skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's the ballpark I figured in, and that's why I'm just using Crashplan. $5/month for unlimited storage, but with "encryption" in scare quotes. Paying literally 50x that for Tarsnap is just not practical, since for me true encryption is a nice-to-have and not a must-have. Though I can't really blame cperciva for not being competitive in that regard, I totally understand the difficulty/impossibility involved.
A win for bigotry everywhere.

If we don't like your personal opinions we wont vote or back a proposition against them -- we'll make you lose your job.
Why is a highly ranked, recent story being buried?
The Mozilla CEO story[1] is on page two of the feed on HN with 600+ points, 700+ comments and is 3 hours old. What part of the algorithm allows it to be put below items that are simultaneously older and ranked lower, such as [2]?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7525198
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7523229
Have you taken a look at Julia? [0] I am rooting for it to replace Matlab, Python/Numpy/Scipy, and R all in one go. It's an awesome language.

[0] http://julialang.org/
Let's take affirmative action as a civil right - it's also an issue that will affect a lot of organizations: Some people consider opposing affirmative action as racist and anti-minority, and such a person unfit to be a CEO. Meanwhile others see affirmative action itself as racist (see Ward Connerly, from California Proposition 209) and sometimes discriminating against minorities too. This fundamentally leads to a similar clash - so who's right here on what the civil right is (e.g. anti-racism)?

Some will say that affirmative action is not an obvious thing you'd question the ethics of a person for. But oppose or support that sort of initiative and you'll be called a racist, sexist, etc. by at least one group, based on how you feel about certain groups of people.
Then social forces were preventing him from doing his job — which has a large social component. Does he have the right to not be fired for being an inadequate employee, too?
I also hate that, websites should reserve the space for ads, to prevent this FOUC-alike effect to happen :/
Is Y Combinator biased towards young founders?
A recent post by HBR addressed the biased towards young founders in the SV but according to their "quick and dirty" research:
22% of billion USD SV founders were 20-24 at age of founding.
19% 25-29;
22% 30-34,
35% older than 35
2% younger than 20
> I am much less inclined to support Mozilla monetarily or in any other capacity from this point on. Call me a hypocrite, call me whatever you like, but I feel that strongly. This guy should not have been treated this way.

There were many more saying they would stop supporting Mozilla if he remained CEO. Brendan Eich is a victim not of Mozilla, but of the controversy-generating journalism industry. Keep supporting efforts for an open web and make sure you're running Adblock to avoid funding these parasites.
> Slavery seems a poor example, since the people with the "wrong" opinion were already rich and powerful, and the people with the "right" one were... well, slaves

Actually there were a small number of rich and powerful people with the "right" opinions. They could hardly voice those opinions or they'd risk losing all that power and, as a consequence, wealth.

The whole point is that the people who had the power to do something about it didn't do anything for a very long time, for the most part, because it would ruin their reputation, at best.

> What are you proposing? That we shouldn't object to injustices, on the off chance we're wrong and too many people agree with us?

Yes and no. You conveniently phrased this as a loaded question, making it hard for me to respond.

No, we shouldn't ignore injustices. But yes, we should be tolerant of certain things to a certain degree. But it turns out we already have a centuries-old system that allows us to do this without resorting to public shaming and near vigilante tactics. I'm suggesting we just use that system rather than trying to scare people into sharing our opinions.

> It seems the world disagrees.

You're jumping the gun. It's entirely possible that many (or even most) people who are against gay marriage don't even know who Brendan Eich is.
Mozilla's board is, in fact, not omniscient and may not have foreseen this controversy.
The issue is that the concept of "size" is very nebulous, and it's very reductionist and misleading to measure that with just money. A good example to make here is that North Korea has no income tax. The undesirable part of the war on terror is not the fact that it wastes a few billion dollars of federal money; it's all of the secondary burdens that it imposes on ordinary people. Airport security at the time was almost nonexistent by comparison to today. The growth of federal prison is not harmful because it imposes $23 worth of taxes per person; it's harmful because, well, it imprisons people. It's $7 billion of money to law enforcement, but 1% of the population is $150 billion lost GDP. If the regulatory authorities become 4x more efficient due to technology and enforce 2x as many regulations at 0.5x the cost, that's not small government. So I think the general way of describing this is that government might be growing smaller in the sense of being less useful, but at the same time larger in the sense of being more intrusive.
This is sad.

I know about Brendan Eich's views, but Mozilla is an organization devoted to open source, none of whose concerns, as far as I can tell, have anything to be with sexual minorities. Were he still the CEO, he really couldn't have used his office to act on his views; so why all the castigating ?

