skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Older Miele models are real work horses that run forever. I have seen several models from the 1960s to 1990s that run 24 hours a day in a testing department.
I would pay for twitter for a subscription if they let developers sell as many twitter clients to subscribers because twitter's clients are not very good.
Just because the owner might go to prison doesn't mean I'm not taking a risk giving zhim my money.
Not only a dead end job but also 60-70 hour work weeks and having to deal with a management that's unable to comprehend what you do.
Toxic culture as well.
G+ is now my favorite "social" site because some of the people in my circles post interesting stuff, and G+ is set up to handle long conversations via comments.

A little off topic but the most excellent open source Discourse discussion web app has many of the features of G+ and I am curious how it would scale. (I set up a public instance yesterday at http://mythingsofinterest.com/ if you haven't tried Discourse, and want to try it). BTW, Discourse is also an example of a nicely written Ember.js/Rails app (uses Postgres and also Redis for caching).
That's a good question, but the only answer in the thread is something that can easily be implemented in Template Haskell.

genFoo :: String -> DecsQ
genFoo name = [d| instance Foo $(return t) where quux = $(return f) |]
where f = VarE . mkName ("quuxify" ++ name)
t = ConT (mkName name)

genFoos :: [String] -> DecsQ
genFoos = foldl' (liftM2 (++)) (return []) . map genFoo
Totally agreed. In the Bay Area, there are many companies where the most junior engineering tier earns more than $100k a year, only including cash compensation. To expect to grow by 20% per year on average for a decade given this starting condition is just not realistic.

Honestly, to be in the top 95% of incomes at the entry level and then to complain that you're in a dead-end job . . . it just smacks of a lack of awareness about what a real dead end is like.
> "An AI's motivation would be whatever it is programmed to do."

Well we don't know whether it is possible to build systems as complex as human brain, and at the same time give them some specific goals.
I don't understand how keeping the price down keeps margins high. Perhaps you meant cost?
How about you guys read the docs?

The decision is made by distributed consensus. Each decision maker is incentivised to vote with the consensus, so they will vote truthfully if the answer is easy to check, or vote 'void' if it isn't.

Each market creator loses money if the result is void, so it's in their interest to make bets that are easily validated.
Is it just me or does that guy seem a little unhinged?
I think it's even harder when both parents work full-time.

When your spouse doesn't work, you can often pull off late nights knowing your kids and house are under control. But when both parents have high-stakes jobs it's super hard because you're almost always subject to a hard stop.

It's also a mindset thing--keeping your startup's problems in your head and trying to think and plan for the family (who has practice this weekend? is the preschool application in? who's meeting the plumber today? etc.).
For python developers who dislike the continued existence of the GIL in a multicore world, and who feel that multiprocessing is a poor response given the existence proofs of IronPython and Jython as non-GIL interpreter implementations, please consider moving to Julia.

Julia addresses nearly all the problems I've found with Python over the years, including poor performance, poor threading support on multicore machines, integration with C libraries, etc. I was a big adherent of Python but as machines got more capable, the ongoing resistence to solving the GIL problem (which IronPython demonstrated can be done with reasonable impact on serial performance) I could not continue using the language except for legacy applications.
Then they would lose the majority of users. Its a lot harder to increase your price from $0.00 to $0.01 than increasing your price from $0.01 to $1.00.
We've seen other, similar, widely-used platforms lose prominence rather quickly. SourceForge and Google Code are two such examples (both of which also support Git these days). I see no reason why GitHub would be immune from such forces.
the problem with social networks isn't so much the quality or usability of the platform, but whether or not relevant people use them.
Come on if you're going to claim Google Plus is dead you better provide evidence, like statistics. I use Google+ everyday and am very happy with it, I only see its use increasing day by day. When I need to talk to family or friends I go on Facebook, but when I want to learn about new things I go on Google Google+.
I don't care. I like to do it.
He's wrong of course. Apple is operating at a scale far above these other companies.
Here is a paper from two years ago talking about the the theoretical limits of SSD technology.

The Bleak Future of NAND Flash Memory:
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/swanson/papers/FAST2012BleakFla...
>(By the way, if significant portions of your userbase are capable of becoming addicted to your product, consider that it may not be fully ethical to produce it.)

Well, there goes the gaming industry.
Well, a fork isn't the same as a clone, so that is why there are different words.

There is no pull request mechanism not tied to a site, unless you want to send an email with a public git URL yourself. Which you can still do, assuming the project you are working with has specified that. But why should you be able to dictate to other people that they do it this way? Github gives you the public URL, if you want it to, and lots of people do.

