skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's your tunnel/ing software not supporting IPv6, I think. I experienced the same issue with Netflix in Australia.
Can anyone explain to me why Telsa should get an exemption from the law and not other car manufacturers? Seems to me - that everyone should have to play by the same rules. I'm a Tesla fan, and I'm not a fan of car dealers, I just don't understand why Tesla should get an exemption just for them? Nobody seems to want to talk about this....thoughts out there other than: government should support electric cars? Should GM be able to sell the volt direct, but not other cars? Someone please explain!
> Our venerable curator has gone nearly blind with a magnifying glass but has failed to find any sign of breaks or glue in this plank.

So the bottom was cut open and sealed by heat then.
Stephen Fry says Don’t Spy on Us
I saw Craig Newmark of Craig's List speak once after the late 90s bubble burst. He said people kept asking him why he didn't take up the many opportunities to make money he could have -- just one small ad on each page could have made hundreds of millions of dollars with hardly any change to the user experience. He calmly pointed out how many of them went bankrupt and had to change their ways. He seemed more than content with a site that delivered what its users wanted.

I'm sure they've made blunders along the way, but as far as I can tell they've remained true to their original ways. Wikipedia says they have a staff of 28.
Ask HN: Start blogging?
Hey HN! I want to start blogging about math, physics and programming in general, but I am not sure what is the easiest way to get started. I've looked at Ghost and OctoPress and I cannot really decide which one I should use (or if I should use anything else). Hosting is not a problem, since I've got my own VPS for that. What do you think?
> Google should start over, Android-first (instead of web -first) and make the phone Addressbook / Google Contacts the focal point for everything social. Look at WhatsApp - it does exactly this - your phone number is your ID and your contacts is your social graph; how you interact with them - who you call, message etc and when / where you do it - these are your circles

I find this fascinating, as unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're basically suggesting what G+ did to enrage users as described in the article, but seemingly worse:

Almost everyone have multiple "personalities". We don't share the same with our grandmother, our friends, our boss, our old class mates, random strangers and so on. This extends all the way to which names we use, how we dress in different situations, who we give our phone number to etc..

At first Google seemed to "get" this better than Facebook when they released G+. The moment Nymwars erupted it was clear they did not only not get this, but actively refused to learn.

For some this is not about hiding information. For some it is. For some it is a matter of actual survival - whether due to political involvement, or because of threats of revenge or abuse (think people avoiding abusing ex-partners etc.), or because of gender identity etc. (trans people have an incredible high suicide rate due in part to the reactions of wider society; on top of that there's actual violent reactions from people). Breaking compartmentalisation puts peoples lives at risk, not just cause embarrassing moments.

The first lesson one should learn in social, is that if you wish to create a social network that reflects how people interact, then people need to be able to full compartmentalise what different people see, down to and including your name and who else you are interacting with, and you need to make sure data are not easily leaking between those compartments and that needs to be holy.

In that respect, even having a single, unified addressbook / contacts list demonstrates that they don't understand (or has purposefully decided not to care about) real social networks (as opposed to the "panopticon" service you decry): It cuts as deep as not revealing all the information on all devices at all times - devices can be shared, or lent out, or someone might just glance at one at the wrong moment. It increases the risk of breaking compartmentalisation accidentally unless users are very tech savvy: Suddenly your device beeps, drawing attention to its screen, just as it displays a message the person sitting next to the device should not have seen.

If you're lucky / extremely conventional / boring, you laugh it off. If you're unlucky, it can cost you your job, your relationships, contact with your family, or your life.

Social networks is not just some fluffy web-app thing - it's the fabric of society, and they cut deep.
That dude always gives really bland, re-read advice (lol at his jaw-dropping at some random cold-calling people, sounds super privileged to me, and he always insults folks while he's at it). King of the Aspies here at HN.
Onarbor differs considerably from other crowdfunding sites.

Key concepts and distinctions with existing platforms, crowdfunding or otherwise, include:

1. Blockchain: Onarbor uses Blockchain technology to provide proof of ownership and monetization of digital content in one ledger. This is a pioneering solution in how content creators (including journalists such as yourself!) stake claim for and fund their work. To learn more about this, we note monograph for inspiring us, http://www.monegraph.com.

2. Ad-free media: Due to their minuscule fees cryptocurrencies enable a new funding scale, where transactions can be true microfunding (significantly less than $0.01) or huge sums, millions of dollars, all with one button click. Onarbor takes advantage of this to propose an entirely new model of content monetization: instead of ad-supported content as utilized by Youtube, etc., one can pay a one-click, editable amount to instantly view content. Onarbor's mission is to abolish ads. Cryptocurrencies make this doable.

