skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Couldn't agree more. Not only is it part of the problem, the so called mental health "professionals" are hardly qualified to help themselves. For all their education, they're no better than anyone else at preventing tragedy or helping others. The only thing they are better at is fooling people into thinking that they are professionals at all. This is a sad story, but as it states at the beginning, Stephen tried to call and talk to the hospital and other "professionals." If these people had any training that qualified them to provide help that laypeople don't, they would have helped. In fact, I'd go as far to say that someone who is not a professional is more likely to help because they might genuinely care for something more than money, something a professional trains not to care about.
1.3 feature freeze is in March, but there will still be a couple months of bug-fixing and fine-tuning after that.
oh that's beautiful... thanks for posting that!
Dropbox is clearly growing faster than their revenue cashflow can support, so it's quite reasonable for them to continue to raise money. It's obvious to everyone in the industry that Dropbox intends to IPO sometime in the next couple years. Hiring this COO allows Drew to focus on 1) hiring 2) IPO issues. Neither Drew nor Arash has IPO experience, and while it's easy enough to get advisors (and hire a great CFO), it still seems to be the case that these companies bring in a couple more IPO-experienced execs before.

They were pretty under-resourced on CFO until 2011 at least -- I don't know who they have now. I'd watch their CFO hiring for the most impending signs of an IPO. Look what happened at Facebook -- hiring David Ebersman.

IMO, CEO of Motorola Mobility to even a Director at Dropbox, Apple, etc. would be an upgrade.
That's not what he's saying. He's basically saying that it's 0K to use PHP if you can't use anything else because you are not smart enough. And you won't even achieve great things, you will barely be able to build something.

PHPers like me know very well this kind of trolling (after years of suffering it), but we are also way above it already. Sometimes we want to reply, but then we remember that this trolling is born from bitterness and lack of success, so we just let it be.
And going "nuclear" on Android because they felt that their iOS was soooo original it should be protected by all patents, trademarks and laws in place. Apple is the Disney of IT, seriously.
Cached copy here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...
I recently had an app rejected under 2.12 for using webviews. It was dependent on a service that needed OAuth, and I had used a webview just to authenticate. The reviewers rejected it even before attempting to authenticate, and specifically called out the use of webviews.
This is because 99% of people perceive programming as a job, not an art. The fucked up piracy and copyright laws extenuate this.
I said goodbye to python for performance.. otherwise its great :)
As a student, this is exactly what I think when a potential employer asks, "What language would you like to be interviewed in?" I love the power that each language brings to the table. I'm fluent in the language I'm using to solve a problem, but when I'm done, it goes back on the shelf to collect dust until I need it again. I just wish there was a way to convey that without looking stupid.

PS: I'm looking for an internship! Any suggestions?
Never EVER blame the user programs. How hard can this be to understand? -Linus
Actually, they wouldn't arbitrarily price their products that way. Companies engage in a little thing called price discrimination. The only difference in a monopoly is that you are the sole price leader. That doesn't mean you can arbitrarily set the price high. Most cable companies have monopolies thru license in municipalities.
Apple TV 2.0 coming in 2014
The people who think they can learn a new language in a few month, indeed, might never write a novel, but they are out there writing crappy code I'll probably have to maintain on day. They're also getting paid well I might add.
I'm not denying the antitrust concern of the union. I'm pointing out the hipocrisy of certain generally anti-regulation Silicon Valley companies trying to use antitrust law to preserve the viability of their role as middlemen. At the end of the day, Netflix's business model is inherently fragile. Amazon is somewhat better positioned, because they at least provide the upstream infrastructure. I think they know they need to play the last mile game, just as they're exploring doing on the physical goods side with drones and special deals with USPS.
The same happens with everything, some people just choose to be ignorant. Another good example of this is the irrational hate Bitcoin gets.
Not just mental health. They're flunking physical health, in my experience.

Simple health events go un or poorly treated. The problem cascades into a personal crisis for the student.

But, continuing to staff that health center was taking something like 0.01 % of the budget.

Many of these residential kids are, inconsistent RA's and whatnot aside, "on their own" for the first time. Schools need to lower the hurdles to seeking and receiving prompt and proper medical care.
There's no pure technological achievement. Politics permeate engineering all the time. I'd rather say I despise Apple's misguided approach to patents than say its techinical merit is "more important". Because given Apple's position, both its techinical merits and its stupid litigations have been shaping the industry.
Err, simple physics ensures mobile will never have the bandwidth of copper wire. Every band and protocol can be transmitted over the wire to each node independently.
So based on your conception of individual rights, it would be OK for github to hire only males? In that case you are correct - github and brogrammers can do as they like, and we should repeal those stupid sex discrimination laws.

