skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, of course there are successful companies that don't follow the rules. However, according to the study, the most successful companies DO follow the rules.

Of course, success depends on how you define it.

For example, if you invested $1 in Walmart stock five years ago, and $1 in Family Dollar, guess which investment would give you greater return?

The company that doesn't compete on price. They win. By a lot.

Isn't it odd that in the discount retail market, the company that doesn't compete on price gives investors a better return?

Very odd indeed.

Read the article, in goes into more detail addressing what you brought up.
I'm replying to you, but this comment is intended for freyrs3 as well.

> No, you have a completely incorrect understanding of Monads.

To re-use your slightly ad-hominem argument structure: "No, you have a completely incorrect understanding of Monads!" Of course the word "completely" here is just an unnecessarily flamebaity word choice in describing either of us. Clearly, we both have some understanding of monads. Let's look at the facts instead:

A functor applies an operation to a wrapped value. But monads apply functions that also return a wrapped value. It should be easy to see why people think the jQuery chain pattern is indeed monadic.

For what it's worth, I'm far from alone in asserting that jQuery is indeed a monad.

Since Haskell people claim to be the only enablers of "true monads", they would of course nitpick about patterns implemented in other languages. But religion aside, the OP asked for the possible uses of monads, and there they are. That the example also shows functors is just an added benefit, though not at all relevant to the discussion.
And you believe the billionaires who dropped out of college were 100% they would become rich in the future?

When it comes to startups there are no guarantees. Risk is high almost always, with some exceptions.
Because monads are abstract, and very general, there turn out to be many different ways to think of monads, and each of the perspectives is enlightening in its own way. In fact, really the ONLY thing that monads provide is an abstraction for many concepts that you probably are already familiar with. In Haskell, the Monad type class simply allows you to use the same syntax for these different operations.

In other programming languages, I'm sure you already use the very same functions that are fundamental to monads; you just don't have a syntactic construct that says "Hey, these things share a similar structure!"

Most of the other replies focus on IO (and on the do-notation side of things), and so I'm not sure that they'll help your confusion.

We'll need to start with functors. Without getting too formal, functors describe "containers" that can hold objects of any type. A list is a functor, a "Maybe" is a functor, the result of a computation (i.e., "IO") is a functor… lots of things are functors!

And since functors can contain anything, they can certainly recursively contain themselves - that is, they can be nested! We can have a list of lists, or a "Maybe (Maybe a)" (hey,… that seems like an awfully redundant thing to construct). When we talk about "IO", we can have an "IO (IO a)": that is, we can describe a computation that returns to us another computation!

And with these functors that I've mentioned, we realize something interesting: We would often like to flatten these nested structures. We use "concat" to reduce a list of lists to just a list; how to reduce a "Maybe (Maybe a)" to a "Maybe a" is obvious; for IO, we might want to take our description of a computation that returns a description of another computation ("IO (IO a)") and convert that into a description of a computation that runs the first computation, and upon receiving the result of that computation (which is a computation itself), run the resulting computation, and then return the result of THAT as our final result.

Also, for these things, we have an idea of how we would inject a pure value into the structure. We can create a list with a singleton element, or "Just" our element, or the computation that does nothing interesting (no missile launches) and just returns our element.

Haskell is just wacky enough to let us use the same syntax for all of these rather different ideas (which only share the similarity of having the monadic structure)!

NOW, I personally don't think that the trouble that people have with monads is related to the abstraction and the shared syntax - I think it has more to do with the use of the use of Haskell's "do" notation. Learn what "do" notation is sugar for! Learn what "bind" (>>=) is (it's basically a neat combination of the two operations ("bind" and "return", for what it's worth) that I described above).

I can't promise you that learning monads is something necessarily pragmatic (except for the fact that I think Haskell is the perhaps the MOST pragmatic language, and you'll need to learn monads to be comfortable with Haskell). But the world would be a pretty dull place if we only did what was pragmatic.
Work at one or more startups and build your skills. You'll find that at a startup you wear more than one hat(eg: You need to worry about front end, backend and database stuff), that in most cases you dont have to worry about in big organizations. Most early stage startups, since they dont have much to pay, will take anyone with experience and willing to learn. The only caveat is that, you will have to work crazy hours, at least for the initial few weeks/months. But you will find that the more you work/code, the more experienced you get and hence can finish tasks faster.

Thats pretty much how I started and why I still prefer startup jobs over jobs at bigger companies with more focused roles.
It isn't so much splitting as getting involved in other particle's business.
What about simply downloading ruby-installer and devkit[1] installing those and then running:

gem update --system

gem install rails

rails new mynewapp

For someone experimenting with rails it's more than enough!

