skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>>> I'm not so sure this assumption is correct; at least it hasn't been demonstrated as true (AFAIK).

Might be. But the cost to produce Candy Crush Saga and a AAA title is, well, different. But if you try to find a non-digital analogy, e.g. food, it doesn't make it right for me to steel expensive whisky just because I don't agree with pricing model :)

>>> I used to pirate stuff much more when I was younger (a poor student)

Agree with this, I perfectly know what you mean. When I was a poor student, I would buy a video game once a year on my b-day and keep playing it for a year or two :) completely objective, but it felt really better than downloading a batch on games. But that's not the point :)

This is a different problem (pricing, not intellectual property). HumbleBundle sometimes has games by big publishers for $1, Steam has good weekend sales sometimes (grabbed a few relatively new good games for under $15). I think solution to provide poorer markets can be found in this direction.
They should be paid for their work. They (their bosses at least) shouldn't have the power to cripple technology, limit the free flow of information, or throw people in jail to get paid.

Again, we're talking about entertainment. The people working on these works are doing really cool things, but they don't have a right to get paid to do cool things. On the other hand, people should have the right to copy arbitrary bits from point A to point B. If for no other reason than freedom of speech and freedom of privacy.
The world isn't theoretical. Context matters, intent matters. It's called the PIRATE bay for fucks sake. Sure, there is plenty of regular sharing on TPB. But the majority of it is pirated content that they are making a hell of a lot easier for people to access.

This thread is really exposing to me the variety of views on the topic. I get your argument, but it's like you're deliberately ignoring the reality of how TPB is used.

Which people are you talking about that we have no need for? The people who make the content? You don't feel we have a need for them? I love cutting out middle men as much as anyone, but eventually somebody has to make the product. I've seen people argue that authors shouldn't be paid for their work, they should do it as a side project of passion and be happy to see somebody reading a copy of their work. I'd much rather do my art all day than have to do it as a side project while I work at something else to pay the bills.

And as an aside, we may live in a post-scarcity world but it sure as hell isn't distributed.
Anonymous is not a "hacker group." Anonymous is an internet mob which happens to have some members who are hackers. LulzSec was a hacker group.

I know that might reek of pedantry, but it's an important distinction because we don't want to contribute to the misconception that everyone associated with Anonymous is a a sooper geenus power user. Large components of the group agree with its goals but don't have special knowledge.
Microsoft Word has a shedload of features that journalists can't be bothered learn and/or use, and that even the author appears not to know about, judging by his reference to "replacing simple text processors like Microsoft Word".
I didn't down vote, but you're not just asking questions; you're masking a statement in form of a question.
> There will always be people to say that doing things manually is better than having the computer do it

Languages that don't require a heavy IDE (particularly one including lots of tools for writing and rewriting code -- static analysis tools are a different issue) aren't "doing things manually instead of having the computer do it" -- interacting with the language itself is no more "manual" than interacting directly with the IDE. Its just aligning the write-language with the read-language. If I need a separate visual language to use to write code from the language I'm nominally working in, that both increases the overall mental complexity and indicates that there are weaknesses in the abstractions available in the nominal working language.
Inheritance as taught in OO courses (deep class hierarchies) is bad most of the time.

We can save 100 lines of code there by coupling 2 slightly related things forever (and arbitrarily choosing this criteria for division as the most important).

I've made game before I knew OO programming. I haven't knew it then, but I used Interpreter Pattern - there was data model, with a list of records, each record had some enums deciding how game logic should handle it. There was main loop updating the model using these enums to choose logic to run on this record.

It wasn't pretty but it worked, I was able to modify it however I wanted, to choose logic to run on some record basing on enums, other atributes of given record, attributes of parent records, or of colliding records, on whatever I wanted basicaly.

Then I rewrote the game to use OO design (I was enthusiastic- this is exactly what I need - I thought). It turns out that I had to choose arbitrary divisions. I can divide game objects into Solid and non-solid, Static and Movable, Visible and Invisible, and also Smart vs Dumb Objects. Which division should be first in class hierarchy? All the rest would need to be duplicated anyway. SmartMovableVisible, SmartMovableInvisible, SmartStaticVisible, etc... Ugly.

Inheritance solves part of the problem and leaves you with inconsistent solution.

The real solution is strategy pattern, and composition over inheritance. It can be done just as well in languages without inheritance (but with lambdas).
Wild Biomorphic Spacesuits Designed to Survive Hostile Planets
Actually, we are changing color at the website only. Just to show that you can color the icons as you want.
Downvotes are possibly because your comment could be read as instinctively/tribally anti Microsoft.

