The Oracle of Arithmetic - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160628-peter-scholze-arithmetic-geometry-profile/ <comment><USER2> Some additions to this profile:

Scholze won 3 gold medals at the International Mathematical Olympiad [1], refused the Milner and Zuckerberg's Millenium Prize (without justification, afaik) [2], answers once in a while on mathoverflow [3] and has played the bass in a rock band, obviously. [4]

[1] [http://imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7867](http://imo- official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7867)

[2] [https://mathematicswithoutapologies.wordpress.com/2015/11/09...](https://mathematicswithoutapologies.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/working- the-red-carpet-part-2/)

[3] [https://mathoverflow.net/users/6074/peter- scholze](https://mathoverflow.net/users/6074/peter-scholze)

[4] [http://www.express.de/bonn/professor-mit-24-so-tickt- mathe-g...](http://www.express.de/bonn/professor-mit-24-so-tickt-mathe-genie- peter-scholze-4572292)

</comment><comment><USER3> >attending Heinrich Hertz Gymnasium, a Berlin high school specializing in mathematics and science. At Heinrich Hertz, Scholze said, "you were not being an outsider if you were interested in mathematics."

I wonder how many people like him have never reach their potential because they went to a high school where intelligence was looked down on or even could get you hurt.

<comment><USER4> ... or never reach their potential because there's a lot of random, mediocre noise masquerading as education in their environment. there are probably multiple people like Scholze aimlessly drifting in the US right now, working as unpaid interns or playing video games all day, people who are literally unaware of what they're missing.

<comment><USER5> Right you are, and the unfortunate reality is no one particularly cares either. Common Core (in the US) adds to this in its focus not on the problem, not on the solution, not on the method(s) to approach the problem, but rather on a seemingly sensible and internally coherent explanation for arriving at some sort of (not necessarily correct) solution.

<comment><USER6> Please explain what you are talking about. If I were less charitable, I'd worry you were taking an uninformed potshot at a curriculum you haven't read up on.

What is "sensible and internally coherent explanation" if not a method to approach the problem?

In the IMO, points are awarded for sensible and internally coherent explanations (commonly called "proofs").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Scholze avoids getting tangled in the jungle vines by forcing himself to fly > above them: As when he was in college, he prefers to work without writing > anything down. That means that he must formulate his ideas in the cleanest > way possible, he said. "You have only some kind of limited capacity in your > head, so you can't do too complicated things."

Grigori Perelman also worked this way. According to "Perfect Rigor" (Google Books link: [https://goo.gl/tFe6hP](https://goo.gl/tFe6hP)):

> Perelman did his thinking almost entirely inside his head, neither writing > nor sketching on scratch paper.

<comment><USER8> Frank Lloyd Wright is known for working in a similar way [1]:

> Still another remarkable quality about Wright's work habits was his practice > of never doing a sketch until he had the entire project worked out in his > head.

[1]: [https://books.google.com/books?id=z40CNby1wnYC&lpg=PA113&dq=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=z40CNby1wnYC&lpg=PA113&dq=frank%20lloyd%20wright%20daily%20work%20habits&pg=PA113#v=onepage&q=frank%20lloyd%20wright%20daily%20work%20habits&f=false)

<comment><USER9> The philosopher, Bertrand Russel was also known to work like this. He would produce a perfectly structured, completed work on the first draft.

<comment><USER10> The Feynman Algorithm: 1\. Write down the problem. 2\. Think real hard. 3\. Write down the solution.

<comment><USER11> Actually, Feynman answered in an interview once that his notebooks were where he did his work. The interviewer followed up with something like "You mean where you wrote it down?" and he gave an emphatic no. Ah, here it is:

[https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr- library/oral...](https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral- histories/5020-5)

> Weiner: Well, the work was done in your head but the record of it is still > here.

> Feynman: No, it's not a record, not really, it's working. You have to work > on paper and this is the paper. OK?

It was nice to see this because that algorithm, even if meant as a joke, never sat right with me. The Feynman of the lectures would not encourage you to believe in magic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I recommend this video (from Harvard Math Department) "Locally symmetric spaces, and Galois representations"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdm0B9KLcQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdm0B9KLcQ)

He connects Galois Theory and Hyperbolic Geometry and off you go!

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm always amazed by mathematician's stories like this.

Part of me wonders what would have happened if I'd gone that way, because my uninformed 18 year old self thought that studying a mix of engineering and management would be the best way to make sure I didn't end up running a restaurant. I'd grown up in one, and I wasn't keen on my kids doing so. So even though I quite liked math (I did contests) I chose something that seemed a bit more practical.

Now I realise it's not exactly bad for your career prospects to have a math degree. There's a family of sciences (and math) that tend to produce employable graduates in tech related areas. People who can code, people who can use math (without delving too deep), people who've visited the evidence in a range of natural sciences.

Anyway, there's an atmosphere of awe about guys like this and Terence Tao, like you have to be born a certain way to reach those heights. I wonder a bit about the environment required as well. I suspect it's a lot less gift, and a lot more hard work than it seems (well, hard work is easy if you like it). Along with being fortunate enough to have the environment that takes you along at the right pace. That math teacher who sees you've reached the edge, and spends the time to show you what lies beyond. I had that, I still keep in touch with him. Maybe what I needed was a peer who was interested, too.

Then again, there is something about the pure math people that's quite special. With a physicist or chemist, the person needs to be shown a bunch of stuff, and digest it. Naturally there's a limit to how much resource can be directed at such a person, they need lab time, and they need simply sheer time to digest the mass of existing evidence.

Maybe a mathematician can comment on this: With pure math, everything is obvious, yet hiding in plain sight. Theorems that will be proven in the future will rely on things that are already known, we just haven't come across a connection yet. Everything is a forehead-slap, why didn't I think of that? For the moment as a non-mathematician, I've only had that feeling with things that are known. Things like the proof there's an infinite number of primes just seem obvious once you know them. The moment when you understand it, you do the forehead-slap. It seems the only thing preventing us from learning the next thing is that nobody has come across it yet.

<comment><USER14> It's not enough to like the work for it to be easy: it's also important that your work be appreciated and encouraged. Scholze happens to be interested in a popular/prestigious subfield of mathematics, but my experience suggests there's a substantial number of talented mathematicians who leave academia and mathematics itself for some kind of industry job because their interests are in more obscure/less glamorous subfields of mathematics, meaning that they receive little to no support (or even respect) from their colleagues.

For example, consider William Stein's recent exit from academia that was discussed at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11883987](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11883987) motivated by essentially the same lack of support; now imagine how many don't even make it to tenure before they have to struggle with their interests and values being misaligned from those of the academic mathematical community.

<comment><USER6> Stein left academia because he builds tools, and academia is only interested in mathematical _results_ from academics. His work is seen (by the mathematicians) on par with Intel, Dell, and the notebook paper manufacturers, not a part of the pure math department.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I would recommend this book for more on the Langlands program: "Love and Math: The Heart of Hidden Reality" by Edward Frenkel.</comment>


Hubert Dreyfus, preeminent philosopher and AI critic, dies at 87 - <AUTHOR> http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/04/24/hubert-dreyfus/ <comment><USER2> "Man's nature is indeed so malleable that it may be on the point of changing again. If the computer paradigm becomes so strong that people begin to think of themselves as digital devices on the model of work in artificial intelligence, then, since for the reasons we have been rehearsing, machines cannot be like human beings, human beings may become progressively like machines. During the past two thousand years the importance of objectivity; the belief that actions are governed by fixed values; the notion that skills can be formalized; and in general that one can have a theory of practical activity, have gradually exerted their influence in psychology and in social science. People have begun to think of themselves as objects able to fit into the inflexible calculations of disembodied machines: machines for which the human form-of-life must be analyzed into meaningless facts, rather than a field of concern organized by sensory-motor skills. Our risk is not the advent of superintelligent computers, but of subintelligent human beings." \- Hubert L. Dreyfus, What Computers Can't Do 1972

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Robert Paul Wolff @ The Philosopher's Stone left a touching story/anecdote on his blog:

[https://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2017/04/a-sad- day.html](https://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2017/04/a-sad-day.html)</comment>


When in Doubt, Create an Interface - <AUTHOR> http://coliveira.net/2009/05/when-in-doubt-create-an-interface/

<comment><USER2> I am of a contrary opinion, because I am consulting on a project where all of this was done in spades. Abstract class, interface, concrete class, spring runtime injection, and occasionally a factory, all for a single concrete implementation of a class.

