skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
See my reply to beambot below. TLDR : my fault not Airbnb

As to posting details of the deal I've held off on this for years as I never wanted to hurt them and I don't see any way these early numbers are going to impact Airbnb. The specific point was to (1) demonstrate that the metrics many investors look for at this stage are meaningless and reinforce that founders working in the right Cardinal direction is what's important (at least to me).

The other details (events, feature list, budget) are documents we were brainstorming on and I wanted to see (1) how they think and (2) how fast they think. The point about the bugs, intros, etc isn't to demonstrate that I added meaningful value. Instead these docs demonstrate tte quality of the founders and their focus and planning.

As for "bossing" people around you're missing the context of this interaction. If you and I are sitting down figuring out your budget, user acquisition and product am I bossing you around when I ask to see results? I'll admit I'm demanding but i certainly don't believe in bossing founders around. If I have to boss you around then I'm walking away from the deal - I like to back founders who's own internal demands and expectations are higher than my own.

Either way appreciate all the thoughts here. I've waited seven years to start discussing startups / funding etc and you'll find that this and future posts will often focus on founder qualities.
Does archive.org have the storage space or bandwidth to serve this much video?

I agree that archive.org is the "correct" place for this content, but I think YouTube is a more practical location for now (and also the place where I think the content is more likely to be discovered by regular people: many people think of searching YouTube when looking for video content of all types, and YouTube has a top-tier indexing and search engine to help them find the right stuff).
Integrating at the database is a powerful pattern. I see some value for larger organizations to go a step further and integrate at a higher service layer, because one database could never support the entire enterprise. But for orgs that fit in one database, it's great, IMO.
exactly! I spent three weeks haggling - I should have figures out terms in 24 hours or less or simply given them a check and let it ride into future terms.
Yes, an eager investor might interpret that as acceptance.

>1. The investor says “I’m in for [offer].”

>2. The startup says “Ok, you’re in for [offer].”

You'll notice that the startup has only repeated back what the investor said, correcting for the inverted subject-verb and adding a customary signal opening. The startup has confirmed receipt of the investor's signal.

>3. The startup sends the investor an email or text message saying “This is to confirm you’re in for [offer].”

The startup confirms receipt on a secondary channel.

>4. The investor replies yes.

Waiting on communication from startup.
Business Blackout, economic impact of a cyber attack against a power grid
When I did PG performance work as an application-DBA, Rails and its usage by users fairly unfamiliar with SQL was a constant source of aggravation.
With all due respect, you'd get crushed by business people who mean business.
Buy Instagram Followers for $5 – Best Fiverr Gigs
So true. A good remote facade decouples the usage interface from the physical schema, giving you quite a bit of flexibility.
I love the pioneering spirit behind this post.

"It's partially there, but not enabled? I'll go ahead and enable it and see what happens!"

Sounds like the working of a good hacker-spirit.
Ask HN: Why did GitHub remove the Explorer link in head?
4 Ways to Pick Your First Programming Language
That is entirely on purpose, too.
Well, I respectfully disagree, for the reasons already stated (like most of the on-topic replies to that comment). Even the ones that agreed with pg suggested other mechanics to make up for the down-sides of the current system.

At the start of an innovation or social change the majority opinion is wrong, almost by definition. By having a single reward metric, and then structuring your system so that minority opinions get punished, you're creating a culture that's less free-thinking and more monocultural than it should be.

I can totally understand pg not wanting to change it, after all, he has a day job, but I don't think his 'up is agreement so down should be disagreement because symmetry' argument is worth much as stated.

After all, simple agreement has no worthwhile attribute other than a count of those who agree. Disagreement on the other hand is completely different, there are thousands of reasons why you might disagree with anything but the simplest of comments. Simply recording disagreement as a number is meaningless.

