Over 300 Tesla Model 3 Spotted Ready for Delivery as Gigafactory 3 Fully Awakens - <AUTHOR> https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/over-300-tesla-model-3-spotted-ready-for-delivery-in-gigafactory-3s-parking-lots <comment><USER2> Will Made in America and Made in China Tesla models have the same resale value?

<comment><USER3> I suppose that depends on whether they end up having the same reliability. Only time will tell.</comment></comment>


Shut Up, Franzen - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/shut-up-franzen/ <comment><USER2> I'd say "shut up, climate scientists". Not on the science, but on this simple- minded superstitious view of political 'choice' (which, incidentally, completely ignores all science related to choice, human cognitive development, etc).

WTF does 'choice' mean for 7 billion people organised into a bunch of mutually-hostile nations? Not one person in the world has a clue how to herd the global mob of semi-conscious apes. 30 years of failure amply demonstrate this.

</comment><comment> mark-r I don't get any text on the page, just the picture at the top. What am I doing wrong?

Edit: that was in Chrome, works fine in Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find it interesting the most of the rhetoric could have been lifted from a XIII century religious tract.

</comment><comment><USER4> Serious scientists don't write headlines like this. Whatever her objective was in writing this opinion piece, she shot herself in the foot. Franzen's essay in The New Yorker is profound and extremely well-written. It deserves a better response than this diatribe.

<comment><USER5> Franzen's essay was garbage. There are rebuttals all over the place including from some of the most prominent Climate scientists in the world (e.g. Michael Mann who was asked to fact check a specific accounting of climate modeling, who was then ignored for the more pessimistic framing that Franzen preferred[1]). Tone policing the n+1th article to correct blatant misinformation isn't super useful.

[1] - [https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1170847152060477440](https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1170847152060477440)

<comment><USER6> Mann's correction is not very helpful to Franzen's political agenda which is to motivate people by inducing fear. Mann states (on Twitter)

> Even after Franzen was informed of his error by the fact-checker, he still > ended up skewing the notion of uncertainty, implying the model averages > preferentially underestimate likely warming, when I had clearly indicated > there's an equal likelihood of under and over-estimation. [0]

which suggests Franzen took the side of the "equal likelihood" and skewed it in the direction he preferred. What Mann wants is an accurate scientific representation of the model's accuracy whereas Franzen wants to emphasize the potentially disastrous consequences of a model that underestimates the severity of warming.

Mann is scientifically correct but Franzen is after something more crucial which is convincing people to act.

Kate Marvel seems to read Franzen's article as fatalist (or at least encouraging readers to adopt a fatalist position). I personally read Franzen as trying to motivate people to act in the face of imminent and unavoidable danger and, in my opinion, I think Franzen's approach is more likely to produce action than Marvel's.

[0] [https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1170848372569325570](https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1170848372569325570)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > _We are, I promise you, not doomed, no matter what Jonathan Franzen says. We > could be, of course, if we decided we really wanted to._

Well, we knew about these things for 3+ decades, so how does that "decision" thing working out thus far?</comment>


The Pizza Party Where Everyone Got Fired - <AUTHOR> http://kotaku.com/the-pizza-party-where-everyone-got-fired-1685455125

<comment><AUTHOR> For some strange reason they have buried the best story. Please skip down to:

'Daddy's job in video games was no longer a cool thing they liked to brag about'

That is a story that everyone should read. It is emotionally intense, and I think it says a lot about the difficulties that families face due to the instability in some industries, notably the video game industry.

I'm posting some of it here. I'm struck by how much the family tried to roll with the punches, but the punches just kept coming:

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

We found some possibilities and, after interviewing, he received a great offer from a wonderful and stable company, in a state where we already had friends and family. We purchased a home and relocated our (now) family of six, leaving California for good. This was a really exciting move for us. Each child had their own room (they had to share in California), and they could paint or decorate their rooms however they liked. Our in-laws were in a position to buy a second home in the area, so they could be closer to the grandchildren. It was a ranch, and the kids loved to explore it. Life was looking very good, and we were all very excited about the future.21

The following summer was when we experienced our first layoff. It was devastating and extremely scary. My income wasn't enough to cover the mortgage, even with the unemployment. We received no severance, and our health benefits would run out at the end of the month.

We tried applying for positions at numerous gaming companies (and non-gaming companies) in the area, but no one was looking for my husband's skillset at that time (in addition to there being a mass layoff and the market being flooded with great talent of all levels). In the end, we were forced to relocate. We chose a studio that had been around for many years and had survived through releases of games both good and bad. We had friends in that area, and the entire situation looked like a pretty good fit for us.

We continued paying for the house while it was on the market, and we were once again put up in temporary housing. This time, the six of us had to stay in a hotel for a month, until an apartment that would fit us all became available. Once we moved into the temporary apartment, it was time for the children to start school again. We registered them knowing they would only be in the school for a month or so, and then they would move to a more permanent school once we found our own apartment to rent.

This time, our stay in temporary housing was extended due to the amount of overtime my husband had to work, and we were not able to transfer the children to their new school until they were between semesters. As was inevitable, they had begun making friendships and establishing roots, even though they knew they wouldn't be staying. It wasn't easy for them, but we had prepared them well from the start, and they knew they could keep in contact with their friends and maintain those friendships if they wanted to. I think that made it a little bit easier on them.

After we were settled and a couple of years had passed, I received notice that my appeal for in-state tuition was being granted and that I was able to register for classes at the local college. My son had been very sick for the past few months, and our family pediatrician told us that he felt our next step was surgery. He said it was probably best to do it sooner rather than later. We got him scheduled and started preparing for it. My husband requested some time off so he could be there. It was approved and we were all set.

<comment><USER2> It reads like the spouse of an addict - all the failures, all the humiliation and moving and new beginnings just to fail again. I can't help but wonder - why not work at a real company instead? This all seems sort of self-inflicted.

<comment><USER3> That was my thought too, although it still is awful that the game industry is so disloyal. It is a large part of why I am more than happy doing web development & not game development, despite having critical skills for game development. There is a lot more loyalty, even if the salary doesn't keep pace - you're not likely to be laid off at least, unless you're at a failed startup.</comment></comment></comment>


Temperature Conversion: Mental Calculation (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://susam.in/blog/temperature-conversion/ <comment><USER2> The way I convert is to remember that 32°F is 0°C and then count by "nines" for Fahrenheit to get the desired temperature in Celsius.

      32°F = 0°C
      41°F = 5°C
      50°F = 10°C
      59°F = 15°C
      68°F = 20°C
      77°F = 25°C
      86°F = 30°C
      95°F = 35°C

It's also pretty easy to remember that 10°C = 50°F and 35°C = 95°F if you want to go forward or back from there with the same counting method.

<comment><USER3> For weather purposes the approximation seems accurate enough. Here's a table listing the differences: [http://tomgermeau.com/tools/FC/](http://tomgermeau.com/tools/FC/)

<comment><USER4> This is not an approximation. The conversion formula is:

C = 5/9 * (F - 32)

So GP's table is exact.

<comment><USER3> The article refers to C = 2 * (F - 30) as an approximation

<comment><USER4> Ah, I had mistaken your reply, and assumed it was to /u/u801e and not the linked article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you know the stops of the 6 train in Manhattan, the trick is that the stops are in Fahrenheit starting at 33rd street = 0˚ C. Each stop up town is +5˚C. Stays within 1˚C until 110th street.

<comment><USER6> So, every 9 streets from 33rd?

<comment><USER5> Not quite.

The stops are 33, 42, 51, 59, 68, 77, 86, 96, 103, which can also be read as ˚F.

The exact conversions are (˚C) 0.555, 5.555, 10.555, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35.555, 39.444 (I terminated the decimal repetitions, obviously)

The rule of thumb of 5˚ per stop is 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40.

Note that eg. 51-59 is 8 blocks, 86-96 is 10 blocks, 96-103 is 7. But the rule of thumb is nevertheless good to ~half a degree ˚C the whole way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A much faster approximation that is not too far off over the range of everyday non-extreme temperatures:

C → F: times 2 then plus 30

F → C: minus 30 then divide by 2

<comment><USER8> This is what I use. I'm not quick with arithmetic in my head so if I want anything more accurate it's faster to just grab my phone.

<comment><USER9> FWIW iOS Search (swipe down from the middle of the Home screen) can do conversions too.

[https://i.imgur.com/16AAqDG.png](https://i.imgur.com/16AAqDG.png)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Personally I think the usual issue with the standard conversion is doing 9/5, but it actually isn't that bad. The way I convert is

C * 2 - C / 5 + 32, where I just round C to the nearest multiple of 5 before dividing to make it easy.

24C times 2 is 48, 24 / 5 ~= 5, so 43 + 32 = 75. Off by less than a half a degree, which (thinking about it for 15 seconds or so) I think is guaranteed under this system.

