skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Or somebody else found it and notified Amazon.
Well, this is very cool and an approach that some security companies are taking at the moment. "Security outside your network" they call it.

I'm myself working (side/pet project so far) in something similar. I don't have any working software at the moment but some "INTEL" and it is incredible how easy anyone would be able to compromise/hurt people and companies just using available information published by themselves.

If anyone more technical (I'm looking at you, devs!) wants to team up to create a service like this please get in touch.
> “We assumed that the reaction would be negative, especially from our core community. Beyond our core community, we expected it would be positive. I don’t think we expected it to be so negative.”

So basically *k the core community? What Oculus founders don't understand is that without this core community they wouldn't have existed in the way they are right now, probably not even approached by Facebook or anyone else.

Sure, it could be good to the future of Oculus, what do I know, but it's a big FU to the core community, specially that we've been disregarded like this.
Chess: Anand gains a rematch with Carlsen for the World Championship
That article is a very large troll. Any valid criticism seems to be run over by the bulldozer of BS. To extend that argument to all of crowdsourcing from one event seems dubious considering he works for a company that was built on money from wall street markets and is very closely tied to traditional finance. Could wall street handle the same scrutiny?

People will get more savvy regarding crowdsourcing but was anyone really duped? No lies were told afaik.
Do you seriously believe this?
Then there will be competitors without ads.
>That's the kind of description you get out of an episode of Knight Rider

Well, yeah, it's exactly that: a description, and a fantastic one at that. It makes no guarantees or even assertions about the efficacy of the changes. Instead, it plays up this explosive scenario, then concludes that they hope the changes will help prevent fires.

And, there's a reason it's not written in technical, engineering jargon with test results, etc. Instead, it reads like a Hollywood screenplay. Judging from your comparison to Knight Rider, it appears to be working.

>That is damned amazing engineering

So, I mean what engineering are you hailing as amazing here, with regard to the new announcement that was gushed over higher up in the thread? The part you quoted just briefly references bolting some plates on the undercarriage amidst a lot of hyperbolic crash talk from the pre-plates days.

Sure, there can be great engineering alongside good PR. The auto itself without the newly announced iron man suit is an impressive piece of engineering.

I'm simply saying that I wouldn't gush over the new announcement. The guy walking away without injuries was pre-crash plates and we have no evidence that the plates will actually help or to what extent. Just sensational, cool-sounding descriptions. There are a lot of things for which Musk deserves credit as a visionary, but this bit of PR could have just as easily been the brainchild of a relatively astute PR staffer talking to an engineer over lunch.
Greater availability, for one.
Well that's funny brands are complaining Facebook is selling out. That's like Coca-Cola complaining that the Super Bowl is too commercial. When I joined The Facebook it was for me and my college classmates. There was no such thing as liking a brand (and maybe not even liking at all). I remember most of my friends being surprised when after liking a brand you were inundated with spam. I guess after people obsessively liked things for years, and added every possible friend, the only thing left is to pay for news feed placement.
THN » Philips Smart TVs vulnerable to Screen Hijack and Cookie Theft
Abrash worked at Valve which has pretty much exclusively made critically acclaimed titles, but that had less to do with Abrash's artistic direction. Carmack made most of his money from his tech, not from the games. Id games after Quake 3 maybe broke even or turned enough profit to give employees a modest bonus, but were never very popular. (The quickly dwindling) Id fanboys were pretty much the only people buying their games after 2005 (Doom 3).

Id (and Carmack) made most of their money from engine licensing. As Abrash mentions in this post, even Valve licensed the Quake engine code -- you can imagine how that must have made them so much more money than the couple hundred thousand copies of Quake 4 sold if they had any decent licensing business model.

A vast majority of capital-class game companies over a decade old that are still alive now, make/made almost all their money from anything but the games they designed/developed -- but instead from engines (Valve, Epic, Crytek, Id), sales platforms (Valve), publishing (EA, Activision), etc. Blizzard is more or less the only exception surviving almost solely on direct revenue from the games they've developed (mostly just WoW, although all their games are very well-loved).

So please don't jump to the conclusion that people like Carmack make the money to launch rockets from selling Doom sequels. The game design industry is not nearly that lucrative, even if the game tech one is moderately so.
An Engineer’s Eureka Moment With a G.M. Flaw
And in the end, it's their choice anyway. People respond mostly negatively because of their expectations about how Facebook will monetize this. It's now up to Facebook to prove them wrong.

I personally think it's not going to be as bad. Oculus has a clear path to monetization, while Facebook, with their other products, have always been struggling to monetize their user base, which lead them to implement controversial features like Beacon. In this case, all they have to do is back off and make sure the right people are leading Oculus -- and so far, I think they are doing fine with that.
Športne Stave 96% Trgovalni Sistem Brezplačno [Športne Stave]
It kinda sucks if you want Nvidia, Wayland and *BSD. I really wish Nvidia would stop with the binary drivers.

