skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And that's how you do it, well done Stripe! Glad to know that the money they received from me through their API use is being well used and having a positive effect :-)
Thanks for the massive clickbait, Techcrunch!
Circles for incoming content are fundamentally broken as they don't allow topical categorization of content.

If I can subscribe to feeds, and set a preference for specific individuals on those feeds, I get a vastly superior information product. You can roughly approximate this via search in G+, but only roughly.

The lack of ability to follow people's topical posts (that is: show me +JohnDoe's post to SomeCommunity) was simply idiotic.

Reddit, subreddits, friends, RES dashboard, and RSS feeds give me much of what I was hoping for from G+. And a hell of a lot more utility.
so is market segmentation a bug or a feature?

its not clear, from the sound of it.

right now seprate ecosystems support diversity (UI) and diversification (PI) and functional efficiency (sandboxing, signal/noize).
You're paying for sending traffic one-way. Peering agreements are free when both sides are sending an equal amount of traffic to the other.
Previously, they paid transit providers for everything, but Comcast wouldn't allow them access to their network at sufficient speeds, so they were forced into paying Comcast directly.

In other words, we're already in the double-dipping situation I'm decrying. The "we each pay our ISPs" scenario that I described and that you quoted is now, sadly, a hypothetical.
>Disclosure: I'm very, very active on Google+, and so are a lot of my friends. I've been circled by about 10,000 users and have almost 1,500,000 views. Google+ is quite popular with a certain demographic: very technical people, engineers, developers, and programmers. Also Android fans, photographers and artsy people.

Those are hardly enough to make it viable.

1.500.000 views? There are cat videos that have as many...
Theres a good chance they could be using a version that has backported security fixes, but seriously, look at the amount of known vulnerabilities Apache 1.3.29 has:
http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_13.html
I'm glad I didn't follow my instincts this time, then.
If you know, could you expand on the capital costs to convert a typical petrol station to, or augment it with, hydrogen capacity? I strongly suspect there's rather a lot of hardware (insulated tank and plumbing, major refrigeration, etc) required, and I suspect there are in some states at least rather restrictive (post-hindenburg) laws about hydrogen storage. Much higher costs than a Tesla superstation, no?

I own an RV with a propane tank, and propane storage and filling equipment is more complicated than the petrol equivalent, and a propane fill is always done by a trained person -- no self-serve allowed! Hydrogen would be many times more complex.

Also re standardization, there is a standard electrical plug use at all EV charge points, it fits my Toyota plug-in hybrid, a Nissan Leaf, or a Tesla. I am looking forward to stopping at a Tesla superstation with my Prius, I can probably get a full charge in 5-6 minutes...
Indeed. "Stochastic extinction and skilled epidemiologists and clinicians" are vastly more likely explanations than "It's just so good at killing people".

That explanation just has way better press.
Circles always seemed to me like something someone dreamed up while way too high, and nobody ever said "dude, this just isn't going to work."

Put down the crack pipe and step away from from the whiteboard.
You are correct that "functionally" there may be no advantage. The value is not the functionality but the architecture. It is resilient to some very powerful attackers, both actual and theoretical. _That_ is where it derives it's power, not necessarily from functionality.

If Bitcoin operated on a centralized database, as E-Gold did, it would have gotten shut down quickly (as E-Gold did).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold
One hell of a disparity between that and my parents paying ~$.18/kwh in rural Michigan.
Netflix isn't complaining about peering directly. That's exactly what they want. They're complaining because according to anybody with common sense, that peering should be settlement-free.
Product-driven versus Customer-driven
I live in Australia so we do have greater protections and safer banks than in America. But regardless, those tax payer bail outs are still part of the banking system. The banking system is more than the actual banks themselves, it includes the legal and political climate such as bail outs. You can't compare Bitcoin and Banks without looking at the full picture, otherwise that is just a distortion of reality.
Google+ does allow for handles. I see them constantly.
actually that's not unreasonable for midwest pay for a programmer.
Was this particularly necessary?
> If I can subscribe to feeds

