After almost 20 years, math problem falls - <AUTHOR> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/convexity-0715.html

<comment><USER2> From the abstract: "We show that unless P=NP, there exists no polynomial time (or even pseudo-polynomial time) algorithm that can decide whether a multivariate polynomial of degree four (or higher even degree) is globally convex."

Can someone help me understand this? Isn't stating that there exists no polynomial time algorithm asserting that P!=NP?

<comment><USER3> We say an algorithm is in P if the running time grows as a polynomial function (e.g., n^2, but not 2^n) of the input size (n, in my example; the number of variables in the polynomial in this paper).

We say that an algorithm is in NP if checking a given solution can be done in polynomial time. For example, if the problem is to find a path that visits all the nodes of a graph (or cities on a salesman's route, or whatever) exactly once that's less than some distance k, you might have to try every possible route to find a solution, but given an answer, you can check it's distance and compare it to k very quickly.

NP-hard means (even more informally than the above) that the problem is "at least as hard as the hardest problem in NP". (Some problems in NP are easy; e.g., if you have an algorithm in P to find a solution to a problem, then you can obviously also check a given answer in polynomial time.)

It is not known whether or not all problems for which answers can be checked in polynomial time (NP) can also be solved in polynomial time (P).

They're saying that if P=NP, there does exist an algorithm in P that can decide the convexity of a degree 4 polynomial (even though they don't know what that algorithm is right now), and if P!=NP, then there doesn't.

(*Edit: The last paragraph is wrong:

I can't find that they've proven that the determining convexity is in NP, just that it's NP-hard and they didn't rule out it being in NP. (Recall that some NP-hard problems are not in NP; halting problem is one.)

So it's possible that that both P=NP and there's still no algorithm in P that can check convexity. But if P!=NP, that algorithm definitely doesn't exist.

Also, on closer reading, the relevant "size" of a problem that this paper is talking about (n) is the number of bits needed to represent the coefficients of the polynomial.)

<comment><USER2> "(Recall that some NP-hard problems are not in NP; halting problem is one.)"

Actually, this quite clears it up for me, I was confusing being in NP with being NP hard.</comment></comment></comment>


TidyTab – a Chrome extension for storing tab state (Vue 2.0) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/eggplanetio/tidytab <comment><USER2> I don't know how Brian Gonzalez produces great software so fast! + Asif = Great work guys!</comment>


Success Breeds Success in Startups - <AUTHOR> http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-028.pdf

<comment><USER2> Summary: a previously successful entrepreneur is two-thirds more likely to succeed in his next venture than a first-time entrepreneur. Part of this difference is (obviously) attributable to skill, but the paper makes and supports the claim that part of it is due to the fact that past success improves perception, making it easier get funded and to hire smart people. The key statement (slightly edited) is:

"Successful entrepreneurs are somewhat better than unsuccessful ones; the differential is amplified by their ability to attract more and better resources."

They define success as going public, but claim that "the findings are similar" if success is defined to include acquisitions and mergers.

<comment><USER3> It pretty much boils down to funds and streetcred. A first time entrepreneur starts out with 5-20K in savings and no connections. A failed entrepreneur is also in the same boat, no money, maybe a few connections.

Meanwhile a repeat successful entrepreneur has a few mil in the bank, street cred to get VC $$$ and free media coverage. And that gets them that starting core of users to help grow the service during hte early days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Totally agree. Gaining initial traction is magnitudes harder as a first time entrepreneur. Would Twitter be at its current level if Evan Williams didn't have the credibility that came from founding Blogger?

</comment><comment><USER5> When linking to a PDF: please put this in the title. I hate 'em.

<comment><USER6> Um, that's why the Scribd link is automagically generated.

<comment><USER7> Then it should say [pdf] and not [scribd].

The latter is to a proprietary web document viewer for PDF files.

The link provided is directly to a PDF file.

One is most definitely not the other. As much as some folks may wish it, Scribd != PDF.</comment></comment></comment>


The power of reddit - <AUTHOR>

Yesterday I linked my new game (http://parrothunt.nergal.se) in reddit.com/r/webgames to hopefully get feedback. And just then I realized how powerful reddit is to spread your work and get feedback. It's so simple to target towards correct group of people, in this case games created for the web. Nowhere else that I'm aware of can you reach out to thousands of people around the world with the same interest that easily.
So only in 24 hours my little game has been played about 1100 times and had above 1500 unique visitors. I've gotten multiple feature requests and a lot of positive comments.
Reaching out to people interested in the same subject and get that huge response gets you motivated to continue develop what you love to do.  I strongly recommend people who spend a lot of time working on small projects in their spare time to spread their work at reddit. It's not just another funny pictures site!
Thumbs up for reddit! <comment><USER2> Congrats. But you might want to consider the possibility of survivorship bias here. A lot of reddit posts (or HN posts for that matter) link to quality original content like yours, but never see the front page of any subreddit. And because of duplicate link penalties or prohibition, you can't try again.

Submitting to reddit/HN when you launch a product is a decision you need to be careful with. You need to time it right to get enough upvotes, you need to target your audience, you need to be ready to handle the traffic, and your product needs to be in a state that's ready for criticism.

This is an encouraging story, but to others out there: be careful! In the words of Eminem, "you only get one shot."

(Of course there are a million other ways to promote other than "Show HN" or reddit posts.)

<comment><USER3> _A lot of reddit posts (or HN posts for that matter) link to quality original content like yours, but never see the front page of any subreddit. And because of duplicate link penalties or prohibition, you can 't try again._

That isn't actually true for HN. As long as you're not doing it too much, you can resubmit it until it generates some discussion. But it's important that the goal isn't "to get my stuff onto the front page" but rather "my stuff is inherently interesting, so reaching the front page would be a net positive contribution to the community."

I don't know what Reddit's rules are regarding resubmits, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree, the goal is important. I actually tried before with some projects that I've might not given too much thought to it more than "I want to get a lot of users fast!" rather than "I'm proud of this project, let's hope others like it too."

This time, it was the latter, and it got a lot of more reaction than any of my other projects have ever had.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Congratulations on your game's success.

I use reddit a lot to promote my blog posts but I've realized what @chatmasta mentioned to be true.

If you want to publicize your startup or project on launch day, its better to get it published on some famous blog for that stream.

Need not necessarily be techcrunch or mashable. Can also be CSS tricks or Paul Irish's blog. Equally valuable. And the HN / Reddit takes care of itself.

Sauce: [https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/open-source-marketing- with...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/open-source-marketing-with- velocityjs/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, and that was a good article (the link).</comment></comment>


Surveillance Is Suspected as Spacecraft's Main Role - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/science/space/23secret.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=all <comment><AUTHOR> This appears to be the team that has done the discovery: <http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html></comment>


Ask HN: Do any news outlets support anonymous payment for subscriptions? - <AUTHOR> A lot of posts on here are for the NYTimes or WSJ. These often require a subscription to read. That's fair, they're a business who should get paid.
However I don't see a way to pay for an online subscription that protects my information.
If I buy a WSJ paper from a grocery store, I pay in cash and that's the end of it. But why isn't there an online version of 'pay in cash, here's your paper'? <comment><USER2> 'You've never paid for journalism' was an article here two days ago. The design of payments in newspapers acknowledges the importance of advertising on their business. Anonymous subscription is completely antithetical to that.</comment>


Mind my Picasso… superyacht owners struggle to protect art - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/02/cornflakes-on-the-basquiat-perils-of-superyacht-art <comment><USER2> Not surprised. They are floating vaults after all. It's not uncommon for yachts above 200' to have a crew of 10+ members. Eyeballs at all hours as well as the latest tech. On the extreme, Eclipse, a 533' superyacht has a submarine, missile detection system, bulletproof windows and a staff of 70 [1]. Aside from human error as the article describes, I'd consider a main threat of damage to be ocean crossings when swells easily reach 20-30'.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_(yacht)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_\(yacht\))</comment>


Need to make $5000 for medical expenses.  - <AUTHOR>

Hi. I am a regular reader of HN. I am posting this under a anonymous username, I hope no one minds.
I am currently in a bit of financial distress, and need a little over $5000 to pay some medical expenses.
Any suggestions on how I can do this?
I was hoping to make a portion of it by providing some kind of freelance service online. I am a very good web designer and am skilled with Photoshop and Illustrator, however I dont have a portfolio or any client testimonials (since I dont do this professionally).
Is there anyone here who needs some kind of web design? I could design logos, websites, user interfaces for your apps, or even print designs.
Please contact me at email@example.com. Thanks. <comment><USER2> Here's a decent (not good, decent) strategy:

1\. Build a set of templates 2\. Go to a few mom and pop shops 3\. Sell said templates at a flatrate 4\. Offer dirt cheap hosting $5/mo for 1 year 5\. Prosper.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's going to be hard to get work if you don't have any portfolio at all. Try designing some stuff for fun or for fake clients so that people can see what you're capable of.</comment>


Attackers using WhatsApp MP4 video files vulnerability can remotely execute code - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/attackers-using-whatsapp-vulnerability-triggered-by-video-files-can-remotely-execute-code/ <comment><USER2> Official announcement from FB: [https://www.facebook.com/security/advisories/cve-2019-11931](https://www.facebook.com/security/advisories/cve-2019-11931)

Full disclosure: CVE-2019-11931

Description: A stack-based buffer overflow could be triggered in WhatsApp by sending a specially crafted MP4 file to a WhatsApp user. The issue was present in parsing the elementary stream metadata of an MP4 file and could result in a DoS or RCE.

