skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, it is fairly pointless. However, they do mean something exact. You quantify the "within-group" variation not with standard deviations, but by measuring all individuals in a group and finding the endpoints.

So you find the tallest white person in the world and the shortest, and note that they differ in height by a number of feet. Then you measure the difference between the white height average and the Asian height average, and note that the difference is only a few centimeters. Wallah! Race doesn't matter. Most variation is within group.

Like I said, I chuckle a bit.
See, there goes that story-telling and thinking we're "the shit" again. Thanks for providing a concrete example.
> And sorry to nitpick, but nothing deflects light. Light is absorbed, transmitted, and emitted. If it is emitted in the direction from which it came, its called reflectance.

Sorry to nitpick even further, but IIUC the angle (not the direction) of reflection equals the angle (not direction) of incidence.
I think most of the Hackintosh community has probably tried Linux, at least in VMWware or Virtualbox. After all, it's much easier to install these days.

Setting up a Hackintosh now is kind of like installing Linux ~8 years ago. That spare system you have might work (if it's semi recent hardware, in this case), but you might never get the thing to boot. However, if you buy a system with a Hackintosh in mind, if you read the forums and do the research, you will in all likelihood not have any problems and be able to treat it as if it were a real Mac.

> would say it is much simpler to setup a nice Linux distro and make it look like a Mac...

I'm sorry but this is a pet peeve of mine, or at least it touches on one.

I ran Linux for ~8 years as my primary desktop. For most of that time I did not have a Windows machine. I used GNOME most of the time but also spent a lot of time in KDE and Enlightenment. I switched to OSX in '06 but I still install Linux every now and then to see where things are, and sometimes I pop by gnome-look or gnome themes sites to see what's going on there.

Point being, I have a lot of experience using Linux.

That said, you can maybe, maybe get Linux to the point where you can take a screenshot and it would pass as OSX to a casual OSX user. You can never, ever get Linux to the point where it would fool an OSX user for more than 2-3 seconds. Pretty much to the point where if they interact with the computer at all they'll know.

It's like throwing a camo tent over a tank and saying "look, the tank is invisible". It might not show up from 10k feet but anyone that gets near it is going to know it's not OSX, or think it's a very, very broken OSX system.

I've seen the blog posts about making GNOME look like OSX and they're insane. They put some crap ass GTK theme together, throw in cairo dock, tweak crap for 4 hours and say "look, it's just like OSX but Linux". No, it is not.

> I feel Linux is on par or somewhere not too far behind. Am I wrong here?

I don't think Linux can hold a candle to OSX, my opinion of course, except that the one app I've always wished OSX had is Tomboy... best "sticky notes" app ever.
A Libertarian-Progressive's view on Healthcare
I like dejb's theory! I'll have to give it some thought.
Then we'll make machines out of "human organic compounds" to exploit those processes.

We're machines. That we may not have made a machine of the same class ourselves is an implementation detail. Maybe a large one, but still not really an argument against making conscious intelligent machines. Biology can do it, sooner or later so can we.
How do you pitch consulting? What exactly do you consult? If I may ask.
I guess the question we're really asking is this: is the human brain a Universal Turing Machine? Everything we've learned so far points to yes (our study of neural networks has revealed a possible mathematical structure which is Turing Complete), therefore my vote is with the 'yay's.

P.S. I am an atheist, therefore I do not believe there is anything metaphysical about the human brain. Maybe there is something special about our mushy carbon structure -- doesn't matter. In that case, we'll just build our artificial brain with wetware. Hardware is hardware is hardware (and physics is physics). Eventually we'll get an artificial neural net as complex as our biological one. The real question is software...
Or Adobe Creative Suite
I still use Winamp. iTunes only gets some CPU time when I need to sync my IPod.
The problem with implementation as design is that the implementation can be imperfect (underspecified, overspecified, or just plain broken) and thus can result in a difference between intent ("what you wanted to say") to reality ("what you actually said").

Then you get into the curious scenario where people trying to implement something whose design document is an implementation (e.g., the Ruby programming language, IE 7 "compatibility" mode) have to reproduce everything in the implementation, even the bugs, to be consistent with the design.
Personally, I do not think a machine will ever be conscious. Machines will always be as dumb as a box of rocks and will need to be told what to do. A machine follows rules - maybe complicated rules, but rules nonetheless. I cannot conceive of a situation where a machine that has been programmed to listen and talk hears a person in the room pass gas and spontaneously laughs as humans do (unless it has been programmed to do so). Sorry, I'm just not buying it. That doesn't mean that your trying to make a computer be conscious isn't a good use of your time. You'll learn lots and maybe you'll prove me wrong.
When a Memcached instance goes under, all Diggs stored on that instance in the last N days disappear. Not the end of the world for this application, but very undesirable for most things. You could potentially "fall back"
to MySQL for this but a workable strategy for that probably isn't simple.

