skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My simple answer to this: don't.

I have a number of friends who are reflexively critical. Great people generally, and I'm glad to have them as friends. But I've just stopped telling them about new things I might be working on. If you're doing a startup, extra discouragement is rarely something you need.

If a startup sounds dumb, that's probably because you're not an early adopter in the target market. As an example, the first personal computers were absolutely terrible for most people unless a) they were hugely in love with technology, or b) had a very specific business purpose that the tech could actually solve. A lot of people surely looked at early home computers and thought they were dumb businesses. In retrospect, we can tell which the dumb ones were, but at the time it sure wasn't obvious.

If you want to help a friend whose startup idea is suspicious to you, don't critique the idea; encourage them to prove the idea with their target audience. Prod them them to interview 10 potential customers and see how many have the hypothesized problem. Help them to do a concierge version [1] of the product and see how much money they can collect. Assist them in doing a landing page test.

But please don't critique the idea unless you have deep expertise in the domain or are actually an early adopter in the target market. Feel free to critique things within your professional skills, of course; if you're a visual designer, it's ok to tell them their logo could use some work.

[1] http://scottlthompson.com/lean-lesson-flashback-the-concierg...
Why learning to program is hard
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=cppcms#!/story/forever/0/cppcms
It's the largest streaming site in the world and could possibly be making 10 figures / year. YouTube isn't dishing out money just because they are really nice people.
Neal Stephenson interview
Indeed, secrecy surrounding pay is generally a bad idea for any organization. Ben Horowitz[1] has the best explanation of why that is: it can’t help but foment poisonous internal politics. But there are other reasons, too.

I'm pretty sure Ben Horowitz doesn't suggest making employee compensation public, but promoting / giving raises on a regular cycle.

[1] http://www.bhorowitz.com/how_to_minimize_politics_in_your_co...

I chuckled when I read this statement. Having worked for the government, I can say with certainty that transparent salaries don't reduce poisonous politics. If anything, they make it worse. Knowing that certain incompetent co-workers were making vastly more money that me for more or less the same job motivated me to leave for the private sector where I at least had a chance of being paid what I was worth. Of course, such discrepancies can exist there too, but at least the exact numbers aren't right in my face.
It's almost impossible to sell a public good. A career that focus on them will inevitably get less monetary rewards than one that focus on excludable ones.

A scientist gets less money than a programmer because despite creating much more total wealth on average[1], nobody needs to pay to get a share of the results, thus nobody has much of an incentive to pay.

As a related concept, life ain't fair.

[1] Does he really? I'm going with the common opinion, but I'd love to see data on that.
FWIW, I'm studying ML with Introduction to Statistical Learning, which was recommended to me by several people.

Personally I didn't enjoy Coursera's ML course (though I believe Ng is a great teacher) and dropped out, but I'm enjoying this book.

It's available as PDF for free:

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~gareth/ISL/
So are you saying that "clean up" and suspicious link notices only happen when a site hits a threshold. A state machine of sorts?

Frankly, I think "spammy link penalties" is an approach that cannot work long term, any negative weight put on links is too easy to game by competitors.
He used to piss off a lot of people on rec.juggling by commenting rabidly on any videos that featured female jugglers. I liked him though - for some reason his webpage directly a lot of traffic my way, even though I wasn't female...
Oh, really? You want to affirm the notion that Bitcoin is for fraudsters only.
My startup https://shou.tv, samples https://shou.tv/v/elsjtiy
Looking to possibly build a solution for this. I use a few different emails (school, personal, work) and find myself jumping back and forth. Wondering if there is room for a new web-based aggregator that provides simplicity of iOS Mail / Mailbox but on the web? Or is it too "against the grain" to focus on web instead of mobile?
If I didn't know any better, reading your posts I'd think Curve25519/SafeCurves were haphazardly thrown together in the name of performance, yet in the end were roughly the same speed as the highly secure NIST curves.
From the article, it doesn't appear to be a full vacuum tube, just much lower pressure, which airplanes have been protecting their passengers against for years.

Also, the reason astronauts need to be so physically fit is not because the environment outside their ships is a vacuum, its because they have to be able to handle the immense g-forces of launch and reentry, as well as be able to operate in micro-gravity, which wouldnt apply here.
I, too, use questionable streaming sites (well, just one since it's been reliable for the last year or two), but the picture quality is often worse than standard def, and the sound is apparently funnelled through a tin can.

It's almost bad enough to make me want to pay for cable. Almost.

