skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
thePlatform - Client Integration Engineer - New York, NY (Area) - Local only, work from home.

thePlatform helps some of the world’s largest media companies manage and publish their video content online. Some of our customers include SyFy, Fox Sports Network, NBC Sports, National Geographic, the Travel Channel, Oxygen and more. As an independent subsidiary of Comcast, we enjoy the benefits of a relationship with a large company while maintaining keeping the agility of a startup.

This position will be filled remotely in New York City, and will report to the Manager of Integration Engineers in Seattle, WA.

thePlatform offers competitive compensation and spectacular benefits typically seen only at very large organizations, including free cable, internet and an employee stock purchase plan, due to our company’s association with Comcast. Please visit our Careers page to learn more about our culture and benefits. www.thePlatform.com

We're looking for someone with a development background and account management skills.

Responsibilities:

* Develop and code custom Groovy scripts according to the customers ingest requirements.
* Develop and code custom Java/.NET projects using thePlatform API's to meet various customer application needs.
* Seamless project management through all phases of the customer relationship - coordinating with the customer, account manager, technical resources, and support personnel.
* Communicating regularly with the customer to evaluate satisfaction and proactively identify upcoming needs.
* Coordinating with technical personnel as needed to meet customer needs, while managing customer expectations to prevent overload or missed deadlines.
* Formal routing of customer requests to engineering, sales or support as needed.
* Communication to the customer regarding new features and releases of thePlatform services.
* Documentation of current customer practices.
* Travel: 5-10%

Requirements:

* 3+ years experience in professional services or technical project management.
* Experience with a variety of web development technologies such as DHTML, JavaScript, XML, REST.
* Knowledge and ability to develop in .Net (C#) or Java.
* Technical understanding of Web Services, current trends in the mobile and broadband marketplace.
* Energized by making customers happy and successful.
* Ability to understand the customer and to anticipate future needs and help determine the ideal solution for issues.
* Phenomenal communication skills are a must for this job.
* Steadfast and calm in explosive situations.
* Ability to multitask effectively.

Feel free to contact me at matan.bareket [at] theplatform.com
I appreciate your comment.
I made those statements particularly to try and evoke a different perspective, they do not reflect how I view/value the monkey in the grand scheme of things. I think what can happen in arguments like this is that people let personal feelings/compassion cloud their judgement. Where does that slippery scale end? What if it was a dolphin that took the picture? A dog? A reptile? A single-cell organism?

Yes, some of those examples are absurd, but they are all non-human organic life forms. Are we saying the more "personable" animals should be extended some human-like copyright rights because we can relate to them in some manner? (the Pulp Fiction conversation about "filthy animals" pops in my head here).

You talk about licensing money, but who would set the licensing fee, collect that fee, and then apply it? I could easily see that becoming a method for lawyers to strip human photographers of copyrights in certain cases and then suck up the majority of the licensing fee for "administrative purposes".

I think the monkey is "cute". I think this is a very interesting case. I do not think legal precedent is on the side of wikipedia. I do not think this is by any means a common enough problem (or will become so) that we need to have exception cases for photographs where the shutter release was pressed by non-human living organisms.
played perfectly on Firefox (Win8.1 Firefox 31.0) for me, I think Chrome is just a suggestion.
Agreed. It's an excellent photo regardless of who took it.
Wikimedia Foundation is wrong. The photo belongs to the owner of the camera who captured the photo. This, of course, would be a total different issue if the operator of the camera was human.
What is "creating the circumstances" ? The airline company that made the trip possible ? The company building the camera ? The upset wife that sent her husband away (probably not relevant here) ?

Would a burglar taken by surveillance camera be creating those circumstances ?

Clearly he's not involved in the monkey taking the pictures. He has no right to them.
Our idea is to make this messaging format into an actionable messaging protocol as flexible as possible so that it can be used in many contexts.
And there's data protection law that might come into play.
Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goitrogen makes the same claims, but has a long list of indicted veggies, with notably missing/broken sources.

raw mushrooms and raw spinach are certainly popular...
The presentation was really well done, it kept my attention and the interactivity helped make their points.
Pretty sure monkeys don't have legal guardians in the same way human children do.
I tried to research this topic further, but the Wikipedia pages about copyright makes no mention of monkeys.
Douschebaggery!
How do you compare it to an aeropress?
I just looked this up in the PubMed biomedical literature database and there aren't many studies that correlate the goitrogenic activity of cabbages, et al., to human thyroid activity.

What's the impact of having kale juice once a day for a year? What if we simply consume extra iodine? Send links to papers if you have any primary references.
Unfortunately you may to be right. Nearly everything is gpg encrypted, and the massive 33gb zip is a password protected acronis true image file. So far all I have found that isn't encrypted is the web framework (posted on github) and a bunch of marketing documents.
If you have a healthy thyroid, raw kale is fine. Similarly, if you have healthy kidneys the amount of oxalates in raw kale or spinach shouldn't be a problem.