This affects Android versions prior to 2.19.274, iOS versions prior to 2.19.100, Enterprise Client versions prior to 2.25.3, Windows Phone versions before and including 2.18.368, Business for Android versions prior to 2.19.104, and Business for iOS versions prior to 2.19.100.

Affected Versions: Android versions prior to 2.19.274, iOS versions prior to 2.19.100, Enterprise Client versions prior to 2.25.3, Windows Phone versions before and including 2.18.368, Business for Android versions prior to 2.19.104, and Business for iOS versions prior to 2.19.100.

Last Updated: 11-14-2019</comment>


Americans do not work more than the rest of the world - <AUTHOR> Despite many reports that Americans "work so much" and they do not get enough "vacation", in actuality, they are just chilling at work more than most countries. <comment><USER2> Why are US companies paying their employees to not work, but to "chill" instead?

Why do US workers prefer to "chill" at work, instead of with family, friends, or alone?

Is this a good thing?

Are you hypothesizing here, or do you have any actual evidence that this extra time is "chilling", and not "being present to keep up the appearance of working", perhaps because not doing so might lead to being fired or left out of promotions? (If so, I don't think the extra level of stress is compatible with the term 'chill'.)

Or, to go old school on you, are you an apologist for the excessive demands of the capital owners and their managerial puppets?</comment>


Multidimensional algorithms and iteration in Julia - one-more-minute http://julialang.org/blog/2016/02/iteration/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is a fantastic step forward for Julia, and array-oriented computing in general.

Routines that smoothly generalize to arrays with an arbitrary number of dimensions is also a strength of NumPy -- it's the core idea behind NumPy's "universal functions" [1] like sin or exp.

Writing custom ufuncs in C is not easy, but Numba makes it straightforward to write fast ufuncs in Python [2]. For many of the use cases described here, it's a pretty solid alternative. In general, I think Numba's ufuncs are under- appreciated -- they make it easy to write fast code that works on any number of array dimensions, and even automatically respect metadata when called on array-like objects from third party libraries like pandas.

Unfortunately, we don't have abstractions quite as powerful as eachindex and CartesianRange in NumPy/Numba. This makes for some awkward work-arounds and optimization constraints (e.g., see my project Numbagg [3], and discussions on the Numba issue tracker [4]). That said, I don't think there's any reason why these abstractions couldn't also be implemented in Numba, and I would love to see that happen.

[1] [http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/ufuncs.html](http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/ufuncs.html) [2] [http://numba.pydata.org/numba- doc/0.23.1/user/vectorize.html](http://numba.pydata.org/numba- doc/0.23.1/user/vectorize.html) [3] [https://github.com/shoyer/numbagg](https://github.com/shoyer/numbagg) [4] e.g., [https://github.com/numba/numba/issues/841](https://github.com/numba/numba/issues/841)

<comment><USER2> What about dynd? Iirc doesn't use iteration st all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3>
        In many languages, writing a general (N-dimensional)
        implementation of this conceptually-simple algorithm is somewhat
        painful, but in Julia it's a piece of cake:

Indeed, for the Octave implementation of bwlabeln[1] I had to do something like that for considering the n-dimensional neighbours of each voxel in C++. I ended up padding the Nd-array with zeros. What do people normally do in languages that are not Julia?

\--

[http://sourceforge.net/p/octave/image/ci/default/tree/src/bw...](http://sourceforge.net/p/octave/image/ci/default/tree/src/bwlabeln.cc#l101)

</comment><comment><USER4> Python has itertools.product to iterate over the cartesian product of two lists. Some of the most elegant code I ever wrote is due to this abstraction.

[https://docs.python.org/2/library/itertools.html#itertools.p...](https://docs.python.org/2/library/itertools.html#itertools.product)

<comment><USER5> `itertools` comes in real handy in some cases. I just wish it didn't require a special import. Have you used the itertools.partition much? It's pretty handy as well.

The fun part with Julia is the ability to use these style of for-loops to generate code to run arbitrary N-dimensional computations based on the specific input array sizes. Not sure exactly what they're doing [here]([https://medium.com/@acidflask/smoothing-data-with-julia-s- ge...](https://medium.com/@acidflask/smoothing-data-with-julia-s-generated- functions-c80e240e05f3#.ji8w9kehh)) but it looks cool!</comment></comment>


Why the U.S. needs a new visa for foreigners who want to start businesses here. - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2274287/ <comment><USER2> The Startup Visa Act and Dream Act are crap. Why do we insist on building on our broken immigration policy?

We need to make immigration simple for all immigrants. We don't need to create more laws that require an immigrant to spent $100K in legal fees to some lawyer to fill out paperwork.

I think YCombinator has proven that a startup doesn't need tons of funding to get an idea going.

The biggest problem with government is they over complicate EVERYTHING! We need simple solutions to the problems, not another stack of laws to add to the (literal) truck load that already exists.

We need one (1) page form that someone can fill out to get a visa. If someone comes from Mexico (for example), they should be able to fill out this form and get a Visa the same day. If someone flies in from Germany they too should be able to fill out this one page form and get a visa right at the airport. There is no reason why someone should have to have $100K in funding for a business, another $100K for legal fees just to get in.

I think the approach should be applied to everything government does. Simplify, Reduce, Eliminate.

Another good example is paperwork to start a business. I should be able to fill out a simple form and be able to have a business up and running (Legally) in any city/state in the US - the same day I fill out the form. I don't understand why places like New York City make these kinds of things so difficult. It takes MONTHS to get a business LEGALLY up and running in a major city like New York, but that same business can be LEGALLY up and running in 1 day in Hong Kong.

<comment><USER3> I can't agree more. There are already visas that cover every letter of the alphabet and several subclasses. We don't need more visas we need competent immigration reform.

Also, no one has been able to explain to me how someone in another country needs a visa for an idea they're working on. If the country they are from is hostile to startups isn't that something that should be taken up in there. I don't take issue with those that wan't a startup visa to be created. I take issue with the reasons given of why it should exist at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't understand the funding requirements... Take someone like patio11, who's running a profitable business but not making a killing with it yet. Why not let him immigrate to the US, and run his business (and pay his taxes) there?

And what about someone who ran and sold a successful business in, say, Germany, and decides they would like to live in the Valley for a while. Let's say that person has a couple of hundred thousand dollars of wealth, is a proven bootstrapping entrepreneur, and wants to move to the Valley and bootstrap the next Facebook... Why stop them at the border?

Many valuable people want to move to the US, but by making it so damn difficult, the US misses out on enormous amounts of top talent.

Why not, instead, make immigration a straightforward process for anyone with some set of criteria, e.g. recognised science education or other degree from a top university, or track record of entrepreneurship, all of that with good credit score and no debt ... it makes sense to have entry requirements, but why are they so arbitrary?

<comment><USER5> It's downright quirky that I can get a visa to do it from Japan, a country which, ahem, has not historically been known for its welcoming embrace of foreigners. (Long story short: my previous employers know how the game is played, and _keeping_ a status of residence once you have it is pretty trivial: pay taxes, file forms in a timely fashion, and don't get arrested.)

<comment><USER6> Isn't that similar to having a green card in the US? I guess the problem is the difficulty of getting one in the first place.

<comment><USER5> A green card is equivalent to Japanese permanent residence, which I don't have. (I would theoretically have been able to apply for it six months prior to leaving the day job, which would result in me getting it about a week prior to leaving the job, but the day job would have had to go to bat for me to get it and I thought telling them to go to bat then quitting would be discourteous. My odds of permanent residence prior to marrying a Japanese woman now are exactly equivalent to my odds of being featured on the front page of the Japanese economic newspaper, since any success in my business sufficient to justify one would justify the other.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hopefully that won't pass.

If you have to get 250k under that law (versus 500k-million under the already existing immigration law) then it isn't going to help startups at all, the only thing it is going to do is to prevent a _real_ startup visa law from ever being passed.

A real startup law would not put capital requirements on the company but would require its founders to be able to live of the income and to either hire people or grow a certain amount each year, which some checks to prevent them from being consultants.

<comment><USER8> I think you misunderstand current law.

Current law allows for investment-based immigration, meaning that if you have a certain amount of money to invest in a business you can be granted a conditional green card based on the idea that you'll be creating jobs.

The startup visa would allow foreign entrepreneurs to come to the US if they could secure funding from legitimate angels and VCs.

The first situation allows foreign nationals with foreign money to establish businesses (and residency) in the US. The second allows US residents to establish businesses with foreign entrepreneurs, which is almost the exact opposite of the first.

<comment><USER9> Let's say someone comes over to start a start-up.

