skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
saroshk, great points. However, I feel you don't understand our solution completely. First off, their is an inherent need for print-to-web solutions. This has been an obvious demand with technologies such as augmented reality, quick response codes and near field communication. This demand has been created mostly by marketers. The advancements in the algorithms that effect both Search Engine Optimization and Email is making marketing online a difficult thing.

This has created a push back over to direct marketing and self-promotion.

Our swivelCard platform isn't a solution for a USB drive. If that was the case, I'd agree completely with your comment. Our swivelCard platform is closing the gap on print-to-web compatibility issues. Globally only 1 in 5 people own a smart phone. Things like QR, NFC, AR, Evernote only provide a solution for a very small part of the problem. USB "PORTS" on the other hand are in abundance. This fact makes swivelCard the most universal solution for anyone looking to reach a large audience/demographic with a print-to-web solution.

I also wanted to touch on your point regarding "getting an email address". I agree, I doubt anyone would plug in a swivelCard to get someones email. To be honest, swivelCard makes an email address a moot point. I can take one swivelCard and assign it to you and give you direct access to my laptop via a screen share. Or I can take one swivelCard, attach it to a dropbox shared folder and share information with you that way. Yes, we could do that via an email, but I'm sure you and I both can agree in the world of sales (business) some people don't share their personal information (email).

You also mentioned "cloud based services". The idea behind cloud based platforms is to keep people connected to an experience. Almost all cloud based platforms can be shared through a simple URL. swivelCard lets you exploit this feature by simply copying and pasting that URL into any point of communication on the card. Meaning, I can take 200 swivelCards and attach them to 200 separate dropbox folders.

You are correct in regard to some of our existing customers like photographers and videographers. And they do use it to share their portfolios, but the more interesting use-case you haven't imagined. A photographer can actually use swivelCard as a cross-sell. Instead of including a CD with digital versions of client photos they can sell their personal business cards as a part of the photo packages.

When you stop thinking of swivelCard as a thumb drive and start thinking about what it really is, you'll understand it has limitless potential for sharing digital/cloud based solutions that are accessible by everyone.
I could be mistaken, but I think this is in regards to that post Sam Saffron wrote a few years back about getting SO to do Gen.2 garbage collection less often, and using static classes and structs were one of the ways that they fixed it.
As of about 2 years ago, Stack Exchange doesn't have Jeff onboard either.

http://blog.codinghorror.com/farewell-stack-exchange/
The Web Never Forgets: Persistent Tracking Mechanisms In The Wild
>If you are referring to a formal system, then the rest of your comment actually is correct. But even in mathematics itself, codifying proof in a formal system is quite rare and practiced only by logicians, certain subfields of CS, and a few early adopters. edit: And, far more to the point, most arguments aren't and can't be mathematical in nature.

I disagree with your premise. I believe that all arguments rest of the degree of truth of their premises, and formal methods are used to prove that the degree of truth in the conclusion springs from the degree of truth of the premises. That is definitional - there's nothing else that I would refer to as an argument. Informal fallacies are also formal fallacies, they're just a way of categorizing fallacies that are written in human language rather than mathematical language.

>The problem is that you're assuming arguments cost nothing -- in terms of money or effort -- to produce.

No, I'm not.

>Right, well, I claimed that a lot of marketing is argument construction. So yes, there are other aspects to most marketing as well. But argumentation is certainly part of it.