Yes, MS and Apple are competitors. But what would they have to gain by shutting-down iOS support? People would just move to TestFlight (Apple owned), which would gain MS noting at all and probably earn them some justifiable bad feeling.

Nadela-era Microsoft is looking to be a different and more open beast than the Gates and Balmer era company.

Edit: I didn't downvote you.
I recently found this introduction to simula http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2or78v/introduc...

and indeed it reminded me of erlang.
You'd be better off using MemcacheDB/LMDB http://symas.com/mdb/memcache/
For load test I use blitz.io, they have a great interface, live stats and can handle up to 200k concurrent users. You'll get 10 free credits every month for tests.
"The great thing about object-oriented programming is it makes small, simple solutions look like big, complex ones."
Talking to girls and negotiating salary are two things that us computer folk are historically bad at. We're actually bad at lots of things, but these two are unique in that rather than finding ways to get better at them, we instead proclaim them to be Impossible Things For Computer Programmers To Learn and refuse even attempt to get a little bit better at them.

This is really strange.

If you were bad at writing Objective-C code, but it was 2008 and knowing how to write Objective-C code would let you answer "Yes" to any of those dozen emails a week you were getting offering $150/hr to write Objective-C, what would you do? Would you perhaps spend a few hours learning how to do it?

Now what if you were bad at negotiating? "No way. Negotiating is evil. They should just pay everybody the same. That'd be fair."

Or dating? "No way. Talking to girls seems hard and scary. And I'd actually have to walk over there and talk to one of them."

But here's the thing. It's only hard because you've never done it. Go do some of it and you'll find it's really not that bad.
Sh*t my Siri says
What is the weirdest thing you asked Siri and actually got a reply for?
It's become a lot more popular in the last few months/years, maybe there's a good reason for that. The English documentation is much better than it used to be, as is the library ecosystem.

I work mostly in Scala, but there's a lot of similarity, and I think the main reason we're seeing it take off now (10 years after originally released) is that the kind of problems where it's really useful are becoming a lot more common. If everything's in the cloud, you need a language that's good at distributed problems. If you need to handle huge volumes of data, you need something more flexible and explicit than traditional languages. If you're using too many layers of technology to understand what they all do, you need a language that can help you keep track of them.
If you're looking for a focused criticism of OOP, you should look elsewhere. Some points in the article deal with programming in general, sometimes very vaguely, like the single sentence criticism of design patterns, methodologies, on change, on types...
It's not even a tax, all the money will be collected by publishers' lobby groups.
“Can I give up now?” the Highs and Lows of Being a Founder
As Peter Norvig famously said, "Design patterns are bug reports against your programming language." Read his presentation on why the most common design patterns become simpler or even unnecessary when using a dynamic functional language such as Lisp: http://norvig.com/design-patterns/
Thanks for sharing. I didn't know about this one and will check it out.
1. Turing did not write by himself to Churchill and get himself put in charge. He wrote with others and asked for more resources.

2. Pretty much all sequences with the Bombe are a cringe because they appear to be building a machine but not know what it is for. It's implied that it's a Turing Machine.

3. They apparently hadn't thought of using a crib resulting in a dramatic run back to Bletchley from the pub sequence to get the Bombe working.

4. John Cairncross didn't work in Turing's group. So the whole plot with Cairncross and Turing and blackmail is nonsense.

5. Gordon Welchman doesn't appear in the film and Hugh Alexander is instead credited with coming up with the Bombe diagonal board.

6. Turing is shown building a computer in his home in the early 1950s. Not likely.

7. Turing never told a Manchester police officer his entire life story revealing all of Bletchley's secrets. Also, he didn't try to stop the police investigation. He's the one that reported the burglary.

8. Joan Clarke wasn't recruited through a crossword competition, she was already known to be a bright mathematician.

I could go on.

Of course, none of this had to happen. I met the director and offered (for free) to help them get stuff right.
Opendoor Launches
That part of the article is where I stopped reading.
>TPB wasn't about rights or freedoms or standing up to government oppression. People used it primarily to obtain media and software without paying for it. //

I think there is an issue of rights and freedoms.

With a capitalist economy certain elements of culture are effectively reserved for the wealthy. In other state structures those making the cultural artefacts that we use to express our selves, to link, to coalesce on common sentiment, those could be sufficiently supported to make all cultural artefacts free-gratis and free-libre.

