Pairwise supports Statsaholic by boycotting Amazon web services - <AUTHOR> http://blog.pairwise.com/2007/04/20/pairwise-supports-statsaholic-by-boycotting-amazon-web-services/ <comment><USER2> Guys, it must have been a lot of work moving over to a different solution but integrity is more than worth it. Amazon needs to get the message that what they're doing is clearly wrong. Ability to mashup different services is one of the cornerstones of Web2.0 and if that ability disappears, so will a lot of value that mashups provide.

Kudos!

<comment><AUTHOR> We were very early adopters of both s3 and ec2, so much so that when we launched likebetter, amazon called us to congratulate us when they noticed the traffic spike!

So we never really trusted their reliability and built up integration with them in a hot-swap sort of way - so, while I'd love to take credit for weeks worth of work on this, switching meant changing around a few variables. :-)</comment></comment>


AWS announces new PDP-11 instances - <AUTHOR> AWS has announced new PDP-11 instances. Useful for airlines and Motor Vehicles Departments looking to move to the cloud without upgrading existing infrastructure <comment><USER2> Source seems to be a tweet with a #geekhumor hashtag [https://twitter.com/eashman/status/934938770213761025](https://twitter.com/eashman/status/934938770213761025)

</comment><comment><USER3> I think IBM actually has something like this for their mainframes right?

</comment><comment> tony-allan Now that would be fun!</comment>


What are the complex numbers, really? - <AUTHOR> http://robjlow.blogspot.com/2017/06/what-is-this-thing-called-i.html <comment><USER3> I'm wary of anyone who tries to explain complex numbers without pictures. The best explanation of complex numbers that I've ever seen is [http://acko.net/blog/how-to-fold-a-julia-fractal/](http://acko.net/blog/how- to-fold-a-julia-fractal/). I wish that explaination existed when I was struggling with my Electrical Engineering classes in college.

<comment><USER4> I'd rather be wary of explaining mathematical concepts with pictures. Pictures are known to be highly misleading and force the reader to imagine a thing in a certain way. For example, most pictures of triangles have all 3 angles being acute. This leads people into forgetting the case when one of the angles is obtuse.

<comment><USER5> Ok, so how would you explain venn diagrams without pictures? How would you describe Mandelbrot sets without pictures? How would you explain hyperbolic parabaloids without pictures? How would you explain conic sections without pictures? How would you explain a trapezoid without pictures? How would you describe a sine wave without pictures? Eversion of a sphere? How would you illustrate the calculation of the slope of a curve when talking about derivatives without pictures? How about a cycloid? How would you show the representation of a signal in both time domain and frequency domain?

<comment><USER4> >How would you describe Mandelbrot sets without pictures?

It's literally easier to describe Mandelbrot set without the picture than with it. The set of complex numbers c where recursive equation "z_n = z_(n-1)^2 + c, z_0 = 0" does not diverge.

In fact, the picture of a Mandelbrot set is actively misleading! You think you can see the set, but it's a fractal! It's infinitely complex in a way that cannot be shown in a picture.

>Eversion of a sphere?

Pretty sure that one was figured out way before anyone was able to visualize it. Same with Banach-Tarski paradox. These things resist visual intuition in the first place, so it's much safer to rely on equations when dealing with problems like these.

<comment><USER5> If you read of the early work that Mandelbrot did on this equation, you will recall that despite having those symbols in front of him, he had to plot it out, crudely at first on a line printer, before he fully understood the implications.

Thus pictures are not only tutorial but a fundamental necessity for understanding mathematics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think this actually misses the biggest point. Complex numbers are special because they are an algebraic closure of the real numbers (what makes the real numbers interesting should be more obvious), and because Zorn's lemma tells us that such a closure is unique (up to isomorphism). In other words, complex numbers are precisely what you need to add to real numbers in order to always be able to solve polynomial equations.

TL;DR: complex numbers are the unique algebraic extension to the real numbers

<comment><USER7> What do you mean by closure?

<comment><USER8> What others said, but more abstract and simple way to say it:

Algebra is set of objects and operations on them. Operation is function that gets number of objects as argument and maps it to some other thing

A set has closure under an operation(s) if using those operations on the set members always gives you a member in the same set.

Example:

Natural numbers (0,1,2, ...) are closed under addition and multiplication, because you can't add two numbers and get something that is not natural number. Natural numbers are not closed under subtraction or division because you can get a result that is not a natural number.

<comment><USER9> >A set has closure under an operation(s) if using those operations on the set members always gives you a member in the same set.

THANK YOU. That line was key and just clicked for me. I'm actually liking everyone's completely-different ways of explaining the same things. When one, or five, are confusing, the sixth may be key to filling in the holes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Rob talks about how complex numbers are just another kind of "fake number" on top of negative numbers, fractions, square roots... And this is a good thing to point out. But there is one further thing to note, which is the inherent ambiguity between i and -i. We can't tell these apart. John Conway says this well, when asked about the square root of -1 his reply is "which square root of -1 do you mean?" (paraphrasing.)

This ambiguity is where Galois theory starts. Analogous "theories of ambiguity" arise all throughout mathematics (Galois connections). This is really fascinating stuff, with deep connections to quantum physics...

<comment><USER11> _> Rob talks about how complex numbers are just another kind of "fake number" on top of negative numbers, fractions, square roots...And this is a good thing to point out._

I agree. I think complex numbers are best explained in the context of motivations for number systems (and I made a comment explaining complex numbers this way about a month ago[1]). This way takes longer than just answering the question, "what's a complex number?", but it also builds a better intuition of why complex numbers aren't silly (or at least, why they're only as silly as anything that isn't a natural number). If you can get a student to be okay with the idea that we define new number systems to resolve problems in prior ones, you can get them to be okay with a construction of complex numbers from the reals, just as they'll accept a construction of the irrationals from the rationals, and integers from the naturals, etc.

I find that a really rigorous (albeit...spartan) first pass for understanding complex numbers can be developed by reading through Chapter 1 of Rudin's _Principles of Mathematical Analysis._ He doesn't go quite as far as developing Peano arithmetic from first principles, but he does build up the number systems successively, beginning with the natural numbers if I recall correctly. That was the first book I read where I felt like I really understood what complex numbers were, because up until that point I was only dealing with them algebraically using an explicit _i_ in the form _a_ \+ _bi_. Rudin's development of the complex plane and representation of real and complex numbers as points ( _a_ , _b_ ) is much better for intuition, in my experience, and it lights the way to an even deeper intuition of what complex numbers are in the context of Euclidean spaces later on.

That said, Rudin is terse to the point that many would call him pretentious, so if there is another book that does the same thing with better exposition, that might be a better choice...

 _> But there is one further thing to note, which is the inherent ambiguity between i and -i. We can't tell these apart. John Conway says this well, when asked about the square root of -1 his reply is "which square root of -1 do you mean?" (paraphrasing.)_

It's been a while since I did this exercise, but if I recall correctly this ambiguity is part of the proof that we cannot order the complex field, right? We end up with an absurdity because _i_ should be greater than - _i_ , but _i_ ^3 = - _i_ , which evidently resists coherent ordering. And similarly _i_ x _i_ = -1, but - _i_ x _i_ = 1.

____________________________

1\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15729381](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15729381)

<comment><USER12> The ambiguity comes from the definition of i and -i from algebraic perspective. They are two roots of sqrt(-1) and they have indistinguishable properties other than the fact that they are different. I.e. if we live in an alternate world where the complex plane is flipped (j = -i) then there is no way to distinguish this world between the original.

It's similar to the inherent ambiguity between left and right - the only defining characteristics of them are they are opposite to each other.

Note that 1 and -1 have different mathematical properties (in most cases - <USER2> Z/2 they would be equal) that allow us to distinguish. 1 * x = x but -1 * x = -x.

<comment><USER13> 1 * x = x but -1 * x = -x.

This is also true for x == i.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's a phenomenon where I think you can sense the physical reality of complex numbers. When to propagating waves meet, and they are of opposite phase, they cancel out. At the meeting point the combined amplitude becomes zero. Despite of apparently total cancelation the two waves emerge undisturbed on the other side of the "silent" point. A wave can be described with rotating complex numbers of constant modulus. The two waves will each have its own modulus intact even at the point of cancelation. So the sum-to-zero real value is not really real.

</comment><comment><USER15> > So what are the complex numbers, _really_?

If by _reality_ we mean the real world (not mathematics or some abstract model) then the article does not actually answer the question what the complex numbers are really -- they describe what complex numbers mean mathematically (geometrically, algebraically, number theory).

Here are some interpretations of imaginary and real parts in terms of the real (physical) world:

o Time vs. space. This means that they have to be measured using different constituents with different properties. For example, space is reversible and periodic (we can return to the same point where we were before many times while it is not possible to return to previous point in time).

o Periodic vs. monotonic behavior. For example, rotation frequencies or oscillators (electric or physical) vs. linear motion.

