skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you tweet to your enemy "I'm gonna use my orbital laser to incinerate you from space, so that you're wiped clean off the map!" Your enemy will not be actually, literally scared. Because your threat is obviously imaginary. You do not have a space laser, and anyway few people have ever been incinerated by space lasers at all.

If you tweet to your enemy "I'm gonna toss a molotov through your window while you sleep, so that you and your family are cooked alive", they might be legitimately scared. Because that threat is not obviously imaginary. It could feasibly happen, and it is exactly the kind of thing that has been done by hate groups before.

So a threat only becomes a Threat when, in context, it's sufficiently plausible.

That context is key. The plausibility of a threat changes based on who makes the threat, and whom they threaten. If a misogynistic troll on the internet says that he's going to rape me (a man), I can pretty easily laugh it off. I feel safe in assuming the troll is a hetero-male, and therefore probably has little interest in actually raping me, and besides there's relatively little precedent for guys like me being stalked and raped by weirdos.

If the troll says the same thing to a woman, it's interpreted differently. Very many women are raped in our society, it is a constant real fear. And it's not at all unbelievable that a weirdo might seek to stalk and rape a woman he's become obsessed with. Rare, sure. But real enough to be scary.

Point being, yes both men and women are threatened with rape. But while to men it's obviously just an especially colorful way of expressing hatred, to women it can constitute a real and serious threat.
GraphDB: At Last, the Meaningful Database [pdf]
Also I'd probably suggest one uses xfs, or some other file system that won't run out of inodes :)
At least MS/Google will thank humans for enriching their proprietary knowledge graphs / semantic webs. It may take a few more years for people to realize why they need "personal algos" as much as "personal computing devices". Humans can then feed delectable metadata to their private algos, in addition to feeding large public spiders.
I study astrophysics, so I won't be able to say much about SUSY or string theories or conformal field theories. I do agree that we're living in a golden age of physics! But your second and third points, inflation and SUSY-- those are definitely not confirmed. In fact, the primordial gravitational waves from BICEP2 are almost certainly dust contamination signal (e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5857). The discovery of supersymmetric particles would also be extremely shocking to me, since my institution is heavily involved in CERN LHC experiments, and I haven't heard any hints of a discovery yet. Perhaps you know something that I don't!
Rising Star Anthony Bruno Releases His First Music Video
> There are plenty of others to pick from, too.

If you want to try out lots of different window managers, the LinuxBBQ distro Cream [0] has 76 different window managers installed.

[0] http://linuxbbq.org/cream.html
Having been stuck working with a couple Windows 8.1 servers, through remote desktop from a mouseless linux box, I can confirm that Windows has got surprisingly usable without a mouse. IMO, though, my ratpoison setup still beats it by miles (at least for my work flows).
Your answer made me realize that any really good advice on the subject had a lot of chances of not being posted…
Your "Investment Grade Beanie Babies" are crucial to the Silicon Valley ecosystem right now.

When these carefully orchestrated valuation maneuvers meet liquidity (and in a lot of cases some liquidity comes pre-IPO), a lot of the money is invested back into the Valley. Those with it become angel investors and limited partners in venture funds, or start and fund their own companies, perpetuating the cycle.

This in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but anybody living and working in Silicon Valley should contemplate what will happen when the music stops. Even if you're just an average engineer with no real exposure on the equity side, less capital chasing opportunity will lead to fewer startups, and less heavily funded startups. Fewer startups competing for talent will mean fewer jobs and downward pressure on wages. Obviously, major companies like Google and Facebook aren't going anywhere any time soon, but the $1xx,000/year early-stage startup jobs are going to be harder to find, especially at the junior end of the market, and the days of being able to jump from six-figure job at unsustainable startup to six-figure job at unsustainable startup in a matter of a few days or weeks will be a thing of the past for most.

This could happen two months from now; it could happen two years from now. But it will happen. Given the valuations we're seeing and the increasing difficulty with which the Fed is maintaining the status quo, I think one has to be prepared for the possibility that we're closer to the end of the cycle than we are to the beginning.
Compile time never trumps best practice.
The problem I have with that argument is that the original post said there were multiple payments that were all reversed later. If the code was so bad, why wasn't the developer terminated much earlier? Doesn't multiple payments normally imply that multiple milestones were hit (i.e. deliverables accepted)?
You used his code in some respects even if it wasn't in the final product.

If nothing more, then you knew what not to do or what was difficult to do.

Regardless, you probably should have paid him.

It all depends on the nature of the contract. If it was for services and not for a completed project, then you absolutely needed to pay him. If it was for a completed and usable product, then you didn't have to pay him.

