skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As someone who took (and really benefited from) Srinivasan's MOOC course, I definitely enjoy his written style. I like the links-as-evidence, and I think he does a great job of weaving a narrative out of seemingly disconnected parts.

That being said, I think he goes a little too far here. It seems like there's a fundamental disconnect between his two most important contentions, namely that:

"The future of technology is not really location-based apps; it is about making location completely unimportant."

"We are rapidly approaching a future characterized by a totally new phenomenon, the reverse diaspora: one that starts out internationally distributed, finds each other online, and ends up physically concentrated."

If location is increasingly unimportant, why would the natural next step be for people to coalesce geographically? Why do people that share common interests online necessarily need to live close together?
I'm willing to bet the compliance rate on bitcoin taxation is going to be slightly lower than the compliance rate on people who buy gold coins at X and sell them at > X.

Section 9006 of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) almost partially closed this loophole but it was repealed.
>For money transfer like this we use bank wires

Yeah and there is a fee involved too, right?
It is larger than more than half of the world's currencies: http://coinometrics.com/bitcoin/bmix
Care to cite one of those "knee-jerk" responses that you are talking about?

If someone is nagging here I assure it's not me. Just found curious that they weren't rigid as they normally are nowaydays to these question. If this one was an exception or they got more harsh over time is what I wondered.

This is the first reply to me that I recall here on Hacker News that someone over interprets something I said (in a bad way). I don't think so but anyway if I sounded like I was complaining I apologize, that is not the case (actually is the quite opposite, I love those more open questions).
People seem to think the difficulty in coding is the mechanical act of writing code

A lot of people make the mistake you mentioned, but the author makes a different, common mistake that is, in my opinion, even worse:

Programming is easy, after all: all you need to understand is conditions and repetition

Programming can be boiled down to conditions and repetition as much as playing chess can be boiled down to moving the pieces around. That's why there's a difference between playing chess with your mates and being the world champion.

Or, for a different analogy, try boiling down the act of driving a car to pressing pedals and wiggling the steering wheel. Yes, driving your personal car might be almost as simple as that, but driving a bus full of people or a race car goes quite a bit beyond that.

What I'm trying to say is that there are different problem classes that require different skill levels. While it's perfectly okay to want to make it easier for people with lower skill levels to solve problem classes that can be solved -- I hope you will forgive me if I call that the low-hanging fruit -- the author's stated belief is an oversimplification that has repeatedly been proven incorrect.
I recognize this is pedantic but why does he keep using "surface" as a verb? Is there some new programming nomenclature I'm just now getting exposed to? If so, what does this mean?

It reminds me of a Java programmer I used to work with who constantly said he was "hydrating" his objects. I kept wanting to tell him he wasn't sounding as cool as he thought he was.
> Go and no limit poker are getting massively popular. They are both like chess.

Go is, poker is not. The key difference is that in go and chess, all the information about the game is known by both parties. That's not true in poker, where each player has data that's intentionally hidden from the other players.
Hadoop? Java

HBase? Java

Hive? Java

RapidMiner? Java

Cassandra? Java

Neo4J? Java

Python 4 the win.
If this was an actual transfer of ownership of Bitcoin at all near that value, this would trigger money-transfer reporting requirements under the laws of most countries,[1] especially if this was an international transfer of ownership. I see that all the other comments here are speculating about what exactly happened here, and one astute comment before this one pointed out that the actual owner of the Bitcoin may still be the same individual person both before and after this blockchain transfer. It will be interesting to see how the regulatory environment keeps up with the implementation of Bitcoin, which so far is a very tiny percentage of the world economy.

There were also statements in some previous comments that this transfer was made for free. It is true enough that a Bitcoin transfer doesn't inherently incur a processing charge from a merchant payment processor, but as merchants learned back in the Middle Ages when charging interest was formally illegal, the price of a transaction can hide financing and processing costs. We don't know what was agreed with whom by whom to make this transfer happen. The transfer may have occurred at a higher than list price for something that was bought, to make up for the ongoing inconvenience of receiving a payment using the new Bitcoin payment mechanism.

