skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think they'd interrupt almost exactly at "Is everyone clear..." with "who uses it now?" or "what stack?" or "have you built this already?"

Some other key questions you'd need an answer for, either in some kind of prepared way or in response to a question, are:

1) Why do you want to work on this (this is a great opportunity to talk about personal experience, showing the depth your technical skill and market knowledge indirectly

2) Who else does this today, how to do people do it now ("wipe laptop, spend a few hours setting it up" is one way; a lot of people have nice VMs already pre-populated for this and shared within a company, either local or VDI)

3) Any special risks, regulatory issues, etc. (e.g. if you're a medical startup you should know about HIPAA at least in sufficient detail to talk about it)

4) How do you get people to use it (namedropping current users is good, but your understanding of the market and how it's sold would be good to show)

5) (more key for non-YC investors) general market numbers. The top-down analysis is usually bullshit ('we need 1% of a 10b market..."), but being able to do bottom-up and based on comparables is good for a lot of things.

In a 10 minute interview with YC, or a meeting with a consulting client, you don't know what they're going to care the most about. You want to make sure you hit your key points, but also can address their likely concerns in depth -- if you hit your points in 5 minutes and they spend 5 minutes drilling into the sales model, it's good to be able to talk about the sales model for 5 minutes, even if your original plan was to only talk about the sales model for 2 minutes.
I think it is a horrible idea.

I would guess they will allow me to adjust the view to always show the url in which case I don't care. It is just one in a super long list of very bad Ux decisions by Google in my opinion. If they actually don't let me see it, I'll just use some browser that does.
The point is I am not making an argument one way or the other. I am simply expressing how I have seen her views interpreted. Some people use her teachings as a foundation for how they make decisions, they have rationalized it is proper to act purely in self interest, and some of those times it is damn cold. And many extremely intelligent scholars have argued for many years about her teachings, writing is a way for me to traverse my mind to come to deeper understandings.
I guess, but that seems far, far more ugly than the elegance of copy paste. Copy-paste doesn't require special implementation, or inter-app compatibility, or anything special or extra.

Why are moving away from powerful and flexible systems that allow us to consume and produce? Why is the trend so constantly towards sealed, black-box, consumption exclusive habits? It makes me so sad to see.
DDoSing DNS would break everyone's browser for lulz too, but somehow the net manages to chug along. And if/when it happens, at least people know they're under attack and direct attention to fixing things.

A service with a clear single point to DDoS is obviously the wrong choice.

What if services all over the net could tell you the latest (<5 minutes old) root/summary-hash of the shared dataset? And, there are many places to either update yourself to that version, or receive a trustworthy proof a certificate is/isn't in that dataset?

If they're all blocked, an alarm should go off, letting the user know it's dangerous to proceed. The failure shouldn't be secret, with the confidence-inspiring lock icon still appearing, for indefinitely long periods.
What happened to Aaron's law? Seems like it's been almost a year with no progress.
So a friend and I built something very similar that hooked up to Mailgun and had a GUI interface. Spinning up instances of these for clients proved very lucrative for their, ahem, legitimate email purposes. The cool thing about integrating with Mailgun is easy setup and you get analytics that are useful for a/b testing and other things.
It's not just the US that is enforcing norms like the ones you mention. It will also be the rest of the world, and, we can hope, the citizens of China.
In the beginning was the URL, and the URL was with the web, and the URL was the web.

Google has gone insane with mirror gazing.
From the article it sounds like Chrome is replacing the URL (which is difficult for humans to parse) with an "origin chip" that contains just the domain name. This improves on the use case you point out.
It's funny that decades on, we're just about to finally wrap back around to what most businesses tried to sell the masses as the initial web: a walled in, exclusively consumer ecosystem like AOL.

When forced on us we rejected it, but eventually we walk right into it of our own accord saying "it will be simpler this way."
OP here. I'm currently using 0.2, I'll have to upgrade and see if that fixes the issue. Thanks!
Or: "Instant development environments, anywhere, anytime...all in the browser"
This looks quite fantastic! It also reminds me a bit of a game called 'Humans' I used to play as a kid back in the 90s (at least, that's what I recall it being called, but I can't seem to find a link for it anywhere). Great job on this.
I mention Spritz in the website
http://artiklur.com/About
Remember when TV ads would have AOL keywords in them?
Genuine question, but does it change much compared to a wild bird ?
Yhey don't respect regulations nor space rules either, and I hope it's OK. If we lump drones in the same category shouldn't it be OK as well ?
Looks like AOL keywords....