The most important thing is that this is easy to remember because it's basically just the real conversion, but also easy to do in your head.

<comment><USER11> It's even easier if you consider that C/5 is 1/10 of 2C. So, just double C and then subtract 10% of the result.

<comment><USER12> Kind of like how I calculate the tip: move the decimal place 1 over, double it and then round down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The refined C to F conversion given is:

      F = 2*(C-floor(C/10)) + 31

Better is:

      F = 2*C - round(2*C/10) + 32

That's almost as easy to do in your head, but always gives the same result as doing the exact conversion and rounding that:

      F = round(9*C/5+32)

Also, if you would like the exact conversion, when you do the round(2*C/10) you can note how much the round changed the value, and that tells you how far off your final integer F temperature is from the actual value. You are high by that amount if the rounding was down, or low by that amount if the rounding went up.

</comment><comment><USER14> Numerical implementations of functions often use look-up tables, and there's sometimes a trade-off between number of operations and memory access. (Large look-up tables aren't cache-friendly.)

This blog-post is from someone who prefers to do less mental arithmetic, but remember a few numbers: [http://www.theexclusive.org/2012/08/converting- fahrenheit-in...](http://www.theexclusive.org/2012/08/converting-fahrenheit- into-celsius.html)

<comment><USER15> Thanks for sharing the theexclusive.org link. The trick discussed there is quite nifty. Here's a nice way to recall the lookup table mentioned there, in case, one forgets it:

\- It is easy to remember that 0 °C = 32 °F because it is the freezing point of water.

\- Every 10 °C interval corresponds to an interval of 18 °F. That's where the 9/5 in the conversion formula F = (9/5) * C + 32 comes from.

\- Now it is easy to construct the lookup table: 10 °C = 50 °F, 20 °C = 68 °F, and 30 °C = 86 °F.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've been avoiding doing mental calculations at all for this. I set my apple watch to display the temperature in Celsius, and every time I look at it, I get another data point in my mind to correlate to how it feels outside. This way, I can learn it independent from Fahrenheit.

</comment><comment><USER17> Honestly I don't find this approximation any easier than the exact formula. They're each three steps. I was actually more excited to learn about the crude approximation that's only two steps, and the "memorize one conversion and go from there" method.

</comment><comment><USER18> Edit: The original comment below did not take into proper account the significance of taking the floor in the approximations, rendering it mostly useless. \----

If the "refined approximation" assumes it's easy to 1) subtract 10% 2) double and 3) add 31, then it should be just as easy to 1) double 2) subtract 10% and 3) add 32 - i.e. the exact conversion formula.

<comment><USER15> That's right. In fact, the latter would be just as easy as 1) subtract 10% 2) double 3) and add 32, i.e., the exact conversion formula again.

In other words, (c - c/10) * 2 + 32 = 2c - 2c/10 + 32 = 9c/5 + 32.

The only difference between the refined approximation and your approximation is 31 vs. 32 in the last step. The rationale for choosing 31 is explained in the "Analysis" section of the blog post. To summarize, when we subtract 10% in the approximation method, we do not perform an exact division. Instead, we perform a floor division (discard the fractional part) for easier mental calculation. The floor division introduces an error that lies in the interval [0, 2). If we subtract 1 from the result, then the error lies in the interval [-1, 1). Therefore, in order to prevent the magnitude of error from exceeding 1 °F, we add 31 instead of 32 in the last step.

Also, I find subtracting 10% of smaller number from itself slightly easier than doing so with a larger number. That's why the subtraction step comes before the doubling step.

<comment><USER18> Ahh fair enough. I should have spent more time understanding your rationale. I'll edit my original comment to reflect that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I memorize some 10s. 0 is 32, 10 is 50, 20 is 68, 30 is 86. Extend beyond what's memorized by using the ratio 10/18\. I don't have 40 memorized, but it's easy to figure that it's 104. Then use the approximation of 1C=2F to fill in the gaps. High today is 34? That's 94. Thermostat says 72? That's 22.

<comment><USER20> If you are ok with being slightly off, you can combined memorizing tens with the approximation that 1C = 2F. Going up or down from the nearest 10C, you'll never be off by more than 1F.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm very pro-metric, but Fahrenheit is nice for "human scale" temperatures. 0F is "very cold" and 100F is "very hot", with plenty of precision in between. 0C, on the other hand, is "kinda chilly" and 100C is "Oh my god, I'm dying".

<comment><USER22> 0 in C is useful as the point of freezing. Very useful for determining things like whether rain is likely to turn to ice on roads, etc. I guarantee you that if you grew up using Kelvin, you'd be defending it right now. Spend a year looking at nothing but Celsius and you won't need to go back: 0 and below is cold, 10 is spring time, 15 is jacket optional, 20-25 is warm, and 25+ is hot. That's all you really need.

<comment><USER21> I'm not "defending" it... I'd be all for a wholesale switch to metric units. I simply said it's "nice" in one specific context.

<comment><USER22> Ah that's fair. Sorry I misread that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It doesn't help much for people visiting here in the US, but when I travel outside the country I use this handy rhyme:

30 is hot 20 is nice 10 is cold 0 is ice

</comment><comment><USER24> Does anyone have resources for other shortcut calculations for similar things? This particular one comes up a lot when speaking with my wife's family (they're from Mexico) but I've never tried to come up with a shortcut before. I'd love to see links to other resources, or recommendations for Math tricks for doing quicker mental math.

<comment><USER25> No resource but there is a similar conversion trick for kilometers to miles. Divide by two and add a tenth. viz: 60 km = 60/2 + 60/10 = 30+6 = 36 miles. Not exact but near enough for many cases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I remember the mnemonic "16 is 60". (as in 16C = ~60F)

Being a programmer I know 16*2 = 32 ~90. And its easy to remember that 0 is freezing... Covers most ranges of everyday conversation of temperature with non US friends :)

</comment><comment><USER27> My heuristic goes like this

20C ~ 70F (ok it's 68F but close enough)

a variation of +10F is +5C (same for minus)

Of course you can remember that 32F = 0C, that helps

</comment><comment><USER28> 20 C > 68 F

30 C > 86 F

<comment><USER15> -40 °C = -40 °F.

A related joke:

Saul: It's -40 outside.

Paul: Fahrenheit or Celsius?

Saul: When it's that cold, it's impossible to tell the difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Or we can stop using freedom units and join the rest of the world. Take a small step to make this happen right now: set your phone and thermostat to show you the temperature in Celsius. I did this and my kids are growing up with an intuitive understanding of what 20 degrees C feels like.

<comment><USER29> I want to be careful, this could get holy war-ish...

So I do not want to sell anyone on changing their view. This isn't advocacy. But just want to provide one illustration of why someone may prefer Fahrenheit.

When I travel, hotel rooms generally let me alter the temperature on digital thermostats by one degree. In the US, that's great, that's plenty of precision. In Europe, I lose fidelity and am strictly worse off.

If people like a room set at 71 degrees, they don't like 72 or 70. If they like it at 75, they aren't secretly shooting for 76.

When I'm cooking in an oven or sous vide, I often want to tweak controls very precisely in an attempt to balance the carmelization of sugars or the rendering of fats while leaving proteins or starches intact.

Room temps, weather, and cooking are the ways I mainly interact with these scales. In each of them, the precision of the base unit in F is strictly advantageous to me.

Celsius can absolutely allow greater granularity, if everyone used an extra significant digit as a rule. I blame psychology though, people and systems often just don't bother to think that way.

I wholly support the metric system to unify measurement across different scales. That's neat. But as I rarely need to talk about millidegrees or gigadegrees, it seems less relevant to me in this context.

<comment><USER30> To somebody who lives in one of the few hundred countries that uses Celsius, this just seems like a non-problem... While a lot of air conditioners adjust in single degree steps, plenty exist that go up or down in half degrees. A sous vide would probably adjust with a single decimal point. Digital thermometers basically also always do also. My weather app says it's 16.1 degrees C outside right now... Easy...

Your comment about psychology is actually just you mistaking familiarity with your temperature system with something more universal. In countries where we use metric/Celsius, we find decimals super easy to think in because we're used to doing it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> For setting the a thermostat, it's not that hard to simply switch your brain over and know what's comfortable inherently in either F or C without doing a conversion back and forth. For accurate conversion, if c=(f-32)/1.8 or the converse is really that troublesome, Google can help you out.

