skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Uh, I'm certainly not going to go on record telling people they're welcome to ignore our license, no matter what that ends up being.

But we're also not going to waste time drafting some sort of legal assault strategy at this point, we've got a long list of more productive things to do first!

We'll deal with it if or when it comes up. Probably initially by asking nicely, following up with public shaming, and finally by seeking assistance from whatever orgs are available...
From that Wikipedia page:

In 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer

which seems to contradict your claim that it has "never happened".
It takes moe energy to melt snow than push it to the side?

Physics. We're talking the energy of phase change vs. mechanical energy. They're both factors of the mass. The XKCD what-if calculations apply just as well to varying amounts of snow. It will always take less energy to push it aside than it does to melt it.

If you are thinking about saving the cost of the equipment and driver, then that's fine. However, physics again rears its ugly head, and you are not going to be making the power to melt the snow from the roadway itself. What you are proposing is to embed all roads with heating elements, which is clearly very wasteful by the calculations in the links in the gp post. Embedding all roads with resistive heating elements is the last thing a country that wants to reduce its carbon footprint should do.
I think you've misread the abstract. My understanding is that the 10nT field was the control. They talk about 1-10 uT fields causing the observed effect.
If they wouldn't, what does that tell you about them?
Is it important that they started with bike lanes and not full roadways? A bicycle vs. a delivery truck present radically different loads to the roadway.
Wrong is me miscalculating some figures; bullshit is people spreading FUD that can be debunked with 2 minutes of Googling. This myth didn't start as a misconception or simple wrongness -- it was created to persuade people that Monsanto is a big bad company that's doing horrible things.
the anti-gmo labeling advocates express the concern that requiring gmo labeling will undermine the market price for gmo products due to consumer fear and that this is bad because gmo products have $benefits. A commonly cited $benefit is that gmo crops can require fewer harmful pesticides.

A good compromise: require food be labeled as gmo or not -- and also require that food be labelled with all pesticides used.
Not sure how me not being smart is relevant to the discussion. I would say you are not very polite, however that still doesn't add to the discussion here.

The important thing is that even though universities are allowed to invest in infrastructure, they are not allowed to re-invest any of their donations (donations law: http://www.cned.cl/public/secciones/seccionsnac/normativa/Le...).

Top (and rich) universities, like Harvard, MIT, etc, have an endowment which invests donations (and pretty much most of their money), in companies and funds, which would not be allowed under Chilean law.

Additionally, I would argue the idea is not to re-invest in the institution, but to invest the university money in a way that is financially sustainable and in line with the university goals. Spending all the money on infrastructure might not be the best way to achieve that.
The Steve Jobs You Didn't Know
Where do I find VCs that will throw that kind of money at me with no product? Am I in the wrong SF neighborhood?

Getting to a much more modest A in our industry took years of work, and millions of users in traction.
David Deutsch Explains Why It’s Good to Be Wrong
At Kleiner we know from the Pao case that junior partners make $400k while senior partners make $3 million. That's before carry. Carry is about 20% of the returns of the fund, which is divided between (senior) partners of the particular fund --- a VC firm has multiple funds and depending on the firm not every partner may be a partner in each fund.

I guess you could ball park 5 partners per fund and therefore 4% carry per partner but that's probably not accurate because the carry distribution likely rewards partners in proportion to the success of the companies that they sourced or on whose boards they sit. Also you want to give a little bit to associates and junior partners.

Carry is not guaranteed but if the returns are positive you will get something (and 20% of a middling 5% return is still a lot of money on a billion dollar fund.) In any case carry is valuable in VC because they are like free call options on very volatile assets and option value increases with volatility.

It's difficult to calculate how much VCs are getting from carry because fund returns are closely guarded secrets.

All this said it's pretty tough to break-in to top VC firms.
I spent a moment seriously considering whether I had time to submit a pull request adding a Nim layer:

http://nim-lang.org/manual.html#foreign-function-interface
Not sure the last deal would have even been up to the CEO. a deal like that would probably be a board vote, I would think and you may only have 40% of the vote. also, what if it was the only deal on the table and the trial campaign preformed well. Btw, Forbes called they heard about the deal and your going to be on the cover. And let's talk about poor Richard I don't he's managing an Arby's after he ran a billion dolllar company. Probably some kind of senior executive somewhere. Curious if VC would take his calls?
They mistakenly sued him -- that part is the mistake. The mistake was not them suing at all, because the people actually operating the land were, in fact, violating their patents; they just mistakenly thought that he was one of the people using that land at the time.
Oh, you even stopped quoting in mid-sentence. Isn't that a bit dirty?

