skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It is more efficient to generate power in a power plant, transmit the energy, then drive a car with it.

This is especially true when you take into account cheaper electricity at night, and regenerative breaking.

The expensive part right now is the upfront cost of lightweight batteries, and the small economics of scale.

But battery technology is continuously improving, so is economics of scale, and electricity production from non-fossil fuel sources.

I'm not saying Exxon is dead, I'm just saying that it is insane to ignore what is right in front of us. If gasoline doubles in price once more (in real terms) then the internal combustion engine is over.
git-based deployment takes five seconds to set up and leverages the existing infrastructure instead of creating a feeble reinvention of the wheel

Isn't Capistrano basically git-based deployment, wrapped in some DSL-ish commands?
T Rajendar's Latest Sensational Hit song video making
What do you mean with what feedback I got from them? They were a couple of guys working remotely over the internet. We were working with some rails apps and communicating over Skype/teamspeak.

I've done pairing with some of them and things were going well, I wish I had more time to learn more about their apps though. I've participated in all/most meetings and was always communicative. I wasn't afraid to say I needed help when I needed it but I also tried to do things on my own. Sure I might have made some mistakes because I was new (who's perfect?) but then again I'm disappointed I was fired in week 2.

Let me know if you have more questions.
> A lot of people seem to be saying that you shouldn't talk to people who are familiar with creationism at all.

No one has said that. Notable amidst the number of errors you've managed to cram into that one sentence, you seem to have confused "people who want to engage in public 'debate' about creationism" with "people who are familiar with creationism at all". The two groups aren't even approximately the same.
I actually bought a Contour before I ended up selling it to get a GoPro 3 Black. The video quality just wasn't comparable at all. The laser level was a great concept, but the WiFi viewfinder is far easier to use, despite sucking down battery like there's no tomorrow.

There were 3 things I really liked on the Contour, though: the standard tripod screw on the bottom (that's an extra accessory on the GoPro), the battery life was far better, and the model I had was able to withstand a few feet of water without a big bulky case. (Snorkeling/swimming okay, SCUBA not.)
photoshop (I had never the time to learn gimp and I have only one life)

powerpoint viewer

Some small programs I have developped on windows years ago
Because you only use the explosive power of gasoline when you use it in a car and because you idle much of it away. The savings from transmission and charging do not account for the biggest waste of energy: lack of thermo use in internal combustion engines.

I speak about efficiency per unsubsidised dollar which is generally a rough correlator for usable work per input fuel.
They are removing the number of shares on the open markets, so it's a 'less to go around' type sitation, or you can think of it as limiting supply.

In theory (I believe), the market cap for the company should stay the same, so each share increases in value. Cook and Icahn are major share holders, so they would be increasing their value.

However, it isn't a zero-sum game (hope I'm using that correctly) as in the short term, with rising stock price, all investors win.

On the flip side, the money used for a buy-back is money not invested into R&D, which for a tech company is obviously very important.

Though, I wonder if Apple may be a bit of an anomaly. They have such a huge profit margin, and strong following, and a group of customers who will buy pretty much anything they release at pretty much any (moderately unreasonable) price.

Apple doesn't spend (and loose) on R&D like Google and Microsoft do. There doesn't appear to be anything in the Apple quiver which came as a result of massive R&D effort. Massive design effort, absolutely. Massive engineering effort, sure. But straight R&D? I don't think so. Happy to be proven wrong though.
XSS Vulnerability found on Tumblr Website
> What biologists must emphasize is that religious dogma (i.e. behaviors) are distinct from religious theology (i.e. mythology).

You know that these are distinctly non-standard (to the point of not having any resemblance to the usual ones) definitions of "dogma" and "theology", right?

If you mean "behaviors" and "mythology", then just say that, rather than saying "dogma" and "theology" with those others in parenthesis, when "dogma" doesn't mean "behavior" and "theology" does not mean "mythology".
By "familiar with" I meant "perceive it to be credible." Often they're not quite argumentative as much as people like to make them out to be.

Sure there are your Ken Ham types, but there are others that just aren't familiar with evolution & think it means we came from monkeys. Those are people that I think really benefited from hearing Nye talk about it simply & concisely on their level.
You can increment that story counter by 1.

Without your packaging efforts, I wouldn't be able to use Linux as my primary desktop at work.
That was the original agreement. A full time job as a Rails developer with a three month probationary period, but they fired me at week 2.

I'm disappointed.
Love it. I abandoned the old sync. Figuring out how to set it up was more difficult than trying to learn Julia.

Only thing I didn't love was the icon, but its beta so hey.

