skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So when the parent here says males genetically have less self-restraint, that's a fair point, but when https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8338135 says women are genetically subservient, your response is "Wow, you're off the rails"

I'm not saying I agree that women have a ~subservient nature~, just that the way comments ended up being laid out really struck me.
OP said they "wouldn't let their users export their photos" which is different from archiving other users' photos. It is an issue but it's a different issue IMO. I don't think that pretending it's the same issue helps.
Google: Rupert Murdoch is accusing us of eating his hamster
Not sure exactly, I was copying this comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35143
> Or downvoting as they have done with my comment.

That's because nobody came to this thread because they wanted to read your meta-discussion.
The psychological attraction towards retrofitting a formative experience of failure into an indicator of innate unique value does indeed seem irresistible. Which is a good reason to be suspicious of it; it's a meme that has evolved countermeasures to all of reason's defenses.

I did terribly in school, by the way.
It doesn't surprise me that there would be a different result at the high school level and the college level. Most people are more invested in their education when they enter college, especially at elite schools like Harvard and MIT.
Diet soda is better than fat soda. Better train yourself to drink plain soda water (if you like carbonation) or just tap water.
Will Airbnb let you sign up as a corporation?
That certainly used to be an attitude Y Combinator had (http://old.ycombinator.com/noidea.html), although it sounds like that didn't work out. Paul Graham's essays also perennially mention that the people are far more important than the ideas ("Another sign of how little the initial idea is worth is the number of startups that change their plan en route.", "What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people"), but it might be that I've been projecting too much of PG's views onto YC as a whole.

It makes a lot of sense to me that the idea would absolutely be key, which is why I've always been a bit suspect of the "people >> ideas" attitude. Not to say that the team isn't the more important piece, but I'm suspicious of the idea that a great team will usually gravitate towards a good business, left to their own devices.
It sounds like your implied argument is that boys do worse than girls in school because school is derived from 19th century military training. That doesn't sound right.

(I'm reading more into your comment than you actually said, I know; maybe you're just making a tangential point).
But DNS is cached; to some degree you're getting a free CDN when you do this.
I say this as someone with fairly little experience with chess, and even less exposure to competitive chess.

This article did a poor job at quickly explaining enough of what feat was amazing and why to keep me interested.

After skimming the rest of the article (past where it lost my attention), it seems to jump randomly through both the biographies of the players in the tournament and of historical players who weren't even present at the tournament.

Was this amazing because of the high overall ranking of the players? Because that would strike me as profoundly un-amazing. Pitting the world's best in a sport against each other is fairly common, is that not the case in chess?
وظائف جريدة الاهرام الجمعة 19/9/2014
> This is true only if you use a specific sociological definition of "sexism", which is absolutely not to be equivocated with the one in common vernacular.

I think you mean "equate". "Equivocate" means something quite different.
I think you didn't read the article carefully. We don't need more people doing the same stuff. We need people willing to waste all their cash to BUILD something from new discoveries.

Earlier new technologies used to be priced sky-high. Now cost benefit analysis is the only thing that matters.
We won't be getting cars that drive themselves because the future is walking and bicycles. There is not the energy. The future does not involve hundreds of millions of people bringing a ton of steel everywhere with them, self driving or electric or otherwise. There simply won't be the joules. Personally I'm excited for it.

The oil, natgas, and coal are rapidly running out. The shale/fracking thing is an accounting fraud on the verge of blowing up, if you happen to think that's a real answer. None of the outfits involved actually turn a real profit on energy production. Renewables are largely a scam based on government subsidy. Existing nuclear technologies are also a scam based on government liability indemnities. Also, the fissile material situation is pretty dicey going forward.

The techno fantasy future is going to fade away in the coming decades and we're going to confront real resource and energy limits that change our way of life to something more resembling that of our ancestors.
Very much. It's in the UK's best interest to have an answer to questions about the Pound ASAP; the bond markets will accept no excuses. I'd be very surprised if any of the major points (Pound, Trident, Debt etc) were still undecided by Christmas (given a Yes vote).
Actually there might soon be a plane mich faster than the concorde. We have mobile phones. We will soon have efficient green energy. We may have the first "star in a bottle" which I am REALLY ARRAID OF and so forth.

