skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
To provide another opinion: Apple does this to, .mac, .me & icloud oh my don't forget about the iTunes account now.

In case you are wondering I switched my household, parents and several friends to apple products since 2002 because it was easier to provide help.

I sometimes wish there was a magic button I could push to merge everything into a unified single sign on for <insert company name here>'s products. It took a while but Google did it in a weird way that didn't make me very happy either.
I disagree with this counter-proposal.

It's arbitrary, counter to free market dynamics, against the constitution for citizens [1], pays specific privilege to one state/region.

While they are at it while don't they just stipulate that approved applicants should pay johnrob's rent? (No offense, just trying to point out the arbitrariness of your counter-proposal)

I appreciate that there are some depressing social forces in Silicon Valley, but this is extremely special interest in the greater scheme of things.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unite...
1) You can't just allocate the startups in arbitrary locations and get the same result -- being in SV changes the outcome. (I've tried to start companies elsewhere.)

2) People benefit from Google, Facebook, Airbnb, etc., even if they're not in SV. The immediate job creation is a tiny fraction of the wealth created by startups. It doesn't matter where Bell Labs was located; it just matters that they did what they did. Similarly, we should just focus on creating more Googles, not on which state's payroll taxes get the immediate boost.
Sheesh, it made sense 5 hours ago!
If the demo on the front page isn't working for you and you have HTTPS Everywhere installed, disabling it temporarily seems to work.
Well, then, don't use the word "proof" outside pure math and logic. Everyone agrees that "proof" means to render something beyond (reasonable) doubt, so it's not a problem of ambiguous definition, just incorrect usage.
There seems to be a big horrible cycle here. I attended VMWorld last year in San Francisco and was shocked by how many booths were staffed by attractive women who where just hired as like, temps or something. They were aggressively friendly and seemed to have the single task of getting my contact information as a sales lead. Their knowledge of the products was generally no deeper than what was printed on the promotional fliers. I probably did tend to ignore women after a few interactions. So, I'm the kind of person you're complaining about, yet I don't like the situation either. Perhaps "booth babes" are part of a successful sales strategy and I'm an outlier. However, its possible that trade show sleaze is just a pattern propelled forward by inertia. Either way, we should speak out against it.

It did occur to me that a correcting mechanism for trade shows would be a gender balance in attendees. Maybe you're working different type of trade shows, but that was my recent experience.
I'm not sure I understand how he figures that this scenario would keep him from finding work. Who wouldn't want to hire the creator of friggin' bitcoin?
Sam Altman's assumption is that the US government reasonable. :)
"What has DARPA done for me lately?"

How about the internet?

If that's too last-century for you, you can look forward to the benefits of DARPA funding the development of the basic tech and Open Source software that's driving the rapid development of robots right now.
The way you explained it, it seems you're blaming the VCs for something that was government's fault (it was the government's decision to cancel the old visas, instead of keeping them in parallel with the new one).
I agree with you to a point, devs would benefit with understanding "the other side of the house" and that sales, marketing, and administration are all important aspects of building a healthy business.

We have different roles to play in the success of an organization; at different times each role has different values, but as people we're all valuable.

Of course your side of the house is always out of the office by 5p =)
spot on. his way of putting it that simplicity is objective and ease subjective really nails it. most people say simple and mean easy.
>“The headline should not read that the City Council capped anything,” Harrell said. “It should read that it allowed the ride-shares to come into the industry.”

Why?
> OK, first, leave children out of this discussion. That's a play on emotions

I'm not meaning to play emotions; however, I don't think you can just write it off: if all drugs were legalized, you would see use among youth increase (just as you would likely see an increase in any other subset of the population).

> If you choose to put something in your body, that's a choice, you were not victimized by anyone.

For me, very physiologically addictive substances are a different category: in that case, you have somebody with full knowledge of the danger and addictiveness of the drug knowingly enticing others to start using it with the end goal of causing them to become addicted and making a lot of money off of them. I see that as a very low form of extortion.

I will not try meth because, despite whatever curiosity I have about the drug's effects, I know I am probably not capable of willing my way out of a very real physical addiction. Somebody less educated and rational is much more likely to say, "Sure, I'll try it once", and go downhill from there. For me, that person is being victimized. Sure, they made the decision, but it was an uninformed one.