I think all of this should be done iteratively. Do the concrete class. If it turns out you need multiple implementations or subclasses, then go ahead with all the complexity. Too much of "best practices" leads to overdesign and implementation and maintenance costs.</comment>


Leo: IDE, personal information manager, and outliner - <AUTHOR> https://leoeditor.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Realized after submitting that the more useful link might be this one: [https://leoeditor.com/preface.html](https://leoeditor.com/preface.html)</comment>


Ask HN: Please review my startup Makerloom at www.makerloom.com - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> If it meets the guidelines, this might make a good "Show HN" post.

Show HN guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I would be hesitant to launch a marketplace for 3D models when the only thing available to buy is a gun. There's the potential for bad PR, attracting a bad crowd, and causing issues with getting and retaining a payment processor.</comment>


The most common failure mode is failing to show up - <AUTHOR> http://ryanwaggoner.com/2012/11/the-most-common-failure-mode-is-failing-to-show-up/ <comment><USER3> My solution to this problem is to cultivate habits.

For example, I write or edit 500 words a day. That's enough to output more than 3.65 the size of a 50K words novel every year if one only write new words. However, with editing, it's more like a well crafted 50K words novel. (I don't write novels, just non-fiction essays, on a variety of subjects)

Another habit I built is to self quantify myself in various dimension such as sleep/awake time, weight, steps, blood pressure, pulse rate, and blood sugar everyday. The result is almost 70 days worth of data. Every 21 days, I add new data points to measure. Next will probably involves sleep quality rating. I used the self quantification habit to keep tab on my health and conduct scientific experiment.

I also learn using anki, a spaced repetition software, helping me remembering anything from programming facts to the multiplication table to spelling errors I made. I used khanacademy to review my mathematical knowledge, because it have a spaced repetition system built into it.

I also used khanacademy to learn math(73% complete already!), but that's a medium-long term project that will get finished eventually. Reviewing math, on the other hand, is what you do for life, at least until the math becomes so deeply ingrained into your mind that you don't need to study them anymore.

My rule for adding habits is to wait every 21 days before adding new ones. It's also important to make sure you don't have too many habits to maintain, as they impose a cognitive burden. If you can reduce them to code or programs, do it.

Another thing to remember is that habit formation really depend on the habits and the person. Some people forms habits better than others, while some habits are easier to do. The rule of thumb is that the easier the task, the easier to form habit. For example, doing situps doing commercial breaks on television is much harder than drinking a glass of milk everyday. So, 21 days isn't a magical day when your effort to do something everyday becomes a habit. It's just a nice round number to use so that you won't be overwhelmed trying to add several new habits in a really short period of time.

<comment><USER4> Speaking as someone who does write novels, I can't agree more.

Cultivating that habit of 2,000 words a day in my first year of NaNoWriMo made all the difference in my victory. The almost half a million words of fiction written since then (2008) only came about through such day- and hour-sized persistence over a long period of time.

<comment><USER5> You may not need it anymore but my startup is trying to get people to where you've gotten. In the case of NaNoWriMo, the idea is to force yourself to spread out the writing over the whole month: <http://blog.beeminder.com/nanowrimo>

<comment><USER4> I happened to have looked into your service in regards to tracking word count, but had some trouble figuring it out and making it fit into my workflow.

I'll check it out again, though, as I want to get back into exercising this month. Thanks for the reminder!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really struggle with analysis paralysis as well.

The best treatment I've found when realizing that I'm stuck is to identify the smallest viable action I can take to move the project forward. Often tackling this task is enough to overcome the static friction and get the project moving again. At which point I'm fully immersed in the project context and the larger issues somehow seem less formidable.

<comment><AUTHOR> On a micro scale, I use pomodoros for this (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique>), but on a bigger scale, I often find that I'm subconsciously weighed down by worrying about things that I'm not currently doing anything on. Have to remind myself to just get moving and figure things out as I go.

My long streaks of working out almost always start with a couple days at the gym basically screwing around. I know it's not optimal, but it's _something_ , and I gradually get more intentional and serious as I keep going.

<comment><USER7> I second the use pomodoro technique, it's a great way to keep track of time.

Shameless plug: i wrote an online pomodoro timer <http://yay.im/pomodoro>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That pretty much sums up my whole life right now on _every_ front. I have a good-paying job (a major change from two years ago) that I'm absolutely frozen in figuring out how to get things done. More than once, I've considered leaving for a lower-paying job where there's less decision-making.

As for my personal life, fuck it. Not important.

<comment><AUTHOR> Congrats on the job. If it helps, from what I've seen at a lot of higher levels of companies and organizations, no one _really_ knows what they're doing. You're probably also suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect [1] and are doing better than you think you are.

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect>

<comment><USER9> Forgive me, after a brief look over the Wikipedia article surely it's the opposite of that? "unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average" - so they think they're better than they are, whereas you're suggesting they're doing better than they think they are.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm talking about this part of the Wikipedia article:

 _Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding._

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've always thought that the "trough of sorrow" should really be re-cast as the "personal trough[s] of sorrow," i.e. every day, every decision is confronted by doubt, and you have to continually overcome the fear of failure.

This is exacerbated by the fact that you're constantly confronted with stories about other people / teams / companies that are "crushing it."

The good news is that it really does get easier with practice and repetition. Kind of like jumping into a freezing cold pool for swim practice. After the first couple of times you realize, "hey, I didn't drown," which makes the next few times easier. It never gets easy, just easier than when you started.

</comment><comment><USER11> Joel Spolsky has a similarly themed essay from back in the day, "Fire and Motion": <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html>

</comment><comment><USER12> _Do something. Even if it's the wrong thing, just do something. It might not be as wrong as you think, and if it is, you can adjust and do better next time._

Hiring workers first as paid interns, with an option to convert to FTE later, allows the worker and the people in the organization to feel each other out and ensure a good fit of both personality and skillsets. If the worker doesn't fit in, then it saves both the group and the individual from a stressful work environment, and you can keep trying until you find the right person.

Even doing the wrong thing works out, and sometimes better than doing the right thing. More importantly, you're making space in your life, schedule, and mind, for what it is you want to do. This allows people to try something out, play with the ideas, and understand the important factors in making the decision later.

Many people share a similar philosophy when buying durable goods[1] - buy a cheaper/low-end model, and when it breaks you buy a higher-quality model. Or, if the higher-quality model isn't actually higher quality, but is simply more expensive, you know to buy the cheap one.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durable_good>

<comment><USER13> This only works for unskilled workers in a bad job climate as they're desperate. You're not going to be hiring a skilled programmer with that. People don't quit their job for a paid internship.

Anyway, what's the point? You can just fire them if it's not working out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > The moral of the story of Narcissus, told as a warning for the very people > who refuse to hear it as such, is that how Narcissus came to be is > irrelevant. What was important was what he did, and what he did---- was > nothing.

from [http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10/the_story_of_narcissu...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10/the_story_of_narcissus.html) and the whole thing is just great.

</comment><comment><USER15> "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." - <USER2>

</comment><comment><USER16> scumbag brains and its automated risk aversion..</comment>


NA62 spots two potential instances of rare particle decay - <AUTHOR> https://home.cern/news/news/physics/na62-spots-two-potential-instances-rare-particle-decay <comment><USER2> It seems like every article like this can be summarized as: this experiment or analysis could indicate physics beyond the standard model, we ran the experiment or analysis, and we found nothing unexpected. At this point I find myself asking what the ramifications would be if the standard model is correct and is all there is. It seems less worthwhile to wonder about alternatives to the standard model. Please correct my thinking.

