skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You've highlighted one of the most important fallacies in the modern liberal's mindset, in my opinion...

PG touches on this: "The Pie Fallacy" in http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

My 2 cents on it: Wealth is created. Currency is a limited resource that represents that wealth. The value of a single unit of currency is increased every time more real wealth is created. Wealth is created when goods or services that people actually want are produced.
Why do you need absolute positions? Just see if the finger tapping the table is extended up/forward relative to other finger(s).
Retweeting is bridging the graph with an enticing edge to follow. If Twitter was a purely social network (without the information flow), the practice would reduce to name-dropping.
They pay much more in taxes despite the fact that they do this.

I'm pretty sure Warren Buffet proved otherwise:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ec...
HTML5 File API will introduce drag-and-drop file uploads
So it costs 3 cents a watt/hour (over the lifetime of the battery--much more than that short-term) to store (not produce) the energy, and that is supposed to be better than the seven cents a watt/hour that the electric company will charge for delivery right to my doorstep? I don't get it.
What does Les Paul have to do with Erlang?
Microsoft: Firefox's billion claim is 'interesting math'
Except the notability guideline is at odds with the stated goal of Wikipedia -- to collect and provide the totality of human knowledge, for free.

Far better would be to do away with the notability guideline entirely. The purpose it allegedly serves is in keeping unverifiable (as in, cannot be confirmed by reference to reliable sources) information out of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia already has two full-blown and actively-used policies regarding that matter. All that's left for notability, then, is to turn Wikipedia articles into popularity contests, something that's definitely at odds with its stated goals.
It always amazes me how americans have the smallest social safety net of the developed world and are always blaming the unfortunate for eating up their taxes.

You also work more hours than workers in other developed nations and yet still can't stop going on and on about lazy people.
Without the infrastructure around you, you would not have the opportunity to succeed. Much of this infrastructure is public - paid for and run by the government. Taxes are not the government stealing your income from you. It's the government pooling resources so the society we live in can continue to function.

There's more to success than making wise choices. It's also have the ability to even have that choice because of your surrounding environment.
we currently collect data from both our own iphone users going around and voting up on places, and from large and credible third party recommendation sites. you can get a heatmap representation here and see if it passes your own test: http://graffitigeo.com/heat
Sandworms of Dune was such a disappointment that I'll check the books out of the library now. The "prelude" and "legends" series were good enough that I went out and bought my own copies of them.
The big deal here is that Twitter will get a better idea of what tweets are of "higher quality" or "importance" (both of those terms are questionable). I imagine they'll start bubbling up RT's on some RT or use it for trending.
1. 50% people still probably use web interface, and they don't have easier way of retweeting tweets. They need to copy & paste and that's a big usability hassle.

2. Cleaner stream

3. And other most imp. part - data-mining about finding which activity is retweeted most number of times and discovering popular tweets.
Solution: More Startups!
> Buy SharePoint, MS CRM and a

So avoid buying enterprise software and related service contracts... by buying enterprise software and related employees?
What if you did something like (using the example from the article) A value which shares no bytes in common with the secret digest will return immediately; a value which shares the first 15 bytes will return 15 compares later.

You keep track of the time while doing the comparison, then before spitting back the result you feed the amount of time to a separate function that will sleep (or whatever) a certain amount of predetermined time so that all results process in the same time.

I realize this is a bit excessive, and will slow down your code quite a bit, but if you are really that worried about this type of attack, why not?
A) Lots of people with CF are taking between $3000 and $4000 worth of "maintenance drugs" per month -- ie what they take when they "aren't sick". More drugs get added to that if they have an exacerbation. (And many of them are hospitalized once or twice a year.) The idea that drugs are used according to some conservative set of guidelines doesn't really apply when you have a dread disease. I estimate that the US population of people with CF -- a mere 30,000 people -- probably goes through around $2 Billion a year worth of medication.

B) I hear back from other people using the information and the feedback suggests it is potentially repeatedly. The issue is that most folks won't go to the lengths I have gone. And I do not believe anyone should ask them to. It needs to be a choice. The site is intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive. I believe the top-down model is part of the problem. So I have zero desire to replicate that model. I would rather do nothing than contribute to the current (clearly failed) paradigm.

In recent weeks, someone familiar with the site did become desperate enough to try more than most folks have. Initial results are astonishingly good. This is an individual with an antibiotic resistant infection who was basically out of conventional options. Over time, I imagine word will spread. The way it spreads is important. I'm satisfied with the current direction of things.
I had the Alexa rankings for Hacker News in there the last time I edited it, but a Wikipedia editor has deleted that reference in his or her infinite wisdom.
There's a huge difference between the rich and high income earners. The rich/wealthy often favor higher taxes because their income is from tax-free bonds or from control of assets, where income is deferred and usually part of a one-time transaction, like sale of a company, where taxes can be avoided.

