skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So, I'd like to maybe focus in on three points you bring up. Specifically:
(1) If you are unmotivated, hearing you can accomplish great things would lead people to believe their behavior is what is preventing them from doing so.
(2) Life is hard so setting your sights high is a bad thing for some people.
(3) "You can do anything" leads to analysis paralysis -- a better strategy would give children fewer options so as to encourage acting on them.

I think (2) is nonsense simply because life doesn't get any easier when you try to do great things, and yet we still try and many still achieve great things. If you life being hard meant you shouldn't reach for the stars then no one in the world would. It's also worth noting that life doesn't seem to get substantially easier if you decide to be a corporate stooge -- that social contract is broken so badly that I think it's misleading to imply it's the secret to stability. There exist challenges on all paths, at least the ones on the road to greatness are generally first-class problems.

I don't understand the danger of (1). All I can change is my behavior. If something aside from that is causing the world to be a way I don't like, that doesn't do me much good to know except in scenarios of absolutely impossible goals and inevitable failure.

(3) isn't absurd, but I think there's a dearth of safe, unlimited capacity options for children these days, which is why there is no coherent script for them. "Engineer" is a fairly good script, but having worked with quite a few, I can say that if you don't have the temperament for thinking carefully and trying things out then even after 10 years you won't be any good. I imagine the fairly short list of "opportunities for youngsters" these days would be mostly filled by similar fields, where there could be a personality type conflict -- but that's merely speculation.

If you have a script you want to advocate for children, parents are worried about their kids and listening for a direction they can point them in. Persuade them, and your ideal change will be made.
Amazon should stick with "affordable", and win money on content. Amazon won out initially because of affordable prices, too. This "we're just like Apple" strategy will not work. They should be Xiaomi, not Apple.
to be fair this wouldn't work unless you have assembly/shade plugin configured.
Kindle and AWS _were_ impressive plays. However, in the years since introducing them (2007 and 2006 respectively), the company has had a decided lack of imagination. Both Kindle and AWS have pushed adoption and given Amazon huge advantages in growing markets. Are their tablets / phones / streaming devices worth enough to pay Amazon back on the investment required to create them? At this point, and with these products, I'm skeptical.
I went through couple levels before I realized I got more tools as I go on. Was using just intersect, segment,and compass and things were getting crowded.
Well, no shit. But I'm saying I constructed an equilateral triangle but the game wasn't recognizing it. After reloading the page a few times it finally started giving feedback, like thickening the line when moving over it (which wasn't happening before), letting me actually place the dot on the intersection between the two circles
This is also what "Google Video" originally did, before it became more like Youtube/Netflix.
My decision to use the weasel word "competitive" there was based on very much this point. My reading of the article suggested that this author was submitting his article to fairly prestigious journals: two of the three were "a classic physics journal... [whose rejection letter was] signed by a very famous physicist" and "a really famous journal".

The other was merely "a reputable physics journal" (whose editorial board had to spend time soliciting papers), which sounds like a more reasonable target. I'm not saying he should have been trying to publish work like this in a journal that has no standards and will print anything, but I think it needs to be aimed at a journal whose rejections are primarily for lack of quality rather than for lack of importance.

And a non-physics journal at that level, in particular.
http://blazemeter.com/ ?
It's true that a lot could have changed since the previous investment round, but isn't that often the case in venture capital funding?

Paying a different price for one person's equity changes the valuation for everyone as the new market rate. This can be bad for an individual (could be sold for higher on private market) but also good (prevents someone else from selling at a major discount). Companies want to control valuation much more closely than that, so valuation is pegged to investment or some other major event.

Whether that's a good way to do things would be a nice discussion topic, but that's not the same as saying uber in particular is playing hardball. A little bit of research would reveal that it's standard practice.
programming-wise, AngularJS. Reading a few typography books on the side (finding it really interesting by far) :-)
I love Diplomacy and have played it forever, in person, by email, even as kid by snail mail. There is a great variant called 1900 by Baron VonPowell that is actually better. But it is my all time favorite game.
It's not quite a fair comparison, since a whole bunch of published papers end up on arXiv in some form
javac Test.java

is equally easy and unrealistic.
I think to reverse this there will need to be some very massive changes within CS education.

Well, I mean, that is most definitely true regardless. But, with my experience getting my BS in CS a few years ago, it had nothing to do with "mainstream software engineering" either. I had classes on formal logic and automata, algorithms (using CLRS), programming language principles (where we compared the paradigms in Java, Lisp, Prolog, and others), microprocessor design (ASM, Verilog, VHDL), compilers, linear algebra, and so on. Very little in the way of architecting and implementing large, abstracted, real-world business applications or anything remotely web-related. In my experience I did not meet anyone interested in glorifying heaps of whiz-bang abstraction, they seemed to be more in line with the stereotypical "stubbornly resisting all change and new development" camp of academics.
Ignorance of the law (and Constitution, in DoJ and DA's cases) is no excuse. I think you're cutting them undeserved slack. If any company in the USA used the "it saves money!" excuse to do illegal things, we'd show them no mercy.
That's not much of a C project. If that's the standard, then Java is a breeze:

javac Test.java

Easy to run, too:

java Test
Great, I've been waiting for this. Thanks!
Referring to things like unusual command line options as "incantations" has been reasonably common across the history of computer usage at least from the 1970s or so, if not earlier.

