skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Speaking from personal experience, so YMMV, the trickiest thing about moving from a relational or document DB mindset to a graph DB mindset is remembering that you can store information implicitly in the structure of the graph.

So, as a very simple example, you don't have a Comment node with attributes for the person who wrote the comment and the article the comment is associated with. You just have edges pointing back to those things. Nowhere in the comment, or even in the edges, is there anything that looks like an ID or foreign key.

Unlike a document DB, however, you don't have weirdness once you have something like co-authorship. Just point to both authors, no need to duplicate the data or set up some kind of pseudo foreign key. Once you get the hang of it, it's a really elegant way to store data.
I'd love to read the research on this.
Apis Egyptian God
Terrific! There's something so raw and human about these old geeky websites. Random people from all over making comprehensive, quality content about the things they love and showing it to the world how they want, through their eyes. Information is cleaner and better organized now, but less personal and less fun for sure.
I thought about this for a second; does this mean you plan on ideally make a revenue of 20 x 0.99 USD per day?
Unsafe cookies leave WordPress accounts open to hijacking, 2-factor bypass
Jump through all hoops, however meaningless and soul-killing. This will result in good grades.

(I wouldn't actually recommend this, but it's the answer to your question. And, as far as I can tell, it's the only answer to your question -- the system does not care about students more than about a standard deviation above the mean.)
Actual numbers?
Thank You for Being Expendable
Well, I'm grad to get text with InfoQ rather than a video.

Still,
"Relational databases are fine things, even for large data sets, up to the point where you have to join. And in every relational database use case that we’ve seen, there’s always a join — and in extreme cases, when an ORM has written and hidden particularly poor SQL, many indiscriminate joins."

It seems like the overall argument is for (what I see as) a step backward from the declarative model to a lower level imperative model. "You never know what memory your implicit declarations will allocate, better do everything in explicit c-like loops as your data expands."

It's almost like an argument for a return to the world of "hardware is expensive, people are cheap" and for all I know that's what's happening with really big data. But it seems a bit sad to present it as a step forward.
Not so much steep as Rugged, dangerous, and extremely unpredictable.
If that does happen (and we hope it will) we are planning on having different streams for different subjects or locations.
ATT does. If you're using their Mobile Share / Next scheme, you get a discount on your plan if you're not on a contract. If you use Next, they're effectively financing your phone for 0% interest for 18 or 24 months. (My bill is $40 for 2GB, $40 for the phone, minus $15 for not being in a contract.)
"But the real reason for the limit in the messages is to maximize the audience"

Can you explain this further? Do you mean to say that if you bumped up the number of messages to 40, you will not be maximizing the audience because there are too many messages? Are you curating these paid messages manually?
This looks very promising! They claim to psycho-acoustically outperform AAC and Vorbis, at much lower latencies, with good packet loss compensation. And BSD-licensed reference software. This could really boost the practicality of realtime audio streaming over a wifi LAN.
The counterpoint to that is that it has already become socially acceptable to persecute, arrest and jail people for the abominable crime of... sharing.
Better programming with Ruby on Rails and AngularJS
Show HN: vsqlite++ - The C++ SQLite wrapper library
Patience, and a confidence that comes from having solved hard problems before. If there's a trick, it's to always focus on the part that doesn't make sense yet.
Have to agree here.

Most of the libraries I'd actually trust for more than a one off script are already ported or have plans for porting.

I wouldn't trust a lot of the unported libraries in a serious Python 2 project, anyway.
We have already thought about different strategies to make more money. Mainly different streams for different subjects or locations
Anaconda is open source, free and will always be. The founders of our company (and the rest of us) have a long history of being good open source citizens. There are enhanced versions of Anaconda that include proprietary code that we charge for. The base distribution (which includes Pandas, SciPy, NumPy...) has and will always be free.

Note:I work for Continuum Analytics.
Exactly. I have much more Apache servers than Nginx, but you can't see most of those Apache instances from the outside.
Barry Minkow and ZZZZ Best
Over the years I have noticed that lots of software's newer version are worst then previous versions.... luckily with open source software like Python, developers can keep updating/forking older versions. I wish that I could still be using gmail beta for example.
We launched today (3 hours ago). We will get back to you with numbers at the end of the week.
Eric Boyd of Sensebridge on the impact of hardware on our daily lives.
The FT reports that Apple is likely "to emphasise the privacy protections built into its smart home system... Apple considers privacy a key advantage over Google...since Google relies on targeted advertising as its main source of income" [1].

That is a valid and interesting contrast. Google, for openness and transparency; Apple, for control and privacy.