<comment><USER14> Well the article does mention:

 _If beauty doesn 't motivate you sufficiently, then take solace in the fact that the properties of some differential equations which arise in physics and engineering are determined by polynomials you can build out of them, and the systems modelled by these differential equations are stable if the real part of all the roots are negative. Google for control theory to see lots more._

and

 _This turns out to be a useful way of thinking about alternating current, and you can analyse AC circuits using complex arithmetic in much the same way as you use real algebra to analyse DC circuits._

and ... did you read it all?

<comment><USER15> _This turns out to be a useful way of thinking about alternating current, and you can analyse AC circuits using complex arithmetic in much the same way as you use real algebra to analyse DC circuits._

"Userful way of thinking" and "analyse" something is not a real object strictly speaking - it is a process or phenomenon (no doubt complex numbers are useful here).

But can you say what kind of real object or property a complex number represents or measures? For example, an integer can represent the number of apples and their weight is represented by a real number. What property of a real object can be expressed, for example, as 50i ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The phrase "what IS it" has always bugged me in mathematics. The answer to that is always "what we defined it to be." The question math answers is "what does it do."

<comment><USER11> I think a lot of the problem in mathematics education is motivation. Students (and people learning math in general) encounter two problems:

1\. They don't realize what you're saying, i.e. number systems and mathematics in general are built from definitions, not observations, and any definitions work as long as they're compatible with what we've already proven,

2\. If they realize #1, even implicitly, they still do not know why mathematical definitions are motivated. A student might say, "Okay so I understand what complex numbers are, but why do we have them? What's the point of all of this?"

In my opinion, new mathematical concepts should be taught by placing them in the context of the least complicated thing the student already knows, then motivating them by demonstrating what problem they resolve. In the case of complex numbers, this can be explained to a student via analogue to the irrational numbers, which are the set of all numbers _p_ / _q_ where _p_ and _q_ are positive integers. We "invent" and define irrational numbers to resolve real world problems involving numbers that cannot be in the integral or rational systems. Similarly, we define complex numbers to resolve real world problems involving negative numbers on a plane, and so on...

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The miracle of complex numbers is that they have two seemingly unrelated but very nice properties:

1) Every non-constant polynomial has a root

2) Every holomorphic function is analytic

The only connection I know is that (2) implies Liouville's theorem which implies (1), but it doesn't seem any less miraculous.

<comment><USER18> Not miraculous at all. The motivation for complex numbers came out of trying to solve cubic polynomials (Tartaglia, Cardano).

<comment><USER19> What does that have to do with every function being analytic? Anyway, you can solve every cubic polynomial in the algebraic closure of Q, which is far less than C, so you don't need to construct the complex numbers for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I had the good fortune that my high-school mathematics teacher introduced complex numbers as "compound numbers", with two "components" that defined a point on a plane, one of which was multiplied by a "orthogonal coefficient" that just happened ( _fabula mirabilis!_ ) to be the square root of minus one that so vexed us when solving certain types of quadratics.

Totally nonstandard terminology, but pedagogically very sound approach that was totally at odds with the official syllabus... she just "filled us in" with 'synonyms' a while later so that we would not be totally baffled when sitting our exams (the IB).

It has served me well ever since.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think this is the best explanation for complex numbers I've ever seen:

      https://betterexplained.com/articles/a-visual-intuitive-guide-to-imaginary-numbers/

</comment><comment><USER22> I think the easiest way to explain complex numbers is to first ask a question, "How do you multiply two dimensional numbers?" The other person always comes up with some answer like (a0+b0)x(a1+b1) = a0a1 + b0b1 or the factorization. You can easily show that this isn't consistent, and usually the student quickly starts looking for answers to prove you wrong. It becomes quickly easy to talk about how complex numbers can be used to work in two dimensions, and being able to explain concepts like closure and fields without using those words.

There is no need to jump to quaternions (which is 4D, not 3D, and the point has been missed here), like the author does. There is a much simpler case that people are more familiar with. The problem with the article is that it does not gauge its audience well. As another commenter mentioned, pictures help. With this discussion on two dimensions you can use a lot of great graphics out there and talk about the beauty of Euler's formula. These topics all generalize, but it is ludicrous to talk about the generalization first.

</comment><comment><USER23> I feel a better explanation of them was given in "Shadows of the mind" by Roger Penrose where he explains how they play a vital role in Quantum Theory which impacts real-life behavior.

</comment><comment><USER24> Welch Labs has a wonderful series on youtube on imaginary numbers, "Imaginary Numbers Are Real":

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T647CGsuOVU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T647CGsuOVU)

I like to tell my kids that imaginary numbers aren't really imaginary .. that in many ways they're more real than the Reals.

</comment><comment><USER25> Those of us EEs will know it's j.

</comment><comment><USER26> They're phase. It means something periodic is happening to something.

<comment><USER27> I don't think that's what they _are_. It's merely one of the things they're _used for_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> tuples</comment>


The Income You Need to Live Comfortably in 50 U.S. Cities - <AUTHOR> http://twocents.lifehacker.com/the-income-you-need-to-live-comfortably-in-50-u-s-citi-1771673713 <comment><USER2> 50-30-20 doesn't leave enough room in the savings for retirement as well as long term expenses, such as cars, houses, extended unemployment and emergency healthcare, or emergencies in your family.

In other words, these numbers are ~20% lower than they should be.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Link to actual article...

[http://www.gobankingrates.com/personal-finance/much-money- ne...](http://www.gobankingrates.com/personal-finance/much-money-need-live- comfortably-biggest-cities/)</comment>


For Children With Peanut Allergies, F.D.A. Experts Recommend a New Treatment - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/health/peanut-allergy-children.html <comment><USER2> > _In July, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit > research organization in Boston that evaluates medical evidence, concluded > in a report that there was inadequate evidence to justify the immunotherapy > treatment over simply avoiding peanuts._

To save you some time reading the report, this is because the quality-of-life results that they normally use to measure effectiveness weren't published in time. Their rating of the evidence is "promising but inconclusive".

</comment><comment><USER3> This is not new. It's new that it has a brand name, but there have stories released repeatedly about exposure therapy for some time.

<comment><USER4> It's news in that it's taking a step toward being available to real people. The previous stories you're talking about were about research studies, not drugs available to the public.

<comment><USER5> The "drug" is just purified peanut protein. Comparable treatments have been offered by allergy specialists for a while and not just in the context of clinical studies.

<comment><USER6> If it's FDA approved, it's a pretty big step forward. Previously-available desensitization therapies for food allergies (OIT, SLIT) are not FDA approved and thus are not covered by insurance.

<comment><USER5> Insurace covers many procedures that are not FDA approved because they don't require special drugs or devices. Covering OIT with unapproved peanuts would probably be cheaper than OIT using this $4000/year peanut extract.

<comment><USER6> Insurance doesn't cover OIT. Perhaps they will once it's actually a cheaper option vs the FDA approved treatment that they're eventually required to cover. Currently they simply decline to cover it at all because there is no downside to them.

<comment><USER5> But the reason cannot be simply that they "are not FDA approved and thus are not covered by insurance" given than many non-FDA-approved things are covered. They could cover them already (and they would if they thought ER visits would be reduced as a result). And as far as I know some insurance plans do actually cover these treatments.

<comment><USER6> 1\. Yes, they could hypothetically cover whatever they want beyond what is required by law. They don't cover food allergy desensitization because covering it costs money and denying it has no downside for the insurance companies.

2\. What non-FDA approved treatments are typically covered?

<comment><USER5> 1\. Anaphylactic shocks also cost them money. And they can also limit access to drug-based treatments if they don't find them justified.

2\. Tonsillectomy, physiotherapy... are you really unable to come up with some examples of surgical procedures and other physical and mental therapies not based on drugs?

<comment><USER6> You're right. The limit isn't just _FDA_ approval. OIT and SLIT have, to my understanding, no medical approval of any meaningful sort. It's an extremely early treatment (relatively speaking) and considered experimental.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The Western World, and the US in particular, needs to take a long hard look at why allergies are so prevalent there compared to the East. I am from India, and while allergies are not unheard of, they are also pretty rare. I went through 15 years of schooling without anyone in my class ever having anything like an anaphylactic shock. Compare that to the hysteria about peanuts in my kid's school in the US.

To be clear I am not blaming the school. If there are kids with deadly allergies towards everyday foods, yes, there will need to be strong precautionary measures, but it's insane that we consider this high prevalence of allergies as normal here in the US, despite strong evidence from other countries that this doesn't need to be the case.

With our son (born and raised in the US), we basically exposed him to common allergens from Day 1. We'd rub them against his lips or place a very small amount on his tongue, and so on. Occasionally put a small bit of peanut paste in his formula, a bit of shrimp once he was a bit older, and so on.

He's 7 now, and has so far exhibited no common allargies.

<comment><USER8> This isn't a terribly helpful anecdote. There is plenty of ongoing research into why there are higher rates of allergies in developed countries.

