skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Interesting look into your fundraising process Jarrett.

It's impossible to distinguish the impact that YC had on your second go around at fundraising versus the impressive progress that EasyPost had made as a company.

YC definitely helps with fundraising--it's a strong signal of social proof and it can generate a sense of urgency in investors--but growth metrics and traction are usually the most important things.
My first year or two of university were somewhat similar, with periods of significant loneliness, which I can now, many years later, compare to grief in its intensity and debilitating effect (knowing full well that my recollections of those affects is hazy at best).

Part of this was the feeling of isolation caused by being in a new place without the "support network" I had in high school.

"Putting myself out there" didn't help much (I was involved in several groups, including drama productions, where one literally puts one's self out there).

What helped immensely were one or two intimate relationships, in one case a summer romance (yeah, I know how cliché that sounds) between second and third year and in the other a sometimes rocky and difficult two year relationship over my last two years (fourth and fifth).

Thinking about these relationships Vs friendships Vs acquaintancies prompts me to speculate that there is a strong positive correlation between the amount of time one spends with another person and one's sense of well being: Acquaintances were little blips of goodness that drained away quickly when the other left (minutes, say?), the feeling of goodness from being with a friend could last hours or even a day or two, but with highs and lows, but living together had me feeling good about myself all the time, even after a bad fight, with amount of time spent with the person directly related to the depth of the relationship: You don't spend as much time with your acquaintances, even if you want to, because they have other acquaintances and friends and lovers, and they want to spend time with them; you spend more time with friends, because you are their friend too; and you spend so much more time with lovers because that is the choice you have both made.

In 20/20 hindsight, I am quite glad we didn't have the Internet (it would one year after leaving U that I learned to spell TCP/IP and another year before I got my first email address) and that phones calls were so expensive: If I had had "anchors" elsewhere that I could easily reach and hold on to, I don't know that I would have stayed where I was.

As it was, I had to "bear down" and "barrel through" until better times came by. Sure, a different path could have led to just as good a life, but I'd hate to travel back and take that chance: Things are good, very good.
It exceeds my mathematical knowledge, and I gave up trying to read it. My inference was "use of some kind of transformed space when modelling distribution" but the benefit/result versus a direct analysis was absolutely a mystery.

I would still love an explanation of the practical benefits of its use (preferably without the use of numbers or formulae) and IMHO this is what Wikipedia should present. If anyone here is are able to write that description, please do.
Coinbase uses bitstamp under the hood. It's just a mapping of bitstamp to the north american market.
Oops, sorry. I actually don't have direct experience with them.

I personally only use coinbase and btc-e. Other random folks I see online[1] seem pleased with bitstamp and I've never heard anything bad from coworkers who are into bitcoin that I talk to. My point-of-view on these bitcoin exchanges is pretty much they're all great unless you can find an overwhelming amount of negative opinions about them... or they're brand new with no history to judge them on.

1. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1m2upn/going_to_sta...
No, very few hosts drop them because it costs time and money to do BGP38.

I have tested 5+ major hosts spoofing packets to a remote destination and they all allowed spoofing except OVH.
I think Disney has an office in the Burbank area. Co-worker has mentioned he used to contract for them in that area.
Thats true but I don't think that is as important for the point I am making, but sure.
I think gleenn is talking about the abstraction known as "upsert". Namely, there exists some syntax for expressing "either insert if it doesn't exist or update if it does exist; determine existence by primary key."

This process can be achieved in Postgres, but I'm not aware of any simple abstraction for it. But I could be wrong. Does there exist a stored procedure that can be generalized to the point of upsert abstractions in other relational databases? (In this thread, I see a stored procedure for a specific table/set of columns.)
C) Steve
This false dichotomy is seriously getting annoying. If 60 hours is sustainable for you, do it. If only 30 hours is sustainable for you, do that instead.

Two different things are frustrating about this simple homily.

* It's very easy to fool yourself into thinking you can handle things you can't, especially with peer pressure, job pressure and so-forth involved. By the time your health is ruined, your marriage is ruined and etc, it's too late to just say "uh, that didn't work for me". IE, for every "unique physiology", there twenty self-deceivers. I mean, what are the odds? Next, tell me you have "unique physiology" that gets healthier on Cheetos and Ramen (not impossible so it must be true, right).

* The poor result of a permanent 60-hour week aren't just felt by those who make the mistake of following it but by their families and their co-workers.

Sure, freedom. I mean, this article obviously isn't about physically blocking someone from working 60 hours at their workplace but rather encouraging the person to think again whether those 60 hours really make sense.
Very disturbing turn of events

> Last October, Prime Minister David Cameron condemned Facebook's decision to allow videos showing people being decapitated back on its pages.
> He said it was "irresponsible" of the social network.

