skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
When you plug in one of those 4K 60 Hz monitors, you're probably using MST - most of them are designed to appear to the host PC as two separate monitors daisychained over DisplayPort MST, with some extra metadata to tell the OS they're actually two halves of the same monitor, and OS X supports this on newer hardware. Which means Mac OS X has code somewhere to detect if you're trying to actually daisychain non-Apple monitors and disable MST.
The analogy was the sentiment around the internet and the underlying technology to support it.

It's just a matter of doing a little research to find all the naysayers.
> Then no one will issue loans to those students

This is not the case, the non-dischargability in bankruptcy only came about in 2005 and there were plenty of student loans before then
Banach-Tarski is absurd because matter in reality is made out of particles. If you take this into account in your definitions you can't do absurd stuff like Banach-Tarski.

As such it offers an insight into what can happen if your mathematical model fails at representing the reality.
That's too bad, because I'd like everyone to read your longer comment here.

Just so strange to me that this decision isn't spurring more discussion. urbit-related posts have hit the front page with 100+ up votes in the past.
What other choices are they unable to make at age 18? Are they unable to choose whether or not to get a tattoo which may last for a lifetime? How about whether to join the military and potentially die for their country?
I was a developer that partnered with a stranger. He's an MBA with a purely business background. I'm the full stack + product guy. I'm never co-founding a business with a stranger ever again.

We failed probably because of not what you're thinking. My business co-founder brought more to the table than I could imagine. I've gained a lot of respect for the hard work of sales, marketing, fundraising, and the people that make these tasks seem so easy.

We got hundreds of customers, made $10k revenue per month, and had a staff of 5 at one time. All bootstrapped over the course of 12 months.

The thing is, we were not happy working with each other. When shit hits the fan (which happens often in a new business), we just get on each other's nerves. On paper, we have perfectly complimentary skill set. He's a charming people person. I'm a proficient developer. In reality, the fact that we're so opposite means that we're always seeing and doings things differently. When we're in a grind, he wants to hi-fives to boost morale and I want to put my head down to ship faster.

If I were to do it again. I'd find a smart, hardworking person that brings me energy and that I'd bring them energy when the shit hits the fan. I wouldn't care if they're a CEO, CTO, C-whatever-O. I'd look for someone that I'd enjoy working with above all else.
Well, at the school I went to (and did not graduate from), CS was offered through the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Along with Mathematics, Chemistry, Economics, Biology and several other useful disciplines.

Liberal Arts is not a codeword for 'interdisciplinary studies'.
I would love to see examples of this "marketing machine" you are referring to
Ah, now I see it and it makes sense.

The answer to the code review question is obvious. I didn't see the error even though I was told what happens.
Definite up votes. Or you have an MBA from Harvard that VCs love. Or a successful exit under your belt. You have to bring to the table real assets and accomplishments. Personality is not a plus at first and will only play out over time. Same thing with brains/creativity. These are not easily measurable.

That being said, if you are unproven, you could relax your standards and try to convince a kid out of university to be your CTO.
Hey, would that be easier if we rewrite the coreutils in, say, Rust? Honest question.
Nicely done. Great flashback :)
Why not, assuming you make the spheres big enough? Let's say not gold, but a moon. I mean, let's do a thought experiment with superhuman tech and a big enough sphere that atoms are small enough to make the slices right.

I guess I just don't understand why this doesn't violate conservation of mass.
I know, I was trying to contrast letting him speak on neoreaction with letting him speak on orbit.
Ann Leckie was being touted as Iain M Bank's successor with her Imperial Radch series. But due to that expectation being set up I was underwhelmed. It was enjoyable on its own but doesn't compare in quality to Banks's works, e.g. Excession, in my opinion.
Previous discussions (most popular):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9162566 (291 points, 91 days ago, 75 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8507786 (91 points, 225 days ago, 25 comments)
Affordable click to call for Startups
Reasonably I'd expect these "not yet adults" to have been shaped by the adults in their lives such as parents, mentors, close family friends, etc. and to be supported in their decision making process by them.

Shouldn't the lion's share of the influence belong to them, and not some 3rd party dealing with the student via infomercial and pamphlet?
Strictly speaking, math it self isn't intended to reflect reality. It's just logical system together with some initial axioms. But it does happen to model reality very well, given the right interpretations.
Accepting or rejecting the axiom of choice as "natural" is a red herring based on the idea that mathematics express external truths about the world. Mathematics describe rules of reasoning which preserve truths about the world.

For instance, if I am trying to count my goats, the concept of natural integer allows me to count two groups, sum the results, and still have an accurate understanding of the number of goats I have.

