skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Bah. Real simple cure for this nonsense. Too bad it's unlikely to happen.

Back when Usenet mattered, there used to be something called a "Usenet Death Penalty". What we need here is an "Autonomous System Death Penalty".

BGP works between "Autonomous Systems" (aka AS). ISPs almost invariably are. Bigger companies usually are. Anyone who wants to be independent of their upstream IP connection gets an AS number. The only way some ISP in Belarus can interfere with your IP packets is to announce over BGP that packets should be sent to their AS.

So anyone who was affected by some rogue ISP in Belarus should simply tell their BGP routers to totally ignore anything from that AS. Forever. And if they're a govt agency they simply tell Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc to drop any and all packets from that AS. To anywhere! And if it's a govt agency making this "request", there's a good chance that the Tier 1 IP providers will comply.

Done. That podunk ISP in Belarus has now been disconnected from a large part of the Internet. And good luck with them trying to get Verizon etc to undo that.

So, what the death penalty means is "you get to intentionally mess around with routing just once, then you go away forever". Now that podunk ISP can either go out of business or it can go begging IANA for a new AS number. And since ICANN (which operates IANA) answers (at least for now) to the US Dept of Commerce, it might not be too easy to get a new AS.

Yes I know the propeller-head nerds who operate the "technical" Internet would immediately think my proposal is much too harsh. But, ultimately, nerds need to understand that sometimes things are done for "political" rather than "technical" reasons. And the managers who sign the nerds' paychecks are political creatures; they almost invariably aren't nerds.
Sadly, the linked site is a classic case of 'tab closed, didn't read':

http://i.imgur.com/ZsZxfP3.png

I am of course referring to http://tabcloseddidntread.com/. http://crapshaming.tumblr.com/ would fit too.
This Hoodie Is So Insanely Popular You Have To Wait Months To Get It
Yeah that made me laugh and want to look into how it works.
So what are you going to do when you can't get disposable plastic bags anymore?

Personally, I kind of like Finland's solution: plastic bags cost money, but not much ($0.25-ish), and they're way sturdier than the usual wispy ones in the US. So they're reusable (unlike paper bags), there's an incentive to reuse them, and they're way more functional and sturdy than paper bags.
It's pretty cool do download an archive though, instead of going through IMAP, for archival purposes that is. I have a lot of email in my GMail, going back to 2005 I think. I'm afraid of accidentally deleting it, plus I also use other email clients, like Thunderbird and I'm always triple-checking settings to ensure it doesn't delete old emails. Having the option of doing a dump from time to time, for storage, is really cool.
The problem is a lot of people now research on things. Like Price Research. They tend to open a dozen of tabs to look through things. I think this is a problem that needs to be looked at.

I have been thinking of something that combined Bookmark, History and Open Tabs.
Three IIT-B alumni bring neighbourhood closer with Shaukk - YourStory.com
...value of their work if there were no minimum wage, but then they wouldn't be making enough money to live.

That might be true if minimum wage were $1/day (PPP adjusted). If you don't believe me, just read up on any of the countries I mentioned in my other posts on this thread.

Just out of curiosity, what is the motivation behind nonsensical claims like this? I ask simply because I've heard lots of people make the exact claim you did, and I wish I knew where this nonsense comes from.

Suppose the government has work for these people at a value of $3/hour, and it a) provides a basic income, then b) offers to pay them the $3/hour their labor is actually worth on top of that if they do the basic job. The only reason they have to turn down the basic job is if they can find something more valuable than $3/hour to do somewhere else -- some other job, or some personally rewarding activity which is more valuable than being paid $3/hour. Why is that a problem?

Ignoring the potentially bad incentives this creates for employers, I would generally have no issue with a program that allows the basic jobs to be performed in the private sector with government subsidizing them.

I do, however, object to paying people to play Call of Duty, which is what a Basic Income is.

You're assuming the people who take the basic job will almost entirely be people who are currently unemployed,

No, I'm assuming most of the people on the BJ will be the people who are currently not in the labor force.

