skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"But if innovators such as Glenn Curtiss cannot build on the progress of others without paying exorbitantly for the privilege, the incentive to continue to experiment and create is similarly inhibited.”

Thus, in the story of the Wright brothers and Glenn Curtiss, is a lesson for our age as well."

That's the link to Apple.

And certainly, partisans can either be blinded by their dislike, or they can introduce nuance. A good example would be comparing a couple Apple Partisans, Jim Dalrymple and John Gruber. Dalrymple is like a broken record - He brings almost zero insight into assessing companies like Blackberry, Android, etc... Just rants against them.

Gruber has had phases like this, but in the last couple years he's done some worthwhile reviews of the Windows Phone product line, and has had good things to say about the Lumina. He's even been more open minded about Microsoft's web services, and went so far as to appear in a promotional video for Windows/Microsoft Azure. Gruber is regaining my trust.

Perhaps the critiquing with insight is someone like Siracusa - There is a writer who can rant against Apple's every conceivable product, decision, and technology - yet he does so with an overriding rationality that you can appreciate.

I don't see that rationality any more in Joe Nocera's writing.
Which is a shame because I don't see ailerons as a non-significant variation? Wing warping is as it says, which is pretty scary and went out fashion pretty quickly because of high rates of structural failure. Ailerons took its place because of this.

When you're yay high in the sky, which sounds safer? The difference is pretty significant.

I'm not saying what you say isn't true but it is pretty bizarre. That said the Wright Bros patent covered a wide area.
But that wood is the kind that will heat you 2 times. You don't get that with a powered splitter. ;)
Computerphile on Heartbleed
theres a bunch on npm

search for geoip
If you fancy going out, this works pretty well. I tried it on my router:

http://www.nickkusters.com/Services/Thomson-SpeedTouch

Yes - default WiFi passwords for a big chunk of the routers in Europe are pretty easy to calculate.
> To me, there is a reason to abstract javascript and similar logic outside the plain html -- however the workflow of including script sources inside html that in turn include html that gets rendered is backwards

Yes, coming from a traditional JavaScript MVC background it's hard to let go of this idea, when it's been touted everywhere for years. But the fact is, there's no fundamental reason why we need to put these technologies into separate containers.

I recommend this talk by Pete Hunt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cQ3mrcKaY

edit. oops, linked the wrong talk
I don't really see it that way at all.

As part of your compensation package when you sign up, you're granted a set of unvested options. The idea is, as you work for the company and provide the value you've promised, the options become vested and are actually yours.

So why do you need to stay there to keep them? If I work at a company for a year and 25% of my options vest, why are the terms surrounding their exercise different depending on whether I choose to stay or not? I earned those options by working there for a year. Why is it fair to take them back if I decide to leave instead of stay?

Yes, I get that you're agreeing to that up front, so it's not like you should be surprised when the 90-day limit kicks in. I just wish option grant agreements weren't structured like that, but the employee has pretty much zero power to change that; these grants are pretty much take-it-or-leave-it, and the only point of negotiation seems to be in the quantity of the options. At best.
"Perhaps this example is a little too contrived, but the real power of reactive streams becomes apparent when you want to do something more complex."

What is that something? This is indeed a recurrent problem with all these new tools and technologies: small examples that don't reveal the issues you will have when your system starts to get larger and more complex.
Are there any silent Windows laptops?
Conservative public sector policy is thoughtless Thatcherism: "Sell all the things!" (Forgive the meme)
The big idea is the render function in React describes your UI at any point in time. Not initially only, at any point in time.

The biggest complexity in frontend development is that there is too much state. Most people, when doing frontend dev blame JavaScript for the difficulty. JavaScript is a problem, but it is not the problem. The problem is the management of state.

Compare this to server side development. It is much more robust. Why is that? Because there is too little state, what you render has a little lifetime. Request comes, response generated, there you go.

