ColdHawaiian

The title of the article says "Human memory-saving devices", but none of the devices actually store any memories. They're currently just being designed to help people form and retrieve new memories by stimulating certain parts of the brain.

You can read it at the Way Back Machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140618142018/http://blog.42flo...

Here's the Wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_of_Mana. I never played the game myself, but the article mentions that mana was used as "spell points", and that

> The story takes place in a fictional world where mana represents an ethereal, but finite, energy source.

Do you have a hobby? Something that you like to do for fun? Hobbies that you can share with other people are a great way to make and keep friends. You might even find a girl friend through a hobby.

Your hobby can be anything. For me, it's dancing. For other people, it might be video games. Take your pick. There are a lot of cool things to do out there in the world. Go out there and explore, meet people.

For example, Polaris is a YouTube network of people who generally like to play video games: https://www.youtube.com/user/Polaris. It's a bunch of friends (and business partners) who all share a love of video games and games in general. So even something like video games can be a vehicle for making friends (and meeting girls), if that's your thing.

Boston | Willing to work remotely or relocate to New York City | Full Time

Stack: Proficient ASP.NET MVC, Beginner Ruby on Rails

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/keokizee

Careers 2.0: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/keokizee

Contact: cold.boston.hawaiian+hnjobs@gmail.com

4 years of professional web development. I was laid off December 2013 during company-wide layoffs at my previous job. I've been teaching myself Angular.JS, Ruby, and Ruby on Rails in the meantime, as well as answering questions on Stack Overflow, and editing existing questions and answers to make them more useful and easier to find for future readers.

I see, thank you. I'm sorry that I forgot to put "[video]" in the original title too, but of course that doesn't matter anymore.

Open source Hacker News. I think the community can get together and talk about new features (maybe on GitHub pull-requests and/or on HN itself, or maybe a Discourse forum instance), and get those features implemented quickly.

Please provide more tools to help users moderate their own comments. In particular, I think the following features are sorely needed:

1. The ability to delete your own comments indefinitely, instead of having a window of only a few hours within which to delete your own comments.

2. The ability to flag your own comments for moderation.

I suppose one possible reason for not allowing comment deletion after a certain amount of time is that it forces people to really only make high-quality comments, otherwise they'll be downvoted and they won't be able to do anything about it after a few hours.

But if you're trying to improve the quality of Hacker News threads with high-quality comments, then I argue that it's counter-productive to force low-quality comments to remain by not allowing users to self-delete them after `X` hours.

Both Reddit and Stack Overflow allow users to delete their own comments indefinitely. Heck, Stack Overflow even encourages you to delete your own comments, if they don't contribute useful information to a post.

In case anyone goes searching the source for this comment right away before reading it the whole way through on Hacker News, it says at the bottom that it will only show up 50% of the time, so if you don't see it the first time, keep refreshing the page until it shows up in the source.

Why did I get a downvote? Seriously, when I searched "So this guy we just interviewed" in the page source, I didn't get any results. Did I miss something?

For the curious, these are the languages of the example Hello World programs:

* Brainfuck[0]:

    >+++++++++[<++++++++>-]<.>+++++++[<++++>-]<+.+++++++..+++.[-]
    >++++++++[<++++>-] <.>+++++++++++[<++++++++>-]<-.--------.+++
    .------.--------.[-]>++++++++[<++++>- ]<+.[-]++++++++++.

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck

* This one I googled, it's called Ook![1][2]:

    Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
    Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
    Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook? Ook.
    Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
    Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook?
    Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
    Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
    Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
    Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook.
    Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook? Ook. Ook! Ook.
    Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
    Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook.
    Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
    Ook. Ook? Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook? Ook. Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook.
    Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
    Ook! Ook. Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook.
    Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook!
    Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook!
    Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
    Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook.

[1]: http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/ook.html [2]: http://esolangs.org/wiki/ook!

* This one is in Perl[3]:

    #:: ::-| ::-| .-. :||-:: 0-| .-| ::||-| .:|-. :||
    open(Q,$0);while(<Q>){if(/^#(.*)$/){for(split('-',$1)){$q=0;for(split){s/\|
    /:.:/xg;s/:/../g;$Q=$_?length:$_;$q+=$q?$Q:$Q*20;}print chr($q);}}}print"\n";
    #.: ::||-| .||-| :|||-| ::||-| ||-:: :|||-| .:|

[3]: http://mysite.verizon.net/les.peters/id2.html

Are you sure that's in the source for the blog post? Because I don't actually see it in there, I searched for "so this guy" and "interviewed" too.

The key concept that you need to truly understand how Git works is to just remember that Git is just a tree of commits, with temporary and movable Post-it notes attached. (The Post-it notes representing branches and other references).

I would like it if HN could be divided into separate sub-topics, or have each submission tagged with a few topical tags, like "web development", "javascript", "compilers", "linux", "graphics", etc. For bonus points, allow HN to be customized for each user so that they can subscribe to their favorite topics, which then populate the front-page and /best page.

I find that keeping up with news on HN is essential to me learning new things and becoming more skilled in my field. However, HN caters to a wide variety of interests, and it is time-consuming to have to sift through a bunch of posts on topics that I'm not really interested in.

It would facilitate more convenient discussion if you had the option of getting notifications that someone has replied to your submission or comment. Along those lines, it would be cool to be able to "subscribe" to a thread and receive notifications whenever someone posts a reply to anyone.

The notifications can be on the site itself, like a little box in the corner that shows the number of unread notifications, Facebook/StackOverflow/Google+ style. And/or set up notifications as emails (though personally, I already get tons of spam in my inbox, I'd rather just have on-site notifications).

> I couldn't agree more. I've gone on and on endless rants on how people in the computer science/software engineering field (including but not limited to SO users) usually avoid "unusual" questions by asking what is it exactly you're trying to do, instead of being objective and answering.

