skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The ancient ancestor of the first black widow might not have been some peculiar middle ground between benign and lethal, yet the random mutation of offspring which proliferated merely happened to be highly deadly.

This is possible but not very likely in reality.

We expect evolution to be incremental, for the following reasons:

First of all, it's very unlikely that any mutation would get to "Surprise! Lethal!" venom unless the species is already geared up to produce something venom-like, and also to store venom and to protect itself from its own venom. There's a whole bunch of new functions that are needed to be venomous, and it's vanishingly unlikely that they will all suddenly appear at the same time, even at evolutionary scale.

IMO mutations normally have small positive effects and large negative effects: they are more likely to delete or - if you're lucky - alter some existing function and very unlikely to build a whole new function (compare: a small random change to your computer code).

Even if super-lethal venom was to somehow appear overnight, then in order to reach 100% prevalence it must provide such an immediate advantage that the non-lethal spiders die out and only super-lethal spiders proliferate.

But the non-lethal spiders were surviving pretty well in order to reach that point. So, there's no reason to believe the non-lethal spiders were in particular danger or that lethal venom was needed - normally, the "Surprise! Lethal!" variant line would just quietly die out (as almost all variants do) leaving the wild non-lethal type.

As I say, the random mutation explanation is possible but not really practical.

A far more plausible scenario is an "arms race" - where venomous functions develop over time, while predators and prey develop immunity over time - as the predators (honey badger) start evolving coping mechanisms, stronger venom is needed.
Is there some mechanism to selectively escape the protection of each thread's memory? If not, how do I communicate between threads if my application has some kind of shared state? Do I have to pass any messages to the main thread each time, for it to be forwarded to another parallel thread? Does that create a kind of BSP-style point where all the parallel threads stop and the main thread has to synchronise between them? How do you stop this becoming a bottleneck, and how do you load manage if all parallel threads have to stop to allow the main thread to run?
You don't, that would be stupid of Google to sell that as it would be a one time sale.

Google holds that data and has advertisers come to them, and pay them to make sure their products are seen by the people interested in related products.

And the same thing next week.

And the same thing the week after.

The more information Google has on you to more accurately correlate your interests, the more valuable the data is and the more Google can charge for the access they provide.

Everything Google does to get you to give up more information is Google improving the product they have to sell.
I don't think there's a difference at all. If you force a change (product/policy/whatever) and that change is generally desired, then it will work. FB forced changes that were popular. Google forced changes that were unpopular. I think that's pretty much all there is to it. Forcing changes in of itself doesn't lead to failure.
Wow, this makes me so curious... how does he do it?
> Why would someone make a video of themselves crying and post it on the internet?

More interesting: Why would someone make a well writtenish comment on the internet that is quite negative toward someone crying on the internet?

edit: you edited the quote out from underneath me. Good call imo.
Fair point, I agree. My gmail addy is used as a back-up account. I use it for sign-ups, minor business, and as a spam trap.
Or even more precisely, the VM of its main (and de facto default) implementation needs love. Rubinius and JRuby are really VASTLY superior implementations but well, there's no specification so 50% of development time is spent in asinine catch up with an underspecified "standard" (MRI that is).

Really sad state of affairs and the #1 reason why Ruby isn't faster and more feature-packed.
No kidding. I couldn't very well post to a deleted comment. In that matter I apologize to you. It was sort of like flyswatting a hologram.
In email I generally don't share all my beliefs and opinions whereas with G+ I did.
The description of the second last one gives a quite good explanation. That, combined with a huge amount of patience and craftmanship I assume.
You ask a fair question. I think the large difference in body size and considerable difference in "wild" behavior between human beings and mice leaves some room for doubt about whether they share the same responses to fasting. This, of course, is an empirical question, a question the currently reported study is trying to answer in part.
IMO the silently majority is tired of a panopticon of "look it me now" social services who's main use case is massaging users egos.

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

Meanwhile if you look at the direction Apple is going, eg new APIs for iCloud eg fingerprint authentication, new APIs for foto management / sharing etc etc. they look about ready to pounce on the whole of social...
I think the way they would have gone about with messages/ft alone would have been to continue along their current route. I don't think phone calls and sms messages on your computer was something consumers were banging down the door for. Alternatively, a year from today, I think most people wouldn't be able to "live" with out it.

It's one of those "don't know you love it until you use it" features, like Visual Voicemail. So essentially, I think Apple threw the carriers a bone while making the consumers tied even more to their platform.
Google+ is just the most high profile symptom. The problem started when Google started using strategies against the fundamental nature of the internet.

We always assumed that Google was "good" because they understood and embraced the open and interconnected nature of the internet. They even stated so explicitly.