What's the problem with frontend? The app there has a much higher life. You get the page, interact with this, many interactions later, you accumulate state, but you are still dealing with the same "response". Hence the difficulty of building UI's.

So, what's the solution to this? One: you need to manage your state properly. Two: through this state, you need to be able to define your UI at any point in time.

Assume you solved these problems, but naively, that is, once state changes, you re-render the whole response. This would be much less bug prone. But now you have a performance problem: Changing state will not necessarily change all the UI response. Hence the genius of React's virtual DOM, which acts an intermediary, diffs the different responses over time, and redraw only what's necessary to redraw, not the whole UI response.
Here's an example: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27058146

Google's share price changes the same day as an announcement. The BBC attributes the change to the news as though they are monotonic. But who is to say that the news didn't stop the share price falling twice was far?

Also, every trade requires two parties, so one side thought they were getting a good deal.

I'm also amused that the share traders are called "investors" rather than "gamblers".
We do have HFCS in the UK, but we call it glucose-fructose syrup. I've noticed it in the ingredients of an increasing number of beverages.
Many countries in North Europe share the same "ridiculous" limitations. For example, in Finland only state-owner Alko can sell liquor and it doesn't work on sundays.

(And they didn't have prohibition so it's not prohibition legacy)

The reason for this is limiting alchohol impact on citizenry without limiting citizens' rights. Alchohol in colder/continental climates is a scary thing enough for general public to support this arrangement.
When we used the Internet at slow speeds or in batch mode we had people being cautious with bandwidth. Usenet had the informal McQ limit for signatures, which led to newsgroups like alt.fan.warlord to mock people with big or ugly sigs.

The text on the current top story (the Wright Brothers article) is about 11kbytes. That doesn't include any html or css or anything else. That would make a page load at over ten seconds just for the text.

The point isn't that it can not be done, but that people would not tolerate it unless they had a real need.
Check out Zotero.

It is primarily a reference management suite, but it can do some of the things you require.
It seems to work in part. For /dev/urandom, I see always roughly the same throughput:

$ time dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null bs=1 count=10000000
real	0m10.640s
user	0m0.696s
sys	0m9.940s

$ time (for i in $(seq 1 50); do dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null bs=1 count=200000 2>/dev/null & done; wait)
real	0m11.199s
user	0m1.232s
sys	0m42.828s

$ time (for i in $(seq 1 500); do dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null bs=1 count=20000 2>/dev/null & done; wait)
real	0m11.234s
user	0m1.252s
sys	0m42.536s

whereas for /dev/zero:

$ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=1 count=10000000
real	0m3.268s
user	0m0.660s
sys	0m2.604s

$ time (for i in $(seq 1 50); do dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=1 count=200000 2>/dev/null & done; wait)
real	0m2.550s
user	0m1.192s
sys	0m8.760s

$ time (for i in $(seq 1 500); do dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=1 count=20000 2>/dev/null & done; wait)
real	0m2.612s
user	0m1.228s
sys	0m8.112s

Of course, the bash for-loop here together with the forking has some considerable overhead, so these values should likely be interpreted carefully (Linux 3.14-rc7, Core i5 520M).
FuelBand Shutdown Denied but Layoffs Could Reveal New Cracks in Wearables Market
You get out of college what you put in. Businesses have no interest in your intellectual growth, your professors (at least some of them) definitely do if you do.
Well, they're already selling medical records to private firms in England. Since they got away with that, they probably just want to sell as much other data as possible.