I'm sure early exposure to allergens help (and is AFAIK recommended practice now) but other things play a part - I'm sure I saw some research recently suggesting that one reason developed countries have higher allergy rates is due to lower prevalence of parasitic worm infections.

The natural world is complicated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think peanut allergies are often linked with other allergies. It comes down to anti-nutrients, namely lectins I think? Lectins are in all seeds, so even if you don't react to say beans or wheat, you might react in a way you don't recognize as reaction. I was depressed for half my life until I accidentally discovered that leaving out all seeds would solve the depression.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm bothered that medical research has seen influence by the MBAs. Ie. we don't research looking for cures anymore because then you'll only sell the drug once. Instead research management therapy so that you can have lifelong customers that need your product (pill) daily for the rest of their life.

<comment><USER11> This is popular narrative, especially on message boards, but is there any evidence that drug researchers are somehow biased towards medications that manage rather than cure conditions? Or is it just that cures are harder to discover than mitigations?

If you look at a list of current blockbuster drugs, you'll find that they are not primarily lifetime scripts. For instance, the second best-selling drug of 2015, Gilead's Harvoni, cures Hep C in a couple months. Most anti-cancer agents, which dominate the blockbuster lists, are not taken permanently.

Humira, AbbVie's arthritis med, has topped the charts for years, and is taken long-term, but it seems unlikely to me that if AbbVie or some other pharma found a way to _permanently cure_ arthritis that they wouldn't sell the hell out of that product.

<comment><USER12> Given a _cure_ (not a "maintenance" drug), companies would "sell the hell out of" that product until there were no more customers; then the market would collapse and the corporation would go bankrupt. The medical market is slightly more "graceful" in that new customers enter the market each generation.

This is not "popular narrative", it's established economic reality for any good that can be either rented or sold.

Compare selling vs renting a software package. Once a market is saturated no more sales can be made and the seller's company will likely collapse. In contrast, a renter collects each year until the software is superceded (but can add improvements each year to postpone that) or no longer useful.

I once worked for a company that sold a software package for a one-time (large) purchase fee plus a trivial annual maintenance fee. The employees walked the halls puzzling "What happens when we sell our last package?". Answer: company saw the light and tried to change from a purchase model to a rental model. All customers revolted and some threatened to sue (for software support ad infinitum). The company collapsed. Luckily I was gone by then.

And yes, the MBAs are responsible largely: they do good b/c they can tell you what business model to use to achieve your goals. Few industries are more concerned about how to make money than the pharmaceutical industry:

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=business+models+for+pharmaceutical...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=business+models+for+pharmaceuticals)

But we also need corporations that are willing to develop true cures instead of "managements". Most MBA's aren't interested in that; maybe government can help by providing better incentives.

<comment><USER13> That's all great, but we're not talking about software, and you haven't addressed your parent poster's point in the slightest.

Of course someone _could_ prioritize "management". That's not interesting. Interesting is the question whether they actually do, and you cannot argue that from first principles, philosophy-style. You need observations, news reportings, whatever. But facts, not "I could imagine...".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> it is good to see some progress with allergy treatment, especially peanut allergy. Many do not understand how having peanuts in the same room can cause allergy, so it is difficult to avoid it.

<comment><USER15> I once shook hands with a new acquaintance who, unbeknownst to me, had just been snacking on a few peanuts at a bar: [https://photos.app.goo.gl/7tvD65JmV45M4Mpw5](https://photos.app.goo.gl/7tvD65JmV45M4Mpw5)

<comment><USER16> A handshake? Well that's me educated today. I'd always presumed food allergies required you to _eat_ the problem food.

I don't think I have ever, not once, seen a media piece on allergies point out that eating isn't always required. That seems like a major failing in the reporting of allergies over the years.

<comment><USER17> In fact the skin reaction is utilized for allergy testing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_allergy_test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_allergy_test)

<comment><USER16> Now those I knew of, but they mostly use a pin prick or scratch, and then measure the reaction and swelling in the skin. Which if anything, reinforces the misunderstanding the allergen needs to get into the system directly. Though I hadn't encountered the patch tests wikipedia mentions.

The article and mention of handshake leave me with an entirely different impression of how careful I might need to be if I started in food preparation etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Soooo, kind of like homeopathy?

<comment><USER19> In the broad, pedantic sense... yes! This is literally homeopathy, with "like cures like". So are vaccines.

...but no, not in the common sense. :-)</comment></comment>


Ember and D3: Building responsive analytics - <AUTHOR> http://corner.squareup.com/2012/04/building-analytics.html <comment><USER2> One nice thing about D3 is their selector engine supports the SVG namespace across all the browsers. Whereas Jquery has to be monkey patched and you're stuck at v1.6.1.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's nice to see larger Ember.js in-production projects being discussed and explained...

<comment><USER4> wait to you see what we're doing with it :)

<comment><USER5> What do you guys do with IE<9?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Considering using this combo instead of RaphaelJS on my next project, just for kicks.

Am I the only one that tries to click hand drawn notes like that to see them full size?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea, sorry - thought about adding a simple lightbox, but most of our posts on that blog don't have any images. The full-size img is there, just right click and "open image in a new tab".

<comment><USER5> Oh, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> is that a photoshop mockup for the screenshot, or popups appearing outside the browser chrome a safari feature? if that's the actual screenshot that's pretty sweet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nah, that was something doctored up by a designer. Don't think you can get that without doing some manual popup window manipulation, which is really ugly in its own right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I thought D3 didn't work for IE 7/8 ?

<comment><USER8> I love d3. Mike Bostock does great work and the flexibility of the d3 library really makes it super-powerful. The fact that it doesn't work lt IE9, however, makes it unusable for me at work. Most people on corporate networks (at least in my experience) are running win xp with ie8. Once we move everyone to win7 I should be able to start pushing out some great analytics based on the d3 library. looking forward to it!

<comment><USER9> Thank you! D3 does work in IE9, provided <!DOCTYPE html> to put IE9 in standards mode. Did you mean to say IE8? IE8 and below do not support SVG, so D3 is unsupported on those versions.

<comment><USER10> This comment tripped me up too. He said "lt ie9" meaning IE8 and lower. A bit confusing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Ember.js is the backbone of our new analytics page". I thought Backbone.js was the backbone of....oh nevermind.</comment>


Preview of WebKit's WebGL / Canvas 3D - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wolfire.com/2009/09/preview-of-webkits-webgl-canvas3d/

<comment><USER2> If anyone ever wonders why it's important not to "standardize" on any one program, innovations like these are a good example.

Continued kudos to the little guys (Opera, Mozilla, Apple) for actually doing something useful with the browser. And Microsoft, I'm tired of hearing the word "innovation" from you.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's also O3D. Hopefully one of the two quickly becomes the clear standard.

<comment><USER4> O3D is supposed to be more efficient but WebGL is more familiar to programmers, has more browser vendors behind it, and has official backing from Khronos.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Liaar, create a fake REST API in a minute - <AUTHOR> http://usablica.github.io/liaar/

<comment><USER2> This could be very useful when integrating against an API that isn't available to a dev server - either because of network restrictions, or because it's still being developed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed, the idea behind this module is to provide a simple way to create REST APIs. However, I'm working on it to enable it for cross-domain XHR requests as well.</comment></comment>


SpaceX : SES-9 Technical Webcast - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HSb_yBnJXA <comment><AUTHOR> Full webcast with commentary : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml1RO4IcOG0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml1RO4IcOG0)

</comment><comment><USER2> Launch aborted

</comment><comment><USER3> Hacker news oddly quiet about this?</comment>


Why a Dutch court stopped high school students from swapping schools (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/social-choice/why-a-dutch-court-stopped-high-school-students-from-exchanging-schools-1315303a48b6 <comment><USER2> As a European exchange student, I took a sociology class as a senior in a US high school. Our teacher ran an experiment with "money", where those with lots of "money" were allowed to change the rules for each round, creating an unfair playing ground favoring the rich.

I objected to the game and the rules, and did not want to play. After the game, in class, he commented that "Exchange students always object that the rules are unfair, while local students always accept that the rich get to set them."

Without even knowing where people are from, I sense a similar trend in this discussion: Europeans are more willing (trained and socialized) to sacrifice individual preferences in favor of the "greater good".

(Your mileage will vary. Not exact science. Not science at all. Just a feeling.)

(Edit: Spelling)

<comment><USER3> Surely the Netherlands has private schools?

I don't think the rich are sacrificing anything by this lottery. Some middle- class kids might have to go to a worse school to allow some poor kids to go to a better school but the rich are unaffected.

<comment><USER4> No. The rich and everyone else send their kids to the same public schools.

In the Netherlands people value the idea of living in a classless society. It would not be acceptable for certain people to have their own "special" schools where their kids get "special" education.

The way the rich try to get around that is by congregating in the same rich neighbourhoods and sending their kids to the same school. That is why the lottery exists, to distribute the kids evenly in a fair manner.