<comment><USER3> It can't be complete and all there is, because it doesn't explain everything we know exists. To simply quote wikipedia:

"It does not fully explain baryon asymmetry, incorporate the full theory of gravitation as described by general relativity, or account for the accelerating expansion of the Universe as possibly described by dark energy. The model does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduced from observational cosmology. It also does not incorporate neutrino oscillations and their non-zero masses."

<comment><USER4> > It can't be complete and all there is, because it doesn't explain everything > we know exists.

However, it could very well be that a true scientific theory that explains those things is beyond our experimental verification, and the Standard Model (or something not much beyond it) will fit all particle accelerator observations made in the next thousand years or more.

<comment><USER5> Fortunately we have astronomic events. No Earth-based experiment could emit gravitational waves strong enough to detect; good thing the Universe has plenty of black holes, and some of them merge.

<comment><USER4> > Fortunately we have astronomic events.

That may help with some things, though it's not at all clear it's sufficient to verify a true theory that "explain[s] everything we know exists." It brings to mind the graviton, which I've read would be practically impossible to detect: you could detect one graviton every ten years with a Jupiter-mass detector placed very close to a neutron star, but the shielding needed to exclude the noise would cause it to collapse into a black hole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why is this result interesting? All of the particles involved are pretty exotic, and this is still fitting the Standard model. Can someone enlighten me?

<comment><USER7> This kind of decay requires an overall neutral current that changes the strange quark to a down quark. No such current exists at tree level in the Standard Model---instead, strange has to turn into an up-type quark and from there into a down. So, anything from the SM that contributes to this process necessarily involves loops and has no large SM backgrounds. That makes it a very sensitive probe for searching for new physics. Everything seems consistent with the SM but that need not have been---certain kinds of new physics would have stood out in this decay channel. So, while it's not a discovery of a new particle, for example, it is a result that can tightly constrain conjectures.</comment></comment>


Ruby 2.6.0-preview1 Released - <AUTHOR> https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2018/02/24/ruby-2-6-0-preview1-released/ <comment><AUTHOR> Three worthwhile reads for anyone interested in the new (M)JIT:

[https://medium.com/@k0kubun/the-method-jit-compiler-for- ruby...](https://medium.com/@k0kubun/the-method-jit-compiler-for- ruby-2-6-388ee0989c13)

[https://medium.com/square-corner-blog/rubys-new- jit-91a5c864...](https://medium.com/square-corner-blog/rubys-new- jit-91a5c864dd10)

[https://www.johnhawthorn.com/2018/02/playing-with-ruby- jit-m...](https://www.johnhawthorn.com/2018/02/playing-with-ruby-jit-mjit/)

<comment><USER2> Thank you for the links sir, for anyone short on time the first link is from the patch committer themselves. Definitely worth a read to get an insight into what's going on.

Optcarrot has gone from 37.2 fps with Ruby 2.0.0 to potentially 59.2 fps with 2.6.0-dev. Wow!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> 119 points, I mean HN doesn't care about Ruby anymore.

But, I wanted to say Ruby MJIT, developed by Vladimir Makarov, and this base infrastructure variant merge from k0kubun, both doing do all on their own free time.

It isn't a company sponsoring any of them to work on it.

Sometimes I wonder if Ruby JIT somehow do save those companies millions, would they give donate some of them back to further develop Ruby.

</comment><comment><USER4> FYI: I collect articles about all things 3x3 at Planet Ruby (incl. the new jit (mjit), of course), see [https://planetruby.github.io/calendar/ruby3x3](https://planetruby.github.io/calendar/ruby3x3). Cheers.

</comment><comment><USER5> Don't hold your breath:

> MJIT takes a block of ruby's YARV bytecode and converts it into what is > basically an inlined version of the C code it would have run when > interpreting it.

> In some ways, this is the same as what other JITs do: they compile bytecode > into machine code at runtime. I don't know of another JIT which so directly > shells out to an off-the-shelf C compiler.

This will never scale out (embedded?) and has tons of security issues.

The only high grade JIT solution anywhere available for a dynamically typed language is LuaJIT - I don't know of the social implications of all the involved here why this solution never took of and found more widespread use in other languages like Ruby or Python

<comment><USER6> I doubt LuaJIT is better than Common Lisp or JavaScript JIT compilers.

On the other hand, if forking a C compiler for generating code is "fast", that tells a lot about the slowness of regular Ruby interpreters.

<comment><USER7> LuaJIT is probably faster than the modern JavaScript engines. I don't know how it compares to something like SBCL, but as a JIT for dynamic languages it's pretty much the bee's knees. I have had it beat carefully written PyPy code by an order of magnitude several times

<comment><USER6> Actually when I think in Common Lisp compilers, I think about Allegro Common Lisp and LispWorks.

As for JavaScript, it is really hard to envision how it can beat the money spent by Mozilla, Apple, Google and Microsoft, including universities sponsored by them, in JavaScript JIT optimization research.

<comment><USER8> I think it's not so much that the effort invested is better (though Pall has strong reputation) but in large part that Lua's semantics make for easier JIT.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Thanks, awesome :)</comment>


Uber banned in Portugal - <AUTHOR> http://algarvedailynews.com/news/5463-uber-cab-service-banned-in-portugal <comment><USER2> Great country to live, awful country to start/host any kind of company. Unfriendly tax climate, lack of startup infrastructure, lots and lots of bureaucracy.

Their (national association of road transport) next step is trying to get Uber to pay up for missed income - or as they state it "compensation for damages to the industry" [1].

[1]: [http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/uber-proibida-de- ope...](http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/uber-proibida-de-operar-em- portugal-1693930)

<comment><USER3> Well, Uber has issues here in The Netherlands as well. Here it's also illegal to run your own taxi company. It's a very regulated business.

I don't think legislators would have a problem with Uber per se, it's just that they cheerfully ignore the existing legislation (and pay the fines incurred by the drivers) and basically just try to force themselves onto the market. If they would take the time to get proper legislation passed it could end up fine.

But why would governments that explicitly forbid illegal taxi services start making an exception for Uber?

<comment><USER4> _If they would take the time to get proper legislation passed it could end up fine._

Except that doesn't work (with a few exceptional countries/cities), because the incumbents have massive political capital and Uber doesn't, and it's very hard to get popular support for something people haven't experienced.

I don't like Uber for other reasons, but regarding this tactic, I'm fine with it.

Even if we agree that these laws are important, surely there's no short term harm in having Uber around - it's not like they're dumping waste or performing unlicensed surgery - the courts just have to issue a ruling and everything can go back to normal in a week.

<comment><USER5> I would love to know who these "incumbents with massive political capital" are. Where i live most licensed taxi firms are small businesses run by local people providing local jobs.

Uber are now stomping these small companies by ignoring local law because they can afford the fines or just don't care.

I agree they are being allowed to do this in many places, and that it the fault of the government -- but i am certainly NOT fine with it.

They want to be the taxi service for the world which is a fast track to disaster for everyone except Uber.

<comment><USER4> _I would love to know who these "incumbents with massive political capital" are. Where i live most licensed taxi firms are small businesses run by local people providing local jobs._

Yes they are. And they group themselves (here in Portugal we have a single, national association of taxi companies, which was the organization that got the court to ban Uber) and have long standing relationships with local parties and politicians.

The fact that they're small business is irrelevant; we're talking about _political_ capital, ie., influence, not money.

A good example is how the Portuguese court ruled without even hearing Uber.

 _Uber are now stomping these small companies by ignoring local law because they can afford the fines or just don 't care._

By stomping, you mean competing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is much due to the fact that in some european countries the government gives monopoly status to some business areas if they are willing to work how the government want them to work. This usually has a negative impact on the winnings of the local company.