[1] http://rubyinstaller.org/downloads/
Indeed. Having to earn lots of money and working really hard is something that the system has pushed (or tried to push) into our brains since a very early age. But in reality, it means nothing at all. What is meaningful and will make you happy is giving to others and spending your time doing so. Now giving can be a lot of things... it can be giving someone a tool to make their life easier, it can be helping someone cross the street, it can be visiting your family, etc.

If you make it to an age of 80 or 90 and look back, you will feel a lot happier and accomplished if you did a lot of those things in the time you had on this planet. On the other hand, if you look back at your life and all you've done was being a part of a meaningless money generating machine, I'm pretty sure you'll feel really miserable. Unless, of course, you are psychopath (like a lot of people in corporate seem to be).
What happened is that two guys comes to me, says "Make me a ROV that fits in this plastic shell I made", and I do. Then he goes to maker faire NY to show it off. I do not go with him because a friend of mine had a panic attack and needed someone to stay home with her. Next thing I know, the ROV had been done by the two guys without my input.

I do not mind them making money on the design (which has since been improved) largely because guy #2 had just gotten married with a baby on the way, but the lack of attribution irritated me, so I had a talk with them and with someone from Make about it.

The fact that they changed the design a little means that the ROV's battery life is about two thirds of what it was supposed to be, and cannot recharge while stopped underwater.

I may release the intended version next year if there is any interest.
Original Dropbox Screencast
Sorry about not answering sooner, was doing a field deployment.
This is too abstract of a question. Universities/colleges/schools have courses dedicated to the topic. Assuming that is what you are asking, check this course: https://www.coursera.org/course/cs101
My dad was given the opportunity to start a consulting company in his 20s, which he turned down because he felt he didn't know anything at the time about running a business. He did well for himself nonetheless, VP at a company, big house in the suburbs, a very secure life, but always regretted not taking the chance to build something for himself. There is more to life than a good salary and a secure job.

That said, I dislike how much the bubble around here paints the choice as a dichotomy: do a startup right after school or be a slave to Big Corps forever.

The VC world likes em young, and that's fine for them. But statistically, founders of such companies probably don't come out ahead, financially, relative to those who pursue say an MBA and a big corp job. However, there are a lot of people who take the experience and contacts from Big Corps to start a business. Both companies where I worked as an engineer were founded by guys in their late 30's or early 40's after developing a base of experience in industry. They had revenue from almost day one, they had the experience to identify niches that could make them money. They're not looking at $500m exits selling to Yahoo, but they've made a lot of money and had an a priori reasonable expectation of doing so.

I'd also like to point out another thing: if you're thinking about starting a business right out of school, look at Peter Theil--what he did instead of what he says. Theil took his double Stanford degrees to Wall Street and made a bunch of money and contacts before he co-founded Paypal (at 31). If you want to start a business, that's a good way to go about doing it.
Ask HN: Is there an app for live screensharing help from expert developers?
StackOverflow is great, but there are critical times such as a production server crash that you want to have an expert actually screenshare with you and guide you through solving the problem. I'm wondering if there exist any platforms (free or paid) for getting this type of assistance.

The only thing I've seen of this type so far is http://codementor.io, but they are currently in beta.
Joke is on them, I am not wearing pants.
With iOS, 75%-80% of people are already on iOS7, far higher than that if you look at people who install new apps
Just to demonstrate the answer to your question: I'm currently a junior in HS and am going through the process of learning about colleges. Last week, our guidance counselors gave us pamphlets. They were blatantly telling us to pursue liberal arts degrees (such as art or music) even with low job prospects. They were reassuring us that we should follow our passions no matter what. Lots of kids saw right through the promises of success and threw out the pamphlets right away. They really try and convince you that a four year university is the only option.

(I go to a very affluent, competitive HS. I think that the counselors want to maintain their college placement rates even if it means sending kids to college if they are failing high school classes. The system is completely broken or just plain ignorant, but that's just my opinion.)
Government as Useful Irritant and Rules of Innovation
Identical? I've observed fraternal twins whose parents try to raise them 100% identical, but have wound up very similar in values but different in abilities and personality.
I've seen several management videos by John Cleese over the years. I always assumed that whoever paid for them somehow being subversive, but he's actually got quite a lot of useful stuff for companies.
I've never considered that having a degree might be an issue for immigration. As far as I know, to work in Netherland to need you need either an income above a certain threshold, or the hiring company needs to prove they can't find someone with your skills locally.
And very frequently the Idea Fairies have 100s of ideas for everyone else to spend time either chasing or refuting, but nothing to contribute beyond that. It's a balance.
Well yes, YC likes the "we met in college" and I see your point but it doesn't mean it's flawless. Stronger relationships? Yes, the only way? No. There is always a risk when it comes to startups. Just accepting that scenario only is stupid and misses a lot of potential out there.