<comment><USER5> > No. The rich and everyone else send their kids to the same public schools.

They don't send their kids to boarding schools in the UK/US/Switzerland?

<comment><USER6> Sure, but is such a school giving their child any actual advantage? They'll be in a foreign country taught by likely a lower quality teacher (esp. in US private schools, there is a reason our private teachers make $10k less a year).

<comment><USER7> If they want to work in the US/UK/Switzerland? Or perhaps internationally more broadly? Probably. And I wouldn't assume those private schools and their environment are giving a lower quality education.

<comment><USER8> There are a lot of schools with bilingual programs (English+Dutch) and the programs are of high quality. Seems simpler to go for such a program, no need to send your kid abroad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if the Gale–Shapley algorithm[0] would work in this situation.

That algorithm applies to the stable marriage problem: N men and N women need to be paired such that no two members in each set would both prefer to be with each other over their partners.

The algorithm has each person rank every member of the opposite gender in preferential order. Then, one side (let's presume the women) take turns picking from the other in order of their preferences. If the woman A's top choice is man X, but man X is already taken by woman B, then he will swap iff he prefers woman A over woman B. If he prefers woman B over woman A, then woman A moves down to her next choice in the list. If you follow this pattern to conclusion, everyone is paired and there will not exist a man and woman who both want to be with each other more than their current partners.

We could apply this to school selection. Every student ranks all schools from most to least preferred. All schools then 'rank' students via any criteria they want. Want to put students with siblings in the school ahead of all others? Easily done. For any equally-preferred students, sort randomly. The "women" translates to students, and the "men" translates to "spot in this school".

Might not stop strategizing, but it's a great way to handle pairings with preferences involved.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem#Soluti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem#Solution)

<comment><USER10> In the US, this algorithm is used to place medical graduates at teaching hospitals, by the National Resident Matching Program. And of course, college admissions was the topic of Gale and Shapley's 1962 paper, 'College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage' which publicized the algorithm [1].

[1] [https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2312726](https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2312726)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> To elaborate on the example in the article, the main reason that swapping is disallowed is that by necessity, there exists a third student which is screwed by the swap.

The deferred acceptance algorithm always creates a stable matching, which means that it does not contain any blocking pairs. A blocking pair is a pair <student, school> where the student is not assigned to the school, but prefers the school to their current assignment, and the school prefers the student above their worst ranked admitted student.

When executed as described in the article, the algorithm produces a student- optimal solution, which means that for all students, _no other stable matching exists where the student is better off_.

In the example, where student a preferred school A over B (their current assignment) and student b preferred school B over A (their current assignment), both students would become better off by swapping. Thus, the matching produced after swapping cannot be stable: there must exist some student x who now forms a blocking pair together with either school A or B.

To explain how this happens:

Say that student a is the first to select schools (the iteration order of the students does not matter for the end result, this just makes the steps a bit clearer). Then, at the start, we have this assignment:

A: a

Since a is not assigned to A in the final solution, at some point a has worse rank than all students assigned to A and is pushed out:

A: x, y, z (say that the capacity of A is three)

This means that A ranks x, y and z higher than a. If any subsequent students push out x, y or z, they too will have higher rank than a.

At some point b is then assigned to A. This means that b has higher rank than x, y and z. At least one of them, say x, has been pushed out by now.

If a and b were allowed to swap, then <x, A> would form a blocking pair since x prefers A to their current assignment, and A prefers x to their lowest ranked admitted student (a). Thus the solution would no longer be stable.

<comment><USER12> I'm confused, why must b push one of x, y, or z out? Why isn't one of x, y, or z _already_ b? Or to put it another way, why can't a be the most-preferred non-accepted student for A?

<comment><USER11> You are right, I forgot to state an assumption, which is that "a gets pushed out of A" happens before "b gets pushed out of B" (and then goes on to apply to A).

One of those things must happen before the other (each step in the algorithm is a currently-unassigned student applying to their next choice). In your case, if a is the most-preferred non-accepted student for A, then b must have been pushed out of B first, so the argument applies to B instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What would be a good reason for distributing students based on luck (which is what I gathered from the article), versus having everyone take a standardized test and then assigning pupils to schools based on their performance in their test?

The test approach seems the fairest to me, as a grade A student should have a higher priority of getting into a top school than a lower grade student.

Contrast this with having a high achieving student not getting into the school of his choice due to sheer bad luck, and I do not see much benefit from the lottery system.

<comment><USER14> There has been a shift in conversation over the last years and at least in US they are claiming that the highest variance in student performance can be attributed to socioeconomic status and developmental environment. So it would seem like selecting based on school performance could make things worse. One could make the case that this would really hurt very smart/ high-performing individuals from low socio-economic status families but most people (and rational policy) care about helping/ making an impact at the population level.

<comment><USER15> That's what people say, because it's hard to say anything else without hitting narratives that will be interpreted as racist or insensitive for other reasons.

Household culture is a big predictor of outcome. Parental age is another. Asian/Indian kids buck the bigger trend, because those family cultures value education as _the_ way to advance.

Usually these policy discussions get dumbed down into inner-city vs suburbia comparison. But I think we're starting to see bigger cohorts of white kids from suburban professional backgrounds who are not doing better than their parents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> TL;DR: students are not allowed to swap because (in the current system) that would enable strategizing. It encourages people to list popular schools rather than their preferred choices for the lottery, and then trade their popular spot for their true preferences afterwards.

The system has been designed to not allow strategizing, as strategy often backfires on the student, as well as it's argued that students from lower class backgrounds make more strategic mistakes.

A nitpick from me on the article though:

> Designing a lottery system to place students at the different schools is not > just a mathematical optimization problem. Different design choices can have > far-reaching effects. On whether everyone gets equal opportunities, for > example.

It absolutely is. It's called game theory. And 'no strategizing' is a criterion you can optimize for.

This has close relations to the well-known stable marriage problem. The seminal paper on both these problems is Gale and Shapley, College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage.

<comment><USER17> So it ensures that unequal outcomes are always the result of random chance, and never the result of a skill gap. That seems exactly backwards: you would want egalitarian policy to minimize random factors like your parents' wealth so that factors like the student's own skills dominate. Can anyone elaborate?

<comment><USER18> the ability of a student to strategize is strongly correlated to the education and wealth of the parents. (as pointed out in the post).

the discrepancy in strategic aptitude is itself a result of chance. Only through this absolute form of randomness, you are actually eliminating the wealth, education and aptitude bonus of upper-class households.

Your comment is a nice signifier of the difference in American and Dutch culture. Dutch people don't buy the idea that individual strategizing is going to advantage the interests of lower-class students, because they recognise that lower class students are already disadvantaged when they enter the system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why not go one step further and randomize the teaching pool? Just tell teachers where they can and can't work, just to make sure that all students get a shot at the best teachers.

What isn't justifiable in the name of fairness?

<comment><USER8> That actually seems like quite a good proposal. If a teacher applies to a school in a certain part of a city, presumably they'd also be happy to work at any other school in that part of the city. It would also be a win for the teachers, because they'd only have to apply once for multiple schools.

<comment><USER20> In Japan they actually do shuffle teachers around the school district every couple of years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Fascinating article.

The obvious research question: Is there an assignment system where the best strategy is to list your true preferences, _and_ is Pareto efficient (no win/win trading of assignment is possible)?

What's wrong with simply randomizing the list of students, then walking the randomized list and giving each student his/her highest-ranked school that hasn't yet been filled by the assignment of students higher on the list?

Does some variant of Arrow's impossibility theorem [1] apply to this situation?

It might also shed light on the causes and dynamics of poverty to figure out the exact causal mechanism by which "students from poorer neighborhoods make more strategic mistakes."

Is poor strategic decision-making ability a _cause_ of poverty (the poor are poor because they don't make smart strategic decisions about money and life choices)? Or is it an _effect_ of poverty (having a single parent or parents working multiple jobs means less intellectual stimulation and help with homework, not being able to afford nutritious food or have time to cook it causes poor nutrition which affects brain development, etc., which leads to lower general intelligence and strategic thinking ability)?

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem)

<comment><USER22> > "students from poorer neighborhoods make more strategic mistakes."

It's likely simpler than you guess, and not because poorer people are dumber (I'm not even sure why you assumed that making strategic mistakes in college planning is caused by low intelligence): students in poorer neighborhoods aren't plugged into the privilege networks, that tell them which are the best schools to apply to.

<comment><USER23> But having wrong preferences in the first place isn't the kind of strategic mistake they're talking about.

It's thinking of the type "my 1st preference is school A, but I probably won't get in, so I'll say my preference is B so that I get that at least" in cases where they would have got into A if they had stated it as their #1.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> While this isn't a surprising tradeoff for the Netherlands, what does surprise me is the size of the tradeoff they are willing to make. Almost eight percent of the entire student body would be going to a not-first choice school as a result of stopping the trades. (Using the numbers in the article) That's quite a hit.