As it turns out, the theory of natural integers allows one to define arbitrarily large numbers, even though I cannot possibly have more than, say, 1000 goats. Yet, a theory that deals only with numbers less than 1000 might be more cumbersome to work with. Try to define addition there and see for yourself.

The theory of natural numbers is useful because it provides a simple formal way to accurately count the number of goats (and possibly other things). It doesn't matter that it allows us to conceive of an absurd number of goats, like 1,000,000. It does the job, and as long you use it in the real world on real data you won't get absurd results.

---

The same goes for the axiom of choice. Whether or not you accept it isn't going to make a practical difference once it comes to measuring the volume of helium needed to fill your balloon.

Think of it as upcasting and downcasting. You're dealing with a finite problem which is hard to solve. So you upcast it to a more general theory, solve it, and then downcast it back to the original setting.

There are as many ways to upcast as there are ways to pick independent axioms, so pick whichever make the problem easiest to solve, and don't worry about the "truth" of these propositions.
Ask HN: How can I discover the current market value of private equity?
I have been offered a job at a privately held company that seems like it might be about to IPO, and the compensation package includes equity that, under some circumstances, could be a large portion of my compensation. I'm trying to figure out the current market value of that equity.

If I end up considering the equity as worth $0, like some people recommend doing for jobs in startups, taking the job would be a huge pay cut from my current position, and I would not accept the job offer.

What I know so far:

1. The stock prices at all rounds of funding, both the most recent and all previous ones

2. The revenue growth since the last round of funding

3. Employees are telling me that internal transparency about revenue has gone down recently, which they interpret as a sign of approaching an IPO

4. High-level employees have given me their personal estimates of the value of the stock today. Some of those estimates are too low for me to want to accept the job offer, some are high enough that I would want to accept the job offer.

How can I discover what this equity would sell for today? I'm trying to get information out of SharesPost and EquityZen, but that seems to be a very slow-moving process by design.
You are right of course. From a business standpoint, Alex did the right thing and he will not suffer consequences. Other conferences have done the same and will continue to do so. This is part of a lamentable, ongoing trend. Individual action by people like me will not stop it.
There's no mechanism to decrypt the result before display. So enjoy decrypting AES in your head!
I don't believe in the axiom of choice.
In spite of that, it's still nice to not have had any dental fillings or major dental work by the time I turn 30. This will be different from both of my parents. I think I'm happy to trade a minor increase in some other risks for the ability to eat without pain.
Agreed, it's a nice intro. I still think the hardest part is understanding how docker fits into the bigger picture. I think I've more or less figured it out on my own, but I struggled with e.g. do I want my source built in the image or mounted as a volume?
The real question here is what you bring to the table in an early stage startup. You can put yourself around the type of people you need to meet, but at the end of the day they are not going to be your co-founder unless you bring something to the table. Why do they absolutely need you in order to succeed? Maybe:

- You are a sales or marketing wizard

- You have domain specific knowledge and experience

- You have critical connections

- You have funding

You probably need several of these to be an attractive co-founder. Another way of saying it is: what will you be working on every day that will cause the startup to succeed? The technical co-founder is going to work on building the product every day. Without that you can't succeed. Why does he need you to succeed? That is what you need to communicate to potential co-founders.

If you have a good way to convince potential co-founders that they need you, then how to find them? It could be that you are successful with founder dating programs but starting a startup is a huge commitment. Do you really want to do that with a stranger? I think it makes a lot more sense to do it with a college friend or a former colleague.
The magic of RCU definitely is the safety guarantee on read-side with little to no overhead and an easy to approach API. Traditional copy-on-write systems do not provide this guarantee as there would be synchronization and / or blocking on the fast path (barriers / atomic operations / locks).

Cores versus threads is a detail of the execution environment which may affect RCU implementation but not the actual magic. For example, a lot of work was necessary to get RCU to scale to many hundreds of cores in the kernel (http://lwn.net/Articles/305782/ is one example).

For ck_epoch, we had to implement a proxy collection-like pattern for workloads involving thousands of concurrent events that required longer-lived hazardous references (thanks to John Esmet for this work)...this will hit upstream as ck_epc and is sitting in a pull request on the github page (http://github.com/concurrencykit/ck).

re:Efficiency, magnitudes more efficient on read-side in all ways (including throughput and latency) assuming that delete frequency is not too heavy and that you can afford write-side blocking. Consider that the read-side has few to none atomic operations on the fast path, and if so, is typically on exclusively written memory and it does not block in any fashion. This means readers scale and are very fast. You might enjoy the paper I linked to which exposes some of the performance characteristics (it isn't exhaustive, it doesn't explore real-world implications on memory usage as update frequency increases, for example, but it's a great start). Paul also has some refreshed performance analysis in his ACM Queue article. If you couple this with specialized concurrently readable data structures (like http://backtrace.io/blog/blog/2015/03/13/workload-specializa...), you get super sexy performance for readers.

