skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Here's another perspective.

I had that exact same attitude when I was 26 and single and had no pets. "I'm going to get awesome at embedded C++ programming, work my ass off in my 20s so I write world-changing software in my 30s and I can retire in my 40s." No pain, no gain, live at work, 80 hour days, all night caffeine and coding sessions. F-yea! I'm a varsity software jock training for the Career Olympics!

Almost 2 decades later, a family to take care of, a little fatter, a little less healthy, a lot more tired, I look back and what difference did it make? There are a bunch of gadgets out there with my software in it. Am I retired? No. Did I change the world? No. Did I invent the next Linux? No. At least for the companies I worked for, my tireless efforts made the shareholders a bit more money, but that's about it.

Look at it by the numbers. Suppose 1 out of every 10,000 jobs out there offer you the opportunity to reach whatever your goals are (ultra-wealth, change the world, create something awesome, whatever your goal is). I think 1 out of 10,000 is EXTREMELY generous given all those "opportunities" out there to build yet-another CRUD web app or yet another B2B IT portal or yet another crappy plastic consumer product. The career lifespan of a software engineer is (again generously) 40 years. If you're an extreme job hopper you can probably try something new once a year. So you have 40 at-bats.

So,

P(home run) = 0.0001

N = 40

P = 1 - (1-P(hr))^N = 1 - (1-0.0001)^40 ~0.4%

So the likelihood of you lucking into that one life-changing opportunity throughout your entire career as an engineer is minuscule. Unless you really think you can both identify the next Facebook before it happens and land a job there while they're tiny. A lot of people think they can do that. A lot of people also think they can pick stocks, predict horse races, or read tea leaves.

I'm not writing this to discourage you, but do understand that the extreme hours you are putting in now are a bet against enormous odds. Don't end up a jaded burnt out 40 year old engineer.
I just commented about this the other day in meat-space: The trouble with Google Plus is they control your identity through the email address (see Coding Horrors: worse is better). Whereas at LinkedIn you can change and/or add many email addresses. At Facebook, Twitter, HN, Reddit, Pintrest your account is not tied exclusively to your email address and unchangeable. I have several identities on google via different companies, they cannot be merged or managed.
Loneliness can't be addressed easily via social networks as you are not really authentic self when you are on them. When you are on Facebook, you want to project a positive image of yourself so you can get more Likes as a 'way to go'. On LinkedIn it is professional you and you have to be careful how you brand yourself there to be viewed by potential employers or customers. Twitter is not expansive enough to form meaningful connections though it can be done over time with a small group of people. The best way is still connecting in person seeing the person's face and body language. 'Find better people' is the advice to live by.
Don't use Thumnail Zoom. Check out a non snooping extension called "imagus"
Wasted £9.8b must be related to the state of the NHS, and so to the article, too.
Your incredible arrogance never ceases to amaze, I'll grant you that.

Most of the investors I googled were already specifically known to have been investors in easypost. This should not surprise you, most startup angels and seed investors do not hide their investments, and they are routinely named in press releases and media stories.

And I was obviously referring to what they want in this particular matter. Though I'm quite confident he knows more about what they want in general than you do, too, since you routinely show yourself to be horrendously out of touch with your fellow humans.
All right, finally got a nonempty archive. Looks like it's probably complete. Seems fairly legit. However, there is one thing that confuses me so far. Looks like a lot of links get a link_target attribute that is different from the actual link:

{
"type" : "LINK",
"text" : "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company",
"link_data" : {
"link_target" : "http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2%2F\
en.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F\
American_Letter_Mail_Company\
&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=[alphanumeric token scrubbed]",
"display_url" : "http://en.wikipedia.org\
/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company"
}
}

However, links to Youtube, or Google, or any subdomain of either, have a link_target attribute identical to their display_url. In-teresting. I wonder what that alphanumeric token is. It's like how Google search results also have, rather than normal links, links to google.com/url?[a ton of URL parameters]. I assume the latter is so they can gather data about what URLs are clicked in the search results, or possibly pasted elsewhere, and conceivably to discourage scraping. And as for this?

Perhaps it's a kludge for Google chat clients, which need to parse URLs (they do something special with Youtube links) and might be thus freed to do it stupidly. Perhaps Google wants to know what people do with their downloaded Hangout archives. Perhaps Google wants to know what people do with Hangout history in the browser, and they've changed the links in that archive, and then they just leave it that way in the exported format. --Turns out Hangout history in the browser has exactly those links... I'm guessing it's the last one. Well, at any rate, at least it's easy to ignore that field.
Correction: 1. Exclusive, ego-boosting sign-up process (.edu for facebook, beta invites for Gmail, etc.)
Gmail entered private beta on April 1, 2004.
[Citation needed]

I've gotten the following list of citations in the past, which suggest that the 40-60 hour regime is (aggregated over many workers) optimal for construction:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7089557

But I've never seen anything even remotely suggesting that an individual needs to be an "actual snowflake" in order to productively work more than 40 hours. Since you claim there are "numerous studies", please cite a few.
Part of me is becoming tired of "brain in a jar" lines of reasoning, because there can be no other side of the discussion by default. If there is, I'm a Citizen who would like to know more.
> Go, and even C++11, can now provide a lot of its benefits today, if not much earlier.

