skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not true. I know several women in education who are pulling in $100K+ per year. Plus they get a pension when they retire. They all started out as teachers and worked their way up. While they are not millionaires they do have a nice lifestyle. And from the Greenspun article mentioned in this thread: "Even a public schoolteacher actually does better than a scientist. Consider the person of unusual ability who takes that bachelor's in science and decides to become a schoolteacher instead of going to graduate school. At age 22, the schoolteacher is earning a living wage and can begin making plans to get married and have children. By age 30, when the scientist is forced to start moving around to those $35,000 per year postdocs, the schoolteacher is earning $50,000 per year. By age 44, when the scientist is desperately trying to switch careers, the schoolteacher is making more than $90,000 per year for working nine months (only the better school systems pay $90,000 per year, but remember that we posited a person with a high IQ and motivation sufficient to get through graduate school in science). Being a public employee and a member of a union, the schoolteacher cannot be fired but may at this point in his or her life begin thinking about a comfortable early retirement and some sort of second career."
Etsy CEO Dickerson on Entrepreneurship in One Illinois City
He explicitly advertised it though and then gave a contrary opinion. The only reason to do that is to intentionally harm the original message.
Having used mobileworks in the past for similar work, I would not recommend them at all. My request was bounced around from worker to worker, nothing was accomplished and they stole my $50 dollars without offering anything in return.
There's certainly more than that, but SDRs (as we call them) are a piece of it. Excellent -- let's chat further! Drop me a note directly.
'like' peaks at 1%
Google gives insights on Google play store by linking w/Google analytics
The website targets specific DRM schemes that they approve. Since your open source OS doesn't have any DRM schemes you're SOL.
Etsy CEO Chad Dickerson on the Next Wave of Tech Hubs
W3C - Ruining HTML since... often...
Sure, but is it good news for the users?
Did you read the blog post? It discusses a much more update-to-date case of this happening, by a reported who just recently submitted a fake paper to a bunch of open-access journals, some of whom accepted it. He then wrote the experience up and submitted it to Science, who is spinning it as something typical of open-access journals.

More more notable than the fact that some fly-by-night, pay-to-play "open access" journals accepted a scientifically and ethically dubious paper is the fact that there now exists a large body of established, high-quality open access journals who roundly rejected the paper and pointed out its many flaws.

Meta publication bias strikes again.
Your expenses matter more than your revenue.

Think of it this way: in order to save 6 months of living expenses on a year of salary, you need to put away 33% of your income. There are graduate students out there - several are probably your classmates - that live on $20K/year. Therefore, as long as you make over $30K/year, you can live like a grad student and save 6 months living expenses in a year.
As an ex-googler I agree. Much if it just wouldn't be useful as is to most people as it's an environment that few match in load, resources, and diversity of services. Plus it's all integrated tightly across the board.
The W3C is the guardian of the world wide web, a system for disseminating information publicly and globally to all those who may benefit from it. By standardizing DRM for video, they are giving legitimacy to a technical kludge that is designed specifically to prevent the dissemination of information. There are legitimate reasons why someone may wish to save a video to their hard drive, just like they can save an image today. There is no reason the web should be built upon mechanisms designed specifically to privilege corporate interests over the interests of those falling under fair use exemptions to copyright laws.
If I'm unhappy with work conditions -- be it bad management, burden of unmanageable technical debt, incompatible culture or the mundane problem of low pay -- I am expected to `vote with my feet'. It's market self-regulation, it's feedback for the organization and it just works. If I refrain, for any misguided reason, it only makes market suboptimal. Does OP really advocate skewing the job market for some fuzzy reasons?

> (...) others are hard at work ever so humbly providing real value through their—at times—loveless toil.

Hard work alone is not enough for humanity to benefit; it must also be well-focused, well-tooled and well-managed. If the clueless middle-management wastes 90% of your effort, there's more benefit to humanity when you move.
Similarily, if 100h workweek and 24/7 stress wreck your family / relationship / friendships and derails your life for several years to come, there's more benefit to humanity if you move.
Ask HN: Any machine learning task to solve? I'll try to do it for free.
It's an experience and fun for me and a good chance for you to get a working prototype. I'm a NLP engineer and my passion is sequence processing. But all other ML tasks are fine. I'll try to solve it in several hours / few days and send you the results.

I am comfortable with Python (+numpy/scipy/sklearn/theano) and C (+blas/lapack), nvcc (cuda).

Please send me a description (and data) to:
lightcaster _at_ gmail.com

You lose nothing. I give no warranties but I'll do my best.
My current timezone is GMT+4.
Is ‘massive open online research’ (MOOR) the next frontier for education?
I remember looking at her first few sites and witnessing a big jump somewhere and immediately thought this is all a promotional event to be hired. She was probably helped, or already had generated a lot of the code, or whatever.

