skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"when you have written a letter that you feel may possibly irritate your friend, ... put it aside till the next day"

I have a similar policy. Upon receiving an email that makes me hyperventilate even a little, or sets my pulse racing just a bit, by all means draft a reply immediately -- frequently emotional and full of invective -- but the set it aside for at least 24 hours. 48 in more severe cases. Then, and only then, re-read the message that got me all hot and bothered in the first place, re-read my draft reply (assuming I did that) and then redraft as needed before hitting "Send".

I call this my "24-hour Rule" and apply it always.

Then there's the "Never Hit Send While After Even a Single Drink Rule"... but that's another thing for another day.
It's about educating developers to make an informed decision. I don't know why that's supposed to be religious.
No this isn't fair. Get a professional.
>What is a finished software product?

One that meets a pre-defined milestone and is seen fit for public release. I guess Apple wants to get some warts out and add a few features before it releases the project to the "design by committee" open source world.
It's frustrating to see this somewhat blinkered view.

Yeah, Apple definitely doesn't like copyleft. That's okay; lots of people don't (especially larger companies – how many large companies actively release GPLd software?). It's a legitimate business decision, and there are some good arguments that support it (which you may or may not agree with).

The idea that organisations 'owe' the community copyleft software is therefore a bit foreign to me.

Furthermore:

We'll likely see pieces of Swift 2.0 thrown over the wall. But the best stuff will be kept proprietary.

That's a bit of a weird assumption. Apple's statement was the the Swift code and standard library would be open-sourced. What is the 'best stuff' that we're not going to get?

Apple's not-yet-executed move to liberate some of the Swift 2.0 code seems a tactical stunt to win over developers who currently prefer the relatively more open nature of the Android/Linux platform … the copyleft license of Linux itself provides the opportunity to keep the core operating system of Android liberated.

That's a bit flaccid. Google and the Android platform has equally went out of the way to isolate the platform from the effects of the GPL. In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the reasons Bionic (the Android libc) exists is specifically to limit the impact of GPL code on the platform. Android's use of Linux is basically a historical accident, and painting it as some kind of concerted effort towards software freedom isn't a compelling point.

TL;DR - you need to relax. Apple releasing open-source code is a good thing. We can now all benefit from using this code. Maybe you'd prefer if it were copylefted, but it's not – it's still good, and painting it as an evil move against software freedom seems like a bit of a mental stretch.
Benchmarked using :

sysbench --test=cpu --num-threads=<number of cores> --cpu-max-prime=40000 run

And the score is the total execution time.

Also prices are based on Europe region pricing.
TDD: Where Did It All Go Wrong? [video]
Pretty awesome. Goes to show the great lengths taken even on state of the art hardware at the time.

And the PS1 wasn't even the worst of it. The Sega Saturn and N64 were both considerably more difficult to develop for. And the PC market was terribly fragmented and had a high rate of obsolescence.

This stuff can give you nightmares:
http://koti.kapsi.fi/~antime/sega/docs.html
But it also has multiple orders of magnitude less in terms of memory. So they have so little or no room for excess.
1) Forking in open source is not a crime, it is a virtue and fundamental right

2) By "after what Google did with Chrome", do you mean contributing massive amounts of engineering resources to WebKit for several years, exceeding Apple's own WebKit team? Look here: http://www.kaizou.org/2013/04/why-google-dropped-webkit/

If someone's forking your project, it's usually because productivity/velocity is going down because of either too much political contention, or too much legacy code.
Peer review has never been a designation of fact, just "you must be this tall to enter the fighting pits."

Confusing peer review with fact is a public-perception problem, and a lot of that comes down to various antiscience groups whose work isn't even peer reviewed, let alone tested and challenged.
> "MS seems to get the modern Web".

This made me laugh, sadly. They get the modern Web because they aren't winning at native app development.
Bradley is pretty extreme :)

It's not necessarily a bad thing to have sentinels out on the fringes, like RMS and Bradley, to remind us not to get lost. We don't have to go where they are, but we can at least navigate by them.

