Prosecutors' deal for Swartz: Felony plea and three months in jail - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/prosecutors-deal-for-swartz-felony-plea-and-three-months-in-jail/ <comment><USER2> Reading this only magnifies the unmitigated disgust I feel towards Carmen Ortiz and her subordinates. Unfortunately, the only constructive thing we can do is make an example of them, just as they tried to make an example of Aaron.

Help put their records as prosecutors on-line where everyone can see them.

<http://www.plainsite.org/asymptote/>

The goal is a page like this for every prosecutor in the country:

<http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/attorney.html?id=69049>

<comment><USER3> While I'm a big fan of getting public records online and accessible, PlainSite isn't the place to do it — every link results in a paywall. This is the opposite of what Aaron was fighting for. Asymptote, on the other hand, I think is a good idea as long as the user has RECAP installed so it can benefit the entire community by making those records openly accessible.

<comment><USER4> Doesn't Asymptote also help build a database for Aaron Greenspan's for-profit legal offering?

I wish he'd be more up-front about this stuff.

<comment><USER2> It helps build the Internet Archive's open database of legal documents, which PlainSite re-presents to the public for free, OR if you want to pay, also provides additional analytic data about.

Your characterization of the initiative as being solely designed to benefit me financially is misleading and inaccurate, and I disagree with your assertion that I somehow should have been more forthright.

<comment><USER4> "Solely designed to benefit me financially"?

        al·so
        /ˈôlsō/
        Adverb
        In addition; too.

<comment><USER2> That's correct, Operation Asymptote is helping to place public information in the public domain, and I am also making a profit from public information once it is in the public domain, as is my (and anyone's) right. But I did not create Operation Asymptote because I thought it would make me rich; I created it because it serves an important public good and because I knew Aaron Swartz and respected him.

I do not find it necessary to explicitly disclose beyond what it already obvious from the PlainSite web site that I may capitalize on opportunities that are available to everyone, and which my work (and funding of others' work) has made more available to everyone.

Would you prefer that information not be in the public domain at all because I might make a profit from helping to organize it? Or are you saying that I have an obligation to disclaim that I might hypothetically make more of a profit from there being more public information in the public domain, which applies as much to you as it does me? Or are you (also) saying that I may not earn a living by any means and discuss circumstances surrounding or even unrelated to those circumstances unless they happen to meet your particular standards first? Or are you saying that no one should be entitled to profit from public information at all and that only the government should be able to dictate what information will be disseminated and how?

If you think you can do a better or somehow more "pure" job than I have making public information surrounding the justice system more accessible, please, by all means, go ahead. I and many others would be grateful.

In the meantime, whatever you are saying, I find your comments incredibly callous, disrespectful, and misleading (because you make it sound like the data goes to only me, when really it goes to the Internet Archive RECAP database) and I once again request that you stop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Choose: spend a million or more defending yourself _or_ go to jail and be labelled a felon.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't, guilt doesn't even enter into it you lose either way.

<comment><USER6> He could have also chosen not to enter an unlocked server closet...

<comment><USER7> Wow, I cannot believe there are still people who say this shit.

<comment><USER6> I can't believe there are still people who think that personal responsibility for one's actions don't apply if the politics of those actions are persuasive enough, yet here we are.

<comment><USER8> The punishment should fit the misdemeanor. Jail time and a felony conviction is an extremely harsh punishment for surreptitiously downloading academic articles. Anyone with a speeding ticket has committed a far graver threat to society.

<comment><USER4> It is easy to believe both that Swartz's actions were wrong and that the prosecutors actions were wrong. Or even that the prosecutors were more wrong than Swartz. That's what I think.

So the feigned incredulousness of that comment upthread isn't particularly convincing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Rehashed content from a HuffPo piece citing the "impressions" of "anonymous staffers", plus something we already knew (months of prison time, 13 felony convictions). This is at least the second story to show up today linkjacked from that HuffPo piece, by the way.

Definitely a great excuse for us all to beat each other over the head with pointless flame wars.

What's crazy is that there is as much heat on this thread as there was on the _excellent_ WBUR piece that took on Ortiz' record in MA:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5264200>

Go listen to that, instead of yelling at people on this thread. Ortiz' office is a mess. People who recommended her for her appointment are backing away from her. WBUR did actual reporting to back this up, rather than playing telephone with HuffPo.

Flagged.

</comment><comment><USER9> It does not change the fundamental problem: "Take this bargain and waive your right to a trial, or face <insert insane possible punishment here>".

<comment><USER10> Bingo. I think it's high time we outlawed the plea bargain entirely. If it's important enough to the public good that someone be locked in a cage for years or even decades, it deserves the cost of giving the accused their day in court, every time, no matter what.

<comment><USER11> But jury trials are expensive, and time consuming. And no-one uses them anymore, because the system is broken (long waiting times), and there's no reason to fix it (since no-one uses them anymore).

It's much cheaper to say "confess your crimes or face much heavier penalties". It worked for the French Revolution, the Soviets and the Inquisition, why shouldn't it work in the USA?

Besides, the prosecutors are pretty even handed. They wouldn't prosecute someone if they didn't think they deserved a stiff penalty. As Carmen Ortiz says; "This is an adversarial system. We're here to prosecute."

<comment><USER12> > But jury trials are expensive, and time consuming.

[I think you're being sarcastic, but...]

The converse, plea-bargaining making prosecution easy and profitable (see seizure law), has resulted in huge expansion of laws making ordinary activities illegal.

If it was hard and expensive then we wouldn't outlaw behavior every time some twit get's their panties' in a twist. And we wouldn't automatically bend-over and use the criminal justice system to prop up failing business models.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Prison is a ridiculous punishment for most crimes.

It does little to prevent crime; it does little to prevent recidivism; it does nothing to rehabilitate people; it's fantastically expensive.

There are a small number of people who need to be locked away to protect society.

Putting Swartz in jail was just an opportunity to wave a flag - "Strong on crime, strong on the causes of crime" and all that nonsense.

<comment><USER14> _> It does little to prevent crime..._

More often than not, it breeds criminals, by mixing minor delinquents with professional, organized criminals.

In the vein of your comment, see also this article: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian- pris...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison- inmates-treated-like-people)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I find the Fed's stance a bit strange. "Just" three months incarcerated and a permanent felony record or try your luck against a 35 year sentence. Meanwhile, the state of Massachusetts was prepared to drop the case entirely as was JStore. Unbelievable.

<comment><USER15> I think the third paragraph explained their thinking:

        While they offered a relatively short sentence,
        prosecutors were absolutely determined to get a
        felony plea and some kind of prison time, according
        to sources cited by The Huffington Post. They wanted
        those results because they believed it would justify
        their bringing charges in the first place, according
        to HuffPo.

<comment><USER16> "According to HuffPo" is not a credible citation. If we're going by rumor and innuendo, what about the claims that MIT was the one pushing for jail time?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Plea bargaining shouldn't be completely thrown out. It provides a way to save costs, gives prosecutors an important tool bring down criminal organizations by allowing them to bargain for testimony against the principals from peripheral members, and gives defendants who are genuinely remorseful a way to reduce their sentences.

But the Supreme Court should take a look at where the Constitutional boundaries for plea bargaining practices lie. Having a maximum multiplier would be a good idea: If a plea bargain for N days in jail is offered, no more than 3N days can be sought at trial. (Of course there has to be some way to convert different punishments into equivalent "currency" for this conversion.) The point is to keep defendants from pleading out due to pure risk management considerations, which makes a mockery of the justice system by turning it into a high-stakes poker game, and deprives defendants of due process by coercing them into giving up their rights.

</comment><comment><USER18> "Justice Department lawyers believed Swartz's "Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto" justified their bringing of felony charges because it demonstrated his "malicious intent"

This is _insane_. Absolutely insane...I know this was intimated before, but to hear it confirmed... You can be convicted of a felony for expressing an opinion about how to improve goverment? I have stayed mostly silent about this until now, but this is just beyond the pale.

Forget _impeachment_ \- Ortiz and the other prosecutor (forget his name) should be perp-walking for this. Their punishment should be public and severe enough that no one else in their position will think they can do this with impunity.

<comment><USER19> >You can be convicted of a felony for expressing an opinion about how to improve goverment?

No, but I don't see why they can't use it as evidence in a different case. IANAL, but it seems relevant if they wanted/needed to demonstrate intent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I love how if Carmen Ortiz actually goes to trial they will say things like "Of course, the Government just wants to make an example out of me" and put on some martyr act. Hey, remember when you were doing the exact same thing before? Yeah, thats what you're being punished for...

</comment><comment><USER21> This needs to get more attention (even more than it is already getting). This sort of blatant disregard for anything even approximating "justice" is disgusting and has place in a developed country (it has no place anywhere, really, but a developed country has absolutely no excuse).

</comment><comment><USER22> A felony charge would have seriously impacted his ability to travel. This would have impacted his earning prospects both as an entrepreneur and as a researcher.

For example travel to Canada: <http://www.wikihow.com/Travel-to-Canada-with-a- Felony-Charge>

From that page, it can take up to a year and $1000 to apply for the visa for entry.

The data sharing between the US and other governments means that you can't keep your convictions secret either.

For example, Canada is hooked into the US databases, and they can and do retrieve information from them.