Regardless, people here will think twice about working for you.
Fan Expo – Behind the Best Cosplay Costumes
"This is a really useful distinction to draw (in many ways it's more important than when the two types support different methods, because it's easier to get the two confused), and as far as I can see would be completely impossible in Go."

Per jbooth, it literally couldn't be easier (three characters shorter than Haskell even!), and I'm also not sure what this has to do with what I said, since I was talking about accidentally implementing interfaces and you're talking about deriving new types that you then do not add any methods to.

"Implementing the same kind of injection by multiply-inheriting in a traditional OO language isn't as crazy as that article seems to think - in fact, it's exactly how the cake pattern works in Scala."

First, it's my article. Second, based on my admittedly quick reading of http://www.cakesolutions.net/teamblogs/2011/12/19/cake-patte..., it looks an awful lot like Scala is doing the same thing Go is here, declaring a set of interfaces (called "traits" in this case) that one thing implements, not actually multiply inheriting. "Multiple inheritance" is a particular thing, not a vague word salad phrase.

"Again, I really think this is just culture. If you write Java the way you write Go - ignore the JavaBean conventions, don't abstract things that don't need to be abstracted - you end up with very similar code."

I'm really not convinced. Given the large number of distinct Java cultures that have arisen, surely at least one of them would have valued simple code by now. The fact that none seems to have, and the fact that I can trace the differences between Go and Java that would lead one to conclude that Java is fundamentally a more paperwork-heavy language, it is still very easy for me to believe that Go is a fundamentally simpler language.

And yes, that evidence tends to extend to pretty much every other language too. It would probably be more accurate to say that Java is a fundamentally verbose language, which shouldn't exactly scan as some sort of wild claim, after nearly two decades of massive, massive collective experience with it. Java has been the thing that all the other languages that value conciseness have compared themselves to for a long time for a reason.
Where to find Ruby developers to hire, online and off
Powering the World’s Poorer Economies: A Response to Bill Gates and Jigar Shah
Do you not have to start off with a set of axioms though? Assumptions that will never be proven?
ion3 is one of the tools that you start to appreciate only after you use it for some time and you can't just explain it by enumerating features. Because alone those features don't sound that impressive and distinct. But it's the combination that matters.
"From SMTP filters/routers that handle millions of email deliveries a week to in-memory message journaling (for redundancy) that handle hundreds of transactions per second."

I stopped right there. To me, high performance is for instance, handling millions of emails per minute, thousands or tenth of thousand TPS. This is high performance, real life performance, not seen only in "physic labs and university research centers".

Some comments talk about Tcl using select. If this is true, it would mean a max of 1024 connections in parallel, kind of sad...
It reminds me of Techmeme in a way. If you could group together stories that are alike (e.g. all of the Apple September 9th ones) and link to each discussion, it would be rather interesting (compared to Techmeme which focuses on all the authoritative sources discussing something, not communities like HN or Reddit).
It doesn't appear to be a quote from Schopenhauer, but a quote from an essay "Schopenhauer and Buddhism" by Peter Abelson.[1]

[1]http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/peter2.htm
Where's the "dump"?
The point was that an $8 billion valuation for a company with no revenue model is insane, and that this deal has been structured in such a way as to help inflate talked-about valuation numbers to those heights.

The structure of the deal is less central to that argument. If it's convertible debt, does that really matter if the point is lost on most people? If the point of inflating the valuation is hype, then who cares how it's structured.
12 graph drawing libraries render the same graphs side by side
Why not? It generates HTML which may have all the browser incompatibility issues a programmer can fit into a PHP file (replace with your favourite web language).
You can use Godel's proof to show that a physics model based on space, time and causality can not exmplain those. And that if there is one that explains those, it must be based on some other set of concepts, that it can not explain.

Yet, realism is in a completely different level. You can not reason about it using mathematical constructs. (Too bad that's the only tool we have.)
Paypal nearly always sides with the buyer. If it's a service, even more so.
Aphex Twin – Syro Listening
Bitcoin Pioneer and First Bitcoin Recipient Hal Finney Passes Away
Well, this is a much complicated problem. You need to answer at least following questions:

- what is your utility of finding a treasure and not getting killed?

- what is your utility of not finding a treasure and not getting killed?

- does the other tribe know your utility distributions?

I'm pretty sure there's a solution to this that involves probability and fixed points but does not involve flipping a coin to chose a road.
This seems like a terrible forum for both the original complaint and this response. There doesn't seem to be any good that can come for either side or the HN community.
This seems like a nearly content free article. Aside from the planned and actual orbits and the dates involved there doesn't seem to be much actual information here.