Having said that, there is a detail here which Bradley is omitting. Specifically, that is that Apple is not anti-copyleft, what Apple is (and what many other corporations are), is anti-GPLv3.

Apple shipped Samba for a very long time. They could have replaced it at any point, but they didn't need to. It was Samba switching to GPLv3 that pushed Apple into writing its own SMB implementation.

Now, it's possible that these things are unrelated, but I believe I am correct in stating that Apple has never shipped GPLv3 software, and anything that has switched to v3, simply gets replaced or held back at its last v2 release (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559990 ). The most likely explanation is that they are not prepared to be bound by the patent/tivoisation clauses.

The deeper question is why these v3 terms are unacceptable. IANAL, but I have worked at places where there are pretty flexible policies around using/distributing Free Software, and it's not at all uncommon that blanket policies apply to v2 licensed software, but any and all use of v3 (or indeed AGPL) software require specific individual review by Legal to ensure that you aren't placing the company in an actionable position. That's a pretty heavy time/effort burden to place on the (ideally nimble) process of developing and shipping software, it's also a cost burden.

Personally, I love the GPLv2, I think it's a masterstroke of a license. I don't use it very much anymore, but I'm very glad that exists. I think v3 goes to far, and I think AGPL goes way too far.

I tend to think that there are strategic projects which should be under v3, to protect the wider Free Software community from being unreasonably locked out of their own future, however, it seems fairly clear to me that overall, v3 has hurt copyleft more than helped it.
I'm not sold on the inherent good of copyleft licenses. The author seems to think that funding development of permissively licensed free software is, in fact, a bad thing. I'm sure that seems obviously true to some people.

If Apple is a "wily opponent" of open source, then maybe we need more such opponents?

(Also, I'm not following the argument that Apple is open sourcing Swift to try and beat Android. Nor do I think the Android platform deserves as much of a pass as the author gives it.)
Adobe Captivate 8 Crack Mac Serial Number 64 Bit Download
Let's not forget Ellen Pao's husband is an openly gay male hedge fund manager.

fortune.com/2012/10/25/ellen-pao-buddy-fletcher/

That to me screams that she's a big time financial schemer.
Data science ain't rocket science
I guess it's the abstract, evangelical nature of it that makes it comparable to religion in some ways.

The implicit assumption you're making is that developers are not making an informed decision already. I reckon that's not the case, and the developers are informed – they just don't care.

Arguments about long-term, abstract concepts like enduring freedom of software, or the risk of patent litigation for using non-copyleft software, are valuable to have. But these things have a limited impact in the short-term, day-to-day work of developers.
This is a political statement, and I think it's a good one. Politics means the struggle over power distribution in society. It is an unqualified good thing! Some people don't like the game of statesmanship, namely how people bargain over politics, but that's a whole other matter altogether. Politics means defining to ourselves what our goals are. For example, if you say that we as a society should invest in technology because technology can make people's lives better then you've just made a political statement (a very vague one, but undeniably political). Anything that states what we should do as a society -- as opposed to, say, stating what is -- is by definition political.

And by the way, political statements are different from religious ones (though the two may overlap). This is not a religious statement.

The answer to your question (which is also a veiled political statement) is that allowing non-free modification and distribution would go against the political goals of the article's author, who believes that when it comes to software freedoms, all liberties should be granted except for the liberty to restrict that freedom. You may not agree with that political ideology, but it certainly makes sense (but bear in mind that disagreeing with this ideology isn't lack of ideology -- which is impossible if you have an opinion on what we should do -- but merely a different one).
It's proselytizing.
The Trading Compass Review Binary Need to Know
I don't believe Mr. Kuhn is especially aware of how LLVM is developed. I am a regular contributor to the project (> 1000+ commits) and it is simply not the case that one can contribute code in this way.