And anyway what's wong with incremental improvements across the board? Just look at medicine, and life expectancy!
Man, if they'd just add fax they'd have basically every possible telephonic service there is.
It's certainly not a totally new attempt. But as a former journalist turned tech marketer, it's pretty fascinating. Especially the illustration of earnings announcement (pretty formulaic, but with SEC sensitivities... wow). A while back I saw a study from Medill (Northwestern) about how robots were writing newspaper style sports game stories -- also fascinating, but I don't know any sports fans that read game stories any more.
I agree, though I do think EverQuest was more popular in the public image, I remember when it was mentioned in the movie "The New Guy" and I was like, whoa!
This has been covered ad nauseum elsewhere in the financial press, but you're assuming Yahoo pays zero corporate taxes on its sale of Alibaba shares. That's not how the world works. You need to deduct something like 40% from the value of the "Cash from Alibaba sale" and "Value of remaining Alibaba stock" and probably also "Value of Yahoo Japan stock". My bet is if you do that, you'll come up with a number that makes sense given Yahoo's market price.
Larry Page Wants to Build a Super-Efficient Airport
That doesn't make sense. The technology is new. The laws aren't. Residency requirements and hotel licensing rules are something any small-town lawyer billing $150 an hour could educate a startup on.
The Disruption Myth
I'd like to think they preserved her scalp / kept it in circulation and returned it to its position, but I have no idea if skin can be kept alive across this surface. Maybe that's what those holes in the printed piece are about, though? Or are you concerned that even with skin on top it'd alter the appearance due to different subsurface scattering?

Edit: Some additional info (note the English captions): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXcz3OdHSHk
>>Finally, the middle class has had its collective face ripped off by the Satanic Trinity (housing, healthcare, tuition costs). Things that used to be comparable to utility bills are now life-wrecking constraints and, because no one has any fucking savings anymore, entrepreneurship is at an all-time low.

This is why unconditional basic income is an absolute necessity, in my opinion. It's the only way to save the middle class.

If every individual received $1,000 per month from the government, they could start working part-time and have much more time and energy left for creative pursuits, including entrepreneurial endeavors.

As things stand though, most brilliant minds work for (and are wage-slaves of) corporations and all their work does is enrich the people at the top.
Yeah, and the good thing about ng-if compared to ng-show is that it removes the elements from DOM, rather than just hiding them, which is better for large datasets.
Isn't that just how technology works? We've technically had the Internet since the 1960s, but it has grown and developed and changed enough that the Internet we had in the 1960s wasn't really what we'd call "the Internet" today (the world wide web). It takes a long time for anything to go from the first time someone hacked together a semi-functioning prototype to widespread adoption, especially when it's the 0 to 1 type of innovation Thiel is so fond of.

Who is to say there are no technologies that are now in their infancy that won't reach widespread adoption 40 years from now? Who is to say what's in its infancy today won't be just as impressive or groundbreaking as what was in its infancy 40 years ago?
How Apple Pay will make more money for apps – and save developer time
Everquest's designers have credited MUDs as the primary inspiration, I believe. I wish I had a reference, but they one of the creators of a big MUD (Diku I think) was considering litigation at the time :)

I think MUDs are sort of the genesis of most multiplayer online games, but there is some seed in BBS Doors as well (Legend of the Red Dragon etc...) that had some multi-player persistence.

Besides that, obviously pen and paper RPGs as well as fantasy adventure games (Kings Quest etc...) played a role in influencing all of these games.
There are still a lot of tax questions. Some explanation:

http://online.barrons.com/news/articles/SB521330210524938232...

> Investors now value Yahoo on a sum-of-the-parts basis. The core business could be worth $8 a share and its cash and Yahoo! Japan stake could be worth another $8 a share (assuming a full tax bite on the sale of Yahoo Japan). The 140 million shares of Alibaba to be sold in the IPO should net after taxes around $6 billion, or $6 a share. That totals about $22 a share.

> So, Yahoo's share price direction probably hinges on the value of the remaining Alibaba stake—based on the Alibaba share price—and the tax treatment of the likely sale or disposition of that stock.

> Bulls argue that Yahoo's shares could trade into the $50 range if Alibaba appreciates sharply after the IPO and Yahoo can find a way to get its remaining stake to holders in a tax-efficient way. This also suggests that Yahoo shares could find support around current levels given the value of that Alibaba stake.
I read somewhere (forgotten the book title sorry, I'll try and get back to you on that!) that our patriarchal society's gender roles (and thus the games children play at a young age to educate them about these) differ for men and women in terms of how they relate to people: For men, competition is emphasised, meaning that independence and dominance is the prime goal, while for women, connection and bonding is the overarching ideal.

To this end, having stereotypes and games like girls playing with dolls while boys build things and play more combative games instills different behaviours in children, which fundamentally change how they relate to others. You can still see it reflected in stupid things like "Be a man", which is essentially a shaming shorthand for "assert independence and dominance, thus showing less vulnerability to those able to dominate you in a competitive social hierarchy".