It's strange how low skill workers are so lazy that they will all switch from McJobs to Basic Jobs just to avoid interviewing, while simultaneously so industrious that if you pay them to play Call of Duty they will instead go get a McJob. What kind of utility function causes this to happen?
7 Life Hacks I Had To Learn From My Own Experience
> As a relational database user we are used to treat the database as stupid and mainly use it to save and retrieve data. ArangoDB lets you extend the database using Javascript (production ready) and Mruby (experimental).

?!? A common complaint against relational database people are having "too much" logic in the database. (I clearly don't agree, using store procedures and custom extensions ;P.)
https://www.google.com/settings/takeout

Exporting data via Google Takeout is supported for 15 (and counting) products, including Youtube, Google+, Drive, and more. Google made a commitment to make it easy to extract your data, and is executing on that. It has nothing to do with shutting services down.
Humble Bundles have helped bring fresh water to thousands through charity:water
Some of us just happened to be discussing this topic here
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6844885
Tell people that it is not in any way currency. Tell them what it really is.
I really wish all these could be speed up by us Kickstarting it or donating on it.

It has taken far too long for e10s.
Interesting article, but this part irked me:

But there is a paradox here. Because many of those who are
shocked by the extraordinary extent of the secret
surveillance - radical journalists, cyber-revolutionaries,
internet libertarians - are also argueing for total
transparency of information."

Those that dislike secret surveillance value their privacy over total transparency of information. There is no paradox there.
Taking an MQTT server out for a few holes on the code golf course
I'd like to comment on the form. The content is fantastic, but the way he manages to make these individual stories into a single, coherent narrative is extremely impressive.
"Human Resources" will change your life.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/human-resources/
Google's mystery barge in San Francisco Bay
Part of it is volume. HNSearch suggests medium got 425 submissions in the last 4 weeks. That's a higher submission volume than TechCrunch (327), ArsTechnica (193) or the BBC (195) or even The Guardian who broke most Snowden/NSA news (181).

Belying this volume is an almost complete lack of quality. The most popular 10 articles in the last 4 weeks from medium and the above sites:

medium:

150 136 107 47 32 28 17 16 14 13

TC:

462 183 175 146 141 120 113 99 80 74

Ars:

524 316 271 212 183 170 149 122 121 109

BBC:

915 167 166 123 110 93 81 75 59 58

Guardian:

388 328 293 185 184 183 182 156 162 149

The best of medium is just not very good anymore and it's a sharp and sudden fall into very forgettable content which makes you wonder why it's even submitted let alone so much.
Expat in Singapore. Programming for a bank.
Your DNA is pretty much public domain anyway. You drop tons of it all over the place.
I don't see how the results could be harmful or negative. My highest risk item was a 54% chance of Type 2 Diabetes. It's interesting information, but I'm not making any huge life decisions based on it..
The title says that. But I guess that's TechCrunch editorializing, and not something you actually said. My apologies.
This you? http://favstar.fm/users/hipsterhacker

Also, the main application is in C++. A python script launches the C++ daemons. Perl scripts are quick and dirty tests and deployment scripts. The main hacking I'm looking for is with C++, and I don't care so much if the other stuff gets re-implemented in some other language.
I like that they're sufficiently ignorant of MongoDB's implementation to misattribute the primary cause of excessive space usage.

Gives me confidence trust them with my data.
This is a terrible idea. There is no justifiable reason to do this. The reasons given are weak, this is just more over engineering that will add an enormous amount of complexity and add no real value.

Lets look at the reasons given as to why they want to do this.

>Performance. Most performance work at Mozilla over the last two years has focused on responsiveness of the browser. The goal is to reduce "jank"—those times when the browser seems to briefly freeze when loading a big page, typing in a form, or scrolling.

You can do all of this with proper threading and task delegation. Putting things in separate processes will not magically make things better. The answer to "jank" is proper coding, not over engineering. Last time I checked there was the same "jank" in IE and Chrome even though they use MPs.

