skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A lot of opinions and subjectivity in the comments here.

This was a business to business transaction. What it said in the contract, and the jurisdiction that the contract fell under are about all that matter. Anyone in this business knows the grey area work for hire programming contracts fall under. (Depending on some legal opinions if it was "work-for-hire" it may be completely void as work-for-hire doesn't cover programming except under narrow cases.)

Here one party has publicly received a large sum of money. Lawyers will look favorably on that upon taking cases. The programmers who feel they were wronged can then decide, should we wait a while? Will the company get more funding or will they go out of business?

A worst case scenario would be that the original contract programmers are entitled to a large percentage of equity in this company. Whether or not the code is used today may not even matter.

Another lesson here is to be careful who you work with. Make sure they can accomplish what you expect. It should be damn evident pretty quick when a developer is producing poor code (if it isn't, you shouldn't be in tech.) If you bake defaulting in to your business model, be careful. Individuals and small businesses remember getting screwed far longer than faceless corporations who will just sell your debt to a collections agency.
That's just one of dimensions 7-10.
http://www.universetoday.com/48619/10-dimensions/
Neal Stephenson explores this line of questioning in a fun way in the novel Anathem.
Yes, true, but experiments can be repeated there also, perhaps using different methods to give more insight.
pretty well documented, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Halibut_(SSGN-587)#Special_...
I don't get along with most people I meet and their behaviour seems silly to me.

Like the cool guys at school back in the days.
Qrcode.js – Cross-browser QRCode Generator for JavaScript
In really simple terms, if either attack is possible, it potentially becomes easier to find the password. If either attack's implementation becomes slightly faster at finding the password than a full search of the key space, this makes cracking easier.

Collisions are the most practical method of attack on password hashes. If you develop a way to find collisions faster than an exhaustive search of the key space, you shorten the time it takes to find a password that matches the hash. Collisions have now been found on MD5 very quickly (on the order of hours).

Preimage attacks are not all that useful when password cracking because you don't need to generate a new message that hashes to the same hash you have now, you're looking for any message that hashes to the hash you have now.

Second preimage attacks aren't relevant because they assume you know the password already and are looking for a new message/hash that match.
It's notions on time and space are naive.

To ask what's before beginning of time is akin to asking what is the point more southern point of earth than the Southern pole. Answer is there is none.

In a place where space doesn't exist you wouldn't notice it not existing. Probably because you wouldn't exist as well.
Wow. My foot is in my mouth. I absolutely love this tool!

(Should have guessed how your algorithm works based on the "companies you want to be like" section...)

Definitely sharing this!
Credit to Google for creating such a powerful ecosystem and wresting increasing control of it. Amazing how the "open source" Android operating system has so many controls attached to it by Google.

So we're now at a point where they have control over the code that lands on ~80% of smartphones, they control the app ecosystem that most rely on for it, they control most of the data including default search etc. that comes from the use of it and the control only grows more powerful every day. As Android gets bigger, devs cannot ignore it and thus are forced to play in their garden.

More disturbing, perhaps to some, is that Google's business is built on advertising which is fueled by your personal data. Unlike Apple, Blackberry, Microsoft, etc. they don't make money off the product (your phone), they make money off of you (the user). They are playing a completely different game than the other device manufacturers and the implications of them winning are pretty serious.
True, but it's like lemon laws for cars. If your new car isn't reliable, you're entitled to a refund.

Yeah, there's no law that applies in this instance, but I do sympathize with the company if the code really was subpar. There are a lot of bad developers out there, and for someone who doesn't program it's very difficult to avoid them.
This could be an attempt to get a running proof of concept and then trying to minimize the cost of that proof of concept after the fact. It would be curious how much the investors knew about these events.
No apology is necessary, this has always been a topic of interest for me. I am glad to educate myself, I learned a lot from searching and reading.

You should be entitled to a copy of anything you signed, this is not up for negotiation and no review should be needed. If you are quitting, I suggest you get an exit interview, and negotiate a fat severance package. They are not entitled to keep you from practicing your livelihood.
The war's been over a while now, and it resulted in some high-profile leadership changes. This is just further evidence of a new direction.
Yes, but why would you need an infinite amount of elapsed time to get infinity time?
Google's lawyers are right.

You seem to be claiming that you only have a problem with this common phrase being used in a certain context, but unfortunately for your trademark, it is exactly that context in which the usage is especially common.

Far from not acknowledging that point, Cooley, the Google legal firm, deals with it head on. As they say in their letter: "The phrase is particularly common in the online marketing and advertising context..." They then go on to provide references to some of the countless examples.

