skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>> "Problem is, there are tons of other diseases that look like stroke. Migranes, epilepsia, etc. IF you have one of those, going to ER every time you have something weird going on will suck you dry of money and your doctor will probably start treating you like an hypochondriac."

But shouldn't the doctors have though, "Ok, this man has had two strokes. These symptoms could be of something much more mundane but as he has had two strokes we will take very precaution"? I don't want to start the free health care debate but is that a problem? We have free health care and doctors seem to be willing to admit you for a night even if there is a very high likely hood you're fine. Do finances come into it more in the US and actually effect patient care?
How mcuban and Tech can solve inequality
https://medium.com/p/admission-by-ticket-only-e3eeeb414a4c
I came across an open source initiative to beekeeping; one that includes a sensor to monitor bee health and the activity of the colony.

If you haven't heard of it or checked it out, I recommend taking a look at what they've put together and maybe working with them (I also realize this may actually be YOUR project... if that is the case, please disregard).

OpenSourceBeehive (http://www.opensourcebeehives.net/index.html)
Thank you for changing the title -- the reasoning for such a title is spurious at best, which likely was this single notable line:

> They’re more secretive; they’re less constricted in the trades they’re allowed to make; and they say they hire the best people working with the best technology.

Which applies to pretty much every leading technology company just as well, or start-up flush with free money.
Could you give an example of an API that didn't bring new users and one that did?

Assuming that both services have comparable user bases, was the difference caused by demand alignment between the source site and your site, or by poor support on the source site for discovery of your service's integration?
> I enjoyed reading Michael Pettis' blog entry[1] about excess capital, which provided an alternative narrative to the rise in equities but it wasn't really a bubble so much as it was just an excess of capital.

You seem to be splitting hairs. From your referenced blog post:

Washington is absolutely correct, in my opinion, to want to boost American consumption, but the Fed seems to be trying to boost consumption by igniting another asset bubble in the hopes that, like before 2007, Americans will feel “richer” and so will consume more. This isn’t sustainable, however, and will leave us, as Paul and Druckenmiller fear, even more heavily indebted and more dangerously exposed to the underlying weakness in demand.

But to answer your question: the strong public equities market has provided investors with the capital and confidence to plow money into investments in private tech companies.

> If you dumped 10,000 employees onto the market in the Bay Area it would probably sort out reasonably quickly.

Even if we assume that we're looking at just 10,000 people, your assumption that the market will quickly absorb them without much pain is quite optimistic.

Companies like Google and Facebook will certainly pick up some of the most skilled folks, but the vast majority of startup employees are not as desirable as many would like to believe, and they won't be able to replace their salaries.

Put simply, there are 20-something [insert programming language du jour] developers with a few years of experience making $120,000/year plus benefits at unprofitable angel or venture-backed startups who are going to have to face the reality that their six-figure earning potential is completely dependent on the continued inflow of investment dollars to early-stage startups.
Stay away. The last paragraph here has some details on the situation: http://mrjoes.github.io/2013/03/22/flask-admin-105.html
Disrupting the Playground
Fairy long article. Here's the summary:

Hedge funds are investment vehicles that have avoided being heavily-regulated because they only accept money from government-certified "accredited investors." Their investment strategies are secret and unconventional. Some of them deliver floods, while the average one doesn't do that well.

Hedge funds provide liquidity, which makes it easier to trade; and conduct arbitrage, so that prices are muscled into line before they get totally irrational. (The latter doesn't always work though.) Meanwhile, since they have fewer safety nets, hedge funds are more aggressive about monitoring their own risk. They're better than banks in that respect, which are much more heavily leveraged and which have a history of being supported by the government when they mess up. Hedge funds have never been bailed out by the government like banks have time and again.
Or you could help out at a charity.

On one hand you imply that playing games is a waste of time compared to learning Chinese on the other hand you say you prefer your games shallow.

You can spend the same amount of time playing a good game or a bad game. The difference is with a good one you have to stick with the same one for longer, with the shallow ones it's a different one every week which I guess is what the publisher would've liked too.

Anyway, you like what you like - I feel somewhat stupid for arguing about preferences - wasn't my intention at the outset. I was just saying this is something that got lost along the way in the same way as in the genres the article talks about.
Shameless plug (and relevant to the topic), I run the site http://redditcommentsearch.com which allows searching through the comments of a particular user on reddit.

I created this site because I often needed to search through my own comment history, to find old debates that I want to revisit.
Great article!

We're on our 3rd season beekeeping; we just collected honey, last night.

In fact, I got my first ever bee/wasp/hornet sting ever, last night, from one of our bees. I was being sloppy, wearing running shoes under my bee suit, instead of boots. It hardly hurt at all, though. (I've had worse mosquito bites; so far, horseflies are the worst bites/stings I've ever had).

