skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not a discouragement, so don't take it as such.

I founded similar service before Imgur was born and was trying to compete with them way before you did.

Word of advice, stop allowing NSFW.

You do not want to go down that path, there is no money in it and it will impact your business in a negative way when you decide to become profitable.
Oh really? That's curious. I wonder why an identical URL was still allowed to be posted after such a detector has gone off.
As someone who has just recently started writing programming books [1] I'm really excited to see more such tools!

Some thoughts:

1. Code examples are the biggest problem to me in the tools that I tried. There's many little things about them, that need to look right - line numbers, display on kindle, line breaks

2. At the beginning, I've used Git and vim for writing in Markdown. However, at some point I realised that I wasn't efficient - I switched to Scrivener [2] and dropped the idea of using Git. In my case, it made me much more productive.

3. Writing an ebook is different than writing code. You probably don't need much of the history.

4. Research is for me the biggest part of writing, experimenting with different ideas, collecting code samples. It's good to have a proper tool to support it. In my case, Scrivener [2] was a huge improvement.

5. I use a combination of Scrivener, Leanpub, Dropbox and getdpd [3] for the whole project. Scrivener for research and notes organisation, Leanpub for generating the result files (PDF, mobi, epub), Dropbox for syncing those two. Getdpd for the selling part.

[1] http://rails-refactoring.com/

[2] http://literatureandlatte.com/scrivener.php

[3] http://getdpd.com/
This means that you can compile .NET code on a non-MS platform (like Linux) but you can only deploy it to ... Azure.

Microsoft's endgame is in sight.
Except that marriage is recognised as a human right, both internationally and by the USA. Any specific benefits, obviously, are not rights, but the ability to be married is agreed to be a human right.
It's a little like this being 1969 and Eich, having grown up in the Deep South, admits giving donations to a Proposition to stop interracial marriage. You could rationalize it by saying it's happening at a time of very rapidly changing social views on what's normal and that he's from the South and that he's not against blacks per se. He just doesn't think it's a good idea they breed with whites. But it's still wrong.

I have no sympathy for Eich as he's a fully grown adult who works in one of the more open minded industries in one of the most liberal parts of the US and he actively wants to lead people. A great leader has to be tolerant of a wide range of social and cultural POV. He demonstrated he's not very tolerant. Bad sign.
Should such a person step down? Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, Eich wasn't forced to step down; he did so voluntarily.
Flock Inc.
Yes its unfortunate that Mozilla is going to miss out on Eich's contributions. But ultimately the result here shows that the benefits however great they may have been didn't outweigh the costs of his beleifs alienating the community Mozilla is built upon.

Its not intolerant to not want to work under the leadership of someone who has worked to do you and others you care about active harm.
> would you consider it reasonable...

For people to speak with their wallet? Yeah. For people to speak up if they disagree? Yes. For people to speak up if they agree? Sure.

I'm for freedom of speech. Thinking that people can't speak up would go against that belief. Now, granted, if I speak up, I need to be accountable for what I say. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the government. It doesn't mean you get to silence your critics.

> Of course not, that would be silly.

Why do you think people using their freedom to speak silly?

I'm also curious if you held the same beliefs when the CEO of GoDaddy killed an elephant, and there was the public outcry over that.
Good point. You should ignore the previous comment based on a technicality. Since I didn't specify that the 100,000 share purchase was not actually 3 different orders
> It's also going to make people with ambitions of CEOhood hold back from any political support of anything, liberal or conservative or whatever.

I strongly doubt it; liberal viewpoints are as welcome as always. An internet mob has forced out a major company's CEO over his politically conservative opinion. Unless the company in question is conservative as it's basis (eg, a church, the boy scouts), you don't see people ousted over liberal viewpoints.

If you find your mouse cursor hovering over the downvote button, first find an example of a CxO internet mobbed because of their liberal stands.
So what? The project can also employ gun-owning people, marijuana-smoking people, birth-control-using people, healthcare-using people, etc. Those issues are hot issues because they interest a lot of people, and since big project employs a lot of people, it is inevitable that the intersection between people affected by the issue of the day and people working at big company is significant. And among them inevitably would be the people holding minority - or, in this case, unpopular majority opinion. If you refuse to interact with them, your circle of reference becomes very narrow indeed.

Once diversity meant surrounding oneself with people different from you and learning to deal with them. Now some people understand diversity as surrounding oneself with people looking superficially different but thinking virtually the same, within very near bounds. This is just sad and wrong.
The guy was supposed to run Mozilla, not a government. Don't lose sight of the context.

Does donating to a political campaign now mean you are hateful and intolerant of the people on the opposing side of your campaign?