There are approximately 8,000 students per year entering Amsterdam high schools. According to the article, in 2015 when the new lottery system was introduced, 600 students would be able to attend their top choice school by swapping with someone else after the lottery.

<comment><USER25> > While this isn't a surprising tradeoff for the Netherlands, what does > surprise me is the size of the tradeoff they are willing to make. Almost > eight percent of the entire student body would be going to a not-first > choice school as a result. (Using the numbers in the article) That's quite a > hit.

It is, but it needs to be balanced against the percentage of disappointed students in a regular, non-lottery system. The article doesn't say what that is, unfortunately.

<comment><USER24> It's certainly true that the current state is better than a non-lottery system. That's not what the judge's decision changed though - it changed from preference+lottery with trades to preference+lottery without trades.

This creates a strictly worse outcome for that school year, since only students who would mutually benefit from a trade would trade, and students who did nothing or could not trade would remain unchanged.

<comment><USER25> > This creates a strictly worse outcome for that school year, since only > students who would mutually benefit from a trade would trade, and students > who did nothing or could not trade would remain unchanged.

That's true. My understanding is that they did that for two reasons. The first was that a property of this particular algorithm is that mutually beneficial swaps are only possible if there is a third student placed at a third school who would also prefer one of the two being swapped, but whose school is not desirable, so he doesn't have a choice, which was deemed unfair (I don't know how I feel about this argument). The second was that allowing trades for this school year would encourage strategizing in the following years, which would lead to worse outcomes over time. These two things were addressed when they changed the lottery system once again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is really interesting - thanks for posting. What strikes me is that a court ruling implicitly took a view on the meaning of "fairness". But fairness is a deeply subjective concept, something courts in a lot of countries would avoid going anywhere near! What's interesting is that concepts of fairness vary greatly across cultures - and it makes me wonder how in multi-cultural, multi-ethnic Europe we will arrive at newly-agreed definitions of fairness and what that will be.

<comment><USER27> Fairness in statistic is not not a subjective concept, it's a property of an algorithm.

<comment><USER28> Fairness is absolutely a subjective concept. E.g. in the context of school choice, which is fair? Let's say there are 20 students applying to a school, and there are 10 spots available.

a) All students applying to the school have the same chance to get a spot: 50%

b) The best 10 students (by some definition of 'best', e.g. grades or an entry exam) get in.

c) The 10 students with the richest parents get in.

d) The 10 students that live closest to the school get in.

We could go further: when 15 of the applicants are boys and 5 are girls (or vice versa), wouldn't it be more fair when 5 of each are chosen? How about racial distributions?

Ultimately how you define fairness _is_ subjective. Obviously once you have defined fairness you can attempt to measure it using mathematics / statistics.

<comment><USER29> The person you responded explicitly said "fairness in statistics".

<comment><USER28> What does "fairness in statistics" even mean? Perhaps there is a very obvious definition that I don't know about? Would you please define it for me, and (if this is non-obvious) explain how it relates to the school choice problem?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> For details about the voting algorithms, alternative methods based on genetic optimisation and Haskell implementations, have a look at the the MSc thesis "Genetic-Algorithmic Optimisation for School-Allocation Mechanisms - A Study of Amsterdam's Student to High-School Allocation Problem" by Philip W.B. Michgelsen: [https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/982/1/MoL-2016-10.text.pdf](https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/982/1/MoL-2016-10.text.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't see why strategizing is a problem. Rather then ban it, encourage it, everyone should make the best strategy. Once everyone does, I think it will become clear that the best strategy is to choose the schools you want.

</comment><comment><USER31> > In fact, whenever two students win each other's jackpot trade, there must > always be a third student that's higher on the ranking at one of the schools > — and that wants a spot at this school

I don't think that's true, what if in both schools they were ranked last place and last place plus one?

<comment><USER32> The algorithm won't assign them that way in that case. A more thorough explanation is elsewhere in the comments, but essentially if Alice got placed at B despite preferring A, they had to have gotten bumped from A, then bumped someone (or found an open space) at B. But Bob can't have been the person that bumped them: if there was an open space at B, Bob would never even have considered A; if Alice bumped someone at school B, then in your situation it must have been Bob, and so for Bob to end up at A when Alice couldn't there had to be someone else with priority between Alice and Bob for A, exactly the person getting screwed over by the swap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Optimizing for fairness is antithetical to human rights. More people would be better off if you allowed swapping. But because some people would not be better off they don't allow it for anyone.

<comment><USER34> _> More people would be better off if you allowed swapping._

Please give a worked-out example, based on a watertight definition of "better off".

 _> But because some people would not be better off they don't allow it for anyone._

As far as I understand, the system is now set up so that if they allowed it, and taking human behaviour into account, overall more people would be worse off than better off.

<comment><USER35> Please show how the current system is better than what he proposed, based on a watertight definition of "better off".

You've proposed a constraint that can't realistically be achieved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> At least they had some choice. Growing up, I had no choice and couldn't go to an elementary school a block from my house because of race quotas and forced busing to a magnet school to improve their stats. 1.5 hours each way, 3 hours total each school day. I was up at 4:50a. I thank the social justice warriors whom used more discrimination instead of equity to ostensibly make things "better." (Equity is fairer and more advantageous than equality because it's customized and resourced equally, instead of one-sized-fits-some.)

</comment><comment><USER37> For some reason I am able to understand single-DA better as:

1\. All students are sequentially ranked via lottery

2\. You walk down the list, and each student gets their pick of schools with remaining spaces open

Side note, but it also seems IMO that "fairness" could improve if your lottery position is impacted by your past academic performance. Then the better student you have been, the more chance you have of being higher in the lottery order to select a school.

And similar in the debate over which voting system is best, there is also something to be said for preferring that the system being used is easily understandable and feeling fair to the individual, even in the case where it is (slightly) less fair in the aggregate.

Then you have the added bonus of fewer annoyed parents suing you, and only the mathematician parents will complain =)

And then if you also add in the idea of academic performance playing a role, parents can rationalize their situation as having been under their control all along - if their child had performed better, they would have had the ability to choose earlier in the list.

Of course, this is all assuming you believe that grades should convey some preferential status. But if you don't believe that, then why have grades at all?

</comment><comment><USER38> Is it only me, or is denying gifted children good education based on pure luck unfair in the first place?

<comment><USER39> They're not denying gifted children good education.

They're giving good education to everyone, and don't reserve the best to the students who are doing well already and will succeed anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> This does beg the question: why aren't the popular schools expanding to meet demand? My guess from other comments is that the center city location is often the driving reason for the pick, so the cost of acquiring similar real estate is prohibitive (also meaning that the the students selected for those schools are "unfairly" enjoying a high imputed income by enjoying that location)

An interesting feature of the US charter school system in my area is that because their funding is directly tied to headcount (I believe there is bonus money for special ed students too), they are typically always looking at how to expand. Each school runs its own lottery, and being over-subscribed is looked at as a signal they need to expand their offerings.

</comment><comment><USER41> Reminds me of something predicted in "Weapons or Math Destructive" an opique algorithm deciding our fate that's difficult (impossible?) to fully audit. It's a cruel fate we're leaving ourselves too if we don't leave _a lot_ of room for common sense.

</comment><comment><USER42> "Almost 70 percent of schools in the Netherlands are administered by private school boards, and all schools are government funded equally.

The instrumental variables results show that private school attendance is associated with higher test scores. Private school size effects in math, reading and science achievement are 0.19, 0.31 and 0.21"

[http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/705501468323653171...](http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/705501468323653171/Private- education-provision-and-public-finance-the-Netherlands)

</comment><comment><USER43> It's really weird to see the Dutch authorities using math to determine which system is better; it's even more bizarre to see them caring about fairness. Here in the states such an approach would be unthinkable. Whoever had the most money would get their way, and any kind of math is viewed as tricksy confusing lefty crap.

</comment><comment><USER17> The intuition that lotteries are substantially more fair than markets is a strange one. There are already lotteries that redistribute money. If we accept that random windfalls are the right way to allocate resources, why is it preferably to hand out million-dollar discounts on condos or school slots that confer millions-dollar lifetime earning bumps vs. simply writing million dollar checks? The check winner has strictly more options than the condo owner, who is deed-restricted on resale, or the school slot winner, who might prefer to retire early instead.

Lotteries get around unequal capability to spend, but so does the right tax policy or even an alternate currency scheme where you get non-tradable points to allocate across the various socialized axes of life. In a system with several independent lotteries, it's possible to lose all of them, win the ones you don't care about and lose the ones you do, or win them all. Allocating money gets you a kind of conservation effect: maybe you don't care about school, so you got a nice house instead. Maybe the opposite. But with roughly the same spending capacity as everyone else, you definitely won't win or lose big on all axes at once, and can make tradeoffs to win when it's more important to you.

</comment><comment><USER44> >The central point is that efficiency and fairness were in conflict. Allowing trading would make the outcome a bit more efficient: some students would get a better outcome. But it would come at a price. The price is that the system would be less fair.