For example taxis are supposed to work and be reachable all around the country with the same prices, not just in high volume areas. If there is a new company that steps on the prices of the high volume areas, the older local company won't be able to offer the service in low volume areas.

People get angry if they don't have good services in their living areas.

</comment><comment><USER7> If there's one country where Uber is needed...

When I was there last year, we were given a list of 5 taxi phone numbers. When you needed a taxi, you'd cycle through the numbers until you found one that 1) answered the phone 2) was available 3) managed to understand where you wanted to be picked up. When we were leaving and needed to catch a bus, I made 15 fruitless phone calls, then asked somebody for a ride.

<comment><USER8> At least it's cheap-ish (last time I was in Porto, at least).

If there's a country it's France. An airport ride to my place, 16 km (10 miles), no more than 20 minutes, goes for a whooping 60EUR/66USD, more than the roundtrip flight to London. Nope.

And when I needed a ride at 4-5AM I called only to be hung up because "I didn't book it 24h in advance".

<comment><USER9> It's not "cheap" if you cannot take a ride. Total cost is a sum of the price, time wasted and the risk of being late. "Cheap" taxi that is impossible to catch is not actually cheap.

That's the same fallacy as when people whine about Uber's "surge pricing". When there is huge demand, Uber prices may go up 2x, but you still will be able to get a ride in 5 minutes instead of waiting half an hour or not even knowing if you will be able to catch a car at all.

<comment><USER10> You conveniently omit that Uber, in some cases, jacked up prices 8 fold.

There's a very good reason why taxis are regulated in most jurisdictions. If Uber doesn't like such regulations they're free to try to change it. And they do have very heavy hitting lobbyists on their payroll to do just that.

They are not free, however, to break the law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> 10 words in to become incorrect, and that was due to sentence structure. Top comment on Hackernews is also wrong.

These two reasons are why Uber (a crappy company anyway, do use their competitors, don't reward their anticompetitive policies) are banned.

> by the Court of Lisbon which accepted an injunction filed by Antral, the > road carriers association.

Incorrect

> Politicians are too short sighted, always protecting the status quo.

Incorrect.

<comment><USER12> Why is uber a crappy company? And how have they been anticompetitive?

<comment><USER13> Apparently being better than the competition is anti-competitive.

<comment><USER14> Being "better than the competition", by e.g. using children of slave labour is anti-competitive yes.

Being "better than the competition", by sidestepping laws and regulations, like Uber does, is also anti-competitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Politicians are too short sighted, always protecting the status quo.

<comment><USER16> Short sighted for protecting the income of the vulnerable taxi drivers and small time taxi companies? Since the introduction in London, waves of Minicab offices have closed down. Hats off to them to resist this. Not everything in life is automation and money saving. I'm sure the Portuguese have a decent taxi service as is.

<comment><USER12> Why should we save jobs which are less efficient than other alternatives? Should the government have saved jobs (kill innovation) when 97% of humanity were farmers?

<comment><USER16> Because there is something good about a locally run business as inefficient as it may be. Uber sucks the income into some tax haven blackhole, with very little regard to the local economy and community. Uber kills any local transportation enterprise, everyone ends up being an employee rather than a small business owner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So much for the free market...

<comment><USER18> I agree that it's sheer insanity to prevent people from interacting consensually. It's ironic, considering drugs are decriminalized in Portugal. Free markets can't effectively exist as long as corporations as we know it exist. It's not as if there was a "free market" prior to this.

<comment><USER17> Regulation is the reason why corporations are thriving.

<comment><USER10> Regulation is also the reason why your cabby has mandatory rest times, which are strictly enforced.

They're the reason why (at least where I live) there's a alcohol limit of 0 0/00 for taxi drivers, with zero tolerance for violating it.

Those pesky regulations enforce mandatory maintenance standards for vehicles. They don't only have to look shiny. They actually have to be safe to drive.

Damn regulations dictate valid and adequate insurance, which covers commercial driving activity and covers the drivers liability in case you are hurt, maimed, or killed.

Regulations enforce that you can't be price gouged, they enforce some sensible mandatory standards (drivers may be prohibited by law to refuse transportation because you're blind and need a guide dog) and provide you with a venue to complain when things go wrong.

But hey, just do away with all that in the name of commerce.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Building the Amazon of Africa Put Me on Interpol Most Wanted List - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@marekchinedu/how-building-the-amazon-of-africa-put-me-on-interpol-most-wanted-list-eee8f79930ac <comment><USER2> Based on the article, interpol sounds dysfunctional at best. Considering it's hard to get justice against them... What stops Interpol from being corrupt themselves?

<comment><USER3> If Interpol is too corrupt, countries will start de-funding or ignoring them, denying their agents visas, etc. Their effectiveness would presumably decline quite a bit if a few big/important nations refused to play ball. They can't do much themselves (like actually arrest people) and instead rely on the national counterparts.

Additionally, they are audited externally, currently by Norway. Although I'm not entirely sure what would happen if they were to fail an audit.

<comment><USER2> I see. Good to know!</comment></comment></comment>


LL and LR Parsing Demystified (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.reverberate.org/2013/07/ll-and-lr-parsing-demystified.html <comment><USER2> What about Earley's algorithm?

 _Unfortunately, given the extremely limited hardware of 1960s computers (not helped by the lack of an efficient algorithm), the parsing of an arbitrary CFG was too slow to be practical. Parsing algorithms such as LL, LR, and LALR identified subsets of the full class of CFGs that could be efficiently parsed. Later, relatively practical algorithms for parsing any CFG appeared, most notably Earley 's 1973 parsing algorithm. It is easy to overlook the relative difference in performance between then and now: the fastest computer in the world from 1964-1969 was the CDC6600 which executed at around 10 MIPS; my 2010 mobile phone has a processor which runs at over 2000 MIPS. By the time computers had become fast enough for Earley's algorithm, LL, LR, and friends had established a cultural dominance which is only now being seriously challenged - many of the most widely used tools still use those algorithms (or variants) for parsing. Nevertheless in tools such as ACCENT / ENTIRE and recent versions of bison, one has access to performant parsers which can parse any CFG, if that is needed._

from: [http://tratt.net/laurie/blog/entries/parsing_the_solved_prob...](http://tratt.net/laurie/blog/entries/parsing_the_solved_problem_that_isnt.html)

Featured here 6 years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2327313](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2327313)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the reference. For those like me who'd not heard of it, see [1] for a description and links to many implementations.

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

<comment><USER2> I missed that haberman (author of this article) had also commented in that thread extensively:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2328627](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2328627)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Happy to see this show up here again. It's one of my articles that I'm most proud of.

I'm happy to answer any questions about it.

<comment><USER5> > A planned future article will break open the black box for more details > about the inner workings of these algorithms.

Was this article ever written?

<comment><USER4> Good question. Not so far. I can't quite see how to do it without getting bogged down in details. The "traditional" algorithms and grammar classes (Strong LL, Full LL, LR(0), etc) are complicated, and yet few people use these. The ones people actually do use (LL(star), ALL(star), GLR, IELR, LALR, etc) tend to be even more complicated.

Maybe the thing to do is to illustrate a few of the most basic algorithms by example, just to give people a taste of what they look like.

<comment><USER6> Out of curiosity, where would one find an explanation (potentially dry, long, and complicated) of the algos you mention here?

In other words - how did you get to know them?

<comment><USER4> By far my favorite survey book on the subject is "Parsing Techniques: A Practical Guide" by Grune and Jacobs.

Here is my Amazon review of the book: [https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer- reviews/R17E19PSPM2UO9](https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer- reviews/R17E19PSPM2UO9)

<comment><USER7> This book seems to be available at : [http://dickgrune.com/Books/PTAPG_1st_Edition/](http://dickgrune.com/Books/PTAPG_1st_Edition/)

<comment><USER8> This is the first edition. The current edition is the second edition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> People interested in these things should look up GLR and GLL. Pretty powerful when I studied them.

