skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would still recommend against it but you should know that shorting isn't always available right after a stock IPOs. It can take about a month before its possible.

Its been a while since I've dealt with IPOs so I'm not 100% sure if that's the case anymore.

If you want to get involved, call TD Ameritrade. They can give you 100% accurate information and get you setup quickly.
Another difference not mentioned is given the use of recursion in Haskell and the JVM's lack of tail-call optimisation, I have to wonder how dangerous this is. I know Clojure has recur (I'm not a Clojure programmer) but unless Frege has something similar, I predict many an exploding stack.
At least your data will be there because the features are set to sane defaults.
The term for this is "bagholder".

Congratulations to whomever was on the sell side of this today. Sucks to be an employee who is locked up for 180 days.
Coupling an electronic skin tattoo to a mobile communication device
Thanks for your comment, but just a quick note on comparisons to jsFiddle and the like...

Tools such as JsFiddle, CodePen, etc. are extremely limited by design. They are intended to simply demo and showcase HTML, Javascript and CSS. Codio is a fully-fledged IDE and code editor, and does a lot more. Take a look at our homepage and you'll why.

So while we can do what JsFiddle and co. can, and would be delighted if you used it for that purpose, our main goal is to get you guys to use Codio as your IDE of choice.
It is actually a combination of both.

HR Tool: You can add all of your agencies employees, and use the system like a case management platform. You can see what your employees are doing in an event stream, and also assign them tasks.

CRM: More so this. Add all of your clients, jot down case notes, administer surveys for them, etc. You'd see a lot of similarities between us an Highrise in terms of CRM features.
"Needing" depth really depends on your interpretation. Yes the github buttons don't need depth to be buttons, but at the same time, their depth probably makes them feel more clickable, and draws more attention.
You can easily run client-side only web apps. It's not Google's fault that developers would rather serve up code from their server.

Check out this editor: http://www.mrdoob.com/projects/htmleditor/
https://github.com/mrdoob/htmleditor

Runs entirely client-side, you can download the files, open in a browser, and voilà, full functionality.

Apps like this are the promise of the web, of OSes like Firefox OS and Chrome OS. It's only developer imposed limitations that are to blame, much like online-only DRM in native apps...
The simple answer is that a share price is the present price to pay for the future cash flows of the company. Just because they aren't making money now doesn't mean that will always be the case. If twitter starts making billions of dollars soon, and starts paying that out to investors, then everyone makes money.

They "eventually foot the bill" if twitter doesn't make money. Your cynicism reflects the fact that many companies don't end up making enough money. But there are counterexamples like GOOG where joe public actually did fairly well
This is pretty cool! Makes it easy to see the subtle difference a flat UI makes on a page.

Makes all my GMail icons dissappear though... lol
Completely agree. We should have gone single-payer straight away instead of wasting time with for-profit market participants.
Not really. not only did those companies not have profits, they also didn't have any revenues or users. Twitter has > 200 million users, and they are growing revenue 100% a year. Dot-com boom was a whole different animal.
Please post links with people saving money. I have yet to see one that was genuine. I have seen actual evidence of people getting coverage that could not before.
I think you're missing the hypothetical above. I read it as "the law could have required insurers to bring policies up to snuff without increasing premiums". That presumably would have kept people from getting cancellation notices (and would have been a huge controverstifuck).

In any case, I think you're wrong. I think it's nice that there's a minimum standard for what 'insurance' should actually do. I think mandating certain minimal care coverage is critical in preventing people from being fleeced by super cheap plans that don't cover crap.
It's also filtering into the distro packaging -- I think it's in debian unstable, ubuntu as of raring, and fedora ~19.
It only sucks to be an employee if his shares or options are contingent on a market cap above the current price.
The issue is not just that models are hard. The claim of some economists is that while people behave irrationally, not everyone behaves irrationally all the time, so the issue is self-correcting as long as you have enough liquidity and participants in the market.

It's like the law of large numbers; while a single transaction may have a completely wrong price, a sufficiently large number will average the irrationalities out.
In 2013Q3, Twitter made $168M of revenue (not profit).

How do you think, how long is it going to take them to cover their current market capitalization of $24670M? After that, they will start making profit for the shareholders.
Maybe so. We're not building nuclear power plants though, but NFC readers for iOS. We're doing it more to bootstrap an industry than to sell widgets. The mistake was to not consistently reiterate that message throughout the campaign.
I don't have a Chromebook yet, but if I do get one, I'll probably use crouton and put Ubuntu on it and use that as the main operating system (which is what I do on my PC laptop anyway). That gets you out of this walled garden.
It's not just an aesthetic, depth changes your perception of information hierarchy, can draw your eye, and can entice user actions depending on the real world analogues of the object.
Still not seeing the plan side by side, or seeing the other options/plans that were offered in place. The article only mentions a couple dollar amounts.