Edit: (I upvoted you for bothering to engage and find a link rather than just downvoting)
Can someone change the obviously untrue headline?
"Uber's support staff is good, and any hint of poor performance results in a 1-star review"

This is roughly how the market "responded" (0) to Uber in Moscow - Yandex ("Russian Google") rolled out its Yandex Taxi service/app which provided Uber-like experience to user and integrated with taxi companies at the backend. Same experience same driver ratings etc - but on a legal platform. The prices are compatible with Uber too.

(0) I put "responded" in quotes here because Uber launched in Moscow a few years after Yandex Taxi.
Encrypted calling in SIP Blocked region
Wow! Thank you Udo for answering so fast! Nice to meet you.

You're definetely right. I completely agree with you. I know that I have a problem with the scope and the "pressure-cooker" haha. Jokes aside, it's true that I should eliminate from my list those things that, after a short period of time, are no motivating me, at least the way they are supposed to. I'll try to move in that direction ;)

About the second part... DEFINETELY TRUE. I know it's my fault, but the only thing I can do is trying to focus my mind in what I'm doing, "eat my own food" and when I'm done, then I'll be able to ask for a big dessert if I want.
It's a pretty simple concept, but I liked it!

Thank you so much!
This is why large companies should be more regulated. They should not be able to put pressure on labels or producers and get all the benefits.
What Apple did by killing this startup is not ethical. Plus, by killing it, they tried to get a monopole. Microsoft got so many fines at the time because they had the monopole on PCs. If a large company tries to destroy startups just because they feel threatened, they should be penalised the same way Microsoft did (With huge fines) or I think of another way: forcing large companies to work with startups instead of shutting them down.
Lottery IT security boss guilty of hacking lotto computer to win $14.3m
If your emails had anything hurtful, embarrassing, proprietary or damaging to yourself or your company I wouldn't publish them.

In this case these emails and documents make ME look like a novice investor and speak highly of the Airbnb founders. I have no problem exposing my own failures and mistakes but I'd never expose yours unless you were cool with it.

This event was a very important lesson for me and made me a better investor. Most people commenting here are thinking short-term; but the consequence of this Airbnb deal was critical to my development. I learned to move fast and invested a great deal of time and energy into becoming a better investor.
Maybe this is an explanation: https://medium.com/@492727ZED/steve-jobs-made-warner-music-s...
No. It was designed to go above critical only once, albeit with lots of sound and fury. It's also of note that during its intended trip into criticality, it ended up detonating about a half mile from its target. Core was jinxed till the end.
I kept waiting for the payoff, but the article never gave proof that Steve Jobs was behind it. Sounds to me like what happened is that Steve when negotiating with Warner Brothers said something like, "How can you charge us those rates for your music when I have a whole list of places online that have it for free?" At which point Warner said, "We'll take care of those. So the rates can stand."
A Real Animated Story :)
Yes it does:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nuclear_reactor
RobotJS – Node desktop automation
ML isn't that popular though right? Would it be fair to say GHC had the most impressive optimizations of mainstream language?

With that said I certainly wonder why ML isn't more popular!
"It should also be noted that there is absolutely zero contemporary historical evidence for the existence of Mohammad. Zero."

Yes there is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Non-Mu...
I read this half asleep and a little inebriated but it seemed to evolve into some kind of bizarre self-aggrandizing pitch on how this Kasian Franks is a super-human with deep hard-to-duplicate knowledge and insights spanning multiple important and lucrative industries. Almost some kind of cred piece bolstered by his proxy encounter with Steve Jobs. Weird.
All the articles I read said they hoped to invest in 1,000 in the future. While I didn't expect the number to Be nearly that high I didn't expect it to be near 20. basicaly they're gambling that two
Probably

http://archive.org/stats/
Namely, I see 3 primary flaws:
1. A marginally lower price is not by itself enough to achieve market penetration. If it takes 5-10 minutes longer to get a ride on your platform (due to fewer drivers), I'm not going to use it—even if you are 20% cheaper (wiping out Uber's entire margin).

