surreal

This is the most clever I've seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8

He ensures his opponent has nothing to gain from defecting...

(Rules etc until 2m 30s, then the game)

The second question doesn't even have to be "What is the population of New York State" – a follow-up of just "How about the State" / "I meant the State" is transformed on-screen into "What is the population of New York State" (despite "New York" and "population" not being mentioned the second time). Similarly "where's the nearest Chili's" followed by "phone them", for example.

Your linked example is drastically different. Although the merchant only sees a virtual card number, Google sees, stores and charges your real credit card number the old-fashioned way.

Could you elaborate on the dozens of identical systems? I haven't yet managed to find one where no one except the credit card networks can see my CC number (and I thought the tokenization spec was only released 6 months ago...)

The 18 Mistakes That Kill Startups by Paul Graham http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html

Really nice.

I'll throw mine in too then – an "analog" clock drawn by 64 fast-moving LEDs: http://www.thisissurreal.com/shai/hologram/hologram.html (clock is at the bottom)

In theory (at least that part of) the process should work internationally. It is worth noting though that Google Wallet, which has worked with MasterCard PayPass terminals since 2011, is still only available for US devices with US SIM cards.

Well done, it's great. With which tools?

Sorry for the ambiguity - I was asking re the video not the web site :)

This is one of the most effective, informative and attractive landing pages I've seen as a Show HN. The video in particular is short, to the point and effective (aside: did you outsource it or produce it yourself? With which tools?). As a result I'm tempted to give the product a go even though I don't have a web site I need to build with it.

It's a shame, in a way, that the "your mother could do it" in the title is what's getting most of the attention here – really shows the importance of choosing your words carefully.

That's still $60 a year, which is at least double the price of a simple reliable shared hosting package. The shared hosting has other conveniences too. I'm not saying it's without downsides, but there are cases for choosing it, and therefore for choosing PHP.

Well done. Would you mind sharing details of how you got your press coverage?

This is an interesting point, but it assumes that one's 'purpose' in life is to work. That's a pretty sweeping assumption, and one which the guilt is predicated on.

Any idea why you feel this way? Would it not be just as valid to say that one's purpose in life might be, for example, enjoyment? Or helping others (not necessarily through a job)? In which case you should feel pretty guilty about going to work for 40 of your precious hours each week..!

I'm certainly not saying there's a right answer here, by the way.

Agreed (and can't really see the abbreviations being a problem – I'd rather have more space to see the game). The only other thing I can possibly think to change in BBC's design is the colour contrast when Netherlands play in orange – NED is shown in white on orange[1], which isn't as easy to read as black on orange. But that's really nitpicking.

ITV, on the other hand (who have the other ~50% of games in the UK), does have pretty bad design in the top-left corner – flags instead of shirt colours so don't know who's who, red cards sometimes drawn on top of red flags without any separation ([2] – there is a red card poking out of the right-hand-side of the Belgium flag!)

[1] http://snag.gy/D9fP4.jpg

[2] http://snag.gy/k9vN8.jpg

Nope, it tells you which team is playing at its home stadium (or in the case of games played on neutral ground, the team that is designated the 'home' team by e.g. a raffle).

At half time the teams swap sides, the order of teams on screen doesn't

I seem to remember a schoolgirl developing a project to do exactly that, a few months ago on HN. Trying to dig it out now, unless anyone else can chime in?

Again, sorry, I've got to point you back to the original article. The author explains the details of reCAPTCHA's known/unknown word-pair clearly, as you have done, but goes on to explain that the impossible-to-read word was actually reCAPTCHA's "known word", so the CAPTCHA was impossible to pass.

The original article was specifically about reCAPTCHA, not homebrews, and how difficult they now are (something I've also noticed lately). Either give it a (re-)read, or if you're saying you were able to easily read the examples in the article please share the answers! :)

That's what it seems like - In the 3-4 years I've used them (usually to see whether there's a scene after the credits, which last time I looked was a paid feature but may now be free again) they've seemed to stay pretty good at it.

( Typo, Sequel Pro's URL has been put for Alfred App. For convenience it's http://www.alfredapp.com )

Although they do seem to be backtracking on this stance with yesterday's iCloud Drive announcement [1], giving access to the filesystem they've been trying to hide away for the last few years

[1] http://m.techradar.com/news/software/applications/apple-chal...

Looks to me like the $ signs are acting as delimiters, and that that hash is made up of:

cipher/hash: pbkdf2_sha256

cost factor: 12000

salt: zhMKabMgayvK

hash: iniviUCcX9y2PYJcm0AoB3MhybRA1z2Cec1DZnLWxWc=

This exact technique (pretty much) is described here: http://exyr.org/2011/hashing-passwords/. It's a decent, secure way to hash passwords.

Cost factor of 12000 seems solid to me (depends on the hardware they're running on but I'd say brute forcing your way through that would be pretty impossible)

Some helpful tips, thanks William. It would be helpful if you explained WHY these are better than jsfiddle though - I'm not disputing that they may well be, but most of the points you list apply to jsfiddle too making your opening remarks a little confusing. What do these do better?

Why has an exclamation mark vomited all over their patent.

There are challenges, and there are avoidable challenges. If a given challenge (e.g., for this author, being in London) can be avoided then the right thing to do is to avoid it. I'm sure there will be more than enough challenges left for him to relish.

Don't get me wrong, I lean towards the "Telegram's security is a joke and the contest is even more so" camp. I was commenting solely on the specific issue: that if someone uncovers a flaw in your software and you pay out in order to get some good publicity, the fact remains that you've still done a good thing by paying out.

So what? They're still doing it.

Unless it turned out they'd set the whole thing up, which would be different.

Remember

  (?!....) 

is a lookaround, so it matches 0 characters. So

  ^(?!....)$ 

will only match an empty string! (Think about it). Try

  ^(?!....$) 

instead (the $ anchor inside the lookaround)

Nice find. It works because it rejects "2 or more x's" repeated "2 or more times". So xx doesn't get rejected, but any multiple of that (xxxx, xxxxxx, ...) will be. The same way xxx doesn't get rejected, but any multiple of that (xxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx, ...) will be.

You've solved it using the actual definition of prime numbers, no trickery needed. Well played.

FYI, you don't need brackets around the \1, so can score 286.

Can get 2 more points with:

  ef|^((?!(.)\2).)*$

But I reckon yours wins for having a pair of breasts in the middle