skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I find it hard to argue with any of the points he makes. I'm sure someone here will, but I found myself doing the mental "gulp of air and raising a finger" then getting silenced again.

I really wish Microsoft had pulled off Windows Phone; it arguably had a much better user experience than Android did (and still does) -- and interesting Nokia hardware.

I simply don't believe Google has the best interests of anyone at heart except themselves and advertisers.

The next 10 years are going to be very interesting indeed.
I dunno... Continuity, answering phones on a PC, etc, seems to point pretty strongly at "we are going to make switching between all our devices as seamless as possible" for "what they plan to do next".

That's not really "optimizing", considering that Apple is aiming at a range of improvements to the cross-device experience that other companies have only barely touched at (Chrome tab sync, etc).
Announcing (almost final) products once you're sure they will be released seems better than announcing "plans".
True. It only takes one person to turn a fist fight into a shoving match. Grab on, and keep moving.
It seems that Apple prefers to hide their cards.
Then the last mile ISP is fucking right up because they've advertised that they can. Full stop.

http://www.comcast.com/internet-service.html

If they advertise they can provide the service then they should be held accountable.

If they say they can't provide the service, then they should not be allowed to advertise that they can.

This is quite literally a "have a cake and eat it too" type of situation.
I don't get what the significance of this post is, and why it is at the top of HN.

Company A does this and Company B does that and these two are a little similar but not really and this other Company wants this but can't get it. Only this Company. Yeah not that Company. See I figured all this out; see how smart I am?

Now and then on a lazy sunday morning with a cuppa in hand and the business news in my lap, I sink into this level of naval grazing. But I'd never have the time or motive to publish my drivel.

Thousands of hours are going to be wasted reading this shit, and to what end?

Clearly many people gained lots of value from this article, or it wouldn't be at the top of HN. Could one of you please explain what the value was? What did you gain from reading the article?
You'll enjoy this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWyMA_bT7UI

The first demo is around the 9 minute mark.
That implies a two way dispatch which is not in the remit of reactive surely? A system that's closer to Haskell's pipes is probably what you'd want.

I think ISubject<I,O> has the interface for a pipe, with IObservable being a Producer equivalent, and IObserver being a Consumer equivalent. So there may be some cunning that could be done with your own implementations [to create an Effect]. (This is just wild brainstorming without looking at the code, so take all of this with a large pinch of salt).

Working within the Rx system, there'd be two ways of doing this:

The Observable has a mechanism for slowing down, but obviously it can't get instruction from observers - so it would have to make a judgment on what is 'too much'; a slow down would affect all observers. Definitely (well probably) not what you want.

The other way is to use the various buffering functions in Rx on the subscription, or roll your own function that has some intelligence. That localises the 'backing up' on a per observer basis, but doesn't slow down the observable itself.

To 'Stop' you could switch your subscription to Observable.Never<T> until you're ready to receive messages. Obviously you'll miss messages generated on the other stream whilst you were not listening.
For anyone curious, the link to the proposed rule in the article is broken.

http://webapps.dol.gov/FederalRegister/HtmlDisplay.aspx?DocI...

is the actual link. I believe that a rule change will save many small investors from being fleeced, but attempting to read this proposed change also made my brain hurt.
MIT Researchers Develop New Algorithm to Automatically Classify Lymphoma
Try the proxy in Burp Suite. The free edition lets you do most of what you can do in Fiddler. More powerful in some ways, rougher around the edges in other ways.
There is always a lot of careful insight in Gruber's posts that I like but it is tainted with a type of enthusiasm that doesn't belong in journalism. Even if he is correct, being a cheerleader with liberal praise isn't analysis. It's opinion, and Gruber often reads like an opinionist. Apple is an amazing position to build all kinds of wonderful technology, and Samsung does come across as a shallow copy cat that throws shit on the wall and sees if it sticks, and it's good someone points that out, but Samsung is also really good at being a copycat, and they make amazing displays and their software is getting better even as they plaster it with more junk apps. It's just not so black and white, and to always frame it in such a way hurts credibility.

I've tried in the past to follow Gruber regularly but there is just too much defensive negativity in his posts. I can only check it off and on, reading him every day would make me unhappy.
Daring Fireball
is hard to
read because
the website
is so poorly
formatted.

I rarely
make it
past the
first
paragraph.

The font is
too small,
the margins
are too huge
and the colors
have poor
contrast.
Did you really post this just now?
> Nice ad hominems you've got there.

That's seriously rich coming from the dude who just wrote

> The main ringleader of this brigade was a failed academic from Singapore, someone who had a superficial knowledge of game theory and sufficient familiarity with Latex to create the look & feel of research papers, but someone whose own academic work never went beyond repackaging well-known results in game theory.
>If you make something and nobody knows about it, did you actually make it?