He has a view, and sure a lot of us (including me) don't agree with him, but this culture of outrage is disgusting.
Everything is political, unless you presume that laws come from nature or from god. If we 're all defacto equal vs marriage, then i could marry my 6-year old cousin.
Let me see if I follow:

What you're saying here is that an institutional investor wants to buy MSFT at a price that does not reflect their new demand for 100,000 shares. That order, absent some external force that will put downward pressure on the shares (which, if so, why buy now?) will naturally raise the price of MSFT for everyone in the market.

The investor, in other words, wants something for nothing: they want to trade at a price that doesn't reflect their demand, and for some other market participant to take the hit for selling below the true demand.
>Changing your views, and admitting you were wrong is the best thing you can do.

Dude, what?

What if he doesn't feel it was wrong? Furthermore, who the fuck cares what he believes and what he spends his money on in his own PRIVATE time? That's COMPLETELY outside of his job at the Mozilla foundation which he's been working at just fine for 15 fucking years.

Your comment genuinely irritates me.
Weird that these are being demoted. Regardless - I've seen some people defending him for various reasons, most prominently because he has a right to free speech. Of course he has a right to free speech, and he exercised it. He also has the responsibility to accept the consequences. His actions/speech made enough people angry enough to exercise their speech to the extent that Eich's position was no longer tenable.

People too often forget that rights don't mean that there will be no consequences to exercising those rights (within the bounds of the law, and other things).
How is that not enough evidence? He paid $1000 to the campaign. Since the outrage began, he has said nothing to nuance his position, nothing to talk about changing his mind, nothing to make his employees or contributors feel like he had their best interest at heart.

And furthermore, are you really trying to say we should have to directly tie how that money went into the Prop 8 bank account and then was spent to influence voters in California?

You're making completely irrational requests. Showing up at an anti-civil rights protest back in the 60s may not have directly influenced someone to keep their mouth shut out of safety(and how would you prove that it did), but it has an influence and to act like because you can't directly tie it to someone is to absolve people of any past wrongdoings short of force.

Changing your mind is okay. Saying you were wrong is okay. They need to be, as society grows and matures. But the same as the risks taken by those who try to push society's opinions ahead of itself, if you lag behind you're just as likely to get hurt.
It's the worst date faking attempt in history if that was his intention - I think he republished his 2005 story after bitcoin to point out that he came up with these ideas.
If there is an sea on Enceladus then there will already be microbial life there [0]. Microbes can survive for ages in space [1] and there are plenty of rocks moving from the earth and all of the other planets and moons of the solar system [0,2].

One of the more interesting stories about microbes in space is that some survived on the moon for almost three years inside a camera [3]. It is not 100% certain that the microbes cultured were not from later contamination, but I know from working with them that microbes are really tough and I can believe that they could have survived!

[0] http://users.tpg.com.au/horsts/transpermia.html

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19854226

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reports_of_Streptococcus_mitis_...
No. You cannot.

Do I donate money to certain projects of mine? Sure. When did I donate the most money? When I billed a private equity firm $300.00 per hour for development work and had a surplus of $15,000.00 dollars. I gave quite a bit to the FSF and others.

Do you really think that by charging the PE firm $50.00 per hour I would be enabling them to donate to the FSF? FreeBSD Foundation? Haskell? GNU? Do you even think they would or care? I certainly wouldn't have enough money to do so at that rate, but I did at $300.00 per hour.

Highly naive my friend. I'm sorry to be offensive but I'm sick of my intelligent peers (sometimes even more intelligent) squandering what is, a massive opportunity sitting in front of them that is being ignored for a totally ridiculous noble cause when their "noble causes" could be enhanced so much more without an iota of evil behavior.

Tarsnap isn't going to become an big evil corporation by charging more. It might if he decides to sell it, but I doubt that. It would be enabling him to do even more amazing things for software, geeks, the world, whatever. Those amazing things could be donations to enable OTHER brilliant people or it could be a new business, or new features that make backups a better experience, or it could be starting an R&D lab for crypto that pumps out purely Open Source research on cryptography that makes its way back into Tarsnap or different business.
Really? Is there a rash of this sort of thing going on that I don't know about? Or is it pretty much just Brendan Eich right now, reaping the consequences of expressing bigotry publicly?
Have there been any thoughts of making a python package that emulate's R's "ease of use and immediately having X statistical methods available"? I imagine it would mostly be a renaming wrapper around NumPy and SciPy.
I've seen some people defending him for various reasons, most prominently because he has a right to free speech. Of course he has a right to free speech, and he exercised it. He also has the responsibility to accept the consequences. His actions/speech made enough people angry enough to exercise their speech to the extent that Eich's position was no longer tenable.

People too often forget that rights don't mean that there will be no consequences to exercising those rights (within the bounds of the law, and other things).
This doesn't look like a response to me, since I never said that the left doesn't use boycotts. They're a common political tool and have been for a very very long time.

