skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
McDonalds monopoly doesn't work that way. If it was random, they couldn't limit the number of prizes that could potentially pay out. It would be trivial to set up an online trading forum and get the tiles you needed. Instead, there are "magic tiles". For example, everyone gets "Park place" but no one gets "Boardwalk" because there's only one (or an extremely limited number).

I think there are 5 concurrent games running. Just figure out the 5 tiles that win these games and watch for them. It will be easy to get the others in that set if you get one of the winners.
They did not arrest the recursion by specifying that the free jamba juice offer did not apply to gift card purchases?
I've been lurking on the factor-talk mailing-list where this paper has been discussed, and I believe the author explained he didn't mean 'real world' in a derogatory arrogant way, but rather a more literal sense. For example, while floating-point is predominant in scientific computing, spreadsheet software and even video-game engines, in 'the real world' of physical, human-scale objects moving at moderate speeds, at unremarkable altitudes, fixed-point is often more than adequate.

It's like saying that while quantum mechanics and general relativity may be useful for certain applications, in The Real World, Newton's laws of motion are all you need. It's not belittling more sophisticated solutions, it's just a kind of tactless pragmatism.
Finding Your Co-Founders
Supermarkets require a purchase to provide cash-back, do they not? That would seem to amount to some sort of fee, even if it's a lot smaller (e.g. a 50 cent pack of gum).

EDIT: I suppose I am referring to precisely that aspect of them which would otherwise be "ATM-like" - namely, that the function is to dispense cash on demand, and that the fees in question would otherwise go solely toward paying for the privilege. Cashback is a nice way to stock up on hard currency, but it is technically a side effect of making a purchase, not an ATM, even though in practice the side effect does not entail a "fee" in that you meant to buy whatever you're buying regardless.
You might be a fantastic writer, but without a good editor, and (in the case of one-offs like books) probably a good publisher, nobody will see it, or know it.

The analogy of editor/publisher to aggregators/search engines seems pretty fair. If nobody deems your content worth aggregating to HN, maybe it isn't? People who read HN trust it the same way I imagine people who have read the NY Times or National Geographic their whole life trust it.

When the web first started appearing as a news and editorial destination, it seems that people were quick to proclaim the death of curated content, because with infinite space and no need for physical resources, the constraints of binding your words together in 80 stapled pages of dead tree were history -- everything can just link to everything else, and when that fails, search! Turns out that the problem was never that a magazine could only be so many pages long, but that people only have so much time to be bothered with content they want to see.

Online the content and the editorial dept don't need to share a building -- in some cases its probably still better if they do, and in others its probably better that they're se separate as possible. I don't think there's any less value on content, or on editorial curation of what content gets in front of people. Sites like HN, Digg, Amazon and Hulu are popular destinations because they offer tailored and curated gateways to content people want. The curators have always been the bosses of the content creators, but now that they don't have to live under the same roof -- now that anyone can curate anyone else's content, as long as their curation/editorial skills are deemed good enough by the public to get them enough readers/viewers -- the balance of power has gone a bit wacky.

When Hulu's CEO called the TV networks "content providers" in that well-linked blog post a little whie back, few people batted an eye, but that was a huge slap in the face to those guys. If you're just the content provider, that means, on the org chart of the consumable content world, that Hulu is your boss -- they're your editor, your publisher, curating your content and choosing what lives and what dies. Hulu is supposed to be their dorky portal for cheapskate college students and bored secretaries! Why are they calling the shots now??

It's tiring to see people like Murdoch bellowing at top volume about their content being stolen when the content is the one thing people are still clamoring to consume by any means necessary. It's the editor's desk that's under attack and that's what's really freaking them out.
Breast Cancer Health Guide Answer | what is Cancer | Lungs Skin Cause of Cancer
This guy was hired right out of college and worked his way up in a massive corporation over 10 years. I would trust his opinions on starting a new company very little.

