skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
another problem with dating is simply throwing money at the problem actually decreases the quality of the results!

it's easy to go out on tons of dates with gold-diggers, or the male equivalent, moocher deadbeats. unfortunately people get tired of both very quickly even though on paper it sounds like a lot of fun (dating exciting, interesting losers).
It's in the pipeline but I'm only working on this in my spare time at the moment so it might be a couple months out.
The volume of traffic and data makes it prohibitive.
Exactly right. I don't support copyright exactly as it is, but I'm very much against abandoning the concept.

I do comment frequently on HN just to be social or pass the time. But I don't attach much economic value to those comments, except in the most general sense of maybe winning friends and influencing people.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9211207
Better yet, black holes are known to emit Hawking radiation. If the event-horizon-crosser (let's call him "Matt" to be consistent with the article's "Anne") figured out some way to manipulate how that radiation is emitted (perhaps with some comic-book-esque "freeze ray" to selectively lower temperatures within the black hole with Morse or binary encoding?), Matt could send messages to Anne to the effect of "I AM ALIVE. BLACK HOLES ARE AWESOME.", thus unifying the two realities (or (inclusively) violating one or more models of the universe) if Anne knows to inspect Hawking radiation emissions.

Similarly, the black hole will eventually evaporate (unless it indefinitely maintains an intake of matter to counteract evaporation due to the Hawking-radiation-induced loss of mass). While it's highly unlikely that Matt will be emitted in one piece (let alone alive at all), he'll eventually be emitted as Hawking radiation as that evaporation occurs. If Anne's still around when the black hole evaporates, she could then collect and inspect Matt's "ashes" (more like escaped thermal radiation) and possibly get some idea of what happened if she can somehow reconstruct Matt from those emissions.
I don't think YAGNI ignores this so much as explicitly rejects it. I've participated in the type of rewrites you mention here. Yes, they suck. Yes, they happen far too often. But I've also observed that they seem to happen regardless of how much you plan ahead to future requirements: even if you are exhaustively brainstorming possible future directions and are absolutely sure you're going to want something, you're very often wrong. And the inevitable rewrite that happens is a lot more painful when you have to carryover requirements that you don't actually need.

YAGNI fundamentally is a statement about costs and benefits. And it's a statement about personal experiences of costs and benefits, with a counterintuitive conclusion. I've found, however, that the teams I've worked on that just accept that they'll have to rewrite or throw away 90% of what they write end up performing at a much higher level (in terms of their impact on the broader industry) than the teams who figure "But if we could just get that 90% down to 50%, we'll be 5x more effective than other teams!"

Another way to look at this is in terms of external vs. internal drivers of success. YAGNI makes sense when the primary drivers of success are external and you need to quickly react to changing market conditions or customer requirements. It doesn't when the primary drivers of success are internal and you need to quickly act to get from known point A to known point B as efficiently as possible. Some engineers are lucky (unlucky?) enough to work on the latter, but typically it only happens when you either have a monopoly or you're deep in the bowels of a corporation and only need to report up to an executive who never changes her mind.

To use the example from the article - if the biggest risk or change in the external environment you'll face is your software, go ahead and build the feature into it. But who knows? You may be able to close a round of venture funding in 2 months and then hire the Gondor navy to eliminate piracy. Or Gondor may enter into a trade agreement with Rohan and redoing all your contracts takes primacy. Or Aragorn may arrive with the Army of the Dead and suddenly piracy is not a problem anymore, but a lucrative business in life insurance may pick up.
I wonder if they've been busy trying to build an "App Store" or something else to avoid just selling hardware.
Where are these 10 billion dollar ipos and these billion dollar businesses that investors don't want to touch?

What are these magical markets invented by oh-so-spry out-of-box-thinking unburdened-by-reality type of kids?
Someone wrote a browser extension for Flash to be replaced with VLC on twitch.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WatchPeopleCode/comments/3273es/pro...

