A Practical Way to Fight Sexism in Tech Today (Literally, Today) - <AUTHOR> http://logos-creative.com/a-practical-way-to-fight-sexism-in-tech-today-literally-today/

<comment><USER2> "...attracting people who aren't white males (which I am)."

which I am not. ___Stops reading_ __. I guess I'm just not the intended audience...

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a shame, because I address that idea in, literally, the next line.

<comment><USER2> Actually, no it doesn't. There are plenty of non-white people in the tech industry and your article makes it sound otherwise.

<comment><AUTHOR> I had no intention of inferring that, as I often make that point myself. The sentence you first referred to stated:

"But, all that aside, we're still in the middle of a long, long discussion in our industry about attracting people who aren't white males (which I am)."

...which is an observation of a discussion, not a statement about demographics, and that discussion is happening whether it's actually relevant or not.

<comment><USER2> I don't see any discussion about attracting people who aren't white people when > 50% of people in my office aren't white. Citation would be good.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're devolving here.

Note that my post was specifically regarding GoDaddy fostering sexism (intentionally or not), but that many of the discussions _also_ involve being diverse in other areas. For instance, the very first link in my article is to one called "The Problem with a Slate of White, Male Speakers". So, please, find that discussion elsewhere as it's happening—but, I had nothing to say on ethnicity other than pointing out my own for clarity's sake and stating that it shouldn't matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is Bob Parsons (the elephant hunting guy) still CEO of GoDaddy, like OP's link suggests?

The guy's homepage says he's "only" executive chairman ([1]) but Wikipedia says he stepped down as CEO in 2011, citing this interview [2].

[1] <http://www.bobparsons.me/index.php>

[2] [https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/bob- parsons.html...](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/bob- parsons.html?_r=0)

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe it occurred while he was CEO, but I'm happy to update that language to be more correct. I don't want that to be any sort of focus of this writing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thank you! Another way to contribute: tweet #notbuyingit at sexist companies advertising during the Super Bowl.

[http://www.missrepresentation.org/media/nbi/notbuyingit- list...](http://www.missrepresentation.org/media/nbi/notbuyingit-list-of- super-bowl-advertisers-twitter-handles/#handles)

</comment><comment><USER5> Weren't us tech-savvies already supposed to be boycotting godaddy because of their support for SOPA?

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps, but the point here was to encourage us to discuss things with the non-'tech-savvies'.</comment></comment>


Theranos Results Could Throw Off Medical Decisions, Study Finds - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-results-could-throw-off-medical-decisions-study-finds-1459196177 <comment><USER2> Good that these comparative tests are being done and publicized. Without clear, public performance metrics and regular accountability for those metrics, a medical test is worse than useless.

That said, they didn't fail on every test, so maybe there's hope yet for something similar to work, or for a fingerprick approach to be acceptable for certain tests.

Medicine is one of those areas where a small hiccup can have life threatening consequences. Smoke and mirrors, hype and secrecy must eventually yield to public accountability. It's good to see this getting out there.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Alternate sources:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/business/study-of- theranos...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/business/study-of-theranos- medical-tests-finds-irregular-results.html)

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/03/28/therano...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/03/28/theranos- tests-have-flaws-but-may-be-fixable-independent-researchers-say)

</comment><comment><USER3> Why isn't there the same kind of backlash and scrutiny on bogus allergy tests like ALCAT?</comment>


Did Brexit Make British Retailers Competitive? - <AUTHOR> http://www.pricentile.com/article/did-brexit-make-british-retailers-competitive <comment><USER2> Well, yeah. That is part of the point of devaluing a currency: it makes exports more competitive on the world market.

<comment><AUTHOR> It gets more interesting with branded goods which are completely fungible. In theory they have a global MSRP or at least a globally optimised one, to avoid arbitrage, and brands get pretty advanced in fighting the grey market (for example, I read Chanel is now using custom molecules to identify fragrances destined for different export markets - the invisible ink serial numbers were too rapidly found and copied).

But the UK MSRP just dropped 10%. I'm looking forward to see how fast the MSRPs will adjust.</comment></comment>


What is opensource and why do I feel so guilty? (2012) [video] - <AUTHOR> http://byfat.xxx/what-is-opensource-and-why-do-i-feel-so-guilty <comment><USER3> Ugh. This post and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8712035](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8712035) just gave me some incentives to do the following to these types of GitHub issues on my OSS projects:

[https://github.com/mizzao/meteor- autocomplete/issues/98](https://github.com/mizzao/meteor- autocomplete/issues/98)

<comment><USER4> Sometimes I feel guilty closing even low quality issues like those :(

<comment><USER5> There should be no guilt on either side. Sometimes putting time into investigating the stack trace isn't worth it for the user. However, reporting it still a good idea because the developer might recognize a regression or another angle at a bug being already experienced. If not, it's not a big deal to dismiss.

<comment><USER6> I don't agree. The reporting party should feel guilty about not putting effort into providing system information and troubleshooting further and reporting their findings. This is exactly why Stack Overflow works so well: low quality questions are downvoted mercilessly, and closed if they aren't improved within a short time period. It is also why automated reporting tools provide a good amount of contextual information along with the error and stack trace.

Furthermore, not including a description of the issue along with the stack trace makes it impossible for other users to determine if they are experiencing the same issue or something else (since it is possible for two different bugs to produce the same stack trace, or even the same error message).

<comment><USER7> The alternative to a low quality bug report is usually no bug report. Démiurge is spot on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Answer to clickbait title found 20 minutes in:

Opensourcing a project that becomes popular induces guilt, because it needs your time and attention to thrive, but you can't afford to give it, especially if you're interested in creating other things.

<comment><USER9> This claiming "clickbait" trend is getting out of control. It's like teenagers using the word "random" as a catchall term for who-knows-what.

By definition, the title of a talk given at a conference can't be clickbait.

Furthermore, how can you claim the title's content wasn't represented until 20 mins in? The title has two parts, one of which you seem to completely ignore.

<comment><USER10> If the title of your post is a question then by definition it's clickbait. A more reasonable title would be, "The open source community and the pressure of being part of it."

<comment><USER11> That simple rhetoric for some reason makes you salty does not make it "unreasonable." And using a title to ask a question predates "clickbait" by _thousands of years_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is one of those situations where it would be great to have slides detailing points of the video. His are just drawings of some people's names and time points. I love the retro, sketch-style art but it doesn't tell me a thing. Several minutes in of rambling and I _still_ don't know what it's about. Click the little X...

So, out of thousands of vids on the net on OSS or programming... each 20+ min long... why watch this unless I'm already a fan of the authors work? Not even critiquing the presentation as much as saying: give us a matching article or slides that lets us determine if we really want to watch the video. If it strikes a chord, people watch the presentation. Otherwise, most will just skip it and miss out on any gems it might have had. And that's a _rational_ decision given the flood of info on the web.

This applies to a ton of videos rather than just @fat's. Anyone having to do a lot of research or want to get most out of their time relies on summaries. People not doing them are reducing impact of their own work.

<comment><USER13> I enjoyed it. The entire talk isn't about the history of open source - <USER2> eventually gets into issues about maintaining open source in modern day on GitHub.

<comment><USER12> 1 of 2 comments that help solve the problem AndyKelley and I have with it. Appreciate it. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This sounds like a good article (from the title), however my company seems to have bulk-blocked the .xxx TLD. Out of curiosity, why did you put your blog on the .xxx domain?

Unless you are talking about open-source boobs, or something. Then I understand completely.

<comment><USER15> > Out of curiosity, why did you put your blog on the .xxx domain?

Maybe it helps to point out how silly it is to filter based on the TLD.

<comment><USER16> Or underlines how silly it is to use a TLD ostensibly intended for porn sites for a blog.

<comment><USER17> Would you prefer .com? Or .org?

<comment><USER16> 30 years ago .com may have been intended specifically for commercial purposes but that is buried underneath three decades of use as a generic catch-all TLD and as such using it communicates almost nothing about the site in question.

.org is by convention and usage largely reserved for nonprofit organizations. As such use of .org (intentionally or otherwise) communicates that the website in question is for a nonprofit.

xxx is, at merely 4 years old, brand spanking new. There hasn't been time for intent and practice to diverge meaningfully, ergo it's perfectly reasonable to assume a site that uses the .xxx tld is in fact a porn site.

<comment><USER18> In much the same was as io meaning input output and not an island!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Regardless of how you might feel about this talk, I feel like it's awesome because it's so entertaining :)

</comment><comment><USER20> Skip to 19 minutes in for the content.

</comment><comment><USER21> Or you can not maintain your projects and it doesn't matter.</comment>


AMD Opteron 6200 chips boast 16 cores - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/infrastructure/3317943/amd-opteron-6200-chips-boast-sixteen-cores/

<comment><USER2> Dell have a server with the 6200 series integrated, here's a review if your interested? [http://www.zdnet.co.uk/reviews/sme- servers/2011/11/14/dell-p...](http://www.zdnet.co.uk/reviews/sme- servers/2011/11/14/dell-poweredge-r815-40094404/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Gaming?

<comment><USER4> No. [http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review- amd-...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd- fx8150-tested/8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is being marketed as a "server" chip... The only application I can see this doing well in would be low-energy markets. But even then I doubt it will be successful with all the advancements in ARM.

<comment><USER6> ARM chips aren't that great at floating point, which is what most scientific computing heavily uses.

This is why RISC held on for so long in the '90s - x86 traditionally was pretty bad at floating point.

Then again, these AMD chips likely share one FPU between each core pair, so performance is yet to be determined.