High-income earners, on the other hand, often have negative net worth (school and housing debt). The rich want high taxes on the high-income earners because they don't want the upstarts competing with them for control of assets...they want to make it harder for the next wave of entrepreneurs to build disruptive or competitive businesses.

It is ironic, but taxes on new capital formation directly benefit those who already have capital.
What happens nowadays is that people will at first carry them in their pockets, but as they get further from their youth, their thighs get flabbier. Soon enough they find it more comfortable to have the phone on the belt, because their pockets are smaller.
How are these brief entries any less important than descriptions of the complete episodes of BSG, Doctor Who, The Wire, or dozens of other TV shows? Yes, I've read many of those episode articles and I'm sure they get more hits, but we're talking about making information available to anyone who might needs it. Who can say this is needed, this is not?

It seems odd that a real person can't get an entry but there are probably thousands of fictional characters written up.
You're talking percent, he's talking gross.
Hmm. Some real whoppers in that "article" such as the claim that PDFs are virus proof. My comment there is "waiting moderation" so we'll see what sort of blogger this guy is.
Which way are you imagining this? The way I see it, your arms would get in the way
"For the first time ever, you can have all your emails in your pocket."

That is one great selling point. That alone means I don't need to be connected to the net to go back to my email and read that blog post (I read several blogs by email).

Also the data could be accessible to other web/mobile/desktop applications that want to harvest it.
HBase Tutorial for beginners
I've got to come clean, I feel like I'm the only person who never enjoyed radiohead. I like a grand total of two songs.
About time? FriendFeed has always kicked Twitter's ass iterating on features, and with access to Facebook's 300 million users this is just "too little, too late" for Twitter.
But who really cares if these pages exist on Wikipedia?

Would it affect the speed of serving up the more desired pages? My heart is with the inclusionists, but would Wikipedia be as easy and as fun to use if its database size were much larger for the same budget?
I say this with some trepidation since I am not familiar with Directi first hand, but having seen their job ads once too often now, I would like to know what exactly are the "interesting things" they are doing?

Based on their products page (http://directi.com/products/) Other than one "pre launch" product that will do instant messaging and free email, their entire business seems to be built around "landing pages" for domain parking companies.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." -- Samuel Johnson

"The most patriotic thing you can do is get rich." -- Mark Cuban

Sounds about right.
"Right, so I bust my ass in school, non-paid internships, contracting as much as possible, and 50 hour work weeks on my startup... and the reason I'm making money is b/c I'm more "fortunate" than the slob who is still playing video games in college after 6 years and the idiot who chooses to have kids he can't afford?"

I don't know you, but I consider myself fortunate to be making more money than most because I was given, through no merit of my own, the ability and environment in which I could become educated and work towards goals that ended in lucrative work. As the child of educated, middle-class, white-collar people in a modern industrialized country, I have had thousands of opportunities denied most others in the world. If any of those things changed, for example if I happened to be born 300 years ago or if my community never taught me the importance of education and hard work or if I was born in a place where subsistence-level living is the norm, I would be in a completely different boat. If you have the ability to make wise choices that effect change in your life, then yes, you are fortunate.

On a side note, this sort of disdain for the poor is disturbing to me. Do people really think poor people choose to be so? Nobody wants to be poor.
I don't think your argument holds up here, though. As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there are already Wikipedia policies in place which cover verifiability of information and citations to reliable sources (in fact, these criteria form part of one of Wikipedia's "Five Pillars").

And there are already perfectly useful procedures in place for dealing with articles which fail these criteria: there are tags for indicating that particular articles, sections or individual statements are in need of citation, and there's a process for evaluating sources referenced by articles.

Given this, the notability guideline seems at best to duplicate matters already covered by full-fledged policies. And in real-world situations, its main function seems to be turning Wikipedia into a popularity contest -- prove that your topic has enough Google juice, and it stays!
for-profit corporations exist for the sole purpose of advancing their shareholder's interest (profit). period. end of story.

check out any company's s-1 filing. here's google's for reference: http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2004/google.pdf

just search through that for the phrase 'shareholder'. here's just a small taste: We will make decisions on business fundamentals... and always with the long term welfare of our company and shareholders in mind

and 'lest you forget, the board of yahoo was actually sued for initially rebuffing the microsoft takeover bid.
It's only "infinitely more important" in your false, theoretical reality.

Give me a Henry Ford or a porn producer any day over Mother Teresa.