 _Who exactly are they going to hire?_

The competition is already super tough for getting good help. The talent pool _is_ limited, so this seems rather zero-sum. The kind of people you want already have jobs, so this isn't creating any.

And startups are uncertain enough without adding that the CEO is here on a temporary visa. It's going to be even tougher to hire people.

I can see it as a nice thing to do on an individual level (so people with dreams who just weren't born here get a better shot at them), but is there a compelling case outside of that?

The majority of startups and small businesses are completely expendable and interchangeable as far as society is concerned; _"Most small businesses exist to provide the owner's family with an upper-middle-class lifestyle."_

[http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/dgdgw/single_vs...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/dgdgw/single_vs_cofounders_its_like_star_wars/)

I know it's great for an _individual_ to have a successful Facebook game, but why should society care?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From what I've seen so far this year in bills pushed by the House and Senate that had provisions to assist small businesses and entrepreneurs that have C-corps were weak at best. The originally proposed health legislation pushed by Reid and many other Democrats would have hurt small businesses hard, so they had to tone it down. Finally, a good bit of what I saw in Democratic campaigning this Fall seemed nationalistic, complaining that Republicans were sending jobs overseas, and implying that these Democratic candidates valued Americans getting jobs over foreigners. So, someone try to change my mind and prove to me why Reid and Kerry would be for legislation that would make it easier for foreign entrepreneurs to be successful in the U.S.? Sure Dick Lugar is a Republican, but this post seems to push the idea (imo) that Democrats want to help foreigners make money and that they are pro-small business, neither of which I have seen much evidence of recently. I don't believe Republicans will be loads better, btw. Small businesses and entrepreneurs aren't the most influencial lobbyists in the world, and while angels and VCs have some pull, the only reason they are getting attention now is because supporting small business and entrepreneurs is a politically popular idea.

</comment><comment><USER11> Clinton successfully faced Outsourcing with Insourcing. Obama is trying to counter Outsourcing with Protectionism.</comment>


Jeremy Liew: Will email be dead in 5 years? - <AUTHOR> http://lsvp.wordpress.com/2007/09/17/will-email-be-dead-in-5-years/ <comment><USER2> I think too many people have been subjected to bad e-mail interfaces for too long, especially with regards to spam. Being exposed to a nice interface like GMail or a personally-configured solution with a nice SpamAssassin learning filter would go a long way towards making people appreciate e-mail more. I always find myself surprised when people still cite spam as a major problem, but those are inevitably the people who are using a default install of Outlook or a crappy webmail interface for their school. E-mail might die for these people, but for those of us who know how to actually use e-mail effectively, I don't think it will ever die.

</comment><comment><USER3> Bla-bla-bla... Another healthy dose of "Web 2.0 BS" SMS, IM, chat, blogs with comments and message boards have been around forever: 10 years easy.

Somehow ex-CTO of AOL managed to stay mostly unaware of those things for quite some time.

</comment><comment><USER4> No, especially because some of the email killers he cites,like email aggregators and integrated email/IM, are still email!</comment>


How Engineering Salaries Across the U.S. Stack Up - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/10/how-engineering-salaries-in-the-bay-area-stack-up/?ncid=rss&cps=gravity_1462_-1972726948909642611#.mryvyma:DD0g <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10732569](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10732569)</comment>


Keynes Was Right - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opinion/keynes-was-right.html

<comment><USER2> Paul Krugman articles are, by and large, not suitable fare for HN.

<comment><USER3> Single sentence assertions with no supporting detail, are by and large, not suitable fare for HN. Especially those which complain that a submission is not appropriate for the site. [1]

[1] <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

<comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3410374> is a pretty good response.

The article is something by Krugman, meaning it's basically politics/economics and therefore not a good fit with this site.</comment></comment></comment>


Van Emde Boas tree - all operations in O(log log n) time - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Emde_Boas_tree <comment><AUTHOR> The title is not a typo. Time is exponentially better than a self-balancing binary search tree. Assuming your problem can fit within the key constraints, and that your tree is sufficiently dense to make it practical. ;)</comment>


Ask HN: How is your industry stuck in the past (no digital, all on paper etc.)? - <AUTHOR> Suppose you want to build a product for your industry, to automate some task (or part of a task) or digitize some task etc. What industry you are in and how is it stuck in the past, and why?<p>Think of it as an idea generation exercise for software products <comment><USER2> You would be surprised, but electrical and control systems engineering is still struggling into the digital age. Many very large projects are still effectively designed the same way they were when it was ink on velum, just now it is inkjet dots on a page.

Data based engineering is the way of the future, and packages exit that allow substantially less manpower and greater accuracy (and I mean real packages, not Intools), but there is so much vested interest in the EPCM type model and the traditional way of doing things.

Change is coming slowly, but not because of lack of software tools and methodologies, just lack of boldness and vision by those that don't want to be accountable for a stuff-up on a multi-billion dollar job.

I work for consultants that specialise in trying to do as much data based type engineering as possible, but still for about half the clients we end up translating the end results from a database into .dwg files, at significant extra cost.

One client is forward thinking, we don't deliver drawings, or any paper, they get a database as the final deliverable. One specialist engineer produces the entire electrical design for a major mining hub on their own, replacing up to 20 traditional designers and drafts people.

Just a brief story to highlight how change isn't always about the means, sometimes it is as much about the will.</comment>


Review my startup: Secure webmail service - <AUTHOR> http://pipemail.org/ After two and a half years of work: Pipemail sees public light. Pipemail encrypts emails using aes256; but any symmetric-key encryption cipher works, really. It's built around the idea that an email provider should never be able to retrieve the emails that their users send. To achieve this I invented a fragmented key assembling method.
There's some other nifty features available, like that we automatically strip EXIF tags from attached image files and allow users to send emails that are only readable once by the recipient. You can check out the documentation here: http://bit.ly/fIjLPk
I really hope that you like it. Hopefully we can shed light in this modern Big Brother day and age.
Oh, and it's free of course. But you can donate if you like it :-) <comment><USER2> security and fancy crypto on the server don't mean much if your frontend interface submits passwords in plain text over the wire. a secure service shouldn't even serve up content on non-https URLs.

<comment><AUTHOR> I completely agree. We didn't install a cert since there were some doubts around wether we would sign it ourselves or not.

Either what we decide, a self signed cert is better than none, hence this is now fixed. All http traffic is now redirected to https using a 2048 bit self signed certificate :-)</comment></comment>


BitBucket was down - <AUTHOR> http://status.bitbucket.org/? <comment><USER2> They say they're on it, [https://twitter.com/bitbucket/status/460418803805855745](https://twitter.com/bitbucket/status/460418803805855745)

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks like they're back in service - [https://twitter.com/bitbucket/status/460429088717434882](https://twitter.com/bitbucket/status/460429088717434882)

Postmortem, please.....

</comment><comment><USER4> The uptime for GitHub for 2013 was 99.69%, according to [http://www.getapp.com/compare/source-code-management- softwar...](http://www.getapp.com/compare/source-code-management- software/bitbucket-vs-github).

I can't find a stat for BitBucket, does anyone know?

I'm considering switiching to GitHub for a private repo I'm currently hosting on BB, due to downtime.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do they offer unlimited private repos now? That's why I choose BB over GitHub back then. I don't notice them going down often though.

<comment><USER4> Yeah BB do unlimited private... but GitHub don't. I would pay for GitHub, but unless it's got better uptime there is no point...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Possibly linked to this migration: [http://blog.bitbucket.org/2014/04/22/were- migrating-reposito...](http://blog.bitbucket.org/2014/04/22/were-migrating- repositories-to-new-hardware/)

??

</comment><comment><USER6> While I don't have anything smart to say about stuff like this, I'd love to see their postmortem on this one. Would be somewhat hilarious if it's another bad configuration push across their infrastructure. Github has had so many of them and especially with the recent article of the stock brokerage firm going bankrupt due to bad configuration/code push.

<comment><USER7> A firm going bankrupt due to a bad code/config? Do you have a link to the article you're referring to? Sounds interesting...

<comment><USER6> $400 million down the drain

[http://dougseven.com/2014/04/17/knightmare-a-devops- cautiona...](http://dougseven.com/2014/04/17/knightmare-a-devops-cautionary- tale/)

<comment><USER8> Just the fact that they didn't have a way to record and verify whether the deployment was done properly boggles my mind. When I worked at a bank we had package management to do deployments, a separate tool for taking inventory of installed software (in case of users managing to sneak third party programs on to their system), and on top of that a web framework for tracking milestones during projects that allowed for manual entry by technicians and automated input from scripts so tasks that had to be done by hand like replacing hardware could be coordinated with build scripts and management could monitor the whole thing from a dashboard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So how much does this affect work flow for Git? Doesn't seem like that much of a big deal for small downtime unless I'm hosting a public page or open source project. I, personally, use Bitbucket for the unlimited private repos, makes development easy for me so downtime doesn't affect my team that much since we can pull from each other still.

<comment><AUTHOR> How do you pull from your team members when hosting site is down?