If you believe that only a certain pattern can truly change the world you are mistaken. In fact, that is the crucial mistake every incubator is doing. True innovation almost always comes from unexpected places.
Simple full-text search in your browser
Take a look at this [1], particularly the second answer, which links to a Github Gist for "ghc-pkg-clean." I tend to use that when I run into trouble.

[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7961604/fixing-issues-not...
Good. Lots of people shouldn't do startups. I tell everyone I meet they shouldn't do a startup, because it's a crazy thing to do. It's not for everyone, and it's not for the faint of heart. If you respect me enough to ask me if you should do a startup, and I say no, because it's an insane thing to do and it's hard and scary and stressful and at times can be downright miserable, but then you go and start anyway, than you're probably built the right way to do a startup. If you don't scare away when someone who's done it tells you how scary it is, then you're probably fit for the challenge.

"...my lifestyle would not be improved by working more hours for less money at greater risk."

Boom. That's actually solid self-awareness and true of many people. That said, my life fundamentally shifted and my purpose became clear when I did exactly that.
First, if you can handle it, I recommend the original paper proposing monads as a solution for a wide variety of problems that every functional language has to face: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/ba...

IMO, you have to understand the problems monads were meant to solve before you can understand why monads are a good solution.

Here was one key to my understanding monads. In a purely functional language you want everything to be referentially transparent. That is, an expression should be able to be substituted for its value at any given moment in time. At the very least, you'll want the ability to denote which parts of your program are referentially transparent and which aren't.

This can be expressed as utopian vision: in a purely functional language we'd like everything — everything — to be a value.

We now need some way of translating code with side effects into code that returns a value. One reasonable abstraction is to say that the "value" is not the work itself — once the work is done it's out of the bag, after all — but rather the "value" is the machine which can perform that work.

To a mathematician this screams "functor." If you want to move between the two spaces repeatedly this screams "adjoint functors." There's some work you want to do in Space A that's more easily expressed in Space B, so you take a thing in A, transform it to a thing in B, do the work in B, and then transform back to A.

Think in, e.g., Ruby:
sentence.split(' ').map(&:reverse).join(' ')

split(' ') and join(' ') aren't quite inverses of each other, but they are adjoint. These pairs take us from the land of space-separated strings to the land of arrays back to the land of space separated strings.

You see that all the time in programming and mathematics. I sometimes call it the "Super Mario Brothers" maneuver when I'm trying to teach it to students. Mario wants to get to the end of the level, so he hits a block, goes up the vine to cloud land, runs through cloud land, and then comes back down.

This is a bit hand-wavey, but it's "morally correct" IMO. I mention functors because I'm hoping you've seen the maneuver I'm describing and monads are a special type of functor.
3GS is now not allowed because the modern version of Xcode can't compile for it
The answer to that is probably 'whoever you need to to get the job', though that isn't a lot of help to most young guys who don't yet have enough professional experience to talk their way into work.

It's no different really to getting a job later on in life. If you do a lot of networking then jobs will fall into your lap seemingly without any effort, but if you don't have an introduction then you are probably going to have to do a lot of cold calling and respond to a lot of job applications before you get lucky.

As a new entrant to the work force your best bet is probably to get an intro from a parent or family friend, asking an acquaintance to take you on as a favour. If you can't do that then you either need to try your luck cold calling or learn to hustle

You might have been held back by your high test scores, believe it or not. When I first applied to start my apprenticeship the HR chap was very hesitant to give me a job purely because I had good grades and was currently working as a software developer. He didn't think I was the 'tradesman type' and that I might prefer an office job!
What's updog? Haha
PhotoSync I think will do what you're goin gfor
Go here: http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/sim-card.
Check your device, and once you know which SIM type you need, click the "Add to Cart" under "Phone".

I literally just did this, so the timing of this post is nice. Even more nice is that they are waiving the $10 SIM card fee right now.

You buy the actual plan after you get the SIM and activate it. I don't know what they charge for activation, if at all.
In the US 3 years of work experience is good for 1 year of "uni". So 12 years industry experience is a 4 year bachelors degree for immigration purposes.
I did. And that is exactly why I say there is no point to the article.
As an MBA speaking, business school wouldn't have taught you anything beyond 3 years of reading of HN on this topic. Perhaps MBAspeak calls is not outsourcing your core competencies, but the common sense answer is not to put your entire livelihood in the hands of one external party.
Everyone (even non-techies) should do a startup once. Probably when they are young.