I don't think its controversial or argumentative to say its probably faked to a degree.
> Am I not entitled to an opinion? ...You could tell me _why_ you disagree.

Why I disagree with your disparaging remarks aimed at PL theorists is irrelevant.

The Urbit documentation should say what Urbit is, why it is important, and how to use it. Your disparaging remarks do not help to answer these questions. In fact, they do the opposite by antagonizing many readers and unfortunately giving you the appearance of a crank. Therefore, you should remove the remarks.

Knocking down PL theory does not boost Urbit up.

> We may mean different things by "practitioners." I mean programmers. Unfortunately, your vocabulary is not common to programmers and shows no signs of becoming so.

This is flamebait.

> I know it seems strange to introduce new designs in the 21st century - most people assume, rightly of course, that everything worthwhile got figured out in the 20th.

This is a strawman, and a particularly odd thing to say to someone who is also interested in advancing the state of the art.
Blow mind or real curse? Anyone can steal your phone number with new start-up
I don't disagree with you at all there. The name is terrible.
Here is a concrete story what happened me few weeks before, while I was working on a Nintendo emulator in Pharo. I was playing with Super Mario, and at the end of the 3rd or 4th level my emulator crashed because of some index miscalculation in a sprite drawing method. When this happens in smalltalk, a debugger window pops up, and the cursor is on the problematic line. I fixed the bug in the debugger and pressed proceed then continued my journey to save Princess Peach :).

In a live environment it is easy to make experimentations because you can get very quick feedbacks, and there is no need to switch between modes like development to execution or execution to development. Catching and fixing certain bugs is also easier as I showed before.

I think there is a need for this kind of development, that's why people try implementing code hotswapping and class reloading capabilities in various programming environemnts. But still most of them are just limited workarounds compared to smalltalk where live coding works fine for decades.
No, the DRM is built into the operating system or the browser. Microsoft, Apple, and Google all have their own DRM schemes. There is no installation.
My definition of "rigorous and disciplined" comes from an entirely different world, the world of RFCs.

Here, you can look at my axioms and identify anything unrigorous or undisciplined about them:

https://github.com/urbit/urbit/blob/master/Spec/nock/5.txt

A bunch of people have written compatible implementations from the spec, which is the RFC world's general sanity test.
For all the digs at "low skilled gurus", your reasons for choosing -or in this case, leaving- VIM don't seem any less shallow.

In any case, the guy you're disagreeing with is Beam Moolenaar (though I happen to think his arguments aren't that preposterous), and I'm pretty sure he's a vim expert.
Wrapping the mobile site and using share/browser iOS API
Yes, most US brokerages will accept foreigners. There's just a couple of things to pay attention to.

- Make sure you know the tax arrangements between your country and the US, and file whatever documentation is needed. In the US, you'll probably want/need to file a form W-8BEN with the IRS (http://www.irs.gov/uac/Form-W-8BEN,-Certificate-of-Foreign-S...) to prevent withholding taxes in the US. Most brokerages will be used to that anyway.

- Documentation of your identity. If you have a US bank account already, this will likely be trivial for you. But sometimes US financial institutions gets finicky about this. I had a US bank account with Chase years ago as I had a small business where I had to process a reasonable number of US cheques, and processing them with a non-US bank would effectively eat everything in fees.

I ended up having to go to the US embassy to get an apostille attached to copies of my passport and the application form (basically someone had to watch me sign the documents, and match them to my ID and then attach a document and seal as evidence that they had certified my signatures). Other times they don't care at all - it appears to be down to who has been subjected to cranky auditors and/or concerns about money laundering recently or not...
That would be the dystopian outcome if the sites and browsers together diverged from open standards and started forcing DRM on everyone.

What this standard actually specifies however, is only that the browser will respond to a certain tag by looking for some proprietary-ware to play whatever audio and/or video someone wants to restrict.

This is a disappointing move on the part of w3c, because it lends some air of legitimacy to DRM, and because it revives the otherwise dying plugin system under a new name. But it doesn't actually force DRM on anyone or restrict the ability to do anything on the web.

The best case would be that users are unwilling to install the black-box-ware in order to see videos or whatever, and the feature is little used and the copyright exploiters have to either unlock the content or go away with it. None of which would be bad.
Consider that three of the largest browser makers -- Microsoft, Apple, and Google -- all have arms that deal heavily with media companies.

I dislike DRM as much as the next person, but if it's implemented reasonably (think Steam or Netflix), then many consumers are willing to deal with it. EME was what enabled Netflix on ARM-based Chromebooks, for example; and I prefer EME to not being able to legally access media at all.
Seems you are correct. I had assumed.
Gotcha!

Kidding. Arc is registered with launchd, Apple's daemon manager.