Further, step two is irrelevant. There's no way of knowing if a (article_id, friend_id) pair in memcached is from the most recent N days or whether it's been stuffed in due to a user being active. Therefore, searching the DB for older diggs is still necessary, and should take the exact same amount of load as if they weren't in memcached at all.

Memcached + MySQL makes great sense when the data set is small and simple. If all the content on the site fits within 1 GB you could probably easily push a hundred millions unique visitors a day. For an application like this, the relatively poor performance of MySQL and the inflexibility of Memcached cause problems.

It seems to me that using Cassandra, even in its current immature state, makes much more sense than the solution you're proposing.
Really? I use wine all the time with no problems, and vbox right-ctrl-f seems a pretty easy key combo!
It's the code that leverages user participation for added value.
I believe that the rock plays a symbolic role in the lives of entrepreneurs because these are the barriers that are erected on our journey, which are indeed stagnant, and potentially throw us off course or stop our momentum all together. Entrepreneurs who possess the WILL and DETERMINATION to see their idea to fruition will use the power of perseverance, just like the water, to surpass the rock, and have a profound impact in the world. With regards to your question, I do not think that the rock persevered because this is not its role....what do you think?
Agreed that iTunes is tries to do too much of everything and what I’ve noticed from Apple is that there is only the Apple way.

I do really like one feature in iTunes, the Genius playlist is great for people with very large libraries.

And now I have a dedicated device (iPhone) to play music. I only use iTunes to sync.
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide a compelling reason why those features shouldn't be in iTunes if you want to make this argument. "I don't need them" isn't good enough.

Is 88MB too much for you to download? Is it too much to store on your hard disk? Is that "Burn Disk" button in the bottom right when you're viewing a playlist too distracting? Is the UI hard to navigate now with all these features? Is the "Share on Facebook" contextual menu item getting in your way when you're trying to listen to music?

All of those things (and more) could be potential arguments against adding those features to iTunes. However, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of iTunes users would answer "no" to every one of those questions. Apple has done a great job of adding features to iTunes without sacrificing much usability at all. If you click the button that hides the Genius bar, then the main screen is still just a list of playlists on the left, and your music library in the main pane. Pretty simple.

Thousands of other people use and love those features. People love Macs because they don't need a separate application to burn CDs. Have you forgotten what a refreshing experience it is for a PC user to use a Mac for the first time and realize that it does everything they want out of the box?

Presenting users with a set of checkboxes during install is one of the worst things you could possibly do. That's a usability nightmare. It's like setting a trap for your users. How do they know which components they need? How can they be sure it will work if they don't install all the components? What if they choose incorrectly and want to install more components later? Is that possible? The lack of these types of installers is yet another breath of fresh air when you switch to Mac OS X. In most cases you just drag the app into your Applications folder.

Apple's applications need to work for ordinary people, not just techies. If you're going to accuse Apple of getting usability wrong, you better be a legitimate expert and have a compelling argument.
Acknowledge mistakes; fix broken process; communicate changes clearly: three straightforward steps that too many companies still haven't figured out yet. Fair play to 37signals for getting the message.
Do what you love and love what you do...I completely agree with your philosophy of not working with something you don’t like because I believe that one of the fundamental principles of opportunities is PASSION. Without passion, opportunities are not born!
I agree, this article hardly provided any useful information or anything relatively new. It hardly even discussed the hack of it.
I haven't had to pitch, for the most part, and that's definitely my weakness. I really suck at it.

One of the nice things about word-of-mouth growth is that people come to you, and they've already heard that you're good, so all they want to know is how much you cost and when you can come out.

For business mixers and the like, I have some pretty fancy business cards that cost me about $.80 apiece, but they've really paid for themselves in helping with that whole first impression thing.

I do I.T. consulting. In a nutshell, I'm one of the few guys that builds and administrates networks and computer systems, can recover data from drives (usually), clean up your nastiest viruses without formatting your drive, install and troubleshoot IP telephony, as well as do software development, reverse engineering, and all kinds of other stuff. Up until recently, I had days where I was a telephone technician for a couple of hours, a network admin for a couple of hours, and a programmer for the rest of the day. We've just started a new one-obligation-per-tech-per-day policy, so that's gotten a little easier.

I'm pretty much an affordable on-call I.T. department for anyone that needs one.

Hey, wait-a-minute: that's not a bad pitch! writes it down for later
Scientists Levitate Mice
Why not write a book that lets you create your own programming languge in javascript ??