People are taking his actions out of context out of their own hatred for people with views different from theirs.
Yup, but the decision he probably had to make was to save face and leave or get booted the fuck out.
I'm really wondering what unique circumstances could cause this. Flapping your arms out of fear when you see a fire?
Corporations already extensively vet their executive appointments for their politics, personal life, and appearance. Sometimes specifically and overtly, and sometimes via social systems within the company. To think otherwise is the height of naivety.

I'm fine with adding "publicly opposes same-sex marriage" to the already long list of disqualifications for leading an organization, particularly one like Mozilla.

I've found that a good check on arguments involving same-sex marriage is to see if the same argument could be swapped out for interracial marriage (i.e. in this case, would people find it as upsetting if someone was unable to become the CEO of a progressive, civil-rights-focused organization because they supported anti-miscegenation laws).
I see many people discussing freedom of speech and the right to be against gay marriage (or some metaphors thereof). While this is partially true, I believe that this is largely missing several points.

Brendan Eich made a private choice in a democratic vote. This private choice was leaked 4 years after the fact. Two more years later, this private choice prevents him from stepping into a new position. Brendan Eich went out of his way to avoid discussing this private choice, and still his privacy on the matter (and a few others) was turned into a public thing and put into the front of a mob. Not good.

Also, people seem to forget that Brendan Eich was (briefly) CEO of an organization that has as many ties and contributors in parts of the world where homosexuality is problematic, forbidden, or even punishable by death. While Brendan Eich's fall from position is a win for some, I can imagine the whole campaign having nasty and unwanted consequences for open-source communities (not just Mozilla's) around the world.
Can I just be blunt? Eich has absolute freedom to say what he wants. He's free to campaign against same-sex marriage. He could campaign against interracial marriage, if he wanted to. Not a problem, and I'm deeply glad that this belief is deeply ingrained in US culture.

But the freedom to advocate any idea you want does not give an individual the right to be free of criticism from others.

The thing that has happened here is pretty simple:

- Eich was promoted to a highly visible community leadership position.

- Mozilla as a community organisation has a general policy of promoting diversity and equality in software development.

- Eich's personal views are not compatible with that position, and he was previously an active campaigner against some civil rights for LGBT people – a position which caused actual damage to members of the organisation he was CEO of, and others in the community it is a leader in.

- Eich failed to convincingly apologise, or explain and reassure the community that his views were acceptable.

- Members of the community and Mozilla who were directly affected by his actions, others who are their peers, and other people in the community in general, felt that Eich was, as a result, not a suitable candidate for such an important and visible position.

- Those people made their objections known, and Eich failed to control the controversy, eventually resigning.

I don't really know what else could be expected in this case. A bunch of people objected to his views (which is totally their right, considering those views were actively harmful to them), and he/Mozilla did not believe that his continued presence in the role would be effective.

Is the argument that we should completely ignore the personal views of people in important and visible leadership roles? That seems unrealistic, and would quickly fall down when presented in a slightly different light.

I'm deeply saddened by this whole affair — not because Eich has resigned, as much as I think he would have been an effective CEO, but because this discussion has to happen in the first place, and because prop 8 was even a thing.

AT least we'll be over all of this nonsense in a few years.
Ah, right. So we should just go with what most people believe. Mob rule. Of course.

You might find it surprising that a number of people on the other side of this issue would agree with you. They know they're right, so everyone should just agree with them.

That's not exactly a scalable approach to social issues.
Neil Young and his snake oil are nowhere near the first attempts to sell high fidelity audio. You're forgetting reel to reel tape, DAT, SACD, DVDaudio, HDtracks, and any number of other ventures.
I've subscribed to the Imgur feed for years, this is good news.
> If people don't have a right to reasonable private opinions

I question the assumption that this opinion: "gay people ought not be allowed to marry" is a reasonable one. I'll accept common, but I don't agree that it's reasonable.

Also, he does still have the right to that opinion. He just doesn't have the right to express it free of consequences.

Also, he didn't hold that opinion privately. He held it publicly (by donating money to support its enforcement via the law).
I always thought it was really cool that apps had to request permissions up-front; that said, I much prefer the iOS approach of 'ask when it becomes necessary, and only then'.
If that part of the country was really as liberal as you seem to think, Prop 8 wouldn't have been passed by a majority of voters.
Kind of awesome that this will, at least temporarily, be addressed via a software update assuming that you're nest is connected to a nest account via wifi. Puts me at ease.
Wow. So instead of directly repudiating his previous actions, he chooses to step down?