<comment><USER7> They probably need high-optimization vectorizing, parallelizing compilers too. Not sure how many of those there are for ARM.</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft worried over .NET fragmentation   - <AUTHOR> http://www.sdtimes.com/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=32690

<comment><USER2> _"Since framework teams at Microsoft can develop managed code software so much faster than they could using C++, their own efforts are dramatically accelerated. They no longer have the time to do coordination with other teams; such coordination would quickly become the bottleneck to getting their own efforts out the door. In a culture such as Microsoft, which values shipped software above all else, such a bottleneck will by necessity be bypassed," Hollis said._

So Microsoft's productivity is too good? So good that the business process is slowing things down more than coding? Isn't that good? I see this as a problem for managers at Microsoft not necessarily the developers.

I agree there are issues with .NET but this doesn't seem to be one of them. I think the bigger problem will be what to do with enterprise code that was written for 1.1, 2.0, etc and will be around for 10-20 years. Microsoft will need backwards compatibility with all these releases for a long time (1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 3.5 SPx).

</comment><comment><USER3> They're right to worry. It's a headache. Having a new version of the framework every year is also a headache (for desktop development anyway).

I'm not sure what else they can do, though. .NET is their development platform. They've got to keep turning out new stuff. Where else is it going to go?

<comment><USER2> I've never had any problems with getting installers to install the proper version of Microsoft's .NET framework.

As for getting the right version of .NET on the customer's box their installer works (in VS2008) and InstallShield works with no problems. I've done product installs and enterprise installs with no problems from .NET framework versioning.

I had problems upgrading code from 1.0 to 1.1 and from 1.1 to 2.0 but no problems upgrading to new .NET frameworks since then. I've also had no problems with VS2008 targeting different .NET frameworks. I agree historically it was a problem but M$ has addressed it recently and things seem to work.

[EDIT: Reformatted and reworded things a bit]

<comment><USER3> If your customers have to download a big new framework before trying out your app, that is one more hurdle you've got to get past in order to sell. Customers who are not computer sophisticated may be scared away and others will consider it too much hassle (frex, if they are on dial-up).

<comment><USER2> Ya that is a valid point. I've yet to work on a product which targets dial-up or older machines.

The product I work on right now is for engineers who design and manufacture things. 97% of them have .NET 2.0+ with XP or Vista. The remaining 3% are Windows 2k. Almost everyone has .NET 2.0 installed but occasionally there is some squirrelly box in a manufacturing plant with no internet connection. For those customers they just use a CD with the application and framework on it.

If you are targeting customers using Windows 98 or Windows 2k then you are also limited to .NET 1.1 or 2.0.

.NET 3.0 and 3.5+ are XP or Vista only. And as I mentioned before most people in the windows world (at least engineers) are using XP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't know why they're very worried; they have central control over the fragmentation - unlike something distributed like open source

<comment><USER5> It appears that the "central" control is not as centralized as one might think-- in other words, different teams appear to be working (and contributing to the framework) without full knowledge of what other teams are doing, at the risk of dissipating a coherent vision.

<comment><USER4> well unlike open source MS can tell their teams to stop working ala Internet Explorer 6

<comment><USER5> True-- but that takes oversight and communication.

Contra the article earlier today, where someone thought he had vanquished The Mythical Man-Month-- the reality is still n(n-1)/2, and there's no silver bullet for that one.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


ICANN Radar (Contact Info Database) Hacked - <AUTHOR> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-05-28-en

<comment><USER2> They were warned this would happen when they started asking everyone for contact information this year. I hope someone gets fired over this.</comment>


Why I cancelled my TechEd talks - <AUTHOR> http://goodenoughsoftware.net/2013/07/18/the-charlie-foxtrot-aka-teched/ <comment><USER3> I've spoken at TechEds in the US and Europe, and been in the top 10 for attendee feedback twice.

I'd never speak at TechEd again, and I told Microsoft the same thing, same reasons. The event staff is overly demanding and inconsiderate of speaker time. They repeatedly dragged me into mandatory virtual and in-person meetings to cover inane details that should have been covered via email. They mandated the color of pants speakers wore. Just ridiculously micromanaged.

<comment><USER4> _They mandated the color of pants speakers wore._

Am I really reading this? Wow.

<comment><USER3> Khakis, with brown shoes. Not tennis shoes, although trendy sneakers (but not athletic shoes) would be considered.

The most insulting part: the Microsoft keynote speakers - MS employees - <USER2> in jeans and track suits. They were trying to look approachable. Hilarious because you couldn't approach them and ask a question during keynotes.

<comment><USER5> I'm a Microsoft employee who has spoken at one TechEd and staffed a booth at another. Rest assured, the style cops were all over us to conform to the dress code. I can believe that there's a different standard for keynote speakers, who are usually notable or "important" in some way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can understand (though find it ridiculous) that they didn't want to give his wife a ticket, but to propose simply leaving her outside the venue alone? What the actual fuck? Was there not a human-based moment of common sense here, or at least marketing sense from Microsoft?

When people behave like that, the umbrella of some corporate behemoth doesn't prevent me from from feeling pessimistic about people (both those in question and often generally.) Sigh!

<comment><USER7> While I completely agree with the general sentiment and I think Microsoft went in the wrong direction here, presumably his wife is an adult and could find a Starbucks or something to entertain herself for an hour or two.

While it would have been completely reasonable and courteous of MS to accommodate the speaker's wife, it's kind of wild to equate not letting her in to kicking her to the curb/abandoning her.

<comment><USER8> New Orleans right now has the _highest_ murder rate in the US. It is not only a very dangerous city, it is in fact currently the most dangerous city in the entire country.

[http://www.npr.org/2012/07/05/155986277/new-orleans- struggle...](http://www.npr.org/2012/07/05/155986277/new-orleans-struggles- with-murder-rate-and-trust)

Leaving someone out in a strange foreign city of this nature to just _deal with it_ is absurd.

<comment><USER9> I've never seen a major conference center that didn't have a place to drink coffee and read for 2 hours without being killed. There are even large, open pre-registration areas in the center for folks to chill for exactly this sort of reason.

That said, it sounds like he and his wife were treated horribly.

<comment><USER10> Security removed her from the building. You don't go back in a building you have been forcibly removed from unless you want to be arrested.

<comment><USER9> I'd say that counts as being treated horribly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is sad because this is the opposite of my pre-Microsoft TechEd experience.

When I was in school, I got asked to do a demo for a Senior VP's keynote at TechEd to demo how a student would use Visual Studio. My parents happened to be in the vicinity and I was chatting with them outside the conference venue when a Microsoft employee walked by and asked who they were. When I told him, he asked me to get them inside so they could watch my talk in the big keynote hall, no passes required. That's the only time my dad has ever seen speak me in public and was a very special moment - it probably influenced how I perceived Microsoft and it's employees at a young age.

This particular case smacks of no one with any such decision making authority (basically a full time employee at Microsoft) present there who could help.

<comment><USER12> > This particular case smacks of no one with any such decision making > authority (basically a full time employee at Microsoft) present there who > could help.

Seriously, this should have never happened.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> What I appreciate about the OP is that he has plenty of reason to get mad, but he also recognizable the failure as a result of systematic flaws: the lack of point people and support staff, for instance. I hope I can show as much reasonibility as the OP if I ever get caught in a shitty bureaucratic mix.

<comment><USER14> He's definitely a better man than I. Surely there is someone(s) responsible for their UX and I think it's too lenient to say "them's the breaks". Unfortunately there's apparently nothing he can do about it as evidenced by their non-response and even threat. No point in getting worked up over things you can't control.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> As someone who as exhibited at TechEd before, it's a poorly run event contracted out to the lowest bidder... just like he said.

It's the Microsoft way, their events are a reflection of how Microsoft truly is.

<comment><USER16> I worked for a company that had a contract with Microsoft and I must say our travel and accommodation was handled well and they didn't cheap out. One piece of anecdotal evidence to throw out there.

<comment><USER17> In my experience, it all depends on who's picking up the tab. I assume you were hired as a consultant for a project. In that case, their client was paying, so there wasn't a reason to be cheap.

(And, of course, Microsoft is a huge organization; even if some policies are standardized, the way they are implemented can still vary wildly.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This sucks. However it's never been my experience, and I've brought my wife to a half-dozen techeds on three continents. Sounds like systematic misunderstandings that added up into one big mess.

(I've ignored the dress code for 15 years, FWIW)

<comment><USER19> Then again, you're MSFT employee.

<comment><USER20> He's talking about 15 years, but has been a MSFT employee for 6 years or so - [http://www.hanselman.com/blog/BlueBadge.aspx](http://www.hanselman.com/blog/BlueBadge.aspx)

<comment><USER21> Right.. so his experience is either out of date, or as an MSFT employee.

<comment><USER18> No, the little red shirt vendor kids don't know me from anyone. I'm just saying there's multiple sides to every story and perhaps there's more to this one. I wasn't there.

My point is that I've never had a problem like this at any conference anywhere. Being pleasant and explaining one's self has always worked well for me when traveling with relatives to these conferences.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Wow this is horrible. I hope Microsoft does something to rectify this.

I had the complete opposite experience speaking at One More Thing in Australia. The organisers completely took care of my wife and infant son, were constantly on-hand to provide any assistance. They went beyond what I expected.

</comment><comment><USER23> Repeat after me:

        Microsoft 201X is IBM 199X

Then everything starts to make sense: Surface. TechEd. Windows Phone.

