skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The point is, in order to have loose coupling between components, something like unix pipes is just a starting point.

It's also an ending point. If each application gets to define its own IPC primitives, then there become as many app-to-app communication protocols as there are app-to-app pairs. This does not make for a loosely-coupled ecosystem.

> Seriously, I think it is perfectly reasonable (and necessary) to define a standard protocol for system even notifications... I say this because it has already been done... by the standard compoents like udev & dbus that systemd is building on top of...

This is circular reasoning. You're saying "we should use systemd's notification protocol, because systemd uses it." This says nothing about the technical merits of its protocol.

> Yes, but you do need something more sophisticated than a pipe to manage secure communications between your systems components.

Um, data within a pipe is visible to only the endpoint processes, the root user (via procfs and /dev/kmem), and the kernel. If you don't trust an endpoint, you should stop communicating with it. If you don't trust the root user or the kernel, you can't really do anything securely at all in the first place. My point is, data within a pipe is about as secure as it's going to get.

> You could send valid messages with fraudlent/misleading data payloads I guess, but at least a whole host of problems are addressed by tightening that up.

I think you will find that the bulk of IPC problems will come from dealing with data you didn't expect--that is, processes sending "fraudlent/misleading" data and other processes acting on it. DBus won't help you there--you always always ALWAYS have to validate data you receive from untrusted parties, no matter what transport or wire format you're using.
> IT in it's current form is demanding (I like the "intense 24/7 activity" phrase). We are paid well for a reason and ofc it MAY feel cushy when you are on top of things. But this requires more than 8 hours a day, 5 days a week and some non-IT hobbies.

I disagree with this (and it's certainly not my experience). If you put in these hours, on average you'll likely be better compensated, but you can very much make quite a lot of money in the objective and relative (to everyone else) sense without putting in absurd hours.
Also see our WANdisco partnership announcement today, run git master-master and use GitLab. https://about.gitlab.com/2014/09/22/wandisco-integrates-gitl...
It depends on what input system you use. If you draw characters with your finger, as many Chinese do, it's pretty slow. If you're on Android and use Google Pinyin you can swipe across letters just like you can in English. Based on your swipe gestures it predicts what you're trying to type pretty well. If you're a Chinese typing expert, you can use Wubi[1] which can be used to achieve typing speeds higher than most English typists.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wubi_method
One Surprise for you all  Sign up now
How is bee keeping not analogous to start up development? The anxiety and experience of the bee keeper is parallel to building a user base for an application.

I was reading the article while writing a user acquisition strategy. I almost died laughing.
I remember thinking it was pretty revolutionary when I got a demo back in early 2013 (had an interview there, but got a too-good-to-refuse offer elsewhere).

Granted, that was before FaceTime audio and the audio features of iMessage, but at the time I was basically ready to bury everything on my iPhone's dock and replace it with this as soon as it launched.

It has a ton of really slick touches that I think make it a really compelling app, well beyond the sum of it's core features.
Yes, I meant Purescript.
I agree with the comment about your parents knowing you're available to chat.

However, referring to the audio recording and playback capability of an iPhone as "talking through a tiny speaker" seems in itself pretty technophobic. Furthermore, your instant rejection of this idea furthers that concept. Typing on a tiny smooth keyboard isn't exactly the definition of the ultimate fulfillment of our technological capability. Regarding replying on your own schedule, I'm fairly certain that's built in functionality, to reply to a thread as you wish via voice, text, image, etc.

All that being said, I'm not sold on the idea and unsure whether or not I'd use it.
I recently bought a new camera. They were all equipped with mini-usb. It's standard now, and shows no sign of disappearing.
Catalogue of new iOS applications
Oh and just to clarify, this is only the way I'd judge someone straight out of school. Once there's work experience behind you, I care very little about your school credentials since I have something substantial I can judge you by. When you're still in school, I have nothing to go on, so these signals are the best I can do :(
The use of 'violence' in this context is as stupid as saying a bartender calling 'Last drinks!' is being violent.

After all, if you stick around and don't comply with the request to leave the bar, the bouncers and then the police will get involved.
It's not. Collaborative editing is.

People were using file syncing for asynchronous collaborative editing. File syncing is not such a big deal now that we have synchronous collaborative editors.
Presentation Content is King
Oh come on, just replace beekeeper with founder and modify surface details to make it a story about a start up :-)

I ain't even mad. Just surprised no one else noticed. Like mad libs.
Do you mean

1: affected singsong or whining speech.

or

2: the private language of the underworld?
Groupon started as a wordpress site. http://tomloverro.com/2010/08/19/groupon-1-0-started-on-a-wo...