Let me quote a bit more:

"In 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer, but sharecropped land with his brother and nephew, who were violating the patent. Monsanto dropped the lawsuit against him when it discovered the mistake."
Summers in Boston are hot and oppressively humid.
Relating to Roundup Ready crops:

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-su...

Straight from Monsanto's mouth: they sue farmers who replant Monsanto seeds. If you buy Monsanto's seeds, you are not allowed to plant the seed from those crops. Otherwise Monsanto will sue. Why? As they explain, verbatim:

1) no business can survive without being paid for its product

2) the loss of this revenue would hinder our ability to invest in research and development to create new products to help farmers. We currently invest over $2.6 million per day to develop and bring new products to market.

3) it would be unfair to the farmers that honor their agreements to let others get away with getting it for free. Farming, like any other business, is competitive and farmers need a level playing field.

I'll let you make your own conclusions, but...

1) Seed-sellers have survived hundreds of years without repayment each year.

2) Monsanto currently pulls in around $10 million dollars per day in profit, meaning that such an investment hit would not exactly hurt their bottom line.

3) This is dependent on the practice being a constructive one.
Not really, it's poor English and kind of blaming the user.
Seems a bit patronizing to assume that farmers will buy a product that does not work, then continue to do so after it had proven that it yields no advantage. If it were the case that the advantage lasts only two years, then nobody will buy the product on the fourth year.

Lastly the "patented life" argument is incorrectly attributed to GMOs. First proponent of patents in this field was no other than Luther Burbank (1849-1926), a pioneer in agricultural science. He had spent the better part of his life arguing for a means to protect his achievements. Finally the Plant Patent Act was passed in 1930, some years before his death. As it stands now "life was patented" for 85 years already, while the first GMO appeared in 1994 only.
The OpenVZ userspace already works with the same kernel components used by LXC; you can create, start and stop containers on both an OpenVZ and a regular kernel with the same commands.

The commands that don't work are those which don't have the underlying kernel feature to support them yet; as the upstream kernel gains such features, so will the OpenVZ userspace.

So there's not "short-sightedness". OpenVZ and its tooling will live beyond its kernel.

Meanwhile, LXC has already been abandoned by Docker (it's now using libcontainer by default), and others use systemd-nspawn, so what makes you think LXC isn't the short-sighted and soon-to-be irrelevant choice?
Show HN: Slack Slash Commands as a Service
You don't usually start as a VC, but you get richer by other means, then, when you're a millionaire you just throw money at startups until one of them hits big or you run out of money

Edit: this is for an Angel Investor, SeoxyS explained better the concept of general VCs
The biggest thing that focusing on the IARC classification misses is this: the dose makes the poison. I will gladly have a gram of a known carcinogen if I know that I'll need 10 tons of the substance to increase my risk of cancer substantially. We simply can't know anything about this without knowing 1) what we're exposed to (realistically), and 2) what the actual risks are. Given the observed results, it evidently can't be too terrible.
Eggs and insults fly as Uber battles for the streets of Milan
Same article was posted here 4 days ago. Discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9489441
> Smart contracts are pointless since you need trust anyway to deal with real-world assets.

jgarzik (bitcoin core dev) disagrees with you, he tweeted recently that he's excited about their potential (he calls them "active addresses"). Also, Nick Szabo disagrees with you.

> Nobody would rather trade in a p2p system instead of "real" exchange either.

Lots of people would rather. There are many projects attempting to do decentralized/p2p exchange. For example, atomic cross-chain transactions have been on the horizon for a while now. And startups like tether.to, so that USD-tied assets can circulate in a decentralized manner (I won't mention ripple, but it is the same idea).

It is a natural evolution, the demand for an alternative to centralized exchanges comes from the same motivation to have an alternative to PayPal. Oh, and people also want a decentralized Silk Road (once they realize that its possible).
US roads are home to several critical subterranean infrastructures: water, sewer, electrical, natural gas, and internet. Our roads are constantly being cut open, trenched, and patched to do maintenance and repairs to these systems.

In the US, we have large amounts of unused space on top of our buildings. Placing panels on the top of buildings puts the electricity near its consumption point and reduces building cooling costs.

The issues with placing solar panels on roofs is the high cost of installation. I would guess the cost of installing panels on busy streets would be similar to the cost of installing them on rooftops.
You can, it is just more expensive.
You can launch CPA campaign for example. It gives you guaranteed to some extent results.
The intention of the process you outlined is good, but the process itself is flawed and highlights the pitfalls of trying to value equity at early-stage startups.

First, very few startups can accurately tell you "If we're acquired for $50MM, your options would be worth $Y." Heck, for fun, ask a founder of a typical angel or venture-backed startup how many shares it has outstanding fully-diluted.