The web ate AOL, now AOL closed-model is resurfacing.
if there was a keyboard shortcut for "put reference to current page on copypaste stack" I'd never click the URL at all

C-l (lower case L) to select the URL and then C-c to copy is one way to do this on many systems without without clicking anything.
Cheating in Single-Player Freemium Games
I had a very good teacher in high school. Years later, it seems like a second nature that was always there.
Good job... your insights were great and description of the event was well written. As a developer I think there is a need but I do see point of YC, that your position is precarious.

Good luck!
The extra bits of the URL absolutely should be hidden from the user. Whether this method and at this point in history is going to turn out well is a different story since there are still a lot of hackers that like to edits URL to work around other problems (eg fixing broken links, trying to navigate a confusing site). Nonetheless, the clear proof that it should be hidden is that you don't purposely display the URL or any other bits of computer code on your website or application. If Chrome ends up doing this, are you going to change the titles or first lines of your web pages to be the URLs? No, you're not, because almost none of your users want that.
Neanderthals and humans close in intelligence
gopostal!
I have origin chip turned on since the day it landed on Canary and absolutely love it. Imagine you are running Sublime Text and forced to look at its source code as it is executing in a panel on the side. Imagine loading up a webpage and Chrome opens DevTools with the DOM structure of the page with no option to close it away. While it can be argued that having a behind-the-scenes view gives you a heads-up if something shady is being attempted, for a large portion of use cases this design choice would be clunky and annoying.

I see URLs the same way. Once I hit a URL just load the page ( analogous to compiling the source code) and show me the content (finished executable). Origin chip does just that - the gritty entrails are hidden, but accessible, if necessary, with a click.
> But perhaps this has changed in recent versions of go?

it hasn't. i meant 'if you build go with CGO_ENABLED=0' but was unclear.
Good thoughts. Yeah, we led with a high-level description of the product (it went much better during the second interview). When they asked followup questions, we dug into the pain points that we both had as engineers.
Reverse General Solicitation What if I did all my investing this way?
> ... a potentially vexing frontier that pits curious citizens against a government with qualms about the spying potential of drones.

Riiiiiiight. The government exhibits such strong qualms about the spying (or other advantageous) potential of drones (or any other technology). Perhaps only when deployed and controlled by citizens instead of government. Or when lacking missile outfitting that delivers targeted destruction to state-sanctioned targets.
I started reading this, and boy am I loving it - thank you :)
Most normal users don't understand what URLs are, so I don't think this is a bad thing. This actually makes the UI more consistent; the address bar is always a way to search or go to a URL.

An anecdote: my friends girlfriend was reading an article on mobile safari and wanted my friend to read it. Instead of sharing the URL, she actually took screenshots and messaged it to him! We both found this fascinating! I keep seeing this sort of behaviour on Twitter and Facebook where people share screenshots of tweets and posts instead of the URLs.
I went to Hun Coworking, very few foreigners mostly Taiwanese, but it was pretty much just a coffee shop so I stopped going.
https://www.facebook.com/huncoworkingspace

CLBC is nice but a little pricey in my opinion.

I'm trying to find a new coworking space here right now, but have been having little luck. The thing about Taipei is they have a huge amount of coffee shops all over the city, I might just end up settling to work at a coffee shop. Email me tecmoviking[at]gmail.com if you want to connect and I can offer other suggestions.
AdSense leaker rebuts Google's denial, claims to hold proof
Who deploys this? People winning contracts and delivering products. The company even stated that the customers didn't want security so they removed it. This is potentially even true - if you lose the key to a device in the ground, you have to dig it up...

The attitude of "eh, no one is really hacking it" is a common one, and might possibly be the right decision from a business standpoint. And if they get shamed into changing it, they'll issue some sort of patch, or announce the Windows utility is no longer available without credentials, and everyone will rest assured things are OK.

This is really quite common.
nrao123 is quoting Swartz, the deceased.
Neat! Shamelessly, I'd like to mention that you may also consider using the email (https://github.com/jordan-wright/email) package I wrote to serve your backend. I've worked to make it as simple and robust as possible. However, if you're happy with gophermail, by all means use it! Both are great packages, imo.
When did people become so sensitive such that a URL is "ugly" or in some way unpleasant to look at? Do people really spend that much time with their eyes that high up in the window? And how is this more secure? I can't see the URL of the site I'm visiting...so that makes it more safe?
Introduction to Markov Processes
New Features in BIND 9.10
> Instead of sharing the URL, she actually took screenshots and messaged it to him! We both found this fascinating! I keep seeing this sort of behaviour on Twitter and Facebook where people share screenshots of tweets and posts instead of the URLs.

That's quite convoluted, and makes people look retarded :P
How to Install Android apps on Blackberry 10
Agreed. You generally don't get off more than a couple sentences before they fire more questions off. They're looking for concise answers.
When I was 12, I was in Vienna for a month. My family and two other families of Soviet immigrants were sharing a flat, waiting for our paperwork to clear so we could move on to our final destination.