<comment><USER32> For setting a thermostat, it rarely matters enough for you to know the exact value you want. I can get within a degree or so just by memorizing a handful of conversions and then interpolating between them.</comment></comment>


Google, Yahoo, other Silicon Valley tech giants add economists to arsenal - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_16662644?nclick_check=1 <comment><USER2> _"Engineers are pretty nice people, and they assume the rest of the world is pretty nice like them," said McAfee. "But that's not the way most people are. And if you build (software) assuming that's the way people are, it will get heavily spammed. So one of the roles that economics plays at Yahoo and other tech companies is to be just a little more suspicious about human nature."_

I thought that was what security was for, not economists.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would think that economists would be good for the 'big picture' in judging what makes for effective deterrents and attractive targets, going by the incentives and disincentives.</comment></comment>


The Lightness of Errol Flynn: In praise of the irresistible swashbuckler - <AUTHOR> https://theamericanscholar.org/the-lightness-of-errol-flynn/ <comment><USER2> The 1938 _Adventures of Robin Hood_ is still one of my favorite films, and holds up remarkably well against adventure movies of today, in large part thanks to Errol Flynn's ridiculous charisma.

<comment><USER3> It has a lightheartedness and desire to be fun that I just don't see anymore. I don't know if filmmakers (directors, writers, and actors alike) feel the need to be serious in order to be taken seriously, or if they are just afraid of putting themselves out there in that way.

A good recent example is The Hobbit. It should have been a lighthearted adventure (like the book), but was instead dragged out into a overwrought, heavy, 10 hour bore.

In contrast, while not an adventure, I really enjoyed Stranger Things because it just went for solid entertainment, not trying to make statements or be deep or whatever. And since Spielberg won't make movies like that anymore...

Maybe if filmmakers realized that the Oscars are a joke and not having one puts you in as fine a company as having one (Hitchcock, anyone?).

<comment><USER4> Guardians of the Galaxy was an attempt at such lightheartedness, in my opinion mostly successful.

<comment><USER5> I had the same thought, before I saw your response.

Combined with the grandparent comment, I realize that, in this way, it wasn't (just) new but also, refreshingly, old-school.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


I gave a talk on Clasp and my Chemistry at Google in Cambridge Mass last week - <AUTHOR> https://drmeister.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/i-gave-a-talk-on-clasp-and-my-chemistry-at-google-in-cambridge-mass-last-week/

<comment><USER2> Great work, and great talk. Thank you!</comment>


The Little Book of Semaphores - <AUTHOR> http://greenteapress.com/semaphores/

<comment><USER2> I had to make sure I knew my multiprocessing well, having only learned it by proxy while hacking a hobby OS and playing with pthreads. I walked through this little book over three days and it was fun.

I still don't think I understand the full implications of multi-threading still, even though I have written a mini-library and studied "Java Concurrency" book.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you think of my site 40hr Monkeys - <AUTHOR> http://40hrmonkeys.com/

<comment><USER2> I think, and I could be wrong, but it seems like there is a mistake in your markup.

The Good Day link executes "javascript: rateUp(id);" The Bad Day link executes "javascript: rateMiddle(id);" And the LMAO link executes "javascript: rateDown(id);"

This could be all well and good, it just seemed odd to me.

Otherwise I like this site, might have to waste some time there.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah yes, I missed that. Thanks! Feel free to waste as much time as you want on the site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Guilty pleasure.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's exactly what the site should be. Thanks for the comment.</comment></comment>


New supersonic passenger jet being designed - <AUTHOR> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38371099/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/

<comment><USER2> With only a dozen passenger capacity, this is less of a supersonic airliner and more of a supersonic business jet. Regional jets (50-100 passengers), Concordes (92-128 pasengers), and even Concordskis (70-140 passengers) carry a lot more people.

A supersonic business jet is a better idea than a supersonic airliner, because executives and billionaires are generally better customers than airlines--less bureaucratic, more spending power, and just enough desire for high status to cover price-performance gaps.

</comment><comment><USER3> I felt like a small part of humanity died when we lost commercial supersonic transit, as I hate seeing our race lose any kind of technological capability. Though I doubt I'd use it myself, I'm glad to see someone is trying to bring supersonic flight back, and targeted at those who will benefit most: executives whose time costs more than plane tickets.

</comment><comment><USER4> Important information missing from the article: who is bankrolling this?

As far as I can tell, Aerion Corp is a rather small-looking company based in Reno which has never actually built a jet. They have a website which says "Copyright 2007", some renderings of what a jet might look like, and a few photos of people meeting with each other. I can't figure out who is funding them.

So I'm really not going to get my hopes up for the success of this project. Wake me when they have a working prototype, or even enough money to build a working prototype.

<comment><USER5> This article from 2004 has some early information on the company, though it's still not a lot: <http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/04nbaa/topstor02.htm>

As of 2007 they were soliciting preorders: [http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SUP...](http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SUPE11147.xml)

From what I can dig up on them, I'm vaguely suspicious that the company doesn't _really_ exist yet, though, or at least hasn't started engineering in earnest. In that 2004 piece, they estimated it'd take 5 years from launch to service entry, and the linked article here is estimating service entry... 5 years from now.

Edit: Though this article claims they had (as of 2008) 20 letters of intent secured by $250k deposits each: [http://www.avweb.com/news/acrossthepond/across_the_pond_12_n...](http://www.avweb.com/news/acrossthepond/across_the_pond_12_new_year_196807-1.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The "fate of the Concorde" was a massively stupid design flaw where the engine intake was BEHIND the rear wheels. Looking at one up close it's very easy to see why the thing exploded. The tires blew during take-off (expected to happen on any airline at some point) which sent rubber and metal shrapnel into the engine, causing a catastrophic explosion.

This new design "avoids the fate" simply because the engines are on top of the wings.

Why there's so much regulation behind "wanting to go faster" is mind boggling. The Concorde had some technical flaws, but the plane did a great job at what it was built for: getting people places faster. I hope this plane is able to bring back what we lost.

<comment><USER7> Do you have a reference for that? I recalled it being a fuel tank problem, and Wikipedia seems to agree: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590>, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _"If you look at the straight wings of the new jet and those on the Lockheed F-104 "missile with a man in it" of the late '50s and early '60s you'll see a family resemblance."_

The F-104 Starfighter was the first thing I thought of when I saw the pic in the article. Another of Kelly Johnson and the Skunkworks' triumphs, still informing aerospace design half a century later.

</comment><comment><USER9> That's the kind of thing I'd love to work on. Not only is it cutting edge tech but you would probably learn a ton of new things!

The one thing I have learned reading articles about aviation is the fact that wing design makes a huge difference - not only in speed but also in fuel consumption which is pretty crazy.

</comment><comment><USER10> I vaguely remember that after the concorde was in service a few years some engineer said that there was no way it could be repeated. He was asked, "Because of the technology?" and replied, "No, there are so many regulations now it would be impossible to complete a design."</comment>


Don't Be Evil but Don't Miss the Tech Train - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/technology/dont-be-evil-but-dont-miss-the-tech-train.html?_r=1&hp <comment><USER2> There is an idea mentioned here that seems to have been quite common in Silicon Valley during the first boom, and which perhaps is again, that tech companies are "changing the world for the better", and "making the world a better place."

Having that in your head as you work on a private, for-profit company seems very strange to me. Sure, you will make money in relation to how much people want what you sell, and perhaps they want it because it makes their lives better, but that's where it ends. As a private business, you take your pay in _money_ , not karma.

<comment><USER3> That seems like an odd perspective. The fact that people are willing to give you money for what you sell sets a _floor_ on its usefulness, not a ceiling. It's quite possible (virtually certain, in economic terms) that a good number of those people value your service at _more_ than what they paid for it; otherwise they wouldn't have bought it.

<comment><USER2> _All_ freely made purchases require that the buyer value the good or service they receive more than the money they pay.

<comment><USER3> Well, there's also the possibility that they value the good or service at exactly what they paid (eg. a first-price auction), and complications from information uncertainty (eg. "Buyer's Remorse"). I'd say these are a minority of transactions, though: if everybody felt shitty every time they bought something, they wouldn't buy things for very long.

<comment><USER4> I always heard of a perfect transaction as one where both parties felt slightly ripped off, but wouldn't reverse the transaction. People are bad at empathy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> About Google, the only way four them to abide to their "don't be evil" motto is to step out of business. But then, why not? They have money, they have brains, they have tools, why should they need to fight with competition? A gradual move towards a university-like model could be the right thing to do.

<comment><USER6> They would still need to make a lot of money, otherwise they'll end up like Sun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The so-called 'latest' wi-fi data collection 'brouhaha' was two years ago. Google's strayed from the path a lot more since then.

</comment><comment><USER8> All these mainstream "tech" stories coming since middle of last year remind me so much of the last technology bubble.

That said, this article covers a rare point in American press about the boundaries of social responsibility in business.</comment>


Unraveling the history of the vaccine-autism scare - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/05/unravelling-the-history-of-the-vaccine-autism-scare.ars <comment><USER2> Anti-vaccination groups, such as those led by Jenny McCarthy, are gaining a significant amount of publicity these days. One of the most unfortunate bits of news is that McCarthy herself will be getting her own talk show thanks to Oprah. The medical community as a whole needs to start standing up to these erroneous claims and educating the masses before these previously defeated diseases start popping up again.

