I was curious how this compares to doing YC. YC usually asks for 7%, in return for which groups get in the average case $18k. Every startup also gets an $80k note that converts in the next equity round. In the last batch the median startup raised $795k after Demo Day. We'll conservatively assume a $5m valuation cap, and (very) conservatively assume the next round valuation (when the $80k note converts) is also $5m. So if you can get into YC, in the average case you'll end up afterward having sold 22% of the company for $813k.

We do a lot more than help people raise money, of course, but financially that is what the median trajectory looks like.

For those who don't know what's going on: Joyent made a blogpost calling Ben, (one of _THE_ most prolific contributors to nodjs), an asshole (http://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun) and said they'd fire him if he'd been working for them, because he refused to take a commit making language in some part of the code gender-neutral. Here's Ben's last response to the whole ordeal: https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29568...

A lot of people speculated that this is part of a dance Joyent is doing to assert itself as a big cloud player. I don't know how much truth there is to that, but as a general spectator I feel like wanting to remark that Bryan Cantrill only fanned the fire here in all of this. And so perhaps there should be some weight given to the fact that a worker of a company that's a competitor to Joyent just quit, arguably due to Joyent's rough play -- if Joyent had approached the matter differently, carefully, sensitively, there likely would have been a different conclusion to this. But now it's done, and pretty much every participating party in this whole thing came out looking like a loser, Joycent, Strongloop, the whole nodejs scene. Here's hoping Ben now finds a workplace that appreciates him for his talents and respects him as a person.

Misleading headline, makes it seem like these guys were hacked on their servers. When the reality is people spread a virus and passwords were logged from individual machines. No fault from Google or Twitter.

The "Scroll down" hint wasn't obvious enough for me. I'd also show both screens as soon as you land on the page, as that is the unique feature of this phone and it took me quite some time before I actually found it.

(If you don't scroll but just click on the links you just see 1 screen at a time. If you aren't really paying attention you don't notice that there are 2 different ones)

You know what? I wish companies let me play with their codebase in an interview. At least then I could see how much truth there is to all the "yeah we totally have a great automated test suite and build process" I get told during interviews.

A whole day is unreasonable, but I'd jump at the chance to do what TFA describes as "free work" for an hour or so.

People who want to ruthlessly enforce their personal version of political correctness (Bryan Cantrill in particular, and Ben's employer Issac Roth, who seems to have competed with Bryan in a no-I-am-the-bigger-asshole contest) forced an important core committer out because he tried to enforce accepted commit policy. This is a particularly aggressive brand of feminism, one that I have mostly seen in the USA. It seems to be mostly dictated by people pushing through their changes based on their ideology at any cost, by branding anyone who opposes them as discriminatory oppressors.

The number of people I have heard saying stuff like "It was a politically sensitive PR, of course it should have been merged" is surprising. In fact, I would strongly recommend rejecting all such politically sensitive PRs on the basis that they are deliberately controversial, and asking the submitter politely to put their changes in a PR with more significant contributions that they submit to the project.

Relevant links:

[1] Original pull request: https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015

[2] Bryan's "I am going to fire Ben, even though he isn't my employee. Fired. Did I say fired yet?" blog post: http://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun

[3] Issac Roth's "We'll fire Ben if he doesn't learn grammar. Haha, j/k." blog post: http://strongloop.com/strongblog/collaboration-not-derision-...

Some suggestions. To learn:

1) http://societyofrobots.com/ especially the forum

2) https://www.coursera.org/course/conrob

3) download the old coursera course on computer vision from some torrent site

4) anything and everything on 3d mathematics you can find.

Get a job making robots. Oh and the interview question is "how do you find a path for a non-point robot with non-line obstacles". The answer is to add the point-inversion of the robot to every point in the scene, and find a path in the resulting "configuration space" (google that and program it once. In 2d. No need to torture yourself with the 3d implementation). Worst-case followup question : and how do you find paths if rotation is allowed ? Tell the interviewer that you don't know, but he doesn't know that either (and it's easy to use the previous answer to come up with a -way to slow- algorithm suggestion, doing it efficiently and correctly however ...).