</comment><comment><USER23> According to HuffPo's sources there was also a "saving face" element to the prosecution:

 _"Some congressional staffers left the briefing with the impression that prosecutors believed they needed to convict Swartz of a felony that would put him in jail for a short sentence in order to justify bringing the charges in the first place, according to two aides with knowledge of the briefing."_

</comment><comment><USER24> A felony conviction and jail time is akin to a career death sentence for most people. You'll never get a decent job again.

<comment><USER25> While I don't think the offer was at all reasonable, Swartz's career prospects wouldn't have been hurt even a little bit by a felony conviction. He was in a whole different circle of career options.

<comment><USER26> Since graduation, I have never ever ever had anyone look into my background to see if I was a felon.

It hurts a lot of the working class, where "no ex-felons" is a cheap and legal filter.

(If I ever wanted to get a security clearance again it would be an issue -- but obviously Aaron is exactly the person who should not get a security clearance.)

<comment><USER13> Isn't it a standard question on application forms? In England it seems to be? (They don't count some traffic offences.) So, it's possible to lie, but lying is grounds for instant dismissal. (And possibly being sued for breach of contract.)

We have something called "Criminal Records Bureau" checking, which is used for anyone working with vulnerable people. (Children, old people, people with mental health problems, people with learning disabilities, etc etc.) There has been a problem with people using these too often (ie, for jobs that don't require them) and rejecting people for convictions that are either very old or that have no relevance.

<comment><USER26> It's a typical question on a job application. In the US, about all fast-food jobs have applications.

But I've never filled out a "job application" for a software development position. For the kind of jobs that are typical of American readers of Hacker News, employers asking about your arrest record is less likely than them asking where/if you went to college.

(There are certain classes of software development jobs where a felony conviction would matter, like defense work.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It is hard to accept an unfair plea bargin like this, but it is typically your best move.

Federal prosecutors typically hold all the cards.

<comment><USER28> That is an untrue and irresponsible thing to say.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> So what do you do if you think you're innocent? Take the 3 months jail deal? Some justice that is.

<comment><USER30> _So what do you do if you think you're innocent?_

You go to trial if you are actually factually innocent, and you are a millionaire with a bunch of expensive lawyers and a large publicity apparatus and network of friends. Aaron Swartz's problem was that he was NOT factually innocent of all the charges considered in that case. His lawyers were aware of that, and that constrained their range of options. People who keep their behavior innocent have more options.

<comment><USER5> > Aaron Swartz's problem was that he was NOT factually innocent of all the > charges considered in that case.

Just like those guys from HSBC. And they did their time too. Oh, wait.

<comment><USER6> "But mommy my friend's mom let's him stay up aalllllllllllll night! waaa"</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is Paul Graham a libertarian? - <AUTHOR>

Some of his writing, like these has made me think so: http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
But I've never seen him say it explicitly anywhere.
More generally, are many hackers libertarians (or advocates of free market approaches)?  Are there any recommended groups in this vein around the silicon valley area (an otherwise, fairly liberal place)? <comment><USER2> Most hackers I know are anti-authoritarian more than anything else. This board tends to attract the more capitalistic types because of it's subject matter. I'm sure there are slashdot'ers that would call many of us "sellouts".

I think PG said it best in his "Keep your identity small" essay. Ultimately we all have different viewpoints. Being known for any particular -ism will generally hurt more than help.

The trick is self-organizing around people/teams that can accomplish goals because of (or in spite of) their various viewpoints.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep I remember reading that in Hackers & Painters. My guess was that this was his approach - be probably is, but doesn't want to draw attention to it.

Nice username btw, I'm reading that book right now too (first time) :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Clickable:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html>

<http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html>

</comment><comment><USER4> "More generally, are many hackers libertarians?"

Possibly _slightly_ more than the general population. I used to see a lot of claims that libertarians were very common among hackers and geeks, but that's never seemed to pan out. Even the sort of left-wing and right-wing people who call themselves "libertarians" because they like some civil liberties issue or hate taxes don't seem any more common than normal.

Mind, I don't hear those claims as much, anymore.

</comment><comment><USER5> You can find his--and for that matter, everyone's--political donations on this site: <http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php>

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting site! There were a few Paul Graham's listed, none that looked like him though.

<comment><USER6> It's not a secret that PG was an Obama supporter; there was an Obama button on www.paulgraham.com during the height of the political silly season. Try looking at the Massachusetts listings instead of California.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the libertarian idea of deriving ethics/politics/economics from a small set of self-consistent principles appeals to many hackers.

</comment><comment><USER6> Maybe a little, but having libertarian ideas doesn't mean one identifies as a libertarian or with the libertarian political party.

<comment><USER4> Those last two aren't even that mutually implicative. :)</comment></comment>


Inside the bizarre upside-down bankruptcy of Mt. Gox - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/22/17151430/bankruptcy-mt-gox-liabilities-bitcoin <comment><USER2> Trustee probably bills by the hour. No incentive to close it out fast.</comment>


Ask HN: What would you use to build a Tinder back end? - <AUTHOR>

Starting a side project to play around with some new tech stacks. Recommendations please on what will be best to build the recommendation algorithms for Tinder? <comment><USER2> In case you didn't see this: [http://crockpotveggies.com/2015/02/09/automating-tinder- with...](http://crockpotveggies.com/2015/02/09/automating-tinder-with- eigenfaces.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've built a tinder-like app using rails on the back end. It was very straightforward. In my case, a "user" would like an "item". Users had many Items, and vice versa. The two were related by "line_items".</comment>


The Myth of Massed Practice - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2014/04/20/ditch_the_10000_hour_rule_why_malcolm_gladwells_famous_advice_falls_short/

<comment><USER2> There is no such myth. Until seeing this headline (which is linkbait, even after the title change by dang of the HN moderation team), I had never seen the term "massed practice." That's not the term in the scientific literature on the development of expertise. The term in that literature is "deliberate practice," and what deliberate practice is gets a lot of detailed description in that literature.[1] Even the example at the beginning of the article is contrary to the spirit of the deliberate practice literature, which makes me wonder how well they've really thought about the prior literature.

The byline of this article is interesting: "Peter C. Brown is a writer and novelist in St. Paul, Minn.; Henry L. Roediger III and Mark A. McDaniel are professors of psychology at Washington University in St. Louis." That looks to me like two professors of psychology were hacked off that they weren't getting as much attention as the originators of the deliberate practice research, so they decided to hire a ghostwriter to help them write a popular book. (I could be mistaken about how this collaboration originated.) Anyway, the book is gaining some favorable reviews[2] (with the help of their university press office?[3]), so maybe it will be worth a read for us even thought it isn't really a response to what this excerpt suggests it's a response to. Another excerpt from the book[4] has actionable advice that is quite good.

[1] [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22deliberate+prac...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22deliberate+practice%22+expertise)

[2] [http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/make-it-stick- th...](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/make-it-stick-the-science- of-successful-learning-by-peter-c-brown-henry-l-roediger-iii-and-mark-a- mcdaniel/2012346.article)

[http://blog.coreknowledge.org/tag/henry-l- roediger/](http://blog.coreknowledge.org/tag/henry-l-roediger/)

[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/is- america/201404/test-p...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/is- america/201404/test-pilots)

[3] [http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/26780.aspx](http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/26780.aspx)

[4] [http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2014/03/09/how-learn- bet...](http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2014/03/09/how-learn-better-any- age/JCxes7YTWRsqEKu67V5ZNN/story.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> The title is link-baity and overreaching, but the article itself is actually good. It's a shame.

<comment><USER4> I changed it to the title of one of the sections. This is a trick we often use when the article title (which is often by a headline writer, not the article author) is linkbait or misleading. Assuming it covers the scope of the article, it's often better.

<comment><USER3> Thank you. Glad to see HN shifting to a more nuanced approach than the "almost always prefer the original headline" that was in vogue there for a season.

<comment><USER4> You're welcome! If I may, though, on the procedural point: neither the policy nor the practice re headlines has changed. We're doing just the same things we used to. The fact that it seems otherwise is an optical illusion, albeit a benign one which perhaps I shouldn't try to mess with.

The real change here is moderator feedback (two-way) in the threads, which people seem to agree is helping. I fear how meta it is, but we're still in a transitional phase. We'll eventually try receding a bit, after it's had time to sink in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Malcolm specifically said that "it takes 10000 hours of _deliberate_ practice to achieve mastery."

There are two component here: 1) 10000 hours and 2) deliberate practice.

What op present us are "you can ditch 10000 hours because deliberate practice is enough" but when you go through the article it shows that all test subject were trained for very narrow set of mastery for short time period (bean bag tossing, microsurgey) or very wide set of mastery for long period of time (football play)

<comment><USER6> moreover, Gladwell's use of practice in the book I think is more meant in the general sense (as in _practicing an art_ ) because those 10000 hours are not necessarily "sitting down and playing czerny on the piano" but also things like "playing around on a mainframe" \- basically anything that gains you experience, which is usually going to be more variegated in the way that the article suggests.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The author misses Gladwells premise from go. He said deliberate, not obsessive. His discussion was specifically focused on variance of experience and learning over that time.