See: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/I/incantation.html
https://wondernetwork.com/loadtesting ??
I don't think that there is a way to go smaller than an atom. Most likely, there will be a sifht in technique. My guess is quantum computing, but who knows.
Analyse Apache logs and build your own dashboard with Hadoop and Solr
The drive to smaller gate structures is because a MOSFET transistor gate is essentially a capacitor, and as such, it takes time to charge and discharge the capacitance of the gate. So to further increase the performance, one must reduce the capacitance of the gate. The gate is basically and RC circuit. The easiest way to reduce the capacitance is to reduce the physical size of the gate. The size of the gate is directly proportional to the capacitance. Once you get down to a few atoms wide, which they are approaching now, then quantum effects kick in and it starts getting impractical to go further. The alternatives for the next generation have to do with attacking the R part of the equation which is what they mean when they talk about electron mobility. Other approaches that are unrelated to the traditional MOSFET are being researched, but there is such a huge amount of IP based on MOSFET any move away from that will incur huge cost in porting over. (think of it as the hardware version of switching to a new programming language). I am not sure what the next gen answer will be as it seemed the author did not either (which tells me he knows what he is talking about).
Perhaps we'll end up with programming competitions that have restrictions on equipment like some forms of auto racing. Perhaps a common VM would be used for those competitions (maybe this already goes on?)

It could rate limit the CPU/peripheral access, limit memory, etc...
I was going to say: "first things first: learning your tools is the 1st step" but I see it's been told already.

This is just a rant and personally I can't sympathize with. How that is a newsworthy is another issue, though.
"Deleted from our server" assumes the user has no understanding of data forensics.

We really need TextSecure on iOS soon to stop the proliferation of all of these silly privacy apps. There needs to be a strong cross-platform alternative.
I don't understand why the new chat protocols and clients focus solely on mobile (phone?) platforms.

Why aren't there more desktop clients ?
I was thinking Dr. Ronald Mallett.
Awesome comment on StackOverflow answer...
I find your claims that "worry comes in when a 51% minor is a bad actor" and "safe in GHash's hands" to be conflicting.

All it takes is one bad actor at GHash, as supposedly happened with the gambling incident, and suddenly you've got a problem again.

Just because GHash is successful now does not mean they won't change. Let's imagine a future where CEX.io decides to ditch GHash. GHash no longer has any form of profit (0-fee pool) and thus has no incentive to remain honest.

Satoshi's logic, that a large minor would have a selfish interest to be honest, actually completely falls down when it comes to mining pools. Mining pools have massive power, and yet (in this case) get 0 profit. GHash could easily have nothing invested in bitcoin while still having control of a large gashing power.

Now on to the other things you said. "Would Bill Gates ... for a penny?" is a terrible analogy. For one, this isn't a penny. 51% attacks could allow GHash to steal millions and extort further. They would also allow someone with a vendetta against bitcoin do do real damage... And the risk isn't nearly as severe as jumping in a volcano. A more relevant analogy might be "Would a company commit tax fraud on the order of a million dollars and risk being caught" (yes many have) or "would an executive steal from the company he works at and, when they notice, cut and run."

Your theoretical for what happens on a 51% attack is also silly. There would be signs of some attacks (like consistent double spending on high-confirmation things), but other attacks like extortion-for-inclusion could be silent for as long as the victims don't speak up. Furthermore, people wouldn't leave overnight.. not that many did when GHash performed attacks the last time. In addition, people are highly unlikely to change. Things won't drop off over night. They weren't DDOSed last time. Your entire speculation is optimistically assuming there won't be significant doubt and inertia... and betting against human lazyness is rarely a good idea.

Finally, you assume GHash is left with nearly worthless bitcoins. Well, sort of. The extortion could lead to them being paid in anything. If the entire company decided to do an attack they'd obviously sell all bitcoins first so any new bitcoins gained through any attack would be pure profit (and wouldn't be worthless for at least several hours until someone notices and news spreads). Furthermore, each employee of GHash that is capable of causing such an attack to occur might not have any bitcoins, even if GHash does.

I think that your defense of GHash is flawed, especially considering they've behaved badly in the past. and your arguments in general aren't strong.