>Security. Technically, sandboxing doesn’t require multiple processes. However, a sandbox that covered the current (single) Firefox process wouldn’t be very useful. Sandboxes are only able to prevent processes from performing actions that a well-behaved process would never do. Unfortunately, a well-behaved Firefox process (especially one with add-ons installed) needs access to much of the network and file system.

This is BS. You could have three processes and have FireFox sandboxed completely. Main process runs in a low integrity mode which limits it's resource access to a single directory. Second process is a download delegation process (takes a file after it is downloaded and moves it to the requested location while also promoting it's integrity) running in normal integrity mode. Third process is a network communication delegate/proxy running in normal or possibly even low integrity. These two delegate processes I mentioned will still be needed for the MP Firefox so it is no more work to create them.

>Stability

This is the only true benefit, but it is of very little value. Firefox almost never crashes and when it does, the session restore brings you back to were you left off in seconds.

Cons? More complexity means more bugs. This is a workaround for really fixing FireFox. I am going to have 150+ extra processes in my task manager now. More memory use. More context switches in the operating system eating up resources and causing more system latency and overall slowdown (context switches at the kernel level which will affect the whole OS).
I had posted this thread, might help: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6841113
Since Android 4.3 you can deny (individual) permissions for apps using App ops (There are apps that let you check which app's are using a permission and deny them the permission).

I Know it makes dev's life difficult but the capability does exist since Android 4.3.
They are not discontinuing it. It is simply not available for new purchasers. I imagine once the FDA is appeased it will return.
Adam Curtis has a lot of interesting pieces. Take them with a shaker full of salt, though. (Especially the "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace". That one was very interesting, but also very mislead.)
As a programmer who uses a lot of Java and .NET, I was surprised by how complex pip and virtualenv are. The complexity is hidden well enough if you just want to get down to business, so it's not really a practical concern, but still - copy an entire Python environment over? Why? Why can't I just have the pip'ed libraries in a subdir somewhere and tell Python to look there?

Plain old JARs get this right, Maven gets this right, NuGet gets this right, NPM gets this right. Why is it so complex on Python and Ruby? Some technological aspect of the (flexibility of) the languages that need you to basically copy over the entire world? Or just legacy of unfortunate bad design choices in earlier days?
I have a feeling, tell me if you share it.

"Wouldn't it be cool to have a multipurpose database which we would be able to query with a language, but not SQL, because SQL sucks, for some reason.".

Put it differently, what does ArangoDB, MongoDB, whateverDB bring that relational databases didn't bring 30 years ago?
The House of Saud (15,000 members, core of which is some 200-2000, holding most of the wealth), which effectively owns Saudi Arabia, is pretty hard to pin down. The richest individuals seem to be in the $15-20 billion range. Total family wealth may exceed $1.4 trillion.

Saudi Arabia's 2011 GDP was $576 billion, putting the family's worth at as over 240% of GDP.

Since Saudi GPD is about 1% of total global GDP, this means the family's wealth is about 2% of the world's GDP.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/saudi-arabia/gdp

http://www.alearned.com/saudi-royal-family/ (I'm not convinced this source is accurate).
> I was merely pointing out that although it is a user definable type, the language specification does mention its existence

Sure, the language spec _mentions_ Null, in order to define the syntax sugar X? and exists x. But that doesn't mean that Null has any special place _in the type system_.

> My main programming activities are using OCaml and Haskell, both of which have very few ad-hoc language features, if any.

OK, great, sorry for making assumptions. In my defense, I just didn't quite understand why you were having such a hard time believing that Ceylon could do things like this without adhoc special cases.
Implementing exporting features takes time and money. If such things would come for free, then they would have an obligation.

Yes, it's your stuff and I don't agree with the parent. But you're not necessarily entitled to features for an easy export of that stuff. That's the kind of agreement that has to be explicit in order for you to feel entitled.

