skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm stuggling to put into words how much I dislike designs like this - superheavy javascript sites that work like ass on my netbook, full of empty space and icons instead of text (so I have to hover over the icons to find out what they do - where's the sense in this??) and customized "UI" functionality that make me forever unsure what my clicks will produce.

Wikipedia has a plain but very pleasant interface and this would totally ruin it for me.
I really like this. It would be cool to see this actually implemented.

For the record, it wasn't entirely obvious at first that I could click/drag the individual rows on your site.

Also, for anyone that's curious, there have been several other redesign concepts floating around (one here: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/), although so far this one seems to be the most thought-out.
I could certainly use a better system for remembering where I park my bike.

One system: Take a photo of the bike every time you park it in a non-standard place (standard being e.g. "work", "home" or "girlfriend's"). Unfortunately, taking out my smart-phone every time I go grocery-shopping is bothersome, and I might only find out I need to suddenly go elsewhere when I've already parked the bike.

Ideally, my bike (or, through statistical inference, my smartphone) should just publish GPS coordinates. Unfortunately this drains the battery very fast. Perhaps a background service that uses the GPS a little more sparingly than the Google Maps app?
Couldn't see everything because of the 503 errors, but seems really interesting, thanks for sharing!
We're rebranding as Widgetic. We're called Blogvio now (http://blogvio.com/).

So personally I've been focused on building the new identity and securing the domain name, Twitter username (had to purchase this one from an existing user), Facebook vanity URL, Google, Vimeo and all the other accounts we needed.

The icon we've been working on, although not final, should help users see two things depending on where they look from (front, sides) - I'd love to hear your guesses - what do you see?

http://o7.no/1fhXfoX

Here's a more fine tuned / in progress version: http://o7.no/1hE7mOY

Once the rebranding is done we can finally release our API under the new name, so we don't break any integrations with our product.
Everybody wins when there's real competition in space.
RadiumOne CEO Gurbaskh Chahal Says “I Didn’t Hit Her 117 Times”
Cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

But the cache isn't very useful since the images don't appear.
This will likely be un popular: but surely we praise SpaceX when they are trying to sue the government to get some of that sweet launch contract business; but we will say nothing whn they are launching satellites designed to either kill or spy on anyone by launching more tentacles of the octopus!
http://vpnbook.com/

Offers TCP 443, UDP 53 and PPTP.
Plex shares the terminal disability (with itunes, and JRiver) of trying to be two things at once: a media browser, and a media player; quite similar to how file sync programs before dropbox were terminally unusable by trying to include redundant functionality ( http://qr.ae/rwZF4 ).

Regarding built-in media players, not one vendor takes usability of playback seriously. Specifically, when I hit "enter" on a file, that means I'd like to see it played back, like, now. Not "queueing", nor 5 seconds later. When I scroll left & right, that means I'd like it to go +-1 min / hour, like, now; and not 5-10 seconds "seeking". On my quadcore 3.4ghz battlestation, this remains a problem for every single native, and web-based app. MPlayer is, to date, the only one which consistently delivers on sub-second videoplayback, and it does so from cold start.
(There are also major problems with how subtitles are handled by players, but I grant you that might be a niche)

Hence my strong requirement above for the app to go with shell.exec, instead of half-baked non-implementation of every single video codec under the sun.
I am going to take the apparently unique position here (after 90 comments) that Erik is correct, at least about pure functional programming (the more modern sense of "functional" rather than the older one that is "merely" about first-class function objects). The value of pure functional programming comes from creating programs out of very mathematically-small pieces... a function of Int -> Int can only do so many things to the output Int, as compared to a function in an impure language which may be only able to do so many things to the output Int but may also arbitrarily manipulate the world in uncontrollable ways. The pure-functional function is exponentially "smaller" than the the impure version. Much of the study of the Haskell world right now comes in how to use these much simpler pieces to still build real-world programs.

If you "pragmatically" say, "Oh, but this is so hard, let's just let ourselves use a little bit of arbitrary-world-manipulation in our functions", you've basically returned back to the original world of programming with exponentially-complicated pieces again. As he points out in the article, even with a tiny crack in the wall, the compiler is back to being unable to assume purity. Programs must once again function as if an Int -> Int closure might read from the disk or hit the network. You're really back in the world of OO + old-school functional addons. I'm a bit more pragmatic and will agree that's a nice and useful paradigm, especially if you've learned discipline from time in the pure-functional world, but it is not the pure-functional world, and you will not reap the benefits.

(Which A: yes, they do exist and B: no, they aren't necessarily "mandatory" or the "only way to program". But still, see A. Personally I'd keep pure functional around for either applications that need high quality assurance without breaking the development budget, or programs of high complexity where the state space is big enough even before you start using horrifically unconstrained pieces to try to build your solution.)