This personally proves to me that he's both a bigot and unfit to be a CEO. If he'd have just directly apologized for the donation, we wouldn't be here having this discussion today.
They couldn't have done it that fast. They just couldn't do it while Ballmer was there - not after his anti-OSS rants.

And he knew it.
"would you consider it reasonable for Christians to target some arbitrary CEO who donated some money to planned parenthood several years ago"

Do you mean exactly how they (Family Research Council in these cases) did with the Girl Scouts, Coca Cola, or Starbucks? I mean, that's just off the top of my head.
Not really, no. Hate may be problematic, intolerance certainly not.
"and no longer disgusted by the thought of using Firefox"

You DO know that gays also have contributed to it too, don't you? So, which one will it be? Support something that was also supported by gays, or boycott something that was supported by anti-gays?
Ask HN: Quora Down?
Everyone has equal access. Every person is allowed to marry one other person of a different sex.

I get it. People don't like the "of a different sex" in there and they have the right to appeal to have that removed. I'm more in favor with getting rid of marriage privileges all together... why burden single people?

UPDATE: To the downvoter, am I wrong or do you just disagree? Please clarify by commenting.
Probably running/walking past the smoke alarm.

There's a fine line between too sensitive and not sensitive enough.

If I burn something while cooking I do NOT want the smoke detector to go off (it's loud), and the Wave feature takes 3 or 4 seconds before it registers.

Plus there are a lot of configurations to account for. Some people put the units on the walls while others on the ceiling. The Nest has to guess how far away people are when the walk by and how far people will be when they wave. Putting them on the ceiling with 10+ foot ceilings verses putting one on the wall in a small hallway will require different sensitivities for the Wave feature.

If you have multiple Nest Protects then they will all go off when one detects smoke or carbon monoxide, so the Wave bug won't matter too much.
Lets not forget that he supported "the broad moral view of society", as evidenced by a popular vote at the time. I'll agree that the "broad moral view" has switched, and turn about is fair play. Let us punish the new minority.
> He still works for Mozilla (as far as I can tell)

Nope.

> he almost certainly still has a significant say in how

it's run through the shares he almost certainly has
Shares? We're talking about Mozilla. It belongs 100% to the non-profit Mozilla Foundation.
Agree. I read the part where they "were limited by having to do manual research" on LinkedIn: essentially typing in the founders' names and hitting return. They did this 52 times. Get some grad students and put them to work. You'll have a couple thousand in no time.

I once emailed Reid Hoffman (a friend knows him) proposing to do an analysis of the life-cycle of an entrepreneur (age, what jobs they held before founding, repeat founder success, etc.) I never heard back from him; I'm sure he's got better things to do. But I wish LinkedIn would set up a data-mining department, like OKCupid's. They could do some really interesting stuff.
America's Rebel Band of Custom-Bike Builders
You compare the situation with a group targeting an 'arbitrary CEO' for making a donation several years back for planned parenthood. I would actually understand this, if the arbitrary CEO was leading a company associated with a pro-life church, with most members having anti-abortion stance. Although the CEO is certainly entitled to his views, I would not think he would be fit to lead a company if those publicly known views are actually in strong disagreement with the pro-life church's following.

Now, replace planned parenthood with "Prop 8", pro-life church with
"inclusive open source community" and anti-abortion with "pro LGBT-rights".
Not to mention the fact that webkit itself is a fork of khtml - so while apple's contributions are clearly valuable, it's quite a different story. If apple had not open sourced webkit, given its origins, that would have been resoundingly bad PR at the time.

Apple built on oss foundations, and most of what they've open sourced is simply a result of them not closing forks of once open projects, which is very valuable, but nevertheless less impressive that releasing important bits of their own making.
"The fact it ever went this far is really disturbing to us."

Well, bit late for all of that, right?

"We are software developers and we’d much rather spend our time building great software and helping people than being involved in a horrible mess like this."

Well, then why didn't they? Why didn't they help people instead of peevishly fanning the flames?

I hope that I never have the opportunity of working with these folks, because I'm not sure I would be able to keep such duplicitous company: at once both helping rabble-rouse a mob on an unrelated and non-professional capacity (in the strictest sense) and then for lacking the backbone to own up to the fruits of their labors.

I'd rather work with somebody who's got the guts to say "Well, we got the bastard out--now, let's file a lawsuit."

At least that shows true passion.
Progressive doesn't mean "everything is cool man". It means "racism is not cool, sexism is not cool, being a bigoted asshole is not cool".
I penalized it for reasons I plan to describe in a post.
Could you please tell us more about GLAAD and the landscape of gay politics? What are the different groups and what are the major issues they (dis)agree on?