<comment><USER4> The article doesn't mention Gladwell, and is actually quite good. (Edit: The title does, of course, and is quite bad. That's why we changed it. Misleading and/or linkbaity titles get changed.)

<comment><USER8> There's also that picture of him at the very top of the article.

<comment><USER4> I hope Hacker News readers are smart enough to distinguish between the text of a serious article and bait applied by magazine editors, especially when the two are unrelated.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Neural network AI is simple. So… Stop pretending you are a genius - <AUTHOR> https://www.kdnuggets.com/2018/02/neural-network-ai-simple-genius.html <comment><USER2> This is a pretty stupid article. No one is pretending that they're a genius, but this guy is just full of inaccuracies. Let me break it down to save other people time and energy (I have a little to spare):

1\. "but that complexity comes from repetition and a random number generator" \- Most of the complexity comes from trying to solve non-convex optimization problems via SGD. "Repetition" doesn't make sense unless you're talking about vectorization (you're not), and an rng has little relevance.

2\. "Congrats! You took the above code, and looped the loop again." \- sure, if that were true then people would have trained deep neural networks in the 90s. Instead we needed researchers (see? geniuses) to invent batch normalization, highway networks, CNNs, dropout, etc. Also, that's not an "recursive neural network", that's a recurrent one.

3\. "So you trained a neural network using Nvidia GPUs and moved it to the phone…" \- this entire section makes so little sense I don't know where to start. Neural networks are, for the most part, robust to small rng differences - that's why they have surprising generalizability. I have no idea what this guy is trying to say about phones and GPUs though.

4\. "What it does well is help you visualize what is happening in those 11 lines" \- well, that's not the point, but I'm starting to understand that this guy doesn't get it.

5\. "Building a neural network with 1 trait for every word in the English language would require a network that used as much computing power as all of Google." \- I'm just going to let that one sit there.

...

"There is neural network code in my tool box."; sure, you sound like you've imported Tensorflow before (possibly?). But maybe before dismissing an entire field you should figure out how any of it works.

<comment><USER3> Agree. Statistics is pretty basic at it's linear algebra core as well. Add some optimization. You can study most of the theory in a year or two.

It's mastery and smart application that makes all the difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a terrible article. He makes a total straw man out of neural networks by pulling code from an "Intro to Neural Networks in Python" tutorial and saying "What's so hard about this?" He also doesn't explain it correctly, not even close. Maybe he should actually do the tutorial.

What's the point of this? That he's as smart as people who build AI? This person, Brandon Wirtz, needs to work on his self-confidence, not just intelligence.

</comment><comment><USER5> Almost all of that blog post was complete bullshit. Recursive neural net? I don't understand why that post was written.

<comment><USER6> You can find the difference between recurrent and recursive neural nets on wikipedia. No need to edit your post then flag someone when they point out how lazy you are in understanding a simple rant post, pointing out how lazy people are in understanding the "AI" fads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I assume this article is directed towards people new to neural nets who think they mastered AI. However, in neural network research noone cares about of the things the author is making fun of. These are examples from tutorials beginners learn in the first week, not what experts are remotely concerned with.

<comment><USER8> Agree. I think there's some (a lot?) of context about /why/ the article was written. It sounds like some[one|thing] has wound the author up.

Also it's a post from another blog... I'd wander over there and try to figure it out, but lunch beckons...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anyone who is learning something new is a genius in my opinion - especially if they are excited about it and want to share their results so that others can learn.

This is just condescending vitriol.</comment>


Ask HN:Someone mis-using company name and charging non-customers - <AUTHOR>

We are early stage company with recurring online subscription.
Recently few unknown individuals(not our users) contacted us asking us to refund the amount and claiming that they have not heard about our service before.
Turns out that there is some 'unknown' entity/person with similar name who have somehow acquired card info of these persons(not our customers) and making it look like its our startup.
No one picks up the phone number given in the credit card statement these individuals are sharing, and there is no data i can find if I am doing paid phone look up.
So far I am asking these individuals to file dispute, but I am concerns that its hurting our credibility.
Any thoughts on what can be done? <comment><USER2> Openness.

Post this information publicly on your website. Express your disgust and give as much information as you can about the guilty party.

<comment><AUTHOR> there isnt much info available about other entity...

<comment><USER2> But you highlight that it isn't you. And when others call with information you can add their information</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Meet other foodies wherever you are – eat like a local, with locals - <AUTHOR> https://www.oodymate.com/download <comment><AUTHOR> You may find some similarities with Meetup, Couchsurfing, or other free social apps but OodyMate focuses on food.</comment>


Gameloft scaling back Android development in favor of iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE5AJ1EU20091120

<comment><USER2> _"We are selling 400 times more games on iPhone than on Android," Rochefort said._

Unsurprising, as I just checked the android market and their site, and couldn't actually find any of their games for sale! No product results in no revenue. Now, maybe there are good reasons they're not shipping on Android, and an article about that would be really interesting to read. But _this_ article is just a hit piece, sorry.

</comment><comment><USER3> Oh please, this is just Gameloft whining and hoping others drop out so that they have less competition. They've successfully run in the extremely fragmented cell phone game market long before the iPhone came out. Android is, at worst, the same thing they've already been doing. If they ignore Android someone else will come along and eat their lunch with their own business model.

</comment><comment><USER4> Not surprising. The cost of developing for the Android platform is rising: (Multiple screen resolutions, buggy SDK implementations) and the money to be made in this area isn't rising to match. As the platform fragments more (it will) revenue (or people willing to pay for applications) has to rise as well or more than just Gameloft is going to exit the android marketplace.

<comment><USER5> Android sales are almost certainly increasing faster than development cost, so I doubt that's the issue.

The likely reason is that Android doesn't yet have the critical mass behind it to make development profitable and Gameloft overestimated the speed of adoption to begin with. If enough Android handsets were out there, I think the criticism over the Marketplace and handset inconsistencies would be secondary to profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Excellent timing. It sure appears that Android has hit its tipping point (I have family members who are now proud owners of Android phones). Now is definitely the time to scale things back.

</comment><comment><USER7> Google did make some improvements to the market in 1.6, so I'm hoping that effort is ongoing. Really frustrating how secretive they are about everything though.

</comment><comment><USER8> Maybe I'm blind but I didn't find any of their games in the market...anyone else?</comment>


PayPal Never Could Have Been Built Lean - <AUTHOR> http://www.leehower.com/2010/03/paypal-never-could-have-been-built-lean.html <comment><USER2> I think that it is easy to be led astray by anecdote. I think that PayPal is such an outlier as to be irrelevant to almost all of us.

There's the fact that this all happened a decade ago. PayPal launched at a time when the internet was effectively undergoing a Western Expansion and many claims were being staked to build essential infrastructure. Very few ecompanies really understood the internet, there were very few incumbents in the online space and huge opportunities for first movers.

I can't imagine any VC today allowing a startup to spend in the way PayPal did. As we all know, back then it just wasn't realistically possible to be properly lean because building stuff was so much more expensive. I'm sure the idea of YCombinator would seem as nonsensical to the founders of the nineties as multimillion first rounds seem to us today.

The article alluded to the fact that payment transfer is exceptional in structure. I struggle to think of other startups that required such enormous network effects to become sustainable and had such extraordinary cashflow issues.

I think that there's a strong case that a PayPal-like business _could_ be built lean today, but I'm not sure it's relevant - I don't think any of us are trying to build those businesses and I don't think any of us would succeed in doing so. Looking at the likes of Facebook, I think it's clear that the biggest, most network-dependent businesses really can be built out of dorm rooms these days.

<comment><USER3> Isn't youtube also an outlier?

<comment><USER2> Absolutely - I don't think many of us have much to learn from a vast, unprofitable company that sold for $1.65bn. As far as I'm concerned, Chad, Steve and Jawen won the lottery - their intelligence, insight and connections bought them a lot of tickets, but they still won the lottery. They're very interesting companies, but I think it's dangerous to think that we mortals can learn anything from them.

Usain Bolt is the fastest man in history. We understand that he's a genetic freak who happened to try out for the best track team in the world. Exactly the right man in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. We understand that he's so far outside the norm that he can eat 40 chicken nuggets and run 100m in 9.69 seconds on the same day. We understand that what he does teaches us nothing about what we should do if we want to run faster.

YouTube was founded by three guys working for PayPal who were likewise exactly the right men in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. What they did is very informative if you happen to be well-connected guys in the valley who chance upon perfect timing. For the rest of us, "sell out to Google" is not a business plan. It seems to me that the whole point of what we're doing here at HN is to upend the old notions about what it means to start up. The discourse has long been dominated by VCs who are only interested in billion- dollar companies, but I for one am far more interested in the idea of ten thousand people becoming millionaires than ten people becoming billionaires.

Patrick of BCC is for me the prime example of the new startup logic. Absolutely any of us could realistically aspire to do what he has done. He's not making 'fuck you money', but he's making a good living from a couple of evenings a week. How much happier would he be if he were a billionaire? In utilitarian terms, what is the net benefit of a million Patio11s vs one Chad Hurley?

These sorts of articles really bug me, because they seem to me to be part of this age-old cultural notion about what geeks ought to be doing with their lives. For the rest of the human race, it's perfectly acceptable to pursue your own happiness, but if you're really smart you're expected to change the world. I'm sure there are plenty of people who really do want to change the world, but I'm also fairly confident that most of us just want to do cool things and have enough money to be comfortable.