Link to Aurora nightly:

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-aurora/
I think it's a product of the typical nerd black-and-white thinking. People are either raging fundamentalists who take the Bible as literal truth and reject all science that contradicts it, or they are reasonable people who think the Earth is old and evolution happened.

In reality, there are a ton of creationists who aren't raging fundamentalists. They aren't creationists because they believe so fervently that they cannot accept any contrary evidence. They're simply creationists because that's all they know. Many of these people, when exposed to the truth in a constructive way, will change their minds.

In fact, I was one of those people. My elementary school taught creationism and I believed it because, well, why not? Later on I found out about the scientific explanations, and came to accept them instead.

You'll never convince Ken Ham. Nor will you convince his hardcore supporters. That's not the point. The point is to reach out to people who aren't hardcore about it, but who still believe nonsense simply because they don't know any better. And what better way to convince them to listen at all than to involve a religious figure arguing for the other side? How many of these non-fundamentalist creationists would tune in to "Bill Nye Explains Evolution", versus "Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham"? You'll convince lots of them.
Jumpers and the Software Defined Localhost
Is there anyone on HN happy to admit they are a creationist?
> 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.

I'm really surprised this didn't come up more as the idea that "science is attacking my religion" tends to be one of the main reasons that people seemed to be adverse to science. It places a false dichotomy in choosing between their faith & science.
Reverse engineering my bank's security token
What an utter load of crap. You can write excellent code in Java, you can write crap in Java. Due to its popularity, java has had everyone and their dog learning how to "code in java" and hence there are many poor "Java developers". That doesn't make it a bad language.

I quite like Java too, but without the mealy-mouthed backhanded compliments.
I had a debate with someone over the existence of Santa Clause, but it was difficult, because the toddler was munching on crayons at the time.
Woody Allen Speaks Out (his response to the charges of child molestation)
> How many of these non-fundamentalist creationists would tune in to "Bill Nye Explains Evolution", versus "Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham"? You'll convince lots of them.

I think this is a great point that a lot of people are missing. It's sort of like trying to lay out the features that you like about your product as a developer when realizing that your customer cares nothing about what you like and you have to present / sell it to them in a way completely different to how you would sell it to yourself.
No. I did not get the job through an recruiter, but through one of the employees at the company, who also happen to be in a manager-like position from what I've noticed.

That guy was also the same guy fired me.
You forgot to claim that you know more about digital IP than Capistrano's digital IP lawyer.

Oh wait...
My awesome singing brought to you by misterchocolate
Atheist who grew up in Oklahoma here. The people in this thread who think that the correct tactic is to immediately jump to "Why is your religion better than Mayan creation myths?" are completely clueless. If you ever even met a creationist, you would know that that would just make them dig in their heels and "confirm" their low opinion of mainstream science.

The idea of tiptoeing around religious fundamentalism may bother you, but ultimately you have to decide if you want to be as "right" as possible or if you want to have a shot at convincing someone. And if you don't care about convincing the kind of person who can be a young earth creationist in 2014, then I don't know why you'd even pay attention to any of this.
I REALLY hate to agree with a creationist to any degree but there is something to the observational/historical debate.

We now understand a LOT of physics and chemistry. That's because it's observational, and because it's observational you can make predictions, perform experiments and get results. Other people can do the same as well, thus enabling not only peer review but actual verifiability.

This is why we understand physics and chemistry extremely well, biology OK but rapidly improving, and economics and public policy much less well. Because we can reproduce results in physics everyone either agrees on the truth or is generally regarded as a crackpot. Biologists can't produce the kinds of extremely clean data physicists can but it's still meaningful. In macroeconomics there's very little ability to perform experiments in a repeatable fashion, which results in everyone observing the world and then arguing about why things happened and nobody can prove that they're right or that others are wrong.

When you're dealing with math or computer science induction is a great tool that allows you to do pretty incredible things. But it does so because the nature of math or algorithms is stationary; the rules are 100% fixed from the beginning of time 'til the end (or so you can assume if you're building the system) and thus any assumptions are by definition correct. It's much harder to do this when you're dealing with things that can change over time (and thus potentially invalidate your assumptions), which is basically everything else. That's not to say that induction is worthless outside of math and computer science but it's use comes with more caveats.

I totally get why serious scientists don't want to even acknowledge that a creationist might raise a good point but once it's made the damage is done. If you don't respond at all they pile on saying "look he doesn't have an answer for X!" and if you do respond with a reasonable statement about "this is the best we know thus far and of course nothing can be known until we observe it directly" then they'll pile on with "see it's not guaranteed!" Both of those outcomes are extremely frustrating when you're dealing with someone who can't be convinced with any amount of evidence.