<comment><USER10> If you have ssh access to their machines, you can just set up their repo as a new remote.

If not, "git bundle" supports coordination via email, which is the workflow that git was originally designed to support.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> in my personal experience bitbucket is much reliable than github, I don't know its uptime though..

<comment><USER12> ...much [more/less] reliable...

you forgot a very important word

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's back online now.

</comment><comment><USER14> Why are they not hosting it on the status.bitbucket.org server? Tt have never been down as far as I know!

<comment><USER15> status.bitbucket.org is hosted on Statuspage.io.

It would be rather silly to host your status page on your main production infrastructure since if it goes down so does your status page.

Personally unless you're a major player I think you should always outsource your status page.

<comment><USER16> Surely its not about outsourcing a status page but just making sure that it is on completely different infrastructure?

<comment><USER17> Outsourcing allows you to isolate the status page from your human infrastructure. If your team makes a bad decision that leads to an outage then they can make the same bad decision about your status page if they are in charge of that as well. This provides a form of human fault tolerance.

<comment><USER16> I agree that insulating against human fault is always a good thing to do but at some point you must trust your team to do the right thing. In fact in using a 3rd party you are trusting that said 3rd party also has a form of human fault tolerance.

That said I cannot imagine even the most incompetent team making a change to the status page, which I would always host on _completely_ separate infrastructure, at the same time as the rest of production infrastructure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Yet another reason to self-host GitLab[1] or HgLab[2].

[1]: [https://www.gitlab.com/](https://www.gitlab.com/) [2]: [http://hglabhq.com/](http://hglabhq.com/)

<comment><USER19> Then, when it goes down you gave to deal with it instead of someone else!

There's usually a curve where it makes sense to invest in self-host, but the Bit bucket Slate has been really great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I just sent a push to BitBucket, and it seemed to be taking a while, so I figures I'd just grab a quick headline here, and the top story is BitBucket being down. So my timing is good?

<comment><AUTHOR> Is it just slow for you? What connectivity are you using? For me it's not working at all. SSH says no suitable response from server. I had to merge a branch :(

<comment><USER21> They had warned that there were updates happening last week; I think this is the after-effect of that.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Advice On Conducting A Credit Card Rate Bid - <AUTHOR>

Howdy HN,
Our business is of fair size and 95%+ of our transactions are credit cards. We've used the same company at the same rates for two years now and we signed on with them for free Yahoo ads.
I have an effective ship bid relationship but on the credit card side, everyone I call wants 50% of the savings for 3 years. Ouch.
Has anyone solo'd this process? Are can you point me to good resources to learn or good consultants to help? <comment><USER2> Johnny, There is a startup that can probably help you save some money in this process... Checkout feefighters.com - it's like a lendingtree of credit card processing.</comment>


Facebook/Instagram: When your favorite app sells out - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/facebook-and-instagram-when-your-favorite-app-sells-out.html

<comment><USER2> They lost me after the huge PHP bashing.

Preference over programming languages has no place in an article not intended to be about programming language preference.</comment>


Ask YC: As a user/developer, do you care about privacy? - <AUTHOR>

I've always worried about online privacy. Recently, I've begun to feel like I'm in a shrinking minority. Every day, I see people trade even their most sensitive information for convenience or fun. Ambivalence towards privacy might be partly due to ignorance, but it's also possible that people just don't care about it.
As developers, do you try to protect the privacy of users? Do you care about your personal privacy enough to NOT use a really cool web service? Do your users click your privacy policy of ask you about it?
As an aside, I predict:
- Extremely aggressive behavioral targeting will be adopted by all major ad networks including Google. Less than 0.1% of people will opt out of 1st or 3rd party cookies if they have the option.
- At least 20% of the most successful social network applications will make their money by exporting and reselling personal information. Aggregation will provide little anonymity for good data miners.No social networks will aggressively enforce its T&C's, including FB.
- Consumers will continue to assume that a well designed homepage is a proxy for security. (e.g. Mint).
- Online and offline companies (e.g. credit cards) will regularly provide information for government investigations. <comment><USER2> This really depends on what you consider "private".

Do I give a damn that double-click knows that I was at reddit for 20minutes and then came to YC for an hour prior to quickly checking facebook? No, not really.

Do I care that facebook will let advertisers know I live in Vancouver BC? Not all that much, unless they start spamming.

Do I care that anyone knows my cc info? Damn right I do! Do I care that companies provide info to government? Yes, again I do, although I might not be aware of this.

I don't think it's that people aren't concerned, it's just that there are different levels of concern. People freak if a company looses SIN/SSN's, but not so much if they distribute email.

You're just witnessing the effects of falling out of sync a bit with the degree that is the norm.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm already a little bit used to it. <http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-06-20/>

Privacy link is clicked a lot on my startup's page. People still care.

</comment><comment><USER4> As a user, I don't really care. I figure I don't have any privacy anyway, so I might as well get over it.

As a developer, I care about not being evil. And part of that is understanding that some users have different beliefs than me and it's wrong to force my standards on them. I don't have a problem with opt-in mechanisms that destroy your privacy though, eg. lifestreaming or social networking.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think caring and awareness are two different things.

Those who are aware definitely care. Unfortunately, a large percentage of the population don't understand the value of the information they share so freely.</comment>


Objective-C Tricks: #1 Ternary Operations - <AUTHOR> http://toastmo.com/blog/2012/10/24/objective-c-tricks-number-1-ternary-operations/ Objective-C is a reflective and powerful object-oriented language. When first starting (or looking) at the syntax, many react fearfully to the verbosity and square brackets. Many rarely get beyond the basics they learned when making their first app, but there are many unused abilities in Objective-C. <comment><USER2> This really does not make the code more readable especially the last method show that's even less explicit.</comment>


The Conspiracy Theorists Are Winning - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/shadowland-introduction/610840/ <comment><USER2> Conspiracy Theorists are winning because we humans are mostly stupid (yours truly included) and will jump on any simple answer to complex issues. Because people are afaird and are looking for someone to blame or a "leader" to follow.

IMO, there is only one way to combat it: politicians most stop politician- speak and learn to give simple answers.

</comment><comment><USER3> Perhaps the nation's leadership should consider not constantly lying to the citizenry as one possible means of combating conspiracy theories? I mean, how do you expect not to generate a bunch of weird cognitive dissonance in people when you snap their focus back and forth between expert missives like "masks are ineffective and pointless! don't buy them!" and "wearing masks is essential! only idiots refuse to wear masks!" in a matter of a few months?

Dismantling the two-tiered justice system which allows everyone beyond a certain level and wealth and power to walk scot free from absolutely heinous crimes would also be helpful here.

<comment><USER4> > I mean, how do you expect not to generate a bunch of weird cognitive > dissonance in people when you snap their focus back and forth

Note that it's the media who amplify the real "signal" to the dumbed-down messages. The more accurate message were "we are entering the epidemics unprepared, please don't try to buy the mask as even the doctors don't have enough of them."

But then the people would rightfully ask "hasn't somebody actually been dearly paid to make sure that there are enough masks, especially since it was known that some event like this is extremely probable" etc.

And note that those that amplify them aren't the experts. When, for example, some virologist who regularly comes in contact with even deadlier viruses says, from his experience, that "thin masks don't work" it's because for his use case (being regularly exposed) they indeed completely don't work -- he'd die if he'd use them. However, an epidemiologist, considering the possible reduction of infection rate, would not give the same answer, but he was not in the media at all then!

The media are dumb when amplifying, but the media are also guided by their own agendas, and that is what also must be recognized.

And of course, "We've always been at war with Eastasia":

[https://blog.erratasec.com/2016/02/weve-always-been-at- war-w...](https://blog.erratasec.com/2016/02/weve-always-been-at-war-with- eastasia.html)

So yes, intentionally making the population dumb can give exactly the results we see. Unfortunately there are indeed people who do have such agendas, for various reasons. Some are very rich, and do this for decades. And even organize with others who share their views (actual conspiracies, but don't call them so). And some individuals even admit their agendas. The producer of Ancient Aliens, for example, is intentionally against science:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/style/ancient- aliens.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/style/ancient-aliens.html)

"It's really a show about looking for God. _Science would have you believe we are the result of nothing more than a chance assemblage of matter._ The real truth is we don't know."

The questions posed by the ancient astronaut theorists, however far-fetched, serve a rare purpose, according to Mr. Burns: "It allows the audience to wonder. And very few things on television do that.""

In short, people are actually being intentionally misinformed, people actually "feel" that, but the misdirection often still works. Look, shiny UFO lizards. And bleach. And hydroxychloro..whatever. And some other country is guilty. And it's used from both left and right! During the Nobel peace-prize winner's presidency "happened" both the Libya and Syria wars, or whatever, we've always been at war with Eastasia. And against drugs. No, we aren't doing this because there are biggest oil reserves, escalating during the pandemic, we just do our war on drugs. And you are just Fake News, shut up.

That's what we get.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> We have this kind of people leader in Brazil. They prefer being delusional and sometimes to believe that thousands and thousands of people are organised, working together. Seems like they never managed a team to know how hard is to make people work together.