Unfortunately for me, I live in Canada, where OTA stations do not care about the NBA. And I refuse to buy the League Pass since any games broadcast on cable would be blacked out.
The only issue is that I can't see how "no paper trail" allows for the current routes of monetisation to work... that said, if they can come up with something different then they've got something very exciting on their hands.
I'm unable to access ESPN's live feeds without a login provided by my cable company. That login flags what ESPN channels I pay for so, for example, I can't watch ESPN U without paying for an upgraded "sports" package filled with garbage channels.

I do have access to some live and recorded events, but the selection is limited to filler content like college volleyball and minor league soccer. Another plus is the ability to use my neighbor's login without restrictions since our cable provider's flagging system is piss poor. As long as I know somebody paying for cable I can cheat the system.
Predicting the economy is like predicting the weather. Sure, you can get the short term right very often, but longer term the number of factors and the relationships between them becomes very complex. I would guess "this time it really is different" with supporting reasons has been sung plenty of times before. I'm not convinced. War, plague, drought, social unrest... these things come along and their effects are far reaching. To say nothing of financial disasters (maybe those who control the levers have the machine figured out... then again, maybe not. I don't know).

In the long long term yes... I would guess technology is going to be important and there will be profits. Shorter- long term.... it does seem a bit frothy right now. Short-Short term? Ride the trend until it ends.

Pullbacks happen. Sometimes they are bigger, sometimes smaller. They serve an important function. To separate what is important and deserving of capital from that which isn't. Just don't believe they won't happen because yes... they will. That is never different.
"The Zerocash protocol extends Bitcoin and enables users to pay one another directly, via payment transactions that reveal neither the origin, destination, or amount of the payment."

I can't see many governments being happy with a service like this.
Just buy everything.

Retail investors are unlikely to beat the market as a whole, so just buy the entire market, hold it forever and keep costs low. For instance, Vanguard's Total Stock Market fund holds almost every publicly traded stock in America (~3700) and is dirt cheap.
Well Lisp itself is a Stanford invention. Scheme is an MIT invention. I agree that Scheme deserves a mention though, even though it isn't widely popular, it certainly transformed how people thought about education and things like garbage collection.
This reminds me of another cool toy camera, the PXL-2000 - which recorded digital video onto a compact audio cassette tape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PXL-2000
If you can't get Control S to work see

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/549810/control-r-reverse-...
This is, for me, the single most interesting thing in the Bitcoin/Blockchain world.

I love the idea of Cryptocurrencies in general (and got interested in computers, cryptography, security, and cypherpunks around the same time in ~1992), but without something which makes every transaction unlinkable, and thus preserves fungibility of the currency, I find things like Bitcoin a step back from Chaumian blinded tokens. There's the potential for coin validation in regular bitcoin, and once there's technical potential, it can become mandated. Once that happens, even if it starts for something "nice" like preventing large thefts, it can turn into censorship.

With zerocash, I could see blockchain-based anonymous systems coexisting for low-throughput, high-persistence systems mainly going to blockchain tech, and high-throughput, non-inherent-decentralized systems doing their own Chaumian blinded token currencies. And "currencies" not just being used for human payments, but lots of forms of resource allocation.
This whole thing seems bizarre. Pagerank smells broken to me.

You can't buy links, but you can if you do it from us. What a scam.

If pagerank can't differentiate "blackhat" seo links from organic links it probably needs fixing.

In regards to this article its a bit strange. Reading the email its pretty obvious how it went down:

Company hires dodgy seo company who sets up a bunch of links

Google detects it, sends out warning listing all links to their site

Company mass emails every site owner with links pointing back at them

I don't think they were really asking the links to be removed from the authors site at all, it was aimed at someone completely different. All they had to go by was the referrer and the link.
Thanks, I'll take a look! Look like I'm going to make many changes for the camera copy.
My thoughts exactly.

Matthew Green has carefully worded his presentation of this project in the past.

He has always claimed that such an implementation could be possible. Not that it was inherent to the coin itself.

Let's hope that he gets it running sooner, rather than later. Before somebody has a chance to change his mind.
For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Let%27s_Play_%28vi...

I would argue that if twitch got big enough, they would have to deal with the same issues YouTube does today.
Colonists objected to the Tea Act because they believed that it violated their rights as Englishmen to "No taxation without representation," that is, be taxed only by their own elected representatives and not by a British parliament in which they were not represented.

Again, and in hopes of a more substantive reply: when has hurting innocents been an effective way to get what you want in a society with political representation for its citizens?
Learn to build an application using Angular.js
You should never negotiate by giving a range. AT BEST they will give you the bottom end of that range. If the highest they can go is $60k, then start at 70 and dont counter below 60.
Blockchain technology would certainly make title searches on real property easier.