Wow. It never occurred to me before that efficiency could create unfairness.

<comment><USER45> Is that sarcasm? I mean, the most "efficient" algorithm for distributing surplus money to citizens' bank-accounts would be to transfer the entire sum into the first person you see..

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> "Spread the unhappiness as equally as possible."

This could be Socialism's new motto!

</comment><comment><USER47> From 9 months ago... [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15062125](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15062125)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oops, sorry. I did check whether this had been posted before, but missed the old entry because the article URL changed...

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=https:%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fpopul...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=https:%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fpopular- choice)

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=https:%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fsocia...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=https:%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fsocial- choice)

<comment><USER47> No worries. It's interesting seeing new discussions about it and how the points line up with older discussions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> And another reason to avoid the public "education" system.

They will make you pay (via taxes) for services you do not want or need.... to enroll at a place you do not want to be.

How lovely.

<comment><USER49> That's not quite right.

We're talking about a fundamental shortage of capacity for popular schools here. i.e. there are 10k spots and 8k students, but the top schools have fewer spots than interested students.

A private system wouldn't solve this problem. It'd only allow profit-seeking schools to admit the richest students only. It's not a recipe for societal success because you're giving children a ticket not based on merit, but based on their parents' riches. This is closer to a plutocracy than a meritocracy. But either way, merit is hard to define because we're talking about 11 year old kids deciding on secondary school in the Netherlands starting around age 12.

So you need some way of ranking students. The first one is student preference. It's not the case that you get enrolled at a school you had no interest in. The vast majority of students are enrolled in their schools of choice, but some of them may need to accept their 2nd or 3rd choice. In any case, the game theoretically driven choice affords students the highest chance of getting into a school closest to their preference.

The Dutch public school system does quite well and has good outcomes, a testament to how few private schools there are despite private schools being given ample room to thrive here.

<comment><USER6> > The Dutch public school system does quite well and has good outcomes, a > testament to how few private schools there are despite private schools being > given ample room to thrive here.

I beg to differ, there is not ample room for private schools to thrive. This is primarily due to higher social cohesion as compared to other countries, the social acceptance of sending your kid to a private school in the US is generally assumed, whereas one is apt to be looked down on if they choose to have their children go to a less resourced, private school in the Netherlands.

Despite private schools here in the US providing students with a lower quality teacher (here in Seattle, they pay $10k less a year to private school teachers than the school district does on average), while also permitting students to spread disease and not vaccinate, many upper class and middle class families send their kids to these schools. Its a testament to a lack of information and push back against objectively shitty schools.

On the topic of vaccines, its crazy that the Catholic Church allows kids in their private schools to not be vaccinated. They're single handedly bringing back diseases that hadn't been a notable issue in decades.

<comment><USER49> > whereas one is apt to be looked down on if they choose to have their > children go to a less resourced, private school in the Netherlands.

I'm not sure that's true. Private schools are typically well-resourced in the Netherlands. For example, international schools tend to charge about 20k per academic year whereas public schools make do with 8.5k per year. Quality isn't bad in private schools here, it's quite good actually. But so is the public system which has socialised costs. Most parents are quite content with this system.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: What is the last task one should do before launching a startup? - <AUTHOR> See title <comment><USER2> Get a good night of sleep -- it might be the last you get for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd recommend giving yourself 1 extra week from the point you originally wanted to launch. Make sure everything is finished, and give yourself 1 week to actually use the product. Fix all the little things, and add the extra polish, things you really wish you had time to do before. But don't delay more than a week.

</comment><comment><USER4> Realizing that you're not at the end of the journey, you're at the end of the start of it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Ask YC a very vague question ;)

</comment><comment><USER6> I highly recommend load testing. Good luck.

<comment><USER7> That is very optimistic.

<comment><USER6> I don't think so. Getting enough traffic to choke a small VPS is possible sooner than you may expect, especially if you have not rooted out all serious bottlenecks (which are often discovered during load testing.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Pick out your favorite brands of personal jet, caviar and champagne.

</comment><comment><USER9> Last task: get rid of your fear, doubt and disbeleif.

</comment><comment><USER10> That all depends on what you haven't done yet. Assuming that all you need to do is tell people about what you've got and the money will come freely and nothing will break, I would just send out a press release announcing your launch.

<comment><USER11> > Assuming that all you need to do is tell people about what you've got and > the money will come freely and nothing will break,

That's a pretty big assumption... ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Take founding team to dinner.

<comment><USER13> Further: do this dinner at a cheap, stable, unpretentious place.

Come grand success or crushing failure, this will become the spot for founders' reunion dinners in the years or decades to come.

<comment><USER7> "I'll have a double-double animal-style launch burger."

<comment><USER10> +1 for the In-N-Out reference. Love that place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Take a deep breath, pat yourself on the back, and prepare for round two: gaining traction.

</comment><comment><USER15> Eat a sandwich.

<comment><USER7> The pickles _must_ be on the side.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> break up with your girlfriend

<comment><USER17> Bang a really hot chick. Unless you're a chick, in which case you should bang a really hot chick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Drink a bottle of Cisco RED:

<http://www.bumwine.com/cisco.html>

<comment><USER19> If this sounds like a good idea, you are already drunk. But if you're drunk enough, it tastes like fruit juice! DON'T DO THIS!!

<comment><USER18> Except for the part about fruit juice, your advice is perfect for those considering doing a startup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The last thing you need to do before launching is the first thing you remember to do after launching ;-)

</comment><comment><USER21> Request clearance from the tower.

</comment><comment><USER22> pray

</comment><comment><USER23> Agree with yourself that you'll do whatever it takes to make it succeed. Otherwise, don't bother.

<comment><USER11> > Agree with yourself that you'll do whatever it takes to make it succeed.

Or, conversely, "fail fast".

<comment><USER23> Good point, failing fast is success if you learn from it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Load test and optimize user experience. You have one crack at attracting users. If your site is down, or the user experience is sluggish,that's bad news. Make sure you have some external monitoring in place.

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't know about this lack of sleep bit. I tried it and people have better ideas and do better work when not stressed. I'd rather substitute better planning for lack of sleep.

</comment><comment><USER26> Close a deal to deliver your first product (or do the web-equivalent to be sure your market is there).

</comment><comment><USER27> Have kids :D

<comment><USER28> Well, you're just about to give birth to one! Can you handle two?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Read some books about the startup experience, get ready to enjoy the ride.

</comment><comment><USER30> Do usability testing and then some more.

</comment><comment><USER31> convert everything to lisp?

</comment><comment><USER32> quit your job if you have one, and tell everyone you know about your startup and how you will make thousands/millions soon.

<comment><USER11> ... and have a 10% chance of not just having done something really dumb! ;-D

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> i would relaxxx.

</comment><comment><USER34> pray ;)</comment>


Oil Was Central in Decision to Shrink Bears Ears Monument - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/climate/bears-ears-national-monument.html <comment><USER2> Bears Ears National Monument size now: 228,784 acres

Bears Ears National Monument size 14 months ago: 0.</comment>


Ask HN: Which O'Reilly books do you like and own? - <AUTHOR>

The O'Reilly series offer a great number of titles to choose from.
And I would guess that it is the favorite publishing house of many of us here. I personally own a few books myself:
Make series:

    1.)  Electronics

    2.)  Making things talk
 Nutshell series:

    3.)  Linux

    4.) Python
 Pocket Reference series:

    5.) Linux

    6.) HTML & XHTML
 Which titles do you own? Which ones are you thinking of getting? Of course it would be also interesting to have some other posts on other popular publishing houses such as Apress <comment><USER2> I have and like "Mac OS X for Unix Geeks" 4th/Leopard ed. and "Writing GNU Emacs Extensions".</comment>


Ask HN: My computer broke in china, what should i do? - <AUTHOR>

I'm studying abroad in China for 8 weeks, and my old Apple Macbook bricked. The cheapest retail netbooks in china run for $500  where I am studying.
What should I do?
I am considering buying a netbook, what is a good international vendor who can mail it to me?
Should I trust alibaba.com? <comment><USER2> Isn't alibaba.com more of a wholesale supplier directory?

Amazon does ship to China, but it takes a while, depending on what shipping rate you pay for: [http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=5...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=596188&#country)

</comment><comment><USER3> Buy from Dell china!! you do get international warranty so it will be covered back home!!</comment>


Wooden high-rises change city skylines as builders ditch concrete - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/dec/12/wood-high-rise-buildings-urban-architecture-skylines-new-york-city-oregon <comment><USER2> Here's a video about a 14-story building like this in Norway. The video is from last year, but it was completed just this month.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5XsqauBCX4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5XsqauBCX4)

For those of you who understand Norwegian or are willing to use Google Translate, there's an article about the building here[1], which also mentions some of the same projects as the Guardian article.

