skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have a late 2013 15 inch MBP that regularly reaches 100 degrees C when running Adobe Flash. The only other time the machine has exceeded 70 is when I tried running Steam games at 2880x1800.

The hardware simply shouldn't get that hot, no matter how poorly optimized the software might be.
I don't know Hachette at all but if they behave anything like Pearson then I'd say they probably NEED to be taken down a notch (or two or three).
Am I the only one who doesn't really have a problem with this? A store increasing prices and not offering pre-orders does not seem like much of a problem. Increasing shipping times is a little more questionable, but assuming they aren't slowing already ordered books' shipping times, then again, what's the problem?
> In the meantime, it's clear that "tl;dr" is there to signal something like "The Cliff's Notes Version". If it were a headline, the headline would be: "15 Easy Words You Should Read Right Now That Tell You All You Need To Know".

I disagree from observing the actual use. There's times when it is used for a comment that is nothing but a summary, or when it used (with or without other comment) for a hostile summary. Sure, those are bad, but they are bad independently of the use of the phrase "tl;dr" to signal a summary.

But much of the time its used on HN its used to either (a) distill the commenters understanding to contextualize the comments being made more clearly, or (b) to introduce a summary of the commenter's own detailed comment.

I don't think those are problematic. Yeah, the origin is dismissive. But the use on HN often isn't; the abbreviation "tl;dr" isn't the problem, and looking at it as if it was is looking past the real problem it is sometimes associated with.

Rather than saying "don't use tl;dr", it would be better to say "don't post just to summarize".
I have to agree with separating the concerns. Different patterns for each are better. This leans towards higher flexibility and understanding of the domain.
The publisher clearly wasn't willing to deal to whatever Amazon's requests were. Amazon's response is then to stiff-arm them, and that's not cool.

What if you made an app, charged $5, and Google/Apple said we really insist you charge $3 or do such-and-such. You, who worked super-hard and believe the market will support your $5 price, decline, and then in turn Google/Apple take your app off the store.

I'm not implying publishers are saints or anything but this is just bullying, not sticking up for the customer.
Ok, but which one? All of them? ... The tickbox says I'm agreeing to the "Apple Terms of Service" ... which means?
Are you sure? I thought regulation-specific stuff like this was baked into the firmware via flags that checked the hardware model number.

For example: my iPhone 5, which I bought in China, cannot make or receive voice-only FaceTime calls. Even if I am in the US, using a US SIM, this is the case. It's not related to the GPS or cell tower location, or to the time zone.
A single USB3 port can be used to dock to keyboard, mouse, monitor and ethernet - thats what I do with my Surface Pro 1. Just needed a few cheap hubs and adapters. A proper dock would be nice but its not strictly necessary.
"It's better than bigger social sharing sites like Reddit"

I think this sentence is wholly flawed. Reddit is divided into subreddits, each subreddit has their own unique community and moderators. /r/askscience for example, is one of the best science help communities on the entire internet.

Their level of discourse far surpasses hackernews by any objective metric.

There are plenty of other subreddits with similar quality, /r/askhistorians comes to mind.

HN is the equivalent of a single subreddit and should be compared as such.
Microsoft Sees The Future Of TV In An Old-School Role-Playing Game
the underelying stories are being added to and re-written. this story (for example) is a supplemental piece. even the eiarlier story has had its headline changed (by the publisher) and had extensive revisions to its text/body.

Problem is--the comments--aren't going to reflect this.

So, the issue is this becomes a corner case. By banishing all articles besides the first one, the comments get locked into a single worldview--one that is less informed.

Its sort of a catch-22 of actively moderating a #hot-topic
More extensive discussion addresses your question in the previous thread on this issue:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789753
I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, it's just that technology largely hasn't been applied to Politics yet.
I was talking about MS have the right idea but failing to go though with it. MS Courier concept was introduced well before the iPad, suggesting someone there believed that it was going to be the future but they ended up killing it before the board din't agree to it.

Similarly, they were already working on a voice assistant called "Tell Me" even before Siri was introduced by Apple [1].

A lot of people think MS doesn't come up with great ideas but its quite the opposite. They just fail to execute it in a timely manner or require a few iterations to get it perfect.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6pWs46GY8
A better idea than submitting a near dupe might be to post a comment to the active thread addressing the update, in which case the comments may all be in one place, but it will no longer be less informed.
It seems more like a buggy OS that doesn't handle certain combinations of external monitors and GPUs.

