skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Things that are obnoxious about the gimp:

--Working with transparent layers and channels (compared with PS) is clunky.

--Too much duplication of buttons and window tabs; there are like four ways of exiting the program from the same place (window toolbar, tool pallette toolbar, WM exit, right-click tool panel, etc.)

--Weird script/filter difference (why are there both? why do some destroy undo history and others not?)

--No great selection tools (color matching, fuzzy matching, etc. compared to PS).

--Really really obnoxious "Save as..." which directs you to export for using non-xcf files (and it'll even chide you about that, when it's obvious what you want to do).

--Thousands of other miscellaneous gripes and grumbles.
Yes, I agree to an extent. I guess the problem is that quantification of technical debt is not so straightforward as financial debt.

When I say the "real world doesn't care", I don't necessarily mean that as a bad thing. The realities of shipping a product urge companies to make compromises. Like financial debt, technical debt is a useful tool, as long as it's used responsibly and kept under control.
> refutes this claim

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

"disputes" might be more accurate, but that still wouldn't invalidate the title. This is an entirely legitimate bug report; the maintainer of Capistrano seems to hold a very unusual view on Open Source licensing, and one at odds with just about everyone else in the Open Source community.
Does it really matter? I go to UC Berkeley right now, and it's not the legacy that's important to me. It's the state of the university today. The legacy is only important to me insofar as the legacy affects the current state of affairs.
>Surely that doesn't mean it's correspondingly illegal to trade RUB for USD within russia, but i'm not sure what the salient difference is

If i remember correctly the other party must be a bank.
For the life of me, I never understood why evolutionary biologists engage in such ridiculous behavior. Instead of explaining religion from a scientific point of view, they instead debate nonsense as if it is on equal footing with empirically validated science. Richard Dawkins, who taught me biology through his incredible books, has wasted a majority of his life following this foolish path. I still don't understand why.

Religious beliefs result in adaptive behaviors proven to increase fitness in certain environments. That is, these behaviors enhance the fitness of the genes which make one predisposed to religiosity. This has been hypothesized many times, and is the only rational explanation for the vast and fervent religious behaviors we witness today. In brief, religious behaviors cause individuals to engage in cooperative exchanges which are mutually beneficial to both parties. Iterated over many interactions, in a large population, with reputation, it becomes obvious that these behaviors are adaptive.

What biologists must emphasize is that religious behaviors are distinct from religious mythology. It is the behaviors we are interested in as scientists, not the literary masterpieces that constitute such works as the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc. Although they are linked, from an empirical point of view it is meaningless to analyze the philosophy of religion. We must instead look at the behaviors and their resultant consequences.

For those interested, there is a massive amount of knowledge on this subject. I would recommend beginning with Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene, and intuitively working through the corollaries thereafter. Further reading can be found here [1].

1. http://evolution-of-religion.com/

EDIT: Removed Wikipedia link as it wasn't very useful upon closer inspection. The research group linked instead is a much better resource. Also reworded for clarity as per comments below.
To vastly differing degrees.

The US from 1776 to about 1880 > the US of today > Russia of today > Soviet Union > North Korea.
> I've been the Ubuntu developer responsible for Wine's packages for almost a decade now.

Thank you. I can play skyrim on my linux machine, now. :)
Thanks T

Posted mine a few days ago as well (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7178168) but it didn't get votes. :P

Maybe I'll try to blog about creating it instead. Haha.
Err, bread can't be delivered via SMS. Perhaps you should write: "Order by SMS and have it delivered to your door"
>and I wish bill nye hadn't given th the time of day.

Agreed. I loved Bill Nye's shows when I was a growing up, and I think he made a positive difference in my life. I don't know if participating in the debate will have had the same effect on anyone there.

I wish Bill would continue the kind of work he did when I was younger, instead of debating creationists, or going on FOX News to be the wacky scientist from that kids show that explains middle school science to the viewers.

Getting children interested in science. In discovery. Fostering a love of learning. That's what I think matters. That will be his legacy.
I still don't get it because for me the minimal time is n.
The general pass a note with the value n to the firts squad, which decrease it by one and pass it to the next squad, etc.
If passing the note to the next squad is performed at each clock beat and each suqad decrements the value he got, then they will all reach 0 at the same time.
I guess I'm missing some constrains because I don't see why I don't get 2n-2 as minimal time.
Interesting that you bring up Richard Dawkins, as he seems to be adamantly in agreement:

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-de...
Will Bryant is unhelpful here with his aggressive tone and how he "threatens" to post on the mailing list warning people about the project.