</comment><comment><USER24> It sounds like they treated you poorly, and I'm naturally inclined to side with people who would abandon the exposure that a set of TechEd talks would bring in favor of not ignoring his wife, but...

...did you make your wife's inclusion part of the contract? To the folks you dealt with on site, it may have seemed that you were springing something unexpected on them at the last second. "Hey, my wife gets in free to take pictures or I walk."

Yes, it should have been trivial for them to allow that, but is it possible you came off as a bully? I wouldn't have made the same decision as they did, but I can imagine a scenario when bringing up your wife in the 11th hour would have gotten my ire up a little.

</comment><comment><USER25> I've run into some bad situations due to lowest bidder staff at conferences as well. One travel agency agreed to a bulk rate, then started charging everyone full price after the first 5 or so people. Meanwhile there were plane and visa deadlines and the like and they did this while they had visas in hand, preventing people from going elsewhere for travel and still making the trip.

</comment><comment><USER26> I wonder how many +1-as-a-service startups we'll see in the next YC batch.

<comment><USER27> I think that's only legal in Nevada.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Off topic, but I do love his web site.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, lots of good .Net stuff

He might have convinced me to port to Mono.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I don't think they expected him to bring guests to a tech conference. What if he brought his kids as well? Grandma? Free $2000 tickets for all? Remember that the hired guns at these events are not paid to think, just follow orders. He should have got special clearance weeks in advance for free entrance for his family - that's the uncomfortable truth.

He will probably live to regret this as a speaking gig at TechEd as a non-MS employee is not to be sniffed at and now he has shunned the Borg - whom he must be pretty invested in skills wise to be invited in the first place. His wife could have gone and done some sightseeing while he works for a few hours.

<comment><USER30> I've spoken at lots of conferences, brought friends to many of my talks, and would do _exactly_ what he did in the same circumstance.

<comment><USER31> As a counter example, I have been to a number of conferences where the speakers/presenters/panelists and volunteers were expected to pay the full registration fee, so as you can imagine, friends/family and +1's wouldn't get special treatment.

While some events are pretty laid back, it looks like the registration for this event cost ~$2000, which is a pretty penny. My gut instinct would be to check with the event organizers first before trying to bring a +1, but I think the OP assumed that because he was able to negotiate with the travel coordinators for two one way tickets, one for his wife (instead of one round trip ticket), he probably assumed that this was implicit consent for his wife to tag along at the conference. Seems like a big mis-understanding that was confounded by poor treatment from security staff (and before we start ragging on the security staff, it is worth mentioning that event security tends to be a thankless, miserable job. Crappy wages and hours, and depending on the event, you spend most of your time dealing with people who treat you like shit.)

<comment><USER30> Who would speak at an event that charged speakers to do so?

These events may charge $2000 a head, but it doesn't cost them $2000, or even $5, to let a +1 watch your talk.

<comment><USER32> I think I've had to pay to talk at any association for computing machinery, association for computing in the humanities, american library association, society of american archivists, society of california archivists, and collation for networked information meeting I've given a talk at. Didn't used to have to pay to talk at digital library federation meetings; but that was when your organization had to pay a 5 figure membership to send folks. I've even had to pay to talk at the university of california computing services conference. I din't have to pay to talk at the library of congress or the national archives. Those are pretty much the only places I've given a speech (besides in high school when I was on the speech team).

<comment><USER33> At many acedemic conferences, it might be only speakers showing up. Anyways, increasing the number of papers you accept is a good way to boost attendance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think this is definitely one of the more reasonable 'rants' I have seen.

I would be hella pissed if this happened to me too.

Thanks for the heads-up. After this, I wouldn't even go to a TechEd much less speak at one - I know that you need to be invited, and I am not being so presumptuous to assume that I would be, just saying that if I were....after hearing this story and MSFT's non-response, I wouldn't entertain it.

</comment><comment><USER35> Meh. While they sure could have been more accomodating, 30 minutes before a talk is not the right time bring up your deal breaking demands.

<comment> mark-ruwt Totally agree. If you pause to think about it, for a conference as large and expectedly bureaucratic as this one, asking for a last-minute ticket for your wife is no different than asking for one for a colleague. It's something that should have been taken care of more than 30 minutes before the talk.

<comment><USER27> He didn't ask for a ticket. He asked for her to be allowed into his own talk for the hour while he was giving it. That's a pretty tame and reasonable request.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Developers! Developers! Developers!

</comment><comment><USER37> Isn't releasing the detail about the color of pants allowed in breach of some NDA ;)

</comment><comment><USER38> This conference doesn't seem to be about tech anymore. Glad people are spreading the word, so MS can control & fix the damage. Tech conferences should be cool, interesting, and educational, all regardless of what you wear.

</comment><comment><USER39> I know a conference that refused to let a pregnant woman in.

</comment><comment><USER40> OP acted correctly, actually he could have gone to his talk and explain briefly to the attendees why he was leaving.

</comment><comment><USER36> Duh. Microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER41> For the antithesis of this: webstock.org.nz Famous for spending love and effort on speakers.

</comment><comment><USER42> Too bad to hear of your experience. Having stopped MS development 15 years ago I don't miss the way that company treats developers.

</comment><comment><USER43> So let me make sure I get this correct - you brought your wife to a conference that it costs nearly $2k to get tickets too and you expected your wife to be able to get in, sans purchasing this ticket. I think your expectations of what you bought are off. Would you expect to get your wife into a movie theater free? A music concert? Unless you worked out special arrangements well in advance how did this even evaluate to a workable situation in your head? Now you rant on HN to get some publicity from the easy to please anti-MS crowd.. can you please post up a "How Go changed my life" article next while we're trolling?

<comment><USER44> He expected his wife to be able to stay and see the talk that he had been invited to give and had gone out of his way to go to.

You seriously think it's unreasonable to get a +1 to your own talk?</comment></comment>


Principles of Algorithmic Problem Solving (2017) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.csc.kth.se/~jsannemo/slask/main.pdf <comment><USER2> Skimming through the ToC this looks similar to Antti Laaksonen's Competitive Programmer's Handbook [1], which I would also recommend.

[1] [https://cses.fi/book/index.html](https://cses.fi/book/index.html)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for linking this. This is exactly the type of book I was trying to find a couple of months ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Lots of Algorithm books I've come across do not have a lot of exercises and focus heavily on proofs. It's great to see that this book does have a lot of exercises.

<comment><USER5> I've found the best way to read those sorts of books is to treat the proofs as the exercises, i.e. doing the proof blind and using the proof inside as a check.

<comment><USER4> True, but the proofs themselves are very much explained with mathematical notations. Personally, for me, It's been over 5 years since I left college and solved any math problems. I don't remember what the symbols mean anymore.

I've to constantly keep googling what the symbols mean and takes a lot of time, turns discouraging to keep going through the material. So there's a deeper study going on in there just to understand, say- what an asymptotic notation means in the algorithmic world.

I definitely would love to dive deep into math since it is the foundation of algorithms, but it's good to have source material with beginner exercises. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong places...

I agree with your point, taking the proof as exercises will make things challenging for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would love to know when a none draft version of this document is expected to be available. Is this the latest version?

<comment><USER7> > the latest version of this draft, available at > [http://csc.kth.se/~jsannemo/slask/main.pdf](http://csc.kth.se/~jsannemo/slask/main.pdf)

Yes.

<comment><USER6> Thank you for the link :-) I see the link to the latest version was actually referenced right in the disclaimer in the PDF. I should have noticed that :-P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I remember being in a Spotify hackathon with Johan many years ago. Fantastic problem solver. Happy to see his work here.

You wrote on my blog post on the hackathon at the time (2011) that I had "some promise for algorithmic problem solving". Really inspired me to dive into CS.

<comment><USER9> I trying to find a the blog link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The book is extra impressive because the author is 24 years old. :) I don't mean that in any disparaging way. Johan is already an insanely accomplished developer who has gone and will go very far.

</comment><comment><USER11> It is amazing to see my school here :) Horraaaayyyyyy

</comment><comment><USER12> Is there an epub version of this?

<comment><USER13> +1</comment></comment>


Nuclear fusion startup raises $100M to design and build a demo power plant - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-16/bezos-backed-fusion-start-up-raises-100-million-for-demo-system <comment><USER2> No new technical details.

The whole article is just about this press release:

[https://generalfusion.com/2019/12/general-fusion- closes-65m-...](https://generalfusion.com/2019/12/general-fusion- closes-65m-of-series-e-financing/)

"General Fusion Closes $65M of Series E Financing"

<comment><USER3> This is their design: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3zcmPmW6dE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3zcmPmW6dE)

<comment><USER2> One would think that if it were so easy, nobody would bother with magnets:

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

"If ITER becomes operational, it will become the largest magnetic confinement plasma physics experiment in use with a plasma volume of 840 cubic meters,[15] surpassing the Joint European Torus by almost a factor of 10."

I fail to find any hint to a reasonable estimation of viability of General Fusion's concept.

Edit: and I mean a written estimation, not that they will now, with the received money, according to their own words, just "formally launch the program" (note they promise _just_ to _formally launch_ the program, nothing more) "to design, construct, and subsequently operate its Fusion Demonstration Plant." Heh.

<comment><USER4> In fact there is something like a dozen groups working on prototypes to do fusion cheaper than ITER. Obviously, the people running ITER don't think that it can be done cheaper. The race is on!

What I don't understand is why the WX-7 looks nothing like ITER. The people putting together WX-7 evidently thought that these convolutions were required, yet the ITER group does not. The race is not simple!

<comment><USER5> >The people putting together WX-7 evidently thought that these convolutions were required, yet the ITER group does not...

