sz

It's even easier to do all of this to yourself.

So is an iPhone scripting environment now allowed?

They probably do something like: if a search term returns a high density of SafeSearch-flagged top results, then don't autocomplete.

It's [edit: not exactly] SafeSearch:

Q: If an offensive or lewd word is a fraction of my query, will Google push these results in front of me as I type?

A: As always, we provide options to filter the content you see in search. You can choose to set SafeSearch to filter out explicit content, and parents can lock SafeSearch to the strict setting. In addition, autocomplete excludes certain terms related to pornography, violence and hate speech.

Do you have data to support this?

Great post but arrgh, use this to read it: http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/

> TeX really needs to be ported to browsers

FTFY

Seriously though, browsers need better typography in general. http://nitens.org/taraborelli/latex

This + REST = CLI for the Web

What does this have to do with Zen?

Add a duck.

Check out http://www.yourxiv.com

That was my first thought. Myspace Music is dead, it's not really about Facebook.

"a great operating system, lacking only a decent editor"

Not true—in the case of a punctured torus (like the shirt with joined sleeves), it's not like a sack at all!

It can still be turned inside-out, but it's a little trickier to visualize. You can imagine the hole stretching until you have a pair of identical rings glued together, then it's easy to see that you can shrink the hole the same way except in the other direction. But there's no way to make it look like a sack with holes.

What kind of background are you speaking from? I see you do applied AI research, in what capacity?

Maybe there should be a link to this on the post and reply forms, at least for newer accounts.

On the other hand, if someone has been lying all their life, if they're ever going to tell the truth, it's going to be on their deathbed.

This idea actually appears in our legal system: in court, hearsay (Person X testifies that they heard Person Y say something about Event Z) is usually rejected because there's no way of knowing whether Person Y was lying, even if Person X was truthful. But there are exceptions for circumstances under which Person Y is considered likely to be telling the truth. One of them is a dying declaration; statements made on a deathbed.

Interesting how the answers to "what will I wish I'd have done now in 5 years?" and "what will I wish I'd have done now on my deathbed?" can be so different.

The second one is better, I think. With the first, you never stop.

> Well women are obviously interested why else would we be having this discussion?

This isn't obvious. If you want to argue this point you need to offer evidence.

> It obviously comes up and the fact that it keeps coming up means there is underlying issue that is not being addressed.

Your conclusion that there is a cause not yet addressed doesn't follow. The recurrence of an argument can just as easily be attributed to arguers who can't admit they're wrong or don't understand their opponents, especially in this case when the arguers aren't female tech startup founders.

> Nobody is saying it's an issue that is easy to address but both educators and women in tech keep bringing up the issue so the incumbents are not doing a good job addressing it.

You didn't specify what the "issue" is. As ahlatimer pointed out, this claim needs support. And again, your conclusion doesn't follow, for the same reasons.

> Plus, it is in everyone interests to have all kinds of people be technologically savvy whether they are male or female.

A trivial statement. Ideally everyone would be savvy at everything. It seems like you're trying to argue that women are capable of something in this space that men are not, but I'm not sure what that is.

Look, it may be that you have valid points, but you're embarrassing yourself with the way you argue them. Read [1] if you don't understand why. You're a consistent DH3, which means you contradict without justifying, hence the downvotes. Anecdotal evidence, studies, careful reasoning (that doesn't use the word "obvious"), etc. would help everyone understand the merits of your point of view better than repetition.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

If you want a group to become more involved with a process, they need to be interested in it first.

Don't know if you're still watching this thread, but I just wanted to let you know that a week later I'm still using your URL input to check phrases I'm not sure about. It's really awesome.

The only thing I would change is to make it really obvious which one is correct (highlighted in bright orange in 72pt font?) to shave milliseconds off the time needed to visually process the results page.

As much as I understand the points he's making, it reminds me too much of old archives of skeptical posts along the lines of "What, 12 CPUs with 32nm transistors on a single die? That will never happen, it's impossible."

Be wary of blanket statements of the form "X will never Y" (unless they break physics, and even then...)

You probably don't want to partner with someone who's unlikely to stick around when your startup hits a low point. If you've found someone competent and reliable (even for a couple of hours a day), that's already better for you than someone who works long hours but will ditch you at the first sign of a better opportunity. If your cofounder doesn't seem to care, then you're in trouble.

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler" [Einstein] is my favorite quote of all time.

You should post a plot of it somewhere 8-)

(That's not creepy, is it?)

How did you do it? Just emailed the owner?

Sketchy outline of the first half:

Zuckerberg: Facebook disrupted a bunch of industries with social-graph-enabled mini-takes on stuff (Photos, Events), launched platform to allow other startups to similarly make social-graph-enabled stuff (Zynga), and now the next step is to directly promote Facebook-dependent startups with this new partnership.

PG: Why startups are the ones getting things done:

1. Sheer quantity of startups

2. Startups have nothing to lose

3. Startups are desperate for attention

4. Startups are poor => do things themselves

5. ?

6. Large companies require justification before trying something

7. ?

8. Startups are a self-selecting group of people

9. Motives (from least successful to most successful): greed, fear of failure, urge to "hack the world".

Then Q&A.

I left out what I couldn't understand from the recording the first time, so someone please go ahead and fill in the gaps.

I should have said philosophy instead of religion in my comment. You're right, there isn't a perfect line between physics and philosophy (cf. the whole debate on whether string theory is science). When theories about the universe are no longer testable (pure mathematical speculation), there's not much to distinguish physics from philosophy-with-equations. But all of our theories about the universe up to the limit of reasonable certainty I would consider physics.

Cool. I didn't mean to criticize, just wondered what the use was.

Wait... do airplanes run on Windows?! That sounds like a really bad idea!