skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This, i'm really glad to see Ycombinator reaching outside of their current sphere.

I'm a (remote) early employee at a YC company and see the value the founders got from full YC but I'd simply never consider it for a personal project because of the move.

I have no interest in moving personally (as a father, home owner and someone who really likes living in the mountains) but also most of my personal projects focus on groups of people for which the bay area is not particularly enriched.

I could see applying for this fellowship in a few years once I feel i've done my current commitments justice though I'd want to be open about having no intention of doing the full YC.

For me the cloud credits would be a bigger financial incentive then the 12k as most of my ideas would involve a lot of initial data processing.
Taking away all control from the user in terms of how their device's browser is able to render websites is all on Apple. They could've fixed this a long time ago. I'm not a fan of Android at all, but I've been tempted to switch back purely because of the ability to run a spam filter in my browser.
Seems a bit of a stretch to make this statement on a study based on Halo 3.
many times what you will end up with is $XXXX in non-transferable gift cards or you will have to sit on them. in those cases you just use them to pay your bills or use them as your spending cash etc.
In fact, this is a point I am curious about. IANAL, but the case of Bernstein v. United States, while mooted before it could come to a true conclusion, seems to demonstrate that there is legal plausibility to the argument that publishing source code of "dangerous" systems is protected by the First Amendment. While cryptography is less immediately harmful than some of the things prohibited in this case, the circumstances still seem pretty similar to me; and if these rules were overturned on such grounds, I cannot say I would be all that upset, as such a decision would likely also imply protection for a lot of stuff I like more than this.

That said, when you consider things like Stuxnet, which physically destroyed industrial facilities, I'd say the idea that malware can be a weapon is harder to dismiss these days than in teh past. Admittedly, most zero-day exploits do not have so close an analogy, but in the wrong hands they can certainly help put people in physical danger.

In any case, surveillance is hardly something the 'hacker community' is thrilled about - as per the zeitgeist in this forum, at least...
I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised that we've already reached this level of functionality. Imagine aliens coming to our planet and starting classifying stuff on Earth. The idea that alien intelligence without some seeded knowledge would mistakenly make this inference doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility.
cmVwZWF0IDQgNA0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcmVwZWF0IDQgNA0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcmVwZWF0IDQgNA0KcHJpbnQgMg==
How do you use these strings?
Google employees share their salaries internally
Why Do Computer Science Majors Dislike Business Majors
I agree, and disagree with the author.

> "Vision 1: CONNECT KNOWLEDGE, PEOPLE, AND CATS."

> This is the correct vision.

I would say this is a correct vision, which I happen to be in favor of.

But I don't understand why it has to be an "us vs. them" dynamic between this and the "BECOME AS GODS, IMMORTAL CREATURES OF PURE ENERGY LIVING IN A CRYSTALLINE PARADISE OF OUR OWN CONSTRUCTION" vision.

Even in strawman form, I'm unapologetically in favor of it. I do want it to go right. I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon - I think human-level AI by 2075 [1] is wildly optimistic - but I hope it does happen eventually, without wiping out everything we hold dear.

> I'm a little embarrassed to talk about it, because it's so stupid.

My first thought was "Try describing the internet to someone 100 years ago - your claim that there is going to be an interconnected global network of electricity-powered adding machines that transport pictures of moving sex by pretending they are made of numbers is going to sound stupid."

But if you want to make fun of Elon Musk because "Obama just has to sit there and listen to this shit", what about:

Shane Legg: "If there is ever to be something approaching absolute power, a superintelligent machine would come close. By definition, it would be capable of achieving a vast range of goals in a wide range of environments. If we carefully prepare for this possibility in advance, not only might we avert disaster, we might bring about an age of prosperity unlike anything seen before."

Stuart Russel: "Just as nuclear fusion researchers consider the problem of containment of fusion reactions as one of the primary problems of their field, it seems inevitable that issues of control and safety will become central to AI as the field matures."

Or freaking Alan Turing: "There would be plenty to do in trying to keep one’s intelligence up to the standards set by the machines, for it seems probable that once the machine thinking method had started, it would not take long to outstrip our feeble powers…At some stage therefore we should have to expect the machines to take control."

> But you all need to pick a side.

I don't want to pick a side. I'm in favor of connecting the world now, making it better for everyone. I'd also like to see the world get much better in the more (hopefully not too) distant future.