[1] One example, among many: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/remittances-transfer-rule-ame...
Perhaps, it's hard to tell... Julia can be almost as fast as C, so it can potentionally replace many uses of C / C++ for scientific computing.
Don't take the easy road when building new products
Wait, I just realized Audacious CAN play psf and spc (forgot about that). The only thing I'm missing is (mini)usf (Nintendo 64 music). Although the Winamp plugins are much more feature rich: more metadata, (live!) disabling and enabling of channels (instruments), custom song length configuration etc. That's why I still used Winamp for that.
Actions speak louder than words. Sales folks keep score by how much commission they make. If there weren't money to be had at Groupon, their sales folks would be leaving in droves.

Sales turnover is always high in any position that involves a lot of cold calling. It's nothing to do with Groupon per se and everything to do with the inherent nature of the position. Relative to other high-frequency, transactional sales organizations, Groupon's turnover is likely below average.
It's the IE/Netscape lawsuit all over again.
Dont know why daily deal aggregators did not shine?
There are actually common market manipulation trading tricks (will get you busted immediately in the stock market) that people use regularly in Bitcoin.

Read the section in this article titled Enter the tape-painting “Shark Squad”. I've seen a few similar articles that document how simple it is to do market manipulations in Bitcoin that would get you immediately cuffed on Wall St. And it doesn't even take that many parties to pull them off! Because Bitcoin is actually transacted sooooo little.

I can't say for sure though. There are a lot of debates about transactional volume but impossible to tell because some of the big money Bitcoin holders just buy/sell to heighten the perception of its popularity.

http://falkvinge.net/2013/09/13/bitcoins-vast-overvaluation-...
First open-sourced robot on robot game
Yep, they are marked as new here: https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Association.html
I'd be among the first to invest in Dorfcoin.
I follow Regan's chess work pretty closely and I don't know where Cowen got this term. The link provided shows intrinsic ratings, not "nettlesomeness". As shown by Regan and others, Carlsen simply plays more accurately than anyone else. Chess is probably drawn, so one only wins when his opponent makes mistakes.

Both Regan and Guid & Bratko have tried weighting the accuracy of moves by the complexity of positions faced. Carlsen is middle-of-the-pack in terms of reaching complex positions, so this doesn't seem to be the mysterious "nettlesomeness" either.
I don't care about your code challenge
Real Life Usage for Mongoexport
Very nice article, and makes a lot of sense. I would be interested to see how you apply this to apps that are only used infrequently but very intensely. It would seem that the user would not see the incremental improvements but rather drastic changes on the occasion that they use the application (web or mobile), so in that case do you lose some of the benefit from this strategy? In short, if they are not regular visitors / users then does this 'breadcrumb' method of improvement have as much weight?
Your argument about the left nav seems wrong to me. I use the HipChat app on Android and iOS and it feels just like ours does. I've never used a left menu that had the effect your demo has. In fact, I know we are using inertia because you can "throw" the menu over to the side, and I coded it based on a velocity threshold of the drag (we just aren't bouncing at the end, which is really not a universal style). Perhaps you are noticing a browser/platform specific issue we can fix?

I think your comment is a bit harsh, especially considering we've been working on this for all of two months and it's still in alpha. We have a long ways to go and we know it can and should be better. If you believe in the vision of making this the best way to build hybrid apps, then help us! https://github.com/driftyco/ionic

By the way, I did find your demo quite impressive. Nice work.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this why panning for gold in rivers was so prevalent through history? Flecks of gold would naturally cold weld over a millennium of being knocked around in the water.
I wish they'd give a transcript of what they actually did during the day, what apps they actually started by hand, what happened without user action initiating it, and so on.

