skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not sure why you're downvoted, your observation mimics what I experience day-to-day. Memory management is magical, network bandwidth is infinite and networks have zero latency, cpu cycles are infinite, caches are infinite and harddrive transfer rates and seek times are so fast it doesn't matter. Until it does.

Case in point: I just got called in on a project that was on the skids. 8 HP blades, 128G each, HP 3Par storage unit underneath it, network capacity by the gallon and it still wouldn't perform with a measly 9000 users per day for a pretty simple website. Loadspikes and restarts to get the system to be available again were the order of the day. Existential threat to the company that had ordered the system to replace their previous system.

After reducing the 130 or so VMs they were using to one and getting rid of all the superfluous hardware and interconnect little by little the system started to work better. Another 3 weeks of fixes later we're running comfortably on that single machine, loads are < 1 during any 24 hour period. The waste and impedance mismatch between the applications and the hardware was simply painful.

And all this was built by so called 'experts', one guy calling himself a DBA (wonder if he realized that you can have indices on more than just the primary key field), a bunch of other gurus and a remote team of developers. Each and every one of them may have their qualities but as a collective with crappy management they managed to make a system that could support a few million daily users crawl trying to support a few thousand.

Understanding how your processor works is only one small element in that story, I think that if you add to that forgetting how your hard drive works, how the computer as a whole works and being unfamiliar with the cost of communications as well as with how operating system level tuning works you might be closer to the truth.

What bugs me is not that this stuff happens. What bugs me is how often it happens.
Provided no one else has ever contributed yes he can. In fact this is not unique to the BSD, you can do that with any license. Even proprietary licenses do not force the author to continue using the same license since they own the original copyright.
Thanks for pointing this out. I could quite easily have invoked Godwin's Law and used gas chambers as an example, but I chose the fictional example instead. It seems that many people missed that, since I appear to be getting down voted for it.
Unless there's a term in the license it never ends, so my BSD copy stays that way. Anyone could keep distributing it and derivatives.
Marketing Products in Our Credit Store – FREE 25 Credits When You Register
The license literally states that redistribution in source form with modification is permitted, provided a few conditions are met.

https://code.google.com/p/google-refine/source/browse/trunk/...
Are you talking about iand's comment [0]? How does it indicate that?

[0] : https://github.com/threedaymonk/text/issues/21#issuecomment-...
Read books.

You can't find the interesting ideas and topics outside. They are in you. It has to come from your knowledge and experience. For some reason, while reading books, lots of thoughts surface. Sometimes I have to re-read pages because I will just continue reading while thinking about something else. You can write the thoughts down and if they are good, turn them into posts.

My guess is that since the reading is too slow compare to your thinking, it allows you to think deeply about things and gives those thoughts an opportunity to surface.

I think this only applies to non-fiction books though.
Thanks for this. I would be interested to know if, in practice (in a court of law), attempt to show something is derivative work when it's not is a more common instance than when it actually is. How easy (or hard) is it to prove something is a derivative work? (i am especially thinking of 2 pieces of code doing basically the same thing with the same algorithm, no patents)
Besides all the jokes - which are funny - this is something I posted a bug about before, when working on slow unreliable networks this can happen. You end up reading half the page, and then it tells you it can be displayed.
How did they change the ending in the dub? I have only seen the subtitled version.
Apparently, he didn't directly open source it. He approved its inclusion in the Open Refine package. It's pretty obvious that he didn't understand the consequences of releasing his code in a project licensed by BSD. I can understand his frustration, probably because he was told that his conditions were covered under the BSD license. Given that he sells the same code as a commercial product, this was obviously not his intention.

However, he failed to grasp some basic IP concepts, especially wrt US law. Algorithms are not copyrightable, and most are not patentable (especially after Alice v CLS) under US law. However, there is solid precedent for similar systems being eligible for patent protection (soundex, other patents that cite his systems as source material, etc). It does not appear that he applied for this protection at this time.

Moreover, under the modification clause of the 3 clause BSD license he used in his source file, there is a significant amount of commentary suggesting such a rewrite would be permissible under the terms of that license. However, re-licensing it under MIT would on the surface not be permitted.

EDIT: he may have applied for a patent. This could preclude the project from including his system. However, I'm not a patent lawyer, so I don't know how well this would hold up in international implementations (github being a US entity makes this point relatively moot).

http://www.google.com/patents/US20090043584
Also, a very good satirical look at WWI was 'Blackadder Goes Forth', with Rowan Atkinson (I.e. Mr Bean actor), Hugh Laurie (House) and Stephen Fry (QI). Utter genius comedy with a very dark undertone.