TL;DR: Something got screwed up during the deployment of the satellites, they're in the wrong orbits but stable, no danger to public, no clue what got screwed up.
If someone random had written this, I would have just dismissed this as yet another pseudoscientific idiot.

Now, since it is written by Schopenhaur, I feel it is in order to say that same thing, but with more words.

>Thus, for anything to be empirically real, it must be spatial, temporal, and causal.

I disagree with this. Entanglement, while not causing a breakdown in causuality, doesn't really obey it either. I would still consider it very real.

>Yet space, time, and causality cannot be proven to be empirically real themselves!

Well ok, with you definition of "real" they may not be. So?

>In the first case, there would have to be something 'outside' space, a metaspace, which is an absurd notion;

Ok, first I disagree that there would have to be something outside. And second I disagree that that would be an absurd notion. And third I disagree that it really matters at all. A scientist would switch viewpoint depending on which would be most convinient for the task at hand. Same as people use a coordinate system based that makes a problem the easiest to solve.

>but in the second case it could never be differentiated of anything and would therefore have no identity.

I'm not really sure what he is saying here, but I note that I could differentiate a metaspace from an apple. I don't really see why the lack of an identity (whatever that means) would be a significant problem.

>If time is finite, there would have to be something 'before' and 'after' it,

Eh, just no.

>but if it is infinite, it would take an eternity to arrive at the present moment, which therefore could never come about.

This is a little bit tricky. There are two different notions of infinity we need to distinguish. The first is two points in time with an infinity distance between them. The second is a backwards infinite ray.
Ordinary coordinate systems have the second kind of infinity and work just fine. This is the kind Schopenhaur is talking about. The first type of infinity is more uncommon, but there is nothing in principle saying we can't have that either.

>Finite causality would enhance an unimaginable 'first cause'

That says more about his imagination than the it does about the universe.
If you own property in the SF Bay area that you purchased or mortgaged at current valuations, you're definitely exposed there.
free texts by Barber and MacKay: http://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1jeawf/mach...

_________

course lecture notes: http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~tpminka/courses/10-602/schedule...

https://stat.duke.edu/~st118/sta250/

_____________

texts by Kruschke in R and Gelman/Carlin/Stern et al

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/book/

http://www.r-bloggers.com/first-impressions-of-doing-bayesia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuronal_Recycling_Hypothesis
It doesn't matter how much money you leave in there. Do you have a CC on file or bank account, they might charge it, and even if you don't have paypal might not allow you to do any more business using their platform until all is cleared and you paid if the charge-back goes through in the client's favor.
ALS Association Files Trademarks for “Ice Bucket Challenge”
If you ask for a refund, I think you do not own anymore the work of the "bad developer". If pigeonly platform has anything in common with the "bad code", you have a copyright problem. I think you should have asked a partial refund in order to keep property of the work done.
WORLD WAR 3
It's not "we need to keep compile time down to seconds, therefore configure in the source"; it's "compile time is seconds (if that), so there's not much difference between configuring in the source and configuring in a file except complexity". One part of the motivation for the best practice you cite is that compiling can be complicated and take a long time, and configuration changes should be quick. This is a solid argument against that portion of the motivation. Following practices because they are known as best practices when the motivations for those practices don't apply has another name - cargo culting.

Edited to add: Which is not to say that this best practice should be simply discarded, but to say that the appropriate response is to point to the other motivations for it and determine whether they are more important than the upsides of configuring in the source.
> I suspect there is less value in null proving a lot of social science hypotheses

Yes, but that applies equally to proving positive social science results. My point wasn't to compare social science to other sciences, it was only to point out the value of replicating null results in general -- that it stands equal to replicating positive results.

> if I prove, because my empirical work says so, that discourse can be meaningfully (for a given value of meaningful...) analysed in a new way, that's great, and will advance some other work. But proving (even repeatedly) that it can't be won't really change anything, imo.

Both findings have equal weight, therefore both findings deserve equal attention from replicators. By contrast, ignoring null results is a disaster for whatever science they occur in -- it may mean that other people might spend a lot of time spinning their wheels studying things that have already been found wanting.
If you define security failure as "keeping things from your parents", ya I suppose that might qualify.

However, when all it takes is someone deciding they want to copy the picture and spread it...I think it results in a dangerous situation where the "customer" thinks its secure/safe but the reality is it isn't. I've seen so much damage caused by that sort of event that I take the idea that people consider such things "secure" or "private" offensive.
Did Microsoft help seed the market for Windows Store scam apps?
Conversely this is why space mining is kind of a big deal. If we could get large quantities of pretty much anything that works as a propellant without launch costs, that would change a lot of things.
Either one of you is in wrong or lying. And I don't know which of you.