Anyway, if you want fair treatment and to feel like a customer and not a product, you should pay for using it. I'm on Google Apps, I have my own domain and email address, I can always move, I don't get adds, I can use the Exchange protocol, I have more options for importing/exporting and the email support has been very responsive for me. From what I hear Office 365 is a solid option lately and there's also FastMail.fm and others.

And btw, allowing them to advertise in your Inbox does not make you the customer, you're just a user of free stuff. And free stuff is great, but not when you depend on it (unless it's open-source :))
Spotify Will Launch Limited Free Mobile Access
People who deleted their account over two years ago, Google reactivate it by attaching it to their YouTube profile and everything's there.
I don't really think I've rewritten anything. Is anything factually wrong with my post? GCC's version in OSX' dev tools, along with bash and afaik all gnu binaries, was frozen at the last version available with gpl v2. This is plain fact.

The conclusion I've drawn from it is that GPLv3 was a significant driver in the decision to seek out and drive forward a non-GPL compiler project. I didn't say it was the only factor, but I stand by my conclusion that it must have been a significant one.
Isolating an entire environment is a better idea than isolating a python environment, but isolating a language's environment is an easier problem to solve, so the tools for it are currently better. I doubt we'll all be doing it this way in 2020, but it works pretty well right now.
Thanks for your pointless blog post
This is an interesting article, though I have on issue: Ida Tarbell's claims have since been discredited. Her father was put out of business by Rockefeller, and as Rockefeller hardly ever gave interviews or opened up to anyone, she was free to craft the message she wanted.
I meant the practical considerations of fork means overcommitment is needed in many cases where it otherwise wouldn't be needed. If you fork a 2GB process but the child only uses 1MB, you don't want to commit another 2GB for no reason.
The actual pdf, as documentcloud was messing up the rendering of the graphs and spaces between letters:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/8858...
Alan Carr's Easy Way to Quit smoking for me. 10 months now and it really was quit easy after being on Marlboro Reds for 10 years. Started reading it after a thread on Reddit with no real intention to quit, smoked throughout (as he recommends) then was convinced to stop when I finished the book. It's a little cheesy/self-helpy but it's short and worth giving a shot and taking seriously. I immediately felt free when I stubbed my last cig.
Can you give me an example of an ambiguous case? I can't think of any personally.
Except, were computers to stop improving, you could sell the same model for a longer time period and maintain the economy of scale.
CIA Tie Reported In Mandela Arrest (1990)
Loved reading tests.py:

def test_context_manager():
with fuckit:
pass

assert 'P' != 'NP' # proof is left as an excercise for the reader
There was a presentation about Raft at this years Rubyconf (No ruby involved in the presentation) which may be of use http://confreaks.com/videos/2881-rubyconf2013-raft-consensus...
You may want to consider omitting the final paragraph of your argument.
The rewrite is the part where you continue to claim it was driven at all by licensing

"The conclusion I've drawn from it is that GPLv3 was a significant driver in the decision to seek out and drive forward a non-GPL compiler project. I didn't say it was the only factor, but I stand by my conclusion that it must have been a significant one."

I believe i've completely rebutted this statement with my response. I believe I accurately explained exactly what went into the decision to fund and use LLVM, and "seeking out and driving a non-GPL compiler project" was literally not on the list of things the decision makers (Ted, in this case) cared about.[1]
If you have actual historical evidence to the contrary, that contradicts my explanation of what drove the decision to use LLVM, i'd love to hear it.
So far what you've put forth is a single data point which I already explained, was, AFAIK, completely unrelated to the decision to use LLVM.

Also, Apple/Chris first suggested merging LLVM and GCC (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html), which would seem an odd strategy if licensing was the huge driver you claim it was.

Historically, the timeline isn't even close to right for your conclusion to be correct. Apple started seriously investing in LLVM in 2005, and the GCC GPLv3 switch didn't happen until 2009.