You might also be interested in "passive reader-writer locks", which provide similar costs on the fast path to RCU for TSO architectures while still providing read-write lock semantics...but at the cost of exceptionally more expensive write-side synchronization (and user-space support requires some kernel modifications).
Apple watch icon gallery
The Silver Line in Boston is exactly that: dual mode buses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-mode_bus), and part of the line is a dedicated tunnel for the buses, while the other part is normal streets.
Because you really, really can't make the slices small enough.

And your point about violating the conservation of mass is the whole point of the article. When we try to come up with a mathematical model of what "volume" means there are certain properties we want it to have. One of them is that any arbitrary collection of point - not atoms, but mathematical points - can have a volume associated with it. The Banach-Tarski theorem shows that such a requirement is impossible.

You're not alone if you think this is all nonsense - so did Feynman. However, many clever people not only believe that this is relevant, but also useful and insightful. The article is trying to give a sense of why that's the case.

I want to write a sister article to this to help people like you come to understand what's going on, but I'm having trouble finding people who are willing to engage with me on it. They usually just find that it offends their sense of reality and reject it all. I think that's a shame, because unless people like me can come to understand what others find so objectionable we can never learn how to help people understand why this is interesting, useful, adn relevant.
How Google’s New Photos App Can Tell Cats from Dogs
Why would the strangeness matter? The article insists that it's not an issue of infinitely small pieces, so what's the actual inherent barrier to doing this on real objects?

Is it an issue of continuity that's not related to the pieces being arbitrarily small? I still don't see where this refutes the traditional line about the theorem being an artifact of uncountable sets.
> We failed probably because of not what you're thinking.

No. We were all thinking that.

Edit: You didn't see 2 total strangers with no history and completely different ideologies having problems running a business together? That is what these downvotes and OP seem to suggest.
Kid, please read properly. I din't say I stopped using Twitter. I said I stopped using Twitter API
As a german guy (with qwertz keyboard) I feel like I'm left out :-(
Comcast is issuing routers that are also open wireless access points for other Comcast customers. If you live in an apartment complex or near enough to another house, what's to stop said youngster from just connecting to some other access point?

Of just tethering his phone, if you're a relatively rich family?
I was intrigued by the angular block lettering. Not a curve to be noted in the R B D C. (But notice the mix of styles in "My Rules to Keep Clean".) I wonder if that was the influence of the Art Deco movement that was just coming into vogue.
Perhaps it is questionably moral and risky, but why should it be any more so than a corporation filing for bankruptcy? The difference is that bankruptcies are, to some extent, priced into the system. If they weren't and if personal bankruptcies, for example, weren't allowed, we'd see problems with personal and housing loan underwriting standards dropping to the level of students loans. It's no coincidence that there has been a strong push towards making all personal loans exempt from bankruptcy. Being setup to fail is profitable.

So how do you change things? You can change the rules of the game, but the rulemakers are tight with the gamemakers. You can refuse to play, but playing the game is seen as the only way out for many. Or you can refuse to pay and break the game permanently. I don't advocate any particular approach, but I understand those who do.
A Music-Sharing Network for the Unconnected
Again, a disclaimer: I know pretty much nothing about this specific instance except the linked article. I don't know the candidate speaker, their political views, or anything of that nature. No examples in this comment are meant to be reflective of this specific situation.

> "wants to talk about microservices in clojure, and folks want to keep her out because of her views on women in technology"

For me, it comes down to how they express their opinions in the public sphere.

This matters a lot. If someone develops a persona known for lobbing rhetorical grenades, making ad hominem attacks, or is unnecessarily mean or negative, then I don't have a problem holding them out of a conference — even if I agree with their viewpoints.

If they, on the other hand tend to behave in a reasonable way, and are capable of having calm and rational debates, then I would want to see them included in the conference — even if I disagree with their viewpoints.
Agreed. You need someone you can happily brainstorm with for hours and hours on end. If it isn't fun, if either of you would rather be doing something else, I find that's a good sign it's time to cut loose. Brainstorming problems is what you'll be doing endlessly when you are building a company together. I also find its the one thing most easily measured.

That being said, just because you can brainstorm with someone doesn't mean you'll be successful. You could be mediocre which is why it's easy for you to find someone you can brainstorm with. But it is a sign of a good cofounder.
See libxo[1]

There has been added in FreeBSD 11 but I am not sure how many of the commands have been converted.

[1] https://juniper.github.io/libxo/libxo-manual.html
I'd really like you not to speak on my behalf.
Do you think there's now the slightest chance that urbit can win in the technology marketplace, or get any mind share?

