skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This strikes me as the sort of thing where, if you can have it simply technically impossible to cheat, that beats any legal after-the-fact fixup you might be able to employ.

It reminds of strong typing... sure, you can unit test the heck out of your code, but even better would be simply guaranteeing up front that there's no clever way a user can jam a string in where you expected an int.
Show HN: Open source iOS development cheatsheet
You could improve the score by mitigating the effect of words that occur often, e.g., by dividing by the log(word frequency). This would cover both names and effects of movie-specific language (think Star Trek)
>>Anybody who has actually, or is currently, studying AI will know that there are fundamental differences in programming "AI" and some self aware magic computation which is almost entirely unfathomable.

See the problem here? Its AI only as long as it remain magic? There is there is perception that the moment you discover the trick its no longer AI.

Remember AI is always what isn't done yet.
A yeoman generator for Backbone projects
Are there any demos of a knol instance/site running?
From an economic standpoint, being able to generate 1000 lines of syntax error
free code per day, is perhaps the best possible programmer you could be, but
its never worth more than 10 programmers generating 100 lines of syntax error
free code a day.[1] So yes, there is an economic limit on your pay.

If all you ever do is code functionality that other people dream up, in a system design that someone else specifies, then I agree completely. For a lot of engineers, that's how they operate. Maybe that's how they want to operate, maybe that's the best way for them to operate.

For other coders, and this depends as much on the company and corporate structure as it does on the individual, they are the ones dreaming up new products, new approaches to old problems, layout solid foundation that 100s or 1000s of engineers can build upon, or specifying an approach and methodology which ships the product 6 months sooner with twice the functionality or half the bugs. They are the engineers that make your entire organization not only more efficient, but literally capable of things that they weren't capable of before. That's when you start getting into the same type of ROI from that programmer as that SVP is supposed to be providing.

The problem is most organizations simply aren't organized to promote and reward these engineers, and that's the "dead end". The last time I worked for a company I didn't own, literally the only way I could find to make any real money was to do my programming inside the sales organization, so I could be paid on commission for writing code for "major accounts" which would only later be taken up by the core engineering team and become a full-fledged product line.

Being a quota carrying engineer, with variable compensation and benefits like 'Presidents Club' was living in a different world from the engineering org. What I found was that, when working for someone else, in order to justify significantly higher pay, I had to be more directly driving increasing sales. Doing the exact same work inside of the engineering org, even with the same sales impact, would have paid significantly less.
The opposite to me (not github, but git). I wish github support mercurial. I have used hg-git, but still is something else to do.
I was interviewed by Google in 2008, rejected. They contacted me again in 2010. I told them I wasn't interested at that time for personal reasons. They contacted me again in 2012. I interviewed again, I was given an offer.
Refrigerators have improved quite a bit recently, they use a lot less energy. Gp proposes disposal fees; energy companies pay modest rebates to haul away old freezers and refrigerators.
I use Bitbucket too. Github doesn't provide free private repos last time I checked, needed for bootstrapped startup. The centralization vs. distribution+independent evolution debate is always an interesting one, though. I think you need high quality centralization at first then competition can be useful; Github set the bar, now lets see what everybody else can bring to the table
Leverage and measurability.
> You can't be good at programming and bo (sic) good at managing.

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Sure, being good at programming doesn't imply you'll be good at managing. But there are plenty of great programmers who successfully

> Programming is not a dead end job, if every company like google, atlassian or github does, I mean paying well their developers and treating this as a real profession.

I don't buy this. Even at Google, there is a psychological cap on how much engineers can make—you'll never see a programmer pulling in, say, $10M a year. That's the point: as a programmer, there is a society-wide cap on your pay, some level at which you will eventually plateau. As a manager, there is no such cap: you can eventually be the CEO.
I own my own company too...

In fact; at last count I've tried 14 different ventures over the past 20 years.

Many of those had a net loss over the course of their life. As self-funded companies they have brought my income below zero.