I can't say that this is generally always the case, but when people ask "what is it exactly you're trying to do?", it's often because they're trying to figure out if you have an XY Problem[0].

[0]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/66378/163250

> Start thinking for yourselves, ditch this shit before it’s too late and learn how to write some actual fucking code. The information is out there, you can do it. If you need handholding with factories and providers and service provider factories then consider that the world doesn’t need your bullshit code and go and get a job you’re actually good at. Stop ruining it for the rest of us.

It's unfortunate that this post was written in a provocative manner with a very inflammatory tone, because once you look past its rant-y nature, I think it raises an interesting argument.

From what I could tell, the gist of the post seems to be that instead of relying on someone else's pre-made, out-of-the-box general framework solution (which you have to heavily configure to your specific needs, and is so complicated that you end up needing to hire highly trained consultants), you can create simpler, more elegant solutions simply by writing them yourself from scratch.

I'm not going to agree nor disagree with that argument, I'm only trying to state what I think the gist of it is.

FYI, here is an Ars Technica article that talks about the break-in into the Linux Kernel, and Git's role in revealing the tampering[1].

[1]: http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/who-rooted-kernel-or...

Apparently there are other Easter Eggs in git as well. I tried the one in [this blog post][0] but couldn't get it to work. If you do `git grep "Yeeah"` in a clone of the Git repo though, you'll definitely see that the line is still there, even in version 1.9.0.

[0]: http://gal.steinitz.com/blog/2011/06/18/easter-egg-cause-git...

Why is this a big deal? One of the changes is that your reputation on Meta Stack Overflow is now based off your reputation on Stack Overflow, instead of being independent[1]. So now you no longer gain or lose reputation on Meta Stack Overflow for questions and answers you post there, though people can still upvote and downvote your posts.

[1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212631/stack-overflo...

However, the new Meta Stack Exchange maintains its own reputation system, so reputation there still works the same way it did on the old Meta Stack Overflow.

TL;DR (Summary)

There's currently a debate going on right now on Meta Stack Overflow (the new one, if you didn't hear about the spin-off of Meta Stack Exchange[0]) about whether or not highly upvoted, accepted, link-only answers should be deleted or not. One of the alternatives proposed is to turn them into comments instead.

For additional context, see

1. How should accepted link-only answers be handled?[1].

2. Your answer is in another castle: when is an answer not an answer?[2].

Edit: if you want your voice heard, now is the time to speak. Go vote, or comment, or write your own proposed solution.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7626264

[1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/251514/456814

[2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/225370/163250

I guess a better measure of contributions would be number of distinct features implemented and number of bugs fixed.

> All of those questions have a massive amount of upvotes, i.e., the community thought they were interesting, well written, and, mots importantly, useful. All closed as "off-topic" or "not constructive." Give me a break. This is the crap I'm talking about. A bunch of self-important people with nothing better to do than enforce the rules in as strict a manner as possible regardless of whether or not what they are doing is actually making the site a better place.

Don't have time to look through all of your examples, but I took a look at the first one. It's an open-ended question that doesn't have a single, definitive answer. It will generate discussion forever. That's the reason that it was closed (emphasis mine):

> As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit...polling, or extended discussion.

Joel Spolsky and Jeff Atwood have a very strict and specific philosophy/opinion regarding what kind of questions and answers make for a "good" Questions & Answers site. There are numerous blog and Meta StackOverflow posts talking about this philosophy. The idea behind suppressing extended discussion is that it makes it harder to find practical answers to actual, real-world problems when they're buried underneath a sea of un-focused discussion.

EDIT:

I think the generalization of community moderators on StackOverflow as "self-important" isn't entirely correct, nor am I convinced that it's even relevant either. Are there self-important people moderating StackOverflow? Probably, but that doesn't address the fact that people are following strict guidelines for usage of the site that were agreed upon over time by the site's founders, together with the most active participants of the site (or at least, those who most actively chose to participate in Meta).

These guidelines were put in place to "make the site better", at least in the opinion of the founders and the aforementioned participants of Meta. They weren't made up so that a bunch of "self-important" people could feel "self-important".

Yeah, I was thinking about whether or not bacteria and other harmful microorganisms could grow in the water that collected too. I suppose, if nothing else, it could be boiled before consumption.

One of the first things I noticed as I skimmed over some of the tweets was that if the discussion had been started with a blog post that detailed all the arguments at the start, some of the back and forth elaboration of points (as well as the bickering and insults) could possibly have been avoided. But of course, that's just me looking at it in hindsight. To Zed, maybe it was just something that he saw and quickly tweeted about, without giving a second thought about what could ensue afterwards.

Also, I think this is on point[1].

[1]: https://twitter.com/_s_e_r_g_e_/status/454783233377312770

There's a really interesting Ted Talk by Taylor Wilson (perhaps the world's youngest nuclear scientist, and definitely a child prodigy) on thorium reactors as a safer alternative to uranium and plutonium reactors[1].

Apparently there's also this talk[2] by Kirk Sorensen, but I haven't seen that one yet.

[1]: http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wilson_my_radical_plan_for_s...

[2]: http://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternativ...

Spaces are in fact often, if not always, an allowed character for passwords, at least in Microsoft/Windows systems. See "Use Spaces in Your Windows Password for Extra Security"[1].

[1]: http://lifehacker.com/5733535/use-spaces-in-your-windows-pas...

For what it's worth, that earlier Hacker News discussion regarding the Google case can be found at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7524473.

When I was thinking of the question that I posed, I had engineering in mind. The link was interesting though, thank you.

Which SE site though? That question is totally open-ended, it could generate answers forever. One of the key philosophies of the Stack Exchange sites is to suppress extended discussion.