skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> But how many cameraphone users are actually cropping their images so extremely that they need 41 megapixels? Phone makers don't put 41 MP sensors for the niche market of users who need cameras that good but don't have a DSLR; they do it because the majority of their customer base thinks "the more pixels the better".

Actually, the Nokia 41MP sensor is sold as enabling high-power digital zoom, which is the feature (with the associated benefit of taking clear pictures from much further away than with other phones) of the phone most heavily touted in the TV ads for the phones with the sensor. And digital zoom is exactly the same thing as cropping.

So, no, I don't think the actual marketing of the phone supports the idea that 41MP sensor is targeted at people using MP as a quality metric disconnected from any concrete utility, its targeted at selling a very specific benefit.
Will this require updated hardware, or is it enough to update the software stack for devices with 4.0 hardware? The FAQ wasn't clear.

(The FAQ did go on for lengths about branding "bluetooth 4.2" vs "bluetooth smart" vs "bluetooth smart ready" vs "bluetooth". Have they learnt nothing from the "HD Ready" silliness? Also it's weird to see that "bluetooth low energy is an optional part of the specification". Sounds like a "fun" spec to implement)
Levitating.

Since overcoming the friction can be achieved through approaches like coating the wire in ultra low friction material which will consume no power to operate.
From what I can see he crawls the website as a user would do. He logs in to Google just via https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?service=mail&contin..., two-factor authentication might involve user interaction.

Session information (about other sessions) from for example Facebook can be obtained through https://www.facebook.com/ajax/settings/security/sessions.php
"My question is, if there are enough STEM workers in the US, why wouldn't they take up the jobs, even if the wages are low? Would they prefer unemployment over a low paying job?"

They do take up the resulting lower paying stem jobs if they can find them.

If there isn't enough demand for STEM workers, their wages are depressed. If you make your living doing STEM stuff, this Isn't Good. It's great for employers though. That is why they love the virtual indentured servant system (H1B).

Think about it. How would you feel if your wages were lowered because employers colluded to lower them by saying "We don't have enough workers!." - when there were already plenty? They just wanted cheaper workers in order to accrue and even larger portion of the wealth form themselves.
Attacking company reputation is more valuable than any stuff you manage to buy with a bug like this. You just need to snatch some transactions from enough people and leak the story to the media. You do not actually need to monetize those transactions.
This is awesome. OTOH, I wonder whether 4.3 will then introduce a HW-based firewall approach to the IoT devices running 4.2 ... (which we might have by ... 2028?)
I had one experience in an "open office" for approximately six months. It was terrible, constant shuffling of people to acquire the plethora of free food available. Nerf Gun wars and the constant click clack of ping pong approximately 30 ft. away. This article has offered me some vindication in my distaste for the "open office".
I've donated... Conservancy does good for a lot of great projects. Heck, if you're using / developing FOSS, you're pretty much 100% guaranteed to be helped by the work Conservancy is doing.

I wrote here about why I'm supporting, and why you should too:

http://dustycloud.org/blog/donate-to-conservancy/
As far as I can tell your response is off topic.

I never said it didn't produce results, I said that it had cultural effects.

>If this paternalistic attitude didn't work, Y Combinator wouldn't be doing it.

Your argument seems essentially "it exists, therefore it's fine." Minimal competence also produces results. That doesn't mean the flaws of an approach are mitigated or nonexistent.

My overall point has nothing whatsoever to do with results. What I'm saying is something about ugliness and ugly people and how our culture treats them despite the fact that we are all ugly people.

Unfortunately for Paul and Jessica, they are in public view quite often; in this article we get a glimpse of their ugliness. But they also consistently accept the rewards given them because of this exposure. Good/bad for them, depending on your viewpoint of that tradeoff.

I dwell on them because the disparity between how our culture punishes and rewards 'professionalism' and lack thereof.