The democratisation of media particularly through availability of music and film - which are so central to our cultural experience - means that many who would otherwise be [partially] excluded from participation in today's culture (for better or worse) can take part.

Moreover, copyright was initially set up with a view to ensuring that eventually the wealth locked up in shared experience, cultural introspection, confrontation with new ideas and different aspects of the culture would be freed in to the public domain.

The actions of media corporations, the use of DRM, these things (amongst others I'm sure) act to prevent entry to the public domain. DRM in particular breaks the copyright deal, if we the people aren't going to get our side of the copyright bargain why should we uphold the side that suits those financial interested in media production? Usually with a contract if one side breaks the terms then the contract is nullified - surely this morally should be true too of copyright.

In short, I think to assume that this is solely an issue of 'people who could pay to consume media choosing not to' is wrong, that there is a greater depth to this and that the likes of TPB have made a change to the access to the culture of the age making it [more] available to those of restricted means. I think this can make for more cohesion in society. Possibly too it makes for more homogeneity, that may not be a good thing however if the principle messages being passed (and shared) in society are those coming from Hollywood.

I feel there's much more to say on this. But I'll stop. /rant

Edit: cleaned up some verbosity.
Product Hunt Collections
It looks fine on a wide-gamut monitor... Eye piercing on my Cinema Display.
Slack vs. HipChat vs. Hall for project communication
The point is clear, but Hanlon's razor is just a bullshit adage that people invoke when they want to stop thinking about something. It's a proverb, not a hard scientific fact and it certainly doesn't apply to all situations. Malice indeed exists everywhere and on a spectrum just like ignorance. People are generally self-centered and they act on their self-centeredness all the time.

The amount of corruption in our institutions is truly staggering and playing stupid is such an obvious and common criminal tactic that three year olds can and do utilize it...So I wouldn't be so quick to apply Hanlon's razor.
On the download page:

> Free ‘plug and play’ set of SVG icons designed specifically for web projects. Available as a Node.js package or a Ruby gem (for Rails). Just use icon names with your templates and styles — and all the rest will be done automagically.

But I don't use node or Ruby. Where can I download them?
> I'm sorry, but downloading entertain is not a human right.

Making money from producing entertainment isn't a human right. Maybe certain entertainment business models aren't sustainable in the internet age. It's not like we'll run out of entertainment. Most cat-based YouTube videos are better than the Real Housewives of Schenectady anyway.

And to extort and imprison people for the sake of a business model is terrible.
As far as I'm aware.

> Currently, it’s read only, but we hope to improve it over time and may later enable access to private per-user data using OAuth.

http://blog.ycombinator.com/hacker-news-api
Good point, you still need an escape hatch to bump a version segment higher than the minimum necessary one, for many reasons.

I'm not sure I agree that the phrase "going stable" really applies to a semver project. The most stable release would just be the highest number in each segment. Version 1.0.1 is almost by definition going to be more stable than 1.0.0, since the changes are only backwards-compatible bug fixes. At least that's my understanding of semver.
This is a good essay, and I am hesitant to see the film because I am worried that I will cringe every few minutes. But, I disagree with this sentence:

"Everyone agrees that Alan Turing is a seminal figure in the computer revolution, so it's puzzling why these movies deliberately misrepresent his work."

I sincerely doubt the movies deliberately misrepresent his work. Rather, I assume they honestly misrepresent his work, meaning that they tried to get it right, but they don't understand it well enough to do so.
I agree. Let's imagine writing a compiler without the visitor pattern. In fact, hey, let's go a step further and build one in a functional language. I'd be willing to put money down that the strategy that would evolve for say, code generation, would look a hell of a lot like - wait for it - the visitor pattern.

To your point, OO & design patterns aren't necessarily intertwined.
I wonder if I might suggest a 'refund claim due to late service' filter?
From: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/somasegar/archive/2014/12/08/microso...

"We will integrate HockeyApp into the Application Insights service in Visual Studio Online to expand Application Insights support for iOS and Android." Seems to me they're positioning themselves for more cross platform development.
Not Enough Chief Information Security Officers to Go Around
Thanks! I'm working on designing a heat map feature similar to GitHub commits that'll show you a historical record of how you're doing over time.

My eventual plan is to build a team version, so instead of asking your teammates, "what are you working on today?" you could just check out their three most important tasks. There would also be a weekly wrap up email sharing who did what for the week.
I'm not a huge fan of OOP either, but I'm rather much getting tired of these articles who rant on about it from a logically unsound position like my grandfather rants about Obama.