They're just two different ways to solve the same problem. If you confine a plasma in a symmetric toroidal field, the difference in field strength between the inner and outer edges of the torus cause the electrons and protons in the field to separate. This causes a buildup of huge voltages in the plasma, causing a breakdown in the magnetic field.

A stellarator fixes this by twisting the plasma loop into a figure 8 pattern that causes electrons and protons to twist and loop round the plasma path and roughly cancel out the voltages, not quite, but close. A tokamak confines the particles in a torroidal field, but winds the magnetic field lines round the torus in a helical pattern.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The founder of General Fusion was somebody who lived in the same small island community as me. He's a true hacker. Very eccentric. If I recall correctly, he bought the old gas station which was on the main street of the island and that's where he brought his prototype to life. I think people were surprised to learn that the eccentric mad scientist was working on nuclear experiments next to their homes :)

<comment><USER6> Which island is it?

<comment><USER7> according to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Laberge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Laberge) it is British Columbia.

<comment><USER8> British Columbia is not an island. The website for General Fusion [0] notes that the island in question is Bowen Island.

[0] [https://generalfusion.com/2014/07/from-the-archives- general-...](https://generalfusion.com/2014/07/from-the-archives-general- fusions-early-garage-laboratory/)

<comment><USER7> I am not familiar with the area, but according to Google "Bowen Island is Municipality in British Columbia, Canada" .

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Forget the power, 1.5GWt plant of this design could make almost 5 party balloons per hour worth of helium!

mev_per_fusion = 17.59e6

mev_per_j = 1.602e-19

pwr_thermal = 1.5e9

j_per_fusion = mev_per_fusion * mev_per_j

fusions_per_second = pwr_thermal/j_per_fusion

l_He_per_second = 22.4 * fusions_per_second / 6.02e23

l_per_ballon = 14.1

ballons_per_hr = (l_He_per_second * 60 * 60)/l_per_ballon

<comment><USER10> I remember my dad saying about ten years ago that we should flatout stop selling helium to the average consumer until we've really cracked fusion. His reasoning was that helium is used in medicine and quantum computing, which has a whole slew of uses, vs a balloon that some kid is going to lose in five minutes anyway.

It would be pretty neat if we made helium a renewable resource, even if it is slow.

<comment><USER11> I'd say more helium is generated in the Earth crust than the potential fusion reactors powering all of humanity. Probably by several orders of magnitude.

Just distill it out of the atmosphere before it escapes into space - it'll be only a small order of magnitude more expensive than today's helium.

<comment><USER10> Forgive me for some ignorance here, since I know almost nothing about nuclear physics or chemistry, but from what I understood, doesn't helium escape out into space? Would there even be any to extract outta the atmosphere?

<comment><USER11> There is helium in the atmosphere. It is on its way from being created in the crust to escaping into space. But as long as it is in the atmosphere, it could be extracted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> ITER has been working on this problem for almost a decade now, and with more money available to them. What are the odds some startup can beat them to the punch?

<comment><AUTHOR> > _ITER has been working on this problem for almost a decade now_

ITER has been working on _one implementation_ of magnetic confinement. It's an international effort, bringing to the battle the advantages of scale and disadvantages of multilateral bureaucracy.

Since ITER was formed in 2007 [1], the bleeding edge has advanced beyond Tokomaks. Advanced computational methods birthed the Wendelstein 7-X [2]. Improved superconducting magnets are compacting designs, reducing costs--and thus accessibility to start-ups--through mass reduction.

It's almost _likely_ a start-up beats ITER. And that's fine! I don't know if any of these designs would be where they are if ITER hadn't been funded.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Organization_history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Organization_history)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X)

<comment><USER13> You're right about better superconductors leading to more compact and cheaper reactor designs, but many, if not most, of those designs are still tokamaks. To say that the bleeding edge has moved beyond tokamaks is just wrong.

To take your example of Wendelstein 7-X, the only sources I can find give an expected Q factor of 0.1. JET was getting 0.75 ages ago. ITER will hopefully hit 10. While I'm excited about stellarators because they're very interesting to research, they probably won't be catching up to tokamaks any time soon.

<comment><USER14> >ITER will hopefully hit 10.

As a layman, is it right to think that this would mean viable fusion has arrived at that point? I mean, 10x energy out/in is a victory, no? Is there another factor that stops ITER from being immediately used and replicated for energy generation?

<comment><USER15> Yes and no.

ITER will be first device to produce more _heat energy_ than put in, but it won't be generating any electricity. [1] It will instead be used to make research on, so we can plan the next project, codenamed DEMO.

DEMO will produce net energy, but still be experimental, for designing final version of a commercial fusion power plant. And that commercial plant is aimed to be working by 2050. [2]

ITER is rather looked upon as risk-free and certain way to fusion, whereas startups... are startups. IMHO, we need both approaches.

Also there are many more fusion startups than General Fusion, here are some to follow:

\- Tokamak Energy: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuSlFJbBUIj1zfJLRnGXSow](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuSlFJbBUIj1zfJLRnGXSow) \- LPP Fusion: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiBditpj7sdROMYz02qoCMQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiBditpj7sdROMYz02qoCMQ) \- TAE Technologies: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC- LHpK7z8vjMq2-pt4wG4ug](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC- LHpK7z8vjMq2-pt4wG4ug) \- Commonwealth Fusion Systems: [https://cfs.energy](https://cfs.energy) \- First Light Fusion: [https://firstlightfusion.com](https://firstlightfusion.com)

1: [https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines](https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines) 2: [https://www.iter.org/mag/3/22](https://www.iter.org/mag/3/22)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I used to have a favorable impression of what General Fusion was doing.

Their approach addressed one of the big engineering problems facing fusion: have materials that can withstand the power/area across the surface of the reactor, and particularly stand up to neutron and energetic charged particle bombardment of the reactor structure.

Their first approach involved putting a plasmoid (spheromak, as I recall) in a cavity in a bath of liquid metal (lithium say), then launching a focused shock wave inward to compress the cavity and the plasma to very high density. There would be no solid reactor component exposed to the radiation from the plasma (a thick layer of liquid lithium would be interposed in all directions), and the peak pressure could be much higher than structural materials could withstand (because the compression and reaction would occur on time scale short compared to the time required for a sound wave to propagate across the liquid.)

But it turned out this approach was fatally flawed.

While they had trouble with confinement, the big problem is that to get that fast a reaction, very high density, and therefore very strong magnetic fields (magnetic pressure goes as magnetic field squared) would be required. Peak fields in their first approach would be as high as 700 T. But this would imply very large currents would be flowing in the liquid metal compressing the magnetized plasma. Beyond ~100 T, these current would be so strong that the surface of the metal would be vaporized, and non-conducting metal vapor would flow into and quench the plasma. Game over.

So, they've gone to a slow scheme. The implosion is now subsonic, and also there's a metal post running down the center of the chamber to increase stability. But this ruins the main attractive feature of their concept. That metal post will be subject to orders of magnitude higher average neutron flux than the walls of typical fusion concepts, and will also be crushed with magnetic pressure from 100 T magnetic fields. The engineering to make this work would be beyond heroic. The subsonic compression also means the entire reactor vessel will experience very high pressures, even if the rest of it is shielded from the radiation.

</comment><comment><USER17> It will be interesting to see where this is based, and I am wondering if it will partly be in Singapore. Singapore sovereign wealth fund Temasek led the funding, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's wife Ho Ching serves as the chief executive.

<comment><USER18> Given the size of Singapore, I think you are far better off with the research facility safely nestled in some corner of British Columbia rather than in your back yard.

<comment><USER19> Fusion reactors _should_ be fairly safe, no chance of an explosion or meltdown or whatever AFAIK.

During testing I suppose things could go wrong, but they'd probably be barking up the wrong tree then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Given $b investment opportunities, $m investment makes me think this remains long-range, high risk research. I don't see this as evidence "fusion on earth for power is now real"

Whats real, is that a lot of money is sloshing around in the hands of people who are more motivated to put it into this kind of venture, than before. Space sucked up some of it, but now space is proven to be a viable investment choice, higher risk money has to look somewhere else.

</comment><comment><USER21> How do people think nuclear fusion will affect renewable energies when it comes to maturity? Does this technology make solar and wind some what redundant?

<comment><USER22> Fusion is more expensive to construct reactors for, but once we have figured out how to do it, the cost will go down rapidly. The fuel for reactors is abundant and cheap, it would effectively end producing power by digging up minerals of any type.

Renewable energies will probably survive for a while but eventually it'll be all fusion. In my opinion, the production of fusion energy will be so cheap that it would be more cost effective to just dump the energy, hence the spikes in power consumption can be compensated by running more reactors and dumping the excess.

<comment><USER16> Why do you think the cost will go down rapidly? Fusion reactors are going to be very big, much bigger than fission reactors of the same power output, and also much more complex. Where does this expectation of them being cheap come from?

<comment><USER22> They are big and expensive now. If they prove themselves then the economics of scale apply and the price goes down. And of course a lot more funding in the sciences to figure out how to make them cheaper because there is more economic interest.

<comment><USER16> The problem is, the exact same argument can be applied to all the things fusion would be competing against. In engineering, unlike children in Lake Woebegone, it's not possible for all competitors to come out on top.

To put it another way, the same argument you're making could be applied to (say) making computers from vacuum tubes, or balloons out of lead, or any of a myriad of approaches to solving problems that are losers regardless of effort expended. Why are we assuming fusion isn't also similarly a loser?

