This feels kinda like a pump and dump to me. I don't mind articles/projects/sites that make use of bitcoins. But the frequency of posts on how much each bitcoin is worth feels like pennystocks/etc on an investing forum. People trying to get more people to buy in. To drive it up. So they can get out while it's high.

fwiw, I'd take that back if I could. It came out wrong and definitely was not intended to imply entitlement on anyone's behalf. I'm willing to put in crazy effort to find the right fit for our company, and I expect the applicant will do the same to find the right workplace/job. I'm not going to waste my time on someone that doesn't value it.

I guess like you said: common courtesy, don't waste my time or yours. Why send an email if its' not worthy of a response?

The real headline seems to be that this is the first profitable quarter for Tesla.

I like this: tl;dr if it'll take the company more effort to reply to your email than you put into sending it, you're doing it wrong.

I don't particularly care whether it is an employer's market or an employee's market. My rule of thumb is that if your email is going to jobs@foo.com, you can send anything you want. But if you are sending an email to a person by name, it is a matter of courtesy to write a personal note.

Likewise, if that person replies to you from their personal email, you deserve more than an obvious form letter, even if it's just a single sentence.

> “Sleeping 8.5 hr. might really be a little worse than sleeping 5 hr.”

How can people even take this kind of pseudo-science seriously?

If I sleep for 5 hrs, I'm a complete zombie during the day, unproductive and depressed.

If I sleep for 8.5 hrs (which is how long I sleep naturally), I feel great, productive, and happy. I get way more done.

There are all sorts of studies showing all the negative effects of not getting enough sleep -- that sleep-deprived doctors, for instance, are basically acting under an impairment equal to a few drinks of alcohol.

The idea that people in general are getting too much sleep is really quite preposterous.

The reason we don't get more mass killings is that most people aren't homicidally insane. Those that are seem to fall into either impulsive or relatively able to prepare.

Those able to prepare would be more than capable of becoming decent rifle shots already. Decent is Whitman/Texas Tower level, not Carlos Hathcock level.

That people don't do this now probably means it's somehow unappealing to most homicidal maniacs to go shoot people at "extreme" (100m) range with a rifle, rather than doing it up close. So this is probably not a huge risk.

If it makes the short-term killing spree guy more effective, then it's a problem, but I still don't see a short term killing spree person using something like this vs. a more up-close weapon where he gets to exert his power over people in immediate vicinity and dominate/kill them. Just pulling the trigger on people at range through a scope doesn't seem psychologically rewarding to most killers.

It would be appealing for terrorists, or maybe other brands of crazy, but not for your average spree killer. The Washington sniper was really amazingly unprecedented in the US, and hasn't been copied, and really was more terrorism than anything else I think.

I added a Bitcoin purchase option to Scribophile to test the waters. But I'm interested in a Bitcoin economy, not a USD cash alternative--the situation where a Bitcoin has its own value, not a value dependent on a different currency. For that reason, I decided to fix the price of an upgrade to 2 BTC, not peg it to the dollar like most other sites do.

Unfortunately it seems like that's just not going to work at this point. I set the price at 2 BTC when the exchange rate was $35--like two weeks ago or so. That meant the BTC membership price was about in line with the USD price. But in a few weeks, the value of a Bitcoin has tripled. Since most people using BTC ultimately want to convert it to dollars, this insane instability makes BTC impossible to use for anyone interested in a pure BTC economy. Too bad.

"Online wallet services" are an invitation to theft and fraud. Do not use them. I've been saying that since July 2011 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=26260.0), before MyBitcoin ran off with everyone's money, and it's just as true today as it was then.

If you lost money today I feel for you, but seriously, it's your own damn fault. A Bitcoin is only yours if it was last sent to an address that is yours, and an address is only yours if no one else knows what it is - in other words, you have to have generated it anew on a secure, malware-free computer, and avoided ever putting the wallet file on any computer that has malware or that is not yours.

Seriously, stop it, you fools.

In usability tests you'll see that pinch-to-zoom is hardly discoverable, or even particularly easy. It's a learned behavior.

Once users "get it", it's powerful. They'll attempt to pinch to zoom all over the place. I guess I don't see how this is any different. It's a gesture, and I find it to be intuitive (it's been available on the Android version for a really long time).

> cryptobarons it will have created from its inner circle, through shameless hoarding.

This isn't 1941 England and bitcoins aren't sugar. Early adopters in the right thing often make money. Usually on HN they are called investors and congratulated. Sour grapes on missing out? (I did too)

Thank you, India.

Let me tell your my story. I am on a pill called Colchicine that I have to take 3 times a day for life. The pill's formula is hundreds of years old and would cost me pennies. That was until a company convinced FDA to ban the generics and only allow its own brand. The same pill that used to cost 10 cents now costs $5/pill to me here in the US. Meanwhile in India, it still costs pennies.

I wish US would take a page from India.

Perhaps you should interpret it as feedback that its not a hirer's market. In a market where most people have many opportunities the incentive to respond with a high effort response is very low. The better thing to do would be to consider the casual emails you get as leads to a potential hire - you'll have to put the effort in. Additionally what you are seeing is likely not by mistake - its an indication that hiring right now for applicants is in many cases more of a numbers game than it is about crafting a great cover letter. That being said I honestly don't think you are doing yourself much good with this sort of message - I'd just do the best that you can with what you get back.

My first reaction when I saw this submission was "Holy shit, who leaked kiln?"

I read the article and think the point is deeper than that. I would summarize it like this:

Tim O'Reilly's business has changed from selling things (books, conferences) to selling ideologies ("Web 2.0", "government as a framework"). This is a relationship that goes both ways: the books and conferences provide crucial support for the ideologies he sells (the existence of a "Web 2.0" conference can be cited as proof that "Web 2.0" is a real thing), and the ideologies create demand for books and conferences as they spread.

The primary problem the author (Evgeny Morozov) has with this isn't that O'Reilly profits from it, but rather that the ideologies O'Reilly sells tend to provide corporate-friendly alternatives that are used to marginalize rising ideologies that could threaten existing power structures. Examples discussed:

- "Open source" as an ideology focused on the rights of the software developer, as opposed to the ideology it was explicitly designed to compete with, Richard Stallman's "free software" movement, which focused instead on the rights of the software user

- "Web 2.0" companies wanted to package up information about their users and sell it to the highest bidder; the ideology supported this by positioning it as a natural evolution of the Web rather than a major power shift

- "Government as a service" would involve taking major systems currently run by government and privatizing them, but covers this with a layer of techno-dust to avoid having to talk about the negative implications of privatization

Hence the comparison of O'Reilly to famed Republican spin architect Frank Luntz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz). Luntz has made a career selling policies to people they will hurt by packaging them up with attractive-sounding words. Morozov argues that O'Reilly is in the same business.