skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think that's a bit of a stretch, Catalunya is by itself in a huge problems (debt) and is also still a part of Spain, so you can't that simply separate it from the problems of the country.

It's true that Barcelona by itself is probably still doing pretty fine - but I would say that's for different reasons - there's no shortage of people from all over the world coming there to live/work/study, be it Erasmus students or business people (a lot of Germans my experience is telling). That keeps the renting market busy.

On the other hand, 680€ for a three-bed flat in Les Corts? That's insanely cheap, so either the OP found a great opportunity or the prices really dropped down in a last year (or, third possibility: I overvalue the attractiveness of Les Corts)
You also have deluge-console a console client to connect to deluge server.

And it's a lot easier to use than rtorrent that has some insane shortcuts you will never remember.

You don't even need tmux/screen as with rtorrent/aria2c, just connect with deluge-console whenever you want, it's deluge server that is doing everything in background.
The accounting rules (GAAP) have only a loose correlation to how most modern large companies actually operate the levers of their businesses. Management teams of well-run companies spend very little time thinking about the formal financial statements.

Accounting bears the same relationship to actually running a business that the Efficient Market Hypothesis does to actually effectively investing -- which is to say, almost nothing.
It's also my question - and the answer is a good one: Gopher provides one structured menu question answer like method to interface to information. This is why I use org-mode for most of my documentation.
The problem with using Gopher space is that most if not all information that I consume, hacker news, social media, wikipedia is available in gopher format. Some have implemented gopher versions of reddit and hn in the past, but these are gone.

In a way google serp, e-mail, twitter already use this simplified UI - now if only we could unify it somehow.

One way of doing this would be by using console browsers to interface the web, or set your browser to use 1 font and style and no images. One of these browsers, Elinks 0.12pre6 has gopher as compile time option as added benefit.

Aonther problem with Gopher is that it doesn't appear to support encryption and compression. I remember the pipe and slash symbols 'spinning' while waiting for a large plain text document to complete downloading in the old days. So the "resource lite" argument doesn't fly completely.

So perhaps the best option is to use simplified and structured gopher like menu-ing system using html, something like markdown did for html as is suggested... but why then not put Gopher to sleep for even and start a www-less project?
Zazler - seamless API creation, http://www.zazler.com

Why it's cool:

1) Instead of building an API for your project, you can start using Zazler as a ready-made API. It acts as a web server that can be installed locally and configured directly to a SQL database (a legacy database or a new one, we're currently supporting PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQLite and MSSQL), so that makes it cross-platform. (ofcourse you can also build a proxy with node or nginx on the server's port if that's necessary)

2) Database queries are defined as URLs per HTTP request, using a query syntax very similar to SQL. This allows the user of an app to write necessary queries, hence extend the app on the client-side. Complex joins, filters and similar stuff is supported.

3) Zazler comes bundled with many technical formats, data visualizations and app templates. And they are extendable, meaning the app's users themselves can decide how to view the data, even write their own formats and templates.

4) The feedback we've received from backend developers is that it will save them many, many hours of boilerplate coding. So it can also serve as a development platform that can be used to write database queries using URLs instead of writing boilerplate backend code. You can basically set it up and let the frontend technician take over the work from there.

5) We've used similar architecture for the last 6 years in our projects, so it's pretty mature. Now we're releasing Zazler as a beta for public and planning to launch it as a separate product in 2014.

I've written a blog post where I describe Zazler's approach in more detail: "API Creation – the Missing Link in API Management" http://www.zazler.com/?p=115
Κανονες Ζαριων - CasinoBetX : CasinoBetX
VirtualBox running linux server, share folders with Windows host, PuTTY
I'm working on Event Discovery App.

It's cool because unlike other apps that fetch data from Facebook, we're classifying events into categories using NLP algorithms and we're also working on advanced event recommendation system, so we don't just provide a list of things.

Also unlike other tech startups that try to make things easier to do at home (delivery, social networks, etc etc) we're trying to encourage you to go out and enjoy life.

It's for Android only at the moment.
http://olaii.com

I'm always open for chat, suggestions, criticism so don't hesitate to contact me/us :)
A story:

"There's two scientists on lab coats observing a spider.
They shout JUMP! and the spider jumps.

They proceed to remove one of it's legs and repeat the procedure.
They shout JUMP! and the spider jumps...

After some time of repeating the procedure the poor spider has no legs.
They shout JUMP! and it doesn't do a thing.

The scientists then come to verify their useful hypothesis: ..spiders use their legs to listen..."
I agree completely.

