skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't understand what you're saying. You don't prove that p_1p_2...p_n + 1 has a prime factor (how would you do that?) -- you postulate it. The proof is done as soon as you observe that the number you've constructed must have a prime factor greater than p_n. It's not necessary to construct the prime factor, although I guess it's possible to do so.
> These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child.

I am starting to doubt that Taylor Swift really is as 'representative' as she wishes to portray, and not simply greedy, considering the extent to which she avoids non-profit-maximising revenue streams (e.g. Spotify).
I agree for the most part. I wrote a follow up post that goes into some of these issues as well. https://macropod.com/blog/funding-a-startup/

These things are hurdles, but there are hurdles everywhere you go. You trade lack of VCs here for more competition for VCs there. You trade lack of startup community here with higher dev payrates there. It's all trade offs.

Things like timezone, distance etc are only an issue if you're selling in the US only. Smart Aussie companies sell into the Europe and Asia as well.

The Aussie dollar is shit at the moment, so I don't agree with that. It's a great time to be selling in USD.
Crossref is a non-google site, sponsored by the publishers, that, in my opinion, is friendlier for automation. Anecdotally, I get better results from them, too.
You mentioned in the other comment predatory angels. Did you have an experience too?
The thing is that motivation is not something people compare to some known value, but rather between people. If you hear that people were unmotivated from an enthusiastic/workaholic person it doesn't mean that they really were unmotivated. Just less motivated than this person.

Some of us are happy with working at a steady pace without many external symptoms of exctitation. I even believe this is better in the long run, people don't burn out and are better-rested.
Hate to make the comparison, but drug dealers have a saying "the first hit is free." In this context, I think making the first months free lowers resistance to get people on the service, and will ultimately serve artists better in the long run. That said, I don't know what rates Apple pays out to artists who use this service, so I can't comment there. Anyhow, Apple has always run its business very aggressively so this move does not surprise me. $0.02
Right, sorry, I should have said it gives you a new prime (or more), not that it is a new prime.
Based on title I assumed it's about vacations: put on an VR helmet - fly a drone in Patagonia/Fuji/Arctic.
Both sides of this disagreement are hilariously petty. Both desperate to hold on to every last penny they can get hold of.

The music industry has been dying for a while but this really is a fantastic example of it. Everyone who thought Apple cared about artists now has to come up with a new rationalisation.
I do not know if it's correlation or causation, but almost all code using regular expressions I encounter is horribly broken.

1. Regular expressions are often used instead of existing parsers. XML, CSV, file paths, URIs etc. all already have fast, well tested and correct parsers.

2. Often the thing worked on should not be a string in the first place. For example comma separated string is used instead of a list and regular expression emulate list operations.

3. Some things could be processed much easier with different tool - for example recursive descent parser. Yet the developer still tries to parse arithmetic expressions with a hammer.

4. They are often developed via trial and error. They are either first thing which worked for a simple case or are 10 line monsters riddled with exceptions from exceptions.

5. They are often part of hacks and workarounds. For example User-Agent is matched to work around bugs in browsers.

3. They give very limited feedback to user. There is either a match or no match. There is no way to tell what and where is broken.

There are valid use cases for regular expressions. It's even possible to write correct code with them. It's just a rare sight.
It does not apply to founders. I could move to the USA and take someone's job there, but it is impossible to bring my business to the USA and employee Americans and pay masses of taxes to the U.S. Government. Visas are one area where Australia leads the USA.
> In this context, I think making the first months free lowers resistance to get people on the service, and will ultimately serve artists better in the long run

So, Apple should pay for it, rather than attempting to enforce themselves as a middleman who takes only profit as they have done in every other sphere.
That is literally her choice to make, as it's her name and her work that's being sold here. And good for her (and her management team, and her management team's management team) for making it.
So Apple run a loss-leader... where they don't incur the loss, and just get the lead.

Scum.
Share schemes are about to change I believe.
Note that this enables you to use the bash 'forward search', CTRL+R's forgotten twin.