The LLVM project makes it's stance on patents quite clear [1].

[1] http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#patents
The best stuff that we're not going to get, is everything above the STL, but I doubt anyone is expecting that Foundation/Cocoa are going to get open sourced any time soon :)
I didn't say it's religious. I just said it reminds me of a religious black&white world view: There's the bad thing that will land you in hell and then there's our thing that will save your soul.

Don't know. It's the whole style. Phrases like "Apple's pathological hatred of copyleft" just don't sit well with me. If you want to educate me: fine, do it. But at least try to avoid sounding like a fanatic.
I seriously never understood why people are so eager to trust all their data to a black box operated by a commercial vendor known to share data without your knowledge. http://www.securityweek.com/amazon-details-government-data-r... absolute insanity....
> Nest Cam has a beautiful, completely redesigned stand.

I guess that depends on who you ask. I guess most non-technies would just find it ugly. Especially the cord that comes out of it.
Mentioned almost as an aside, but I'd never heard of 'cross-writing'[1] before, and now having looked a few examples, I can quite imagine how painful it would be to read.

[1] http://blog.paperblanks.com/2013/03/cross-writing/
The most underrated feature in Python 3
Earlier discussion on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9732827
Off the top of my head, a few resources which have been exhausted:

⚫ Guano (fertilizer)

⚫ Forests, generally, in Lebanon ("the cedars of Lebanon"), Greece, Italy, Europe, England.

⚫ Whale oil.

⚫ Bison.

⚫ Passenger pigeons.

⚫ Dodo.

⚫ Arable land through the Middle East and Fertile Crescent.

⚫ Cod.

⚫ Water from the Aral Sea.

⚫ Cryolite (used in aluminium smelting).

The fact that several of these are species or ecosystem resources strikes me as significant.
However many people you asked to give you feedback on your site before you launched it, it wasn't enough. For one, very, very basic reason: You don't have a working, live example of what the showcase will look like after I sign up and spend time putting content in it. You're asking for people to put in effort before showing them why. That's Startups 101 stuff.
Dave Bagget could write a book on the making of crash and I'd buy it in a second. There was something very special that went to making that game and I was just the right age to appreciate it.
> The idea that organisations 'owe' the community copyleft software is therefore a bit foreign to me.

What do you mean? That is the very credo of free software, namely all software should be free. Hence, everybody owes the community free software. You might not agree with it, but that's the ideology behind free software.

> Google and the Android platform has equally went out of the way to isolate the platform from the effects of the GPL.

That's absolutely true. That effort is why Google didn't use OpenJDK (which is under the GPL), which led to Oracle suing them. All because Google went to extreme great lengths to avoid the GPL (they did have their reasons: they believed, perhaps rightly so, that phone manufacturers would not agree to a GPL platform).
How to use Bower to manage front end dependencies easily
No skin in the game = no equity. No exceptions.
Lots of comments are talking about how Apple "doesn't owe [the FSF] anything" and that it's a "business decisison". This is all true, but it misses the point.

The point is that the current trend of companies releasing stuff under non-copyleft licenses and keeping the 'good stuff' in proprietary forks is bad for free (FSF-style) software. That's why the article argues that you should take a good look at what these companies are actually doing beyond press releases and act accordingly.

You might still think that free software is unimportant or that having pseudo-freemium open source release is still better than nothing. But that's your own decision, based on your own values, which might not be the values the FSF thinks of as important.
> * myriad of exoplanets