<comment><USER22> There is a stark difference; the fuel for fusion reactors is the most common element in the universe. And literally every other energy source derives it's energy from fusion byproducts.

<comment><USER16> But this is no argument either. It's like arguing "vacuum tube computers have the advantage that they have no moving parts. And all other computer technologies use the electrons that are manipulated in vacuum tubes."

All that could be true, and fusion could still be hopelessly uncompetitive. The problem is the complexity, difficulty, and size of fusion reactors. Free fuel doesn't make up for that. All the long term beyond-fossil fuel competitors fusion has to beat are also only loosely constrained by fuel availability.

<comment><USER22> Well, I would disagree, the computer comparison doesn't really hold since normal computers don't have a limited and localized supply of electrons (unless they are a laptop). It's more like arguing that a modern 4U Server has more performance than a laptop, really. Which is true.

Fusion reactors might be complex and difficult to figure out, but once it has been figured out the free market will inevitably make it cheaper.

Fuel availability is indeed a problem, IIRC the uranium reserves will hold us out for another 200 years before running out. At current energy demands. So realistically more like 100 years. Coal and oil will inevitably run out too. Sun and Wind don't produce a lot of power compared to Fusion when considering the rare earths required for the components. Fusion is just a lot more efficient and energy rich.

<comment><USER16> The analogy of course wasn't exact, but it fits the structure of your argument, so it shows your argument was wrong.

Fuel availability is NOT a problem. There is no shortage of sunlight, or wind, or uranium (if used in breeder reactors, and why are fusion reactors, which are breeders, allowed but fission breeders are not?) The 200 year figure for uranium assumes a once-through cycle. In breeders, ores with 50-100x less uranium per unit mass of ore would be usable, because breeder get so much more energy out of each unit of uranium mined.

Oh, and please don't repeat the Rare Earth canard. Solar doesn't use rare earths, and wind doesn't have to. I think you're just repeating talking points you haven't bothered to understand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I hope they can get $100M of power out of it before they have to decommision and bury the whole thing.

Doesn't seem likely, though.

</comment><comment><USER24> Offtopic, sorry: How does everyone read these paywalled articles? Surely you all dont subscribe to bloomberg?

<comment><USER25> Disable javascript or use a browser that doesn't run it. I am an emacs user so its browser, eww, works for me.

<comment><USER26> NoScript is a great addition to Firefox. I kept reading recommendations for it and when I finally installed it I wondered why I'd waited so long.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I don't understand why they need to raise money if it's backed by Bezos?

<comment><USER28> Lots of companies are backed by billionaires and still have many investors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Sounds like a great way to make disillusioned physicists for the financial industry.

<comment><USER30> So, a win then. It's like using a fusor[0] not for energy (it can't produce excess energy) but for neutrons. But instead of a physical process, it's an education process. And instead of producing happy physicists it might produce well-paid quants. Awesome!

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> "If it sounds too good to be true, it's probably a scam." \- src: My cooperation's IT scam awareness flyers

</comment><comment><USER32> To underscore how challenging magnetic fusion is, here is a thought experiment: imagine you have a ring collider system that collides d with t at the energy which maximizes the probability of fusion. Assume the ions circulate with 0 energy loss except by colliding with the other species of ions. When an ion loses energy in this way, assume its kinetic energy is immediately restored with perfect efficiency. Assume fusion energy is recovered with 100% efficiency. Even with this super idealized head-on collision setup you wouldn't recover enough fusion energy to power the accelerator.

<comment><USER33> > imagine you have a ring collider system

I'm pretty sure you already lost most people here that isn't a physicist.

<comment><USER34> Imagine you have a giant magnet and using it makes you lose money.</comment></comment></comment>


Sproutcore vs jQuery +backbone.js - <AUTHOR> http://ryth.posterous.com/sproutcore-vs-jquery-backbonejs?a

<comment><USER2> To throw my hat in the ring (full disclosure, I work on Backbone.js):

Unless you're a really fastidious coder, _some_ sort of library to help structure large-scale JavaScript applications is important -- it's far too easy to degenerate into nested piles of jQuery callbacks, all tied to concrete DOM elements. To that end, choosing any of these options can be a positive step, and I have massive respect for Charles and the Strobe team.

If you want to build a desktop-like application, with Apple-esque UI elements, I'd recommend you go with SproutCore: it's got built-in widgets for all that sort of thing.

For almost any other application, I'd recommend giving Backbone.js a try.

Backbone doesn't assume anything about your UI. You can use the templating engine of your choice, and design your interface yourself. It doesn't tie you down (too much) to a particular data store. We use it with Postgres-backed models, but folks have built apps on MongoDB, CouchDB, and LocalStorage as well.

If you're worried about client-side performance, Backbone is much, much lighter -- both in terms of the amount of JS you have to include on the page, as well as how fast you can make your UI. Following SproutCore's suggested KVO patterns is great for most cases, but can bog down performance terribly on pages with many thousands of items. With Backbone it's a bit easier to choose your optimizations: how granular your templates are, and how much of the page you want to re-render at a time.

Claims are nothing without examples, and fortunately both SproutCore and Backbone have a "Todo List" for an example application. Loading both apps, and peeking in the Webkit inspector:

SproutCore Todos: 2.675 MB Uncompressed, onLoad in 1470 milliseconds (loading from localhost). <http://cl.ly/45gI>

Backbone Todos: 265k Uncompressed (160 of which is jQuery), onLoad in 202 milliseconds (loading from github). <http://cl.ly/4626>

... I think that, along with the difference in design, speaks enough for itself.

<comment><USER3> I've been using backbone exclusively for my project and I'm not sure anymore if I made the right choice.

The "best" thing about backbone is that it forces you to smartly separate your code logic. However, I don't agree with everyone about how lightweight it is. I find myself more and more simply writing the logic/view in different files without using backbone at all. (I do use a lot of underscore thought).

The problem is that, for really simple models/view, backbone is way too verbose. And for complicated use, you need to hack backbone hard to make it do what you want. So, in my opinion (and experience with backbone), it really shines for medium use.

I wish there was a little library built on top of backbone that make it easier for small/complicated use.

I'll give you an example of what I mean: If you have a models that contains other models. At first, I thought that would be builtin, but it is not. So, if you want to do that the backbone way, you really need to hack it so change in inner models propagate to outside models. This behaviour is the kind of thing that a little library could do "for free" on top of backbone.

On a last note, I need to say that I don't like that much the backbone documentation. Don't get me wrong, each function is well explained and after reading all of it you get a good grasp of what backbone can do for you. The problem is that you need to read all of it. I much prefere a small tutorial to get you started and help you understand the philosophy of backbone with a high level of models, collections and controllers. And only then, after I started using it, I would read in depth the function I need.

It's a little bit like if you wanted to learn python by reading all function in the standard. It takes a lot of time and you might not totally get what python is. It's better to follow a simple tutorial which explain the big lines of python, and then, dig deeper in the function you really want.

So, I'm not saying backbone is bad.. in fact, it's probably the best library out there for simple MVC use. I have huge respect for jashkenas and the job is has done.

<comment><USER4> _If you have a models that contains other models. At first, I thought that would be builtin, but it is not. So, if you want to do that the backbone way, you really need to hack it so change in inner models propagate to outside models._

Can you expound on this requirement, perhaps give an example? I'm very interested in what you want to accomplish.

<comment><USER3> A post that contains comments. Say you have:

      { id: 3, text: 'test', comments: [{ cid:4, bleh:5}, {c id:6, bleh:4}] }

You give that to a model. It won't automatically create a collection with comments.

The idea behind backbone is that I could insert a new comment in the page by simply .add() something to the comments collection. Automatically, that would trigger a add/change event so that my view could update itself. However, it was really quite complicated to obtain that behavior.

I know it's a simple example but the more I used backbone, the more "simple" things like that happened where I had to dig into things I shouldn't have to.

I feel that simple cases should be simple while I would understand that complicated case might be more complicated. However, with backbone.js, I really feel that simple cases aren't _that_ simple.

<comment><USER4> So given:

        window.Post = Backbone.Model.extend({...});
        window.Comments = Backbone.Collection.extend({...});
        var p = new Post(
          id: 3,
          text: 'test',
          comments: [
            { cid:4, bleh:5},
            {c id:6, bleh:4}
          ]
        });

You want some way to declare that comments are Comments, so that it is always the case that:

        (p.attributes.comments instanceof Comments) === true

And you also want:

        p.attributes.comments.add({...});

To trigger a 'change:comments' event on p, even though you aren't changing the reference to the comments collection, just changing its comments.

Do I understand you correctly?

<comment><USER3> Yes, perfectly.

<comment><USER4> <https://github.com/unspace/faux/issues#issue/33>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm currently using Backbone.js + JQuery in my startup and my decision came down to the following conclusions:

Use Sproutcore or Cappucino if you are trying to emulate a native desktop app and where long load times are acceptable (i.e. the user sacrifices time to load everything to not have to wait much if at all after the initial loading). Also use these two environments when your users are Apple Users.

Use Backbone.js + JQuery in a small startup environment with a lean team where the front-end devs are multitalented (i.e. they can easily move between html/css and javascript)

Use a MVVM framework with bigger teams () and with teams where your front-end guys may be good with html/css and graphic design but have limited or non- existent stills when it comes to programming intermediate to advanced javascript and handling mildly to very complex programming concepts.

MVVM has value and I believe it was invented to solve a common communication/coordination problem in corporate-style environments and especially with "silo"-ed teams and matrix management. However, the way I see it will slow down a good front-end developer. MVC is much more powerful and flexible in the hands of a good dev. MVVM just adds another layer of abstraction so the pure HTML/CSS and graphic design guys don't have to get their hands dirty with real programming.

