skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not obvious from the call-to-action button or on the call info page whether the call costs the end user anything, and if so, how much. Judicious use of the word 'free' might increase conversions (if that's actually the case).
Honesty, if there was an attempt to standardize it, what would Mozilla's reaction have been anyway? Mozilla seems completely invested in JS for everything and hostile to any competing technology for execution in the browser. It seems the result would be pretty much the same.

It's not like Mozilla doesn't do things for expediency when they need ability to iterate quickly, e.g. The WebAPIs effectively ignoring the existence of similar DAP efforts, and then having to turn around and rationalize them with the previous work. If you need to ship a physical phone with Firefox OS, and the manufacturers are waiting, are you going to block on W3C, or ship with proprietary or un-ratified device APIs?
thanks if you're in san francisco, feel free to stop by and meet the team
The problem is too many people, not the stuff the people consume.
one day soon anyone anywhere in the world will be able to start an experiment on the site
I would love to sign up, but when I click to create an account, I get redirected to the home page.
State of the Octoverse: 2013 Edition
I missed out a part of what I do - in order to properly encapsulate and test functionalities within services, they are built out of smaller services that I can test individually, and these get their own directory folders and trees, so long as they are dependencies of an individual service.
you should check out scienceexchange.com
sigh To quote because topology is a pain:

> "there is no nonvanishing continuous tangent vector field on even dimensional n-spheres. For the ordinary sphere, or 2‑sphere, if f is a continuous function that assigns a vector in R3 to every point p on a sphere such that f(p) is always tangent to the sphere at p, then there is at least one p such that f(p) = 0"

Which means they can all blow in a continuous path except for at least one point, so the wind at every point but 2 could be blowing east on a sphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_ball_theorem
What are the 6 or 7 generations of upgrades that you think should have been implemented between 30mbs ADSL and 100mbps fiber?
Gates spends first day in the office trying to install Windows 8.1
we hope the new name is easier to remember..
Farewell Letter Generator
* You simply asserted that you weren't committing that fallacy.*

I acknowledged that there was room for debate, yet you offered none. I explained why I thought that I was on the correct side of the line (because the NASA case had objectives too fuzzy to judge), despite it being a close call.

I also acknowledged that a further example you gave (ARPAnet) was, in fact, a pretty good response to my initial question. You didn't pursue this point, yet I think it demonstrates that I'm not dishonestly throwing out all counterarguments.

You accuse me of "purposefully conflating completely different arguments to try to score cheap political points." Yet in my remarks about JFK and the space race, which in the sequence of the conversation seems to be what you're referring to, I was quite explicit in admitting "in pointing this out, I'm making your point to a certain degree".

I don't believe that your claim that I'm moving the goalpost has merit. I was pretty explicit in that I was looking for positive results that were qualitatively unexpected. The examples cited to me (with the exception of ARPAnet) were positive ones, but they were quantitatively unexpected. Saying "that worked better than we thought" is very different from saying "that had benefits that we didn't foresee".

Turning this around, now, and looking back on your own claims... your initial statement was "One other thing we can be very sure about this law: there's going to be a bunch of 'unintended consequences'", i.e., with certainty there will be positive consequences that weren't intended. Based on the context (that we're discussing employment effects of a sort that I don't recall ever seeing discussed in the PPACA debating), and the connotations of the word "intended" (as contrasted to the word "expected"; to me, the latter might have referred to quantitative differences but this doesn't work so well for the former), I interpret this to mean that there is a certainty of positive consequences that were qualitatively unintended.

You were intellectually dishonest.

It seems to me that -- as you're accusing me -- you're making brash and unfounded ideological pronouncements. That's what I intended to challenge, because it sounds preposterous to me. If the outcome you promise is certain, then there must be such a laundry list of them from past endeavors that you'll be able to rattle off a list in no time. I couldn't think of a single one (although, as noted above, ARPAnet is one example). So I challenged for examples.

And only one of the examples met the conditions that I believe were implied by your original statement (or how I interpreted it, anyway), that is, positive qualitatively unintended consequences to a large, complex governmental program.

You may disagree with me, but I think the fact that we've only come up with a single example (in between the name-calling) pretty well shows that such outcomes are far from a certainty.
Wow! This seems like is could be a really good initiative. Are there any success stories form this program yet?
How to save 95%: don't use AWS long-term, buy dedicated hardware.
http://blog.backblaze.com/2013/02/20/180tb-of-good-vibration...
I hear ya. This is called the Greater Fool theory.

VCs know this. That's the reason they hype startups and ask young folks to "drop out and startup'. They are bound to make money somewhere (1 in 10 startups that IPOed big). Silicon valley is a big money sucking machine.