</comment><comment><USER6> Conspiracies are everywhere in the world. Corruption and deceit is everywhere in the world. Refusing to acknowledge this means you are pathetically ignorant or serving an agenda.

</comment><comment><USER7> A particularly short article with no real look into how or why the conspiracy theorists are winning beside Russia, or beyond the president being one.

Small quotes from an Egyptian preacher immediately following 9/11, yet another recap of a cultured interview with Alex Jones in a Tex Mex restaurant, and Donald Trump is, of course, a terrible president.

Yes, I'm aware the town is being flooded. But between the folks who now have beachfront property, the ones who have already drowned, and the others congregating in the local gym, I'm not sure anyone is left to read this and take anything away from it.</comment>


Ask HN: Why are most web designers have very simple and boring websites? - <AUTHOR> I'm a fullstack web developer and have been for the past 10 years. I never had a portfolio and prefer to upload my work on github. But times are changing and i decided last week to make my own. I've literally created over a hundred website through my career, but when it came to making mine, i was lost. So i decided to look at world known web designers portfolios to be inspired, hopefully. But the thing is, most of them are generic and boring! I really don't understand this, is it like a trend or something? <comment><USER2> Depending on what you mean by boring it could be

1\. "The shoemaker's son always goes barefoot" or "A skilled or knowledgeable person often fails to use their skills for the benefit of their family and people close to them."[0]

2\. Minimalism is strongly represented in tech design right now, and could be considered boring.

[0] [http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/the+shoemaker's...](http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/the+shoemaker's+son+always+goes+barefoot.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's more of the first point i guess. But being a web developer, your website gives the first impression, so i believe that it's important to take care of it

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > But times are changing and i decided last week to make my own.

Times have not changed. Why exactly would you build your own?

> But the thing is, most of them are generic and boring!

That's the definition of good design. If you can see it, it's poor design.

Were you expecting some tacky flash website with animations and gradients everywhere?

<comment><AUTHOR> You're trying too hard to sound cool buddy and taking my words out of context in the process. A portfolio was never a big deal when i started working, they would just ask for some codes you wrote that you could even send through emails, nowadays everyone is asking to see a portfolio.

By generic and boring i don't mean a minimalist elegant design, i'm talking about a white empty page with a name, social links and a small paragraph

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One reason could be that they having so much work/offers to do that they don't have time for their own site.

Another that in their spare they don't want to do something that is work related

<comment><AUTHOR> Well when a freelancer first setup his website to start getting work he's not gonna be that busy for a while at least, which gives him more than enough time

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It could be that it's easier to shine when you're driven by someone else's requirements.</comment>


Steve Jobs: "I'll just sue you" (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal/

<comment><USER2> For comparison, here is a screenshot of Concurrence:

<http://www.levenez.com/NeXTSTEP/Concurrence.gif>

</comment><comment><USER3> This reminds me of a recent experience I had disputing some parking tickets in federal court. I did some research ahead of time and going in I was certain that if the case went to trial I would win based on the facts alone.

To avoid a trial the prosecutor first offered me 50% off my two tickets which I politely declined citing that I was certain I would win based on certain facts which I laid out.

30 minutes later while I was waiting for my trial to begin he came and offered to drop one ticket and give me 50% off on the other. I again politely declined stating that I was certain I would win based on the facts I had laid out earlier.

Then right before the trial was about to begin the prosecutor came in and dropped both tickets. I know many other people who got a ticket under the exact same circumstances and just paid it.

Point being whether a dispute is about millions of dollars of software patents or 160 dollars in parking tickets it pays to know the facts well and stand your ground convincingly and unemotionally.

<comment><USER4> _disputing some parking tickets in federal court._

Were you double parked in front of the White House?

<comment><USER5> You can get federal parking tickets in the Presidio, BTW.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Postscript: Oracle bought Sun and proceeded to sue Google with the Java patents it had acquired.

Ironic given the "egregious" Kodak suit he writes about.

<comment><USER7> There were several reports of Jonathan actively shopping the patent portfolio for offensive use as part of the sale. Could just be idle gossip though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Tip to bloggers: put your NAME on your blog somewhere.

<comment> X-Istence The URL isn't enough of a give-away?

<comment><USER9> No, it is not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is an utter minefield for any startup. While the big companies find themselves in a state of mutually assured destruction, new companies can be attacked by a billion dollars worth of lawyers if they start to compete.

<comment><USER11> I agree with PG: just ignore patents when you're small. If you ever get big enough for it to matter than things are looking really good and you'll have more bargaining options.

<comment><USER10> This is a copout. If you are in a competitive space with one of these major players you're basically going to be forced into a buyout on their terms or a lawsuit. That's not bargaining.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interesting - Sun didn't fold when Apple threatened them but there wasn't a suit either.

The thing is, it seems there are examples of open source companies or developers folding when presented with the "whiff" of a patent suit. See: [http://forums.fedoraforum.org/archive/index.php/t-234073.htm...](http://forums.fedoraforum.org/archive/index.php/t-234073.html)

Further, as I recall, it has been speculated that Nokia's Apple suit involved a demand by Nokia that Apple cross license its UI patents. [http://www.businessinsider.com/did-nokia-sue-apple-to- access...](http://www.businessinsider.com/did-nokia-sue-apple-to-access-multi- touch-patents-2009-10)

The thing is, if Nokia had previously been "coding around" Apple's UI, it's not surprising that their UI sucked.

It's easy to imagine that the more timid an organization, the more willing they are to be pushed around by an over broad claim.

Altogether, It would be a good thing to provoke Apple into _actually_ suing someone for violating "their" UI controls: _Threats people back away from_ put a bully in a more powerful position than _threats carried through_.

<comment><USER13> The problem is, most open-source developers don't have their own patent arsenal.

<comment><USER14> That's the ugly part about the whole thing:

Apple takes quite a lot from the open-source community, starting at the kernel, continuing with the user-space utilities, up to the HTML rendering engine.

And at the same time they threaten open-source developers with lawsuites and/or leave patent situations deliberately unclarified (such as in the case of the patents against Freetype).

<comment><USER15> I'm not that knowledgeable about Apple and open source, but: <http://www.apple.com/opensource/>

>>Apple takes ... HTML rendering engine

From the Apple page: "Apple uses software created by the Open Source community, such as the HTML rendering engine for Safari, and returns its enhancements to the community."

Similar with contributions to the kernel, afaik? Didn't Apple buy CUPS, hire the main developer -- and let it continue be open source? And so on.

Corporations, like countries, are a bit above (or, if you want, below) the concepts of good/evil. But Apple is hardly Microsoft.

Edit: I checked, the HTML rendering is under LGPL/BSD licenses! A bit ridiculous to complain about that, since it now is used by direct competitors of Apple. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit>

"WebKit was originally derived by Apple Inc. from the Konqueror browser's KHTML software library for use as the engine of Mac OS X's Safari web browser and has now been further developed by individuals from the KDE project, Apple Inc., Nokia, Google, Bitstream, Torch Mobile and others.[4]"

<comment><USER16> I think gst's point was not that Apple contributes back to the open source community or not in terms of code, it's that Apple reaps the benefits of the open source software and community and then attacks open source projects and contributors with patent threats. While they are good citizens on the code contribution front, they are not all around good citizens on the plays-wells- with-others front.

<comment><USER17> That might be, but I don't see the logic in that. Everything Apple does is not open source. The closed source or patented stuff can't be used regardless if someone is part of the open source community. No one gets sued for using the open-source stuff, if I got this right.

I don't take any sides here, just pointing out, that as far as I can see open source has nothing to do with this.

<comment><USER16> _The closed source or patented stuff can't be used regardless if someone is part of the open source community. No one gets sued for using the open-source stuff, if I got this right._

(IANAL) Patented stuff can be used as long as the owner of the patent doesn't seek to enforce their patent. Unlike trademarks, the owner of a patent doesn't lose it if they don't enforce it, and also unlike patents, the patent holder can choose to _selectively_ enforce/seek damages from infringing parties. Does a company with as much market penetration and power as Apple really feel threatened by open source projects such that they need to threaten them with lawsuits, meanwhile not feeling threatened enough by them to use open source software? Patent holders, including Apple, could take the high road and say "While we own these patents, we're not going to attack or threaten open source products that use our patents because 1) we benefit from open source 2) we still have the advantage even if our competitors use the open source product that is using our patented technology". But they don't, I suspect because it's cheaper to set a precedent for the validity of their patent by attacking someone who can't fight back.

<comment><USER16> Sorry, I meant s/and also unlike patents/and also unlike trademarks/.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've been observing Apple and Steve Jobs since the late 1970s. I'm guessing that many of you were born well after that point, and have grown up your whole lives with this mythology about Jobs.

It's a load of bunk. Jobs is charismatic, but he found early on that due to his charisma, reporters liked to tell tall tales about him. Always looking for the "human interest" side of things, or something to spice up their reporting they'd exaggerate. So he stopped giving interviews, figuring that would give them less to work with, and in doing so he overestimated their integrity. Instead they quickly figured out he wouldn't give them the additional attention of debunking them, so they just started spreading whatever rumor or gossip or fabrications sounded good.