It is a very British humour though. I'm not sure if it travels well?
> a high-profile traditionally animated film from western studios

traditionally animated (read: hand drawn) movies costs way more to produce, requires skill sets that are difficult to get now-a-days, and also some (undeserved) social stigma regarding "cartoon" movies, all of which contribute to the decision that it's not a wise investment.
So You’re Getting Divorced?
He also, some months ago, opened an issue on a Python project to implement the algorithm... but with no text or comments. Just a title: "M3"

https://github.com/coolbutuseless/metaphone3/issues/1
World Community Grid – Research – Outsmart Ebola Together
There are three possible mission plans I know of for Venus. 1) Venus flyby, like what was planned in the 1970s with Apollo hardware. 2) Orbit Venus, and 3) this one to descend into the atmosphere.

For Mars there are four: 1) flyby, 2) orbit, 3) land on one of the Martian moons, 4) land on Mars. The latter has a variant: Zubrin proposed that we can make rocket fuel on Mars and use that for the ascent and/or return.

Of these, I don't see why a flyby does anything other than say we did it. Our automated probes are now much more capable than we had in the 1960s/1970s. Though if a human were useful, the Venus is definitely quicker to get to than Mars.

As far as I can tell, it's about the same amount of delta-v to get to Mars as Venus, so orbiting either is possible, except the longer flight time for Mars and back means a lot more extra supplies (something like 5kg/day * 14 months?) and more risk of something going wrong. Venus comes out ahead.

But what does a human orbiting either planet add that a robotic probe does not?

The most often given example is fast response time for a rover, since it's at least a 4 minute lag for Venus and 6 minutes for Mars. I would rather have a dozen slow rovers on the ground controlled from Earth, or a dozen long-term probes orbiting the gas giants than a single one by a human above Venus. In any case, we know we can put capable rovers on Mars. On Venus they tend to melt.

This one to descend into the atmosphere of Venus means a return vehicle almost as powerful as what's needed to get someone off Earth. That's going to be tough to solve. Our biggest balloon launched rockets are, I believe, from amateur organizations. OTOH, robots don't need to come back to Earth.

Landing on a moon of Mars would combine Mars observations and visual exploration of (what's believed to be) an asteroid. Though it would be easier if we go to a near Earth asteroid instead.

In the balance of things, I think Mars is still more enticing. Though I'm definitely in the robot probe camp.

And I would much rather have people on the Moon again, since my hopeful belief is that trained geologists on the ground for a full lunar day would be more capable than the equivalent cost in robots at understanding lunar geology. (I ask myself though if it's worth the 1% chance of death.)
What Earth Tells Us About Life, Intelligence and the Universe
Is this the patent for the algorithm in question?

http://www.google.com/patents/US20090043584
Hardly. Alice v CLS only throws out claims based on "performed on a general purpose computer". Mostly, that is enough to refute the remainder of the claims, as they apply to generic mathematical algorithms.

Systems such as this, however, have enjoyed patent protection in the past (Soundex, notably), and his own metaphone and double metaphone systems are cited in several other patents. Google patent search is your friend here.

Snarky comment: The USPTO has a habit of not denying any applications.
> a bloke who went to school for two years just to be a waiter.

that seems quite excessive - shouldn't on the job training work just as well?!
It seems to me that lphilips54 is trying to achieve with a license what we would need a patent for. (He speaks of his algorithm)
I don't have the time to read it and verify but could this be a patent for the algorithm? If so, does it make any difference anyway?

http://www.google.com/patents/US20090043584
Show HN: Quizzly App – Last Minute Christmas Gift
Is the actual study available anywhere? I am wary of trusting a journalists interpretation of data, especially when it comes in an article that gives the impression "this study our paper funded demonstrates exactly what we thought it would!"
In other words,

organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations

—M. Conway

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law)
Well, this is somewhat vague. There's more than one way of matching any string - you'd have to be more specific about what exact form you want your regexes to have.
Because people dont ascribe the same level of importance to that.

It may seem trivial, but most people would be less shy about most of their transactions going out in the world than naked pictures of them in compromising situations.
Drone spotted over Belgium nuclear plant
> some kind of "social class time" where students spend time with kids their own age.

how about physical education (i.e., sports)? you'd usually want to group similarly aged students in those, lest you have a 16 yr old competing against a 10 yr old.
It seems he didn't mean to make it open source, but was asked by the Google/Open Refine team and complied without understanding the implications.
Female codebreakers reunited at Bletchley Park
The way I interpreted his "solution" of "add a kernel boot parameter" was if you want to interrupt the fsck, you should hard-reset the machine to add it on the next boot, making it even more likely your filesystem will need fsck'ing. fsck itself is AFAIK safe with ctrl+c (i.e. it won't corrupt the filesystem further to interrupt it) so this change means users who really want to cancel a fsck have to take the route of possibly causing filesystem corruption themselves. Absolutely fscking insane.
Huh? Where does the law say this? It is my impression that the copyright owner has all rights unless he explicitly relaxes them. A license by definition cannot create more rights, it can only relax them.
The BSD license does not contain any patent grants, so he can still assert the right over the use of his patent in pretty much anything - the BSD licensed code can still only be used with his permission, since you need both the copyright license and patent license to use it.