I'd rephrase the title a bit... Mostly functional programming is not pure functional programming, and whereas I think "pure OO" didn't have a sweet spot where you insist everything is 100% OO, pure functional programming does. It isn't the only sweet spot. I think careful use of a very-not-pure language like Go, where one merely uses convention to avoid shared state (a very "pure" idea), can still be a sweet spot on its own. But there is another, where you go "purely pure", and for that one, you really do have to go purely pure, or you're not using it... and if you've never done it yourself, because you've only used impurely pure languages, you don't really have an opinion yourself because you've never tried it. Very nearly the only practical way to try it right now is Haskell.
How El Nino Works
When you work for yourself, your boss is probably an asshole.
Go-lang-cheat-sheet
> It's just a matter of time before half of all links submitted to HN end with ".js".

you forgot .css .2048 and .flappy
A lot of people here suggested you speak with a lawyer and they made it sound like you should do it on your own.

1st, make absolutely certain that who ever you choose as your lawyer is a startup lawyer. Do not contact a family friend who does litigation or someone else that does real estate law. You must hire a startup lawyer who does work for venture firms, angel investors etc.

2nd, From the read, you are worried, but you still think your co-founder is a good guy. If that is the case, you should just send him a link to this post and say: "I asked this question on HN, and it is clear that we may not need to incorporate yet, but I am concerned about protecting the work I have done and will do in the future. Let's start talking to lawyers about everything to get the ball rolling."

By staying positive and just showing him that this is the right thing to do, you are making forward progress. If he balks at hiring a lawyer, you may want to consult one on your own.
I'm not a huge fun of going thru the time and expense of legal formation every time you want to explore a potentially lucrative side project... I once rapidly formed an LLC because someone wanted to buy a side project of mine.

But you can protect yourself. First, only dabble with people who you trust. It's not perfect (every couple believes "till death do us part" when they say it), but it helps. Beyond that, it's trivial to write out a shared understanding that will get you much of the way to "protected". Note that the most important thing is that they are ethical and there is a shared understanding. Legal docs aren't a substitute for that, they're just a weapon if you need to go to war.

Discuss the following:
1) Compensation. Equity? Deferred $? If equity, % of ownership (fully vested) and rate of vesting. (read: http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2013/07/21/startup-founde...)

2) What happens in various dissolution scenarios? What if either or both of you want to quit? What if either or both of you wants to fire the other? Who owns the code?

Once you share a verbal understanding, write it down via email to him and have him respond to the email confirming that he agrees. If you're worried, print and sign 2 copies. It doesn't have to be legalese to give you teeth if a fight happens... But your goal should obviously be to avoid a fight.

You have a lot of power right now, but you should use it lightly. Say, "Hey, X-- I'm feeling increasingly uncomfortable and would love to take some time out to discuss our partnership. I know incorporation is expensive and time consuming, but I'd like to make sure we share an understanding on X, Y, and Z. Once we do, I'd like to write that down, email it, sign it, etc. Does that make sense? When would be a good time for that? I suspect we'll need a few hours of quiet time." Until that happens, stop writing code and (if you think he might be a bastard) make sure you have the passwords.
They emulate the CPU if you're using a different architecture, that's why android emulator can be slow. You can just "hibernate" and have the application open in the VM at all times whenever you turn it on.
Put copyrights in all of your code, I mean everything. Copyright assignment is the act of assigning your work to someone else, usually in the form of a contract job.

Until a contract is signed, and you have "assigned your copyright" to another entity, all of your produced code remains under your own control.
how does one image survive the rain?
I remember watching this last year. It's one of the best UX videos I've ever seen, thanks for the reminder.
If Musk continues to play his Tony Stark Cosplay he's going to insert some kind of backdoor into satellites SpaceX launches for the DOD.
"Paying for the Party" by Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura Hamilton
Limiting launches is not the proper solution. If you want change, start with your local state representative.
That was quite enjoyable, straight forward, and entertaining for the < 5 min duration.

I really appreciate putting the user in context of their own lives compared to as if locked in a room with just that interface in front of them.

Microsoft brings in people a lot (or so I hear) to do user testing. I wonder how processes can be redesigned to also take "The user is drunk" approach.
Do they let you short Btc?
I want to turn this into a sport.

Imagine this with some augmented reality thing where multiple contestants could shoot each others' copters with an IR laser or something.

Heck yes.
Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world. It hasn’t been changed or redefined during the last 10 years. The web and its technologies has developed further and so have its users.

And why should it be changed? Wikipedia's design is one of the prime examples of "simple, clean, effective", in my mind.