You can, if people create them -- Google+ calls named feeds "Pages". You add the Page (originators categorization) to the circle (receivers categorization) you want, and that's how G+ supports classification from both ends of the communication.
The sheep have neighed.. er down voted
Crowdfunding the Recovery of a Lost Spacecraft
So, just for the record, you're betting against Elon Musk himself on hydrogen fuel cells [1]. This is a guy who has stated, multiple times, that hydrogen fuel cells make no sense from first principles analysis, even considering the best case scenario. The efficiency of converting methane to hydrogen, transporting it to (non-existent) hydrogen fuel stations, and converting it to electricity in an inefficient fuel cell just doesn't make any sense. May as well just burn corn ethanol.

Also, just use common sense for a moment. Look how much flak Tesla is getting for their little battery fires. Do you have any idea what destruction compressed hydrogen gas is capable of causing? Not to mention all of the issues with storing hydrogen in the first place (hydrogen cracking).

I'm not a betting man, but I'll take any bets on hydrogen fuel cell cars becoming mainstream.

1. http://youtu.be/MmQb94EF1UY?t=29m40s
Johan Bananas?
Not in my opinion. I was excited about Android before it was released, but once I saw the APIs and found out it was going to be an all java userland, I was bummed. Then I found out that it was difficult to get direct access to the file system on it. I was sad because I wanted to use it for a tiddlywiki:) After a while, I got excited that Motorola was going to make a particularly attractive one (the Droid), so I was going to try it out anyway - but suddenly the N900 was a thing and it was barely a choice.

Before Android, I really thought that Google's shit didn't stink. I would have voted for Google for president. Afterwards it wasn't the same, and just went downhill from there.

In retrospect, the only reason I thought gmail was so awesome was because they gave you POP3 access. I mean, the UI was clean and simple, but it wasn't much easier to use than any of the other webmail clients. I'm not saying that in order to criticize gmail: that's the best they could have done, because none of the other clients were that difficult to use.

What I liked was the simple generosity that they showed by allowing me to download and send my mail without using their UI. I was entirely willing to let them read it all and target ads towards me during my searches in exchange. [Edit: to be truly honest, I was excited that their math might really offer me the products that I'd be interested in:) Seems so quaint now.]

Then, Android. The choice of laying a Java VM over the underlying filesystem and kernel, and the choice to lock parts of the filesystem down and to fill the OS with opaque binaries and phones with closed drivers represented the opposite of the image of trust that had attracted me to them in the first place.[Edit: Ugh! I forgot about the proprietary headphone jacks.]

I felt that before Android, Google trusted me to use their products, and I trusted them not to be evil. After Android, it occurred to me that Google did not trust me to use the phone I bought from them.

Google Docs is pretty successful. Not super successful, but successful enough to put pressure on Microsoft, which is always good. Google revolutionized search in the style of Altavista, and beat them on the math. Then they went into email in the style of Yahoo and Microsoft, and offered a cleaner UI and a softer sell than either. Then they went after Doubleclick and kicked its ass with text ads then bought it as the coup de grace, went after Office, bought YouTube after they failed to beat it, and went after Facebook (who had gone after myspace and friendster), and went after Amazon in B2B, while repeatedly failing to beat it or Ebay in retail or payments.