Google+, but also many other Google strategies follow the same pattern: trying to build walls instead of connecting, making things closed instead of more open.
>a classist and strongly capitalist one dividing members of a company into owners and employees.

But you don't have to divide it as "owners" and "employees". The underlying category is the division between those who favor high-risk-uncertain-reward, and those who favor safety-and-salary. I'd argue the varied risk profile is rooted in the psychology of economic participants instead of being born of any classism. The employee that wants to be an owner can be an owner. The owner that wants to be an employee can be an employee.

>An alternative, more progressive position is that all workers should be entitled to some ownership of the fruits of their labour. That is to say, everyone involved in an enterprise, no matter how big or small, is entitled to receive ownership proportional to the impact of their contribution

These types of appeals always leave out the other major factor: owner's capital at risk. We want the workers to get benefits of ownership but never discuss how employees should also bear the same financial risks as the owners. It's an incomplete call to action. The founders/owners are the ones depleting their life savings and maxing out their credit cards to help fund their (sometimes crazy) business idea. If the business goes bust, is there any realistic discussion of employees giving back their salary to help pay off creditors? Of course not. (And rightfully so; the employees took a salary and don't want to deal with any of that -- that's the owner's problem!) The discussion only talks of employees benefiting from additional upside without taking on any additional downside.

If the business was inherited, I can be more aligned with employees sharing more upside. If Joe Dilettante owns business he got from dad, he could run it into the ground without competent employees keeping things profitable. However, since this is Hacker News and the "startup" crowd, we're usually talking about creating businesses from scratch.

> In this world view there is no division between owners and employees,

There already is no division. If an employee wants to be an owner, he can do so. For California, here are the forms:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/be/forms.htm

Pointing out those forms is not a snark. I'm emphasizing that there is no "classism" preventing anyone who happens to be an employee now from becoming an owner tomorrow. Submit those forms, and go create wealth. Instead of asking for ownership percentage from other owners, you can simply get the State of California to grant you ownership of your own company. You give ownership to yourself. The avenues of ownership are already available to everyone.

Is this not in the spirit of the Hacker News demographic or am I reading things wrong?
Using the metaphor of a ladder is asserting the existence of an argument that you're not bothering to make. What if you called it a piece of dirt in the economic grave?
http://imgur.com/ZvdGn60
Masking a Class in Boost Graph. Completing the Implementation of Concept Support
Lazy Load Images without JS on IE
> As a PHP perf guy for serveral years

Sorry, couldn't help noticing, serveral years... :)
If you ask old people, they will tell you the same story, but about IBM. Every generation has its great, innovative tech company turned evil mastermind story. It seems to be hard to avoid. I wonder who will be next.
In other words, user data is not for sale.
You should probably read further than the first paragraph.
See my reply to pron, but yes. Everyone, and all business, that I want to know me are in my contacts on another service. I also use Thunderbird, and PGP when possible, with my gmail account so at least I don't see any advertising.
"about:blank" usually means "was opened from an external program, such as an IM client".

"No referrer" means "A referrer may have existed, but inclusion of that information was explicitly declined as a part of the request".

Both are useful.
If you don't trust their update mechanism to remain uncompromised, why do you trust their website to remain uncompromised?
Shareholders and analysts don't have the patience for a 3-year organic rampup. They want promises and returns by the end of the quarter. This is what happens when you go public.
All three are things pretty much all HTTP/1.1 clients have done for over a decade. It's incompatible with RFC2616, yes — but not with implementations of "HTTP/1.1".
Because "Google employees might find out that pron interested in computers and dogs" is less sensitive than "someone might send pron to a Saudi Arabian prison to be tortured because pron talks to someone with the same last name as a suspected revolutionary"
to me, it just sounds like an S. The monthly business model isn't appropriate in ALL niches...
This post contains so many true statements. As beeing a freelance consultant for the past 9 years, I can comprehend every single point of the posting.

Especially the premature scaling combined with technical debts is a very common pattern. Companies tend to use the latest technology but also ignoring every common pattern of sustainable software engineering (e.g. tests, code style). Usually the involved developers are quite new to the technology and will make a lot of mistakes. Some will learn from their own mistakes over time and fix it, some will never learn and continue providing a negative value to a team.

I've seen this anti-pattern in various web-related companies and startups. The technology never was the primary reason of the failure but people problems (lack of skills, lack of proper management, lack of social skills — both of the developers and the business owners) was the #1 reason.

I've seen this with Perl, PHP, Java, Ruby, JavaScript/Node and all different types of NoSQL DBs when people use them "for the wrong thing" or didn't understand what's the trade-off.

Looks like even today everyone is believing in new and true silver bullets for each technical venture instead of combining the best practices with as little trade-offs as possible.
Other than that, one of the worst I've knocked down uncovered a lack of assignment of IP (an early rich-media MUA) from a contractor that effectively meant the candidate company had zero value. "Who's Bob Smith of Bob Smith, Inc.? Can I talk to him about this shitty code? Oh, he owns it..."