There's no doubt he can talk to the talk. That's the primary mechanism for promotion in a big company. I would be very careful about mistaking his opinions for actual experience.
> PS: The only way a scientist is overwhelmed with information is when they need to do something by hand. It's hard to guess how a scientist would like to collect less information. Worst case you ignore it because you can't process it yet.

I am still trying to parse that statement. 12 years ago we needed a 250 node cluster to get anything done with all the data that was presented to us and that's a fraction of what's being generated today
Interestingly, those businesses with reputations for hiring top talent don't seem to complain about specific coursework.

Yes, because they assume they can train you. If you're a smart bastard, you'll learn fast, and almost anybody will learn faster by applying knowledge than by reading a textbook.

"And, Google certainly has a penchant for hiring smart people without regard to specific technical knowledge."

Again, yes. What does this suggest? Google (and like companies) are hiring for intelligence, not specific skills. What does this suggest combined with the lack of concern about specific coursework?

They're hiring for intelligence, they're not that bothered about what you know, and they mostly recruit from top schools. This suggests that the top schools mostly act as a filter; anyone who got into School X is a smart bastard, so we should give strong consideration to hiring them just because they're smart.

So Google could cut out the middleman and hire based on SATs and cut out the middleman. Why not? They like some skills, and getting through college signals a certain degree of conscientiousness, which is good to have in employees.
Unalone's enjoyment of Finnegans Wake notwithstanding, deciphering the footnotes and expository ultimately doesn't have the upside that learning the English of Shakespeare and Chaucer do.

I'd suggest readers try Joyce's wonderful short stories, then making an assault on Ulysses. Nabokov, a Joyce admirer, called Wake, "that petrified superpun."
The remote for my car has a very weak signal strength, so sometimes when I forget where I park I place the remote underneath my chin and press up. My head (skull + fluid) acts as an antenna and voila! There's my car!

You might look like a fool doing it, but I promise it works!
Write to the people you admire and ask them for help.
it would be great to have a web-app where you could mark single talks as more interesting than others (for yourself), and perhaps as already viewed...
Lazy doesn't just mean deferred; an unnecessary computation might never be performed at all. Take for example a function where the recursive argument is never called:

sample = (\this->(\x->x))

Then, (Y sample) can reduce as follows:

1: (Y sample)

2: (sample (Y sample))

3: ((\this->(\x->x)) (Y sample))

4: (\x->x)

Now, if your evaluation strategy required evaluating arguments to final form before applying an operator to them, then line 2 would expand forever:

2: (sample (Y sample))

3: (sample (sample (Y sample)))

4: (sample (sample (sample (Y sample))))

... And so on.

However, neither call-by-need (lazy) nor call-by-name evaluation strategies require evaluating an argument before applying some operator to it. Thus, in languages that support either of those evaluation strategies, the operator can be evaluated to the point where it throws away the argument, and the argument need never be evaluated.

This is a contrived example but real world recursion works for the same reason; at some point in the evaluation of the function, it no longer needs to be applied recursively, and once it reaches that base case, the recursive function can be discarded.
Kaifu Lee mentioned the same observation in a talk. Chinese news titles usually bear sufficient information that Google news in Chinese doesn't need excerpt as counterpart in English. A Tweet in Chinese could be an essay.
Battery Backup Surge Protector from H.M. Cragg Co.
Ensure your backup battery is protected from a power surge with power products from H.M. Cragg Co.
In case you're unfamiliar with the IAmA series on Reddit (which I see is getting positive feedback from HN readers, needless to say), a 'starred' post such as this one means that the OP has verified his/her identity with a subreddit moderator.