But failing to acknowledge that there is a difference between direct observation and historical/induction and that they create two classes of certainty which are not identical does the very tedious and difficult work of science a disservice in my opinion.

EDIT: To clarify I think what I'm mostly talking about is certainty. If you can't directly (or indirectly) observe something happening with some kind of experiment you can have a personal opinion about certainty and someone else can have another but neither one can be provably wrong. Once that happens there's real certainty and very little room for opinion anymore. Until then things are a bit more fluid. A well educated person's estimate of certainty might be much more accurate than a plebe's but it's not guaranteed to be right.
While the regulations were at one time created to keep shady players out of the industry, Taxi services nowdays are most certainly regulated for the sake of limiting competition. Consider that in Manhattan in the 1950s there were roughly 13,000 taxi medallions. Today there are still only 13,000 medallions available- they sell at auction for a million dollars a piece.

The Taxi companies that own these medallions have gone to court many times to enforce the artificial scarcity that drives up the value of their golden geese.

A taxi driver in NYC has to pay $80,000 a year over and above his insurance and operating costs just for the right to operate a cab: that money goes straight into the pockets of medallion owners who don't much of anything except own medallions- until a threat like Uber comes along, wherein it's time to deliver brown paper bags filled with bundles of unmarked bills until the problem is solved. Both the drivers and the consumers are getting shafted.

NY is an extreme example, but the taxi industry works more or less same way in pretty much every city in the western world. It's not uncommon for incumbent businesses to hijack goodwill regulations as a way to stifle legitimate competition.

Now Uber and app-based livery services do need to be regulated- but their service is a whole different paradigm from the traditional taxi industry. In California progressive legislation has been passed that places these services in a completely different category than tradition taxi companies, much to the dismay of those taxi companies.

Uber is also expanding aggressively- their revenue has grown 20% per month over the past couple years, they started with 15 cars in 2009 and they are now valued at nearly 4 billion dollars, and operate in 60 countries. Every city they go into, they go into expecting a fight. They win some and they lose some. They were shut down in both Toronto and Vancouver. Uber is a fascinating company to watch- it's trench warfare everywhere they go- and they have mountains of venture capital backing them.
I took a bit of umbrage at the idea that humans surviving longer than, say, the dinosaurs did is "over hyped and misunderstood". That comment was my attempt at an unhyped and easily understood definition of "sustainability".

Three hundred mega-years (what I meant) is a somewhat arbitrary milestone. (I think long-term but 10^15 years is a bit much for even me. But see Stapledon's "Star Maker"...)

(BTW, your thinking seems unusually clear on these matters.)
Agreed and amended. I henceforth swear to never again employ religious vocabulary in scientific discourse.
Delivery guys are covered under general commercial liability policies of their employer. They don't need auto-specific coverage since driving is incidental to the primary business (food prep/sales) rather than the point of the business. In some states, the companies are required to take out additional insurance to cover their delivery drivers, but the policies aren't driver-specific. Either way, the driver is covered by the company, which is how it should be. (Auto insurance policies don't prohibit food delivery employment--only package delivery and passenger transport, as those raise very different liability issues.)

Uber's business is connecting drivers to passengers, and it takes a commission for doing so that is in some cases equal to or greater than what taxi companies collect for roughly the same service. The difference is that taxi companies are required to have insurance, and Uber arbitrages insurance costs and books it as "revenue."
That was really loooong.
This is a pure marketing story pushing a bad solution.

Hiera, a simple hierarchal property distribution system using a backend of Zookeeper plus puppet or chef is far superior. Etcd is the PHP of configuration management.
Sort of. Capistrano can clone a git repo for your application code, but by git-based deployment I mean via post-receive hooks a la Heroku. For example, a short script that runs `bundle install`, `rake assets:precompile` and restarts your web server. Ultimately, you get a solution like Heroku where you deploy by `git push`ing to the server.

Trivial to set up, easier to modify, easier to integrate with your git repository, easier to debug, and isn't _completely broken_. Capistrano compared is all downsides.
That's crazy. I mean, why wouldn't you trust the government? They only want to help us.
I've created several worlds, so I guess it's plausible that this world was created as well. But the actual evidence for this world being "created" is pretty much non-existent. I'm not sure how you would even test for it.
Disagree. Even smart people believe dumb things because they have a greater ability to rationalize their choice of beliefs.

Not saying that creationists (YEC or otherwise) are generally smart, but a lack of "reason" isn't always an excuse.
Arthur C. Clarke wrote a great essay on the challenges of rating systems, in "The Servant Problem - Oriental Style" (included in The View from Serendip: http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-9780345271082-1)

It's a bit more nuanced than this, but the fundamental dilemma is:

• An overly negative review essentially dooms someone to never working again.