It seems to me that the dialogue about startups is warped by a particular kind of charming, eloquent VC. I think there are a number of very influential people out there who are using our sense of public service, our avarice and our ego to manipulate our expectations of success. I think we as smart people are pressured enough without our own community distorting our sense of what constitutes a good day's work.

I think that talking about mega-companies is just as harmful as our cultural fixation on size zero models, or the sense amongst some young men that the only good jobs are playing ball or rapping. I think paying much attention to outliers is inherently harmful as it warps our sense of what is normal and reasonable and realistic.

I think that startup culture has a sickness - a disease that we caught in High School and that we have incubated since. I think we expect far too much from ourselves and have an unrealistic sense of the threshold for success. DHH is considered a radical, in no small part because he has a very specific scope to his ambition. He is noteworthy in the startup community for saying that there are such things as 'enough revenue' and 'enough customers. We forget that to most ordinary people, DHH has wealth and freedom beyond their imagination. I think the schoolroom sense of "I expected better of you, you're a bright boy" has evolved into this sense that we are in it to serve shareholders and VCs, that we are in it to do something superhuman. Why is there a sense of shame to say in our community that we just want to pay the bills and have fun doing it? Why do so many people seem to sneer at the likes of Tim Ferriss? Why can't we be happy to do things just for ourselves and our customers?

<comment><USER4> _How much happier would he be if he were a billionaire?_

Decidedly less happy, I think. For one thing, it would be virtually impossible for me to find Ms. Right without the money thing creating an adverse selection problem. I'd also virtually have to have People, because you simply can't be a billionaire without having People, and I prefer to spend my time with people rather than People if you catch my drift. I don't want to ever have my own accounting office.

I've been doing sit-down-think-this-year-through budgeting for the first time in several years (because a salaryman has virtually no need of budgeting: you're paid exactly enough to live the salaryman lifestyle and since you don't have time to do anything else what the heck would you need money for). There is a gap between my new means and my desire (e.g. I'd like to be able to travel abroad three or four times this year and my current income will not support it), but it isn't a ginormous gap and I expect to close it fairly quickly. So there's a marginal happiness return on income for me up to, oh, call it $80k a year. Throw in a nice young lady and a bit of support for my family and I might even have a marginal happiness return up to $200k a year. After that, it might as well be WoW gold for me: having the number increase over last year makes me happy because it means I'm doing well at the game, but it won't have a significant impact on my life.

<comment><USER5> Trust me mate, once you're on that $200k you'll be able to list any number of reasons why you'll expect a happiness dividend from $300k.

The highest-paid person I know makes about $700k/yr and to listen to him you'd think that making only seven tenths of a million dollars every year was the most miserable burden any man ever had to carry. My kind offers to relieve the load, needless to say, go yet untaken ..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's unfortunate that Eric chose to label his philosophy "Lean" because it's become synonymous with "bootstrapped". Lean doesn't mean cheap it means efficient through validation of a business model before scaling.

<comment><USER7> I was thinking the same thing.

From my knowledge, PayPal followed some what of a lean approach. Their initial product was about sending money between palm devices. When they tested it and figured out that no one would use it, they just pivoted to online money transaction, which more people found useful. That's when they started to scale.

Now that sounds pretty lean to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _At PayPal we spent tens of millions in marketing through our referral program (get a friend to join we'll give you $5-10)_

Assuming a good business case (which PayPal had: bootstrap network effect with pure money), could a web startup ever get funded to do something like that today?

<comment><USER9> Assuming you will get a measurable ROI for each referral, you probably could just go to the bank and negotiate a traditional loan to pay for it.

<comment><USER10> A lot of the ROI is speculative and aggregate, though, isn't it? You're not mainly buying the potential profitability of the _specific_ new customer, but attempting to buy a network with enough critical mass to get off the ground as a viable payment mechanism. I'm not sure how you measure the ROI on that, since it's got huge uncertainty.

<comment><USER9> If you are going to spend tens of millions of dollars on a referral bonus promotion, it better not be speculative!

<comment><USER10> Well, it's the nature of markets dominated by network effects that outcomes tend to be fairly binary: either you build your critical-mass network and win huge, or you don't, and go bankrupt. I'm not sure there was a plausible middle-of-the-road outcome where PayPal becomes a small but profitable niche company.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure that I agree with that. Niches have popped up and thrived middle of the road in markets that paypal vacated. Adult content and gambling come immediately to mind. So if they weren't getting the wide net traction they were after, they probably could have focused the beam into a successful niche. Who knows, If things went differently paypal could be working the neteller circuit of transactions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Never mind the cost of the network effects, PayPal only stayed in business because it figured out effective fraud loss minimization, which its completion did not (billpoint etc). Preventing fraud is mostly orthogonal to the lean/cash intensive issue.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why it couldn't have been build lean:

1\. It needed a critical mass of both buyers and sellers

2\. Customer service in financial industry is expensive

3\. The 2 main competitors (Billpoint & C2it) had bottomless pockets.

(4.) Web 1.0 technology was expensive.

<comment><USER14> If you actually look at what Steve Blank has written, it says that you need lots of funding to enter a new market. Paypal did just that.

Therefore 'Lean' in this case means 'Tons of Money.' Its a theory that means more than its title. Maybe its wrong, but this article fails to even discuss it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It would be great if we could actually debate this topic instead of debating different interpretations of the title.

Lean doesn't mean cheap. It can mean more expensive. It simply means recognizing the cost of entering different markets and not spending too early, to optimize funding around finding a business model instead of the product development cycle.

</comment><comment><USER15> In 2001, when the money was flowing, everyone's solution for any startup's problem was to throw money at it. Today, there many other outlets for growing an intelligent idea: blogs, press, alternative incentives programs. And minimal hardware/software costs to build such a product. While PayPal, in 2001, could maybe not have been built lean. It is very possible for the next PayPal-like startup to disrupt the market now on a micro-budget.

<comment><USER16> Yep. I don't think Venmo has gotten an insane amount of funding, for instance, and I think it's just as disruptive as PayPal was.

<comment><USER17> "When people trust you, you can pull money from their accounts at will."

Hadn't heard of Venmo before this. But yeah, that sounds like it could be pretty disruptive.

<comment><USER18> They're not doing much that's dramatically new - check out the M-PESA system, which is massive in North Africa...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


With Sinofsky gone and Start8 selling well, will MS add the start menu back? - <AUTHOR> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Could-Launch-a-Start-Menu-Option-in-Windows-8-307447.shtml

<comment><USER2> In what way does merging the desktop and touch experience in one support ANYONE? Why did they (and some Linux desktops as well) try that at all?

Two different types of devices with two different input paradigms. Why merge them? Why not optimize them for each separate paradigm?

It is much better for everyone, and friendlier to the user, to give them the best, perfect, interface, for the device they are using. Even if that device is a desktop computer.

<comment><USER3> You don't see a benefit to having a unified experience between Laptop, Tablet and Phone? And Xbox?

By standardising the interface, you standardise the environment and interactions for apps. Metro apps for a Win 8 phone will also run on Win 8 tablets and laptops.

I think its a pretty brave decision from Microsoft, and it may well pay off massively.

<comment><USER4> This "we'll control the whole ecosystem by standardizing the interface!" scheme honestly sounds about as ridiculous to me as "it's a 5 billion dollar market, so if we take just 1% of it, we'll be rich!" It doesn't take a genius to understand that there are significant differences in interacting with a computer by touching a tiny screen held up to one's face, touching a larger screen held slightly farther away, pointing a mouse around and typing on a keyboard, and selecting menu items with a d-pad while looking at a screen that is several feet away.

If you deliberately try to use the same interface across each of those interfaces, you're just going to get an unusable mess. It's amazing that some of the same people that understand the idea that "you need a responsive design for your website because no one wants to hunt for 32x32 pixel buttons on a phone" can completely miss that concept when it's applied to anything that doesn't have a touch screen.

Sharing technology and development tools between the platforms makes sense. Tying the tablet and phone experiences closely together makes sense. Adopting a similar visual style across the platforms makes sense. It's still a horrible idea to say "we'll just take our smart phone app, make all the touchable buttons clickable ones, and voila, we have a full-featured desktop app!"

Desktops are inherently oriented towards small items on high resolution displays. If you make menu items too large, both reduce the amount of stuff you can fit on the screen at once and increase the travel the user has to make to select them. More importantly, desktops are inherently oriented towards multitasking, and hiding the entire screen just to open a program is inherently hostile towards that.

I'm usually the last one to complement them, but I'm consistently dumbfounded that Apple seems to be the only of the major (or even minor, if you consider the various Unix DEs) players that understands that tablets are not desktops, even when they have a keyboard plugged into them. Tablets are all about single tasking, desktops are all about multitasking, and you should not attempt to get that peanut butter in that chocolate.

<comment><USER3> I think what they are attempting just 'sounds ridiculous' to you because no- one has succeeded yet. If they fail, then you'll turn out to have been right. If they succeed, then they'll do very well.

 _It's still a horrible idea to say "we'll just take our smart phone app, make all the touchable buttons clickable ones, and voila, we have a full-featured desktop app!"_

Which is why they haven't just done that. They've put a lot of thought into it and come up with a system that scales through different interfaces.

