skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't know what we're arguing about. That's it's impossible? It's not impossible. All I am saying is we should go in that direction. The rest will follow. The direction is giving language to other species and maybe even intelligence. The way to start to do this is to introduce human variants of certain genes like foxp2 to apes. We have already done it in mice... and keep introducing these differences between humans and apes until we produce an ape human hybrid that has intelligence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=FOXP2

Two amino acid substitutions distinguish the human FOXP2 protein from that found in chimpanzees,[15] but only one of these two changes is unique to humans.[11] Evidence from genetically manipulated mice[16] and human neuronal cell models[17] suggests that these changes affect the neural functions of FOXP2.
There's also a language-portable state of mind.

http://phrack.org/issues/1/1.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fravia
They aren't giving away their product, they're getting higher royalties overall. Your argument makes sense only if every single artist is going to be releasing a new album during this 3 month trial period, and that everyone that subscribes to Apple Music does so when it launches. That's not going to happen and musicians will release music long after the trial period is over, for which they'll be earning a higher royalty.
I'm surprised there was no mention of Rivest's time-lock puzzles. They're a simple construction for time-lock puzzles that can be generated much more quickly than they can be solved.
Hail Dave Tompkins.
Looks like the work of an article spinner (and not a very good one at that).
I think that applies to C code in general unfortunately, it took me a while to realize that C could actually be a very nice language to write in, but only after reading some of the source of Plan9, OpenBSD, redis, etc. Code you find in C tutorials is usually horrible.
I expect that we will soon see some "hybrid" approaches. VR/AR tech comes to mind. I would have liked to have seen the Stones last night, but $200-400 for a ticket was more than I could justify. But if I could watch in comfort from my home holodeck, then I'd certainly have been willing to pay $50.
> I think the reason is that a US citizen has more privileges than someone else

Not the case. I have read that the most powerful passport in the world (as in, getting into countries visa free) is the British passport.

Additionally Americans, unlike citizens of other countries, get no protection from their host government. If they get evacuated from a disaster zone they get charged for the costs. And as everything the US
Gov does is horrendously price inflated, there are cases of people getting "rescued" and then wishing they'd been left behind after being served with massive bills.

The way the USA taxes citizens abroad is indefensible. There's literally not one single defence for it.

(btw: there are two different Mike Hearn's posting in this thread! I am the other one)
Show HN: Evolution Chamber
To play devil's advocate, no artist has a human right to payment for a digital copy - or any copy, for that matter - either. It's a negotiated arrangement, not a fundamental truth.
Corporations are just a straw man. Any profit that a corporation makes is either held as cash, reinvested by the corporation, or returned to the owners of the corporation (i.e. shareholders) as dividends. The profit that's held and reinvested is intended to generate even more profits in the future, which means that eventually, all of a company's profit makes its way back to individual shareholders. Those shareholders, in turn, pay income tax on those dividends. So a corporation's profit is already taxed at the point where it performs the intended purpose of corporate profits--to provide income to the shareholders.

Taxing corporate profits directly at all only accomplishes the following things:

* The profits that are redistributed to shareholders end up being double-taxed; the corporation pays tax on them, and then distributes them to shareholders who pay income tax on them.

* The profits that are reinvested end up being taxed, which reduces the amount that the corporation can reinvest. This directly reduces economic activity, since reinvestment often manifests itself in things like hiring and construction; in other words, increased economic activity. In practice, it might be possible to avoid taxes on these reinvestment activities by accounting for them as expenses and saying, "I guess we didn't make any profit this quarter".

* The profits that are held as cash are taxed, and this isn't actually as big of a deal unless the company is building up a massive stockpile to reinvest later, but in this case it would be fairer to just tax a corporation's cash holdings directly. This would also incentivize corporations to either reinvest their profits or distribute them as dividends, either of which is better for the economy as a whole.
So, you have a year the university will give you, and a year the other founders will give you.

So, go to school for another year, and then if the startup is doing well, take senior year off--you can always go and finish later (like, credits are usually good up to five years).

That seems to be the most conservative/least risky approach.

You wouldn't by chance be their tech person, would you?
Of course "not paying for things" is an option

That's not what I said, please read again.

Nobody has a human right to Taylor Swift's music. If you can't buy it then just go listen to the radio, or use Spotify's ad supported service, or do something else.

Sure. That's why I said it might be more just and moral. Please read my post attentively before replying.