I see it as fully plausible that if they maintain 51% hashing power for an extended period of time, a bad employee might modify their code for their own profit and then GHash will plead ignorance when it's discovered and carry on. I also see it as fully plausible that if GHash decides to close shop at over 51% they'll choose to go out with a bang and do what thievery and damage they can on the way out.

I fully agree with the article that this is a problem.
Especially used of tricks that are so poorly documented
that they must be learned from a wizard.
Can the videos be captioned? Or at least, turn on YouTube automatic captioning please? Many of your audience are Deaf!
Addressing number 1, I saw the other day a study that indicates that this can back fire for individuals with low self-esteem. [1]

[1]: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/7/860
That's basically correct, we were trying to balance a few factors:

- Total cost
- Cost per core
- Clock speed (this actually matters a lot for, say, a Python webapp)

We chose to run only a single CPU in this box to keep the total cost of the box low. This slightly increase the cost per core (switch ports, the chassis, rack space, etc being basically fixed overhead per node), but by selling in smaller increments we think it we can keep the total cost lower for most users.

We'll be gathering feedback on the resource balance, and iterating as we go.
1. The first part makes me think you're solving the problem of "long form" comments -- providing better tools for writing in depth responses to things. On more careful reading it sounds like you're not doing that. I left unsure of what the project really is.

2. We're NSA proof! No you're not. Being "just anonymous" is really more than enough and overstating -- and then contradicting -- the actual level of anonymity you provide is counterproductive if you're trying to build trust.

3. Get rid of the lorem ipsum. That section confused me most of all. We need examples to understand the product.
I'm not in a place where I can try this right now, but how does this work? Is it constantly listening, or do you need to trigger / toggle on/off the listening function?
Yo mobile app hacked
Are we talking about Charlie Ayers, the Google Cook? He earned $26 million from his options, not $200 million. He also had over 150 employees and 5 executive chefs reporting to him. He did well and was fortunate but he also wasn't just some guy in a lunch room preparing cafeteria food.

EDIT: There is a nice description of Ayers in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Ayers
Indeed!

http://www.diplom.org/Online/variants.html
Hi Jarrad -- FYI Linas Vepstas fixed the threading issues with the AtomSpace some time ago (over a year ago I think)....
what's so unusual about -cp (or "-classpath")
I almost posted a response along these lines: how distinguishable are precognition and time travel from a fundamental physics perspective, anyway? It's all about information flow.

But then I realized that precognition has an alternate possible mechanism: rather than extracting information from the future, it could operate by sensing the initial state/initial wavefunction of the surrounding universe and integrating the equations of motion forward in time to predict the future state (perhaps probabilistically). That would presumably require some amazing new physics just as significant as time travel, but it wouldn't be the same new physics.
I wanted the punch line to be about how that producer resold movie rights to Steven Moffat so he could make that Doctor Who episode.

Or if these rights were non-exclusive Nemiroff could contact Doctor Who staff himself.
Taking this idea further, you could perhaps also have examples of use for each language.
FYI, in OpenCog, MindAgents can be written in python or C++. Lots of OpenCog coding is done in Scheme these days as well.
Really? How curious. Why APNG? I would have assumed slot machines would want specific control over their animations and so would use something actually designed for that sort of control.
I'll also concede that I've seen some try abominations with oeprator overloading. Would people be willing to compromise with just allowing the overloading of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division?

I know that overloading << or || can lead to some confusing code, but offering the basic arithmetic operators would end 90% of the whining by the people who do scientific code and need this functionality.
There have been some massive studies done on cell phones and cancer, especially in Europe. (TL;DR You're probably fine.)
Maven can generate one for you:

mvn archetype:generate -DgroupId=com.mycompany.app -DartifactId=my-app -DarchetypeArtifactId=maven-archetype-quickstart -DinteractiveMode=false

Which is not trivial I suppose, but it is pretty easy to do.
I suppose that's also why Infinite Jukebox, my other favorite Web Audio demo, doesn't work either.

http://labs.echonest.com/Uploader/index.html

Thanks for the clarification!
10 Common Ops Mistakes and How to Prevent Them
PagerDuty's Lead Engineer on Common Ops Mistakes
Scripting languages are those that the code gets thrown away when the application gets rewritten in C, C++, Java, C#, ... in order to perform properly.
Well, that answers my next question: is there a tool that prevents apps from detecting root?
It seems like the distinction you're trying to draw is between source code and a compiled program, but that doesn't apply to interpreted languages. There is no compiled program, the source code is the program. And you can effectively convert any compiled language into an interpreted language just by associating its file extension with a two line shell script that invokes the compiler and executes the output. Trying to differentiate one from the other on that basis is frivolous.

So I still don't see how you're trying to refute the conclusion that a software patent containing code covered by its claims would infringe itself. You couldn't reproduce or distribute the patent without reproducing or distributing the program.