What would they think of a comment like this, from a prominent British gay critic/writer ?

"Most of us... are content with civil partnerships and have not pleaded for gay marriage. But every minority has within it a core of single-issue politicians and protesters who are never satisfied and always ask for more, and homosexuals, both male and female, are no exception."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewe...
"The right wing of american politics is an avid user of and believer in boycotts."

Which companies have they boycotted? The recent organized calls for boycotts include Chick-Fil-A, Mozilla, Walmart, McDonald's, etc. I haven't seen the right calling for a boycott of companies that supported gay marriage initiatives. Seems like the left is more into boycotts than the right.
technology is neither good nor bad; it's an ongoing process of evolution. It is also a force of power. It is necessary to ensure the safety and liberty of the people that no single monopoly over these technologies exist.

now, let's say some new area of technology emerges. If the only entities capable of wielding that technology are for-profit corporations, the people may find themselves unable to defend themselves against being subject to this technology. And so, in order to maintain the safety of the people, the people must always be abreast of the latest technologies.

They're no less an example of technology advancement because they can be viewed as a civil rights organization. They're at the forefront of technological civil rights. I merely posit that they are not a technology company because I would define a technology company as a company that exists to sell technology for profit. Mozilla does not exist for this purpose: Mozilla exists to safeguard the rights of the many, and they do so by staying at the forefront of technological advancement with regards to The Internet.
There is no such symmetry as you imply. The opinions under discussion aren't irrelevant. One opinion is that an entire group's freedoms ought to be restricted. Another is that the group's freedoms ought not be. These opinions are different, and the character of individuals having these opinions, with respect to their behavior towards others, is different.

It's irrational of your hypothetical conservatives in Alabama to react negatively toward that CEO, because that CEO is simply not arguing for the conservatives' freedoms to be suppressed.
"Believing" in something and contributing money to that something are wildly different things.
Really good comment. I was really at odds with this whole fiasco. I just wanted to thank you for writing it out, and saying it better than I could.
concretely, accessibility. but new technology comes from all kinds of businesses.
What? Please elaborate so I can argue with you.
A letter I sent to Brendan:
http://www.arcaner.com/2014/04/03/thank-you-letter-to-brenda...
The comment you responded to was out of line, but that doesn't mean you should respond in kind. Let's keep the discourse civil.
Like Oculus?
Would you support a business led by, say, a known member of the KKK?

I'm not asking to be inflammatory, nor am I comparing Eich's views to that. I've seen a number of statements like yours as the main counterargument to the criticism of Eich as CEO, and I'm genuinely curious whether the argument is, "anything goes, and personal values have no place in business", or, "I don't think gay marriage is an important enough issue to warrant this level of criticism", or something else.
Which is a hateful policy, in my mind. It in effect says "controversial things are not worth talking about".

Hacker News is owned by a venture fund. It's not for talking, the talking is just a thing they have to allow to keep people coming back here. I'll leave the task of discerning the obvious goals of YC to run an off-brand subreddit to the reader.
The mostly unrelated world population density map [1] really distracted me, partly because of how entirely wrong it is.

The map is actually of the populations of countries, not of world population density as claimed in the caption, and it's pretty aggressively thresholded, too. A density map would look something like [2], which is so dissimilar as to undermine any conclusion the reader might have drawn.

[1] http://frcs3.s3.amazonaws.com.global.prod.fastly.net/library...
[2] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/World_pop...
It is sad that what you say has nothing to do with the article linked, which has interesting content for science as a whole---not just R.

Instead of being positive and considering the community, you just bring a negative and unrelated message (that silly "airplane anecdote"). So yes, sad.
He's saying the opposite of that. A position that discriminates against minorities is not symmetric with one that does not. Personal convictions that discriminate against minorities are noxious. It's OK to condemn those kind of views.

Of course this produces the paradox of being intolerant of intolerance. Like most paradoxes it's not a problem in practice.
> Personally, I have no issue with this.

I agree that people have the right to push for companies to select officers that meet their criteria. But things like the OkCupid stunt are less respectable IMHO.

Is that really the way we want to see the Internet going? Visit a website where the web client is technically perfectly capable of displaying the page, but was associated with someone of the wrong political ideology, and so they get a nag page instead?

There is no clean exit to that logic; shouldn't OkCupid have banned JavaScript at the same time then? Shouldn't they put up nag messages to people visiting from IPs that resolve to a Republican National Committee host?

And if you do the things above, when does it become a net neutrality issue?
Yeah the discrimination wasn't that bad, I mean those gays should just suck it up it's not like they were getting sent to an internment camp! Do they really need to get married anyway?