Hosting your own source repository also has unknown security, privacy and reliability implications. (Or known ones that are often not very good)

It doesn't really matter to Github users if you don't want to use Github. Doesn't make a lot of sense that you would decline to make bug reports just because the project used Github. That sounds like you are boycotting those projects for some moral reason.
Still some intermittent problems - I'm going to be constantly monitoring things, but if your game freezes or glitches, just try refreshing.
This is absolutely not true. Unfortunately, a well-designed claim can circumvent this restriction: "The lighthouse will be destroyed in 2015 and the criminal group will broadcast a string hashing to 'cc9a1595600ebb745ec2cea73e80aad5' one second before the explosion".

This gives no useful information to the police, but it's enough for the criminal to unambiguously identify himself.

I'm disappointed that they didn't consider such scenarios.
I always took that quote as more of a feign-arrogance joke than a truism.
no, zero is the bottom limit. Unless you do something stupid like personal guarantees on loans or do not incorporate. Thats the point of LLCs. Limit the liability of shareholders.

I am an owner / co-owner of 3 (US-based) LLCs, and I can tell you from experience that banks will require a personal guarantee, joint and several, of all principal owners, for any non-collateralized loan or line of credit.

The same is generally true of most lessors, as well. Some (most?) tech incubators / hubs / innovation centers are the exception, and I am sure also some smaller 'mom-and-pop' lessors. But once we moved out of those, we had lessors wanting us personally guaranteeing our 3-5 year leases, although we were able to negotiate those terms away with some of them.

We were able to secure net-30 terms from suppliers, however, that did not require a personal guarantee.

Even if you managed to somehow navigate these waters without anyone requiring a personal guarantee, zero is generally not the bottom limit. If you are a founder, or an owner, you most likely have brought assets and/or money into the venture.
Looks like a friendly warning to me intermixed with tracking cookie.

They got you.
Right, and I think the parent is being unrealisitic in their assertion that an effective political system of any ideology or size has a steady state of "simple". You can't realistically govern on the basis of "property rights + non-aggression" without a central authority making arbitrary decisions about what each of these means, and most others being okay with that.

The OP was criticized as unrealistic. But anarchocapitalism is, if anything, more obviously unrealistic.

As soon as you cover all of the common sense questions which arise about just these two public goods you end up a long way away from anarchocapitalism.

> Private property

This is more of a philosophy than a workable proposal for a legal system.

What constitutes property? What do you do when new sorts of property crop up?

What's a valid contract?

What happens when someone breaks your stuff and can't pay for it?

What happens when someone is accused of breaking the non-aggression principle but doesn't have any stuff? Who covers investigative costs etc.?

And those are just the very high level and topical things. There are thousands of other side cases where US case law does "the obvious thing"

> Non-aggression principle

Again, philosophy is not law.

What is aggression?

What about harm caused to the polity by non-aggressive use of force (drunk driving without regard to other's lives? Reckless taxi driving without regard to other's lives (to make some extra profit)? Dumping deadly chemicals in rivers? Pollution to the point of black-out smog? All the way down to more banal public health things like public smoking and drug use. Every person has a different, and usually passionately held, opinion on each of these.

There is no bright line, every issue has to be considered separately and people will always disagree. By the time you answer all these questions, you have substantial government to arbitrate and enforce.

Oh, and this is all assuming that private property + non-aggression, if balanced correctly, give rise to a good society. Internal consistency is a pretty low bar, and it's entirely unclear how anarchocapitalism or related positions are consistent without a completely unrealisitic over-simplification of human dynamics.
If you use Chrome you can install the Octosplitt[1] extension for side-by-side diffs.

[1]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mnkacicafjlllhcedh...
Wait, I don't understand how you can simultaneously believe that the NSA has actually built an apparatus of universal surveillance and that universal surveillance leads to an intimidated citizenry and total lack of innovation.

Which is it? Is the NSA restrained in their surveillance, or does surveillance not actually ruin innovation?
That is a bit of a reach to call it blue collar.

I have blue collar friends from high school who envy what programmers do and make and I do what I can to try and persuade/teach them to learn to code and make a better life for themselves.
>where do the results come from?

Contract outcomes are determined in a trustless and decentralized way, through a weighted vote based on present and past consensus with a unique Nash Equilibrium where all voters report accurately on the state of markets.
And this new reputation economy will only be as good as the cultural biases of the engineers of the technology. Which could net us a worse situation than there is currently.
Mozilla Persona – simple sign-in with email – Mozilla
Even if you paid for it, they'd still have the economic incentive to extract money by selling your data and such.
Hmm.. I read that a 2 hour Netflix movie is about 2 GB. So you need ~2.2 Mbps per user or 183 iops / client in terms of 1.5K packets.

One drive can fit 2000 movies. 75K iops/drive / 183 iops/client = 400 clients/drive (this is 900 Mbps, but the drive says up to 400 MB/s, so not bandwidth limited).