So tired of hearing this nonsense from people who read a few blog posts instead of asking their doctor.
> What is "creating the circumstances" ?

I would define it as "exercising the most volition that leads to producing the outcome". Not sure how the law would actually define it.

EDIT - Thought experiment: If a photographer spends days constructing all the elements of a shot (including subject, lighting, and camera settings), and, seeing that he/she is about to hit the shutter button, a passerby sneaks up behind the photographer and taps the button before the photographer, would the photo's copyright go to the passerby? What if the photographer had intended to wait a few more seconds before hitting the button? You could argue that the photographer had no intention to take the picture right at that (early) moment, but clearly (to me anyway), the photographer is still the author of the photo because he/she brought together all the elements - not because they simply hit the shutter release button.
If I were to claim that I had copyright of the photo, would that prohibit David Slater from using it until the courts had settled things? It is absolutely Wikipedia's prerogative to use a photo they believe they are entitled to use. Now, they do lose the DMCA safe harbor exemption by not complying, but that only matters if a court should hold that they're guilty of copyright infringement.
Clarifying the class of physical phenomena which are considered legally able to hold copyright does sound like a foundational inquiry.

But I would not have expected a donation to Wikimedia to be put toward it.
Let us rectify the insult to broccoli.
So does the Cow own the Milk?
Is it only a question of whether the monkey had creative agency in taking the photo? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems possible to say that neither the human nor monkey did.

If there were no monkey involved and the picture were taken on my camera by pure chance, can I still claim copyright on it as a photographer? Say I set the camera down, walk away, and a bug in the firmware causes it to start shooting pictures. Or maybe a rock falls from a nearby cliff and just happens to bounce off the shutter button. Is there a precedent for copyright in those instances?
http://www.blogcdn.com/travel.aol.co.uk/media/2013/01/323ng1...

My understanding is that this image was captured by a camera trigger that was setup National Geographic photographer (Sorry, I'm unsure the name). This has been a highly published photo by National Geographic; does this mean that the tiger should be owed all the royalties and not the photographer?
We are talking about aspects of a human-created and arbitrated legal system. All these rules and such are essentially designed to revolve around how we treat and compensate each other.

Monkeys have no concept or participation in this legal system in the same way you wouldn't find two dogs arguing about how to handle a human sniffing their asses and who is the "dominant" one in that case.

We as a society have decided to give certain protections and recognitions to humans who are too young and/or too mentally disabled to participate in this system at the "full" level. Presumably we have decided this because we choose to recognize all humans as equal and applicable to receive a certain level of inalienable rights.

Most of our laws that relate to non-humans (animals) treat them as a form of property or otherwise seem to indicate we have no explicit desire to grant them the same rights and protections as actual humans. This could change with legal precedent, but the general consensus (IMO) is not on the side of wikipedias arbitrary ruling.
Ask HN: Is this a good app launch strategy?
After the launches of Haze, Thunderspace and Windy went quite well, I wanted to try something new for the next app: http://getsunnyapp.com

Previously, this was my mobile app marketing strategy in condensed form:

1) Create great app so there's something that's easy to pitch. Keep it secret. Test in small groups.

2) Submit to Apple for review. Simultaneously work on the landing page. Once approved, keep it hidden from the public and pitch a secret URL to selected members of the media 7 days prior to launch.

This time I released a hopefully cool enough teaser page to get the public excited about the app in advance. The idea is that the page itself provides value, so visitors come back and eventually arrive at the updated landing page once the app is available on the App Store.

One thing I tried to avoid was to give away too much details upfront, so the media does get a head-start prior to launch as usual.

Though the question is: What do you think? Am I crazy to change my launch strategy after 3 hits? Should I stick to it or quickly remove all traces to that page until the app is available on the App Store? If you were a writer or editor, how would you feel about leaking this demo in advance?
Definitely interesting, but it's unfortunately not very accessible; much of the information is only conveyed through the audio, and the video doesn't have any subtitles or a transcript.
That makes sense. The reason I like symmetrically discarding privacy is that I don't think retaining privacy is viable. I am not suggesting we discard all privacy, just that whenever we discard privacy, we do so symmetrically. This will still result in a power imbalance, but there will be some accountability.
If you would like a simple environment to play with p5.js right now, I've created a simple template in Plunker: http://plnkr.co/edit/tpl:ElV3rt?p=preview

Have fun and great job on the library!
Why the down votes here? Strange considering I was complimentary about the service. Maybe my "Not too sure it's something I'd feel comfortable using" was misunderstood (in which case - comment when you down vote). I meant that sharing a taxi with strangers doesn't personally appeal to me.
It's cool. Great to have this spirit, keep going.