Just wanted to point out since this new process was implemented only few days ago.
Ask HN:  Best startup space in NYC?
Hi, I am the co-founder of a startup in the process of moving to NYC. We spent the summer at the incubator DreamIT Ventures in Philadelphia and loved the experience of sharing space with other entrepreneurs. Does anyone know of any great shared space / incubators in downtown NYC or Brooklyn? Any startups have any space that they are leasing?
Seriously. Cheap can be stressful. Looking around for a deal, never knowing if you got the best deal, never knowing if you're getting a quality product (you probably aren't if you're really cheap). Of course, wasting money isn't going to help you either, but that's why, as with everything else, you should take a moderate position. Don't buy a Maserati (unless you're just so insanely rich that you don't even need to be thinking about money at all), but don't buy a $50 car that barely runs either. Neither one is a sensible financial decision.
Instead of taking away all network, what about your own configurable proxy server? All I need is some sort of periodic restriction on my favorite procrastination sites. (Like Hacker News)

I couldn't use a total network restriction for my current work. I need to interface with stuff I can't install on my own machine. (Legacy enterprise software running in a basement data-center room.)
Atlas Shrugged
American Gods
Thats a great point. Two things come to mind:

1) Even if your wrong, and this does make a statement about how we perceive real faces, then contrast would only be a really useful indicator in the case of a very average face. Generally speaking it would probably be a very weak variable in our analysis.

2) It seems like they needed to find a way to separate out just the experimental variable in a way to make its amplitude higher than other variables. The only other way I can think of is to find someone who looks pretty much like the image. When looking at it, I don't see anything that makes me think its a composite (or strange, etc...).
Sometimes you luck out and your friends don't actually have your skillsets, or vice versa. I've known the guys I'm working with for years before we started on the startup venture - one's a cinematographer, another's a programmer, and I'm an editor.

Or maybe it isn't that lucky. I highly suspect I'm /not/ unique in having a diverse social circle. Sternberg is probably overplaying the like-attracts-like effect by quite a bit.
I haven't. Right now, we're trying to figure it out. We work with many FQDNs. I've been talking to a local guy who says that in bulk I could get IPs for $3/mo at his datacenter. The price is good, but I'm then back to managing hardware, which I don't really want to do.
I am reminded of the popularity of sanatoriums back when there was no treatment for TB. There was no evidence that they actually cured people, but they made TB sufferers less visible and easier to take care of.

Similarly people who have been convinced to act happy may have problems that are just as big, but they are more pleasant to be around.

There are real benefits to positive thinking. However cancer survival doesn't seem to be among them. (Citation: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/22/health/webmd/main3...) And certainly when someone loses their job in a bad economy, it is downright dangerous to push a message that can be misread as, "It's your fault for being unhappy about it."

There is a balance to be reached. And our society is far too far off on the "la la, be happy" end. (Disclaimer: I am a person who is naturally inclined to be happy most of the time.)
Thank you that's all that I mean. You stop using it once you know why.
Boyzone Singer Stephen Gately Passed Away
Good job!

Where did you get the idea? Did you come up with it yourself, or is it something that was already floating around?
I wouldn't think evolution has anything to do with it. Quite simply, the face with lower contrast is perceived to be flatter. (The reason is purely geometric -- a curvier surface contains a wider range of angles-of-incidence with respect to the lighting source, thus resulting in a higher-contrast image.)

By placing the two images next to each other, our brain assumes that they are illuminated by the same lighting source, immediately tags one as "round" and one as "flat". Women, by the very nature of having "higher cheekbones" (and typically more facial fat), have rounder cheeks. Thus, if the brain tries to tag the two images as different sexes, it's much more likely to tag the higher-contrast (rounder-looking) face as female and the lower-contrast (flatter-looking) face as male.

Helping (hurting?) the situation is also the fact that the black level of the eyebrows was not kept constant when adjusting the contrast, thus causing them to lighten and look thinner in the higher-contrast image. Women tend to have thinner eyebrows (at least in modern society, due to the fashion trend of eyebrow plucking), no doubt lending weight to the brain's decision.