Back when Matrox released their G200 card they used a little known fact in X11 that allowed them to do platform independent drivers. I'm not sure how it worked, but remember downloading the and using the "Linux" driver on OpenBSD to gain stuff like dual-head support. I'm not sure the same would work for hardware accelerated graphics, but it would be nice if Nvidia help getting their hardware supported on whatever platform people choose to use.
Tiniest 3D printed Human Implant Yet, 3D printed Cochlea
All of FB's past acquisitions before Oculus (just Instagram and WhatsApp) were social media platforms, precisely what FB specialized in and knows how to work with. They don't need to do any radical shift with them, they already serve as private data and analytics incubators.

Oculus is a completely unrelated avenue for them, and one can only wonder what their intentions are. Zuckerberg already made a PR statement that the company intends on turning Oculus into a social platform of some sort, so this does raise some eyebrows.

As much as I have ethical quandaries with Google, I'd be more content if they had acquired Oculus.
Make wouldnt be the first build tool i would try. I would go with something like gradle first. Eventhough, in Mike's case make looks like a good match for his requirements.
> I think it's because nobody understands what FB is going to do with it.

I've been thinking about this Facebook acquisition for a little while, and in my mind, the only play that makes sense for Facebook is to become the login gateway to Oculus games.
For many Windows games, there's Windows Live...a social-ish, login service that you literally have to register and sign in with in order to play the game. You cannot opt out. If Facebook became this... "Sign in with Facebook"... for all commercial Oculus games, they would have a guaranteed mindshare on the future younger generations of gamers.
And becoming just the gatekeepers would more or less let them be hands-off with the actual Oculus direction as a company, which is in line with what's been said so far.
Very nice, although it took me a few minutes to figure out how it works.
I am really hoping that your right, that it is them becoming a tech conglomerate rather than trying to integrate with their other products.
But what worries me still, is I don't see a future where Facebook will keep the Oculus as a open system. If it's successful there is no doubt they will try to own the software/services with it - they won't just sell the hardware, then let PC developers (and open marketplaces, like Steam) get all the profit
I bought an early Oculus Rift developer kit as a part of the Kickstarter. I paid $300 for it and it was worth every penny. I had no expectation of equity from it, because the product was cool and something I wanted. It's the wrong thing to criticize Oculus Rift for the simple reason that hardware crowdfunding has unlocked a whole new world of things that could be built if only you could prove people want it.

The crowdfunding campaign Oculus Rift ran proved people wanted it. We see this over and over again — if you can create a new class of consumer behavior (Uber, Google, etc) then you can create a valuable company.

Articles like this are sensational in that they sometimes incite misguided lawmakers to regulate. But in this case, crowdfunding is creating new economic activity, and any new regulation would actively squelch that — and kill viable new products and companies in the process.
Yeah, but House of Cards is the perfect case study example of how it can work. Netflix has obviously broken new ground here where the old rules don't need to be so restrictive. For that matter, I currently live in China, and it's fantastic that I can watch House of Cards for free online legally because it's been properly licensed by the Chinese streaming company. Heck, it's so good, that I might have even paid for it.
You're basically arguing that any contract between power-imbalanced parties needs to be written into law.
> What else is an expression?

You seem to have confused expression with application. A person unable to speak but merely point is unable to express (that is, define precisely) what it is that causes them to point to, say: a red brick, a red door, a red pencil. However in their activity of pointing, that is, in their application of an unexpressed principle we can infer a "theory".

Naur's point is that a "theory" in his sense is a purely mental, immediate, intuitive ground for the understanding of a problem. It is the "red" in the above example, and as we cannot explicate red (only point to it) we cannot express the theory.

>If it matches something -- like software -- that is complex and determinate, it must itself be analysable into determinate properties or patterns or structure.

No. The mind is not a computer program. Mental models are not immediately accessible, completel and transparent to conscious thought, nor are their relations, nor are they "comprised" of anything simpler than more thoughts.

The theory doesnt "match" the computer program, the computer program is a symptom of the theory. The theory is how a problem is understood.

>Since 'theory' is used to make actual software -- something that can fit or diverge from it -- 'theory' must have a substantial, and complex, objective part.

I dont know what this means (nor much of your comment to be honest), but i suspect you're making the same error as above: that the (physical) products of mental activity reveal or constrain the nature and structure of that mental activity.
Are you suggesting the government compromised a trusted SSL CA? Or are you just saying they blocked HTTPS?
While I agree with the author that people need protection from themselves in some situations, Kickstartering ain't one of them.