<comment><USER10> Funny, I knew GLR but I had never heard of GLL. Thanks for writing this!

<comment><USER9> Welcome. :) Here's the link to first paper I saw I think:

[http://dotat.at/tmp/gll.pdf](http://dotat.at/tmp/gll.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> tl;dr use ANTLR

But actually, I did read this excellent article for the second time. However, unless you are skilled in the art, you should be using ANTLR4, Honey Badger. Terence Parr deserves a Turing award.

For parsing, most upper div compiler classes start off with CFGs, dip briefly into LL recursive descent and then conclude with LALR. If people remember anything, it's SHIFT/REDUCE. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any standard tools for the LL(1) equivalent, FIRST/FOLLOW tables. And as the article shows, they aren't equivalent. Each has strengths but LALR has tools.

Except for ANTLR. Which started out as recursive descent ...

Parsing Techniques doesn't really have any competition. The compiler books, like the compiler classes, can only give a little attention to parsing. Given how strong the available tools are and how hard the remaining subjects are (SSA, code generation, ...) maybe they have a point.

<comment><USER12> There are plenty of other parser generators than ANTLR and interesting parsing techniques that fit the bill. Not that there's anything wrong with ANTLR.

The last few time when I've been working on programming language prototypes, I've written the parser using Parsec parser combinators in Haskell. It's super fast and easy to use, however it's more like syntactic sugar for recursive descent parsers than a rigorous parser generator that works for a certain grammar class.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've learned a lot about LALR and GLR using Bison in combination with Ruby.

Bison and Flex are available as apt packages on Ubuntu and there is heaps of documentation.

The Ruby angle means you don't have to roll your own AST structures. Also, Ruby's 'VALUE' type is easily passed around in Bison grammar.

example:

[https://github.com/cjhdev/slow_blink/blob/master/etc/slow_bl...](https://github.com/cjhdev/slow_blink/blob/master/etc/slow_blink/ext_schema_parser/parser.y)

</comment><comment><USER14> I've copy/pasted the code of your reverse polish evaluator in python in this interactive blog post: [http://blog.klipse.tech/python/2016/09/22/python- reverse-pol...](http://blog.klipse.tech/python/2016/09/22/python-reverse- polish-evaluator.html)

</comment><comment> dream-on I fail to see the mystery. In my opinion, state machines are the most straight-forward parts of programming.

There is a learning curve with lex and yacc but if you cannot ever use these programs then what can you really call yourself a programmer?

It's the endless search for a "new" programming language and the layers upon layers of needless abstraction created by today's "programmers" that I find mystifying.

<comment> UK-AL using lex and yacc, is not the same thing as knowing how lex and yacc work.

<comment> dream-on Very true. But for mere mortals, one thing at a time.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: What is a website worth? - <AUTHOR> I've been approached by someone who would like to buy http://10minutemail.com (disposable e-mail addresses for spam avoidance) from me.
It was just a fun project for me, but did pull in a fair bit in google ad revenue over the last 12 months.
The site gets about 2 million page views a month.
Is there a calculation on what a site like that would be worth, based on traffic or current ad revenue or something else?
Regards,
Devon <comment><USER2> Bond yields are a little fucked up right now (thanks, credit crunch), but they provide a way to figure out an investment's valuation.

Let's assume the 1-year government bond yield is at 5% (it's not, but it simplifies the math, so bear with me). As a gross oversimplification, that means that a $20 investment today will produce a risk-free return of 5% ($1) at the end of a year. The converse is also true: if a risk-free investment produces $1 in revenues over the course of a year, then the investment should be valued at $20.

So, if your website was risk-free, it'd be valued at ~20x your yearly earnings (after-tax net profit).

Of course, it's not risk-free, so that will discount the price.

On the flip-side, it has potential for growth, so that will increase the price.

For comparison, other tech companies trade at:

Microsoft: 23x earnings

Yahoo: 46x earnings

Apple: 47x earnings

Google: 53x earnings

Salesforce: 688x earnings

Facebook: 500-1000x earnings ([http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2007/10/25/keep-an-eye- on...](http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2007/10/25/keep-an-eye-on- facebook-4/))

1000x earnings is what Yahoo was valued at in 2000. That's probably a max on what you can ask for :). Given your growth potential, I'd say 20x earnings is probably a min.

Good luck!

<comment><USER3> could your elaborate on the following paragraph? i'm not sure how something is worth 20 dollars because of 1 dollar yearly revenue. what assumptions are you making?

Let's assume the 1-year government bond yield is at 5% (it's not, but it simplifies the math, so bear with me). As a gross oversimplification, that means that a $20 investment today will produce a risk-free return of 5% ($1) at the end of a year. The converse is also true: if a risk-free investment produces $1 in revenues over the course of a year, then the investment should be valued at $20.

<comment><USER4> That calculation assumes that the risk-free rate is 5%, and that you will get $1 per year forever (i.e., considering the company to be an annuity that pays $1 per year forever). A more general formula is:

Value = (Annual revenue) / (interest rate - growth rate)

The interest rate here is the interest rate that takes into account how risky your business is--the rate you'd be able to borrow at, the "cost of capital". Let's say you could get a loan (secured only by the assets of the business) at 15% interest, and that you expect to grow by 5% per year. Then per $1 of annual revenue:

Value = $1 / (.15 - .05) = $1 / (.1) = $10

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A baseline, if you have predictable revenues, is the Net Present Value of those revenues. Basically you treat your business as a machine that produces money on a schedule, like an annuity. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value>

Of course, you'll need to adjust for (1) risk and (2) growth. If your buyer has better ways of utilizing your website in their business than your ad revenues, that can increase the value of your site to them. For example, if your buyer is a spammer himself and wants to use 10minutemail.com to deceive people and harvest the addresses of people who go to great lengths to avoid spam, and those addresses are worth $1 each to him, then you should include that "revenue" stream in calculating your site's present value.

On the other hand, things could get worse for your business, and any risks will be reflected in the price. Some risks are very hard to price, which is why it's much harder to sell a company that e.g. looks like it's going to get sued.

If you're not an experienced negotiator, be careful not to sell yourself short. If you have to throw out the first number, you want it to be as high as it can possibly be without causing the buyer to hang up immediately.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER6> 10 minute email... Why stop at 10 minutes! What about 5 minute email? ;)

<comment><USER7> No! NO NO NO. Not 5. He said 10. Nobody's doing 5. Who uses email for 5 minutes? 10's the key number here. 10 commandments! 10 doors! 10, man, that's the number. 10 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch! Step into my office!

<comment><USER8> When the comment above this is what I thought of, but didn't post it, I thought it didn't 'add' to the conversation, but whatever, I don't know the source of this saying is but it reminds me of the hitchhiker in Something about Mary.

Hitchhiker: Step into my office. Ted: Why? Hitchhiker: 'Cause you're f __*in' fired!

<comment><USER7> Yeah, that's where it's from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have sold a few small websites and have gotten between 15-30 months of revenue in the sale.

<comment><USER10> Ditto.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ultimately the site is worth whatever you get paid for it.

To get an idea of what others are getting for similar sized sites: <http://www.sitepoint.com/marketplace/> . I really haven't seen another market for small companies like sitepoint's.

Mind you, this is just from poking around on sitepoint's site, but from what I understand 1-3x annual earnings is fairly typical for companies like yours. But, it also depends on what your page range is, how many different sources of revenue and traffic you have.

For instance, a company with a high page rank one search engine will be worth less than a company with a high page rank on all 3 major search engines. High page rank on multiple engines means multiple sources of traffic and your site is less likely to suffer next time one of the engines reshuffles their rankings.

Also, if you have multiple streams of revenue, that increases your valuation as well. For example, if all of a site's revenue is coming from Adsense, then the site tends to be valued less than if you have multiple streams from different sources. If you're using some affiliate networks, direct advertising as well as Adsense that increases your multiples. Why? Because your revenue stream is diversified and less likely to suffer suddenly.