The main benefits of Rust are (a) bare metal performance with zero overhead with (b) memory safety, for security and developer happiness. Go lacks (a), with its mandatory runtime, garbage collection, and ecosystem based around a non-optimizing compiler, and C++ lacks (b), with its memory safety problems that are real, pervasive, and cannot be fixed without breaking backwards compatibility. What you said is only true if by "a lot of Rust's benefits" you mean "basically none of its benefits".

It sounds like you are unhappy with some of the user interface decisions in Firefox and are trying to use this story as a way to spin this out into some sort of narrative of Mozilla's decline and stagnation.
FF uses fallback. Chrome and other WebKit-based browsers, however, do not.
"This is quite insulting to G+ users" was the slightly fuller quote.

Read the whole sentence -- it's not a long one.
I disagree. Facebook connect, google+ sing on, sign on with Twitter, and username / password reuse all demonstrate the demand from 'normal' users for a SSO solution. There is also a distrust of these companies and the lock they have on your data so I believe there is room for an SSO solution that doesn't leak private info.

Unfortunately for Persona a simple, fast, convenient user experience is not optional and that is where Persona has failed. I also believe getting to a great UX will be difficult or impossible with the decentralized system currently behind persona.
Who says that's the "art of working" though? Why not "make as much money as possible while enjoying what you do" or "enjoy what you work on while making as much money as possible" or just "make as much money as possible no matter what" or "just enjoy my work as much as possible no matter how much money I make"?

I think the "art of working" is deciding what kind of work you want to do, how big a part of your life you want it to be, and then doing that.
The problem with Windows 8 on traditional PC form factors is it deliberately ignores ("blows up") the model that's been fixed over 20 years in users' heads and replaces it with a new model they've attempted to design from scratch from first principles. It's not that the new model is especially complex or badly designed on its own terms, it just clashes with the model people already have in their heads.

That is also why people often say the Windows 8 UI works well with touch, but is unusable with mouse and keyboard. The inherent usability characteristics are actually not hugely different between input methods, it's just that with touch there's not as much competition in people's heads from an entrenched existing model.
I wanted to update a record if it existed, otherwise use insert. So if a name is in the database, update the times I've seen it. If the name does not exist, insert. I was keeping track of the number of times a name is seen.
Me and my 99 G+ contacts resent that remark!
Sounds like persona should have just been a trusted oauth2 provider.
Mark Zuckerburg adds a new feature to Facebook. Users are furious.
Is the whole world welcome to apply? Couldn't find any mention on the FAQ.
I just want people to see that there are many paths to a fulfilling, excellent life. In this community, we have so many models of two of those paths--making FU money, or achieving technical mastery--and so few public models of other options, like the patient parent, the spouse to an emotionally-troubled partner, the upstanding community member, etc.

I understand that some people people who attempt one of these goals will fail through lack of effort, intelligence, or luck. But I want to help people not devote their lives to one of these goals just because they don't see the other options or know themselves well enough to see that they're working hard in the wrong direction. I don't judge or disagree with anyone's informed choice, but you can't be informed if you only see two models of success and not other roads to a happy life.

I just thought I'd post a public reminder, and hope a few people find it useful.

(Edited: pretty sure it was clear what I meant, alexeisadeski3, but made it even clearer.)
Yes, almost same opinion. I've got feeling about unity people are really trying to step forward linux desktop UI. Not just copy and paste then edit something.

- remove cascade style start menu.
- quick search interface for application, files.
- well organized keyboard shortcuts and inline shortcut help
- make free vertical space as possible as
- it's simple. users only need to understand windows key, left launcher.

Yes, It was buggy and slow at the first time. Maybe Canonical had pushed so much earlier. But it's now working well and really usable.
"Not a net good in this medium" is exactly the right way to look at this. In a more robust environment, your (IMO) true and well-intentioned original comment would not have been a problem.
I think you are mixing up a correlation vs causation effect.

The first thing is there is an extremely important causation effect, the more investors you have, the easier it is to get more people to invest (social proof).