 _Tablets are all about single tasking_

Except for windows tablets, that encourage multi-tasking.

<comment><USER4> "You don't know if it's a bad idea or not because it hasn't been done yet" is a conversation killing sentence if I've ever heard one. Ok, we agree to disagree, let's stop talking about this for a few months and see what happens!

Meanwhile, it "sounds ridiculous" to me not because it's an untested concept, but because I think tablets are inherently different enough from desktops to justify keeping their interfaces distinctly separate. I don't think it's possible to fit more than one full touch app (or maybe a condensed version of a second one for a few simple use cases) comfortably on a 10" screen (to say nothing of a 7" one). I don't think giant buttons and pleasant whitespace are a good use of a desktop or laptop monitor.

> _Which is why they haven't just done that. They've put a lot of thought into > it and come up with a system that scales through different interfaces._

Except that they didn't, in the case of the Start Screen. Program and location menus, quick launch buttons, "pinned apps," and lightweight search bars ala Unity Search/Windows Vista and 7 start menu search/dmenu, all of which _don't obscure the entire screen while I'm trying to do something,_ are just some of the desktop workflow-friendly solutions to the "how do I start doing something else" problem that come to mind. The Start Screen doesn't completely break Windows, but it's still a bad idea on the desktop, and at least one instance of Microsoft prioritizing their tablet interface over their desktop interface.

> _Except for windows tablets, that encourage multi-tasking._

Being able to prop a condensed view of an app up against an even more condensed view of another app is a far cry from being able to switch between dozens of running programs with a few keypresses and/or a mouse click. I'm not saying that it's not a good option to have available, it's just not in any way comparable to the style of multitasking that desktop interfaces are designed around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> All of the backwards-looking nostalgia from all of the commenters posting so far are exactly why Apple were able to get out of the door with iPad first and slowly destroy Microsoft's pre-eminence. Had Redmond produced the iPad, it's users would have rejected it - and demanded a "Start" button! Quite ludicrous. Ballmer may be gutting the company of all of it's talent and slowly running it into the ground but, unbelievably, I am with him on this one.

<comment><USER6> The problem is Apple separated the two, with 2 separate use cases. And people bought into that. Microsoft is _not_ doing that. They are merging the two, and pissing off a lot of people in the process.

A new survey from Avast shows the same thing. What's surprising is that a third of the respondents even plan to switch to Mac next because of Windows 8:

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/11/14/poll-shows- us-...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/11/14/poll-shows-us-consumers- hesitant-windows-8/1700585/)

<comment><USER7> Not entirely correct, from the article "While 68% indicated they would get one of the new Windows 8 models, 30% planned to buy an Apple iPad touch tablet, and 12%, an Apple Macintosh computer." Math seems a bit off here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The start screen and missing start button are indeed steps forward when implemented properly and I think Microsoft is most of the way there. I would be very displeased if they added the start menu or button back.

There is still a start button, and they made it _larger_. The four corners of the screen are the fastest and easiest targets to acquire aside from the pixel directly under the current mouse position. The lower left corner is infinitely larger and easier of a target to hit than the old start button. The only place this breaks down is inside a virtual machine (you can still use the corner to open the menu but it's significantly slower).

As for the start screen replacing the start menu on the desktop, I think it's still a net win. How often do you need to see your current desktop while navigating the start menu? I can't think of one occurrence in my ten or so years of using Windows on a daily basis. If the rest of the screen is not actively used for the task, why fill it with noise?

The start screen on all of the Windows 8 installs that I've used opens just as fast as the previous start menu. I primarily use search (Windows Key + Start Typing...) and it works better than the previous version by taking advantage of the additional space on the screen.

I'm not sure if this is even a story. What's a rational well-reasoned argument for bringing back the start menu or button other than "it's what I'm used to"?

<comment><USER9> The start button itself never was restricted to just the space of the button. The lower-left corner has always worked the same way (well, not in NT4 and not in XP if you had the language bar in the task bar). Still, for a very long time and at least for US customers the lower-left corner has worked to bring up the start menu.

<comment><USER10> _not in XP if you had the language bar in the task bar_

So that is the reason. I've never understood why the lower-left corner thing worked on some XP machines and not others. Now I know, Thank you!

<comment><USER9> Fun fact: The lower-left corner isn't actually the start button. Instead your mouse cursor gets moved a little up and to the right when you click so that the click occurs on the button (the movement is always in the direction of the button, even if you click next to the button instead of the corner(. You can still see this when the language bar is docked in the task bar, except that the pointer movement on click is not enough to overcome the added height due to the language bar.

This trickery only works at the very edge of the screen, though. So if you click just a pixel below the start button (when it's moved upwards by the language bar) then nothing will happen.

I suspect that was once a rushed usability fix after noticing in testing that people apparently couldn't hit the button if they just moved their mouse right into the corner. And moving the pointer by a bit was perhaps deemed less likely to break anything than simulating a click on the button.

Or Microsoft just wasn't that good with testing back then (I think the language bar was introduced in Windows 2000, along with the problem), since most US users won't have multiple keyboard layouts or languages configured. Most users in other countries however _do_ – at least I always got the US keyboard layout installed alongside with the German one (which leads to people being very confused about why their keyboard produces strange symbols because they happened to hit Alt+Shift by accident).

Uhm, I guess I got a little side-tracked here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Where is this love of the Start Menu coming from? Can't people just type in the name of program they're interested in?

What does the Start Menu offer that people miss?

<comment><USER12> Have you used Windows 8 on the desktop? The start menu and the desktop top are two separate "eco systems" for lack of a better word. When you're on the desktop, you can't just start typing and have search popup what it finds like you can on the start menu.

The new start menu is a usability nightmare. I can't get desktop alerts on my Start Menu (from AV and Firewall). Toast notifications, when desktop programs catch up to that functionality, won't be as elaborate as desktop notifications. Meaning I won't be able to click "allow" or "deny" or "block" while in the start menu.

<comment><USER11> >Have you used Windows 8 on the desktop?

Yes, I used the previews and it's my primary OS at home.

> The start menu and the desktop top are two separate "eco systems" for lack > of a better word. When you're on the desktop, you can't just start typing > and have search popup what it finds like you can on the start menu.

I'm not sure I follow. If you hit the Windows key and begin typing, you have search across your whole system. It's essentially the same as Windows 7 with the exception of user interface. (ie. the same functionality is present)

<comment><USER12> Universal search isn't really universal if the functionality doesn't act the same throughout the system. I agree that the search functionality from the start menu is excellent. Just starting to type away will automatically bring up search and begin to _almost_ instantaneously offer results FROM THE START MENU ONLY.

Want this functionality from the desktop? NOPE! Want this functionality from the App Store? NOPE!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> They better do as to be honest, I'll be fucked if I'm going to use it any more unless it happens.

Historically, I have used Windows 8 from CP, to RP and now RTM exclusively. Unfortunately, I now have to use RDP and as a VMware guest regularly, which due to the hot corners and the fact that some apps whinge about resolution being low if you run in a smaller than 1378x768 window, it is absolutely unusable. It's so backwards it's sickening.

<comment><USER14> Windows 8 works best as a VMWare guest OS. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't see what it the problem with the new windows 8 dashboard... I really think it works just fine... I mean just because you are used to the start menu doesn't mean you can't change... OSX and Ubuntu(random one) don't have a start menu and they do just fine. It's just that you need to get used to it. I don't think MS will bring it back. And people will soon forget about it.

<comment><USER16> OS X and Ubuntu also don't have two modes of operating. Win8 is basically two operating systems that you can freely switch between.

(I use Windows for games and for testing in IE. I use OS X as my primary OS. The below is from a few hours of using Win8 after upgrading last week. I have been using Windows since the 3.1 days.)

In Win8 you can click on the Desktop charm and get to the desktop. There is absolutely no way to get back to the Metro start screen by clicking on something on the screen. You have to go to a 5x5px hidden block in the bottom- left of the screen and then click on the start block thing. Or use the keyboard.

When in Metro you have to go to the bottom-right corner and then wait and then go to the middle of the right in order to access settings. Or something. I can't really figure out how I manage to get the right side menu to pop out. I just move it around on the bottom right side of the screen until something happens. I still can't figure out how to edit charms.

There is nothing you can click on to see all of your apps. You have to start typing while in Metro. I had to use Google to figure this out. A "find apps" or something charm would be helpful.

Win8 is so chock full of mystery meat navigation that I cannot use it with the mouse. I'm having to use the keyboard to do anything. And it's so undiscoverable that I can not recommend it to anyone that isn't a power user.

The Win8 UI is really bad. They'll make it better but as it stands now, it's awful and unusable for normal people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> pfft! What a load of toosh. This is just marketing crap from Stardocks as they realise their precious desktop theming software is redundant. Who themes their desktop other than kids anyway?

<comment><USER18> It was redundant the moment Windows 7 shipped.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think MS needs to quit trying to reinvent entire OS's and start tweaking features within the OS and specific portions of the OS. That I think is one thing that Apple did correctly. They keep a similar user experience between versions but tweak various features within it building upon the previous release.