I suppose others can copy its ideas without attribution, but if involvement in it potentially threatens your career....
Better try Source Safe :)
Sounds fixable with a bit of counseling? In fact you can articulate all the problems already, which is amazing.
embedded programmers are really rare compared to app and web developers. they probably lack the manpower and disciplines to do it right.
I don't think this is actually broken. The traits needed for quality cofounders are actually pretty rare and even more so for founders who get along well enough to make a great company.

I see this the same way as I do looking for a spouse. You can't shortcut this process and founder "dating" sites or mixers will have the same problems as dating ones. You have to make sure you are bringing to the table the skills needed to fill the roles you will be playing. In this regard it's a bit more straight forward than dating because you should be able to point to a history of accomplishments that prove you can fill those roles.

Beyond that though it's just a series of interactions that make the other person feel comfortable partnering with you.
To reinforce my previous post, around here there's now a new ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLgQF8lZHjk

It's in Portuguese, but essentially it's about kids coming home and saying that their school colleagues had to them that (1) her mother was too old, (2) that they aren't her "real" parents (she's obviously adopted), and (3) that he shouldn't have two dads, and it ends up with them hugging each other.

When Coke, one of the more important symbols of the dominant system, has an ad about social expectations and people defying them, it's kind of hard to argue that it's not a well accepted concept!
Imho:

Get traction with whatever you got at your hands.

There is nothing more trustworthy and attractive than traction.

Not being engineer has never been an excuse not to get traction. Not in the last hundred generations and wont be in the next.

Business != Building != Engineering

Good luck!
More often than not I've read this almost-mantra 'use of C++ is declining' or 'C++ will be dead soon' or similar in threads on HN. A couple of times I chimed in and asked the authors of these statements for any proper sources. Never got an answer, but now it seems this TIOBE index could be used to actually even counter those statements immediately with what seems like solid evidence. However I am not too familiar with TIOBE; is it generally speaking regarded as an authorative source? Are there similar sources like this?
How is the cost of living absurd in rural areas of California?
This was posted almost three years ago at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4805091.

I see you appended "HN_repost" to make it unique.
God forbid anyone know that your battery is low.
>but after you've figured out scaling for a product business (highly non-trivial), they often scale so well that continuing with the consulting would be economically irrational.

I have this hybrid model going on. I do consulting, I do products and I do training too. Products make 2-3x Consulting revenue. If I pushed it, it would go much higher than that.

However, I just like my job. I like consulting. I like solving problems for businesses. I like it much more than building a full scale business for myself, actually.

What I want to say is this: If you're a consultant and want to scale, you won't be doing what you're doing now. You will be running a business. If you do software deelopment, you won't be doing any of that any more. You will be figuring how to hire people, how to train them, how to retain them, how to get them work, deal with accounting and a million other things.

Another thing to think about is competition. When you're a solo operation, competition is not a problem. When you grow a company, however, it becomes a big problem. Not only direct competition. Indirect one too. Take for example PPC (pay-per-click) agencies. Firms offering search engine optimization started offering PPC, so the ones specializing in PPC had to start offering SEO too. Then SEO became all about web development and now those firms had to compete with web dev shops. Hire, train, retain people for that? Then traditional ad agencies started getting into digital too and they have a lot of other expertise to offer.

Growing a business is like taking a life-long trip without knowing the destination and you might be very unpleasantly surprised at the end.
Robots falling to Benny Hill music
As an American, I almost cry with frustration when I see sensible solutions like this.
> Soon, the cheapest means of raising IQ will be iterated embryo selection, later direct genetic modification.

So many people on the internet go on about the inevitability of genetic engineering for traits like intelligence. There's pretty much zero experimental evidence it's going to work as of yet. It's all statistical wankery. Find me one mouse experiment where they can repeatedly engineer a faster mouse or a smarter mouse from common mice. Oh, they can make its fur green (or whatever), but there's not even a hint anyone is close to manipulating complex aspects of phenotype any better than dog breeders.
Maybe I'm seeing a connection where there isn't one, but there's a conversation in a nearby thread about extending shells: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9673975
C++ is a legacy language like PL/I. Those who don't use it yet will not even consider it for new projects.
A thousand times this. Life is short, don't work with assholes, and more appropriately, don't work with people you don't respect and enjoy.

In larger companies you have to work with people you respect but don't like. Don't do that in a startup, it takes away the passion and the motivation.
I don't think a person that can't understand loans is ready for college.
The creditor gives you money and you have to pay them back, if you ask for too much then it'll be much harder to pay back your loan.

Many students who take loans don't even need them, but could easily pay their tuition by just getting a job.