DanielStraight

Indeed. This has been the wording since at least May of 2013:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130518184355/http://www.sublim...

It's just saying that licenses don't automatically carry over to the next major version. It says nothing about if and when there will actually be a next major version.

See also: http://opencuny.org/laurenspradlin/the-morphophonology-of-to...

The presentation is really good: http://opencuny.org/laurenspradlin/files/2016/01/Totes-LSA-S...

This is really interesting too, from the same author: http://opencuny.org/laurenspradlin/class/ It's basically a phonology version of the card game Set.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say. My understanding is that we are talking about face-to-face interaction with a clearly frustrated person. Why wouldn't you know they were frustrated?

You can empathize with their feelings regardless the reason for them. If they are frustrated, you understand feeling frustrated, so empathize. If they are angry, you understand feeling angry, so empathize. The precise reason doesn't matter.

This is a pretty good list:

https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders

If we could rebuild the internet from scratch knowing that someone would try to do this, what measures could be put in place to make it impossible to MITM traffic (in other words, make it so the only option is to install monitoring software directly on the user's machine)? Is this something which even can be defeated with current cryptographic theory?

This is really cool and really well done. You should probably put the link to the GitHub page on it and add a LICENSE file to specify if it's open source though!

It would also be really nice to have a feature to hide the points and control points to see what you've made more clearly.

GitHub link for others: https://github.com/anthonydugois/svg-path-builder

Worth noting that the Dechoker covers a wider age range. LifeVac says not recommended under 40 pounds (probably age 3-5), Dechoker goes down to 6 months with the toddler version.

To clarify, my intention wasn't to say that the criticism wasn't warranted, just that it wasn't the right way to phrase it as a letter to the people involved. In a blog post directed to a general audience, it wouldn't come off as harshly, but if I imagine the principal of this school opening it and reading it... it's a different story.

And maybe I read it wrong and you weren't actually sending this letter and that was just a stylistic choice, but my impression was that you had actually sent (or were planning to send) this letter to the people involved, and that's where I say kudos on actually doing something about it instead of just reading about it as most people will do; I just want to try to increase the chances of them responding how we would hope they would respond.

Finally, thank you for the reply and for receiving my comment in the spirit in which it was intended.

I appreciate the effort and kudos on being proactive, but this is not an effective way of talking to someone whose mind you are hoping to change. This will be read in a positive light only by people who already agree with the author and are already upset about the situation.

In the very first paragraph, the author mocks the people he's talking to ("Much to my surprise, this was not a satire article on The Onion"). Then he resorts to hyperbole ("inexplicably horrifying"), diverges from the topic at hand to get in a jab at someone else ("as much as I like to criticize our New York Police Department"), resorts to sarcasm ("Congratulations"), insults the people he's talking to ("such a severe lapse of applicable common sense"), and finally basically blames them for the downfall of a whole country ("Reading news stories like this makes me quite ashamed to be an American; I want to love my country and all that it stands for, but as long as this is the new precedent that we are setting, I can no longer do so.").

This style of writing is great for riling up people who already agree with you, but it's not effective at reaching people who don't. If you want to reach someone, you need to respect them, listen, assume honesty and good intentions, focus on the issue not the individual, and all the other aphorisms you've heard about dealing with other people. It does no good to put the person you are trying to persuade on the defensive.

Or in one sentence: You catch more flies with honey.

> Just because we have found a way to uniquely identify cords does not mean it will lead to a uniform distribution.

This is the sentence that helped me understand the paradox.

Perhaps this analogy will help. Think about how technically picking a value at random from a normal distribution can result in any value at all, extending to infinity in both directions, but that doesn't mean all values are equally likely. Every real number can be uniquely expressed as a number of standard deviations from mean in a normal distribution, but that still has a bias.

Does it dispense directly into the cup or into a bag?

I know some people leave their tea in their cup the whole time they're drinking, but I find it's really best to control steeping time and limit it to a few minutes.

Original research has much better information:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

For example, the far simpler method of soaking and then just using more water and draining the rice.