To halt Arc, unload it from launchd with

launchctl unload ~/Library/LaunchAgents/com.arc.arcd.plist
Can someone PLEASE explain to me the following: If my computer is playing the video and playing the audio. How on God's green earth can they stop me from capturing that? ... It's playing right in front of me... I can hear and see it. It's not hidden or secret. Look.

If you ask me, the only reason DRM has worked up to now, is because code/file formats/protocols were secret. People didn't have access to the source. But now they do, in the open source browsers.

But PLEASE enlighten me. I wants to know.
This is a bit of an exaggeration, we have had content like this on the web for years with proprietary technologies like flash, silverlight ,activeX and highly obfuscated JS. Not to mention the amount of content locked into walled gardens and proprietary app stores etc.

The W3 proposals suggested do not in fact mandate browser vendors implement any DRM scheme to remain 100% standards compliant. This is myth that gets repeated on HN surprisingly often.

The issue is that some big name content providers don't want to sell you content unless they can also install things on your computer. This fact remains regardless of the technological implementation details.

The overwhelming majority of content on the web is DRM free. These proposals do not mandate nor give any incentive for that content to be protected if it is not already.
نكت مصرية
نكت مصرية - http://www.alhqeqa.com/?p=23547
نكت مصرية - http://www.alhqeqa.com/?p=23547
نكت مصرية - http://www.alhqeqa.com/?p=23547
نكت مصرية - http://www.alhqeqa.com/?p=23547
I like how you have to point that out. Has it become so strange for an article to be posted by someone other than the author?
Unless you're suggesting that the law firm forced Samsung to read the documents by setting them a trap, both are legally responsible.
And another: Why Are There Still So Few Men in Pharmaceutical Sales?
It matters because of two things:

1 - We'll lose the W3C. We'll have to either create another standards body, or go back to the 90's situation when nobody agreed on anything.

2 - There are a few places where actualy reading the data somebody sent to you is a crime. Despite the drawbacks on those kinds of law, some of those places are still very importantly economically, and we can't just ignore them, at least for now. If you create a code for "don't read this data" to be sent over the web, disobeying it will become a crime there.
If you're a lumberjack and your job is cutting down trees, when do you allocate time to sharpen the axe (or for that matter try out a newfangled chainsaw).

Early in my career, I too worried about "unrelated" personal research or development. I'm at the point now that I'm fully comfortable with the fact that you have to go off and do unrelated / indirect work to maintain a high overall productivity - this is a fundamental part of the expertise for which you are being paid. Some employers are better about formally supporting and/or directing that development. But even if they don't formally do anything, allocating a judicious portion of your time to self-improvement falls in line with your self-interest as well as your employers interest. This includes time at work.
You can't be sick for more than 6 days?
What happens if you break a leg?
The point of the Sokal affair seems to lean more towards proving that postmodern cultural studies as a field is lacking in substance than to demonstrating the ineffectiveness of peer review in general.
Intel teaming up with Arduino
> This reminds me of the Netbook arms race except the end product is infinitely more useful.

Netbooks have tremendous utility to a subset of users. I have an old netbook with one of the slowest CPUs released in the past decade (Atom Z520), but it gets great battery life, and runs Emacs, Python, and a number of other tools I need like a champ.

Is that what most people want? No. But most people aren't microcontroller hardware hackers either.
If your answer to the question was "no", you should say "no" and then clarify. It's not that hard.
True - but to make a very valid point about the state of peer review in science journals it is perfect.
The W3C hasn't been a good "guardian" of HTML for a very long time. This is pretty much why they're not even the only guardian around - there's also WHATWG.

For example, 12 years ago W3C attempting to push "RAND" patent licensing into HTML:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment...

This was 100% against the concept of a free, open web, and it took a huge effort to stop it happening. It's crazy that it even got that far.

So it's no surprise that they're pushing industry interests again today. I lost all confidence in that group safeguarding HTML a long time ago, and it looks like the they haven't changed.
If I had my way we wouldn't have copyright at all. It seems idiotic to me for the same reasons patents are.

But we do, and so just as you say there are "legitimate reasons" why someone may wish to save a video, there are too "legitimate reasons" someone may want to share their work in a protected manner. It's a product. If you don't like it don't buy it.

There is no part of this that forces the user to view only DRM protected websites. As far as I can tell this only increases the rights of copyright holders, which, again, I think is stupid, but seems completely legal and a reasonable thing to do under our existing legal framework. Edit: it also does not seem like it will fundamentally change the user experience of the web since the things that it allows are mostly already doable, just not with an HTML standard.
``we need to get past the antiquated idea that the singular act of publication – or publication in a particular journal – should signal for all eternity that a paper is valid, let alone important''

Most scientists I know (physics) don't have this idea. They know publication is just a step. Most grad students learn at some point that just because it's published doesn't mean it's correct.