I paid $300 for a dev kit and funded a company to do serious research on VR - the first serious research in oh, forever. They now employ John Carmack and Michael Abrash TOGETHER to work on this problem. This is AMAZING and the next few years are going to be AMAZING because of it.

Honestly, it's stated in every Kickstarter campaign that things might not turn out the way you want. You may fund a game that never comes to fruition. There's specifically a section on "risks" that campaign starters are supposed to fill out so that backers are properly informed. We know this going in, that things might not turn out the way we hope.

That doesn't mean the model is broken, and it doesn't mean we're all sheep.

I want to take a screenshot of this article and add the classic political cartoon caption: "Christ, what an asshole."
If you needed a Facebook account to use the Rift, I would avoid it like I do every other service that requires a Facebook account.
... Except $25 for a t-shirt and $300 for a developer kit are about market rate for such items. Not anymore of a scam than buying t-shirts to help a rock band who might later make it big. And those fans usually complain too about sell-outs.
> It's hard for many to see anything under the umbrella of Facebook doing a service to gaming -- look at the direction social gaming has taken us.

Yes, look at social gaming. At least inside the retrogaming communities, people who take a very long view of gaming, social gaming is not well loved. It's seen as a shackle not a new experience by and large. Even among new games, Skyrim and GTA V are hugely popular even though the experience is mostly single player.

There have been some good examples of it (Team Fortress 2, World of Warcraft, EVE), but by and large you end up with Farmville and the new SimCity more often. Both of which are horrible and/or exploitive games.

Getting dozens of spams a day from your "friends" to play this or that shallow psychological-reward hack social game on Facebook is what people are envisioning with this acquisition when what people wanted was Half-Life 3 VR edition or a Star Wars 3D game...or even non-gaming "take a virtual tour around the Pantheon" experiences.

And just as important, social games have no lifespan. I'm used to being able to pull up a 20 year old game and get it working (even on PCs with a little work). Social games in general have a short half-life. Remember the huge hit that was Farmville? Is it even still around? I dunno.

I'm definitely in the camp that thinks this acquisition will come to no good. But to be hoenst, if somebody waived $2b in my face I'd take it and skip off to a comfortable retirement in Malta without giving two shits about the community that supported it in the beginning.
It works pretty well for me using the OSS drivers. Better experience than any of the binary drivers (NVIDIA and AMD), and the performance and features are good enough for gaming via WINE (though still not quite as good as the binary drivers AFAIK). I think the current pain points are support for the latest hardware and power saving for laptops.
Aside from the reasons everyone else listed, I've used it customer support too. I've reached out to bands to ask last minute questions about their shows and actually have a better response rate with getting in touch with AT&T over Twitter than via email or sometimes phone.
Apple faces certified class action suit over e-book price conspiracy
Urban Airship actually instructs you to create a plist file for an iOS app where you specify your production app keys.

http://docs.urbanairship.com/build/ios.html
I'm really not sure what this article is suggesting, but it makes me angry. At first glance it seems like it is simply trolling for clicks, and in that regard it seems to have succeeded. However, its stance on investor regulation and somehow relating it to crowdfunding is confusing. Are they suggesting that anyone thought they could make a profit by funding Oculus? Are they calling for tighter regulation that would outlaw crowd funding? Or perhaps they think there should be less regulation to allow the masses to purchase equity in startups? It just feels like they are purposely misrepresenting the facts, and have some sort of agenda.
>even if the Rift universe they built is beeing crapped on by like buttons

Why do a lot of people keep repeating this? Does Google create self-driving cars to show ads on the windshields? I just don't get it. What on the earth makes you think Facebook bought Oculus to show ads and like buttons inside your games? If, if VR becomes the Next Big Thing, will the like buttons “from the old Facebook“ matter as much, or will the social need to be re-imagined anyway?
> Basically something like the metaverse in Snowcrash

More like the Oasis from Ready Player One, but owned by the Sixers from the start.
Reminds me of um...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/developmentally-disabled-bu...
Does this mean DDoSing a .hiv address will send a ton of cash to dothiv.org?
A Recipe of Viral Features Used by the Fastest Growing Startups
I would invert the question. What's wrong with more options?

The thing that really strikes me every time the new TLD subject comes up, is that there's always a percentage of people who want to forbid creation of certain TLDs for unpredictable, idiosyncratic reasons.
I don't know for sure, but I imagine OP is curious because cleaning is a relatively unskilled job, and would thus expect higher supply.
In the final analysis, deeds define you and your company, not words.

Oculus sold to Facebook. Fine. Oculus doesn't have to fundraise anymore, and has a theoretically unlimited R&D budget. Facebook has the cloud expertise to handle virtual worlds at scale. These are valid reasons to be acquired.