If tons of startups struggle to describe what their capital structure looks like today, why should prospective employees rely on them to make estimates based on what their capital structure will look like months or years from now? Dilution, liquidation preferences, the option pool, acceleration terms. There's so much that can't be predicted or controlled, so asking a company to come up with exit scenarios for specific employees is like asking a blind man to read tea leaves.

> The other way to do this is just to value equity at $0.

At most early-stage startups, this is the correct approach to dealing with equity. There are very good reasons most vested employee options are never exercised.

This doesn't mean that the OP shouldn't ask for some equity, but focusing negotiations around basis points of equity and trying to assign a future dollar amount to equity is generally a bad idea for the average employee because it opens the door for treating equity as a 1:1 (or close to 1:1) substitute for salary, which at early-stage startups it is not.

If an early-stage startup wants to offset your cash salary with equity, try this: ask for $50 to $100 worth of equity for every $1 of salary offset. How the company responds will likely tell you a lot more about its future than if you ask what it guesses 1 option will be worth 4 years from now.
But this is not only a problem of GMO, it is a problem with the patenting system. Plants and breeds have been patented since the 30s
> seems to contradict

No it does not. What /u/nodata wrote was: "...for accidentally having a field next to..." and Gary Rinehart was not sued for accidentally having his field next to whatever. He was sued for some other reason.

(Not a good reason, but other reason anyway.)
That's a bit hyperbolic when there are some reasonable concerns about golden rice. From the article you link:

> In 2008 WHO malnutrition expert Francesco Branca cited the lack of real-world studies and uncertainty about how many people will use golden rice, concluding "giving out supplements, fortifying existing foods with vitamin A, and teaching people to grow carrots or certain leafy vegetables are, for now, more promising ways to fight the problem"

Branca isn't some hippy idiot opposed to GMO for some stupid non-reason.

> In that respect, it is significant that vitamin A deficiency is rarely an isolated phenomenon, but usually coupled to a general lack of a balanced diet

So these children still need additional micronutrient fortification? Where are they getting iron, zinc and iodine?

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/2000/Number%2010/78(10)new...

> Dr Jorgen Schlundt, Coordinator for the Food Safety Programme at the World Health Organization, commented: ‘‘Before genetically modified rice can be widely introduced, scientific evidence will need to be provided to assure that the rice is safe and nutritionally adequate, does not pose unacceptable risks to the environment, and will provide the human health benefits suggested.’’ He added: ‘‘WHO, along with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the jointly sponsored FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission are developing the methods and criteria to be used for the international assessment and management of genetically modified foods, including requirements for the labelling of such foods and their products. WHO is studying possible human health hazards from the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment and, as a first step, the WHO Regional Office for Europe has organized a seminar on this topic for September 2000.’’

At the time (fifteen years ago) this was a calm rational statement made in the face of over 30 companies holding over 70 patents who were campaigning heavily to be able to sell this product to the developing world. After being challenged by WHO some of the patent owners gave reassurances such as free licensing for farmers making less than $10,000; and the ability to save and resow grain.
Detroit has wanted mass transit for a very long time. My dad fondly remembers the start of a subway in 1928, they got two stations built before the project was shut down by the start of the great depression.

Detroit had a great streetcar network that went everywhere in the city. They even had what were called interurbans that went out to the suburbs. The interurbans were killed by the automobile but the street cars were going strong until the mid fifties when the city was persuaded to sell the network and the company purchasing it mysteriously shut it down. My dad always believed that GM was responsible, I thought it was a big conspiracy but fifty years later evidence surfaced that my dad might have been right all along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...

Interesting fact: Some of the Detroit streetcars were sold to San Francisco and I'm told if you know where to look some of the cars still say Detroit. Can anyone confirm this for me?

I don't think Detroit can ever become a true world class city without mass transit. While there has been a little progress with the elevated people mover that runs along the waterfront and the under construction m-1 partially funded by Detroit's billionaires that runs up Woodward to no where interest remains very strong.

I think the m-1 needs to go out to the edge of the suburbs and that there needs to be a spur out to the airport. Detroit has a really good airport except there is no way to leave it without a car.
So, overall a 2950% return over ten years. I know its a contrived example, but not too shabby if you're lucky enough to be in the club. Wish this scaled down. I'd gladly invest $1,000 today for $30,500 in ten years.
>The arguments about this thing not making any sense aren't so far away from the arguments about my basement not being very sunny.