Right now I have to physically drive to a land records office, pay the people behind the desk to look through some old photocopied records; which they can't even fully guarantee the accuracy of.
Dan may not be happy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bricklin
But, look at the conclusion: "The underlying zk-SNARK cryptographic proof machinery is exible enough to support a wide range of policies. It can, for example, let a user prove that he paid his due taxes on all transactions without revealing those transactions, their amounts, or even the amount of taxes paid. As long as the policy can be speci ed by ecient nondeterministic computation using NP statements, it can (in principle) be enforced using zk-SNARK s, and added to Zerocash."
That's a great writeup.

I can't wait to try mine once it arrives!

I almost forgot about the project and basically just wrote it off as $65 down the drain when they surprisingly emailed me earlier this week saying it had been shipped out.

Funny how the $65 still ends up going down the drain one way or another when you spend it on edible products.

I am curious about their project from a legal standpoint.

I live in another country and basically just clicked through some acceptance forms and sent them the money what seems like over a year ago now.

What happens to the soylent company if I die after ingesting it for a week or a month straight? Even if it wasn't what actually killed me?

On another note... after having done some research into making my dog's food... isn't soylent basically just dog food for humans? They take all the right amounts of industrial grade vitamins, mix it together with a substrate, and bake it into kibble bits.

Is soylent just kibble without the baking?
That's a far cry from claiming you can't watch the show at all, which was what I responded to. As for watching on different devices, I can't say I've found this to be much of an actual problem in practice, and consider the claims about significant loss of rights to be wildly overblown.
Ok, how about not fully random sources and targets, but ones that somehow involved in DMCA lobbying and enforcement. That would remove the "innocent" from equation.
There are two main systems of managing real property -- the decentralized common law system, and the land registry system. I think for each just regular signatures work -- the hard part is associating a key to each property owner, but a central timestamping service helps there.

Most of the automated systems for land title seem to be the civil law approach, and for that a central registrar doesn't really map well to the blockchain. There's also no real anonymity -- at best, pseudonymity for keys, but the hard part is binding keys to legal owners.
Come try the "mild, maritime and Mediterranean climate" of mid-winter Scandinavia sometime. I've personally enjoyed -36 deg C coupled with a brisk sea breeze in Helsinki, and up in Lapland it's a toasty -50 deg C every now and then.
Check out ballstreams.com
So you couldn't very well keep them together :)
What country do you live in? Are you using a reshipping service? I thought they weren't mailing out international orders until later in the year.
In the case of marijuana legalisation - Big Pharma has spent millions researching and developing drugs for medical conditions that marijuana is able to treat just as effectively.

They make and will continue to make a lot more money keeping things they way they are, rather than letting Ma and Pa Kettle grow their own medicine.
FWIW, Gamecenter has had decent feeds for me; it annoys me that the browser viewer won't play the best quality (it only does 3Kbit, 30fps I think), but the ipad app will play 60fps HD streams. Missing blackout and playoff games is the worst though.
Google in Talks About Possible Acquisition of Twitch
Youtube actually already has streaming, to further prove your point.
I've saved a very informational Reddit comment giving a nice summary of The Fall of Detroit:

https://gist.github.com/shmup/11354626
>I would likely be independently weathy and able to fund any science project I wish

That is what I determined would be the best way to ensure that I could get the research projects I wanted to do actually funded.
Can someone explain how this works to a non-mathematician?
I really like the simplicity of the 'How it works' section and I will probably steal the concept for explaining parts of our build to new employees.
On one hand, I am glad that the transfer of property is not always 100% absolute.

Can you imagine what might happen if the land of the U.S. federal reserve building was somehow transferred to a random individual?

I used to get "free money" in my bank account all the time. Some banker would make an error, depositing a check from a member of a separate branch into my account with the same account number. The mistake was usually noticed during an audit and the money would magically be removed from my account.

Reversible transactions do have their place, I suppose.
This just makes me reconsider spending any time with it at this point.
You can disable annotations (popups) on your Account Playback settings page[1]. Typically I have little problem with buffering or low quality unless I'm sharing the connection, but you can adjust the default quality settings on that page too.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/account_playback
Also HISTIGNORE if you want to ignore specific commands, or export HISTFILE=/dev/null to disable history storage. HISTSIZE=0 also works, though it disables all history commands for the present shell, whereas HISTFILE merely fails to save them to file on exit.
That would be very difficult, and I'm sure will prove to be a major deterring factor in the early adoption of this new currency.

Their old "zerocoin" project website had a neat infographic depicting it's simplified usage: http://zerocoin.org/media/images/zerocoin_blockchain.png

Although I haven't fully read the zerocash whitepaper yet to know if they're still headed in the same direction, I believe that they are.

There is also the Q&A page on the new zerocash-project.org website: http://zerocash-project.org/q_and_a
The US government is broken. It's obvious that the game is rigged to be anti-innovative. Government imposed rents discourage efficient movement of the markets & innovation. There is evidence that patents hinder innovation. There's no evidence that patents encourage innovation.