<comment><USER9> You'll be delighted to find the UX in desktop mode to be pretty much the same (sans Start Menu, which becomes more and more obsolete if you pin stuff to the task bar) with _loads_ of nice tweaks. From a better file copy dialog to a new task manager – the improvements are there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> What I find really irritating, is the lack of interaction between the start menu and the desktop. I use current AV and Firewall software that's "Windows 8 compatible". However, if I'm in the app store and attempt to launch an app from there, the firewall will happily block it with no notifications visible where I am currently (app store, or start menu)

If I then go back to the desktop, I can answer the alert from the firewall AND go back to the app store and use the app. I've since learned that the start menu will have toast notifications, but everything that I'm reading about them is that they will not have the same elaborations that desktop notifications have. In other words, I can't answer "allow", "deny", "block" or anything else while in the start menu.

Is nobody else seeing this behavior?

</comment><comment><USER20> The only thing that bothers me about the new Start menu is that it takes an extra step to get to the point where I can search for programs. I'd been using that feature anyway but now I have to get to the charms and go to "Search". I'd like to hit a shortcut to do that.

<comment><USER21> Not really, just press the Windows key and start typing. You don't even have to go to search.

<comment><USER9> Or, if you want an explicit "Search for apps", then it's Win+Q.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The only thing that annoys me is the split up of searching for programs, settings (control panel applets), and files. I alway hit start and then begin typing, but 2/3 of the time don't see what I'm looking for. I have to notice that I'm actually looking for a setting or file and then change context. I know there are shortcuts to jump straight to searching files or settings, but I'm not always thinking about that. Especially when it is a gray area like control panel applets or small utility programs that I don't have shortcuts for.

When most search implementations are becoming more single and "unified", Windows has taken a step backwards.

Why can't they just copy Apple's Spotlight?

<comment><USER12> I also haven't been able to figure out how to search the app store. The same "universal" search functionality that works from the start menu (by just starting to type anywhere), doesn't work in the app store. Right-clicking in the app store doesn't work either. What am I missing?

<comment><USER22> You have to bring up the charm menu (mouse in upper right or windows-c), and then click search and then start typing. Took me far too long to figure that out.

<comment><USER12> Fuckin' A. Thanks...

<comment><USER23> Now that you've learned it, you'll find it works for almost every app. Windows Store isn't approving many apps that don't use the built-in search (other than games and things where search doesn't make sense)

<comment><USER12> It's still very counterintuitive to the universal search functionality that exists on the start menu. Which, I might add, is fucking fantastic!

It doesn't make sense to my feeble mind to bring up a charm for search while in the App Store. Why can't I simply just start typing?

<comment><USER23> Now that I can't answer. I do know their goal for making it a charm was to provide an easy platform for apps to implement search, to get as much participation as possible. That said, each app could still individually make design choices toward usability. Seems like what you're asking for should have been an obvious improvement in such a central app (and put usability far beyond Apple's App Store).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> But their "telemetry data" and "Customer Experience Improvement Program"!

Seriously, I'm not joking: [http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/28/3274107/windows-8-start- me...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/28/3274107/windows-8-start-menu-samsung- s-launcher-widget-app).

Well, I am, but at the expense of Microsoft.

I have no problem with the new system, but I am not the median Windows user. Microsoft's design by committee and telemetry data sound like self-parody, to be perfectly honest.

And now that we're at it, can't we make a(nother) sacrificial offering for the abomination that is the Skype app?

</comment><comment><USER25> Microsoft has a history of maintaining backward compatibility even at the expense of a less clean design. In that context, bringing back the start button sounds very plausible.

</comment><comment><USER26> There is a way to bring the start menuback without the hot corners, why is everyone bs'ing

bring up charms bar and click the start button

I have no problems with usability when remoting on from my windows 7 pc

</comment><comment><USER27> I doubt it'd happen.

Plus, the new head of Windows was the one that brought the Ribbon to Office.

If it did happen, it'd be just the button, which would then trigger the start screen.

<comment><USER28> _it'd be just the button, which would then trigger the start screen._

That's the current behavior, except without the visible button.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Will they stop forcing me to use all the Metro stuff while in desktop mode, too? That's what I want to know. I installed Windows 8 on a laptop, and I immediately felt the need to have the start button back and get rid of the annoying "Charms", and also of the Metro start screen, which is completely useless and space-wasteful in desktop mode.

But then I realized - why do I even bother with all these hacks, to make it look like a more "regular" Windows, when I can just use Windows 7? Besides all those annoyances, I didn't find that the desktop mode of Windows 8 offered me any real advantages over Windows 7. It's more like a SP2 for Windows 7.

<comment><USER29> I really like the chrome and general UX enhancements in Windows 8. Aero from Win 7 is hard for me to look at. My biggest frustration with Win8 is indeed its lack of a traditional start-style desktop experience.

<comment><USER6> Then just disable Aero.</comment></comment></comment>


Lunar Eclipse: An Email to a Daughter and Son-in-Law - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/b-a-s/9rcz9MbC5p8/2Q8txQgGBAAJ <comment><USER3> In May, my three year old daughter and I flew out to Vancouver Island, Canada to spend a couple of weeks with my Dad. It was my daughter's second time out to the island, though the first time was for my Grandma's funeral when she was six months old.

This email from a father to a child reminds me of the emails my Dad sent us in the lead up to our trip. I've never seen my Dad so excited for anything. The day of the flight, he was awake at 1am his local time to start watching the flight schedule and the weather. He wrote lots of reminders, to make sure that I packed Lauren's identification, Pull Ups and wipes. And he wanted to make sure that Lauren had a window seat where she wouldn't just stare out at a wing. No no no, his only granddaughter was going to have a view. (Strangely, the day of the flight was cloudy as hell until we got to the mountains, then we flew over the Rockies with barely a cloud in sight. It was as if Grandpa put in his order for weather that would give his granddaughter the best view imaginable).

I was pretty scared in the lead up. I hate flying at the best of times and this was my first solo flight with a three year old. Shit, I'm hardly qualified to deal with Webpack when it has a tantrum. This is a bloody human life in a plane.

The flight was amazing and reading my Dad's dispatches every ten minutes added to our excitement. When we landed, my Dad and stepmother were visibly excited. My daughter ran to them and the three of them had a wonderful moment.

My Dad's emails were purely about his excitement. And this dad's email makes him sound just as excited as my Dad was. I am only going to have one child and I pray that one day, I get to be that excited about my little girl hopping on a flight to visit me. If my excited message happens to go public and it contains some factual issues, I hope to hell that the people who read it recognize it for what it is...I'll just be a really excited dad who is doing whatever I can to pass the time before I get to see someone I love more than life! :)

<comment><USER4> Love it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Solar Eclipses are Virtual. They really do not exist. [..] Lunar Eclipses > are real. They are actually happening of an event on the moon.

During a lunar eclipse, the earth projects its shadow on the moon. During a Solar Eclipse, the moon projects its shadow on the earth. Only the shadow is smaller. I'm not sure what makes lunar eclipses more real.

<comment><USER6> This has been discussed in another thread, but to repeat myself in different words:

\- During a solar eclipse, something appears to change with the sun, but appearances are deceptive: all that a so-called "solar" eclipse means is that the _observer_ happens to be in a small region a few miles across on earth; one can easily drive to a different place and see that the sun is unaffected and continues to shine as usual. Despite the name, a solar eclipse is really an event about a small patch of earth.

\- During a lunar eclipse, something appears to change with the moon, and this is right! The moon really does fall under shadow, something that's true wherever the observer may be. A lunar eclipse really corresponds to something happening on the moon.

Of course if you define away the difference by saying that eclipses are only about a specific observer at a specific point on earth, there is no difference, but that's not the point being made.

<comment><USER7> There really is a difference, but the words "real" and "virtual" are not the correct characterization of that difference. Solar eclipses are every bit as real as lunar ones. "Global" and "local" are more appropriate adjectives to describe the difference.

<comment><USER6> Well, this is where we get into shades of meanings of words like "eclipse", and what connotations those words carry to you. If you think of an eclipse as purely a visual phenomenon in the sky as seen from earth—if that's all the connotation that the word carries to you—then of course solar eclipses are every bit as real as lunar ones; as anyone can plainly see. It is similar if you think of the astronomical phenomena as simply " _some_ body casts its shadow on _some_ body", and the terms "solar" and "lunar" are merely conventional labels attached to distinguish the different kinds.

But it's possibly cultural what you think of as an "eclipse". In Indian languages, the word from Sanskrit used is _grahaṇa_ , which is from the verb for seizing, holding, catching, capturing, etc. So "solar eclipse" and "lunar eclipse" are literally "sun-capture" and "moon-capture". Now from a very literal reading, neither of those is real: neither the sun nor the moon is really seized or captured anyway.

But based on the connotation that I think most people have, we can say:

* During a solar eclipse, you may think something's happening to the sun, but that's not real; that's only virtual.

* During a lunar eclipse, you may think something's happening to the moon, and that's real.

So I hope we can agree that there is _something_ that's "real" during a lunar eclipse and not during a solar eclipse (namely, the corresponding named body being physically affected in some way); whether the word "eclipse" carries that connotation to you is of course something for only you to say.