As ck2 says, everything that's been tossed around (that I've seen) so far has been anecdotal, sensationalized, or flat out bogus. Will there be some hiccups? Of course. But they are the exception, not the rule.
The name actually does affect people's opinion on the subject. I don't fully trust this source yet [0], but I do trust that the name affects people's opinions.

[0] - http://www.policymic.com/articles/65625/why-americans-are-ok...
Apparently Twitter thought it was a good deal: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101110025

Banks' incentives are misaligned: a higher share price raises fees collected from underwriting since they get a % of total money collected in the IPO; a lower share price leads to commissions, goodwill and management fees from the private wealth/managed fund clients.

Could anyone elaborate on how these concerns are/may be separated to keep the process transparent?
I agree with your point and we never had the intention to mislead our customers. I'm sorry if it appeared as if we were trying to mislead them! We just launched and there was no bad intention behind putting the logos up there. I guess we were just a little too rash with that decision. We're currently in talks with both TNT and DHL and will have them in the database within the next two weeks. I'd just like to assure you again that there was no bad intention at all!
So in effect it's just one giant speculation game that everyone's in on and the only trick is not to be left holding shares when the hype stops?

I guess I'm fine with that as long as everyone playing knows the rules (although it's tough for the index funds that have no choice in the matter).
More like kids playing with matches and lighters burning down the candy store.

I can see the necessity of breaking from the past at Apple, post-Jobs, but their designers threw out a lot of old rusty tools without understanding what they were for in the first place.
I was a GRPN employee at IPO and I can confirm that even with your stipulation, it sucked.
> borderline breach of fiduciary duty.

That's not a real thing.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-com...
Well its still withing living memory that Irish people with darker complexion and black hair where refered to as "black" Irish.
What about this?

printf '1234567890\n1\tx\n12\tx\n123\tx\n1234\tx'
1234567890
1	x
12	x
123	x
1234	x

Tabs are not fixed width, that's the whole point of their existence.
I'm sorry, newbie to stocks, trading, etc here. Can someone explain how they IPOed at 26 dollars but somehow opened today at $45.10? Isn't today the first time people can buy stock? Why did they not open at their IPO price? I guess I don't understand exactly what an IPO entails.
It removed the upvote/downvote links for me. Most sites I've tried it on it does next to nothing on.
But that's exactly the danger with shorting, your losses aren't capped by what you put in. A stock can only drop to 0, but it can go up to whatever -- you have no upper bound on losses. Do whatever you want, but know what you're doing.

http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortsel...
Notice they ignored Server 2012.
In all the tesla fires it looks like the front hood compartment burns most. Looking at this picture you'd have time to get out of the car, and unbuckle kids from a car seat in the rear.

I'd say it speaks to the safety of electric cars. In a case where a gas tank is ruptured and catches fire it can spread through the entire undercarriage as the gas spills out of the tank onto the pavement.
I don't trade stocks, nor do I claim to know that business at all. Can you explain this concept?
"Do you watch CNN? Do you follow breaking news? Then Twitter has demonstrated value for "normals,"

Look there are people that watch the nightly news every night. Enough people and enough value to advertisers that there is the nightly news. Forgetting though that that market is declining they have a monetization platform in place (partly by legacy because they were the only source of information so it just lives on) and partly because the format is such (tv commercials) that it provides value for advertisers.

The question with twitter is simply how much value can be delivered long term to people that follow (as one example) breaking news. And how much that can be monetized and become a profitable business model.

By the way part of CNN is the entertainment value that can keep an audience captivated for hours watching every last minute of storm or conflict or invasion coverage. It's infotainment that drives the bus there and makes the business model work. Highly crafted and entertaining.
http://girlsglobe.org/2013/04/29/indias-outcasts-dalits/
> Just because they aren't making money now doesn't mean that will always be the case.

This is dangerous speculation.
By that logic a random-trading machine that never bought the same security twice would never lose anything, despite reliably winding up with a very worthless portfolio.
Sorry, I don't mean to take this out on you in particular. And I'm hardly an ACA fanboy myself. But your comment just goes to show that no one has a clue about what the ACA actually does, and it drives me crazy.

The ACA does remove that tax exemption, albeit partially. Every dollar above $10k or so ends up being taxed now. And not a small amount, either: the tax is to the tune of 40%. And since the cost of healthcare will continue to rise faster than inflation for the foreseeable future, more and more employer health plans are going to be hitting that number.