EDIT: England, not England and Wales.
Yes, authors cited their sources, so we can understand their perspective better.
If short educational videos are your thing, here's a pretty comprehensive list of the highest quality channels out there:

(My personal favorites are Vsauce, Veritasium, SciShow, Crash Course & CPG Grey)

ASAPScience - Fun, short interesting facts/explanations
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC552Sd-3nyi_tk2BudLUzA

BigThink - Predominant people talking about interesting issues in short segments
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvQECJukTDE2i6aCoMnS-Vg

CPG Grey - an awesome professor talking about interesting facts
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2C_jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w

Computerphile - short videos explaining concepts in CS
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9-y-6csu5WGm29I7JiwpnA

Crash Course - beautifully designed courses for several subjects segmented into short videos. Highly recommended!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX6b17PVsYBQ0ip5gyeme-Q

Engineering explained - learn everything you wanted to know about car internals
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClqhvGmHcvWL9w3R48t9QXQ

IFLScience - short science news updates
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvOTgnW7oj9ZWDd2y5TEApw

Minute Earth - beautifully animated short science fact videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeiYXex_fwgYDonaTcSIk6w

Minute Physics - as above, but purely about physics
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUHW94eEFW7hkUMVaZz4eDg

SciShow - this was one of the first short science video channels - awesome.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZYTClx2T1of7BRZ86-8fow

SciShow Space - as above, but about space
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrMePiHCWG4Vwqv3t7W9EFg

SixtySymbols - short videos talking about interesting symbols
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvBqzzvUBLCs8Y7Axb-jZew

SmarterEveryDay - awesome science explanation videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6107grRI4m0o2-emgoDnAA

Veritasium - very high quality science explanation videos - awesome guy
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHnyfMqiRRG1u-2MsSQLbXA

VSaurce - mindblowing videos, usually around 10m, taking you on a tour of interesting facts and ideas. Check out Vsauce2 & 3 too.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6nSFpj9HTCZ5t-N3Rm3-HA
مخلفات مواد البناء تعود من جديد بالزلفي | اخبارية الزلفي
No they aren't.

There's a point where hyperbole becomes sensationalising, and where sensationalising becomes deceptive.
Bad News and Worse News for Russian Internet Users
I have a question, because this video confused me. I don't have background to follow through all the assertions Gary Bernhardt did, but I'll try to watch it again, since it was fun.

I want to become a full stack developer. I can program and write tests in ruby, I can write applications using Sinatra and now I am learning rails. I bought a book to start learning JavaScript because it's the most popular language and basically will allow me to write modern applications. After I'm done with JS I'll probably jump into something else (rust, go, C, C++, Java, whatever helps do the staff I want).

But watching this video, I'm confused: I avoided CoffeScript because I read in their documentation that in order to debug the code you have to actually know JavaScript so I figured that the best thing to do is learn JS and then use an abstraction (i.e. Coffescript) and tools like AngularJS and Node.js... Is my approach wrong? :-/
I think you're pulling more concerns about integration with existing JS MVC frameworks (e.g., Backbone/Ember/Angular) than just reacting.

The Reactor pattern came more out of the back-end world where suppose you have a data stream that you have to filter and do more processing to create more data stream (e.g., person A,B post cat gifs on Wall on client -> pushed to respective the Facebook Wall stream for person A, B -> piped to Facebook Feed for person C who is subscribed to [A,B] -> combined with Facebook real-time ad-stream for demographics group X that person C belongs to -> pushes the ad-infested social media crap down to the user C on client),

Now normally all of these would be traditionally done via a HTTP RESTful Ajax pull request from the client-side and the back-end service would query the database or some kind of caching service (Redis/Memcache) and perform some application logic to combine the data and send it down to the client-side.

Reactor pattern tries to do away with the service layer and instead have the JS clients as first class citizen subscribers in a publish-subscribe model and pushes the streams of data down to the client.

So you can think of some really exciting use-cases, like Pornhub/Youtube/Spotify processing streams of everyone who is watching a video at any given moment; then showing everyone the chain of top "branching-off" of video's that everyone is watching and have the people who have this shared "experience" chat and lead the group to the next recommended video and so forth for a much more collaborative and real-time media consumption/"discovery" experience.
PS3 games don't offload fragment shading to the SPUs, that would be too slow and leave the pixel shading hardware on the GPU idle. Remember that the PS3 has separate vertex and pixel shaders. What they usually offload is post-processing, mostly for anti-aliasing.
I work for http://www.voclarion.com. Might be worth a look, though we offer a host of features you might not need.
The Mathematics of Juggling: Mathematics Awareness Month from the MAA
"Gypsy cab"? That sounds awfully racist.
I think the real answer is compulsory licensing of patents.