3. Multi-currency marketplace: That Onarbor allows payments in cryptocurrency and crypto-fiat conversion, e.g., have somebody fund you in Bitcoin and get paid out by Onarbor in USD, makes Onarbor the first marketplace on the internet to do so.

4. Collaborators: Kickstarters are presented by one person, whereas most works of merit are collaborations. Onarbor encourages/rewards designating your collaborators, people and organizations, who've contribute to your work. Onarbor is designed to graph onto your existing professional organizational structure where your funding, i.e., salary, and social/professional network are under one roof.

5. Reviews and Reputation building: Key to any publisher is having your work reviewed and reputation building. Onarbor enables anyone to review your work and to receive funding if those reviews are judged well by others. Therefore, if you aren't a creator but rather someone who can provide analysis, Onarbor can be lucrative and credibility building for you too. Reputation is built by both voting on works and reviews. Our model here is Stackoverflow. http://stackoverflow.com/help/whats-reputation

6. Real-time: Unlike Kickstarter, Onarbor allows playback and versioning of all works: documents, videos, music, images, files, and apps. Our model for versioning is Github (though we don't use Git because video files are huge). Having a UI which allows editing and playback on the same interface produces a dynamic and considerably easier experience than going back and forth between Kickstarter and Youtube for videos, Kickstarter and Soundcloud for music, etc. Onarbor is a real-time, one-stop shop.

7. Distributed: Onarbor is API-driven, which means that the onarbor site, https://onarbor.com, is only a simple demo of what people can build with our tools. Our inspiration for this is Facebook, whose developer-first approach led an unprecedented range of products (Pinterest, Spotify, Zynga, etc.) and redefined the concept of a social network. As an ecosystem of creativity, knowledge, and funding, Onarbor aims to redefine the concept of a university.
Cyclomatic Complexity as a measure of good architecture? Not from what I've seen. If you add internal consistency checks your CC score gets worse. (Add a check to make sure that your fast exponential always is going to return a positive number? You just supposedly made things worse.)
The rest of the article was just an unrelated rant about the outdated real names thing on G+.
To be fair the SMS+Hangouts integration seems to be what users want. Everybody and their dog is using Whatsapp by now, which is basically the same thing (I think - haven't used it).
"- The module system is very powerful (SML's). Haskell does not have this, and strangely F# dropped it. (I hear, Haskell's type classes fulfill similar roles (but with more sugar))."

F# runs on the standard .net type system which is not able to do type classes, modules or higher kinded generics. On the other hand you have compatibility to all .net libraries which is a huge plus.
Probably not how it was done, but is it possible to craft a bottle in such a way that the refraction index makes the content appear larger than it actually is?
And another

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312004/
Would you be willing to pay more than 25 cents a year to understand the cosmos?
I have to disagree. The changes (esp in regards to privacy policy) are what made me jump ship to G+ in the first place. And based on the comments from most of my friends on FB at the time, they weren't happy either.
Ask HN: How Many People Are On The Internet At Any Given Time?
I have no idea if there's any possible way to gauge this, however, is it possible to get a rough estimate somehow?
Probably my favourite is actually Calvin and Hobbes which I missed out on the first time around and are being rerun on GoComics http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/. Monty's good too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_(comic_strip)
A suggestion for Google to save itself regarding G+:

Donate some of its engineers' time to fix and revitalize Diaspora -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_%28social_network%29 -- or one of its peers or something along its original vision.

It could achieve its goal of disrupting Facebook, give users their privacy back, and by releasing the source code, could role back its role in maintaining the code or policing the community.

It could declare victory and move on, leaving its users more satisfied than they are now.
Thanks for the inspirations!

Here's the new version - http://test.bluetouchdev.com/

Feedback is appreciated again
I think there is a big difference. As ubiquitous and powerful as Google is, the US government is vastly more powerful, and I think it's vastly more dangerous without accountability.
I'd say iMessage over WhatsApp is the example of how to do it now. If Google copied iMessage feature-wise, syncing it between Chrome, Android and iOS, seamlessly integrating SMS and not, I think they'd have a winner.

WhatsApp is simpler but iMessage brings really useful features, and they strongly match Google's key competencies too.
Hello Colin, I updated the website, followed some of your suggestion. Thanks!

http://test.bluetouchdev.com/
Update: I just went ahead and modified the source. I had to refactor the package name and import R.java manually. Really a bug to have to do, but thanks anyways for the cool service!

Here's the new link, should show up in a bit: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kennyledet...
Fwiw, 2min/slide (averaged) isn't a bad heuristic to start with.
Original discussion 18 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4840032 .. it'd be interesting to hear how it's changed since then as I believe it's under active development :-)
Thanks! good idea the About section
The site just launched. Most content is still just test content. Please give it time and/or contribute to bringing content you like.