If you are going the Sproutcore/Cappucino route, you really are commiting yourself to a platform and certain ways of doing things from a user interaction perspective. You will gain a lot in not having to build some basic, common interfaces, but you will lose when you need to invent and create your own custom interfaces.

Summary:

Backbone.js + JQuery = Flexible, powerful, lean - Good for experienced devs

Knockout.js = Less powerful, simple = Overcomes coordination and cooperation issues in teams where "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing"

Cappucino/Sproutcore = Complex apps built fast, inflexibility in interface design patterns. Good for "native-style" apps.

Anyways, those are my opinions. I encourage you to challenge me on anything you don't agree with as my experience with Sproutcore/Cappucino is limited to just research and I only built one small app with Knockout.js.

<comment><USER6> I think your analysis of Knockout.js is incomplete. You can customize any of the interactions and bindings, and it supports an entire reactive programming model (automatic re-execution of functions) that Backbone does not. Especially with the newer Knockout extensions that turn fromJSON into a full-fledged updateable model, Knockout competes well feature-wise with Backbone, it just has a very different flow-of-control paradigm.

<comment><USER5> I'm sure that my analysis of Knockout.js is incomplete. I checked out knockout.js when it was first announced on Hacker News several months ago. Backbone.js was announced on HN at roughly the same time. I gave both a test drive and came to the conclusion that Backbone.js was more appropriate for my use as a single developer entirely responsible for the front end, from graphic design to interactions and events. I hand off responsibility to my co-founder at the model later. My co-founder is responsible for the MongoDB and Rails backend.

I'm sure Knockout.js has matured a lot since I first looked at it and that I need to find time to revisit it one day.

From your comment and the comment of Alisson on the blog post associated with this thread, I'm pretty sure that my information about knockout.js is out of date.

However, frameworks aside, I still believe that an MVC approach makes more sense for small teams where developers handle multiple roles and that the MVVM approach works better for larger teams and teams with less experienced front- end developers.

I decided on MVC for my current project working with one other technical co- founder. However at my previous two employers I would have opted for the MVVM approach because because I believe it's more "sociologically" appropriate for corporate environments and for projects where different parts are handled by different teams (i.e. matrix managed companies),

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Backbone.js is easily one of the finest products I have had the pleasure of using. There is a small learning curve but after that, it's butter. The best part, imo, is that more than teaching you to use some foreign dsl, using backbone.js makes you just better as pojs because it teaches modularity, sane callbacks, and a whole mess of other stuff. jashkenas and the other guys behind backbone did a really good job at making a tool that felt like native javascript.

<comment><USER2> A lot of the credit for the ideas behind backbone should properly go to Robert Kieffer (<https://github.com/broofa>), an old hand at building JS apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I obviously* like Backbone.js+jQuery, although colleagues are using Sproutcore on a "Rich Internet Application." I'm a big fan of applications that use the web model, so now that Backbone.js has added Controllers and History for route support, I give it five out of five stars.

* <http://github.com/unspace/faux>

</comment><comment><USER8> Sproutcore is like a full UI widget toolkit -- analogous to extJS or GWT or java swing in the java desktop world. I am sure you could accomplish a lot very fast with Sproutcore.

However, I chose jQuery +backbone.js because I am comfortable with the MVC paradigm and I have a lot of experience with Struts.

For my current project, I am using java Wicket framework for pages crawlable by search engine while using jQuery +backbone.js for pages that require authentication and have a rich user interface.Even though GWT or SprountCore come with a lot of ready made widgets , the JQuery ecosystem is simply unmatched in terms of widgets available -- with the caveat that you would need to spend some time to get to learn them.

What I miss most in Jquery + backbone.js combo is unit tests and test runners integrated into my build system. If anyone knows how to integrate unit testing of backbone.js based mvc code into ant or maven or any other build system, please post here.

<comment><USER9> javascriptmvc has a command-line-able testing:

[http://www.javascriptmvc.com/docs.html#&who=FuncUnit](http://www.javascriptmvc.com/docs.html#&who=FuncUnit)

This video explains it in the second half:

<http://cdn.javascriptmvc.com/videos/2_0/2_0_demo.htm>

<comment><USER8> JavascriptMVC's unit testing is definitely a big advantage over backbone.

But backbone.js integrates well with my project structure ; I am under the impression ( and I could be very well wrong about this) is that JavascriptMVC requires its own project structure and it has its own code generator of some sort.

It seems that javascriptmvc is geared for huge applications whereas backbone.js is suited for single page apps.

If I am wrong, do please let me know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The question is are you trying to build a desktop class application or not. If not jquery/backbone is the obvious solution.

If a tablview is particularly interesting to you Cappuccino (<http://cappuccino.org>) has simply the best tableview out there.

This is what it was like several months ago, and it has only gotten better. <http://timetableapp.com/TestingEnviro/imdbdemo/>

It's fully customizable too, supporting any kind view you want to put in it, and will remain very snappy.

<http://githubissues.heroku.com> for example shows of some of this flexibility and performance in a real world app.

<comment><USER9> In terms of tableview, I find slickgrid a powertool.

<https://github.com/mleibman/SlickGrid>

<comment><USER10> This best thing about cappuccino's tableview is that it can be use everywhere... For example reimplementing tweetie's tweet list (more on that in a week or so). It doesn't traditionally look like a table, but it is.

It's incredibly flexibly and is used ALL OVER apps in Cocoa. Cappuccino has an amazing tableview, I don't think that can be said for other desktop class browser app frameworks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The main issue I have with sproutcore is that you build the UI in javascript, completely ignoring markup, which feels like a huge regression in layout managment. While this does have performance advantages and Yehuda Katz has promised that they are working on a way for developers to manipulate markup directly thats not how its built to be used currently.

<comment><USER12> Could you expand on why you feel like building a UI in JS is a regression? Is this a popular sentiment? I really prefer working on layouts without manipulating markup, so I'm curious to why others feel different. Thanks!

<comment><USER11> HTML was designed with presentation semantics in mind (eg layout) and using Javascript to do the job HTML was designed seems like a waste.

Hope that answers your question.

<comment><USER5> I completely agree with this sentiment, however I think that templating systems such as JResign's microtemplates or Mustache.js go a long way to helping us avoid the problems associated with using JS to construct views.

All my views are saved as HTML templates with ERB-like syntax for populating the views with dynamic data received via JSON.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wouldn't you think that <http://dojotoolkit.org/> might be a good alternative?</comment>


Light Year One - <AUTHOR> https://newdawn.lightyear.one/ <comment><USER2> I want them to succeed, but it will be difficult. Looks like they're following Tesla's model of starting with the top-of-market so they can "fundraise" via early adopter sales. Will they ever be able to hit mass production? Not sure.

In-wheel motors are interesting. That changes the dynamics of the vehicle by adding what we mech-e's call "unsprung mass". Vehicle handling takes a huge hit. There's a reason there are no cars on the market with in-wheel motors at present. Additionally, you're putting expensive components in a place where they can be more easily damaged. There's also the fact that in-wheel motors can be very dangerous if there's a failure of the control system. Since there are no cars on the road like this, I'm wondering if the team truly has the expertise to tackle these issues.

But I'm not trying to be a cynic. I spent 8 years as a mechanical engineer designing hybrid and electric cars; these are simply challenges that need to be engineered around. This is a cool car, and I hope it makes it to market. We need more of this.

<comment><USER3> To save others time, "unsprung mass" is the mass of the vehicle not supported by suspension.

Lightyear's claim is that putting the motors in the wheels improves control. Could it be that unsprung mass is reduced by negating the axle?

<comment><USER2> I would bet that there's more unsprung mass in this configuration, but it's hard to say without knowing the details of the motors themselves. If each motor is, say, 80 pounds or heavier, then this configuration would likely increase the unsprung mass.

Note a distinction between "control" and "handling". Four in-wheel motors will have better control but worse handling. Traction control can be applied to each individual motor, improving control in some cases, but on bumpy or rough roads the car will experience worse handling, as the wheels will "hop" off the surface more.

Imagine a car driving over a speed bump a little too fast. In a standard suspension, the wheels are light enough that the suspension pushes them back down to the road surface very quickly at the far end of the bump. If there is more unsprung mass, however, the wheels have more inertia, and so the suspension is not able to push the wheels down to the surface as quickly. Now imagine that same car taking a fast turn on an uneven road surface. If the wheels aren't pressed down to the surface after coming up off a bump, that wheel will lose traction, and traction is required for sticking the turn. In that case, no amount of traction control can make up for the loss of friction.

<comment><USER3> > If each motor is, say, 80 pounds or heavier, then this configuration would > likely increase the unsprung mass.

Apparently, the motor on the Tesla Model S is 70 lbs ( [https://chargedevs.com/newswire/elon-musk-cooling-not- power-...](https://chargedevs.com/newswire/elon-musk-cooling-not-power-to- weight-ratio-is-the-challenge-with-ac-induction-motors/) ). With individualized motors, each would likely be less than this. Combined with the battery weight attached to the car's chassis, I would expect this to result in a lower ratio of unsprung mass to sprung, and thus better handling than typical on a non-battery car.

<comment><USER4> > better handling than typical on a non-battery car

Is that their main competition, though?