Let's call it like it is: 10.9 needs some fixing. Plugging in an external monitor shouldn't be a big thing. I shouldn't have to tread on egg shells as far as what I do with such an expensive piece of equipment.
I currently pay $55/month for someone to worry about collecting rent, finding someone to rent, negotiating, checking credit, etc. for my rental property. It is not very profitable in terms of cash flow, but I am building equity into the house.
Again, my experience was very different from yours, and I believe the difference was due to career choices we made and not strictly random chance.

All of the high-priority, high-visibility projects I got because I volunteered for them. My first task at Google was fixing unit tests; my second was writing a signup dashboard for my first project's internal dogfood. It took me about 8 months to end up on a highly-visible project [1], but when I did it got me exec attention, a reputation as someone who was an expert in the department, and a cameo appearance in BusinessWeek. 8 months after you had started at Google, you'd already left in a huff.

I know someone who spent 4 years working with the bowel's of Google's cluster management system and transferred successfully to Search, and now to Loon. I know someone who worked for 4 years doing all the grunt work for a project that got canceled; he transferred to Search and now leads a department. I know someone who built his entire career on refactoring "hideous legacy code" - actually, several someones, but the first one I thought of was reliably promoted, every 18 months or so, from SWE 3 to Distinguished, and the other ones are all around Staff or Senior Staff level.

Now, whether you're happy or not is a different question, and there are good reasons not to waste 4 years of your life doing something you find boring. But external constraints are not one of them. People judge you based on how well you perform relative to the opportunities in front of you, not what those opportunities are.

[1] http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/spring-metamorphosis-...
That is a common misunderstanding around these parts, one that I addressed just a few days ago. See this subthread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7738749
That's really interesting. I never knew how they did that. Canceling out the frequencies of the voice makes complete sense.
Okay, I'll give this a shot.

"Unix" is an operating system that came out of Bell Labs long ago. It has had many imitators, any of which might be loosely called "Unix". The imitators include the various flavors of Linux. MacOS X has one buried inside it. Windows is something rather different.

The program that runs in a console window is called a "shell". So a "shell" is a kind of program. Modern shells include lots of fancy functionality, which varies from one shell to another. But their basic operation is the same: type the name of a program, and the program gets executed.

Most shells from the Unix tradition have names ending in "sh" (guess why). Bash is one of these. Other popular shells include zsh, ksh, and tcsh. Bash is by far the most popular these days. It is the default shell run by console.app in MacOS X. It is also the default shell in many Linux distributions.

Windows, as usual, is different.

So, typing the same commands into a shell in Linux vs. MacOS will likely get you similar results. Differences might be due to configuration that differs from one system to another, and programs that are installed on one system, but not on another. Typing these same commands on Windows will probably get you completely different results.

As for "language": we usually don't use this term when referring to directly typed console commands. Most modern shells do include a programming language whose syntax is based on the command-prompt syntax. So a shell doubles as an interpreter for its built-in language.
Firstly, isn't this designed to completely replace Ghostery?

Secondly, doesn't Ghostery have privacy issues by sending your browsing history to a 3rd party?
You are correct, from my understanding, in that a variety of factors from population density, to agriculture and animal domestication led to a greater spread of diseases. Even in analysis of native american populations before European contact we see that diseases increased when population density increased [1].

The other factor that hasn't been mentioned is that a disease can be deadlier when the population density is higher. The disease can find another host to infect before the original dies and still stay active. Whereas in a situation with spread apart populations the deadlier variant would die out once the small local population was killed.

The European diseases carried this much deadlier profile and thus were more effective in killing native americans than native american diseases were in killing americans.

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071659/
> If you had a battery plane with solar panels that could land to gather energy, then it could fly again, but the landing and takeoff might be extremely hazardous, with rocks and very high speeds.

I've also wondered if you could use beamed microwave power to power a Mars airplane. For example, you could have a solar base station on the surface, and every hour or so the airplane would circle it closely and recharge its batteries. This only makes sense if you can make the microwave rectenna on the airplane much lighter than the equivalent solar cells. An airplane that never needs to land has some definite advantages. On the other hand, an easy way of acquiring geological samples is not one of them.
It isn't a problem when one store among many decides to increase prices /etc, because business can shift to other stores. The problem arises when there is only one store. I think the comparison with ISPs refusing to upgrade transit links is much more apt than the comparison with a book store raising prices.