For your idea there is a, 'secret sauce' that you fake until you have traction.

Say for example, your app improves the customer experience by drawing a smiley face on every receipt. You think that customers love seeing a smiley face so much that they'll come back the next day.

Rather than build a complex point of sale system that prints smiley faces on receipts, you do something simpler.

You hide under the counter, and draw a smiley face on each receipt yourself.

If people come back(validate your idea) then you can start signing up store owners.

Having several pre-sales, plus some stats about how your system demonstrably improves the customer experience will help you find an engineer to build out your idea.

If you share your USP, we can tell you how to manually validate your idea.
Budget priorities.
Too bad I can't fire myself.
>The reason my startup failed was a combination of poor decisions on my behalf...

I can't tell if that's just an error of language or not. I'm guessing from the rest of the article that she meant to say her decisions and just phrased it awkwardly.
I wouldn't use React to render a dragged UI component, I would animate it in the DOM myself then send an action back to the store when it was dropped that triggered a re-render. Why would the application need to know where the UI component was before it was dropped?
WhatsApp is highly price-competitive with the native offerings, particularly in the markets where it is most popular. It also benefits from wide cross platform and cross network availability.

While the UI for Talko might be slick, there are already very similar and competitive offerings to Talko that operate on multiple platforms (e.g. Voxer) that have failed to take any market share the way Talko apparently hopes to.

If they're going to be successful, it will boil down to marketing more than anything.
Things are more than what they do; they're how they do them. A Kia Soul and a Mercedes-Benz S500 basically have the same feature set. But they're very different experiences.
> The author of this piece makes the classic mistake
> of equating the init system as the process manager
> and process supervisor.

I think it is a bit more subtle than that. The author makes the mistake of inferring an architecture from observed behavior and fails to ascertain where the warts come from, the architecture or the implementation. They aren't the only one, its a common problem. The result though is kind like playing 'architecture telephone' where each person implements what they think is the architecture implied and ends up with something subtly different than intended. The result is a hodgepodge of features around various parts of the system.

In the interest of full disclosure I must admit I was on duty when AT&T and Sun were creating the unholy love child of System V and BSD, I'm sorry.

The architecture, as bespoke by AT&T system engineers, was that process 1 was a pseudo process which configured the necessary services and devices which were appropriate for an administrator defined level of operation. Aka a 'run level.' I think they would have liked the systemd proposal, but they would no doubt take it completely out of the process space. I am sure they would have wanted it to be some sort of named stream into the inner consciousness of the kernel which could configure the events system so that the desired running configuration was made manifest. They always hated the BSD notion that init was just the first 'shell process' which happened to kick off various processes that made for a multi-user experience.

Originally users were just like init, in that you logged in and everything you did was a subprocess of your original login shell. It was a very elegant system, root's primal shell spawned getty, and getty would spawn a shell for a user when they logged in, everything from that point on would be owned by the user just like everything that happened before was owned by root. The user's login shell logged out and everything they had done got taken down and resources reclaimed. When the root shell (init) logged out all resources got reclaimed and the system halted.

But Linux, like SunOS before it, serves two masters. The server which has some pretty well defined semantics and the "desktop user" which has been influenced a whole bunch by microcomputer operating systems like Windows.

I wasn't the owner of the init requirements document, I think Livsey was, the important thing was that it was written in the context of a bigger systems picture, and frankly systemd doesn't have that same context. I think that is what comes across as confusion.
Hey, thanks so much for the comment. I haven't done most of those things that are expected at these top tier companies.

The only reason I thought I had a shot was because of my side projects. Apparently, just mentioning those in the resume isn't going to cut it.
I guess OSS contributions definitely help in this regard (work experience).
> So what is the advantages of the old idea of an almost-AI assisstant working for me when BFG (Big Friendly Google) does it?

Privacy. Yacy[1] looks like a good start but it has miles to go before it can reach the same usability as popular services.

