I'd add on to this to consider using CloudFlare and setting up page rules to cache static HTML so the majority of your anonymous reader traffic is served from their servers and not yours.
819 karma · joined November 22, 2010
Can you give some specifics as to what the tech is behind BitJoy and what your plans for it are?
Looking forward to following the storyline progress.
1. What was your inspiration for the project?
2. You mentioned it was your pet project, how long did it take to develop once you got started?
3. What is the tech stack it is built on?
4. How much data do you have in it now that it is visualizing from, and can you talk about the process of how it determines what to display, refreshes view, etc.
5. I notice that there is a "login" option, and the ability for users to create "calendars". Can you give a brief summary / pitch of where you would like to see this go?
6. What is your favorite flavor of cupcake?
That aside, even the resulting product does not seem to fit the "originality" test:
"Revisions, annotations or other cosmetic alterations to the work do not qualify as originality; the work must be unique to the author, using only minor elements of other copyrights. The court generally defines this as 'distinguishable variation' between the two works. In other words, the works must be obviously substantially different for the change to be considered transformative under law."
While the annotation layer is certainly unique and distinguishable, the lyrics are not "transformed" into a distinguishable variation, they are left in their original state on their site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lyrics_Server
"On January 14, 1999, Swiss police raided de Vries' apartment and the service's ISP and seized equipment in pursuit of a criminal copyright violation complaint filed on behalf of eight music publishing companies including Polygram, EMI, and Estefan Enterprises. Although the industry succeeded in taking down this service (and turning many music fans to dislike the industry), the Internet proved more powerful than the industry, and song lyrics are now freely available on many similar sites."
If their site had no lyrics, they would have no traffic and as a result no funding.
What do you mean by it being different than 99% of lyric databases?
Are you implying that 99% of the lyric databases copy their content from somewhere or the site admins themselves enter the content themselves?
Does that really make a difference since the end result would be identical (both in content and in execution) in that they are hosting and displaying copyrighted content that they are not licensed for, regardless of what the originating source was.
2. This confuses me. Unless the labels are licensing/legally approving of the use of the content, isn't just allowing it to happen weakening their case against sites they are not so friendly with?
1. Why this site? There are many of these "fan sub" sites, this is not nearly the largest. Why was this site singled out? Is it there location?
2. How is this different from lyric sites, which in many cases are not even translating, but rather transcribing word for word in the native language. While they are thousands of these sites big and small, Rap Genius comes to mind as a local relevant site to position as an example.
1. There is no indication in the upgrade process that the upgrade would "take a few hours to complete". Quite the opposite, it indicated there would be no downtime.
2. The customer service reps seems to have little insight into what was happening with the account which is a bit scary. I'm always nervous of black hole "processing windows" where all you can do is wait and hope for the best. It's bad when it is customer facing, it's worse when it is customer service facing.
3. Upgrading on the weekend could potentially be more troubling given that customer service may not be staffed with the quantity/quality to fix issues if they occur. Not saying this is or is not the case for Google, but running into problems on a Saturday morning and getting a "call us back during normal business hours" is just as troublesome.
What should have happened in my opinion?
1. Google should document that there can be a temporary delay of x - x hours while the upgrade happens.
2. Florian should have scheduled the upgrade ahead of time with the team, letting them know that worse case there may be an outage of 'x' minutes/hours/days.
3. Google customer service should have better tools as to upgrade process for both the admin (customer) and customer service rep so that it is not a black hole of 'wait and hope'. Even a step 1 of x, or you are number # in queue, or estimated time, etc.
wait, I've built our entire business model on top of this feature you can't go all Google Reader on me now ;-)
In all seriousness, any hints on how this is brewing internal and the possibility of something non-lab in the future?
We are a media production company with web, mobile, tv and magazine properties. We are seeking a freelancer to help us design and develop a new Android application. This application will display content originating from WordPress as well as displaying related images and videos from 3rd party sources (Facebook images, YouTube videos). It is important that the application load quickly and cache content for offline usage. We prioritize minimalism, speed and ease of use over features.
Interested, Great! Questions, Sure! You can email me directly @ frank [at] actercompany [dot] com To help make sure I see your email, please help me out by:
1.Including [HN-ANDROID] in the subject line of your email <- this will ensure it makes it to the right place!
2. Include any experience relevant to this project. Links to blog, portfolio, previous projects, git, linkedin,etc will be helpful.
I respect your time and am thankful for all inquiries. I’ll return the favor by making sure that everyone that does the above gets a response.