It'd certainly be useful to know more about the activity while the end user is idle. Not only for privacy reasons but also since you sometimes (e.g. when roaming) want to strictly limit data traffic.
Websites that allow you to use a 128 character PW could very well be cropping it at whatever their max PW length is FWIW.
i think that's a reference to the fact that Mathematica uses M-expressions and operator precedence. it doesn't look like lisp, but if you FullForm an expression you will see that it's all just M-expressions.

that said, i think it is lisp-like as a design choice. the Mathematica language itself is more raw than even lisp -- you can take the language in different design directions. Wolfram chose to include lisp aspects
Hey, some of us use Firefox.
Python excels in the exploratory data analysis side of things, not so much on the computation side. Thus we get tools like Pandas, NumPy and Scikit-Learn.
No, that's ACH. SWIFT (or even FedWire) transfers happen within a few minutes.
OpenStep is not a clone of NeXTstep, it was the application layer of NeXTstep ported to other kernels. GNUStep is a clone.
Companies also have to pay for the Play store.
Can't you just generate a new address for every transaction you conduct and remain anonymous?
Sticking a VPN on a smartphone then sniffing the traffic always yields a surprising number of ad requests in the background.
Your book looks fantastic - seriously considering getting a copy right now.

I've just started learning Ansible, and I'm interested in using it for slightly more complex setups than the typical "deploy my Django app to my VPS" scenario - e.g. EC2, load balancing, RabbitMQ/Celery and shared configuration between servers.

Can you recommend any other comprehensive tutorials that are a bit more high-level than the docs? I'm also interested in replacing our use of Fabric with Ansible - there doesn't seem to be a lot of documentation around running one-off tasks though...
Technically this is still HTML4.
I've heard that their turnover is exceptionally high, and if so I think their actions are ambiguous at best.
Sadly I do not speak Russian. I often wonder what great things I miss out only only speaking English.
I love reading to-the-point "legal" stuff. When I did my law degree, the old-school cases were the best for it. Schadenfreude, or something, I guess.
Typeclasses to the rescue..

ls :: LsOptions -> IO Listing

instance ToString Listing where ...

instance Default LsOptions where def = LsOptions []

Now a single `ls` function can yield regular textual output, or the more specific Listing type can be used if you want to say, map over the files listed.

toString <$> ls def

map toUpper . filesListed <$> ls def

The repl can automate the application of toString of course,
so the user can just enter `ls def`. Someone better at this than I could probably find a way to make the def parameter be optional, too.
You could say the same for gold, stocks, or bonds. But at least Bitcoin has the ability to be cheaply, easily, and quickly transferred to anyone else in the world, meaning it has the potential to be useful for paying for your house, car, taxes, food, and be easily converted anywhere, once enough people are using it.
Everything he’s writing is backwards. That’s not actually a problem in this case as [Michael] uses flip teaching.

But flip teaching is nothing to do with writing backwards, or at least not according to the linked Wikipedia article. So he is actually writing backwards?

Edit: Ah I see, the whole scene is mirrored, including him. I guess that could work, although then diagrams really have to be drawn backwards (assuming western L->R convention), and any computer generated text will have to be projected backwards on the whiteboard.
Is BTC just sitting around in your account, gaining in valuation relative to the euro, considered "profit?"
It qualifies me to talk about the python ecosystem, which I know quite well. I said something I thought was true, but wasn't. That's an honest mistake. I was unaware of a library, maybe even one that is well known. I was quite surprised I had missed something, and I said 'thanks for pointing that out'. I imagine it was a blind spot for me, as I always reach for Mathematica for symbolic work, so it just wasn't something I noticed.

I would never say things about ruby libraries, for example, as I don't know anything about it. I might say the same thing about R or matlab, which I do.

