skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I definitely agree that smart contracts are going to be implemented as another layer. They'll erode the need for traditional enforcement slowly. And while there's a need for resolution when there's a bad contract, that resolution system doesn't always have to be a person.

Here's a simple theoretical example. People operate under a common, universal law system that defines the most basic rights. The rules of this system are only those which everyone who participates can agree to. For example, everyone agrees not to kill each other. People who do not accept these rules can form alternative societies, but they will not be able to access areas under common law through the use of smart locks and the like which restrict access to public spaces only to those who accept basic terms of behavior.

These rules can be under constant revision because the code that runs the base social platform is publicly audited, and anyone can submit a request to edit it. These revisions can be tested at smaller scales just by running the rules in private spaces. In your home, you can set whatever rules you want, but anyone running software with conflicting preferences will be alerted to the changes when they enter. If your home rules become popular with your friends, they may choose to implement them in their home. If enough people adopt them, the community may choose to implement them in certain spaces, and they can propagate outward.

The basis of this type of system would be mutual consent, and what a person consents to do can be adjusted at any time by their own software. It would be important that a person's personal platform was entirely under their control and only interacted with the outside world through approved protocols. Likely this would require a direct brain connection that could not be hacked because of physical safeguards.

Business could be conducted between communities that operated under entirely different rules through automatic contract negotiation. New ideas could spread from private to public spaces automatically through smart social contracts.

This is just one, very basic example of a society run by smart contracts. There's plenty of ways for these types of systems to be exploited, but that's part of the design process of any system. Particularly difficult is the problem of letting a machine which can be manipulated dictate so much of life.

But people's brains can be hacked already. Look at advertising, religious cults, mob mentality. People have always been vulnerable to manipulation, and we have developed an interconnected financial system where almost anything can be bought, especially power. We can learn from existing flaws as we develop new systems to fix the bugs in our biology and political systems that have made us vulnerable. We will definitely introduce new vulnerabilities. We just have to make sure we have a robust plan for continued development to respond to them.
Sorry, dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9958492
Thanks for the numbers. A difference of 500ms would definitely be noticeable, especially if its in ones daily workflow
> What scarce resources are you referring to in the developed world?

What kind of question is this? You think we have infinite medical researchers with infinite resources and infinite budgets? All countries, including the richest ones, have budgets.

> Bill Gates turns 60 this year. It's pretty safe to assume he'll accomplish more in the next 20 years than you will in your lifetime.

Oh god you can't really think that's a good argument, can you? Citing Gates as your anecdotal evidence to make a point about policy that affects millions of people is outright silly. It's like saying government policy should prevent people from going to university, and dropping out once they get in, because hey Bill Gates did it and look how that turned out. Why refer to one of the most extreme outliers in modern history as a justification for medical policy for completely different, average people?

I don't even get what your point is. I made the point that it probably makes more sense to save 1% of 15 year olds (or 25 year olds for that matter, considering the other post on how children distort our perspective of morality), than 1% of 80 year olds, or 60 year olds for that matter, given a common situation of scarce resources and the need to make a trade off. (again in cases where resource scarcity doesn't matter, the discussion is irrelevant).

If you want to counter that with the point that 'but some 60 year olds are still productive, look at bill gates, his impact will be tremendous the next decades' then you fail to see how statistically that 60 year old may have already been dead 35 years earlier, and that statistically for every bill gates you'd save at 60, in this hypothetical situation, you'd give up a younger bill gates who now dies at 25, and it may be said that despite his tremendous impact late in life, it doesn't rival his impact earlier in life, and that this (having more impact before 60 than after 60) probably holds true on average, generally speaking. No amount of anecdotal evidence changes that fact.
Sounds cool. Do you have a title or ISBN?
Whatsapp was a good strategic investment. Most of my friends spend more time on Whatsapp then facebook.
It is the same reason people ignore homeless people. How inhumane right?

When you make claims and take up people's time, that's credit. When you don't fulfill that credit with something you promised, you have taken more than you've given.

That upsets people.

So people ignore homeless folks because all they can do is ask for credit without ever fulfilling it.

Some posts on HN are like that - they take up your time by sounding grandiose in this case and then you realize it's just nonsense and you feel like they've not re-paid that credit.

With homeless people, you know they won't pay back so you ignore them. With HN and other data aggregators, you take your chances. Sometimes, you give out so much credit without getting anything back, that you grow frustrated.

People refer to that as click-bait and there are many other forms of growing pains - some of them simply stemming from the fact that you can't please everyone.

Assuming this clears up the confusion you've had for 4 years, I've justified you reading this and earned some future credit :)
Is there a standardized or widespread character set with company logos or coats of arms?
The more they add to, or mess with (depending on one's perspective) Unicode the more it risks becoming an attack vector.