Of course, Amazon is not techincally the only store. But they are large enough to have substantial market power (and, indeed, the current dispute proves it: it would make no sense for Amazon to embargo a publisher if Amazon had no reason to believe this would do any harm to that publisher). You also need to take into consideration the prevailing trend in the market (power accruing to Amazon) and what this says this about how Amazon will behave in the future (use of power to benefit itself).

As much as I dislike publishers: replacing multiple old publishers with a single high-tech publisher does not seem likely to be a happy ending for either consumers or authors.
Never used them, but CloudControl basically markets themselves as the European Heroku: https://www.cloudcontrol.com/
"* you will see more LOLCats and animated gifs on the front page of Reddit.*"

You'll see less of them these days. Reddit changed its default subreddit system last week and one of the big ones that got the boot was /r/AdviceAnimals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAE-c7aksxI shows what audio recorded this way looks like when you play it back as video.

I'm only guessing but it looks like 3 stereo samples per line plus some extra data (ECC?) on the right. Its quite interesting to see how the pattern changes when the music fades out (around 3:50, 9:20, and 13:25).

I wonder what kind of sound you could extract given only the low-quality YouTube video as a source.
10.9.3 has been nothing but absolutely stable for me, and I do a ton of development tools installed and do loads of tweaking and customization.
>Design wise it's ahead of its game, instead of another flat design website.

Huh - did we look at the same site? Just the same old minimal bootstrap3core aesthetic that's everywhere nowadays. Found it pleasant to use, though.
This isn't a github problem, git lets you set your user.name and user.email as anything you like. In addition, you can rebase and rewrite the history to change former commits to be from whomever you like.

It's a feature, not a bug - this is how git is able to seamlessly interoperate with other VCS, like SVN. The SVN user id and email is displayed as the git commit author. Having to verify this information would be very complicated and essentially break interoperability between VCS's. In addition, mutable history means you could go back and fix up the history, remove misspellings from names, update your git repo to show a new email address, etc. Git follows the standard user philosophy of letting unix users do what they want, and simply warning them if they push rewritten history to a repository.
This has been reported many times.

http://www.jayhuang.org/blog/tag/impersonating/

If you want real verification, sign your commit with GPG/PGP.

Some people don't use real email address for privacy reason (not sure if email address is really required to commit). Another reason why Github may not want to implement verification is all the people you have written code with... like when you want to push an existing repo to Github. Why? Because Git as a tool is pretty good at rewriting history (unlike Mercurial).
Show HN: We brought iOS dictation to Windows
Refrigeration 2.0: 100 yrs later
Discussed earlier here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6918343

Original post: http://www.jayhuang.org/blog/pushing-code-to-github-as-linus...
It's because Git is decentralized, and when you push a repo to GitHub it could contain genuine commits from other people that you've pulled into your repo from some other, non-GitHub source. There's no way for GitHub to authenticate such commits.

There is definitely a potential for abuse, but can you solve it without breaking useful functionality?
Consider the alternative:

http://www.united.com/
It's a useful feature in git, but a bug in github.

In my company's git repo, yes, I want full control.

In a public forum where lots of my public image is tied up, I don't want people to be able to impersonate me.

It's a tricky one to solve, though. Not sure how it would be achieved without demanding that every commit is GPG signed.
Web Hosting Trends You May Not Know Yet
I sure hope the "public computer" in your workspace has a private key that matches a public key submitted to Github ... I know Gitolite won't allow this to happen but I'll have to check on GitLab and GitBucket.
How Clayton Christensen crowdsourced "The Capitalist's Dilemma"
This isn't a "security problem", nor is it something on GitHub's end. The email used to author a commit is set by the person making the commit, and shouldn't be taken as a secure value or proof that the person who owns that email made that commit. Think of it like the return address on an envelope, not the barcode on a driver's license.

If you're looking to securely prove who made a commit, look into signing commits.

GitHub does require that you have a valid SSH key for a GitHub user, and that the given GitHub user has access to write to the repo you're pushing to, but that's totally separate from commit messages and authorship.
Thats cool!
I think this is imperfect but pretty wonderful. Great job. Feel proud for all the detail work you put into it, designers and engineers!
Yes, but laws and privacy rules are not
Money Is Not What Makes Successful Entrepreneurs Tick
I acknowledged that. It's one of those features that isn't perfect when implemented.