Dr. Steven Novella has a pretty good write-up about the whole situation here if you are interested <http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=444>

</comment><comment><USER3> We have a 3 1/2 year-old son who was just diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. I'm angered by the caused-by-vaccines people because they're obfuscating the issue and causing funding to be mis-directed.

Interestingly, his school (he attends an early-intervention pre-school run by our public school system) used an auto-dialer to leave a message from the principal. The message: A second grader was diagnosed with whooping cough -- a real risk of vaccine avoidance!

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm glad this subject came up here on hacker news. I have a 4 month old daughter and am thinking through this vaccination thing. I went to a homeopathy "information" session the other night...lets just say their argument wasn't entirely convincing.

However, I _do_ think there is something to this issue.

Two things that make me cautious are: 1) There is no doubt that pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in getting new vaccines approved / recommended for widespread default usage (whether or not there is an actual need for it). 2) Most importantly, it seems to me....it would be quite simple for an individual country to record stats on a per person basis on exactly what vaccinations they have received, and cross reference this with a) incidences of disease, and b) incidences of negative (potential) side effects.

As for #2, to me, the idea that this _isn't_ done makes me extremely suspicious. It is by no means proof of anything, but I can't imagine how a medical system that truly cares about the health of its customers wouldn't be extremely interested in tracking this at a very detailed level.

<comment><USER5> We have a one year old and my wife interviewed several doctors before finding one that would give the vaccines on an irregular schedules. One of the fears people have isn't that one particular vaccine is the problem; it's that bundling multiple vaccines together and giving them to 12mo or 15mo kids is causing problems. So we found a doctor who gives one shot at visit A and then gives the other shot(s) at visit B a few weeks later. Maybe it's nothing but I feel better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Personally I think the extra scrutiny toward vaccinations is a really good thing. Babies are given a large number of very powerful shots in a short time frame, often causing sickness for a week or more. Statistically the benefits of immunization outweigh the risks, but there has to be better way to accomplish it. Until recently, very little research was done to analyze the effects of all shots in concert.

<comment><USER2> The "too many too soon" myth is just another strategy by these groups to target vaccinations. I'm all for extra scrutiny, but that scrutiny needs to be based in reality and facts, not soccer moms who talk about the evil big pharma people out to get their kids. Again, here is a very thorough article on the topic of vaccination schedules should you be inclined to get more information <http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=289>

<comment><USER4> I am totally open minded about this topic, but I didn't find that article particularly convincing. The general point is that you are exposed to millions of harmful pathogens per year; a vaccination is just a few more, so .00000000000x% increase.

But, this is assuming that a vaccination is in no way different than normal pathogens, which I have no way of knowing.

I have heard both anecdotal, as well as confirmed (I am quite sure) cases of children dying within _very_ close proximity to receiving certain vaccinations. I think I have heard of 3 Canadian (or was it US) girls getting sick and dying within days after receiving the new cervical cancer vaccination.

Now, maybe I can't _prove_ that it was the vaccination that caused my daughter to die 3 days later, but sometimes recurring coincidences sometimes indicate something is happening outside our sphere of knowledge.</comment></comment></comment>


Exclusive Digg CEO Interview: "We Were EBITDA Profitable In 2009" - <AUTHOR> http://www.timothysykes.com/2010/02/exclusive-interview-with-digg-ceo-jay-adelson-we-were-ebitda-profitable-in-2009/ <comment><USER2> Ah EBITDA, the truthiest measure of earnings, before "bad stuff."

<comment><USER3> And a measure that Warren Buffet says to ignore.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> yes but its a huge improvement over years past</comment>


Ask HN: How would you invest $600k for only 2 years? - <AUTHOR> How would you invest $600k in the US while being on a 2-year break overseas? I'm selling my house so real estate isn't something I'd consider. Too painful to get your money back after real estate fee, etc. in only 2 years. The goal obviously is low risk investment and something that would generate at least 2% return per year. Not looking for crazy gains here and yeah, I already have some money in crypto guys ;)<p>Open to any suggestion <comment><USER2> For just 2 years, I'd do a 2-year CD. Stock market could be down in 2 years, who knows. Crypto could be...well just forget that. You could maybe invest in some turnkey coin car wash or laundry mat, I've heard they make money.

<comment><USER3> Can you get a better overall rate by doing shorter term CDs and reinvesting at the end, hoping the rates have gone up a bit? Or is 2 years not enough time for that to have any real effect?

<comment><USER2> That might not be a bad idea right now. CD interest rates go up as the Federal Reserve interest rate goes up, and it's likely that the Fed Reserver rate will be going up soon. However, I'd do some historical research to see if that could actually turn out to be helpful, or if the difference between 6-mo, 1-yr, and 2-yr CDs is too large.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://www.peerstreet.com/](https://www.peerstreet.com/)

Short term loans backed by real estate. Should get you 7 to 10% per year. Started by ex-google guys. I have about 100K with peerstreet and it is performing well.

They have never had a default.

Podcast with the founders: [http://mebfaber.com/2016/12/07/episode-32-guest- brew-brett-p...](http://mebfaber.com/2016/12/07/episode-32-guest-brew-brett- peerstreet-long-term-aspirations-disrupting-entire-mortgage-finance- securitization-market/)

<comment><USER5> Wow seems too good to be true. Low LTV loans at a high interest rate. Poor borrowers, why do they do it? They should just get a mortgage with an offset if such things exist in US, then just spend whatever they need at a reasonable rate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Buy a bond fund and call it a day. more returns than a CD and just a tad more risk.

<comment><USER7> I don't know. My bond funds are down last couple of years with these low interest rates. With interest rates starting to rise, they should be going up, but still don't see it yet. Maybe there is a lag of bond fund prices to interest rate rises.

<comment><USER6> Got a link to the ones you are invested in that are down?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Even though you're looking for low risk I'd consider US stock market in an index fund. Sure it's possible it will have a couple down ears but the chance of 5-10% gains each year may be worth it. At 2% you are just barely keeping up with inflation, and may be falling behind asset inflation (real estate in particular) if you care about that.

</comment><comment><USER9> Looks like you don't know what you are doing, so the lowest risk is to park in the bank and get whatever interest you can get...

The other option is to spend the time and educate yourself on different investment strategies and how you can define your risk and invest in the stock market, index fund or stocks, etc..

I have been doing this for years from short term stock trading robots to long term tax deferred pension funds with more money than your budget and with double digits yearly return on average, but I know what I am doing and what my risk is and how much exactly I am going to lose, if I have to move everything to cash...

Also 2 years is very short time frame, e.g. if you lose after first year, the next might not be enough time to make it back...

</comment><comment><USER10> I would suggest speaking with a tax attorney. Depending on how long you've owned it, and how much you paid for it, the sale of your house may constitute income, which would be taxed at 39.6% and (at this level) also subject you to the AMT.

That may limit some of your options. If it turns out your sale isn't tax exempt, renting the property out through a property management firm or reinvesting in real estate may make the most sense. Otherwise I'd echo what others have said, some sort of CD.

<comment><AUTHOR> I forgot to mention it's $600k net after capital gains tax, real estate fee, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> High interest e savings could get you close to 2%. But you you would have to split the money into amounts at different institutions that are FDIC insured.

Or I would think with that amount of money you could walk into a number of major banks and negotiate a 2 year, 2% rate.

</comment><comment><USER11> Check out fundrise or other real-estate crowdfunding (I know you said no real- estate, but it's not really the same thing). I'm not an expert on that stuff but it seems like an interesting way to invest.

</comment><comment><USER12> > The goal obviously is low risk investment...

That's not obvious at all. One's risk appetite is very personal.

I would chop it up into three equal parts and do three different high risk investments. But I'm crazy.

</comment><comment><USER13> What are you planning to do with the money when you return?

</comment><comment><USER14> Bank mutual fund is probably your best bet but if you don't want any risk then go a 2 Year Treasury note. You'll earn a little under 2%.</comment>


Ask HN: Vendor lock-in is it a thing? - <AUTHOR> I am honestly wondering just how relevant "vendor lock-in" really is in the majority of the cases. I have personally only worked with one org that was seriously considering porting their cloud infra over to another provider (AWS->GCP, for example). I have however worked with several orgs where concern about lock-in bubbled up, but only as a strawman argument for/against XYZ tech.
So, my question to the community:
"Have you/your org been faced with vendor lock-in, specifically for cloud services such as AWS Lambda?"
A follow up would be:
"If so, how did it impact the project/product?" <comment><USER2> Years ago, I worked at a large stock trading website. We deliberately used both Oracle SQL and Sybase SQL, with an interface layer. We deliberately did not use any special features from either. We ran both in production, some services on one, rest on other. We would occasionally test all services on each one. Reasons: price protection; the product or the vendor would disappear; future upgrades would break our system; sticking with 'standard' SQL features (no shiny new undebugged functions); and easier developer training. What do you do when your sole vendor doubles or triples the price?