OOP "sucks" because programmers suck. There are a lot of bad programmers in the world. SOme of them occasionally write programming languages, too. So just because certain people fail to create quality projects, or one particular language, written in ancient times, doesn't stand up to scrutiny, doesn't mean the entire idea is flawed.

Modern object-oriented programming (whatever you want to call it, I'm not going to get into any No True Scotsman debates) is a very well-understood paradigm. If you have a set of experienced, skilled developers and nobody is going off trying to do insane things, you can implement many projects with an OO design and it will be very successful.

Not every project is a Boeing 747 or the Sistine Chapel or Dante's Inferno. Most projects are just wood sheds and latrines and gas stations. In terms of grunt-work programming where the problem domain is well understood, OO works just fine.

And FP works just fine. And straight procedural works just fine. And it really doesn't matter. Because the quality of software has nothing to do with your choice of paradigm or programming language or operating system or anything. It is the team that matters. That's it.

And if you're embarking on a massive air liner or an epic poem, your basic choices of tools are once again not going to matter that much, either. It is again up to having the right people. In this case, you need brilliant people, and not just people who struggle to put together a birdhouse without supervision.
Yes, it does presume ownership.

As owners of creative products, the content producers can do as they feel with them. They can choose which characters die, how the story is told, and how the content is presented. That is because it is "their" work, it is not just information.

Freedom of information is a great concept, and one which I support. Tax payers should be able to find out how much organization x donated to politician y. But a movie, a creative work, is more than information. It is a product, an investment, and requires a substantial effort from many people.

Please let me know if I am misrepresenting your argument, but it seems that you are using this notion of freedom of information to blanket, what I view as, theft. Just because no one was strong armed for a loaf of bread does not mean that a theft did not occur. No one may have been deprived of physical property, but we do not live an entirely physical world. Piracy deprives content creators of opportunity: the opportunity to distribute their products in the way that they see fit. Perhaps this means that they give all of their work away for free through the channels of their choosing. Perhaps they sell it. Perhaps they don't sell it to people who live in certain regions.

As a content creator, shouldn't I have the opportunity to give away my products (or sell them) in a way that I see fit?
An ASM Monad (2013)
for newly built applications, why not setup a ceph or swift cluster ..then use an s3 interface for access to files/objects?
total an minimum replicas can be configured... so you will get something like eventual consistency if you use small min than total.
You sure talk a lot about how he was putting malware into people's computer through ads, when he himself said he's glad TPB is gone mostly because of how horrible its ads were[1].

You have a point (to the extent that it can be a point - it's just not really worth talking about anymore): downloading entertainment is not a human right. You make a very poor case of arguing that point.

But I don't think anyone really argues that "downloading movies" is a human right (and those that do are full of it). The problem is very much in reverse. The problem is the lengths that Hollywood and music studios will go to PREVENT people from doing those things. And the only defense is that those things are "morally dubious", and yet a lot of people do it. Hell, it's common knowledge that Spotify did it to get their business started.

So you're arguing the wrong problem. Now you tell me, is it a "right" for those companies to go above and beyond everything to prosecute and intimidate people who want entertainment they provide but are not willing to pay for it? Keeping in mind that:
- Said people are not directly costing the companies anything
- It's impossible to know whether said people would have paid for the content otherwise
- It's impossible to know whether said people would have even known about the content were it not for illegally acquiring it

The following is my subjective opinion:
You are a fool if you're angry about piracy on your pet project. You should be glad people go out and look for it. You have an audience.

That audience may not be entirely composed of people willing to pay for your work, but looking for such an audience is not a viable business plan. What you're getting is free advertising. What you're seeing on torrent sites is the very primitive equivalent of what happens on, for example, YouTube where you have channels and networks making more than they can ever dream off ads and sales just because they have the ability to reach so many people at such convenience.

Ears and eyeballs can directly translate to wallets, given the means. But instead of Hollywood/RIAA solving that problem, we have them prosecuting potential fans. We have them shutting down audiences by raiding sites that are full of actual fans. We have them corrupting judicial and political systems one after the other. We have them influencing international treaties and agreements, taking us all for brainless cashcows.

Fuck that.

[1]: http://blog.brokep.com/2014/12/09/the-pirate-bay-down-foreve...
I don't anyone should concede that copying data is theft. Since theft implies an unlawful transfer of ownership. Copying data and deleting the original is theft.