[1] http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/survey.pdf
Same as war on drugs, affordable housing, affirmative action, minimum wage etc.
One would assume after a program makes the situation worse, you would stop said program. But the rationale becomes to increase the power and funds of the program instead.
If 'm' is a monad then the difference between a 'String' and a 'm String' (monad string) is most likely just a constructor, but it's really up to that particular monad's implementation. It isn't a byte level difference, it's a context level difference. Constructors are very different in Haskell than (insert imperative Lang). They are much simpler. Monads are similarly simple but hard to explain without any familiarity with the language. I suggest you just dive in. The cool thing about Haskell is you don't have to understand everything in order to work with it.
Thanks for responding! Can you say how you deal with the significant latencies over multiple AZs?

Also, would you mind answering my other question about whether or not I can run Marathon or Chronos against ECS since it runs Mesos under the hood?
I have some bones to pick with this talk, especially when it comes to the 'insane' singularity parts. But damn if I'm not on team user. The truth of the matter is that our software is gratuitous in features, lazy in performance, but the most important issue that gets overlooked is that it requires a great expenditure of effort to configure understand and use.

I spent hours today trying to set up prosody XMPP on a local LAN and found I couldn't do it with the server software that promises to have you 'up and running in minutes'. It made me think that perhaps in the same way you have test cases for features, you might have test situations to determine what features you should have in the first place. Does your software work if I'm in environment X? How about environment/situation Y?

I at this point feel so disgusted with the entire experience that I would prefer to just write my own, the cost of creating a new code has become lower than fully understanding an old one:

"It is easier to write a new code than to understand an old one." - John Von Neumann to Marston Morse, 1952 as quoted in Turing's Cathedral

EDIT (Mon Jul 20 23:30:32 PDT 2015): Lots of people citing Nick Bostrom on the AI stuff, for a different perspective I'd like to recommend Scott Alexander's (Looong) Meditations on Moloch: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

"They broke their back lifting Moloch to heaven!"
In a strict (as opposed to lazy) non-functional language monads make no sense. Write two statements which uses a temp variable on the same line, separated by a semicolon - this is your monad.
Then don't start a startup. If you're not willing to work hard and lose some money, then maybe you shouldn't be starting a company.

There's no free lunch. I would love to be able to work hard during the days at the company I'm with, work on a side project at night, go to the gym every day, maintain a relationship, maintain a social life, and get 9 hours of sleep every day. But I really have to pick and choose which things I get to do.
This is crazy talk. Scala (and .NET to a lesser extent) both make use of special language features for making monads easier to deal with, and neither of them forbid side effecting (IO). For comprehension and LINQ comprehension are both monadic comprehension for the operations flatMap and selectMany!

Monads are a fantastic way of handling errors, composing parsers, handling concurrency, parallelism, callbacks, and many other non-IO related things.
> And BTW systems built "by hackers for hackers" are among the worst offenders (*nix clones in general and Linux distributions in particular are good examples.)

Interestingly, I've found it to be the opposite. Most of systems built "by hackers for hackers" both have a surprisingly long (yet not obsolete) life, and are vastly more compatible across different environments. Emacs/vim has been around for a really long time, and there is no reason to believe they will disappear at this point. Similarly, I can comfortably switch from Linux to OS X to FreeBSD thanks to bash and the gazillion posix tools (grep, ps, awk...). The same definitely can not be said for Windows 7 to 8 so far.
> How much new software exists merely as a tool, comfortable with being put away days or weeks at a time, and doesn't try to suck you in

This is one of the many costs of having a web funded by advertising: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237

Here's another Maciej post that is part of the solution, Don't Be A Free User: https://blog.pinboard.in/2011/12/don_t_be_a_free_user/
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9906107
This is an interesting study, but would likely benefit from some additional research[0][1].

From a journalistic perspective, though, the article on the study is terrible.
Not merely because of the way it jumps to conclusions from a single study (the discourse on Reddit/Twitter is likely to be somewhat different than in Halo 3), but because the article itself was about online harassment, and yet the only figure they deigned to include was about the number of positive comments.

If you look at the graphs for negative statements[2], you find that although female voices provoke slightly more negative comments for low amounts of deaths, male voices get significantly more negative comments when the death count is higher.
This is not as easily to interpret.

0. The actual study: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

1. For example, does this trend persist in games that are not "boys games"? We assume that the majority of Halo 3 players are men, but is there any difference between how men and women comment to perceived men and women? Why did they not include the control (playing without voice chat) as a baseline?

2. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=l...
The simplicity is an illusion. While monads are not complex, the concept is very abstract relative to the imperative languages most people program in.

Think about it. In python there's really no syntactic sugar to place something in a container, so the concept doesn't really exist in python until you invent it using other python language primitives. So when you tell a python guy about a burrito, he really has no language analogue to think about. When I tried to learning about the maybe monad, I looked up a tutorial that taught it in python... Big mistake. I was thinking why the hell would people go out of there way to wrap that shit up in a burrito when they can just do a goddamn try exception... It made no sense to me, and even now, it still doesn't make sense for python. Only when I learned about haskell did I realize how the maybe monad makes sense for haskell.