It wouldn't be hard to make that work on other sites that have a flash player. But we aren't quite sure if it improved the performance or anything, it just felt right.
Remarkable. Thanks; fixed.
In the old days of NTSC video, we did this with a vectorscope:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vectorscope#Video
Do you think there would be a market for a new dumb phone that had modern things likes contact syncing and threaded text messaging? I feel like a lot of existing feature phones would be great but they're just not that usable.
Here are links to the other parts

Part 2: http://www.sample-hold.com/2011/11/23/create-a-fft-analyzer-...

Part 3: http://www.sample-hold.com/2011/11/23/create-a-fft-analyzer-...

Part 4: http://www.sample-hold.com/2011/11/23/create-a-fft-analyzer-...

Part 5: http://www.sample-hold.com/2011/11/23/create-a-fft-analyzer-...
Exactly, and because of the automatic URL rewriting Netlify will also give you instant cache validation. So when you update your site, unlike most static site hosts, you won't have to wait to see your changes live. But at the same time you get a very cached and very fast site. So best of both worlds.
I suspect that most casual users appreciate that feature. And for myself, as a "power user" - who usually builds multi-hundred page slide decks - I often construct drafts of my presentations that might include slides with a cut/paste of material from documentation or the Internet - to be processed later. So autosizing makes it possible for me to revise that raw material into slides later.
Fedora 22: Cloud, desktop and server innovation
There's a subtle irony in that while Cortana can probably be more deeply integrated with Android than iOS, the same can't be said for Google Now on Windows Phone...
These comments seem to illustrate something I have felt for a while: yagni is incredibly divisive topic and for every person saying praising it is another who is at the very least cautious of its application.

It makes me wonder where the divide is.

Perhaps more large 'enterprise' shops where projects can spin out of control into what they 'must have' whereas the small shops where you need to get a product out ASAP?

Or maybe age of developer, with the young eager guy confident he can whip out all n features in 3 weeks so we might as well add that feature too vs the experienced dev who knows better and we will add it once it is needed?

I have put some time and effort into asking people about this very question, but still am no closer to understanding why some really appreciate it and others hate the phrase.

Personally, my guiding principle after being bit by yagni is that it is a wonderful principle to use when making product/feature decisions but should be exercised very carefully when making architecture decisions. Which makes sense, features come on and go, but architecture is generally something you need to live with. In other words, whenever yagni is used is an argument against what are more good coding and design practices than practical problems, then it may be something more of a case of 'no really, we are going to need it'
We have an article on our blog about some of the differences.

Typically you'll have to do quite a bit of work to get the same performance on S3+CloudFront as out of the box with Netlify, and if you do set up things to be as fast there, you'll suffer from slower cache invalidation.

https://www.netlify.com/blog/2015/03/06/comparing-netlify-an...
Microsoft invested in Facebook 3 years after it was made at a 15 billion dollar valuation and everyone laughed.
'Virtuos Code' by Software Craftsman and 'Ruby Rogues Podcast panelist' Avdi Grim is well worth reading.

He's recently been learning new languages (currently SmallTalk) and does great writeups of new insights he's having and how others can apply these insights too.

http://devblog.avdi.org
I attended a programming conference last week.

Everyone used PowerPoint or similar.

The slides mostly had code on, and some occasional light hearted stuff (but not distracting).

Without slides this would have been too fiddly for some presenters, e.g. messing around with a text editor or worse just explaining code with no visual.

However rarely was there a slide where the talker just read off it. I think there was 1 slide I witnessed where that happened.

So +1 for PowerPoint if used correctly.
Sure, but while you are 0, you are in your first year of life.
One of the biggest advantages of Cortana was its ability to interface with third party application pretty much at launch (something Siri and Google Now still don't do much of). Going cross platform is awesome though I'm not sure if it'll be quite as useful. Realistically Microsoft could strike a deal and make an Android phone use Cortana by default (which might be really good) which would be quite interesting (especially if it could integrate with third party apps on Android, too).