</comment><comment><USER3> In my shop we only pay for hardware.</comment>


Pico: Client-side JavaScript library for high-precision viewport screenshots - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/nikersify/pico <comment><USER2> This is really interesting. I don't know anything about `foreignObject`, but are there possibly security implications of a tool like this? Normally, the computedStyles properties in CSS mask their true values from your JS code so you can't evaluate based on rules like the `:visited` pseudo-selector to identify which URLs are in a user's history.

Are things like that also masked from this SVG rendering? I'm assuming yes, since the library itself is JS. Unless the SVG just gets passed stylesheet references and is able to work on those directly?

<comment><USER3> There's a browser feature called "tainted canvas", which throws a SecurityError if any of the content came from external sources.

From [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/HTML/CORS_enabl...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/HTML/CORS_enabled_image)

> Because the pixels in a canvas's bitmap can come from a variety of sources, > including images or videos retrieved from other hosts, it's inevitable that > security problems may arise.

> As soon as you draw into a canvas any data that was loaded from another > origin without CORS approval, the canvas becomes tainted. A tainted canvas > is one which is no longer considered secure, and any attempts to retrieve > image data back from the canvas will cause an exception to be thrown.

To get around this, the Pico library includes a (big) list of workarounds, to download and inline images, stylesheets, etc. Then:

> The returned DOM is inserted into an <iframe>, serialized into XML, > converted into a data URL, put into an Image, which is then rendered onto a > <canvas>.

I do wonder though, couldn't the same techniques be used by a malicious script to also get around the "tainted canvas" issue..?</comment></comment>


Users of The Well buy The Well from Salon - <AUTHOR> http://www.well.com/media.html

<comment><USER2> There's something ironic about one of the oldest and biggest BBS's only describing its acquisition via PDFs.

<comment><USER3> Could have been worse; could have been Flash.

<comment><USER4> Or they could have required you to dial in via 300bps modem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a user of the WeLL from the 1990's, I'm glad to hear that the community that owns its own words will now own its own destiny.

</comment><comment><USER6> Are there any HNers who are current users of the WeLL? I've read about it in books about 80s/90s internet culture, but it rarely comes up in online discussions. Maybe that's because a 2000 (or more? Has it decreased in population?) person community was impressive back then, but doesn't really have much significance now.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm glad the users now own the means of production. Long time coming. I was sad when they closed the modem pool round-robin number - I dialed it one day a few years ago just to reminisce, and it had been assigned to a real estate holding company.

</comment><comment><USER8> I recall that this is what happened with the Blender Foundation. Perhaps something incredible will come of this?</comment>


A Collector of Math and Physics Surprises - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/tadashi-tokieda-collects-math-and-physics-surprises-20181127/ <comment><USER2> His videos on the Youtube Numberphile channel are worth a watch [1]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLt5AfwLFPxWI9eDSJREzp...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLt5AfwLFPxWI9eDSJREzp1wvOJsjt23H_)</comment>


Ask HN: What makes you trust a codebase? - <AUTHOR> I sometimes find it hard to trust other people's code. For example, recently I wanted to know how configuration file affects request processing in nginx. That was no fun at all. Software engineers trust nginx and deploy it a lot, yet they probably wouldn't be able to chart out the internal structure of it off the cuff.<p>It is said that many eyeballs eyeballing the code over time makes it more trustworthy. But do these eyeballs look for that inspires trust?<p>(I'm not meaning to single out nginx, it was just at the top of my mind as an example.) <comment><USER2> Depends on the type of project. For something as big as nginx, unless you're a professional source code auditor with a lot of time, you pretty much need to rely on the "many eyeballs eyeballing the code." If big companies are using the product in production, you can bet many edge cases have been tested, bugs found and resolved.

For smaller stuff, what comes to mind is chrome extensions. Whenever I install some sketchy looking chrome extension like "user agent switcher" that requests permission to work on every URL, I always check the source code of the extension for any code that might exfiltrate data to external sources. Usually the source code is minimal and this only takes a few minutes. I do a quick scan for any code that is suspiciously obfuscated or seems to make an XHTTPRequest to a sketchy site, and if I see anything like that I "nope" right out of there.

It also comes down to what your threat model is and what you're trying to protect yourself from. If you know that, then you have an idea of what specifically to look for.</comment>


No One Goes There Anymore - <AUTHOR> https://noonegoesthereanymore.blogspot.com/2020/05/no-one-goes-there-anymore.html <comment><USER2> When I see about half my paycheck going to taxes it feels a bit rough.

But then I think of stories like this, and how easily it could have been me with an illness requiring expensive medical treatment and possibly preventing me from working regular jobs.

And so I pay my tax with pleasure, knowing that if something were to happen to me or my fellow citizen, at least there wouldn't be millions of dollars in hospital bills to pay back and there would be aid for a home to avoid ending up on the streets.

<comment><USER3> If half your paycheck is going to taxes you must have a bunch of $$$, I personally make around 300k/year and I feel like I'm not paying that much taxes. I could be paying much more and still live pretty comfortable, it's pretty outrageous.

<comment><USER4> Economists calculate taxes using the "tax wedge"—i.e. what you pay in taxes versus what you cost your employer. According to: [https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax- calculator#WP4gh...](https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax- calculator#WP4ghMESEg), take home on $300,000 in California is $185,000. But including employer side payroll taxes but excluding benefits, you actually cost your employer $313,000. So your tax wedge is about 41%. Then add in the sales and property taxes you pay directly or indirectly, and you're probably close to 45%. At $500,000, your tax wedge is 45% before sales and property taxes, so you're probably over 50% all in.

<comment><USER5> If we are making international comparisons, I would add the cost of health insurance in california as a "tax". That's the only way to reasonably compare western countries.

I had a friend try to adopt a baby from china many years ago (1990s). He was rejected. The Chinese thought he didn't earn enough to safely raise a kid. They were using a means test designed for US applicants. My friend lobbied to explain all the things he gets in Canada for free, health care being the big ticket item. The Chinese authorities relented and he was allowed to adopt.

<comment><USER6> I don't follow how this could be possible. I'd think most people in the US either would be getting health insurance from the government (Medicare, Medicaid), from an "Obamacare" exchange and subsidized, or from an employer where they don't pay cash.

So where would the discrepancy in accounting between that and Canada come from? It seems unlikely that the Chinese government would assume that even Americans buy health insurance retail.

<comment><USER5> >> It seems unlikely that the Chinese government would assume that even Americans buy health insurance retail.

They aren't assuming anything. They know that healthcare in the US is hit-or- miss, that it is normally for people to move between having and not having healthcare throughout a lifetime.

>> The new report highlights that 5.5% of children under the age of 19 were uninsured, largely because of a decline in public coverage.

[https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/uninsured- rat...](https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/uninsured-rate-for- children-in-2018.html)

1 in 20 American kids are uninsured, not counting the undocumented who don't answer the census. That's ridiculous today but it was even worse in the 90s. That's why the Chinese didn't want to give kids to non-wealthy Americans. Uninsured children are almost unheard of in Canada. Only some illegal immigrant children, but even there they have systems in place.

<comment><USER6> "They aren't assuming anything. They know that healthcare in the US is hit-or- miss, that it is normally for people to move between having and not having healthcare throughout a lifetime."

That's a general complaint that has nothing to do with insurance being a cost you pay out of your take-home salary in the US.

Your anecdote seemed to be predicated on an accounting difference between the US and Canada, that the Chinese supposedly didn't know about. I'm saying that doesn't really exist. The sort of people who adopt would have a job with insurance, but the price of the insurance would not be included in their salary.

In my lifetime, I have been uninsured, insured by my employer, on an ACA (Obamacare) plan, etc. But never been in the situation where I was making a good salary and paying full price out of it for a health insurance policy, like people do with car insurance. Nor have I ever known anyone who did. Of course, somebody probably has, somehow, but it's not common, let alone a norm that some government would assume.

<comment><USER5> I never said my friend had a job. Part of the problem, in the US, is the link between employment and insurance. My friend earned reasonable money as a moderately-sucessful artist but did not have an employer. In the US that would mean paying out of pocket. In canada he didn't have to pay a dime.

<comment><USER7> Also the self-employed in the USA have to pay over the odds for rubbish schemes. Large employers can be assumed to employ mostly healthy people, but an individual is more likely to want health insurance if they already know they are a bad risk. This "moral hazard" means that selling health insurance to the self-employed is a money-losing proposition unless you screw them at every opportunity.

<comment><USER8> I'm no fan of health insurance as currently instantiated, but I don't see it as screwing them at every opportunity if they are actuarially unprofitable otherwise.

<comment><USER9> Depends on framing. If you divide the population by an arbitrary standard with a very high health bias (employed, in big co), and adjust payments accordingly, then those on the wrong side of your arbitrary standard get shafted.

The second group may be unprofitable with lower payments, but the insurer doesn't even want the second group, the profits are from decreased expenditures on the first group.