Frankly, the only good idea I see here is an integrated WYSIWYG wiki markup editor. That might work, although MediaWiki markup isn't that hard to get acquainted to, and it's probably a good thing that someone should spend a bit of time to do so before making major edits.

Otherwise, this looks like some misguided attempt to make Wikipedia look more like Medium, as ostensibly Medium is the future of UX. Magpies hopping on to the newest trend, as always. Web design is notorious for this.

The front page is an overly cluttered dashboard that makes Wikipedia look like a blog, more than anything else. Unnecessary, and quite constrained.

Article pages have been turned into trailing, centered sprawls of text. Works for blogs, but not for an online encyclopedia. The present design is more suited to Wikipedia's features as a web project.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Wikipedia's font responsive and dynamic? It adapts to whatever typeface is the default on your browser.
The $2B satellite is equally absurd, and only costs that much for the same reasons that the launch costs $400M. Everything is bespoke and produced in the maximal number of congressional districts, with no meaningful competitive pressure to drive prices downward.

And the two expenses buoy each other: if launches were inexpensive, you could spend a lot less on fault-tolerance in the payloads, because you could just launch a lot more payloads or even support on-orbit repair infrastructure.
Then, when it goes down you gave to deal with it instead of someone else!

There's usually a curve where it makes sense to invest in self-host, but the Bit bucket Slate has been really great.
Great. I'd be interested in the case study when it's ready. I shot you an email too. Looks like it could be a good fit for us.
Ask HN: Tech jobs/locations for saving money
I am a commercial software engineer with nearly 10 years’ experience. Most of my experience is as an individual contributor, but I have also occasionally lead small teams. Anyone who I’ve worked with would say that I’m competent at what I do, and whenever I feel like changing jobs, I have no trouble finding work.

Right now, for reasons that are not relevant to this post, I am interested in spending a couple of years earning as much money as I can, within reason. I certainly don’t want to try the startup lottery - my goal is more to find a high paying job somewhere where the costs of living are low. The sacrifices I am willing to make are that the work does not have to be the most interesting or cutting edge stuff, I will relocate anywhere, and I am happy to live a frugal lifestyle (I have no dependents).

I’m not sure exactly how much money I can expect to save, but my hunch is that a high 5 figure sum per year may be realistic. I probably would not be willing to go as far as spending 6 months cooped up in a military submarine, but I’m interested in hearing HN readers’ ideas about what kind of work I could find to achieve my goal.
That's actually been tried by Groupon in the past... It wasn't successful largely because it's hard to get merchants to adopt that way of thinking and also because people don't walk around with the Groupon app open all the time.
> in Haskell a value is a value

The same is true of C++. Values and references in C++ can't be null. Pointers can be null, but that's a lower-level feature that doesn't have an equivalent in idiomatic Haskell.
Well first thing you should do is contact a lawyer but second thing you should do is to actually:

talk to your cofounder.

Express your fears, and negotiate a solution (solutions which you have already in mind having talked to the lawyer). Maybe he really hasnt had time or maybe he really thinks that the investment stage is the most appropriate for incorporating.
Newslines offering $1 per post to build the "Wikipedia of News"
Just the fact that they didn't have a way to record and verify whether the deployment was done properly boggles my mind. When I worked at a bank we had package management to do deployments, a separate tool for taking inventory of installed software (in case of users managing to sneak third party programs on to their system), and on top of that a web framework for tracking milestones during projects that allowed for manual entry by technicians and automated input from scripts so tasks that had to be done by hand like replacing hardware could be coordinated with build scripts and management could monitor the whole thing from a dashboard.
Globe99- a Global Free Categorised Web Internet site for On the web Ad
Globe99-A world class global classified advertising website to post free ads for buy sell,electronics,Digital Products,industries, institutes, companies, businesses &amp; services.
Watts Humphreys was probably the first to the idea of scaling development processes down, rather than up, arriving in the 90s at the Personal Software Process.

The PSP is very data-intensive. You're meant to log pretty much everything you do.

For example, you log your mistakes. Missed a semicolon? Log the mistake. Typo in a variable name? Log the mistake. Critical misunderstanding of how a library works? Log the mistake.

After a while you use your data to correct your common errors with ... checklists! And other tools and practices, of course, but checklists are a big part of the PSP.

It's worth reading A Discipline for Software Engineering, even if you never apply it.
But every OS is written in C.
Do the incorporation stuff yourself and give it to him to sign.

If there are shenanigans, try to cause as much pain as possible without doing actual damage; a kick in the balls is OK, scratching should be avoided.
If the means are there to make life nice for everyone, I am all for it. However, I am not convinced it is actually the case. If we had some good years, it might also just have been luck: for example using up oil, which is like a lottery win for society (free energy, but limited), or exploiting people in other countries (cheap washing machines and clothes).