Put 16 in a 2U server for 6400 clients. This is 14 Gbps, so you need two 10 G NICs to complete our Netflix appliance.

But you are right, if caching works we don't need all these drives. With 128 GB of RAM we can fit 64 movies in RAM. I could easily believe that most people only watch the popular movies.
Some quick figures to put it in perspective:

According to instantwatcher.com, there are 6843 movies on Netflix streaming currently. If we conservatively say that the 1080p stream is 2gb, and the other formats add up to another 2gb, that's a total of ~27 TB of space required.

There are 3657 seasons of TV, let's say an average of 2gb per episode, and an average of 14 episodes a season. That's ~102 TB.

So napkin math suggests ~129TB of storage to hold all of Netflix, or 33 of these drives.

Since they need redundancy and to have servers distributed around the country for peering, and these drives will probably cost ~$10k each (5x premium on consumer), I doubt they'll be putting their long tail content on them.

How many people in Boston are currently watching Mission Impossible, the TV series from 1966? Or content like it? A standard hard drive can serve 500 people HD streams so long as you cache ahead into memory intelligently in big enough chunks.

Within a few generations, SSDs will probably be cheap enough to not even bother with mechanical, for this and many other use cases.

[1]http://instantwatcher.com/titles/all?tv_filter=movies+only
I love the site but I'm convinced 80% of these stories are fake or highly embellished.
D solves this particular problem in a simpler way: it has a `final switch` block, which forces the case set to be complete. It doesn't have arbitrary boolean expressions as seen here, but it does add an interval syntax.

http://dlang.org/statement.html#FinalSwitchStatement

http://dlang.org/statement.html#CaseRangeStatement
It's not just the setup, it's having to monitor and update the servers, deal with outages, etc. Not to mention you are paying for the machine. For most people this has no inherent value over just letting Github do it.
This does not work because it does not converge for the number 4. The equation x^x^x^x^...=y is only valid for y in the range e^-1 < y < e, although proving this is a bit complicated. More info on hyperpowers can be found here: (http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/ther/tower.htm). The proof can be found here: (http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/upload_library/22...)
I don't think it really matters to the recruiter if you are qualified, or if they are judged on how many people they source end up getting offers. They are just there to get you in the door.
You do understand that the paid aspect of app.net guaranteed that it would fail? Usage is oxygen, fees are suffocation.
Post-capitalism – an idea how to start from a guy with ADHD
I don't find this a good point of view. The article goes, "if you love to program and make a decent wage and enjoy your work..." -- How many people really get that sort of satisfaction! Enjoy it if you've got it all. You can't expect the world to gift you millions if you aren't doing anything different.

Moreover, if someone really is an amazing coder, then there's a good chance that he/she started the career at a good salary level, while people in other profession were still grinding at work. Why complain now if you didn't stop to brood over the situation then. That's Karma :)

If you want to stay in your comfort zone that's perfectly acceptable. But don't whine! Comparing a programmer and a CEO, asking why one should earn higher for seemingly equal amount of work is not right. Being the CEO means taking risk, putting together business plans, qualifying ideas, cutting deals, leading teams, handling legal and financial work, hiring people for all functions. The blogpost itself is peppered with examples of people who took the risk and made it big. How many software engineers really want to handle all these complexities?

There simply aren't enough top spots for everyone. Some love to lead, some love to code... some love to do both. You make your choices. Of course some people do get lucky and some people even win by clandestine ways. But the focused, hard-working one has his place. Everyone doesn't want a mansion and Ferrari. I don't. Why make that a parameter for success!
It isn't, but something better has to come along first. We'd still be using Sourceforge if it were not for its successors.
You would pay for Twitter, but you would not outbid the advertisers, who unlike you are willing to subsidize the people who won't pay for Twitter. Which is just a complicated way of saying that if Twitter charged for access, it would charge substantially more than you'd expect them to.
Forbes does this because it's rewarded by Google, they rank for pretty much everything so they fill it with junk.
Forbes has basically sold out all of their integrity by allowing pretty much anyone to write a post on their site. It's a shame, really.
I didn't say they were thinking consciously of property rights. I have been in discussions with women who were trying to find a way to signal to their boss or someone else who was potential trouble that "No, I am not up for a romantic relationship with you" and trying to figure out how to do so without offending. They often try to do so by emphasizing to the man "I have a boyfriend." I always tell them that is the wrong approach because it signals to potentially predatory men that she is perfectly willing to go along with being some man's property and all he has to do is find some way to claim her as his own. That's the wrong signal for a woman to send if she really wants a career. She needs to find a polite way to deflect his attentions without saying "It's cuz I belong to someone else right now." Some men take that as a challenge, as "come get me, big boy." So it is not a good way to avoid trouble.