The lesson here is be careful what you ask your lawyers to do for you. Some lawyers will do anything legal you want, even if it's a bad idea. A bad lawyer might file a trademark on the word "the" used in a certain context... if the client is willing to pay. That doesn't mean the trademark is defendable, even if it does manage to get past the hurdle of being granted.
Having been involved in the ground system verification of this system, there are indeed a whole bunch of params that can be tweaked, but these are LARGE anomolies.
Why is the ESA still using Russian rockets? After the recent showing of the Russian Proton-M blowing up all the time (including taking out Europe's AM4R sat) its asinine they keep using Russian designs to do this.

They have alternatives with their own Ariane rocket and US rockets. Maybe its time they started not using the lowest bidder and went for quality instead. How many man hours were lost just now? Just incredible.

Also, I wouldn't put it past the Putin regime to do a black-ops on these Soyuz designs to weaken Galileo to give their GLONASS system a huge competitive advantage.
An In-Depth Guide to Website Speed Optimization
There's actually already a public forum for this type of dispute. It's called a court room.
This reminds me of trying to localize yourself using a very narrow field of vision, where you see things but it's hard to paint the picture of the environment

(It may even be possible that the person has some kind of shortsightedness, I didn't see the article)
Want to shed U.S. citizenship? Get in line
* Don't stiff people, ever.

* Don't renege on agreements.

* Don't play hardball with bit players.

* Don't ask for refunds on contract work.

You biffed it[1]. Suck it up, pay the guy his money, apologize for being a douche (maybe ask for a public acknowledgement of him receiving his money even), move on.

[1] A good way to properly manage this sort of thing is to have milestones, on each milestone, evaluate the contract for a terminate/no-terminate point; if it's terminate, pay what's owed up to that point and tie the relationship off. Which, by the way, is not uncommon advice on the internet.
My limited experience of disputing a PayPal transaction was exactly the opposite (i.e. I was the buyer).
You are completely missing the plot.

First, forget liquidation preferences. $20 million is a drop in the bucket to Kleiner. This funding is not concerned with downside; as the post clearly explains, it's designed to manufacture leverage to the upside. Note that leverage isn't exclusive to Snapchat; the name of the game is perpetuating and promoting the market dynamic of arguably insane valuations.

Second, if this was convertible debt, it wouldn't be pegged to a valuation. The use of late stage convertible debt is typical when the funding would be dilutive and the company needs a bridge to its next round of funding. You often see existing (and not new) investors do late stage convertible deals because they're less concerned with valuation and maximizing their stake. Kleiner, as far as I know, is a new investor in Snapchat, and having raised well over $100 million in the past year and a half, I doubt very much that Snapchat needs a bridge.
The Cisco IOS operating system includes TCL scripting as well.
> Not quite. As information they [negative results] are much, much weaker.

No, that is false, and further, it distorts entire fields. In psychology, for example, phony mental illnesses like Asperger's become established as real things only because of all the positive results, not accompanied by an equal number of negative ones that were never published.

And in drug therapies, many drugs are validated and sold only because there are only positive published results. In one correction to this trend, the FDA funded a study in which all studies of a given class of drugs -- published and unpublished -- were analyzed in a meta-analysis. The result was that the statistical results fell below clinical significance for the majority of subjects:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj...

"Drug–placebo differences increased as a function of initial severity, rising from virtually no difference at moderate levels of initial depression to a relatively small difference for patients with very severe depression, reaching conventional criteria for clinical significance only for patients at the upper end of the very severely depressed category."
A company does not always need to sell at higher valuation for an investor to earn profit. It may be very possible to invest in SnapChat at $10B valuation and still rip a benefit if they sell for $2B.
> As a professional consideration, I won't be using any of your services

Considering their product is to help prison inmates communicate -- I hope none of us get to use their services!
This is an interesting read on the subject: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
I recently read Robert J Sawyer's "WWW Trilogy", in which the main character has her blindness cured via technology [not a spoiler; reader knows this going into the first book].

The main character's acclimation to and approach to sight throughout the trilogy was interesting, and I recommend in view of this article.
That's definitely fair, and its one of the main reasons I try explaining to non-tech friends why many (not all) of these valuations are complete and utter BS - they are options, not real equity purchases (note: some companies with $multi-B valuations are only selling common equity - those are closer to being real). Ironically, this is especially true of smaller startups that are raising at $100-$200M valuations - the fundementals don't uphold that valuation, and the "sell to Google / Yahoo / FB" approach only works for a few (and is a lot harder than the $10M acquihire.
Inside One of the World's Largest Bitcoin Mines
"A zipping comes across the sky."