But how many artists has your self-sacrifice of not pirating actually helped, compared to someone who spends the same amount but also pirates?
Also http://prideout.net/ has some very nice tutorials on advanced OpenGL topics (tesselation for example).
I rarely have trouble constructing or understanding RegExes, but I do have an awful time getting quoting correct and remembering which special characters have to be escaped in any one particular language.
I don't know, he has a point. Science and engineering can go hand in hand. We built the bomb. We broke Enigma. We landed on the moon. We didn't have all the science when we started.
Of hundreds of millions of people who suffer migraines or other common headaches, some small percentage of them will notice a strong correlation between their headaches and being near electronics. I can see how they can convince themselves that this is the cause.
In regards to your question as to whether you can practice law in every jurisdiction, I'm starting to see that some jurisdiction are either silent, or prohibit someone with a foreign law degree + LLM to sit for their bar exam. But if you include the ability of reciprocity after admission to the Texas state bar, it opens up a lot of doors.
A Glassdoor competitor said Glass door is bad? Unassailable authority.
That being said, there are good uses of presentation software outside the norm, as in these motion graphics: http://www.lindadong.com/blog/keynotemotiongraphic
It's normal that companies can choose where to book revenue by performing various forms of cost shifting. The entire EU system of corporate taxation is based on that principle (tax is paid where your HQ is registered). Global tax treaties, ditto. It's the USA that is weird and exceptional in this case.

So the British approach is not to "ignore tax dodging". It's to theoretically apply the same system it's always used, along with everywhere else, whilst simultaneously trying to appease populist anger over spending cuts by branding various foreign companies as socially irresponsible, although (a) there is no chance of this making any different to austerity and (b) those companies were only following rules that were considered uncontroversial not so long ago.

It's kind of a dumb strategy.
It would take nine years to make up that three month trial period on a 1% extra basis, not accounting for time value of money. They are not hilariously small/short on the same scale. And that doesn't even account for how artists are non-uniformly affected -- artists who are popular now are boned, whereas if you're popular in five years it's no big deal.
So you are asserting that Apple isn't facing serious competition in the music space.
"This is just too sexy for PowerPoint" - D. Bryne
I can strongly relate to this experience too. As the founder of Ortask, my company is not successful by Silicon Valley measures, but it is successful in my terms because it makes me very happy.

For example, I’ve learned so much by deploying my two products, doing marketing myself, and am currently developing a new breed of test management tool that integrates other of my own technologies that actually help with managing testing (IMO, current test management tools are simply glorified DBs with dashboards) — something I have been very passionate about for years.

Also, I have never identified (or agreed) with the new mentality in the US for creating companies a-la Amy Hoy. At the worst case, such “strategies” teach you how to steal someone’s idea and build something for which you feel no passion, just to become rich.

I wish them and their company the best and hope it grows in a way that keeps making them happy.

Thanks for posting this article!
Thanks for the clarification. But statements like this are why I think you're spouting crap:

"is actually trivially done (and has been used by countless projects for years) in almost all imperative languages, and less intrusively"

Is simply not true. In a JavaScript test framework, drawing from top-of-mind, recent examples, you cannot prevent the code under test from replacing document.location.

In Java, as you gave in another examples in this thread, you can't statically prevent access to the RNG or perhaps the current time.

In Python, there's nothing stopping any code from calling into a C module that has arbitrary effects.

Haskell is unique among any languages I've ever used in production that allows deterministic testability as a static, enforced-by-the-compiler guarantee.

I partially agree with your second comment, and I do think other forms of testing (such as fuzz testing, integration tests with third parties, acceptance tests) are valuable, but the technique described can be used in much larger tests than simple unit tests. As I mentioned, IMVU uses it for testing entire web service request handlers.

I get the feeling some people think that World is onerous and expensive to set up, but in practice you just write all of your code in World and it's not boilerplatey or complicated at all. The framework around World is set up once and never touched again.

* Disclaimer: I no longer work at IMVU, but I super super super miss Haskell in production.
Spotify app on iOs definitely supports AirPlay natively. I stream to my Airport Express pretty much every day.
Almost no job postings mention salary, and most jobs are filled. Certainly the hundreds of thousands of bigco job ads don't post salaries, and startups don't either. Government does.
> Apple does not require any music owner to put their music in Apple Music.

Of course they do. No music, no product.
> I'd encourage you to consider the hypothetical I posted in the last thread about Apple Music's 3 month trial.

To make the analogy a little more accurate:

> Tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will be allowed to use one App Store app at a time. When an app is running, it will present a button allowing a user to purchase that app so that they may use it any time they want, whether or not their phone is connected to the Internet, and concurrently with other apps. During the 3 month free trial, Apple will not pay royalties for streaming apps but will pay normal royalties for any apps purchased.

