skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It doesn't need to be released to be IP.
Yea where I live I get 7% (over inflation) on treasury bonds (it's kinda insane here, but 5.5% does seem like a low value). I assume all missions are fully insured to prevent bankruptcy with such low margins?

If it is so I would imagine simply improving the reliability track of the vehicle to lower insurance would have a very large effect on profitability. If they could eventually tank the insurance partially/completely in house (given a low chance of failure) that would be even better.
Well the good news is that Boeing is still cranking out F-18s with no end in sight. And for the price of a single F-35, you can get 10 F-18s. So hey, send out the platoon!
If spam detection requires human intervention, it is too slow. Domain reputation needs to converge within 3-5 minutes---even 30 minutes means you have lost the spam race.
For people who don't understand the context, this is incredibly misleading.

>the Air Force organized specifically to test out the F-35’s prowess as a close-range dogfighter

They fail to mention that dogfighting is as antiquated as Snoopy and the Red Baron. Talking about this test without the context is plain irresponsible.

Modern air superiority strategy is about delaying detection with stealth combined with advanced electronic warfare and coordination intelligence suites to destroy the enemy before he even sees you, or at least when it's much to late to have any meaningful response. It isn't 'perfect' stealth, but it doesn't need to be. Just need to get close enough that your missiles get to where the need to go opening up the theater for other assets to do their thing.

"Too close for missiles, switching to guns" is ancient history.

The F-35 is no good at dogfighting because it wasn't designed to be, the test was just something you do to test your outer limits. "Failing" isn't failure.
Deepak Chopra is going to have a field day with this one.
dilution-wise, 30% post-funding > 30% pre-funding ;-)
Tron Legacy. The programs want to break out of the VM.

Good film.
In Bangkok:

* I'm yet to have an Uber driver clearly on methamphetamine, but a notable number of taximeter drivers

* No quibbling over the price or trying to overcharge from Uber

* Uber cars always have seatbelts, it's rare to find them in the back seat of taximeters

* Even if the Uber driver doesn't know the place you're going to, they've got a map, and directions, and they'll use them

* No worrying about if you've got sufficient loose change; you can be sure the taximeter driver will have a real shortage currently if you have only big notes

And on and on and on...
B2B Marketing, Targeting and Segmenting with Google Analytics
I haven't signed any agreements to transfer the IP rights to the company
Previously discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2670674.
Have you signed any contracts with your cofounders?
His comment is abstract. A fragment of correct code doesn't magically change that.
Having used the apps that literally hail a taxi through a smartphone button, I feel compelled to note that Uber has solved a lot more than that. They've also solved the utterly miserable taxi experience that follows pressing the button.
they have the same design/same issue with the rear view/camera tho.

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Artic...
So what is the problem? Sounds like it is your product, not theirs. And seems like you don't really need them. Why not just go and develop it by yourself as a different company and have 100% of the equity?

They will have nothing but the name of the company and will not be ale to compete with you. Any moral obligation you had to the guy who came up with the idea got thrown out of the window then he tried to screw you out of the company.

Edit:

If that is really what is going on here. Make sure that it's not just a misunderstanding.
Please don't put attention-grabbing symbols in story titles on HN.
Jakob Nielsen’s 10 Heuristic Principles
For us, Reality by definition, is what we perceive. Our mind/brain/consciousness interprets the perceptions, draws conclusions makes up reality by interfacing an Electromagnetic medium. When trying to explain Popular Quantum Physics, one should avoid using the word Reality loosely.
"If one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past, said Truscott."

Is that equivalent to "reality doesn't exist until it is measured"? Because I don't see the latter claim (which is the headline on HN) anywhere in the text?

Also, didn't Feynman explain in q.e.d. that it's not either a wave or a particle, it's always a particle and the probabilities for the path the particle takes behave like waves? (Something like that, I am foggy on the details).
What Makes Freemium Work? Lessons from Dropbox, Evernote and a Lemonade Stand
My problem with that statement is that it describes every single job you could possibly have, even the very well paying ones. You are always trading your labor to somebody with money, whether it's an Uber driver or the CEO of a major corporation. It's not the "Uber model", it's the money represents an agreed upon denomination to trade goods and services with model.
The War Situation: House Of Many Mansions (1940)
ScreenTime – movies from periodic OS X screenshots
There's not a lot you can do. You've done work for the company, but it seems they have not compensated you for it. Legal action is possible, but would be a horrible end.

The code is under your control use that as bargaining power, but you need to actually intend to leave (but I wouldn't work on it, without a lawyer reviewing it, with the intention of continuing the project on your own, that could get legally hairy) with it if this is not resolved immediately. That said they've screwed you majorly already do you really think that would be the end of it if you got your 30%?