The catch, though, is that Jeff had to endure years of vitriol and abuse from Wall Street and the press to get into this position. I have met a lot of founders who think they could get through that, and very few who actually can.

I think Jeff was helped enormously by having this dark period for Amazon happen (a) during a broad-based tech recession and (b) in Seattle. I'm not sure how possible it is to do what he did through that period in a normal era and in the Bay Area.
That's a very idealized view. The reality is harsher. Public CEOs are under enormous pressure from many fronts.
Suboxone has helped me beat my 6 year long opiate (heroin) addiction. It has it's own issues. I'm lucky enough to live in Australia, where it was simple to get on the program, and it costs me $5 per day (less if I pay two weeks in advance).

I'm currently on 8mg, down from 28mg a year and a half ago. Ask me anything :)

Ps. I'm writing a book based on my experiences at the moment. You can find a draft chapter here: http://jgirvin.com/the-things-we-do.html
Thank you.

I also think that, even if some of the criticism is right, for a lot of those students (and their future employers) this project will still be a lot better than the alternative of them staying unemployed or working bad jobs while full of this untapped potential.
They are enormously profitable, is where they are now. Same with mobile carriers who ran the same play.
How to let clients know that they are being spied on?
This is pure Platonism. I reject Platonism in modern mathematics.

Mathematics should, first, be used to describe the real world. (That is what scientists like Newton were using it for.)

To do that, you don't need an axioms. Nor do you need beliefs. You only need observation of reality. It starts with the concept of a "unit," which can be added or subtracted from other "units." There is, of course, some prerequisite philosophy. ("Reality, you say?" "Why, yes, actually...").

Secondly, mathematics can deal with axioms and "games" and "universes" (to take words from the StackExchange post). But all of mathematics should not be subordinated to such a framework.

I realize my argument is not "obvious." Fully establishing it would take a lot of work, and even then it would be widely rejected by the status quo Platonic mathematics establishment. I'm not claiming to do that in this comment. I'm just putting this alternative perspective out there for anyone who is interested.
The question is about comparing axioms with belief and religion; so my question is kind of off-topic, but I have to ask: How about philosophy? How does proving a philosophical theorem start? Is it by an axiom or something else? To put it another way, what is the philosophical equivalent of scientific method?
There is no issue with reinvesting for growth. Businesses that require a lot of capital to grow need to do that and might need to continue operating with lower or minimal profits as they grow.

However at some point it's important to be able to say that they have played out the majority of their growth ambitions and are ready to start optimizing the business for greater profit.

The trouble is that human nature for many CEOs with big egos and the structure of corporations is to want to continue to grow forever. This is a dangerous attitude. For example perhaps Microsoft shareholders would have been much better off if the company was run without ANY ambitions to compete with Google, Apple OR to dominate mobile or tablets or search or any of these areas. Instead if Microsoft was to just focus on Windows and Office and extract as much profits from the business as possible, then return these profits to shareholders, then the shareholders would be free to invest in Apple and Google stock.

The trouble with this is that for an ambitious CEO this might feel like giving up. I don't believe it's giving up. it's called focus. Focusing on what you are really good at (in this case Windows and Office), rather than pretending that you are great at everything.
This article was written in 1984, 29 years ago. Some of the information used in it is a bit out of date.

1) It refers to the triune brain model that has been debunked already. See this Scientific American blog entry: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/09/07/re... So most of the speculation regarding reptilian, limbic and neocortical intelligences isn't really valid. Though this doesn't affect the chordate vs. ganglionic argument.

2) The article states that "consciousness is an emergent of neuronal sentience" which isn't a necessary assumption. Recent research[1] has hinted at intelligent behavior as being a thermodynamic process occurring when a physical system acts such as to maximize its number of possible future states. Quick video summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZB8TNaG-ik If true, a typical neuronal structure (i.e. brain) wouldn't necessarily be required for intelligent or conscious behavior, maybe not even a typical computational structure. One could imagine a cloud of gas undergoing chemistry such that it maximized its entropy production and could potentially possess superhuman intelligence or consciousness.

3) The article discusses the theoretical limits of intelligence as being a system possessing 10^50 bits of information per kilogram. But the maximum limit of a computational system should be given by the Bekenstein bound[2], which limits the information the system can process to a factor proportional to the surface area of the enclosed volume (for a 1 cubic cm sphere this comes to about 10^66 bits), the speed of light limiting the speed at which these bits can be processed, and the particular structure of how they are processed (e.g. the flow of logic gates). One could imagine a (quantum?) computer with the maximum encloseable surface area of the universe which transmitted information optically between different gates in the system. There may be other limits preventing that from being remotely feasible (e.g. heat dissipation, energy requirements, entropy production leading to the heat death of the universe, etc.). The main point is that comparing the Apple II at +5 SQ on a scale of 0 to 50 is kind of silly, when one could imagine an intelligence the size of galaxies, or even the known universe, operating according to a principal of maximum entropy production similar as referenced in the previous paragraph.