As to why women have higher cheekbones and more facial fat, well that question I'll have to defer to an evolutionary biologist :)
Exactly... and so it's possible to have other knowledge that can not be tested. I would just add to not be naive enough to believe everything you touch is this very rare special kind of truth. It's a dangerous blind path we'd walk then.
uvince AT yahoo.com

thanks for the free account!
If you hold a coin halfway into some older parking meters for a while, it will think its slot is jammed and registers "out of order." Most cities won't ticket an an out of order meter. Free parking. All day.
While the eyes look the same to me, the eyebrows look much lighter (and therefore thinner) to me in the higher-contrast image. (Perhaps we have different monitor curves?) I wish they had kept them the same, and only adjusted the contrast of the cheeks.
that brought back a few memories
After using a very Spartan FVWM setup for 12 years, I was finally seduced/bludgeoned into doing GNOME + Compiz after installing Ubuntu on my girlfriend's laptop (although, I'm running it with Debian).

My initial impressions of all these tools and things that "just work" is that this is rather adequately close to the highest virtues of the Mac experience proclaimed by its acolytes - minus, perhaps, the nice hardware traits like the magnetic power clip - for 1/4th the price.

That's my impression, anyway. Either I just made a good point, or I've proved myself stupefyingly retarded and shown to the world that I know absolutely not the first thing about Macs.
The Windup Bird Chronicle - Haruki Murakami

Cryptonomicon - Neal Stephenson

. . . and really, basically anything else by either of them.
I never thought of it quite that way before, but that's a really good point. They're functionally the WoW Accoung Phishers of the music industry.
I've run Linux as my primary OS since 1996 or so. I think Linux, OSX, and even Vista are all stable/featureful/simple enough that I could survive using any of them. I've used OSX a fair bit and never really found anything about it that would make switching worthwhile. If anything it's been playing catchup with my Linux desktop as far as the things I consider important in an OS (Spaces was only released in like 2006-2007 I believe)

Linux: Free. Stable. Simple (for me). Tons of free/open software. Ultimate flexibility. Super scriptable.

OSX: No killer feature. Less flexibility. Higher cost. More polished. Less keyboard friendly.

Vista: Great for games.
Two tips for traveling hackers:
1. International roaming of China Mobile/Unicom/Telecom users still don't escape GFW. Roaming data traffic will redirect back to China first.
2. For iPhone users, VPN proxy (L2TP over IPSec or less secure PPTP) is better solution than SSH or Tor. Google those freemium VPN proxy providers.
Thank you!

Ok, I think I see a glimmer of understanding here, it doesn't quite 'click' yet but it is a lot clearer now.

I get the 'never needed' bit, that's like in many other languages where you say for instance

if x and y then

And x = false, then y is never evaluated. Not quite the same, but it's a case where you can optimize out the evaluation of something because it's result will be discarded anyway.

The last part of your explanation still has me going around about what makes the decision to discard, it can't be the function itself, so it has to be some criterion outside the function causing that. For instance, maybe if work is no longer done, or if some arbitrary precision level has been reached.

Interesting stuff this!

In 'pure' functional programming you'd not have an 'if' statement to make the decision with, or is that allowed to be used to end recursion ? I just can't see that working using functions alone.
More on Single-Application Mode:

http://db.tidbits.com/article/10624
> If you abolished the LAUSD or NY's and made school districts for every area with 10,000 ± x students you could replace the vast majority of the bureaucracy with volunteer labour, otherwise known as busybody parents.

This only works when parents have the available free time and resources to replace these administrators with their free time. The problem with this is that parents with available free time and the motivation to donate to their child's school is very unevenly distributed. You are also going to end up duplicating a lot of administration bureaucracy across these smaller districts and losing a lot of efficiencies that can be gained from centralization. Centralization has its own costs, but sometimes these costs are not as large as the cost of a lot of duplicated effort.
Two other events in Silicon Valley that are good for serious conversation among entrepreneurs are Bootstrapper Breakfast http://www.bootstrapperbreakfast.com/ and Hackers and Founders http://www.hackersandfounders.com/
I tried it with wget on linux and it downloaded great the first time

One of the best things about OS X (for a geek like me, at least): you can get wget and a multitude of other Unix software for it. Also, curl is included by default, I believe.

As far as package managers go, there's MacPorts and Fink. I've been using MacPorts mostly these days.