(Note: I have no strong opinion on the morals of sexual discrimination, though I do find it distasteful. But for the sake of argument I'm appealing to the mainstream "it is wrong" perspective.)
>As a sysadmin, I typically receive something on the order of 1,000 to 10,000 emails daily

Sorry, but you're not a very good sysadmin then. You have chosen poor tools or do not understand how to distill the information. Knowing that, I can see why you think email alerts don't work. They are effectively broken FOR YOU.
I realize you're just trolling but the answer to your question is because people who love Apple don't see those parts of Apple as relevant to their opinion. Sometimes you meet people with outrageous body odor or hard to fathom beliefs, but other than that you love their insights or their willingness to participate, and so you don't think about them in the things you find objectionable, you think about them for the things you admire in them. I suspect that the things that are important to you, and result in your opinion of Apple, are the not the same things that are important to the people who admire Apple.
Twitter also does this:

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s74/sh/d88e4751-964e-464b-aef...
Cumming had a short treatment of the subject published in Psych Science recently: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/1/7.short ; doi: 10.1177/0956797613504966.
Does it strike anyone else as curious that the two largest cable/internet providers merge, and it doesn't matter because they already don't compete? It might be a sign that something's odd if the premise is that there's no competition between identical products to harm in the first place.
Is anyone here familiar with the costs (regulatory and financial) associated with direct backbone fiber access?
Tech companies do have power on the Peninsula itself. The best thing they could do is try to fix the building height restrictions along the Caltrain corridor, and licensing rules for food/bar/entertainment, to make the Peninsula a more attractive place for 30something (if not 20something) employees.

Mountain View and Cupertino, at least, seem to behave relatively sanely. Santa Clara almost goes too far as an industry town.
I think people are overly optimistic about the ability to endlessly increase the performance of wireless networks. The existing networks make fairly efficient use of the spectrum they're allocated. That means you really only have two options to make it go faster.

1) More spectrum. But it's massively in demand (read: expensive), nobody wants to give any up, and even if you had "all" the spectrum there are still practical physical limits about how much data you can transmit without using a wavelength that won't penetrate walls.

2) More towers that each use lower power. This is the one that can get you almost arbitrarily large amounts of wireless bandwidth, but it's also the one whose cost converges on the cost of building a new fiber optic network as the number of towers you need approaches the number of users you have.

Neither one of those is going to make for an inexpensive roll out of a wireless network capable of handling Netflix's video traffic to millions of customers simultaneously in the same city.
Giving public IP to every node is what I dislike about linode, also No security group like EC2. No VPC.. one has to manually configure firewall on each node.
'Linode managed' costs $100 per linode, insanely high.
Despite of all this I am on linode only because of CPU :)
It's about their "Invite people to LinkedIn" scheme and how they make it very easy to spam everyone you've ever communicated with. Or in the case of addresses like iTunesConnect, everything you've ever communicated with.
Yes, I think what you are saying can work well for programming. But with certain scientific questions, there are many theories that could work. It isn't just a matter of ruling things out (though that helps too). One key part of the scientific process is generating a theoretical insight (perhaps) that lets you look at something in a new way. Another key part is figuring out how to test that idea.
"Who benefits from large corporate mergers like this?"

You might think the share holders. Not correct. Though they don't lose.

Think: the law firms handling the deal. This type of deal is worth millions in fees; banks - both investment (for finding the cash) and traditional (for providing the cash); and the governments which would levy taxes and fees. And of course anything below the public view (kick-backs, trips, outright campaign donations). I mean it's no surprise they picked a campaign year to merge. ;) The companies have probably been talking about this for at least a year.

It might not go through. If there is enough back lash from other companies. Happened with ATT recently. What will matter are other content providers (Disney, Fox, Viacom, etc etc) - though it wouldn't surprise me if they get certain guarantees they we won't know about.

Netflix doesn't really have any muscle on the ground to fight this. But if they could form a coalition of sorts, with the likes of Amazon, Google, Apple, FB, Twitter, (maybe even) MS and Sony (they have a stake in this too), etc, etc - combined they'd be a formidable force that Commcast/TM would have to deal with.

And then there's us. But I hold little hope for the american public to rally around any cause. Plus too many are too easily swayed.

My hope lies in a the coalition of net companies I mentioned.
> To play devil's advocate, what it means is that Comcast has the better business model. After all, that's why Apple and Samsung dominate the cellular industry.