Obviously a patent sitting on a desk doesn't self-execute, but neither does a program on a disk sitting on the same desk. I see no relevant difference between one and the other any more than there is between a USB stick and a CD.
Regarding the conceptual and theoretical background of the OpenCog approach, please see the two volumes "Engineering General Intelligence" published by Atlantis Press (distributed by Springer) a few months ago. There is a lot more subtlety to it than what you suggest.

Regarding the instructions for building and compiling OpenCog, it's a lot easier now than last summer. Try the Dockerfile, for example ... https://github.com/opencog/opencog/blob/master/Dockerfile
I've always thought of the stdlib overloading of << in streams to be, well, maybe not an abuse on the scale you see in the obfuscated C contests but at least a place where operator overloading makes code harder to read and understand.
It really sucks that 15 languages that people use less than C# are supported before anyone thinks of adding support for C#.

Why does everyone hate Microsoft's languages and love Apples?
The policy, which has been stable for a long time and which we intend to put in the FAQ, is that reposts are ok if an item hasn't had significant attention in the last year.

In this case, both available chapters of the book have had significant attention [1,2], so I think a post of its home page has to count as a dupe. If and when Chapter 3 appears, however, that will make a nice non-dupey post.

(Good luck with the book, Michael!)

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6794308

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7588158
Why does a feminist(?) blog have a logo that is a picture of a woman sticking out her butt with her hand on it?

Isn't that the atmosphere that contributes to "the gender gap in tech"?
Also during the US recession, many people had their retirement funds drastically affected (I know several people that saw near a 40% loss) This forced many people nearing retirement age to keep working. Those people are often more senior, and with them staying on, there was no "movement" up the chain, so not many new entry level positions opening up. if they were smart, and did not touch the money, it should be fully recovered now, so we might start seeing some mobility again.
Edge-Evolve Monitor Arm
A lot of great advice in this thread. My input is to get involved in organizations that are the most likely to help you find clients.

If you're a digital marketer, get involved in digital marketing meetups. If your clients are most likely lawyers, go to lawyer meetups. When I say get involved, I mean really get involved. Get a position on the board. Immerse yourself in the community where your clients are.
A better branches page
The "Real Paper investigating Time Travel" involved Searching the the Internet for two terms.

The conclusion that these searches, even if they had been found, (which they were not) implied "time traveling Internet savvy people from the future searching for events in their past" is a staggering leap.

Might as well theorize fairies from another dimension materialized into ours to poke fun at internet search analyzers.

I am surprised this thing was even published, given that it was based off a monumental leap that ignored Occam's Razor, did not find anything the authors hoped to find and was failure both on the theorizing and the finding front.

The system (flawed as it may be) worked for once.
> Ruby lets you do far worse things if you dig deep enough, but nobody ever complains about that.

Well, people _used_ to, but we developed cultural tendencies to reduce those kinds of issues. The last time I was bit by a bug like this was years ago.
>> "Maybe I don't understand, but why even have messages retained on the server at all? Couldn't the local app keep them stored on the phone?"

People use multiple devices. People get new devices.
Backdoor Amendment to Protect NIST Passes
Yeah, some of the later ones just get cluttered and it can become difficult to click on the intended point.
Because (for example) I, as a physicist, didn't even know enough to immediately suggest topics like "network science, internet research, web science", and instead said the work was "sociological(?)".

For all we know from this story, the rejection letters might have suggested trying a non-physics journal. But even then, the result reported here just provides weak evidence supporting an overwhelmingly expected null hypothesis ("time travel doesn't happen"). I wouldn't expect physics journal editors to be good judges of whether a possibly novel method would be publishable in another discipline when it did not lead to a noteworthy result.
Confirming common-sense "obvious" results is actually one of the important things science is for. Sometimes it turns out those obvious things aren't actually correct and nobody had bothered to check.
The type of array in C will determine how it is store din memory (see here for a good description: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10696024/how-is-the-arra...). Unlike a dynamic language like ruby or python, C statically addresses the elements of an array in memory. Pointers refer to the memory address of the array elements allowing you to use them as a variable, but not the whole array.
Whenever I mention my skepticism of the peer review mechanism, someone is always quick to claim how important and special it is, and that I should have faith in it.

Here, they reject a paper and refuse even to peer review it. They refuse to explain why they feel it unacceptable. It comes from a scientist who has already published, and in the relevant fields.

If they'll do this because of the slight risk of someone making fun of it, what will they do when the paper is politically inconvenient?
Or, of course, Beeminder itself! (But, yes, we love the "craigslist slapper guy", as many people seem to know him. That's in fact Maneesh Sethi, who's launching a Beeminder competitor, http://pavlok.com )
I believe it. Which is why I only use namecheap.com for my searches.

F*%k GoDaddy. You too Bob Parsons.
Url changed from http://www.themarysue.com/google-made-with-code/, which points to this.