhone sales aren't in the US, so I suspect it doesn't even explain just Apple taken in isolation.
How does early stage jump from 5.8 to 68.8% when going from 10 to 15 years? It seems there is some small sampling issues going on there.

Anyway, you can take a certain time frame, slice the start/end dates to match when certain companies sell or are the market is doing well and make your point look in either side's favor, especially for short time intervals like 1-3 years. Also curious as to how NVCA collects this data.
>I hereby dispute the idea that the DOD has made it impossible for big-budget Hollywood movies to criticize the US military, and suggest instead that the bias Hollywood in favor of the military is responding to customer preferences and not leading it.

Yeah, the problem with anti-military movies is nobody wants to watch them. It certainly hasn't been a lack of effort on the part of film producers.
Show HN boxUno: The only inbox you'll ever need.
Interesting comment - I will try and find out.

The other side of the coin is perhaps post-rationalisation, trying to justify to yourself why you spent the extra money in the first place re-enforcing your initial irrationality further, and making the whole effect last longer?
Thanks. The link from the original article that is probably supposed to go to that page is broken.
I hereby dispute the idea that the DOD has made it impossible for big-budget Hollywood movies to criticize the US military, and suggest instead that the bias Hollywood in favor of the military is responding to customer preferences and not leading it.

That's a bit difficult to defend in light of the fact that this film and Zero Dark Thirty were demonstrably influenced by the DoD.
I picked my examples carefully, every single one is an example of a determined Soviet espionage operation.

That doesn't discount Soviet prowess in technological innovation, but it's still very much the truth.

As I mentioned, the Buran has many close similarities to the Shuttle. It has many differences as well but the shocking thing about the similarities is that they don't make any sense except in regards to attempting to copy the Shuttle.

Regardless of the capabilities of their scientists and engineers we know that the Soviets were obsessed with copying as much western technology as possible.
> That is definitely a significant improvement.

Sure is a significant improvement for some people at least. http://t.co/EK3sdeloUX
That's what I was thinking, too. The fingerprint scanner is a bit like a LoJack - it's still possible to steal a car with a "The Club" on it, but most thieves will probably just move on to another car (although I've heard that car thieves, like pick pockets, don't really steal cars anymore, just components and loose gear.)
My Favorite Design Links of the Last 6 Months
>I don't think major studios are going out of their way to make propaganda consciously.

I used to think the exact opposite, because being aware of how the interests of the state align with ones monetary goals would enable those to take advantage of situations more so than those who aren't aware… However over time and because of events like those of the nature that took place with Russell Brand being kicked out of the GQ awards, I've taken a more nuanced position.
According to a friend of mine who was close to Wikileaks and had some access to this production, the Iran subplot was scrapped completely, and replaced with a still-fictitious but entirely more plausible Tunisia subplot. Which is rumoured to have since been replaced with yet another fictitious and potentially less-plausible Libyan or Syrian subplot, probably on account of American audiences not knowing what Tunisia is...
BlackBerry co-founder Mike Lazaridis reportedly considering bid
"Academic research and production code have different, conflicting, requirements."

Have you ever actually produced any academic research code? Because my direct experience with the matter says that you're wrong. I've seen plenty of "academic projects" that had far wider distribution, bigger teams and more complexity than your average "production code" (most of which is never used by anyone).

"I know people who are fantastic researchers, but their code should never go into a production system. I know people who write beautiful code, but they'd never have something good enough for academia."

I know a great many people in industry who micro-optimize for beauty and who go off on architecture astronautic expeditions with no provocation, so what's your point? Are you generalizing to all academics? I can tell you for a fact that "academics" as a group don't care more or less about beautiful code than anyone else, and that research is just another kind of production system.

You pretty clearly have a bias that "academia" is this ivory tower place where nobody gets anything done, and that's a stereotype, not reality.
What with the low cost of cellphone service and the high cost of raising a child, I find it hard to believe that parents don't at least equip their child with a feature phone that allows voice and text. It allows you to:

A) Check in at will with your child.
B) Have them communicate if they missed a bus or are getting a ride home with a friend.
C) Tell you they messed up and are out after dark with friends on the wrong side of town and really need a ride home.

Those factors alone seem to outweigh the negatives to me.

As far as phones and school, it just sounds like cellphones are the new scourge being blamed for things the previous generation doesn't like or understand, just like music, RPGs, TV, and video games were.