If you click the gigantic thumbnails, then whatever content is published, videos, music, ebooks, images, apps, will play. Reviews and Comments are two different things. Reviews of works are written by backers and commenting is restricted by review. Our reviews/comments model was inspired by Github issue tracking. We felt this was a fitting approach because Onarbor allows versioning of the works. Therefore, we wanted a way for the various reviews/comments to keep track of each version.
The Real Name policy is noteworthy from starting out being fundamentally stupid at the "anyone who has spent a week online should know this" level, but still seemingly just a dumb mistake, to being downright malicious and evil the moment it was clear they had no intention of backtracking even after their attention had been brought to the risks it put some people in.
More than one person can rediscover an exploit. Paying all of them gets expensive
> at least Java JITs only learned that trick as of lately, and are still pretty bad at it.

Did the author claim that Go was faster than Java? As far as I can tell, the JITs are still kicking the Go compiler's butt on "effectiveness."

> C++ again suffers from cross-compilation unit visibility; even if your LTO can detect an inlineable call, its AFAIK not possible at that time to move heap allocations to the stack.

Is the author really trying to explain why Go is faster than C++?

> This is an interesting pattern in Go, the longer one looks at it, the more you understand that it's a whole bunch of good decisions in various subsystems coming together.

One cannot validate these patterns yet because Go is still slower than the languages it supposedly innovates on in performance techniques.
Facebook needed to be disrupted, but unfortunately the main way Facebook needed (and needs) to be disrupted is in compartmentalising sharing better, and while Circles accomplishes some of that, Googles real name policy pisses all over it.
Or the wood is soft and compressible when wet, but returns to its original shape when it dries.

Some woods (including pine) are much more compressible than you might expect:
http://www.ewpa.com/Archive/2006/aug/Paper_306.pdf
Neovim Newsletter – Issue #1 – A New Hope
Guccifer, The Most Notorious Hacker In The World, Has Been Sentenced.
This is just so true... been working with startups for about 4 years now. A lot of my time goes into educating them about not making this sort of mistakes.
Yeah, but all the great powers of today have nuclear weapons, which is why they can't go to war with each other. That's my point.
It's hard to prove it either way, but my suspicion is that there are already more people making their primary living from online comics than there are making their primary living making newspaper comics. And if that isn't true, Patreon will make it true in less than a year from now.

Patreon really is a miracle worker from this sort of niche content. I've seen fairly niche people put up a Patreon campaign, then actually freak out about how much money they end up getting, because you aggregate a couple thousand $1-5/month donations and Holy Shit. (Suddenly it's a Real Job (TM).) It's incredible feasible to go from "scraping by, annoying your parents and friends with what looks like a vow of poverty to do your Stupid Shit and living in constant money stress" to "comfortable middle-class lifestyle with reasonable income assurance". Not perfect, of course, but reasonable.

I mean, look at this: http://www.patreon.com/ZachWeinersmith

Any halfway-well-respected online comic artist not running a Patreon right now needs to get on it.
So, HN readers, how would you get a lightbulb in a bottle?
There are already people organized to promote this very idea. Google "ammonia economy" or check out: http://nh3fuelassociation.org/2013/07/02/implementing-an-amm...

Also: https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/sustainabil...

I know too little of the subject myself to have a position on it, but it is an intriguing idea.
Also see Sluggy Freelance, running for six or seven years now. Long convoluted story arcs punctuated with frequent gags, and a cast of characters I've grown to love. I keep wondering/worrying when Pete Abrams is going to burn out.

http://sluggy.com
Most of these are things that some successful founders get right, particularly scaling. Scaling needn't be a huge timesink. A couple of products I just started using are Slack and Circle CI, and I think each of them built for scale early on.
> We all know Go doesn't have generics - that topic has been beaten to death, so let's not derail the discussion and just say this can be a valid reason for Go not fitting your use-case.

Parents point was that Go will still box primitives in a generic collection class...just like Java does. So this isn't a special advantage of Go at all (it has nothing to do with Go not having type parameters). The only languages that don't box in generic collections is C++ and perhaps C# (it doesn't have to because of its template-like type parameter semantics, but still might to reduce code duplication).
There is a trick where you can wet wood for a very long time and it becomes more malleable. This lets you do things like, place a solid metal beating within a single hunk of wood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO7aFRO5WMw
StackOverflow is full of children
if youre asking me personally what they did to lose my trust, it's all the things i mention and even some i didn't. i think the executives are creepy as hell, especially eric schmidt. have you read all the sexcapades stuff about him in the WSJ? Affairs with murdochs wife. She's pretty damn creepy herself. He doesn't think the laws apply to him, and most people would say, by now, that's true; he's part of the plutocracy and the laws don't apply to him. i say bullshit and that the laws apply to everybody. the stock decisions they've made to keep control away from shareholders, the sunsetting of products unilaterally. No, I don't trust Google at all.
>"Google employees might find out that pron interested in computers and dogs"

This as an extremely naive characterization of what google knows about you. Google would probably guess that much about you if you had never used the internet, but had a few friends that did.
Please don't give interviewers any ideas.
I don't see anywhere where the article alleges that the data is for sale, but that it is saleable.