For torrent clients, uTorrent or Transmission are good.
I didn't realize it at first, but you can click on it as well.
"—Ms. Vascellaro is a staff reporter in The Wall Street Journal's San Francisco bureau. She can be reached at jessica.vascellaro@wsj.com"

Funny how she posts her email address instead of her fb profile.
I suspect you're right, but I've come to understand that the OS itself is a small part of the equation. While you could find just about any software equivalents on Linux <=> Mac, some non-free software is markedly better than any free version. The hardware really is good; and when it isn't, AppleCare has saved me much frustration. If Mac didn't exist, I'd be on Linux for sure; but the entire ecosystem around Mac software has lent itself to some really quality work. Often that saves time and energy. Aesthetics are part of it, but there are indeed other factors entering into my equation more than just raw hardware+software cost.
Catch-22? That book drove me absolutely insane. I think I could appreciate the point but after awhile it was like the same joke(?) about the absurdity of the world being told 222 times in a row.

What makes you list it as one of your top two?
http://imgur.com/DPHAI

Although I used GIMP and I'm no expert. I'd say it's not as clearly masculine as the first version. *Edit: It's a version with the right subject copied from the left and the lips with less contrast - the original images were generated from a middle contrast image that isn't available.
Make tags not trees
"I'm sure that I could hook up an external USB mouse, but I wanted to do things the 'mac' way, so I worked without it."

I keep reading this same sentiment from everyone who tries out a Mac. Please don't bother. The first thing every Mac user does is throw away that useless mouse. I imagine a landfill somewhere filled with nothing but little blobs of white plastic.
'Civilisation ~Kenneth Clark' comes #3 or later?
Indeed. I had no trouble at all with the top one. Well, "trouble", given that this is an error. :)
Does anyone wonder if this is a good thing?

Not about email in particular. I'd agree that email is being used less and less in favor of other, more instant, forms of communication. And if email died and was replaced by something else, that wouldn't bother me at all.

What increasingly bothers me is that we are reaching a point that the only way to keep up with other people is to do it tweet by tweet and photo by photo. Sure, this is much higher bandwidth than the Christmas State-Of-The-Family letter we used to send each other, but it's also much more time consuming.

It takes a ton of time to sift through all that raw data and keep up with what is going on. Instead of Alice going on vacation and spending a couple hours summarizing it in an email to friends and family, you have each friend spending a couple hours sifting through Alice's photos, which she threw up on Facebook unfiltered. Total time outlay before was higher for Alice and lower for the friends. Now the situation is reversed.

Personally, it means I keep up with fewer friends than before, or at least it feels that way because I feel like I can't keep up. It's just too much effort. I find it kind of odd that we expect people to just constantly be living our lives alongside us by following our every action online. What was wrong with actually telling other people the important stuff?

I know I sound like an old fogey saying all this (I'm only 26), but it's honestly how I feel. It seems like there was value in the old model of editorializing your own life and presenting it to others. Have you ever sat through a slideshow of family photos? Did your eyes glaze over after photo 39 of Uncle Arty's 40th birthday, which happened before you were even born? That is how I feel whenever I log into Facebook.

Of course, I'm not saying this because I think everything is going to pot. I know we will find a balance. I mainly wonder where that balance will be, and whether anyone else feels this way.
Oracle's Larry Ellison cracks jokes at IBM
Time Enough for Love - Robert Heinlein,
Small is Beautiful - E.F. Schumacher
I got the idea from this page:

http://4c.ucc.ie/~hcambaza/page5/page5.html

The number of dominos I would have needed would have cost too much, so I decided to use dice instead.
The Last of the Savages by Jay McInerney
Glamorama by Bret Easton Ellis
The Fabric of the Cosmos - Brian Greene. The mind boggling science of the very big and very small laced with small doses of humor and philosophy.

The Power of Now - Eckhart Tolle. I haven't ever read a single other new age book in my life but this one really changed me. I feel consistently happier and more peaceful since reading it more than a year ago. YMMV.