Kids can be cruel, but calling the understanding of technology and social networking in the 21st century "stupid" seems shortsighted. Especially when parents/adults are some of the heaviest users of social media.
It was not my argument that no films made in Hollywood were influenced by the DOD.
Predictive analytics that works.
Absolutely fair critique. Cambridge Associates and Preqin are primary data providers in this world, but in talking to our VC customers, we've heard that sample size, reporting bias (funds doing well may be more inclined to participate) and large time lags are a problem with judging VC performance based on their data. Some studies have also found that the same fund can have different returns in each system.

That said, it's the best of what's available today.

The best indicator or proxy that returns suck is that LPs are voting with their wallets and leaving the asset class and investing in it less.
Where are you getting these sentiments from? The free software movement has nothing to gain from being anti-government. By itself it's a relatively non-partisan political movement. Copyleft licensing is just another tool they use to promote themselves. Furthermore, a stated goal of the movement is to encourage the use of free software in public institutions. As long as these public institutions exist, they can and should be using free software. None of this has anything to do with perceptions of "justice," it's about promoting the message and the attitude.
I think this exactly proves his theory (or at least my understanding of it).

He says: "technology matures and becomes good enough..."
But phones before iPhone were definitely not "good enough". Honestly, they all sucked. And Android phones are still kinda plastic and clumsy with bad support (upgrades, etc.) - definitely not "good enough" for me.

Also iPhone and iPads are disruptive to PC market.

In short, it is nearly impossible to predict disruptive technology. First, it is really hard to measure what is "good enough" at which "price points". And sometimes it is even impossible to figure out which market is being disrupted.
If that is why VC is broken, how will a service like AngelList help? I fail to see how connecting investors and startups in new ways addresses the issue of poor returns.

For what it's worth, my impression has been that there is too much capital chasing too few funding-worthy startups and in recent years this has been driven in large part by monetary policy, which is producing capital misallocation and malinvestment across many asset classes.

I'd guess that when the game is over, angels and super angels will be especially affected and many will drop out of the market altogether. That, of course, would negatively impact AngelList.
I don't put any passcode because thieves will throw aways SIM card and they won't be able to connect to wifi/internet. Then I will not be able to track it.

Apple should implement a way to let them connect wifi and browse basic stuff like a "guest" mode. Meanwhile we track them.
Hopefully we will see AngelList app on Android and iOS now :)
That sounds like low-end disruption to me (Possibly I'm misunderstanding the theory). The iPod was killed when the marginal cost of an MP3 Player moved to $0. Same thing is happening to Point and Shoot Camera's. My Phone isn't quite as good a music player as a dedicated MP3 Player. And it's not quite as good as a P&S camera. But their marginal cost to me as a consumer is $0.
Some services give it regardless of whether it's asked for - I'm specifically thinking of facebook here. I've done a couple of prototype apps with "login with facebook" functionality. Regardless of whether our app requests it or not, facebook automatically says that we're requesting "access to friends list" - that's just one of the minimum levels of things you get, even if you don't want them, and there's no way to not get it.
> good looking people are actually average

This makes a lot of sense if mutational load causes bad looks. Mutations cause individual deviations from the more ideal underlying template.
Some blame should surely be placed at AT&T's feet too, but IMO not as much. Going back to the door analogy, whoever leaves it carelessly unlocked will definitely get less sympathy (e.g. insurance may decline to cover the loss), but that does not mean they're anywhere as guilty as the thief who actually committed the burglary.
As a co-founder of Tiny Farms[1], we're betting on the growing need for alternative sources of protein. Humanity's current protein supply is inefficient, unsustainable and won't scale to feed the future world.

Our particular domain is edible insects; we wrote this article about why entrepreneurs should get involved:

http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2013/09/10/5-reasons-dr...

[1] http://www.tiny-farms.com
Well right now I'd guess that the percent of high damage attacks that go through are significantly higher than 1%, so lowering that to "1%" isn't an improvement?
Doesn't this depend upon how your stratify the data?

That technicality aside, two points worth making: (1) VC funds are like startups. All of the money (that is made) investing in the winners, not the losers; and (2) The other side of the coin: VC is also like investing in hollywood Films and pro-sports franchises. People have an irrational desire 'to be in the game', and much value can be extracted through (what is best thought of as) dark externalities.
In China obviously. It is already the case.
Alternatively, people might give up on space travel if simulated worlds become too enticing.
If it ran as efficiently as a start-up, it just might work.
I've seen plenty of people "hack" the 4 digit password simply by observing the user entering it. This kind of hacking seems to involve even more work than that.
IT managers will either be thanking or cursing the CCC at this point...
Yes, how many people run $10,000 dollar competitions to get past the default swipe to unlock screen?
Close ties between White House, NSA spying review
Black soldier flies and duckweed FTW.
Important to remember Touch ID only gives you 5 tries before requiring the device passcode.