What I'm trying to say here is that Google hasn't given me anything that I couldn't have gotten elsewhere ever. The distinction that Google had was 1) being focused on the math (and therefore quality), 2) offering clean user interfaces and APIs, and 3) having a conscience. Two and three have gone to shit, and everybody has caught up on 1) - there's good math everywhere these days.
I had the same thought, and will almost certainly be cribbing this page's body-text font stack...

font-family: 'Ubuntu Mono','Consolas','Menlo','Deja Vu Sans Mono','Bitstream Vera Sans Mono';

...(fulfilled by Menlo on my Mac) for a future project.
As a Canadian student with no previous experience working in the US, I find it nearly impossible to get an internship at startups in the states. I'm not sure if it's my own problem or it's because of visa/relocation costs, I have no trouble landing interviews with Canadian companies. :(

Any fellow Canadian students have successful experience getting an internship in the states, and would like to share?
I would assume that Google has a way to remove that limit for their own usage, right?
Maybe, but by the time it rolled out, Schmidt was gone. G+ is pretty much all Vic.
His anecdote is no better than yours from where I'm sitting. I've got lots of tech savvy friends including developers, engineers, photographers, and artsy people. My friends are in my g+ circles from whenever Google opened the flood gates. I haven't checked in a while, but iirc the last post was over a year (or two) ago.

Saying, "it's not a ghost town [for me]" is no more or less valuable than the opposite experience. I'm glad you're enjoying g+, but that fact doesn't say much about the service.
Are you also the Don Hopkins being abusive and trolling on the comment threads of Gerv Markham's blog [1]?

[1] http://blog.gerv.net/2014/04/your-ire-is-misdirected/
It's about gender because she is directly claiming it's about gender and has done so from the beginning. As valleywag quoted her saying today:

"Would this happen to a man in the same situation? No."

She is wrong, wrong, wrong. Things happen all the time to men in the tech industry that are worse than what she claims happened to her. Even famously so:

http://www.businessinsider.com/ex-color-employee-files-lawsu...
Worldwide Incarceration Data
Comcast and Cogent disagreed on who should burden the costs. Because of this Netflix went around Cogent and are doing it themselves, and saving a lot of money by doing so.

Now they are using the biased tech media to create a campaign whereby they will lower their costs even further and shift them onto others (including you and me).
I'd proposed an attempt at retrieving this spacecraft (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7199692) and a lot of good information was contributed. While I couldn't interest the appropriate departments at our university, it's great to see that we're not letting a functional spacecraft go to waste. You can help support the effort at their crowd-funding page: http://www.rockethub.com/42228.
"An embarrassment for Google", really? Seriously?

Google+ is actually designed far, far better than Facebook. And the implementation of communities and circles really gets social interaction right in ways that Facebook has not. Sure, Facebook has a much bigger user base. But I don't think Google+ sees itself as a direct competitor to FB. It's more of a tangential thing. I also think TechCrunch is hilariously off-base for writing that Google is dialing down Google+. I think all that stuff is pretty much clickbait.
Its more I'd rather not give them any more of my data. Illogical sure, but thats just how I feel about things. I'm not going to be able to convince anyone of the rationality of it I'm sure.
Whitehouse.gov not PFS enabled
Our country's https://petitions.whitehouse.gov Petitions web site is not PFS (Perfect Forward Secrecy) enabled, according to Netcraft's Chrome extension. I found this out when I went there to sign this petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-protect-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy
If you have traffic for Comcast's customers and you bring it to Comcast's facilities, what service do you imagine Comcast is providing that you should have to compensate them for?

It's not transit. They're not delivering your traffic to some other ISP. They're delivering it to their own customers, which is what those customers have already paid them to do.
Ask HN: Exploring Hawaii with a sleeping bag and a camera. Ideas?
Cousin, brother and I decided to get out of town and go explore O'ahu for 10 days. What are your favorite sights, sounds, tastes, views, hikes, beaches etc?

We love hiking and adventure. Done a bunch of research but what are your personal experiences and recs? Any HNs want to meet up?
i just started using Google+ actively.....

and I'm using it exactly like what techcrunch describes: as a platform, not a product.

I use Picassa to sort my photos and post to google+ web albums for family to use. I use Google+ Hangouts for IM, and I am using Google+ itself for credentials (OAuth).

The actual Google+ product, never use it. It's actually a good thing that they figure out usage patterns and adapt their strategy to reflect it.
Disclaimer; I have no experience with investors what so ever.