In the immortal words of pg:

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3"
can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

As in, 'python actually can do symbolic computation, see http://sympy.org'

'Oh, thanks. You're right'
I'm not a crypto researcher in any way, but if someone had access to the vault, wouldn't the fact that there are multiple stored (encrypted) representations of the same data encryption key present an attack point?

This image for example:
http://blog.cloudflare.com/static/images/cryptography2.png
stores identical plaintexts under different encryptions.
Bitcoin is pseudonymous by default, not anonymous.

Anonymity is a choice. CoinJoin [1] and other trustless mixing software projects are aiming to make anonymity a push of a button. This is being implemented into DarkWallet [2] where mixing happens automatically in the background.

[1] http://bitcoinmagazine.com/6630/

[2] http://www.indiegogo.com/at/darkwallet
Object-Oriented Programming Principles: Self-Encapsulation
My physics is rusty... but yeah, it can be, depending on what you choose as your reference point. I think that's the OP's point there, too :)
Why You Should Not get six pack abs
I wish someone could make a treason case out of perjury in relation to a matter of national security during a time of war for these actions.

This crap would stop pretty fast.
Then don't sign the agreement? You can still use Android on your products.
I just wrote an article about US tax implications regarding Bitcoin holdings (not transactions! transactions are easy, and well-covered on the Bitcoin wiki). Unfortunately it needs to wind its way through the editorial/fact-/cite-checking process, so it will be some time next year before it makes it into print.

If you have questions about US compliance obligations regarding Bitcoins held in non-US wallets (meaning every major exchange, such as BTCChina, BitStamp, MtGov, and BTC-e), feel free to ask and I'll try to respond over the course of the next day or two.
These three Senators have realized that they can capitalize on public sentiment against the NSA.

Good on them... that's what representing the people is about.
One nice thing, too, is that you can keep the celery queue on a separate redis database in the same instance(s) -- to keep it separate from your other cache data. I like to keep my databases separate -- one for task queues, another for sessions, and another for truly persistent data. This makes some workflows very easy, like needing to invalidate all sessions or needing to purge transient cache data after deploying new code. Simply flush those databases.
More developers are creating Windows Phone apps
If you're doing that routinely, and actually getting it right, you could make a good living playing professionally. Either you were very, very good, or there was a lot of depth you were missing out on.
I'd like to try pushing the Haskell-is-an-OO-language bit a little further. I think Haskell98 is lacking, but with existential types you can model process entities in a way that I think is often underappreciated. As an off-the-cuff example, consider a counter. A simple approximation might be to say that (Int, Int -> Int) models a counter because it models the state of one, but it also fixes the implementation and fails to encapsulate.

But we can do better with existential types

data Counter =
forall x . Counter { _step :: x -> x
, _view :: x -> Int
, _state :: x
}

step :: Counter -> Counter
step c@(Counter {..}) = c { state = _step _state }

view :: Counter -> Int
view (Counter {..}) = _view _state

At this point, we're passing around the internal state as "some type x" which can never be inspected, achieving encapsulation. We can create general functions that manipulate Counters

stepTwiceThenShowEm :: Counter -> Int
stepTwicethenShowEm = view . step . step

and we can easily create alternative implementations

intCounter, integerCounter, listCounter, unCounter :: Counter

intCounter = Counter succ id (0 :: Int)
integerCounter = Counter succ id (0 :: Integer)
listCounter = Counter (():) length []
unCounter = Counter id (const 4) ()

We also now must start thinking of our "objects" as entities because we cannot compare their internal state for equality (unless we give it an Eq constraint). This begins to quickly demand we keep some notion of state as we need to model "pointer equality" pretty quickly.

We can even do HAS A subtyping. Lenses make this very powerful.

data TwoCounters =
forall x . TwoCounters { _c1 :: Lens' x Counter
, _c2 :: Lens' x Counter
, _state :: x
}

There's no doubt that this is an uncommon technique in Haskell, but it's worth stating that there are a LOT of similarities between codata modeling like this and typeclasses.