If women want to compete with men and not just be their toys, they need to exercise agency and own their decisions that "No, I am not up for a relationship with you. Because I say so, not because of some other man's property rights over me." If a woman says "I would get with you if I weren't with someone else" she needs to really and truly mean that. It shouldn't be a polite fiction. Such polite fictions tend to lead to worse trouble than the one they thought they were trying to cleverly sidestep.
Aside from getting a few examples up, I'd clarify the pricing. It's not clear if that's $ per year or per month.
I named my son "Hunter Speed". Our last name is Thompson.
I spent six years in the US Navy, and never learned how to swim before or after I joined.

They give you a basic swim test, administered by Navy SEALs. It involved (at the time, mid-90s) jumping from a 25ft high diving board into a pool, and treading water for a bit. This simulated having to dive over the edge of a ship in case you had to evacuate.

Anyway, I climb up, get to the edge of the diving board and just freeze. A very unhappy SEAL actually had to climb up and push me off the board. I must have been a really sad, pathetic case because one of the other SEALs doing the training pulled me aside and worked with me for the remainder of the day so that I could pass the swim test later that afternoon.

Kinda makes me wish I had learned when I was a kid, or had the time to learn now. At least I can still tread water.
Many of the best programmers I've ever worked with have absolutely no code on GitHub. Why is that? It's because they're using their talents and abilities in industry, solving real problems, in positions where they're obligated to not share the code they've produced.

I'd hire those people any day over somebody with numerous GitHub repos filled with quasi-maintained JavaScript libraries or numerous forks of code they didn't write.
Here is the link to what they actually use https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/hardware
Exactly.

Would this also apply to products like Uber? I use it all the time, and can't imagine life without it. Am I addicted to it? Is it an unethical company because people love to use it and it provides value to their lives?
The next doubling in capacity will likely come about through 3D NAND which allows for much larger feature sizes than current planar NAND. Samsung already have 3D NAND on the market (in 128Gb / die capacity), and other manufacturers intend to go down this route too.
I like your answer. It is simple and objective. Why are people trying to be rich if they don't want to be rich at all? If everyone is going to be CEO, who is going to be managed?
Yes, because we live in a magical world where companies are chomping at the bit to invest billions of dollars in heavily regulated industries for single digit returns.
"But what Google actually built was a fancier Reddit – a place to have interesting discussions with strangers with less anonymity, trolling, and nudity."

Actually it isn't. Reddit's information is incredibly well organized. If you want to be in the loop on something, there's probably a sub reddit that has a ton of people talking about it.

My G+ feed is an orgy of ads, huge images, and irrelevant posts. Some people and companies I follow are a firehose of information that is a pain in the ass to sort through. I thought I could use it as a sort of rss feed, but I was wrong.

The only reason I'm on Facebook is for my college friends, and Twitter I just use to post development and programming stuff and use as an RSS feed. Beyond that, social media does nothing for me. Since G+ started, its been useless for me.
Received this message from a client recently:

"Make sure the design you prepare for our iPhone app take into consideration, the upcoming iPhone 6 screen size apart from iPhone 4 and iPhone 5"

Not sure who to blame...
I'm an engineer & I've been using a single 60gb SSD for over a year. I run a few virtual machines and when I'm done I delete shit I don't need or store it elsewhere. What do you use 4TB for? I could only imagine using it for watching TV but I don't like doing that. Everything else I just rent cheap servers.
G+ is in fact dead. So few people use it. Just look around. Now we have the Google fan boys defending G+ on here.
Funnily enough, the other guy who responded me did forget a
Can we please come back with our foot on Earth ?

Waitress is a Dead End Job, WallMart employs are a in a Dead end job, hairdresser is a dead end job.

Whoever makes > 60k $/yr is not a dead end job.

Please let's try to realize how lucky we (as programmers) are to live(/and work) today.
> Really? In my experience managers can be replaced rather easily, or at least more easily than it is to a replace a single engineer.

Possibly true. But think about how most engineering managers attained that role...it was because companies thought they were good engineers, despite little if any evidence that they'd ever make good managers. Throw in a dash of, "we don't really have a training budget" for this new profession (which it is...management is an entirely different profession from engineering), and you have a recipe for disappointing, easily replaceable parts.
NBC News, you might want to reassign your headline writer to the celebrity gossip section. Headlines seem to be getting worse, or maybe I just have less patience for them.

This headline says the plane "fries" the computers, (1) leaving out any indication that the reports are unconfirmed, (2) suggesting permanent computer damage, and (3) implying some sort of active jamming. Interesting -- if it is true.

The article is a bit more cautious -- it doesn't use the word "fries" -- instead saying it "appears to have triggered a software glitch at a major air traffic control center in California".

IMO, truly frying a computer only happens when you blast it with a heavy dose of radiation (like putting it in the microwave!).