skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>> Apple's deal obviously makes sense for the artist otherwise the major labels would not have signed up, full stop.
What then are these independent's doing?

It's very simple. The biggest portion of a records sales are going to come int he month or two after release, after the big marketing push. If an indie releases a record during those 3 months they are going to lose a ton of potential revenue. For a small record label that can be terminal. They're running on fumes they can't take the hit like the majors.
As someone else alluded to: drug suppliers still get paid for those free 'hits'. It's the distributor who swallows the cost in exchange for recurring revenue.
In the US, for radio performances, its only the person who wrote the song that gets paid. The artist who sang the song usually get nothing.
Thanks! It seems to be working for me, but maybe I need to delay it a bit longer.
RGB is a colour model.

It is misinformation.

The reason that a given HSL / HSV implementation may not accurately deliver a given chromaticity vector has more to do with the nature of colour spaces than the model's implementation implicitly.

So I disagree, it is misinformation, and the reasons for choosing a given color model / colour encoding scheme are varied.

An incorrect and simple answer for a complex series of problems.
If the decision maker chimes in, it'll be clear immediately how they feel about the topic. This would ruin the entire point of the game, which is to guess how the decision maker feels after the 60 second discussion. I would say the point of the discussion is to raise points that pander to the reader.
Startups can operate just fine with 9-5 workers. The real limit is startups are generally spinning there wheels on unimportant crap.
My wife is a musician and we have this argument all the time. She's not a recording artist or anything, but she does complain of abuse in the deals her different bands and groups get at venues. And I say, that's supply-demand, that's the way business is done, how much is the venue getting out of the concert? How can you compete when there's so much people playing for free or on much lower cuts? What can you do if the end-customer prefer not to pay cover charges or see the value in live music? etc. etc. It's a music business after all.

So Taylor Swift's plead is pathetic, "Thankfully... I can support myself," deceiving "by playing shows" [1] and even condescending, "This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut... who works tirelessly." Oh, come on!

You don't agree with the terms of the deal, so you pulled out. Fine. Now your fans who are going to try this new service won't have access to your latest album. That's the price of your decision. To me that's fair game, show a little muscle to your distributors, maybe get a better deal. Now, please don't try to spin this as some social injustice towards creative people. Just because you're an artist it doesn't mean you're immune to market laws. Taylor Swift is a billion-dollar business. Stop treating music fans like we're stupid.

[1] "Swift had sold over 40 million albums, 130 million single downloads and was one of the top five music artists with the highest worldwide digital sales" -- http://www.ifpi.org/news/Taylor-Swift-named-IFPI-global-reco...
Exotic at least for performance. Not only do you have to chase pointers to loop through them, you have to deal with the heap on every append or delete. They can be great for software that doesn't have speed as a high priority.
The result is good, but it seems like more effort than necessary and using drawing objects in Office is always a recipe for compatibility problems if you use any other program (e.g. Libreoffice or the the web version of Office).
Happy+International+Yoga+Day
C is absolutely not faster than C++. Generic types in C are typically done through type erasure or an intrusive type. C++ templates explictly allow different instances of code to be generated for each of the types. So, the code can be specialized for each type, which most of the time is faster. In general, template metaprogramming allows for drastically more complex optimization at compile time.

The biggest reason to write in C over C++ is simplicity and higher level of control over algorithms and data structures. Portability is another reason though.
Firefox's issue #106400 (osx keychain integration) will turn 14 this year, AppEngine's #3091 (servlet 3.0 support) has already turned 5.

I guess every project as a few "we'll fix it some day" tickets.
And when you're making very, very little money, that 10% could be very important.
There has been a lot of focus on this for MySQL 5.7. Just take a look at the list of deprecations and changes: http://mysqlserverteam.com/removal-and-deprecation-in-mysql-...

We are currently looking into bug 199. The patch itself is probably too large to backport into a GA release.
Apple's enormous cost in launching the service is the best counterpoint I've read. 3 month free trial means no revenue for Apple too. Apple is certainly in a better position than most to endure atartup risk through trial.

There's another point being overlooked regarding how music is consumed: music is listened to repeatedly over months, and the free trial is no different than a promotional period. Artists, even indies, will still receive income from the myriad other services, and will soon receive a better rate from Apple. Distribution is an enormous service to the artists, and it's value shouldn't be overlooked.

That being said Taylor Swift has every right to pass on Apple's offer, and it's great for the recording industry to have a major check/balance like Swift.

Unrelated, but interested to see if artists will ever abandon the labels and go direct to distribution. I'm sure labels provide more value than people want to acknowledge.