• An overly positive one leads to sticky questions from the next person to hire them (whom you probably know socially).

Clarke's solution is to write ... very closely ... an accurate but difficult to parse recommendation. As I recall, the essay ends with him noting that a household servant he'd dismissed some years before (pursuing a "flim" career) had since returned, to the pleasure of both parties.

Sadly I can't find a copy online -- seems that at a $1.78 purchase price the friction of commerce is excessive here for a 50 year old essay.
It also limits the request size to something like 4K.
Except that it's not. Zookeeper was a major pain to get where it is.
"It a) offsets our risk"

You could simply hire better employees rather than disrespecting your candidates. I wouldn't bother pretending that it has anything to do with "risk management". At best, you sound extremely cheap. At worst, it makes you sound like you repeatedly make poor hiring decisions and scramble to adjust for this.
NEVERMIND THAT, APIS IN THE CLOUD MY FELLOW ENTREPRENEURES
Zookeeper is a very specialized distributed filesystem for saving and delivering important details for very large systems. Getting concurrent distributed systems like this right is the equivalent of summited Mount Everest starting by walking from Paris. It was mostly developed at Yahoo and spun off as an Apache project under Hadoop and commercialized by Cloudera. Netflix uses ZK for example.
I'm curious how fog stands feature-wise in comparison to Apache libcloud.
It's a parenthetical side note :) Not part of my argument/position.
Those costs are accurate, but a major part of the expense is depreciation. The longer you own the car (and the less you drive it), the lower those expenses are. Parking (including the land or rent you pay to your garage) is another big hidden expense.

Automobile reliability has, generally, advanced worlds from where it was in the 1970s. It used to be that getting 100,000 miles was a significant accomplishment, now it's pretty much expected, and having a car run 200,000 miles isn't uncommon. I'd had a vehicle I ended up selling to a friend which went 280k before it was finally cash-for-clunkered. In that time, it went through a couple of radiators, a couple of exhaust manifold repairs, and a transmission (protip: keep 'em lubed and watch for oil leaks). And a few sets of brake pads, possibly a clutch. But all told, pretty remarkable.

In the 2000s you saw some significant improvements in safety (ubiquitous airbags, ABS, and traction control), but not a whole lot else.

That said: doing a lot of city driving in traffic is fairly high-risk and high-wear on a car.
> Who are we profiling for?

People who are acting out of the ordinary.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/06/19/what-isr...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_profiling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Israel_Airlines_Ltd
"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."

It's certainly not the only possible explanation.
Hit areas of the pipes are a little bit too big in the original game too. That's part of why it's so frustrating.
Tim Cook says Google wasn't committed to Motorola
Does it have the "magic" tools like content aware fill, patch tool, and spot healing brush that Photoshop does? These are kinds of things my professional artist and photographer friends appreciate about the app.
No, refutes is entirely correct. The lawyers for the company that owns SSHKit say there is no licensing issue.
Profit wasn't really my point. I said a lot more here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200553
Thank you very much for the timings and pull request!
http is designed for "m2m use case"...
Are there any examples of cities that have ever built down? You'd get the housing, but then there would be fighting over the scarcity of windows.
Brackets is extensible. As a result, it fully supports everything you mention.
> As a programmer I spend the whole day sitting in a chair and clicking my mouse (keyboard tapping from time to time). Is that manly? I don't know.

I certainly don't feel like less of a man for doing it.
Wow. I know neither etcd or Hiera. But please provide some arguments against etcd if you think it is bad, rather than just bashing it.

It would be interesting to know the cons and pros of both solutions.
It's trying to solve with marketing what Chef does.

There is more to configuration management that templating files, but in inspection and having other services arriving at other states.
Have you watched Godard’s talks? He goes into considerable detail about this.
I've run into that before on VPNs using AWS. Likely the public IP my server is using was used for abuse before I got it, especially as they usually only stick very ephemerally unless you upgrade to an Elastic IP.
I'm bashing it because it oversimplifies the problem and claims to be a solution that doesn't address the irreducibility of the problem.

It's great for a host file but scp can do that.

It doesn't coordinate the transition of services to other states. Puppet does an incredible amount of work (dependency satisfaction) to get things where you want them to be. Configuration management is as much management order of operations as well as what files should contain what. There's not much separating the two because you have to usually change them between states. Chef does this to, but in a simpler way.

Cfengine was a past attempt, but is really complicated double work of what runs on a server and what runs on a managed node.
Dawkins has made an awful lot of money following this foolish path.