If you try building a realtime single page app using Meteor and measure the amount of time it took you to complete it, you'll find that the hype is justified.

But at the expense of performance? I've written a number of applications in Meteor and continually struggle to scale them, even to tens of concurrent users.

Well http://mostexclusivewebsite.com/ currently has 46,000 users concurrently connected, in-line, receiving live updates, waiting for a ticket. So yeah, I would go so far as to say that Meteor can be scaled pretty well.

I've just tried to access the site and it's failing to load half the time, and the other half it's taking over a minute to load. It's awesome you're getting traffic but I'm not sure you can say you've successfully scaled your app right at the moment.

How would it go away? Ellen Pao's going to appeal against the verdict which will lead to Kleiner-Perkins being in the news again.

I read this book a few years back and while I found it quite interesting as a story, I did not glean any major insights from it.

It most likely has to do with my own ignorance about philosophy, but all I got from the book was that the author hates Aristotle and rigorous classification. And that quality is a more important property than morality.

Emacs with Evil mode is the best editor ever. For pure text editing capability Vim can't be beat, but it lacks some niceties like ability to run shells, an integrated package installer etc.

With Emacs and Evil, you can get the best of both worlds.

And Spacemacs (https://github.com/syl20bnr/spacemacs) is a good way to have a nice Evil integration. The only downside I found is when you have to install your first new packages, Spacemacs forces you to integrate it in a configuration-layer because it deletes all orphan packages. Now I think it's a good way to organise your packages, but it's definitively puzzling when you try to figure out why your newly-installed packages got deleted for the 5th time.

Thanks for the link. I already have a pretty decent setup, but I'm always looking to improve it. Trying it out now.

> Why is it bothering you?

I'm not the OP, but it bothered me too. It goes against HN's general discussion style.

It's also quoted, which seems okay to me.

I was referencing vayarajesh's comment, not hnnewguy's.

> It goes against HN's general discussion style

What? The use of terminology specific to social media?

1 - HN is social media.

2 - 'OP' is a term as associated with social media of a certain nature as the use of '#'

To be fair, hash-tags are used to categorize and group content on social media. HN does not implement this functionality. Essentially, the '#' serves no purpose on HN. Therefore, it is easy to see why people get bothered by it.

It was in quotes. It was clearly meant to characterise a certain type of commenter, rather than serve a categorical function.

Are you serious? Look at vayarajesh's original comment.

It 'clearly' states this: It makes me fall in love with Apple more. #Respect

No quotes. He/She was using it seriously.

Actually, it was first used without any support from twitter, then transformed into a tag-like functionality

Same with retweets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashtag#Origin_and_Use

OP is a term that's been used thousands of times in discussions posted on HN, the same can't be said of hashtags.

#998moretogo

Simply donating money isn't the most effective way to change the world. Who knows how the charities spend the money?

In an ideal situation, the CEOs themselves would run the charity, like Bill Gates. Of course that is not possible in a majority of the cases.

In an ideal situation the CEOs would not use complex tax structures to hoard wealth and instead pay taxes to fund social services. Perhaps they would even use some of the billions lying around to help reform government to work better for people.

True donating money is not the most effective way, but it is still better than not doing anything at all. The CEOs of companies like Apple are so busy to build wonderful products that they are forcefully not able to spend that much effort with charities.

If all the CEOs could donate to for example Bill Gates foundation and Bill Gates lead the foundation in deciding where to focus the huge amount money, i think that would go a long way

There are plenty of legitimate products out there to promote, but those Acai Berry/Weight loss rebill offers were really shady and one had to have absolutely no moral compass to promote those. Even newbies knew that they were flat-out scams(for the customer).

You would see marketers justifying these products by saying that the customers were suckers for not reading the TOS or that nothing was wrong with rebilling(citing Netflix,which is totally different; people knew it was a subscription unlike with these shady stuff) and stuff like that. It was amazing the lengths people went to fool themselves into thinking they weren't ripping people off.

I agree. There are plenty of legitimate channels that use affiliates and there are tons of shady ones.

If you can't beat them, join them! Of course your comment was meant sarcastically, but I wonder if authors(of genuine books not the spammy ones) might turn to posting fake reviews and justify it by saying that they have no other choice.

We can see this happening in the case of SEO with many white hat sites employing black/gray hat techniques simply to maintain their current positions in Google.

It's always a cat and mouse game however. Once they employ machine learning, I'm assuming the spammers will adapt and create reviews that fool the algorithm(though at an increased initial cost).

It could simply be a case of disillusionment at Tesla. Also Apple employees are known to leave Apple, either to start a company or for a sabbatical but then go back to working at Apple once they're done.