If you just want to make a robot. I suggest :

(shortcut if you got money to burn and don't care about electronics : http://www.robotis.com/xe/bioloid_en . Lego motors are slow and crappy)

1) forward kinematics (given 3 translated and rotated robot arm sections, what movement makes the end effector ?). Oh and mobile platform kinematics (robot arm is now a robot paw. What is the effect on a mobile platform if you move the arm, given that the end effector is on the ground)

2) make a robot arm. Bonus points if you make a walker.

3) actually program forward kinematics.

4) notice that the engines get really, really hot

5) learn control algorithms. Summary : the position of a motor is a function. Find the derivative of that function, speed. Make your control loop limit that speed (meaning speed needs to remain within -x and +x. Slow down if you find your robot risks exceeding that). Find the derivative of the speed function, acceleration. Make your control loop limit it's value.

5.5) find that the limits imposed in 5 are too strict. Find a way to relax them so that over a "small" time period of, say 2-3 seconds they're always true, but allow for small periods that exceed these limits.

6) notice that if you limit the torque (the derivative of the acceleration function to relatively low values) humans will not notice the movement of the robot, even though it doesn't preclude the robot moving quite fast. Have some fun with that.

6.5) attempt to make your robot pick up an unboiled egg. Break 100 eggs. Publish the traditional "look I can pick up an egg" (in 100 attempts you'll have a single egg that survives. Don't mention the other 99)

7) find ways to get your control loops based on other values. For example, find a way to have an end effector exert constant force on an object, as opposed to having a specific position. Find a way for your end effector to track an object.

7.5) make your robot pick up an unboiled egg. Get the breakage under 10%. Publish another paper. Do mention the 10 broken eggs. 8) find a way to do 7 while making sure your robot doesn't crash into itself, that generally there is no way to trick it into attempting to intersect with itself.

After step 7, you now know more than 80% of the people working on robotics. If you're still having fun, I'd definitely suggest getting into a phd program. Note that all this is bloody hard. Before you have step 8 covered you will be one of the 100 best-informed people in your state when it comes to 3d geometry and how forces affect objects. You will get irritated everytime you see a crane or bulldozer or escalator or elevator ... Your girlfriend will hate you for pointing out ways that those things can easily or suddenly accelerate large masses and cause disasters, and how easy it would be to prevent that.

Note that we really aren't that far when it comes to robotics. That means that with basic electronics you can achieve the state of the art (exception : battery life). It is not necessary to utilize expensive motors to achieve any of this, nor do you need things like a 3d printer or the like (servos + balsa wood(and something more solid, when you inevitable make a bigger robot) + saw + drill) will get you to step 6.5, and there is plenty of information on the internet on how to replace the servo ciruits to make 7+8 possible.

Another way of titling this would be, "How the internet is uniting humanity." Languages are tools for communication, and while it's sad from an anthropological/historical perspective to be losing languages, from a humanist perspective it's fantastic news. The more people can communicate without barriers, the better it makes the world for everyone.

> The original 9/11 attack showed how simple traditional weapons could be used to leverage using four whole airplanes as nontraditional weapons, three of them with devastating effect, all of them with lethal effect.

Right, but the GP's point is that it was only possible to do that _once_, because the success of the 9/11 attacks depended on the passengers cooperating with the hijackers. That was a reasonable assumption because for the previous 30 years, "in the event of a hijacking just cooperate until we can negotiate your release" was the standard advice. Now it isn't.

Even in 9/11, 25% of the passengers figured out on their own that they shouldn't cede the cockpit. Today the figure would be 100%, plus the cockpit is sealed off for the duration of the flight anyway. So I really don't see a scenario where box-cutters would take out the whole plane any more.