I use CTRL+R and CTRL+S often in emacs and was frustrated that CTRL+S would not work on a command line terminal. As the article mentions, CTRL+S is typically interpreted as XON. Turning that off will enable forward search.
As panic pointed out, the nonconstructive proof you outline is valid, but the constructive "proof" is fallacious. You could modify the standard proof to construct a new prime, but that wouldn't be the famous proof. The modification amounts to doing a bunch of extra work after you've already finished the proof.
Not sure I understand this argument. Shouldn't she complain about the record companies rather than Apple? It's not like Apple's making money during that free 3 month period.
Sorry, I don't consider LW and Yudkowsky to be citable references. Modern-day snake oil salesman selling insurance against technological boogeymen from the future, or indulgences to forgive sins of the past against the AI god of the future, all under a guise of pseudo-rationality.
What do the records company have to do with Apple demanding that she gives away her songs for free to stay on iTunes music service?
I'd put money on English being the business language.
It seems really weird to me that apple would get away with paying nothing for the 3 months. Especially since it's not like they are anything but yet another competitor in an already crowded space.
I must say, Swift is a pretty good writer; yet this perception is warped by my surprise to be honest. I guess I'll go looking out for more of her written works when I next have a free moment to make a better judgement.
Fruity summer milkshake
It really is still everywhere. For example, you can use ^S to pause your PC's POST display if you're fast enough. The Windows command line still uses it. And so on.
She's a startup.
1-1s are an excellent tool to keep discussions opened that would be difficult otherwise.
In other scenarios, if you need to talk about career, feedback, develop the relationship without being focused on last week's work stuff, etc... It's the opportunity to "invert" the power relationship and give the managed a clear voice (even if the manager drives it)
In other cases, what's most likely to happen is that the urgent takes preference over the important. The 1-1 should be about the important. All those chats should be an ongoing discussion, not an exceptional topic to bring one day...
On the other hand I could argue that making apple pay leads to fewer/smaller free trials which leads to less money for the artists.

Making Apple's revenue be directly tied to artist revenue makes a lot of sense.
Did they get a raise as a consequence of the higher output ?

Since we are social animals then preventing talking between us make things harder for us at some points, ie the job gets harder, so that could be an argument for higher wage.
That's only to join Apple Music, not to stay on iTunes.
> ..she avoids non-profit-maximising revenue streams

Like someone running a business you mean?
In deals like this, service providers don't have the upper hand, content providers do. Apple wouldn't have been able to offer free 3 month trial if record companies wouldn't have agreed to it. Maybe I'm misinformed, but did Apple come out and say that if she doesn't put her albums on its streaming service, she'd be off iTunes music service? Why on earth would they do that? It'd be a PR nightmare for them and they'd lose money.
It's okay, the notice is in your e-mail inbox and your music is already online... If you don't like it, write them an e-mail, put: "2 legit 2 quit" in the subject line. /s
> On the other hand I could argue that making apple pay leads to fewer/smaller free trials which leads to less money for the artists.

How? The trials would still be free. Nothing would change for the consumer, therefore you couldn't argue that.
> I didn't want to get candidates purely motivated by the high cash comp in the area.

This is an extreme red flag for me. While your motives may be better, as I don't know you and won't assume, I've never met a potential employer who said that who wasn't trying to run a cult. I contend that there is no "employee friendly" company (outside of cooperatives, which don't really exist in tech) and that company culture is generally used to exert pressure to make people overwork themselves for somebody else's gain.

The best people, as well as best developers, I've ever worked with are nearly fully coin-operated (with obvious carve-outs for "not working for terrible people," etc.). They do excellent work, expect to be paid well for it, and go home.

If they "play hard," it's not with their co-workers.
This is kind of sad to read, and certainly not a manager Id like to work with, is this even a company that is profitable? Didnt someone buy this for a stupid amount years ago?. Back on subject, an unmotivated employee is usually a symptom a problem with the company or culture, especially if he/she is an experienced hire that has many years of real world experience, why were they motivated/productive before and not now?. Perhaps the company is blind that they have a problem? Perhaps they tick many boxes on Stackoverflow check list and many employees are HN followers so it can't be a culture problem? Just food for thought..
3 months free to buy market share makes sense but I am amazed to hear that they are doing it by just not paying the content producers during those 3 months. I'd be doing the same thing in her place. Apple has the cash to run a loss leader on this.
This is kind of sad to read, and certainly not a manager Id like to work with, is this even a company that is profitable? Didnt someone buy this for a stupid amount years ago?. Back on subject, an unmotivated employee is usually a symptom a problem with the company or culture, especially if he/she is an experienced hire that has many years of real world experience, why were they motivated/productive before and not now?. Perhaps the company is blind that they have a problem? Perhaps they tick many boxes on Stackoverflow check list and many employees are HN followers so I can't be a culture problem? Just food for thought..
Well, the same argument of "This is a terrible thing for up-an-coming (or niche) artists" could be made against Spotify's business model.

And slightly off-topic, I fail to see how anyone could call any of this the complaints of a spoiled child even if she would flat out say "fuck you, pay me". Are you not allowed to ask for your dues if you're rich already?
Oh my god it all makes sense now. Thankyou. -a screen user
Any definition of loss that says Apple suffers none would also say that the artists suffer none.

Likewise, any lead Apple gets here is shared with the artists.