I'd say demand 10% for the work you've done and for you to part ways amicably.
I, like everyone else in this thread, wanted to run an SMTP server from home, only to realize port 25 was blocked.

Now I rent a VPS from DigitalOcean, and availability is like 99.999% and run SMTP and other daemons no problem. I love it.

So go out there and find some cheap VPSs people! :)
Huge red flag IMO. I would leave ASAP. If they didn't see your value from the get go, they probably won't see it until its gone.

If you try to demand the equity and they actually do give it to you(which I highly doubt will be anything remotely close to 30% IMO), you're going to have a huge target on your back in the future if you do continue working with them. They didn't even consult with you before deciding on the numbers. They did not give you ANY equity at all. So none of the 3 other founders said anything to back you up?

What legitimate reason is there to not give you the 30% from the get go?
As others have noted, you are in a very strong position given your ownership of the code. DO NOT SIGN ANY IP AGREEMENTS! Also do not take any money from any of your co-founders or the incubator. Maintain your leverage over the situation and ask yourself if you really want to be in business with any of these people? To be honest it sounds like your best option here is number 2. The incubator acceptance is your personal market validation, think about incorporating your current effort and make this company (which you maintain 100% ownership of until you need a co-founder) the holder of the IP.

Another co-founder may have come up with the idea, but ideas are worth literally nothing so do not let that sway you. Above all, walk away. Quickly. And take everything with you.
Reply and say "That's not good enough." Nothing else. Makes your position clear and leaves the ball in their court. You still have all options available to you, but might motivate them to act.

Sadly, unless I'm misreading the situation, the relationship is likely broken enough that you wouldn't want to continue with them. You'd be either going it alone with your codebase or asking them to buy you out, subject to you seeing it through to launch, perhaps?

If you can negotiate a payout rather than equity, it might be a better return given their networkers aren't networking.
Believe it or not, people get laid every day without having to use the Internet. One thing that really helps that out is living in a city where lots of different kinds of people are able to live.
It is indeed. We didn't see this earlier.

Submitted title was "“No code” is starting to make me nervous".
Yes, I agree. But I try to have as few plugins as possible (since they give attackers a broader target, imho), so it might be possible to work around that.
Networks that have a larger customer and driver base can link them up quicker.

That means that, at no extra cost to the network, the customer will end up waiting 2 minutes for a cab instead of 40, and the driver will end up waiting 2 minutes for a fare instead of 40.

Would you pay extra for those 38 minutes as a customer? I would. Would you accept a lower commission as a driver if you spend less time waiting for fares? I would.

As soon as the competitor tries to muscle in, the dominant player can maintain that advantage while dropping their costs and still remain profitable. They can undercut the new player until they go out of business.

Realistically speaking, the new players will recognize this built in advantage and will not challenge the monopoly at all unless their pockets are very, very, very deep and they are prepared for a protracted period of heavy losses.

Uber is still fighting to gain that monopoly advantage, but it looks like their investors are willing to sustain heavy losses for a long time to get there. Once they do have it, it will become self-sustaining. The more powerful their monopoly power is, the less likely it will be challenged, so the more powerful it will become. At that point they can start milking their customers and drivers and then earn some truly ridiculous profits.

Part of the monopoly advantage means that they can covertly punish drivers who choose to use competitors' apps by sending them fewer rides. If it's not already here, this tactic is probably coming very soon.
A few years ago I would have agreed with that, but I recently switched to Flywheel in SF because I was tired of the Uber drivers wandering around downtown's one-way streets for half an hour every time I hailed one of them because they don't know the city. I'm not exactly thrilled about going back to taxis, but at least they don't act like it's their first day behind the wheel. (And with Flywheel they can no longer lie and tell me their credit card machine is "broken"...)
Can you please update the Wikipedia article to reflect this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
A tip for learning UML. If you don't understand what is it talking about, just ignore it. There are some concept which is just too complicated and not quite useful. Only pick the concept you like/understand, that is what you will use.

UML is a design language, but not a computer language. You don't need to follow everything in the standard.

That will learn UML in an easier way.

Personally I think UML is worth to learn. Since it could design an architecture with using some common building block that many people know. And those UML tool can draw and manage diagram to save your time.
Ask HN: Source code for sports games
This is a really niche question, but does anyone know of source code available to review for sports games? They can be really old sports games, like Star League Baseball or TV Sports Football. Or more modern games.