Watching videos of LiveLeak of people being executed by all the sides in Syria, Iraq, Chechnya, Lybia, Afghanistan has taught me more about those conflicts than the BBC, CNN etc. The narco Cartels releasing videos of their hideous torture and murder has totally changed my mind about the cocaine trade.

The truth is liberating. Cameron is unwittingly turning himself into the King Canute of myth, trying to prove that he can turn off the tide of truth. Canute was trying to demonstrate the powerlessness of kings. Cameron thinks he has power. He will get wet feet just the same.
I agree with you on the JS front. Looking at you Yahoo mail -> and the user menu.
Going the opposite direction, I'm working 80% (32 hour weeks) by choice and it's awesome. I have so much more time for other interests and family and it's much less stressful. Of course I only get paid 80%, but that works for me.

I'm doing this at a major computer company and my management is supportive. Nonetheless, it took months of discussion and needed to get approved by the VP. And it's probably hurting my "career path".

Culturally, I find people don't understand working less than 100%. You have Friday off? Is that vacation? Is that a partial layoff? (I'm male, and in the US for context.)

Overall, it would be nice if working less than 40 hours were an option for more people.
> you'll only see invisible text for a maximum of 3 seconds

"Even a few seconds' delay is enough to create an unpleasant user experience. Users are no longer in control, and they're consciously annoyed by having to wait for the computer. Thus, with repeated short delays, users will give up unless they're extremely committed to completing the task. The result? You can easily lose half your sales (to those less-committed customers) simply because your site is a few seconds too slow for each page."[1]

[1] http://www.nngroup.com/articles/website-response-times/
What makes the iPhone real in this case is that its chips are running the code, whereas the simulator runs code that does not control actual chips, and functions as though it did as emergent behavior. The calls in the code running in the simulator don't actually touch the hardware they're coded to touch, they are not subject to actual hardware behavior. That's all.

It's not a distinction without a difference. Javascript does not run on the CPU, Firefox does. If you recreate Firefox in javascript (i.e. a whole slow VM) then it is still a simulation of a computer running Firefox. The physical computer is not actually executing the C++ instructions that Firefox is coded with.

It is quite easy to see this level of abstraction difference.

The question is, am I existing in a physical sense with my atoms being 'the metal' or are there some more fundamental laws that are used to 'interpret' (at a higher level) the laws of our universe, without being bound by them, and are only interpreting the movement of my atoms.

This is quite an easy question to understand and don't see why it poses such a metaphysical conundrum to you.

If we are in a simulator, all that means is that there are more fundamental rules that are being used to create our universe at a higher logical level as an emergent property.

(The way a VM that is done in Javascript does: http://bellard.org/jslinux/).

The question is, is our code running at the lowest level, or is some other code running at the lowest level but simulating our laws as an emergent property? (a la linux in javascript).
The title should be: Why javascript programmers hate statically typed languages, because they are less flexible than dynamically typed languages. I honestly thought the talk was boring, nothing new.
> An important aspect of the incompleteness theorems, relevant to the present topic, is that one cannot deterministically locate those particular true claims that cannot be proven true, to which the theorems apply. If this were not so, it would undermine the very notion of indeterminacy.

Right, I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we cannot prove any true claims. Unless I misunderstand, it just means that true claims whose proof we do not know cannot be distinguished from true claims whose proof does not exist. We can search for proofs to both, and sometimes we will find a proof, and sometimes we won't. But not finding a proof doesn't mean that the claim is a Gödel sentence, it could also mean that we just didn't look hard enough.

Also: I should really... proof read my posts better. "too hard about apply..." I cringe at the fact that my carelessness will be preserved for posterity.
Most Disney Studios/Interactive people are in the Burbank/Glendale area. I agree it'd be smart to offer everyone some co-working space in Santa Monica.
You can't directly contact VCs unless they already know you, you need an introduction from someone on their radar. Notice the company in the article refers to meetings via introductions as "outbound."

VC's will at least meet with most companies if they play their game. Think of the introduction game as a captcha on the company level.
I think there's more than meets the eye here.

The OP didn't receive the drivers from WU. Instead he downloaded them from Wacom, suggesting they're not Windows Hardware Certification Program certified. And that's probably because amongst other things, the driver set is reporting touch inputs where there are none, perhaps for some specialized Wacom case/use. Had these been certified, I believe the OP would have received slightly more useful mouse-specific tips.
Somewhat interesting..

The productivity studies of Navy military groups on ships is moving them away from 60+ hour weeks to 40 hour work weeks.