But more fundamentally, there are a variety of large corporations with big pockets that could have done the merger.

Facebook's interest will be in jamming the virtual world full of ads and mining the smallest action to increase ad sales. And everyone understands this and knows this. Google's interest would have been similar, but perhaps skewed towards AR and Glass integration. Microsoft would have likely skewed towards selling corporate VR solutions (these exist(ed) already, but have not gotten press or wide adoption). MSNBC or other media corp would have wanted more to sell talking heads and ads. Etc.

I don't much care about the gamer community here, but I really wouldn't want the VR world to be a 3d representation of Facebook (something I fled years ago).
You should travel a little, even if virtually ;) $100/yr is a lot of money for millions of people.
It doesn't matter the page. Facebook itself is purposely turning the algorithm down to weight page posts much less strongly than they weight individual posts. It's Facebook that's pushing it down to 1-2% and has been dialing it back consistently for the last 4 months or so. That 1-2% metric isn't based on people upset about their unpopular pages, it's from inside Facebook itself.
"In the case of Oculus, where you weren’t even promised equity, you simply revealed yourself as clueless naifs."

This article has a fundamental misunderstanding of why people contribute to kickstarters. I think most people's motivation is closer to charity than it is to investing and I think people understand that difference.

Ironically, the author implies he knows what is best and needs to protect the "sheep" from this "scam", yet he obviously doesn't have an even basic understanding of why people contribute to kickstarter.
I'm not advocating this, but you could always have cheap registration for a .poverty domain, or some such.
Seriously? The only reason to own a VR problem is to stick in “sign in via some website that used to be popular in the old web“ button? What would it give them anyway? Drive up Facebook usage on the old web?

I don't understand why most people think Facebook is so dumb in this thread.
The only things I follow on Facebook are things I actually want to see on Facebook: 2 friend's bands, a watchmaker I like, a casting agency to let a couple friends know when something fits for them, etc. I don't have any 'like us to win' or symbolic/guilt likes.
If FB wanted anyone to believe they had some mighty vision in social gaming, then why didn't they buy out Zynga or other game companies like that that actually had massive userbase on their actual platform.
One thing I don't get is why did it have to be acquisition. If FB had just acquired 10-30% of the company at 2G$ valuation and left control to the other people they would have had once again first class access to the technology but the backlash would have been smaller.

Acquiring stake validates the technology. Buy outs - they mean you try to lock the other away from it.
No. Just no. Like many other small businesses, I paid thousands of dollars to Facebook for ads to create fan pages. People who were interested in what I was doing became fans (I had about 4000 in all). There was never any indication from Facebook that they would make it increasingly difficult to reach those people, and those fans were never told that they would not see my posts. Due to changes in their algorithm I watched the views for my posts drop from 1200 to less than 10. Then I was told I had to pay to reach my own fans. Businesses like ours helped grow Facebook by building fan pages but Facebook betrayed us and, more importantly, betrayed our fans. It's sick.
I think the point of this article is not that people think they got a bad deal.

The point is, if those 9500 people had pooled their money together beforehand and negotiated as a collective -- maybe you could say they incorporated -- they could have probably gotten a much better deal. This is to say, hindsight is not very clear, because you don't know what the other road looked like.

If y'all had sent your $2.4m to professionals to actually negotiate the funding of Oculus, I'm pretty sure you'd have walked away with at least 500% return on investment. Instead, you're defending your decision by saying you got at least 100% return, maybe, even though the target price for the product is < $300.

And you're right -- this is a Wall Street-like way of thinking. It also turns out to be pretty effective, overall.
Do you at least have a link on the landing page that will take a visitor to a product explanation?
Probably because, like me, we've all just written off the OVR and are looking elsewhere. $2b means this is a non-reversible path that fighting against will go nowhere.

As exciting as Carmack and Abrash appear, neither of them have been at the forefront of 3D work in the last decade or so and have a monopoly on good 3d tech.
Depends on what you mean by that -- The Halo & Call of Duty franchises have been getting by on great social multiplayer experiences. (Halo also has a great campaign, but I digress...)

The great experiment & test of your theory would be to see something like Titanfall only last a year or so, since it's ALL a social/multiplier experience.

In theory I think social gaming has strong networking effects that have to potential to cement a game, especially in crowds that aren't maybe hardcore gamers. For example, I thought one of the best things to come out of the Zynga era was the fact that middle aged mothers were the core gaming segment. Why is this awesome? Because as a life-long gamer I thought it was awesome that more than teenage boys were welcome into the community, regardless if the niche/genre was not my style.

Yes, there are a few problems that no one has quite figured out yet in regards to hyper-social, and solutions have been kind of lazy at best, but there's a big market opp here for somone who DOES figure it out.