I was asked for some examples of right wing boycotts and I came up with just one organization that has organized a bunch of them. I did not have to dig deep to find it and I dug no further than that at this very moment, but they are not rare or hard to find.
You're a cunt.
I can completely understand his motivation, even though I believe the efforts to demote/kill them will ultimately be futile. Like you said, this topic will demand discussion. The main thread should at least not be flagged off the frontpage or the new links will keep coming in.
The Idiots Guide to High Frequency Trading
The Catholic Church said as much to Galileo.
Yeah, those people in the 50s who fought against desegregation just had a different personal opinion on what was okay. Nothing wrong with that!
I'm not sure it's bigotry when people are held accountable for their public opinions.

Free speech cuts both ways.
> There is already a major thread on this topic, and it has already spent time on the front page. Anyone who wishes to participate in that thread is welcome to do so.

Is he saying that because a thread exists for a topic, anyone who wants to discuss that topic needs to go and track down the buried thread? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

If the community still wants to discuss something, why not let them? Why force the discussion into a rarely-visited thread ghetto?
If sexual orientation is a choice, then why aren't there throngs of "straight" male scientists choosing to be gay for a while, fucking a bunch of dudes, enjoying it (that's the key part), then writing papers on it?
Does Facebook use this system to turn on new features for a certain subset of the user base to test those features out, or is this mainly for A/B testing existing features?
I'd rather someone who acts like Carter on the issue of abortion. Someone who unapologetically states their opinion, states publicly why they hold that opinion, and then follows it up with why the role they are promising to uphold requires that they put that opinion to one side and represent the beliefs of the people they are leading instead.

You can only do this successfully if you are prepared to discuss the reasons for your opinions in public. Eich isn't.
Yeah, I agree it feels liberating. Though I prefer the broader label of "non-realist", because "non-cognitivist" seems too restrictive.

For example, if you think mankind might someday create an AI that would satisfy the preferences of humans, then you need these preferences to be expressible mathematically, as some kind of utility function. If you're a non-realist, you're okay with that, as long as the utility function is specific to humans (i.e. the utility functions of human-built AI and alien-built AI don't have to be the same). But if you're also a non-cognitivist, then you're in a difficult spot, because obviously one can make true and false statements about a mathematical function. Does that make sense?

(Disclaimer - I'm a Google engineer as well, and also pretty active on lesswrong.com which has covered these issues in much detail.)
I agree that in practice elections are won by those who manage to cast their ballots, but I disagree with the notion that this is not a defect but rather how democracy ought to work.

I'm all for the option to not vote, but I want it to be a choice. I think the current setup provides the wrong incentives: it encourages politicians to care about how they can rouse up enough to come to the polls or demoralize enough to keep away, in addition to or at the expense of reaching out to all constituents. We can change this either through cultural or legal means, but the legal way is faster and not demonstrably harmful.

Greater participation is far from a panacea, of course. It may even introduce its own particular ills (e.g. takes longer to change the status quo). But I hardly think it would make no difference at all. That's why I pointed to other democracies with better voting records, to show that overall democracy isn't harmed by more voting.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#International_di...
I don't think you and so many others would say the same thing if the issue was inter-racial marriage, today. Is it really so hard for people to get a little bit ahead of the progress curve for a change, instead of digging in and dragging heels behind it? What is it that makes it so hard?
So if someone doesn't think like the mass, he looses his jobs?

I find it sad, he definitely had views opposed to mines, but he definitely would have done a great job as CEO at Mozilla...
If Mozilla changed their mind and asked him to be CEO again he could. If another company asked him he could. Just because no one wants you to be CEO does not mean you don't have the right to be.
Someone should just clone Tarsnap, run it as a business, and compete with Colin. He's in it for the fun and hobby, not the money and no one can change that in his personality. If anyone feels that a company can be doing something better but refuses to do it better, then compete with it.

People keep trying to "fix" Colin instead of doing the entrepreneurial thing and competing with him. He can't be fixed because there's nothing "wrong" with him. That's like telling Good Will or the Salvation Army to change their pricing. If you want a for-profit department store then start your own Walmart. If you want a better backup service like Tarsnap then clone the thing and do it better.
That is crazy logic. Because international telephone calls used to cost over 12 cents a minute I should let my ISP charge me 1 cent a minute whenever I use Skype internationally?
> I don't want to live in a society where people have to fear for their jobs or a public mob action because they espoused an unpopular opinion. I disagree with Eich's opinion today, but tomorrow I could be in the minority. Yes, the wrong ideas can be harmful, but in my opinion if we have an open marketplace of ideas, rather than the "chilling effects" of political correctness (or religion, or any other force that says that there are unspeakable ideas), the truth will eventually out.

