skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's interesting, but not quite what I'm looking for. I'm trying to find out if the iPhone is a good phone on a crappy network, or a crappy phone on a crappy network.

How does your LG perform in urban areas like SF, Seattle, or NYC? How's the 3G performance in those situations?
Same here. It seems pretty straight forward to me. There is a reminder about privacy settings after you're prompted the first time in case you've changed your mind or rushed through it the fist time not fully understanding the implications.
Re the friends list: http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=197943902130
See I understand where you are coming from but the comment about Hawaii's network makes me think otherwise. (Usually the AT&T complaints are limited to Chicago California and New York so that also brings to question why isn't everyone else experiencing such issues.)
Er, not for me. everything was going to be totally public unless i went through and reset them to where I wanted to. And you have to dig in a non-obvious place for photo privacy settings.

I agree with TFA.
If drugs were legalized, this money would have never been outside the system in the first place, as gangs would be largely removed from the equation.
Dude has some decent points but has the chronic usenet disease of not being able to put them forth in any manner even approaching tact or class.
Schrödinger's cat on twitter
Joel, on a slight tangent...we've been seeing all sorts of Jeff and Joel bashing posts lately, which personally I don't get why people get so worked up.

If I had to take a guess though, it would be that as you guys get more and more successful there's a fear that you will succeed in creating the number one method in the world for getting a programming job and it will end up discriminating against people who don't answer questions on StackOverflow or fit your model of a programmer.

That somehow you guys end up being the gatekeepers for defining what a good programmer is and how they get hired.

I was wondering what your thoughts are on this?
The reason the water is hot is to melt the top layer of ice, so when it does freeze, it's a smoother, flatter sheet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_resurfacer#Technology
I'm surprised it's possible to libel Evony. I think their own ads do a sufficient job.
Apparently not all users had the same default choices... I don't know what the reason was (A/B testing? trying to get unbiased statistics?), but my girlfriend had all the default choices in the right column (leave the old behaviour), while I got the defaults on the left (new behaviour - "friends of friends" and "everyone").
This post describes a checkbox to hide or show the list on your profile page. It goes on to say that regardless of the setting, the friends list is now public information. That means that even if you choose to "hide" it, anyone can hack a URL to insert your facebook ID and see your friends' list. It's a confirmation that privacy regarding friend lists is gone, which is really unfortunate.
I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Invested heavily (time) in SO -> more likely to continue to invest in new SO features
Anti-fire Sink - 9th Year in Ideas
Meet 10 NYC Big Apps Contenders
It is my understanding that The Guardian is a highly regarded newspaper in the UK.

according to Wikipedia:

Awards Received

The Guardian has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1999 and 2006 by the British Press Awards, as well as being co-winner of the World's Best-designed Newspaper as awarded by the Society for News Design (2006). The guardian.co.uk website won the Best Newspaper category three years running in 2005, 2006 and 2007 Webby Awards, beating (in 2005) the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and Variety.[103] It has been the winner for six years in a row of the British Press Awards for Best Electronic Daily Newspaper.[104] The site won an Eppy award from the US-based magazine Editor & Publisher in 2000 for the best-designed newspaper online service.[105] The website is known for its commentary on sporting events, particularly its over-by-over cricket commentary.

In 2007 the newspaper was ranked first in a study on transparency which analysed 25 mainstream English-language media vehicles, and which was conducted by the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda of the University of Maryland.[106] It scored 3.8 out of a possible 4.0.
If you are in the right situation, salaried work can be much more relaxing. And as my boss likes to point out, flexibility works both ways--if I am sometimes expected to put in extra hours for a project, my employer should be willing to cut me some slack when I need it, too.
I feel like I'm looking at a list of favorite celebrities in a country I've never heard of. I have no idea who any of these people are or what they might be famous for.
What I don't understand is why he doesn't work to help jQuery to be better then and contribute a bit? If its causing errors and bugs then certainly he could help some instead of complaining?

Resig +1
Mark -1
If you can build a 1st version prototype do so now. If not figure out what you need to be able to complete a 1st version prototype and take steps towards achieving that.
"If you’ve never written anything thoughtful, then you’ve never had any difficult, important, or interesting thoughts."

Socrates would have disagreed.
That's crazy fantasy extrapolation, almost too absurd to address, but I will anyway since you asked :)

There are 1492 CVs on StackOverflow right now, and maybe 9,000,000 programmers in the world. Even if we're monumentally successful we're still going to be only a tiny fraction of the hiring of programmers that goes on in the world... a TINY fraction.