Btw, the Wall Street firms involved in underwriting the IPO already made a ton of money. The remaining guys fought over scraps and are making money now by strategic shorts and selling existing stocks to a greater fool.

It's quite pathetic really. "Changing the world" is quite possibly the last thing most startups are doing.

I thought twitter played a role in Arab Spring. They are a good company with a niche global impact. But they definitely did not command such a big IPO IMHO.

Of course I'm saying all this retrospectively. I don't have a time machine.
I have an imaginary friend and I am not crazy (I hope so)
The sign in we have there is just for current users. To sign up just take the challenges on the homepage - Good luck!
By "be frozen" he didn't mean "Google will declare it to be unchangeable", he meant "users relying on it will prevent any of us from being able to change it." If it's an ultimatum, it's the users of the feature that are holding the gun, not Google.

Tab clarified what he meant in a response:

By the way, I deeply apologize for the confusion revolving around my
use of the term "freeze". That term is used internally (within the
Blink team) to indicate something that's no longer changeable (or at
least is probably too difficult to change) *due to compat pain*. I'm
aware that there are other uses of the term, like "feature freeze",
that imply a much more deliberate *decision* by somebody to stop
making changes.

I forgot about those additional meanings and was intending just the
more popular internal meaning. While I've certainly used that meaning
in public, and have heard other people use it or other relatively
close phrasings, I should have given more thought to the term and used
something less likely to be confusing.
Are you trying to steer the discussion to the quote "Coding is not allowed to start before 70% of the scheduled time has elapsed"?

I think it's important to take this in context. EWD was a proponent of Computer Science as mathematical proof, and as such pushed hard for structured programming methods. This was the mid 80s.

In hindsight, we have learned that there are too many unknowables in true software engineering, so we need to be more Agile. Try something, fix it, and try again.

One of his big points in that paragraph is something that we should take to heart. Programming by cheap labor is very dangerous. We do need to think as well as test and do.
"Meanwhile, back at the ads and commerce division that Wojcicki is leaving behind, her co-leader Sridhar Ramaswamy will now be in charge of the whole unit."
My paraphrase of this article:

"All of the blood sweat and tears poured into making programming more productive over the years just isn't good enough. No, I haven't done anything, personally, to improve the situation. My plan is to continue bitching about how things aren't good enough until...well, indefinitely, because bitching about other people's efforts is much easier than doing the hard work of solving a challenging problem myself."

Is that too harsh? I don't see a single concrete, actionable proposal in there, let alone anything the author has personally done to fix the sorry state of programming.

I also think it's a huge disservice for him to dissuade his friends from programming until some state of nirvana is reached in programming tools. There are some hurdles to overcome, but a little bit of programming skill can greatly amplify the reach, scope and influence of non-programming talents.
With a Core i7 3930k you could get 66.6 Mhash/sec.

That would give you 0.00001278 bitcoins per day or 1278 satoshis per day.
You have to sign up through the homepage. It could be more clear.
> Don't waste your time and everyone else's with worthless campaigns such as this. The only real way to change is to defeat the useful purpose of spying.

Wrong. The only reason that the spying is happening is that it is accepted and allowed. The mentality needs to be clear: only police states(evil states) spy on citizens (their country and others) without a clear reason (c.f. 4th amendment of the US). The concept of mass surveillance needs to be dumped into the ashbin of the US history, along with the internment camps and the Trail of Tears.

Only when the mental restraints of the police/espionage forces are lifted does strong encryption become a working requirement for free speech.

As a technical person, I would argue that our responsibility is to educate non-technical people on what is happening and the ramifications thereof - encouraging artists to explore the idea of the panopticon; encouraging writers to ruminate on the matter in fiction and non-fiction; talking to police and politicians about what security really means in practical purpose; talking to the neighbors about the implications of the coming internet of things and what mass surveillance means then.
Indeed, and not to mention, depending on the by-catch, the stuff they're throwing away more be more valuable than what they're targeting, pound for pound, in different markets.

That is to say, just because you're fishing for tuna and pulled up aji doesn't mean you've wasted your time. There is a great market for aji, and to be honest, you'd pay more for it in a sushi restaurant in my town than you would 90% of the meat in a yellow fin.

By-catch is becoming a big deal as a general restaurant issue on the gulf coast.[0] A lot of people have been pushing bycatch as delicacies in local restaurants. Just last week, a chef prepared us several courses of bycatch as sashimi or aged, depending on the fish - including scorpionfish and blue runner. I definitely would not have had a better lunch if he brought out tuna and snapper. (And wouldn't have ordered them, either.)