And if this becomes true, then we have to lock everything down, and we're back to ASCII. And then we have to start all over again.
Pretty much number one lesson I've learned in startups is that you can have an amazing product that does brilliant things but if no one knows about it you will fail. You may see good marketing as a con (not sure why, there's no need to be deceptive in marketing), but even brilliant products need marketing or an exceptional amount of luck. Anyone investing in a startup that doesn't have someone who can take the product to market (e.g. market it) is trusting their money to luck - and that is stupid.
Lots of people throw out technical or social reasons for G+ failing, but I'd point to the factor that tends to be one of the most important make-it-or-break-it variables for any new venture's success (according to Bill Gross[1] anyway): timing.

If G+ had been released pre-Facebook (or at least earlier in Facebook's history) I doubt any of those technical points would have been show stoppers. G+ has/had a lot of little advantages over competitors, but none large enough to bring about the mass migration that G+ so desperately needed. With good timing, none of the little annoyances or problems with G+ would have likely mattered. Good product; unfortunate timing - at least with respect to the fundamental product being offered.

[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gross_the_single_biggest_reaso...
> "Simple, isn't it? Now, handling dynamic dispatch is a bit more convoluted, but bare with me!"

The phrase is usually "bear with me". Please don't take your clothes off.

Great discussion of dynamic dispatch, though.
Assets don't just "go away" unless they're encumbered by debt. If you're paying yourself a bloated salary, living frugally, and taking advantage of opportunities to sell things that are ridiculously overvalued, you should not have any trouble building durable wealth in a short time.

It's fine to say that you don't like what I'm saying. It's fine to think it's unethical, or that it harms others. But don't suggest that it doesn't work; it very obviously does.
Why not just invest in an index like one of the Dow Jones sustainability indices? You don't have to bet to do the right thing.
The article touched on this briefly, but my personal opinion about why Google+ failed is because it isn't needed. People who have spent hundreds of hours cultivating their Facebook profiles, building out their networks, etc. had zero reason to switch. Any time I asked a friend to join Google+ the answer was always "Why? Facebook works fine." While people in the tech echo chamber are always searching for new products and new ways to use online services, the vast majority of people simply don't care. Honestly, G+ could have been the best platform in the world and I doubt people would have switched only because what they had already worked.
Realistically though, nobody can now beat facebook at network effects, not big nor small. And that was already the case when G+ was launched. The best you can do is to allow people to try out your system with little investment, and then slowly persuade them to prefer it to the old system.

Buzz failed for very different causes: it was a twitter clone that offered no additional functionality and even compromised your gmail privacy.
> "Vic was just this constant bug in Larry's ear: 'Facebook is going to kill us. Facebook is going to kill us,'" says a former Google executive.

He could also have said: "Apple is going to block ads in their new version of Safari. Soon they will introduce iPhone native search, and nobody will ever see Google again."
Well, CUPS does assembly PDFs nowadays.
By that logic, they never should have shut down Google Reader, though, right?

Reader was my top visited site daily by far. Nothing replaced it.
Google+ missed the chance to become an introvert-style social network. Facebook with its 'Like' buttons and tendency to self-exposure is clearly targeted at extroverts. Google+ could've made its bet on introverts.
Child Pornographers Agree: http://lix.in/ is the Best Link Protection Service.

Kiddieporn links are often posted on dead sites, as well as live sites that are poorly moderated. The actual entertainment media is commonly posted on such image hosts as PicsToPin.

Without link protection, it would not be hard to find the original forum threads.

I have even seen explicit pedophilia at Last.fm.

Link protection as well as filesharing hosts such as rapidshare, depositfiles and oron, as well as image hosts such as imgchili all use multilevel marketing. Imgchili pays five dollars for 1,000 pageviews. You don't even need to create your own content - just repost someone else's. It's better that way because the collectors will already know the relevant search queries.

This wont go away unless you take it out all at once. I am studying some technical measures that hold promise of accomplishingng that. One such technical measure would be to mail snail mail every registered sex offender on the planet some suggested queries for bing image search.

That would result in imgchili's insolvency as well as microsoft's failure to meet its revenue projections.