Do you think there is actually no risk in our modern world? Otherwise, why should some people (company owners) be forced to shoulder the risk for other people?

If there ever was a period where life was easy for everyone, how long did it actually last? WW2 ended 1945. I think it must have been between then and now. In between there was the Vietnam war, cold war, various economic crises, and so on. Maybe that classic "be a factory worker with lots of benefits and pay for your family and home" only ever lasted a couple of years? I guess it is mostly known from movies from the 50ies?

I am not actually as hardcore as it sounds. I think people should look out for each other, and society should strive to make everybody have a good life. I'm just not convinced that employee entitlement is the correct way to go about it.

Note that job security is also something society pays a price for (it's factored into the prices of products - if a company has to stick to brewing horses and musn't switch to car manufacturing, because they employ a lot of horse breeders, society pays by having to do with less efficiency). As a freelancer, I don't understand why I should pay for somebody else's job security?
Tell your cofounder right now that he either incorporates this week in which those documents will clearly state what your role and you're ownership stake is, or you're done working on this.
Ouch. More bitter privileged snarkiness posing as commentary.

Over the years, I have come to understand that some people just want to punch a clock. They don't want to challenge themselves during their work hours, they don't want to think too much or take too much risk. They just want to punch a clock and get a paycheck.

I am not like this, but people tell me there are many that are. I am a risk-taking person looking to challenge myself to create systems that help people.

Most of the folks who think like me fail. That's fine. That's part of our lifestyle. The smart ones have a side job and manage to continue failing until something works out.

I am beginning to feel really sorry for the other folks. The world has always been the way it is now. It's just that before you guys were helping some of the rest of us out. Now we don't need as many of you as we did before. So there are a lot of little opportunities making less money instead of just one large opportunity where you didn't have to think about it any more.

If I understand the irrationality of the human species, the next step will be to call for a minimum hour law, or some such construction. We seem to be really good at spotting problems and not so good at understanding how the problems came about in the first place. (or even whether they are problems or not. Most of the time, what passes for problem-spotting is just emoting)
SpaceX is a private sector success story-- as long as you ignore that they get most of their revenue from government contracts. For a libertarian, he sure likes taking tax money.
Then why don't they host their main servers on statuspage.io? I've never seen a status page that is down.
They use them less because they are less practical and due to their purity are unable to fulfill peoples (real, rather than theoretical) requirements.

Measuring LOC required to implement a task is meaningless. If you implement a task in python in fewer LOCs than what I need in C, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because my code might fit on an 8-bit microcontroller, run faster, ... or meet any other number of imaginary or real additional requirements I might think of (and people always have lots of those!) "Have 10% fewer lines of code" is pretty much never a given requirement, though.

Sure, erlang is a "uncompromisingly pure implementation of the actor model", but then python is an uncompromisingly pure implementation of the python model, and C is an uncompromisingly pure implementation of the C model, so that's hardly an interesting argument. Erlang is pretty much what popularized the actor model as we consider it nowadays in mainstream programming, so that's tautological.

The point (which you have not actually argued against) is that erlang is also a functional language, but not a pure one; it allows side-effects, it allows sending messages, it allows storing data in your (destructibly updatable) process dictionary, et cetera.

That means erlang benefits from the features it inherits from the functional languages, even though it doesn't go "full functional" in the sense some other languages do.

If you don't think there are programs that are difficult to write in haskell, agda, miranda, ML, ..., I have to doubt that you have done a substantial amount of them, and/or that you have applied it to any actual real-world task.
For those who get 503, you can also check out the concept on behance: https://www.behance.net/gallery/16219877/Wikipedia-Redesign-...
How can you agree on an equity split when there is not a company?
It's worth noting that `Option(null)` is `None`. And while it's possible for any reference to be assigned `null`, it rarely happens in Scala code as a) it's well known to be bad form, and b) the IDE's can be configured to yell at you about it. Practically speaking (from the middle), it's not a problem.
With some discipline, it's possible to achieve the same level of security in C as in pretty much any other high-level language.

Some useful techniques: always strive for simplicity, use types to encapsulate data dependencies and enforce error checking (e.g. store the length and pointer of an array as part of a struct and use methods that perform bounds checks to modify or read from it -- granted, this style of programming can add overhead, but C is so fast to begin with that it rarely matters), don't use unsafe standard library functions, test rigorously, valgrind everything, use static code analysis tools.

Doing any of these things goes a long way to eliminate the vast majority of bugs specific to C, but unfortunately way too many C projects hardly do any of them. It can evidently be done, though, as there are some very robust C libraries out there.

See also djb's comments about qmail (http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html).