Congress thought the ownership of something as trivial as a song was so important they wrote laws to compel songwriters to license the performance of a song to any and all comers. Have you ever wondered how bands can "cover" other bands songs? They can because whoever wrote the song is forced by law to give them a license to perform it.

Patents need to work the same way. Under current law the liabilities for infringing a patent are completely unbounded. If a potential user of a patent knew beforehand what the cost of using a patent was, they could make some real business decisions.
I think it's entirely possible to write readable code, i.e. code that you don't have to single-step through to understand. But that takes a conscious effort, and is in any case more difficult and more work than writing code that is merely correct.
It's a controversial matter, to say the least.

Kids will eagerly engage in language acquisition activities that few adults are willing to do. For instance, a child will happily watch the same DVD many times, until he can repeat the dialogue word for word. Their urge to do these things seems to disappear with age, along with their aversion towards bitter flavors and playmates of the opposite sex.

So should we say that kids are more talented language learners? Or should we say that they are more enthusiastic about language acquisition?

There's much more to it than that, but that gives you a flavor of the debate.
I'm looking into UE4 for my next game, too, and Mono is one of the reasons why - there seems to be a focus on big picture features at the expense of the day to day quality improvements.

For instance, my game builds are ridiculously large, because you can't store your textures in a losslessly compressed format (you can load from URL a png manually, but then you have to manually apply them to your models).

Unity has been so successful because it's been an "OK" tool in a land of rubbish. It seems as though it's finally getting some strong competition at a comparable price point, which is great for everyone.

Either Unity will step its game up (which I'd love, I don't want to switch tools), or it'll enter a long, slow period of decline.
The road to fail is paved in goto intentions.
Cool :-).

I worked at a very successful company that used a similar model: flat 50% of profits paid to employees as bonus. This worked fantastically well in the short term. Now, 10 years later, the company is still very successful but the upside has all shifted to the owners due to departures, renegotiations, and new hires not getting the same terms. So at 3 years it looked very pro-employee but at 10 years it looks very pro-owner.

Would have been really "interesting" if there had been a liquidity event...
On the other hand, how many overconfident newbies have "fixed" things they weren't "allowed to" and made them significantly worse or broken them altogether?

Speaking as someone that has been that guy, it's important to understand why the policies exist while hating them :)
Which bits of a 4k page actually get used?
Learning and yet making same mistakes again
Hi all,

We learned a hard lesson with our first startup, HealthWorldWeb and while the startup was sold, we only grew to about 1,000 users over almost 3 years for many reasons. Main reason is that we did not have a geo-focus and ended up with a “sparsity and scarcity” problem of doctor reviews on our site. The social matching technology was interesting enough for the acquirer!

A ~year ago, we decided to build Q! – http://questiongr.am - the main premise is that it is still difficult to find the right information at the right time and search engines are not cutting it anymore. I want information now, I don't have time to search and research and because we all live across many social networks all of our friends and followers has expertise in many different areas: from movies to health.

So we had a dilemma once again, just like with the last business - do we focus on particular vertical and geo-location or go wide and see what the market brings.

Well, once again we decided to go wide and for full transparency, we launched the app in the Apple App Store in October ( ~400 DL). We followed with Android in Dec with now (~200 DL) and now Windows (6 DL – ha) to be the only cross-platform social search but all of this currently is not yielding results.

We brought on a marketing person and in the last 3 months got some nice mentions but purposely staying away form the big techcrunch & etc because we want to grow "dedicated" users who believe in the world of social intelligence.