This would suck for the Omni Groups and Mojangs, but absolutely awesome for tiny shops who currently make almost nothing and would now have much greater exposure. Likewise Taylor Swift doesn't need more exposure to sell her music, but Joe Garage might actually pick up a few listeners and fans. You see this is a money grab. I see this is as a necessary (and label approved!) bootstrapping for long term gain.

And in the mean time, even major artists will continue to get their current revenue stream from radio stations, Spotify, iTMS, etc. unless we really believe that Apple Music is going to gain a 100% market share immediately. Long term, even that would probably be a huge benefit to artists because it's almost certainly a better deal than they're getting from anyone else today.
> on a forum of content creators

I'm not a "content creator", I'm a developer. What I do has a lot more in common with what a plumber or an electrician does than with what Taylor Swift does. My programs are not expressions of my soul, they're well-crafted tools to solve a particular problem that I have either a) been paid to solve, or b) hope to sell to somebody else to solve their problem.
Thoughts on investing in a project vs investing in a company?
Here's the proof I learned:

1. Assume there is no prime number larger than p_n.

2. Compute the product of all the prime numbers less than or equal to p_n, plus one. Call this number c.

3. By construction, no prime number less than or equal to p_n divides c.

4. But all integers greater than one have one or more prime factors. (This is not proven.)

5. Therefore, since c has no prime factors less than or equal to p_n, it must have one which is not less than or equal to p_n, or in other words c must have a prime factor greater than p_n, which contradicts step (1).

Viewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_theorem, I see that Euclid's original proof doesn't involve using all the primes within a certain range ("your collection so far need not contain all primes so far"), so what you've said here does apply to it. However, I also read:

> Euclid is often erroneously reported to have proved this result by contradiction, beginning with the assumption that the set initially considered contains all prime numbers, or that it contains precisely the n smallest primes, rather than any arbitrary finite set of primes.

So I don't feel too bad about referring to the proof I gave above as "the famous proof". I didn't call it "the proof that appears in Euclid's Elements".

Since this result is by contradiction, there are several different points where you could choose to observe the contradiction. But you can certainly do it before you actually produce a new prime.
The founders want me to join now and take a year leave from uni. And after a year, if the startup is still going good then they want me to leave my education as a founder.

I also happen to be the tech person. But I'm not the only one. So they can still survive without me.
It's easily disproved by the fact that they think they are escaping it by simply moving away from WiFi. The 2.4GHz band is swamped in most consumer settings by remote controls, doorbells, video systems, remote control cars.

Beyond that (imagining you somehow eliminated all of those) the biggest source of radio frequency garbage is going to be from space rather than a consumer grade <1W transmitter, the atmosphere is pretty opaque to 2.4GHz. Somewhat coincidentally the cosmic noise we can hear from earth is mostly in the microwave range.

Maybe if people's skulls started vibrating in time with the woodpecker [0] or something I'd believe it.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duga-3
You're human, but you're not all humans. I think people have a continuum of attitudes on what they're willing to trade autonomy for. I've met a lot of people who are happy to have someone tell them what to do, because it means they don't need to figure it out for themselves. That's not bad, it's sort of a necessary ingredient of working together that some people need to be more willing to follow than to lead.
By your logic, Apple should pay for the music and give it away free since they are the ones who will benefit.

But that means that if revenues rise as a result of the new service, Apple should keep all the extra profit rather than sharing it with the artists.

Is that what you really want?
Before Photoshop went subscription-based, I assumed they would have gone the IAP route. For example, need a blur tool? Add it for 1.99. Or buy the Retouching Pack for $25.
Lets pretend for a second that it's not that the artist is NOT getting paid for 3 months, but they (Apple) are delaying their payment for 3 months. The 3 months Free is to entice people into subscribing to Apple Music, and the more people that end up scribing the better.

I think at the end of the day (or end of 3 months) more people will have subscribed to Apple Music then before and the artist will be making more money.

Personally i think the real winners are the record labels who seem to get the lions share of the money.

Also when Goole Music was released it was free for a limited time... did they pay artist/record labels?
Pretty good is not good enough for production type stuff yet. Did some testing with an older Mac Mini (Core2Duo) running OS X 10.6.8 and some of my simple WebGL tests would hard crash the operating system.