Jonathan Schwartz is not a reporter, but he can say whatever he wants, knowing that Jobs is not going to waste time disproving it. Doing so only brings more attention to the faux controversy.

And of course, Apple haters, who really don't need much prompting anyway, will simply take it as the gospel truth.

I'm sure Apple's right and attempting to point out this is just silly, because those who believe will believe anyway because they want to.

Look at Job's stanford commencement speech. That's the real guy. Always has been.

<comment><USER19> What is your view of books like "Infinite Loop" - which certainly portray Jobs in a somewhat unflattering light?

Clearly Jobs is a genius, but that doesn't mean he's a saint.</comment></comment>


WikiLeaks issues leaked Macron campaign emails to its site - <AUTHOR> http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/wikileaks-issues-leaked-macron-campaign-emails-site-48943913 <comment><AUTHOR> Previously removed disscussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14890652](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14890652)</comment>


PwC executive leaves firm after Dos Santos revelations - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51213194 <comment><USER2> The "Very serious allegations" seem to have been known far and wide. PWC would have known banks were avoiding Dos Santos, but happy to take the money.

This seems to be PwC moving very quickly on reputation management. I wonder how big the golden parachute was for that executive.

</comment><comment><USER3> PwC was easy enough to search for to answer my own question. But I have to ask if it is really well known itself for an article not to even spell it out, much less explain what the business is and its relevance to the situation?

<comment><USER4> PwC is literally the name of the company. This is like complaining IBM wasn't expanded to 'International Business Machines'.

<comment><USER5> As far as I know most of the companies (and certainly the core one) are called "PricewaterhouseCoopers $something", even if they use the "PwC" brand as much as possible.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Feedback on a Mobile-First Solution to Procrastination - <AUTHOR>

I'm a senior at Georgia Tech that has FINALLY learned how to manage time. I know procrastination is still a huge problem at my school. Every morning I can still find people just coming home from pulling all nighters. We've been working to compile best known solutions into a smart planner for college students. Other solutions focus more on showing what to do that helping you get stuff done. Here's what it does:
Breaks your work down into smaller pieces (30minutes -> 1.5hrs, our attention spans are short)
Helps you estimate how long work will take (based on your past personal history)
Adapts to your working habits ("John really gets a lot of work done at 11pm on Sundays, let's ask him to schedule a short task then to save him time later")
Show you how much free time you have and how you can get more
Help you eliminate distractions
Syncs with Google Calendar, Evernote and Dropbox (Coming later)
…and more
We're currently here: http://www.peersapp.com
Do these strategies actually work for you too? Or what would be the biggest reservation in using this? Feel free to drop this link to someone who knows alot about procrastination struggles in college.. <comment><USER2> For me, one of the strategies that made a lot of difference was checking what tasks I could do where, since there was plenty of work I needed to do away from the computer. The context that a task takes place in matters a surprising amount.

Beyond that, though, I'm very intrigued by the idea of the tool adapting to work habits. Looks interesting!</comment>


Ask HN: Help me get started with python for web - <AUTHOR>

Hello everyone, I am interested in getting started with python for web development, but I need some help. I've been programming as a hobby in PHP for probably 10 years, but I'm no expert. I like PHP because it's so simple to set up a VPS with nginx and php-fpm and have a site up and running in minutes.
But, when I try to find info on getting python running as a web service on debian/mysql/nginx, I can't seem to find any easy way of getting things set up for python experimentation and learning.
Can anyone help out? <comment><USER2> I second the micro-framework approach to start. I've used a bit of web.py (<http://webpy.org/>), and on their front page they show their "Hello, world" app. Install web.py, copy the code, run it, and then fire up your browser and point it to localhost:8080. Boom. I'm guessing the other micro-frameworks have something very similar. Choosing which one is up to you!

I recommend starting out with templating all of your code, because if you do wind up switching to a different framework, you'll regret having your HTML/CSS/JS in with your python code.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm in a similar situation and just learning Python.

If you setup a VM with a Debian netinstall, it will let you setup Apache / Python / PgSQL right out of the box. From there, I would recommend installing mod_wsgi and following a tutorial for it.

It's more complicated than just using web.py or Django, but you'll have a lot better understanding of how the entire request works.

</comment><comment><USER4> A lot of people will suggest Django, and it's definitely the most popular Python web framework (and therefore the most useful if you're looking for a job using one). However, Flask is written in a much more open-ended way that gives you a lot more power to create the structure of the application as you see fit. I've been working with it lately, and I'd suggest giving it a try.

</comment><comment><USER5> I like <http://www.cherrypy.org>

</comment><comment><USER6> Django rulez.

</comment><comment><USER7> Start with a python micro-framework such as flask. you can easily install it and it has its own dev. server which means you do not need any server configuration etc. to start with. That is what I am doing right now. If you get further along, then play with major frameworks such as Django.

Micro-framework: <http://flask.pocoo.org>

Full-stack framework: <http://www.djangoproject.com>

<comment><USER8> I've been using Flask the past two months for a personal project (hope to demo it on HN soon!) and I was wondering: what are the significant differences between django and flask? Is it simply the amount of things that are automated for you? Can you do stuff in django that you simply cannot do in Flask?

<comment><USER7> Not sure if there is an easy answer but there are quite a few threads on this topic on stackoverflow or even HN. Django and flask in my limited experience are both great frameworks but the difference is that flask is micro while django is fully loaded. That does not necessarily mean more automation with django since your project could have specific custom requirements which django out of the box may not work and hence you could use something like flask and extend it to your specific needs. I personally prefer Flask since it makes me learn a little more about stuff and in love with the Jinja2 templating supported by Flask.</comment></comment></comment>


Elon Musk Blindsided Tesla Staff with Store-Closing Plans - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-05/musk-is-said-to-blindside-tesla-staff-with-store-closing-plans <comment><USER2> Yikes. The beginning of the end?</comment>


Boeing 737 Down After Taking Off from Tehran - <AUTHOR> https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1438597&sid=3a4284b312ef4226a7f59b72cb0d2903 <comment><USER2> ...and Iran is withholding the flight recorders, which, coupled with the location and timing are a might suspicious...

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, the publicly available flight information shows it basically exploded wholesale in mid-air. That doesn't just happen with modern aircraft.

<comment><USER3> How so? Debris field doesn't look that large and the supposed video of the crash shows burning plane and large explosion on impact to the ground.

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

<comment><AUTHOR> The flight information on FlightRadar24 shows no sign of deviation or trouble, then abruptly ends during the ascent. [https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/ukrainian-flight- ps752-cr...](https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/ukrainian-flight- ps752-crashes-shortly-after-take-off-from-tehran/)

<comment><USER4> That means the transponder became non-viable at that point. Any sort of in-air catastrophe could have caused that, including onboard fire.

Redundant airplane systems protect against component failure, but they tend to still be near each other. For example, if an AA gun were to tag the plane in the right place it could easily take out power to both a primary and backup.

It really doesn't look like a mid-air explosion. It was either a massive spontaneous fire for some reason (assuming the burning thing in the social media post was the plane) or it got shot down.

<comment><USER3> Looks like it got shot down, it just wasn't destroyed right away. Now there's even a video of the event.

[https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1215348488164298752](https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1215348488164298752)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


U.S. honeybee colonies hit a 20-year high - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/ <comment><USER2> There's a little bit of dodging going around in this article... What's really going on is we still have a high amount of churn in the funnel, we're just spending more to hide it.

> "The 2014 numbers, which came out earlier this year, show that the number of > managed colonies -- that is, commercial honey-producing bee colonies managed > by human beekeepers -- is now the highest it's been in 20 years."

So the absolute numbers are up, great, but that did not come for free:

> "The average retail price of honey has roughly doubled since 2006"

Or, put in startup lingo, the churn is still high, but we're just hiding it by paying more to acquire a larger number of bees. CCD is still killing off bees, but we're just spending more to compensate.

This is the dodgeyness: any good HN reader knows that it's your churn that kills your finances in the end.

And that's where the insanity lies: I believe that CCD has basically been conclusively traced to a certain class of pesticides... what sounds insane to me is we have created a toxic environment that has increased the leaking in the boat, but it's okay because we can just spend more money on bigger bilge pumps instead of addressing the underlying cause of the leak.

<comment><USER3> You're referring to neonicotinoids. Let's stipulate that neonicotinoids are in fact the root cause of CCD, which is defined as the increase in overwintering colony losses.

Honey bees are a livestock animal, tied directly to agriculture. Neonicotinoids are popular in part because they're a narrow spectrum pesticide targeted at insect biology, and have fewer ill effects on other mammals than other pesticides.

Here's the question: if neonicotinoids are a net win for agriculture, and CCD can be mitigated by more aggressive colony generation strategies, why would we need to address neonicotinoids at all? The market seems to have already done that.

<comment><USER2> > why would we need to address neonicotinoids at all?