It speaks volumes that you hold a person that "never held a paid job in her life" in higher esteem than an individual that actually created wealth.

The guy who founded girls gone wild produced far more of what people want than your useless social engineers.
Sadly, I was talking more about the wikipedia I would like to see than about the wikipedia that currently exists.

Personally, number of people using something is a lot more meaningful to me than number of journalists writing about it. Of course, as a very occasional anonymous editor, I suppose I don't have much right to complain.
My take is that half of this Guardian article makes an important observation about Wikipedia, and the other half tries to relitigate the whole idea of Wikipedia.

The important half: the WP I immersed myself into in 2007 was decidedly less hospitable than the image WP tries to craft for itself. There are two forces I saw that were dragging the project down: editing-as-sport (which, guilty as charged, yes) and status seeking.

pg, I think, got a faceful of the editing-as-sport problem when he looked at the articles on HN/YC topics. WP editors are encouraged to tag first and ask questions later; there's volumes and reams and bookcases and crap-tons of policy and process designed to handle those tags. However, a very vocal subset of WP users will both tag-first, and also take a personal interest in the outcome of those discussions. So if an article is AfD'd (put up for deletion) for notability concerns, and the article's a "Keep", you can bet the {{Notability}} tag is staying and every edit is going to be contested until some face-saving reorganization of the topic emerges (for instance, an omnibus "Y Combinator" article with subsections for pg and Blackwell).

The supposed nurturing atmosphere of the all-volunteer encyclopedia is meanwhile torpedoed by the status-seeking quest for adminship, in which clued-in editors are all too aware that every dispute they engage in is a contest to win or lose credibility in a future WP debate over whether they can put the gold star of adminship on their pages.

There are rationales for both these phenomenon, which I don't want to go into (rms apparently already thinks I'm a total message board geek for WP), but I'll just say that that part of the controversy over WP I think is real and valid.

The second half of the debate here is over deletionism vs. inclusionism. Here I'm less concerned. There is obviously a pervasive misunderstanding about the concept of "notability" and the overall goal of the Wikipedia project. Wikipedia is not the Hitchhiker's Guide. A decision was made long before the Guardian ever noticed WP that, in order to keep the project focussed, topics would be included or excluded based on an acid test of "Notability".

"Notability" in the WP sense isn't subjective. You're notable if reliable sources have written about you. You're not notable if they haven't. The definition of "reliable source" is pretty expansive; my impression is that it goes up to and including "blogs lots of people have heard of". It certainly includes the entire mainstream media.

You can argue that, because WP isn't paper, you should be able to include anything in it, including a "who's who" of everyone who's ever posted code to Freshmeat. You can argue that, but it's pointless to do so. That argument came and went many years ago, and it's settled. The who's-who will have to live under some other domain.
> State-sponsored teaching that evolution is bunk, and that the koran/bible/FSM is literal truth, though, is probably crossing the boundary, and that's what we were discussing, not monogamy.

The problem though is that, from the government side anyways, the two arguments are not separable. As soon as you propose to limit/expand the freedoms of one special interest group, all of them swarm out of the woodwork.

The problem is also that you cannot say "this is crossing the boundary" without first defining what the boundary is. Sure, teaching creationism (for us) is well beyond this ephemeral concept of "the line", but fair governance requires us to actually define where "the line" is.
Wow that's cold.

It's a bit ugly that you can loop everyone that can't afford healthcare, mental health issues or drug addiction into a single bucket and dispose of them.

Those who can afford to spend 6 years in college playing video games, rarely are the ones who are doing it on the gov't dime. Its the kids that grow up in crappy underprivileged neighborhoods with poor school systems and no guidance are the ones that need help. But hey its their parents fault right?

You sir, compassion less, and cold spirited and are the one I can do without.
The iPad would be interesting ...
If your whole argument is that {{Notability}} should instead be {{refimprove}} (or whatever that tag was), then, fine, but I think my point holds.
I just found out that the iPhone camera is on the back. (I have an iPod touch, which has no camera.)

You could type behind the iPhone while viewing the screen.

Or you could turn the device around to point the camera towards you and type while listening to a speech synthesizer read your typing.
Printouts of PDFs I supply.
How embarrassing. One of the best first comments, chock full of really useful information that is difficult to discover on your own, when I finally get the dreaded iPhone smush and downvote it to 0. My apologies, I'm sure you'll have your karma back shortly.
What a lame argument. I thought there was a rule on HN against wading into Holy Wars anyway
that's a spam site...
"Chi has identified one model that Wikipedia's growth pattern matches. 'In my experience, the only thing we've seen these growth patterns [in] before is in population growth studies--where there's some sort of resource constraint that results in this model.' The site, he suggests, is becoming like a community where resources have started to run out."