My family had been trying to get out of Russia for 10 years, so I'd been taking English lessons since I was three.

The head of one of the other families was a programmer from Vilnius.

I taught him English and he taught me how to program in BASIC with pencil and paper. We did it at the kitchen table as I recall.

I saw a computer in a store window but we couldn't afford to buy it.

Next month we were in Ladispoli, Italy, and I had access to a Commodore plus 4. That's when I got a chance to try out my programs and learned about debugging.
I don't especially want a drove[sic] hovering over me wherever I go. What if it crashes into me?

This type of fear is common for any type of new technology. I am sure people had similar fear when automobiles started to appear in the streets. They might have said "what if the car hit me while I am walking". Eventually, we will all get used to it and start to live with risks associated with it.
And that couldn't happen in the case of repeated low-level exposure to penicillin? I don't see the difference.
Why rent a hotel on YC's money if you live in SF? That seems wasteful~
I'm no fan of Taleb - simplistic ideas expressed in the most confusing and least concise way possible. Want to understand his 400+ page book "The Black Swan" refer to Rumsfeld's single sentence on "unknown unknowns"[1]. However he does focus on popularly neglected ideas. "Antifragile" is known as "being long vega" to options traders or perhaps "being flexible" (better words escape me) to regular people. The idea that change (or volatility) can be a good thing seems odd at first but is the basis fo almost everything. Think of evolution without change - not going to happen. Instead we should embrace change and variation otherwise we will be stuck forever in the same rut. But I guess I just like change anyway.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns
Thanks for the tip with the typos, I wrote it with jade and need to use a spell checker. Very unprofessional.

andbrand is about letting people share how they feel about products in an extremely natural way. If you produce a quality product that people genuinely like, then andbrand should make you look extremely good. Other people will see your product through an organic search process, allowing you to market for free.
Thanks! Any chance you could breif that? I'm curious but lacking time to read through and make sense it all.
If we assume that most users do not know what a URL is then why can we assume that the information handed to them by an origin chip is any more useful to them?
I worked on an app that drew streetview-like imagery from Nokia. I think that's http://here.com , based on the company http://earthmine.com/ they acquired.
That just goes to show that URLs are a layer of indirection that people just don't get. Screenshots/photos are easy: Im seeing something, if I send this, they see the same thing.
Don't be mislead into thinking this has anything to do with usability. Well, maybe it does, but that's not the driving force behind it.

It's about obscuring the workings of the web for one reason only: advertising. Anybody who understands how the web works knows that advertising on it is a joke and can not ever work if the users have the tools and insight to trivially circumvent it.

Google e.a. have been working very, very hard at obscuring the fabric of the web to stop people from doing that. Everything from killing RSS to gradually turning the browser into a dumb box is a part of that agenda.
> ...his options strategies will make money in the worst year, they bleed money in all other years.... average returns count

I'm not an expert in his line of thinking, nor do I currently practice his method of investing, but isn't his goal to hedge against loss (with potential for profit from it when it strikes others) rather than maximizing profits on the whole? I imagine he'd be upset that an "average" would be the ultimate indicator of the worth of his ideas.

Outside of the practical utility of his investment advice (which is outside of my interest area, for better or worse), I still think his work deserves one's attention and would not direct them away from NNT as you have. I'd probably skip the first book, and I've not read Antifragile yet, but it at least gives some probably needed context to the modern fixation on normally-distributed data as evidenced by the simplistic quantification of so many things (e.g., the Freakonomics podcast).

But he does speak like a man of dogma, something that always makes me wary.
Absolutely and the interview at YC was a wake up call. We set the frame poorly and dove off into misc questions about implementation for 5 minutes. If we had described the pain point and the product better from the get go, it would've made the rest flow much smoother.
I'm also a Hack Reactor alum who interviewed at YC this round and our team also met with Justin and Gary. Their feedback was basically, "why haven't you guys quit your jobs and started building this?" To be totally honest, I wasn't expecting such direct feedback, but they were right. Not only that but we already have pretty much every thing we need from the Hack Reactor network in terms of hiring advantages and connections with investors.

I dearly love YC for everything they've shared with the world and PG essays are the only reason I left my profitable non-tech business and moved to the US, but we can build this without them. I've quit my job and taken the plunge. We've gotten a first customer and we're going for it. I hope Guy and Shu do, too. I know them and they're formidable both in technical terms and in drive.