I might as well be yelling at the wind. The people in power want to remain in power and will do whatever it takes to keep ossification of the status quo.
For years we begged Google to simply stop counting links they didn't like. These included generic directory link, crappy blog links, article farm links and on and on and on. They claimed to be able to tell what was good and what was bad yet the search results rarely showed that in certain niches.

Then we stared seeing the first indications that real "negative" SEO was possible in certain circumstances and we complained even further. Stop counting links you don't like. Now we are at a point where we see old websites being told to remove or disavow links that may be as many as 10 years old.

Can Matt or Google really stand there and say that it took them 10 YEARS to figure out that not only was that a link that they didn't like, but it was so evil that now it needed to be removed from the internet? The solution has been, and always will be, stop letting things you don't like count as a plus in your algorithm. When in doubt, don't count it.

Instead, we have Google adding thousands of webmasters and site owners as a living part of the algorithm and getting them to remove all those links, plus many they can't see or understand the value of, by the use of fear and scare tactics. Remove these links are we will ruin your website rankings. It doesn't matter if you created or asked for them or not, remove them.
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL14414111M/The_devouring_fung..., but it appears to be "checked out". The concept of an electronic file being checked out to one person on the whole internet is a goddamned abomination.
From this article from the Washington University student newspaper, it looks like Katz reposted the essay within days after that Post-Dispatch article ran.

http://www.studlife.com/news/2010/10/13/students-come-out-as...
Matter will be created from light within a year, claim scientists
The whole Frontline 'United States of Secrets' episode is very good and worth a watch. Part two is this week, I think on Tuesday.
I find that incredibly unlikely. Do you have a source?
> The transparency issue is that a build-out requirement isn't denominated in dollars...If you institute a build-out rule, it does so without knowing the size of the costs; they are simply imposed silently.

OK, I think I see.

> The company is charged $X per year to use public rights of way. The government hands this money to the poor people who can choose to buy cable connections or not. (If they don't, this is a sign that they have something better to use the money on.)

But I'm still having trouble seeing how this scenario improves on the original problem.

I thought that local governments were already charging $X for uses of rights of way, and build-out requirements are in addition to this. So if I understand right, the idea is to charge more (say $(X + Y)) but not impose those requirements, and instead let the broadband companies decide where and when to build out; then distribute the excess $Y (and, possibly, funds from elsewhere) to subsidize Internet service for the poor.

The problem I see here is that, if I'm one of those N poor folks the broadband company decides it doesn't want to build out to, I'm out of luck. I don't even have the option of buying broadband service, and offering up my $Y/N dollars does not give me much leverage to change that. If enough of my neighbors got together and pooled our funds, maybe that would be enough to convince the company to build out to our neighborhood, but maybe not, especially if (1) the company has already decided our neighborhood isn't worth it, or (2) building out would require the company to pay more in right-of-way fees (though maybe this is included in the initial $X+Y price?).

In short, it seems like our government trades the relatively strong leverage we have as a collected political force for the relatively weak leverage we each have as individuals, plus $Y/N dollars apiece.

In this particular case, that does not sound like a good trade, for the reasons I mentioned: Internet access is more or less essential infrastructure, and there is public interest in having nearly-universal access to that infrastructure, rather than a class of haves and a class of have-nots.

I wouldn't think it's that the government doesn't trust the poor (or really, anyone not yet built-out-to) to spend this money on responsibly. Rather, it's that divvying it up and letting individuals make their own decisions on how to spend it sacrifices political and economic coordination, which is required in this case to serve a desireable public end, near-universal access. Solving coordination problems like this is a big part of why governments exist, and we shouldn't be rushing to give up that coordination for individual decision making. We can easily end up in a situation where we're all worse off that way.
Just leave. Wait till you get your next paycheck and explain you can't do any productive work and finish.
that's a pretty false analogy, if you care to compare the sexes there are men that wear makeup as well.

facial hair can be a potential fire hazard, and is often considered to be too unhygienic for food workers. Both are reasons for an employer to request your continual shaving.

Do similar problems arise for cosmetics and the people that wear them? I don't wear cosmetics, but I don't believe that there are any overlapping laws which restrict their use such as the rules that food handlers must abide by.
Hey HN, Roger here, happy to answer any questions.
I agree actually. I hate it when people compare things to Snapchat like Snapchat is silly (it's not) but Twitch could be HUGE. Like huge huge huge.
But it also makes sense to hedge against the market to some extent, right? Have some amount in safer things (bonds, even money market and/or some t-bill equivalent), things that sometimes go in different directions than the market (eg. commodities). What's a good way to find a balance for that?