Edit: formatting
Everything About an Engine
What motivation does the reader have to take interest?
The question is if one should "fix" this at all. If you change the behavior from "foreign keys do not activate triggers" to "foreign keys activate triggers", everyone who uses triggers will have to audit their applications for potential problems. And for large applications, that can be a lot of work.

MariaDB documents "foreign keys do not activate triggers" as the standard behavior:

https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb/trigger-limitations/

Personally, I am grateful for software that changes as seldom as possible. I don't want to spend time on "updating" my application because something down in the stack changed.
The problem here is that there's more than one label. Well, that's one problem. But the larger labels are more readily able to absorb this kind of hit than the smaller ones.

Another problem is Apple is threatening removal from the iTunes music store for nonparticipants. So it's not just that labels think they can make more money in the future if they agree, Apple is threatening to cut off their sales right now if they don't agree.

Another problem is that this is the same Apple that is pressuring record labels to cut off the free tier on Spotify, which labels get compensated for at the same rate as paid streams, because it "devalues the music." As if this doesn't.

Apple has a dominant market position in high-end smartphones (they make 90% of all smartphone profits) and they are using this to leverage other markets in ways that make Steve Ballmer look like Winnie the Pooh. They already tried to engage in ebook price fixing, now they are trying to bully Spotify out of existence.
Samsung and KT Partner for GiGA LTE, Combining LTE and Wi-Fi at Up to 1.17 Gbps
The Fine Print of Accelerator Anti-Dilution Provisions
Design Possum – We Take Care of All Your Design Tasks 5 Days a Week
Taylor doesn't seem to care at all - "[...] can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows."
Firm stirs concerns by obscuring source of stem cells
"Employers overvalue experience"

Only at hiring time. One of the execs reads a journalist article in a trade rag about any random fad and "we" need to have it implemented yesterday. Which is not a problem because successful employees are really good at OTJ training and learn by experimentation. Unfortunately no one has told HR that, and they think they're hiring for tax audit avoidance accountants in the most conservative and uncreative criteria possible.

The ideal candidate has 20 years of experience in a field 10 years old (that only takes 6 weeks to learn of course), in other words focused entirely on the past. The ideal employee on the other hand is an expert at learning "6 week" technologies and making them produce once they're hired. There's going to be friction and failure and massive wastes of money.

There is also the extremely low social status issue. It would be possible to micro-specify (nano-specify?) any management or executive job, but they're not going to put up with it, as an industry, so instead we get "good judgment" type of hiring criteria. The reason why programmers have incredibly low social status is the oversupply (nationwide, anyway) requires them to be talked down to or replaced by someone who will tolerate being talked down to. The extremely low social status permeates the rest of the field too, call center like work environments, crazy disrespectful deadlines, poor management techniques (most modern fads, really), so its not going to be as simple as some sort of union saying "no" to disrespectful job advertisements.
No, just what they repatriate. But they already have $22 BILLION in cash in the U.S., and they can borrow more for far less than their income tax rate, so why incur even a little tax?
Please take the program source code and measurement scripts and publish your own measurements.

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/play.html#languagex
taytay
This is a pretty successful model in some countries: http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/15/kddi-smartpass/
Interesting link, but $11 million bucks is probably not enough to buy even a single Senator, even if his district is an extremely cheap media market.

A recent Senate campaign in one of the nation's cheapest media markets (Jon Tester's) was run for ~15 million bucks[0] in coordinated campaign funds, plus probably-larger undisclosed amounts of "independent" campaign funding through PAC's etc.

In the same cheap media market, Senator Max Baucus raised >$5 million[1] for the coordinated campaign in his final Senate race, in which he ran effectively unopposed. Again this $5 million does not account for his pre-existing war chest from thirty five years of Senate campaigns or the (vastly larger) fundraising of his GlacierPAC or other related "independent" political organizations.

So the minimum single-senator campaign cost is probably somewhere between those two bounds. Therefore I don't regard the core idea of Mayday PAC as a failure; instead it seems like they need to scale it before we can decide if it's workable.

[0] http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=n0002...

[1] http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=n0000...
I completely disagree. If all the languages I'd used had been in the Algol family (as most "mainstream" languages are) I might agree with you, since there's not much qualitative difference between them. But some languages are so different that they change the way you think about programming, and those new ways of thinking improve your skill in every language.
For example, Forth taught me about threaded, stack-based code. It's a very different metaphor than assembler or C and it runs just as fast.
Icon (the language) showed me what you can do when failure is a first class notion and everything is a generator. (Icon is monad-based programming, although that word wasn't used when Icon was invented.)
Prolog taught me what you can do with declarative programming, pattern-matching, and unification. Prolog is not really a general-purpose language, but it's a mind-blowingly elegant way to solve some classes of problems. (Prolog is the world's best database query language, for example. SQL feels like primitive torture by comparison.)
Lisp taught me the virtues of lambda calculus, functional programming, programs as data, macros, and ubiquitous composition. After I learned Lisp I thought I understood functional programming.