We launched a Kickstarter campaign - http://kck.st/1hhT3n6 -(20 days ago), to find these believers who can help us shape the product and provide feedback. We got a few for sure, but we now have 8 days to go with only 7% funding reached.

Would love to hear people’s thoughts on growing a following for Q! – is the message clear, is our mission clear, is the broad approach the right way to go!

Thanks!
In Norway, tax returns are public. It's a good system.
See also http://idlewords.com/2003/12/100_years_of_turbulence.htm, by HN-banned author and entrepreneur Maciej Cegłowski.
Another free tool for iBeacon development – Beacon Scanner (OSX) http://bits.hugeinc.com/?p=613
It's relevant in the sense it demonstrates who benefits and loses out as the result of this narrow view of "free speech". Taking "free speech" to mean only freedom from government restrictions and and making it the norm not to criticise non-government restrictions on speech benefits the powerful at the expense of the less powerful. Constitutionally, those African Americans had just as much right to carry out economic retaliation against racists as vice-versa, but in practice they were in no position to do so.

This doesn't just apply to evil in the pre-CRA south either. A less dramatic example of this is online feminist communities - all the popular ones have systematically excluded women of colour, trans women, etc, often deleting any criticism of the fact they've done so. (This is also why the hover text is frankly offensive. It doesn't matter how good your arguments are if no-one hears them - many did have arguments other than "free speech", but as far as the rest of the community knew they didn't because the community owners said they didn't.) It took until the rise of so-called "Twitter feminism" that wasn't controlled by a particular community owner before those women could get their voices heard online, and even now I think there's some pressure on Twitter to shut them up again.
I wonder if over time they'll adapt this sort of testing to computer science. I've often found learning new computer languages stimulating and exciting, frustrating at first but so much fun when I get closer to mastery. However many people see to lock into a language or a set of languages and never venture far from that root. I wonder if the same sort of issues are at play here. Perhaps we've all been pointing fingers at each other saying stuff like "languages are tools" and "right tool for the job" when perhaps the reality is some people are going to be really good at a handful of computer languages and we should focus them on problems that fit them well. Meanwhile others may be really good at a lot of languages and perhaps they should be part of the process of determining the right type of languages to apply to given problem sets?

Just a thought. I find it fascinating having coded for 30 years now that some people resist changing tech or languages so much. I still write in C often but most of the original languages I wrote in are dead now. I suspect if I get to write for another 30 years I'll still write in C once in a while and a whole new set of tools. Or maybe the computers will just code themselves finally.. :-)
Why the clock is ticking for MongoDB
Where error bounds are stated, they are generally given for a 95% confidence interval, by convention.
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

If you have actually lived in the society that actually exists, rather than the one entirely in your own head that you wish to believe in, you'll recognize that there is a positive correlation between social position and being unethical. (1) Power corrupts, (2) power attracts bad people, (3) bad people are more willing to make moral compromises to get power, (4) good people in power (it does happen) are usually not cynical enough to tell when they're being lied to by their lieutenants.

It's completely understandable that you'd rather live in your Pollyanna fantasy world, and that's fine. If you want to believe that the world is 6,000 years old, that is likewise OK with me (even if you're wrong). What I won't let you do is spread delusion to the young and gullible. If you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, then kindly quiet down and let the adults talk.
You can get around it to some extend with source maps and so on - just make sure you're generating them with whatever build process you use.

In practice, however, all that lovely Coffeescript syntax can easily trip you up; often something will compile successfully, but not to the 'right' Javascript. I wouldn't recommend CS until you get your head around the fundamentals of JS. In particular, CS does some very 'clever' things with the Javascript this object; I have certainly lost my scope at unexpected points in CS programs (often in loops). When you're optimising code, furthermore, you definitely need a strong sense of what JS code you'll get out the other end.

I'd recommend Reginald Braithwaite's Javascript Allonge as an overview of JS semantics - the material on scopes and environments is very useful, given that JS behaviour on that score is ... idiosyncratic. https://leanpub.com/javascript-allonge/read