skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"I find the Work Smarter, Not Harder meme a little tiresome"

Agree. Let's take it one step further.

Let's say you want to win the game. And one of the ways you do so is to convince the other players of the game (and business is a game btw) to not work as hard. [1]

I see this quite a bit with this meme. People telling other people that they don't have to work hard.

[1] This is really the reverse of the mindgame that the US military plays with all those really cool documentaries about US Military force. They do that to make our capabilities look so totally overwhelming at the risk of disclosing something that we might not want the enemy to know that we have. The weight the pros and cons and disclose what they need to to achieve the goal.
Tech startup scene starting to flourish in Oakland
Clive Wearing, a man with a memory of only seconds.
This is fairly reminiscent of xkcd's What If blog post series: https://what-if.xkcd.com/
Livescript or Gorilla are what I would want from a .js precompiler. Coffeescript just removes brackets and readability.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7471344

So I am not the only one who thinks this;

"Personally, I think this illustrates a severe gap in how crowd-funding works.
10K drops by an individual are no different than an angel investor.
There should be a chip-in-level for crowd-funding campaigns that require the OP to provide some % equity into the project."
Cops here are imperfect, corrupt and what not. That being said, I'm very happy I live in a place where I would not be arrested in these circumstances. It is kind of cool that I do not have choice between clearing the place immediately when cops come in and being arrested.

Cops here seem to be used that people stop on streets to watch what is going on. They also seem to be able to make people leave (when they jam the place) without arresting them for first slight tiny hint of possible disobedience.
ChuckM, I appreciate your polite tone and sincerity.

To illustrate my point, consider my story. I'm a software developer with entrepreneurial ambition and I'm developing a product I have dreams of marketing and selling. Last week I probably came up with 5 methods of doing some novel data analysis that are patent-able.

How many will I patent? Well considering it would cost about 100-150k to adequately protect that intellectual property and I have only my own boots to my name, ... I'll patent zero of them.

Clearly the system does not work for me.

This is one extreme scenario, but consider the continuum. What about a startup with 500k in seed funding? Should they spend 50% of their capital to protect their intellectual property before they've finished a product and made sales?

Meanwhile large companies spend millions on patent programs which sweep up wide swaths of IP on nebulous grounds of validity. Not only can I not afford to prosecute a patent, I can't even afford to respond to a cease and desist letter based on an invalid patent which came out of the "innovation process" of MegaCorp.

Sorry, but the system is not for the little guy or the start up.
Back to CPUs, then?

Sure, if you can come up with a good proof-of-work algorithm that runs well only on CPUs.

It could be possible. The straightforward way would be, I believe, to use an algorithm that has weak parallelism and depends strongly on branching. CPUs are king of branching, and both GPUs and ASICs get ahead by taking advantage of parallelism.

Although, one nice thing about GPUs being the standard-bearer, is it makes most general purpose server hardware useless for mining. That's good in that it makes hijacking a webserver to mine bitcoins, a largely pointless affair.
> Of course, it's also more limited in how it interacts with the corresponding values.

This is backwards. Polymorphic values without constraints admit almost no operations at all - you can "copy" them, that's it. This is true to the point that (save diverging) given f :: a -> a, f can only have one meaning.

Invariance of sequence elements is also far less problematic in ML-family languages because they have sums.
What? This means that you must have been using exceptions to communicate type-checking information. That's just a terrible way to write Haskell. Exceptions only have nice semantics when they're e.g. thrown in the IO monad.