> Traditional S.E. Asian methods of rice cooking involved extensive rinsing of the uncooked grain followed by cooking the rice in a large excess of water and discarding that water on cessation of cooking and this was found to reduce Asi content of food by up to 45% [10] and 57% [8] when Asi free water was used.

When it was colored orange, nearly half thought it was flavored orange.

When it was colored green, none did (think it was flavored orange).

So the color alone made people perceive an orange taste in an actually lime-flavored drink.

"Who's hiring" is now an official feature of HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9635551

I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree, but this is worth reading:

http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2012/07/a-few-short-step...

Note: I know absolutely nothing about the author of this piece. The writing stands on its own and is a series of interesting thought experiments attempting to justify revenge.

Obviously this is not directly relevant to the posted article, but just on a philosophical level.

The classic essay Big Ball of Mud is relevant as well:

http://www.laputan.org/mud/mud.html

> You're probably going to need to deal with the WhatsApp legal team very soon.

And for good reason. Remember that trademarks are a consumer protection policy to avoid confusion. I was certainly confused at first. If it wasn't for the "Show HN" on the title, I might still be confused. The product name is "WhatsApp for Desktop", the page includes links back to whatsapp.com for the user to find more information, pictures copied directly from whatsapp.com (itself a fairly obvious copyright violation), and the file that's downloaded is called WhatsAppSetup.exe.

It is quite reasonable to think that someone could think this was official, easily missing the fine print that clarifies.

I strongly suggest anyone releasing software on the internet familiarize themselves with the relevant laws on trademark and copyright so they can avoid mistakes like this. There is no way this could stand up to legal scrutiny. Naming your product AnotherCompany PrepositionalPhrase is not something which presents an interesting legal debate, it's an amateur mistake.

I am not a lawyer. This comment is not legal advice.

You need to talk to a lawyer, not a random assortment of anonymous HN readers.

This is addressed in the article.

"However, if potential cyclists see everyone else in their community wearing helmets while riding a bike, it communicates that biking is a dangerous activity that requires special protective gear."

One of the author's reasons for not wearing a helmet is the image that wearing a helmet projects. The personal decision to wear or not wear a helmet affects the perception of non-cyclists, which in turn affects the number of cyclists. Or at least so goes the theory.

As an aside, since a lot of people seem to not have noticed and assumed otherwise by default: The author is female.

If you were writing the code on a contractual basis for the company, then they presumably own the code. If you produced a piece of software and then licensed it to them, you would still own the code, but that does not sound like the case here.

So, presumably they own the code, which means they can do whatever they want with it. The best you can likely do is advise them that it may provide them a competitive advantage to not allow other companies to use the same code. The other contractors involved will definitely not own the code. They will only be able to use it as dictated by the company for which you wrote it.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.

Thank you for putting into clear words my gut impression that this wouldn't produce the intended result.

I wonder if you couldn't do better with binary questions. I'm reminded of the site http://www.correlated.org/.

Suppose you were to ask a bunch of binary questions, and then use some statistics to find questions that have fairly evenly distributed and non-correlated results, then take 24 of the best questions by those criteria (arbitrary, but 2^24 = 8^8) and find matches.

So basically, ask a whole bunch of binary questions, find ones with roughly 50-50 answers that don't correlate with each other, make the match-ups based on those and ignore the others.

So... is this group text to contacts who are within some radius by GPS position?

Java is widespread. Whether it's important or not depends on the project. It's not so much that Java has a steep learning curve, it's that Java has the Java way of doing things (namely, object-oriented programming taken to the extreme) and you are required to do things that way. It's less flexible than Python in the way you can write your code. You have to have a firm grasp of object-oriented programming to do anything in Java. There's a lot of theory you have to learn just to get started, which in Python can just be brushed aside until you're ready to tackle it.

And with Java, you're probably going to need a heavyweight IDE instead of just being able to use a plain text editor or a REPL or other interactive environment (which Java doesn't have).

Python 3.

It is fairly simple to learn. It is cross-platform. It is suitable for server-side programming. It has an extensive standard library and an active ecosystem for additional libraries. It has IPython. It uses, and therefore helps you learn, but does not force object-oriented programming. It has enough functional programming to let you explore that concept. It is widespread and easy to find support for. It has numerous tutorials taking a wide variety of approaches, you can easily find something that works for you. It has more active projects on GitHub than any language but JavaScript or Java (http://githut.info/).