Child Pornography on the Internet

http://www.warplife.com/jonathan-swift/books/software-proble...
Music Distribution Is a Black Box
Probably something to do with rubbing people's noses in the status/wealth differences, I'd expect. Don't send useless expensive toys out to interact with people in what you know are poor areas (even if, well, you didn't choose that to be where it went).
That is why I said something like Whatsapp could have been a potential Facebook killer. Imagine them gaining users quicker than FB - what they did - and carefully branching out to take usage time away from FB - what you described.
For a great collection of weird old patents, check out https://www.flickr.com/groups/1478617@N25/pool/

A flickr collection by LisaGenius.
Facebook's killer feature, the one everyone uses, is messenger. The timeline is dead, none of my friends really post much anymore, the primary reason people I know still use it is because of the ubiquitous messenger presence. If google went after that with a messenger focused network I think they would have had a great chance at taking over Facebook.
What you're determining to be "needed" wrt design is very draconian and anti-progress. The web was ugly in 95 and appealed to few... progress in all areas -- especially design -- has made it what it is today.
A strong implicit presumption behind Snowden's motives, right or wrong, is that the justice system is sufficiently rigged by the state that he would not receive a fair hearing here.

It's also very reasonable to suppose, as he did, that going about things in the manner that he did was the only way to achieve his stated mission, since, by definition, what he wanted to publicise was highly classified. The downsides for himself, and to whatever extent for diplomacy and national security, were worth it in his eyes. Thus, the idea that he should have instead "[c]hallenge[d] it, [spoken] out, engage[d] in a constructive act of protest" is facile gibberish, and, as to the idea that he should face the consequences in a trial by a jury of his peers, it would be akin to sheep negotiating with the wolves. What was he going to do, hold up a banner that says "[redacted]"?

By the same token, it's ludicrous to expect the American state to pardon Snowden, with or without a petition. Snowden has irretrievably made himself a sworn enemy of the American national security state. The state could not possibly allow its legitimacy and legal supremacy to be undermined by his actions. His situation is not unlike that of politically persecuted activists elsewhere.
It depends on what we call "naval power".

China is probably the country of the planet with more "naval muscle" in fact. The chinese fishership float is huge and vital for their economy (because the very lucrative Chinese Acuaculture depends on the world marine fisheries).

So instead to having a big militar float to justify spending ridiculous amounts of tax money in ruinous wars created here and there, China have a big civil float to earn big money with fisheries and commerce... in the face of the other countries.
This thread has made me think about it again. I think the best way is to somehow give context either inline or throughout the resume, because there isn't a standard. That said, I looked around and came up with a scale for languages this morning.

Expert: Participates in the development and direction of the language or major frameworks, or extremely deep knowledge of some uncommon area of the language's semantics/runtime. Substantial experience developing sophisticated tools/products in that language. Why are you even writing a resume?

Strong: Knowledge that goes beyond what one would expect of a "standard" X programmer.

Proficient: Experience doing professional work on a project in a language without needing to come back up to speed.

Moderate: Able to do real work in a language, but limited depth, or a bit rusty.

Introductory: Still learning. Can write code in the language, but nothing significant.

Self evaluation:

I'm either strong or proficient in Java (I know things about the runtime, compiler optimizations, bytecodes, that aren't everyday knowledge for a typical enterprise Java programmer, but there's so many things I don't know).

I'm proficient at Javascript--did two years of professional work at it in my current company, but nothing special.

I'm either moderate or proficient in Python. I reach for it as a scripting language, but my web development experiments were a few years ago, and I'd be starting from scratch.

I'm moderate at shell scripting.

I'm introductory in Haskell, C, Elisp and AWK.

I wouldn't list my experiments with J, Scheme, Ruby, Rust or PHP at this point.

I confess that I don't know how a resume reader would react to that. It's just the terms that I think in.
It wasn't even armed. What did they expect?!
Yeah, just went searching in my library for it as I couldn't remember the title, though unfortunately there isn't much online for it:

Prague: Detailed Picture Guide

On Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/8086893502/

Here is a listing on an auction site for it that has a few photos of the page detail: http://page13.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/r128671359
But you're talking about this feature, isolated.

You should be thinking about how this feature interacts with every other feature implemented in Unicode. And how, for example, this feature will be brought into an existing Unicode parser.

There's always a straw that breaks the camel's neck. Or just leads to camels' quality to gradually deteriorate, leading to increasing bug rates and camel maintainers' depression.
Then don't be a storage service and just run the API for them to shovel data from point A to point B.

I'm speaking for others, but I'll still say that sometimes we don't want some of the data we post accessible to others. That seems an obvious statement, but I always use Twitter in a way that I find acceptable for sharing data with everyone. Facebook and Google+ are used in that way, but also ways where I selectively share things with people I trust to view the data I post. (To be clear, I don't use Facebook at all.) That's where things get complicated, because the service must enforce rules to keep these people from seeing those people's data. Those rules turn into 'features' and then you have a problem.