[1] http://yacy.net/en/
The Final Fantasy movies (VII: Advent Children, Spirit's Within), possibly? (Can't recall anything with ears though)
"[Yttr] Server responded with 500." Object { error: true, type: 0, message: "Wow, an error ocurred." }
This + Virtual Gesture Tracking + VR = Virtual Meetings
That chip could just as well sit in the device at the other end of the cable. I bet USB cables have one, too. It is not as if USB connectors are immune to accidental shorting (rain, cables that get crushed)

Also, embedding a chip in a connector expensive? I have no idea what the chips Apple puts in cost, but cost depends on the chip and the number of cables you order.
Funny you say that. It took me years to make my mum understand the concept of working from home. Whereas people my age seem to grasp instantly that if I'm home, I'm at my busiest.
Ray Ozzie's launch blog is also great: https://medium.com/talko-team-talk-share-do/welcome-to-talko...?
What amazing is that scientists discovered that brain allocates one single neuron fires for each recognized face. For example, You have a one special neuron in your brain that fires when you see Bill Clinton's face. And that exact neuron fires no matter what picture of Bill Clinton you happened to see.
I absolutely abhor listening to voice mails and I know I am not the only one. That is a really bad example to use.
Right, that's fair enough. I'm not the type of person to carry high quality headphones with me wherever i go (it's the listening to the speaker that i was referring to). I don't think most people do. I would argue that is why many people do not enjoy taking phone calls, that and the fact that it warms the phone against your head and kills battery.

That aside, i don't see why any reasonable person with any kind of social life whatsoever would give up this much info for the sake of receiving slightly better timed calls.
Thanks! Yes, I always start with much simpler networks like 10, 10-10, 10-10-10. Unfortunately, the regression problems here are quite complex hence bigger networks are required (well, it wouldn't be on Kaggle otherwise).
Actually it doesn't surprise me that it would be in North Dakota - lots of oil exploration and little engineering companies, seems like plenty of potential demand.

With a population of five in the entire state?

:-p
What problem is this solving again? Proprietary app, Proprietary system. I'll stick with the universal phone call, SMS, and e-mail as my way of communicating with people.

Why are people always hell bent on changing the way we communicate? I tried the app and it does not offer enough to keep me using it.
> t's also an ending point. If each application gets to define its own IPC primitives, then there become as many app-to-app communication protocols as there are app-to-app pairs. This does not make for a loosely-coupled ecosystem.

That's exactly why you need a more systemic approach to the IPC mechanism...

You can pretend that "oh this is just a stream so there isn't tight coupling", but the information that is communicated is the same. If you haven't imposed some structure and consistency to it, that's exactly how you end up with a ball of mud.

> This is circular reasoning. You're saying "we should use systemd's notification protocol, because systemd uses it." This says nothing about the technical merits of its protocol.

You misunderstood my point. I'm not justifying it on the basis that systemd is using it. I'm saying the fact that all the other systems have arrived at a similar, and in many cases the exact same mechanism, is pretty strong evidence that it is a reasonable design choice.

Basically all the Linux systems out there are already using udev & dbus. Most of the non-Linux systems do as well. Everyone's done it and made it work. That systemd is adopting arguably the most entrenched one in the Linux sphere is hardly as controversial as people seem to think it is.

> My point is, data within a pipe is about as secure as it's going to get.

I wasn't trying to suggest it wasn't a secure point-to-point communication mechanism (it has issues, but fine enough). The issue is that you need more integration in with the security model to avoid having a rats nest of security logic on top of it.

> I think you will find that the bulk of IPC problems will come from dealing with data you didn't expect--that is, processes sending "fraudlent/misleading" data and other processes acting on it.

There's a very long and glorious history of malformed and misleading IPC causing problems. Not that it is the only thing, but life becomes a lot easier when that problem is off the table.

> DBus won't help you there--you always always ALWAYS have to validate data you receive from untrusted parties, no matter what transport or wire format you're using.

Yes you will. However, DBus ensures that you don't have to write a ton of redundant code just verifying you are getting validly structured data and dealing with the nasty ways someone might try to exploit that.

Imagine having to write a secure REST service where the only thing you had to worry about in the entire network protocol stack was the validity of the data expressed in the payload.
Wait, replace bee keeper with VC and queen bee with founder... lol
GoPro Hero 3 for UAVs, near-space and space applications
Downvoted because it's not even relevant. This new USB standard was not implemented to merge the use cases of existing standards as per the cartoon narrative. Its purpose is to add new functionality not available in any prior USB standard.
Fireworks is dead,dreamweaver almost ... and no Fireworks isnt the same product as Photoshop or Illustrator.As for flash they are removing drawing tools that are "redundant" with Illustrator.So no,everything hasnt been a lot better in recent years...
One concept I really like is to just identity map the whole address space and run everything with full priviledges. With a sufficiently high level memory safe language with good concurrency and memory regions support, you should be able to statically enforce most of the guarantees that the hardware provides and at the same time get rid of context switches. Untrusted code in a memory unsafe language would simply run in a VM.
Thanks, that's a really great summary.
I'm an experienced skydiver, this is the first time I hear about smokejumpers and I am absolutely amazed by what these people do.