[0] - http://www.edibleaustin.com/index.php/food-2/cookingfresh/97...
This is the so-called "Greater Fool Theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

Many of the VCs get in on the A-round, pump it up to the next VCs for the B-round, pump it up get it to IPO, and then they have their liquidity event where everyone cashes out.

The biggest thing that irks me is tech companies reporting non-GAAP numbers as their top-line results on earnings reports. These are baked-up numbers to make companies' large losses (or possibly small profits) look deceptively better than they actually are.
This isn't new, and it still causes the graduate's debt to increase very quickly so the risk is very real. If the gov paid the interest that would cause both moral hazard and reduce real risk on the graduate.
I see intrinsic informational limitations. Software developers and managers learn, but they also forget. Also, technologies change, so knowledge "rusts" over time. So the rational ability to make information-based trade-offs is dynamic. Now, think about competition and you can see why this gets complex. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a system dynamics paper on this phenomena.
Yeah don't hate on em, Boto folks are pretty helpful.
Is she the only female executive left at Google?
I believe you may be oversimplifying the continuous coverage rules.

Under HIPAA, continuous coverage ensures acceptance into group health care plans (for instance, employer-provided coverage) regardless of preexisting conditions.

Further, continuous coverage ensures acceptance into some form of individual coverage, of a kind determined by the specific state you're in.

I do not believe it is the case that continuous coverage guarantees acceptance into individual health care plans.

In 19 years of working, and (more relevantly) 15 years of marriage, I have never had a lapse of health care coverage for myself or my family. When we started Matasano, I had just previously left a full-time, full-benefits job at a larger company where I'd been working for 4 years. I elected COBRA when I left, and started shopping for individual coverage.

We were unable to get family coverage at any price in Illinois because of preexisting condition concerns for two members of my family. In both cases, the rejection cause was a total surprise, because the "condition" wasn't an ongoing health problem, but rather a piece of medical trivia that caused underwriters concern that there might have been more significant issues down the road.

I shopped for insurance myself, and then with a professional broker who I paid to deal with the problem, and who could not find a way around it.

We solved the problem first by my wife taking a full-time job outside Matasano, which got us group coverage, and then by starting group coverage at Matasano.
I would hope so (if done intentionally and without the user's informed consent). It would be a DoS attack.
She's been with the company since the beginning.
She pronounces it somewhere in between the two. The 't' in 'jit-skee' isn't very hard or emphasized.
if planets are effectively amorphous liquids with no surface tensions at planetary scales, then why would you see areas on the surface that experience different amounts of gravitation. The rock of the planet experiences that gravitation all the same as the surface of the rock, mass experiencing low gravitation must equilibrate with mass experiencing high gravitation. So what stops mass experiencing 0.65 units of gravity from displacing mass experiencing 0.3 units? You would think this would result in somewhat consistent gravity around the planet. This result is unexpected to me.
Well Brin has certainly moved on: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408421/Amanda-Rosen...
Yes algorithm development is broken, but not quite in the way that the OP suggests.

People tend to focus on initial algorithm development, because that is the academically prestigious intellectually stimulating bit, but the job is really about how to turn algorithms into cash; a much broader problem than the narrow slice that people typically obsess over.

A huge (and frequently overlooked) part of that job is the communication and coordination role between business development and algorithm development. The volume of communication and level of detail required cannot be overstated.

Another huge part of the job is actually turning a piece of research into a functioning product. Whilst a large part of the OP's proposition is intended to address this problem, (kudos) I think that his solution falls short in a big way: It omits the largest part of the solution, which is where the business learns about the algorithm and how the behaviour and performance characteristics of the algorithm interact with the business' problem domain. I.e. how does the business build sufficient expertise and knowledge of their product to be able to effectively sell it. All of these are human problems, mainly oriented around communications and learning.

Having said all that, I would like to encourage the OP in his efforts. I think that it is something that is worth doing, and I really hope he is able to build a business around this idea. I think that technology can help support all of these activities, and this is actually something that I have wanted to do myself for very a long time, so Kudos to the OP for actually taking the chance, going out and doing it!
What superior architecture does zfs have?
And not just more than one card, but also make sure the cards are from different banks!

It's also recommended to have a Visa and a Mastercard (but that's for an unrelated reason that a small number of merchants take one and not the other - and usually it happens at the worst possible place, like a taxi).
Why Microsoft is invested in OpenDaylight
Here's the context... Someone with moderate statistics can take a Microeconomics class and with a few hours a week of studying can get conversational, and apply it. With only introductory calculus, they can take a second and third class, and know enough to be professionally employed in the field. 90% of the folks who start the first class can take the 2nd and 3rd.