Not to knock the article; my main point is that there have been a lot more theoretical advances in the almost-30-years since it was written.

[1] http://math.mit.edu/~freer/papers/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf

[2] http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein_bound
It's certainly no miracle cure, nor is it even particularly effective for a lot of addicts. Two of my aquantinces attempted it. One stayed clean afterwards for about six months, the other was back on it in weeks (he passed away a year later due to an overdose).

Of course, n=2 does not a theory make, however their experiences certainly put me off it enough to not attempt it. I'm on Suboxone ORT instead.
[LaunchRock] Github Profiles, for Recruiters
This is an interesting space to watch. Over the years, we've seen the cycle happen half a dozen times, where the dominant Bittorrent client gets too big, bloated, and spywarish so somebody introduces a new one with an intentionally silly name meant to evoke just how tiny, pico, µ, (or in this case bare) it is and how it will never ever bloat out like that thing it replaced.

Then it starts adding features. Then it starts getting big. Then somebody starts offering enough ad money that maybe the idea of a tiny little banner ad isn't such a bad idea after all. Then a few years go by, somebody discovers a rootkit in the installer for the 300mb version 4.2.1.12, and gets annoyed enough to once again implement the protocol in 22kb, name it "scrunchyTorrent" and release it.

It's quite fascinating.
That last line should read:

"While there is no doubt, IMHO, that it shouldn't be surprising that anyone can get "real" work done..."

WTF is "real work" anyway?
I read the full article and I was actually astonished that such information was not stored inside some kind of 'safe' or 'vault'. A common thief would have been able to steal this information, and all these sources would have been out in the open. Maybe it's even wise never to pertain physical copies of documents, but to work digitally and encrypt everything.

If you spend so much time investigating an agency that is so powerful, what do you expect? You must prepare for the worst: they may be fined by court for their actions, but they don't care: they got what they wanted:

1. information about the source of the leaks/information
2. scared any future wistleblowers of leaking to her or other people like her.

It only shows that being a wistleblower is very dangerous because of the journalists who don't have any clue about security.

But maybe I'm to harsh.
This site is perfect for copywriters. I can't wait to show this site to my creative directors.
That's a bit misleading, the cheapest 2 bed flat for say nw6 is £13k a year from a quick search and the cheapest in London is probably around 10k, things are overpriced and finding quality housing in a nice area is hard (as it is in most large cities), but there is a broad range of properties available, and rental costs vary from £200 a week or less to over £7,000 a week for 2 beds in different areas just a few miles apart.
About git in a crappy console on windows - I feel their pain - you might want to suggest your colleagues http://sourcetreeapp.com/ an awesome and free windows git client. Just saying :D.
Descartes and Spinoza tried to apply scientific method to philosophy.
Cool stuff, tried it on my friends phone, would love to see that on my iPhone soon.
http://i.imgur.com/KeX2Fb3h.jpg

That's one hell of a print. Maybe try lowering the temperature? What are you slicing it with?
Amazon Raises Threshold for Free Shipping
> Generally speaking, nobody claims that the axioms of set theory are true in any ordinary sense of the word true.

Mathematical platonism is a pretty widely held belief, at least amongst pure mathematicians. From Hardy's A Mathematician's Apology,

"I believe that mathematical reality lies outside us, that our function is to discover or observe it, and that the theorems which we prove, and which we describe grandiloquently as our 'creations', are simply the notes of our observations."

A lot of set theorists will speculate about the truth of axioms beyond the standard axioms of ZFC, e.g. large cardinal hypotheses or projective determinacy.
In general when you're a CEO or board member you'll make more money by granting yourself $x million in stock than you'll make by paying a dividend of $x million which has to be shared among all investors.
In the short term. Bezos point is that by pricing everything this way, proposing to compete with Amazon is crazy talk for most people: Their margins are razor thin, so you need to be able to beat them consistently on cost to have a chance of surviving, and beating them on cost will requires economies of scale that are impossible for a lot of people.

Apple on the other hand, is marketing high end products with ridiculous margins, which leaves a lot of market niches on the table, and leaves a lot of room to make money even with a cost base that is massively higher than Apples. That's made people line up to get a piece of the cake.