Why not Python 2? Python 3 is better out of the box (comes with pip, has better standard libraries) and more consistent. As a new programmer, you won't need anything that's limited to Python 2.

Why not JavaScript? It's too strange. Most of what you learn in Python is fairly applicable across languages. JavaScript has a strange object model, doesn't distinguish int/float, has odd rules for scoping (var/no var, hoisting), has too many ways to do the same things (function / var f = function, new Object() / {} / Object.create), has a confusing concept of 'this'. Learning JavaScript will not help other mainstream languages click the way Python will.

Why not Ruby? Ruby and Python are, from a new programmers' perspective, completely equivalent, but Python seems to be winning the popularity contest, so you'll likely find more libraries, more tutorials, more help, etc. Ruby also tends to be more web-focused and thus less general-purpose (by the numbers, not by any technical limitation).

Why not C/C++? They are simply too low level for someone who isn't interested in programming full-time.

Why not Java? Java is improving but is historically bloated and incredibly verbose. You have deal with compilation and probably need an IDE. You absolutely must use object-oriented programming. Support for functional programming is either effectively non-existent or simply not as smooth depending on which version of Java you're using. Too much overhead (in terms of what you have to understand and deal with) for small, simple programs.

Why not Go or Rust? Too new to have thorough support. Uncertain future.

Why not Haskell / Clojure / Erlang / Factor / etc / etc / etc? Too esoteric for a new programmer.

Why not Objective-C or Swift? Too limited in scope.

Why not C#? Actually, if you're on Windows, this is a pretty good choice, but it's not fully cross-platform (yet) and doesn't have the variety of choices for server-side programming that Python does. It also doesn't have as extensive a set of open source libraries.

I really like this idea, but I think it's a shame they included Brainfuck. A deck of cards with programming snippets could be a great appropriate-for-all-settings way to promote interest in programming, but once you put Brainfuck on there (which aside from being crude is entirely impractical), the deck is only usable in certain circles. I can't use it with my young kids. I can't use it with more conservative friends.

It's like you took one card from Cards Against Humanity and mixed it into your Apples to Apples set (the original, family-friendly game on which Cards Against Humanity was modeled). Suddenly, you can only play Apples to Apples in situations in which you could also play Cards Against Humanity.

There's little to be gained from the inclusion of Brainfuck and a lot to be lost. If they wanted to include an esoteric language, there were plenty of others to pick from.

Note: Page loads icons which could be considered NSFW.

Simple, useful, and well executed.

Thanks for sharing! (or... Mübadiləsi üçün təşəkkür edirik!)

My one thought is that string length in pixels is more important than character count, but you sidestep that issue by showing all the results. You can easily see if one is longer even though it has fewer characters.

This is not a good analogy. McDonald's and Ruth's Chris are not direct competitors, they are targeting completely different markets. Android and iOS are in direct competition.

If we have to use a food analogy, I would propose Starbucks and a competing coffee shop. Almost all the major players in app development make corresponding Android and iOS versions of their apps. Imagine if Twitter or Snapchat only had an iOS or only had an Android app. Similarly, customers expect to have certain things available at all coffee shops, regardless the brand behind them: cappuccinos, flavored syrups, alternative milk choices, etc. So a better analogy would be one coffee shop chain not supplying their stores with espresso machines, or flavored syrups, or alternate milk choices... or maybe just not letting them have refrigerators at all to keep milk cold.

The prevalence of orders for highly-sweetened, cold, milk-based drinks at Starbucks almost certainly means that customers would order the same thing at similarly positioned coffee shops if it was available, and indeed most coffee shops offer such drinks now.

There is no reason to think that somehow Android users are in such a different market that they would have no interest in these apps on Android even though in almost every other case platform parity is expected from large players in the app market.

You are about to hit dictionaries and objects, which are quite new. Later you'll build a game and a website.

Stick with it. You've made it this far and the pace quickens as you get closer to the end.