I'm only interested within this thread about the portion of marketing that is argument construction and analysis, and not in conflating argumentation with rhetoric, marketing, or propaganda. This is not to deny that those fields do use argumentation, along with the sciences, history, literature, theology, and all other fields.
Underscore.go
I actually really enjoyed Dr. Pulaski, but I'm pretty aware I'm in a small group on that one. She was just so damn surly, which I thought brought a nice contrast to the rest of the cast.
It worries me to see people describe Bitcoin as the "IP layer of payments." I have serious doubts about Bitcoin's ability to scale to a global audience. Transactions are too slow, the blockchain is too heavy, etc. I see Bitcoin in a very similar light to IPv4 and JavaScript: a good idea that escaped into the wild too quickly. And so we wind up piling hacks upon hacks to make up for the lack of a solid foundation, and it only gets harder to replace the current standard with a better alternative.
Oh the memories :D
>A lot of us have ended up in places where they have tried to force their beliefs on us

Really? I guess 'they' being less wrong enthusiasts. I'm honestly curious where as I have not come across this stuff much.
Another benefit: built-in physical activity.
>The use of the word "rational" apparently only applies to them so by criticizing LW, I assume that makes you irrational.

This is most of why LW has been pissed off about RationalWiki since it dared have an article about LW. They own that word, dammit.

(Now of course, it's because of an enormously popular article on one piece of LW's history. But it started really early.)
> "Operations teams should know by now how to handle DNSSEC" isn't a rebuttal to "DNSSEC is complex".

It's not meant to be. "Is it worse than comparable protocols? I would say no." is the argument. This is all a matter of personal opinions of course, but it's not more complicated than the TLS/CA system.

The operating procedures is modelled against regular DNS, on purpose, and should fit well into your existing workflow. But this all besides the point since the standard works and is in place all around the world.

> DNSCurve converges to the same protection DNSSEC provides

Please don't. This discussion has been had a million times on IETF mailing lists and I don't know why it keeps popping up. Perhaps djb has some sort of fan base out there who wants him to "win" some imaginary discussion.

No, DNSCurve is designed to secure your DNS questions and answers from prying eyes. DNSSEC is designed to authenticate and proof the extisting DNS system from tampering both by resolving and authoritative servers.

One of the early design goals of DNSSEC was to be backwards compatible with the existing DNS system, protocols and implementations.

Any divergence from these principles will be very difficult to get implemented. Any reason why DNSCurve or any other standard in the DNS space is without implementations should be sought here, not in a conspiracy.

> DNSCurve actually does something useful, and DNSSEC doesn't.

That's simply not true. DNSSEC is implemented around the world and solves a problem. If it is a useful problem or not depends on your point of view.

But there is no reason to come up with all these straw man arguments against a technical standard. Please join the relevant mailing lists and speak your mind in more technical terms instead. There is no cabal in your way, but you must be prepared to argue design goals, operating procedures, implementation, and Internet governance.

> "The CA system is worse" isn't a rebuttal to "DNSSEC/DANE gives the USG direct control of certificates"

That's not what I said.

No, DANE does not in any way give the US Government direct control over certificates. It does, however, make them dependent on the DNS root, which is administered by an organization indirectly appointed by the US Government.

However, that is not a problem given that the US Government has not much actual say over daily operations -- and even if they did, that would not be a practical attack vector due to the reasons laid out above.

"The CA system is worse" is a rebuttal to not doing anything. If you want the CA model gone, you need to get your TLSA records out there and you need to get them signed, now.

The reason for that is that there is no alternative. DNSCurve does not solve this problem. TACK does not solve this problem. No other system has support in any popular DNS software, and designing any contender takes ten years to get implementation, support and operations right.

Please keep attacking this problem, and please keep testing new ways to solve this. Not by rehashing old arguments against DNSSEC that has already been rebutted, but by embracing it and see what can be done better.
I am not sure why anyone would want to accept Bitcoin via Stripe

Same can be accomplished with Bitpay, who take 0% in fees with a 30$/month package (1% otherwise), they also pay into the bank the next business day unlike Stripe.
And they are also alot more open as to the types of businesses they accept.

Or hell one could directly accept bitcoin with bitcoind running locally or using the blockchain.info api and then converting bitcoins with Bitstamp (or just using the bitcoins to buy things, every day more and more places accept them!)