-- No, no, no, no!
checkValid :: Int -> ()
checkValid x = if x >= 5
then error "Invalid number!"
else ()

-- This works fine.
checkValid :: Int -> Either String ()
checkValid x = if x >= 5
then fail "Invalid number!"
else return ()

This may sound a bit harsh, but I think you deserved to lose that 10% if you had such a fundamental misunderstanding of "lazy evaluation".
Mycobacteriosis in fish | browntexfarms
You seem to be unfamiliar with the meaning of "market" in an economics context. I highly recommend getting at least a basic understanding of economics and economic terminology. It is very helpful in understanding the world.
is there a reason the charts are so difficult to read? especially after 50 posts a day on data visualization here on HN?
Maybe because Bezos is always talking about low margins.
You can connect to the run-time system e.g. using the ekg package.
And that's why the 'war' has just moved to the JVM: Closure is a Lisp, Scala steals a whole lot of things for Haskell, trying to make it actually practical.

I think Haskell's ultimate role is a bit like Ruby's: It can't really win, but it's destined to be influential. That's a much harder road for Lisp, as its greatest strengths are also its greatest flaws.
Noting also that this was posted by the consulting services on Sunday on HN.

And written first (which had to take time as well).

Obviously not all of this is going to stick. And the consultant could be quite successful without going to the trouble of writing a blog post and trying to get it on HN (or elsewhere). But the extra effort in this case worked (it seems) and it is drawing attention no doubt to the consulting services which I had never heard of before.

Since it got the required attention it probably shows a bit that the effort and extra work payed off.

And if the OP worked every single weekend doing the same thing (here and elsewhere) that extra work could land "the big client". This, from my experience, is the way things like this work.
JavaScript Fallacy
Infographic – The daily rituals of historical creative geniuses
Mirror - http://i.imgur.com/77rp2jS.jpg
John Carmack breaks silence on Facebook's Oculus acquisition
This is exactly why your opinion on abolishing patents does not hold water. You do not yet know. I am not necessarily in the favor patents, but do not agree that a resolution should be reached without thinking it through in its entirety.

Edit (to answer biehl's comment): I meant abolish "software" patents.
We've been able to do this in C at runtime for decades. Just use strcpy.

Humour aside, in 10-15 years time I expect it to be considered strange not to have hot-swap features in production languages.
> Gratuitously changing "function" to "->" for no reason other than removing characters seems to introduce more brand new idiosyncrasies than it's worth.

What idiosynchrasies are you referring to here? Just curious. I love the stabby lambda (for the exact reason you listed, because I am defining functions on every other line).
My understanding is that although interesting because of its counterintuitiveness, this effect is much more situational than Sivers lets on. To those who say they've usually observed the opposite at work, I believe the main criterion is whether you're accountable to yourself for this task, which means this mostly works when we're talking about personal goals and not workplace productivity.

The mechanism Gollwitzer proposes is that presenting your plans to others make them a "social reality", which tricks your brain into feeling like you've already completed some steps towards that goal even though you haven''t.

This means this is mostly relevant to tasks whose main goal is to define yourself both in your eyes and in those of others, ie. goals of the form "I want to lose weight", "I want to start a company", "I want to write a book". In these cases, the simple fact of announcing these goals will portray you in as someone who's interested in being fit, an entrepreneur, or a writer -- if you've already convinced yourself and your friends that you're an artist in spirit, why bother going through the pain of actually writing that book? Because in these types of goals you are the one who decides whether you've been successful or not, the fact this social reality already makes you feel like you've accomplished something means you're less likely to judge yourself harshly for not actually following through.

However for goals like "I'm going to deliver XYZ this quarter" the cost of failing to deliver on your promises is potentially much greater than the social benefit you get from looking like the ambitious worker that makes big promises, because the condition of success doesn't depend solely on what you feel, but on the judgement of others. So it's likely that in the workplace the traditional recommendation of making goals explicit is still the way to go in most cases. Note though it's all a matter of incentives: if you derive enjoyment from being the one who underpromises and overdelivers, then the benefit you get from positively surprising your colleagues/superiors/customers might prove a stronger motivation than this last mechanism.

On another note, you shouldn't solely base your decision to announce your goals on this effect: one must also take into account the other benefits of making their goals public, opportunities for emulation, counsel/support, connecting with individuals with similar goals, etc. Often these benefits will far outweigh any potential negative impact on commitment (which can be fairly minor).