Now, I have no idea how to solve that problem. I think that the US's ridiculous drug policy probably ruins more lives than the drugs would if they were legal. But whenever I think about blanket legalization, I can't escape feeling uneasy about the above.
You lost me at the broken-window fallacy. If you want to give people handouts, call them handouts. Don't give them a bunch of bullshit to do and pretend it's constructive.
Raising the chances of is not at all the same as happened. Excessive speeding can be a civil violation punishable by fines, not jail. Civil infraction != crime.

> If there was a statistical link between a drug and increasing the chance of the user committing violence would you still consider drugs victimless

Yes I would. Consuming drugs never creates a victim, that is an indisputable fact, you cannot victimize yourself. If you commit violence against another person, that's already illegal and already punishable and is a crime regardless of why you did it.

Drug use is not drug abuse and we don't need pre-crime in our world. Punish people who actually do the bad things, not those who might do something bad, otherwise we should start locking up all poor people because they might statistically commit more crimes than the rich. This is a dangerous line of thinking.
The "Immigrant Investor" EB-5 visa already works a bit like this. "Targeted Employment Area" investments have half the normal capital requirement.

http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers...
> Like alcohol? Should we make it illegal again to protect its victims?

It is very possible to use alcohol recreationally without becoming physically dependent on it.

You can't say the same for drugs like heroin or meth.
What's interesting about Haskell in this regard is due to the pure functional nature, the Church-Rosser theorem applies...every function call could be executed in its own thread without protecting any resources with locks/mutexes/etc! I haven't studied the compiler design of Haskell, do you know if the compiler can delegate function calls to a thread pool automatically?
GitHub female engineer exits, blow up raises issue of Silicon Valley sexism
I don't see how you can talk about "inspection" without some sort of intentionality, which the machines don't have.

Digital systems in particular transport copies of bits, and the process by which the copies are made is "inspection" as surely as anything else is; the useful function of the system depends on correct interpretation of the payload bits as much as it does on any of the other bits.

It is your revision from "exposure" to "inspection" that I feel is hair-splitting. It's not even a distinction without a difference. It's a distinction applied to a machine but based on human assumptions about intent. It's anthropomorphizing.

I don't buy the legal justification for the collection of metadata that you describe, and I think that a really honest, thorough application of that line of reasoning would lead us to conclude that no electronically assisted communications have "an expectation of privacy."

I guess that's where we find ourselves, though.
No, ICANN is legitimized fraud. You can be 90-day overdue with utilities and you pay a relatively small fee. Phone companies don't give your phone number to your competitor or auction it. This is ridiculous! If the annual fee is $10-15, one shouldn't charge $150 a redemption (i.e. extortion fee)!
Is this the first year Nate and his team have modeled the NCAA Tournament? I'd be curious to know if they applied a similar statistical approach last year and, if so, how that model faired against the actual tournament results.
That's the first thing I thought of!

For the lazy, the linked paper (which is very famous) shows a significant jump in hiring women after orchestras started conducting blind auditions.
The part of this that really worries me is that would-be founders, after making their pitch, are now waiting to find out if the investors have bestowed the right to live and work in the US upon them.

I understand that it is complicated. The US only takes about 1.2 million immigrants legally into the country every year, and because of our emphasis on family reunification, this means that startup founders may not get one of the spots.

If you make this about whether these folks should be allowed into the US, the answer (yes) is pretty simple, which is why some people think it is a simple question.

If you make this about whether a wealthy investor is now not only empowered not only to decide who gets money, but also who gets citizenship, it isn't nearly as obvious an answer. I would hope that people find the idea unsettling, no matter how high their regard is for the investors asking for this new power.
It would also be a drop in spurious complaints which have no merit. If there is recorded evidence, and the potential complainant knows that exists, then they are less likely to make things up.

Many of the people who deal with police on a frequent basis are skilled liars. They know how to stymie investigations by tying the officers up in paperwork. Having video evidence would prevent spurious complaints.
>My thought is that it's not because they mean to be rude. It's because they pattern match. I've noticed when folks see the same pattern over and over it's difficult to see outside it.

Awful lot of words you used to avoid typing "sexism". Hide behind whatever phrasing you prefer, but automatically assigning a person gender roles out of intellectual laziness embodies sexism.
A browser that paints the sky
And now yours. And nothing else.

Is it "not quite as good as Haskell but maybe it's alright language"?
> a) Most adventurous student entrepreneurs don't really MUST need a founder visa, they can use OPT. I think founders of Stripe did that.

OPT is an extension of the F1 student visa, and only lasts for 12 months (29 with the STEM extension). In addition, it's a "non-immigration visa", which means that you can't apply for a green card with it (in fact, the whole idea of the visa is that you go back to your own country after you're done).