You should have a lemonade stand. You should learn how to manage your time. You should find out if you have what it takes to build something from beginning to end. You should try and sell someone something.

This doesn't mean you need to lose $100k of your friends and family's money. It does mean you should go through the process of discovering if you can be a leader and build something from scratch. If it all falls flat, call me. I always prefer to hire people who know what they are good at, and what they aren't. I'll take the guy who failed at 2 startups and tells me he won't do a third over the person fresh out of college who thinks he can run my company better than me. So will every Manager I know at Microsoft, Amazon, and Google.
Why, it is Nexus 4 with half of RAM and cheap plastic case.
http://imgur.com/Ttp553B
Indeed you are right. For much of the time people have thought that at least you could classify cancers by the tissues where they present themselves (e.g. colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, etc...). But more research is showing that this may actually not be so simple. At the molecular level, it's possible for two cancers from different tissues to be identical from a mechanistic standpoint. There is a lot of re-thinking going on in the oncology community about how cancers are classified and treated as a result.
Sure, but that's still the reason it isn't as widely used. And because research resources in the anonymous-networking field are so limited the marginalization of I2P tends to be self-reinforcing.
I checked the H1B database for iOS engineers and it doesn't look that much better, not sure if those are fresh grad salaries or experienced person salaries.

Apple looked like they were paying about ~$10K more than here which is easily eaten by rent.

What's going rate for an Lead iOS Engineer with 12 years exp? (4 on iOS)
Again, jQuery or any arbitrary API is not an monadic until one shows that the monad laws hold for it. It doesn't matter how many people assert it to be true, whether an API is monadic is mechanically provable fact and as of yet there is no proof that jQuery is monadic.
Thanks for the detailed reply. Good to know it wasn't a completely stupid question!

Sorry, not US, Australian. Although I just checked and QUT in Brisbane are apparently doing some good work in microgravity research.

Time to do some reading!
Nuclide, not nucleotide.

Nucleotides are the fundamental component of a DNA molecule.

Nuclides are the differentiated nucleuses of the common atomic elements, some of which are regarded as isotopes, of which some isotopes are radioactive
>I'm sure he was pretty good value for money just for his name alone... //

That may be true but it's such a sad indictment of how science funding works if it is true that I sincerely hope it isn't.

A professor of physics's value is in research and teaching, it's their capacities and abilities that make them valuable as physicists.

Who let the marketeers take over management of scientific progress??
Comparing a large corporation to a startup and claiming they are more efficient and have more impact is dumb and is like comparing apples to oranges. If you look at the absolute value a corporation is creating, it'll always be bigger than a startup that is 1/1000 smaller.

However if you look at the value per employee in a large corporation, you'll always find out that the value per employee in a startup environment is much higher.

That is why people are drawn to startups because they can make a difference and not be a small cog in a big system. The question is not if the large corporation has a much bigger impact on the world but how big is your role in a company that has an impact on the world.
I'm probably showing my ignorance of relativity here, but isn't special relativity just a special case of general relativity?
Definitely agree with this attitude. There's not necessarily a problem with banking on a reasonably stable "partner" (whether they're aware of their participation or not) early on if you have a pretty good/quick/easy way to grab those coattails, but it can't be anything more than a springboard.
Exclusive interview: Julian Assange, a Spy for the People
AFAIK Walmart's advantage in those areas could not be completely nullified by a single upstream provider's changes.
I too look forward to this site. The problem with Smart Recommendations that Netflix and Pandora make is they are still subject to highly subjective tastes. I could have watched 6 documentaries on Wine, rated them all 5 stars and I still might not like the title recommended by Netflix, even if it is a documentary about wine and has an average 4.9 from other Netflix users. There are simply too many variables and most people (myself included) are fickle. If I'm in a certain I could like a movie I would otherwise dislike.
> Value gets us paid.

Working as an engineer, I'd probably pull a similar salary between a company like Apple or a high-end consulting firm. The profit per employee between these firms is drastically different though. We're not paid in proportion to the value we generate. We're paid in terms of market forces with a slight bump if our company especially values us. We don't see the upside of our efforts, the companies we work for do.
> When I was younger, I would have completely ignored the first one, and obsessively focused on the second one to the point of feeling shitty about myself.

That made me sad to hear given how much hate the character Wesley Crusher got.
> Fighting for a product I believe in

See, you make it sound like fighting for your country, or for your rights, or for your freedom. But most people don't feel the same way about products. That's because they are products. They're not that important. In other words, to most people slaving away at some application or game that nobody cares about is the very definition of "mediocre life". As opposed to, say, spending time with their families or enjoying their hobbies.