That is devil's idiot. I can choose between 4 different cell carriers and dozens of smartphone makers. Many people only have one option if they want >10Mbps internet.

Fortunately I get to choose between Optimum and FiOS. Optimum gives me 60/25 for the basic rate to keep me from switching to FiOS.
What about LLVM and Webkit?
Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

(Sorry. I understand if you mod me down for this. :P)
I'm not sure anything could piss off SF tech company protesters more than Facebook/Google attempting to fix building height restrictions.

At the core of it, these people have a xenophobic fear of change. They might be making noise about rent prices now, but if these companies tried to address this concern, the concerns would shift.
Since Linode doesn't charge for any incoming transfer, can you clarify what you mean?
I don't understand why you suggest that teaching public speaking will make the quality of events lower.
Support a Student-Run STEM Research Journal
I think it's obvious from these stories that students are punished for revealing their mental health problems. Whether this is for liability reasons, image reasons, or something else on behalf of the colleges is really irrelevant. The reality is that this is how our society treats those who are sick. In the wider society, most of these students would likely be incarcerated or committed and deprived of basic rights. In that, sense some of the consequences they face are much lighter than what they would face out in society.

'He wishes he had never gone to the health center for help that night; as it turned out, the pills he took just made him sleepy and all he needed was an electrolyte infusion. "I tell all my friends to avoid that place like the plague." he says.'

Essentially what Dan found out the hard way is pretty much the only way to avoid being punished for one's illness: keep it secret. Quite sad, indeed.
The physical network is absolutely a natural monopoly - the cost to run copper out to every house in a region is fixed, and any player in the market would need to do just that in order to compete effectively. From a cost efficiency perspective, the ideal number of such networks is one, just as it is for electricity and water.

What's different is that electricity tends to be heavily regulated, and water is generally a public utility. Cable providers are historically under no such constraint, because we tend to think of them as television content providers first and foremost, and the TV bit of the business is not a natural monopoly. Unfortunately that is where they make their money, and that leads to some really obnoxious behavior, including price gouging people who want their network services but not a TV content subscription.

Probably the best solution would be to go the same route that many other countries do and require network operators to share network bandwidth with anyone who can pay for it. That would allow us to re-instate market competition on top of the bit where it cannot occur naturally, while still allowing them to maintain their regularly scheduled TV industry whatever-ness.
Ask HN: Is there any limit to Apple app submission?
I submitted an app which got rejected due to random reasons. Am wondering if there is any limit to the times I can re-submit the app before being banned forever? Or can I just keep trying? Do they increase the wait duration after every rejection?
please google isp, destroy this new super-fool
Popularizing... like who else is doing that?
Thank you for the explanation, because the reply link wasn't there, and I said my say, AND THEN IT WAS THERE, and I felt kind of dumb. Or dumber than usual.

So truly, thank you!
That is fine in the short and long term if it means splitting the content distribution from the broadband access providers.
An app for people who like toggling switches
You can pick one part of my answer and isolate it from the rest if you like, but I made it clear: we have varying problems with what they do as a company, but many of us admire their larger impact. If you think controlling slide to unlock compares to popularizing the personal computer and the touch-screen smartphone, I guess we're just not going to agree. But I'm 99% sure we both agree that their patent litigation is ridiculous.
Everyone does this. By now, I consider it an industry "best practice" and no one should be surprised.

Is it still reprehensible? Sure, but then again, every startup that has ever grown their user base has used some variation of this "growth hack".
Thanks barylen for the response! Totally get what you're saying, could you expand a bit on why?
> Omar Hurricane, a researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

That is one awesome name.
Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Research
Are we going to start reposting links from comments in other threads now? Taking a page from Reddit?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7220288
Why talk about what might be the biggest scientific breakthrough of the year, when we can regurgitate snarky comments about Elsevier again?
Cable companies spend $17 billion a year on CapEx, and telecom services, excluding wireless, spend another $46 billion more. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/.... That's a lot of money for companies that are just resting on the publicly subsidized networks they built in the 1980s... Snark aside, most of the modern hybrid fiber-coax network that cable companies actually use today were built after deregulation in the 1990's. And it continues to be upgraded, which is where that massive CapEx comes in.
Forget Apple, make an Android app.
That's a cogent explanation. I can see where you're coming from, and I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate.

> This problem is manageable in the physical sciences but it is totally unmanageable when studying the human condition. The problem is that people exist in a social context and that is formative regarding the brain. Therefore, if you are studying mental health of middle class Americans, you have no real expectation that the findings will be perfectly applicable to, say, the aborigines in Australia.

That's reasonable.