When patents are involved, it makes more sense to us a license like the GPL3 or Apache2.0, which also grant licenses for any patents which are covered by the code.
>Yes, of course they should not use PHP.

Wow, this is utterly worthless, if not harmful, advice. There is no correlation between choosing PHP for an application with the security of said application. PHP apps are so widely deployed that securing them is a pretty well-known process at this point.
Meta: I trust you much more than I trust the author, so it would make much sense to me if you would write a line about the article before linking it, in the style of early tumblelogs/anarchaia ;) I guess that's Twitter now?

Of course that would imply more work to you, which isn't good... I'm just rambling.

I also have to consider if you're submitting this "ironically" (say, look at the great efforts this guy went through to avoid using Clojurescript). So now I will have to open your Twitter account, go past a few days searching if you have also linked this post with your take on it!

Oh, the confusion!
Unless the license agreement for contributing specifically says the author forfeits their copyright, but no open source licenses I know of do this.
String theory is full of results like that.
this 'mastery' system sounds great for things that can be separated into levels. STEM subjects tend to be doable (and so is skill based crafts like woodwork). But what about things like english literature? how to interpret Jane Eyre? how to compare and contrast west side story and romeo and juliet?
Yes, Rackspace seems a bit pricey. I have used GoDaddy and Google in the past, both with great results. Recently, they have both raised their rates (still cheaper than Rackspace), but I wanted to check out other solutions.
Clean room design is a sufficient but not necessary condition to establish that something is non-derivative. It's possible that enough changes to the source make it non-derivative under copyright law.

As the Wikipedia link you gave says:

> Clean room design is usually employed as best practice, but not strictly required by law. In NEC Corp. v Intel Corp. (1990), NEC sought declaratory judgment against Intel's charges that NEC's engineers simply copied the microcode of the 8086 processor in their NEC V20 clone. A US judge ruled that while the early, internal revisions of NEC's microcode were indeed a copyright violation, the later one, which actually went into NEC's product, although derived from the former, were sufficiently different that they could be considered free of copyright violations.

As another example, BSD Unix evolved sufficiently away from AT&T Unix that only a couple of files needed to be replace to get away from AT&T's copyright.

Both derive from someone else's works, but that's a different sense of "derivative" than what copyright law cares about.
Some are there because they need to be, some aren't. In my country most of them aren't there to keep you safe but to have a revenue stream.

I know a couple of signals that are there to just make people slow down, and they work even if a lot of us know that there's no radar there.
the first trick was a meta-belief > believe in change
Clean room design, anyone? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
And one also finds that there are people defending the solution of going back in time.
There is done of case law regarding derivative works both in general as well as software. Some high profile examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_controversie...

There are tons and tons of cases in this area.
11 Resources to Follow for Best Growth Hacking Examples and Techniques
write about what you are an expert about and the insights that guide you in your busines/life/hobby/job
Youtube for mainstream music and Soundcoud for upcoming/new/promising music.
but then what would be the solution to such a problem? Without centralization, content discovery/search is difficult.
That's some good irony. But on the other hand, just you watch...
The animation is gorgeous but at times it can be a little too smooth for me. The greatest animation I've ever seen is still in End of Evangelion. It's not the best movie ever, but the way Asuka's Evangelion is animated during her final battle with the S2 engine Evas is incredible. Whoever animated it definitely groks momentum, inertia and how to create these effects with a limited budget/number of frames at his disposal. No amount of CGI or money could be thrown at that fight to make it look better.
> "There is no such thing as having two beliefs of equal weight that contradict each other"

Of course there is and the situation in which you find it is called Cognitive Dissonance [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Certainly looks like it, or at least closely related. Can someone who is not served a localized copy of Google see if it is in fact a patent? (I see "status: application", loosely translated, but that's not something I can check the juridical meaning of.)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clash#Noun

5. Opposition; contradiction; such as between differing or contending interests, views, purposes etc.

a clash of beliefs

a personality clash
Same holds for btrfs.
If I understand you correctly, It sounds like you want an off the shelf business system (accounting etc) and customer CRUD application with billing that you can just wire into your unique functionality.

I am not aware of any products that would meet those requirements specifically. There are a few products that might be connected using something like Zapier that would fit the bill, but nothing natively that does all this that I know of.
Universal diff realization of JavaScript
While what you say is true, in this particular case I don't see any reason for ISOHunt not to change the name, since as far as I can tell it's just a pet project for them, and most people won't remember it in a month anyway.
ASK PG: when you are saying "energetic" people, do you also mean "passionately convinced"?