That way you at least get something useful out of the exercise.

(Ducks)
> Sure it is, spam makes search less useful for users, keeping it out is most definitely a quality assurance issue.

Not exactly. Site X with text links on it is not (necessarily) less useful then a site with declared ads on it. The quality assurance issue is the effect these have on Google's ability to analyse the web. Google's way of preventing site X from doing this is by intimidating. They are not removing the site because it is so spamy that they don't want it on their search results (a case that is equivalent to HN deciding to ban a site). They are doing it because they want these sites to comply with some sort of practice. It is the publicity and threat of these penalties which are their 'raison d'etre.'

I have no problem at all with Google using whatever policies they want to make up the search results. Including kicking sites off. I do have a problem with Google threatening to do so in order to achieve some other goal.

> Which hurts Google's users as well, spam hurts us all, spam sucks. Google is correct here in removing sites which partake in such practices.

Perhaps. But it is doing so by exercising its power to shut down the internet (for that site) to enforce a standard. Google decided at some point that all paid links need to be marked in a special way. This is the standard for disclosure. They then use their power to enforce it.
The problem with your question is -- no one can agree on a precise definition of 'consciousness'. If you mean: "Can we get a machine that can act just as a human acts?", then I believe that yes we can.
How many 5-minute elevator rides have you taken? An elevator pitch should take 30 seconds or less.
How Facebook Beat MySpace: From College Dorm to Platform
I'd like to hear from a company that has done their research and now has interesting results--I don't want to be ping'd everytime a baby company has a wacky, untested theory and a need to generate buzz.

Tell me upfront that you will release this data so I can use it too, or pay for survey respondents like everyone else.

edit: toned down language.
If it is authoritative, then you would expect it would (eventually) get linked to, no?
I'm biased, but I think this sets the playbook for how your web startup should be handling security public relations:

* Don't play into security-scene drama

* Do welcome and endorse security researchers

* Don't scare your customers or box yourself in with technologists by being overly specific

* Do make it clear that web security is your main concern

* Don't hit people over the head with a 15 page security and privacy policy

* Do take 5 minutes to set expectations about handling security incidents and advisories, including a sketch of a response plan.
"Wouldn't you agree that it feels awfully "weird" to be a living, breathing human?"

From my perspective, being a computer would feel a lot weirder.

I think drastically spoken, feelings are just firing neurons. I don't think there is really anything special about (apart from the degree of complexity of the human body). If a computer has an algorithm that says

if(user hasn't typed anything for 14 days) lonely = true

then it has feelings, too. It might sound absurd, but only because it looks so simple. But imagine an enourmously complex program, and the information "lonely" trickles through it. There might be a routine somewhere

if lonely = true connect_irc_channel(#depression)

and so on and so on. From a certain level of complexity onwards, it won't be so obvious anymore, and we won't be able to prevent feeling that the computer really feels.
Edit: I meant "photoreceptors" not "chromophores".
i think a better approach would be to split it into separate apps: one for syncing with ipods and iphones, one for listening to music, one for browsing the itunes music store, and so on. all of them could use the same backend data store and xml description files.
Hungy, Hungry, Hungry.  Living with Prader-Willi Syndrome
Review My App: Shufflito
Shufflito is an app for the iPhone and iPod touch that does one thing: never plays the same song twice.

Here's a link to additional information:

http://www.gullicksonlaboratories.com/shufflito

...and here's a link to the app in iTunes:

http://bit.ly/3ELFEV

Let me know what you think!
I'll join your protest in my paper's lack of LaTeX; although I must admit that I've never felt or even considered anything I've ever published (for someone of higher academic seniority) a serious scientific contribution.

Nevertheless, shame on you for introducing the two following ideas in a complete sentence, Knuth's line terminating algorithm and Word's aesthetics. o_O As soon as my words are worth it, I swear to you that I will start investing my efforts into formatting my thoughts in a language as serious and beautiful as LaTeX. Until then Word is a wonderful canvas for finger-painting.
Is this the start of a new, more combative Red Hat?
That'd be crazy. I want to manage all my media from one spot. Think iTunes == media management.
I believe it's possible and will eventually happen.

I imagine through some randomness, or directed experiment, a piece of software will exist which will self-replicate and mutate... eventually evolving to some point of self-awareness.

Most likely we won't have deliberately created the AI. It'll just be through some random chance that it'll happen, much like how some random collisions of molecules formed "life" a few billion years ago.