That's an interesting observation. The other time I have seen a growth curve like that is observing the growth of homeschooling in the United States from the 1980s through the 1990s

http://learninfreedom.org/homeschool_growth.html

to the present. The scarce resource is parents who feel they have enough time to homeschool their children. That resource is not completely exhausted, but the growth of homeschooling in the United States follows the resource-constrained S-shaped curve model much better than an exponential, bigger-is-always-better model. It appears that the resource constraint now on Wikipedia is new editors willing to work with the existing editors. That resource isn't exhausted yet either, but it is scarce and limited, and thus Wikipedia's growth rate has slowed.
Not to mention the daily stories of Wall St hustlers stealing billions, trillions of taxpayer dollars being given away as welfare to corporations (which promptly pay out billions in bonuses) and trillions pissed away on murdering tens of thousands of people in other countries, but people are all up in arms when some single mother gets a $100 in food stamps, or a Mexican risks death in the desert to come mow your lawn. Or god forbid that health care suddenly becomes affordable. That would be a true outrage!

There's really very little sense of proportion in this country.
It would be funny if this turned out to have a silver lining - if co-installing IE8 and IE6 is too tricky, so they might go down the route of IE6/Chrome, esp. if Google were to offer support for enterprise customers.
A billion downloads, not a billion users. If there are only 200 million users and they kept up with 1 point release in 5 then you'd already have a billion downloads.
Wow, that's fantastic news. I've been using No Machine's NX for a while and it's a really great way to do remote desktoping.
I don't want to speak for him, but I'm pretty sure Cuban is talking percent too, given that he seems to be encouraging the paying of full taxes sans loopholes.
You've highlighted one of the most important fallacies in the modern liberal's mindset, in my opinion...

Completely unnecessary partisan drivel. The man asked a question and you made a useless generalization that shows, more than anything else, that you don't understand your opposition's socioeconomic philosophy.

However, you are correct, currency is simply a tangible representation of value. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Consider a screwdriver. Physically, this screwdriver is simply its raw materials. However, by organizing the materials in the right way, this screwdriver becomes more than the some of its parts and increases its value accordingly. Thus, by selling this screwdriver for its perceived value, one can create wealth in the difference of costs vs. revenue. Of course, a simplistic example, but one that answers the question fairly well.

Edit: Maybe I should cite pg and get on the bandwagon...
This is an astute and important point. I have always found it flawed that a middle-class American family making around $100K in income will pay more taxes than someone with $10M+ portfolio of municipal bonds.

With that said, I agree with Mark Cuban's philosophy here, and do not get personally upset with paying taxes.

I don't think the solution is to complain about taxes on high income earners. Rather, there just needs to be more pressure on instituting equivalent taxes for other forms of wealth generation (i.e. get rid of tax-free bonds).
Can has Yahoo! mail support please?
Turns out I had it set up wrong. The developer suggested uninstalling and using the Gmail settings (rather than IMAP) to sync my account. This seems to be working fine.
Oh no... now along with the bluetooth people talking to themselves, you'll have a bunch of people scanning slowly around with their iphones out.

But seriously, this is awesome. Great work!
This is cool but is there a function for finding hidden topics? i.e. given red, yellow, blue -> colors
> The guy who founded girls gone wild produced far more of what people want than your useless social engineers.

Pablo Escobar produced far more of what people want than our hypothetical porn producer. Feynmann produced far, far less. What exactly is your point?
He makes an argument for making money, but not for getting (or being) rich. What societal advantage is there to one person amassing wealth? It seems like Cuban is saying that if you create wealth, you can pass it on to others. So wouldn't that mean that it would be better for society if you were just a conduit for wealth, paying your employees, contractors, and suppliers as much as possible?

It seems like the most beneficial thing would be to "Hire people. Train people. Pay people. Spend money on rent, equipment, services." but not skim a bunch off the top for yourself.
Of course, this logic could also be applied to war profiteering.

The problem is that economics does not exist in an ideal world with no socio-moral ramifications.
I'm not entirely impressed by the end product -- the "custom logo" looks like a generic logo that Publisher might generate. The main problem I see is that the resume is not easily OCR'd, and the text still looks like the boring text of a normal resume but with a fancy background. I think that design applicants should strive for more.
Don't feel bad - I've never even heard of them.
Getting rich by creating American jobs that manufacture goods that we sell to Asia and re-balancing the trade imbalance would improve the dollar strength and create American jobs, that'd be ok. If I get rich by putting Applebees out of business because I made a slightly better boneless buffalo wing, nothing would be gained.
Or just don't short circuit ever, and do the entire computation every time.