It's interesting that on one side you try to avoid the pitfalls of your own beliefs (by smartly adopting meta-beliefs and techniques that sidestep the problem, like believing in change and focusing on people)
but at the same time you are suggesting that you somehow accept, or decide to trust, the worldview of "energetic" founders.

You might not mean it, but this connection is somehow untold in the classical narrative of the driven founder: there is a fine line between "energetic" and "passionately convinced", which also suggests that they might have and communicate strong beliefs in their success or their idea.
Of course I understand that "strong beliefs" aren't forcefully connected with being an expert, which is your main argument.

PG, Where do you stand on this? do you believe in founder's beliefs? Do founders who passionately believe in something convince you?

I feel very sympathetic to the argument of your essay, for many reasons, and have grown to use the same meta-belief of believing in change; however, instead of sidestepping the problem, I tackle it heads on, by incorporating Doubt and Relativism in my decision making.
I feel, and strongly believe ;), that Relativism is the cure to many cognitive biases; if you doubt yourself you can't be affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect; I think everybody should train themselves in managing the unavoidable cognitive dissonances of day to day life, it would make the world a better place. Relativism is also an important tool for creativity: the moment you doubt your frame of reference, you start seeing the picture outside of the box, new possibilities open up.

Of course Relativism has it's shortcomings, and beliefs, which are rooted in emotions, command our behaviours more powerfully that the logical reasonings of Relativism.
However, I believe, there are ways for us to be both "passionately convinced" and relativistic at the same time;
I try to be like Cezanne, who would ask himself: "is this what I see?"
> Russia is filthy rich with oil money

but that money has to go somewhere - what is being spent on? Any sort of domestic production is surely going to improve the lives of some people (ala, trickle down effect).

Also, the oil money can't last - there's limited oil after all. If the country can't produce other things except natural resources, it's going to get fucked, only a matter of time. And world war 2 is essentially a fight for resources.
This is a real problem. Really

There are enough ironic/rude answers, failure to solve the problem or give a good workaround, etc

Now imagine this with paying customers.
I hope so; it would be really useful.
Did you not hear about http://yacy.net ?
> "we're pulling out of Russia, because there are more important things than money"

if he really thinks like that, he won't be as rich as he is today (and i m also speaking generically about those who are very rich). You don't become _that_ successful without giving up something.
Interesting! We've used a similar technique to reverse-engineering mobile apps from different banks in order to create a Ruby gem to fetch bank data (balance and transactions).

https://github.com/ismaGNU/bankScrap
it is for universal usage —— not only diff between strings, but also between arbitary sequences
Yeah, I'm one of the developers at www.openbay.com (I'm not Adam, I'm one of the other web developers).

We've spent a couple years trying to get our startup off the ground, and this really sucks for us. And I'm a fan of TPB - I've used it, and I admire their work. This isn't a case of some big corporation trying to exercise it's legal muscle to ward off bad PR, we're a few people running out of a co-working space in Cambridge.

Armchair lawyers will likely chime in how this isn't a "real" name clash and how they're different things in different lines of work (and they'd be right), but the thing that really sucks for us is SEO. Many users (especially older ones) have gotten in the habit of just typing "openbay" or "open bay" into google and not the URL bar - it's actually a pretty large percentage of our organic search hits. This happens even more if/when they hear about us in the press. What those users get for search results right now are a bunch of news sites about "piracy," which isn't a great thing, particularly for that demographic.

It'd be so awesome of the project could be renamed out of the kindness of the maintainers' hearts, but I know that's not likely. The cat's already out of the bag now. But we figured it wouldn't hurt to ask nicely.
> But remember our current slogan "Linux is all about choice". One can choose to boot with or without "fsck.mode=skip".

..

> Remedial action is not needed because the right choice was made from the grub menu. If it wasn't, you get to live with the consequences and don't do it again.

this discussion made me angry, and i wasn't even involved. someone has a reasonable request, and it's immediately brushed off in one of the most passive aggressive statements of the 21st century thus far.

he advocates choice, and yet propagates dogma. idiot.
It needs a revocation clause because yes he can revoke it from new versions, but no he cannot edit the original copy some guy downloaded with the BSD clause.
(In case it wasn't obvious), the Smithsonian is primarily a print magazine. The magazine arrives at or near the start of the month, which means the articles are written and ready before the printing starts. When I was a subscriber I would sometimes get the magazine before the start of the month, and occasionally joke about time travel.
these are debian developers, i believe.
Funny reference in the name: "TOC" in French stands for OCD - "Trouble Obsessionnel Compulsif". http://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouble_obsessionnel_compulsi...