Feedback:
The editor currently starts up showing an empty function. Would be nice to add a line of code in there for instant gratification of seeing something draw from code right away.

Shouldn’t have to explicitly call createCanvas() for simple apps. Why not do it by default to match the current window size?

Can’t get the editor to refresh without stopping and starting, I assume that’s a beta issue?
I wanted to mention that you can install Scratch 2.0 offline—it runs as an Adobe Air app. See http://scratch.mit.edu/scratch2download/

The offline editor also lets you import extensions, which means that if you're adventurous, you can hook up Scratch to your NXT, your Arduino, your LEAP Motion, your Sphero, your Kinect, anything. That should be pretty exciting for new coders. A friend of mine's speaking about this at the Scratch conference now-ish.
I took a small dose of mushrooms in the woods awhile back. Definitely one of the best and most memorable experiences of my life.

I would do it again no question.

YMMV though...
Complying with a DMCA request isn't legally mandated, it simply shields the provider from liability.
Well, a 16 oz bottle of juiced kale is a lot of kale! I've seen people having 2-3 of those a day. It's not precise science to know how much extra iodine to consume, I think. Raw kale is known for ages to make livestock sick. Either Dr. Fuhrman or Dr. Weil recommended that the best way to take full advantage of kale is to blend it, let it sit for 10 minutes, and then put it in a soup or another cooked meal.
Pop News, As Gorgeous as Pinterest
I'd pay $30 to know I couldn't accidentally wipe my laptop by pressing the spacebar on boot.
The NPR article[1] gives some more information on what it is. Apparently, it's ultrasonic piezoelectric charging. My guess is that it's using a resonance frequency approach to vibrate the crystals.

1: http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139854129/young-entrepreneur-h...
tag this [2012]
The monkey is a non-economic actor. She does not even need to be included in the equation.

The photographer was the sole driving force in bringing the image to the human marketplace. He is the last link in the chain that is even capable of exercising ownership over the image. His equipment was at risk while in macaque hands. His judgement culled the hundreds of unfocused, uncomposed, or otherwise useless images. He probably did post-production work on the photo to make the colors look right in varying presentation media.

There is just no way--if you believe in copyright at all, that is--that the copyright on the photo is not 100% vested in David Slater. If he had any reason to believe he could not personally profit from putting additional work into macaque selfies and publishing them to a human audience, every last one would be deleted, to make room on the card for something that might pay the rent.

Besides that, unilaterally declaring it to be public domain just doesn't satisfy the "don't be a dick" rule.

Here's a hypothetical. Slater, instead of rigging the shutter button to take still photos, sets it up to start a video recording on the first press, then to apply a frame marker to the video for every subsequent press. Before allowing the macaque to take the camera, he starts the video recording. Upon retrieving the recording, he then deletes all frames that would not be usable as a still photo. By the "shutter button" standard, he owns the copyright.

If rephrasing the technical aspects of the creation scenario results in different copyrights, your criterion is too flimsy to be used as a copyright guideline. Clearly, the "shutter button" standard is bullshit, especially given that any monkey can push a button.

My criterion is that the market would never have had access to the image at all, were it not for Slater bringing it forth as trade goods. Therefore, I name him owner of the original photo, and from that, allow him the right to enforce exclusivity and license any copies, as permitted by established copyright law.

The monkey, being non-human, and a non-participant in human markets, is not competent to hold ownership over anything. It has no specific rights to its own likeness, or to any of its own creations. Original ownership of property derives from the act of making something available for trade, even if no price is specified, and in respecting the trade offers of others. Wikimedia Foundation really needs to rein in its own troop of button-pushing yard-apes before lawyers get involved.
I think it may be to avoid any political/legal issues - despite the patents having expired, MIPS still sells ISA licenses. On the other hand, RISC-V basically is most of MIPS (but most RISC ISAs are very similar anyway).

They also avoided the patented instruction issue completely by removing all alignment restrictions from the regular load/store; probably a good idea, with memory bandwidths being the bottleneck now and buses growing wider - the extra hardware is also negligible, basically a barrel shifter and logic to do an extra bus cycle if needed.
If you care about jpeg size you're probably already using a build/preprocessing system on your assets. This is just another tool in the chain.
Came here to post this - seems like a great deal.
Since this article is 2 years old, the follow up is that China's Supreme Court has ruled in favor of AMSC, but the lawsuits are still bouncing around Chinese courts:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-19/china-supreme-court...
Why not just use Gedit or Geany or any of the other many free software text editors available on Linux?
I saw a 5 station pourover coffee robot at Maker faire: http://youtu.be/8X8gQ9gmfDI

The creators intend to sell it to coffee shops, but I can't remember what it was called.
I think the AllSeen Alliance is trying to do something similar with AllJoyn (https://allseenalliance.org/developer-resources/alljoyn-open...). They want to create a standard communication protocol across a variety of devices and operating systems. Currently they only support mobile devices and computers, but I think their overall goal is to support everything.
Which muddies that particular example, but the spirit of the example is unaddressed. For example, if a human adult with no understanding of what a camera is or what the act of taking a picture entails[1] took the picture by accident, would they not deserve the rights?