Also, if you're on OPT and your F1 expires, you might not be able to get it renewed, because your studies have ended (from what I've read, but not sure; can anyone confirm this?), which means you're stuck in the US (if you leave, you're not getting back in).
> It would also be a drop in spurious complaints which have no merit.

Fair point. However, I was a cop, and I know better than to trust cops.
AIUI (as a layman), a "process" should refer to a physical process for transforming a physical product. Thus, an algorithm is not a process. I've read arguments that software is a "process" because it changes the physical state of transistors and magnetic particles within a physical computer, but I don't find that argument even slightly convincing.
FFT algorithms were not patented, but imagine what a shame it would be if they were.

Sadly: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fft+patent
Firmware attacks on routers, printers, and phones
Since everybody seems to be contributing ideas...I think immigration visas should be awarded on a point based system similar to what it is done in countries that are actively trying to attract immigrants. Education, Family ties, employment history, language, health, financial resources, etc. The current system looks at only one aspect exclusive of the rest.
Use a throw-away GVoice account?
And that VCs are reasonable.
It could be height (I used to do that as a kid).
It was too much work to write all that stuff up.

But Dave could have just given him severance instead. "Here's a week's pay, go away." It seemed that Roy was there for several weeks, so one more week to make Roy go away forever is money well spent.
How can it turn to south east to Australia if it was on autopilot?
Uh, that's not a crash. That's a sign you need to either do your spring cleaning better, or take it to your IT guy and find out what's hanging.

My first guess: your disk is nearly full. This will choke any machine.
What are the qualifications for such a visa? Would this be for founders who have already secured funding (and thus their own salary)?
"Blame" is the wrong way to think about any major policy decision. Instead, you want to think of the effects of the new policy - whether or not anyone intends to do harm (most people don't), will harm result? The grandparent poster's experience with a similar policy in Canada is very relevant there. I don't personally have a position about founder visas - I'm a U.S. citizen, so they don't affect me - but I do think that having all the arguments for and against, particularly concerning unintended consequences, is pretty important.
Yes, my point is that if you try to operate on memory from another thread's stack, it is equally unsafe as operating on memory from the heap you received from another thread. The allocation method is irrelevant to whether it is safe. What is important is whether it is being accessed concurrently.
I think it intentionally started with things that people would tend to implement slightly incorrectly (rather than reaching for a 3rd party library).
What is reality? Anyone?
Could a weird sort of setup be created where YCombinator "hired" entrepreneurs and then gave them traditional work visas? I'm not really familiar with the specifics of how visas work, but I would think it would be possible to construct a situation such that the desired founders would be eligible.
On Github and Speaking Out
this reminds me of tic tac toe ten, where the game is a meta game of itself:

http://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2013/06/16/ultimate-tic-tac-t...
Interesting info! Thanks for sharing!
I really wish there was an easier way to be allowed to work and live in the US as an entrepreneur. I completed both my Bachelor and Master degrees in the US (both as valedictorian) and work as an independent app developer. I have a vacation home and cars in the US but would love to stay there full time. Right now my best bet is looking like EB-5 unless I can get in on either EB-1 or EB-2. I wish they had some sort of VISA that let you freelance in the US/stay self employed as long as you met some sort of income or minimum tax requirements (for example your minimum taxable income must be $150k+/year).
If your employees are fighting at work because of their relationship you have bad employees. Attempting to forbid all office relationships is not an appropriate response.
FFT algorithms were not patented and were not kept secret for lack of a patent. Supposing that FFTs may have been kept secret for lack of patents is absurd because we already know what happened with FFTs without patents. Even if they had been kept secret, FFTs would have been reinvented at minimal cost to society. Had IBM patented them, society would have been fucked out of them for two decades.

FFT, and things like it, are exactly the sort of software that should not be patented. Patent your minimal-clicking checkout process or bouncy kinetic scrolling all you want, I don't like those patents but they are reasonable. Those ideas aren't algorithms, they only use them; if I hold the patent for kinetic scrolling in my hand, I am not holding kinetic scrolling itself in my hand. If I hold an FFT algorithm patent in my hand, I am holding an FFT algorithm itself in my hand. Patenting algorithms themselves is patently absurd.

Would you be okay with the Pythagorean Theorem being patented as well? Mathematics does not currently suffer a trade-secret problem. Introducing patents would do nothing but harm to society, while enriching corporations.