A social sharing API doesn't need a ton of features, especially when it's designed to forward the data around to the people that need to see the data. By not storing it, you make things simpler and more resilient to attack.
There are also these https://i.imgur.com/z2wHuvM.jpg [Cherry MX Switch pictured] prints by Inked and Screened. Sometimes available @ Massdrop for a way cheaper price.
The scarce resources implied here is the money that the government spends on medical treatment for the elderly, poor and disabled. Bill Gates obviously could always buy his own medical treatment.
Six things hipsters have ruined
I'm not ignoring anything, I'm describing the philosophy behind sites like these: It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove. [1]

Many seem to believe that there is some secret sauce involved in making web pages load fast. There isn't. Server-side caching is no rocket science. The key is to keep everything so simple that you have the overview over every delivered byte at all times.

Take a look at the HTML of forum.dlang.org. It's so simple, if it wasn't minified, I could immediately start working on this site. When someone asks me to work on some existing wiki or blog template, I usually spend an hour removing unused code first and I still struggle to find my way around the codebase. At that point, maintaining efficiency becomes impossible.

When you have a simple codebase, you may add a font, avatars, and jQuery. The trick is to think about whether you need it, not throw it in "just in case." Specifically, some tiny avatars won't hurt overall performance as long as the page doesn't need to be redrawn. Therefore, always specify width and height attributes for your img elements in HTML or CSS.

[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Antoine_de_Saint_Exup%C3%A9ry#...
I'm not sure that's actually true. There are a few examples of investors putting money in to stupid ideas that eventually fail, but there's also plenty of examples of investments in brilliant, world-changing ideas as well. Take Uber as an example - last September they announced that they're creating 50,000 jobs a month[1]. That's incredible and it'll make a real difference in the world.

Using Yo as an example of investors impeding innovation just highlights the fact you need to look at a sample of more than one investment to see what's going on.

[1] http://www.quora.com/How-many-Uber-drivers-are-there-in-the-...
Great work that evoked a lot of memories for me.

When I was 15, my dad and I bought an Austin Healey Sprite from a junkyard, which in addition to the engine under the bonnet also happened to have a complete spare engine in the passenger seat.

We made a blind guess at which engine was "better", and overhauled that one. It was a great opportunity to learn practical things about cars, but also deeper lessons in patience/gumption (Robert Pirsig, in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, comes across someone who is purchasing an entire motorcycle in loose parts. "He'll know something about motorcycles before he gets those together....and that's the best way to learn, too.").

The only problem was that on reassembly, we couldn't get our newly overhauled engine to start. We tried everything we could think of. We were unfamiliar with the peculiarities of British cars of that era, and it took us more than a few hours to notice and comprehend the words conveniently printed right there on the speedometer: "Positive Earth".

We switched the battery wiring so that the positive terminal connected to the car's ground, and she fired right up....at 2 o'clock in the morning in our suburban garage. What a great memory.

We hadn't yet hooked up the exhaust, so the throaty roar of the engine awakened more than a few neighbors.

Unlike the video shown, we ended up with more than a few leftover parts.

The little 4-cylinder ran just fine without them.
You're right in your approach. However, in the capital market founders don't usually get to dictate their salaries or suck in more of the loot than is absolutely necessary. That's why VCs keep a good portion of the control.

Now this may not be the case always, so yes, a short term plan could work. But I doubt it works reliably enough to be turned into a rule.
Probably just as good as it does in Gatun Lake in the Panama Canal.

Ships would "drag" in very little salt water because the lakes are above sea level. Since locks operate using gravity the water flows back out to sea.
Google+ did not make big mistakes. For example, their mobile experience is much better. People just didn't want to leave the social network most of their friends are on already. Same with Ello. People are lazy. But Google+ pressed Facebook to innovate. We won, Google lost.
Unfortunately, Germany did not. To understand that, one should understand the legal situation in Germany.

By opening such an inquiry the intelligence agencies have the right to intercept all communication with Netzpolitik.org. Additionally, the Generalbundesanwalt, Mr. Range, can do house search or arrests at any time even when he is “halting”.

The bet of the German government here is clear: when the media will go to the next topic there will be no clearing of the situation any more. Freedom of the press then is only a text in a not so often read constitution any more.

Responsible for these actions is German minister of justice, Heiko Maas (SPD). He himself went to the media and gave an interview where he claimed “not to understand why Federal Public Prosecutor Harald Range” is doing that. In reality, he's his boss. Range can do nothing without the minister allowing it.
All these physics-debunking conversations seem to assume a single source. I naively assumed that UBeam will work sort of like the Gamma Knife (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosurgery#Gamma_Knife), where there are many sources that intersect just at your phone or device. This completely changes all the physics assumptions, and is a good reminder to keep an open mind.

That being said, I'd be highly skeptical of the health risks of this technology, especially given the only benefit is convenience.