Publication is a checkpoint, not a finish line, for any theory or experimental result.
Previous discussion on this article:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6199446
Nothing, which is why this whole proposal even exists.

With this standardized, we will continue to be legally and/or practically blocked from native consumption of protected content on general purpose GNU/Linux distributions.
Microsoft has also contributed Hyper-V drivers to FreeBSD 10, presumably to allow FreeBSD servers to run on Azure:

http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=38019
The WHATWG doesn't really "exist" in quite the same way that the W3C does. There isn't Process for obtaining an opinion that you can then ascribe to an organisation rather than one or more individuals. It only represents the browser makers insofar as the specs hosted at whatwg.org accurately reflect what browsers implement. Sometimes this is achived by adjusting the browsers to match the specs; oftentimes the opposite occurs.

It is certainly the case that several individuals editing specs under the WHATWG banner have set out their opposition to DRM. It seems unlikely that Hixie will include it the HTML spec he edits unless, of course, we end up with something implemented in browsers that is both interoperable and open. Since "open" rather defeats the point of DRM, it's difficult to imagine that happening, however.
Just throw the terms in the RapGenius search bar:

http://rapgenius.com/search?hide_unexplained_songs=false&q=h...

Javascript is mentioned in "White & Nerdy" by Weird Al Yankovic. Also, looks like there are non-songs that are being counted into the rap stats.
And yesterday we were all talking about how it was such a shame that they did the whole Greplin to Cue jump. At least they're doing good for themselves now. I can definitely see how this would fit in with apples calendar, email, tasks and all that other stuff to aggregate your schedule.
Hard work.
Boring work.
Unfulfilling work.

There is no relationship between these three things, but the author keeps saying "hard, boring work."

I don't feel particularly bad about insisting that hard work doesn't have to be boring, and that boring, easy work is not hard.

"The HN Generation doesn't want to put in their time doing boring, unfulfilling work" doesn't sound nearly as damning as "The HN Generation doesn't want to put in their time doing hard work."

Anecdotally, programmers tend to work pretty damn hard.
Most browsers are free software nowadays. Their makers opinion is important (yeah, forking is hard work), but not that much.
Yes. Especially this section:

But he said he never encouraged anyone to go on in math. “It’s a very hard life,” he told me. “You need to enjoy it. There’s a lot of pressure being a mathematician. The life, the culture, it’s very hard.”

When I told Meg Urry that Howe and several other of my professors said they don’t encourage anyone to go on in physics or math because it’s such a hard life, she blew raspberries. “Oh, come on,” she said. “They’re their own bosses. They’re well paid. They love what they do. Why not encourage other people to go on in what you love?”

which reminds me of Greenspun. The more interesting question, which he raises, is that given the hours, job prospects, and pay, especially relative to the alternatives, why does anyone want to get a PhD in the sciences?

That being said, the NYT's discussion on how other cultures view women in science was most interesting to me.
Let them. I'll build my own browser and it won't respect this shit in the slightest.

We'll make a new W3C. One that can't be bought so easily.
Ever heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia ? Sure you can record in the analog hole, but the playback of copies will becut or limited.

Imagine a browser refuse playback video or audio clip based on Cinavia DRM plugin, and also a website requiring such plugin -- via the DRM API -- to provide any content.
Google acquires Flutter to bring Kinect-like features to computers
Here's the membership list of the W3C: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List

It would be great if anyone opposed to this would contact an organization on this list, ask them why they're endorsing and funding DRM and the end of the free Web, and if not, when they will be resigning from the W3C.

Every name you can get stricken from the list is up to around $70,000 per year defunded from what is now most effective driver of DRM in the world. [1] Getting some public statements from the membership would be educational, if nothing else.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees?countryCode=US&quarter=10-...
I am one of the people this article talks about, and I agree heartily. Fortunately I've long since identified this personal issue and have been working to improve myself. In all those years I spent watching peers working hard and struggling with things I did not, I had a nagging suspicion there were hidden benefits to their struggle.

Now I know. Today they are better at getting shit done. They can grind through the menial day to day minutiae real world projects are burdened with whereas I tend to obsess over the pockets that are "interesting". Working on it though...
>If you want DRM, you use a plug-in or a separate application. There's no reason that an app like Netflix or whatever can't use pure-HTML for everything but the video-stream and use a plug-in based object for the stream.

That's exactly what this standard would allow.
You can, of course folks have, but then you can't use the video/audio tags. (or you need a pretty significant js shim)
I did something similar back in January 2012---I wrote the same program 30 different ways in four different languages (http://boston.conman.org/2012/01/09.1 is #1, just follow the links) and it was an interesting experience. Quite a few only differ in a few lines, or maybe cosmetically, but some versions forgo standard libraries, or read input in a radically different method, or explore different programming techniques.