Here is a raw footage from a helmet mounted camera of a smokejumper. You can see his entire team jump, then see himself jump, experience the quietness under canopy and realize the technicality of maneuvering such a canopy with many pounds of equipment on you. Really incredible stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz_6cq7dfVc
And the Apple Lightning cable has four stars with nearly 4k reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Lightning-to-USB-Cable/dp/B0097B...

Either there's a big difference in quality between the cables Apple sells on Amazon vs the Apple Store, or there's something else going on.
Why Is Ikea a Non-profit? – OnlineMBA.com
>The software visionary who created Lotus Notes

Stopped reading after this.
Looks nice! I've emailed you.
But this time it fits perfectly.
Oops. I rescind. That would be the feeling of discovering you're the only Republican in a room full of Democrats!
They should totally build it in Clojure and Erlang!
Nuevos uniformes wifi de la US Navy,
Meetings are corporate’s paradox. The more meetings, the busier you appear
HFT in My Backyard
> I can't think of anything that I will like to make in C/C++ since it is so low-level.

This is pretty funny. When I started in this business decades ago, everyone programmed in assembly language -- we had no choice. When C came along, people thought they had been transported to heaven. A compiler that worked on more than one platform! Control structures that made sense! I/O that continued to work regardless of platform!

I wrote my best-known program, Apple Writer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer), in assembly. It became a best seller primarily because it was so fast compared to the alternatives, and it had such a small memory footprint in systems that had a tiny amount of memory. The entry-model Apple II had 4 kilobytes of RAM. For a few thousand dollars extra, you could get a total of 16 kilobytes. Wow -- sixteen kilobytes!

Then C++ came along, then the STL, then more compilers for more platforms. The idea of only having to write a program once for multiple platforms was difficult to imagine until I saw it for the first time.

> C/C++ is different, I'm afraid of pointers.

Pointers is one issue, but not a very important one -- I have no doubt that you can figure them out. You also need to do your own memory management. C++ classes have destructors so you can clean up after yourself. In spite of this, even the best programmers have programs that leak memory -- allocating and freeing memory can be very tricky.

> How do I learn C and C++ when I love high-level languages?

But C and C++ are high-level languages. How times change.
"Money put at risk is taxed as capital gains." Huh? Money that hedge fund owners provide as fund capital is already theirs, they don't pay tax on it at all. Of course gains in value of their capital investment are taxed as capital gains. But the performance fees we're talking about are fees that accrue to hedge fund managers from managing _other people's money_, not the capital gains that manager's realize directly as the increase in value of their own investment.

If hedge fund managers could not performance fees categorized as carried interest they'd pay regular income tax rates on them. Not sure how that changes their management of the funds. Presumably if they believe they're the best managers out there they'll want to have their own assets in their fund (and of course will pay only capital gains tax on increases in value of their assets). By the way, high percentage of hedge fund managers are already among the "fantastically rich". . . .
Why is it a bad example? I hate voice mail as well, but it is "store-and-forward voice messaging".
Please don't do this. This is a perfect example of where living inside your OOP bubble too long has a net negative effect. You really want to construct a new object, set two fields, and invoke a method call to find the maximum of two numbers? This is nothing short of madness.

I'd pick the util method any day, as much as I dislike "Utils" classes. It's not because they're bad code, it's more because they're disorganized (no cohesion). The "solution" would suffer exactly the same problem of organization depending on what namespace you decide to dump the "Max" class in.

There is nothing wrong with having static classes with static methods which are completely stateless. That java decided to omit plain functions from the language was a big mistake, so settling for the next best thing when a function is precisely what we want is the sane thing to do.

A nicety that C# will have now is that you can import static classes as if they were namespaces, thus removing the need to continually write "Utils" everywhere, you can just stick the static method name, and only use "Utils" to disambiguate if necessary.
It's for Chrome and Chrome already has the features I want built-in. My point is that Firefox is lacking these.