Of course I did. You seem to be confusing things that you use for things that you are trying to sell (e.g. if you are an an academic, you want to sell your research as valid and worthwhile.) I use tools that I built to do work, and I've never spent a moment trying to sell the tools, but I actually made them. Some things in this world aren't even open source - people use them to make money, and never reveal them to anyone. Erlang started as an internal project, and people had to bargain to get it released externally.

You're drawing a false equivalence between marketing and substance. Erlang is doing billions of dollars of business. I love to talk about it, but the fewer people that know it, the better for me professionally. People have no idea how easy it makes everything.
This probably means abetterqueue.com will be shutting down?
How We Won the Smart Money Hackathon SF
See [1] for what a developer can do when exposed to this exact problem.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SkdfdXWYaI#t=558
I don't feel like addressing your question directly, but it is ironic that the criticism of Gruber is coming from a user named "markdown", which is something Gruber invented. :)
This is hard-won HN wisdom. It's 100% correct and, if everyone would take it to heart, would make a huge difference around here. Flames would still break out, but they'd die off for being oxygen-deprived.

If I may tack on one thing: if you have flagging privileges, please flag comments that are truly bad for HN. You can do that by clicking 'link' above the comment, which will take you to the item page which has a 'flag' link. We monitor those flags and take action based on them.
You guys know that the type of fight that goes like "guys get angry, guys punch each other a few times" aren't always the same as "guys get angry, one guy kills the other"?

I'm not one for hypothesizing based on hunches that look evolutionarily plausible, but, given that for a long time humans lived to 20, 25 years old, consider the types of fights teenagers and kids get into these days. A few punches, somebody (or both people) loses with some bruises, nobody dies, nobody gets seriously hurt.

We're comparing those types of fights with murders here. Apples to oranges.
I wanted to point that out too. Heh.

hi five
> I simply don't believe Google has the best interests of anyone at heart except themselves and advertisers.

You think Apple has your interests at heart? Or Microsoft?

Like Google, they have your cash at heart. Not a thing more.
because this is about competing eco-systems and if you make your living writing software that runs in those eco-systems ("apps"), the health and capabilities of said systems is critical.

iOS/OSX vs. Android/Chrome vs. Windows8/WP8

if you're just a consumer, then yes, not so interesting, but then this whole forum might not be for you.
I'm in SOMA/Potrero - my treat!
Gruber waves off the other players' devices or operating systems, but takes Apple's web services / cloud infrastructure as a given. Here in reality, Apple's web services are atrocious. Weirdly implemented, slow, and frequently unavailable backend services are not a healthy part of the triad that Gruber is proposing.
Glympse grabs $12M to take real-time location sharing tech to the next level
I don't get what the significance of this post is, and why it is at the top of HN.

It's a thoughtful and timely analysis about the most important company currently in existence which many people routinely fail to understand or simply dismiss out of hand due to preexisting prejudice or misplaced nerd allegiance.
Dig deeper, Sam.

Achievement-oriented people are given to depression both when they fail and when they succeed. If your identity is tied up in your work, then you feel bad about yourself when work isn't going well. That's obvious, and that's the message of this blog post. The implicit message is that you're depressed because you're not succeeding, so get your shit together and succeed and be happy like everyone else.

But then if you do succeed, you start to wonder, why did I just spend my youth in this masochistic, narcissistic path, and why the fuck am I not as happy as I was expecting, and is this really all there is in life. This is a classic "achiever in crisis." The problem is that you realize all along you've been doing things that OTHER people wanted -- that is, you've been doing things that make you valuable in society -- perfect summed up in the raison d'etre du jour, "making the world a better place." And nobody stopped you, because who can argue with making the world a better place? (Or being a doctor, or whatever.) But upon reflection, you quickly realize that this was in many ways easier than asking yourself what YOU wanted out of life. I.e. you've pushed aside your innate feelings and desires, whatever they may have been, and replaced them with the external motivation of achievement, under the rationale that you'd be able to "figure it out" after you had "made it".

Unfortunately achievers aren't really sure what they want "deep down" because achievement is inherently defined by society, and then after they've "made it" they freak out because they start to wonder if there even is a "deep down" or if they're just a highly educated donkey chasing a carrot.

If you talk to e.g. people who've gone through rigorous Ph.D. programs, you'll find a number of them were severely depressed after their defense. It was just kind of a let-down after such a long buildup, and then they started to wonder why they invested the entirety of their twenties into it and question whether that's really what they wanted their life to be. At least before the defense they could have something look forward to, and the various requirements provided a source of manic energy to propel the achiever forward.

Anyway I don't think the problem here is "not enough success," and I don't think the solution is having more coffee meetings. Founders need to take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves why they're doing what they're doing and whether their depression is truly a function of their free cash flow or if there's a deeper dissonance between the founder's feelings and the expectations of society, i.e. the heroic mythology of the founder that Silicon Valley has been inculcating in susceptible teenagers for the last 20 years.