<comment><USER7> > So I hope we can agree that there is something that's "real" during a lunar > eclipse and not during a solar eclipse

No. I understand what you're saying, but it is simply not true that nothing is happening to the sun during a solar eclipse. Something _is_ happening to the sun: it is being blocked from your view by the moon. It is perfectly analogous to what happening to the moon during a lunar eclipse: it is being blocked from the sun's view by the earth. The situations are exactly the same except for two things: the scope, and the perspective of an earth-bound observer. But IMHO those differences are not nearly enough to warrant labeling one of those "real" and the other one "virtual". They are both equally real.

<comment><USER6> I edited my previous comment to include the word "physically" in "physically affected". I think we're going in circles now -- how would _you_ describe the fact that really some less light falls on the moon (so an observer on the moon can tell when a lunar eclipse is going on), while nothing changes on the sun (an observer on the sun cannot tell, at least not easily / in any significant way, when a solar eclipse going on in Europe?). If you will not grant that in one case there's a physical ("real") change happening on the moon/sun and in the other not, what words or phrases would you use to describe it? And is it inconceivable that someone's conception of an eclipse may care about whatever that difference is?

At this point we're just debating the meanings of words and phrases like "something is happening to the sun" and whether being blocked from the view of someone on earth counts as something happening to the sun; one can very well argue whether shadows are real ("of course it's real, you see it right there" versus "no a shadow has no physical existence, it just looks like there's a dark object on the ground") and so on. At some point one ought to grant that others attach subtly different connotations to words.

<comment><USER7> > an observer on the sun cannot tell, at least not easily / in any significant > way, when a solar eclipse going on in Europe

But that is simply not true. An observer on the sun _can_ tell, and the observation is both easy and significant: it would look like a transit of the moon across earth that passes over Europe.

<comment><USER6> During a lunar eclipse, the surface temperature on the moon drops by about 150 to 250 degrees Celsius in a few minutes. The whole "day" side of the moon—an immense region about seven million square miles in area—is plunged into darkness. For anyone on (that half of) the moon "outdoors", it would be impossible to miss: one would not even have to look at the sky to see the sun being blotted out by the earth; one could tell from the surrounding light and the temperature. The moon is physically affected in a significant way. Even if someone on the moon did not care about the earth, they would care about the time of the lunar eclipse. All this lines up somewhat (at least matches the timeline) with our apparent perception from earth.

During a solar eclipse, someone on the sun would hardly notice. The surface temperature does not change; the brightness does not change; the earth is about a 100 million miles away and occupies less than 10^-7% of the sun's sky (18 arc seconds; compare with the ~30 arc minutes that the sun or moon occupy in earth's sky). An observer on the sun would need to have very good optical instruments to take note of the entire earth in the first place; let alone the patch of earth a few miles across that is experiencing a total solar eclipse. Unless they were looking for it, they would not be aware of (what the earthlings call) a solar eclipse taking place.

(During a solar eclipse, we people on the _earth_ do notice. The sun is hugely significant to the earth physically even though the earth is barely significant to the sun; the temperature can fall by maybe 15 degrees Celsius; people in the affected area of earth are plunged into darkness, etc.)

As a physically significant phenomenon, what's real during a solar eclipse (in somewhat the same way as a lunar eclipse) is happening on _earth_ ; if we called it a terrestrial eclipse it would be fairly real, but is the _sun_ significantly affected? I'd say not really.

\---

Now, as this is my last post, there are a few philosophical issues this conversation has brought up:

\- One is a question of ontology: What is "real"? I think people can differ in the level of how physical/material their ontology is; certainly everyone would agree about a visual spectacle taking place, but some would consider more "physical" phenomena more real (as in my earlier remark about whether shadows are "real"), and a brightness-and-temperature difference over half the entire moon is surely a physically more significant event (to the moon) than some faraway object casting a shadow on another faraway object would be to the sun.

\- The second is a question of semantics: What connotations does the word "eclipse" carry? To some people, it carries connotations (e.g. "X-adj eclipse"="X experiencing a seizure") such that, for instance, a "solar eclipse"="sun being darkened" is only appearance not reality, while "lunar eclipse"="moon being darkened" is both appearance and reality.

\- The third is a question of interpretation/hermeneutics. When I read something, I'm trying to see: "Is there some interpretation under which what I'm reading is correct?" The question of "Is there some interpretation under which the author of the above email is wrong, and solar eclipses are similar to lunar eclipses?" is not very interesting; of course the answer is yes, and in my earlier comments I've mentioned at least three interpretations under which the author is wrong. Certainly, it's not the language I'd use: before reading the post I'd never have described lunar eclipses as real and solar eclipses as virtual, and I probably still won't. Maintaining that the author is wrong does not challenge my perspective or contribute anything new to my life. I feel secure in my understanding of eclipses, and if someone has a different perspective, it does not feel like my perspective is being questioned; it's just an opportunity. On the other hand, "Is there an interpretation under which the author is right?" (the principle of charity) is more interesting, and having newly experienced this perspective I've been defending an answer of "yes": yes, not only is there a combination of connotations of "solar eclipse" and "real" under which a so-called solar eclipse is not a "solar-ly" significant event (thus not "real" in that sense), but also it's quite a fresh way of looking at things and appreciating how, even though both appear the same to us, one (which we call a "sun-seizure") is an event of significance only to us puny humans on earth and the sun is unaffected, while the other is truly, improbably, a case where the earth (our home!) has an unmissable effect on the moon, a case where our visual perception, of the moon falling into shadow, is actually correct, something contrary to our perception being so frequently wrong in the astronomical domain where for instance the sun and moon and stars appear to rotate around us every day and night but reality is different.

<comment><USER7> > During a solar eclipse, someone on the sun would hardly notice.

That doesn't make the event any less real. An event doesn't have to be dramatic to be real.

<comment><USER6> I tried to use many words, so let me try using fewer:

• "solar eclipse = sun gets darkened" is only appearance, not reality.

• "lunar eclipse = moon gets darkened" is both appearance and reality.

(I can guess what the response is going to be: either "that's not what 'eclipse' means"/"why care about that?", or "but the sun _does_ get darkened, as viewed from earth". Thus the conversation goes in circles. Really I should stop; I've said all this already.)

<comment><USER7> No, my response would be that when something "gets darkened" the mechanisms by which that can happen depend on whether the thing "getting darkened" is a source of light like the sun, or merely a reflector, like the moon. But both phenomena are fully fledged components of reality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Well, BA119 took off about an hour late which should give the passengers more time at greater altitude to see the red moon from this evening's partial eclipse. [https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ba119#214ec914](https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ba119#214ec914)

The discussions about the subjective nature of a solar eclipse vs the objective nature of a lunar eclipse are especially relevant if you find yourself in an aircraft travelling at 550mph, as no advantage will be given in terms of duration for this particular celestial event.

Compare to solar eclipses where strategically flown aircraft can extend totality by some margin: [https://www.space.com/42768-total-solar-eclipse- july-2019-ai...](https://www.space.com/42768-total-solar-eclipse- july-2019-airplane-flight-plan.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> A possible place to start: if your dad is still alive, give him a call. Ask him to read the letter before the call. Then ask him if there was ever an event or phenomena that he wishes he could have prepared you for, to give you the gift of enjoying the wonder of the world we live in. You'll probably be surprised and happy at his answer.

<comment><USER10> This sounds like the end of an email forward from grandpa, not going to lie. I've been close enough to my dad that I read with enthusiasm as he wrote emails to his surgeons' professional group, and this is such a trite way to do things.

<comment><USER11> I don't understand this comment at all, genuinely. What is trite? And what is an and of an email forward? Will you stop forwarding emails from him? Don't get it. Maybe my reading comprehension dropped sharply recently.

<comment><USER12> I don't understand that comment either. Perhaps that comment meant that its parent comment looks like the end of early 2000-era email forwards that would end with sentimental messages. But I don't know what is being referred to as trite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In case this doesn't quite click for people, this is about tomorrow's lunar eclipse.

Fun factoids:

Eclipses typically occur in pairs, one solar and one lunar. They occur two weeks apart. (Sometimes there is a third one.)

Eclipses occur every six months, but most are partial. Total eclipses are much less common.

Photos taken during a total solar eclipse proved Einstein's Theory of Relativity and helped make him famous overnight.

<comment><USER14> Make him famous overnight... eclipse... haha, good one. Oh, sorry. ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Having to log in to Google just to read a message on a mailing list always creeps me out. Every time I see it it looks like a phishing attempt :-/

<comment><USER16> Could you explain? Google groups do not require login, just opened in private window.

<comment><USER15> If you've already signed to Google but your session is stale it automatically redirects to login screen.

In private window it just works but still I consider the design of checking login on a page that doesn't require it quite bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I pre-checked a campsite I was visiting with my son using lat/long and heavens-above website, and there was a mag -4 satellite transit there. So.. at the right time I said "look up" THE WIZARDING IS STRONG WITH THIS ONE...

But yea, doing this on a public list.. creepy.

<comment><USER18> > But yea, doing this on a public list.. creepy.

I guess I don't see how it's all that different from you sharing your story here.

<comment><USER19> Context.

It is normal to post an anecdote related to the link.

It is weird to post a message like this to a public mailing list out of nowhere, i.e. without related context.