<comment><USER8> Absent an individual mandate with actual teeth (or outright government providing of healthcare), do you have a solution that seems workable on a voluntary arms-length basis for all actors involved?

I'm not arguing those other conditions _shouldn't_ exist, but rather making the weaker, more limited argument considering "given the arrangement of the insurance market as it exists today, what should the price for that insurance offer be?" In other words, "What should a for-profit insurance company do, acting on their own and immediately?" because I think that's pretty close to the question they're facing when setting pricing for individual plans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Doreen - have always loved reading your comments on hacker news over the years. Very insightful and unique voice. Good luck on the new blog, will definitely subscribe.

Only other person I regularly follow here, in addition to you, is graycat:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=graycat](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=graycat)

</comment><comment><USER3> Genuine question: what is the point made in the post? I feel like I'm missing something.

<comment><USER11> I was wondering this as well. I couldn't find the thesis and for a moment I wondered if this was posted as an example of an AI-generated post.

<comment><USER12> I read the whole thing and can't figure it out either. Maybe there isn't supposed to be a point. Just stream-of-consciousness words on a blog. Performance art?

When the first thing someone tells me upon meeting me is that they have a medical condition, I think "uh oh, heeeere we go." First of all, it's none of my business. Second, why do you want me to know this? What am I supposed to do with that information? Is this what we are going to be talking about? And if not, why the need to share this fact? Such a confusing way to start out a conversation or blog.

It's like saying, "First of all, I really like pancakes. Now here's my post about programming in Python."

<comment><USER13> Unfortunately, for people who suffer from a chronic illness, they have to deal with people like you. You might propose something that seems simple and normal to you, like, let's go here for lunch. They have to explain they can't because they have a very real medical condition, then they have to put up with people not believing them, thinking they're blowing it out of proportion, or just not wanting to make accommodations for them. It can be very degrading and isolating to live like this.

One way to minimize the amount of BS like that that you put up with is by just stating up front, "I have this condition." If the other person listens and responds positively, then you can probably find common ground. If instead they think, "Uh oh, heeeeere we go," you know to dismiss them.

<comment><USER14> Ok, but since it's a very real medical condition, why not lead with "I have Atypical Cystic Fibrosis, so I can't do X", instead of being all mysterious about it?

You can't really blame humans for being curious when you _stoke_ but deliberately choose _not to satisfy_ their curiosity.

I mean, HN specifically wants you to post "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity". I don't know about others, but my intellectual curiosity certainly isn't gratified when someone leads with "I have a condition" but then gets all squirrelly about what it is.

If you tell people what your condition is and they don't take it seriously, that's their problem. If you don't tell what it is, it might be "a mild fear of puppets" for all I know. Unfortunately there _are_ people that make up medical conditions for themselves, so you can't really expect everyone to just automatically accept "I have this condition" as an excuse for any behavior. For example, I've taught a number of students that made up conditions for themselves right at the moment their homework was due.

<comment><USER15> Often when you have a medical condition that is not well understood by most people you cannot do x, y or z. It might be exhausting to explain your limitations which may change day to day depending on how you're doing at that particular moment on that particular day. People may not believe you, and it feels awful to have to be around someone who won't take you seriously or gets angry with you if you try their supposed "cure" and it doesn't work. An ex- boyfriend of mine suggested a micro dose of acid would treat my migraines. I tried it and it made my symptoms worse. He got terribly angry with me for not trying hard enough because I didn't want to do acid for the fourth day in a row.

If I tell people I get migraines pretty much all of the time they think I get bad headaches, not that I can't see, lose my ability to talk, have my arm go numb and instead it feels like my jaw is stuck in a vise, I can't look at sunlight and every noise is painful. People don't want to hear about the ways someone they know is silently suffering.

<comment><USER14> That's fair, but do you really think your (apparently shitty) ex-boyfriend would've behaved _better_ if, instead of telling him you suffer from highly debilitating migraines, you always said something like "no, we're not going out for dinner tonight because I have a condition", failing to ever explain what that was?

Again, if you are open about the condition, and someone responds to that knowledge poorly, that is their problem. Ignore those people. But if you keep the nature of the condition under wraps, that might make it "easier" to deal with in the short term at the cost of others being able to move forward with you at all.

<comment><USER15> In this case yes, if he didn't know I was diagnosed with migraines he would not have randomly suggested acid. He had an "evidence based" reason for thinking acid would help. I let people I'm close with know my symptoms. You can't always ignore people who you depend on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "While homeless, my sons and I routinely tried to find out-of-the-way public tables. For purposes of germ control, we didn't want to eat in restaurants and homeless people aren't welcome in restaurants anyway. So we would get takeout and go find a table somewhere outdoors.

Much to our annoyance, this popularized some of our favorite out-of-the-way eating places."

I'm wondering what this means about how this happened. Did you write articles about these restaurants or review them online? How did getting takeout and eating at a table popularize these restaurants? Just because people saw you eating nearby?

<comment><USER17> I think the "this" in the text refers to the paragraph before your excerpt, i.e. the pandemic caused a lot of regular people to eat their food outside instead of in rastaurants.

"Getting to that point, where _a global pandemic_ was kind of an annoying blip in my life, was a long strange journey. It included nearly six years of homelessness.

While homeless, my sons and I routinely tried to find out-of-the-way public tables. For purposes of germ control, we didn't want to eat in restaurants and homeless people aren't welcome in restaurants anyway. So we would get takeout and go find a table somewhere outdoors.

Much to our annoyance, _this_ popularized some of our favorite out-of-the-way eating places."

<comment><USER16> Oh, that's a good interpretation!

Slight change of topic, but relevant to the other content of the quoted passage, I share the same experience. Having had my life and livelihood significantly disrupted since ~2015, the global pandemic did more to bring other people to my level of distress than cause problems for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> For those who were wondering over at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23205588](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23205588), this is the kind of reading we have mostly lost. Just a guy (or gal?) with a life story, I'd come back to read the follow ups in a heartbeat. They also seems to notice the wall from the other side.

<comment><AUTHOR> Gal.

And if you want to see the follow ups, you can join my Patreon and get an invitation to my private email list where I post new stuff as it happens. And then maybe I can spend less time bitching about how poor and broke I am.

<comment><USER19> Oh so there is a paywall? That sucks

<comment><USER20> There is a need to put food on a table. I just made my contribution and not to pass the paywall, Im lucky I still have a job and DoreenMichelle could use some support in these times. HackerNewsers, if there is a time to support others, this is the time! Help anyone you can. Or help Doreen like I did. Anything can help, even words of encouragement if one can't afford to make any donnation

<comment><USER20> Did I just get downvoted? What for?

<comment><USER21> Please don't break the site guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Corrective upvotes are a thing: [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=corrective%20upvote&sort=byDate&type=comment)

<comment><USER20> Yeah, sorry about that, i was flabbergasted as I didnt expect to make a good deed and get multiple thumbs down.

<comment><USER21> Voting is a statistical cloud, meaning you can't relate to it deterministically. There are all sorts of weird outliers for reasons you (i.e. any of us) can't understand or even imagine, so you have to let go of trying to explain particular data points. When all else fails I just remind myself that misclicks happen.

This is a special case of what is in fact the biggest challenge on HN. If you try to interpret individual data points, given that so little information is available, you'll end up curve-fitting the worst picture from your own imagination. It is a sort of demonic connect-the-dots game where, given a few dots, we end up recreating our own shadow: [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=demons%20by:dang). It's we who are doing it, not the data, which is what makes it so frustrating: only we know where our own buttons are, so only we can push them so reliably, over and over. But since we don't know we're doing it, it feels like the other person is doing it, or the community is doing it, and that feeling is intensely convincing! It's crazy-making.

There are lots of statistical clouds like that on HN—the opinions of commenters are another. This is why users frequently post angry theories about how awful the commenters are, but the angry theories are all contradictory. Each user is recreating their own shadow from the data points they happen to notice and dislike ([https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=notice%20dislike%20by:dang)), and since we have different shadows, we end up with different theories.

<comment><USER20> You're absolutely right. Thanks for the time and energy in writing this response. I've observed your interventions over time and they are all reasonable and needed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It was surprising to see that it might still be difficult for you to get the word out.

As far as I'm concerned, you're Doreen from Hackernews, Internet famous.

Hope that you do get the word out. Hope things improve. And sorry for the condition that makes it all that much more difficult.

Your perspective is valuable, and hope to read more from you.

<comment><USER23> For what it's worth, I've been visiting Hacker News on a nearly daily basis, on-again and off-again for a few years now. I don't recall hearing the name before.