I think you have assumed that I would not have as many drivers on the road as Uber. I would have as many or more - hence the need to go after mid-size markets to begin with. The time for the driver to turn up with my service would be the same or better than Uber.

2. You're ignoring the pooling savings which come from being able to easily coordinate shared rides due to a huge installed rider base.

I am not ignoring it. If there is demand for this service and I have as many cars on the road as Uber then I can offer the same pool service. I will still have the same unit cost advantage.

3. Uber can spend you into the ground. They have a massive war chest and continued huge revenue from their mature markets—enough to undercut you until you run out of oxygen.
The biggest flaw of these 3 is that I just don't think price alone is sufficient to overcome network effects. If it were, the $100+ vouchers which I see also-ran competitors giving out would have made a dent in Uber's market share.

If you limit the size of the markets you go after then there is a limit to what even Uber can spend trying to kill you. You just need to be able sustain any loss over the length of time that you think Uber can fight you for. The key to success here is have enough resources to survive the level of damage anyone can throw at you. Personally I would hold off until Uber just goes public when they can’t afford to waste as much money anymore.

More fundamentally the reason none of Uber’s competitors like Lyft (or even Uber itself) has pursued this model is that you can’t sustain it at the capital cost that VCs demand. It is a model which will only be pursued by businesses with a low cost of capital in much the same way the container shipping industry is run. The problem for Uber long term is once a business enters with this model they will be hard to fight.

I have to say these discussions are lots of fun :)
two out of the group are YC worthy... 10% I'll take it!
It's certainly debatable, but as I understand it, there's a distinction made between accidents in which people are killed, and those because of which people are killed.

This is one of the former. It's a very small set.

Deaths from radiation poisoning, which is the deadly thing most strongly associated with nuclear accidents, tend to number among the latter, because it's the radiation, a consequence of the accident, that kills those victims, not the accident, itself.

Again, it's a debatable distinction, but it's the one we've chosen to make. You conflate them either out of ignorance, or because you're fearmongering.
BLANTYRE HOUSE Here I come – after 2.75 years locked up in a B-Cat Prison
See http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/33981.html.

It does increase security, since for instance in spite of its complexity Secure Boot has proven to be reasonably secure, and thus it is simpler to attack the firmware.

However I agree with Garrett and disagree with aaronem: just as shown by Secure Boot on x86, you can have a reasonable choice between security and user's choice i.e. you can give freedom and security. A similar mechanism, in which a user could enroll its keys and install its signed coreboot payload, is possible. The same applies to TPM.
Given that Intel had 55 bilions in revenues last year, I see no reason to cut them any slack (same goes for Apple, Qualcomm, etc).

As far as the "new Microsoft" goes, the policy on Windows phone is the same on Windows 10 as it was on Windows RT and Windows 8: Secure Boot on ARM is locked down in such a way that the user cannot add its own keys, or send a binary to Microsoft to have its signed for 99$ (i.e. the result is functionally equivalent to Apple policy with ios). If you sell devices on which the users can't even decide which kernel to boot, you probably don't have a problem with devices in which the users can't decide which firmware to use.
There's git-annex for that. I've not tried it myself.
Infosec's inability to quantify risk
ES6 proxies in depth
Fairly clear here: "During one of these breaks I was by myself in the office of the CTO. He came in and we chatted about the state of technology and music. I then thought to ask a question of which the answer would shed light on the real reason behind the litigation and contention technology companies share with old media companies. I asked Howie, why is it that Warner chose to sue SeeqPod? He said that they maintained a short list of companies and we were on top of that list. I then asked how we wound up on the list and at the top. This is when he mentioned that Steve Jobs had held meetings with several labels including Warner and disagreed with streaming music services like SeeqPod and that companies like ours would inhibit a deal between Apple and the labels, so they collectively decided to keep a running list of “problem” companies that need to be “addressed” by Warner. It was at this point I realized we were not in a fight with the labels but in a proxy war waged by Apple against innovative music technology companies."
I actually like the second part of the article a lot more intriguing where he talks about his and the company's personal background. It's these stories that inspire to start a company.
I don't think you realize how Uber moves into new territory: tons of free ride codes (maybe 40% of my rides have been unsubsidized); special event codes; subsidised events (free transportation to voting places last election here); cash payouts and bonuses for drivers. It's by no means lean.
How to work with startup mentors – notes from Microsoft Ventures Accelerator
I'm a bit waffle-ey by nature, but really I mean two points: first, that the icon means save because we're trained to see it as the icon for save (if we want to talk unnecessary complexity, you've transformed my 'trained' into 'stimulus generalisation' :D); and second, kids know that the icon is related to floppy disks because everyone asks at some point "wtf does this have to do with 'save'", and gets a history lesson. Two separate but related events.