Good allusion, and I didn't even like that damn book!
This is reminiscent of what Engage.io was trying to do with its popular conversations feature before it shut down. I like the fact it focuses on tech conversations rather than conversations in general, there's so much more value to me in pre-filtering the content to a vertical I'm interested rather than trying to be everything for everyone. Great job, it's immediately engaging.
TL;DR Quora is NOT Q&A. Quora = Wikipedia lite
The interview tends towards scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism), "the belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints" or methods, for example the historical method.

As a result, Rovelli ventures outside his circle of competence when he views Christianity as a set of "written-down beliefs" disconnected from actual historical events.

In fact, for someone interested in ancient history, the primary and secondary sources for understanding the historical origin of Christianity tell a remarkably different story, namely that there is a very strong connection between the historical person of Christ and the people that followed him. Specifically, that these people followed him on the basis of his historical person, his death and resurrection, of which they were fully convinced, often at great personal cost.

As Paul of Tarsus said under trial, being someone who had previously physically persecuted the early Christians: "Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?"

For Paul, it was not a question of probability or "how often does this happen every day" (which would be frequentism), but of historical happening, did it happen? He, like Thomas, would not follow the risen Christ unless he saw him himself, and this is what he (according to the sources), amongst others, claimed to have happened. So that Christians today (as with Christians then) are Christians on the basis of their understanding and acceptance of the historicity and meaning of the events concerning Christ. For Paul's own words, and a remarkable piece of ancient history, see his letter to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 15:3-9.

Note also that our knowledge of Christ as an actual historical person is not limited to the writings of those that followed him and were devoted to him.

For a good introduction to the historical method and its application to Christ, see Paul Barnett, historian, "Jesus and the Logic of History": http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-History-Studies-Biblical-Theolog...
No, most of the money doesn't go back into the Valley. It goes into the financial services industry and it stays there. Forever.
> Anyone want to join me in starting a Null Results Journal?

Nice thought, but there's already the JIR, the Journal of Irreproducibe Results:

http://www.jir.com/
That was such an amazing article. I still remember how long that story and how engaging it was. IIRC that issue of wired was like 20 pages thicker than the rest. Somewhere Stephenson talked about being grateful to Wired for not cutting it down to a 6k length. I still tell people the part about the library of Alexandria interconnect.

Great story about the internet's adolescence.
Top 5 Awesome Strapless Bras You Can Get This Summer
Indeed.
Check http://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/
I think since HN has lot of talk is about startups and building a buisines its relevant. I live in this state and its been astonishing how these employees basically went on strike to support the CEO.

How many coders would do that for their CEO?

At its core its a story of 2 cousins control of a company and showing that doing the right thing by employees pays off in the long run. Arthur T who the company tried to get rid of by all accounts did right the employees, when he got let go employees feared new management would end up treating them badly and rebelled.

Tons of free publicity for the chain, which is a smaller one in the Northeast.
It's a press release, not a post-mortem. Its only purpose is to inform the public of what they know with confidence.
Great initiative.

This one is a classic as well: What Goes Around Comes Around (Michael Stonebraker, Joseph M. Hellerstein) – http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.113....

"This paper provides a summary of 35 years of data model proposals, grouped into 9 different eras. We discuss the proposals of each era, and show that there are only a few basic data modeling ideas, and most have been around a long time."
4 Simple Ways to Make Your Hashtags Work Overtime
> That's great. I audited hundreds if implementations that sucked. The different is that those developers still got paid.

Say you go get your car fixed. It breaks down as you drive out. There are 3 other garages right next door who all look at your car and say you shouldn't put gum to plug a hole in the fuel pipe. Would you demand a refund? Of course you would, you went for a professional service and you didn't get what you were paying for.

> The bottom line here is that you really have no idea about technology.

He shouldn't have to. When someone says they can write you some code for money, they should be able sort everything out for you. If they can't provide what they said they would, can you honest expect people to pay? You shouldn't have to be technically proficient to get someone to write some simple custom software for you. Just like you shouldn't have to know all the ins and outs of plumbing not to get ripped off by a plumber.
The course Design of Everyday Things is short. There are around 5 short videos is each of the three sections, but there are exercises too.
Apache Software Foundation Now Accepts Bitcoin Donations
Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V
Mom and pop investors who own facebook stock in their retirement accounts paid $2B to VCs for Oculus VR.

I don't second guess Mark Zuckerberg, as that is a consistently losing bet. That being said, there is no reason the price should have been $2B. The frothy prices, mean that a $100M company was priced at $2B and that dumped a lot of money from Mom and Pop to VCs.
The prior poster lamented the absence of validated theory in the social sciences. Your point is that many of the theories that do exist have no validity. I think those views dovetail.
Assuming that your idea is reasonable, then there could be a lot of value.

What if I am a researcher who has a similar idea and is saved 6 months testing because of your work? Or what if I read it and see that some of it is valuable and look into a related area.