I think most people learn about monads through haskell or any other language with a similar type system. It'd be interesting to hear peoples' experiences about how they grokked the concept.
I'll add that I intensely dislike his answer but felt compelled to link it due to its honesty and debate inspiring nature. But here goes: I think it is question begging to call CS a new liberal art without qualifying why (many people go for CS precisely because its practical). And its also unfair to think that a person cannot be intellectually devoted to a practical field (law is a pragmatic degree yes but its a love affair for a supreme court judge, why not the same for a business professor?) I think its more anti-intelectual to rank disciplines based on merit.
Thank you Jugurtha.
We will be applying with www.todoed.co and www.myidealist.co
They're base64. Feed them to "base64 -d" on Linux, or one of the many base64 decoders on the web. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64
So what you're saying is that these purely functional languages are so restricted that if you want to do anything useful in them, you _need_ this concept that nobody on the internet is able to actually explain.

Makes me want to use purely functional languages even less.
Careers at Todoed.co
The Simple Example of the Double Tetris Lamp
OK, go on, explain what else it is, rather than accidental convention of how to ensure an order of evaluation of a pair of expressions in a particular lazy pure-functional language?

Erlang, for example, being functional but strict language, requires no monads. So does Standard ML. In these languages a monads would be a useless, redundant abstraction which will only clutter the code.
There's a great interview of Andy Weir by Adam Savage here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SemyzKgaUU
List of SumatraPDF ripoffs
A C Compiler for Stack Machines (2006) [pdf]
Since we're already off-topic, let me plug my Chrome extension that I frequently use to fix pages just like this:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/text-fix/ofafkoecd...
Securing Linux programs by containing them with Docker
The New $100M Search for Life in the Cosmos
Previous export restrictions on crypto and certificates gave non-US participants (Mark Shuttleworth) the opportunity to take up the slack and build a business where there were no such restrictions. He simply had to fulfill the demand that existed outside of the US in large part due to export restrictions.

The Wassenaar Arrangement is likely to result in similar unintended effects combined with a similar lack of intended effects.
For already failing marriages... duh.
Top 5 Browsers of 2015
> But that doesn't mean that YC can't offer me any useful advice.

But what can you offer them?

It's clear what YC Fellowships offer to companies, but I suspect there's also some not-as-obvious benefits to YC.

Would Tarsnap bring these benefits to YC?
Interestingly, on a number of libraries and blogs I've come across recently, too. It seems to be gaining at least _some_ ground.
Back to the Moon in Five Years (and to Stay Too?) – 33rd Square
Advice About Hiring Technical Co-Founders – Accurate?
I love this so much. So glad someone wrote this!

I really can't believe how "into" tech people are. It's just a boring tool for your life, not an end-goal in itself.

BTW I feel the only leading company that is aligned with this vision is Apple.
"Ah, yet is not dancing merely a vertical expression of a horizontal desire?"

I thought this line extremely witty. The part on love and how Richard Dawkins can be considered a Type-0 genius but a Type-1-and-higher retard was also quite fascinating.
Google Chrome
Bing
Mozilla
Opera
IE

Trending now...
If the analysis continues to point to this flawed component being the cause, then 2017 isn't overly ambitious at all. They've already planned to stop using those components, and all the telemetry shows that every other piece of the rocket continued to work fine. Notably, stage one continued to fire, and the capsule remained intact until it went over the horizon and out of radio contact. While it would have been beneficial to have better failure recovery on these cargo-only capsules, the future capsules have already been built to handle an event like this, and one of the steps in certifying it is to simulate an abort a lot like the one that happened here. So it's not really all that ambitious, once all the stuff scheduled to happen happens.
No way. While I do agree monads don't make sense in some imperative languages, writing two statements on the same line is not a monad.
YC has proven an accelerator works when teams move to be part of it. That doesn't prove that investing in companies that are based elsewhere and take part remotely doesn't work though, or that moving was a contributing factor to success, or that founders who are willing to move are demonstrating a greater level of dedication (just a different sort of dedication).

To know whether remote will work YC needs to try it.

(Mind you, even with YC's intake, it's likely you'd never see a statistically significant result either way. There's too many variables and not enough samples.)
A Google Chrome Extension to Stop Wasting Your Time
"Been around for a long time" - yes, but that doesn't mean hair-pulling will not result from upgrading emacs and having files in .emacs stop working. (I have a very simple vim configuration so I never had a problem there, I don't know if it's because they break less or because I depend on less.)