So, basically, you are welcome to stand by your conclusion, but it's, well, wrong :)

[1] In fact, Ted literally did not care about the licensing at all. They were considering using ICC as well, but this mostly got dropped after the switch to x86.
Hi Pedro

First of all, I can assure you I have no economic interest whatsoever on this. I spent most of my professional life working around Europe and about a year or so ago I decided to leave Portugal for good. I don't use Microsoft technologies and honestly, when I freelance, I avoid working for portuguese companies.

With that out of the way, a few things, first, choosing ODF was nice right? Except no one really knows about it (see comment below where even folks here in HN didn't know that ODF isn't actually a format but a spec for the open ODT or ODS). If people here don't know, you expect your grandma to know when she has to read the instructions to fill some social security form?

And I'm sorry, PDF? Really? Why not Postscript then? And PDF has so many proprietary stuff that other readers can't even use. Heck, in Spain, 1/2 of the PDF forms that you have to fill don't work in Mac's Preview and require you to download the Adobe client.

Second, while I worked in Portugal I witnessed first hand various of these committees deciding which standards/protocol/security to use. Most of them were similar to 'Government asks 2-3 leaders (usually includes Sage and Primavera) in selling software that is related to what they want to implement, they convene, they decide based on what their software already supports or can support, and the government accepts this while they can boost to be the first certified software (since when the law is announced, their software had 6-12 months development time ahead of the competition).

I'm sorry, I would really like to see Portugal stand up and rise to be a developed nation, but the amount of corruption I witnessed and I know from family members that deal with the government, I can't really trust these kind of things.
I say keep it GPL.. AGPL may be too far for many companies.. but GPL should be fine for the core product. As long as any protocols are well document, and client libraries are under more permissive licenses, I don't see an issue with it.
I stopped eating red meat for similar reasons (I live in China and free-range is quite a premium, although I may have some now and then when back in the West).

Instead of a spreadsheet I use https://chains.cc/ from Seinfield's "Don't break the chain".

48 weeks no red meat, 46 weeks no smoking, 3 weeks no coffee. Seems to help!
Most interesting for me: They estimate the fair long-term value to be around 1.300 USD - indicating no more great rises will come.
Downloaded. Looks great so far!

One question: is it possible to add an entry without either changing locations or adding a picture? I can't seem to just add a "normal" note...?
Also, I thought argument was: privacy for the individual and transparency from organizations/institutions.
> I'm not sure why the hard-currency folks think that a commodity-backed currency will result in a more stable economy. Boom and Bust is the natural state of capitalism, and perhaps the natural state of human society, at least in times of dramatic technological change.

If you have a central bank constantly messing with interest rates and money supply, it distorts the market. That's why they do what they do. Whether we are better off or not I do not know, but to assert that it is irrelevant is incorrect.

I can agree that capitalism is more prone to boom and bust, but in a bust individuals will generally react accordingly in a mostly logical way. A central bank managed economy will (with the best intentions in mind I assume) often intervene in a way that promotes a continuation of the non (or negatively) beneficial economic behavior, if they didn't start it in the first place. This is where the hard money people are coming from, or at least this one.
Have you seen "The Loving Trap"? http://youtu.be/x1bX3F7uTrg

(spoiler: it's a parody of Curtis's methods)
Can somebody explain how and why this will hurt consumers like me? As long as I can still buy some general purpose computing device with 2013 desktop performance that I can plug a screen and keyboard into and run/write software the end of the upgrade treadmill seems pretty welcome. Am I missing something?
In fact, they've not only suspended health-related genetic tests, but they've done so retroactively. If you signed up for 23andme in the past two weeks, you're not getting what you paid for.
I've quit eating red meat, smoking, and coffee so far this year and I think this one will be next for me and embarrassingly maybe the hardest! Thanks for the tip.
Why haven't you made any huge life decisions based on it? Wasn't that the point of you ordering the test?

If you do strenuous exercise several times a week and adopt a healthy diet, your risk will drop dramatically. Was it because you already do these things?