> This has some important ramifications. It means that the science can never tell us how culture fits into mental illness. The science has to start off with a assumptions about mental health and illness that are by definition cultural. These definitions and assumptions are not beyond question, and therefore the conclusions one can draw from the science is limited culturally, temporally, and geographically.

I agree.

Your more verbose argument is reasonable and sound, and yet I find it inconsistent with your original statement.

Specifically :

"the conclusions one can draw from the science is limited culturally, temporally, and geographically"

vs.

"mental illness is socially constructed"

Perhaps I'm interpreting it too literally, but I can't find the evidence supporting that strong assertion.

For instance, most of the literature I could find does agree that there is a biochemical basis for schizophrenia. The literature also agrees that how it manifests, including prognosis and rates of remission, differs across cultures. Thus, it seems reasonable to state that certain beliefs regarding mental health are social constructs - but if there is a physical basis for the expression of the disease I don't see how it can be said that it itself is socially constructed.

For any interested, there's an interesting NYT piece on the subject[1]

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/magazine/10psyche-t.html?p...
IBM has spent an astonishing US$100K, per IBM employee!, on stock buybacks in the last 3yrs alone, and they are committed to more than half of that additionally in the next couple of years. They are only interested in increasing equity value among executives. IBM executives have stopped investing in their people, instead focusing on their personal bank accounts. IBM has given up on the idea of organic growth with the talent that they have -- they would rather chop off what they don't know how to manage and acquire new skills through acquisitions. Innovation is dying on the vine at IBM.
To illustrate the problem with your point, go one step further. If women are 1%, say, of the developer community, why not only give them 1% of stage time -- maybe 24 minutes on a 3 day conference?

Your argument is predicated on the idea that the only fair allocation is a pro-rata distribution of time, resembling almost perfectly the demographics of the audience. Consider instead that the echo chamber effect is real, and it is to the benefit of the community that people with fundamentally different backgrounds will introduce perspectives which, when mixed with those of the majority, will make the entire community more robust.

Second, your concept of applying quality standards, while ostensibly a desirable thing, is problematic in application. In a community where majority/minority dynamics apply, invariably the assessment of quality will tend towards what the majority feels is most aligned with its own sensibilities. Those of course are informed by their own experiences, and to the extent that there are strongly overlapping elements, the consensus view will contain blind spots. I don't know what the answer is to that, but it's something to think about if you want to take the issue seriously.

So yeah, if you think that the best thing for a conference, or a community in general is to only hear from perspectives in equal proportion to how they occur in the population at large -- which is the effect of so-called meritorious approaches such as yours -- then by all means you should count the allotment of every second. Black programmers should be invited to give 30-second lightning talks whereas smart, young white males from middle class backgrounds should pontificate for hours.

I personally think that the quality of your conference will be much worse. I would rather see someone decide to give a woman a chance, yes because she's a woman but also because she's smart, so as to give a voice to people who don't normally get a chance to be heard much.
A lot of this stuff takes longer than you'd liked and is more difficult/intractable (but that's politics). The bigger question is - without knowing what they could/can't achieve going in, can they afford NOT to try to make changes?

Imagine what the SF housing/policy landscape would look like if these companies double headcount over the next 5 years. What's happening with the buses will pale in comparison (and the worst part is the buses aren't even the issue, they're just visible).
I think everyone is digging way too deep into the significance of this event. Public speaking is hard for everyone and most people could benefit from workshops like these no matter the gender. One of the hardest aspects of public speaking is feeling comfortable being the center of attention. I imagine a tech specific speaking workshop, which is open to everyone, would involve the usual gender discrepancy, making standing out more amplified. This group is just one way in which to ease into the uncomfortableness of standing out.
The baseline I had from years of living in a Comcast market is so rotten that I really was deeply, fervently in love with TWC for the first year or so after I moved to a market that they own. It was hard for me to believe that a cable company could really be that awesome.

Upshot being. . . yeah, Comcast is so heinous that simply spending any amount of time in contact with them will actually warp your mind.
I'm completely on the opposite end of the spectrum: engine dummy apps aren't just great for running specs, they're great for running in dev mode (especially when the entire integrated app is a huge slow beast), and for exposing dependencies on the main app, which you ideally want to eliminate. Essentially, the more difficult it is to get your engine running with a plain vanilla dummy app - the more you have to pull in or mock out from the main app - the more tightly coupled they are, and in a gross circular dependency relationship too. If you want the benefits of modularity and separation of concerns, you want the relationship between the engine and the main app as simple as possible; keep the API small and well-defined, and the dependencies going in a single direction.