We are a media production company with web, mobile, tv and magazine properties. We are seeking a freelancer to help us build extend our internal analytics. This will include regular polling to 3rd party APIs to aggregate data (Facebook API, Google Analytic API) , a backend dashboard with actionable alerts and a public facing leaderboard. Experience with the Facebook and Google Analytic API a plus as is any experience building out analytic, stock tracking or sport stat tracking sites.
Interested, Great! Questions, Sure! You can email me directly @ frank [at] actercompany [dot] com To help make sure I see your email, please help me out by:
1.Including [HN-ANALYTICS] in the subject line of your email <- this will ensure it makes it to the right place!
2. Include any experience relevant to this project. Links to blog, portfolio, previous projects, git, linkedin,etc will be helpful.
I respect your time and am thankful for all inquiries. I’ll return the favor by making sure that everyone that does the above gets a response.
Filters could also be a consideration for future (ie. popular things like black and white background with a color foreground)
Consider partial comparison for multi-word answers.
2. Consider an acceptable range and a max queue time.
Example:
Post when hits 60 points or 30 points after 4 hours. This ensures it gets posted while the content is still fresh by allowing you to set a less aggressive low end for when you hit a specified wait time.
3. Would be interesting to see average (or mean?) for a given day and time slot as a base value to compare to current.
4. Consider the free users to schedule a post at a higher point threshold (> 30) for a set one time fee, but only payable if the post actually makes it to the homepage.
1. So your stance is that Anthony, the CEO and Founder of Kaggle, is mistaken about the rules and execution of the 2 phase competition that his company is running, even after 8 days of his company communicating back and forth in email correspondence with you?
2. In the forum you initially state:
"As I have been saying over email repeatedly over the past 8 days, and yesterday on the phone with you and the Sorkin, there is no checkbox to check!"
..then later state:
"What on earth is a checkbox doing on the submission screen of a two phase competition? There is no ambiguity - there is only a single file type that is valid for the final leaderboard file. Why on earth is your software not smart enough to figure that out?"
and later:
"I submitted exactly one final submission. At this point the checkboxes should not matter"
and in your reply above state:
"I did not check a checkbox because I did not believe it applied"
While I'm not familiar with all of the intricacies of the competition, conflicting statements like those have me a bit confused over this whole thing.
3. $30k is a lot of money, so I sympathize with you for missing out on that given that your algorithm is better than what the final results suggest. That being said, the other entrants that won competed using the same submission process that you did, was it just bad luck that your entry was not accepted in the manner you had expected or why did they not also encounter this submission bug?
4. Is this your first two phase competition with Kaggle? Was this competition executed different than other competitions? I ask as you seem surprised/confused about this "checkbox" that appears to be at the center of the controversy.
--
In reading Anthony response, this seems less about a "bug" but more about you not being happy with the results and blaming the complexity of the submission and selection process.
This part of his response seems fairly clear:
"The submission page stated: “Note: You can select up to 1 submission that will be used to calculate your final leaderboard score. If you do not select them, up to 1 entry will be chosen for you based on your most recent submissions. Your final score will not be based on the same exact subset data as the public leaderboard, but rather a different private data subset of your full submission. Your public score is only a rough indication of what your final score might be. You should choose an entry that will most likely be best overall, and not necessarily just on the public subset.”
During the course of the competition, you made 23 submissions of which 3 were selected for leaderboard scoring. First you selected submission 242748 on January 7, 2013 (all times UTC). You unselected that submission on January 24, 2013 and selected submission 250852. You unselected that submission on January 26, 2013 and selected submission 252143. You did not revise that selection at the time of your final submission. It seems logical to conclude that you understood the process of selecting submissions. Three of the other winners selected their final submission for scoring. The two that did not select the final submission had not previously made a manual selection or had unchecked prior submissions and the software worked as designed and selected the final submission. One participant (but not a winner) made 3 final submissions and selected one for scoring - which was the case the software for selecting a response was intended to handle. There was no bug in the software. "
While unfortunate for you, it is worth noting that all of the competitors had to follow the same set of submission guidelines to be considered. Your response becomes a debate on how you “feel” the submission process should work, as opposed to indicating a “bug” in the software.
“What on earth is a checkbox doing on the submission screen of a two phase competition? There is no ambiguity - there is only a single file type that is valid for the final leaderboard file. Why on earth is your software not smart enough to figure that out?
Also - why didn't the default selection logic kick in? Because only final leaderboard files are valid for the final submission, why didn't your software pick the only valid option?”
1. frames cost more so harder to flip
2. frames typically have a serial number (equivalency of a VIN) which make them trackable for theft.