PS: While reading up on Gollwitzer's research I found this other tidbit some might find interesting: goals formulated in the form of an "if-then" plan (ie. with an implementation intention) tend to have a higher attainment rate than those that are more abstract [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_intention
The font on that article is all over the place.
If you take a little care to e.g. make data types' fields strict, this tends to be a non-problem. It is harder to debug the code since it is lazily evaluated (and it's not imperative!), but recent versions of GHC provide pretty powerful profiling, stack traces, etc.

I'm not sure that I would agree that you're flying "blind or dangerously" either way--at least not when it comes to building up large unevaluated thunks. I would agree somewhat if you were referring to code using unsafePerformIO, which makes it the programmer's responsibility not to break referential transparency. While that doesn't tend to be an issue either, Safe Haskell does mostly solve it.
AWS is about infrastructure optionality
That's your problem right there: you take decisions based on emotions and feelings so that's what you value in a discussion. This is wrong and you should listen to reason instead.
Having served in the military myself, I think you misunderstand how things operate.

It's not about convincing others to work less, but it is bringing to light the problem of people and businesses correlating raw hours to productivity. Working harder does not mean you are getting more done. Hard work is a given and it is required for entrepreneurs especially, but it shouldn't be harder than it has to be for no reason. Simply working more hours for the sake of bragging rights is going to cause you to fail miserably.
The main problem with crowdfunding is prevention of scams. The SEC which is responsible for implementing this bill,have an expensive list of demands(papers, lawyers) for companies wanting to go that route, making the whole process not worthy for companies.

Until a solution for this problem will be found, it's hard to see crowd-funding becoming an option.
The Que was aiming at a much wider market, and when the iPad was announced, they folded.

Sony is aiming at a much smaller professional market, and it has a chance where people don't use Latin alphabets, including Japan. I don't know enough about the US legal scene to know whether it will find a market there, but Worldox thinks it's worth a go....
While I agree with other opinions on this article that this is only an ad for consulting, I think that we should understand that ridic-long-hours is not scalable.

If you really want to help your company grow, you should not be taking as much load as possible onto yourself because you will quickly become the bottleneck. You should care about spreading the load as evenly as possible. On HN many of us understand the obstacles to software scalability, yet when it comes to people scalability we tend to ignore those observations.
We are bootstrapping, so there's no interest in money or outside investment. That's not the spirit of the question -- more to do with the huge productivity and motivational effects around an accelerator-style launch.
There’s Just No Getting Around Apple Buying Yahoo
This is my favorite line and the one that damns so many "big data" efforts:

"They cared about ­correlation rather than causation."

Analytics are a tool to help find correlations and patterns so that humans can do the hard work of determining and testing for causation. Computers are doing their jobs; humans aren't.
>> In other words, if you have A with method foo() and B with method bar(), "A extends B" is equivalent [1] to "A encapsulates an instance of B and exposes 'function bar() { return this._b.bar(); }'."

Your point would hold only if all subclasses agreed to use only the public interface of their parents. But if you do that, your "inheritance" isn't really classical inheritance any more, it's just something that saves you typing when implementing delegation, like ruby's method_missing.

The article is not taking issue with composition + "an easy, terse delegation mechanism." The article is taking issue with actual inheritance: the sharing of private state between class and subclass. Your claim that the two things are equivalent just isn't true.
http://nipccreport.org/

Note that "denialist" is a very broad (not to say loaded) term. A better term would be: skeptical of the claimed "consensus" that we need to drastically reduce CO2 emissions, even if the economic costs are huge, or else the planet is doomed.
Nice reply!

One little thing I disagree: Syntax is important. A language is an interface for a low level context, and since it's an interface, it does have UX. Syntax is a big part of the UX of a language.

And it's no me that is saying this, it's Crockford: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EANG8ZZbRs
Rather than downvote, I'm going to comment.