This is rude to force on artists without asking, but only because they're not asking. It's not scummy.
The problem arises when managers have unrealistic expectations. If you hire someone to do 9-5 job and you expect them to do more than that, it's your fault if that fails, not theirs. Different people have different priorities in life, some will be ready to work more to finish more tasks, others will be ready to work just 8h but will be more productive in that timeframe. Or will produce better quality of code during that time or solve harder problems. Not all tasks are the same, nor all programmers produce equal quality of code, so the number of closed tickets in a unit of time is not a very good metric and definitely shouldn't be the only one that matters for an IT company.
That analogy would apply if the loss got people in the door, but they bought SOMETHING ELSE that ensured profits. For example, in this case if free music got them onto Apple's platform (loss) where they then bought a bunch of apps (unrelated to music and the source of profit).

For anyone who doesn't know, a loss leader is something advertised like bread for 50 cents or something, where the store loses money on each and every sale. It's a customer acquisition cost, and the goal of this is to "lead" with the loss, get people in the store, and there they will buy not only bread but anything else they need at the time, at normal market prices. Normal market prices give enough profit to offset the loss taken on the "lead." This works because people don't just go to a store and buy the one marked-down item and nothing else. (Or more specifically the extra profit for people who buy other things after only coming in due to the loss leader, covers the loss on them, and on everyone who only gets the loss leader.)
Obviously nuclear weapons could make the planet uninhabitable. That's not the point, and it's a form of reductio ad absurdum.
> Australia is one of the richest countries on earth, with a median adult net worth higher

Certainly true if you take the net present value of the resources buried beneath the huge outback and apportion it against the low citizen count. Canada has the same geography and demographics so would be in the same net worth per capita situation. If you instead use the demand from potential immigrants and supply of unused and repurposable land to measure net worth, you'd get a similar result. But to compensate against the risk of invasion, both countries have had to become the 51st and 52nd states of the USA from the defense perspective.
Thoughts on my new emoji app?
Looking for advice on how to improve the new app I started working for. Its in the app store called Emu.
What stops her from joining after the 3 month trial period?
Taylor did not write that... at least I don't think that she did.
This

99% of cover letters will just be, self-importance exaggeration, prospective employer excessive praise, etc.
Can anyone at Apple (or perhaps formally at Apple) explain why this is the case? It seems like a raw deal that no sane musician would ever agree to. Imagine if when the first iPhone came out AT&T told Apple they were giving every customer a free trial with the device for 3 months before they pay for it Apple would have laughed and chose another carrier for its exclusive deal. I don't agree with the model of payment that musicians currently expect (imagine if developers recieved payment everytime a user used and app!) but if that was the norm I don't think many would just agree to put their app on the appstore for 3 months without payment.
I agree with everything she said... but she didn't answer the question she posed at the start: why is she withholding 1989, (and not any of her other albums), and what does that have to do with the 3 month trial? If she disagrees with the free trial don't put any of your music up for that time span.
Let's have a hypothetical scenario with simplified numbers. The trial distributes $20M in music and leads to $10M more in customers after a year. Half the revenue goes to Apple, half to the artists.

If Apple doesn't pay the artists for the trial, then they run the trial and get $5M extra profit. The artists get $5M extra profit. The audience gets more music. Everyone wins.

If Apple pays the artists for the trial, they see that it will cost them $10M licensing to get back a mere $5M. They don't run the trial. Nobody wins.

Edit: fixed the numbers
Except the loss-leader is being used to steal users from other streaming radio services that _are_ currently paying labels & artists. So any users that switches from Spotify to Apple for example is a user that was paying artists but is now not for 3 months.
From http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2015/6/13/apples-cash-dilem... it seems like Apple may not actually have the cash to do this, not in the USA at least and it would need to pay taxes on the cash it is holding outside the US to pay the majority US labels/producers/artists.

Not that this excuses what they're trying to pull here or anything. By trying to weasel out of paying any US taxes, they can't spend their own money. So in this case they really might be too poor to make this deal work otherwise.

Good for Taylor Swift to stand up to this kind of crap.
There isn't one, HN doesn't use markdown. See https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc
The A$ has certainly improved in the last year, but we went through a sustained period of the massive overvaluation. I still think the A$ is too high given our cost base - it should be below 70c.

Of course it can be done (both of us are proof of this), it is just much harder than it should be. Australia could be such a great place to build a startup with just some relatively small cultural changes. I should get more involved to make this happen :)
> imagine if developers recieved payment everytime a user used and app!