I should also add that in the bizarre scenario that StackOverflow actually became a common way of getting programming jobs, it would be a metric ton better than the current system of Monster and Dice and emailing around Word resumes which are scanned in by stupid software that looks at keywords.
My impression is that this change was actually driven by implementation feasibility- for reasons I'm not completely clear on, search indexing and the interface could not unambiguously respect privacy for friend lists (since so much of the indexing depends on what paths are reachable). The choice then, was to upfront about the lack of privacy in this respect, or to just hide it from profile and pretend it was private. Facebook chose the former.
The 45 second explanation of this: Fat head SEO is dominated by the link graph, which is (by design) difficult to influence in a scalable algorithmic fashion. Long tail SEO is dominated by on-page factors, domain authority, and information architecture [+]. If you have a reasonably trusted domain name and a way of generating hundreds or thousands of pages of more than minimal value, you'll tend to rank for those subjects by default.

This doesn't have to harm the user experience, incidentally. I am fairly upfront about what I'm doing: there are about 700 pages on my website which cost me about $3 each to write, and they are all designed to rank highly for a single search term or small basket of search terms. Probably 95% of them deserve the #1 ranking on Google because they are the best content for that search term on the Internet. (Better than 80% of them are the only content for that search term on the Internet.)

Similarly, the context the discussion I had with Thomas was also about creating user value out of a resource he already possessed but wasn't surfacing in a manner optimal to either searchers or his business interests.

[+] Edited to add information architecture, which I forgot to mention because I haven't worked on improving it in a while. Effective content siloing and interlinking is a major factor in why my site works as well as it does.
58 IE8 bugs and explanations
I hadn't come across ConsumerSearch before. Its content for the example 'dishwashers' query isn't that impressive, but isn't that evil, either. They're trying to be useful, but the busy, cramped, SEO- and AdSense-optimized layout makes its excerpting/summarization of other reviews very hard to trust.

Thus it's a lot like other About.com sites -- sometimes useful, until everyone else gets into the same 'landing page' game. Then they're all just variated regurgitation of the same C&P'd wisdom from elsewhere.
AOL's logo redesign is crazy...what were they thinking?
Thanks. I agree, although perhaps you underestimate your ability to influence some of the top recruiters in the world?

I'm just trying to understand where the criticism is coming from because I don't get it.
That doesn't always seem to work though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
My own little data point fwiw - I'm using an iPhone 3GS in Perth, Australia on the Vodafone network. The reception is definitely worse than my old Nokia on the same network. I've heard similar things from friends using iPhones on Optus which has a separate network from Vodafone.

I definitely think there's an issue with the iPhone's reception, but it's not so bad that I'd go back to my old "dumb phone".
NOx also creates low level ozon when it breaks down, which has a number of nasty environmental and health side effects as well.
Spot on. I can't imagine that Google isn't already working on the solution to this. Of course, when that solution means altering an algorithm as opposed to arbitrarily targeting some of the higher profile sites like those mentioned here, it will take time to resolve.
50% of users selecting something other than defaults tells me that Facebook did act against the vast majority of it's users wishes and choose default settings that were not appropriate. Considering a substantial percentage would have just clicked through you probably have 2/3 of people NOT wanting the changes they made. How is that ethical?
It's basically the same. comp.lang.lisp and Erik Naggum may've been worshipped by a non-trivial community, but it was still a small community. The rest of us still hated it.

I'm sure there're people out there that enjoy comp.lang.javascript too.
I'm sorry, but there could be no "implementation feasibility"-based justification to make this data public. The same check to determine whether to grant access to a single status update could be used to determine whether to grant access to a friend list.

It's true that someone could figure out a partial list of who you were friends with by spidering the friends lists of others who had chosen to share their list, but that is no justification for removing privacy.
Where are you getting the 50% number from?

How do you know "there was a lot of work and testing to make sure people understood the results"?

Why is this change "important?"

IOW, how do I know you know what you're talking about. Based on your profile, it doesn't look like you have any official connection to Facebook.
Yes but that 900M is deposited into another bank, who then loans out 90% and eventually the system loans out 9B. And the system is dominated by a few banks.
Naked domains on Google App Engine
> Most, but not all. When I went through, there was only one option up at the top that was not set to "Friends Only"

I'm staring at the screen in question right now. I hate Facebook and have set it to not let anybody see anything in the past. NOW THE DEFAULTS FOR ALL THE TOP ITEMS ARE SET TO SHARE WITH EVERYONE. ie. Family and Relationships, Work and Education, Posts I Create (includes photos, etc.) and About Me are all set to share with everyone.