So, inbound vs outbound:

If you have a lot more investors already committed, you have a lot more social proof. Naturally if you have more investors, you will have a lot investors talking about your deal to other investors. Thus, the people who contact you inbound want to invest. However, it has nothing to do with the fact that they are inbound, it is just that by the time they are contacting you, your fundraising already was dripping with social proof.

Conversely, at the beginning when you have no investors, you likely are going to have to contact some of them. This is obviously going to have a much lower conversion rate, because you have no social proof!

Taken to the logical extreme, if inbound investors are so much more valuable than outbound, when you start fundraising you should just sit next to your telephone and wait for investors to call you. But of course that won't work, because it isn't inbound investors that actually matter. It is all about building social proof, and then once you have that, a lot of good things are going to happen. For example, YC is very powerful indication of social proof, and look how much easier fundraising became!

Basically, people who read this TC article: if you are interested in fundraising, PG wrote the canonical piece about it, http://paulgraham.com/fr.html

This post is fun, and I congratulate you on raising your round, but this data isn't predictive or useful.
Settings is the place for configuration and management of your computer (and the current app). Shutdown/restart is a management function so it goes in Settings.
the best of any social network in one word PHOTOS. Google+ photos is the killer feature. Try it. It backs up all your photos you have great editor for your pictures and then there is auto awesome.
even hunter-gatherers ate mostly roots and tubers and nuts.
The list sounds more predictive than descriptive.
> Global warming or not, no one can argue with the fact that air quality in large cities in US, India, and China is atrocious.

You can argue with that for the US. "atrocious" compared to what? It's certainly a lot better than it used to be.

> And that pollution is 100% man made, no argument about that.

Not 100%, no. Some of our pollution is nature-made. Los Angeles was smoggy before there were any cars there - the Chumash indian tribe called Los Angeles basin "the valley of smoke". It has environmental conditions conducive to collecting particulates in the air - even pollen and dust and wood smoke from natural fires will collect and form a lingering haze there.
You might be an over-generalizing, OCD-obessed quant who is often wrong as No True Scotsman ever is.
I've bought around 4BTC across the last 2 years and they've always worked fine.

Their communication throughout the recent suspension of BTC withdrawals hasn't been the best, but I still consider them a pretty good service provider.

The up and coming new exchange Kraken.com looks very impressive. I've only been using it for about a week but their sites seems more professional than average, with two-factor auth, GPG-encrypted emails, and sensible and proportionate account verification steps. They also did not need to suspend their withdrawals which suggests that their wallet implementation is superior to what both MtGox and Bitstamp had prior to this week.

The major downside of Kraken is that their volume is still tiny.

I have also heard reports that they don't give clear indications of which territories they are allowed to trade with, so some people have signed up only to find they are not allowed to actually use the service, because of the country they live in.

I am from UK and have had no such issues. It is a shame that Kraken can't inform people up-front about that though.
A page being blank while the fonts are downloading is a browser bug. The user's default font should be displayed in the meanwhile, just like (I hope) it would be if the font link was broken.
To me the biggest problem is very complex websites that start downloading content after the page loads. For example, Facebook. Page loads, get displayed and only then it starts loading content, ads, navigation, etc. The second problem is super-slow scrolling. Only my new i7 laptop with 16gb of RAM can open Facebook smoothly.
BITCOIN: A flawed currency blueprint with a useful application for the Eurozone
Went on long vacation. lost all logins
Went on long vacation and guess what treat was in store? Got locked out of gmail account, locked out of yahoo accounts. locked out of facebook. So now I can only communicate through skype and with a new email address I set up. Pretty much everything else is locked out because the IP is different and I forgot the security questions. I just assumed that knowing the password would be good enough. What a joke and another example of the crappy society we live in. We become dependent on these technologies and then we get locked out of them.
The minimum evidence that we are in fact in a simulation would be observing a violation of physics.

Until then, all is speculation.
Thanks for writing this. It was informative.

How much of the company do you and your team own after all these angel VC's?
You hit the nail on the head here. I'd add that if part of persona's success is tied to getting email providers to adopt it by becoming an IdP then it's likely a flawed model. Why would google support/promote something that competes with Google+ sign up bit offers a poorer ux and robs th of the data they crave?
Python has proven that a successful dynamic language should have duck-typing, via what called late-binding.

"Python did that?" asks the Smalltalker.
I'm not a fan of Paul Graham, but is Y Combinator worth it? Absolutely. It'd be worth it to give up 30 percent of your business to get into The Club, much less then 6-10% YC reportedly takes.

Y Combinator is a brilliant idea. Paul Graham was something that would be a rarity now, and probably always has been-- a smart, good, straight-shooter who made it big. That made him a really attractive personality, especially to the young, and the fact that he's a good writer didn't hurt either.