It's an area of coding that has always interested me, but I've never done it myself. I'd love to see some code that I could read for this genre. Biggest areas of interest are the AI, general code structure, animation, the way sports rules are handled, etc...
There is IP. Your code. What country are you based in? It also sounds like you have complete control over the code base. Am I wrong?
Eh, I think the "one big marketplace" model is best. I... honestly, I don't want another relationship I have to worry about. I know it sounds terrible, but I just want to get to work every now and again, and I don't want to have to plan it ahead.

My point is that you don't have to run the cars to run a marketplace, though the money is being thrown at doing both at once in an effort to lock the running of the cars into the monopoly.

Running the marketplace is the only real natural monopoly here, though; If you can decouple the marketplace from the running of the cars, you could potentially become a lot more efficient, by allowing smaller players to run the cars.
Just watched his talk, def worth a watch (Thx for the link).

The repo is below, he added disclaimers that it's rough code and was enough to help him make some useful decisions mainly around game length and balance as he developed his game.

https://github.com/yonbergman/missiles_and_microchips
Sort of the point is, in pure languages only the symbolic operations are important. And the side effects (memory operations) are unimportant and beyond the control of the programmer. So you can do all sorts of transformation on the code without effecting the end result.

C is definitely impure. There is a large set usage cases where the memory layouts are important. Where the orders of operation and memory accesses are important.

What I worry about is when the optimizer is allowed to make assumptions about undefined behavior, that may be actually important on certain targets. Consider referencing a null pointer.

Winows7, Linux, in user land if you do that and you'll get a seg fault. And if the default handler runs your program dies.

The ARM cortex processor I've been slopping code for, reading a null pointer returns the initial stack pointer. Writing generates a bus fault. Since I actually trap that, and error message gets written into non-initialize memory and then the processor gets forcibly reset.

On an AVR reading a null pointer gives you the programs entry point. Writing to that location typically does nothing. Though you can write to it if running out of a special 'boot sector' and you've done some magic incantations.

So that's the problem I have with the idea that 'undefined means the optimizer can make hash of your program' instead of trusting the back end of the compiler will do something target appropriate.
What about verbal agreements? They're a pain in the ass to enforce, but constitute fully legal contracts (at least in the USA).

Or accepting money from one of the other founders? That could make you an employee and then you don't need to sign anything for them to take your code.
The Year of CoCoRo Video #26/52: Magnetic target – four compartments
I absolutely agree. I was mostly replying to the uninformed belief that the benefits of investment accrue only to the "rich" (a loaded term I'm loathe to use).
Just wondering... Why don't they use the new V2 Dragon with it's escape/abort system in all future resupply missions? At least they should be able to save the very expensive lab supply equipment, instruments, experiments, etc. Just fit it with the current V1 Dragon attach system for ISS docking.
To all those saying that dogfighting is an antiquited doctrine: I agree with you, but the F-35A is supposed to still do that, regardless of how archaic and improbable such a situation is supposed to occur.

Because it's supposed to be able to dogfight, compromises in its other capacities have been reduced. Now we find out that, as everyone knew, it can't dogfight. So why even design it to do a mediocre job of dogfighting when they could equivalently eliminate that design constraint and allow it to do its other roles better?

The simple fact is that the military has tried to bite off more than it can chew by asking that the F-35 can do everything at once. Because the F-35A is slated to replace the F-16, other sacrifices have been made to make it sort of approach being kind of nearly as capable as the F-16. As a result, it is doing its other roles worse than what would be the case if the military instead accepted that one size does not fit all and removed that requirement.

Frankly, it doesn't matter how unrealistic the idea of dogfighting is. The military said 'make this thing able to dogfight at least equivalently to the F-16' so LM have gone away and made specific design decisions to try to achieve that. It's now fallen short of that target, and in doing so has also compromised other capabilities.
thank you guys for all the feedback so far. I think I'll stay with wordpress for another year and re-evaluate after that.
The suggestion to talk to a lawyer is not a bad one, but I'll add my voice to those suggesting you just walk out the door. It sounds like you haven't been working on this very long anyway. Have you been compensated in any form at all? If so, you might have to give them the code you've written. But if not, seems to me (IANAL) that all you had was a verbal agreement which they've reneged on -- so they have nothing to hold over you and you can do whatever you want.