It is great seeing Stripe actually embracing new technologies but imho their current bitcoin "offering" is not great and they are picky as to who they do business with.

edit: ah typical HN fanboyism, vote down anything negative said about Stripe instead of addressing the points raised.
Any ideas on how technology could help?
Chattanooga offers residents lightning-quick connections, to telecoms' dismay
Some of they are free and some not. I will think a way of adding their licenses.
Which means providing a program or service that is meant to be invoked by non-root users, and will perform limited trusted behaviors on their behalf.

This is a feature request, not a security flaw. It's a pretty glaring gap that should be filled, but it's not a mistake.
Loving all the news redesigns lately, looks more like a paper and less like an advertisement.

Also, does anyone know why only parts of the Washington Post are redesigned? ex. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/18... vs http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/...
> There are plenty of consumer protections already in place to punish that kind of deception

And who's going to spot if the Uber app incorrectly calculates distances, skimming a couple bucks off each rider? This is why taxis have regulations for approved taximeters. That's an existing taxi regulation that clearly should also apply to Uber. Same as how scales used in trade have to be validated.
Heh _pmf_ , not everybody uses reddit.
I'm inclined to agree with adamors, any time a framework says you can plugin any templating engine, it's almost always more of a hassle than not. If you choose a templating engine that is not a first class citizen of the framework, you're often blocked from key features or functionality offered by the framework. Even if a third party library bridges the feature gap, that library often trails development of the framework or ends up unmaintained and outdated.

I also agree that it's disappointing Twig wasn't selected. It's syntax is incredibly common among templating engines so ramp up time for new developers is usually short - and once you get into the more complex features it's pretty dang cool.
I'm open to any location - no constraints whatsoever.
This is a dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8064153
Two companies, A and B, have a network connection between them. Packets flowing through this wire fall into three categories:

* Traffic for which both A and B are being paid by their respective customers
* Traffic for which A is being paid by the sender or recipient, but B is not paid
* Traffic for which B is being paid by the sender or recipient, but A is not paid

The latter two categories are called "transit"; that's when you carry packets between two parties, neither of which is directly your customer. There is an established tradition which says that if two companies set up a connection which carries transit, the flow of traffic across it should be balanced.

Currently, there is controversy over a large amount of traffic flowing like this:

Netflix -> Level 3 -> Verizon -> Consumers

For which the corresponding flow of dollars looks like this:

Netflix -> Level 3 Verizon <- Consumers

In the past, it has sometimes been difficult to frame peering in terms of who's paying who, so it was instead framed in terms of senders and recipients, rather than in terms of who's paying who. Verizon is trying to use this framing to say that Level 3 should pay them. But looking at the economics, it's clear that neither Level 3 nor Verizon should be paying the other, because each of them is already being paid for the traffic by their respective customers.
> The cost of inefficient code can be higher than you think. Efficient code stretches hardware further, reduces power usage, makes code easier for programmers to understand.

I'm curious what the reasoning is for "Efficient code ... makes code easier for programmers to understand". To my mind, efficient code (in this case, I assume coding to the hardware, as they mention elsewhere), has many benefits, but making it easier to understand is not one of them. A useful comment by the code may help, but that's not a result of efficient coding, that's a result of good commenting practice.
The things that obviously should have tests have tests. That means most of the things that touch money on our Careers product, and easily unit-testable features on the Core end (things with known inputs, e.g. flagging, our new top bar, etc), for most other things we just do a functionality test by hand and push it to our incubating site (formerly meta.stackoverflow, now meta.stackexchange).

You can look at reported bugs here: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bug -- it's pretty frequent, at least one every couple of hours or so. The last commit in our "Tests" project was 14 days ago, where as the last commit in the code base was 4 minutes ago.
I think it's the same question as whether someone cleaning their own toilet is "a cleaner" for the duration, on which I could go either way.

"There was plenty of mathematics before mathematics got to the point where we needed dedicated humans who spend their whole day computing things in a prescribed manner."

More to the point, there was plenty of useful application of mathematics before then. Which I certainly agree with. My point was that most (and possibly all?) early application of mathematics required computation.