I find it disgusting.
I just read the Wikipedia entry for his views on woman. There's an interesting part at the end:

After the elderly Schopenhauer sat for a sculpture portrait by Elisabet Ney, he told Richard Wagner's friend Malwida von Meysenbug, "I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man."

He might be a misogynist, but at least he recognised exceptions.

It's also interesting (in the context of his time) to note that he was a strong supporter of abolitionism and animal rights.
> From what I've read, the new updates default to share with "everyone" only if you have NOT modified your privacy settings in the past.

I have set all my privacy settings to very private settings in the past and my defaults are all to share with everyone. So at least for me, this is NOT the case.
US Department of Energy becomes largest VC
I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. This guy obviously read the TechCrunch piece along the same lines and then wrote some idiotic blog post about a problem that doesn't exist.
The popup dialog box was fine. It would have been better though to have more of the defaults tuned to more privacy enhancing options.

Facebook is cool, though, and I check my home page a couple of times a week. That said, Facebook is more interesting as an application delivery platform, and their third party developer support seems to be pretty good.
I think the only reason this hasn't become a monster shitstorm is because the vast majority of users don't realise how their page looks to people who aren't their friends, and don't yet know how exposed they are.

It's also hard to spot the changes to profile picture settings unless you notice that in search results you can now click on the profile picture: the page otherwise looks identical to how it did before, when you couldn't.

I was bitten by this, and consider myself fairly savvy. I carefully read the entire new settings roadblock, and made sure all of my old settings were kept. Nonetheless, a day or two later I double-checked, and after drilling down four levels, discovered that all of my profile pictures were set to "friends of friends", which is massively too loose.

Facebook wants to open up, but has it forgotten that it only became the size it did because it was the first place on the web that older and untechnologically savvy people felt they could trust with their personal pictures and data?

They break that trust at their -- and our -- peril. People burnt by the exposure of pictures they thought only a private and vetted list of people could see will be very wary of trusting any of the services some of us are trying to build.
Great point. Some people see the flaws in their argument when they write it. For others, dialogue serves the same purpose. You still have to state you ideas in an understandable way, so that they stand up on their own. And there are more than 2 ways.
Hot water pipes have water running through then less often. Hot water might cause your car windows to fog up, but I doubt the Mpemba effect, even if it's real, could be noticed in that situation.
If I was Twitter, I would keep deals like this on the down low. As soon as your company starts generating revenue, all investors and stakeholders will start looking at that first revenue stream.

This deal is just a little utility fee they're getting for providing priority access to their data pipe. At this point, Google and Microsoft will probably be the biggest 'data pipe' clients that Twitter can have. These deals have resulted in "several million dollars a month" which is absolutely nothing! These numbers, without factoring in anything else can never justify Twitter's current valuation.

That's why I think Twitter should make sure that people don't get distracted with this puny little revenue stream, but rather turn their heads to the real pot of gold: monetizing the activity ecosystem.
Genetics of Asian Migration
"The finding suggest that there was one major inflow of human migration in to Asia from Southeast Asia, rather than multiple inflows from the north and the south as had been believed. The single route indicates that Southeast Asia was the major geographic source of East Asian and North Asian populations."
I don't know the actual details here, so I can't really comment.

Re your second point though: I think it's much more important that people understand where they really stand in terms of what is private, even if that isn't everything they'd like- as opposed to discovering later that something they thought was private could be accessed via a workaround.
ivankirigin works at facebook.
Download video from videolectures.net
Wouldn't that make their advertising unit less money?
I'm quite curious to see how people start using the ruby-gmail library. Looks interesting!
Cruise i Middelhavet Karibien MSC Cruises til Caribbean Europa 2010
Cruise i Middelhavet Karibien 2010 - MSC Cruises Norge tilbyr et bredt utvalg av cruisetilbud for din ferie i Middelhavet, Caribbean, Nord-Europa, Karibia, Sør-Amerika, Sør-Afrika, Nord-Amerika
What's unimpressive about this content:

http://www.consumersearch.com/dishwasher-reviews

It aggregates and summarizes reviews from Consumer Reports, a bunch of other resources, and Amazon.com user reviews, breaks products down into three categories, and provides a top recommendation for each, runners up, and a methodology.
I don't see anyone addressing the question of whether good content actually exists for certain keyword searches. How can you blame Google for giving you bad results when they are the only results?