The unnecessarily complexity is what's in the video: the user sees the icon, recognises it as a floppy disk, understands that the floppy disk is storage from some prior experience (ha![1]), and then reverse-engineers the question "why does this icon look like a floppy disk" into "something to do with storage - probably saving the document to it". It's a very convoluted and unnecessary cognitive path.

[1] Does anyone really believe that the youth of today learned what floppy disks were before they learned about saving documents?
Somewhat crazy, but: One more level of abstraction, and lots of people die at nuclear plants because they're not built yet (or existing ones were delayed, or in maintenance), due to the coal power which they would displace.
I would say monopolized rather then democratized.
No, it doesn't.

The definition you're citing says, "Any device in which a controlled chain reaction is maintained", emphasis added.

First of all, the Demon Core wasn't a "device", but a shaped lump of plutonium, which briefly — and accidentally — went super-critical. (Yes, twice. And, yes, subsequently deliberately.) A "reactor" is the entire assembly, not just the "hot" stuff.

Secondly, it wasn't exactly designed for controlled criticality.

EDIT: corrections.
This article reminds me of a lot of what Dalton Caldwell spoke about in his talk about why not to start a music startup at a Startup School in the last several years.

This business seems to have been run and have proceeded horribly, for the exact reasons that Caldwell and everyone else with experience in that area seems to be extremely familiar with.

Is there anything legitimately interesting to the "Apple" and "Steve Jobs" parts of this story other than the usual clickbait?
Actually, XFS is now default on RHEL and Suse :)

But honestly, over the last years i have a strong feeling for the old, fast, stable (and most importantly simple!) filesystems like ext* or xfs.

Just yesterday i had btrfs telling me that my disk is full (when in fact it is half full with nearly 400GB free!).
Also have seen some major, hard to resolve problems with ZFS years ago.

It led me to believe, why the hell we need those ultracomplicated can-do-everything filesystems?! The only thing i actually care for is fast access without some complicated compression, deduplication and what-not steps in between and data safety. And as far as i can tell, ext4 and XFS are pretty safe. Never seen those destroy files. Ever.

On the other hand finding problems and debugging filesystems in kernel can be a major headache. I want my filesystem to as simple as possible, nowadays. ZFS and btrfs is all nice and so on, but next time i look for a filesystem, i'll go back to the established and simpler ones.
Flipkart’s diversity problem
"Colonize" isn't the right word. Living on another planet doesn't make any sense for us. Perhaps it makes sense to put a very small number of people on the moon for purely scientific or commercial reasons - but it might make more commercial sense to instead use robots and sidestep the hassle of maintaining real live humans up there.

Charles Stross wrote about this a few years ago [1]:

> Whichever way you cut it, sending a single tourist to the moon is going to cost not less than $50,000 — and a more realistic figure, for a mature reusable, cheap, rocket-based lunar transport cycle is more like $1M. And that's before you factor in the price of bringing them back ...

> The moon is about 1.3 light seconds away. If we want to go panning the (metaphorical) rivers for gold, we'd do better to send teleoperator-controlled robots; it's close enough that we can control them directly, and far enough away that the cost of transporting food and creature comforts for human explorers is astronomical. There probably are niches for human workers on a moon base, but only until our robot technologies are somewhat more mature than they are today; Mission Control would be a lot happier with a pair of hands and a high-def camera that doesn't talk back and doesn't need to go to the toilet or take naps.