This is about the lie of professionalism. Perhaps you're saying professionalism doesn't matter if, even during its absence, results can still be had? I don't see how that counters anything I've said.
It's a bit better since JDK1.7 introduced a modicum of type inference:

List<String> list = new ArrayList<>()
That's probably not affordable for a majority of companies.
If Rands in Repose didn't have such cryptic titles, I could link you to a blog post from http://randsinrepose.com/ which argued that yes, individual offices would be ideal, while also having common areas for brainstorming.
I thought it was unclear too for a different reason - the text says "that match this one" which I read as being actual identical matches. Sure it's obvious when you see the images but that wording feels really awkward.
> The biggest symptom is classes with names that are close anagrams of their primary method. For example: StaleJobsCleaner.cleanStaleJobs, StaleJobsFinder.findStaleJobs, JobDeleter.deleteJob, JobDepedencyFinder.findJobDependencies, etc.

This issue has nothing to do with enterprise style, and everything to do with the fact that that's how "functional" programming is done in Java. What is really wanted is a first-class function `x`, but that doesn't exist. So instead an `Xer` SAM interface is summoned into existence that has that `x`.
Could the quality of the phone's microphone be the reason for the low-fi voice audio?
Deconstructing Fizz Buzz with Flip-Flops in Ruby
Brainfuck implemented in Rust's type system
YouPorn Now Sponsors an E-Sports Team
I wish they provided enough actual technical details to see what's new here. As far as I'm aware, the usual way to do IP-over-Bluetooth encapsulation is using the Personal Area Networking profile [1], which has required support for IPv6 support since 2001. (I've never tested it on real hardware with anything other than IPv4, so maybe it was specified but never implemented? Regardless, it seems odd that a mechanism that tunnels Ethernet packets would have to care about higher levels of the protocol stack.)

[1]: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/Bluetooth/PAN-Profile....
What is the intuition behind the Fibonacci heap data structure?
I've never used Datomic, so maybe this should have been written as:

> which means they _could_ optimize in a variety of domain specific ways.
> SpaceX basically has just one customer which it is entirely reliant upon.

As far as I can tell NASA accounts for less than half of SpaceX's business. According to their website they have nearly $5 billion in contracts and I can only find reference to just over $2 billion in NASA contracts.
FTA: The “TextureSynthesis” method is based on the algorithm described in “Image Texture Tools,”[1] a PhD thesis by P. Harrison. This algorithm is an enhanced best-fit approach introduced in 1981 by D. Garber in “Computational Models for Texture Analysis and Texture Synthesis.”[2]

[1] http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh-files/thesis/dissertation.pdf

[2] http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=910609
So far I keep getting the error "Cannot connect to server of image2text models"

Anyone having any luck?
Can put max 3 people per office. People can move together to an office if they share a common task. Then switch around as tasks change.

But it is important to keep distractions out especially for creative positions.

Also everyone is different so maybe some people prefer the open floor and they should be allowed to work there too. But forcing everyone to do it, I think is misguided.
A tiny office with a door is cheaper than two days of the typical programmers salary.
This kind of thing is so frustrating. It's one of those features where "somebody got a raise for that", except it's so hostile towards users. Google is absolutely the worst. Installed an app in one country that's not available in another? Cool now you get a 404 in the play store.

In Denver, Google has also at times decided I'm in France, then Hungary, with absolutely no way to fully disable it on sites like YouTube or Google.com (you always get the links and logos, and alt-text for images is still in the "local" language). Play Store shows certain section subtitles in one language, even though Android and everything else is in another.

I recently went to buy some books for my kids. The publisher's site detected I was in another country, and hid the book information with a page suggesting I contact a local reseller. Despite that I was just visiting another country at the time. No way to override.

Chrome would do the same on install, and offer no way to remove the default search engine from the localized copy. You could change to another one, but not fully delete it. Meanwhile, the entire UI stays in whatever language they decided. So despite using Windows in English, browser in English, etc. etc., Google though it'd be cool to run in Spanish, or Russian, or whatever, based on your IP address. Moronic.