But there's no difference between the two. Society has come to a consensus: Gay Marriage is okay. It isn't gonna end anybody's world.

If you're still arguing the other way- especially to a group who have held this consensus longer than most- of course you probably shouldn't be at the head of the organization. That'd be like denying climate change while being the head of an environmentalist organization that had been started in the 50s.
I agree with patio11's post... except for his derogatory comments about PAYG pricing.

As someone with a few side projects and start-ups, all of which are at the proof of concept/mildly profitable stage, it matters to me that there's a way to get started for less than $50/month. $50/month * 10 SaaS platforms = my profits.

His approach makes sense if the aim is to extract the most value from businesses; but what about nurturing new companies?
Twitter spam wave
I think what happened is that Gay rights stopped being a matter of opinion and turned into a matter of civil rights ... and Eich just got caught on the wrong side of it. On one hand I feel kind of sorry for him, but on the other, I'm happy to see American society making progress in this way. I think its a lesson to all of us to be very careful and forward thinking about the battles we choose to fight in life.

Not to make this any more controversial ... this could easily be the story of a racist person in the who got caught in the same position after the tides shifted and being openly racist just wasn't acceptable any more ... for example Trent Lott.
Part of the difference is that audio is temporal, while an image is static. The odds of noticing an artifact in an well-compressed MP3 are small; the psycho-acoustic model is built on the assumption that many frequencies will be discarded by the brain anyway, and so the listener won't notice their absence.

However, an image doesn't change moment to moment, so the eye is free to wander and immerse, and thereby notice some oddly pixelated macroblocks that would have been ignored with a momentary glance.
Mobbing someone out of employment isn't a right, either.
> I'd say of course we have to include that as a measure of how much of a role the government plays in the society. This is with no judgment about whether this is a good/bad thing.

Government has a $10 trillion+ impact on the economy by enforcing property rights, and likely a similarly large one by restricting immigration. Neither of those appear in a "budget". So you really have to be extremely careful about what you mean by "government" and "size".
I wrote three responses to this comment, and three times you edited it. I'm not going to try for a fourth.

Update: Actually, there are some points you've edited in that I need to refute here to prevent the spread of misinformation.

>Your service brands all images with your logo, gfycat hides it except for at certain times, for a much cleaner look.

What? No, we don't do anything like that. What on Earth are you talking about?

>You don't give a progress report for uploads

Yes we do.
It's sad you have to qualify it—religion is part of all our past, whatever our opinions of it now, and it will only increase our wisdom to understand our ancestors.
They're not welcome to the club when they're taking actions to strip the rights of another individual. Opinions are one thing, concrete actions are another.
Try working in the oil industry in California. When I was a kid, my father was in charge of PR for one of the refineries in the Bay Area. Local activists routinely tried to get him fired since he was the face of oil in that small town, some even going as far as saying so at city council meetings.

An orthodontist even refused to take me on as a patient because of who my father was.
Not sure why you are getting downvoted here. Especially given that everyone was raging about it here before this happenned.
You'll forgive me if I find expanding the definition of "marriage" in state and federal law to be a more reasonable approach than having to fight separate battles for each of the 1000+ legal rights and obligations which currently accrue to married couples.
Yes, and it is actually that kind of conversation. I will email you about some thoughts on a different topic, and you will recognize my email from my profile.
I am calling you out as complicit in the witch hunt against Eich, whih you are. It is as simple as that.
Microsoft does great work in researching static code analysis, I only remember their auto-complete ten years ago for C++ code and it was miles ahead of anything else. It pops up in just the right moment and it just feels like a genuine "code assistant" instead of just an auto-complete. Unfortunately I don't really trust MS with developing great OSX software (see MS Office for Mac) so I'm not sure I'd want Visual Studio. But if they could pull of a proper port, it would be awesome.
Not waving, but choking. Many comments seem to be cutting more slack to this announcement than perhaps they would for other companies' products.
Nest says they discovered this for themselves, which indicates that there is some measurable effect and it came up on post-release testing, months after release. Even though some people had been discussing a potential for exactly this scenario when the product features were first announced.
Given this not unexpected error condition, Nest really should have run those same tests before releasing a product whose sole function is safety.
Any tax you propose will reduce the amount of the taxed thing and introduce unintended consequences. So we have to ask why do you want less transactions or orders? It won't reduce HFT activity for instance. It will just mean that HFT systems will only make more profitable trades. That means higher bid/ask spreads and higher risk limits leading to higher volatility. It also may have the unintended consequence of consolidating more volume into smaller firms.

That doesn't seem to be in anyone's best interest.

As for latency games the issue is not the overall latency it is fifo priority matching. Without changing that bouncing trading signals off of mars won't help.