One thing that makes me hesitant when choosing a new app is what platform(s) it's available or will be available on. I bounce between Android and iOS almost once a year; this type of ubiquity Microsoft is pushing makes me use their products more and more because I know they'll be available everywhere I go.
Le Tote (YC S13) Is Hiring Ruby Developers – Disrupt Fashion with Us
Growing up in Austin, I remember my dad telling me about this after hearing the lyrics to the song they used for the theme for Austin City Limits (the PBS show not the festival). Good ol' Texas country.

"Well, when you're down on your luck,
and you ain't got a buck,
in London you're a goner.
Even London Bridge has fallen down,
and moved to Arizona"

London Homesick Blues, Gary P. Nunn
My car runs off of a 3.3lb LiFePO4 battery. It has very little capacity compared to the 50lb lead-acid battery it replaced, but has no trouble sourcing enough current to start the car reliably. Lithium batteries have the ability to source tremendous amounts of current, which is why they're so popular in RC models. The best RC lipo batteries can source 65 times capacity continuously, and are often limited by the cell tabs, wires, and quality of solder rather than ability of the cells. LiFePO4 doesn't have quite the same power, but it's still more than enough to start a small car engine.

I think the reason why lead-acid is still common are:

1) WAY cheaper per capacity, by a TREMENDOUS margin (10x+).

2) Better low-temperature performance.

3) Better tolerance to being abused (overvolted, run dead).
It's still not that straightforward.

What if features X, Y, and Z needed in < 6 months each are 2x harder to code because of the planning of feature B that has a 90% chance of being needed after them? You potentially "saved" time by doing feature B but depending upon the total time to code feature X, Y, and Z, 10% of the extra difficulty in features X Y and Z may still outstrip 90% of the time saved in feature B.

Nevermind that as feature B goes unused for 6 months bugs and incompatibilities may creep in. Eventually what you wrote for feature B may be mostly useless when you finally get around to actually needing it. I have had this happen on projects before.
Excuse my arcane units, but it is what I am familiar with:

ΔL=αΔtL; ΔL/L=αΔt; ϵ=ΔL/L; ϵ=αΔt; E=f/ϵ; f=ϵ/E; so f=αΔtE

ΔL = change in length due to temperature

L = restrained length

f = stress that arises due to full restraint

E = Young’s modulus

ϵ= strain

α= coefficient of linear thermal expansion

Using AASHTO numbers for structural steel:

f= 6.5x10^-6 (1/F)* 100 F * 29000 ksi = 18.85 ksi

That's a big chunk of the elastic 50 ksi range, and it's greater than a good portion of the allowable ranges from the table on page 41 of this PDF [1]. As you might already seem to know, AASHTO doesn't consider temperature loading for fatigue limit states, and in the Strength limit states it considers the force effects to be halved. (Though the displacement effects are multiplied by 1.2) Regardless, fully restraining these things at their ends doesn't seem like a good idea. Am I missing something in what you're talking about? Yes, the strain is low but fatigue generally works in terms of stresses.

[1] http://downloads.transportation.org/LRFDUS-6-Errata.pdf
Huh, interesting. Thanks for the info. Hopefully I never need it :)
In the exact center, no. But there certainly is everywhere else in the star.

After all, if there was no massive gravitational field, what's causing it to collapse? You can't have it both ways.
VOX media is acquiring ReCode.net
Good god, no. Do not do that.

Because what'll happen is, you'll find out that the type of risk you actually encounter ends up being tied to (say) the time of year in a way that you were not expecting, and now you've got this elaborate risk-plugin architecture sitting there, and there's no way to get the time of year down to the risk calculator, so you need to elaborately hoist out and redesign this entire gigantic apparatus, instead of just adding a parameter to a function call.