Netflix has similar problems - the site does not respect language preferences completely and things like search autocomplete will use the "detected" language. Traveling and contacting support? Cool. Despite every indication you're using English, they'll route you to support in a local language. It's insane.

The one thing the HTTP spec got right, Accept-Language, and everyone just ignores it and implements this shitty geo localization + language handling. And they think it's a feature, and every time someone implements this, they probably get a pat on the back and a raise for doing something intelligent. FFS.
Laws are always interpteted, that doesn't make it arbitrary. Decisions can be appealed. I'm not saying change laws, I'm saying that when an it can be ruled that a loophole is used to circumvent a law, one should often rule as if the law was broken (and later close the loophole). For example, a company charging itself interest on loans to a parent company in a tax haven should simply not be able to deduce that interest. That was never the lawmakers intention.
Not "full", just UObject and such, so much more lightweight.
You'd never think you'd hear this, but IMO full height cubicles are a step up from the open office plan without running the bill of true offices.
Came with generics which was introduced in Java 5.

No longer true with Java 7
My instinct is that these articles are both right. Yes, your emotions and impulses are more difficult to control when you're tired and hungry (WSJ article) and yes, with effort you can still control them (stanford article). Much of psychology is "shaky" science - the underlying subject is just so damn complex.
This piece is of amazingly low quality. Almost all the "discoveries and innovations" are echoes of work performed before the golden quarter. For example, Alexander Fleming noticed the effect of penicillin in 1928. The engineering of a useful drug didn't happen until 1942. Sulfanomides were in regular use in the 1930s. But, hey, let's assign "antibiotics" to the Golden Quarter.

But the laugh out loud quote is this:

"if you were a biologist, physicist or materials scientist, there was no better time to be working"

Physics is slower now because the energy levels to probe new phenonmena is getting awfully big, but biology? That is simply ludicrous. The golden age of biology is right now, and for the next fifty years. Today's material scientists are building things atom by atom, with undreamed of properties, and nanotechnology wasn't even a dream back then.

I'd summarize the Golden Quarter as that time when the low hanging fruit dropped into the exponential growth of scientific and engineering advances. But the idea that we aren't innovating at a blistering pace today - so far off the mark.
"depending on atmospheric conditions" is a big IF in the polar regions.

A USAF U-2 on a high altitude polar air sampling mission accidentally wandered into Soviet airspace at the height of the Cuban missile crisis because auroras blocked the pilot's stellar fixes.

See: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/06/missile_...
I work for a company whose entire office is on an open plan. Yes, even the CEO sits in a cubicle, as do all the senior management and stuff. And this is not a startup, mind you, its a mid size company.

Although it was kinda scary at first, I've adapted to it, and can see the practical benefits. Not having special offices, there is a sense of egalitarianism amongst the workers and none of the usual rat-race for better offices. As pointed out in another comment, most employees tend to use headphones when they need privacy. Since all the cubicles are the same, maintenance is a breeze.

I guess it depends on your temperament. If you really just like to be left alone when working, it won't help. For me, having so many people around kinda prevents me from going drowsy, which used to happen a lot at my previous job.
No, I only meant they both have selfish cultures, obviously they manifest completely differently.

The US continues to be one of the best places to live in the world even in its entitled malaise, largely as a result of momentum of post-war prosperity that was mostly dropped in our lap due to military and political strife around the rest of the planet while we sat happily on a wealth of natural resources ready to be exploited.
Cubicles for 4 persons are fine. Or any other way of zoning with small walls - in rows or bigger "cubicles" for more people 6-8, maybe 10.

PS: and while my team is a distraction for others in my office (relatively, not absolutely) I dislike open-spaces. They aren't mentally comfortable, not because of noise (for me) but because of no "feeling" of privacy. It is all subjective of course.
For tech companies and engineers in the Bay Area:

1) $100-200k/yr salary
2) $200-300k/yr fully loaded cost
3) $500k-$5mm/yr value created per employee (rev or market cap or whatever) -- this is actually more like -$huge to +$huge)

Offices cost $7/ft2/mo in Palo Alto, or $2-4/ft2/mo in SF.