Much like how life was formed on Earth, given enough time and material, the chance of AI emergence is bound to happen.
You can always double click on your .mp3 in your file system browser, no?
Except that if you were using a text file, you use different flags or turn it on or off on a per executable file basis checked on process start and would not have to re-parse the symlink every time you malloc something.
Waste of time, sorry. Didn't make it to the end, but does he say anything else than "there is no definition of consciousness"?
Github contest: Winning the bottle of Pappy
Amen. I've moved to Songbird for playing music on my Mac. It's not perfect, but I prefer it to iTunes. And there's nothing out there that's more compelling. I still use iTunes to sync my phone, but that's what I've come to see iTunes as - a store + a syncing platform, not a music player. There's a real market opportunity sitting there for a slim, slick music player on the Mac.
Aren't humans also differentiated from machines in that the latter are designed, while humans are not designed?

Machines are just an expression of humans' extended phenotypical effects on their environment.
I think if you charge more, you'll find that people become automatically more respectful of your time. You might also find that you deal less with difficult clients who prioritize "affordable" (i.e. dirt freaking cheap) over everything else, and as a result have a million problems which they expect you to solve for $20. ("What? That's a lot of money! I could get my brother's cousin in here for $15, its a generous offer!")
Considering we've already simulated the basic building blocks of our brain and understand all the basic molecules involved, I'd say that we already have a very strong indication that we can eventually have a machine conciseness similar to our own.

The only two physical process that we know of that are fundamentally impossible to compute with our computing model are quantum computations and chaotic systems. And for chaotic systems we most certainly can simulate them in a way that the output has all the correct properties as far as we know. It's more that we can't reliably do prediction in such systems due to finite precision.

The simple fact is that computers are already our superiors on many tasks. And those tasks are not simple either.
> What service? The one where they index your site at your cost so they have something to serve their users?

There is a trick to save you the obscene costs of being indexed -- simply make your robots.txt like so:
User-agent: Googlebot
Disallow: /
Do they have an express version of windows I can hack on?
2.6 Gigawatts powered by stimulus money
Humans have a connection with something larger than the universe? What does that even mean?

From the biological point of view, the simplest species is AS SUCCESSFUL as the most complex species, since both are still alive and procreating.

Why do humans have eternal significance? To whom?
Is that actually a quantifiable distinction? Does how something is constructed have any affect on it's properties? (assuming equivalent precision of the tools involved)

Building a car by hand versus building one with a modern robotic assembly line both yield the same output.
Cocoa with Love: Creating alpha masks from text on the iPhone and Mac
It doesn't, but then neither does the $149 model of Flip.
We are biological. So if we do it, it is really just a phenotypical expression of our genes.

Perhaps the disagreement is about when do machines (keeping in mind they're mechanical by definition) cross over to becoming more and more like biological entities (replication). And once they do, is it still coherent to think of them as machines as we use the term today. Or would we then think machines have been elevated to the biological level.
The problem is you have to believe what the computer tells you when it says it has consciousness.

(In the same way that I have to believe you when you say you have consciousness).
I wonder how much money and power it would take to build a human sized magnetic levitation chamber...
Evolution does not have a goal in mind.
http://contest.github.com/ no longer explains what the contest actually is/was.

Can someone summarize?
I don't want to be killed for asking this (I probably will get buried in seconds), but it's a legitimate question: isn't this precisely the reason why GPL is such a nice license for new projects?

If, say, vendor A, gave US$ 1 million to the OpenBSD project, vendor B could pick the improvements and incorporate in their own proprietary products for no cost, creating a competitive advantage unless the improvements are so narrow they only apply to A's products. If, however, vendor A donated the same amount to a GPL-licensed project, vendor B could not take unilateral benefit from the money invested and would have to either use the improvements from within another GPL-like product or not at all, effectively negating any competitive advantage it could acquire from A's investment.

I think the AT&T legal imbroglio had little to do to the comparative success of the GNU/Linux system.
Hmm, I think the primary thing that freerisk is looking to provide is a platform to allow people to easily build models and analysis on top of the financial data, and in turn, do interesting things to snuff out value through things like leaderboards, etc. Secwatch, on the other hand, just provides financial data, really.

That said, I think the world kinda needs more stuff like this: I think a big reason that people (on average) don't reason well about investments and the markets and all that is that, at large, its just out of reach.

But making it easy to people to plug in and build models, and in turn ranking the models in a useful way to help people see which ones are actually useful is a great start to really turning the web into a bit of a "distributed investment analyst" in the cloud, or something.

Needless to say, it wont be THAT useful without a richer set of data (ie: ticker prices, blah blah blah), but its something, at least.
Evolution is not directed by a consciousness, so you cannot loosely use the term "evolution" to describe the DEVELOPMENT of computer-based consciousness.

ADDED: but yes, extended phenotype and all that jazz.