I'd certainly prefer the tax exclusion to disappear entirely, but the ACA is nothing if not an attempt to offer coverage to the poor and people with pre-existing conditions while doing the minimum possible to disrupt the healthcare market. That's why it's a bit of a Frankenstein: no one in their ideal world would have chosen the ACA as their ideal policy. But given the set of institutional actors and the setup of our government, it may well be the best that was possible. That's how the Obama administration thought of it, at least.

IIRC that tax was actually a pretty nasty fight between the Obama administration and labor unions, who get their members relatively good benefits and will be hit disproportionately by it. And you know what? The tax-free cap may well have been significantly lower with Republican input. But they chose to put 100% of their efforts into making a mediocre law fail than trying to turn it into a good or great one.

Apologies for the angry rant.
It's fine providing there is contrast.
He also promoted the site from a forum account with his real name and real name gmail account in another post.
I've seen many scripts wrapping steps inside a main() function and calling it just after declaration.

If the justification is to localize variables which should be global, and still will look like "global" to the rest of the program, it's ok.

But this is mainly used without sense, by personal tastes, and usually only makes sense to the author and does not have any real benefice.

I prefer the concept "consistency is to not read unuseful steps", instead of "add unuseful steps for consistency". That's how I think when I read code.
NSA leaks: UK's enemies are 'rubbing their hands with glee', says MI6 chief
Not 'but' but 'and' right?
YouTube's comment cleanup commences
Yes, I was absolutely referring to the cultural West (which I'd guess is the population in which he and the rest of the GapMinder project will continue to find this bias) rather than the socioeconomic West.
Consider this carefully: "When you are a long a stock, the most you can lose is the amount you paid. When you are short, you can lose unlimited money."

If you have "funny money" that you aren't afraid to lose, there are safer and more responsible ways to experiment with the market than unprotected short positions.

You may want to read about and understand some options strategies:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bearputspread.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bearcallspread.asp

Either one of those strategies gives you the opportunity to profit a certain amount if the stock actually goes down (the width of the spread times the quantity), while limiting your exposure to just the premium you pay for the options. Your exposure is limited because you both buy and sell puts or calls for equal amounts of the underlying, so you have no net exposure to the price of the underlying.

A general word of advice about playing the market for short term gain: big guys make money off of little guys. You may win some, but usually you are doing damn well as a small time trader if you're batting above 500 at all.
I haven't seen much "genuine" or "try" out of either party lately.
Easy way to share content (text & images) locally.
Just logged into windows to test this update ( after long time ) ..
why do I have to restart my PC before I can use my new browser ?

http://i.imgur.com/SD7xrif.png
No, because you lose value, not shares. So X and Y are measured in $$ not in shares.
This is as ridiculous as Stallman's insisting on calling things by the wrong name all the time.
But it's so much easier to get insulted than to reflect on ourselves...
> Maybe all I see is people posting letters about their rates going up though. What is the argument against that from people who still support this legislation?

That what you see is not representative, because along with those I see plenty of people that could not get private insurance at any price (e.g., for whom the cost was infinite) due to preexisting conditions that can get health insurance because of the ACA.

> Is it denied that prices have gone up in general

For like benefits, costs have gone down since the ACA was introduced, in part because of parts of the ACA that went into effect earlier, like the limit on profits which required refunding excess premiums (because health insurance, even prior to the ACA, was not an ideal competitive market but an oligopolistic one in which rents were being extracted, and this was a limit on the rents that could be extracted.)

With the minimum benefit levels effective for non-grandfathered plans some low-cost, low-benefit plans are going away. This, on its own, would increase the minimum price of private insurance after this stage of implementation of the ACA above what it was prior to this stage of the implementation. In addition, changes to rules on what factors can be used in price setting have shifted costs so that, compared to what they would be without those rule changes, prices for plans for young, currently healthy individuals have gone up, while prices for everyone else have (again, considering only the effect of that rules change) gone down.

Expanding the size of risk pools as the mandate does should slightly reduce overall prices, but that may be a lagging effect since it can't be factored in fully without a clear picture of the magnitude and how many people will opt out in favor of paying the penalties for non-insurance.

Additionally, subsidies have been made available to people at the low end of the scale to which the individual mandate applies; this doesn't help with total costs (ignoring the effect that coverage vs. non-coverage has on total healthcare costs, which is significant in the long term, but not necessarily the short term) but does help with affordability.

Even moreso, except in states that opted out of it, Medicaid expansion means a lot of people are getting coverage with no out-of-pocket cost that could not afford any coverage before.

But, yes, the people that could afford insurance and who paid the least for the coverage they were getting because of youth and current health are often going to be paying more.
A search on google for the term "how obamacare has helped people" provides over 24 million results. Here are couple reports you can read at your leisure:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/six-stories-of-oba...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/ted-cruz-obamaca...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/i-am-obamacare-_n_4...
Welcome to VC. But seriously, that's the stock market for you. Gambling with lots and lots of rules.
That's a fair point. But I did say I was approaching this problem "from the other side". Admittedly, rather quickly and off-the-cuff, and personally.