I think you could have made your points just as strongly without attacking the author.
Show HN: Tileswap: a puzzle game for Android
I made this game over the last few months. It’s written in JavaScript (Cordova/PhoneGap), one advantage of which I like is that it is almost trivial to embed it as a demo in the browser. I believe the gameplay is original, but would love to be pointed at similar games. Any feedback will be much appreciated.
You only addressed part of the problem. The OP said IP.. so we're talking about trademarks in addition to patents.

The pharma companies would lose the ability to patent a drug.. which means they would keep it a tradesecret instead. So generic may or may not be able to be produced.

Second: without trademarks, pharma companies could invent Prilosec... and I (and anyone else) could sell a sugar pill named Prilosec. Or rat poison named Prilosec.. or any number of other items named Prilosec.

This is not a result that is in anyones favor.
Personally, I never want to give another dime, directly, to any Gas company, ever.

Their business practices are cancerous. Sadly, we don't have a choice in requiring energy - and while Enron is a perfect example of absolute corruption in the energy industry, if I can cut out at least vehicle gas requirements from my wallet, I'd be a happy man.
Go seems to be headed towards pretty fast and predictable performance rather than the fastest possible performance at the expense of predictability. (For example, the work to replace segmented stacks with contiguous stacks improves performance in some cases but also makes function call performance more predictable.)

A JVM can have fast or slow performance depending on JVM flags, warmup time, and the phase of the moon.
There's even a button at the top of the main coffeescript page. It's so very convenient.

http://coffeescript.org/#try:console.log%20%22hello%20world%...
Sterile salmon……. reducing environmental impact of farm escapees | browntexfarms
Could anyone speak on the difference between the day-to-day dealings with serious and dangerous crimes/criminals in each city? In terms of cost of living the cities are very comparable so I'm astonished to see the difference in base salary. I'm sure the San Francisco PD doesn't take off Fridays like most municipal offices in CA.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_result.jsp?country...

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_result.jsp?country...

Edit: Upon further thinking there are ~2,000 SFPD and ~35,000 NYPD. NYPD Budget: ~3.6 Million. SFPD Budget: I cannot find.
Let's look at "abolish software patents" more deeply:

Is this retroactive, i.e., all software patents filed and granted in the past too are abolished?

If 'no', this can bring disadvantage to new comers who cannot file any new patents against those who have already have then granted.

If 'yes', what happens to all the money companies have already spent on the patents they currently have? (International filings in many different countries can set a company back by several hundred thousands of dollars.)

I am open to considering favoring abolishing patents (see also the alternative discussion on why only for software) provided it is applied uniformly to the past as well as the future without disadvantaging new comers.

I do agree that on the very least, the term of the patent should be dependent on the degree of innovation involved whether in terms of time (number of years of validity) or money (maximum amount of gain in proportion to the R&D expenditure). People on HN have generally opposed this thought due to the overheads involved, etc.
The state of Mac gaming in 2014
NBA: Coach lets player miss the pracice to attend YC demo day
There's only one type of glycogen that's stored in different places. The article you linked only refers to "rapid glycogen restoration". Don't assume from that that the liver can't produce glycogen from fructose.
Understood. My point, probably vague, is two-fold:

(1) You need to be good enough at something to recognize smarter. You need to do the work. For most non-trivial efforts, this means harder.

(2) Smarter is a process, not a destination. Once you have leveled up to be able to work smarter, not harder you probably need to work harder at something deeper to keep growing.
I run a 2-GPU tower and make a couple bucks a day with zero upkeep effort on my part.

It's not totally vanilla hardware like the 15-watt laptop I'm typing this on, but it is common enough I happened to have it already.