My comment, though, was mostly agreeing with you - just picking apart a technicality to get at some tangential interesting questions.
I'm getting an SSL error: http://imgur.com/hArVCOU
My lawn isn't terribly big, maybe around 110 square meters and it's flat. The reel mower works fantastic and I use a battery powered string trimmer for the edges. I don't know how it would do on hills, probably fine if they weren't very steep.

I worked on a golf course when I was a kid and they used high dollar gas powered reel mowers on the putting greens and rotary mowers on the rest.

Reel mowers do really give a nice cleaner cut... particularly if the blade on your gas mower is a bit dull. They don't rip the top of the grass leaves like a rotary mower.

For $100 it might be worth experimenting. You may really enjoy using it. I know I do and wouldn't go back to a rotary mower. There is something fun about the way the reel slices the grass. Something like a paper cutter.
Nobody said the exact pricing of Uber should be regulated.
The move to Github is interesting. I'm wondering if this is harbinger of Codeplex's doom very soon.
Perhaps, but it's not necessarily "bad culture".

E.g women might culturally just prefer other jobs in the US compared to Singapore. If more women are into Biology or Math and less in IT or Physics in some country, it doesn't mean the said country's culture has to change to achieve 50-50 men/women in all professions.

The main issue is: what makes something a valid part of culture as opposed to a bad part of culture we need to change? Culture doesn't just grow from opression, but also from preferences, historical accidents, etc. Should we abolish Cosmopolitan and Men's Health and have everyone read the same magazine (say, Wired)?
Yeah, the Om beginner tutorial demos this in lighttable with clojurescript, it's pretty epic.

edit: https://github.com/swannodette/om/wiki/Basic-Tutorial
This is my favourite article about Bitcoin to date, and properly describes one of the main ideas I wish Bitcoin detractors would come around to. Bitcoin has a lot of problems as a unit of account and as a store of value, but that is not primarily what Satoshi was building (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf). Bitcoin is, and has always been, a medium of exchange first and foremost. It still has some shortcomings in that regard, but it is the closest thing we have to solving the trust issues of peer-to-peer exchange in a purely technical fashion.

Comparing Bitcoin addresses to the IP layer of the internet is brilliant. Something that the Bitcoin community has been a bit slow to accept is the idea that "peer-to-peer exchange" may be occurring at the corporate level rather than at the individual level for most people--it's hard to imagine a world where that isn't true due to the points outlined in the "Comparison to the card networks" part of this article. However as long as the corporate implementation is done in such a way that anyone could jump in as an individual if they wanted to bear their own risk, then we are still miles ahead of how the traditional financial system currently works ("net neutrality" for money).
Small Data NYC: Panel discussion on User Personalization, sponsored by Mozilla
Kinda, but the Reuters article provides more/actual information, compared to the other submission.
It's easy to use partial application to get rid of that problem: the type of the function node is:

node : String -> [Attribute] -> [CssProperty] -> [Html] -> Html

We could define a convenient function div, for example, with

div : [Attribute] - > [CssProperty] -> [Html] -> Html
div = node "div"

that would let us say "div [] [] [text "Hello world"]" instead of "node "div" [] [] [text "Hello world"]". Of course, this doesn't fix your problem with the empty brackets. This can be fixed with something like:

bareDiv : [Html] -> Html
bareDiv = div [] []

letting us do "bareDiv [text "Hello world"]"
>If you accept utilitarianism as the the reductive explanation of morality

... then LW ends up with Roko's Basilisk.

Really, you're using that as your answer to "I don't disagree with what you actually said, but your choice of analogy suggests that you believe that questions of morality are settled and have obvious, objective answers." You can prove anything if you first make it an axiom.

You can't seriously claim that utilitarianism accurately captures human moral intuitions. Variations on the Repugnant Conclusion occur immediately to anyone told about utilitarianism, and are discussed in first-year philosophy right there when utilitarianism is introduced.