We captured our first swarm, this year, and got another hive "for free." Woo hoo!

As far as ordering stuff, since somebody mentioned it, we just go to http://www.beekeepers.com/ to get our gear, since our local farm stores don't carry much.

I am interested in these projects, so I can get my bee geek on, but I don't know if I should commit the time and money to them (any success stories out there)?
http://www.opensourcebeehives.net/
http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Beekeeping
http://openenergymonitor.org/emon/node/102
Probabilistic modeling is a side-note and no reference to current computational cognitive science is made. This doesn't look like a very good book: it teaches the same brittle, certainty-based theories that have failed for decades because:

* They require exact knowledge of the problem domain just to generate a knowledge representation and reason about problems, and

* The solution spaces are subject to combinatorial explosion, but have no usage of statistics or information theory to smoothly tame the search problems.
I have no doubt it will be patched, but in the meantime the sandbox MobileSafari occupies will significantly limit what the exploit can actually do.
First sentence: "a fortune of about $1.5 billion in today’s dollars."
Weight is another good one, it drives our complexity and cost up but is hugely important. Most extant hive monitoring tools record weight. NASA uses some of these measures to track mass flow rates of nectar.
Additionally if you're in the US and use Amazon at all you can donate for "free" (via orders to Amazon) by just using:

https://smile.Amazon.com

And selecting the EFF as your charity of choice. Note that only orders made via smile.amazon.com are counted, not orders made on normal amazon.com.

How this works: On normal Amazon.com third parties can earn referer fees if you click on an ad to Amazon and purchase something. With smile.amazon.com referer fees don't exist, and the money is instead given to the chosen charities.

Note: As far as I know this isn't tax deductible from your perspective since Amazon themselves are the ones doing the "donating." You're just ordering something like you normally would (which might be tax deductible in its own right, but not as a charitable contribution).

This has no real downsides to users except remembering to use smile.amazon.com instead of amazon.com(!).
Unless they can show an actual instance of the software installed on a computer in NJ they have no case whatsoever. The constitutional argument of the EFF is pretty sound.
Geneva: Lisp-Flavored JSON
Yes, I've actually read the book, that's why I thought it came originally from the TMRC as one of the many slang terms or jargon they came up with.
Nor are delays in appointments.
Nimrod is being renamed to Nim
The trade deficit and globalization have more to do with this than demographics.

"The United States has been running consistent trade deficits since 1980 due to high imports of oil and consumer products. In recent years, the biggest trade deficits were recorded with China, Japan, Germany, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. United States records trade surpluses with Hong Kong, Australia, Netherlands and Belgium."

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-tra...

http://economyincrisis.org/content/failed-trade-policies-hav...
> "The reason that this could be illegal is because it is..."

Stop being dishonest. It isn't and never has.
Focusing on a niche market rather than the broader market? A good idea?
Hi,

We are a start up just building our website and are considering whether to focus on a niche market or to sell to the broader market.

Does anybody have any experience of being in a similar dilemma and what was the outcome of your decision?

Did you decide to target a specific niche?

And if so, are you happy you did so?

All advice and suggestions will be well received.
Sometimes it does. It depends. For instance, if I'm listening to NPR, Democracy Now, or other news shows and podcasts, those are usually too distracting. I can't get any real work or reading done if it's too engaging. "Silence" can be golden. Then there are other forms of vocal information that seem to recede well enough in the background yet remain there just enough to decide whether to actively listen.

It might be put in terms of working around others. Ideally, the noise others make will enter subconsciousness enough to concentrate yet remain aware of anything 'worth' listening to or someone snapping in my face. Basically, you just have to experiment on yourself. Do what feels right for you. If someone's constantly fighting for concentration against surroundings, then that person needs to change surroundings. And moods constantly change.

Emotions are humanity. Life is real life. Moreover, good movies are far more than mere fiction or the sum of their parts. To people with vivid imaginations and deep empathy, any [medium of information], "fact" or fiction, powerful enough, can be experienced viscerally as with "real life" even if only in that moment.
"The true purpose of sales is to create new value for customers."

Yes. If you're just parroting talking points, you can be replaced by a website. Plus, it's more fun to really help people.

"your biggest competition isn’t just other startups, perpetually licensed on-premise packages, homegrown solutions, or incumbent vendors. It’s inertia. Enterprise/SaaS salespeople find themselves in a constant battle against the target company’s urge to do nothing."

Yes, again. This isn't just a sales problem-- this is a human nature problem. It's just that selling to big companies involves lots of humans, almost all of whom are deeply resistant to change.
I've been staring at a lot of these kinds of graphs for years. Most of them show gains in middle class income in the late 90s, which means that the statement "the middle class hasn't gotten a raise in 15 years" is accurate. Yet when you zoom way out nearly everything I've seen shows the decoupling starting around 1970 or shortly thereafter. It simply experienced a blip in the opposite direction from roughly '95 to 2000 and then the trend both resumed and accelerated. In stock trading they say "nothing goes straight up and nothing goes straight down," but the overall trend is what's important.
>We already know, 100% for certain that the majority of those reviews come from people who accept bribes

[citation needed]

I've already addressed why I dismiss the user scores (in this specific case). And instead of resorting to conspiracy theories, I can actually justify my dismissal using the publicly available content of the reviews themselves. They're trolls plain and simple.