To avoid the "we're in, we're out" scenario would it be possible to ask investors to sign a commitment agreement when they agree they're in?

E.g. an investor says they're in for $100k. You then ask them to sign a commitment agreement that states when they change their mind they owe you 10% of the proposed investment, or something like that.

Would this weed out the wanna be investors and guys who are tip toeing around so they can stop wasting your time?
Anyone that's willing to deliver content at all interchange points into the Comcast network should be able to do it for free. That's the only policy that makes sense. Once the traffic is inside Comcast's network it's their responsibility to upgrade the network to be able to deliver the service their clients are paying for.
Rest.li: Open source framework for building RESTful architectures at scale
"Martino and I had made plans to meet at a coffee shop on the main drag in Mountain View, but when he got there he found it too full of nerds on laptops, so he called an audible in favor of the bar across the street, where he could watch the game."

Lemme guess, Red Rock?
Fair enough. However, I think someone volunteering from outside the organization to do a security audit wouldn't hurt given how widespread it is. :)
This amusing anecdote belies a key fact: Comcast and other Cable Industry Groups proposed and lobbied for laws making municipal internet services <illegal>.
Lumo Lift
Most (all?) banks in the US are FDIC insured up to $250k per person. Even if tax payer money hadn't been lent to banks to keep them afloat, provided you had less than $250k across any banks that might've gone under, you'd have been okay. In that sense, saying that they don't really protect your money isn't really true.

Realistically, I'm much much much more likely to lose money stored in a Bitcoin wallet I maintain than money stored in a bank, and I'd imagine that's probably also the case for most people.
"Just as we got back to the city, a report came over the wire that Nest had been acquired by Google for $3.2 billion in cash. Nest had been backed by Google Ventures, their biggest win so far."

What does this mean? Isn't Google Ventures a part of Google?
Would you want to turn down a potential $100k so quickly?
Not to the extent that Facebook is a platform for other services (Zynga, etc).
Consider a local ISP in Dallas TX. Since all major backbones run through Dallas, the local ISP can now connect to all the backbones for free and essentially pay nothing?

I think your rule #3 might be enough on its own. Let Comcast choose whether to peer with Netflix or receive their traffic via transit, as long as there is no congestion. Given that transit costs money, this will bring Comcast to the negotiating table.
Lorde Is Collaborating With M.A.C.
This is a terrible solution. If you think the situation right now is bad, your solution will only exacerbate the problem.

Right now, these exchange points you discuss already exist in the form of IXPs (Internet eXchange Points), which are privately owned and operated. Anyone that wants to peer at an IXP can do so (usually, and assuming you lay your own cable to get there), and whether or not a peering is made is decided by the would be peers. In the world you illustrate, these peering decisions are made by government regulators.

Why is this bad?

If everyone has to peer with each other for free, why would anyone ever lay their own cables to anything but an IXP? More importantly, the profitability of being a transit provider (think AT&T, Level3, etc.) is already dropping off a cliff due to ridiculously low margins. In your world, there is literally zero money to be made as a transit provider. In fact, you strictly lose money providing that service. Short of a government takeover of all Internet infrastructure, there is no feasible way to implement your solution without putting companies out of business in droves.

You effectively make the entire backbone of the Internet a public service. Your solution asks companies, which have expended enormous amounts of capital on infrastructure, to share their capital expenditure with anyone and everyone. That's entirely unfair to those companies, and it renders their investment useless.
>"Second: Was Apple really right to fire Jobs? In his first 7 years at Apple, Jobs oversaw (not designed or engineered) the only successful product lines in Apple's first 20 years"

I would argue that Jobs had any influence in the Apple II whatsoever, in fact according to Wozniak in iWoz, Jobs attempts to influence the Apple II originated the only fights the two of them ever had.