One way of capitalizing on that, without selling the data, is to sell access to advertise on the basis of that data.

The point is not to claim that Google is selling our data, but just another way of stating that we're the product, not the customer.
The 'Next Big Thing' As Predicted By Silicon Valley Leaders
They dropped the ball on nearly every major integration in some spectacular fashion, essentially. Be it forced integration, loosing anonymity, or botching up the g-talk's chat history.

The chat history bit me. They used to have a really nice chat history that integrated into the email seamlessly and had good export options. It even worked through IMAP. Unfortunately that all disappeared when they made g-talk hangouts. Essentially it was a duct-tape job like mentioned above. Apparently their storage back-end is quite different and they didn't put the work in to allow for easy retrieval and review of full chat histories. Unfortunately I needed a mass of chat histories(a year) for Visa purposes and the switch was about two thirds in. Retrieving the newer stuff became a part time job :|

Other than that I kinda like G+. I also like real identity movement. Eventually I believe that will be a big differentiator for swaths of the internet. The civil, real name sites. And the seedy, anonymous underbelly.
Yes, it happens on every function call. It costs 3 machine instructions. That is nothing.

There is no other "context-switch" other than the one triggered by this check (and other similar mechanisms), Go is cooperatively scheduled; all preemption is voluntary.
See, this is why Google wanted real names on Youtube. We've all read Youtube comments. They are the single worst comments on the Internet. Typically racist, usually mean, often obscene. Google really, through all this, just wanted to make the comments better on YouTube, I think. They heard everyone bitching and figured this was a way to make things less caustic. It didn't help, though...
No. If you don't use generics in Java, you get the same memory footprint of not using generics (or since it doesn't have type parameters, using any) in Go. So the author is making an unfair apples-oranges comparison when the apples-apples comparison is quite obvious: one can write an int-list in Java just as easily as they can in Go.

Frankly, this is just strong intellectual dishonesty.
Or use your phone to take a photo of it.
I don't think that G+ was a mistake. The only real issue is the real name policy, though I fail to see how they'd be able to enforce it. People could create alternate email addresses with fake names (and some did), and use it when they want to participate social "i-events" without giving up their id. It's been like that before G+, and it would only take a small move from them to correct it. Of course, the downside of this is that they wouldn't be able to claim a number of real users. But could any social site?

Btw, am I the only one to find the article title offensive, and unworthy of a place like zdnet? I wasn't a regular reader of their columns, I don't think that will help.
In the link by simonsquiff, the artist claims he never cuts bottles. I'm inclined to believe him.
I agree that would be cool, but I don't think Diaspora offers anything compelling to the general public. What fraction of FB users actually care that much about privacy?
5 things that helped me escape the city
Add Google Buzz, Orkut, Google Wave, Google Talk, Hangouts.

Its like Google is trying everything and hoping something would stick.
For me the problem with .NET is not the libraries but the fact that the two principle languages (C# and VB) are so old fashioned. Hardly any of the useful stuff is part of the language, it's all in the libraries which means that.NET code is very verbose because there is no syntax for things like lists and dictionaries. The latest versions are getting better, at least you can create arrays using a compact syntax but dictionaries are still a pain. Both of them are essentially C without unmanaged pointers and the addition of a few slightly better types but still scalar types are special and cannot be treated as objects.

Also they aren't even usefully old-fashioned, why can't we have arrays where the first item is number 1, or 21 or some other number, Basic had that from the beginning. Why do I have to use a dictionary when I want to use an ordinal type such as a character or boolean as the index (Pascal could use any ordinal type as an array index). Why can't I create subtypes of the integers and reals (Pascal had that and it prevented large numbers of errors). Functional languages have implemented guard clauses, these can simplify your code dramatically and remove the need for a lot of traditional if and case statements. Bertrand Meyer integrated contracts into Eiffel almost thirty years ago, and now MS has provided them by means of a clunky add-on that rewrites your binary after it has been compiled.

And so on, it's not that .NET is bad, it's that after all that effort Anders Hejlsberg (yes, he of justified Turbo Pascal fame) should really have been able to produce something so much better, or at least more interesting.

Rant over, thanks for reading if you made it this far.
I see this on Reddit, StackOverflow, Youtube, and pretty much every other community site. I'm not sure if it's because there are actual kids posting or socially inept and immature adults.

Either way, the mob mentality is startling and shows me why we need a proper judicial system.