A private office is probably 50-100 ft2 more than open plan.

So, we're talking about $100 to $700/mo difference.

I'd personally be willing to pay $500/mo pre-tax to have a private office, vs. a desk in an shared office. Productivity benefits to company are on the order of $10-50k/mo.

Next time I do a startup, I'm doing 3-4 person sized offices for each person (i.e. you have a guest desk, workspace, etc., normally empty), and project areas shared per team, after there are more than just founders.
Amazon's Mechanical Turk workers protest: 'I am a human being, not an algorithm'
However, export might be a different story.
Imagine when an OpenSSL like bug is found in the firmware in all these IPv6 over BT lightbulbs?
Valuable to a small handful of competing corporate interests, maybe, but useless to the rest of us. What are you suggesting, that Amazon might agree to funnel you a large sum of money under the table in return for divulging something like this?
Show HN: Readr for Reddit – Medium Like Viewer for Reddit
You can say that, but Google has stated it's because federation was not used that much and that the spam aspect of it was the dominating usage. Which makes total sense and XMPP does not solve it, and in fact it's hard to see a solution for this problem that doesn't rely on a centralized solution.

Feel free to propose one. Because if you can solve it for XMPP, you can probably solve it for SMTP and become a billionaire for fixing spam.
I had my own office when I was an undergrad sysadmin.
Google's services are not free.

You trade your data, screen real estate, and attention for their service. This is worth a lot - Google is worth a lot. They didn't do it by giving out services for free.
If you have cubicles, I don't think that's an open office.
The problem with this is that it assumes progress in these areas is linear. For example, it's easier to leap from bi-plane to jets than it is to go from jet airliner to something faster because a system gets more complex based on both its components and the connections between them. Simply put--there's more that can go wrong.

"Why can't I travel to my destination is less than 8 hours?" isn't so much the question as "Can we carry enough fuel to power an engine that's faster?", "Do we need entirely new propulsion?", "If elevation could help, how do we keep this thing skirting the edge of the atmosphere and still function?" etc. I don't know anything about aeronautics, so forgive my oversimplification, but this seemed like an easy to grasp example of what I'm talking about.
High-walled cubicles is a common compromise
New visual aggregator and search platform for website templates and themes
Seems like the problem wasn't the open office plan but grown-ups playing with nerf guns and ping pong when they're being paid to work.
Dart VM is "In development" for Chrome
Not so new ... but it seems that some news has to be repeated on and on, that people learn.

In 1987 the book "Peopleware" already described the open office trap. But since, the idea keeps coming back in CEOs minds. I experienced it in a big corporation I was in. Decades after Peopleware, Open-Office was declared as "big new invention from the US" -- but it still was the same old fallacy.

The idea kept coming up always in new flavors and new "inventions" -- it seems that the idea is just to attractive for managers to be buried.

The problem is, that you have to invest in people to get best results -- and conventional economical thinking often times goes the opposite direction, how to cut costs.
FYI: Title tag on https://www.makeschool.com/home/ is MakeGamesWithUs | Home
Compiler optimizations vs. PostgreSQL
The open/closed office thing seems like chocolate vs. vanilla. Some people love one and hate the other. Some are okay with both. I've worked in both, at several companies.

I generally prefer open office plans. Clearly other people don't. Everyone is different. There is no RIGHT answer, just RIGHT for you, or for your team...
Actually, the 2nd law doesn't apply to everything. For example, a single classical planet orbiting a sun will orbit forever. Or, gas particles in a cube box if their velocities are perfectly perpendicular to one side of the box. Or a simple harmonic oscillator.