The question isn't about who will "give" you a chance. It's who can stop you. Maybe Github or Docker will both care enough about and make the effort to take your business. That doesn't mean they can succeed or that you'll be helpless wallflowers when it happens. Based on what I know of you, Shao and Guy, you will still find a win.
My point is that despite the fact Japan has a more mature mobile phone market, the surrounding society doesn't have the same age demographics as, say, the United States. This difference will affect marketing, product and service design, etc. Even if that's the way younger people behave in the marketing environment of Japan, it may not be the way they would behave in the marketing environment of a younger country.
Hi Gary, thank you for the reply. Let me first assure you that I did read your article. I know it's just the word of some guy on the internet but a while back I got so fed up with dumb comments that I promised myself I would never comment on something without having first read it in an honest fashion.

Next, I would say that your comment is still somewhat frustrating to me. My tone may have been overly combative, but I was legitimately asking questions in the hope of getting an answer or at least pointed to one. So I hope you can understand my frustration when you dismiss three paragraphs of my writing as misunderstanding what TDD provides. The may be true, but if you're going to spend time typing those words I feel like you could at least type a few more either taking a stand on what you believe TDD to be or pointing out some resources that I could use to educate myself. As it is you've told me I'm wrong but not how or why.

As for most software being composed of stuff that is simple in the aggregate, I again disagree but this may be my ignorance. Again, most of my experience in software has come on large systems where each object has several collaborators, each of which may also have several collaborators, recursively continuing out. The two options I see for TDD are either to spend considerable effort setting up these collaborators, or to mock them out. If I mock them out, I am coupling myself to the internals of how the method is implemented, because I have to give explicit implementations of each method called in the course of the method doing its job. If the method changes, the mock has to change, and the test breaks, even if the surface behavior of the object may not change.

I may be missing something here, but this is the reality of software as I experience it. Answers that say any of the following do not help me, and honestly I consider any of these evidence that TDD is not cure-all it is made out to be:

1) You're doing it wrong, where wrong is any case TDD has failed, essentially making it unfalsifiable
2) Your system is poorly written and doesn't work for TDD, essentially condemning the vast pool of legacy that makes the world spin to be without tests, or refactored/rewritten without adding user value
3) Your understanding is incomplete, without ever specifying what it would take to have a complete understanding or how to go about gaining this, with a similar symptom as case 1.

I appreciate that you take a more balanced approach to TDD advocacy. I should do a better job of separating you from people like "Uncle Bob" from whom I took the direct quote about not being a professional. I have also dealt with several TDD advocates throughout my career whose responses to questioning TDD have fallen into the previous 3 categories. Because of this I sometimes find it hard to separate more reasoned TDD advocacy from the former, and so my apologies if I misinterpreted the strength of your message.
"And that’s what Antifragile people do. They accept that most of what they do will fail. Most of what they say, think and believe will be wrong. And yet they keep going – doing, saying , believing, and being wrong."

Isn't turning this into the cliche "fail fast, fail often, succeed in the end" still missing the point? As is trying to apply the principle to an individual?

It's about encouraging high levels of risk taking because of it's benefit to society as a whole even though the individuals involved are accepting a path with an irrational risk/reward balance.

So an "antifragile person" would do these types of things knowing that they should expect to die less successful than if they had taken another path, but they do it anyway and if enough people do it the result is that society benefits.
You miss the point. AirBnB redesigned how one acquires temporary housing when visiting another city (staying at an individual's house, arranged via an online marketplace). Their site's visual design is really ancillary to that.
Filing a lawsuit is cheap enough. Defending in court is what's expensive, and that's what trolls rely on: pay them money and make the pain go away.

The other upside to winning is that you no longer have to pay whatever the patent troll was trying to extort.
>This should apply to computers.

No, no, a thousand times no. What happened to cars - the replacement of mechanical, inspectable, (dare I say it) hackable components with electronic black boxes was not a good thing. You used to be able to fix and replace most things in an automobile engine with parts from the local auto shop and a shop manual. No longer. Now you have to spend hundreds or thousands to get the correct electronic doohickeys to talk to the closed source, locked down, DRM'd to hell and back engine control modules. And many of the parts aren't repairable in any meaningful sense - you have to go to the dealership to get a new widget, and if your car is too old or too rare, you're just SOL and you have to buy a new car. If this is the world you want for software, I want no part of it.
Lots is a relative statement and it doesn't mean expert. To put it in perspective collectively we have 6 years of running startups (both exited), 1 year of product, 2 years of management consulting, 16 years of coding. Definitely not expert, but well-rounded enough to start a company.
That's why I use Firefox. I got sick of Chrome's inability to autocomplete url's I'd visited and instead sending me to their search page. Now they want to remove it even more.
Usability is important, but so is the option to expose how something works under the hood to those that desire the knowledge. Computers are too important for humanity's progress to turn them into consumption-only appliances. Over-simplifying and locking everything down will deprive us of many future inventors.