They are finding that it hampers alertness/awareness
In light of http://www.dallasobserver.com/2014-02-13/news/the-facebook-c... and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7230256 and the credence the legal system apparently gave to Facebook, I suspect it's very important for your children to have Facebook accounts, lest someone create one in their name and destroy their lives
To oversimplify a fair bit, when the vast majority of people who have spend years studying a subject and have the respect of the other people doing the same agree that's "consensus". There are plenty of subjects that do not have a consensus opinion, plenty of times a consensus fractures into multiple camps, etc.

Who's an expert? Anyone who can convince other experts they are also an expert in a culture that glorifies reason and evidence and where the most status can be gained by disagreeing with everyone and then convincing them you were right all along.

You definitely seem to want an algorithm for this kind of thing, but there isn't one. It's an exercise in applied philosophy involving building an artificial culture made up of irrational human beings. It's incredibly problematic from your perspective I suppose. People are inherently problematic from that perspective, as is dealing with the unknown. From my perspective I'll take it until there is something better, because right now this is the way to get the best chance of being right about any subject.

If some cell biologist came in here and told HN that GOTO's were the only control structure you needed for programming, although he had never programmed anything but that doesn't matter because he's smart and he reads about programming a lot, people would tell him he's wrong and that this is pretty well established and universally agreed upon. If he responded with "What did you guys do? Vote on it? Who gets to vote?" you would see that there is a pretty big disconnect between reality and how this biologist thought the culture worked.
60 hours a week is a big much, but if you're working on your own company then I have no problem with it. Working on your own stuff, for your own benefit, is a totally different thing than working for someone else. If you're doing 60 hours a week to make someone else rich, you're most certainly doing it wrong.
Pretty good insurance company to be able to offer a smaller premium when they have to cover the exact same costs on average when they have 10x the overheads of a company that pays lump sums.

Not to mention you are by necessity limited by the hospital and doctors on the insurance companies approved docs list. No thanks; they don't have my interests at heart.

Not to mention the very real incentive for such an insurance company to stop paying for "problem" clients with long ongoing illnesses.
Is there a valuation cap on the convertible note?
If you have a Forbes account, you've been pwned
> a web without typography freedom is not a web I want, or would value.

You wouldn't value a web without typographic freedom? That sounds pretty extreme. Are you a designer for whom the web is canvas, rather than a non-designer for whom the web is primarily a source of information?

I've been using the web for twenty years, and typographic freedom is fairly low on my list of priorities. But I'm not a designer.
I had the pleasure of attending a lecture last year given by Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J.[1], held at the Catholic Student Center next door to Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.

The lecture was a shortened presentation of the ideas explained in his recent book New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy[2].

Fr. Spitzer has recorded a number of videos presenting the same or related ideas, which are freely available online[3].

For background on the "Abrahamic" concepts, from a Christian perspective, there is a fine article[4] in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. As it was authored circa 1913, it doesn't take into consideration developments in modern physical cosmology or quantum mechanics, but is still a good resource.

A friend of mine told me about another author, Wolfgang Smith[5], who holds that the conundrums involved in quantum mechanics are owing to "Cartesian hangups", and goes on to argue that an ontology and metaphysics grounded in Aristotle provide a kind of solution. He published a book[6] to promote those ideas, but I've not read it myself so can't comment further.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(priest)

[2] http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions...

[3] http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/spitzer_videos.html

[4] http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Creation

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Smith

[6] http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Finding-Hidden-Key/dp/0...
Rumor, Denied: Microsoft’s Xbox Division May be Purchased by Amazon
Imagem do Dia: Residência Estudantil Construída com Contentores
I do have to concede on this.
Naive questions are often the best questions. You'd be smart not to let go of that one.

The terms "object" and "object-oriented" mean so many different things that it's hard for any discussion not to run aground on semantics. But I'll chip in with this anyway: in my experience, you don't need OOP, and it's a particularly obscuring influence in JavaScript. Certainly you should not take for granted that OOP reduces complexity, but rather ask yourself in the context of particular programs how true that really is. (Games may be a special case, since they're closer to the simulation-of-an-external-system paradigm that is the sweet spot for OOP.)

In my view, the fundamental problem with OOP may be premature encapsulation. Once the core concepts of a program have gotten clear enough to be very well-defined, it makes sense to put them in the kiln and bake them. The rest of the code can then just use an interface and care nothing about the details. But as long as the core concepts and their relationships are still in the process of being discovered, which is actually the default case for most programming, what you need most is malleability. The OO infrastructure of encapsulation impedes that. This manifests as unclear classes with unclear names and unclear dependencies between them. Such a program is harder to work with than a loose collection of functions would be. And the fact that JS wasn't designed to be used this way makes its effects worse in JS.
>Stuff our ancestors used to do is likely to be neutral or good for you, due to the way evolution works.