[1] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1bef71b8-e433-11e3-a73a-00144...
Actually as a drinker, I always envied the way smokers got to network in the workplace. I started working at the same time as a smoker. I was generally more extroverted than him, but he ended up knowing way more people in the company than me, because of his cigarette breaks.
Exactly right. If we increase the number of messages per day, less people will read each message. We do curate each message manually. (It's only twenty of them)
One more for your list:

• Shameless self-promotion and "Source" attribution links that all lead to your own YouTube videos will annoy people, but probably get you more traffic.
I think you over-estimate exactly how many lines of code it takes to port from 2 to 3. It's not that much, unless you plan on using all the new features of 3.
> Not much has changed in python 3? What rubbish. You just have to look at the thousands of commits, and change lists.

Sorry, I'll have to disagree with your disagreement. Thousands of commits doesn't mean it is worth breaking backwards compatibility. Unicode support? Yeah it is nice. But it worked fine for me before. Print is a function. Again, pretty nice, not nice enough to break backwards compatibility.

> Python 3.4 has generic functions to do single dispatch matching on type.

Ok. Never really needed that in Python. So again not worth breaking backwards compatibility.

> There is the new asyncio library for really elegant async,

That is a bad idea. Promises and futures are not a very good concurrency construct. Light threads, processes and message passing are better. Twisted has been around for ages, and even though it is used here and there it hasn't exactly taken the world by storm yet. So I certainly don't see it as a positive, rather it is a negative. I would rather they adopted greenlet and supported gevent better or integrated PyPy's STM

> We have CFFI for simpler FFI.

Ok, I just used CFFI in Python 2 last week, worked great.

> Lambdas are kept simple for readability, as functions are preferred.

Heavy lambda usage is not that good of a practice in Python. And Python 2 has lambdas as well. It use them sparingly.

> I'm just going to stop here..

Oh no, please don't stop, because you haven't convinced many people Python 3 is better.

> You can statically type check python now (see pysonar2, pylint, and pycharm for example)

You know what has better static type checking? Go. I am sitting down looking at static type checking and fixing code for backward compatibility, I will also be evaluating other languages and platforms.

Python 3 is not bad. But is is not that much better than Python 2. Sorry. A lot of that is not Python 3's fault as much as a testament to how good Python 2 already was.

I think Python 3 should have offered a lot more than unicode and print as a function. A list of possible improvements:

* A JIT compiler

* An STM module

* Better concurrency (removed GIL)

* Maybe integrated requests or flask or some other modern web tools and libraries
Gitjk – command to undo what you just did in git
He's uploaded talks in this format before. Thoreau 2.0 [0] is a particularly good one.

[0]: https://static.pinboard.in/xoxo_talk_thoreau.htm

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eky5uKILXtM
Scrolling has long been established as a transient action. It makes total sense to submerge the menu until such time as it's needed. This pattern is prevalent in plenty of mobile apps. Google Chrome on iOS is a shining example. Safari, as well.

You can make a reasonable assumption that users scrolling down are reading content, and thusly have no need for the menu bar. What I'm seeing from your perspective is that you're failing to recognize that "losing your place" in order to reveal the menu is a complete change of task. By bringing back the menu, or even using it if it were in place statically, your task and intent has shifted. If you've decided to abort your menu task and revert to reading content, it provides less cognitive friction to let the user scroll themselves back to their original place.

My question to you is - what logical sense does it make to stop reading an article midway through and begin interacting with the menu, unless your intent is to navigate away from the content itself? And if it makes sense to you to do this, why do you find yourself changing and aborting tasks so swiftly? Are there other interactions that you've failed to discover that might be beneficial (tap and hold to get a menu, for example)?

TL;DR - you're bitching about an edge case.
I assume the too-shy-to-reply downvoter thinks downtime is not a direct correlation to a problem with the webserver. While that's true, I was hoping to argue that the stack chosen is indicative of deeper problems such as stack complexity. A too-complex stack is more prone to break, which is part of the appeal of NginX, its simplicity. You could also prove Microsoft stacks are more or less likely to fail. For example .01% of Microsoft servers were offline last month, .009% of Apache servers were offline (> 1 hour) last month, etc. PS: If it wasn't obvious, I made up hypothetical percentages.
I hear you. You're saying that the two things can exist symbiotically and I can't disagree. I think it makes sense given what's happened until today, but I think the open source way is far more sustainable and will yield far better results. We need developers to start thinking about what implications are carried with their decisions. I disagree that my arguments are "off base" or have been rehashed too many times, but I invite you to elaborate on that further.
CSS Tip: Remembering the order for values in margin and padding
> Is there an equivalent anti-patent strategy for software?

I suppose you could do some sort of genetic algorithm or other machine learning to produce an algorithm that itself can't be patented because it's the result of a random process, but then someone could claim that genetic algorithms or machine learning is patented.

I think the best we have are the anti-patenting techniques of the Apache licenses or the good ol' GPL.
Reposting my reply to your other comment in this thread (feel free to continue discussion on either thread).