With ASICs the barrier to entry is five figures. (Most of the cheaper ASICs have terrible payoff timelines) With GPUs the barrier to entry is far, far lower. You won't make it rich on a $150 GFX card, but you can make some revenue.
"For a moderately skilled person in the use of Final Cut or Adobe Premiere, this might have taken anywhere from a day to three days. In VIX, it took about an hour"

I'm not sure where you got your definition of moderately skilled from, because the very first video I ever made in Final Cut (or maybe it was AE) was pretty similar to this (dubstep, cuts to music) and it took me about 3 hours to edit together. I would consider myself a total noob, I didn't know a single keyboard shortcut.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK--TtQtVk8

Considering the difference of work speed between a program where I know the hotkeys for everything and a program that I'm unfamiliar with I can't help but extrapolate that this sort of editing would take at most ~30m with a reasonably optimized workflow using existing software. Anyone care to disillusion me?
This brings to mind a comment by Elon Musk:
http://youtu.be/4Fl9LRgG3_A?t=1m35s
The most challenging aspect of inheritance modelling is to recognize it on its intrinsics - the deliberate creation of coupled properties and behaviors associated with the "isa" declaration - and not simply as a form of taxonomy.

Programmers are still inclined to use hierarchies. They are implicit to source code in a more general sense, with indentation, nested logic, etc. But we also need affordances to break up hierarchies and keep them limited.
I tried it, company didn't ultimately work out but remote cofounders is fine as long as there's a high degree of trust and mutual commitment.

Remote vs. non-remote each have advantages. Remote gets fewer distractions (I find working in offices/near others very challenging when try to do focused work vs. home office), access to bigger pool of people, 2x "people coverage" for B2B sales/fundraising/partnership discussions, and more emphasis on results vs. ass-in-chair syndrome. Whereas local will have better and more frequent communication, less potential for misunderstanding, easier to bring the whole team to meetings, etc.

Bottom line: it can work, but you have to have the right people. I actually enjoyed it a lot.
In all honesty, none of this was my intention. I had no idea things would be this popular. I'm glad it is, don't get me wrong, but I sort of stumbled into this.

It wasn't planned or put up with the intent to advertise. The whole post took no more than about 30 minutes to write, I just happen to have strong feelings and a lot of experience on the subject which made it easy to put together.
Software is more similar to math algorithms and shouldn't be patentable. Fundamental physical inventions (not algorithms) should be.

If you invent a teleporter, you should have patent protection. Developing a video game that implements player.teleport() (however cleverly) shouldn't be.
He did not ask for "abolishing patents" he asked for the more narrow "abolish software patents". There is no need to broaden the subject to all patents.

(Edit: Then your statement still makes no sense. If you understand that he spoke only about software patents - why do you then needlessly broaden the subject?)

Edit2: It is worse-than-useless to demand no action for softwarepatents until all patent types have been analyzed. Do you also support stabbing people being legal until all uses of knives (in kitchens etc.) have been analyzed? Or do you see that we can reasonably outlaw some form of knife-use?
Capital still begets capital, but with GPU mining at least you don't have to have five figures just to get into the game.
The problem is the combination of the two. You can have operator overloading if conversion is explicit. You can have a converting operator if the action is explicit. But you can't have loose overloading and automatic conversion at the same time without silly defects.

Edit: And you didn't just disagree but call it a 'blatant absurdity' to blame the half of the problem that you happen to like better? Jeez.
and how can you reduce the price without operating at a loss? if you left room to reduce prices. so yes, it does show that.
In Denmark, this app is almost universally owned, basicly anyone with a smartphone has it.
The competing banks have tried to introduce their own system, but its dependant on users having their bank, which means nobody will actually use it, whereas this can be used by anyone with a Danish bank account.
> Scala steals a whole lot of things for Haskell, trying to make it actually practical.

LINQ is "practical Haskell," so is most of Rust (if "practical" means approachable to imperative programmers.)

Besides being on the JVM (which is a big plus), Scala hardly makes anything more practical than it is in Haskell. In fact, Scala programmers tend to migrate to Haskell (and ML languages) rather than the other way around.