The really hilarious part is that you want to accuse a studio composed of 3 people working out of a basement of handing out bribes.
I'll offer my "rag doll testimony" IANAL axiom: re the 5th Amendment (right against compelled self-incrimination) the court can only "compel" your "testimony" insofar as they can manipulate your limp uncooperative body for fingerprints, hair samples, and other non-invasive observations. Anything inside your body, including blood & ideas, is yours to retain as you see fit.

Not perfect, but seems generally sensible. Have at it.
Coincidence: I just read this article republished on longform today which is also very good.

Justin Timberlake Has a Cold
http://reprints.longform.org/justin-timberlake-has-a-cold
The author says that J. P. Morgan's estate was worth $1.5bn in 2014 dollars, not in 1913 dollars.
It is that good.
The Story of How I was escorted out from the Apple iPhone 6 release
but given all that do you think apple made the right tradeoff? between ppi and battery that is.
I know nothing about finance but the Federal Reserve has provided new money at almost no interest to banks for a fairly long period of time from ~2008 onwards (this was called quantitative easing). This essentially forced the EU and countries like Switzerland to do the same, if they did not want their currency to get too strong. It is not a stretch of imagination that this fueled much of the current stock market boom, both Euro and Dollar have lost a lot of value at roughly the same pace.
That's really easy to say when you're not the one who is paying for it.

This is pretty typical. Every single business owner out there knows that the non-paying users generate more noise and complaints than an average paying customer.

The bullshit 'reputation' angle you are playing is a total non-sense.

Tell that to Max Levchin and 99% of other entrepreneurs that had to fail and fail hard prior to actually making it. I'm sure their 'reputation' is ruined.

TLDR: You live in a bubble.
I didn't knew this piece from mrjoes. Thanks for sharing!
Actually I'm not. And before I continue, let me add: this has little to do with advocacy, and even less to do with anyone trying to foist their perceptions of the recreational or therapeutic value of anything upon you.

I was only explaining what the therapeutic value of the substance is perceived to be, this isn't according to me -- though I obviously share that opinion and paraphrased. That's according to the qualified professionals that advocate its use. They have fairly robust reasons for this that result from experience using it in controlled settings for that purpose.

It's interesting that you mention alcohol & marijuana, because it's sadly that sort of confusion and unwarranted comparison that got us here, it's actually the point of the article: one drug (ironically a legal perscription medication) was mistakenly given to test subjects, bad things happened. Consequently research on a totally different drug was curtailed. Retrospect deepens the irony as the first drug, the bad yet legally perscribed one, went on to wreak havoc in the streets through addiction and associated crime.
What exactly did that user "not read"? I found the comment you mentioned but I didn't come across anything that would suggest against this behavior.
An example in the introduction would be great. That way we could tell how verbose we need to be when answering these.
People seem to have completely forgotten how completely nonsensical (and often completely clueless about tech, the internet and business) tech start-ups were in 1999 compared to now.

The valuations and burn rate may be too high and up for a big correction, but most of the start-ups these days at least have some logic behind it by which they may be seen as potential hits. 1999 was largely mass hysteria with no foundation in reality whatsoever.
Do Something or Do Nothing for two weeks is the proposition...

It's an enviable opportunity to get stuff done, or daydream. Imagine what your ideal life would look, sound, or feel like. Write out your biggest fantasy about where you want to go in life.

Here's an interview with GTD author David Allen, good food for thought...> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_mLp6x8rts
Aphyr at Strangeloop: “Jepsen II: Linearizable Boogaloo”
This happened to me. I bought a Mophie Juicepack for it and it solved the problem...by doubling the weight/volume of the phone.

Got an iPhone 6 on friday.

Yesterday I went on a 2.5 hour, 30 mile bike ride, and the iphone6 battery meter was essentially still at 100%. My 4s would have been well under 50%. Of course, the M8 is why, but after 3 years of recharging the 4s every night the battery was really starting to feel it.
Then why don't live coders use rich sounds, or make complicated things?

As for 'minimal music' - most of it isn't really all that minimal, and it certainly can't be reduced to trivial algos.

And if your only option is to be minimal, maybe that's not so great.

Point is that only a tiny subset of the population has ever been interested in listening to music defined and created exclusively by writing code. Live coding caters very nicely to them.

No one else seems to be listening.

Over the same period, CGI has moved from basic wireframes to epic photorealism-with-AI. You can see this stuff in games and movies, and it's awesome.