And then I learned Haskell, which cranks FP all the way to 11. You can curry in Lisp, but Haskell does it automatically. And then there are monads, which (spoiler alert) really are not about I/O. They're much more general than that.
Knowing all this stuff has made me a better, more productive programmer in every language I use.
I find that view to be a little harsh. It demeans all those people who choose to work for organisations that can't/don't generally pay as much but are driven by other purposes (eg NGOs).
In theoretical extreme, you're correct. Even with a dynamically typed language like Scheme, if you do the whole program analysis you can eliminate most of run-time type checking, boxing/unboxing and some transient allocations (e.g. Stalin). The problem is that the cost of whole program analysis is superlinear and it'll doomed to be impractical as the size of program grows, imho.
You're being deceptive, Fargren is on point. Once the dev leaves the company they no longer make that salary. Artists typically get paid some kind of royalty and don't give up full ownership of their work.

>Without being able to charge multiple times for the same piece of software, there would be no Microsoft, IBM, or Oracle, no SaaS, and no App Store

Good riddance.
There are a lot of economic differences between music and apps (e.g. price range, labels negotiate on behalf of artists, music has dozens of outlets versus 2-3 for apps, etc), but my hope is you would still analyze the economics before ditching. If you ultimately would stand to make more money through subscriptions in the long term, despite losing three months of revenue, then it would make sense to stay, right?
That link perfectly describes my concern with subscription systems. If Apple distribute the royalties calculated per-user rather than based on (total royalties / total number of listens system wide) I'll move over from spotify, as it will reward the bands I like more than the current system.

I like that spotify pays royalties from free accounts, I dislike that I am effectively subsidizing this as a premium user. However, at the moment I am more comfortable with this than apples '3 months no royalties' system.

Another interesting point is that for a music subscription services, there is very little keeping users tied to one provider - all I need is the ability to export my playlists. I wonder if spotify's revenue will collapse for 3 months, but if they can be better than apple, they can get it all back 3 months later.
Agree for different reasons.

I don't think they're being greedy, any more than I think users are being entitled when they wait for steep discounts on Steam games or refuse to pay .99 for an app someone worked really hard on.

Price trends towards marginal cost, and marginal cost for digital IP is zero. That's true if everyone on both sides is a group of angels, devils, spoiled brats, or automatons.
While I see some value in his practical insights the logic is deeply flawed. I would much rather he just share his observations on optimal work environments than try to explain what we are "meant" to do in some kind of incomprehensible pseudo-science.

By precisely the same reasoning we are meant to rape women to impregnate them and murder members of competing tribes, and are not meant to have birth control, surgery, or a level of technological complexity in the world that is beyond the power of any one human to fully comprehend.
The article was focussed on the profitability of recycling per se, and not the total impact on the environment. The article implied that the reason thin contains are a problem is because they contain less material and therefore yield less profit for the recycler. But if that is the only reason that thin containers are a problem, then the total impact on the environment would still be lower with thin containers, since not using the material in the first place is more efficient that using more and recycling more.

So a policy that bans thin containers on the basis that they result in less profits for recyclers is the opposite of smart. The end goal is to lower the total environmental impact, not profitable recycling programs.
Also see https://www.plat-forms.org/
Pay-per-usage of apps (similar to streaming music) might be really interesting. Of course, games already kind of do that via IAP and it absolutely sucks, so who knows.
My guess is MySQL has quite a few users who are not technically capable of fixing a deep and involved bug in the heart of a database engine.
I know that when a certain global HVAC company brings in a new "fresh" class of salespeople, they bring them in all at once about 20 to 30 at a time. The will go through weeks of training. Some make it, some don't.

The majority, if not all, of the incoming (just of of college) class did not major or obtain a degree in anything sales related (business, management, accounting, marketing, etc.). Most of them graduated with mechanical engineering degrees. Why? Because it is easier to train and teach someone how to sell than it is to teach some the technical details (physics) of HVAC systems. It is also easier to sell when you know and understand the product you are selling. Most of the units sold are custom built for the particular building they are being used on/in.

Likewise, it is easier to train or teach someone a new programming language than it is to change or modify someone's attitude and personality.
HR don't want to hold out for a unicorn. They couldn't give two hoots about your skill. Even if they did they wouldn't be able to evaluate it. HR are simply brokers.