This obviously also reflects on the way people relate to obedience; independence being a supposed virtue, obedience can be intepreted from this masculine framework as an attempt by someone else to dominate. Emphasising co-operation and connection, though, means a greater willingness to engage. These are obviously only broad trends, but they are noticeable.
That's true, and I want to extend that by saying that at the highest levels life is more about relationships and who can do favors for you. Even Y Combinator is an example of this. I'm sure everyone who gets in is fully capable, but there are probably just as many capable people who don't get in. Those who got in will probably go on to do bigger things simply by having the Y Combinator brand and network. I often ask my friends at business school whether they feel it's worth it. Invariably they mention how the things they learn aren't that useful, but that the relationships they make (plus the signal of HBS or Wharton or wherever) are well worth the price of admission.

The downside of all this is that it promotes disparate outcomes for those who come from privileged backgrounds and those who come from more ordinary ones. I'm currently attending an "elite" college and there seems to be a pretty clear distinction between job placement and family status.
How much of the HN crowd is this news for?
You're right: I could see how I could come across as inconsistent. :-)

I'm certainly willing to reconsider my views, and even conceded the possible incorrectness of my beliefs in my other post which you linked.

But, I think there's a big difference in both meaning and tone between "self-restraint" and "subservience", which is (part of) why I had objected to the other post.

I had a huge problem with how the point was presented: use of a derogatory adjective, opinions as fact ("school sucks" coupled with "they like it"), "blow [my] brains out", etc. Came across as angry injust blame, to me, which is why I said it was "off the rails". It's not reasonable or fair to predicate an argument on an exaggerated and probably sexist set of statements.

Whereas contrasting aggressiveness against self-restraint (with very vague sources cited, at least) and leaving room for uncertainty as in GP at least leaves room to consider respective advantages and disadvantages of both aspects, instead of painting a "female" aspect with an entirely negative light, as in your link's parent.

This guy said it better than I did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8338243
In the article, evidence is presented that boys and girls need to be trained differently, and are being trained the same, to boys' detriment. That is the exact opposite of what you're saying.
Has anything important from the first edition been omitted from the second?
I found your comment accidentally extremely funny. It's also illustrative of the problem here. I decided to reply not in order to goad you but to try to make some sense to the other OO folks reading along. Hopefully I can disagree and add some nuance without sounding like an asshole.

"That looks almost like an OO design"

Yes. Yes it does. You can only move data so many ways. I've got pipes, you've got messages. Life is good.

"except that the inter-object communication channel is both more inefficient and more impoverished in what it can express"

Really wanted to call bullshit on you here. If it's working, then somehow the efficiencies and paradigm of construction has overcome all these limitations, no? Lot of loaded words here. Are OO paradigms richer in terms of expressiveness? Gee, I don't know. You could say so. But in my mind it's an uniformed opinion. It's all pretty much the same.

Many times OO folks get really frustrated when they start learning FP. I know I did. The sample code did silly things like sort integers. Everything was simple, trivial, academic. Where's the real code? I would wonder. I'd read three books and we'd never get around to building a system.

Looking back, what I missed was that I was already looking at the real code. It was my mindest of wanting all of this expressivness, efficiency, and richness of expression that was preventing me from seeing a very important thing: we were solving the important problem!

Instead, I had a very fine-tuned idea of how things should look: this goes here, that goes there. This is obviously an interface, we should always use SOLID, and on and on and on and on. I had a feel for what good OO looks like. It's a beautiful, rich thing. Love it.

But this kind of thinking not only was not useful in solving FP problems, it consistently led me down the wrong path in structuring FP solutions, which was weird. I would look at things as all being the same -- when I should have been looking at the data and the functions.

Guy I know asked online the other day "What's the difference between microservices and components?" My reply "Everything is the same, but there's a difference in how you think about them. A component plugs in, usually through interfaces. A service moves things, usually through pipes."

If you're looking at a service as being another version of a set of objects passing messages, you're thinking about system construction wrong. Wish I could describe it better than that. It was something I struggled with for a long time.
That's a really fun idea. You'd be able to see the execution of the sub-parts of the program by watching the sub-bots tweet results between themselves.
Unless I'm mistaken you're glossing over the fact that electric motors are significantly more efficient than combustion engines. An electric motor doesn't turn more than half of all the energy in the batteries into heat.
The High Cost of Freelancing
> Third-party apps can no longer secretly take pictures and transfer them off the device without user’s consent or knowledge.

Wow. No fix for iOS7?

> Third-party apps still can permanently monitor the iOS pasteboard for changes and read out any sensitive data that is probably copy-pasted.

Even if the app is not "running" (not visible after double-pressing the home button)?
Actually, I do mean "equivocate". To quote Wikipedia, it is "the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)".
Great comment, provides good food for thought.

The core FP idea is to focus on immutable data and data transformations. This is the minimal set of concepts one needs to juggle to get computations going. When modules communicate, they need to pass data and identify the transformations, so there is no dichotomy here between FP and OO (!). Especially if you think of method tables as data.