Why aren't code musicians interested in pushing the boundaries of code music by aiming for something with similar complexity?

Here's a thing: after nearly sixty years of code music, exactly zero code music composers have troubled the public imagination.

Over the same period we've had literally hundreds of new electronic genres and styles, and even people who don't much like electronica can name at least a couple of people who make it.

We've also had game music coders writing complex AIs for arranging and generating music on the fly in game contexts.

But live coders don't seem interested in any of this, because typing.

Honestly, this completely baffles me.
The "Computer Systems" course that was started at CMU has a similar project commonly called the "bomb lab": http://csapp.cs.cmu.edu/public/labs.html

I TAed a Computer Systems course at a different university, and it was a great exercise to get the students to really understand what was going on in their programs - and to force them to use the powerful tools (disassembler, debugger) available to them.
After trying to figure out if he was actually going to back up his argument anywhere - at some point I realized he was essentially saying that Uber is not different than Pets.com and stopped caring about the article.
Speculation only, but I'd expect the relative size and scope of the financial industry today vs 1913 to explain that difference.

As in it's easier to earn $1.5bn within 2013's financial industry than it would have been (inflation adjusted) in 1913.
No, it might mean that one of the benchmarks is meaningful and the other is not. Or it might be that they test different scenarios and could be useful to different groups of users.

What the discrepancy tells you is that there's something odd about the benchmarks that could stand to be better investigated/explained.
There's actually a nice Chrome extension that will automatically redirect you to the smile subdomain every time you visit Amazon.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile-always/jgpmh...
I think we'll see it in Aurora sooner than 6 months. Care to wager?
on the Gaussian Bell Curve of morality, as I pointed out myself about myself I lie at one end of the spectrum (two standard deviations above the mean, as I see it). Every population will have such a distribution. You are downvoting an outlyer because you disagree with him

I didn't care what your morals are, it's just bad interviewing. But, if you really want to bring up your morals, why are you deploying underhanded interview tactics? You let applications rest on the implied assumptions about a professional environment. Someone is extending you the professional courtesy of assuming that (if hired) you won't ask them to act immorally; you use that against them to walk them into a trap. How does that fit into your moral system?
So you think Balaji Viswanathan was right when he said the Paper Belt was going to pin it on the Maker Belt? (paraphrasing)
When buying, the checkout page is housed in this tiny iframe:

Also - the UX is terrible, and I have no idea how I should proceed in buying this. This is Google failing to take payment for something that should be seamless enough.

Screenshot: https://s3.amazonaws.com/f.cl.ly/items/44261X2i2H2w1O1I1F0V/...
Good products don't sell themselves? Somebody should tell Atlassian!
Show HN: Bloomberg CodeCon
Becoming a manager is a Career Change *not* a promotion
That's for the carry. If the market crashes and their investments fail, their carry income will be zero anyway.

VC's do get paid even if they don't invest via their management fee. It's certainly enough for them to live comfortably on while investing the fund over a ten year cycle.

But, to your point, there's another dynamic here: if they don't invest (and thus have no carry), they will be less likely to be able to raise future funds.

Just saying that it's not as simple as saying there's a conflict of interest. VC's do have a fiduciary duty to their investors and their income is tied, at least in part, to their ability to make money. Even if they lose all of the money, there is no direct cost except for possibly a quite substantial lost of reputation.

The risk to entrepreneurs is not symmetrical. No guaranteed salary is available to entrepreneurs. Even if a portfolio company fails, VC's still receive a management fee.

This system works surprisingly well, except when VC's are stupid or screw entrepreneurs. It's actually pretty amazing that it works at all, since really the middlemen hold most of the power as the distributors, but not originators, of the capital.
How to Monitor Form Abandonment Using Google Universal Analytics
Ex Amazonian who worked in their publishing space.

Having not been to Campfire, but knowing the publishing space there won't be business deals done at the conference it just won't happen. The culture of publishing is one where people don't do deal making anywhere in public, even a very exclusive party. Personal relationships are very important when it comes to deal making in publishing. What Amazon will likely do is show authors some very persuasive presentations with data that can't be crosschecked because it is Amazon's own data. But even more importantly they can show actual human beings authors could work with which is a necessary part of doing deals aka the golf course deal making method.

In terms of threatening people with "you won't have a career" I don't think Amazon would ever actually say that to anyone. But you can be sure they won't go out of their way to talk someone out of that impression. Overall Amazon only speaks to the world at large when they want to world to know something.

I think the bigger thing is most of their authors have longstanding deep relationships with their publishers. Amazon is poaching on these and doing it in secret. Campfire is the perfect place to have someone break their existing relationships in a small way. A few top authors make up the majority of a publishing houses profits, lose some of them to self publishing or even Amazon and publisher economics start to crumble.