What happens in that case? Does the acquisition stop in its tracks, or does the company try to contact Bob Smith and buy the rights?
Really? The sort of comic I was thinking of would include, let's see, Sinfest, Romantically Apocalyptic, Drive, SSSS, Questionable Content... I could go on, but each one of these extends the field of comic-strip art along at least one dimension, and outstrips in subtlety anything attempted in newspaper comics. I'd even include XKCD, which certainly wouldn't seem like "art" to a casual glance, but what would you call the well-nigh insane depth of "Time"?

Sinfest: http://sinfest.net/

Romantically Apocalyptic: http://romanticallyapocalyptic.com/

Drive: http://www.drivecomic.com/new.html

SSSS: http://www.sssscomic.com/comic.php?page=1

Questionable Content: http://questionablecontent.net/

XKCD "Time" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_(xkcd)
If you want to know more about Harry Eng, the creator of these, there is a fascinating post here http://www.everything2.com/title/Harry+Eng

Incredible man.
>The dealers already lost. They lost when buying cars over the internet became a viable option.

It will be a long time before people are comfortable buying a car online.

I just purchased a new car; the process is unbelievably anachronistic, but it still exists and prospers for a reason. There's very much a "this is how it's done attitude". That's because the majority of the world doesn't accept "technology" liker the denizens of HackerNews.
Has Google sold billions of dollars in ads that don't work?
I think what the OP was getting at was that frameworks can be good - saving you a lot of DIY and building on (theoretically) good practices. But all that potential code reuse and possibly elegance is problematic in PHP because that has to be rebuilt on every single request. Arguably many Java frameworks are even more convoluted than, say, Zend Framework, but the Java platform means there's less of a performance price to pay for the bloat of a framework vs any PHP framework with similar 'bloat' (hierarchy of classes, etc).

"Trim that fat"

The "fat" is something which is useful to a lot of people for development, it's just a performance hindrance (and far moreso than in other platforms).

That said, I've had some Java folks express some amazement at how fast PHP is, even when it's doing all the library loading and class instantiation on every page request. In multiple cases, they all expressed that they thought it would be far far slower, having grown used to "object creation is slow" in Java.
TCP/IP Turns 40
Cheap providers like NameCheap, NameBright and NameSilo do not support DNSSEC. Here is a list of DNSSEC supporting registrars:
https://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/dnssec/deployment

Based on pricing ($9.99/.com) and a growing irritation with GoDaddy, I finally moved my domains to Dynadot:

https://www.dynadot.com/

They have a (custom) 2FA app and 2FA SMS. BTW this friend referral https://www.dynadot.com/?s9N6j7d9G8B07i73 gives you & me $5 after purchase.
That's a rather harsh way to limit your pity. I won't go so far as making the standard analogies of victim-blaming.
Can you name one organization of 50,000 people that is collectively smart?
Much of this advice is already well-known to these founders, but they do it anyway. And why? A big part is motivation. To do a startup, you have to motivate yourself and often part of this is falling in love with your product or your technology and dreaming big. So as an example some technical founders love figuring the scaling out and this motivates them to create a proper, clever product, even if it never reaches 10 users in the end. Without such motivation, no product.
3 people together hold enough voting power to make all decisions, and those 3 people wrote in their S-1 that they have no intention to ever listen to shareholders and analysts.
Responses to POST requests are only cacheable when they include explicit freshness information[1], which is not the case with the linked test page.

[1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-4.3.3
An Almost Cord-Cutter's Thoughts on TV (Part 3)
I am sure there are pretty tough pressures on your friend, or any other SC. I am sure there are lot of others to replace them.

But this man is not a SC. He is Bill Waterson. If he wants to have a panel once a week, in full color, only on thursdays any newspaper editor who turns him down is an idiot.

As for making him a web cartoon artist, all you need would be hosting somewhere, a server that can handle the traffic and one message to whomever moderate the Facebook Calvin and Hobbes Fan group, plus a twitter account that sends a message each time a new cartoon is published.
From where do you get the idea that the author is complaining about anything being underhanded?

Brin's "confession" has something to do with it because he was instrumental to creating it in the first place, and someone with the power to correct many of the problems if he wanted to. Instead he's washed his hands of it, and left a segment of his users in the lurch.
I wrote a post recently attempting to do a deep dive on JavaScript closures
Someone should introduce the man to the internets capabilities. Bill Waterson can have all the space he needs.
>Using this logic

Well, that is the logic. And you'll note that, despite that logic, we have the internet, cell phones, and the national postal services are going bankrupt.