For example, if you search for "digital camera reviews", the first hit is dpreview.com, a fantastic site. Is there an equivalent site for appliances?

The real message here is that keyword optimized sites are addressing a real need, but doing it poorly, which suggests that there might be big opportunities for people who can beat them by producing better quality content.
He's claiming that politicians were better informed than the rest of us in the past, not that they were informed enough in the past.
Here's a link to the actual paper (free): http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/35/12/1602.pdf
With no other substance involved besides the water, I don't see how this could happen. Say you put a vessel of hot water and a vessel of colder water in the freezer at the same time. If the hot water does indeed reach 32F before the cold water does, then there has to be an earlier point where their temperature versus time slopes cross, at which point their temperatures are equal. Once that point is reached, there's no longer any difference between the "hot" and "cold" water.

Since the point of temperature equality can't be reached in negative time, the hot water can't possibly freeze sooner than the cold water that was placed in the freezer at the same time.

So: given that the effect does, in fact, happen, there's some factor at work other than the water temperature. Some property of the container, perhaps? If the hot container loses its heat at a faster rate than the cold container, perhaps it ends up cooler than the surrounding water, and can continue to accelerate the freezing process beyond the point where the temperature slopes cross each other. That'd be my guess.
I can definitely say I'm happier when being paid for freelancing. When I see that cheque I know it's a result of the sweat and time I put in a project.

Salary on the other hand is just cash being transferred to my bank account. I never physically see it, no one hands it to me. It's just a number in my bank account that I don't check often.

I bet I'd be happier if my boss handed me a cheque every two weeks instead of doing bank transfer. It's an emotional "I have to see it to feel it" thing.
But the problem for sites like TC is not that people won't find good news using HN-like sites. The problem is that will not be making money through Google search.

You have to understand that people going to TC through HN or Digg means nothing for them. These people don't click on ads, they are there just to read news and click away. The money is made on people that click through a Google link, because these are the ones that are looking for something specific and ready to click on an ad.

So the problem he is talking about is that is getting harder to get into Google, since sites like eHow are flooding Google with all this dubious content.
Actually, this link is a list of cool ideas.

I thoght the section about computational biologists using PageRank to identify important species wihtin an ecosystem was cooler, myself.
I suspected as much, and I don't think there is anything wrong with using facts to defend your employer, but he should follow your example and disclose his affiliation when making comments like the one above.
Calling "suggesting a change and asking users up front to confirm or correct it" unethical strikes me as sensationalistic. The fact that a large percentage of users didn't just click through the thing (i.e. it wasn't some stealth decision forced on users) doesn't make it less ethical - if anything, it makes it more so.
>In the aftermath of the accident, investigations focused on the amount of radiation released by the accident. According to the American Nuclear Society, using the official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."[31][52]

Read a bit closer
Bubaloo Baby
Bubaloo Baby offers one of a kind personalized baby gifts, uniquely personalized baby clothing, and premium baby gift sets.
Albert Einstein was asked by the mathematician Jacques Hadamard what role words played in his thinking. His reply said, in part:

"The words of language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be `voluntarily' reproduced and combined."

It's from Hadamard's book "The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field". The full letter is extremely interesting, containing several remarks on Einstein's self-perception of how he thought. Unfortunately, I don't immediately see it online, and I don't have immediate access to my hard copy of the book.
"People see Facebook as a way to privately share their life with friends."
Fits what people in my family think (I'm not a user). I haven't thought it was a good choice for that, because huge sites tend to attract hacks. If private sharing is the reason most people go there, then I'd think FB would want the UI for privacy to be very transparent (at the "here's what happens when you click this, and here's what non-friends will see" level).

Twitter's UI surprised me. I used the 'public' setting; as their docs described it, I expected @someone messages would be seen only by people following me -and- the recipient. Wrong. When I googled my t-name, all my tweets, including those @ messages, were wide open to the whole net. Whoa!
Maybe this is also why it is recommended by food persona Alton Brown (among others) to thaw a turkey in the sink with running cold water, not warm, to get the fastest results.
It's nice to see linode's library finally catch up to slicehost's articles. For a while it was really bare but now I prefer it over slicehost as slicehost articles is starting to become cluttered with all the old distro specific categories. One thing that is still missing from linode's library is nginx.
I am not from the UK, but I tend to treat the Guardian like the New York Times. The articles tend to be well-researched and well-written, in my experience. (Both sites host blogs, though, which tend not to be well-researched or well-written.)
It's the latter. I'd kindly request that cwan or a moderator change the headline to something less misleading.