According to Winship, Piketty's results are wrong/irrelevant for other, independent reasons. But not everyone shares this view, so Winship is clarifying that, for people who were initially convinced by Piketty's analysis, the FT criticism is important. But it is not important for Winship because even without the FT criticism, he has independent reasons to discounting Piketty's analysis.

I hope this explains my "beef" with the use of Winship's quotes.
I read his book. He talks about Balzac and Jane Austen a lot and devotes a small amount of time handwaving about the micro-scale of inequality. No equations (beyond a few accounting identities), representative agents, or anything else you'd expect to see.

Of course, if you want to include a link to someplace where it was "explicitly pointed out"...I'm not holding my breath.

And since you seem to disagree with the claims I made in my blog post, what claim do you disagree with? What's the specific error I made beyond doubting the Great Piketty?
So from the first two 'randomly' generated integers it is possible to derive a value that can be used to as a seed value to 'sync' two PRNGs? that can't be good. :S
@RMarcus Thanks for your feedback, that's a very good idea, but an entirely different app. Vint tries to maximize the audience of each post by showing everyone the same 20 messages.
I'll borrow this... straw man?
to make a simpler point:

> social psychologist Gustave Le Bon, tried to explain crowd behaviour as a paralysis of the brain; hypnotised by the group, the individual becomes the slave of unconscious impulses. ‘He is no longer himself, but has become an automaton who has ceased to be guided by his will,’ he wrote in 1895. ‘Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian… a grain of sand amid other grains of sand, which the wind stirs up at will.’

One could just as easily say that individual behavior is paralysis of the brain, hypnotized by the culture.

If someone is more 'cultivated' as an individual, it's simply because he's had much more practice in that form- a group of people who act as one is not only possible, and quite impressive, but it takes work- willpower and practice.

This kind of article, making all kinds of guesses based on little bits of psychology research, and presenting them as facts...

This is supposed to be an illuminated tech community, so I'll say it straight:
When psychology meets up with the other sciences in the form of ai research, bs like this will finally be recognized as grossly oversimplistic garbage.

I give the article a C-minus: trying to sound knowledgeable without promoting much useful information.
On most (if not all), the "firmware" is under the /system partition. That partition is mounted as read-only. You need root to remount it as r/w.

AFAIK, rooting exploits in the past took advantage of buffer overflows and remote code exploits to execute code at a raised privilege levels. Now a days, that's also difficult since past vulnerabilities have been fixed and the proliferation of SE Linux.
How much does a pallet cost to manufacture and how much does a lo-jack cost to implant? Further, how much does it cost to keep the lo-jack running for a decade?

I used to run a 10,000 sqft logistics facility (really tiny in that world) and we kept a stock of about 20 pallets. I seem to remember the wooden ones costing $2-$5 used and the plastic ones less than $50 new. The most expensive pallets I could find from U-Line are $100 or so. http://www.uline.com/BL_8204/Rackable-Pallets

Figure that adding an armored place to put a lo-jack would cost $5-$10 (gotta protect it) and that the actual lo-jack would cost at least $50. It would need to be metal encased with a way to sneak an antenna out, have a "lifetime" battery (lithium-thionyl-chloride, not cheap http://www.all-battery.com/lithiumprimarybatteries.aspx) and the whole thing would have to be molded in to the pallet lest someone get clever and remove them cheaply. The batteries MUST be an integral part of the lo-jack so that someone couldn't just remove the batteries and neuter the device.

Then the data plan to keep it connected up to the world via the internet would cost at least a buck or two every month (in HUGE bulk purchases, individually it's something like $10/mo/device). Worse is that if someone puts them inside a metal building or metal shipping container or metal truck they're going to have a hell of a time getting a GPS fix and/or communicating with the cellular network.

So now that you've done all this your $40 to $100 (max) pallet now costs at least $50 and perhaps even $100 more PLUS it costs you something monthly whether people are renting it or not. What do you get to charge for this? From when I can tell, about $5 per trip. http://www.palletforum.com/tm.asp?m=26458 That's on a nominal $20 pallet cost although they may cost more now, the forum post is 2 years old.

I can't see how building a lo-jack into a pallet is going to be a compelling value proposition given all the limitations.
MOOCs – Herding education to the slaughter?
Show HN: Identify Your Competitors' Influencers and Most Shared Content
D absolutely deserves more attention. Any ideas on how to attract new folks to the language?
Here's a video of a National Geographic special about Tesla and the portion of their plans on buying the Fremont site:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=109v4zygeEM&t=33m20s

It might not be at a scale of the other manufacturers, but there are plans to make more affordable cars.
Ok so why would I risk hitting even one incompatible library or have stuff break because those are dev experimental, untested branches. Why? What does Python 3 offer me except risk of breakage?
I don't know why this gets trotted out as a knock on them. The whole point of emissions credits existing is to even out the failure of the market to assign cost to polluters. If Tesla is doing better relative to other manufacturers after adjusting for externalities, then it's doing better. The others were only winning by abusing an unenforced "rule" of the market that has now been closed.
A Statement About Mahbod’s Annotations on Elliot Rodger’s Manifesto
Now I understand the bizarre reference to "negative space" when describing a pallet!
You claim that the existence of minds is just a hypothesis. If that's so, what thought the thoughts which lead to your post? An entity capable of thought IS a mind, and the existence of thought is the only certain thing.