It is a board-level decision on salary ranges that prevents you from hiring "at market".

Clearly there will always be some excellent developers at any given moment, available to work sub-market for their own, irrelevant reasons - and these will be the "unicorns", and typically your dev team will be full of them (somewhat by definition because they have already been hired by the unicorn-finding process).

The question as to why many (most?) highly profitable companies refuse to "pay market" is very interesting and I do not have a good answer to.

The best I can come up with is that actually the company (i.e. the important people in the company: the board) explicitly doesn't want to pay for the best (or even above average) candidates, through some recognition/perception that they "do not need the best". But the development team does want to hire good guys, and so you have a kind of stand-off by proxy between the technical team and the board via HR.

The board may be focussed on a buy-out, or this year's figures or making some kind of an exit. I very much doubt the board for most companies sees developers as anything other than a fungible commodity.

Add in the fact that developers are seen as subordinates to management, and that many developers are already approaching or at their managers' (often low-ish) salaries(1), and I think advertised developer salaries will continue to be massively under-market (there are of course exceptions).

(1)Of course managers often get 100% bonuses while developers do not, so this is an untruth, but humans are emotion-driven and so this barrier remains. Realise that companies will happily pay way more than 2,000 USD per day for the very same resources they will not recruit for more than 75,000 per year, and the picture is complete.

The situation is exacerbated by our inability as a field to successfully discriminate between good and bad hires and our resultant desperate, near religious avoidance of false positives in the hiring process.
First of all this double taxation thing is hogwash. US corporations (and people for that matter) only pay the difference between any foreign tax collected and our own federal tax when they move it to domestic books.

Probably more importantly, the foreign profits are disproportionately gains baised on research and development conducted in the US which the foreign subsidiaries pay no royalty for at all.

If, for instance, 50% of the value of an iPhone sold in China represents the value of the engineering of the device, we have a tax loss which adds up to half of the nearly $200 Billion held as foreign profits by Apple.

Apple should be forced to pay these taxes. This represents a real and tangible loss to the people in the US and an unnecessary subsidy handed to the most valuable public company on earth.
The game is called "devil's advocate". Maybe the person holding the card wants to deceive other players.
And much good it did for preventing the Snowden leak. The false sense of security instilled by confidence like yours likely hindered implementation of common-sense safeguards, such as the two man rule and more generally any functional oversight of any kind.

In my experience, the NSA performs its own security clearance checking and does not use the OPM for this function, but, in any case where OPM did perform a background check, that background check provided China with far more compromising information than China otherwise would have had.

That people place such faith in vetting in the first place is a huge problem. Furthermore, background checking performed by most of the rest of the US government has actually been a huge source of actionable intelligence for our enemies.

In my opinion, it is not possible for an organization the size of the NSA to keep its secrets. It's, what, 1000x larger than the Manhattan project? And, would you say that James Clapper's intellect was in the same ballpark as those of Leslie Groves and Robert Oppenheimer?

In fact, when confronted with opportunities to avoid mistakes, the US government's reflexive response is compulsion toward secrecy so as to avoid reform. IE, so much of this secrecy is motivated by desire to escape oversight, rather than to provide our nation actual advantage over rivals. If the latter were our goal, oversight and strictly limiting classification to the most sensitive subset of weapons research and ongoing military operations would be a road to it. Instead, such approaches are termed dangerous and even intellectual property normalization treaty negotiations are treated as military secrets in order to protect the power of entrenched political influences.

When secrecy is so rampant that it makes it impossible for us to keep secrets, you might ask why we have so much fucking secrecy.
I suspect mostly because I started making music in an age when duplicating a CD was not possible and MP3 hadn't happened. I view my music projects as producing something and then working to get it into customers' hands. Radio stations would play our music and not pay us any royalty (except the songwriter portion), and that was fine.

Enter MP3 and suddenly musicians are looking at a hostile world where their primary consuming demographic believes it is silly to pay for music at all. Bands have traditionally felt screwed by labels, now their customers are screwing them. Apple sets up a service where the labels contribution to the free trial period results in no revenue for bands and that's the distributor screwing them. That makes it pretty much the entire industry top to bottom.

I don't see it that way. Apple Music will likely tap a huge population that doesn't currently have a streaming service which is a great thing.

As far as "losing" micropayments from song plays during the trial… If someone is forced to listen to my song by their robot DJ and doesn't care enough to come see a concert or buy something, or listen to it in the future… that wasn't really a sale I missed out on. That was some poor schmuck that wasted 4 minutes of his listening time on my song and in some alternate economic system would have paid me for the privilege, but didn't.

Also: I'm eating in August no matter how this plays out.