<comment><USER3> I mean that if it's better than what is typical, then it shouldn't be inadequate, and that helps justify this trade-off in favour of efficiency / range.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I live in the area and I know some people who know some of the people behind this. My impression is that they're for real. It's not just a marketing pitch or a pretty piece of plastic with a fundraiser, they're actually building a proper solar car.

Parts of the team behind it was part of a university challenge team called "Solar Challenge" and won it a few times. They drove that car through Australia the fastest without fuel of charging. That car was ugly and uncomfortable though.

All that said, I strongly doubt they'll ever be able to spin up production. I bet that everybody's best case scenario is they produce a few cars that don't totally suck and kinda/sorta make good on the efficiency / usability claims, and then some automotive bigco acquires them.

<comment><USER6> You'd be referring to the World Solar Challenge a "biennial road race covering 3,022 km (1,878 mi) through the Australian Outback". Basically running across Australia North to South.

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

<comment><USER5> Yep, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like they are sacrificing performance for efficiency. They are claiming per mile efficiency 3x better than a Tesla Model 3 but their 0-60 spec is 3x slower than the Model 3.

The idea that a car could charge itself from integrated solar panels enough to cover the distance of the average daily driving is interesting but you would think Tesla thought about this and decided the math didn't work or they would already be doing it. They are in the solar power business as well after all.

<comment><USER8> That doesn't matter as long as there is a 'sports' mode that sacrifices efficiency for performance. Most times you don't need the range anyway.

<comment><USER7> They list their 0-60 performance at 10 seconds. That's the typical acceleration of an average mini van. Seems unlikely you would put that in the specs if you could magically flip a switch and get 3x better.

<comment><USER9> As someone who is not a car guy, but interested in EVs this is a good sign to me.

Tesla has done great work in exploring the space of how you make an EV that impresses Top Gear viewers.

I'm also interested in seeing similar progress for people who just want to get from A to B cheaply and efficiently and sadly few of the existing car makers seem to be taking EVs seriously yet. I've often thought that a different set of assumptions (e.g. not caring about topspeed) might lead to a better overall car, sounds like they are exploring this area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Predictably, the math does not work.

They say that at 3.7KW it gains range at 35km/h, and from solar it gains range at 12km/h. This means that they expect to get 1.23KW of power from their solar cells. Top theoretical efficiency possible for any solar cell is about 33% (Shockley-Queisser limit), most efficient you can buy today is 22%. So that means they expect 5.59KW of sun energy to fall on the car per square meter. A typical car is 4.5x2 meters. Let's assume they tile the whole damn thing with highest efficiency cells except the windshield (1x2m) They then have 7m^2, so they expect solar energy to provide 799W/m^2. And it is true, sunlight reaching earth is about 1KW/m^2 at the equator in noon, but that is in perfect conditions and just there, and when cell is perfectly aimed at the sun. The car will not tilt, and some days there are clouds or haze, and we do not all live at the equator. Also, in fact, not the entire car can be tiled with solar cells, and dirt exists, especially on the road.

So the numbers they promise are pretty much _at the very limit_ of _theoretical_ possibility _in ideal conditions_ , and not even remotely likely to be hit in real life.

<comment><USER11> I think I miss something in your numbers. They say 83 Wh/km. which means that they expect to get 996Wh in an hour. How did you reach 5.59KW?

<comment><USER10> i am analyzing charging rates. they cite charge rate in km/h for an outlet providing 1.3KW and they cite a charge rate for solar, from which we can work out the power they expect to get from solar

<comment><USER11> I see, but that does not answer my question though. How is my math wrong? the expected range from solar in 1 hour equates to 996 Wh. You suggest they need 5.6kW of solar to achieve this?

<comment><USER10> you are forgetting that solar cells are not 100% efficient, and charging is not either. so you MUST use charge rates cites, not consumption rates

<comment><USER11> No, you must not. The energy required for the car to drive 12kms is 996 Wh. let's round to 1kWh.

Solar is DC. for instance Tesla powerwall is 97% efficiency for DC/DC conversion for charging its battery. So you need basically 1kW of solar to produce the needed energy to drive 12km (per hour). I think you are off by at least a factor of 3.

edit: at 20% solar efficiency that would require 5m^2.

<comment><USER10> so then your claim is they lose 66% on rectification of AC when they charge from a wall? :)

<comment><USER11> No, my claim is that their solar claim is not ridiculous ;)

Also, if I do the math on their AC charging. 35km/h gained --> 2905Wh energy. Standard 230AC, 16 amps is 3680W. So I guess the number there is also correct? Take about 85% efficiency, then you have 3000Wh in one hour from 230V AC

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I looked into the idea of solar panels on cars, to figure out why they don't do that.

Turns out it would add only a trivial amount of energy, and thus is just a gimmick.

>Although the energy from the solar panel might seem like a large value, it's only 2 percent of the total battery energy.

[https://www.wired.com/story/could-tesla-power-its- electric-t...](https://www.wired.com/story/could-tesla-power-its-electric- truck-with-solar-panels/)

<comment><USER2> I agree it's a gimmick -- a very expensive one. That said, it can offset the energy required to run climate control, and if you're leaving your car parked in the sun daily, it can add up. So I'm not willing to dismiss the idea out- of-hand. Somebody needs to try it, sometime. Glad they are.

<comment><USER12> If and when solar paints and solar windows become super cheap, then it would make sense to slap some on.

But at the moment, panels are expensive and would add weight, which offsets much of the benefit.

I do want such ideas to succeed, but this is about as credible as a cryptocurrency whitepaper.

<comment><USER2> The weight is saved by using in-wheel motors, no axle, no differential, and so on.

It's definitely a gimmick, but I'm not willing to dismiss them out-of-hand. I've designed and built several hybrid and electric cars with teams 1/4 of this company's size, so I don't take issue with the design or their ability to build 1 or 100 units, but rather their ability to actually bring this thing to market and be successful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you want to see actual solar cars, you're looking at something like this:

[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto- engineering-s...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-engineering- solar-vehicle-unveiling-1.5187413)

Car is extremely light (you can pick it up), spindly, aerodynamic, has none of the roadworthy safety features, uses all energy for driving (no AC, headlights, etc.). These compete in the World Solar Challenge and manage a good speed (50 mph) over long distances powered by the sun. This is a good example of what is possible.

There is _no way_ that a "traditional" car, carrying five, spare tire, safety features, headlights, bluetooth, cup holders, with apparently less solar surface area, is going to manage any sort of respectable distance or velocity powered by the sun alone.

<comment><USER14> Actually the team behind lightyear won that competition last year in the "cruiser" class carrying 4 people and having various features that you mention. (look for "Stella lux")

<comment><USER15> They actually won it 3 times in a row, with road legal vehicles (all of them got a license plate and thus passed the tests!). They know what they're doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This reminds of the Solar Car Challenge. I remember watching videos many years ago about the cars.

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

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

<comment><USER17> The team behind Lightyear won that competition a couple of timer in the Cruiser division with the Stella [0] car

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_(solar_vehicles)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_\(solar_vehicles\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is it just me or this is thing ugly? I think the price tag associated with it will make it hard for most to justify when you can, in my opinion, get a much better-looking car for less money that has a proven track record and AutoPilot. I am happy to see more EV companies popping up, but I think they need a consumer grade car or something really game-changing to get their start.

</comment><comment><USER19> A button which when clicked launches an unexpected full-screen video is an unwelcome development in web dev.

<comment><USER20> Indeed, this is something that needs to be blocked asap by ublock origin or a browser setting. Taking over my screen full-screen with whatever they want to stream to me.. ??? I'm already thinking about streaming a full-screen image of a generic Windows desktop with a Chrome browser. Just to trick people into thinking they are not looking at a full screen video.

Lesson for web designers: do not do this. Now we are talking about a silly web feature while we are supposed to look at whatever message your website is trying to convey.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Looks cool, but in Brighton UK it promises me 56km a day in summertime. Seems... not a lot?

 _edit_ my bad this is how much extra it would charge a day. Seems like it could hold an 800km charge which is incredible.

Opinion: Tesla should buy them.

<comment><USER22> I am sure Tesla has already put in an order to first buy one of these cars. See whether there is any significant leg up that their own car making team can get by buying lightyear or not. Reason being, Tesla themselves could already be working on a car design with solar panels, not as primary source of power, but just to help squeeze out a little more mileage

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So I guess this car can't be garage kept?

</comment><comment><USER24> Looking at it, the "oh duh" moment really hits. Why don't more EVs have solar hoods?

<comment><USER19> Because the sun provides a tiny fraction of the power required to be vaguely useful, plus, solar panels are heavy, reducing the efficiency of the car.

<comment><USER25> Panels are heavy, cells aren't. In the extreme ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin- film_solar_cell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_solar_cell)) _"Film thickness varies from a few nanometers (nm) to tens of micrometers (µm)"_

That still has to be mounted on something, but that something easily could be the car's structure (and it is. The site says _"The roof and hood of Lightyear One comprise of five square meters of integrated solar cells within safety glass"_ )

But yes, the power budget still will be small.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Now, that is the car company that Apple needs to buy, if they're really going into that sort of thing.

<comment><USER27> What, one that's completely unproven with no customers or product? Seems like an odd choice for Apple, but I'd like to hear your argument.</comment></comment>


Intel Xeon E5 v3: Up to 18 Haswell EP Cores - <AUTHOR> http://www.anandtech.com/show/8423/intel-xeon-e5-version-3-up-to-18-haswell-ep-cores- <comment><USER2> The thing that's truly amazing to me is that they're pumping out a 662mm^2 (about 2.6cm square) chip on their leading-edge production process, and selling the full-SKU for "only" $4,000. By comparison, the very first Ivy Bridge parts were about 160mm^2 and were sold into a consumer (i.e., lower- margin, more cost-sensitive) space for about $330; scaling defects quadratically (though this is just a gross estimation), you'd predict this part (if in a /consumer/ space) to go for around $5650.