<comment><USER22> Depends on how much attention you pay to usernames of posters and commentors, and how much Doreen's posts and comments have resonated with you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> A little investigation led me to [https://doreenmichele.blogspot.com/p/me.html](https://doreenmichele.blogspot.com/p/me.html)

The disease appears to be ACF - Atypical Cystic Fibrosis

<comment><USER25> Now I'm more confused. Why do people "react weirdly" or "strongly" or think she's "some kind of drama queen" when she gives that name? I'm pretty sure my reaction would be to think "I have no idea what that is" and just move on.

<comment><USER26> The same reason we don't go around saying we have oral herpes.

You may be atypical. Many people are uncomfortable with disease/death of others (for I suspect selfish reasons and fears).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Hi Doreen, Happy to see your new effort! Have you ever communicated with Johnny Sanfelippo ([https://granolashotgun.com](https://granolashotgun.com)). You two have a similar voice and some overlap in perspective. I suspect you'd find his work interesting (if you haven't already).

Cheers!

</comment><comment><USER28> Does anyone know what this condition is? I may be living in a bubble but I have no idea what this is. Would love to do some more research myself to understand, and I'm glad my taxes are helping people like this out.

<comment><USER29> I have Cystic Fibrosis and the post made me feel like it's that. Started quarantining early Feb. Any severe disease which targets respiratory is a presumed death sentence for people with CF. Fortunately it seems CF patients are surviving.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is a touchy subject but with my genetic condition I'm scared to have kids. It sucks having this and I don't know if I would want to watch my kids suffer through it. But I'm glad my parents did cause life isn't that bad in the end.

<comment><USER31> My significant other is in a similar boat. We're convinced she has a genetic mutation that causes the way she looks. (Fortunately for her, that's all it does so far) A doctor suspected she has it and so on. We haven't done genetic testing yet to confirm 100% but it's something we are considering.

Personally, I would like to have children with her that are related to us. But, it's hard because her genetic mutation carries some heavy risks that she's avoided so far that I'm not really on board to take.

We avoid talking about it a bit. She wants children desperately too. She isn't keen on adoption and wants to experience pregnancy.

For anyone curious: it's waardenburg syndrome.

<comment><AUTHOR> Now that this has dropped off the front page: Just food for thought for you in your relationship concerning the detail that your girlfriend _desperately_ wants children and _wants to experience pregnancy_ (the comment is by me, under my old handle):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8155574](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8155574)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Spent 3 years desperately trying to avoid going homeless due a chronic illness.

Turns out disability insurance is a joke.

I still work from home to hide how sick I am most days. But I can function well enough that people don't notice to much.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, I've recently learned how awful disability insurance is from a friend. You have wait something like 2 years before you find out if your application was accepted or rejected and apparently it's always rejected the first time. You need a lawyer to go through the process, but they'll still always reject you the first time from what I've heard. I don't know how they expect people who can't afford their meds to hire a lawyer to go through the process. It's not only absurd, it's inhumane.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> It so good to read a story written by the human being.

Compare that to what you can get from a corporate drone doing a content marketing cult: clip-art, annoyingly polished illustrations, artificially smiling people.

</comment><comment><USER34> You are an interesting person Doreen. I have subscribed to your blog!

</comment><comment><USER35> I have to admit that this article sure has me curious what this unnamed condition is...

<comment><USER14> [https://atypicalcysticfibrosis.blogspot.com/](https://atypicalcysticfibrosis.blogspot.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Holy hell. How do you have a life-threatening disease that puts at you risk of germ infection, costs $250,000 a year to treat AND manage to survive homelessness? Tragic. I'm sorry you don't live in a country with real health care.

Holy hell why did I get flagged? She wrote a huge blog post about needing help and isn't getting it?

<comment><USER21> Since you've resumed posting flamebait, we've banned you again. Could you please not create accounts to break HN's guidelines with? You're welcome here otherwise; you've posted some quite good comments and I appreciate those, as I'm sure many readers have.

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

Edit: That was probably the wrong call and I reversed it; see comments below.

<comment><USER37> I must say that I don't see the alledged "flamebait" in freefriedrice's comment. What is it that you see that I don't?

<comment><USER21> "I'm sorry you don't live in a country with real health care" broke this guideline: " _Eschew flamebait. Don 't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents._"

On second look, though, I think I mis-moderated and have unbanned the account. See [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23214383](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23214383).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm glad content like this occasionally bubbles up to the front page on hacker news.

</comment><comment><USER39> For me purple and yellow is pretty hard to look at.

</comment><comment><USER19> There is only one post on the blog and it is front page of hacker news? That is some achievement! Are there more writings from this author?

<comment><USER21> DoreenMichele is a well-known HN user and many of her posts have appeared here. She often makes a new domain per blog topic, but I presume readers recognize her username. The upvotes seem organic, as far as I can tell. There's no issue.

You've posted three dismissive comments to this thread. Could you please stop? If you don't like this reading material, there are 29 other articles on the front page, and don't miss the 'past' link at the top that points to all the most popular threads from past days.

It would be good to review the site guidelines too: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER40> Dang, this is irrelevant to the topic but I needed to ask it. Are you an individual or several 'users/employees/maintainers' using the same username? Your omnipresent has always been intriguing to me

<comment><USER21> Just a guy: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVHq4xo5wcA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVHq4xo5wcA)

To answer your question more directly: yes I'm a person, and we'd never have multiple people hide behind the same username. That corporate hologram shit makes my skin crawl. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBPFNX23mU#t=6](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBPFNX23mU#t=6)

<comment><USER41> > That corporate hologram shit makes my skin crawl.

One reason that I love HN is that the primary mod says shit like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > While homeless, my sons and I routinely tried to find out-of-the-way public > tables.

Food at restaurants is marked up thousands of percent to cover costs of buildings, rent, power, human capital. The raw materials to make your food are pennies and are available to the average consumer. This is straight BS. There -are- people that truly have issues that lead them to a homeless condition, but this person is not one of them.

<comment><USER43> >> While homeless, my sons and I routinely tried to find out-of-the-way public tables.

> Food at restaurants is marked up thousands of percent to cover costs of > buildings, rent, power, human capital. The raw materials to make your food > are pennies and are available to the average consumer.

If you're homeless that's not an option, since you probably lack equipment to cook from scratch.

<comment><USER44> What about cold cuts, sliced cheese, a loaf of whole grain bread?

<comment><USER45> and where, exactly, are you going to keep "cold cuts" and sliced cheese from spoiling, when you're HOMELESS?

<comment><USER44> Split between 3 people, those 3 items can comprise an entire meal, thus no leftovers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I don't understand people who have serious hereditary medical conditions and have children. Yes, I know that "I just don't get it". Though I do have friends for whom serious illness in the family is the reason they don't have biological children.

I do find it a bit selfish to reject adopting a child (and thus presumably making that child's life better), instead of essentially saying "no, I only care about my own genes. If it's not from my body it's worthless".

I said I know people who chose to not have biological children for this reason. I also know people whose life is full of pain and suffering because they chose to reproduce their illness. One wanted multiple children, but after the first came with the illness they now know that caring for just that one (who will never not need help) is their full time job, so they can't have more.

And this in a country that actually greatly supports you. And it's not about the money.

<comment><USER47> I'll quote Doreen from elsewhere in this thread:

> I didn't get a diagnosis until my kids were like 11 and 14, I think. I > didn't have to think about that aspect, in part because my first child was > the result of failed birth control.

<comment><USER46> Ah, yeah that adds information (not in the article) to this case. But note that I have downvotes on my comment. I'm not surprised. I think I'm being respectful here, but people take as a personal attack when the choice to have biological children is in any way questioned.

So this woman did not have that information available to her at the time. Like I said I know people that did.

<comment><AUTHOR> Your first comment isn't exactly the most diplomatic framing, but I'm sorry you are getting a pile on about this.

This site of mine (below) has already been outed by someone in comments, so let me link you to a page that gives a little more detail about that aspect of my life:

[https://atypicalcysticfibrosis.blogspot.com/p/atypical-cf- de...](https://atypicalcysticfibrosis.blogspot.com/p/atypical-cf-defined.html)

<comment><USER46> Thanks for the link.

I think this quote from it enlightens me a lot in your case: "Cystic Fibrosis is a homozygous recessive genetic disorder. That means it requires a defective gene from both parents to cause the child to have the disorder".

That tells me that with the "The disease occurs in 1 in 2,500 to 3,500 white newborns" I got from Google, those are not significantly dangerous odds, even if you'd chosen to optimize them even more by not avoiding white men during the relevant years.

(but I may be miscalculating, since you said "defective gene", not "diagnosis" (which is presumably the number from google), and it's not important to my point)

With this extra information I don't put you in the group of people I don't understand with this. (of course not that you'd need my approval or understanding, like that other guy seemed to think I was saying)

But say (from a real example) someone has a grandmother, mother, and sister, with varying degrees of paranoid schizophrenic diagnoses (e.g. ranging from "being a jerk in that particular way" to "institutionalized and forced medication"), I do think that this person, even though apparently asymptomatic, would not be responsible, and would be selfish, if they'd choose to have biological children.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Updating the Go Code of Conduct - <AUTHOR> https://blog.golang.org/conduct-2018 <comment><USER2> It seems the primary change was to make the scope of the CoC apply outside of just chatter in project spaces. With that in mind lines like this seem particularly troublesome:

> Discussing potentially offensive or sensitive issues; this all too often > leads to unnecessary conflict.