[1]: [http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Canada-sikler-pa-bergensk- ve...](http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Canada-sikler-pa-bergensk- verdensrekord-3498825.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm bit worried with this getting too popular, because of fire safety. Fire safety of a material is about two things: Fire load(kJ) and fire- resistance(hours). Wood increases fire load, but it has surprisingly good fire-resistance. Better than steel. The elevated fire load is usually compensated by sprinklers, and so far wooden skyscrapers have been safer than concrete ones because of this. Currently fire-resistance is lot more important, because that pretty much dictates loss of life in regular fire.

But imagine city where you don't have just few wooden skyscrapers, but like 90% of the buildings are wood. Then earthquake hits. Now the sprinklers don't work anymore, and the fire can spread from building to building. Whole cities burning was relatively common before 20th century, partially because they we're mostly built from wood.

>"So wood structures make sense in seismic-heavy regions, especially in the Pacific Northwest, where a 9.0 magnitude earthquake is expected to hit in the next 50 years."

>"Ideally there comes a day when people can choose between mass timber, steel and concrete. We don't see mass timber replacing those, it just becomes another option when certain parameters and goals apply to a project."

I hope these cancel each others out. And there will be regular buildings in between to act as firewall of sort.

<comment><USER4> An earthquake that shuts off water to a whole city seems just as liable to render uninhabitable all those concrete buildings (assuming they don't outright collapse). Wooden structures seem more likely than concrete to survive the initial quake, even if they're less likely to survive the resultant fires, so it may be a wash in the end.

<comment><USER3> Historically the fires have been often even more hazardous than the quakes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_San_Francisco_earthquake#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_San_Francisco_earthquake#Fires)

Something like 30% wood might be the best. But it creates interesting problem, who gets to live in a wooden building? Who gets to build one?

<comment><USER4> I trust that the vast majority of the destruction in the aftermath of the earthquake was caused by fire, but what I'm curious about is the death toll of the fires themselves, which I don't see in the article. The reason that it matters is because an earthquake can easily cause structural damage to a building that leaves it standing but renders it uninhabitable, forcing you to demolish it anyway. Even structures that are specifically built to withstand earthquakes aren't necessarily safe to occupy after the quake. From this (simplistic) perspective, wood is no worse than concrete because either way you'll be forced to rebuild the vast majority of the city after the big one hits.

<comment><USER3> You have good points. My only counter point is that rescuing people from ruble is easier if there are not much fires around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm a former structural engineer. I can explain any questions that anyone has. But in short, wood is one of my favourite building materials. It's repairable, light, stronger during a fire than steel (although is burns), and it literally grows in trees!

While it's strength is lower than steel, for buildings less than 10 storeys tall it's a very good choice, especially if you can do the lower floors and basements with steel and concrete.

<comment><USER6> _although is burns_

The article also notes that this kind of wood is "fire resistant." It also says that, "But the road to approve CLT as a sound building material in the US has been arduous, with engineers and architects working to prove that it complies with codes and is resistant to fire and seismic events." Despite that, though, it still seems like fire is a threat. Is there something I'm missing? Are the other materials in the buildings sufficiently fire-retardant to make the issue a small or unimportant one?

<comment><USER5> Fire is always a threat. The question is how fast the burning spreads and the structural capacity during a burn. Fire retardants which are pressured into the wood, begin to react when the temperature approaches normal wood burning points (around 275 C) the chemicals convert the wood tars to a carbon char which provides insulation from direct heat while also allowing the water to evaporate out of the wood as it more slowly heats. This gives you a _much_ longer horizon to get people out and firetrucks in. You would need a sustained burn for a couple hours, at which point an exposed steel building would have fallen anyway.

<comment><USER7> A typical high rise building will experience some small fires during its lifetime that aren't structurally threatening. Is the wood building going to require more repairs or inspections in these cases?

<comment><USER5> There would have to be extended contact (more than just a small kitchen fire). Usually the beam will be repaired or replaced anyway because of aesthetic reasons, and much of the wood structure will be behind fireproofing where it's 100% safe for at least a couple hours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Shame they didn't mention the 18 storey wooden residence they're building at my alma mater, UBC. I wish I knew more about civil engineering and how to visualize structural loads.

Link: [http://news.ubc.ca/2015/10/01/new-ubc-student-residence- to-b...](http://news.ubc.ca/2015/10/01/new-ubc-student-residence-to-be-among- worlds-tallest-wood-buildings/)

</comment><comment><USER9> The article doesn't really get into the obvious question of fire risks. This has coverage on that issue: [http://thoughts.arup.com/post/details/302/would- you-live-in-...](http://thoughts.arup.com/post/details/302/would-you-live-in- a-wooden-high-rise)

</comment><comment><USER10> Curious what species of timber they use to make this. There's a lot of structural and and resiliency differences between white pine, Doug fir, hemlock, and the various hardwoods.

I'm trying to figure out where this product fits into the construction, as well. I'm reasonably familiar with the general principles of stick-built and post & beam wooden construction, structural steel construction, traditional brick and masonry, and poured concrete. Do you just put these panels up as full walls? Does it still need an internal structure, or do the panels have sufficient rigidity? What do you do for insulation?

<comment><USER11> It depends on the design, but you can build something using the panels (+ gypsum board) as walls and floors, with almost no other structural members, at least for residential.

For insulation, the standard approach seems to be using rigid panels on the outside, either rock wool or foam. This stuff is a good bit more expensive than stick built construction, so I figure they count the expense of outside- only insulation (vs. batts or cellulose between the studs) is just a cost that goes with it. If you're building high-end, you may as well insulate high-end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> How well does this material resist water damage? Recently on British TV there have been loads of programmes about people building cheap houses (eg [1]). They tend to be prefabricated off-site from softwood and quickly assembled on site. I wonder how long such buildings will last if the roof ever leaks.

[1] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bjqk4](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bjqk4)

<comment><USER3> Wooden houses and roofs have been built for long time. I'd be more worried about leaking plumbing.

If you bring piece of wood indoors and let it dry, it's water content will drop to about ~17%. If you take it outside and hang it somewhere so that it catches rain and then dries, it's moisture content will average about ~20% in most places on earth. Wood has evolved to do capillary action. This means it's very good at drying, but it's also very good at staying wet if there is moisture around.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_action)

Most wood eating fungi need moisture content of at least 30%. And this has to be long term, wet week doesn't do anything. But there is fungus called dry rot, that can cope with 20%. This leaves you practically no buffer, as the indoors natural is 17%. The catch here is that dry rot needs certain minerals to ever start growing. Cement and mortar have these minerals. If you build effective barrier between cement and wood structures and keep the moisture below 30%, you don't have to worry about rot ever.

Insects are another problem. But it's rare that you get insects if you didn't get rot first. In those rare occasions, there has been some visible defect in the surface of the wood. Or alternatively some very infested thing nearby. Regular paint goes long way.

UK has traditionally had lots of problems in build quality. Mostly because they didn't take into account dry rot.

Source: Deterioration and preservation of timber in buildings. G. A. Scott 1968. And no, this info has not dated since 60's.

<comment><USER13> Historically, though, wood structures have been built (intentionally or not) such that the wood is dried by the heat escaping from within. Modern wood structures are paradoxically designed for energy efficiency, which is in conflict with the above. You can't have an efficient building where the interior heat escapes constantly. Since we're still in the early decades of this paradox, modern wood buildings tend to be designed to be water-tight, and when that inevitably fails the structure is destroyed.

<comment><USER3> Old adage of construction, if you think "but how could this ever get wet?" you're fucked. Everything will get wet at some point, so everything has to be self drying.

The plastic film stuff has been tested pretty well for current structures. But as the insulation thickness increases there might not be big enough pressure gradient across the structure.

Concrete does not get a pass though. Here in Finland we have had bit thicker insulation for a while. Even if you don't get wood rotting, you can get mold. That ruins indoor air quality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's also a big mass-timber office building that just started construction here in Minneapolis called T3:

[http://www.t3northloop.com/](http://www.t3northloop.com/)

Given the amount I keep hearing about the concept I'm guessing it'll be a lot more common in just a couple of years.

</comment><comment><USER15> I have been a fierce antagonist of modern architecture for many years.

Then I saw some modern architects using natural materials (wood and stone) and realized that much of my antagnoism was due to the synthetic materials they were using, and less the style itself.

There is something deeply humanizing about wood and stone.

</comment><comment><USER16> Wood framed structures are horrible for dampening the noises from people walking (or stomping) around. I will never live in a wood structure with people living above me, its horrible. This is a non issue with steel and concrete structures.

<comment><USER17> We're not talking about an early-20th-century timber frame. This is a different material entirely.

A two-second Google search puts actual numbers on this: [https://fpinnovations.ca/media/factsheets/Documents/cross- la...](https://fpinnovations.ca/media/factsheets/Documents/cross-laminated- timber-the-boook.pdf) (page 8). Seems a standard suspended-ceiling type arrangement provides damping as good as a well-built concrete structure (by comparison to [http://www.aia.org/practicing/awards/AIAB025071](http://www.aia.org/practicing/awards/AIAB025071)).