And meanwhile, as you were daydreaming your future hypothetical risks and trying to have an idea of what stuff they might need to know, you imagined that it might need to know what currency the thing is priced in to calculate currency-fluctuation risks, and so you're passing currencies all over the place, to be prepared for general extensible etc., but it turns out you never need them in your risk calculators anyway, so it's just this pile of unnecessary nonsense of setting currencies everywhere and you have to maintain all that.

And if you read those paragraphs and think "hmm, you'd probably want to make it extensible in terms of which fields are passed into the risk calculator to prevent that kind of problem" then realize that you are now solving a hypothetical problem that was caused by the "solution" to your first hypothetical problem, and you're three levels removed from delivering any actual value to anyone.

Forget about it. Don't plan for it. Plan for what you need today, because you will not be good at anticipating what you need tomorrow.
Your raw incompetence is truly boundless. The vast majority of my comments were positive until this story fell a number of pages back, when the shills appeared in full effect, you being their master.

Your shadowban is pathetic. Flagging while leaving the utterly trollery of people like tptacek is...it is a marvel.
I believe what you describing is the ability to predict the future. Nobody can do it perfectly, but experience can increase your odds of being correct.
Search the article on Google and click it, or use this:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd...
Ok - Forbes has definitely become a Valley Shill with their reports on this, Uber, and Space X.
...if you're generating the original file...

Maybe for the time being, with published attacks.

But MD5's strength against attacks has been sufficiently dubious since early 1996 – before the founding of the Internet Archive – that experts have recommended against using it in new applications.

By 2009, the CMU Software Engineering Institute (responsible for CERT security notices) wrote:

Software developers, Certification Authorities, website owners, and users should avoid using the MD5 algorithm in any capacity. As previous research has demonstrated, it should be considered cryptographically broken and unsuitable for further use.

So they're worse than 'not ideal'. They're dangerously obsolete for the purpose of content-authenticity, and any reliance upon them (under hand-wavy conditions) serves to block the migration to available hashes that would actually work.

If you're making the backup to be sent through a wormhole to 1999, use MD5. If you're creating the backup for trust and availability through to end-of-year 2015, or 2025, or 2115, ditch MD5 ASAP.

[1] http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/836068
How is 1040 a famous number?(Australian here)
I think there's a difference between going ahead and implementing piracy risk immediately, vs determining all the requirements of piracy risk and using them when designing your fundamental architecture, with hooks left in place for extensibility that simply aren't actually implemented yet. Maybe the Gondor navy will destroy the pirates, but then you have to worry about Corruption risk because you now may need to bribe the navy or risk having your cargo impounded (so you have to balance the risk of impounding vs the cost of bribing). Sure it's not the same thing as piracy risk, but it's similar, and because you designed your architecture from the get-go to enable piracy risk and other such extensions, you can now implement navy bribes pretty easily.

Meanwhile, if you'd said YAGNI to piracy risk and just implemented support for storm risk, you may find that you can't easily implement navy bribes without re-doing much of the work you already did for storm risk.

As saganus said[1], this is more of a craft than a science. You need to plan ahead with your architectural decisions, and they need to be made using the actual requirements you expect to encounter (as opposed to theoretical requirements, which aren't really much of a use to anyone), but that doesn't mean you need to actually implement everything immediately. Just enough to be satisfied that your architecture will suffice.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9607881
So don't settle. Just because you're using online dating to find a partner doesn't mean you have to take the next remotely viable candidate that comes along.