On the other hand, Apple II was originating the vast majority of the revenue and in comparison the original mac had a very limited success.
> Poly1305 also saves network bandwidth, since its output is only 16 bytes compared to HMAC-SHA1, which is 20 bytes.

You could also just truncate HMAC-SHA1 to 16 bytes, right?
Peering agreements are free when no money changes hands. Your argument simplifies to "because Comcast said so."
> Poly1305 also saves network bandwidth, since its output is only 16 bytes compared to HMAC-SHA1, which is 20 bytes

I'm puzzled why a shorter MAC would be considered a good thing in a security application - because theoretically, a 20-byte MAC gives roughly 4 billion times the space of a 16-byte one. It's like shortening an encryption key - hasn't the trend been toward making them longer and thus more resistant to attack?
Sure, it's not going to work for the majority of OSS developers; but nothing is. It's nice to have different kinds of opportunities available. Some people can do stuff in their free time; some may be more productive with a dedicated sprint. Some people may have the opportunity to do it between jobs; some developers are consultants, and can probably find a way to free their schedule up for a few months if they can justify it with the extra income.

Different companies contribute in different ways. The company I work for funds major features that we need, as well as having support contracts with the primary developers of some of the key software that we use, and we contribute back patches when we find bugs that need fixing. Google does their Summer of Code, in which students can work remotely over their summer break, plus does primary development of a lot of projects like Android and Chrome, and contributes to others like the Linux kernel. Red Hat and Canonical mostly develop open source software directly. The Gnome OPW funds internships for women, over several periods over the course of the year.

So there are lots of opportunities out there, with a lot of different ways to get funding and support. I don't think that each program needs to be all things for all people; it's OK to have particular targeted and focused programs, either on different groups of developers, different projects, different types of time commitment, and so on.
Smartphones already have these features.

> Smartphones should have an emergency button.

There is an emergency call button on the iPhone lock screen, because you have to be able to place such calls even if it's not your phone, or it's not activated, or the SIM is not in, etc.

> Pressing the button should automatically call 911 (or 112)

Actually the same thing, since dialing the emergency number doesn't just call a number, but starts a GSM emergency call. That's why dialing 911 on an American phone works even if you've taken it with you to another country. (This doesn't quite work in countries with separate police/fire/ambulance numbers.)

Actually, if you tell Siri to "Call 911" I believe it just does it with no confirmation, unlike other numbers. Not sure what information is provided by cell phones on these calls, though.
It's more like asking your neighbor to fetch two burgers, and then give you one of them. Except that your neighbor has a burger-multiplying-machine that can keep giving you burgers once your neighbor gets their first one.

There is no reason we should sit around worrying about HBO. HBO pays people lots of money to figure out how to monetize their entertainment. Let them figure out how to monetize BitTorrent and similar P2P systems. If they choose instead to ignore those technologies, well, they can suffer the consequences when someone else figures it out. The rest of us should not have to worry -- we do not worry when we turn on the radio or use a VCR, so why should we be so concerned here?
OnePlus One – smartphone that will not let others settle
Kobo lays off 63 people
Good point. Also consider people that just graduated or just finished up some sort of temporary placement.
The counterpoint is more in the first link than the actual article, but it is that the Comcast/Netflix relationship is not a website-ISP sort of relationship (the one where net neutrality comes into play), but an ISP-ISP peering relationship. In that relationship, ISPs have paid for peering agreements since the dawn of time.

Netflix chose to go down the route of basically becoming the backbone but isn't willing to accept that if they're an infrastructure provider they have to pay for infrastructure costs.

This is what I got from the argument at least.
I'm going to submit an app for the NeoVim guy.
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-response... This (the first link in the article) actually enumerates the points of its argument and is more informative on the position.
I did not read the source, but have a question:

How do you deal with web pages, where the content is dynamically created using javascript/ajax? Do you execute this JS, or just ignore this growing antipattern?
That's quite a long story. This was my reaction:

http://twitter.com/GregMozart

The last 4-5 tweets