Just my 2c. I am not a founder just an observer and aspiring societal psychiatrist. If you want to learn more I highly recommend "The Wisdom of the Enneagram":

http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Enneagram-Psychological-Spiritu...

It looks a lot like astrological pseudoscientific trash but read it and see if things in it resonate with you.

Ok back to work.
Maybe, but the reason it's long is that it's a series of arguments.. supporting points, etc. At least you COULD engage with it if you wanted, unlike so many other pro/con {insert company/platform}.
Yes, my cash - the end user.

Not other companies looking to get my "attention"
he is an apple-centric blogger writing for his own site. where exactly does journalism ever come in play here? don't think gruber ever claimed to be a "journalist".
But all those concepts -- functors, applicative functors and monoids -- have already been explained with didactic examples in previous chapters of LYAH.

Of course, you cannot expect to jump to any point in the middle of a book or article explaining something you don't know and expect to understand every bit of terminology. Without knowing C++ or OOP, would you jump to the middle of an "OOP with C++" blog and expect to understand the terminology? Ok, answer quickly: what's a method? What's a template? What's the difference between class and instance? What does "static" do? (I hope you get the idea).

There is nothing particularly difficult about Haskell, Monads or FP at the level that is taught in LYAH. Seriously. Sure, there is hard to read code in real Haskell projects (much as it happens with C++, by the way), but not in this tutorial.

This argument about "many people won't understand new or abstract terminology" is pretty weak and I'm having trouble with people buying it. Programming IS abstract, but we all learned it. We all were new to crazy new terms like "overloading" and "operator precedence" and it didn't deter us. So why on Earth are we deciding that "Monad" and "Functor" are too difficult?
Where would the robot owners put all that money?
To march out some old tropes: Apple makes money by delighting users so they will continue to buy products. Google makes money by tracking users, forcefully if necessary, and abusing their advertisers. Microsoft makes money out of legacy ties these days—they don't deserve to continue existing.
For anyone paying attention, the SDK has been specifically modified to allow for:

1) Smaller satellite devices for iPhone (iWatch? I don't know, but something like it. Look for it in the Continuity & notification widget APIs).

2) More varied size devices (higher resolution iPhone? Look for it in the Xcode size "traits" APIs).

3) A hint that Macs may move to ARM in the next couple of years (look for it in the way they're rolling out new graphics APIs like Metal).

4) Apple TV may be getting native apps connected to your iPhone/iPad apps (look for it in the new Extensions APIs).

While none of the above are hard promises about where Apple's going, they pretty much have no choice than spill this out in the open, as they need to release the SDK and prepare devs for the changes at least some time ahead.

It seems their new strategy is to release software/SDK updates in preparation for new hardware in June during WWDC, then we have a few months padding until developers get their air back, and... starting August/September the new hardware starts coming, just in time for school, and just in time for the winter holiday season.

Neat, I think.
Not just of that theory. Of the whole of modern economics.

And without ever questioning "growth towards what" and "growth at what cost"...
Yeah, but this time it's different, and many early Bitcoiners are alarmed. A long-held, fundamental social contract has been broken.

We've long known this is a weakness of the system, but most early adopters assumed that our strong decentralized culture would prevail.

Clearly, we were wrong. So we either have to find a technological solution ASAP, or we may as well just let GHash operate servers -- it'd be much cheaper for them and easier on the environment, and the end result is the same.

Centralization.
Finding your one differentiating feature is incredibly valuable for any company, especially in the context of sales.

When customers ask how you compare to competitor A or B, it's awesome to be able to say "we're the only people in the world who offer ______".
Having one thing that only you do, allows you to completely reframe the conversation. If the customer cares enough about that feature, you become the obvious choice.

A nice side-effect is increased focus on your team because everyone knows the one thing that matters most.
The other problem is he just doesn't know anything about the industry he's writing on, because he's been a tunnel-vision mac fan for decades.

Current example: just below this article he credits Amazon with inventing a button that connects you to live customer service. The counterexample to that claim is Bloomberg, whose terminals have a dedicated Help key. Striking this key once gets you a help screen, but if you hit it twice someone from Bloomberg calls you immediately. Bloomberg has had that for decades.
This reasoning is based on the assumption that a 51% player must also be long on Bitcoin, and that they interpret the nature and value of the Bitcoin market in a similar manner to most members of the Bitcoin community.

In other words, assuming that they don't know anything you don't. Considering we're talking about an entity that's managed to become a 51%er, that assumption sounds downright Pollyannaish to me. The same line of reasoning also supposedly implies that nobody should want to get even close to this point. Counterfactually, as it turns out.