LessWrong routinely has discussion articles showing some ridiculous or horrible consequence of utilitarianism. The usual failure mode is to go "look, this circumstance leads to a weird conclusion and that's very important!" and not "gosh, perhaps naive utilitarianism taken to an extreme misses something important."
CouchSurfing would be a better example of 'sharing economy'...
All "consumer" broadband prohibits sharing the in TOS, so to do this legally they'd need to buy some transit (which may still turn out to be cheaper, since almost all of the price of broadband pays for maintenance of the last mile, not bandwidth).
Pre-packed disaster bag with email reminders
ZenPayroll is looking for an EA to the CEO:
http://boards.greenhouse.io/zenpayroll/jobs/8618#.U81VG4BdXw...

You should join them!
I recently replaced my dead Toro with a Fiskars reel mower. It really does a great job, but if your lawn hasn't been mowed in a while, you may need to make some extra passes for your first cut.
>'Isn't that comparing apples to oranges?'

On another site, in another context, it probably would be, but here it's really presented as a contrast of scale-up versus scale-out - something the regular audience of highscalability will certainly grok.

In context...

'Stack Overflow still uses a scale-up strategy. No clouds in site. With their SQL Servers loaded with 384 GB of RAM and 2TB of SSD, AWS would cost a fortune. The cloud would also slow them down, making it harder to optimize and troubleshoot system issues. Plus, SO doesn’t need a horizontal scaling strategy. Large peak loads, where scaling out makes sense, hasn’t been a problem because they’ve been quite successful at sizing their system correctly.'

It's an acknowledgement of their relatively unique strategy and the short list of caveats that make it possible.
More specifically, I think it's due to long feature lists and multiple problem domains. I'm also thinking about in-house line-of-business software.
I have been looking for a good datepicker to use at work, this one seems to miss a few things: No i18n (for days and months), doesn't close if you reclick the input, and no "today" button.
Some, not all, two-part Star Trek episodes get remade as one ninety-minute thing, which might be what's causing that.
This is a great article. I found it recently and have been experimenting with the process this summer.
Python 101: An Intro to Pony ORM
The remade Battlestar Galactica series had one horrible episode: "Black Market". I think everyone agrees that it's not good. However, if I was a first time watcher and someone told me to skip it, I would not have done so. I guess I like to watch the entire show and form my own opinions.
LedisDB - Redis like database written in Go
The flip-side to that could be trying to bring the food to the fish so to speak. Github users are in their (perceived) target market.
Does have i18n. Just configure moment before using rome.
Thanks for the reply!

Interesting that the constness in `for each` caused confusion (did it offer a `mutable` opt-in, though?), would intuitively expect it to be the POLS behavior. I guess given that you were probably receiving feedback on that, I will take it as something to be acknowledged.

I can see the reference semantics point, in this context the difference from the lambdas seems to make more sense.

// Just to explore another avenue, again mostly out of curiosity :-), how realistic (from the impl. POV) would be to have value-semantic range-based `for` with _mandated_ copy elision whenever possible?

True about `std::for_each`, that's what I've referred to as the "allowance" for the mutable iterators, wasn't aware about the grouping being merely a historical artifact, though. I've always felt a bit dirty using it for mutation[1], it seems that maybe unnecessarily so :-)

// [1] -- perhaps due to the algorithm being specified in terms of the InputIterator concept; hm, that being said, I suppose that while it only guarantees that we can read (dereferenced) `it`, it doesn't say that `it` _itself_ has to be immutable (right?), so it could be that I should think of a better metaphor to internalize. How do you think about InputIterators?
Are there counter-examples of enormous, open platforms that escaped into the wild at just the right time? Because sure, IPv4 and JS have their problems, but it is impossible for me to conceive of an alternate universe where they were perfect at launch.
Please elaborate further. You've been alluding to that is a series of comments here. If it's too much for a reply do it in a blog post somewhere. You will find that people take reasonable arguments a lot more seriously.