Doing some observations. pigeon.ly is layout is html5. The illuminatikarate.com is html4 on wordpress. Pigeon.ly is neatly made bootstrap -powered responsive website, whereas the IK website isn't. But this is just the face-value of the websites. I'd still expect a good web dev to have good, accessible, modern websites though.

This is interesting but the information about this all is inconclusive. I can see that Frederick was wise to answer to this post. It's more obvious now that that the claims haven't been backed up by anything.
I don't play poker, but from what I understand, the reason for including randomness in your decision is to throw your opponents off. I.e. You're playing against people who try to predict your behavior, so you throw in a random component to make it harder for them.

In decisions not involving active adversaries, deciding at random doesn't give you anything over a deterministic solution.
You seem to be missing the premise of the argument. You're right that they hedge the downside on this individual deal, but the point is that the upside for this individual deal is still small for KPCB. So why would they do it? Not because they're expecting an upside on that deal, but because inflating the valuation of a darling at a low cost will create a frothier overall valuation market for their portfolio.
My apologies for having you search. I thought the original post made it clear I am not using the exact term. They are "reviewing" the agreement is last I heard and that was more than a month ago.
> In light of the defamatory nature of the poster’s statements, I felt compelled to respond.

Useless filler.

> Our agreement with the poster makes it clear that we own all work product produced pursuant to the agreement.

Again, useless filler. You own the work and they need their money for work in question.

> I consulted with several independent sources including a founding member of the CakePHP project

That's great. I audited hundreds if implementations that sucked. The different is that those developers still got paid.

It's your fault for not knowing what you are doing and not having another source involved earlier in the process to make sure things are going smoothly.

Also, you are showing your lack of experience. Project was 2 years long (multiple CakePHP releases, I bet?) ofcourse people will say it's outdated and written poorly.

You are also working with a low level agency (no offense) and then get the code reviewed by 'founding member of X', what do you expect? Are you even serious here?

> So we were left with no choice but to start from scratch with a new developer.

Let me audit that code, I'm 100% sure it will not be up to /my/ standards. Will you fire the developer and sue him for the salary you paid?

> The bottom line here is that through hard work and determination,

The bottom line here is that you really have no idea about technology.
My self-contained Tmux configuration
Is it better to start a business with nothing or with millions? [article]
KSP is really really good for this stuff. I never really grokked orbital mechanics till I played it, but a lot of the weirdness of how space missions are designed makes perfect sense once you have an actual feel for how orbits react to velocity changes.
Google tests airborne drones to deliver goods
They are, but it's not because they have bank accounts.
Proposal Software – Quote Roller
I agree, great tutorials. I was also wondering the same thing about Bitbucket.
75% of Ikeas Catalog is computer generated
Saw a loading animation for 5 seconds and almost left. There's no reason for a static/informational landing page to have a loading animation. Your assets aren't massive except for this one: http://travelbutler.net/images/bg-2.png

You should make that a JPEG and play with the quality level. You could probably get that down to a few hundred KB.
Right and that incompleteness will leave you taking hours to do what should be done in minutes because you're digging through the source code.

/said as someone who's had to do that with multiple libraries :(
Like other comments, I wish, that unlike your accusers, you would not engage on the same level of public mudslinging as it will hurt you professionally.

That said, there is a significant difference between paying someone and getting a refund, and not paying altogether.

A better recourse would have been to go to court to get your payment back, and have independent professionals (as you already did yourself) grade the work completed. Note that in these cases the software is graded by its "peers" (average programmers), meaning that if the work is deemed "barely" acceptable, you will not see your money back.

I hope you the best on this issue and also hope that hackernews will not be used as a platform for legal/code-theft arbitration in the future.
Totally agree... also.. government run banks make it difficult to get loans than private banks.. and even to this date older people tend to stay away from private banks because of hidden charges and surprises.
Exactly - this is devolution [1], in a money==power kind of argument. By giving money with no questions asked to an individual on an account with very few restrictions and fees (these banks are publicly run, not private), and increasing the ability for the poor to pay each other, you have devolved power to them and away from corrupt middle-men.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution
Yes, that resembles a now-famous suggestion by a Nobel Prizewinner with respect to psychological research:

http://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychol...

Title: "Nobel laureate challenges psychologists to clean up their act"

Quote: "For all these reasons, right or wrong, your field is now the poster child for doubts about the integrity of psychological research. Your problem is not with the few people who have actively challenged the validity of some priming results. It is with the much larger population of colleagues who in the past accepted your surprising results as facts when they were published. ... My reason for writing this letter is that I see a train wreck looming."