Actually, they are. At its best, getting sunlight in your basement is impossible. For solar bike lanes, the worst possible outcome is that they are impractical. And that is a purely financial consideration. At some point the benefits of solar (regardless of cost) might outweigt the negatives of using fossil fuel.
I thought a good reason to oppose them was the monocultures that often result from their use, knocking out species like bees that depend on a diverse array of pollen sources (hence the almond industry's woes with bee pollination)
Yeah.. how did this make frontpage?
Show HN: Magic / Stanford Nerd for Biz
Just launched le Geek, a Magic-like service for business knowledge. In a sentence:
Text a high quality MBA student, and get help for all things business related (e.g. expert calls, career/interview advice, advertisement).

http://www.textlegeek.com/

Feedback from the HN community would be much appreciated!
18k sounds low for a grad starting that's only 5k less than the minimum wage.

Around 26k would be nearer the mark for a starting grad with no experience.
This is like opposing software because it is "copyrighted generally useful technical information". You should rather oppose patentability of life, or advocate for a hack analogous to copyleft, than oppose the technology.
Hasn't windows been dropping in hardware requirements since vista?
San Francisco desperately needs to be a city where you don't need to be a software engineer, Stanford law grad, or VC to live in. At the same time, the Tenderloin and the issue of the homeless is somewhat orthogonal to that, I think. I think a lot about it stinks (hence my pithy phrase I coined, and pardon the pun) but there's still serious housing issues in SF.
I came up with a pretty good 404 page recently. The company has a logo that features the silhouette a man on a horse playing polo. The 404 page features the same logo with the horse taking a tumble and the polo player being thrown off.
The author of this post, David Goldberg, is the same guy that wrote "What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic."

http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.ht...
They aren't talking about the glyphosate you eat when you eat food from a non-organic farm.

They're talking about the glyphosate you breathe in, year after year, when you're a worker on that non-organic farm handling glyphosate without proper safety equipment.
For that matter, why not put the panels over the path, on an awning? Thin film panels could be built into tarps that are stretched over the roadway between anchored poles. You could reduce the coverage price to something commensurate with lighting.
Don't forget herbicides. A GMO plant might require no pesticide but use more herbicide.

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_a...
> which before they could take from their own harvest.

Could. But didn't. There are many advantages to buying your seed even without the patent debate. Patented crops have been so successful in the marketplace because they have no real impact on farming operations.
Probably not very much (as low as a risk-adjusted average of 0% [^]). As usual, you're probably better off sticking your money in the broader stock market.

[^] https://server1.tepper.cmu.edu/seminars/docs/VCSDF_2.pdf
شركات الاثاث في الكويت – مؤسسة فهد المسيليم للمقاولات العامة للمباني
The US states take unpaid employees very seriously. Think about it from the employee's point of view - if the company can't make payroll one week, you might be tempted to let it ride until next week. If they again can't make payroll, you've put 80+ (120+!) hours into the firm with no payment. I certainly wouldn't be happy in that situation.
It's Saturday. People vote for different things. If you don't like it you should spend more time in /newest upvoting things you think should be here.
I live in Sonoma County California and I'm so sick of all the people around me just assuming that GMOs are obviously bad. It seems people here, a lot of them farmers, are not at all interested in facts. They are attracted to the anti-science, anti-corporation, anti-establishment aspects of the anti-GMO movement. Facts take a backseat. Granted, these are also people who believe in Biodynamics and its horns full of crystals which channel cosimic power. Perhaps an expectation of basic reasioning is too much.
Indian IT workers are easy to boss around?
Disclaimer: I'm not Indian, white, or IT worker. But I work as a product design manager at a large company and work with various functional teams on daily basis.

I've come to a sad conclusion that one of the main reasons why managers love to outsource to companies like Accenture, Tata, and Cognizant is because their Indian consultants are easier to boss around and are far less likely to question manager's decisions.

IT workers in general have higher cognitive capacity than their non-IT managers and fellow coworkers, and I have noticed that American developers (or Russian/Ukrainian transplants from the 80s/90s) are not afraid to question bad decisions and authorities. This is sharp contrast to Indian workers who will follow orders without much push-backs, and those who do, are often replaced at the request of management.

Do you think there's validity to this observation? I've thought about other factors too, such as full-timer vs consultants and young vs old.
Software engineers? Hell no. Programmers? Maybe if you add Latex in the list of programming languages.

A mathematichian who knows some code
I was wondering whether the

build a waterfall spreadsheet

could be opensourced by this community given that there are lot people here with varied experiences.

PS: I found this blog quite informative and the meta meta ref amuses me.
oh one thing no one has mentioned as this is the UK - is this a HMRC approved scheme or not - might have tax implications.
Don't forget how Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler
spot on, known colloquially as the "two and twenty"