How many people start companies intending to compete with Amazon? Meanwhile, new smart phone companies sprout up on a near daily basis, and there's a whole industry in providing designs, SOCs, cases and components for people who just want to slap one together and put their (or someone elses...) logo on a phone.
I don't see that at all, in fact the author in one of the comments admits to be a formalist, which is what I gathered from the answer as well.
Diversity isn't a magic pill that automatically improves everything. Students should be selected based on their merits. If this results in non-diverse samples, then so be it.
Mathematics should, first, be used to describe the real world.

If by "real world" you mean the things and events we can directly witness, that seems to be deliberately crippling mathematics from the start and limiting it to things we already know about.
Elle Çizilen Tipografik Logolar
It's too easy to claim that citizens are not involved in what the government is doing. One reason these agencies are so bold is because Americans themselves are completely dismissive of the rights of foreigners, thanks to the old manifest destiny attitude.
This question gets asked a lot, in particular by math students, and I think that the answer that is usually given, which is the same as many answers in this page, is overly simplistic: we don't care about ontological truth of our axioms (and, by the way, of the deduction scheme), we just define a set of axioms and define true as provable. This is the formalist view of mathematics, which was the dominant view at the beginning of the 20th century.

This reduces math to a meaningless mind game, as acknowledged by Hilbert himself, one of the major proponents of this view: "Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper".

Unfortunately, this sweeps under the rug important questions, such as "if I prove the correctness of a an algorithm, how does this increase my confidence that the algorithm will actually work?", or "if I compute the hypotenuse of a triangle with Pythagoras theorem, then cut a piece of wood and measure it, will they match?"

This is why ultimately there is some belief involved. From Wikipedia [1]: "In practice, most mathematicians either do not work from axiomatic systems, or if they do, do not doubt the consistency of ZFC, generally their preferred axiomatic system" (emphasis mine).

To work with with a set of axioms, we must believe that that set is both logically consistent, and that in some way its interpretation is consistent with reality. The first question cannot be answered for the interesting sets of axioms, thanks to Godel, and the second is not even well-defined.

For this and many other reasons, philosophy of mathematics has mostly moved on from the logicist/formalist view [2], but as most philosophical problems, there probably will never be a conclusive answer.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics#Part...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
I should have added GMail to my list of 'mail clients' - they will check external accounts too. Forgot I'd been using that for a few years!
> It's not Ubuntu that can't do it. It's the hardware manufacturer that refuses to do it.

Thanks for the explanation, but I've written (very simple) Linux device drivers before, I am aware. :) But my point was that you are making a distinction that simply does not matter to the end users that are under discussion. That a hardware manufacturer doesn't produce drivers for Linux doesn't change that, to a user, "Windows can do this and Linux can't."

It's great that you buy stuff that works with Linux. Linux's problem for normal people is that it doesn't work with everything. Windows does work with everything that a normal person is likely to run into and OS X comes pretty close to the same.
Internet Archive Celebration (October 24, 2013)
Thanks, we'll do our best to make it available for iOS as soon as possible.
I'm glad it's so obvious to you. Here is a quick test:

What is "ö".length?

It's one grapheme, an o with a diaeresis.
It's two codepoints, an o (0x006F) with a combining diaeresis (0x0308).
It's several bytes, depending on encoding.

How about if you reverse it first, so that the diaeresis doesn't have anything to combine with, and you have a bare letter 'o'? What's the length now? If you answered _one_ to the above, you've got a string whose length doubles when you reverse it. Is that what you want?

Too easy for you?

Let's take the Thai consonant "ก", which is a sort of a g, sort of k sound. One grapheme, one codepoint. Sorted. We'll add a vowel to it: "กอ". Two codepoints, but how many graphemes? One or two? Let's say two, but then let's point out that there is no logical difference there between that and a different vowel: "กี". This is a little more complicated? What's the length now? Is that one or two graphemes? It's clear as day that that's a single consonant + a single vowel, but how long is the string? How about: "เกียะ"? That's still a single consonant + a combining single vowel, only this time it's a compound vowel. One consonant, one vowel, how many graphemes? Are you using vertical slicing to determine what is and isn't a grapheme? Is that right?

To see this taken to its logical end by The Masters of Unicode:
http://www.unicode.org/faq/char_combmark.html - "How are characters counted when measuring the length or position of a character in a string?"
A risk to investors? The only risk you have when "investing" (buying stocks) in Twitter is that you have to step out at its peek. All this IPO will be, is payout day.