If you've described the situation accurately, then it doesn't sound like your co-founders have thought this through very carefully. Who do they expect to build the product if you don't? Maybe if you actually walk out it will bring them to their senses.
> dogfighting is as antiquated as Snoopy and the Red Baron

So they said during Vietnam too.
But a legal contract, in writing, promise of 30% equity post-funding would have to be disclosed to any new investors. If hew new shareholder didn't agree to it prior to an agreement or term sheet, it could sour the whole deal.
Ignore the rest of the people here; you need to see a lawyer who can look at the contracts you have or have not signed, the emails you have, the state this company is incorporated in, and advise you as to what your rights are.

ps -- instead of being emotional and incoherent (it's natural to be upset about this, but it doesn't help), write out a short summary organized by date with any supporting documentation. Keep it brief. Make it complete. Give this to a lawyer during a consultation. It will do a much better job summarizing things than you trying to explain it all verbally with all the things you'll forget or tell out of order. This is from unfortunate personal experience.
Another dynamic of bitcoin is that mining is not purely motivated by block rewards; even if there were no rewards at all, people who owned bitcoins would be incentivized to continue mining in order to secure their own currency holdings.

For example, if I had 100BTC and I feared that they would halve in value if the bitcoin network had a successful technological attack, it would be quite reasonable for me to spend up to half the amount of coins I had in mining/securing the network, regardless of other profit... and that arms race also continues even with no money gained from mining due to increasing vested interest.

I think this dynamic is often lost in people estimating what amount of mining a rational actor would undertake.
Someone I know covered his roof in solar panels. Instead of buying a big battery, he just runs a BC server farm. It's not unsustainable.
Why would they do a flight combat test with an aircraft configuration that is not meant for combat?
>Miller had been heavily involved in the creation of Atari's 64-bit Jaguar game console, which was already petering out after just a year on the market. "We were very proud of it," he said in a recent interview. "But it did not succeed because of the lack of content and a chicken and egg issue

noo, Jaguar was TERRIBLE to program, and from what pandaman writes Nuon was just the same.

> "I kind of hoped that it would be a real computing platform, much as the Atari ST had been a platform that was used for games as well,"

Atari ST was also pretty TERRIBLE, it was used for games _despite_ being terrible, not because it was a good computer.

>He also brought in lawyer

and this explains why it failed. 3DFX history was similar, they also toured Japan, but instead of lawyers they got a finance guy, they build hardware themselves, none of that 3DO CD-I licensing rubbish lawyers love so much.
Could it be the case that the whole point of "trying" to build this fighter jet is to research the necessary technologies just in case future demands it?
Maybe their plan is just to subsidise drivers until self-driving cars arrive, by which time they will have brand dominance and can carry on merrily.
Happy birthday Daily Fintech: notes on a digital publishing experiment
Who or what is measuring all of the quantum building blocks that collectively sustain and comprise the total universe?
Splitting a Python codebase into dependencies for fun and profit
It sounds like you should just quit the company and take the codebase with you. It might seem like it sucks because they got some money out of it but you 100% do not want to work with these guys.

They very likely have the failure bound mindset of "ideas are the most important thing, I'll just hire a guy off craigslist to write the code".
My prediction is if you quit they'll think "so what" and try to hire some random engineer without understanding what they'd have to do then burn through the money and fade away (or just keep the money and do nothing).

I don't know what contracts you signed but make sure you check that first (and talk to a lawyer).

Also sounds like one of these scummy incubators that charge mentor fees and the like (basically tax evasion schemes). 4 founders seems like a lot if there's just one engineer.
There is no reality at all, like 3D cgi, if no man see it, it will not be calculated, so no exists. It means another experiment: we living in a computer-simulation, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/1045198... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-ha... http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-... http://listverse.com/2013/12/02/10-reasons-life-may-be-a-com... http://io9.com/5799396/youre-living-in-a-computer-simulation... http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-u... http://thelaymansanswerstoeverything.com/2013/01/scientific-...
People being wrong on a subject 40 years ago doesn't mean the same arguments are valid today.
Vultures and charnel grounds
There is no question mark in the original title, though probably there should be one.

It's only one character, but adding it has significantly changed the meaning of the title. The article is full of confident statements of opinion, presented as facts, so I don't think the writer intended to make that title into a question and invoke Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

Whether it's correct or not, it does seem like the issues raised in this article have been discussed many times before during the past 5 years. Is there anything really new?

Here's some reaction to it from the pro-bitcoin side: http://redd.it/3bj0vo
Definitely no disagreements there.
I second that. The minute you take money from one of them you are an employee and they get to keep the code.

Don't sign anything or agree to anything verbally (in many countries that is legally binding) unless they are willing to immediately write it down and sign it.
Walk, if they want you back, charge them ludicrous consulting rates.
The F-22 was going to be more expensive than the F-35 was alleged to be. In practice, the F-22 is now looking like a bargain.
I think most people's definition of reality would be precisely not that it "is what we perceive", in that two people can and often do perceive the same underlying reality differently. That there is an underlying reality at all may be an incorrect assumption, but it is the intuition most people have.