(I have not actually checked if the message was out of the blue.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> How is one more real than another? Shadow from the Moon falls on Earth - <USER2> get solar eclipse. Shadow from Earth falls on the Moon - you get lunar eclipse. It's all relative (consider for example observer on the Moon).

<comment><USER21> Exactly. An observer in space can see a solar eclipse on the surface of the Earth just like we can see lunar eclipses. Like [https://youtu.be/rwNc5aK3dBk](https://youtu.be/rwNc5aK3dBk)

<comment><USER22> No, not "exactly". You and OP completely ignore the point the author makes.

In a lunar eclipse the moon actually really _does_ get dark - no light falls on it any more. There is no point anywhere from which you will be able to see a moon that receives any light from the sun, because it doesn't.

During a solar eclipse on the other hand there is no change whatsoever to the sun, it continues to shine just the same. Only those under the shadow of the moon see a change.

Just to clarify, I'm merely relaying the point of the author. I have nothing to say about the use of language, he chose the words that he did and some may find them confusing and some may not. The way he expressed it is separate from the point made though, and OPs comment ignored that point.

<comment><USER20> The point wasn't very relevant though, regardless of the confusing language of "real". Obviously eclipse is measured relative to the observer, so how is it relevant that "the sun continues to shine just the same"? It's not relevant to the concept of _eclipse_ , and doesn't make it any less real.

<comment><USER6> What the author of the email is pointing out is that:

* A (total) solar eclipse is merely a statement that you, the observer, happen to be present in a small region of a few miles' radius, wherever the moon's shadow happens to be. If you imagine yourself flying around in space (or even just driving around in a car), you can very easily get out of this region and see that the sun continues to shine, etc.

* A (total) lunar eclipse is a statement that the earth's shadow falls on the moon. No matter where you are in space, this is a statement about the amount of light reaching the moon's surface, independent of where the observer happens to be.

You may not care about this, deciding that your vantage point as an observer is all that matters (whether _your_ view of the sun or moon changes, respectively) by saying "Obviously eclipse is measured relative to the observer", but the author cares, and it's an interesting point. Obviously he's not claiming that a solar eclipse isn't "real" in the sense that you can't see it; only that it doesn't correspond to any astronomical event that is observer-independent (and relevant to more than a small region of the earth).

Edit: Another way of saying this is that despite the name, a "solar" eclipse is a statement about (a small region of) the _earth_ \-- that's the part that gets less light; the sun is unaffected by a solar eclipse. On the other hand, a lunar eclipse is really a statement about the moon; the moon really does get less light during a lunar eclipse, as the moon is what is in shadow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> On one level you can tell this guy is intelligent, his love of the subject material draws you in. But then his statements about lunar v solar eclipses, I just disagree with completely.

It's good sometimes to be reminded that differences of opinion aren't always down to stupidity.

<comment><USER24> யொவ் யார் வெனா யார வெனுமுன்னா stupid சொல்லலாம். அப்படி சொன்னா அது உண்மை ஆகாது.

Most often difference of opinion arises due to understanding or rather misunderstanding. And misunderstanding arises due to the language or linguistic barrier.

It takes intelligence to see through the language barrier and to understand someone. Just disagreeing and calling someone stupid shows one's own intellectual deficiency.

<comment><USER25> True, it's just he loosened the notion of real and virtual to an extent that's unfamiliar to people.

Anyway nice profile name. :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is "mt" as an abbreviation for minute, or "sc" for second common in India? First time I've seen this.

<comment><USER27> No. Like everywhere else, minute is abbreviated to 'min' second to 'sec'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I agree that the sentiment is really sweet but I don't like the idea of this info being public.

<comment><USER18> Which information specifically? To my reading an average Facebook post is just as or more revealing of personal details.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Why y'all weirded out about a family email being public? Ever read history books?

<comment><USER30> The availability of the private correspondences of famous persons has always weirded me out too.

<comment><USER29> Why? Just because?

<comment><USER30> It seems voyeuristic I guess.

<comment><USER29> Cool. So what? What's wrong with that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It doesn't seem quite right to pick apart a private family email from an obviously enthusiastic father, and I stand to be corrected as only a casual observer myself, but a lot of his message seems pretty misleading.

Apart from the unobstructed view and the fun factor, I don't think being on a plane bestows any great advantage to the casual observer versus being on the ground.

The last full lunar eclipse we had here I heard many people comment on how 3D - "marble like" \- it looked, that's not something that's going to be any better from a plane, nor is it an effect which "pops" out at you, in my experience.

Also, due to its atmosphere, the Earth's shadow is certainly not "sharply edged", far from it, and you won't be seeing its edge climbing mountains and valleys, nor be able to calibrate your watch to the second from the start of it. Again, being on a plane won't make any difference on this front. Ironically, for great views of sharp edged shadows its a partial moon you want to observe.

Finally, if my use of [https://staratlas.com/](https://staratlas.com/) is correct, I don't think the moon is going to be at a straight though the window level as it begins for them over Oman unfortunately, but rather at 45 degrees up, so some neck craning is going to be needed after all unfortunately.

<comment><USER32> He's creating excitement, giving the experience a sense of magic and being special for his children. If you believe something is special then it is.

<comment><USER31> I've no wish to intrude on that, but as a father eager to instill a sense of magic in the night sky in my own children, I am conscious that it is possible to spoil an experience by raising unrealistic expectations. It would also be a shame if anyone reading this seemingly authoritative post on an astronomical society forum was left with the impression this was an experience they could "never have from the earth's surface".</comment></comment></comment>


Intelligence linked to ability to ignore distractions - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22639039

<comment><USER2> Interesting results -- and more evidence that "Intelligence", rather than being anything mysterious is well explained by a collection of mundane physiological characteristics. I wonder when we start getting better "intelligence enhancing" training, exercises (and probably drugs too).</comment>


Do 'mechanical trees' offer the cure for climate change? - <AUTHOR> https://japantoday.com/category/tech/do-%27mechanical-trees%27-offer-the-cure-for-climate-change <comment><USER2> Not if their plan is to simply turn it into fuel and oil...</comment>


Appeals court grants Uber and Lyft temporary reprieve after threats to shut down - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/20/appeals-court-grants-uber-and-lyft-a-temporary-reprieve-in-case-over-driver-classification.html <comment><USER2> Why is Prop 22 the magic answer for these companies? Have we really reached a point where having mandates in state law is the only way for companies to treat their workers better than the absolute minimum? Call me naive, but it always feels like we're at the finish line in this race to the bottom.

<comment><USER3> Everything the masses do pushes us towards the bottom because life is cheaper there. Tangentially, there are lots of companies that treat their employees well (though not ride-sharing companies): Costco, Patagonia, Les Schwab Tire Center, Toyota, REI... but people like cheap stuff and execs like fat bonuses: stuff becomes cheap and bonuses expand when employees (or contractors) are ridden roughshod and compensated poorly.

<comment><USER4> I think there is also less checks on executive compensation when employees are treated poorly and threatened/intimidated when they bring up issues so there is a natural tendency to treat employees like disposable items

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This story is currently on the front page from a different source here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24227340](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24227340) .</comment>


Oxford's Covid Vaccine Front-Runner Is Months Ahead of Her Competition - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-coronavirus-front-runner <comment><USER2> The problem with this first across wins race is that if regulators accept accept a vaccine with low efficacy, then it probably prevents the development of a vaccine with higher efficacy.

The 50 percent effective goal WHO and others give is very low. It's not enough to provide herd immunity.

<comment><USER3> The goal is not to immunize, but to prevent hospitalizations (at least their goal according to the article). If this infection is downgraded to a cold level that doesn't damage the lungs, would that be a problem?

That said, I'm not sure other vaccines will be dropped. If any of the other candidates can give sterilizing immunity, that would be preferred.

The "race" is just to avoid shutting down the whole world again, and many governments are afraid of an uptick of cases in the winter.</comment></comment>


Hardware Intrinsics in .NET Core - <AUTHOR> https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/hardware-intrinsics-in-net-core/ <comment> non-entity .NET is getting some really cool surprisingly low level features. What sort of companies and domains are doing stuff that requires .NET code like this?

<comment><AUTHOR> I work on systems that deal with PBs of data every day, so we'd stand to benefit significantly from .NET Core improvements for numerous reasons. At that level of scale, reducing memory copying would be the biggest win for us.

For the vectorization space specifically, .NET Core string operations like Equals and IndexOf are (now) vectorized, looks like Bing took advantage of that: [https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/bing-com-runs-on- net-c...](https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/bing-com-runs-on-net- core-2-1/)

Never was big into ML, but I know people that do a lot of it in Python or R. If those mathematical libraries could be ported to .NET, I wonder how big the improvements would be.</comment></comment>


Losing The Plot - <AUTHOR> http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/10/14/losing-the-plot/

<comment><AUTHOR> dire forecast from JLG on HP's future prospects. I still have somewhere one of those classic HP calculators (the 65 IIRC) but no battery to put therein... How the mighty fall!</comment>


What programming language do people hate the most, and why? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/What-programming-language-do-people-hate-the-most-and-why <comment><USER2> That thread proves Bjarne Stroustrup's quote "As someone remarked: There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses." Almost every language that has ever been in wide use except C is represented in the replies.

</comment><comment><USER3> Windows shell, because I've seen bash.</comment>