Personally, I find the lack of ambiguity about intentions to be a plus to meeting people through dating sites.
I don't care how good your article is, if you pop up a subscribe box over the content I'm not going to read it.

http://tabcloseddidntread.com/
Show HN: Bevvy – event organizers tool for engaging attendees
When traveling from Seattle to LA, Greyhound buses are better than Amtrak trains for several reasons: faster, cheaper, easier to book, and less risk of Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Kind of off topic - but I happened to be sitting next to Steve when he created a couple of those conference talks. He literally started preparing months before the talk. He would work on his wording over and over and over. Since I happened to be there, he would often try out his "lines" on me and ask me what I thought (I had to correct him a lot. He really wasn't technical all.) He practiced over and over. And for the diagrams he had good help from people who understood that simple diagrams are always better (avoid cognitive overload). And don't buy the book "Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs" - I looked though it and that author has no clue about how those presentations were really created.
Clickbait added to Merriam Webster dictionary
Just want to mention Toastmasters for anyone wanting to improve their presentation skills.

I learned there a lot about making presentations FOR the audience.

To PowerPoint or not is just one of many decisions to make depending on the talk and the audience. Sometimes appropriate, sometimes it is not.

At Toastmasters (or at least the club I went to) no PowerPoint was used, but sometimes props were used. Practicing presenting with just your voice is definitely a worthwhile character building experience!
Dir. Customer Success, Mountain View CA
Treasure Data is ramping up hires as we grow our customer base. We need an engaged and data-centric Director of Customer Success. Here's something about you: You know that customers are the lifeblood of a business and are committed to creating and sustaining a win-win, sustainable environments for both our customers and our company. You have broad sales/customer empathy skills, yet you are also deeply familiar with data analytics at scale and want to help your customers achieve their objectives, even if it means digging into the data via SQL queries.
"You will never guess which word just got added to the dictionary".
I had no idea what Cocoa was before this. I still...don't know what Cocoa is.
They do seem to be a little too confident in themselves, though they seem to have the readership (the question is whether they can monetize them quick enough before the 'empire' is too thin on the ground).
If you were to come to me and say "Hey, we have this idea, we have a prototype, and we'd like to make it a product. We'd like to get it in front of investors and make you a partner. We know you are going to put in a lot of time and effort to build it. We can offer you 33%, as we're both going to take 1/3 ourselves..." I would not be offended by that. That is actually a very fair assessment and a good starting point for a fair negotiation.

As for splitting equity that is a bit more of a complicated conversation. Not all equity is the same. In a fair world you might say: 10% reserved for employees, 20% for investors, and 70% for us. That seems fair on the outside right? You would each get 23.3% and you could each outvote any investor you bring on board. However, often times you don't have straight equity deals when raising funds. You might take a convertible note. You might have an investor who will only accept preferred shares of equity with special arrangements. Even relatively simple and underfunded start ups can sometimes have very complex cap tables with multiple levels of shares of stock being given different rules and right. If you're not careful, the cap table can easily run away from you. I have known quite a few successful entrepreneurs who have gotten screwed in the end, not because of co-founders, but because the cap table went sideways. For example, one small start up was offered north of $80MM 4.5 years after starting up. The co-founders each, after taxes, walked away with a few hundred thousand.

So, to answer your actual question, it really depends. Getting a partner who has been through those whole ordeal before can be priceless.
Just a talking point--empirically that's not true.
It's their fault because the information needed is widely available.
>Realistically Microsoft could strike a deal and make an Android phone use Cortana by default

Zero chance for Google doing it but maybe one of manufacturers or Cyanogen?
That's a really nice feature
You seem to be dividing the world into two possibilities:

1. Don't plan ahead. Only implement what you need right at this moment.

2. Plan for everything that's even remotely imaginable.

#2 is quite ridiculous. But the alternative to that is not #1. There is a huge amount of middle ground here, for assessing likely future needs and designing your architecture appropriately, as well as for identifying what future requirements affect architecture and which ones can be safely ignored as something that can be easily implemented on top of the current architecture.

The problem with #1 is this either leads to re-implementing large portions of your app (possibly many times if you persist with this) as you discover your architecture doesn't work; or, more likely, adding hack on top of hack to implement new functionality without having to rearchitect, which leads to massive technical debt and results in an un-maintainable product.