3 classes isn't enough for competence in coding, and much less than 90% get out of the first class.
CapEx + OpEx together averages 3x retail cost of hw for a medium sized web shop, labor and electricity being the biggest costs in each respectively.
The issue with every Visual programming language I have used is that while it is easier to learn for beginners, it is almost always faster to type once you start to understand programming.
I see. It was very confusing to click "Sign In" then click "Don't have an account? Enlist Now." and be redirected to the home page. Looks cool though, thanks.

Edit: I now see the intended flow, but there was no indication that I had to complete the first 2 levels to be able to sign up.
Going that way would dilute Docker's value. Docker's promise is that you can build a container and it will always work; it won't mysteriously break in production or giving you installation headaches. To do that, your development environment has to be as close to the production environment as possible. Having a totally different ABI doesn't help with that goal.
No, I'm talking about fisheries management practices that do increase stocks. Overfishing is being reduced and harvests are increasing:

http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our-work/fisheries/

The very likely explanation is stocks are increasing in response to the better management.

I agree that it will be difficult to get people in the U.S. to push China to take a more expensive approach to industry. I think calling it 'offshoring' is awfully simplistic (U.S. is agricultural exporter and for energy only imports oil).
"They tried to destroy android, and they lost."

Actually they make more on Android then Google. I would call that #winning.
Ever heard of worse is better?

This simple method works fine. The amount of fraud is not enough to make switching worth it. (And don't forget credit cards need to work even without persistent data connection.)
Probably just due to the licensing issues surrounding zfs and linux.
The current div-soup approach with massive JS enhancement is what is a bad idea. It abuses the document model and makes information less transparent, less semantically meaningful, and makes it hard to share and reuse components between sites due to leakage. It also makes debugging and reading the DOM in an inspector far more messy.

Scoped CSS and Shadow DOM clear up the leakage problems and introduce proper encapsulation to the web beyond heavyweight IFRAMES. The templating system lets documents expose information in transparent ways again, rather than executing a big ball of JS just to get the DOM in a state that is meaningful.

Web Development has been fundamentally broken for ages. The basic ideas to fix it have been discussed for years. Every day delayed is a day for more native encroachment.
I wish I could upvote you. You wouldn't believe but people are paid to downvote for non-conformity around here. I guess someone out there believes it may threaten the status quo.
Thanks Winslow - glad to hear you love the site!

We want to make sure to keep the intrigue and flow going. So we're seriously thinking about how we can open more challenges while balancing it with a customized experience, great advice. Appreciate the help.
I think the author should read Fred Brooks's "No Silver Bullet". Many of his arguments are still valid after 28 years. "There is no single development, in either technology or in management technique, that by itself promises even one order-of-magnitude improvement in productivity, in reliability, in simplicity."
I was joking with my friends when WebGL came out, that we could mine for bitcoins on the GPU instead of displaying advertising.
ManOs X ! The hands of fate log10!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060666/
Understand I've got some emotional baggage here[1] :-)

It changed when it became more relevant than ISO, I put it right at the end of the IP/ISO war, probably 1997, 1998. Basically up until that point the people who were motivated to subvert standards efforts pretty much ignored them, they had their own transport (OSI), their own mail services (X.400) their own directory services (X.500) and basically every else. IP and its "hacked together" stuff was pretty much universally considered "on its way out" by the "players."

When it became clear that IP wasn't on its way out, and in fact it was the burdensome and complex OSI standards that were going no where, the movers and shakers switched tactics, invade the IETF meetings (which did have an abusible community participation process) and drove the organization off a cliff in order to preserve their interests.

A really really good example of that was SIP and IPV6 both of which started out pretty reasonably, (because neither the phone companies nor the networking companies thought either was going to be relevant in the 7 layer OSI world) until whoops, that is where the action is so lets get in there and "fix" it.

[1] I sat in front of 500 engineers and explained out Sun was prepared to hand over any proprietary interest whatsoever in the RPC and XDR stacks (which had been "standards track" RFCs before that has a more explicit meaning, and so had sat there implemented by everyone but not officially 'standard') only to have Microsoft and the guy they had hoisted out of Apollo/HP, Paul Leach, invest thousands of dollars in derailing that offering, for no reason other than to try to resist anything compatible being out there. It was redonkulous in its pursuit of killing ONC/RPC at every venue. But like I said, that just made it personal for me.
add an "o" to it : ManOOS i.e. manoos : in marathi language word for a "people"
Yeah, syntax highlighting would be awesome to start...
This is awesome Steven - appreciate the support!