I think more readers of this thread may be in the relatively "powerless" position, rather than the empowered position.

And, again from my perspective, I wish someone had made clear to me sooner how the world really works, today (and likely always). "Paying your dues". Earning respect. There are environments in which this works. But there are many in which it does not.

From the perspective of the OP, they've already made the point. But I might add a note of succinctness. GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out. The leadership I see more clearly upon rereading and assume they are addressing: They're stuck at GI.
Think of it this way. Let's say the two of us were talking. And your real name was John Smith (making this up, I have no idea and not relevant). I had a choice between referring to you as "idiot" or "John." The latter is factually correct, neutral and lacks emotional triggers.

Using your logic, you shouldn't call Social Security Social Security you should call it FDR Forced Set Asides. Because you know, nobody likes being forced by the government to set aside their hard earned cash by some politician, and one who's personally and solely responsible for that happening. And which has absolutely no upside to it at all, of course. But wait, that wouldn't be true. So people don't do that. They call it Social Security. Because that is it's name, and is less loaded, and more politically neutral.
Angular folk are often quick to point out that "Angular isn't a framework; it's an HTML compiler", or, as their homepage states, "AngularJS is a toolset for building the framework most suited to your application development." Angular doesn't necessarily set out to solve all of the problems and use cases that developers might run into, but rather Angular intends to give you all of the proper data-binding, dependency injection, and testability primitives as a foundation to build your app upon.

Because it doesn't intend to solve all the problems that a framework might, Angular is far fewer conventions about how to organize large-scale applications than a much heavier and opinionated framework like Ember. This doesn't mean Angular doesn't scale, or that it can't be used to build large apps, but it does explain why it's common for different teams to build large Angular apps in totally different ways, using different patterns, etc.

Ember on the other hand sets out to establish way more conventions, built right into the framework, for solving problems common to most web apps. These patterns are rigorously battle-tested since everyone is using them, and as such, it's easy (once you're past the learning curve), to drop into someone else's Ember app and know exactly where to go to diagnose a problem. That being said, when these patterns aren't helpful for an app's specific needs, most of Ember's patterns/abstractions are, like Angular, built upon composable primitives that you can use to assemble your own data structures, custom classes, etc., to tailor to your app's needs.
So you wont be accepting medicad and medicare when youre eligible then?
Man flies around Mt. Fuji in homemade jet pack.
Doesn't the fact that it popped $20 per share mean that they screwed up the price, and left money on the table from the initial chunk of stock sold?
The purpose of an IPO is to raise money for the company.

In order to do this, they say "our stock is worth price X" and issue it out. The people who get to fill orders at price X are overwhelmingly, by volume, the bankers who are helping out with the IPO -- who often are also the people who help set the price.

Later in the day, if the stock jumps to the 'correct' (market-valued) price Y, then (Y-X) represents the profit that the purchasers made at X can realize, and also represents the money that the company could have gotten if they had properly priced the stock at Y to begin with.

In this case, the stock went from 26 to 44. Bankers made a 69% profit off their allocation at 26. If Twitter had priced at 44, they would have an extra 1.2 billion dollars in their hands and not the bankers'.

The bankers did this to eToys too (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mergers/2013/03/etoys-and-t...). Full disclosure: I worked there at the time.
It's also dangerous to assume that all companies must be profitable from day one. Facebook is a good example of a company that was "losing money" but was able to turn profits recently.

Which is not to say that I believe twitter deserves the market cap currently implied by the share price.
>> A new static analysis is likely to be far too compute-intensive to be offered to the public on hardware the research group has the time/money to operate.

Let's describe the division between Academics and users:

Academics get a cloud based service platform, where academics install the software which is usable by API/library[1] calls , automatically(or manually by users) scalable , with automatic billing where X percent goes to academics.

If you're a user you can also use the platform to build your own software , you can easily call the academic's API/library , and you both can share databases and file-systems.

I can even see possibility to require that academic and user code reside on the same machine on a different VM's when disk access speed is critical.

I can imagine this working in the static analysis example, and plenty other examples, just enter "python library" into google scholar, half the stuff there look usable in this form on first look.

The trick would be of course to make it so easy for a academic to share his code in this form , so that this would be the default way of working. Than we'll get some interesting stuff, some of it production systems and some of it just prototypes.

But even if we are talking about tons of amazing prototypes , i see plenty of value.

Does it all make sense?

[1]There are some ways of doing RPC , that are really easy to use, almost library like.
Why does it take 1,300* employees to run this company?

* crunchbase