I wonder how many attempts the CCC guys had before they were successful?
On mobile, that isn't always possible. If I'm on my iPhone, and I upload something, the app indicates it's done (lying to me), then I close the app... and don't open it again for three weeks... how is it supposed to give me an error message? And replaying a network queue three weeks later might be even worse.

The app can't, because it's been closed. And the server can't e-mail me with an error or anything, because it might never have even known about the action.

At least on webpages, the page can intercept the close action with a modal dialog, then fires when you try to quit the browser or close the tab, warning that you have unsaved data. Mobile apps have no such last-case warning mechanism.

Because of this, I agree that lying to your users about successfully completed actions, on mobile, is bad advice. You're abusing users' trust, and once they discover that (and remember just how unreliable mobile connections are, so they're bound to discover it sooner or later!), don't be surprised if they don't come back.
It is still a matter of considerable debate as to how much of the Manhattan Project intelligence was actually provided to the scientists in the Soviet bomb program.
'every so often' seems a bit casual, for a payment [1,2]

[1] From the citation: "Passcodes and passwords aren’t completely eliminated by Touch ID, then, but they almost certainly will be later on."

[2] The glass screen will have your fingerprint on it, somewhere. That can be CSI'd by anyone who finds it. Anyone serious enough to do that (and its not much) can start escalating.
I meant Cython, yes.
Hackers claim to have defeated Apple's Touch ID print sensor
"Addicted" means that sugar has to be harming other aspects of your life, which I doubt for most people. I think this term is being overused.
Professor Cameron Abrams describes molecule that essentially neutralizes HIV
Assuming someone did steal your phone and look for prints, they would need to know which print to lift and that it's enrolled with Touch ID. After they, they only get 5 goes to be successful before the phone insists on your passcode.

CCC made it look easy but I bet it didn't work for them first try or even 5th try...
I'd suspect it helps do 2 things

- marginal VCs die sooner. This is already happening but more competition for deals hurts VCs who don't bring a lot to the table. This either brings in new smarter blood or right sizes the industry.

- can allow for a set of investors whose criteria for success is more in line with reality. A $100M exit doesn't get most VCs excited but angels and syndicates of angels prob love those. And 60% of tech M&A exits last year were less than $100M.(1)

(1) http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/acquisitions/tech-mergers-acq...
And my assertion wasn't that DOD has made it altogether impossible to create movies that shed America in a bad light, they've just made it really, really difficult.

When your competing movie has all kinds of bells and whistles, shots of real helicopters and aircraft carriers and all -- and you can't afford to have that because you don't have access to the stuff that the competing movie got for free, this puts you at a disadvantaged position at the box office. Movie production is pretty damn expensive: these days it's not at all surprising to see film production budgets exceed hundreds of millions of dollar (the last Pirate of the Caribbean cost $300 million to make). When movie studios are under the kind of financial pressure that they usually are -- leaving aside advertisement costs, this can actually be a make or break point for them. So, the government is incentivizing the production of a certain kind of movies... and we see the effects of that play out.

A recent Pew research piece revealed that 7% of Americans use Reddit, and the significant majority of that 7% is millennials. If you go to Reddit you probably know they overwhelmingly support Wikileaks (and/or Assange), so the argument that there's no demand for content that challenges America is very weak (whether it be related to the Wikileaks scandal or not). If a high production value movie unabashedly cast Assange as a hero without faults, the movie would be accepted fine by a sizable amount of people, it would make a lot of money: a lot of people see Assange as a mystical hero, they'd shell out money to see that movie.
Security fences
Armoured cars
Autonomous armed guard killer robots
Seriously, you omit Apocalypse Now? :-)
91.5% of the people in China are Han, and the next biggest minorities (Zhuang and Hui) are very Han-like in appearance (the Hui are descended from Han who converted to Islam with a bit of Persian/Arab mixing). Consider that the visually distinctive Uighurs and Tibetans, which are like #5 and #9, barely add up to 1.25% of the total population.

China has "sizable" ethnic minorities when considering raw population, but as a percentage they aren't so sizable anymore; i.e. China is relatively homogeneous. Of course, the minorities tend to concentrate in areas where they are sizable, especially in the sparsely populated west. The problem is that the Han are so overwhelmingly large in number that all the other minorities are worried about encroachment and complete assimilation (even in the west).