Add in the small volume cost of having to sell this thing into the server market, the price point they're putting their 'reticle buster' at is astounding. They must have really tuned their 22nm process as it's matured... the rest of the industry would kill for that kind of process :-)

<comment><USER3> Their ability to sell parts with defective cores fused off makes this analysis really quite complicated.

Ad absurdum, say only 1% the 18 core dies have no defects and can be sold as such. In a vacuum, the chip would have be priced very high to cover the costs of low yields.

But since they can sell the defects at 8 cores for $1000 and 12 cores for $2000, they can be profitable on the reject chips alone. The 18 cores that work are a bonus.

They're no doubt priced at what Intel thinks the market will bare, meaning that either the process is great (so they're priced low to sell a ton), or that there's just not that much demand for the most high end product. Or some combination of the two.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure how it works out for these chips, but I remember stories a few years ago where the fabs were so high quality they didn't have enough defective chips to put in the lower bin, and had to bin "perfect" chips to reach target volumes.

<comment><USER5> The first few spins of AMD Athlons circa 1999/2000 were exceptional in this regard. Parts actually binned at 700mhz were downclocked and sold in 500mhz packages. I dont recall anything similar with Intel recently, maybe some if the core2 stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Die shot.

[http://www.intel.com/newsroom/kits/xeon/e5v3/gallery/images/...](http://www.intel.com/newsroom/kits/xeon/e5v3/gallery/images/E5-2600_v3_1.jpg)

<comment><USER7> Anyone know (or can guess) why they mirrored the cpu's on the right edge?

<comment><AUTHOR> It has to do with how the cores connect to the rings, which probably run over the L3s. Each core "faces" one of the L3 slices and it looks like each L3 slice has a ring stop in the middle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Tangible example from p14 ([http://www.anandtech.com/show/8423/intel- xeon-e5-version-3-u...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/8423/intel- xeon-e5-version-3-up-to-18-haswell-ep-cores-/14)): looks like it can do a kernel compile in under 3 minutes in a two-socket config.

<comment><USER9> The i7-5960X compiles the kernel in 42s

[http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1409087-LI- COREI759667](http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1409087-LI-COREI759667)

<comment><USER10> FWIW, the AMD FX-8320 (8 cores) is around half as fast as the i7-5960X, but costs one seventh of the Intel CPU ($150 vs $1050).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> this is why core based licensing frustrates me. When I license Oracle (11g) the real way to get speed increases is to let it spread out over multiple cores, but that gets expensive given Oracles licensing terms, and even finding single or dual core systems is get hard.

<comment><USER12> What would you use as a proxy to get extract as much revenue as possible? Server memory size? Max database size mabe. Or get silly and the amount of datatypes you can use. (For $10k more you can use floats in your columns) and so on.

Core licensing is purely a price differentiator to get as much money as possible. The idea is that those willing to shell out money for 64 cores for their servers will be willing to shell out 20x or similar than those with 2 cores.

<comment><AUTHOR> _What would you use as a proxy to get extract as much revenue as possible?_

That's the key. Complaints about core-based licensing aren't really about core-based licensing but about the very concept of value-based licensing (aka extract as much revenue as possible).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder what the rationale for _18_ cores was, since it's a rather unusual number of cores and not a round number - 16 would be the usual choice. Was it just "we can put two more on the die, so let's do that"?

<comment><USER14> Well, the biggest Ivy Bridge EX has 15 cores! There's speculation that the 18 core Haswell-EPs are actually Haswell-EX dies that Intel wants to get rid as fast as possible because these chips have buggy TSX (transactional memory).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> So didn't they find an issue with haswell cores (and the early next generation, broadwell) that meant they had to issue an erratum to disable TSX instructions?

I'd wait until the Haswell-EX or Broadwell-E/EP chips.

</comment><comment><USER16> Well that is one way to solve the performance hit when using dual physical cpus

(socket contention because of cache-to-cache traffic going through QPI)

presentation on the problem [http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/...](http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/linuxcon-2014-locking- final.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER17> "Cluster On Die can be understood as if you split the CPU and LLC into two parts that behave like two CPUs in NUMA. The OS is presented two affinity domains. "

Those Who Are About To Die ... err ... write kernel scheduler We Salute You

<comment><AUTHOR> Nah. What I like about this feature is that it requires no new OS support because it's just NUMA and OSes already support NUMA. This feature should benefit clouds that are already dividing servers into shared-nothing domains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Ah, the promise of Clojure and easy parallel programming is near at hand. At what number of cores, does Clojure become a lay-up choice over other hard to parallel languages? Anyone care to opine?

<comment><USER19> > Ah, the promise of Clojure and easy parallel programming is near at hand.

clojure, golang and before all that erlang as well (and myriads of libraries e.g. cilk etc). dearth of parallel languages have never really been the issue, imho.

<the 'opine' part>

it's _how_ to move _existing_ applications to new h/w, with the caveat that doing a flat out re-write is almost out of question. hoping that there will eventually be compiler that can just parallelize your application code, is just a pipe dream, imho.

<comment><USER20> I often find (in my own code as well) that nobody ever remembers OpenMP. It has some overhead, but it's not that big even without fixed thread count tuning (with which it nearly vanishes). Not automatic, but damn close.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Who is selling systems with them today? or soon?

<comment><AUTHOR> Everyone: Dell, HP, IBM, Lenovo (still separate), Supermicro, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Did you guys not like Anand? The moment he quit the site, it's showing up on HN every day. Or have I just started noticing it?

I'm guessing VPS/cloud providers will like this one. You can already pack a lot of memory and SSD drives into a server so CPU was becoming a bit of a bottleneck.

<comment><USER23> I'm not sure why you're being down voted as I have noticed this as well and thought the exact same thing regarding anandtech article frequency increasing since he left, when I logged on to HN this morning.

<comment><USER24> Call me a cynic, but I suspect many people browse/monitor certain sites for things that might do well on HN.. and the recent outpouring of love for Anand might have put the site on their radars.

<comment><USER25> Except Wesleys previous submission was 58 days ago so he's not exactly a mass submitter.

That doesn't invalidate your theory, but I don't think it applies to this particular submission.

<comment><USER24> Oh absolutely, I want to make it clear I didn't intend to insinuate on any particular person, more a trend I've seen on HN over the years.

I've seen it a few times before when $wellKnownProgrammer has an article hit the top of HN, then their next several blog posts all seem to hit the front page before everyone fatigues of it. I'm guessing certain people and sites become "flavors of the month" for both submitters and upvoters, but maybe HN has the stats to figure it out.

<comment><USER26> Are you sure you're not the one that's experiencing the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon? I subscribe to Anandtech's RSS feeds and they had a slower period recently for technical articles.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bandai: A Japanese toymaker's role in the history of board games (2017) - <AUTHOR> http://metopal.com/2017/07/21/bandais-joy-family/ <comment><USER2> For those who found this interesting, Netflix has a really good show on the history of popular toys called the Toys That Made Us. It's well made and taught me a lot of things about the toys I grew up with.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nathan Altice makes great presentation slides. Here on board wargames history: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uQJ5rI8fWEzAV1orIznpVDkL9o6...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uQJ5rI8fWEzAV1orIznpVDkL9o6cgdL3/view?usp=sharing)

I can also recommend his game studies book on the NES, I am Error.

</comment><comment><USER4> Iirc they purchased Namco and are have been Bandai Namco for many years.

Also a powerhouse in IP licensed video games iirc, esp licensing Sunrise anime.

<comment><USER5> > Also a powerhouse in IP licensed video games iirc, esp licensing Sunrise > anime.

FYI, Bandai has actually owned Sunrise since 1993. _Gundam_ had become so integral to Bandai's business that they bought the studio that made it (over the objections of _Gundam_ 's creator, though). Their video games are first- party, not licensed.

Interestingly, Bandai was a significant distributor of anime in the US for a long time, so that meant US releases of Sunrise anime were some of the only anime that was sold in the US first-party and not under license. A few years ago though, they shut down US operations and Sunrise anime is now distributed in the US under license by Nozomi Entertainment.

<comment><USER6> Im sorry, I'm not very knowledgeable about the plastic model industry, so I can't answer that question. Unfortunately, I can't really make a statement on the plastic scale modeling kits, probably because I'd be eradicated from the industry if I made his true feelings known. - Yoshiyuki Tomino

[https://www.toonzone.net/nyaf2009-yoshiyuki-tomino-q-ampa- pa...](https://www.toonzone.net/nyaf2009-yoshiyuki-tomino-q-ampa-panel- report/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is very interesting. I'm familiar with Bandai's toys, having been a tokusatsu fan since I was a kid [0], but I knew nothing about their board games.

[0] And seeing _Gorenger_ mentioned in an article posted on HN put a smile on my face. In the west, toku tends to not get mentioned much outside of toku circles.

</comment><comment><USER7> I remember watching the anime "naruto" and seeing bandai as one of the companies involved in it .

<comment><USER8> They own Sunrise, which has produced a ton of the most famous anime series (they own the license to Gundam, for instance). Bandai USA was responsible for a ton of the shows I grew up watching on TV, from Power Rangers to Dragon Ball.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> He's dead, Jim.

<comment><USER10> [http://archive.is/tnR2i](http://archive.is/tnR2i)</comment></comment>