The question regarding when a project becomes a derivative in the GPL sense seems quite complicated and is definitely something that should be decided by lawyers rather than flamewars online.
> the GPL is recognised to be a dinosaur that has little bearing in modern software infrastructures

If I needed any more reason not to use Capistrano, this is it. But I need to wonder why people still use such outdated and poorly implemented instruments as Capistrano in 2014. I speak for myself only, but we have about 200 websites that use Capistrano at my work, each with its own 50-line Capfile, that is subtly broken depending on which Capistrano version you use. Every 2.x release is broken in a different way such that we have an index of which exact version of Capistrano (down to the patch level) works because the rest don't. 3.x is backwards incompatible and infeasible to upgrade at this scale.

git-based deployment takes five seconds to set up and leverages the existing infrastructure instead of creating a feeble reinvention of the wheel, so maybe we should forget this licensing issue and use other deployment strategies because they're plain better.
Would you mind submitting a pull request? We're happy to take a look, and if we merge it it will update for all future VPN provisions.

That would be awesome.
Yes, that's my experience as well! I'll carefully design code so that it can be extended and then find out I need to extend it in an orthogonal way I hadn't imagined, and my "extensibility" completely gets in the way. I've eventually just settled on, "build something simple and extend it when needed."
With the exception that if you have three guys hacking something together a dedicated server or a box off your cable modem, with git tunneled over ssh using keys and a proper firewall, you'd probably be miles ahead. That might take you an afternoon to set up with almost no experience.

Not to say that it couldn't be compromised, but your not a target like github might be. If you're working with an enterprise level project with more complex auth and access methods, more users, performance and scaling needs, you'd need a real security implementation.
I was hired as an employee (Rails developer) with a 3 months trial. However, I was fired at week 2 with the excuse that I was having "problems". Not sure what he meant since I delivered features and I was working on a task at that time. I was even making progress and communicating with the team.

I was also trying to learn about the codebase. They were two apps so I had a lot to learn. I had done scrum and pairing too.

The person who fired mentioned problems with their budget and he said something like they wouldn't be able to afford me if I had to take time to learn their codebase/platform and what they've done, and while that sounds reasonable I don't think they should have hired me in their first place.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable here? I might have done mistakes too perhaps, but I don't think it's fair the way things ended.

I think he also said that he had to fire someone else and that he would like to keep an open door for further work but I don't think I'll join them anymore if they ever approach me again. After being fired at week 2 I don't want to get let down again.
Try http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/lates... instead. Not sure why the Aurora landing page is not using the right link.
A lot of people seem to be saying that you shouldn't talk to people who are familiar with creationism at all.

Question: What alternative method is there to reach them? Believe it or not, there are some communities where science isn't readily known. What's the alternative? Refusing to engage sounds not only spiteful but not very useful as you're essentially giving up on a segment of the population while simultaneously getting upset that they don't know better.
Gitbucket – The easily installable Github clone powered by Scala
GitHub is shady in its tracking and data gathering and is opposite the decentralized nature of git, so signing up would indeed be selling out on my principles for the ability to use this website. Truthfully, I've forgone things much more convenient or interesting for far less important matters (which is not to say this site is uninteresting.)
We agree with all but the last point. We do provide the script but sadly most people using this won't know how to run such a script. We tried to make it as easy as possible.

Great points otherwise, would love to see a PR. :) thanks for the feedback!
Programming used to be hard because of the hyper-optimization needed to get things to run.

Now programming is hard because of the giant scale of existing open source codebases.

It's not just the libraries, it's the toolchains, the build systems, the versioning tools, and that's just the things I've touched myself.

Someone once compared classical mathematics with modern mathematics, with the analogy of open pit mining vs deep shaft mining. I think programming has followed a similar trend. Modern programming involves strategically using existing tools, combining them without making major modifications to any of them. Of course, this is just for the individual programmer working on a discrete task. There is still room to participate in or lead large projects.
If Exxon disappeared, I'd ... go to a different gas station.
> Why's it have to come out as profits? Couldn't they just be a big lumbering bureaucracy that never gets cut because they never have pricing pressure?

Not with the ACA limits on share of premium costs not going to care they couldn't. Before the ACA, they certainly could.

> For the record, this kind of industry BS is why liberals support single-payer healthcare. It's not that we're commies or even that we don't understand the inefficiency of government bureaucracy. It's that we'd prefer the dumb public bureaucracy to our current even dumber private bureaucracy.

> Something being 'private' without pricing pressure isn't capitalism.

Yes, it is capitalism. Its not free, efficient, competitive market, but its certainly capitalism.
Super Bowl Commercial?
I was hired as an employee with a 3 month trial. Not as a freelancer.
Unfortunately, by releasing the God Delusion, he engaged creationists as equals in an intellectual debate. He would have been better served by supporting research on the evolutionary psychology of religion, while staying very far away from debating creationists, which has sadly become a hobby of his.