[...]

> When we look at the rest of the solar system, the picture is even bleaker. Mars is ... well, the phrase "tourist resort" springs to mind, and is promptly filed in the same corner as "Gobi desert". As Bruce Sterling has puts it: "I'll believe in people settling Mars at about the same time I see people settling the Gobi Desert. The Gobi Desert is about a thousand times as hospitable as Mars and five hundred times cheaper and easier to reach. Nobody ever writes "Gobi Desert Opera" because, well, it's just kind of plonkingly obvious that there's no good reason to go there and live. It's ugly, it's inhospitable and there's no way to make it pay. Mars is just the same, really. We just romanticize it because it's so hard to reach." In other words, going there to explore is fine and dandy — our robots are all over it already. But as a desirable residential neighbourhood it has some shortcomings, starting with the slight lack of breathable air and the sub-Antarctic nighttime temperatures and the Mach 0.5 dust storms, and working down from there.

[1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high...
Susan Athey on optimal auctions, better models and the future of big data
Would love VB.NET support.
Latency vs. anonymity is usually a tradeoff: if you monitor the whole network, you can correlate flows between nodes, and this gets easier with lower latency. That's why Pond connections are randomly timed. They acknowledge this fact in section 5.2:

Flow-dynamics-based end-to-end correlation.

In general it is difficult even for high latency mix networks to resist such powerful adversaries. Low-latency anonymity systems are particularly prone to these types of attacks. HORNET cannot protect
against them, but as mentioned above, the use of packet obfuscation
makes these attacks more expensive and allows for potential additional measures to be taken (e.g., padding), either by upper layer protocols or by extensions of HORNET.
I agree, although I think he sort of predisposed me to this attitude right off the bat with the desperate-seeming link to google results that are supposed to prove people called them an "itunes killer" (note: I could not find a single instance of anyone referring to them as an "itunes killer" in any of those results).
So did SeeqPod have some means by which the artists (cough, excuse me) the labels were getting paid? They said they were paying a lot for bandwidth, so they weren't just a search engine, but also a streaming service?
Nice! 5% of 3m, $150k/month - nice little earner! And I think they are still just getting started
Jobs, and singles would be my guess as to why young people prefer cities.
Show HN: nOps – Empowers your DevOps
> And it also changed my outlook towards 'Christianity', which I dismissed before as just a religion. Tolstoy carefully builds the idea of Christianity as a philosophy of non-violence, anarchy and peaceful disobedience, claiming that that was the true teaching of Jesus Christ and the reason why Christians have been persecuted and killed everywhere - before the whole thing was transformed into a dogmatic religion.

I'd argue that it's still a bit dismissive to state that the whole thing ended up a dogmatic religion, but perhaps that's splitting hairs at this point.

Having grown up on the Evangelical/pentecostal fringes, I saw much of Christianity as 'dogmatic religion' (not seeing that much of this was present in my denomination too), but now that I'm not a Christian any longer, I've come to realize pretty much all denominations of Christianity contain both significant figures and movements that tend toward the 'non-violence, anarchy and peaceful disobedience' side of things, as well as a lot of dogma.

I've recently found a lot in Zen buddhism that reminds me of Jesus' teaching, except somehow more practical. I can strongly recommend doing some research in that.
14 Facts the 'Women in Tech' Movement Doesn't Want You to Know
TL;DR Music technology startups suck.
Skype for Android 5.6 version released and the updates make the app more stable
This sounds like the same thing dangero is referring to.
I find the term "accident" a somewhat meaningless distinction. Millions of people have gotten cancer (statistically) from the radiation in the atmosphere as a result of nuclear tests. Does it really matter that the tests were intentional or not?
Uber/go-torch – flame graph profiler for Go