Honestly, $10 a month to use every app sounds pretty good for me, bad for developers.
Lots of record labels (mostly independents) are definitely unhappy with this as well. The biggest one to speak out is beggars group[1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9738304
Thanks a lot! This looks great!
You'd be surprised. I'm not a fan of her music (if I had kids they probably would be) but she's very hands-on with her image and if it's on her tumblr page, she wrote it. I respect her as a person and from what I've seen she's very intelligent and articulate.
Agree! There's also a BBC documentary on intermittent fasting. The idea is to eat just normally 5 days a week, and then two days a week you eat 500 calories if you are a woman, or 600 calories, if you are a man - pretty optimal routine for modern lifestyle :)
5:2 fits my lifestyle perfectly )
She's also a multi-millionare. I doubt she has time for this and it's managed by her company, pr, and/or lawyers.
She probably is withholding the rest like on Spotify but people typically only care about the newest album. Alternatively maybe it's to stop them from being able to promote their service as being the only one with 1989 on it?
This is true, but for some subjects you can partly get around this subject by doing a Batchelor at some free foreign university (and do really well there, like top of the year) and then doing a 1-year masters at expensive brand-name US university. Typically masters at Harvard, Stanford, or MIT etc are less competitive to get in. But few employers care if you got a BSc from MIT or an MSc.

I teach at a large, well-known, and mediocre European university, and every year I send some of the my best students to top universities for further studies.
I really don't see how his spending makes this article come off as douchey.
Of running into predatory "angels" then yes, but I managed to avoid getting done over by them (more by luck than skill).
> Can anyone at Apple (or perhaps formally at Apple) explain why this is the case?

Apple is a super secret walled garden, full of itself. From my experience with people that work there, I doubt any of them would even know why (let alone come out here to explain).
The Apple Music free trial thing is shitty but Taylor seems quite out of touch with the shape of the industry here.

Taylor Swift can withhold her music from streaming services because she's a PHENOMENON who can still shift albums via iTunes (and even physically) because people want her music. Artists starting out don't have that luxury and, increasingly, their music won't get the listens if it's not on streaming services.

It strikes me as similar to the situation with people only buying games that are on Steam. Consumers love the convenience of a platform that is in many ways quite anti-creator. Tough one.
The problem with recycling is still a focus on the end of the cycle, when much better results could be had with smarter policies at the beginning -- i.e. Manufacturing. If thin plastic containers are a problem, ban them and let Coke/Pepsi/Starbucks figure out how to deal with it -- they have the profits, smarts and resources to do so. If glass is an issue, ask companies to contribute towards the cost of handling it separatedly; and so on and so forth. Otherwise we end up in the usual situation where the taxpayer is left to pick up the environmental and economic cost of somebody's shareholding profits.

I say this as a UK taxpayer with 4 different bins and forthnightly collection -- it's just a farce. I don't get to choose how the stuff I buy is packaged, but somehow I'm responsible for dealing with it AND I have to pay for the privilege, while Coke goes ka-ching. That's unfair.
Beggars Group express concern over Apple Music's free trial period
> Hate to make the comparison, but drug dealers have a saying "the first hit is free."

There's a difference between not charging the end user and not paying the supplier.
Basically the same as in Belgium, but I don't know how much taxes on bags and picking up services differ.
A similar idea at scale is https://www.ecn.nl/news/item/floating-train-at-2000-kmh-set-....

That does away with bearings by using a maglev train that stores 20GWh of energy. I would build quite a few of them; if you build one, accidents would be catastrophic, even in an underground tunnel, as the accident could disrupt electricity supply for months.
She avoids Spotify because they wouldn't let her music be only available for paying users.

Basically, she refuses to be ad-supported, or give her music away.
I go for Ambronite - it's real food and 500 kcal makes is perfect for fasting days. Ordered here http://ambronite.com/
Most of the same points also apply to Ireland :(
The whole "drones will be used to deliver everything" shtick that's coming out of the USA really does not resonate in the UK or Europe, where most folks live in extremely dense (by American standards) cities -- US suburbia is equivalent in density to open countryside, and many if not most people live in apartments or houses that lack any kind of garden (yard) or garage. (And typically have convenience stores within a hundred metres' walk of the front door, more to the point -- which can already be used for deliveries.)

I'm basically calling bullshit on the extreme formulation of drone delivery. There will be some niches that they colonize, and a few that they monopolize (they're going to be a boon for postal/small package deliveries to farms/exurban housing -- Post Office self-driving van goes past without stopping while drone shuttles packages to doorsteps a quarter of a kilometer away) but plenty of areas where they're going to be forbidden due to the unacceptable risk of them falling on someone's head.

Here's maybe a better use:

Put weatherproofed power sockets with fiber connections on rooftops every 50 meters in urban areas. Then hang your 5G picocells from drones, and dynamically re-structure your mesh of cellphone bases as demand shifts through the day (by physically lifting and transferring the base station to a new fiber/power feed as necessary). Goal being to feed a maximum number of radio channels where demand is high, while avoiding black spots.
Not defending apple for not paying artists, but I will defend their 'weaseling' out of US taxes. U.S. Corporate taxes are among the highest in the world and until Washington starts lowering their confiscatory tax rates, I would encourage all businesses to avoid repatriating earnings. A 10% tax rate is high enough.
I, on the other hand, like to be on the cutting edge.
Python yieldfrom.Requests: Requests for asyncio