That being said, I have yet to read a book which so elegantly describes evolution as The Selfish Gene. This includes Darwin's own works. It is an absolute masterpiece, and was the foundation of my lifelong passion for biology. I consider Dawkins the most influential man in my life. That is why it hurts me to see him behave in such a counter-productive manner.
Last phone I bought from Walmart, T-Mobile refused to activate because they claimed it was stolen.

I was really taken aback to have purchased a device in a sealed box when someone had already cloned the IMEI. (Or maybe T-Mobile's setup is just really buggy...)

I was fortunately able to return it and get a new phone, worked fine.

But if I could fix that problem, maybe stolen phones will just get laundered through returns that way. (ie, buy a new phone, return the stolen one as defective).
That looks alot like the Samsung Galaxy line to me. I suspect Apple would want to stay away from anything with such a close resemblance to their biggest competitor.
I'm watching the Olympic Opening Ceremonies right now and a lot of athletes are walking in filming with GoPros- in past years it's been iPhones and other cell phones. They probably got them in goody bags, but still it's a pretty good sign.
> I think Dropbox is leaving money on the table with the current pricing structure.

I've long thought the same thing, both on their personal and business accounts.

On the personal side, the free 2 GB account isn't quite enough for my needs but 100 GB is waaaaay more than what I'd use.

> IMHO I think that a personal Dropbox account (with no business features) for $5/month for 100gb would kill competition ...

I'd happily pay that. Hell, I'd pay $5/month for, say, 20 GB. Realistically, I'd rarely use more than 10 GB.

It's the same story on the business side. My small team of eight would love to use Dropbox but, again, it's not a huge amount of storage that we need -- 10 GB would likely be more than we'd ever use. Instead, it's the ease with which we can all share that 10 GB of files that I'd happily pay for.

That 10 GB of storage would cost us $120/mo. (it could be as low as $80/month, but we could/would use those extra features so I'd go for the higher level).

Granted, $120/month isn't a lot and it would be much easier to justify if we were going to come close to using the whole 100 GB of storage. Since we effectively need to be able to easily share the contents of a small USB flash drive, though, $120/mo. seems a little outrageous.

At the very least, it seems that "per-user" isn't the best option in all cases and that other methods of charging would be a better fit. For example, there are a few non-technical people in our office that we might consider adding. They would rarely need access to any of the files we'd store on Dropbox but it might be nice to have them as users "just in case" -- but not for $15/user/month.

In our case, Dropbox would quickly gain us as a customer if we could instead pay based upon the amount of storage we use (it seems ironic that this isn't an option, considering storage is likely one of their highest costs). We would, for example, sign up today if there was a "$1/GB/month regardless of number of users" option.

As an added bonus, our daily use of Dropbox would likely result in us recommending it to many of our customers who would also sign up (if they could also pay based upon storage and not the number of users).
Or you just ship the phone to another country. The lost/stolen lists are not shared internationally.
Nah, programmers and engineers aren't Morlocks to executives Eloi -- when was the last time a programmer or engineer ate a C-suite exec?

Serfs, not Morlocks.
Using another example that might help this crowd - this reaction reminds me of an article by Paul Jarvis: "Amateurs get angry with clients. Professionals educate them"[1].

There seem to be a lot of people here that are angry & not a lot of people willing to educate. It's easy to label & categorize a whole group of people (whether clients or people who may be uninformed), but if you have the ability to inform, educate & change their opinion over time and don't try - don't get mad at people for staying uninformed - it's your fault.

If you attempt and they're hostile, that's a whole different story, but it's definitely worth attempting.

[1] http://99u.com/articles/18303/we-deserve-the-clients-we-get
I'm really disappointed this doesn't authenticate against Persona. Supporting Persona in Firefox seems to be pretty slow coming, and this seems like a big blow against having that smoothly integrating it.
Anyone who drives a bycicle knows that the rear wheel follows a smooth path compared to the front wheel. So this image is easy. I guess there might be more tricky images. A straight line for instance ;)
With the comments I tend to make the most selfish course of action would be to upvote comments below mine.
> I'd use Dropbox as write-once-read-occasionally personal junk archival storage ...

That's what I'm using Amazon Glacier for. I have tons of old files that I'll likely never need/want again and that I would normally just blow away in order to regain the disk space. It's so damn cheap, though, that I've started archiving them all to Glacier and then blowing them away.
The version number was bumped, like, yesterday. Probably just an oversight or a cached web page.
If someone at Blink reads this, please please please consider adding an element.style API that let's us set the CSS 3D Matrix via arrays of numbers instead of forcing us to stringify the results to only have the browser have to reparse those floats.

Simply allowing developers to set CSS properties via numbers instead of forcing string conversion would be awesome.