Something is thinking, therefore thought exists.
The thing which is thinking seems to be somehow located in my body, but I can't prove that I'm not just some sub-process in a vast simulation or such. I also can't prove that the thing which is thinking is actually located in my body, and not just operating through it but with an independent existence. But either way something is thinking, so there is a mind. Whether one chooses solipsism, spiritualism, or materialism (or anything else) the existence of at least one mind is directly observable.
"Also, because you’re installing updates for a system other than Windows XP, there’s the possibility that not all updates will work as intended. But it’s still worth a shot."

Well, that's terrible and irresponsible advice to give to anyone who might take it seriously.
Was alcohol cheaper / easier to produce?
I think the real problem is that Wordpress appeals to a lot of casual users who are understandably not security experts and the default settings are not secure. Getting a Wordpress server started and working isn't too hard but actually setting one up correctly is almost a full-time job.
Why the down votes? Parent is not saying the only reason to like home automation is if you're a control freak, he/she is saying that that's how these things have been marketed to date. I think it's a great point.
After brewing on this for longer, I think I have a better perspective than my initial posting.

Monitoring student behavior, engagement, studying techniques, etc., is going to be very important for improving our education system. We need more quantitative data to be able to adjust the system based on what's working and what's not. However, monitoring students gives schools the tools they need to force students to behave the way they want, and punish when they don't. This is where the program described in the article crosses the line. Student behavior is being policed in order to corral them into a narrowly defined "acceptable" behavior. This is why it's going to be extremely important for monitoring to happen transparently, and for these monitoring programs to be very open to scrutiny, and we should all rightly shun a program and especially its implementors for crossing the line into policing.

That being said, lets be careful about over-punishing the practice of monitoring, as it is the best tool we have today for meaningfully improving education. I'm very excited about the new advances in ed tech, almost all of which include monitoring, and I really don't want them to be slowed or stopped because we as a community overreacted to the concept as a whole, rather than focusing on the misuse of the data collected from monitoring.
These are interesting examples of using game theory to model certain situations but none of these examples show that game theory "tells us" something about the world. In broad strokes, game theory claims to have a descriptive model of human behavior but people very rarely follow the predictions of game theory (and that is even when you're in situations that are simple enough to have a stab at applying game theory). This is particularly true for Nash Equilibrium, which it seems most of your examples rely on.

And I think in the cases where the NE are predictive of actual play, then there's something intuitively obvious about the NE, and that you could have arrived at the same conclusions without using the tools and machinery of game theory. This is the point that Ariel Rubenstein makes (http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/papers/74.pdf) when he says that game theory is useless.

That's not to say that I believe that game theory is never useful (for certain limited settings, like repeated auctions, it works well), nor do I think that it can never be useful (recent work in behavioral game theory is promising in my opinion) but I'm skeptical using these counterintuitive claims as examples of its use.
But that's plainly false, as I showed an example of. Type any work of fiction into Wikipedia and you will see a summary by someone who has done just that.
> Not all behavioral data is sensitive.

Maybe not, but I am surprised on a regular basis at inventive new uses for data that I had never before imagined. At this point, I think a safer default is, "all behavioral data is sensitive", until we better understand how all of this stuff works.

> Inflating databases and costing money.

Everything costs money. It is meaningless to point out that something costs money without attaching a number to it. Databases would be inflated by four or 8 bytes per datum; at 500 million rows, you'd add between 8 and 16 GB to a database that is likely very much larger already. I really don't see this being an insurmountable engineering challenge.

> These obligations must be handed down from company to company during acquisitions. A company selling data about to expire will get acquired for a lot less than a company with fresh data. This may in turn cause a series of unforseen consequences in the acquisition market.

This is a feature, not a bug.

> Rather than controlling and manipulating what can and cannot be done, it may be best to just create transparent policies and let the free market converse its way towards a compromise.

One of the central points of the lecture was that there is insufficient competition in some very important parts of the internet right now. Those companies could easily say, "Our policy is that we keep everything forever and there's nothing you can do about it", and it would not affect their business at all because they have no competitors.

Regulations exist in the real world for a good reason, and we're rapidly approaching a point where regulation is exactly the appropriate solution for some of these problems.