In many physical (classical) systems there is a set of generalized coordinates of measure 0 which does not obey the 2nd law.
Isn't 8% month over month something like 150% year over year, how much faster growth did they need, or has the market really come to expect 1,000% year over year to be worthy of funding?
Open office plans seem really polarizing on HN, but it surprises me how often people defend them here (or even evangelize them). For software development, it seems like something that has no upside at all (aside from saving money on office space), and tons of downsides.

For the people who do prefer them (and also spend most of their time writing code), I would be curious to know the following:

(1) How many years have you spent, total, working as a developer in an office environment every day?

(2) What percentage of those years were in open office layouts vs. sharing an office vs. having a private office?

(3) How many times a day, on average, do you interrupt other people with questions, vs. other people interrupting you?

I bring this up because I just really truly don't get the occasional open office boosterism here. My current theory is that most of it comes from people who are still in the honeymoon phase of their career (like, the first few years after college when everything about the workplace still has some novelty to it).

I say this because it seems like many/most of the people I talk to in person who like the open office idea have either literally never had a private office, or are relatively fresh out of college and get a job at Google (or a startup, or wherever), and they're still so excited about everything that even the things that are hassles (like open office plans?) seem like they're brimming with novelty.

Alternately, a lot of the people I talk to who like open offices tend to be those that are constantly pinging the people around them for help, but people rarely or never ping them for help. The only people I've known at my current company who want open offices (or even officemates) are these kinds of people. They don't even realize that they have an 'interruption deficit' (for lack of a better term) within their team, they just like the idea of everyone being more readily available to them and they don't pay the price for it since they rarely get interrupted themselves.
There has been a lot of social progress in reality. More households with computers and in more modern times, smartphones galore. Engineering of very tiny scales has grown at a strong pace especially given the difficulties and expenses of working at the smaller scales and the huge amount of mystery that still is there for how materials behave in small dimensions/quantities.

Infrastructure has improved. Internet, Wireless Cell Coverage, etc. These things have been limited not just by the available technology but by the available money.

Solar panels have gained enormous advances in terms of price and even pretty great advances in efficiency and other technological feats. Agriculture has been heavily researched and arguably improved. (although there is a large discussion which seems ready to turn into a movement before too long...of getting more investment into aquaponics, hydroponics, vertical farming, permaculture...not large monoculture farms and water pollution from agri-chemicals)

Software has come a really long way in the last few decades. Accessibility of data. Price of data storage has plummeted rather fantastically.

What still needs focus IMO is the sort of 'application of the application' ie. the use of inventions beyond just their function, what is their function ultimately solving for humanity?
Ah, you're right. I might have misunderstood the meaning of the term open-office. Apologies.

If its just a bunch of people sitting on tables without any sort of division ... I can see why that would be annoying.
Early Feminist Videogames Find New Life
> As far as I can tell NASA accounts for less than half of SpaceX's business.

NASA ⊂ "The Government"

SpaceX also has Defense (USAF) contracts. At least around $900 million already awarded (and that may not be all), and they recently sued to be allowed to compete for much more under the EELV program.
Developer salaries are probably not affordable for a majority of companies either. But they pay them, otherwise they couldn't get people to come to work for them.

So at some level of developer pay, N companies are profitable. At N+P, fewer companies are profitable, and at N-P, more. All else being equal.

If we cared as much about our desks as we do about our pay, we'd have more offices, and companies would either make less profit, or there would be fewer companies.

But we don't have offices, because we don't insist on it.

Next time you interview, make that as important as salary.
Really interesting, detailed comment. The problem is not that Mathematica has bugs - all complex software has bugs (except TeX). The problem is that you can't fix it, or even see how it works, because the source is secret. Nothing will get fixed until the company decides to fix it. Access to source is not an ideological imperative, it's a practical necessity.
This sounds like the problem Plan 9 set out to solve
Here's another one site that organizes those tools: https://dev-ops-tools.zeef.com
Ttunnel: A simpler stunnel replacement