More importantly: the fact that other solar systems look nothing like our own. They tend to have large (often super-Jovian) planets close to their sun, and often multiple planets closer to their sun than Mercury. There are very, very few solar systems we know of that resemble our own.
FWIW, I don't think Bradley is claiming that they are under any obligation here.
WebAssembly will have a backwards JS polyfill, but browsers could implement WebAssembly natively and gut the JS middle layer. Mozilla (and then Microsoft and Apple) did the same thing with asm.js. WebAssembly becomes the unifying abstraction layer instead of JS.
I'm not sure how useful this would be with regards to break-ins (one of their selling points it seems). Uploading/Streaming 1080p video on a slow to moderate connection? Plenty of time for the thief to unplug and take that nice shiny PC with the video stored, and the nest cam with it.
Google Trends Datastore – Data from Google Trends
The problem is that posts like this one strongly suggest that anything but a decision to fully embrace the GPL is somehow wrong.
I have to agree. It used to be Apple who was claiming Unix's traditions. Now they use promises of a future release as PR pieces to combat existing software. (This was a Microsoft strategy several decades ago.)
The Unraveling of Ellen Pao and Her Husband, Buddy Fletcher
I am the father of a 4 years old girl (and a 2 months old baby girl) and I can relate to the study's results. In the family, I'm the one that pushes my daughter limits, sometime with a certain amount of risk.

One drawback of this playful approach to parenting, is that my daughter perceives the mother as the authority and the father as the "friend". I reckon this is a quite common scenario, but it leads to some unpleasant situations (such as, mum says no to ipad, kid runs to father and ask ipad to father - hence creating a conflict ).

Actually, I'm trying to be less playful with her to check if I can restore the authority balance.
A good portion of this stuff does still go on in Games Development.

I don't work in games any more, but on the last title I worked on (Forza Horizon, Xbox 360), one of my colleagues engaged in a very similar exercise in order to allow data for the open world to be streamed in quick enough to deal with car (travelling at potentially 150+mph) to drive through the world without having to wait for loads, whilst streaming direct from the DVD (we weren't allowed to install to the HDD).

Given that the world was open and you could drive in pretty much any direction, trying to pre-load the right tiles of the world was difficult, and seek times made it tough to bring stuff in if it wasn't all packed together. However we were almost at the limit of DVD capacity so we couldn't do much duplication of assets to lower the amount of seeking required.

My colleague wrote a system that took about 8 hours overnight (running on a grid) to compute a best attempt at some kind of optimized packing. It did work though!
Desalination is not the answer.

As TFA mentions, desalination is incredibly power-hungry. Additionally, it creates ultra-salty brine as a byproduct, which is difficult to dispose of -- if you just dump it into the ocean, you'll kill fish.

Finally, desalination plants are a great option for supplying water when nothing else is available, but as soon as you can get water from pretty much anywhere else, they become extremely cost-inefficient. Take the case of Santa Barbara as a great example: drought from 1986-1992, built a desal plant for $34 million. Turned it on in March 1992, it ran until June 1992, and then it started raining ... hasn't been used since.

(http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/pw/resources/system/...)
That is really a separate question though. Open Source is simply about licensing of a software release, it says nothing about the nature of the development community that produced the software.

An open, collaborative development community in an Open Source or Free Software project, is a very good thing, but it is a separate thing.
Old console games are great examples of how creativity benefits from constraints.
Not convinced by the editorialised submission title here. Would be preferable to use the blogpost's title, "Why Greet Apple's Swift 2.0 With Open Arms?".
It goes over all keychains so I'm assuming (at least it was so for me) that it asked for password for locked keychains.

`security` is a built-in system utility, basically Keychain Access for terminal, the same way that `diskutil` is Disk Utility but in the terminal.
"modern, high quality language with support for the platforms I care about (Linux, OS X)" - .NET's open sourcing is already happening (including cross-platform) and is under MIT\Apache license. github.com/dotnet
> No types at all, everything is a string

At least there's no need for any kind of toString() method...

This is a design decision which makes the language smaller and easily composable. It also helps greatly with metaprogramming, because the code itself is also just a string - this makes Tcl homoiconic, which is a nice property to have. Last but not least, you can easily type-tag the values you use in more than one way if you want; you also have a built-in object system for cases where you need more structure in order for things not to get hairy.