As a IT consultant with clients; that is unlikely to happen, though, and I have used such a business to fund a lot of my other ventures.
IANAL, but I was also able to find Knol from Google on the UK IPO search:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/4/EU006911796

and the OHIM website, which as I understand it covers Europe-wide trademarks:

https://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/006911796

But like I said, I am not a lawyer, do your own research, consult an expert etc etc...
How To Come Up With 10 Awesome Business Ideas Every Day
Possibly a subversively clever way of high lighting the value of "editorial control" ;)
I should have expounded: I am ethnically Russian, as both of my parents' families moved from Russia to Kazakhstan when it was all USSR. So if I were to say I was born in Kazakhstan, most Americans would have no idea where it is. Those that know something about Kazakhstan would ask why I don't look Kazakh. Thus I just answer with Russia.
I know you're just using a metaphor, but Thompson's remains were shot out of a cannon over Colorado[1]. No grave.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08...
> I do not subscribe to the reasoning that Tests immediately cause a bad design

Me neither. But tests are given much, much more attention than they are worth. Tests mainly make up for lack of clean structure and good tooling for static analysis. Strong static typing is worth attention. Static analysers and code proof assistants are worth attention. Simple design that make whole class of errors impossible is worth it. Tests are not worth that much in this neighbourhood.

Having plenty of tests is OK when the code base is fragile and it's not clear how to make it robust. Tests are a tool of last resort, if all thinking fails to produce something bug-resistant.
Cropping around the face is simply facial detection, not recognition.
I'm intrigued, but I have nearly no idea how to link what appears to be a sales landing page to "Let's Rethink the Way We Handle Knowledge Bases". I don't see anything about "rethinking" there, just that I can buy 10, 100, or 300 of them. Is there a better link that more clearly represents "rethinking"?
Agree. what a ridiculous article.
I wonder if this problem is related to unexpected elevations over 65,535 feet?
Prediction markets that don't involve money have also had some success recently. http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/04/02/297839429/-so-...

For an easy to join one that I work on shameless plug checkout https://scicast.org
I think Management is a skill like any other. The only difference is that Management skills develop more with experience than by simply reading the PMBOK guide. I have friends who moved to Management from programming because of their employer's organizational structure, wherein programming could only take you so far. Also, people got into programming to be Managers later.

My short answer is that it's moderately difficult. You might need to give up on programming to focus on aspects like People and Schedule management, Negotiations, Connections etc. At the end of the day, Management is about organizing stuff, be it people, time, resources or life.
There were a couple articles the last few days that brought out the biotruths / MRAs / etc crew, I guess some of them stayed on.
Like being good with makeup can help you be more attractive, learning how to persuade managers that you are valuable is a skill of its own. You don't have to be a manager to have this skill, although it is a subset of the management skillset.
This is silly.

First, very few people become millionaire CEOs. If thats your standard for success, then every path likely leads to failure because no path reliably leads to that kind of success. Some paths are more likely than others, but none are very likely for the average person.

Part of the reason for flat-ish career trajectory is that programmers earn more at the start than most. Some professions have more of a premium on seniority and experience than others. Senior doctors and lawyers for a combination of the above 2 reasons probably have steeper salary growth than programmers. That said, good 10+ yrs programmers do earn pretty damn well. 10 years as a doctor or lawyer and you're still considered a youngin.

Anyway, if you're the CEO, you aren't a programmer. If he's claiming that being a programmer is not a good starting point for becoming a CEO, I think he's wrong. Look at all the over 40s who were coders at some point, many transitioned into management or something else. Programming actually offers a lot more of that kind of opportunity than anything else.
Or if you really enjoyed this, skip right to Hell's Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga[1]. Bonus if you currently live in the Bay area, because that's where much of the story is set. It was Thompson's first "breakthru" book and (in my opinion) one of his much more coherent writings.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Hells-Angels-Strange-Terrible-Saga/dp/...
One of God's own prototypes - too weird to live, too rare to die.
Great. If they won't provide the service required, take away their license and give it to someone who will.
What's the problem making a good living doing what you like?

Here's a spoiler - most people will not be rich.
Nice app! Could you give some more promo codes? All of them are used.
"The thing that I don't understand about a decentralized prediction market is where do the results come from? Somebody has to say, "this bet won", right?"

I'm wondering about this too. In many instances this would still necessitate a form of "trust" in a third party information provider. For example, if you're betting on the Mayweather fight, then you might be relying on an API providing fight outcomes from ESPN.
My read is that the "supply chains" arguments are largely incorrect. The scale of operations of the 100kgal/day site would vastly exceed the available onboard space available within any existing warship -- you'd need a floating platform of some sort dedicated to the task. Since the proposal presumes use of a carrier's own nuclear plant to supply power for the operation, the carrier would be physically tethered to the fuel synthesis platform.

Carrier operations require operating at near flank (top) speed for takeoffs and landings. You couldn't fight and fuel at the same time. Even task-switching between modes would be at best cumbersome.