That said, I can see the attraction of that line of reasoning, too. When you've got a tiger by the tail, it probably is best not to contemplate too carefully what's at the other end.
Seems like you could just watch the network for whatever those apps are doing and reverse engineer whatever remains of the API. You might not be able to build a business on that, but you can build your own apps for yourself, friends and your family that way.
hehe nice!

I am Mark, and any accounts I use for things I do in my downtime are called markdown. Work related accounts have the username markup.
Yeah I remember the time Google walked up to me on the street and shoved my face into a billboard. Those assholes.
This is what schools should be teaching to students. How to use your computer to analyze the ways the society could be better. Comparative analysis between countries etc. Critical Theory!
Lua is a great language and this is cool research. But cool as it is, saying that Lua "now has optional typing" because a research extension to the language has implemented it isn't really realistic. By that token, you could say that Java has every imaginable language feature because in the 00's, adding features to Java was how most PL research was done. You can have Lua lots of ways: if you use standard Lua, then it comes with a large number of nice C libraries; if you use LuaJIT then it's very fast; if you use this research version, then it has optional types. But you can't have all of these ways at the same time.
This is a good reminder to all of us that any API key is just that: A key. A key to a lock you don't own and a lock that can be changed at any time.
Reducing variance of a return allows the entry of smaller-scale and more risk-averse participants into the market.
Rather convenient? I would love to see how they manage their IT resources.
I logged into Linkedin recently for the first time in a while, and I was APPALLED to find that they had suggested the psychiatrist I saw during college for depression as a contact. They must have mined out her contacts info. This stuff is extremely sensitive and should be confidential, but Linkedin totally disregards that.
I actually upvoted the post for the comedy value.
I guess this might be focused on the consumer end, but if you're looking for this in the enterprise, you can get it from IBM and Oracle. You can buy Oracle (Sun) hardware, Solaris, WebLogic, and Oracle database and never use a non-Oracle product. Same with IBM.

And maybe I'm cynical, but "unified ecosystem" sounds a lot like "total vendor lock-in" to me.
Why do BitFury and Petamine use a pool at all? At their scale, wouldn't they have low enough variance through solo mining? Or perhaps P2Pool?
Ex-Microsoft employee who leaked Windows secrets to be deported to Russia
First human climbing of glass wall
>The people I've spoken with don't mince words: in general serious miners compete against others to make money, not societal change.

Fine, but in their ignorance and greed, they're going to lose their ability to make money.
Love this. Also drove me to explore your site, which is what you probably wanted. $400/month for private APIs seems pricey to me, but i am thinking of only personal uses. This reminds me of import.io if it exported API results.
I'm hoping this isn't going to be an end for instantwatcher.com.
You don't have to peer with anyone... you wouldn't have any customers, but that's certainly your choice. You just can't charge for peering, given that it's your retail customers who are paying you to deliver them access to the Internet.
The fact that apple apps such as itunes do not work on android only serves apple and their lockin strategy, not you or your cash.
Margins are irrelevant; it's the column width that matters.

I agree that the font size is too small (I use the NoSquint plug-in to remember a 200% zoom for it) but the column width is bang on with about ten words per line.
This just means more people will rely on covertly scraping their data. It also means, much like Twitter and the way they nerfed their developer ecosystem, Netflix will gain much more control over any available 3rd party offerings (as they've clearly outlined). Seems like a very short-sighted trade off if you ask me, but, hey, maybe the public API was just underused and they didn't want to devote more resources to maintaining it.
"Journalism is a method of inquiry and literary style that aims to provide a service to the public by the dissemination and analysis of news and other information."[1]

Is that not what he's doing? Is he just gratifying a need to be heard or something? I don't think so, it looks like he's attempting to perform journalism as described by this paragraph, and he falls short in some ways.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism
Good. Drive them into the ground, Jeff.

What was it, 2003-04 when Blockbuster's engineering team sent Netflix that concession letter? 10 years go by and guess who's stuffing their bra for lack of content.
> It has long been axiomatic that Apple is not the sort of company that could walk and chew gum at the same time. In 2007, they issued a (very Steve Jobs-sounding) press release that stated Mac OS X Leopard would be delayed five months because the iPhone consumed too many resources [...] Last week’s keynote was when we, on the outside, finally saw the results. Apple today is firing on all cylinders.

There still haven't been many OS X os kernel-level since then (say, NFS+ is largely unchanged).

(But the point seems generally true other than that.)
credits Amazon with inventing a button that connects you to live customer service.

oh my glob. Willfully misunderstand the world much? He's talking about consumer devices. How many devices in your home that aren't $10,000/month stock terminals have live under-5-second video support?
Yeah, avant garde doesn't really work for web design as soon as it starts impacing readability.
Not everyone is as cynical as you. I believe the people at Apple genuinely want to make great hardware and software that enhances people's lives. Their world-class accessibility support is proof enough of that.
It is a question of whose interests align with yours. Do your interests align with advertisers? Mine sure as hell don't.