The String / Data.Text split in Haskell is an artefact of Haskell's ecosystem. It is not a conceptual hurdle, but rather an implementation detail. It is not too hard to imagine a different FP ecosystem where one can readily substitute different implementations under the same immutable data structure API, all with very explicit parametrization of the data transformations. All of (1)immutability, (2)simple data API, (3)polymorphism and (4)explicitism are important. Note that OO systems encourage (3), while FP systems encourage (1), (2) and (4).

Code as if you have immutable data and apply data transformations, tune performance by using the best implementations under the common simple data API. The question becomes how to build a system where all of them are ergonomic to use. IMHO, Haskell is not quite it, rather places like Dart / C# offer better ergonomics.

The other example is also thought provoking. In a system with polymorphism support, it's relatively straightforward to supply one's favorite String implementation, including one that prints a log on every String construction. The question is how to provide the new module to clients, which is reminiscent of dependency injection, but concrete implementations of DI are magic bad. In an explicit style, this would be realized by making modules functors of other modules and explicitly passing in the method tables:

function Foobar(string)
return {
foo: function(x)
return string.concat(x, string.new('abc'))
end
}
end

function main1()
string = String()
foobar = Foobar(string)
foobar.foo(string.new('xyz'))
end

function LoggingString()
return String() + {
new: function(x)
print(x)
return String.new(x)
end
}
end

function main2()
string = LoggingString()
foobar = Foobar(string)
foobar.foo(string.new('xyz'))
end

But it takes discipline to write the above and not sprinkle the code with String().new(...) everywhere, which defeats the purpose.
In addition to everything suggested here, I'm also very interested in understanding the following question:

how on earth are an investor and an early-stage entrepreneur supposed to come to a valuation number when the history of the company is pretty much non-existant and the projections of financials are a shot in the dark at best.
Thiel is more or less reiterating the points that the economist Tyler Cowen has been making for several years. I just read Zero to One and found it good, but not great. Cowen's book, Average is Over [1], covers much of the same ideas and is better reasoned. (Cowen's earlier book, The Great Stagnation, is also quite good).

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00C1N5WOI?btkr=1
The phrase 'knows just enough to be dangerous' comes to mind :)
The article was a nice piece of long form writing. If you haven't got the patience to persist with it you miss out on the payoff. Sorry, no soup for you.
Have you seen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_the_People_%28Yes,_Pri...
In my middle-school days, there were some very sharp guys teaching in part because of the Vietnam draft. (No, I'm not young anymore.) At my high school (all boys, Catholic), the coaches had to teach real subjects: Algebra I, Trig, Plane Geometry, Biology, Chemistry. Now, one of the wrestling coaches sent a classmate of mine hurrying to the other class with his statement that a milligram was one million grams, but most of them seemed to do OK. Not all of the other male teachers were in orders, either, and most of them, lay or religious, ranged from adequate to good.
This reminded me of a quote from The Way of the Gun (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Way_of_the_Gun)

Longbaugh: These days, they want to be criminals more than they want to commit crime.
Joe Sarno: Well that's... that's not just crime. That's the way of the world.
> Genetic engineering has been around since the 70's but society has largely rejected its applications.

I would argue this. The human genome project was the turning point where we moved from biology as alchemy to biology as science.

There are still tenured biology professors who hang onto ideas that have been completely disproven by genetic sequencing.

We're just starting to see the benefits of genetic engineering now.
> Sigh... this "where's my feature!" argument almost always comes up.

I'll make it simple. Nimrod has one feature - only ONE - which differentiates it from Go. It's not generics, it's not inheritance, it's not proper error handling (cos they're all just fancy features which nobody really needs, right?), it's not even optional garbage collection (although that's a part of it, Go is not suitable for constrained real time applications because of its opinionated lack of optionality in this space).

It's REACH.

You know, the thing that has made JavaScript the most widely used language on the planet - and nobody's claiming THAT's got the greatest feature set.

> iOS and Android supports are on their way in case you're not following recent developments.

Yes I am, and the closest I came up with was this:

https://bitbucket.org/minux/goios/wiki/Home

Seriously? I mean, have you tried this? Have you even tried to make sense of the build instructions?

If you have the inside line on some secret Google plans for Go then good on you. But if you're going to make public claims like this - in a forum where people might be interested to hear about tools that help them DO cross-platform development rather than just dream about doing it one day - you should be prepared to back them up.

Challenge: you implement a cross platform library in Go, I'll do one in Nimrod, we'll upload working XCode and Android projects that use our shared library and that compile to App Store / Play Store eligible apps to Github. I'm up for it - are you?