Finally, I began to follow a lot of this due to a middling popular library `folds` [1] which describes very generic ways of traversing data structures and accumulating some kind of result state. Basically all of the types dealt with in this library (L1, L1', M1, R1, L, L', M, R) are existentially quantified codata "objects" like I described above. This makes for very general code.

[1] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/folds
I find it amusing that the content is served from a .su (Soviet Union) domain.
Co-working and living spaces in Portland, OR?
Hi HNers,

I'm starting a new blog which will cover co-working and living spaces, as well as the people that use them. I plan on relying heavily on photo essays, textual blog posts, and video; travel will be necessary.

My question is, can anyone here recommend co-working spaces that I should check out in Portland? And if so, could any of you put me in touch with those behind the spaces, so I could get the chance to talk to them and potentially visit their spaces?

For my background on what I'm doing with this project, check out the crowdfunding campaign: http://forcerealfundraising.com/nomadic-hackers
We did this for a school project. Found a large window on campus, wrote on it, then flipped it in a video editor. I guess if he is trying to go with zero post processing a mirror would work.
I'd argue that even the double-quotes in `ls "."` are too much for normal usage. There have been many attempts at creating non POSIX-y shells based on various languages, but AFAICT it's a non-starter to require special syntax when running basic command lines. I'm mostly not writing shell scripts, I'm using a command line to interact with the system. As such, I want no barrier to running programs yet a lightweight way to leverage a "real" programming language. Redefining tools like `ls` seems like a red herring as well. I'm not against built-ins (they're necessary), but the Unix toolchain isn't going anywhere anytime soon. You'll still need to pull data out of git, logfiles, munch that data with external tools, etc. As such it's worth thinking about how to best bridge these worlds. If the shell environment can provide a better ls, that's fine, but I suspect it's a design bug if it feels like it needs the built-in for day-to-day usage.

On "feel", it also feels like there should be a seamless syntactic protocol for post-POSIX shells, but I've yet to nail down how it would work. Straw-man requirements:

- Absolutely no special syntax to run programs
- Low-drama way to write "real code", i.e. native
scripting language syntax.
- Great integration via syntax, shell built-ins for
working in Unix-y pipeline.
- Replace powerful yet bizarre bash/zsh parameter
constructs with better native language tools.

By low-drama, think of the success of Markdown vs. HTML, TeX, etc. for markup. Not as powerful, but much easier to use for its use cases. IMO, this is the most powerful thing about the POSIX shells -- there's zero ceremony around running programs and dealing with I/O redirection. That's also the compromise, as things like quoting semantics get hairy. One way a post-POSIX shell could go is to retain this seamlessness while adding a touch more modality so that the worst problems of POSIX shells are eliminated. For example, multiple-quoting or re-quoting should never be needed, real data structures are both available and the default, etc.

Anyhow, Hell looks like a fun experiment and sandbox. Enjoy!
If you're reading this and picking up new information (besides strongloop's Titanium pitch) you're really in the dark about what's going on.
Some clarifications:

BountySource asked the Apache Cassandra PMC (project management committee), which I chair, to help come up with the list of features. All of these are pre-existing features from the Cassandra roadmap and are reasonably self-contained. Just like other contributions, Apache committers will review and take responsibility for maintaining code accepted this way.

I frequently get emails from people curious about Cassandra asking "what would be a good place to contribute?" For people like this who are looking for a challenge, this could be a win/win of getting a little more visibility into possible areas to work on, as well as earning some extra money.

That said, this absolutely isn't seen as a primary way to drive Cassandra development. Wearing my other hat as DataStax founder, I run a team of engineers working on Cassandra full time. We are hiring: https://www.smartrecruiters.com/DataStax/71254492-cassandra-...
Isn't it quite possible that the 0.5 BTC is the actual transfer, and the other 194993 BTC is the change?
He just writes normal. But it would be backwards to his "students" so he has to flip it somehow.