HN comments seem to have a bad tendency to dismiss interesting and potentially cool ideas out of hand (especially about anything that isn't software) by citing the first difficulty that comes to mind, without doing even a little bit of research. As though the many highly qualified engineers putting this stuff together wouldn't have thought of something as basic as sound insulation.

<comment><USER16> The problem isn't really sounds, its the vibration and shock waves which travel thru the structure. I could never hear my neighbors, but I could hear and feel every heal strike. Loose metal attached to the structure would vibrate (air vents, kitchen items). Wasn't trying to tear down this technology or anything, I guess I just had a really bad experience living in a wood constructed apartment (constructed in 2013, 5 floors) and I pretty much vowed to never live in a multi-family wood constructed structure again.

Edit: page 9 in the parent link addresses this. Extremely poor vibration dampening.

<comment><USER11> Naked CLT sucks at impact damping, but so does naked concrete. You really need to think things through (methods of attachment for vents and pipes, flanking problems, etc), and to add some stuff to dampen the impact (on that same page they suggest adding a suspended ceiling with resilient mounts, giving an IIC of 62, which is pretty good).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wouldn't feel comfortable in one of these buildings. I designed and built a timber frame home, but I look at this "panelized wood" and see a glued product produced by corporations which are more interested in profit. There has been a string of failures in similar products as corporations extract their profit and don't really care how their wood performs twenty-five years down the road. Glued wood is tricky by nature, and both complex safety and health implications are introduced by its use.

<comment><USER19> _> produced by corporations which are more interested in profit_

how is this different than any other material? or anything manufactured, for that matter?

fwiw, glu-lam wood has been used in huge structures for decades, and it works fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What about termites?

<comment><USER13> Termites need somewhere to live. They won't come along to eat a wooden house in Manhattan, unless there's some habitat for them nearby.

<comment><USER21> Sabotage, buddy. Think about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is thermal expansion of the wood not an issue?

<comment><USER23> Yes. Movement created by volume changes due to changes in moisture contentcan tend to dwarf it however. In climates with highly variable humidity the technical challenge can be substantial.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is pretty interesting. What if our housing wasn't built to last indefinitely, but had a life cycle of maybe 50-100 years? As cities change, their housing stock could more naturally change with them.

That said, I'm not sure if this style is appropriate for Manhattan today. We don't need more ten-story buildings in Chelsea for multi-millionaires, we need more 50-story buildings (still for millionaires, but hey).

<comment><USER25> The majority of housing in the US isn't even built to last 100 years (shingle roofs need replacing after ~25 years and a typical wood building will quickly deteriorate once the roof fails).

<comment><USER24> Exactly! That's why I suggested wood buildings might be interesting. Lots of the apartment buildings in Manhattan were solidly built in the late 1800s or early 1900s and are not going anywhere.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: corporate IT stories & startup ideas? - <AUTHOR>

From recent HN threads: "our corporate IT department blocks most foreign domains, such as .ly, .io, .tv, and .ng." and "What should I do, corporate IT has blocked Dropbox?"<p>Maybe we should share corporate IT war stories, and connect them with ideas for startups? <comment><USER2> never used it, but: <http://www.glassdoor.com> \--- also see <http://TheFunded.com></comment>


Nvidia creates super slow-motion video smoother than a 300K fps camera - <AUTHOR> https://www.techspot.com/news/75134-nvidia-creates-super-slow-motion-video-even-smoother.html <comment><USER2> > Even video taken at 300K fps by the Slow Mo Guys was slowed down even > further and looks even smoother than the original.

This suggests that the video accompanying that quote shows 300k fps footage, but that can't be right.

If you film at 300k fps and play back at a (generous) 60 fps, that is a slow- down factor of 5000. The footage of the tennis racket and the bursting balloon is slowed down, but not 5000x. Perhaps 50x, perhaps even 500x (doubtful) but definitely not 5000x.

Say the pool jump or the racket swing each takes only 0.1s real time. At 5000x that would mean 500s, or about 8 minutes. Clearly, the slow footage isn't _that_ slow.

This being said, the Nvidia results do look very impressive, I'm not trying to take away from that.

<comment><USER3> The tennis racket jello shot is 2500 FPS and then played at 30 FPS and interpolated to 120 FPS. The 300k number is just pure screw up in the article. The actual paper states it is 300k _frames total generated_ not frames per second.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is still a lot of room for improvement in video. I can see a day when video is seen for what it is... A collection of sensor readings. Seen this way, differences in sensitivity between imaging units can be used to gain extra information about the true color of objects. Multiple readings from the same object can be used to re-create the scene in great detail.

Imagine a future where you could zoom in and rotate around an out of focus object seen at the beginning of a video because there were a few closeup views of it 10 minutes later...

<comment><USER5> kinda the direction Lytro were trying to take

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> At some point they will stream only certain frames of a movie and let the computer figure out the intermediary frames

<comment><USER3> TVs already have this, it's referred to as motion smoothing and people hate it. TVs with high refresh rates create interpolated frames to smooth the video when the source material is at a lower frame rate. It works for some situations like sports, but in other situations it's very unpopular -like movies, but it's been a standard feature in many tvs for a long time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is really cool, but are there any uses for this outside of slow-mo shots in showbiz? Certainly interpolated frames lack the fidelity to be of scientific use.

</comment><comment><USER8> How long before this feature fits in a cell phone , I wonder.

Could radically change our thoughts on video usage.

</comment><comment><USER9> Not quite fair comparisons with the slow mo guys vids. Take a 1/4 cut of the original frames, generate your slow mo from that, and let us compare with the same rates.

The virtual slow mo of slow mo was neat, but it felt more like self flattery than scientific.

</comment><comment><USER10> Extrapolation = guessing.

<comment><USER11> Any methodology for getting more information from less information is going to involve guess work at some point, surely? This guess work just happens to be helped along by having the results of (I assume) millions or more separate videos where they already had the higher speed footage.

This is also not extrapolation, rather quite the opposite, it's interpolation.

<comment><USER10> Sure, statistically speaking well-informed guessing at an industrial scale, but still guessing.

<comment><USER12> But that's what our brains do too. We might think we're seeing the world as it is, but much of our smooth and consistent view of the world has a lot to do with our brains patching things up to make it look that way.

The thing is, that it does raise some questions - I can see things like fake super-resolution and fake slow motion and other alternative realities generated by machine learning easily fooling humans. Once things become sufficiently advanced, who's to guarantee will we always know what the true source is? Could future training be done on data that itself was generated via machine learning. That brings up a load of other questions. Interesting times ahead...

<comment><USER13> Eulerian magnification should show artifacts of the slow down.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Improving Site Speed in Google Analytics - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mythly.com/improve-site-speed-in-google-analytics/

<comment><USER2> Blog author here. This is the first time someone other than me has submitted something I've written to Hacker News, which is a nice surprise.

I have a couple more posts lined up. Feel free to post questions/comments and I'll address them here and incorporate them to future writeups.</comment>


Backup your emails with a conversion to standard formats - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/polo2ro/imapbox <comment><AUTHOR> This is a python script form imap mailbox conversion to json, text, html, attachments in a folder

<comment><USER2> If it meets the guidelines, this might make a good 'Show HN'. Show HN guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> great, i was not aware of this category, i will try this next time, thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


Who did the heroku version of HN button? - <AUTHOR> http://hnapiwrapper.herokuapp.com/

<comment><USER2> I wrote the initial version as well as have a full button you can embed:

<script type="text/javascript" src="[http://hnapiwrapper.herokuapp.com/static/js/button.js>&#...](http://hnapiwrapper.herokuapp.com/static/js/button.js></script>);

There's much more coming and soon will be a much more detailed writeup on it for the HN community. Would love to hear how you discovered it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Someone had it on his blog, which was posted here, so I've copied the code. I prefer your design than the hnlike.com.

I wrote this because the iframe gives me an error:

GET <http://hnapiwrapper.herokuapp.com/static/button.js> 404 (NOT FOUND)

Here is how I use it (I bypass the script that generates iframe; I put the iframe myself):

<http://hnpickup.appspot.com/>

Thanks

<comment><USER2> Great to hear and glad you found it. Once I get around to cleaning it up and writing some documentation around it I'll likely open source it as well as some other tools, so any changes you want to push to it would be welcome.

<comment><USER2> <http://127.0.0.1/~craig/>

_<http://127.0.0.1/~craig/*>

<comment><USER3> Would you mind sharing what are you testing here?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Complete Guide on Setting Up Hibernation (Without a Swapfile) on Linux - ika-musuko https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/ds9w9e/straightforward_tutorial_on_how_to_set_up/ <comment> ika-musuko This is a post I made on Reddit showing how to properly set up hibernation on Linux. The information seems mostly fragmented or incorrect right now so I compiled the information into one post. If anyone has any suggestions for good places to write this information, please let me know.</comment>