Unintended consequences of large-scale ecological engineering perhaps. Sure, commercial beekeepers can increase prices and the neonicotinoid users can accept it as an indirect cost of their choice of pesticide, but what about the large chunk of the ecosystem you're engineering which is not directly tied into commercial interests, but on which we still depend?

Seems to me like there's a huge indiscriminant spillover effect into an incredibly complex system, the implications of which can not be easily predicted nor priced.

One of the shortcomings of "free market systems" is they historically fail at pricing ecological consequences... look at the fight around putting a cost onto carbon emissions. Also note how you said "have __fewer __ill effects on other mammals "... there are still effects, and asbestos seemed like a miracle material before the long-term effects were studied.

The indiscriminate usage of an chemical toxic enough to cause measurable ecological web disruption sounds like a geo-engineering quagmire to me, even if the commercial front-line can compensate with higher prices. How do you accurately price what you don't know?

<comment><USER4> _One of the shortcomings of "free market systems" is they historically fail at pricing ecological consequences... look at the fight around putting a cost onto carbon emissions._

Actually, this isn't a shortcoming of the market as such. It's a failure in conjunction of our incomplete recognition of private property rights. By preventing certain types of property from having private ownership, we don't allow the market to correct itself. More specifically, if we had some private entity or entities that were recognized as the owners of air or water, then they would be able to recover damages from the polluters, thus removing ability to externalize the cost of pollution.

But once you start removing things from the purview of the market (in this case by saying that nobody can own it, and thus nobody has an ownership interest in protecting or has a right to damages), then you're actively preventing the market from correcting. I think it's really amazing that the market does as well as it does, considering how ubiquitous are the regulations that handicap it.

Edit: I should have read farther down the chain, where this [1] mentions the same idea.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10024457](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10024457)

<comment><USER5> > if we had some private entity or entities that were recognized as the owners > of air or water

I volunteer to be that entity.

<comment><USER6> I _can 't_ upvote you. Bravo.

<comment><USER5> Thanks, but why can't you upvote me?

<comment><USER6> I don't want to endorse your position as a monopoly owner of both _air_ and _water_ , and yet I want to reward you for boldness. There isn't a button for that.

<comment><USER5> > I don't want to endorse your position as a monopoly

I really don't think you need to worry too much about that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A comment from a real bee farmer on the article: " Mr Ingraham---do not assume you can read a few papers on CCD and bees and make cogent, authoritative remarks in a newspaper piece----this piece fails miserably. I AM a beekeeper, in Los Angeles, using feral honey bees, making public presentations, teaching beekeeping and selling honey. I am going to fill in your ignorance here with a few salient points. Making splits causes a yield of TWO WEAK hives, which is not the same as having the vigorous, healthy original hive. And just so you know, the splits the commercial folks are making from the survivors of pesticide, fungicide, herbicide exposure on industrial crops are the already weakened colonies that happen to make it. So, the splits are not especially fated to thrive, either. Your little tables showing statistics does not tell the real story of the insults being suffered by ALL pollinators from monocrop, industrial agriculture. The typical Consumerist answer to a problem---"just buy more" bees and queens is not addressing the real problems which are decline in clean forage from toxic chemical exposure, lack of forage diversity, trucking bees all over the country, narrow in-bred genetics. The loss of all pollinators, as well as decline in overall ecosystem diversity from the same insults, is the REAL issue. Your piece is also old ground previously plowed over by that corporate apologist and booster at Forbes, Jon Entine, another geek behind a computer who writes about beekeeping with a singularly narrow and uniformed arrogance. Like your ballyhooed Tucker and Thurman, the "economists" (never far from pontificating for the beauties of the "free market") the people weighing in on the loss of pollinators and trying to urge us not to be concerned are akin to Climate Change denialists. "

<comment><USER8> There's already a sub-thread about this in the comments here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10024292](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10024292)

<comment><USER7> I know. I wanted to make it more visible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From Wikipedia:

The pollination of California's almonds is the largest annual managed pollination event in the world, with close to one million hives (nearly half of all beehives in the USA) being trucked in February to the almond groves. Much of the pollination is managed by pollination brokers, who contract with migratory beekeepers from at least 49 states for the event. This business has been heavily affected by colony collapse disorder, causing nationwide shortages of honey bees and increasing the price of insect pollination...

Does anyone feel that transporting livestock from this many places to a single place where they can all commingle is a needlessly risky strategy? Assuming that CCD is caused by pesticides, this seems to guarantee exposure to a large number of bees that might otherwise live in pesticide-free areas. Additionally, if CCD has a fungal/parasitic component, then this would be an ideal way to infect as many hives as possible, in as short a time as possible.

<comment><USER10> Wow. 49 states implies that at least one of Alaska or Hawaii is involved.

<comment><USER11> Why would you be surprised that they grow things in Hawaii. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_B._Dole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_B._Dole)

<comment><USER12> The surprising part is that they're shipping live bees back and forth overseas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Buying more and more bees is a very expensive solution. Perhaps I'm just a poor beekeeper (maybe true?) but I would have to sell my honey at untenable prices if I was looking to make money on my beekeeping.

For example, I've spent $1600 on bees and equipment, I've harvested 3 gallons of honey. I would have to sell that honey at $44/Pound to break even. Now hopefully over the long term this goes down a lot as the upfront capital investments spread out over the years.

My bee losses have been huge though. The first year I had 3 hives, lost 2. The second year I had 5 hives and lost 3, last year I had 5 hives and lost 4. Buying bees at $130/hive isn't sustainable (except through my charity) if I wanted to actually make any money at this, especially on a small scale.

<comment><USER3> If reconstituting new hives from annually purchased queens was economically non-viable, pollination prices --- which is where the money in honey bee husbandry seems to come from --- would show that. But while prices have risen, it doesn't look like they've done so at a historically unprecedented rate.

Irrigation is a much bigger economic threat to pollinated crops than pollination.

<comment><USER13> Yes, this is true -- in large agriculture, pollination is where the money is in beekeeping. I know pollination contracts stipulate "frames of bees" to be considered a hive (for example you might need 20 "frames of bees" to get paid for that hive) but I also think you're getting weaker hives out there for pollination. So while the price isn't going up, the size of the product is going down.

Same concept as the cereal boxes. They look the same from the outside, but they put less cereal in it and charge you the same price instead of raising the price.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So, we're " _buying_ " new bees to offset the bees that die?

Uh... forgive me if I seem a little dense here but... where the hell are these _store-bought_ bees coming from then? The moon? If the mass hysteria of CCD continues unabated, does that mean that bees _WON 'T_ go extinct because we can simply " _buy_ " more bees from _God_ at the God® store?

Are we back in the 1800's when spontaneous generation still held some ostensible sway over mother nature? Do they spontaneously materialize and transmogrify from some other form of matter? Do flowers transform into bees because the two are actually the same?

</comment><comment><USER15> According to the article, the number of colonies is bigger than before because bee keepers simply buy more bees as replacement, but it doesn't explain where they come from.

Also: "put half the bees into a new beehive, order them a new queen online (retail price: $25 or so), and voila: two healthy hives."

Does that mean you have 100% more colonies but the same number of bees? I suppose not, but I think it would be interesting if we could see the evolution of the numbers of bees instead of the number of colonies.

<comment> c-slice A small number of bees when placed with a queen will quickly produce a full size hive. Bee hives have a size limit, so dividing them into two smaller hives produces rapid population growth. A queen bee can lay 1000 eggs a day.

<comment><USER16> This is the most outlandish attempt at a proof of the Banach-Tarski theorem I've heard so far.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm not so sure. I have a large backyard garden and I'm surrounded by neighbors who also garden. I was chatting with some of them the other day and we've all noticed a significant drop in fertilization amongst our plants this year. My tomato plants are typically overloaded with fruit by this time of year but now only have four or five tomatoes each. Same story with the tomatillos, the squashes, the cukes and the watermelons. Production is less than half of a typical year.

My neighbor kept bees but lost his colony last year. I can't say for sure that CCD is the root of our problems--home gardens are more popular around here than ever and perhaps the bees have an overabundance of food--but it certainly feels like something is wrong. Obviously home gardeners and beekeepers don't have the funds to bolster the bee population like a large commercial grower might.

<comment><USER18> Sounds like you need to fashion a bee stick [1] so you can do the pollination yourself.

We used these in a high school science project to pollinate fast plants.

[1][http://www.fastplants.org/how_to_grow/pollinating.php](http://www.fastplants.org/how_to_grow/pollinating.php)

<comment><USER19> Even easier: plant wildflowers to feed and attract pollinators. Borage is a good one (and it repels bunnies too), or just find a good native wildflower mix.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Interesting that the government put together a policy framework to "save the bees", but the market corrected itself anyway.

Also interesting that you can buy a queen bee online for $25.

<comment><USER2> The 'market corrected' itself by increasing prices because that's the only way you can keep up with a high leaky churn.

We haven't 'corrected' anything, we've only found a new (more expensive) equilibrium because the inputs are still dying off at a higher rate. The correct thing to do is to address WHY the inputs have become more expensive... my understanding is that research now points to a certain class of destructive pesticides.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So the proffered solution is ordering new bees from the internet. That seems like magical thinking. I don't think Amazon has figured out how to fabricate bees from base atoms, so presumably somebody, somewhere is breeding those bees for sale.