</comment><comment><USER12> I have no idea what your service is worth, but I'm a happy user of it.

I have my own bsd mail server and before I found out about your site I would simply edit /etc/aliases, register somewhere, get the confirmation and then delete the alias. That still took a minute or so and required me to have access to a root login. Your site works almost as well and is much more convenient. Since I've discovered your service, I've used it plenty of times and have shown it to several friends.

</comment><comment><USER13> Careful investors do not generally value companies based on revenues or earning potential in future - they first find the worth based on the current earnings or assets. But then again internet startups are not usually evaluated for their worth by careful investors.

EPV (Earning Power Value) is a good way to calculate the worth of the company based on the earnings. EPV = Earnings/cost of capital

So if the company can raise money at 10% interest, then the EPV will be 10x its earnings.

Please take the above with a grain of salt. You should value it as high as you can negotiate. It will help if you know what the buyer plans to do with your site - that is an important factor that raises the valuations of web startups. Youtube or facebook get such crazy valuations not for their profit potential in isolation but based on the plans of their acquirers.

</comment><comment><USER14> So, the calculation you want is called a valuation. There are a number of different methods, but all are based on particular assumptions. You can either base it on cash flow or EBITDA. So essentially you have three parts that are factors in the calculation: (a) the sum of current and future earnings divided by the cost of those operations, e.g. over five years, what is the return on this website (b) time period for estimate, e.g. how long will 10minutemail last? (c) discount rate to dampen those estimates, e.g. how likely are these scenarios to occur?

Check out this article and you should easily be able to do it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valuation_using_discounted_cash...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valuation_using_discounted_cash_flows#Using_the_DCF_Method)

</comment><comment><USER15> I have always heard that it depends on what type of company you are.

Service based companies will trade at less than 1x yearly revenue. An example of this is if you were to sell a consulting business.

Product based companies will trade somewhere at 2-10x annual revenue. This is like a toy company.

Product based service companies like Netflix seem to trade at 10x plus depending on the stickyness of your service and how much lock in you have. Netflix offers monthly subscriptions, where your site is based purely on advertising which may have better adoption rates, but lower buy in rates.

The lack of customer buy in is a huge problem with many web2 ad supported business models.

Salesforce.com has amazing buy in, it changes your company culture when you start using the software, plus you pay yearly for it.

</comment><comment><USER16> For ad based/impression revenue, using the Google Firefox/Toolbar referral fee is a good rule of thumb.

For Google, each user that installs the F.F/Google Toolbar, and hence will be exposed to ads each time they search the web is worth $1 Dollar, or at least that's how much they are willing to pay for each user having Google as their default search engine.

So I would say $1 Dollar per signed-up user, +/- fudge factor if you really have or haven't additional leverage on your users.

<comment><USER17> "So I would say $1 Dollar per signed-up user"

This makes no sense for an anti-spam service. They aren't "signing up", they are "opting out" of all future emails from whatever they are using the email for...so this user will probably come back, but if you spam them even once, you've lost them for life. They aren't the same as "signed up" users for a toolbar or installations of software.

This is a pure ad play, in its current form, and has revenues from that source. There might be ways to integrate this with other anti-spam, anti- malware, privacy, whatever, features to build a product suite that is worth more than the sum of its parts, but right now it's an ad-supported model.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> So a 1X or 2X of annual ad revenue is standard valuation?

<comment><USER18> I think it's usually a 1x at the smaller scale. I would take a look here for comparables:

<http://www.sitepoint.com/marketplace/>

Since the other party sought you out, don't feel the need to discount too much.

<comment><USER18> For folks doing simple net present value valuations, please keep in mind that small businesses and small websites are a different world. Most require work and promotion to maintain. Thankfully, IRobot, whose stock I own a few shares of, has never asked me to run an adwords campaign, pay their hosting bills or do their customer support. Selling a small business is often like selling a job.

Take a look at the sitepoint marketplace at closed sales and see how many you see going for 10x multiples. In terms of selling, the value of any business is exactly what the market will pay.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A useful framework is that companies should be valued at all future profits, adjusted for inflation and risk

<comment><USER20> Obviously. The problem here is estimating profits and risk.

<comment><USER19> I hope it was 'oh, that's obvious' rather than 'duh... obvious'. I mean, many people just try to evaluate the dream. Others try price earnings ratios. But rarely do I hear mention of this type of analysis, so I decided to mention it.

<comment><USER20> It's the latter, but my comment was directed against the great number of people who fail to understand that all sensible ways of pricing a business are just attempts to estimate its future earnings and liabilities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That depends:

What are your current ad revenues like? How many uniques per month? How many email addresses created so far?

</comment><comment><USER22> I think what davidw meant was that you should monitor your ad revenue of a year or two and then project your future profits (as DaniFong said), adjusted for inflation, and base your valuation on that

</comment><comment><USER23> You could look at current ad revenue over a year or two.

</comment><comment><USER24> It is worth exactly $7,328.91. Not a cent more or less.

</comment><comment><USER25> $8</comment>


The Compromiseless Reconciliation of I/O and Purity - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jle.im/entry/the-compromiseless-reconciliation-of-i-o-and-purity

<comment><USER2> Good article. I think it might have been helped to introduce the "real" terminology, like "Monads", at some point. To help the reader refer to terminology they'll see in other articles.</comment>


Devuanhosting.com launched today - <AUTHOR> https://devuanhosting.com/ <comment><USER2> Spoiler: I am also working for ungleich which runs devuanhosting.com and I am actually very proud to offer Devuan Based VMs to provide freedom of choice to developers / users.

</comment><comment><USER3> So you basically launched an advertisement on HN and asked two other people to comment positively on it.

<comment><USER2> Yes!

And we hope that you are angry about it and that you will talk badly about us and recommend a different hoster to everyone.

That way, there will be more people knowing about Devuan, which is our primary goal and the reason why we launched devuanhosting.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I use Devuan VMs (and KVM hosts) and am a great fan of the OS, great to see it being for hosting!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just to be open about it, I'm working for devuanhosting actually. :)</comment>


Vim: Seven habits of effective text editing (2000) - <AUTHOR> http://www.moolenaar.net/habits.html <comment><USER2> Previous discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15532457](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15532457) (~2 months ago, 237 comments)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4620065](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4620065) (~5 years ago, 66 comments)

All submissions: [https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=moolenaar.net](https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=moolenaar.net)

<comment><USER3> Your first link is actually only a couple of months ago

<comment><USER2> Right, sorry, correcting it now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For programming, I've found that my time spent navigating the code dominates the time I spend editing it. Bram's recommendation is to generate a tags file right away for every project to keep this time down, and it's excellent advice.

The problem with this, however, is that it's a pain to remember to generate and update the tags database. Thankfully, you can configure Git so that it builds a tags database for you automatically whenever you clone a repo, and updates it in the background every time you commit, pull, or push.

Instructions here from Tim Pope:

[http://tbaggery.com/2011/08/08/effortless-ctags-with- git.htm...](http://tbaggery.com/2011/08/08/effortless-ctags-with-git.html)

I'm partial to GNU Global, myself, which adds a basic "find references" command, slightly better parsing, and incremental DB updates. Also relatively easy to set up for effortless navigation:

[https://csl.name/post/gtags/](https://csl.name/post/gtags/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I must ask: how many people actually use the right shift key when typing? I have grown accustomed to only using my left and was wondering if others shared this behavior.

<comment><USER6> I do. Started with only left, but fixed with deliberate practice .

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _A couple of things to watch out for when you are using these three steps:

"I want to get the work done, I don't have time to look through the documentation to find some new command". If you think like this, you will get stuck in the stone age of computing. Some people use Notepad for everything, and then wonder why other people get their work done in half the time..._

It's not directly related to vim, but... Some tool you use will _always_ seem extraneous to someone further down the stack with more experience than you...