There's a tenuous balance between maintaining global competitiveness and promoting technological advance, and making sure that your middle-class have blue collar jobs that afford them the ability to participate in the financial gains of of your nation.

The changes will occur; you can't hold them back. But sometimes you have to ease them in. It does the world no good to put thousands of "luddites" out of work overnight. The idea that they'll "find other work" makes sense on the macro level, but not the micro level; transitions take time.
Yeah, it's easy to put too much subjective content in a post unnecessarily.

I'd personally never post a video of me crying about a mistake I made on the internet for friends, family, employees/business contacts to potentially see, but there's no point in judging people when their actions don't harm anyone at all.
Does Familiarity Breed Contempt Among Judges Deciding Patent Cases?
Apple never says anything, so you would never know.
> 'idiomatic' is used as newspeak for 'not the style I
> personally recognize as being the true Go way'.

There is, in fact, a style which is "the true Go way".
A great example of "The Law of Unintended Consequences"?

A law meant to help the people, hinders the people later on. Getting this stuff right isn't easy.
"cuases"

Creative data scientists, but maybe not great spellers. :-)
But it's not really a clone unless the pagination times out. ;-)
Bound to fall? I doubt it.

I wouldn't be surprised if some Google people came to the conclusion that ad-blocking is prevalent in affluent demographics (namely people with non-trivial technical skill) whereas 'the next 1 billion' coming online are predominantly simply not installing ad-blocking software (browser extensions/plug-ins, desktop applications, etc).

It stands to reason that this would certainly drive Google's interest in being on the forefront of 'the next 1 billion' coming online.
To change status quo you need to provide enough value to motivate that change:

Google Search: Search experience was completely disrupted. Since that moment people could focus on what they needed (no disturbing ads) and be more efficient.

Gmail: Google innovated and simplified a lot email experience. You can easily measure the importance of Gmail to people by the importance of Gmail to the Google brand.

Chrome: As an early adopter, I could feel specially the speed difference. I always knew that would be a matter of time till Chrome control the market.

Google+: I never understood what value Google was adding to social networks. Facebook at the time didn't need to be disrupted also. After some time G+ went in the direction of Linkedin but couldn't add enough value to make people to change also. IMHO Google+ weakens Google brand. As simple as that. Should be closed? That is a good question.
A large amount of employees have been moved from Google+ to Hangouts and Android.

I think Hangouts is going to be their new standard, unfortunately the transition will likely be fragmented because it's not forced in Android yet.

I've seen a very positive response to Google Hangouts, if they successfully (seamlessly) integrate it into Android then it could be a wildly successfully product. I'm not crazy about the name ("Connect" would be a good alternative IMO) and there should be some more calling/voicemail integration features.
Actually we've already changed that. It's slated for 4.0.45, due next week.
> 153 slides in 45 minutes (and fail)

less is more :) one one the best and most memorable talks i went to was 4 slides long.

that said i've been thinking a lot the past week or so about a machine i can dedicate to scientific computing, preferably using Sage noteboks or something like that. i have some long running evaluations (graphs) that i would rather not crush my laptop for. and so i get to thinking about the kind of machine i want to do this on, something parallel is tempting because of the higher speed gains. that said, i'm wondering if that would help Python (and hence Sage) or not. so now i'm looking at something like iJulia (Julia in an IPython notebook) and cobbling together something like this.

than i see your parallel python mods and wonder if i should try this. should i? will it help me in my use case (speeding up a Sage server)?
ExMplayer donate
ExMplayer is completely free and open sourced.Please buy me a cup of coffee:).
I will use 20% money to help people without food. -Rupesh Sreeraman
You might want to take a look at these pages and see if your router supports OpenWrt or Tomato firmware.

http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/start

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Tomato_Firmware/Supported_Devi...
Look at the early XKCD comics, and you'll realise that the artist honed his skill over time. There's no secret to being a good comic book artist – it's just a love of the medium and a slavish commitment to draw as much as humanly possible.
Thanks a lot for clearing that up (also, my post misses a "?" after opapages)!
VisitBit | Free Bitcoin for visiting websites
I may deal with the playing cards but I am still curious how to put the wood board into the bottle. :-O
Considering that the real-name policy is just that, a policy (albeit an automatically-enforced one), I don't see what technical problems would arise from its unilateral revocation. Just disable the flagging and be on your merry way.

The thing is, I suspect Google leadership still don't really see the policy as a problem. Brin said his involvement was a mistake -- because it tainted his image and his credentials, not because the policy itself was wrong. I suspect he still sees it as dirty work that somebody has to do, just not himself.
Wanna quote the second line of his post?

>Yes and they get a salary for this like they would at any other company.

> If they take on a below market salary and or additional risk exposure in join a startup they should negotiate a package (be it options or otherwise) that adjusts for that.