> Dynamic scoping rules and `uplevel` & Co

Tcl is lexically scoped by default, it just provides ways to break out from lexical context. It's a good thing, allowing you to write for example this: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Generic_swap#Tcl without any hassle. Like all design decisions it has its downsides, but it's a powerful tool if used correctly.

Tcl is not a bad language, it's just ill-suited for you or for your use case.
Its not that email doesn't have the ability to handle binary files. It is because 'enterprise policy' doesn't allow sending/receiving binaries by email.
Hey Arthur, check out http://zoology-app.com/. This is a real life pokedex app currently in the works
it's BCN, actually
Please feel free to provide us with a link to this "pledge". As far as I'm aware, Apple has never done any such thing.
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this.

WebAssembly is in itself probably a good thing, but yeah, as is evident from the replies you're getting, for lots of people readable sources simply isn't a priority or even a goal.

Which is probably why we have the GPL. But unfortunately, it's not seeing much use on the web.
> Most mobile games are developed with Unity. And what appear to be the cutting edge titles are usually using the Unreal engine.

Any source by mobile OS that you can point to?

I am quite sure there are other contenders like home grown engines, LibGDX, Marmalade, Cocos (all variants), SDL, MonoGame, DirectXTK, Project Anarchy , Apple own Scenekit and SpriteKit,...

> Besides, most mobile games are being played by the casual crowd. Games don't need graphics that push hardware limits to sell.

Why do you think then all major OS vendors are teaching the devs how to reduce their packages sizes? I can happily post the links of such presentations, just need to hunt them down again.

Game logic + Assets + Engine

Something got to give if one is required to push the size down.
I don't think you have any evidence of such a pledge.

Personally, I think Apple doesn't give a fig about software freedom. I don't think they are in favour of it, or against it, they simply want to ship their products.

For a time they were happy to use GPL software to help them do that, but then v3 happened and they have been moving away from the projects that switched to v3.

It's impossible to argue that WebKit, LLVM, Swift, etc. are intended "to kill software freedom". They are simply software projects that exist and release code under an OSI license (or will do, in the case of Swift).

If Apple/Google/others can push these projects beyond where things like GCC are, that is more the fault of the GCC project for not being nimble enough to stay on the leading edge (if it ever was there). It's also not because they are determined to kill projects like GCC, it's because they need really good compilers/renderers/etc.
> That's a bit of a weird assumption. Apple's statement was the the Swift code and standard library would be open-sourced. What is the 'best stuff' that we're not going to get?

I'd expect Foundation and other Cocoa stuff (Core Data and the like) will not be part of the package.
That's such a defensive position to take. Who/what is Apple combatting by announcing that Swift will go open source? It's just one more language in a huge sea of options.

It's expected that any language, if it is to be taken seriously outside its host ecosystem, should be available in an Open Source or Free Software form. Why should Swift be any different?
My gut reaction is that I'll be paying money to install my telescreen?

I have this slightly panicky feeling that my perception of what's acceptable sharing of private data is so disconnected from current popular sentiment that I'm becoming a bitter outsider.

I'm sure it's technically well executed as expected from Google management but I do hope it bombs as a product for (to me) obvious reasons.
Thanks Adrian,

I wanted to subscribe to your email newsletters in fact. I clicked on the letter icon but that was placed there for writing an email to you.

I have just followed you on Twitter and would love to read your views on entrepreneurship and news letter marketing.

Thanks,
Nitin
Can you suggest some explanation of the lambda feature in byte code?
The Web is getting its bytecode: WebAssembly
Assuming HTTP and HTML ever qualified as "lean".
By the same token, it might also be nice to see FSF advocates taking on board the notion that they have brought some of this on themselves with newer versions/variants of the GPL.
Hotel+Marketing+Today+-+Video+Marketing+-+YouTube
Yes, but when people say "Swift" they are talking about the language, not Cocoa.
Well... yeah, because Foundation and UIKit / AppKit is not part of the Swift stdlib?
The OPM Hack Is Just Awful