I understand the want to avoid unnecessary unrelated conflict within the project, but outside? "potentially offensive or sensitive issues" vary widely between people and groups of people, as I'm sure we all know.

> political attacks

Well that won't end well, or have any hope of being evenly applied, considering the omnipresence of partisan politicking especially in online spaces. It is also by definition a "sensitive issue"

It just sounds like they want everyone involved in the project to be bland generic PR people at all times.

That's the literal reading at least. However since CoC violations are filtered through basically one person, personal biases will weigh heavily in how the rules are applied.

Edit: Honestly this just reaffirms my belief that using anonymous accounts not linked to your rl identity for non-work content is a Very Good Idea. But not very in-vogue these days. Regardless of that even, internet mobs are very good at finding out who the real person behind a meme-posting twitter account etc. is.

<comment><USER3> > That's the literal reading at least. However since CoC violations are > filtered through basically one person, personal biases will weigh heavily in > how the rules are applied.

Yeah. To me, that part of the explanation read something like "we found democratic governance to be a lot of work, so we've given all our power to a dictator to make things easier for ourselves."

Democratic and consensus-based governance is hard and takes work, but there are well-understood reasons why it's a better way to run a community.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > First, the new code of conduct makes clear that people who participate in > any kind of harassment or inappropriate behavior, even outside our project > spaces, are not welcome in our project spaces. This means that the Code of > Conduct applies outside the project spaces when there is a reasonable belief > that an individual's behavior may have a negative impact on the project or > its community.

So, outsiders can muckrake and as long as they are loud enough, someone will be removed?

<comment><USER5> > So, outsiders can muckrake and as long as they are loud enough, someone will > be removed?

No . . . one has to actually violate the code of conduct to be removed. If there is no muck to be raked, then you should be in the clear.

<comment><USER3> > If there is no muck to be raked, then you should be in the clear.

This argument seems equivalent to the idea there's nothing to fear from surveillance if you have nothing to hide.

<comment><USER5> I suppose it bears some structural similarities. "You don't need to worry about X if Y." The X and Y are different, though, so as with many cases where the variables change, the relationship may or may not hold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's not clear in the update so, will "real names" be still enforced?

I got banned three times from the Gopher's Slack workspace for using _" John Smith"_ as my display name. Dave Cheney was one of the admins who decided to block my account, we calmly discussed about it in private and came to the conclusion that, because of security concerns, I would never disclose my real identity. He stated that, as long as the code of conduct requires real names I would not be able to participate in any type of discussion in that Slack instance.

I have felt very sad because I continuously help the community by answering questions on StackOverflow, /r/golang and #golang in two different Slack workspaces where young people and professionals from other programming communities share their willing to migrate to Go because of the tooling and — according to many of them — the welcoming community, something that I also try to promote, which is kind of ironic because I have felt exactly the opposite since the enforcement of that document.

EDIT: As someone commented below, it seems that the admins of the Gophers Slack workspace are not associated in any way with the Go team, at all, so much that their code of conduct is completely different [1] and the only way to sign up for an account there is still the same from +4 years ago [2] a form that requires you to type your real name and agree with their community rules.

[1] [https://github.com/gobridge/CodeOfConduct](https://github.com/gobridge/CodeOfConduct)

[2] [https://invite.slack.golangbridge.org](https://invite.slack.golangbridge.org)

<comment><USER5> There's no reference to real names in the new code of conduct. I'm not sure if there was in the old one either. Perhaps the Slack channel has additional rules.

<comment><USER7> Contributing to Go has always required real names for the purpose of signing the CLA.

We have had some big problems with a contributor that wouldn't want to reveal his name in the early Go days (for anyone interested search for the atom symbol).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I find things like this very strange... why do we need to formally state that we should be decent human beings?

<comment><USER9> Explicit is better than implicit. Different communities/subcultures have different standards of desirable and undesirable behavior - some communities believe that heated and emotionally intense debate is the right way to get a good result and "decent human beings" have a thick skin and try not to get offended, some believe that this precludes good results and "decent human beings" are empathetic and try not to offend.

Since contributing or maintaining an open-source project is a pretty intense commitment to interpersonal interactions (if we all knew what code was right, we wouldn't need maintainers), it's good to know what beliefs a community has about desirable and undesirable means of interpersonal interaction before you commit to joining it.

Note that as a corollary, I think it's important that there exist communities have codes of conduct that _aren 't_ based on the Contributor Covenant etc. Linux's Code of Conflict is a pretty good example: [https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.12/process/code-of- confli...](https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.12/process/code-of- conflict.html) If that doesn't sound like it describes a community you'd enjoy, maybe it's good to know that well before you burn out on contributing to Linux (as many technically-prolific contributors have done). If it does, great, you'll enjoy the project and the mailing list.

<comment><USER10> >Explicit is better than implicit.

Not necessarily. Being explicit has tradeoffs, both costs and benefits. One of the big costs is that it empowers people to behave antisocially on the "right" side of the explicit line drawn, and teaches people what they can get away with. Like, real life law grants broad discretion to human judges for exactly this reason - so that people playing bullshit games can get benchslapped for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I am historically[0], categorically opposed[1] to the cargo cult surrounding Code of Conducts.. However, this one is quite fair and toothless.

It's not against any people or even _for_ any people- It seems rather devoid of political affiliation..

It's just about attempting to be fair when interacting with people.. which we should all be doing anyway.

[https://golang.org/conduct](https://golang.org/conduct)

[0]: [https://blog.dijit.sh/freebsd-i-guess-we-weren-t-destined- to...](https://blog.dijit.sh/freebsd-i-guess-we-weren-t-destined-to-be)

[1]: [https://blog.dijit.sh/moving-away-from- github](https://blog.dijit.sh/moving-away-from-github)

<comment><USER9> I would think then that you should be _supportive_ of codes of conduct: you know up front that you have a fundamental distrust of the FreeBSD project leadership and GitHub organizational leadership, and _not_ of the Go project's leadership, precisely because they have different codes of conduct saying different things.

(I'm opposed to cargo-culting codes of conduct for this exact reason. By all means, copy the Contributor Covenant word-for-word, but only if you truly agree with every word!)

<comment><USER11> That is a fair point, using it as a litmus test of what technology leaderships believe.

However, I have this crazy idea that a technologies worth is not tied to the political affiliation of the creator or maintainer. I would like us all to focus on the technology and less on the individual or group.. I imagined it would be easy- as on the internet, nobody can tell you're a dog.

But apparently I'm wrong.

<comment><USER9> I don't think you're wrong - the technology's _worth_ isn't tied to the politics of the creator or maintainer. It's important that free software is free for literally anyone to use without discrimination, and I think you'd find very few supporters of CoCs who disagree with that (at least, among those who also identify themselves with the free software or open source movements).

But the problem is that the way technologies _are developed_ is inherently not a technical problem, it's a social problem. If it were a technical problem, we'd have code writing and reviewing code, not humans. (I've never heard a single open-source project saying "The problem is that our maintainers have too much free time and there are too many high-quality patches to merge.") It's about how humans interact, and how humans work in community, and how humans provide each other feedback. And this unavoidably brings up all sorts of weird human behaviors that have very little to do with technology.

As a random example, I'm writing this comment from the OpenStack Summit, which is an in-person event that you probably want to be attending if you're involved with development of OpenStack. If you can't get a visa to the country where it is, that's a problem. If the conference venue is located somewhere with laws about bathrooms and gender assigned at birth, and you refuse to use the bathroom that matches the gender assigned you at birth, you probably won't be at the venue for the entire day. Should the project care about these things? Should it decide that these laws are bad and we value our contributors who have these constraints enough to find a locality without them? This has _zero_ to do with technology, but (apparently) we've decided that technical projects give better results with in-person meetings, and if you're going to be expected to attend in-person meetings, you want to know whether the community will have your back.

Nobody cares if you're a dog, _if_ you can interact with the other humans (or dogs) on the project in a productive way. An obvious (and entirely unfortunate) example is how the language of almost all open-source communities is English; if your native language is something else, you'd better pick up a working understanding of technical English. If you're a dog (or a human) who can't do that, and you try to work inside a technical community, people will care - not about who you are, but about how you interact.

But again, this is all about how technologies are developed. If you just want to use it, nobody cares if you're a dog or a corporation or a missile guidance system. And if you want to fork the project (which is really a misnomer, what is being forked is _the community_ ), you may. And if you produce patches that are worthwhile and license them freely, and someone in the original community wants to engage that community in cherry-picking your patches, they may.</comment></comment></comment></comment>