1: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140403-brazi...
David J Slater isn't a camera-rental company though: he's someone that earns a living from travelling to exotic locations and pointing his camera at wildlife in compelling situations and then processing the image before selling it as his creative output. The difference being, in this case, the wildlife participated a little more than usual in that creative process by pressing the shutter button.

The situation is a lot more analogous to a celebrity inadvertently taking a selfie in a scuffle with a paparazzo; the celebrity is the intended object of interest and inadvertently triggers a composition far more interesting than the paparazzo's original concept, but the paparazzo was there with the intent of making a creative work. I'm not sure whether any sort of legal precedent exists for that, but I'd be surprised if legal arguments the paparazzo was too creatively uninvolved to have any say in the image distribution rights were positively received.
This looks great, although on first glance seems that the new GL implementation is a new library, not an extension of Leaflet.

I think that's a mistake — Leaflet is solid and is the foundation on which a lot of extensions are built, to the point where my impression is that it's pretty much the de facto JS-based map widget these days.

While the new library looks decent, I don't see the point of creating a brand new library rather than extending Leaflet, other than to force clients to couple tightly to Mapbox's API, tile server etc.
And more from Michael Batty* along the same lines: http://www.spatialcomplexity.info/archives/2138

*Michael Batty: urban planner, geographer who has written extensively on computational urban modelling.
I like the concept, but it feels a little more "cute" to me right now than "very useful".

For example, information is given to me that people bought or sold a stock, but not why: which means I don't know if it is appropriate for me to do the same. It feels a little bit like taking advice on trading stocks from people who can't really give that advice.

I would love to be able to find people based on their year over year performance, and the diversification of their portfolio: Someone with small amounts of lots of different stocks who is doing better than the S&P500 might be useful to follow, but most of the people I followed are doing worse than the S&P500, and are poorly diversified, because I couldn't choose them based on performance.
Little late to the party, ey?
> If you can come up with an economic model which will support developers doing the hard work of producing something with a well-thought-out user experience, feel free to suggest it. Do you know of any besides targeted advertising or corporate sponsorship?

Don't be lazy. There are many many many many many projects that thrive with _zero_ cash flow, of which many are found in ChromeOS already. There is no reason for there to be a single drop of proprietary software on a laptop besides the user opting for it.

I'm going to hijack this comment to add that your opinion that money is the only reason to develop software is one of the worst things to ever happen to computing. If creativity and desire to help the world isn't enough for you, pass the torch to somebody else, because they will do a better job.
After reading about it in "Modernist Cuisine at Home", I picked up the Toddy[1] cold brew device.

My wife and I both love the results. It comes with 2 filters, which last for about 10 batches each. Each batch takes 12-24 hours in produce in the fridge. We consume it in about a week.

The downside to the Toddy is that it is basically a carafe with a big plastic bucket. When done brewing, you put the carafe in the fridge and store the brewing "bucket". A friend of mine has the Hario[2] -- it is a much more attractive unit, and as an all-in-one you can keep the entire device in the fridge. When it is time to order replacement filters for the Toddy, I think I'm going to pick up the Hario instead and give that a try.

Either way -- the quality of the coffee has been fantastic. Super easy to brew, and really nice having it already ready to go in the morning when we are rushing out the door.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Toddy-T2N-Cold-Brew-System/dp/B0006H0J...

[2] http://www.amazon.com/Hario-MCPN-14B-Water-Coffee-1000ml/dp/...
Hmmm... I think "healthy" is very relative and Google is planning to put all its powers to determine exactly what that means. How about not relying on something so subjective and just do a little extra effort to cook the problematic foods?
Ask HN: What software is used for those realistic product renderings?
The ones were people make up concept images of what they think the iWatch or iPhone 6 potentially would look like. The more realistic kind.
Traditionally, there is no such thing as "stealing knowledge", and to the extreme, there is old saying about stealing books is not real theft.

IP law was enacted quite recently, heck, even the rule of law itself (as opposed to rule of men) was fairly recent transformation of the society. I feel this wikipedia entry describe it fairly well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_culture#Chinese_legal_cu....

So yes, IP and patents carry no where near the level of respect as United States or similar countries.