This whole notion that all CSS properties need to be converted to a string is a bottleneck when you want to make many simultaneous changes on the DOM.

We really need a CSS styling interface that uses functions instead of assignment, where you pass in the numbers and the units as two separate arguments. e.g.

element.styles.set("width", 100, "px");
> It might be manufactured, but building high-density housing is not going to bring any prices down.

Where's the part of your post that backs up this statement?
My best friend built a neural network based trading system in 1994. He risked his $100,000 inheritance on it. His parents were killed by terrorists in the First Intifada and left him this money.

Central banking intervention into the US bond market to lower bond yields (10-yr bond yields fell from 8% in 1994 to 4% in 1998) for the benefit of bondholders bankrupted him. His neural net didn't predict outside intervention. After he lost it all, he became despondent. He shot himself in the chest with a shotgun.

So, if you were my best friend, I'd tell you this:

We are all Noah. We are all at risk of drowning in a flood of desires. Drowning in a flood of worthless, central-bank-printed, fiat currency. Build an ark, a refuge, to protect yourself from the flood of desires and self-centeredness that are drowning us.

In the Dammapada, the Buddha said, "Desires are never satisfied, not even by a shower of gold. He who knows that the enjoyment of passion is short-lived and that it is also the womb of pain is a wise man."

So forget about making an extra $100,000. We could go into hyperinflation tomorrow, and your extra $100,000 savings would become worthless overnight.

Stop chasing paper and do something worthwhile instead.
That was really my point, though you said it more eloquently: If Uber does less well (because of image problems), then it will provide a living for fewer people in the end.

It's great to be loyal to employees, if you can. If you put your loyalty to your employees above the quality of the product you're providing, you may find you have no ability to pay any of your employees. Or in the case of Uber, that people stop hiring drivers.
Self respect and job gratification are algorithms to be optimized.
I actually found the content an interesting look at the things most people don't hear about facebook.

I was expecting stuff like 'the like button', 'successful single sign-on', 'news feed', etc. etc. But this is actually about the back-end systems Facebook had to create in order to support such an incredible system.

I'd like to see a similar right up about Google.

Though if we're doing the obligatory 'first post on HN has to be negative, snarky, I'm too cool for this', then I guess you win. Though a better title would have been 'Technologies that allowed Facebook to take over he web'.
Unfortunately, there's also a high cost to people who are christians but are not young earth creationists. Nye actually did a good job pointing out that many reconcile their faith and science and that he was specifically debating Ham's view. Of course, that will probably get glossed over and some will takeaway that christian == wacky like ham
Paperclip vulnerability leading to XSS or RCE
I didn't watch the entire debate because it was clearly not intended to inform an educated audience, but the parts that I did see really disturbed me. Neither of the debaters made any tangible assertions, nor any statements of fact that contradicted statements made by the other. Nonetheless, the two still somehow found a way to "argue" and "debate" for two hours.

Nye should have had it easy. He could have argued that creationists need to demonstrate why their beliefs are any more true than the hundreds of other contradictory creation myths that come from various world cultures (as salgernon mentioned). He also could have argued that science and creationism are not fundamentally incompatible, but instead sort of orthogonal. Creationism can be thought of as a cosmological hypothesis. It happens to be a hypothesis that is basically impossible to test, so scientists instead spend their time evaluating other hypothesis.

Instead, it sounded like he argued the position that "science helps us learn and do cool things, plus you don't need to believe in God to seek answers to life's important question." Weak position. Counter argument: "I don't care about learning or technology because when I die I am going to heaven, and that's ultimately more important than science."
> “Only you will have access to your data, using your login and password.”

I don't remember their exact wording, but that sounds very similar to what Dropbox originally claimed (before it was determined that their employees absolutely did have access to your data).
On the contrary. "refute" is defined as:

> refute - v, prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.

I contend that this section does disprove the theory that Capistrano cannot continue to be licensed under the MIT License:

> that in this circumstance the copy-left of the GPL does not cross the boundary of Rubygems (Capistrano hints to Rubygems that it would like to use SSHKit). And that even using the LGPL with it's provision for "dynamic linking" being an exception adds nothing to the discussion for scripting languages.

Of course, this is all semantics.
Why would anyone with career options choose to work for AOL? He might as well have posted a billboard declaring, "Top talent not wanted."
SecondMarket Takes First Step to Becoming a US Bitcoin Exchange
Rather than downvote, perhaps someone could answer the questions. I'm genuinely curious how things are set up in a Tesla. I've not used one so I don't know what options are provided.

Weird that asking how something works pisses people off.
You can do the same thing with POST by submitting a form with JS. The correct way to protect against this sort of thing is to use a CSRF token.
It's better not to lie to people about what really happened. They were owned because they executed mysterious applications.