As to easily switching... erm... just the other day I fixed a script bundled with a hardware system costing around $1M/year to lease to use basename instead of /bin/basename because I wanted to run it, not on RHEL but on Ubuntu and the latter put basename in /usr/bin. Hell, even #!/bin/env bash will break because on another system it's #!/usr/bin/env!! Other scripts did not run because ksh was not installed. At other times scripts break because /bin/sh is (wrongly) assumed to be bash but Ubuntu uses dash, whatever that is.

And this goes from trivial stuff like the above all the way down to gdb being broken by a kernel upgrade to a minor version, or kernel memory leaks caused by minor upgrades, or NFS-related kernel panics.

As to "yet not obsolete" - only if you use the box as a server needing nothing but a CPU, some RAM, an Ethernet connection and some media to boot and serve files from. Try running or compiling an old KDevelop on a new Ubuntu or vice versa and tell me if it's "surprisingly long life yet not obsolete". Also I can assure you that most of my complaints about breakage are met, if the person is a Linux aficionado, with bewilderment at my desire to run such ancient software where "ancient" means "6-12 months old". Certainly the only part of Linux which gives a shit about compatibility is the kernel (you can still run statically linked binaries from 1993), however it doesn't help much because every userspace program outside the very useful but rather limited set of the original Unix tools (grep etc.) happily breaks compatibility at every turn.

I have to say that Windows has far less variants and far less incompatibilities between variants than *nix, so you switch both more smoothly and less often in my experience. This is not to say that it's a lovely experience, just that it's not nearly as terrible as Linux.
Thank you for a very insightful, thoughtful, and considerate reply. I'm newly in the 50+ demographic, but I've also been a software engineer for my entire career (starting with a Commodore 64 in the 1980s) -- from that perspective I especially appreciate your asking "How much new software exists merely as a tool, comfortable with being put away days or weeks at a time, and doesn't try to suck you in to having to sign in to it on a regular basis to see what other people are doing with it?". Thank you!
Guy Steele isn't a personality and his content is always king.
Your emphasis is on intellect, not wealth class. Middle class is enough to have access to intellect and nurture it with a top tier education. Obama and Dave Chappelle are also products of middle class intellects raising (dare i say) unicorn children. The original article is bs and your points are not about wealth. Most of the rich are not entrepreneurial. There is no causation let alone correlation. What you are citing is intellect.

As for how to dress and behave, they are far easier to pick up than what makes anyone intrinsically smart. Yourself included, you did not need to be rich for a little "class" to rub off on you. It's like learning proper English. At places like Harvard, it truly does rub off (often along with the Haaavd-ness or MIT-ness etc etc).
Chrome Extension is Fastest Compare to all. For Developers Mozilla is best.
This seems to be missing large sections of text, beginning immediately. The full text does not seem to be available for free to the public on the surface web. Bummer.
Blockbuster's CEO once passed up a chance to buy Netflix for only $50M
Hah, thanks for clarifying, I had a suspicion, but still wanted to write out the argument in case there was some truth to the sarcasm.

It's hard to talk without going down into specifics. Different people got into power in different countries in different ways and are kept in power by different means. Switching out the hierarchy that's in power seems healthy for a society, and happens every once in awhile, as well (e.g. in Nigeria's recent election).

I don't think we should expect politicians to be altruistic and I think democracy is a spectrum. America has a somewhat democratic system, although almost half the eligible people don't vote, and a large portion of the population that does vote appears to mirror campaign spending, which is controlled by a much smaller, but still relatively diverse number of donors. Increasing the number of people with enough discretionary spending to give to campaigns makes this system more democratic, as does lowering the max amount an individual can contribute.

Perhaps one day we will have a society where everyone contributes ideas evenly to this distributed system that is democratic government, but for now, I think it's important simply to look for steps in that direction - get more people thinking and talking about political ideas, understanding the issues, and weighing the consequences of their vote.

Personally, I find the electoral college system the biggest barrier to engaging people... "what does it matter, our state is going for candidate X anyway".

I don't think the IC uses their capabilities to advise campaigns or blackmail dissidents anymore. They might have under J Hoover, but I imagine that to be wholly a blemish of the past.
This links to a StackOverflow mirror. The original is at http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29337063/parsing-continue... .
I think there is a big opportunity to innovate on overdraft protection and those crazy fees.
They were using a large number of small struts, a few hundred per rocket. The problem with redundancy through quantity is that occasionally one of those many redundant parts will fail in an interesting way, like happened here, and cause that one in a million cascade. The trick is finding just the right amount of redundancy for the task at hand. Sometimes that's a few strong pieces, sometimes it's a lot of little pieces.
May I know why you are saying this?
Because Reading Comments is one of the best advantage to judge the post, product or service