The US NRL's own research materials propose a fixed-site pilot, perhaps powered by OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion) as a renewable energy source (this provides constant 24/7 power based on sea temperature gradients from sites such as the Hawaiian Islands with proximate shallow and deep-water zones at large temperature differential). Similarly any electrical power source, most conceivably renewable solar or wind, or nuclear, could be used for fuel synthesis. My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that supplying the equivalent of present-day US petroleum consumption would be plausible. It would require a few thousand km^2 of solar capacity, a roughly 10m tall by 4.5m square processing plant, and capital of roughly $8 trillion (based on USNRL's estimates) for synthesis and likely 1-2x that for the solar capacity.

In either case, you'd still have tankers and tenders transporting fuel, what you'd eliminate is the specific reliance on routes from existing petroleum extraction and refining sites.

Overall efficiency should be vastly better than the levels discussed here. Limiting point seems to be hydrogen electrolysis, which is 60% efficient (in terms of hydrogen energy potential) based on existing operational data. The Fischer-Tropsch reaction is pretty low in energy demand, or net positive. There are _vast_ volumes of seawater which would have to be processed, and pumping of that could be a significant energy cost (or perhaps tidal flows and some clever one-way-flow solid-state valves could be used to accomplish this: http://makezine.com/2012/01/05/the-tesla-valve-one-way-flow-...).

It's not clear to me what the actual efficiency of the USNRL's method would be, though it seems clear that 60% net energy recovery is a theoretical maximum. I'd suspect 20-50% might be reasonably attained -- and that's far, far higher than the 1.7% claimed by the article referenced by this HN post.
> Maybe it's dumb but you have a choice between doing what you love and making a big payout by doing something else.

This is not strictly true. Programmers are relatively well paid. You can decide to live significantly below your means, and invest the rest.

For example, my neighbor once referred to his Oldsmobile as his "quarter million dollar Olds". I asked him what he meant, and he said that was the current value of the stock he'd sold to buy it.
I would prefer to pay for Twitter
This is absolutely a problem, and a dilemma I try to cope with. I'd like to think that I'm a pretty good programmer, but I know that if I continue down this path I will reach a plateau at some point.

The hardest part for me to cope with is that the y-intercept of programming is significantly higher than that of business, but the slope is much less. So while I might be making twice as much as my business peers when I first graduate, they will eventually overtake me.

Makes me wonder if maybe I should be switching my major to economics... does anyone have resources for people who have successfully transitioned from programming to management/business?
>If you lost the manager (who is calculating deadlines, coordinating with other departments, pitching for funding, as well as managing the individual developers) the project could run into problems quickly.

Really? In my experience managers can be replaced rather easily, or at least more easily than it is to a replace a single engineer. It always takes some time for the new software engineer to learn the specifics of the project, and even more time to really grasp the business domain. The new manager has stuff to learn too, of course, but in my opinion it's less than what a new engineer needs to learn.

In addition, if you replace two software engineers, you pretty much lose two man-months of work, but replacing a manager shouldn't cause much problems in the first month.
I have finished my studies in 1993. I have seen all the innovation between 1982 and 1990 (Commodore, Amstrad, Oric, ZX, Turbo Pascal, ...) and how Bill Gates has killed software I was using (Stacker, dr dos, gem, ...). I think he has contributed to slow down innovation by his monopolistic tactics (windows undocumented, ...). Microsoft bad behaviour has been clearly demonstrated in trials. I think that the current wave of innovation does not owe anything to Microsoft. Now, he may be another man, I do not know, but I know what he did to computer science.
I think this comment is misleading. In the article you're referring to, it's the more wasteful top-loaders whose performance got worse. The front-loaders which use less water and electricity worked just fine.
The hardware was interesting too. It bit-banged the video display circuit, leaving only the re-trace interval for general purpose computation, including running BASIC programs. Yet the result was an extremely simple and inexpensive design.

Every early microcomputer had to come up with a solution to the video display problem. As I understand it, the Apple II had a bus architecture that interleaved the clock timing of the video circuit and the CPU, sharing a single bus. The Commodore computers had custom video graphics chips. And so forth.
thanks for the promo code! :)
Managers aren't useless. They are just a sub-specie of human beings who happen to have the audacity and lack of moral fiber to exploit other people. I for one, upvote them in the name of genetic diversity!

Developers on the other hand are the worker-bees/ants. Individually replaceable but as a collective, the backbone of an colony/swarm! A queen bee cannot survive without its attendants.