Of course, if there is a tremendous amount of research published on, say, how to make a perpetual motion device, I can see how that could waste people's time.
$250 for the paper copy? Really?
It already happened. Samsung smart phones have supported GLONASS for >2 years.
I'm just curious if anyone has insight into how this is economical. Is it economical with current bitcoin prices, or only if prices go up?
No, for two existing reasons; the satellite has no capability for on orbit refueling, there is no rocket available to do that.

In this situation, an on-orbit refueling capability and a tug, a ship which can pick things up and change their orbit, and refuel itself would be worth the cost of these satellites because it would take currently unusable satellites and turn them into usable ones. Not clear what the salvage rights in space are yet.

United Launch Associates (ULA) has some great work they have done on making a practical on-orbit refuelling capability but nobody has stepped up to pay for it. This is something I am hoping SpaceX will do. Elon is the type of person who might fund that on the expectation of making back the investment in saving satellites. [1]

[1] I would charge the satellite insurer 1/2 the value of the satellite to put it into its proper orbit. Which saves the insurer from paying out the full amount.
Why Aren't Women Advancing at Work? Ask a Transgender Person
Go interfaces are great, but channels are also an awesome construct for creating testable code.

Here's a simple example similar to something I wrote yesterday:

type CloudClient interface {
StartInstance() (string, error)
TerminateInstance(string) error
}

Given this interface, I can easily create a reusable mock that uses a channel to simulate method calls:

type MockCloudClient struct {
Returns chan interface{}
}

func (c *MockCloudClient) StartInstance() (string, error) {
value := <-c.Returns

if err, ok := value.(error); ok {
return nil, err
}

return value.(string), nil
}

func (c *MockCloudClient) StopInstance(id string) error {
value := <-c.Returns

if err, ok := value.(error); ok {
return err
}

return nil
}

I can then use the mock to test various aspects of a dependent struct creating nice readable test code:

func TestStartServiceSuccess(t *testing.T) {
client := &MockCloudClient{make(chan interface{}, 1)}
service := Service(&client)

// simulate successfull startup
client.Returns <- "instance id"

err := service.Start()
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}

if service.InstanceId == "instance id" {
t.Fatal("expected 'instance id' was '%v'", service.InstanceId)
}

client.Returns <- nil

err := Service.Stop()
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
}

func TestStartServiceFailed(t *testing.T) {
client := &MockCloudClient{make(chan interface{}, 1)}
service := Service(&client)

// simulate un-successfull startup
client.Returns <- errors.New("start instance failed")

err := service.Start()
if err == nil {
t.Fatal("service started succesfully")
}

if err.String() != "start instance failed" {
t.Fatal("expected 'start instance failed' was '%v'", err)
}
}

As you can see the channel allows me to easily inject return values through the mock.

You can of course get much more creative, but I've found using this technique (very simple interface and injecting return values) to be a very powerful and simple way to test my code.
Why No One's Cracked Mobile E-Commerce Yet
Nearly, but just to nitpick, you're not including randomness, you're actively making a choice to make the resulting pattern difficult to distinguish from randomness. So, sometimes you raise by a large amount because you have a strong hand. You don't want other players to be identify that you have a strong hand by the fact that you just offered a large raise, so you have to also bluff sometimes, raising when you really don't have the cards. Your actions are not random, but they are perceived as random by the other players.
wow, how does anyone get anything done in that country! Compare it to the asian countries that work 16 hour days....
Yes, free. I don't even know what additional features you can buy, I just use the free app.
Linked by ALBA-1[0], which apparently is carrying public traffic since early last year[1], although everything in Cuba is highly restricted and filtered by the state. Worth reading the Wiki article[2]

[0] http://submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/alba-1

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/22/us-cuba-internet-i...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Cuba
I doubt that a camera would be practical though, the slot for the pod would need to provide illumination and the camera lens would need to be positioned far enough away from the pod so that it could focus on the logo printed on top of it. The camera would need to be of a relatively high resolution, which would be expensive, otherwise competitors could print artwork which is not the trademarked logo but which does fool the machine into recognising it.
Hey guys, check this out
It's really only the last mile that makes a difference.
> Entanglement, while not causing a breakdown in causuality, doesn't really obey it either.

If you think this, you don't understand entanglement (which is understandable because the popular press does an abysmal job of explaining it, as do many physicists).

Entanglement and measurement are the same phenomenon. Measurement is nothing more than macroscopic entanglement. See:

http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf
Do you consider an 85 megabyte configuration parser to be minimal?
Question: Why don't founders control valuation if it is exceeding what they believe to be the true value of their company?
Totally awesome. But can't buy the wall map until they fix the "asterix" typo!