YC enabled him to turn that reputation into gold: because the benefit of a startup being YC-approved turned out to be so vast, he can get an early percentage at a low valuation. To be clear about it, his startups benefit as much as he does. He's not screwing them over in any way.

This is probably why I have to deal with the rankban/slowban treatment. I'm a thread. I'm a smart, good guy, and not a bad writer either, who did the startup thing (twice) and found it utterly worthless. (I'm PG's Antichrist.) There are hundreds like me, in fact, but most people who fail at something slink away in shame, like it was their fault even if the game was totally rigged. Not me. I have to go back and warn the others, no matter how much I am to be punished for the service.

Is Y Combinator worth it? Hell yeah. I'd argue, at this point, that it's not worth it to take on the Valley if you're not backed by YC. The pipeline has been established, the game is over, the land has been mapped and the good gold mines are known. Whatever is the mid-21st-century's engine of innovation, it will be far the fuck away from SillyCon Valley. In the mean time, VC-funded startups are the new I-banking and if you can get the acceleration that comes from the YC stamp of approval, you should absolutely do it. That's not how I would like the world to be; but that's how it is.

It's a shame, though, that this subsociety (Silicon Valley) that claims to be advanced and futuristic is still, in truth, a feudalistic reputation economy in which who you know matters a hundred times more than what you know. ("What you know" only matters in terms of the savoir-faire needed to acquire backers.) It's not about technical excellence any more and hasn't been for some time.
Yes https://twitter.com/disneyaccel/status/434040445593608192
that doesn't really make any sense though
You're confusing a whois service with DNS. They are not the same thing. Whois is giving you back results that match your query because they also contain the string "facebook.com"
To take that point further, not only may their computers be nothing like our computers, the whole point of the article is that our natural laws and the basis of our mathematics is part of the simulation. That implies that the host (to borrow virtualization jargon) world's computers may work according to rules nothing like our own. Certainly you can't make statements like quantum effects between particles would otherwise require an infinite amount of memory. You can't make any statements about the host world, any more than we can make statements about the nature of a god, if one existed.
It's the same question, just dressed in scientific language.

We could write a program that detects if it's running on a real or emulated iPhone, but that's because we know both those environments from the outside.

I think Boström poses interesting questions, but I don't believe it's possible to make an experiment to test this from the inside.
Could we please consider not implementing something completely new, but fixing TLS client certificate auth, finally making it usable? Every browser out there supports this already, but UX is horrendous. All what was relatively polished over the years was the presentation of server certificate when you click on lock icon in location bar. The rest (selection of client certificate, generation of a new one, viewing a backing up of installed ones) remains needlessly scary to use by ordinary humans, so it can't be used except if we know users are quite tech-savvy.

Instead of bringing a new technology with known downsides (like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7219034) we could give a second life to a known and provably working one. Doing so we could promote security (HTTPS), anonymity (not giving email address by default, unless one's provided with a signed certificate, chosen by user's decision) and independence from any service providers (including email and domain registrars) at the same time.

(Added after an hour) To illustrate my point: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fn4nuwszt5buuzd/tls_auth_ui.png (mad design skills and windows 8, sorry for both; wording is not changed but I suppose it needs improvements, too)
What seems to be misunderstood is that working more than 40 hours per week isn't the problem. It's what and where one is working and how much they value their time. I regularly work and study well over 50+ hours per week but not all of it is on my primary job. I also work on personal projects, small side jobs, learning new skills, etc. This whole concept is like the conversation a few years ago about the 5 o'clock developer. Our profession demands a great deal of time and dedication but that doesn't mean you have to subordinate your life to your employer. ---- For the people who think that chaining yourself to working 80+ hours to an employer is good, you need to step back and ask what do you think you're going to own after you finally burnout? Might setting up boundaries and investing in your own projects and external skills leave you with something you can own and take pride in or are you going to have to leave everything you've built behind and have no ownership when it's all said and done? I've been down that path and regret it. Learn to value your own time and invest that extra energy and time in building something for yourself.
> To be fair to the poster you're replying to, he did mention reading Thinking Fast & Slow which is by the nobel prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman.

When I read this, I realized something was wrong. Psychology isn't a science, and scientific Nobel prizes are awarded for scientific breakthroughs. So I looked it up and discovered that the psychologist Kahneman won the Economics Nobel, which makes more sense (economics isn't very scientific, but it's certainly more scientific than psychology).

A quick search reveals that a psychologist has never won a science Nobel for psychological work. As in the above example, the notable work of some psychologists is recognized by awarding a Nobel in a more scientific field, to avoid polluting the Nobel's reputation and opening the door to awards in any number of other pseudoscientific fields.
You happen to work in an industry where working weekends and overtime is the exception. That's not always the case.
i'm 12 and what is this?