WebGL is still far away from widespread distribution, I hope it will get there in couple of years.
Their should be a signal intensity level high enough to be distinguishable from nothing but still low enough to cause slight annoyance rather than traumatic agony over a short period.
HERE, I did that if it is a good startup it can help, but... You have to Know the Truth ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKFteasqocM Watch this and follow the OpenWest.org
I know lots of people who are happy to pay $49 a month instead of the $2000 that Adobe Master Collection was.
The worst part is that the recent FDA trans fat ban will only boost demand for palm oil, thus making this issue even worse.
I guess I hadn't thought about the relative value of multi-language knowledge vs algorithm fundamentals; I sort of assume that any competent programmer has already mastered data structures, algorithms, complexity analysis, etc. and given that background, knowledge of multiple languages can improve your skills.

But I take your point; for a programmer who has not mastered the fundamentals, their time is best spent doing just that before embarking on language exploration.

As to your other point about elegance being language dependent, I mostly agree. Pushing a language to do something it was manifestly not designed to do (e.g. monads in C) is often ugly -- Greenspun's 10th rule kicks in. But sometimes such a push is unavoidable. For example, I've had to write bignum code in C (fortunately there's a library for that) and adjustable arrays and manual recursion in old versions of Fortran that supported neither natively. It's not pretty, but it's sometimes necessary because language choice is outside your control.

I'd be very interested in reading your talk if you're able to post it.
I agree and it seems unreasonable of Apple. To me it conveys that they don't value the content musicians bring.
It doesn't make it much different whether that checkpoint is off or not, I basically see two problems with it:

1) Wi-fi access point owner is absent from that decision about sharing the password or not, other than the SSID name (thus, I suggested that Microsoft should have made this ins option basis. This way, at least that it would show that the owner of the AP is WILLING to participate in that.)

2) People do very stupid things. They may not even see a single implication before they "check" it. I've seen a lot of people enabled certain feature "because it sounds useful" without seeing further implication. Especially when they are not that tech-inclined, they may flip that switch "because everyone else's doing it," "that's the way I do in my home," or "I didn't know that's what it meant." I'd know if he/she is sharing my wi-fi password on Facebook by that person writing on their timeline (which I'll pick up my phone and start screaming at that person) but this seems to be much more discreet than that.

Again, it doesn't really matter if that checkbox is checked or not. It's a bit of a different story if they had to drill down to several layers of menu (which I wouldn't change my opinion that it is still a bad idea) -- but it sounds like this option is presented right in their face everytime they are connecting to new networks.
Developer wages in the US average around €62k, about 20 higher than in Germany, while the US has roughly 30% lower cost of living.

Also, in Germany you're at a 40% income tax rate at €43k, while in the US at €62k you're only taxed at 25%.

Sure, that 40% income tax rate gets you universal healthcare, while in the US we're paying ~6,339.71 Euros a year to insure a family of four. But I think even accounting that, wages are much higher in the US.
See also, Gamergate.
It is good to learn python/c/c++/java.These programming languages will help you.
http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/55723/are-there-...

a specialized one: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Zest

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081013174535A...
Hi grandalf! Which sections do you think are most lacking in the react native documentation? I've put some time into improving it this week by adding:

- https://facebook.github.io/react-native/docs/animations.html...

- https://facebook.github.io/react-native/docs/direct-manipula...

- https://facebook.github.io/react-native/docs/navigator-compa...

I'd love to hear where you think I should be spending my efforts next.
It is very hard to estimate the relative speed of a mov-only CPU (with a jump at the end of the program). The mov-only restriction applies only to how a program is input into the machine, it does not restrict the CPU architecture in any way. Obviously, the CPU would first analyze the whole mov-only program and convert it into something that is closer to x86 instructions: arithmetic instructions, unconditional jumps, conditional jumps. The success of this procedure, and ultimately the execution speed, depends on how many mov-patterns the CPU can recognize.

Compilers would need to produce code that consists of standardized mov-only code patterns. This would help keep the CPU architectures relatively simple.

Coming very close to native x86 performance seems possible, at least in theory.
Foreign keys are not convenience artifacts. They are essential for enforcing data correctness. One doesn't simply opt out of their usage simply because one is "not a fan" of foreign keys.
I remember a similar technique (maybe it's from the same people) where they amplified color changes.

So the tiny flushes caused by the heartbeat were clearly visible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONZcjs1Pjmk (from 1m30s)
And if you bootstrap, you lose freedom in other ways. What kinds of businesses can be bootstrapped constrains your options. The market becomes your boss, and no amount of soft-skills or convincing arguments can change its mind.

Put that way, with investors you can say "At least my bosses are human"

(Note, I'm not saying one is better than the other in all cases, just that "bootstrapping gives you ultimate freedom" isn't true)
Unless they have a very strong offer on the table, and the business is really good, disrupting your education is maybe not a great idea. Good luck either way!