There should be a way to stop these commits from happening under my name without going to the computer physically or rewriting history every time it happens. And that only works if you have access to the repository.
The author of a commit in git is just metadata. You can set it to whatever you want. This is a necessary feature for distributed workflows, or any kind of workflow where one person may be committing on another person's behalf.

The only way to avoid 'spoofing' commits would be to require them to be signed. Anything else would require a single source of authority on the identity of a given committer, which would defeat the purpose of a distributed VCS.

The OP mentions "security": what's the security issue here? Being able to label a commit as being from defunkt doesn't give you access to anything defunkt has access to.
That's a well known property of git/hg/distributed version control. If you want to be sure about who made which commit you need to use commit signing. It's the only way to be sure about such things anyway.
This would be good if it was stickied at the top.

But that's not how HN comments, as a default, work.

(Mod's might be able to sticky a reference comment, tho)
Good thing that with modern computers and better memory management those IPC issues are largely negated in this day and age.
>VirtualBox . . . notoriously unstable

Is there virtualization software that is not unstable on OS X?
Absolutely. I didn't go to a powerhouse school for undegrad, and I've subsequently worked with a lot of people from "powerhouse" schools. In my experience, there's not much difference between a top MIT/Stanford/Berkeley undergrad and a top student where I went to school. The difference is in the distribution: the best schools can pick amongst great applicants, and therefore have a better average student.

The valley is very credentialist, in my experience. Most bigger companies are dominated by graduates from top programs, partly because they have dumb recruiting policies (i.e. paying big money for career fairs at top programs, and ignoring everyone else), partly because once you get a network of grads from a school, it tends to perpetuate itself.

But to the extent that this turns into a bias against students from other schools, it's an institutional weakness. Top programs don't have a monopoly on good students. They don't even have most of them. And the academic job market is so competitive that even the tiniest regional college is going to have faculty from top programs, teaching the same material as every other accredited program. Even the books are the same.

But, hey, you big guys keep fighting over the MIT grads and ignoring everyone else. More candidates for the rest of us.
When used appropriately by the business it could alert the consumer of a relevant product/service and hopefully a special deal. This helps the consumer easily find the product/service and possibly save money. It also helps the business nab a sale they weren't necessarily organically ranking well for.
Do you think 3 will be really better than the 2?

I'm still waiting for my 2 and I'm not convinced. I'm going to try to "upgrade" from a 12" ThinkPad X series and I really liked that the screen size is smaller. All the other changes don't necessarily feel like an upgrade to me, too.
I think this is a use case of signed commits. They would allow for verification of the commit's author's identity.
wow, makes so much sense
One small problem is that github uses email addresses both for associating commits and for password resets. This means that if someone used their company email account for commits to an open source project, and left the company, once they removed the email address from their account, their commits would no longer be associated. Or, they could leave their email address in their account, but if someone hacked it they could use it to initiate a password reset.

It would be nice if in the list of email addresses there was something showing whether it can be used to recover their account, and the ability to change it (requiring them to have at least one email address that can be used with account recovery).

Two factor auth helps with this, I think.
It's because Git includes the author name and email in the commit (remember setting the config?)... if they added any info post-commit on the server it would change the digest which would break tracking for the pushing author. They could easily reject commits that come from emails that don't match the email associated with the account since a key can only be used by one account, but that would break the decentralized Git model of accepting commits and pushing them upstream and mirrors since not Git development happens through GitHub. There might be some kind of solution related to confirming emails are associated with a key, but for the most part it's a function of the Git model and any solution will break some legitimate use cases.
I'm waiting for my 2 to use with Ubuntu. Totally unconvinced whether "3" is an upgrade to "2". Don't get fooled by numbers, look at what matters.
“Four of the most important paragraphs I’ll ever write.”
Yup, exactly this. My own startups are running on Azure thanks to BizSpark, and so is my full-time job. It's a pretty ridiculous amount of free stuff.
"Just 600 million barrels of oil can be extracted with
existing technology, far below the 13.7 billion barrels once
thought recoverable from the jumbled layers of subterranean
rock spread across much of Central California, the
U.S. Energy Information Administration said. [...] The
Monterey Shale formation contains about two-thirds of the
nation's shale oil reserves."

Here's the source from 2009, which puts US "undeveloped technically recoverable" shale oil at 24 billion barrels, ~15 billion in Monterey (rounded apparently),

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/usshalegas/

This looks dated, since the most recent "technically recoverable" estimate is 58 billion:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11611