I remember at the beginning of my coding career asking a software engineer what IDE was the best and getting back the answer, "you don't need one, you can do everything in NotePad if you want."

(Suffice to say the impetus to go home and _want_ to start coding from a blank NotePad file that night was dead on arrival.)

Now, if he had asked me why I was asking what IDE was best, I would probably have said "I want to create something as quickly as possible that helps me understand what code does," and then I would have been off to the races. Googling and learning along the way...

</comment><comment><USER8> If there was a eighth one, I would add learning to touch type. Groking VIM becomes easy when you can type fast.

<comment><USER9> Do there exist modern information workers who can't touch type?

<comment><USER10> I'm very happy I attended an optional touch type class in high-school (on typewriters, actually). My recommendation for kids would probably be to learn to touch type, on a better layout (eg dvorak, colemak, workman).

Either way, proper touch typing is more than typing fast, it's also about "sustainable typing": posture, strain, reducing rsi - as well as being free to copy (read text to type in, not having to look at the keyboard or the screen where typed text is displayed).

I've not met many people that proper touch type, even programmers. Even if being able to copy a page of example code from a magazine/book is a useful skill.

<comment><USER9> You're describing ergonomics, not touch typing.

<comment><USER11> Ergonomic typing is usually part of the touchtyping class. At least when I was in school 30 odd years ago. I think it was obligatory for everyone but can't remember any grades. Most didn't bother though. (Sweden)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tesla cleared in German probe - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-shares-get-support-apple-up-on-ubs-upgrade-2013-12-03 <comment><USER2> Meanwhile, in the US, NHTSA is demanding everything including the kitchen sink from Tesla. A gigantic amount of proprietary information:

[http://insideevs.com/nhtsa-issues-legally-enforceable- reques...](http://insideevs.com/nhtsa-issues-legally-enforceable-request-to- tesla-for-all-model-s-specific-information/)

They have until January 14th to deliver a massive amount of information to NHTSA -- including tons of it in Microsoft Access 2010 database format.

<comment><USER3> It should be noted what this finding says about the state of the German government. It provides me rather significant trust and confidence in a government that is honest enough to put out such a statement in spite of the rather existential threat that Tesla and electric motors represent to the German auto industry and the whole German economy.

I find it encouraging that the German government is not cowering behind the protection of it's industry and rather saying "son, this is the competition. They are strong, and they are going to be touch to beat, but I am confident that you will work hard and become a better man by growing through the challenge"

Is that too dramatic?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Tesla's press release: [http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/german- feder...](http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/german-federal- motor-transport-authority-kraftfahrtbundesamt-concludes-review-m)

</comment><comment><USER5> Off-topic, but why does ghostery report 11! trackers!?

<comment><USER6> 18 for me & 14 adblocked

<comment><USER5> that site is crazy...

<comment><USER7> You're the market.. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> link without all the trackers

> [http://news.morningstar.com/all/market- > watch/TDJNMW201312032...](http://news.morningstar.com/all/market- > watch/TDJNMW20131203245/update-tesla-cleared-in-german-probe-apple-up-on- > ubs-upgrade.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER9> \- Does anyone else feel like this or am I being too cynical?

U.S investigates fires "This is unfair! We're being poorly treated!! Why are we getting different treatment than our competitors? Is this politically motivated by the big car makers because we're a threat and they have Washington in their pockets?"

Germany investigates fires and comes back with an all clear: "See! Nothing to see here. Thanks very much for investigating us and clearing us"

So is it unfair to be investigating these fires or not?

<comment><USER10> Tesla requested the investigation. I didn't read a claim about being poorly treated. (I am not saying that such a claim does not exist.)

"Second, we have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conduct a full investigation as soon as possible into the fire incidents."

[http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/mission- tesla](http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/mission-tesla)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Has any "stealth mode" become wildly successful? - <AUTHOR> Anecdotally, I tend to see "stealth mode" as a code smell for vapourware. Am I wrong? Is there data which supports the opposite view?<p>Traditionally, we are told not to fear letting people know about our idea and that "if you have a good idea you'll have to ram it down their throats." <comment><USER2> I can't answer your actual question, but I can tell you that there are situations where you can get an excess of the wrong kinds of attention and it can be very problematic.

Perhaps calling it "stealth mode" is a bad tactic. But there is (or can be) benefit to doing some of the legwork and not being too share-y (or not seeking too much publicity) at a certain stage, especially if it is something you will need to "cram down their throat."

Babies gestate in darkness. Sometimes, projects need to do so as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> Gmail first launched in stealth mode, I'd consider that a success :)

</comment><comment><USER4> Ive always felt that stealth mode is more about focusing on getting paying customers over creating hype. There are many profitable businesses that go unnoticed.

</comment><comment><USER5> Not sure about stealth, but Slack started with a very discreet private beta.

</comment><comment><USER6> iPhone?</comment>


Ask HN: Tired of working for startups, what are my options without a CS degree? - <AUTHOR> I'm in my thirties, been a developer for 5 years and didn't study computer science. I know JS pretty well, Ruby, Docker, some sysadmin, Ansible, did some backend (preferred) and some frontend (meh)... I'm an ok developer, I write tests and publish everything I do on the side on GitHub.
I have only ever worked at startups. I usually stay 6-9 months: that's how long it takes for the company to change too much or for me to lose interest. At that point, I negotiate to be laid off and the company is happy to oblige since they can hire 1.5 junior devs instead. I'm not a "team player": I don't drink the kool-aid, don't do overtime, and I think that 2-3 weeks PTO a year is way too low to be healthy.
My colleagues seem happy to give up their lives to look good to their manager and be eligible for promotion, it makes me look bad in comparison. I take pride in my craft and in my code, I just think it's not an emergency unless people are dying, and people are never dying when there is a business emergency.
However, I'm tired of this cycle of 6-9 months on and 3-4 months off to recover. It's not worth my sanity and it's not worth the startups' time (I assume.)
I'm not into starting my own thing: I don't have the drive to put in the hours. I'm not interested in management, I'm happy as an individual contributor and don't want the politics or the headaches. FAANG are no go: I wouldn't pass those 6-8 hours whiteboard interviews.
I can work in Canada and Europe, I don't mind moving or working remotely.
What are my options at that point? A large corporation where it's duller but the pace saner? Startups again? Should I get hired as a contractor instead of an employee with a better hourly since I only stay 6-9 months anyway? How can I still be of value to employers while sticking to 30-40 hours a week and not drinking the kool-aid? How do I reach my savings goals while delivering value without becoming a yes-man or burning out regularly? <comment><USER2> Really sounds like you'd be happiest at a large, well established corporation.

I've been in the startup world as well, really didn't like all the things you listed that are so prevalent in 'start up culture'.

I've been working as a senior engineer at a large financial institution for about a year. Programmers are not seen as these people who are expected to work insane hours under tremendous pressure. But they are seen as very valuable staff: our company recently decided they were a software company first, and a financial company second.

While the problems we're solving might not be as sexy as the Hot-New-Thing (we've yet to do anything with machine learning), they're very challenging and incredibly important -- not only to the company's bottom line but also to the millions of customers using our applications.

Sure, there's years of technical debt not everyone is a talented, brilliant programmer. But we do some amazing work and the many decades of experience the organisation has in HR makes for a very enjoyable, engaging and challenging workplace.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't have any great advice except that those 6-9 months stints are toxic to many employers, I write that as someone who averaged 7 months across multiple startups before writing them off entirely. Pretty much every potential employer I've talked to could care less what the reasons were for leaving each startup.

Suggest finding a way into an established company with sane employment policies, possibly as a contractor first.

</comment><comment><USER4> > that's how long it takes for the company to change too much or for me to > lose interest

What's the thing that keeps your interest? What's the change that makes you uninterested?

If you don't want any crunch, seeking out a clock-puncher position at a big corp that does some software development might be a good idea... but that will be MORE boring.