Marx got it all wrong, the owners who provides the means of productions and the proletariat who provides the labor are partners in hand.

Why are some people so individualistic to nitpick on why they make $80K yr and drive a Prius vs. someone else who makes $250K and drives a E-class, when we are all together in this together for the same goal for the greater good of the same collective, for the investors and maximizing the shareholder value???
No - see "US Coal Exports Erode All CO2 Savings from Shale Gas" http://co2scorecard.org/home/researchitem/29

The gas lobby is really powerful in the US, and it's critical to get this myth busted.

(And doubly "no", see the sibling comment)
If you do own your own company, you do wind up being paid exactly what you're worth :-)
I was posting about the double standard by which the media treats White communities vs communities of other ethnicity's. Nothing to do with genetic differences, Men's Rights, or any other group you want to associate me with for no reason.
Unfortunately, the website is still under development. Hopefully, we'll have the first version online in a few weeks.
Yes I found that after commenting. But that seems to be more of a political principle, not a scientific one.

Either way, has it ever been applied in a meaningful way?
In this case the worst case would be very fast development of dangerous AI, and I'm not sure the 100 years is anywhere close to the lower bound. Low-end estimates for the computation power needed to run something equivalent to full human cognition are around 1 petaflop [1]. Google's total computing power in 2012 was estimated at 40 petaflops [2]. Of course it's split wide to a wide network of computers, but the human brain we're looking for comparison looks like a pretty parallelizable design. So we seem to already be at point where it might just be the lack of very clever programming that keeps us from getting a weakly superhuman AI running in the Google internals.

It looks like we've got ways to go there though, current programs don't seem to even begin to act anything like an adult human. So if the problem was to engineer an out of the box adult human level AI, we might again assume that there's obviously decades of work left to do before anything interesting can be developed. The problem now is that that's not how humans work. Humans start out as babies and learn their way up to adult cleverness. I can tell that an AI is nowhere near having an adult human intelligence out of the box, but I'm far less sure how to tell that an AI is nowhere near being able to start a learning process that makes it develop from something resembling a useless human baby towards something resembling an adult human in capabilities.

[1] http://www.nickbostrom.com/superintelligence.html
[2] https://plus.google.com/+JamesPearn/posts/gTFgij36o6u
This looks very cool. My company (http://periscope.io) is just now getting to the point of putting documentation online, and -- surprise! -- it's a huge pain and products in this space all seem mediocre.

One deal-breaker for me is that it has to feel like it's on my website. This means templates are not enough: I need full CSS customizability (statuspage.io does a good job with this) or iframe ability. The lack of a great, fully customizable product in this space is why I am currently fucking around with Markdown pages.

It's certainly fair to charge a lot more than you're apparently charging in order to get this customizability -- needing it probably predicts a real business that cares about its brand. (If knol.io becomes a big business I bet you'll end up charging a lot more in general.)

Anyway, awesome job with this! Looks like a great product solving a real problem.
Well, I guess that depends on our definition of environment. It's clearly vague, and the lines are completely blurred.

So yes, I'd agree with you, there is no one that is currently interested in the stewardship of the "environment" except for principled individuals that believe it should be taken care of. There are plenty of examples where people own pieces of land, and they take very good care of it (and sometimes opposite). I grew up in a country where most low-mid and middle class individuals owned sizable plots of land. They spent quite a fair bit of time and money tending to their plots because it was theirs and represented value to them. Even more so for commercial versions of such ownership; particularly forestry enterprises.

This is the case that free-market individuals make for the environment. Which is a concept that a lot of state-centered individuals find flawed in free-market thinking. Precisely because the definitions of "environment" differ. To state-centered individuals, the "environment" is something non-concrete, over-arching and pretty much difficult to delineate from the rest of the land. The opposite of that is where someone considers land to be theirs, for their exclusive use, and will thus develop it and maintain is value. If that value is due to the scenery, then it will be preserved.
Flickr. 1TB for free (although I'm a grandfathered pro user at $25/year).
That's a touching video. I wonder if we have reached a point of no return.
A fair amount. I used ML and Haskell in the 1990s in an academic setting, and have since used Haskell, Erlang, and Scala at various times while in industry. And I've tried out a number of other functional languages out of interest, as well.

Functional programming does offer some benefits, in some cases. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't. And while I don't think it'd be harmful to know Haskell, I'm not convinced that the benefit it would bring is necessarily worth the effort involved, especially for programmers who are already busy with work and other commitments.