Don't those breeders have the same problems? What's preventing the magical internet bee source from having their colonies die off?

</comment><comment><USER22> The bottom line is there are huge corporate interests willing to spend money to bury the fact that their investments in toxic agricultural pesticides, herbicides and fungicides are having a permanent, devastating effect on the planetary biome.

The collapsing honey bee is the poster child of the irrevocable damage they are perpetrating on the planet, which is the mostly silent holocaust of our times.

So take any positive media on the recovery of the honey bee that isn't result of curbing industrial agricultural practice, with a big grain of organic salt.

<comment><USER23> > irrevocable damage

That seems a bit hyperbolic to me. The damage seems revocable if actual effort were put into it instead of just papering over the symptoms.

Of course such things often require policy change, change that some people might oppose. But that does not make the damage itself irrevocable.

It just means that people are prioritizing other goals over it.

<comment><USER22> If the monarch butterfly goes extinct like the passenger pigeon, that's irrevocable. And evidence is mounting that we are at the edge of an man made extinction event, and by evidence I mean the number of species that go extinct per year. I don't think the big concern here is hyperbole, but rather the papering of it over, on which point we agree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So the solution is to... buy more bees of the internet? Thank god we solved CCD

<comment><USER3> CCD is an economic problem. The varroa mite wiped out feral North American honey bees --- which are _not native_ to North America --- a long time ago. Supposedly, any honey bee you've seen in the wild for the past decade has been part of a proprietary hive.

So, ordering more honey bee queens off the Internet seems to be a pretty reasonable response to the problem of a 10-20% increase in overwintering hive failures.

<comment><USER25> What would a non-native honey bee in the wild look like? I live in California and the bees in my garden and in the local parks are various. Some look like bumblebees and some look like just bees but I don't know bees from bees.

<comment><USER26> tptacek has a very efficient guide to bees posted. Another nice national one that is very comprehensive is the USDA's guide at [http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb530646...](http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5306468.pdf) . Scroll to page 17 or so to start looking at illustrations of particular bees if you don't want to read about their habits. But the best for CA is the Berkeley Bee Lab's page on native bees at [http://www.helpabee.org/common-bee- groups-of-ca.html](http://www.helpabee.org/common-bee-groups-of-ca.html)

There was a great art & education & science installation on native bees at the UC Botanical Garden in Berkeley a few years back ([http://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/Shirley-Watts- Mo...](http://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/Shirley-Watts-Mouthings-at- Botanical-Garden-2325642.php)). I know they still have a beehive, and they might have some exhibits on native bees.

<comment><USER25> The Berkeley site is neat, but it's got a picture of the european honey bee right at the top and no mention of it being non-native.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> So was that the solution all along? Just breed more bees to replace the ones that die?

If that's the case, it seems like a mountain was made out of a mole hill in the media. I read multiple times that I may never eat a pollinated fruit or vegetable again.

<comment><USER28> No, the article is just putting forth very misleading and cherry-picked data. It's a little bit amazing that he actually mentions splitting and higher hive count close to each other without realizing that this will not increase the pollinator count by twofold. A real beefarmer has a comment on the article that everyone should read, it's illuminating.

""" Mr Ingraham---do not assume you can read a few papers on CCD and bees and make cogent, authoritative remarks in a newspaper piece----this piece fails miserably. I AM a beekeeper, in Los Angeles, using feral honey bees, making public presentations, teaching beekeeping and selling honey. I am going to fill in your ignorance here with a few salient points. Making splits causes a yield of TWO WEAK hives, which is not the same as having the vigorous, healthy original hive. And just so you know, the splits the commercial folks are making from the survivors of pesticide, fungicide, herbicide exposure on industrial crops are the already weakened colonies that happen to make it. So, the splits are not especially fated to thrive, either. Your little tables showing statistics does not tell the real story of the insults being suffered by ALL pollinators from monocrop, industrial agriculture. The typical Consumerist answer to a problem---"just buy more" bees and queens is not addressing the real problems which are decline in clean forage from toxic chemical exposure, lack of forage diversity, trucking bees all over the country, narrow in-bred genetics. The loss of all pollinators, as well as decline in overall ecosystem diversity from the same insults, is the REAL issue. Your piece is also old ground previously plowed over by that corporate apologist and booster at Forbes, Jon Entine, another geek behind a computer who writes about beekeeping with a singularly narrow and uniformed arrogance. Like your ballyhooed Tucker and Thurman, the "economists" (never far from pontificating for the beauties of the "free market") the people weighing in on the loss of pollinators and trying to urge us not to be concerned are akin to Climate Change denialists. """

<comment><USER3> This beekeeper's comment doesn't appear to contain any testable arguments. They don't like the fact that maintenance of honey bee stock will require aggressive colony creation, but they don't appear to have an argument to back that up that isn't essentially an appeal to the naturalist fallacy.

This is also a beekeeper attempting to husband honey bees using feral bee populations, 98+% of which were annihilated by the varroa mite a long time ago (there are people who dispute whether "feral honey bees" really still exist at all in the US).

I'm not especially moved by arguments that attempt to tar people asking reasonable questions about insects to climate change denialists.

<comment><USER29> It contains several testable points. Does splitting a hive create two weak hives? How do you characterize this weakness and do they recover from it? What is the genetic diversity of the bee population? Is it growing or shrinking? Toxic chemical free forage is it growing or shrinking? Forage diversity should also be easy to measure and track changes over time. Other than the personal attacks what did you find not testable?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Interestingly, European bees hybridized with African bees seem to be quite resistant to CCD. Makes me wonder if one of the problems afflicting American honeybees is a lack of genetic diversity.

<comment><USER31> Well there are other factors in this debate. European-African hybrids are much more aggressive to the beekeeper and there are different conditions that kills the colony. Another factor is the honey production rates for these hybrids.

There are many different species of bees in use, with different characteristic in areas of amount of honey produced, aggression, tendency to get different forms of illness and so forth.

</comment></comment><comment> c-slice Life finds a way. I think in some ways, CCD has probably "pruned" the bee population in a good way. Beekeeping allowed weaker hives that would have normally died off in the wild to continue to spawn new hives. CCD has reversed that trend, and may have improved the overall strength of the bee population genetics.

<comment><USER32> > CCD has probably "pruned" the bee population in a good way

A reduction in the population is never a good thing. Is this some sort of neo- eugenics viewpoint? Pruning the population will not create some sort of super- bee. That's not how it works.

It will enhance whatever qualities are being selected for, but it will reduce the genetic diversity in the population, making it vulnerable to a hole raft of new diseases and disorders.

Ideally what you want is for the genetic variant that protects against a specific disease to be already within the population and for that variant to simply spread, without any population loss. If you're losing population, that is a BAD thing. That means things are happening too quickly and you're in for a world of hurt in the long-term.

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

<comment><USER3> Yours is a needlessly inflammatory response to what was in fact a reasonable question.

Eugenics is a philosophy that suggests _human breeding_ should be controlled to select for favored features. It's disfavored for a variety of obvious reasons that connect to our principals about the unique value of human life.

Honey bees are livestock. Livestock has been selectively bred for millennia, and discussions of long-term genetic selection among honey bees is not an indicator that participants believe in eugenics.

<comment><USER32> > ... to what was in fact a reasonable question.

There was no question. It was a statement.

> Yours is a needlessly inflammatory response ...

I'm sorry, but what word would you use to describe the theory that selective pressures that decimate a population will eventually result in a superior specimen?

It may be inflammatory, but that's the only word that came to mind.

<comment><USER33> How about "genetic engineering".

<comment><USER34> I don't think genetic engineering involves killing off large chunks of a population just because it - for the moment - pays off. I'm not a specialist, though, so I may well be wrong here...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Nice to see the other side of the story for a change. While the 'extinction threat -> loss of all pollinated food -> disaster' narrative gets a lot of fear views, if we actively assist honey bee colonies in growing on a large scale we can replace a lot of bees quickly.

<comment><USER36> This 'other side of the story' is incomplete. Sure commercial outfits will just pay more and buy more honeybees, but nature won't.

Given that the entire problem is being caused by a dragnet insect poison, it would seem the wiser approach would be to find an alternative or improvement to the poison in its current form.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Queen-bee sale page is an interesting read too:

[http://wildflowermeadows.com/queen-bees-for- sale/](http://wildflowermeadows.com/queen-bees-for-sale/)

</comment><comment><USER31> So, we have learn how to produce bee queens on industrial scale, package them to sealed bag and sell them for 100 bucks.

We replaced the natural way with industry and the author call it success.

</comment><comment><USER38> Why was this downvoted? Does CCD selection pressure help or hinder bee genetics?

<comment><USER39> _Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER40> Even when it is paired with a question asking for clarification on the subject matter at hand?

<comment><USER41> Yes, because you can always delete the downvote noise and keep the clarifying question.</comment></comment></comment></comment>