Or... start your own thing that is aligned with your interests?

<comment><AUTHOR> > What's the thing that keeps your interest? What's the change that makes you > uninterested?

I think it's the routine of it all. Yet another CRUD app, yet another meaningless "emergency", yet another client/stakeholder tantrum, yet another power play in which I'm a pawn. It's interesting in the first 3-4 months because everything is new (company, software, people) but then it fades away.

> Or... start your own thing that is aligned with your interests?

I've thought about this many times, but I don't think I have what it takes.</comment></comment>


OneDev 3.1: An all-in-one devops platform - <AUTHOR> OneDev is an all-in-one devops platform for git management, code review, issue tracking, and build running.
With version 3.1, it is now able to clone repository via SSH, as well as storing CI job definition in Yaml.
It can run happily on a 2G mem VM, and is ideal for personal projects with rich set of features.
Checkout details at: https://github.com/theonedev/onedev <comment><USER2> Congrats! A really polished product. We are using it day to day now. Integration between issues/builds/code is really a thoughtful piece of work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the nice words. Glad to see it is useful for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Thanks, Robin! SSH is just what I want! I'll upgrade onedev this weekend and let you know. Onedev is just really awesome.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am mainly a Windows guy, and just realized that SSH access is so important to some users. We are always listening. Let me know if you have any other thoughts.

<comment><USER3> We have now replaced the old GitLab instance totally and all went very smoothly.

We love the custom fields in issues, the feature helps us a lot when defining our issue process. I think it can also replace our JIRA instance. I do have lots of thoughts when working with OneDev and will absolutely let you know soon.</comment></comment></comment>


Mozilla to deliver ads in its Firefox browser - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-to-deliver-ads-in-its-firefox-browser-7000026216/ <comment><USER2> Firefox will NOT include ads - Stop the misinformation!!

currently the default new tab page on a NEW installation is mostly empty: [http://i.imgur.com/z71I89i.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/z71I89i.jpg)

What will happen is that it will be pre-filled with sites that are popular in your locale, organizations that Mozilla likes, and sponsored sites: [http://cl.ly/image/3I172o2f202k](http://cl.ly/image/3I172o2f202k)

The pre-filled sites disappear and are replaced by your own top sites as you start using the browser.

<comment><USER3> To me, "sponsored sites" is just another word for "ads".

<comment><USER4> By that token, the pre-installed search sites are ads. There's big money associated with those things, yet I haven't heard anyone complaining about them.

I _like_ the look of this new feature—I think it will be more useful to beginning users, it produces a nicer first-run user experience, and it gets out of the way very quickly.

I'm not sure if people think that Google Chrome has ads like this or not—to my view, the whole product is laced with ads for Google products, far more intrusive, obnoxious and anticompetitive than anything Firefox has been able to produce.

(You might guess that I'm a Mozilla fan. That perception would be accurate.)

<comment><USER3> I'm not implying I have a problem with Mozilla including these ads. If it helps them out in the end to keep the browser field competitive, I'm all for it.

I also won't argue your point about calling the pre-installed search engines as ads--but they have a utility to them. The upcoming ads are going to have a hit or miss utility. Either I frequent that sponsored site, or I don't and find it to be a waste of space on my new tab page until it gets filled out by another site.

I think if anything, I'd just be worried that this is a slippery slope for Mozilla. These new sponsored site listings seem completely un-intrusive for now... but could it go further in the future?

<comment><USER5> I think it is a really clever way to do advertising because it allows large companies to give them a bunch of money and at least get something for it that they can show investors while not annoying users much at all. This is most likely aimed at companies like Facebook and Google and Yahoo that have no real need for advertising as such but are willing to spend money to make their services seem even more identical to the intenet itself (for less tech savy users). The company would most likely already recognize that Firefox is important for people being able to actually use their services but the extra bonus of a link to their company could help convince anyone who is doubtful that they should spend money on open source browsers (and gives them an extra spot in the budget they could put such a contribution). Overall a good move on Mozilla's part IMO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Honestly, if Mozilla wants to continue surviving, and wants to break their scary dependence on Google, I don't know what non-advertising alternatives they can explore.

(maybe a Wikipedia-style pledge drive on the new tab page? Of course, I bet people would be far more annoyed by that)

<comment><USER7> They already have that right?

I remember seeing a "if everyone paid $3" ad at one point.

<comment><USER8> on Mozilla? I don't think so...

<comment><USER9> That was indeed one of the `about:home` snippets during Foundation's year-end fundraising.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> These will only be visible for empty history thumbnails on new profiles for new users. There are example mockups here: [https://twitter.com/clarkbw/status/433333066514198528](https://twitter.com/clarkbw/status/433333066514198528)

<comment><USER11> That thumbnails page is the first thing I disable in my Firefox, so I am mostly unconcerned.

Then again, "first they came to add ads to thumbnail tiles, I didn't speak up because I don't use thumbnail tiles..."

<comment><USER12> I'm pretty sure that thumbnail ad tiles isn't going to lead to a Holocaust.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is a very sensible thing on part of Mozilla. Community needs an open source browser to exist and thrive for number of reasons and hence Mozilla needs to figure out different ways to make money.

Mozilla is one brand I really trust for various reason. I am willing to rely more on Mozilla than on say Google for all my online existence.

One good business model for Mozilla could be to provide a subscription version of browser which is tightly integrated with more services of Mozilla including Webmail, Calendar, Photo and File Storage. Mozilla could charge me a monthly sum + show me ads on these services. Currently I use Zoho for many such services.

</comment><comment><USER14> Google pays FF to have it in the list of search engines, not sure if they pay to have the default spot anymore or if they ever did for that specifically

I don't see anything wrong with it, its just setting defaults, not exactly ads, most browser companies get paid some money for adding in default bookmarks

</comment><comment><USER15> Why not? If this is what it takes to break Mozilla free of Google, this is worth it. If there is an alternative to directly donate to the Foundation in order to have the ads disappear, that wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

The price of freedom from surveillance isn't free.

</comment><comment><USER16> [https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504](https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504) "the first of our user-enhancing programs" I repeat: first. There is more to come.

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't have a problem with this.

</comment><comment><USER18> This seems like a massive amount of hypocrisy on the part of Mozilla. "We don't want you to ever have to see ads in your browser -- except our ads!"

I had an angry knee-jerk reaction to this, and while in practice it probably won't be annoying, it's a step in the complete wrong direction.

<comment><USER19>
        "We don't want you to ever have to see ads in your browser -- except our ads!"

When has Mozilla said/done anything like this? It's not like they ship Adblock Plus, and supporting Do Not Track isn't anti-ad, it's just anti-tracking.

<comment><USER18> If you're blocking third-party ad cookies by default, and at the same time supplying your ads, that seems pretty clear to me. (1)

(1) [http://adage.com/article/digital/iab-fight-mozilla- privacy-m...](http://adage.com/article/digital/iab-fight-mozilla-privacy- move/240246/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Even know this title is an exageration I just would like to state to Mozilla that: if you want to make money from me, just ask and I'll probably pay.

</comment><comment><USER21> How about just asking me if I want to become a paying customer? Please accept my money on the conditions that you keep the web open and provide an ad-free service

<comment><USER22> In particular, it'd be easy to add a 'firefox supporter' edition in the android play market, perhaps a slightly different icon, and you pay $3 for it. I'd be fine with that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> What is they say? If you're not the [paying] customer, you're the product? :)

</comment><comment><USER24> This is the kind of decisions that can kill a Project no matter how big it is.

<comment><USER8> What else can they do?

<comment><USER21> Ask for donations, same as wikipedia?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Wherein Mozilla starts to look like Canonical.

</comment><comment><USER26> But presumably not in Iceweasel.

</comment><comment><USER27> Let's see how long it'll take for someone to fork it and revert the change.

<comment><USER28> Hopefully iceweasel will not be so stupid as to follow this decision in the first place.</comment></comment>