That's not true when it comes to age related diseases like cancer or heart disease. Through most of mankind's evolution these diseases did not affect our procreation rate at all.

Evolution optimizes for procreation not for longevity. It is very likely that an ample supply of burgers, fries and fat cheese (especially during winter) would have led to higher birth rates not lower ones.

It could well be that much of our ancestors' lifestyle is poison for anyone over 50.
Interesting article, but I can't help feeling that for the author the feeling of loneliness is a symptom of something underlying. Which makes the loneliness itself much less interesting.

The reason I say this is, because it affects reaction and treatment. If someone complains of persistent leg pain, you don't delve too deeply into the nature of the pain and whether society is sufficiently kind to leg-pain-sufferers, if it turns out their leg is caught in a bear trap.

The Stephen Fry quote makes that particularly clear. If a well-loved public figure, by his own admission possessed of good friends and many social engagements, can feel tremendously lonely - and if the post author, who can discuss feelings of tremendous loneliness with friends and counsellors yet still feel lonely, then it doesn't seem worthwhile discussing "public discourse on the cultural ramifications of technology" or "our growing dependence on technology to communicate" as the article does. Because the author, actually being in a state of depression, might well feel just as lonely if those things were totally different.
It's not just the 'Youtube thing' (as derisive as that sounds), it's that G+ has supplanted many services I used to use and enjoy. So now I have fewer services with constant nag screens prompting me to use something in which I have no interest.

So net result of the G+ 'experience' is that I lose services and have the quality of those that remain impaired.
I don't think relativity or quantum field theory undermine the idea that space and time are our forms of intuition. On the contrary, I feel it may be the first framework that really created a sensible space for those phenomena.

Kant's approach holds that our /intuition/ is limited by space and time and that "things in themselves" may in actuality be many different ways. We can only receive and understand things insofar as they exist or can be manifest in space/time. I think his theory very much leaves open that we can better grasp the properties of things by studying the way they appear in space/time and drawing inferences. His very point is that space and time do not exist in themselves as far as we perceive them--they are merely the forms through which we are capable of receiving anything. And thus I would say he created a groundwork of thought that made room for relativity and quantum observations well before they were conceived--in fact, I imagine Kant's groundwork was important in our path to them.

[Edited for a slight bit more clarity]

[HN meta comment: it's really annoying that any given story that has a lot of upvotes and that is seemingly appropriate for HN can be flagged from the front page. Why spend time writing an insightful comment when any given story could be sent from the top of the front page to the middle of page 3 by the capricious action of a flagger or moderator, meaning no one will ever see the comment? Such unpredictability really discourages quality participation and encourages quick responses--why expend a lot of effort when the chance of anyone reading your work could evaporate so quickly and arbitrarily?]
Here's the last one. (Sorry for splitting over 3 posts but mobile really sucks.)

Unscented washing detergent, with scents that can be added at wash time. This would allow members of the same household to chose floral scents, or whisky and woodsmoke scents. (Perhaps not actually whisky and woodsmoke, but something not floral.)

The bottles of scent would be sized to not fit the bottle of detergent completely. This would act as some kind of lock in - people would have a bit of etergent and no scent or a bit of scent but no detergent. That would (I think) make them buy more product.
Hours-per-week is not the issue. The issue is the tradeoff between productivity-per-week (which is related to, but not identical to, hours-per-week) and how worthwhile the project is (in terms of what you'll sacrifice to achieve it).

So, if you're Jonas Salk working on a vaccine for polio, you're quite right to leave everything else in the dust and save people's lives (being highly worthwhile, sacrifices are made to get peak productivity).

If you're working for your ego, or for something ridiculous like letting people share pictures in a new way, or to silence some inner demons, then you may need to be a little more clear-eyed about the costs of your time investment.
Ideally, there's no "one" working on the product. This is the value of a non-technical cofounder - their job is to adeptly handle the logistics that guys like us find burdensome, minimizing distraction.

Whether (disproportional) funding focus is a problem in the valley depends on who you're talking to. There are a lot of people who view startups as a path to riches - for whom a good product is only means to an end - a good payday. There are others for whom good product is a passion, and money is mostly irrelevant.

The occam's razor explanation: stories about cash mountains have much wider appeal than those about niche product development - so more of those stories get written.
This is such a great development, and I fully support it. The more decentralization we can make, the more freedom we'll have. As long as they are standards based, not pay-to-play, and, open to everyone.
This doesn't count. Working 20 hours a week but still having to sit an an office 40 hours a week makes me pretty much as horribly depressed as putting in 40 hours of effort at the same office.
Topper – 3D infils for 3D printing