What else do you believe to be patentable? Should Newton and Leibniz have escalated their conflict to an all-out patent war? Calculus is non-obvious and wildly important; would society be better off if it were patented?

Or hell, maybe Feynman should have patented Feynman Diagrams! If we are patenting mathematical expressions, why not throw in novel and useful notations for mathematical expressions as well! Any mathematician, physicist, or engineer will have to join the Mathematics Patents Experts Group in order to get any useful work done without being sued into homelessness, but at least all of those people won't be keeping their creations and discoveries secret, right?

Edit: Response:

Patents are for the benefit of society, not for the benefit of the creators. You cannot evaluate the merit of patentablity without considering the benefit to society.

We are sure as shit better off in a society where anyone doing ML research doesn't have to license ideas from IBM.
Who assumes that the plane was lost naturally at this point? Almost no one.
My business accepts Bitcoins
Hell yes. For life.

That we as a society allow groups of men to make billions selling a tremendously addictive product that has unequivocally been shown to kill its users is, for me, absolutely heinous.
Yeah, that's absolutely the concern with this kind of approach. While I am confident in the good intentions of YCombinator, you can't do a program just for one incubator, and then you have to select them, and some bad ones would get in who'd exploit the situation.

We need startup visas, but it can't be at the behest of investors.
Theft existed before the constitution, and the constitution didn't change what it means.
Your Mediocrity is My Opportunity
We don't have a black-market problem, we have a demand problem: if people didn't demand drugs, there wouldn't be a market at all.
They also are located in Israel which can add a few days to verification if you can't do it online or via phone.
LogicGrowsOnTrees
Lamentable, but it could have been much worse: http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/usptovsmath.html
And here is an entertaining cartoon about p > 0.05

http://xkcd.com/882/
The qualification is acceptance into YC as a founder.

> So here is a proposal for the US government: please let Y Combinator help allocate up to 100 visas to founders per year.
One of the words you are looking for is 'stereotyping'.
Bill Reichert – Top Ten Mistakes Entrepreneurs Make Raising Capital
Perhaps the ideas should be eternal, but the byzantine markup system? This is a major reason why the older I get, the more I prefer plain text wherever I can get it and open standards when I can't. Fancy rendering is just a variation on the drug dealer's bargain "the first hit is always free".
Yes it does:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/7/4/7/23...

Look at the top center, at the "Fuel Jettison" switches. (This is a 777-200 non ER, but I doubt the ER model would remove this feature.)
Thematically, I'd say Angular's dependency injection is "supposed" to be resolved by the tooling. If you look at Angular.dart, it doesn't have this particular hack because it uses the type system to resolve what to inject. But Javascript doesn't have static typing... "specify it twice (as a list of strings, and then a list of arguments)" is a fairly ugly and error-prone solution. Specify it once and let the tooling do the work seems like a reasonable idea.

I tend to find that most of the awkwardnesses I come across in Angular likewise come from the underlying nature of Javascript and HTML. As a concept, Angular.js seems to me to be fairly straightforward -- client-side compositing of templates against data (without imposing constraints on the type of data), plus routes and a promises library for http calls.
Spireon is hiring front-end and back-end dev in Southern CA
tl;dr Ive is too humble to openly admit he is/was "the man who designs tomorrow". The first and last lines say it all.

This is, to me, a way to convey to the public that Apple's core is not dead with Jobs, after years of attributing him all the miracles.

Apple's brand is made of heroes and epics. Ive could well be the next one. The picture they used for the article tells a lot.

Good luck Apple ! You deserve it as a team
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
They provide a valuation, put together a pitch book, shop the company around and close the deal.

I'd guess the author would argue that those services are not, strictly speaking, financial.

You could easily enough split up a deal like that between a pure financial institution and some sort of consultant/agency for corporate A&M, and it wouldn't really look or work any differently.

The consultant would provide you with an actual service and the bank would just move assets around. That's just twiddling some bits, these days; the bank's part of the job could be done by computer. The bank could just be a computer, really. As the author puts it, "it creates nothing."

I don't know if I agree with that point of view or not, but I think I understand where he's coming from.
Is there any action that is potentially dangerous enough that an instance of it in which no one happened to be harmed should be a criminal offense?

Say I walk down the street firing a gun randomly, but I don't strike anyone with a bullet. Civil remedies only?
There was a headline over the weekend, "Have Scientists Finally Found Evidence of Gravitational Waves in the CMB?"